[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[spartakis]

The video ask why natural selection is being taught as evolution and give examples of what they are talking about. The only time they say scientists I believe is towards the end when they give an example of a scientists doing what they are talking about. I guess if you don't listen and already judging people as ignorant before watching and listening to their whole point why watch it? Then again I am sure everyone who believes in creation is ignorant even people like Johnathon Sarfati and........... If you judge them without paying attention to what they say and assume they are wrong and you are right why bother with people that don't believe what you do.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Well its nothing new but we may have some term issues. Last time I watched a video on your request. Watched the whole thing. Please watch one for me. In around the middle they quote what Dr John Endler describes as evolution. Watch the whole thing should clear up what I have been trying to explain. [video=youtube;WK9t8pmVKdc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK9t8pmVKdc&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

I'll watch it when I get a chance.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I have to agree with you. :nod

ALL we have these days is theories. Even from a non-believers perspective, creationsim is theory. As believers, we can see the creator's design. It would not be unusual that there is a certain basic designe in the universe, just as Bill Gates gave Windows a basic design and has improved it over the years. Here is a site I ran across that has some very good contributions.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

​

The bottom line for believers is, we either believe God's Word, or we don't.

I wouldn't trust answers in genesis as a resource page. The cite's introduction by itself is a straw an fallacy against evolution.

The reason why creation theory isn't accepted in the realm of any science is because the theory is to broad, vague, and heavily relies on claiming other theories are wrong without solidifying a base for its own claims. I hope that helps.

 

[Free]

The bottom line for believers is, we either believe God's Word, or we don't.

This of course presumes that such believers have a correct understanding of what the Bible says about an area in which it is very vague.

 

[Barbarian]

The video ask why natural selection is being taught as evolution and give examples of what they are talking about.

When they start off a video with such an egregious falsehood, that pretty much ends it as far as credibility goes.

Then again I am sure everyone who believes in creation is ignorant even people like Johnathon Sarfati

I've had the chance to discuss it with Sarfati. Suffice to say, his understanding of biology isn't so good. And he's prone to lose his temper when things go badly for him. But even in his own field, his contributions are rather sparse.






and........... If you judge them without paying attention to what they say and assume they are wrong and you are right why bother with people that don't believe what you do.

 

[zeke]

I've had the chance to discuss it with Sarfati. Suffice to say, his understanding of biology isn't so good.

LOL - during your 'discussion' with Sarfati did he concur with your diagnosis of bad science syndrome? Did you set him straight?

 

[Stan53]

I wouldn't trust answers in genesis as a resource page. The cite's introduction by itself is a straw an fallacy against evolution.

The reason why creation theory isn't accepted in the realm of any science is because the theory is to broad, vague, and heavily relies on claiming other theories are wrong without solidifying a base for its own claims. I hope that helps.

It may not be accepted by the scientists who support evolution, but there are many more scientists who do accept it as a more viable alternative to the theory of evolution.

I see no straw man in this website. Of course if you don't believe in the creator then how could your possible accept creationism?

 

[Stan53]

This of course presumes that such believers have a correct understanding of what the Bible says about an area in which it is very vague.

Which usually means God didn't consider it important to our walk. I for one do not see the vagueness you mention.

 

[Milk-Drops]

It may not be accepted by the scientists who support evolution, but there are many more scientists who do accept it as a more viable alternative to the theory of evolution.

No, there are creationists that accept the theory of evolution. I can link you to my post where I explained to Spartakis what the theory of evolution says on a very basic level.

Creation theory dosen't actually exist because there is no unifying theory or mechanism defined. Kent Hovend, Ken Miller, Barbarian and Free, Zeke, The Hindus, etc. All have different ideals on what exactly makes a person a supporter of Creation theory.

The theory of Evolution was first presented by Darwin, peer reviewed and has been corrected and added to since its inception. The mechanisms of how Biological Evolution works are identifiable and testable.

Creation Theory does not have this base. Evolution also dosen't even mean there is no creator.

I see no straw man in this website. Of course if you don't believe in the creator then how could your possible accept creationism?

Answers in Genesis does create a straw man argument because it tries to claim that the theory of evolution means there is no creator. This is false considering Charles Darwin personally wrote in his own book where he presented his theory that Life was breathed into being by a creator. So Answer's in Genesis is wrong on that account.

 

[Stan53]

No, there are creationists that accept the theory of evolution. I can link you to my post where I explained to Spartakis what the theory of evolution says on a very basic level.
Creation theory doesn't actually exist because there is no unifying theory or mechanism defined. Kent Hovend, Ken Miller, Barbarian and Free, Zeke, The Hindus, etc. All have different ideals on what exactly makes a person a supporter of Creation theory.
The theory of Evolution was first presented by Darwin, peer reviewed and has been corrected and added to since its inception. The mechanisms of how Biological Evolution works are identifiable and testable.
Creation Theory does not have this base. Evolution also doesn't even mean there is no creator.
Answers in Genesis does create a straw man argument because it tries to claim that the theory of evolution means there is no creator. This is false considering Charles Darwin personally wrote in his own book where he presented his theory that Life was breathed into being by a creator. So Answer's in Genesis is wrong on that account.

I don't find any support above for your assertions and I am a member on this forum, as you are, so if you have any FACTS to state, please state them here.

Maybe you can tell me EXACTLY where LIFE came from. I mean life, not some sort of pizo-electric phenomena.

The unifying force in creationism, is GOD. Exactly what would it be in evolution?

 

[Barbarian]

LOL - during your 'discussion' with Sarfati did he concur with your diagnosis of bad science syndrome? Did you set him straight?

He went away mad. Supposedly, he was asked to leave, but I don't know that for a fact.

 

[zeke]

He went away mad. Supposedly, he was asked to leave, but I don't know that for a fact.

Really? Where did this lively exchange take place and and why was he asked to leave?

 

[Barbarian]

I don't find any support above for your assertions and I am a member on this forum, as you are, so if you have any FACTS to state, please state them here.

Maybe you can tell me EXACTLY where LIFE came from.

Here's Darwin's opinion:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

He thought God created the first living things. I think so, too. What do you think?

I mean life, not some sort of pizo-electric phenomena.

What's the bare minimum you'd accept as "life?"

The unifying force in creationism, is GOD.

That's one modern interpretation. YE creationism was invented in the last century by the Seventh-Day Adventists. In my opinion, the unifying force in the universe is God. What do you think?

Exactly what would it be in evolution?

Don't think there is a "force" in evolution. It's a process.

 

[Barbarian]

Really?

Yep.

Where did this lively exchange take place

Message board.

and and why was he asked to leave?

One story was that he threw a tantrum in a PM with a mod. But I really don't know.

 

[zeke]

YE creationism was invented in the last century by the Seventh-Day Adventists.

Haven't you about worn out that misconception? Augustine (354 – 430), who you thought was on your side until you were shown the error of you way thought the earth was created about 5600 BC - was he SDA? You really need to update your repertoire.

Don't think there is a "force" in evolution. It's a process.

There are "forces" in evolutionism - blind chance, lady-luck and the god of evolution, Time.

 

[zeke]

Message board.

Which message board would that be and what year did this exchange take place?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
YE creationism was invented in the last century by the Seventh-Day Adventists.

Haven't you about worn out that misconception?

Let's take a look...
The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the twentieth century saw a revival of interest in young Earth creationism, as a part of the movement's rejection of the explanation of evolution.[45] In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist wrote The New Geology, a book partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great flood on the shape of the Earth. Although not an accredited geologist, Price's writings, which were based upon reading geological texts and documents rather than field or laboratory work,[46] provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology. The book attracted a small following, with its advocates almost all being Lutheran pastors and Seventh-day Adventists in America.[47] Harry Rimmer was another prominent exponent of similar views, at least during some of his evangelizing career (Rimmer appears to have also subscribed to "gap creationism", and a local flood, at least at some times).[48]

Surprise.

Augustine (354 – 430), who you thought was on your side

Let's look at that:

In "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

Surprise.

Barbarian chuckles:
Don't think there is a "force" in evolution. It's a process.

There are "forces" in evolutionism - blind chance, lady-luck and the god of evolution, Time.

As you learned, Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I'll watch it when I get a chance.

Ok, I made it about 7 minutes into the video. I couldn't make it all the way through. Mainly because anyone who has read Darwin's "The Origin of Species" will see that these 2 guys are either ignorant of what the actual Theory of Evolution is or are lieing.

Let me explain the first remark. Why is natural selection considered evolution? Its actually quite simple. In "The Origin of Species" Darwin defines that evolution is the result of natural selection. The guy who invented the theory they are criticizing defined Natural selection as the mechanism for evolution. These 2 guys then accept Darwin's argument but instead of conceding, they make up an excuse. By claiming the work of Blythe.

Here is were I can't tell if they are lieing or being ignorant. Blythe did write papers on variation, but what these these guys don't tell you is that in the first chapter of "The Origin of Species" Darwin directly references Blythe's work. Then Expands on Blythe's work and even criticizes it.


The next point. These 2 are trying to state that evolution has to account where the mutations came from. Wrong. What these guys are talking about is not evolution. These guys are talking about Genetics and mutations not Evolution which is Population Mechanics.

These guys then started pulling out references claiming these references backed them up. Here is the problem, These guys are fighting a straw man of the theory of Evolution. They made up or confused what the theory of Evolution actually says. So its not a surprise they are going to find people that agree that there straw man isn't a good theory.

I can't watch the rest of the video because its actually painful for me to. Its like I said, the base of their argument is wrong. They are confusing Genetics with Evolution and are ignorant of what is actually in "The Origin of Species".

In short, these guy's argument is similar to a guy denying the existence of hammers because what we call a hammer can't screw in screws. And then the person finds people who agree that Hammers don't screw in screws, the claims victory. Then Uses a hammer to pound in a nail, but says its not a hammer, its a micro Hammer. Do you understand?

 

[zeke]

Let's take a look...

What is the source for your worn-out SDA spiel?

"The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God

Did Augustine believe in a "young earth" (5600 BC) or a billions of years old earth? Take your time.

Don't think there is a "force" in evolution. It's a process.

Do you mean an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process? Where is God in that process? Was He on vacation?

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments. ~ National Association of Biology Teachers​

As you learned, Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.

Do you mean blind luck?

You forgot one question - which message board and what year did your epic biological exchange take place with our friend?

 

[zeke]

Why is natural selection considered evolution? Its actually quite simple. In "The Origin of Species" Darwin defines that evolution is the result of natural selection.

But how does natural selection change a theropod dinosaur into a bird?