[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[Uncle J]

Wing evolution is assumption. Guess about the past. They weren't there when God created the birds.

How do you know? How much have you looked into the science behind "wing evolution"?

 

[KV-44-v1]

Wow, I'm not even sure what to say. I guess if your idea of "logic" includes "since inanimate objects don't evolve, living organisms can't either", I'll just let that speak for itself.

Your logic involves animals giving rise to radically different kinds. When - guess what? - we never see that!!

Do you have examples? And how specifically do you know those things go on in the scientific world? Are you a scientist?

Yes. And you didn't seem to have read them.
crev.info/2023/11/big-science-has-lost-its-way/
crev.info/2023/01/tenure-no-longer-protects-creationist-professors/
crev.info/2022/03/censorship-strikes-again/

First of all, I'm a biologist and I can assure you the vast, vast majority of us are neither rich nor famous. In fact, the first thing I was told when I expressed interest in going into biology was "you're not going to get rich".

Then you probably do that for a hobby. Not a high-level guy with a powerful electron microscope collaborating with peers in a lab.

Second, there are all sorts of wealthy and famous creationists, so reality directly contradicts your argument.

How?

Have you ever read the writings of the 19th century Christian geologists on how they had to conclude that there was no global flood? It wasn't a conclusion they took lightly and it was quite painful for some. But being good scientists, they had to go where the evidence led, regardless of what the Bible said.

Which evidence?
So you agree that noFloodism and believing the Bible are incompatible? Ok.

Ever hear of Dr. Francis Collins?

Francis Collins - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Kenneth Miller?

Kenneth R. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Two people are hardly "many".

As are you, correct? So it could very well be that you're wrong (e.g., you're interpreting the Bible incorrectly).

The chances of that are vastly lower than yours. Exegesis of Genesis beats eigesis.

Right, your position isn't based on a thorough understanding of genetics, but instead is simply "if it contradicts the Bible, it's wrong, period".

Actually, Darwin's lack of DNA understanding allowed him to believe in bioevo.

And obviously, the Bible has been proven right countless times. The Bible is God-inspired.
2 timothy 3:16. If God's Word is wrong, then that verse is debunked. Insisting otherwise is trying to eat your cake and have it too.

So you have zero qualifications to speak authoritatively about paleontology. Try and keep that in mind.

You aren't a Creationist, so you can't authoritatively speak on Creation then!

And the "findings" would be the existence of transitional fossils.

Did we observe these transitional fossils evolve- or did the scientists make guesses?? The latter.
Specifics?

Looks like Barbarian is correct....your ignorance of the science you're trying to argue against isn't doing you any favors.

Ignorance of Creation evidence has nipped you in the bud from the start.

Thanks for admitting your error.

If you say so.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Well then you're just plain wrong. We see populations evolve new characteristics all the time. Heck, I did an experiment as an undergrad where we watched a population evolve resistance to an antibiotic.

CLICK HERE for a ton of examples of populations evolving new characteristics.

And I have to wonder....if you really believe no evolution of new characteristics has ever occurred, how then do you account for things like bacterial resistance to our antibiotics? Did God give that to them?

Let me guess, they lost a protein or some DNA! Loss of a feature resulting in a good outcome does *not* qualify as evolution evidence. That only confirms genetic entropy! Your case is WEAKENED.


"Mutations that escape antibiotics do not typically improve the organism. In his recent book Darwin Devolves, Behe argues that bacteria will “throw overboard” anything that is not immediately essential in order to survive. Actually, by this he means that those bacteria in a population of millions of rapidly-dividing cells without the trait will come to predominate. An alternate view by Randy Guliuzza proposes that cells are pre-engineered with adaptation mechanisms; they have sensors of the environment that connect to preprogrammed mechanisms that can rewire systems threatened by the environment (see 6 Aug 2021).

Microbiologists are also coming to understand that antibiotic-resistant forms thrive in the artificial habitat of hospitals but quickly become less “fit” than wild-type forms in the outdoors. This is one reason why hospitals are encouraging patients to return home as quickly as safely possible after surgery. Some hospitals are planting gardens in which recovering patients can stroll, in order to gain exposure to wildness as protection against the resistant forms in the hospital.

These alternatives are beside the point anyway: antibiotic resistance is not a case of Darwinian evolution! Scientists are coming to find that genes for antibiotic resistance are readily shared between cells by horizontal gene transfer (23 June 2017). In fact, whole genomic libraries are being discovered that bacteria can access (see Evolution News, 13 Aug 2021). Additionally, many bacteria exist as “quasi-species” that can share information among members if some become threatened. These are examples of design with foresight, not evolution!

In conclusion, the “evolutionary principles” that Darwin propagandists promote offer nothing helpful to doctors needing to deal with antibiotic resistance."

 

[KV-44-v1]

Well then you're just plain wrong. We see populations evolve new characteristics all the time. Heck, I did an experiment as an undergrad where we watched a population evolve resistance to an antibiotic.

CLICK HERE for a ton of examples of populations evolving new characteristics.

And I have to wonder....if you really believe no evolution of new characteristics has ever occurred, how then do you account for things like bacterial resistance to our antibiotics? Did God give that to them?

"Our paper applies an evolutionary approach to this question." One of the pnas articles.
Circular reasoning.

Evo approach = evo conclusions. Bad tree, bad fruit. JUST LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS.

"We offer a simple model that considers the fitness of value of “prepared learning,” and we test this model using experimental evolution."

Evo in, evo out. Models depend upon the assumptions fed in.

"Bacterial evolution toward endosymbiosis with eukaryotic cells is associated with extensive bacterial genome reduction and loss of metabolic and regulatory capabilities."​

Loss, loss, loss. No evidence of gain!! This, FROM PNAS. Honest evolutionists admit genetic entropy!

"While chemists have created myriads of new molecules over the last centuries, their ability to create complex molecules is surpassed by the biochemistry that evolved within living organisms during billions years of evolution."​

Athiestic assumptions. Unobserved Darwin years. I thought Pnas was supposed to be SCIENCE, not "Seven silly stories for small kids"!!
Mindless time and chance are better at making chemicals than we are?? NONSENSE!!
God created life. Time and chance and nature DID NOT.

 

[KV-44-v1]

So why are babies born, plants germinate from seeds, rivers keep running, etc.? You don't have a clue about thermodynamics, and that took you down this time.

Another note: this doesnt violate entropy.
Matter and energy is transferred from the mom. The mom needs food to sustain herself AND the baby.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Christians accept that God created the earth to bring forth life and for life to change as needed to survive. God isn't some little Middle Eastern fertility godling who prances around making a tree here and a rabbit there. He's the Creator.

God is much greater and wiser than evolution believers would like Him to be. In the evolution justso story, He is just a mere cobbler who cobbles with evolving and beats around the bush instead of just creating them straight-up.

THE God created EVERYTHING within only 6 24 hour days. And YOUR cobbler needs what, BILLIONS OF YEARS?? Bah!!
So far the ONLY Biblical case you have for evilution revolves around that ONE thing. (bringing forth).
The case for Creation is WAY STRONGER, Biblically speaking.

So much for "creation is revision"!!

 

[KV-44-v1]

The Earth brought forth living things. Not poofed, but made by natural means. Evolution just explains how that happened.


That's what you added to Genesis to make His word acceptable to you. Bad idea. Why not just believe what He says?

So no mere "designer." An omnipotent Creator, who made the world so as to bring forth life as He intended. Set your pride aside and let it be His way.


Nope. Christians accept that God created the earth to bring forth life and for life to change as needed to survive. God isn't some little Middle Eastern fertility godling who prances around making a tree here and a rabbit there. He's the Creator. God is much greater and wiser than creationists would like Him to be.


So you weren't created after the sixth day? What you wish, does not obligate God to obey.


He says he does. Why not just believe Him.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Notice, present tense, not past tense. Please, just accept it God's way.

Your "bulldog", Uncle J said these:

"But being good scientists, they had to go where the evidence led, regardless of what the Bible said."

"Right, your position isn't based on a thorough understanding of genetics, but instead is simply "if it contradicts the Bible, it's wrong, period"."

This sounds like Dawkins and Harris - not Christians.

He isn't trying actively to merge cobbling and the Bible together, like you, it seems.
The case for Thiestic Evo grows weaker and weaker.
The Bible is stronger than pseudoscience!!

 

[KV-44-v1]

Like I said, if you want to tell young people today that they have to choose between Christianity and science, that's your choice.

It's just that in today's technology-driven world, that's probably more likely to turn people away than anything else (especially young people).

What goofy false dichotomy. Rejecting fake naturalistic origin tales is rejecting PESUDOscience - NOT science.

 

[KV-44-v1]

How so? (bioevo violates occams razor)

"Don’t multiply complex causes to explain things when a simple one will do.”

Evolution: "OH LOOK!! EVO RELATIONSHIPS WITH X, Y, Z!! <organism> MIGHT HAVE, MAY HAVE, WOULDA COULDA SHOULDA!!" And more.

The Genesis account is really simple and straightforward. ONE Cause. God.
ONE method. Instant, evo-less CREATION.

But bioevo sticks a bunch of steps where there are none.

 

[KV-44-v1]

1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

So you now know that Creation is real, not revision.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Barbarian

creation.com/atheism-needs-evolution
creation.com/evolution-ancient-pagan-idea
I noticed you probably didn't even touch these links.

Genesis never indicates evolution once. Jesus took Genesis literally.

And I already addressed the "bringing forth". Obviously, you seem to take that part literally.
So even if i'm "revising", it follows that you are too.

You seem inconsistent. It's "revision" when its literal - except when YOU do it??! (bringing forth)
Consistency of worldview will elude the one who rejects the plain, obvious, simple Creation account but tries to believe the other parts of the Bible.

 

[Barbarian]

You mentioned something about lightning earlier. Why does lightning strike? All attributable to physics.

And rivers, babies being born and seed germinating are all attributable to natural laws, too. Of course God directly gives each baby an immortal soul directly, meaning He only uses nature to create our bodies, not our souls.

bioevo DOESNT align with TD!!

I realize you want to believe that. But I notice you still can't name even one process required for evolution that is ruled out by thermodynamics.

Genesis never indicates evolution once.

It doesn't indicate protons or DNA once. So that's hardly an issue. C'mon.

Jesus took Genesis literally.

He never said that. You just added that to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

And I already addressed the "bringing forth". Obviously, you seem to take that part literally.

Well, the evidence indicates that God was right about abiogenesis. The earth did bring forth living things. I suppose you will admit that much, even if you don't approve of the way He did it.

You seem inconsistent. It's "revision" when its literal

It's revision when you add things, like Jesus supposedly saying that it's literal.

You think it's literal, but you add things to change it to fit your desires.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution: "OH LOOK!! EVO RELATIONSHIPS WITH X, Y, Z!! <organism> MIGHT HAVE, MAY HAVE, WOULDA COULDA SHOULDA!!" And more.

Well, let's ask an honest YE creationist...

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 phenacodontids32 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,33the 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.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Dr. Wise is a YE creationist, but he's too honest to lie about the evidence.

 

[Barbarian]

So you now know that Creation is real, not revision.

Creation is real. The revisions of YE creationists are like the thinking of a child.
1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Set your pride aside, and just accept it God's way.

 

[Barbarian]

Your "bulldog", Uncle J said these:

He says what he thinks. Sometimes it's what I think. Sometimes not. Try to be honest here.

 

[Barbarian]

Christians accept that God created the earth to bring forth life and for life to change as needed to survive. God isn't some little Middle Eastern fertility godling who prances around making a tree here and a rabbit there. He's the Creator.

In the evolution justso story, He is just a mere cobbler who cobbles with evolving and beats around the bush instead of just creating them straight-up.

If you prefer the godling, poofing things out one at a time, it's your choice. I believe in the omnipotent God who made the universe to bring forth life. If you read the Bible a little, you'd see that is the God who made all things.

 

[Barbarian]

So why are babies born, plants germinate from seeds, rivers keep running, etc.? You don't have a clue about thermodynamics, and that took you down this time.

Another note: this doesnt violate entropy.

Nothing in biology violates entropy. Because you don't understand what "entropy" means, this is a mystery to you. Since you're repeatedly declined to name even one process required for evolution that is ruled out by thermodynamics, it's very clear you don't know what you're talking about. But you could take a stab at answering the question. It might restore some credibiity for you. How about it?

"Bacterial evolution toward endosymbiosis with eukaryotic cells is associated with extensive bacterial genome reduction and loss of metabolic and regulatory capabilities."​

Loss, loss, loss. No evidence of gain!! This, FROM PNAS. Honest evolutionists admit genetic entropy!

So you think that our cells are less complex than bacterial cells? I think we've found one of your problems. You see, the bacterial genome in eukaryotic cells (like those in plants and animals) are only a tiny part of the total genome. Your mitochondria are evolved from bacterial cells and retain circular bacterial DNA. And they lost a lot of genes in adapting to living inside another cell. But the resulting cell is much more complex than prokaryotic cells.

Because you don't know what you're talking about, you made a fundamental error. Why not go and learn some of this so you can discuss it intelligently?

Mindless time and chance are better at making chemicals than we are??

That's the usual YE creationist nonsense we see from so many of them. Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance. It's a basic part of his theory, which has been validated again and again. Once again what you didn't know, took you down.

 

[Barbarian]

Mutations that escape antibiotics do not typically improve the organism.

It allows the bacteria that have them, to live and thrive where others die. That seems like an improvement, doesn't it? If you get your science from people who don't know anything about evolution, you'll always be their victim.

Microbiologists are also coming to understand that antibiotic-resistant forms thrive in the artificial habitat of hospitals but quickly become less “fit” than wild-type forms in the outdoors.

Your creationist source probably doesn't realize that fitness only counts in terms of environment. You've been fooled by someone who knows no more than you do.

In conclusion, the “evolutionary principles” that Darwin propagandists promote offer nothing helpful to doctors needing to deal with antibiotic resistance."

They really messed up on that one. To begin with, Sir Alexander Flemming, the discoverer of penicillin, accurately predicted that overuse of antibiotics would lead to the evolution of antibiotic resistance.

And today's antibiotic protocols use evolutionary theory to use antibiotics in ways that delay or prevent the evolution of resistance:

Nature 27 May 2020

Evolutionary causes and consequences of bacterial antibiotic persistence​

Abstract​

Antibiotic treatment failure is of growing concern. Genetically encoded resistance is key in driving this process. However, there is increasing evidence that bacterial antibiotic persistence, a non-genetically encoded and reversible loss of antibiotic susceptibility, contributes to treatment failure and emergence of resistant strains as well. In this Review, we discuss the evolutionary forces that may drive the selection for antibiotic persistence. We review how some aspects of antibiotic persistence have been directly selected for whereas others result from indirect selection in disparate ecological contexts. We then discuss the consequences of antibiotic persistence on pathogen evolution. Persisters can facilitate the evolution of antibiotic resistance and virulence. Finally, we propose practical means to prevent persister formation and how this may help to slow down the evolution of virulence and resistance in pathogens.

Don't be so gullible.

 

[Uncle J]

Your logic involves animals giving rise to radically different kinds. When - guess what? - we never see that!!

You mean like the silly creationist "dog giving birth to a cat" thing? Nope, we don't see that at all.

Yes. And you didn't seem to have read them.
crev.info/2023/11/big-science-has-lost-its-way/
crev.info/2023/01/tenure-no-longer-protects-creationist-professors/
crev.info/2022/03/censorship-strikes-again/

I read them and they're mostly just far-right Christians complaining about culture war stuff, and in very, very childish ways.

Then you probably do that for a hobby. Not a high-level guy with a powerful electron microscope collaborating with peers in a lab.

I've been a full time professional biologist for over 20 years, and a senior biologist since 2009. Nice try kiddo.

How?

Think for a second....if "disagreeing with evolution = no fame or fortune", how do you account for people like Ken Ham who are quite famous and wealthy, mostly because of their public disagreements with evolution?

Which evidence?
So you agree that noFloodism and believing the Bible are incompatible? Ok.

You'll have to read the works of geologists like Sedgwick and Buckland.

The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: April 2002

Changing Views of the History of the Earth

How did we go from thinking Earth was a young planet to the realization that it is ancient, with a four and a half billion year history?

www.talkorigins.org

As far as "noFloodism and the Bible", that's irrelevant to me.

Two people are hardly "many".

You honestly think there are only two Christians in all of the earth and life sciences?

Actually, Darwin's lack of DNA understanding allowed him to believe in bioevo.

LOL...given the content of your posts, there's no way I would ever unquestioningly accept your empty say-so in matters of science.

You aren't a Creationist, so you can't authoritatively speak on Creation then!

Except I have studied creationism for decades, which means I can definitely speak about it.

Did we observe these transitional fossils evolve- or did the scientists make guesses?? The latter.

LOL, are you serious? You're really going with the "you have to see it happen before you can draw any conclusions about it" route?

So in your world, we must immediately release all prisoners who were convicted of crimes for which there were no eye witnesses, right? After all, did the judge or anyone on the jury see them commit the crime? No? Then how could they have convicted them?

Sheesh.

Let me guess, they lost a protein or some DNA! Loss of a feature resulting in a good outcome does *not* qualify as evolution evidence.

Barbarian is right, your ignorance is severely hampering your ability to discuss the subject intelligently. FYI, a population losing a feature and/or DNA over time is also evolution, just as a population gaining a feature and/or DNA is.

If the genetics of the population changes over time, the population has evolved. Try and learn at least that much.

"Our paper applies an evolutionary approach to this question." One of the pnas articles.
Circular reasoning.

Evo approach = evo conclusions. Bad tree, bad fruit. JUST LIKE THE BIBLE SAYS.

"We offer a simple model that considers the fitness of value of “prepared learning,” and we test this model using experimental evolution."

Evo in, evo out. Models depend upon the assumptions fed in.

You've gotta be kidding, right?

So your argument is that when scientists want to conduct lab experiments to see how populations evolve, they can't use an "evolution approach" in doing so?

Congratulations bud, that's one of the dumbest things I've seen in quite some time.

What's next? You gonna tell me that volcanologists study volcanoes, they can't use a "volcanology approach" in their work?

"Bacterial evolution toward endosymbiosis with eukaryotic cells is associated with extensive bacterial genome reduction and loss of metabolic and regulatory capabilities."

Loss, loss, loss. No evidence of gain!! This, FROM PNAS. Honest evolutionists admit genetic entropy!

How sad. You're so desperate to wave away all that work, information, and data that you (again out of ignorance of the subject) think that's a valid rebuttal to the thousands of cases of lab work where they watch populations evolve new characteristics?

I suppose it's just a coincidence that you missed the very first paper in the results, where they watched a population of yeast evolve multicellularity, right?

"While chemists have created myriads of new molecules over the last centuries, their ability to create complex molecules is surpassed by the biochemistry that evolved within living organisms during billions years of evolution."

Athiestic assumptions. Unobserved Darwin years. I thought Pnas was supposed to be SCIENCE, not "Seven silly stories for small kids"!!
Mindless time and chance are better at making chemicals than we are?? NONSENSE!!
God created life. Time and chance and nature DID NOT.

See, this is why I could never be a creationist. You're forced to find some way to bend reality to make it fit your beliefs, no matter how ridiculous it makes you look. So when you're given thousands of examples of populations evolving new traits and characteristics, all you can do is desperately make up excuses to deny them and make them go away.

In my world, you take reality as it is and do your best to ensure your beliefs line up accordingly. But it seems in your world, if reality doesn't line up with your beliefs then you do whatever is necessary to alter reality so you can maintain your beliefs.

In that sense, you and I are quite different.

 

[Uncle J]

"Don’t multiply complex causes to explain things when a simple one will do.”

Evolution: "OH LOOK!! EVO RELATIONSHIPS WITH X, Y, Z!! <organism> MIGHT HAVE, MAY HAVE, WOULDA COULDA SHOULDA!!" And more.

The Genesis account is really simple and straightforward. ONE Cause. God.
ONE method. Instant, evo-less CREATION.

But bioevo sticks a bunch of steps where there are none.

Ugh, come on bud, at least try and make a decent argument here. If you honestly think the above is a solid, valid argument, I'm not even really sure what to say.