GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?  (Read 68158 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1515
  • Manna: 112
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2100 on: Sat Mar 31, 2018 - 20:07:39 »
Quote
Again, what accredited degrees did darwin have in the field?

There were no accrediting agencies in that time.  However, he had been made a member of the Royal Society, which included the most prominent of English scientists, and was also a member of the Geologic Society, and the Linnean Society (made up of the most important biologists in England).

He was one of the most respected and honored scientists in England, and even if he had not discovered the mechanisms of evolution, his other discoveries in geology and biology would have assured his place in science.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2100 on: Sat Mar 31, 2018 - 20:07:39 »

KiwiChristian

  • Guest
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2101 on: Sun Apr 01, 2018 - 04:03:16 »
There were no accrediting agencies in that time. 

Oh, thats a shame! I will remember that when evolutionists will only accept proof from ACCREDITED scientists.

BTW: WHAT was his doctorate in?




Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2101 on: Sun Apr 01, 2018 - 04:03:16 »

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7247
  • Manna: 220
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2102 on: Sun Apr 01, 2018 - 07:29:24 »
And what is your accreditation that any should give thought to your views?

Online Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2103 on: Sun Apr 01, 2018 - 09:44:56 »
What a crock.  I asked you for the meaning of what Genesis 1:3; what it plainly states.  And you give us some bogus falderal about "God is light".  So in fact rather than read verse 3 for what it plainly states you decide for yourself what that verse means.  You do that because you can't accept what it plainly states because it doesn't make any sense for the rest of your young earth creation interpretation.

Yes, what a crock. I say again, and I quote what I have already stated (emphasis men) -

Quote
I didn't answer you with what you consider a metaphor, that was someone else. I addressed the fact that the association in scripture between God and light is not just a metaphor. The scriptures state very clearly that God is light, and that there is a brightness often associated with His presence, which brightness is of such power as to destroy this world when He returns. These attributes are not presented as metaphors by scripture. I do not know what the source of light was before the sun and moon were created, scripture does not address this. It does however specifically and conclusively state that God is light and there is a brightness exceeding that of the sun in His presence, which would of course logically account for light at creation before the sun, moon, and stars were created.

Those who believe God's word is above and dictates the confines of real science are not in your box. Your box belongs to those who believe fallen humans observations concerning "science" are above and dictate the interpretation of God's word. This is the main difference between "Christian" creationists and evolutionists. The former interpret science in accordance with God's word, the latter interpret God's word in accordance with their "science".

It is of course easier to twist the words of those who are no longer around to respond to those who would do so, concerning scripture of course, than to do so with those present to address such misrepresentations. I am here to address your faulty premise and therefore conclusions regarding that which I have said. The prophets and apostles are not here now, but we will stand before them and God in the future, and answer for all and any misrepresentations we have promulgated. This is a far more weighty matter I believe, than you allow for or consider. God's word is the standard of truth, and all liars will end up in the same place. Of course, I'm quite sure you interpret scripture quite differently than I do on this one, as is the usual case.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2103 on: Sun Apr 01, 2018 - 09:44:56 »

Online Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2104 on: Sun Apr 01, 2018 - 10:18:25 »
2Pe_3:8  But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

So, you believe evolution took 6000 years? Let's put a little context around your quote shall we.

2 Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

I can see why you would avoid the context of that which you pulled your quote out of. It condemns your evolutionary views which reject the scriptural testimony of the global flood, and numbers you among the scoffers of these last days. It is addressing biblical prophecy, the destruction of this world when Christ returns, and God's patience in weighting so that as many as possible might be saved. Time is not the same to the everlasting who always has been and always will be. The message is to be patient concerning the fulfillment of God's promise and predictions, because a day and a thousand years make no difference to God, but His word is sure.

 Strange how you cannot see the obvious meaning of this, but you can see and know without question that a day described with an evening and a morning in the creation account really represents millions or billions of years. None of which of course can really be supported by these scriptures which, even when taken out of context and applied to creation, would only suggest it took perhaps 6000 years at creation. I think it is as I have suggested. You subject the scriptures to your own understanding, rather than subjecting your own understanding to the scriptures.

 

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2104 on: Sun Apr 01, 2018 - 10:18:25 »



Online Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2105 on: Sun Apr 01, 2018 - 10:38:06 »

Charles Darwin's education gave him a foundation in the doctrine of Creation prevalent throughout the West at the time, as well as knowledge of medicine and theology. More significantly, it led to his interest in natural history, which culminated in his taking part in the second voyage of the Beagle and the eventual inception of his theory of natural selection. Although Darwin changed his field of interest several times in these formative years, many of his later discoveries and beliefs were foreshadowed by the influences he had as a youth.

Of course Cambridge is an accredited University, it is one of the highest learning institutes in Great Britain.

Sorry, but you DO share similar DNA to plants, it's an undeniable FACT that can be easily proven through simple tests.

"Favored Races" has nothing to do with racism, it is speaking of natural selection prior to the popularization of the term itself.

Attacking the man doesn't benefit your already weak argument, Darwin is regarded as a brilliant man that put the wonders of creation into perspective.

A brilliant man by some, an unenlightened individual making faulty speculations built upon a lack of information and true knowledge by others.

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7247
  • Manna: 220
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2106 on: Sun Apr 01, 2018 - 12:42:32 »
I think it is as I have suggested. You subject the scriptures to your own understanding, rather than subjecting your own understanding to the scriptures.
Says the one who thinks that when God said, "Let there be light" (Gen 1:3), He was talking about Himself.   rofl rofl rofl

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1515
  • Manna: 112
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2107 on: Sun Apr 01, 2018 - 12:53:33 »
Barbarian, regarding why Cambridge University had no accreditation when Darwin graduated from the school:
There were no accrediting agencies in that time.

Quote
Oh, thats a shame! I will remember that when evolutionists will only accept proof from ACCREDITED scientists.

No problem.  We don't ding Owen, for example, even though he graduated from an unaccredited college.   For the same reason Darwin doesn't get dinged.

Quote
BTW: WHAT was his doctorate in?

Darwin received his BA from Christ's College, Cambridge, but the undergraduate degrees awarded by Oxford and Cambridge weren't then specialized by field.  He didn't have a degree "in" zoology, botany, or geology because no British university graduate of that era did.

What Darwin did have was the experience of working with John Stevens Henslow (one of Britain's leading botanists) and Adam Sedgwick (one of Britain's leading geologists). Earlier, at the University of Edinburgh, he'd had a similar relationship (roughly equivalent to that between a grad student and their thesis advisor today) with Robert Grant, one of the leading invertebrate biologists and evolutionary theorists of the 1820s.  Five years of fieldwork as ship's naturalist on HMS Beagle (1831-1836) functioned, for Darwin, almost exactly as graduate school would for a science student today: it have him a chance to gather data, perfect his fieldwork skills, and lay the conceptual groundwork for his first major contributions to the field.

Darwin returned to England in 1836 as a major rising star in the geological sciences.  Publishing the results of his observations on the voyage also gave him a formidable reputation in botany, zoology, and taxonomy. Anyone familiar with British scientific community in the late 1830s would have seen Darwin as one of its leading members.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Charles-Darwin-have-a-degree-from-any-accredited-university-directly-involved-in-the-sciences-involved-in-the-evolution-of-species

He had most impressive credentials for his time, being a fellow of the Royal Society, the Geological Society, and the Linnean Society.  His work on cirripedes established his prominence in biology and his solution to the puzzle of Pacific Atolls assured his reputation as a geologist.







Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1515
  • Manna: 112
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2108 on: Sun Apr 01, 2018 - 12:55:10 »
Quote
A brilliant man by some,

A brilliant man by any measure.  His accomplishments apart from his theory of natural selection would have guaranteed his place in science.    It was far from his only great discovery.

 

KiwiChristian

  • Guest
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2109 on: Sun Apr 01, 2018 - 23:31:37 »
Barbarian, regarding why Cambridge University had no accreditation when Darwin graduated from the school:
There were no accrediting agencies in that time.

No problem.  We don't ding Owen, for example, even though he graduated from an unaccredited college.   For the same reason Darwin doesn't get dinged.

Darwin received his BA from Christ's College, Cambridge, but the undergraduate degrees awarded by Oxford and Cambridge weren't then specialized by field.  He didn't have a degree "in" zoology, botany, or geology because no British university graduate of that era did.


Wow, no credentials in the fields at all?!

You still havent said WHAT his degree was in.

Since you are too scared to, i will. He had a degree in THEOLOGY.

All i am getting at is i find it sadly comical that evolutionists reject certain peoples' information and facts because they do not have an accredited degree in the field.

They are hypocrites.





Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1515
  • Manna: 112
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2110 on: Mon Apr 02, 2018 - 05:14:34 »
(Barbarian notes that Darwin's credentials included membership into the three most exclusive and important scientific societies in England)

Quote
Wow, no credentials in the fields at all?!

He had all three of the biggest ones available.

Quote
You still havent said WHAT his degree was in.

Here's a hint about one reason your plan is a bad one: "What degree does Bill Gates have?"

Quote
Since you are too scared to, i will. He had a degree in THEOLOGY.

Yeah.   There were no degrees in biology or zoology and so on, at the time.    Thought you knew.   Mendel didn't have a degree in genetics, either.   Mendel, as you might know, founded genetics, having discovered genes.   He did have a degree in theology, though.    And yes, now that there actually are degrees available in genetics and biology, we expect geneticists and biologists to have them.  Go figure.

Quote
All i am getting at is i find it sadly comical that evolutionists reject certain peoples' information and facts because they do not have an accredited degree in the field.

No one rejects Mendel or Owen or Huxley or any biologists from that time, for the lack of a degree in biology.   Are you beginning to figure out what's wrong with your argument, now?

 
« Last Edit: Mon Apr 02, 2018 - 05:18:14 by The Barbarian »

KiwiChristian

  • Guest
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2111 on: Mon Apr 02, 2018 - 15:06:51 »
(Barbarian notes that Darwin's credentials included membership into the three most exclusive and important scientific societies in England)

He had all three of the biggest ones available.

Here's a hint about one reason your plan is a bad one: "What degree does Bill Gates have?"

Yeah.   There were no degrees in biology or zoology and so on, at the time.    Thought you knew.   Mendel didn't have a degree in genetics, either.   Mendel, as you might know, founded genetics, having discovered genes.   He did have a degree in theology, though.    And yes, now that there actually are degrees available in genetics and biology, we expect geneticists and biologists to have them.  Go figure.

No one rejects Mendel or Owen or Huxley or any biologists from that time, for the lack of a degree in biology.   Are you beginning to figure out what's wrong with your argument, now?

Not at all.

You either still don't get it or you are purposely being argumentative as usual.

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6318
  • Manna: 251
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2112 on: Mon Apr 02, 2018 - 16:04:06 »
Not at all.

You either still don't get it or you are purposely being argumentative as usual.


It's you that is being purposely argumentative. You've resorted to attacking one of the most brilliant men that ever lived. Your entire argument is utter foolishness.

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7247
  • Manna: 220
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2113 on: Mon Apr 02, 2018 - 16:08:40 »
You either still don't get it or you are purposely being argumentative as usual.
Barbarian argumentative??  He is probably the least argumentative person to post here recently,  Considerably less so than you, Kiwi.

Offline DiscipleDave

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Manna: 2
  • Gender: Male
  • Love One Another
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2114 on: Tue Apr 03, 2018 - 15:30:57 »
Jesus Christ said while standing in the Temple "I will destroy this Temple and rebuild it in three days" He was not referring to the Temple that He was standing in, and He did not explain to them what He meant either, He let them believe whatever they chose to believe even when it was wrong.

Scriptures teach that a thousand years is but one day to God. It also teaches that when a thousand years is passed it is but a yesterday to God. So then When God created the Earth, and there was no Sun yet, what Day do you think God was referring to, when a 24 hour day was not yet created on Earth yet? He was most certainly referring to HIS Day, before the Sun was created on the Earth. Once the Sun was created on the Earth, when Jesus said the morning and evening was the next day, He could have been referring to either His Day (God's Day = 1,000 Earth years) or He might have been referring to at that time, the 24 hour day of the Earth. Here is what i know for sure, What God said He did is absolutely TRUE. When He said "Day" He could have been referring to His Day or Earth's Day. When Jesus said "I will destroy this Temple and rebuild it in three Day" That was an absolutely TRUE statement He made. But because the humans did not understand what He meant by the "Temple" they thought He was speaking something untrue. What Genesis plainly teaches is the Plain Truth, it is our understanding of what a "Day" actually is, is why people of this generation think it is wrong.

^i^

†††  In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ  †††

DiscipleDave

KiwiChristian

  • Guest
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2115 on: Wed Apr 04, 2018 - 05:27:58 »
Jesus Christ said while standing in the Temple "I will destroy this Temple and rebuild it in three days" He was not referring to the Temple that He was standing in, and He did not explain to them what He meant either, He let them believe whatever they chose to believe even when it was wrong.

Scriptures teach that a thousand years is but one day to God. It also teaches that when a thousand years is passed it is but a yesterday to God. So then When God created the Earth, and there was no Sun yet, what Day do you think God was referring to, when a 24 hour day was not yet created on Earth yet? He was most certainly referring to HIS Day, before the Sun was created on the Earth. Once the Sun was created on the Earth, when Jesus said the morning and evening was the next day, He could have been referring to either His Day (God's Day = 1,000 Earth years) or He might have been referring to at that time, the 24 hour day of the Earth. Here is what i know for sure, What God said He did is absolutely TRUE. When He said "Day" He could have been referring to His Day or Earth's Day. When Jesus said "I will destroy this Temple and rebuild it in three Day" That was an absolutely TRUE statement He made. But because the humans did not understand what He meant by the "Temple" they thought He was speaking something untrue. What Genesis plainly teaches is the Plain Truth, it is our understanding of what a "Day" actually is, is why people of this generation think it is wrong.

^i^

†††  In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ  †††

DiscipleDave

You need to read your Bible more, my friend.

The Bible does NOT say that 1 day is 1000 days to God.

Also, the Bible tells us what He meant by "temple". ie: His body.

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7247
  • Manna: 220
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2116 on: Wed Apr 04, 2018 - 06:49:30 »
The Bible does NOT say that 1 day is 1000 days to God.
The Bible does say that one day is like a thousand years to God.  Now that is not an equation to be used to calculate time, but it does say that time is a meaningless quantity to God.  God is outside of time; He is completely unconstrained by time.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1515
  • Manna: 112
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2117 on: Wed Apr 04, 2018 - 09:43:41 »
Quote
The Bible does say that one day is like a thousand years to God.  Now that is not an equation to be used to calculate time, but it does say that time is a meaningless quantity to God.  God is outside of time; He is completely unconstrained by time.

Precisely so.

KiwiChristian

  • Guest
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2118 on: Fri Apr 06, 2018 - 04:52:04 »
The Bible does say that one day is like a thousand years to God.  Now that is not an equation to be used to calculate time, but it does say that time is a meaningless quantity to God.  God is outside of time; He is completely unconstrained by time.

Correct.

Key word is "like".

Reading this at face value CLEARLY means that time has no meaning for God.

That's all.

KiwiChristian

  • Guest
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2119 on: Fri Apr 06, 2018 - 04:53:41 »
Precisely so.

never thought i would say this to you, but...


i agree!

 ::clappingoverhead::

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1515
  • Manna: 112
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2120 on: Fri Apr 06, 2018 - 13:53:39 »
We're back to the basic fallacy of creationism.   Which of the four basic points of Darwinian evolution are incorrect, and what is your evidence for this?


Online Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2121 on: Sat Apr 07, 2018 - 10:26:34 »
Quote
It’s you that is being purposely argumentative. You've resorted to attacking one of the most brilliant men that ever lived. Your entire argument is utter foolishness.

Yes, the pedestal you have placed your hero upon is and has been quite obvious. One would think a “Christian” would consider someone like Moses who spent 40 days and nights in the literal presence of God and was referred to as the meekest man on earth, might be considered the same for having done and been so. To the contrary though, apparently 40 days and nights in the literal presence of God being instructed by Him, only amounted to a vague story of creation awaiting the genius of Darwin to eventually explain what it all really meant. This is not to mention Jesus Christ of course who might not count because He was God and man. Nevertheless, He still did not posses enough genius to properly explain humanities true mechanism of origin, thus choosing to await your hero Darwin to accomplish this task.

There is nothing new under the sun. When Adam and Eve chose to listen to and act upon Satan’s accusations and supposed knowledge above God’s and in contradiction to His testimony, they chose to worship and obey another. That other was their own selves. They considered their ability to understand and choose to be greater than God’s command and testimony to the contrary. So to, do all “Christian” evolutionists today. They place their faith in the theories of a man and men in contradiction to the testimony of the word of God, thus worshiping themselves. Moses gave one testimony by instruction of God, Darwin and his followers give another by their own supposed superior knowledge. “Choose you this day whom you will serve” comes to mind. Let us examine some of the “genius” of one of the most brilliant men to ever live.

All emphasis in the following quotes is mine. My comments in blue.


https://www.livescience.com/32051-greatest-scientific-mistakes.html

Quote
Oops! The 5 Greatest Scientific Blunders
By Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer | May 16, 2013 07:25am ET

"Darwin was an incredible genius," Livio told LiveScience. "His idea of evolution by natural selection is just mind-boggling — how he came up with something so all-encompassing as that. Plus Darwin really didn't know any mathematics so his theory is entirely non mathematical.”

This feat is even more incredible given the notion of heredity (how traits are passed from parents to offspring) that Darwin and scientists of the time subscribed to would have made natural selection impossible. At the time, people thought the characteristics of the mother and the father simply get blended in the offspring just as a can of black paint and a can of white paint blend to create gray when combined.

Darwin's error was in not recognizing the conflict between this idea and his new theory. "If you introduce one black cat into a million white cats, the theory of blending heredity would just dilute the black color away completely. There's no way you would ever end up with black cats," Livio said. "Darwin didn't understand this, he really didn't catch this point.”

It wasn't until the concept of Mendelian inheritance was widely accepted and understood in the early 1900s that the puzzle pieces of natural selection fell into place. Gregor Mendel proposed correctly that when traits from two parents come together, rather than blending, one or the other is expressed.

"As it turned out, Mendelian genetics worked precisely to solve this problem. In Mendelian genetics you mix more like you're mixing two decks of cards, where each card retains its identity — not like paint," Livio said.

So mister brilliant was not into math at all. I can certainly relate, but no one is saying I am brilliant, let alone among the most brilliant of men ever. He also made the error of a self contradiction in his theory due to lack of knowledge or understanding regarding heredity. Nevertheless, his theory was widely accepted regardless. The explanation of working out this problem reveals the true function of science based upon faulty theories. First, that which is widely accepted, is presumed to be true. Then that which is widely accepted, is applied to support the favored theory as truth and proof of the same. New knowledge or understanding doesn’t work out anything, it simply is. Fallen humanity works out problems with their own faulty theories with new knowledge. They shape and mold it to fit their pet theories whenever and however possible. They then present it as widely accepted irrefutable truth until proved otherwise by more contesting knowledge or understanding. Then the shaping and molding begins again to support pet theories. This is evolutionary science, in theory and function.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2010/04/breaking-mendels-laws-the-value-of-informative-errors/

The above link about Mendelian genetics reveals just how often evolutionary scientists get it wrong, and even use that which is wrong to correct that which is wrong to make it right. Presumption upon presumption presented as scientific fact until later revealed as otherwise. This is the pride of fallen humanity in self absorbed and exalted action.

https://crev.info/2018/01/book-defrocks-darwin/

Quote
While most people might be able to name one or two, few are aware of the sheer number of embarrassing deceptions used to prop up evolutionary theory. This book highlights multiple examples that have misled generations…………………..

Which frauds can you name? Piltdown Man, for instance? Haeckel’s embryos? Nebraska Man? You’ll be surprised how many others Bergman uncovers. Containing numerous black-and-white illustrations in its 314 pages, this book has 19 chapters detailing case after case of mistakes and outright frauds in the history of Darwinism……………………

Although lionized today, Darwin’s theory, as this book documents, has caused much harm and, after 150 years, the evidence for evolution is far more problematic now than it was in Darwin’s time due to the advancement of knowledge in science, especially cell biology and genetics. Darwin himself recognized that his theory had major problems and for this reason he kept revising his bible of evolution until the last edition ended up significantly different than his first edition. The blunders, frauds, and forgeries documented in this book are not surprising in view of the fact that Darwin’s major thesis is scientifically wrong.

Evolution is ‘true’, but the clear trend shows it is going the wrong way. The problem is that the vast majority of mutations are near-neutral, i.e., mildly deleterious, and most of the rest are harmful, even lethal. Life is gradually accumulating these deleterious mutations and is facing genetic catastrophe (mutational meltdown), eventually causing extinction. (page 32)

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The testimony of scripture, and that within which scripture testifies came directly from the mouth of God, is that God created the world is six literal days. The testimony of fallen humanity in Darwin and his followers is otherwise. Choose you this day whom you will believe and therefore serve.



« Last Edit: Sat Apr 07, 2018 - 10:33:35 by Amo »

Online Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2122 on: Sat Apr 07, 2018 - 10:44:52 »
https://healthimpactnews.com/2013/no-scientists-in-darwins-day-did-not-grasp-the-complexity-of-the-cell-not-even-close/

The above link, quoted below, concerns more knowledge and understanding not available in Darwin's day which would have dramatically effected his theory if not done away with it altogether.

Quote
No, Scientists in Darwin’s Day Did Not Grasp the Complexity of the Cell; Not Even Close

by Casey Luskin
Evolution News and Views

Recently a reader of ENV wrote to me asking whether it’s true that in Darwin’s day, scientists thought that the cell had a simple structure. The reader had argued on an Internet forum that back then, scientists vastly underappreciated the complexity of the cell — especially compared to what we know today. Some Darwin-defenders responded to him by claiming that Darwin believed the cell was indeed “complex,” and quoted Darwin as saying:

"A cell is a complex structure, with its investing membrane, nucleus, and nucleolus, a gemmule, as Mr. G. H. Lewes has remarked in his interesting discussion on this subject (Fortnightly Review, Nov. 1, 1868, p. 508), must, perhaps, be a compound one, so as to reproduce all the parts."

This quotation of Darwin was then followed by the customary attacks on ID (Intelligent Design) proponents, calling us ignorant, deceitful, or worse, for claiming that scientists of Darwin’s era misunderstood and/or dramatically misunderstimated the complexity of the cell. I suppose that somehow this is supposed to bolster the ability of Darwinism to explain the complexity of the cell.

Well, let’s take a closer look at that quote from Darwin. He said that the cell is “complex,” in part, because it has a “membrane, nucleus, and nucleolus.” It’s no surprise that Darwin knew about these cellular components, because they were visible to microscopes of that time. But does this mean he really appreciated or anticipated the complexity of the cell?

The answer is a resounding no. Consider the article that Darwin approvingly cites in that quote, the one by G.H. Lewes in Fortnightly Review. Lewes serves as Darwin’s authority for the claim that the cell is “complex,” so let’s start by looking at what Lewes said about the protoplasm in that very article:

"The simplest form of organic life is not — as commonly stated — a cell, but a microscopic lump of jelly-like substance, or protoplasm, which has been named sarcode by Dujardin, cytode by Haeckel, and germinal matter by Lionel Beale. This protoplasm, although entirely destitute of texture, and consequently destitute of organs, is nevertheless considered to be an Organism, because it manifests the cardinal phenomena of Life: Nutrition, Reproduction, and Contractility. As examples of this simplest organism we may cite Monads, Vibriones, Protamœbæ, and Polythalamia. Few things are more surprising than the vital activity of these organisms, which puzzle naturalists as to whether they should be called plants or animals. All microscopists are familiar with the spectacle of a formless lump of albuminous matter (a Rhizopod), putting forth a process of its body as a temporary arm or leg, or else slowly wrapping itself round a microscopic plant, or morsel of animal substance, thus making its whole body a mouth and a stomach; but these phenomena are as nothing to those described by Cienkowski, who narrates how one Monad fastens on to a plant and sucks the chlorophyl, first from one cell and then from another; while another Monad, unable to make a hole in the cell-wall, thrusts long processes of its body into the opening already made, and drags out the remains of the chlorophyl left there by its predecessor; while a third Monad leads a predatory life, falling upon other Monads who have filled themselves with food. Here, as he says, we stand on the threshold of that dark region where Animal Will begins; and yet there is here no trace of organisation."

So protoplasm — which we now call “cytoplasm” and know to be full of cellular organelles, molecular machines, RNA molecules, enzymes, and numerous other crucial biomolecules — is considered by Darwin’s favored authority on the subject to be the “simplest form of organic life,” which is a “microscopic lump of jelly-like substance” that is “destitute of texture” and “destitute of organs” with “no trace of organization.” This same authority believed a eukaryotic organism like a Rhizopod is little more than a “formless lump of albuminous matter.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement or appreciation of the complexity of the cell.

It gets even worse when you read Mr. Lewes’s simplistic descriptions of the nucleus or the cell membrane. He writes:

"Now let our glance pass on to the second stage — the Cell. Here we have the first recognised differentiation of structure, in the appearance of a nucleus, or attractive centre, amid the protoplasm. The nucleus is chemically different from the substance which surrounds it; and although perhaps exaggerated importance has been attributed to this nucleus, and mysterious powers have been ascribed to it, yet as an essential constituent of the Cell it commands attention. Indeed, according to the most recent investigations, the definition of a Cell is “a nucleus with surrounding protoplasm.” The cell-wall, or delicate investing membrane — that which makes the Cell a closed sac — is no longer to be regarded as a necessary constituent, but only as an accessory."

So the nucleus, which we now know to be the information control center of the cell containing chromosomes and much of the genetic information — billions of bits in some cases — necessary to form an organism, is of “exaggerated importance,” having “mysterious powers.” Meanwhile, the membrane is called “only as an accessory” that isn’t even necessary to the definition of a cell.

So if we take Lewes’s definition of a cell as “a nucleus with surrounding protoplasm,” and combine it with his prior description of protoplasm, then we see that a cell is a: "structure of “exaggerated importance” with “mysterious powers” surrounded by the “simplest form of organic life,” which is a “microscopic lump of jelly-like substance” that is “destitute of texture” and “destitute of organs” with “no trace of organization.”

This is what Darwin’s favored authority on the complexity of the cell said about the complexity of the cell. Not exactly an anticipation of the cell’s true complexity.
Quote

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/did_scientists_072871.html
« Last Edit: Sat Apr 07, 2018 - 10:48:09 by Amo »

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1515
  • Manna: 112
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2123 on: Sat Apr 07, 2018 - 17:01:50 »

Quote
This feat is even more incredible given the notion of heredity (how traits are passed from parents to offspring) that Darwin and scientists of the time subscribed to would have made natural selection impossible. At the time, people thought the characteristics of the mother and the father simply get blended in the offspring just as a can of black paint and a can of white paint blend to create gray when combined.

Darwin's error was in not recognizing the conflict between this idea and his new theory. "If you introduce one black cat into a million white cats, the theory of blending heredity would just dilute the black color away completely. There's no way you would ever end up with black cats," Livio said. "Darwin didn't understand this, he really didn't catch this point.”

He did realize this, actually.   And he was concerned about it.  Ironically, Mendel's paper, if he had read it, would have made it clear why evolution works.

 

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1515
  • Manna: 112
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2124 on: Sat Apr 07, 2018 - 17:18:42 »
Quote
While most people might be able to name one or two, few are aware of the sheer number of embarrassing deceptions used to prop up evolutionary theory. This book highlights multiple examples that have misled generations…………………..

Which frauds can you name? Piltdown Man, for instance?


We can't know if it was planted by a creationist to discredit science, but we do know that an evolutionists debunked it.   

Quote
Haeckel’s embryos?


Creationists are infuriated that modern textbooks just show photographs that demonstrate the same things that Haeckel drew.   The real issue is between the idea of recapitulation and the concept of evolutionary development.   The former suggests that mammals recapitulate phylogeny, but evo-devo shows that to be false.  What happens is developmental genes use the same raw material (branchial arches become ear bones, not gill supports, for example).

Quote
Nebraska Man?


A dinosaur expert found  tooth oddly worn in a way that made it look like a primate tooth.    A mammal expert quickly showed it to be a javelina tooth,  with strange wear patterns than looked like that of a primate.  And down it went. 

Nothing at all like the obvious creationist frauds like the "Paluxy man tracks", which were intentional frauds.

Quote
Although lionized today, Darwin’s theory, as this book documents, has caused much harm and, after 150 years, the evidence for evolution is far more problematic now than it was in Darwin’s time due to the advancement of knowledge in science, especially cell biology and genetics.


As noted above, for example, the discover of genes made it clear why natural selection works to make populations more fit.   The discover of DNA function explains why the family tree of Linnaeus actually does represent common descent.   Observation of living populations shows that natural selection does tend to increase fitness in a population. 

Creationism has lost.   

I chose my blog title to acknowledge that a growing number of Evangelicals accept evolution as compatible with Christianity. I also chose my title to argue that Evangelicals should accept evolution as compatible with faith.

I spent a good portion of last week at a BioLogos meeting. I talked with leading Evangelical pastors, scientists, philosophers, and theologians. Our main goal was to help the Evangelical family realize that the general theory of evolution is not a threat to authentic Christian faith and not a threat to biblical authority.

A full explanation of the compatibility of biblical Christianity and evolution would require at least a book. Here I want to point quickly to five reasons why some of my fellow Evangelicals accept evolution as compatible with Christianity. These are the same reasons I think other Evangelicals should follow their example.

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/evangelicals_accept_evolution

Quote
Evolution is ‘true’, but the clear trend shows it is going the wrong way. The problem is that the vast majority of mutations are near-neutral, i.e., mildly deleterious, and most of the rest are harmful, even lethal.


No.  Most don't do much of anything.  A few are harmful.   We all have a few dozen that didn't exist in either parent.   And a few are useful.   This is why natural selection is so important.   Without it, there would be no direction to evolution.   But it observably works.   The evolution of a new digestive organ in a population of lizards occurred in a few decades.   A new enzyme system evolved in bacteria within months.

Quote
Life is gradually accumulating these deleterious mutations and is facing genetic catastrophe (mutational meltdown), eventually causing extinction. (page 32)


Instead, we see populations becoming more fit and successful in their environments.    This is why evolution happens.   The change in allele frequencies are those that tend to make survival more likely.   And those with those mutations tend to have more offspring.   And so the cycle goes.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1515
  • Manna: 112
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2125 on: Sat Apr 07, 2018 - 17:22:56 »
Quote
No, Scientists in Darwin’s Day Did Not Grasp the Complexity of the Cell; Not Even Close

Many of those scientists were opposed to evolution.   Today, the vast majority of cell biologists accept the fact of evolution. 

What happened?

Well, genetics, mostly.   But also biochemistry.    As scientists began to look deeper into the cell, it turned out that cells contain a huge amount of data showing evolutionary changes.  Would you like to learn about them?


KiwiChristian

  • Guest
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2126 on: Sun Apr 08, 2018 - 03:17:02 »
"Today, the vast majority of cell biologists accept the fact of evolution.  "

VERY loaded and baited comment.

It is presupposing that evolution is a fact, when in fact it is pure fiction outside of speciation.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1515
  • Manna: 112
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2127 on: Sun Apr 08, 2018 - 08:05:04 »
Barbarian observes:
Today, the vast majority of cell biologists accept the fact of evolution. 

Quote
VERY loaded and baited comment.

It's just reality.  Would you like me to show you how I know?

Quote
It is presupposing that evolution is a fact,

It's directly observed.  Can't do much better than that.

Quote
when in fact it is pure fiction outside of speciation.

It's more than just macroevolution.  Yes, we do have numerous examples of new kinds of species evolving.  But evolution isn't just new kinds of organisms, it's also existing kinds evolving without becoming new species.

Would you like me to show you some examples of that?



 

Online Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2128 on: Sun Apr 08, 2018 - 13:10:22 »
https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/charles_darwins_deception.html

The following article may be viewed at the link provided above. If it all be true, learned some things new.

Quote
Charles Darwin's Deception
April 22, 2010
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org

In his autobiography, Charles Darwin presented himself as a man who was not deeply influenced by the skeptical environment in which he grew up. He claimed, in fact, to have believed the Bible as a Cambridge student and even during his voyage on the Beagle and only gradually to have become a skeptic solely as the product of independent scientific investigation. This is a self-serving myth.

In fact, he never was a Bible believer, never professed Christ as his Saviour, and was influenced deeply by skepticism from a young age.

Charles’ grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a famous skeptic who worshipped “a distant Deity ... the vast Unknown.” Erasmus’ skepticism was so radical that it even shocked the Unitarian transcendentalist Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who called him “an Atheist.” Josiah Wedgewood, Erasmus’ close friend and the grandfather of Charles’ wife Emma, was a Unitarian who rejected the Deity of Christ and the infallibility of the Bible. Josiah’s famous Wedgwood pottery firm honored the infamous Unitarian Joseph Priestly with a medallion featuring his likeness. The two grandfathers bequeathed “a mixture of freethought and radical Christianity to their grandchildren” (Adrian Desmond, Darwin, p. 5). Erasmus published a very popular two-volume work entitled Zoonomia, which presented nearly the same evolutionary theories later popularized by Charles. Erasmus added an evolutionary symbol to the Darwin family’ coat of arms, consisting of three scallop shells and the motto E Conchis Omnia (“all things out of shells”). The meaning was that all things had evolved out of the sea.

Charles’ father, Robert, was an atheist who adopted E Conchis Omnia as his personal motto.

Charles’ elder brother Erasmus, named after their famous grandfather, was a radical skeptic in his own right and his house was a center for “freethinking” in London. Charles loved to spend time there, where “the buzz was radical and Dissenting and ‘heterodoxy was the norm’” (Desmond, p. 216). Erasmus’ intimate lady friend, the Unitarian Harriet Martineau, did not believe in miracles. She translated the atheist Auguste Comte’s pantheistic Positive Philosophy into English. Comte’s objective was to replace the religion of God with “the religion of humanity.”

As a young medical student at Edinburgh University, Charles was drawn to the most radical skeptics, and they to him. He was elected to the Plinian Society in 1826, at a time when “it had been penetrated by radical students--fiery, freethinking democrats who demanded that science be based on physical causes, not supernatural forces” (Desmond, p. 31). Darwin was invited for the very reason that his grandfather Erasmus was a skeptical evolutionist. Darwin’s membership was sponsored by William Browne, who “had no time for souls and saints.” Browne hated the Bible and the doctrine of creation, and when Charles Bell proposed that the human face reflects man’s moral nature and is an evidence of divine creation, Browne opposed him. Brown stirred up a great controversy when he lectured that “mind and consciousness are not spiritual entities, separate from the body; they are simple spinoffs from the brain activity” (Howard Gruber, Darwin on Man, p. 479). The other student inducted into the Plinian Society with Darwin was the Unitarian-educated William Greg, who was “just as heretical as Browne” and hated creationism.

Darwin’s closest friend at Edinburgh was professor Robert Edmond Grant, another member of the Plinian society. He was “an uncompromising evolutionist” who believed that “the origin and evolution of life were due simply to physical and chemical forces, all obeying natural laws” (Desmond, p. 34). A man for whom “nothing was sacred,” he was “savagely anti-Christian” (p. 40). Grant loved Erasmus Darwin’s Zoonomia. He believed in spontaneous generation of life from “monads” or “elementary living particles” and that the sponge is the parent of higher animals.

Darwin claimed that before the publication of On the Origin of Species he “never happened to come across a single naturalist who seemed to doubt about the permanence of species” (Autobiography, p. 124). That is an amazing lie. His own grandfather believed in the transmutation of species and taught it in his popular book, which Charles had read twice. Jean Baptiste Lamarck had presented transmutation in his very influential 1809 Philosophie Zoologique, which Darwin had read. We have seen that Darwin was deeply exposed to transmutation theories at Edinburgh University. Darwin also read Robert Chambers’ 1844 Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, which described all of creation evolving from atoms. In London, men such as James Gully were teaching “transmutation” before Darwin published his book. Gully translated Friedrich Tiedemann’s “evolutionary treatise on Comparative Physiology” (Desmond, Darwin, p. 219).

Darwin claimed that he came to his evolutionary theories “quite independently” of Humboldt, Lamarck, and others. But even sympathetic biographers such as Gertrude Himmelfarb characterize that as “not entirely candid.” Indeed, Darwin had read many books promoting evolutionary ideas very similar to those he later promoted, and it is impossible to form a theory independently--after the fact--of the things you have actually read!

Darwin protested that his book On the Origin of Species was not a product of something that was “in the air” and denied that “men’s minds were prepared for it.” This is nonsense. Social historian Himmelfarb observes, “It was in the air and men were prepared for it--the public for evolution in general, and the scientific community for some special theory that Darwin was known to be working on” (Darwin and the Darwinian Evolution, p. 240). Unitarianism and German “higher criticism” and humanistic philosophy had greatly weakened biblical faith in the Church of England and in society at large.

I have documented this extensively in The Modern Textual Criticism Hall of Shame, which is available from Way of Life Literature in both print and e-book editions.

In The Darwin Myth, Benjamin Wiker observes,

“His was a close-knit family, and at least all the menfolk took for granted the self-evident truths of Enlightenment skepticism. The skepticism toward Christianity included an evolutionary account directed against the Christian, biblical doctrine of creation. It was part of the comfortable truisms passed on as a heritage. The family heritage allowed Charles to breathe in evolutionary doctrines that had been in the air for over a century ... Charles Darwin was a third generation evolutionist. He carefully read his grandfather’s Zoonomia very early on, he studied under the radical evolutionist Robert Grant while in medical school, he worked through the arguments of the French evolutionist Lamarck, and it would be hard to imagine him not discussing evolution with his father and brother around the table and in front of the fire--all this, before he had set foot on the Beagle. ... It means that the theory came before the facts. It was a philosophical and cultural inheritance before Charles Darwin himself went in search of evidence to support it” (pp. 136, 137).

The fact is that Darwin and his book were products of a skeptical environment. Darwin could have believed the Bible, because he had it in his possession and knew men that believed it, but he chose to reject it. There is no evidence that he even tried to find answers to the skeptical questions that he accepted, such as the question of suffering and homology and embryonic similarity and the geological record and the alleged contradictions in the Gospels. The answers were available, but Darwin was not interested in proving the Bible, only in disproving it. This willful skepticism has characterized committed Darwinists ever since and is a fulfillment of the prophecy of 2 Peter 3:3-6.

“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.”


Online Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2129 on: Sun Apr 08, 2018 - 13:49:41 »
Barbarian observes:
Today, the vast majority of cell biologists accept the fact of evolution. 

It's just reality.  Would you like me to show you how I know?

It's directly observed.  Can't do much better than that.

It's more than just macroevolution.  Yes, we do have numerous examples of new kinds of species evolving.  But evolution isn't just new kinds of organisms, it's also existing kinds evolving without becoming new species.

Would you like me to show you some examples of that?

No need. We are quite familiar with evolutions faulty premise, observations, and conclusions based upon the same.

Online Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2130 on: Sun Apr 08, 2018 - 13:57:35 »
http://www.zephaniah.eu/The%20Shameless%20Fraud%20known%20as%20Darwinian%20Evolution.pdf

Quotes below from link above.

Quote
When Science and Magic Combine: The Shameless Fraud known as Darwinian Evolution
by Jeremy James

A Massive Logical Hole

There was one problem in particular that bothered me, a problem which none of the experts seemed willing to address, or even acknowledge:

If millions of chance mutations are needed before one truly beneficial mutation can emerge, then what becomes of those mutations that are not immediately fatal to the organism and are passed on to the next generation? Such deleterious mutations would, from a statistical standpoint, far exceed the number of supposedly beneficial ones. Thus their inevitable entry into the gene pool would result in the progressive deterioration of a species and its eventual demise.

If Dawkins, Gould and the others were right, then the very mechanism that they were using to explain evolution must lead inexorably, not to the creation of a new species, but to the destruction of existing ones!...............................

4. The deliberate trivialisation of complexity

Life cannot develop except in the form of a living cell, the smallest possible self-sustaining, self-reproducing organic unit. The early evolutionists, including Darwin himself, regarded the cell as a fairly simple structure, rather like a tiny protoplasmic clockwork device. This allowed them to employ a concept of ‘life’ that could be explained in fairly primitive mechanical terms. Of course, an evolutionary explanation is much easier to sustain if the fundamental components of life are defined in a trivial way.

Scientific advances over the past 100 years or so have confirmed that the cell is many millions of times more complex than the simple mechanism that Darwin and his contemporaries had imagined. Even the most primitive cell is now known to contain dozens of types of organelles which move around in a highly structured manner performing an amazing array of intricate functions.

The cell is in reality an immensely complex chemical factory, with hundreds of discrete processes taking place at the same time. Among its many highly sophisticated components are DNA, RNA, cytoplasm, ribosomes, enzymes, mitochondria, proteins, locomotive cilia, and an elaborate system of cytoplasmic membranes, sacs and vesicles.

In addition, the mitochondria are known to possess their own DNA and RNA, which is completely different from the DNA and RNA found elsewhere in the cell. And since they are self-replicating, they are produced only by an earlier generation of mitochondria – the cell nucleus itself cannot produce them. Thus, in order to function properly, a cell must contain an energy-producing organelle which cannot survive outside the cell and which the cell itself cannot produce!

To believe that something this complex could have arisen by chance is disingenuous in the extreme. Statistically it could never happen, no matter how much time was allowed to elapse.

« Last Edit: Sun Apr 08, 2018 - 14:00:34 by Amo »

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1515
  • Manna: 112
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2131 on: Sun Apr 08, 2018 - 14:54:40 »
Quote
If millions of chance mutations are needed before one truly beneficial mutation can emerge, then what becomes of those mutations that are not immediately fatal to the organism and are passed on to the next generation?

They get passed on to the next generation, with no discernable problems.   Most human genes have dozens or hundreds of alleles.   Any number greater than four would have to have arrived after Adam and Eve, via mutation.   So yes, lots and lots of mutations that are very weakly beneficial, or very weakly harmful, to the point that they neither increase in the population nor are removed from the populations 

Quote
Such deleterious mutations would, from a statistical standpoint, far exceed the number of supposedly beneficial ones.

The ones that don't actually harm or help an organism are called "neutral mutations."   Most of us have several dozen that neither of our parents have.  Few of them really do anything as far as selection is concerned.  Because they are so close to the useful/harmful boundary, they might be useful in one particular circumstance, and harmful in others.  These, as you see, tend to persist because there's no benefit or harm to them.   On the other hand, a few mutations are harmful.   These tend to be removed from the population by natural selection.    A very few are useful, an they tend to increase in the population, because they make it more likely that organisms having them will live long enough to reproduce.

Quote
Thus their inevitable entry into the gene pool would result in the progressive deterioration of a species and its eventual demise.

That would happen fairly quickly, if it were not for natural selection.   Occasionally, these improvements will lead to a relatively isolated population becoming reproductively separated from the rest of the species.  This is how macroevolution occurs.

Quote
4. Life cannot develop except in the form of a living cell, the smallest possible self-sustaining, self-reproducing organic unit.

Here, you've confused evolution with the origin of life.   Two different things.  Darwin merely assumed that God created the first living things.   Evolutionary theory merely describes how living populations change.

The really impressive thing is that as we learn more and more about the complexity of the cell, the more we see evidence for the evolution of this complexity.  Would you like to see some examples?
 
Quote
In addition, the mitochondria are known to possess their own DNA and RNA, which is completely different from the DNA and RNA found elsewhere in the cell.

Technically, they are separate organisms that are endosymbionts living in eukaryotic cells.   They resemble bacteria, and are descendants of bacteria that formed an endosymbiotic relationship with eukaryotic cells.   They even have circular DNA like other bacteria, and their cell membranes are bacterial membranes.   

Is there any evidence that such endosymbiosis can evolve?   Turns out, there is:

Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae
Kwang Jeon
Trends in Cell Biology
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 1995, Pages 137-140
The large, free-living amoebae are inherently phagocytic. They capture, ingest and digest microbes within their phagolysosomes, including those that survive in other cells. One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962892400889667

Quote
And since they are self-replicating, they are produced only by an earlier generation of mitochondria – the cell nucleus itself cannot produce them. Thus, in order to function properly, a cell must contain an energy-producing organelle which cannot survive outside the cell and which the cell itself cannot produce!

Nope.  For example bacteria and other prokaryotes do fine without them.   And many eukaryotes don't have them.   They didn't tell you that, um?

Quote
To believe that something this complex could have arisen by chance

Would be to ignore Darwin's discovery of natural selection.  And as you see, the evidence shows the evolution of mitochondria from free-living bacteria forming a symbiosis with eukaryotes.  We even have one directly observed case of this happening.

Before cutting and pasting this stuff, it's a good idea to go check it out for yourself; creationist websites often lie to you.   Or, in many cases, they don't know any more about it than you do.



 

Online Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2132 on: Sat Apr 14, 2018 - 16:50:30 »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHRYnm_J4ts

Good video expressing the same old same old. Evidence for the flood is abundant, evidence for evolution by way of transitionary development is extremely rare to non existent.

Offline The Barbarian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1515
  • Manna: 112
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2133 on: Sat Apr 14, 2018 - 17:18:21 »
Quote
Good video expressing the same old same old. Evidence for the flood is abundant, evidence for evolution by way of transitionary development is extremely rare to non existent.

Let's take a look.  Here's young Earth creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, on that subject:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

Kurt Wise, Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

It seems that your video has it wrong; at least one of the best-credentialed YE creationists says so.   Is there anything else therein that you think might be worth discussing?


Online Amo

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3158
  • Manna: 28
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #2134 on: Sun Apr 15, 2018 - 11:35:55 »
Let's take a look.  Here's young Earth creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, on that subject:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

Kurt Wise, Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

It seems that your video has it wrong; at least one of the best-credentialed YE creationists says so.   Is there anything else therein that you think might be worth discussing?

Yes there are many disagreements among creationists as there are among evolutionists as well. Since you brought up Kurt Wise though, perhaps you will listen to his following testimony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6Ac0_Jeerw

Kurt Wise stating what Darwinists believe which you quoted, does not equate to him believing it as well. Certainly not the same way evolutionists do. The article you quoted from is from 1995. Here is his conclusion.

Quote
CONCLUSION

Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates. Additionally, the creation model is not well enough developed at present to properly evaluate this evidence or to develop an adequate alternative scenario or explanation. However, in the light of the creation model’s incomplete development, its non-inconsiderable success at explaining that record is exciting and promising indeed. There is little doubt in this author’s mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory.

I and many other creationists, do not agree with the idea that there is good enough scientific proof of transitional forms in the fossil record to support long term slow evolutionary progress. There are nowhere near enough transitional forms in the fossil record to support this theory, and those that have been represented as the same are highly contested even among evolutionists themselves. Presenting your quote as though Kurt Wise accepted it as proof of deep time evolutionary development is deceptive. He does not accept such as truth, according to his own testimony in the video of the link I provided, and is not stating such in the article you quoted either.



 

     
anything