[_ Old Earth _] Creationist theory of adaptation

[Patashu]

Bob said -
Palonium radio halo evidence - FACT in favor of instant creation.

[quote:f958b]

Not quite.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

Gentry has fully debunked Talkorigins -- see his website for details. They simply are "stuck" in a "atheist darwinism at all costs" model. [/quote:f958b]
It is not an 'atheist darwinism at all costs' model. All the objections are scientific, backed up by evidence and known theories, and reasonable.

 

[BobRyan]

Then we have the OP supposedly asking about "adaption" and how our DNA based system could possibly allow for it. Is that fact about God's architecture and design of the DNA based system supposed to HELP atheist darwinism and hurt the Bible??

This is the kind of logical and objective argument atheist darwinists must address if they expected to be taken seriously by those who are not tied down to "the only answer is a non-God answer because there is no God".

To counter that -- you get extremely wild claims by the believers in atheist darwinism. Wild by every measure given their own doctrine of "common ancestor" for ALL species.

Unfortunately for you, it is a fact that there are more species and far more genetic variation in not just humans but all other life today than could be accounted for on Noah's one ark a mere few thousand years ago.

I like that "unfortunately for you" quote of yours. I think you meant to say "unfortunately for all Bible believing Christians".

The a-factual non-science content of that quote of yours above is apparent to the unbiased objective reader since you have done NO study on the various species on the ark to DETERMINE IF they could possible account for the genetic variation today.

In fact even Dr Provine in his debate with Hovind admitted that such a study would be nice to do if one wants to make the wild claim you just stated above "stick" -- but it has not been done.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Patashu]

Unfortunately for you, it is a fact that there are more species and far more genetic variation in not just humans but all other life today than could be accounted for on Noah's one ark a mere few thousand years ago.

I like that "unfortunately for you" quote of yours. I think you meant to say "unfortunately for all Bible believing Christians".

Of which you are one? Either way.

The a-factual non-science content of your post is apparent since you have done NO study on the various species on the ark to DETERMINE IF they could possible account for the genetic variation today.

Perhaps I have done none because there is no study to do? Where are the specimens? What species do we know were on the ark and using what lines of reasoning?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said -
Palonium radio halo evidence - FACT in favor of instant creation.

[quote:64fc5]

Not quite.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

Gentry has fully debunked Talkorigins -- see his website for details. They simply are "stuck" in a "atheist darwinism at all costs" model.

It is not an 'atheist darwinism at all costs' model. All the objections are scientific, backed up by evidence and known theories, and reasonable.[/quote:64fc5]

The energy you put into your faith and devotion to them is admirable.

But I suggest that in this case -- it is better to go with science.

As Colin Patterson said of the STORY TELLING that goes into the atheist darwinist model regarding "how one thing came from another -- these are STORIES EASY enough to tell but they are NOT science".

As an atheist darwinist himself - he should know.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Why do your arguments boil down to "Scientists are atheists, and MY view of interpretation of the scripture is the ultimate authority"?

Please explain this. It is really hard for me to understand how you even begin to think that you are debating.

Do you not realize you just weaken your position to people who are reading this? They see nothing but your terrible "Your an atheist!" or, "You weren't there!" content.

Don't you think that makes people wonder if there actually is any substance to your debate? You are actually arguing against your point in reality.

 

[BobRyan]

Why do your arguments boil down to "Scientists are atheists, and MY view of interpretation of the scripture is the ultimate authority"?

Please explain this. It is really hard for me to understand how you even begin to think that you are debating.

First of all - I am very happy that you get the point so quickly that the atheist darwinist system is being looked at as "junk science".

But it is not simply "atheist vs Christian" rather it is "Atheist Darwinism as JUNK-science" (being promoted by both ATheists and some Christians) VS REAL science like Calculus, physics, chemistry (also promoted by both atheists and Christians but apart from religious dogma).

So some clear examples of the myths, dogma and doctrine of atheist darwinism exposing themselves as "junk science" would be nice -- right?

Because - we have "actual science" and then we have "junk-science". ACTUAL science *much of it actually STARTED by Christian thought leaders" is REAL -- does not need hoaxes, can be examined in the lab etc.

But atheist darwinist JUNK SCIENCE is simply a system of clever stories coopting the language of real science as a disguise.

Piltdown man was NOT a hoax sponsored on behalf of calculus or physics or chemistry or quantum mechanics.

Archaeoraptor was NOT a hoax sponsored to prop up calculus or physics or chemistry or computer science or engineering.

Neanderthal dating of fossils less than 3000 years old and some less than 400 years old -- out to a storytelling distance of 25000 years old WAS NOT done to prop up calculus, or physics, or trig, or chemistry or computer science ...

Haeckles fraudulent examples of "ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny" were NOT put there to lend credibility to calculus or physics, or chemistry.

ALL of These hoaxes and dozens like them were done for the junk-science religion we know today as atheiist darwinism.

Given that glaringly obvious fact it is EASY to understand why an atheist darwinst would then have to "pretend" to mystified as to why Bible believing Christians consider darwinism's junk-science stories to be worthless vs attacking all those "REAL" sciences.

The part that is puzzling for objective readers with independant thought engaged -- is why a CHRISTIAN would ALSO have to pretend to be mystified by that!

That is the question that should be answered on these threads.

Do you not realize you just weaken your position to people who are reading this?

Hardly -- please follow the point. I am open to cogent debate.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

When you realize that:

1. Evolution is not natural selection, rather natural selection is a theory within evolution.
2. Evolution does not equate to atheism.
3. Theories within evolution are NOT the only scientific theories to have ever been over turned, or shown false. That is actually a strength of science.
4.Dawkins is NOT the only scientist with a phd in biology.
5. Natural science deals with nature by default, rather than some conspiracy.
6. The improbability of the whole scientific community being ran by some group who are secretly trying to destroy religion. There is no conspiracy.
7. If there were actual competing theories that had merit, were testable, had application, and predictive abilities, we WOULD see them in peer reviewed journals. (again the book in the discount bin at your local religious store does NOT count.)
8. The flood is unscientifically feasible, and therefore should not be taken into consideration with science. (if you want me to discuss this in a separate thread I will. Not intended to be assertion.)
9. Argument by assertion is fallacy.
10. Ad homs are fallacy.

Maybe this debate would gain some ground.

 

[BobRyan]

When you realize that:

1. Evolution is not natural selection, rather natural selection is a theory within evolution.
2. Evolution does not equate to atheism.

You are sounding like me now -- did you "convert"???

That is exactly the case I make regarding I.D Evolutionists.

ANd that is EXACTLY why YEC can never be satified to confine itself to an evolutionist argument like I.D. This is an impossible fact for atheists to even grasp -- but to Bible believing Christians it is very clear.

Which means it is EVEN MORE clear that DARWINIAN evolutionISM is a SPECIFIC instance of evolutionism that is DISTINCTLY atheist as can be proven when observing their opposition to I.D evolutionists!!

THis part of the argument should be painfully obvious to Bible believing Christians.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

VZ4M
3. Theories within evolution are NOT the only scientific theories to have ever been over turned, or shown false. That is actually a strength of science.

The "JUNK SCIENCE" used to prop up atheist darwinism IS NOT a case of GOOD SCIENCE improving (such as Newtonian physics being improved by relativity, or relativity being improved by quantum physics). JUNK SCIENCE exists when JUNK is used in place of ACTUAL SCIENCe.

As in the case of Simpson's horse series -- a "Sequence that NEVER HAPPEND in NATURE" as atheist darwinists now admit.

As in the case of the 40 year FRAUD - Piltdown man "a DELIBERATE FRAUD".

As in the case of Nebraska Man " a case of a PIG making a monkey out of a darwinist in court".

As in the case of Neanderthal man dating to 26000 BC -- a deliberate FRAUD for over 30 years.

As in the case of Haeckles "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" rubbish "proven to be faked" even admitted by atheist darwinists to be a fraud.

This is a list of JUNK SCIENCE 'methods'. No one ever accused Newton of stooping to such levels nor did Einstein accuse Newton of such things THE WAY even atheist darwinists today flatly admit that their OWN forefathers and CURRENT hoaxsters behave.

You statement "appears" to be an effort to "equivocate" between these JUNK SCIENCE methods and the evolution-of-REAL science as we see in REAL science fields like Physics.

Please say "it aint so"!!

That kind of logical fallacy can never "help" the stories of atheist darwinism because the unbiased objective reader will "See through it".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

VZ4M -
4.Dawkins is NOT the only scientist with a phd in biology.

My point exactly.

Not only is that true today -- it has been even MORE true for those who GAVE us the science disciplines that we have today!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3mNKL2X7-sQ&feature=related

VZ4M
5. Natural science deals with nature by default, rather than some conspiracy.

Or at least "IT SHOULD".

As DAwkins exposed it in his 11 second befuddlement interview --- HE adds HIS OWN explanation starting with the rank censorship and dark ages pogrom ranting "they truculently asked for an example" in support of darwinism.

The scientists and journalsts experiencing extreme censorship (in one case at Iowa State it begins with the RELIGiON department's advisor to the ATHEIST and AGNOSTic society attacking an ACTUAL scientist who entertains the idea of I.D evolutionism) as SEEN on the "Expelled no Intelligence Allowed" movie -- makes it "Clear to all".

The "academic freedom" that was choked so that scientist COULD NOT be allowed "to follow the data where it leads" SHOULD be considered "Shocking" by an measure of objective science standards.

Hint: See the movie - then object based on the facts.

6. The improbability of the whole scientific community being ran by some group who are secretly trying to destroy religion. There is no conspiracy.

No need to listen to atheist darwinist story telling on this one -- allow yourself the luxury of understanding the debate then objecting to whatever side you please.

"The point" is not that these guys "call each other and decide who to censor" the point is that the blind faith RELIGION of atheist darwinism FORCES the hard-core atheists and their followers to INSTANTLY reject ANY form of EVOLUTIONISM that does not "Accomodate atheism".

No "phone calling" no "back room strategy planning" needed. They simply "leave the door open" to the jiihad holy war of atheists opposing any form of evolutionism that precludes atheism and then "let culture do the rest".

However the head of the national academy of Science IN the movie INTERVIEW segment DID admit to a PLANNED program to shut down opposition to Darwinism starting in the late 70's.

Watch the movie - THEN come up with your objections.

Understand the debate -- then take a side.

Leave yourself the luxury of letting going where the data leads.

7. If there were actual competing theories

Hello! "There are".

The "blinders on" model is not going to work here.

Scientists that SUPPORT the "competing theories" are "being shut down"?

Get it?

When DArwinism runs out of road with untestable origins of primates (no way to predict, test, apply that story telling) SOMEBODY should be ALLOWED to object.

8. The flood is unscientifically feasible,

WRONG!

There is NO "Science that tests the proper way to flood the earth" but there IS science to OBSERVE that even the highest mountains were at one time under the oceans AND that incredible mass extinctions at a moment in time took place in the past.

By using the darwinism-only blinders there "IS A way" to ignore that data -- but blind devotion to such censorship of the data should NOT be confused with actual "Science" as you have done above.

9. Argument by assertion is fallacy.

My point exactly!

10. Ad homs are fallacy.

Hopefully we have a darwinist taking that to heart here.

Maybe this debate would gain some ground.

Now see - a part where we agree!

in Christ,

Bob