[_ Old Earth _] Considerations about science

[Barbarian]

a) Origin of "Species" (not Races)

Actual title:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

At the time, "races" was used for what we now call "species." Read the book. Darwin used that nomenclature, too.

b) that there are Creationist scientists that also "engineer" false implications in the way they present data is true, AND a point I myself previously made.

The problem with creationists is, unlike scientists, there is no mechanism to detect and correct fraud. So things like Jonathan Well's dishonest misrepresentation of the peppered moth literature lives on indefinitely.

c) Dishonest scientists (creationists or otherwise) that have not been cited and publicly discredited continue to allow their erroneous conclusions and sometimes intentional misinformation to continue (like the Leakys at the Olduvai gorge)....

Tell us about that. There are a number of creationists frauds over that, as well. Let's see what you have.

d) I did read Kettelwell (by the way I was also an agnostic for the first 25 years of my life) and don't care about his conclusions...

As you see, creationists lied about his methodology, data, and conclusions.

As for your previous response (sorry but been busy with a granddaughter’s B-day), the main point was, these are two phases of the same moth (not two mutants),

No, that's wrong. They are two different mutants. Each one has a different set of alleles for color, and that does not change for the life of the moth.
In peppered moths, the allele for dark-bodied moths is dominant, while the allele for light-bodied moths is recessive, meaning that the typica moths have a phenotype (visible or detectable characteristic) that is only seen in a homozygous genotype (an organism that has two copies of the same allele), and never in a heterozygous one. This helps explain how dramatically quickly the population changed when being selected for dark colouration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

and you know the photos were staged (faked to create the illusion)

The photo you're talking about is about different colored moths (complete with mounting pins) stuck to a tree to show the difference in visibility. I'd be pleased to see your evidence that the photo was meant to show anything else.

In natural occurrence, birds do not eat either in particular (but perhaps may, on occasion, in the absence of normal food sources), but obviously lighter ones would be more noticeable. That proves nothing however.

It just means in different environments, one color or the other tends to be selectively removed by predation. That's what natural selection is.

Let me give you an analogy! This would be like saying that if a scientists took 30 sapiens and chained 15 to poles leaving the other 15 free to run, climb, or hide, and then intentionally released a team of hungry wild dogs, and the wild dogs then bit and attacked the chained up sapiens, this would absolutely NOT prove or demonstrate natural selection OR “Survival of the fittest” even if I took purposely contrived photos of it occurring pretending this engineered presentation represented what happens naturally!

Since both dark and white mutants were free to fly about, your analogy doesn't fit the case.

Also the Hebrew and Greek word for "kind" found in Genesis actually means "species"

Most professional creationists would disagree with you. It was once like that, but gradually, it became clear to everyone that speciation was a fact. So they redefined "kind" to mean something around "family" or "order." It also helped to resolve the problem of how to get tens of thousands of animals on board the Ark and take care of them for a year. So they changed the definition.

....but now we have jimmied the definition to fit the accepted theory (bad science fits the data into the theory instead of using the data to form the theory)

I can understand why creationists felt that they must do it. If they insist kinds are immutable, and then we see new kinds evolving, that sort of undermines the whole program, doesn't it? So they made a little adjustment, and declared "kinds" to be some higher taxon.

Besides, you know terms such as genus, family, kingdom, etc., are merely a convenient Taxonomic classification system made up by men to catalog similarities and differences.

It was first proposed by Linnaeus, a creationist. He was a little surprised to see that everything sorted out into a family tree; such things only happen in cases of common descent. Even more convincing, genetic analysis shows the same family tree to a very high precision.

 

[turnorburn]

i keep hearing the word fact when there are no facts, evolution is not fact.. i thank God for his word wherein everything is a fact of life..

In spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel. They desperately hope that some natural process will be found that causes things to fall together into organized complexity. These are people of great faith. And they are so afraid of connecting God with science that, like the Japanese Army of World War II, they would rather die than surrender. Unfortunately, the staunchest defenders sit in places of esteem and authority as professors, scientists, and editors, and have the full faith of the news media. The public is naturally in awe of their prestige. But once the facts are understood it becomes obvious that the theory of evolution is long overdue for the trash can, and to perpetuate it is fraud. Perhaps it made sense for what was known when On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, but not today.

There's a list of scientists that are against Darwinism in this paragraph

Many scientists are with us
The only tactic left to evolutionists is to ridicule their critics as simpletons who don't understand how their pet theory really works. Here is a link to a roster of hundreds of professionals whose advanced academic degrees certify that they thoroughly understand evolution theory. They also have the courage to defy the high priests of academia by voluntarily adding their names to a skeptics list against Darwinism.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

tob

 

[Barbarian]

i keep hearing the word fact when there are no facts, evolution is not fact..

It's directly observed. Can't be more factual than that. Ranting against science isn't the answer. Finding a way to set aside your pride and letting Him do it His way is the answer..

There's a list of scientists that are against Darwinism in this paragraph

Comparing your list, to the list of scientists who accept evolution in Project Steve, we come up with about 0.4 percent of people with doctorates in biology or a related field who doubt mutation and natural selection alone can account for the diversity of life. Some of those, like Michael Behe, accept the fact of common descent, and evolution. Behe just thinks God has to step in every now and then to make it work.

Even including in your list the evolutionists who aren't strict Darwinists, but accept evolution, the creationists have admitted that evolution beats creationism by a huge margin. Does this make you understand why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for creationism?

Many scientists are with us

Count for yourself. Go to Project Steve:
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

Currently 1367 scientists with doctorates in biology or a related field, and named "steve" or some variant thereof, agree with Darwinian theory.

Ten Steves on your list (I included those with a "Steve" middle or last name, to be extra fair)

But not all your "Steves" have doctorates or are in biology...

Six are biologists (if "marine science" is biology). Not all are PhDs, however. But we'll let that slide. A bit over 0.4 percent. Not 4 percent, 0.4 percent. Four out of 1000.

The only tactic left to evolutionists is to ridicule their critics as simpletons who don't understand how their pet theory really works.[/quote]

Let's test that idea. What are Darwin's main points, and how did the Modern Synthesis add to them?

Can you get that? Since many of the people on your list are not biologists, it's pretty obvious that ignorance is an important factor in creationism. But let's see what you actually know of the theory. Tell us about the basic points, and then we'll go on.

 

[turnorburn]

Its not pride its called faith Barbarian, Gods word is fact, evolution is a man made doctrine, its that simple..

tob

 

[brother Paul]

Good article tob thanks. I may have been incorrect on that one fact regarding the consistently unchanged moth DNA being two variations Barbarian (and I was), but regarding those fewer that see some things differently or interpret the evidence free of a preconceived conclusion (whether from the EB or YEC camps), I say good for them they make the rest of us think. The majority are not always correct.

Besides the YEC dissenters though...many others reject the Darwinian model ro one degree or another so don't count your majority too confidently (many have opted for puncuated equilibrium, catastrophe theory, regional continuity, etc) and many who are not creationists clearly still see a design and orderliness contrary to uniform gradualism.

As for me I am not against evolution, just the Darwinian variety (way too much assumption). I believe in an environment where short neck giraffes cannot get to the food but long necked ones can that the long necks will survive (actual natural selection only without it "selecting"), I do not believe the short necked became the long necked by reaching for the higher leaves over 1,000s of generations (the unfounded neo-Darwinian myth). I don't believe short beak finches became long beaked or the other way around. Either both were present (maybe all 15 or more varieties for all we know) and one died out, or they flew to the various Islands where they could get to the food and vice versa...

Also the biblical idea of kind (species) is not static...by Jacob there are already at least white and black varieties of sheep and then he cross breeds them and gets spotted sheep (not as valuable in that culture and time for shearing purposes)...after a while however they produce white AND black offspring on occasion and then these are interbred (Jacob was no fool, just ancient)...

The original "created" stock (appearing all at once fully formed) contained the genetic material to later produce all these varieties. The same with the original humans...Darwin was wrong their are no anthropomormous apes or American monkeys who drink burbon...

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

Its not pride its called faith Barbarian

It's both. Creationism is faith in man's re-interpretation of God's word. And of course pride in one's own ability to know better than God.

evolution is a man made doctrine

Evolution is a God-created phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is a man-made theory that explains it. Evolution is constant. Evolutionary theory will change as we learn more about His creation.

It's that simple..

 

[brother Paul]

What is really interesting is that we actually represent three different perspectives while still holding to creation. So just for consideration by tob I agree that God created (bara)...He makes (yatzar) all the initial "kinds" of sea life, but then He says "let the sea bring forth creatures..." and here is where I see differences of interpretation come in. He does the same things when He creates the initial types of land life...first He makes all the initial "kinds" and then He says "and let the earth bring forth..."!

I would note (to which you will probably both disagree, and that's fine) that the difference for me lies between creating (bara) and making (yatzar - means to give form to) which for me are two aspects of the same process.

When God creates humankind, He creates them male and female, but when He forms them He forms the male first and then the female...

In this view, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." Generations actually refers to them being generated...it was part of the creation process but on the side of "making"...day in verse four means a time period how ever long that would have been (tob would say 24 literal hours Barb would say an epoch perhaps millions of years...both applications are used by Moses in the same book),,,

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: This passage then becomes comprehensible because it is saying the plants and herbs were created but not yet formed (materially)...we can see in these passages a process of time (how ever long) and not an instantaneous appearance in the temporal realm like the initial sudden appearance of Light...

In His love

Paul

 

[Barbarian]

Good article tob thanks. I may have been incorrect on that one fact regarding the consistently unchanged moth DNA being two variations Barbarian (and I was), but regarding those fewer that see some things differently or interpret the evidence free of a preconceived conclusion (whether from the EB or YEC camps), I say good for them they make the rest of us think. The majority are not always correct.

Besides the YEC dissenters though...many others reject the Darwinian model ro one degree or another so don't count your majority too confidently (many have opted for puncuated equilibrium, catastrophe theory, regional continuity, etc) and many who are not creationists clearly still see a design and orderliness contrary to uniform gradualism.

As for me I am not against evolution, just the Darwinian variety (way too much assumption). I believe in an environment where short neck giraffes cannot get to the food but long necked ones can that the long necks will survive (actual natural selection only without it "selecting"), I do not believe the short necked became the long necked by reaching for the higher leaves over 1,000s of generations (the unfounded neo-Darwinian myth).

That's Lamarckism, not Darwinism. Darwin said what you said. Natural selection is exactly what you described. However, in the case of giraffes, it appears that the initial lengthening was by allometric growth (proportional increase or decrease in size of a structure with an increase in absolute size). For example, theropod dinosaurs like T-rex had their forelimbs become relatively smaller as species got bigger. Very small theropods had rather long forelegs, relative to their size. Giraffoids that are relatively small, like okapis and pronghorn antelopes, have longer necks than most animals, but much shorter ones than giraffes. Intermediate ones like Sivatherium, had intermediate lengths. Only after the necks became long enough to be useful (giraffes don't ordinarily browse on tall trees) did natural selection take over.

I don't believe short beak finches became long beaked or the other way around.

Directly observed to happen in just a few years. Natural selection has shown that as little as a millimeter or less in length of beak can mean the difference between survival and death. So the beak lengths fluctuate with the conditions from year to year. If there was a permanent change, climate reaching a new equilibrium, the changes would become fixed in the population.

The original "created" stock (appearing all at once fully formed) contained the genetic material to later produce all these varieties.

Not possible. In cats, for example, no single organism could have all those alleles.

The same with the original humans...

Not possible. Adam and Eve could have had between them, no more than four alleles for each gene locus. Yet there are dozens of each in the population today. The rest evolved.

Darwin was wrong their are no anthropomormous apes or American monkeys who drink burbon...

Some do. They generally overindulge the first time, and then get hung over and many never drink again. Some drink learn to drink in moderation and seem to enjoy it, without becoming addicted or harming themselves. Others become addicted. Pretty much like humans.
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/5662826

 

[brother Paul]

I note your opinion on the former parts (though I disagree) but as for the last one no one doubts he was speaking about people of African Descent (which he did not consider fully human)...less than fifty years later Darwinian Anthropologists had Ota Benga on display (who they captured from his family and kept caged for 23 years) at the St. Louis word fair as an example of half ape half man...(so the paying allegedly genetically superior Caucasians could jump, and grunt, and taunt, and throw peanuts and bananas at) the poor man eventually committed suicide.

Here is the conclusion of the section of the actual grade school Textbook (Civic Biology, Hunter, 1914) that was being pushed by John Scopes in that public school in Dayton, Tennessee.

This is what was being fought for and insisted upon by the A.C.L.U. pimps that recruited him! See if you can sense why protest against such an intentional indoctrination as being the truth was appropriate and important.


“At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.” (emphasis mine)

Poor Ota was not caged until 1923....both were as a result of the acceptance of Darwinian based bigotry!

This led to the great public support of Margaret Sanger who proudly published articles that were written by Hitler’s future Director of Eugenic Sterilization, Ernst Rudin! These inspired her famous “The Negro Project” wherein she called for quietly limiting the births of people of African descent (and others), whom she referred to as nothing more than “the dead weight of human waste.” She became one of Hitler’s most revered American heroes.

Ideas certainly do have consequence...

Paul

 

[turnorburn]

It's both. Creationism is faith in man's re-interpretation of God's word. And of course pride in one's own ability to know better than God.



Evolution is a God-created phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is a man-made theory that explains it. Evolution is constant. Evolutionary theory will change as we learn more about His creation.

It's that simple..

First you say evolution is a God created phenomenon then in the next sentence you say its a theory. Secondly you say evolution is constant, then go on to say evolution changes.

God doesn't change..

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Its that simple..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

First you say evolution is a God created phenomenon then in the next sentence you say its a theory.

No. I pointed out that evolution was a phenomenon created by God. And I pointed out that evolutionary theory was man's scientific way of explaining it.

Secondly you say evolution is constant, then go on to say evolution changes.

No. Evolution always works the same way, in the same circumstances. But evolutionary theory changes as we learn more about evolution.

God doesn't change..

Nor do the rules by which His creation works. But our understanding of them grows and changes.

Its that simple..

 

[turnorburn]

No. I pointed out that evolution was a phenomenon created by God. And I pointed out that evolutionary theory was man's scientific way of explaining it.



No. Evolution always works the same way, in the same circumstances. But evolutionary theory changes as we learn more about evolution.



Nor do the rules by which His creation works. But our understanding of them grows and changes.

Its that simple..

No, what your saying is that's how God created everything, and it isn't, evolution isn't fact, Gods word is fact.. evolution denies Gods power..

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

tob

 

[Free]

No, what your saying is that's how God created everything, and it isn't, evolution isn't fact, Gods word is fact.. evolution denies Gods power..

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

tob

Just so you are aware, that passage doesn't support what you said. And evolution would in no way deny God's power; it would attest to his power just as much as Creationism.

 

[turnorburn]

It doesn't attest to the fact that God speaks things into existence, its about development over vast periods of time.

When God told Lazarus come forth he came forth that's power, there are many other examples of Gods power that evolutionists are unable to explain, in other words they don't have the facts Gods word does..

tob

forgot to ask, are you an evolutionist?

 

[turnorburn]

Here's one example

Psalm 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.

9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

tob

 

[Free]

It doesn't attest to the fact that God speaks things into existence, its about development over vast periods of time.

Sure it does. Where would the essential building blocks have come from in the first place?

 

[turnorburn]

Sure it does. Where would the essential building blocks have come from in the first place?

Not quite sure i know what you mean, God created essential building blocks that's where they came from..

tob

 

[Barbarian]

I note your opinion on the former parts (though I disagree) but as for the last one no one doubts he was speaking about people of African Descent (which he did not consider fully human)

No, that's wrong. Darwin considered all men fully human, even if he retained the then-common belief that Europeans were superior. He differed from the creationist captain of the Beagle in arguing that all men were entitled to dignity, freedom, and the fruits of their labor. It was the anti-Darwinian scientist Agassiz who thought that blacks were not fully human. Your example of the exhibition of what Darwin called a fellow human, was the result of Agassiz and his fellow creationists claiming that black people were not created as whites were.

Eugenicists like William Tinkle (one of the founders of the Institute for Creation Research) were blathering the same foolish racial superstitions that Hitler touted, long after Darwinians like Morgan and Punnett showed that it was not only morally objectionable (as Darwin pointed out in The Descent of Man, but was also scientifically wrong. Nevertheless, ICR leader Henry Morris in the early 90s was still writing his racial slander:

The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
Henry Morris The Beginning of the World, 1991

While this doesn't prove that all creationists accepted what their leaders preached, it is disturbing to note that not one creationist publicly called out Morris for his insults of black people.

Ideas certainly do have consequence...

They certainly do. Creationist strongholds like Bob Jones University would expel students if they even dated someone of a different race. It's gratifying to see that most creationists today have abandoned these ideas which were once touted as God's will. But the history remains.

 

[Free]

Not quite sure i know what you mean, God created essential building blocks that's where they came from..

tob

That is precisely my point. You said that evolution "doesn't attest to the fact that God speaks things into existence," but clearly even with evolution God would have spoken the essential building blocks into existence, so your argument is not correct.

 

[Edward]

That is precisely my point. You said that evolution "doesn't attest to the fact that God speaks things into existence," but clearly even with evolution God would have spoken the essential building blocks into existence, so your argument is not correct.

Believers can do the same thing, but that's another thread, lol.

Even if evolution has played a part in Gods creation on a limited basis as you imply and did/does play a part in earth and mankind...that doesn't mean that we came from apes, nor would it give credibility to the theory of evolution.