Evolution - Yes again.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

Can someone please read this information, and Yes, it's a creationist site, but it explains the  life-from-nothing / evolution theory and how it is flawed..

I understand most of what he is saying, and the arguments seem very logical to me, but, I have no way of knowing whether the Science he is quoting is correct or has subsequently been debunked.

I would appreciate if someone with a bit more knowledge in DNA / RNA / proteins / cell regeneration / cell division etc could advise me.

By the way, he also quotes Dawkin's Ancestor's Tale and how, with recent developments at least some of the assumptions that Dawkins makes are impossible.

Can we PLEASE see if we can keep this thread civil and on-topic.

There is a lot more info on this site too, but first can we look at and discuss:

http://creation.com/genetic-code-intelligence

http://creation.com/meta-information

[curmu-curmu]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

---

Bit hard to conduct an open-minded discussion, REB - particularly when you've already admitted your preconceived notion that your god exists! On that subject, one could say that you have accepted your preconceived notion that God does not exist. Sp where do we go from here? Why can't we BOTH leave our preconceived notions aside and look at the evidence.

Nope. I concede that I think it's FAR more likely that evolution takes place, than an ephemeral sky being created us and all around us, interfered so heavily in the OT, then 'went dark' from then on, but I'm still willing to accept a deity if one chose to reveal itself, (although I'd certainly question his motives and actions - or lack thereof!).

And as a theist, are you aware that challenging your god, or questioning his motives, or claiming to know his plans, is considered an act of blasphemy?

See Isaiah 55:8-9, or 1 Corinthians 2:16. Yes, I am, but where did I challenge or question his motives?

Anytime you even consider his plans, without the blind obedience to follow them, you are questionoing his actions.

Isaiah 55: 8-9...For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

It's funny how theists will on one hand, state that 'no one can know the mind of god', then in the next breath, state something like 'but I know that he does not work in that way'. I should have said, by all the available evidence (Yes, from the Bible) it's obvious that God does NOT TAKE SHORTCUTS - He has a plan and NOTHING WILL CHANGE THE EVENTUAL OUTCOME.

Sorry - doesn't actually address the statement - but does sidestep it.

Seems a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?

Oh, and BTW - both pages you gave are failing to load.

---

---

[***super_nova***]

Think of the tree of species as a very complicated jigsaw puzzle with billions of tiny pieces.  Some we have already placed correctly, others look as if they fit but as the larger picture emerges it will become obvious that they go elsewhere.  Just because we do not as yet have the whole picture does not mean we do not have some idea what it will look like when finished.  With better and better techniques identifying DNA we will be able to place correctly more and more species. 

Imagine you have a jigsaw puzzle of a vase with some flowers, but without the picture to show you what it should look like.  Once you get some idea what it most likely is, you will know roughly where the pieces for the vase go, and where the pieces with stems/foliage go, and where the petals will most likely go, and what piece is of the background. 

The same way scientists get fragments of DNA from fossils, and can find which are related and how much, and try to place the species in the right place in the whole scheme of things.  Later on, if more DNA is extracted from the fossil, it might be possible to place it more accurately. 

[the_bob_delusion]

---

rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

the_bob_delusion wrote:

---

poddster wrote:

OK then lets take small steps at a time.

Can you concede that humans have changed since Neanderthals walked the Earth?

---

Can you also acknowledge that evolution is accepted by well over 99% of all scientists around the world, regardless of their religion, race, gender etc etc.  It depends what we mean by evolution, doesn't it? As I have said MANY times on here, I accept that things have changed - ie a progenitor of elephants - mammoth - elephants have evolved into 2 separate species - of elephants. I DO NOT accept that a mammoth has also evolved into something totally different.

Yeah, so let's say you accept micro-evolution. The only difference with macro-evolution is time. e.g. look at the dog species. There's a huge difference between Chihuahua and say the great Dane. That happened in less than 10,000 years. Supposely we fast forward that 50 million years. Would you say you'll still recognize the descendents as dogs? How different does it have to be before you accept that there's common ancestry?

Do you have a good reason to suspect there's a conspiracy against evolution? Do you suspect there is a conspiracy again Creation?

No, because 99.9% of religious people are against it too. Why is it that the  < than 0.1 % of those in support of creationism are all fundamentalist religious zeleots?

Do you think scientist just accept something based on no evidence? Have you read the link I put up? As far as I can see, it clearly shows that LIFE cannot be formed without the necessary SCIENCE ie combination of Amino Acids, in the right combination at the same moment in time.

Do you think a creationist sites are more credible than scientifically peer reviewed sites?

What evidence could I possibly provide to someone who doesn't value evidence? I value evidence - that's why I KEEP asking for some.

Do you think 99.9% of the scientist do not value evidence and you're right?

---

[rabbitearbandicoot]

Yeah, so let's say you accept micro-evolution. The only difference with macro-evolution is time. e.g. look at the dog species.
There's a huge difference between Chihuahua and say the great Dane. That happened in less than 10,000 years. Supposely we fast
forward that 50 million years. Would you say you'll still recognize the descendents as dogs? How different does it have to be
before you accept that there's common ancestry?

I already accept that there was a common ancestor of dogs. Actually, most of that has occured over the last few hundred years, but they are still dogs.

No, because 99.9% of religious people are against it too. Why is it that the < than 0.1 % of those in support of creationism are all fundamentalist religious zeleots? Where are those 99.9% of religious people? I think you make up these figures as you go along.

Do you think a creationist sites are more credible than scientifically peer reviewed sites?

Well, at least it's the other side of the story, but I accept NOTHING. I questions EVERYTHING. Have you read the link that I put up?

My OP was asking people to read the evidence that this guy puts up and tell me where he is wrong.

Do you think 99.9% of the scientist do not value evidence and you're right?
I said nothing like that.

The bottom line is this, that site is more about abiogenesis I suppose. Scientists say :" We don't know".
This site is giving evidence / SCIENCE that says IT CANNOT HAVE HAPPENED. I am more interested in talking about that part of it all, that's why I asked the questions in the OP.

So, leaving out everyone's preconceived ideas about whether or not God exists, can we just look at the evidence that proves abiogenesis V the evidence that disproves it. At least that would be a start.

[the_bob_delusion]

You've proved time and time again you don't know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. 

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@the_bob_delusion wrote:

You've proved time and time again you don't know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. 

---

There you go curmu, that's a sidestep.

edit:

Abiogenenesis - the FIRST STEP - life from NOTHING.

Evolution - all the other steps up to MAN

[rabbitearbandicoot]

Bob:"What evidence could I possibly provide to someone who doesn't value evidence?"

 I value evidence - that's why I KEEP asking for some.

[the_great_she_elephant]

OK. I've read the first article and these are my thoughts.

First the 'priming the pump' analogy is not very apt beccause it assumes that the information has to be in the form of words. If the instructions had been pictorial then anyone who was not blind would have been able to understand them regardless of what language they spoke or wht culture they came from.. Also it refers to a sophisticated exchange of information between two sophisticated beings - which has nothing to do with evolution.

Secondly there is this: "Aside from the fact that no one has observed a code system spontaneously generating, it is even beyond our imagination to concoct a story of how matter could formulate a code." As I understand it (and I admit I am not a scientist) nobody in the scientific world has ever suggested that a code system spontaneuosly generated. It evolved along with everything else via cause and effect. 

[the_great_she_elephant]

From your first link:

Not only must the committed materialist believe that a code system spontaneously generated, they must also believe that a translation device specific to that exact code must also have “evolved” through natural causes! (The coded information in the DNA of living things is only useful when translated and expressed in specific structures and functions).

If that were the case then it implies that something which did not yet exist would have to to translate a code that would tell it how to exist before it was able to exist - which is obviously rubbish.

DNA is not a blueprint for something which does not yet exist it is a detailed diagram of something that alreadydoes exist.  When lightning hits a dead tree it creates a fire - not because some code is instructing it that that is what it should do but because lightning is very hot and dead trees are very dry and when very hot meets very dry the result is usually fire.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

Bob:"What evidence could I possibly provide to someone who doesn't value evidence?"

 I value evidence - that's why I KEEP asking for some.

---

THere're evidence from, biology, genetics/phylogenetics, comparative anatomy, direct observation, biogeography, fossil records, embryology, geographical distribution etc etc. Which one of these isn't evidence?

Give me one evidence showing creationism to be true without saying the bible or the Koran says so. 

Bagging evolution doesn't prove creationism. 

I'm willing to change my mind if you have a better theory that explains the evidence. Please explain to me what mechanism is proposed by Creationism apart from God did it.