by Punk 85 Replies latest watchtower bible
Mutation has never " created new things "
Well you are right there BA!
However, mutation changes things. A mutation is a type of change. And if you introduce enough change over a period of time, the thing can look very different indeed. Different enough to earn a completely different name. Your argument basically states that there is a barrier to further change, that change is somehow limited within a certain domain. I don't think there is any evidence of that.
Respectfully,
Burn
oh, and I should preemptively add that the ID apologetic for this is that the bacteria were a designed with a feature intended to allow bacteria to adapt easily to new food sources or cope with toxic chemicals.
Yeah, no kidding. It a "built-in-feature" called evolution. The next thing you are going to say is that it only gives the species novel TOOLS but never actually turns them into something "drastically else" To that I say, who are you to draw that line? Where do you get the authorization to say to nature "Ok, you are allowed to "create" (by entirely natural means) these adaptations to help this species survive, but right HERE you have to STOP evolving the species, because THEN you would be crossing my invisible Kind Barrier, and my God would be angry. [inkling]
I was trying to get the Charlie Brown sound to play. I ended up putting a bunch of quips together and uploading them.
I'm not stating that microevolution/adaptation results in new kinds, you are the one making that extraordinary claim, aka macro-evolution.
Evidence’ doesn’t speak for itself; it must be interpreted. This evidence is interpreted within a materialistic framework by evolutionists. Then these materialists turn around and proclaim evolution as a major evidence for materialism, which was responsible for it in the first place!
Creationists interpret the same evidence but within a Biblical framework. Adaptation of a bacteria to allow it to digest something is adaptation, microevolution.
Making the leap of faith that micro-evolution infers macroevoltion requires an extraordinary level of imagination and gullibillity. Macro-evolution is a fantastical myth unsupported by observation.
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” -Albert Einstein
Should you ever choose to look at the other sides of the argument, you'd likely come to the same conclusion. Although I'm not a young earth creationist, this site has already invented the wheel, I'll not re-invent it yet again. Should you choose, you can learn much from this and other pro-creation sites on the web. Or try reading Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
You might wish to scroll down to the subheading "Rennie’s introductory comments" and begin reading there.
Brother Apostate:
The giraffe's neck and the inferred complexity of it appearing as it did, at once, rather than through random mutations, is covered in the article I embedded above, by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.
Not really. The writer pokes holes in a particular paper about why giraffes have evolved such long necks, and then defaults to the ID position. This is normal practice for creationists. Find some flaws - real or imaginary - in a praticular branch or aspect of evolutionary theory, declare that these flaws mean neo-Darwinian evolution cannot account for a particular feature, and finally proclaim that they must therefore be intelligently designed.
That's not to say their paper doesn't have the veneer of scientific respectability. Of course it does. Such is the current tactic of creationists. It helps fool the uneducated into believing there is evidence for their religiously-based propositions.
Now, I know that you can't handle your pet theory being debunked and rebutted, but it continues to be torn apart as we speak. In time it will be undeniable to all but the evangelicals such as yourself that evolution theory as currently taught is a myth.
That would be funny if you were just an isolated crank. The scary part is that such nonsense is being taught throughout large parts of your country, as well as parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Future generations will laugh at the ignorance of what evolution propenents believed.
The current generation laughs at the ignorance of creationists. I doubt the future will bring the descent into backwardness that you envision.
But mock and derision is a sure sign of close-mindedness, fd.
I don't want anybody to think that I'm debating you as an equal, that your opinion is one that is as valid as mine, and worth a prolonged discussion. I want it to be very obvious that I consider your clinging to creationism in the face of (literal) mountains of evidence to be a mistake almost equal in magnitude to believing the earth is flat. I want it understood that I consider your beliefs in this matter to be worthy of ridicule and derision.
Unlike you, I research both, or all sides of a topic before jumping to a preconceived conclusion such as you clearly have done.
As if creationism is even a side in any topic worthy of discussion! There are plenty of interesting discussions to be had about the neck of the giraffe, but concluding that "God did it" (or the near-equivalent that the findings - and indeed virtually any findings - are "compatible" with Intelligent Design) is and has always been a pathetic cop-out, a way of saying we don't know and we'll never know. Fetishising ignorance as the creationist movement does is anathema to me and to all seekers of truth. Your backward little movement will soon go the way of the flat-earthers and not a moment too soon.
Which part of my "cut 'n' paste" do you object to, Burn?
You still didn't anwer this for me.
You changed the subject, Burn.
What is it about the explanation that my "cut 'n' paste" gave of scientific theory that you disagree with?
Sorry Nvr,
I didn't read it. I don't read BA's either.
Burn
Sorry Nvr,
I didn't read it. I don't read BA's either.
Burn
Ok.
That tells me a lot.
Then I'll ask someone to see if the following explanation of scientific theory is correct or skewed.
I din't find it too long to read, and I'm just a construction worker. LOL!
Theory:A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science.
Brother Apostate:
Creationists interpret the same evidence but within a Biblical framework.
Good of you to admit this, at least. A lot of creationists try to pretend otherwise because of the fundamental dishonesty involved in interpreting evidence on the basis of its compatibility with one's preferred holy book.
BA, I don't know quite how to say this, but maybe your faith is a little fragile? Your idiosyncratic and hard headed interpretation of several tough passages of Scripture could be considered damaging to the progress of your own walk with God. To tie your faith to this interpretation so strongly risks spiritual shiprwreck for you if you ever become convinced that the interpretation is incorrect.
You posts tend to reveal your own infatuation with a particular interpretation more than they say anything about the veracity of the written deposit. It's a mistake to pontificate without a due consideration of the facts. To do this alienates potential converts and obscures the more fundamental truths of Christianity. IMHO, Genesis is not about the HOWS, but the WHYS. Scripture is not so much about history or science but of the story of human redemption.
Burn
