Creation only 6000 years old. Oppps (heaven, verses, Jesus, Earth)

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by lucknow

If I set a big bomb in my local auto wrecking yard and when all the dust had settled, sitting there was a brand new BMW, that would be far more likely than DNA being formed by "Natural selection".

Well I suppose one could argue, it all depends upon what your bomb is made of.

Now if you bomb sets off a reaction that produces hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, a little phosphorus and sulphur that when they coalesce produce, let's say, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, and place them in the conditions that were present during the early formation of the earth and what do ya get? Well you get amino acids the building material for proteins (Miller–Urey 1953). Those same amino acids when further subjected over time to conditions that were present on the earth will produce ribonucleotides the building blocks of RNA and DNA. So your explosion won't produce something as complex as a fine Bavarian Motor car, you will get the basis for life on earth.

Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory - Wired Science

My more brilliant science cohorts can edit any errors in the details that my missive may have made.

[littlewitness]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Sorry sweety, you made the assertion, so the burden of proof lies squarely on your shoulders....Nice try though.

...sweety? It's "sweetie," and thanks...I guess. My wife however thinks you're...well, I'll let you use your naturally selective imagination.
First...do you get it? First, as in "First Cause," and I've made no declarations that preceded Him who always is...First!
Many say there is no God, yet will declare their unbelief in Him. Such contradictory and incongruous elements to a world view only explain how far people have strayed away from the truth.
Peas & hominy

[TRANSPONDER]

Just saying something is 'First' when it there is no coherent explanation of an origin for it does not produce an explanation. It merely ignores and denies the problem.

Saying that we don't believe in fiery dragons, leprechauns or Santa claus does not at all prove that we must believe in Them. The only reason we spend so much time arguing that god -belief is irrational is because so many people and such powerful and influential organisations spent time arguing that god - belief is valid.

Finally, arguably 'sweetie' refers to a comestible, not a person, so 'sweety' is actually better and your attempt to score an irrelevant cheap point with a bit of pedantry merely compounds your general failure to provide a decent rejoinder.

In fact, nothing of that addresses the topic at all.

[hd4me]

[quote]

Originally Posted by arequipa

yes it does. Yes. Genetic changes through mutation will over time result in changes that we call speciation. The mere mention of 'neo darwinism' indicates that you have culled a list of quotes (not credited or linked, i note) mined to make it look as though the mutational mechanism for natural selection is without foundation.

Here's the link which apparently you found after posting the above. It wasn't prominently displayed so here it is for any who are interested


http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long...-Variation.pdf

Originally posted by Arequipa i am willing to consider just what evidence there is for this.

See above

Originally posted by Arequipa but even if what you suggested was true, that there was little or even no evidence to support mutational changes as a mechanism for evolution, it woudl still be amply supported by the fossil record

Maybe (Just ONE example)...Archaeopterix has been an iconic fossil find because it is thought of as an important transition of dinosaurs to birds and the development of flight....Oops:


Proto-Bird Archaeopteryx Lost Its Ability To Fly, Biologist Argues

Originally posted by Arequipa p.s here's an example of the top of my head. many rare, mainly tiny changes this is made to look as though the mechanism is as elusive as dark matter

.

That quote is from H J Muller, American Geneticist and Noble prize winner (an atheistic humanist). I suppose he is trying to make it seem elusive?

Originally posted by Arequipa in fact, the mutational changes are staggeringly common. However, the ones that become evident in evolutionary changes are indeed rather rare. They nevertheless result in immunity, adaptation of diet and physical changes.

Mordant disagrees with you.

Not according to Arq...(see above)

According to talkorigins most mutations are neither helpful nor harmful...

Are Mutations Harmful?

Mordant...Not sure if the post about the work done in the 1930's is meant to imply the science was outdated and therefore that led to the conclusions but then you seem aware the research spanned decades...hmmm

I do thank you Mordant for keeping your posts more direct and to the point. It's difficult to read through the posts of some because one needs to filter out the irrelevant verbage.

.

[hd4me]

originally posted by lucknow
if i set a big bomb in my local auto wrecking yard and when all the dust had settled, sitting there was a brand new bmw, that would be far more likely than dna being formed by "natural selection". The idea is just so preposterous, so far out there in the realm of fantasyland it's actually embarrassing to think otherwise intelligent persons could even entertain it for a second. Surely those who don't believe in either god or creation could come up with something a little more possible than this. They are biased to the point that anything at all will do rather than a "creator".

Biased indeed.However, it is understandable as evolution is the only explanation that those who don't believe in a Creator have. There is no going back. Millions of dollars have been spent on evolutionary research and people's reputation and livelihood are at stake. Evolution scientists are afterall only human with the same human weaknesses.

quote= grandstander; If one demands instant results, a bang which immediately produces the car, then one may be caught in the narrow confusion with which you have approached the question. We are speaking of an immense array of forces interacting over an immense array of time.

see below



[quote]

Originally Posted by mordant

cars are not composed of living organic materials, do not have dna and do not undergo mutations.

see below

. Originally posted by sanspeur i suggest you don't use this ridiculous fallacy again, as all it does is hi-lite your ignorance, and makes you look foolish.

See the moderator posting on etiquette on these forums. You are bordering on logical fallicies in rhetoric (i.e ad hominem)


Bacteria reproduce to the point that a new generation happens within minutes to hours. They exist in a wide range of environments and are subject to many mutations. They have been around for a very long time. However, do they evolve into anything other than bacteria. Perhaps into a fruit fly, a tree, a fish?

Evolutionary scientists are perplexed by the lack of history with the theory of evolution. How so? in the sense that they should be able to study how processes happen today to understand past events. So these scientists like to study fruit flies to force natural selection (fruit flies have short cycles of life making them ideal DNA containing living organisms to study). In the below study they didnt wait for natural selection but forced selection on 600 generations of fruit flies. Suffice it to say there were quite a few mutations but none caught on and the experiment ran into limits of variation. In short despite sustained selection in these populations the selections did not lead to newly arising advantageous alleles.

And experiments as these are done under ideal conditions yet Evolution would have us believe that in the wild (i.e not ideal conditions) given enough time natural selection will produce beneficial mutations that leads to a new species

Interesting how real life continues to confound evolution.

http://roselab.bio.uci.edu/Publicati...ong%202010.pdf

.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by hd4me

Here's the link which apparently you found after posting the above. It wasn't prominently displayed so here it is for any who are interested


http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long...-Variation.pdf




See above

You overlook that i immediately realized that you had given a link to Loennig, (your confused verbiage made it hard to realize at first) and I showed that it doesn't really help your quotemined case at all.

Maybe (Just ONE example)...Archaeopterix has been an iconic fossil find because it is thought of as an important transition of dinosaurs to birds and the development of flight....Oops:


Proto-Bird Archaeopteryx Lost Its Ability To Fly, Biologist Argues


.

You are clutching at straws . But if you learn something, well and good. It has never been denied that some birds lost their ability to fly. Eg Ostriches, who still make flapping motions when they run. It was understood from the first that feathered dinosaurs would fly with difficulty if at all, and maybe glide, at best. But it was supposed that some would evolve better flying abilities and with skeletons evolved to be lighter and better adapted to flight, would turn into birds.

Fossil evidence shows that feathered dinosaurs developed feathers (from scales) more for display purposes and only incidentally did they give the survival edge in running and leaping that would mutate into gliding forms and finally flying forms.

That quote is from H J Muller, American Geneticist and Noble prize winner (an atheistic humanist). I suppose he is trying to make it seem elusive?



Mordant disagrees with you.





Not according to Arq...(see above)

According to talkorigins most mutations are neither helpful nor harmful...

Are Mutations Harmful?

Mordant...Not sure if the post about the work done in the 1930's is meant to imply the science was outdated and therefore that led to the conclusions but then you seem aware the research spanned decades...hmmm

Your attempt to try to find some scientific confusion if not start a row between a couple of your opponents is futile. Mutations, I said, were surprisingly common. Most are neutral, as I said. Those that are not 'neutral' are relatively rare, but not as uncommon as all that. There is no contradiction in what we posted. Some are beneficial and some not so. This fact is compounded with the fact that such helpful or harmful mutations may not become apparent until the ecology or environment enables a survival advantage. Some 'harmful' mutations, like those resulting in sickle cells can become helpful in some cases. So you see your attempt to create a contradiction is just down to your lack of knowledge.

I do thank you Mordant for keeping your posts more direct and to the point. It's difficult to read through the posts of some because one needs to filter out the irrelevant verbage.

A typical theist ploy to attack style as a pretext for dismissing content. I take it as a compliment as you evidently identify me as the opponent whom you most urgently need a footling excuse to put on ignore. However, feel free to debate just with the excellent Mordant. I am sure he can demolish you quite efficiently.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by littlewitness

Well now...you're a jolly ol supporter...full of spit and brittle. First Cause...namely Yeshua Messiac...but I'm ing...you could care less one way or the other! You just like to argue and color your nose. Fancy yourself a member of Parliament do ya?

You are right, I don't really mind about First Cause. It is an academic argument. The leap of Faith from a postulated First cause to the failed messiah Jesus is one hell of a leap of Faith.

I only argue when there is a glaring false argument to be put right.

[littlewitness]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

You are right, I don't really mind about First Cause. It is an academic argument. The leap of Faith from a postulated First cause to the failed messiah Jesus is one hell of a leap of Faith.

I only argue when there is a glaring false argument to be put right.

...well, from your world view Jesus has failed you. From mine...you, me, and so many others have failed him. I'm thankful that He continues to extend his Grace, Grace toward me...picking me up every time i fall. I suppose most folks simply do not appreciate having to go through Jesus to "get back to where we once belonged." (Credit the Beatles...but God gets the glory!)
Peas & hominy

[Shirina]

Those of us who accept evolution as the best explanation for life's diversity REALLY need to stop letting creationists put us on the defensive. STOP letting them persist in the notion that the "false dilemma" fallacy is a valid argument. NO - finding holes in evolutionary theory does NOT in any way add even a speck of truth to creationist claims.

I see this all the time - these debates where evolutionists are forced to refute claims involving Christians "quote mining" scientists or throwing around junk science invented by apologists. We're not scientists - at least I don't think anyone is. There is no way that laymen can adequately debate such specialized knowledge simply by throwing quotes around. Religion has the upper hand in this because not only is religion idiot-simple to understand, religion also allows it's defenders to make stuff up as they go along and move the goal posts to the surface of Arcturus if needs be.

If creationists want to debate the actual science behind evolution, they should find a science forum and actually debate with scientists. All they're doing here is forcing non-scientists to refute base religious claims with specialized knowledge that many of us don't know well enough to explain. Science requires a lot of education whereas religion only requires a Bible. Unless you're a scientist with an expertise in evolutionary biology, don't let creationists trap you in a debate that requires you to explain evolution in detail (because if you can't plug every hole in the theory, they'll walk away thinking they really stuck it to you good).

Now, someone said that evolution is all we non-believers have and that's why we defend it. NO! We defend it because the only OTHER option is to believe a magical God created everything in its current form, including creating Adam and Eve from a pile of dirt and a rib. The only reason to believe in something so obviously primitive and benighted is because you were born into a society that encourages such nonsense.

It's really quite unnerving to know that the only thing that keeps America a scientifically and technologically advanced nation is a small cadre of scientists who refuse to buy into desert mythology. Unfortunately, a significant number of those scientists aren't even natural born Americans but rather brainpower we've had to import from SECULAR nations. Kids in America are taught to ignore that science stuff, stop thinking, and just read the Bible. Just search for the Republican platform on education in Texas if you think for a moment I'm exaggerating or tossing you a hyperbole.

It's an embarrassment to our nation that our children do little better than 3rd World students when it comes to science, and if America didn't have it's head wrapped up in superstition, there's no telling where we'd be right now - and we certainly wouldn't have to keep letting the Chinese, the Indians, the Japanese, and the Europeans prop us up scientifically while Americans have their brains in the Bible.

Oh, and before anyone asks why we accept evolution without being experts in the field, well, the answer is simple: Just show me one time when religion trumped science and was proven to be correct. Just one time during the entire history and prehistory of humanity. If you can name just one example, then I'll at least consider a supernatural explanation. Until then, there's no reason to bet on a horse that hasn't won a race in over 100,000 years.

[sanspeur]

Shirina, that is all creationists have in their arsenal, because there is not one tiny shred, not one infinitesimal atom of evidence for creation, so being the paranoid sheep that they are, many of them actually think that evolution theory is just an invention designed to refute creation.