Natural selection and change, yes; Evolution, no

Natural selection and change, yes; Evolution, no

by ecofox Published on December 2nd, 2009, 5:54 pm Rift: Religion

My friends Macro Evolution is a lie, and if you don't know why read on.

Vist the sites and search for truth. But don't depend on anybody to feed it to you.

Question your beliefs and question others. Otherwise you will never be able to be a rational thinking reasoning human being.

Seek truth.

Museums, and school, college and university courses in biology, emphasize variation within a kind as ‘evidence’ for evolution. For example, the Natural History Museum in London says that breeding of dogs shows evolution. Presumably all you have to do is breed dogs for long enough and you will get something which is not a dog—something that is basically different. To the uninformed this can seem convincing—after all, there are many and varied breeds of dogs. However, the evidence from breeding and the science of genetics actually presents a huge problem for evolution. In spite of much breeding and the generation of many varieties of dogs, from chihuahuas to Great Danes, dogs are still dogs. Dogs have only ever bred dogs. Roses have only ever bred roses.

http://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs

"Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."

http://creation.com/creation-wheres-the-proof

"Episode Three of the TV series Darwin’s Brave New World, shown in Australia on ABC1 in November 2009, is titled “Publish and Be Damned”. In this episode, the speakers bang a drum with “natural selection” on one side and “change” on the other. They make a lot of noise, but none of it equates to evolution."

http://creation.com/darwin-brave-new-world-3

The next time you scratch your finger and raise a tiny drop of blood, don’t just wipe it off and forget about it. Pause for a moment and reflect. That red blob the size of a pin head is one of the wonders of the world.

http://www.godstruth.org/

It is apparent from all the contradictory teachings of the many denominations and cults of Christendom, that they all cannot be right. For the most part, each claim to use the Bible as the source of their teachings.

http://www.bible-truth.org/Principles.htm



Jeremiah 29:13
"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."

John 17:17
Sanctify them through truth: thy word is truth.

John 18:37 & 38
Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

[HOPOMaster]

My friends Macro Evolution is a lie, and if you don't know why read on.

Mods, please move this to the Religion section, where it belongs. He and BHL can have a nice, friendly discussion over there about how right they are and how stupid everyone else is.

[ecofox]

My friends Macro Evolution is a lie, and if you don't know why read on.

Mods, please move this to the Religion section, where it belongs. He and BHL can have a nice, friendly discussion over there about how right they are and how stupid everyone else is.

This is Science!

Did you even read the articles?

Science is based upon logic and logic is based upon truth.

If you don't know truth, then you cannot think logically!

Innocent till proven guilty right?

[A Person]

Question your beliefs and question others.

Science does, you (and Ken Ham) don't. Stop projecting

Otherwise you will never be able to be a rational thinking reasoning human being.

As you demonstrate so well

This is Science!

No, it's religious drivel

Did you even read the articles?

Yes, more religious drivel from evangelical apologists. If you did question your beliefs then you would go to science sources to learn about science. Would you go to CARM to learn about Islam? To newadvent.org to learn about Mormons? Why do you go to a religious site to learn about science?

Science is based upon logic and logic is based upon truth.

No, science is evidence based reasoning. It is based on data and reason.

If you don't know truth, then you cannot think logically!

Wrong, you can think and argue logically - even if the truth value of your premises are unknown. You may come to a false conclusion but your argument can be perfectly logical.

Innocent till proven guilty right?

Yup, guilty as charged. Move it to the religion section.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

I agree with HOPO. Your articles were all from religion-based sites, and your objections to the theory of evolution were exclusively religious in nature, or show a profound lack of understanding of the actual theory of evolution as it stands today. It is not science, but superstition dressed up to appear to yourself (and probably BHL) somewhat like science.

I'd say move it. Would do it myself, but I'm not sure of the tool I'd use.

[HOPOMaster]

My friends Macro Evolution is a lie, and if you don't know why read on.

Mods, please move this to the Religion section, where it belongs. He and BHL can have a nice, friendly discussion over there about how right they are and how stupid everyone else is.

This is Science!

Did you even read the articles?

Science is based upon logic and logic is based upon truth.

If you don't know truth, then you cannot think logically!

Innocent till proven guilty right?

I have seen a number of similar articles to the ones you have referenced and they consistently prove themselves to be misinformed with regards to the processes that contribute to change, not only within species but also between species. Citing another one that purports to bring "the scientific truth" will not change that these articles are not consistent with the informed understanding of millions of scientists.

The "dogs only breed dogs" argument is not valid, as it ignores the time frames over which the processes occur that are being discussed. Similar to how the people who debated with me in high school always said "My grandma wasn't a monkey!" I generally would reply, "they most certainly weren't, but that's not what we're talking about." Evolution isn't a magical process driven by pixie dust like the article seems to suggest that evolutionists think it is.

For a discussion at least as long and more scientifically informed than the ones you have referenced, I will provide a link with an example of macroevolutionary change due to chromosomal evolution and one which discusses chromosomal doubling and deletion. Additional searches for those topics should yield some interesting insight into processes that produce genetic diversity over extended periods of time, like hundreds of millions of years instead of the 9 weeks required to breed a dog.

http://treetalk.mortonarb.org/blogroll/ ... ecies/328/

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/m ... e00320.htm

The main issue that I have with almost all "evaluations" of evidence for evolution that are done by creationists is that it seems that they set out to prove that the theory is wrong (to be consistent with their world-view) before observing the evidence and then view the data through a selective filter. Scientists researching biological processes, including genetic diversification and genetic drift, make observations and then develop an explanation that is consistent with the observations. Creationists say "I don't understand how it happens, so it can't be that," while scientists say "I don't understand how it happens, so let's find out!"

[ecofox]

Question your beliefs and question others.

Science does, you (and Ken Ham) don't. Stop projecting

I do question, I am not projecting. What Ken Ham does or does not do is irrelevant.

Otherwise you will never be able to be a rational thinking reasoning human being.

As you demonstrate so well

Just because I disagree with you that means I am irrational?

This is Science!

No, it's religious drivel

That is your opinion.

Did you even read the articles?

Yes, more religious drivel from evangelical apologists. If you did question your beliefs then you would go to science sources to learn about science. Would you go to CARM to learn about Islam? To newadvent.org to learn about Mormons? Why do you go to a religious site to learn about science?

True, I will add a few sites that support evolution in their so that you can have a more balanced perspective.

Science is based upon logic and logic is based upon truth.

No, science is evidence based reasoning. It is based on data and reason.

Reasoning = Logic
Data = Evidence which is true

If you don't know truth, then you cannot think logically!

Wrong, you can think and argue logically - even if the truth value of your premises are unknown. You may come to a false conclusion but your argument can be perfectly logical.

Ok, you can think logically to an extent but your conclusions will be flawed.

For from one falsehood all others follow.

Innocent till proven guilty right?

Yup, guilty as charged. Move it to the religion section.

I disagree. Science is all about discovering truth right?

What if this is the truth and you just don't know it?

Some entity must have initiated the creation of the entire universe. This entity must be self existent.

Basically, we see the ball rolling. The ball wasn't always rolling. The ball didn't decide to roll itself. Some one had to initiate its journey.

[ecofox]

I agree with HOPO. Your articles were all from religion-based sites, and your objections to the theory of evolution were exclusively religious in nature, or show a profound lack of understanding of the actual theory of evolution as it stands today. It is not science, but superstition dressed up to appear to yourself (and probably BHL) somewhat like science.

I'd say move it. Would do it myself, but I'm not sure of the tool I'd use.

Just because someone says I am a Christian or I am a Muslim or a Jew doesn't mean that they are any less able to scientifically evaluate the world then you.

All religion is is simply a belief system.

Will you reject all other simply because you believe yours is the best?

Is truth determined by a majority vote?

[ecofox]

Evolution isn't a magical process driven by pixie dust like the article seems to suggest that evolutionists think it is.

That's the point, microbes to man evolution is impossible. Illogical, unreasonable, and unscientific.

For a discussion at least as long and more scientifically informed than the ones you have referenced, I will provide a link with an example of macroevolutionary change due to chromosomal evolution and one which discusses chromosomal doubling and deletion. Additional searches for those topics should yield some interesting insight into processes that produce genetic diversity over extended periods of time, like hundreds of millions of years instead of the 9 weeks required to breed a dog.

I have read your articles however they do not address these concerns.

Mutations destroy not create.
http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end
http://creation.com/gain-of-function-mu ... -evolution

http://creation.com/mutations-questions-and-answers

Evolutionists cannot support their arguments with science. But must resort to conjecture.

http://creation.com/evolutionists-retreat-from-science

[A Person]

Mutations destroy not create.

Nonsense, you have between 100 and 200 mutations of genes you inherited from your parents. Most mutations are neutral, some are universally bad some universally good but 'good' and 'bad' are dependent on the environment the organism has to survive in

But if you are just going to uncritically grab headlines from a religious website and ignore your own admonition to "Question your beliefs and question others" there isn't any point. If you were interested in learning real science you would go to a real science source and not a religious one.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Just because I disagree with you that means I am irrational?

There he goes again, putting up a strawman because he can't actually debate against what was actually said.

Waste of time.

[ecofox]

Mutations destroy not create.

Nonsense, you have between 100 and 200 mutations of genes you inherited from your parents. Most mutations are neutral, some are universally bad some universally good but 'good' and 'bad' are dependent on the environment the organism has to survive in

True, we the human race has inherited many many mutated genes many are not fatal.
But the difference is Creationist say it started perfect and then began to wind down. Ever since the fall.

Evolutionist say that it started from nothing, or came from another dimension and wrote itself.

It's a code! Codes don't write them-self! Codes are useless if you don't have someone thing that can already read the code in place!

http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin

But if you are just going to uncritically grab headlines from a religious website and ignore your own admonition to "Question your beliefs and question others" there isn't any point. If you were interested in learning real science you would go to a real science source and not a religious one.

Your bias against the idea of a Creator doesn't let you see it as it is.

What who can prove or disprove Macro Evolution?

People.

So if you look at someone and attempt to discredit them simply based upon there beliefs your are being heavily biased.

You can't say their religious I am not.
They are wrong I am right.

Religion is simply a belief system.

It's you beliefs vs my beliefs.
It's truth vs lie.

The winner is the one who follows the Law of Non-Contradiction.

You need to be open minded and look at the issue from all sides!

We already have seen evolutions side.
Everyone has been taught the theory of evolution in schools.

They have treated it like a scientific fact. So it is understandable that a vast majority of the educated public would not want to question their beliefs stick out from their peers and be ridiculed as an outcast.

Only someone who is unintelligent would dare question the scientists who worte this textbook!

It's is understandable that a vast majority of society is willing to subject themselves to brainwashing and feed the herd instinct.

But it is unexceptable .

Evolution is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves. It includes these unproven ideas: nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’ non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc.

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-index

[A Person]

So if you look at someone and attempt to discredit them simply based upon there beliefs your are being heavily biased.

You can't say their religious I am not.

Yes I can. They are religious and their religion dictates their conclusions, not science - or have you not read their Statement of Faith and Mission

1.The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
...
Creation Ministries International is a group of non-profit ministries in several countries. Though each is a legally and financially autonomous body, we have formally unified our efforts as a federation of ministries under the banner ‘CMI-Worldwide’ that helps to ensure unity, harmony, and efficiency of outreach.

Our role is to support the church in proclaiming the truth of the Bible and thus its gospel message. We provide real-world answers to the most-asked questions in the vital area of creation/evolution, where the Bible is most under attack today—Genesis

You need to be open minded and look at the issue from all sides!

You mean like the open minded folk at Creation Ministries International?

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

It's is understandable that a vast majority of society is willing to subject themselves to brainwashing and feed the herd instinct.

But it is unexceptable .

I agree. Kids should not be brainwashed by being herded into Churches to be indoctrinated into denying reality

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

So if you look at someone and attempt to discredit them simply based upon there beliefs your are being heavily biased.

For the record, this is yet another strawman. Evidence is the reason for discrediting creationism: the fact that the Bible's statements of fact are not concurrent with the real world.

Were I to say "I know everything there is to know in the universe," your first move would be to find something I don't know. You would not simply say "You have no credibility because I don't believe you." We take the same tack.

We say that creationists have no credibility because they do not offer valid alternative explanations for the facts known to science. Your use of strawman statements -- otherwise known as "lies" -- does no help your side of the discussion.

[A Person]

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

I gotta say, the information presented in this video was interesting indeed. What I didn't care for was the creationist they used for shooting down. Surely, they could have gotten an American Christian creationist who makes the same sort of presentation as this Muslim with the barely decipherable accent?

[A Person]

AronRa has done a series of Foundational Falsehood of Creationismvideos (15 to date). They are all very good, if rather intensive. He does of course take on the usual Christian creationists: Behe, Wells, Hovind, Ham, Comfort etc. but I expect that he wanted to show that he doesn't 'hate Christians' and that creationists from other religions use precisely the same bankrupt arguments, except that they appeal to a different leprechaun for their magic answer.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

AronRa has done a series of Foundational Falsehood of Creationismvideos (15 to date). They are all very good, if rather intensive. He does of course take on the usual Christian creationists: Behe, Wells, Hovind, Ham, Comfort etc. but I expect that he wanted to show that he doesn't 'hate Christians' and that creationists from other religions use precisely the same bankrupt arguments, except that they appeal to a different leprechaun for their magic answer.

Neat. I'll have to check out those videos. Always keen on learning new stuff. And I agree that it's a good strategy to cover the creationist bases. As you say, the same arguments are used, only the name is changed to suit the creationist.

I encountered this once long ago, when I argued with a Christian and Hindu at the same time. It was... strange.

[HOPOMaster]

I have read your articles however they do not address these concerns.

Mutations destroy not create.
http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end
http://creation.com/gain-of-function-mu ... -evolution

http://creation.com/mutations-questions-and-answers

Evolutionists cannot support their arguments with science. But must resort to conjecture.

http://creation.com/evolutionists-retreat-from-science

Actually, yes they did address the scientific concerns raised in your previous post. I perceive that you are either not reading with an open mind as you are requesting that we do to your links, or that you are willfully ignoring the points made in the articles. As such, we have reached a logical impasse.

The posts of others have addressed the "all bad mutations" fallacy, which seems to be the crux of your argument at this point. I did, however, address your major objection from the previous post, which was that there is no mechanism for the formation of new chromosomes over time (division, deletion, and replication of chromosomes happens, providing such a mechanism) and that the process of speciation has not been observed (it was in the first article that I cited).