New Questions--moral perspective

Also, before I forget...I am a devoted Christian and have spent much of my adult life studying and arguing evolution with friends and family members of different faiths. I have talked with enough evolutionists out there to know that they simply DON'T know how to prove their theory to the open world (otherwise there would not be so much back-and-forth conflict among scientists). Therefore, I would find it impossible for anybody on this website to impress me with their knowledge of science, so don't try. Just stick to the evidence. So, when you are ready to set aside your EXTREMELY, UNFATHOMABLY-BIAS opinions against creationism, then let me know so that we can discuss evolution and creation honestly and openly.Furthermore, evolutionists often try to the tactic of drawing attention away from the topic by resorting to personal attacks (doubting the credibility of a creationist, looking down upon creationists on a moral level, etc.) I have experienced these same attacks and others by individuals similar to the ones who will be replying to this post with their OWN agendas, so please just stick to the facts and ignore the irrelevant material.Thank you.Love,
Servant

So is gravity. Care to jump off a bridge? Wrong again. Evolution is a scientific theory based on observation, experimentation, and physical evidence, which is falsifiable and makes testable, accurate predictions.Creationism is superstition, on the other hand. It's been done. Why don't you pick up Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory? Of course, it's 1200 pages long.In the meantime you can explain why the genetic evidence and the fossil evidence correspond so accurately if the evolutionary account isn't in fact true.

There's not, though. The vast majority of biologists and paleontologists agree that the evolutionary model is an accurate picture of thehistory of life on earth. Done so. All you have to do is convince me with evidence and I'll become a creationist. I promise.

Note Crash he does not make a single point or argument for creationism that he so fervently ascribes.

Yeah, I love these guys who come on and think that "hey, consider the alternatives!" is all it will take to get us to abandon evolutionism; as though we're going to do over years of research and consideration just because they told us to.Well, ok. Here I am, folks, looking at the alternatives. I'm looking.... I'm looking.. yup. Evolution is still the best explanation.

"so please stick to the facts and ignore irrelavent material."
And what facts would these be pray tell???????

"It's been done. Why don't you pick up Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory? Of course, it's 1200 pages long.In the meantime you can explain why the genetic evidence and the fossil evidence correspond so accurately if the evolutionary account isn't in fact true."
--CashfrogActually, you are wrong. Sorry, but there's no kind way to say it.First of all, i've taken a look at Gould's new 1200-page book. but guess what, as i have said before, evolutionists' knowledge of science does not impress me--i'm a realist and a skeptic of western science. And no book is going to make me respect the evolutionary theory JUST BECAUSE it is so long.Also, the fossil record does not contain evidence for evolution. Take a look:"150 years of collected evidence--in spite of such an immense amount of fossil evidence... the deficiencies--the missing links--will never be found."--Ferrell, Vance. "The Evolution Cruncher." 2001. P 424."It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobilogical facts. The fossil material is now so complete that... the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled."--Nilsson, Heribert. "Synthestische Artbildung." 1953. p 1212."Geology assuredly does not receal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against [evolution]."--Darwin, Charles. "Origin of Species." Quoted in David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology" in Field Museum Bulleting. January 1979."And this poses... a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"--Elderedge, Niles. "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution." 1985. p 52Also, genetics does not contain proof of evolution either:"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological, and the few remaining ones are highly suspect... All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."--Martin, C.P. "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist. (1953). p 103"Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more... Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2.5 million years."--World Book Encyclopedia, 1966."Living Things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent..."--Kellenberger, Edouard. "The Genetic Control of the Shape of a Virus," in Scientific American. 1966. p 32"Based on probability factors... any variable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities... would read:480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond [ten to the fiftieth power] has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence... any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence..."--Cohen, L.L. "Darwin was Wrong." 1984. p 205"I'm not TRYING to prove anybody wrong here. I'm just trying to open your eyes to the idea that creation is more likely than you previously thought."--Servant

Based on what training, exactly? Forgive me, but from where I'm from, you actually have to be knowledgable in a subject before your criticisms of it are to be taken seriously.I'm not expecting you to just bow before a book. What I'm expecting you to do is have some knowledge about the theory you think is wrong. After all I didn't come to the conclusion that creationism was bogus until I knew creationism inside and out. Did you try reading it? Just curious. After all it wasn't the page length that I had hoped would convince you but rather the copious scientific evidence within. Instead of looking at quotes about the fossil record, why don't you look at the record? The entire record is evidence for evolution. In fact, just like you, I can prove it with a quote:

quote:

---

The entire record is evidence for evolution. - Crashfrog, 2004

---

Hrm, maybe quotes aren't a good way to prove what's real and what's not, eh?How about you look at the copious examples of transitional vertebrate fossils in the fossil record? Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQAgain, quotes don't constitute evidence. The truth is there's great concordinance between patterns of descent inferred from the genetics of organisms and the patterns inferred from the fossil record.

How it works is:Evolutionists aren't finding enough fossils to fill the missing links, so they blame it on the fossil record as being incomplete. The truth is, however, that the fossil record is complete as it ever will be (we are finding less and less fossils of different varieties). You might have read this same argument if you took a close look at the people i quoted in my last post.Again, stick to the facts and ignore the rest.(by the way, for those of you who are trying to provoke an argument rather than a creation-evolution discussion, "stick to the facts" means let's not get distracted from everything OTHER THAN back-and-forth exchanges of posts that have to do with evolution/creation and nothing more).Thanks,
Servant

What are you talking about? There's a vast amount of known transitional vertebrate fossils. Didn't you read the link? Pardon me but I'm inclined to accept the evidence right in front of my face over the words of folks telling me that what I'm looking at isn't really there.

First off, don't make the mistake in assuming that I don't know anything about evolution (I've studied hard at it, and in fact I used to be such a firm evolutionist that I thought the entire idea of creationism was bogus and I would NEVER believe it). In fact, the scary thought is that, with the attitude i'm recieving from you, i probably used to be somewhat like you.Also, what is wrong with quotes. Earlier, when I gave you an argument I was attacked by not showing references. Now that i HAVE, you apparently glanced over the entire list of quotes without contemplating their reasoning and credibility (which DO contain arguments against genetics and fossil record as proving evolution), and moved on to expecting ME to provide you with a wealth of anti-evolution arguments as though i was BORN with all the answers. Honestly, wasn't if from a quote by either a teacher or writer in which YOU first heard of the fossil record? (the only other alternative i can think of is if YOU were the one who discovered and pieced togethe the fossil record... highly unlikely). Again, don't ask for an argument and then ignore its credibility.--Servant

They're not evidence. Any person can say anything they want. In fact you could concievably write anything you please and attribute it to whatever source you cared to.Quotes aren't an argument. Just because somebody says a think is so, doesn't mean that it is. You need to quote from primary sources - published, peer-reviewed scientific journals. What do you think the credibility of the World Book Encyclopedia from 1966 is in regards to advanced biological science? Not high, because it's not a primary source. Yes, but that's not what supports it for me. It's supported by peer-reviewed, primary sources. You didn't present a credible argument. You presented a fallacious argument from authority.

Don't presume to debunk an argument because you don't like where it came from.After all, you referred me to the talkorigns site (which i have been to and even written to and had soon realized that the site is not scientific because it is very biased against any evidence that is non-evolutionary) and yet you expect me to believe it just because of what they say? The purpose of quoting books, magazines, and scientific journals that deal with creation and evolution is the idea that arguing/debating is a method of convincing one of another's viewpoint. Take my quotes and their sources for what they are, but not before you have examined their sources open-mindedly and without a bias, arrogant approach. Also, if you think that arguments are untrustworthy and that we must believe with what we see with our OWN eyes, then ANY INTERNET website that deals with evolution is untrustworthy (afterall, you cannot study the fossil record or any laboratory tests via the internet). Forgive me, but it sounds like you're using a paradox to further your argument--the contradiction that quotes are not credible yet references to a biased website is, for some reason.If you care to end this meaningless drivle, just say the word and I'm there, bro. However, just remember that when an evolutionist tries to fabricate their own debates for the purpose of drawing attention away from what's really important, that is when the evolutionist appears most foolish and wrongfully arrogant.Now, let's talk about the Miller Experiment (if you think that I brought this up as a plan-B because I might be worried that you are cornering me with your meaningless discussion, you're wrong. I merely brought it up because I brought it up earlier and you ignored it). After all, if Darwinian evolution is to prevail, it has to be proven and demonstrated that life can arise from nonliving matter without the aide of intelligent intervention.Thanks again for the time,
Servant

Oh, I won't, trust me. You'd know that I wouldn't do that if you'd actually present an argument. No, I expect you to believe it because they've supported their arguments from primary, peer-reviewed research. Do the same and I'll pay attention to your arguments, too. You mean the one that showed that simple, inorganic chemistry can, under specific conditions, create molecules that previously, were known only to come from living organic chemistry?Yes, very interesting, but it neither proves nor disproves any model of abiogenesis. So I don't see the relevance, here. Also, the experiment was performed in what, the 50's? Don't you have anything more recent to talk about? How about this article from PubMed?

quote:

---

Deterministic hypotheses on the origin of life and of its reproduction.

​

Berger G.

​

14 Impasse des Carpeaux, Perigny Sur Yerres, France.

​

The current theory of the origin of life by random polymerisation and selection of nucleic acids is challenged by the hypothesis that the primitive enzymatic sites would have been formed by abiotic polymerisation of aminoacids, specifically gathered (by saline, hydrogen, or hydrophobic interactions), around the different substrates. The information contained in these proteinoids would have been transferred to messenger-like RNAs by a mechanism reverse of that of the present protein synthesis, and then to DNA. The interactions between aminoacids and nucleotidic sequences would have been at the origin of the genetic code, as hypothesized by several authors. We propose that the specificity of the bindings would have been enhanced and 'frozen' by ternary associations with specific proteinoids (future aminoacyl tRNA synthetases). The role of chance would have been limited to the supply of the products and to the determination of the conditions of reaction. Thermodynamic considerations (dissipation of the free enthalpy through enzymatic activities) may explain the emergence of the biological systems.

---

How come you act like the Miller Experiment was the last thing to happen in the Origin of Life research? Hardly. Darwinian Evolution is simply the position that the current diversity of organisms on Earth is best explained through a model of common descent and modification via natural selection and random mutation.Gosh, for a guy who claimed that he used to be an evolutionist, how come you know so little about the theory?

"Now, let's talk about the Miller Experiment (if you think that I brought this up as a plan-B because I might be worried that you are cornering me with your meaningless discussion, you're wrong. I merely brought it up because I brought it up earlier and you ignored it). After all, if Darwinian evolution is to prevail, it has to be proven and demonstrated that life can arise from nonliving matter without the aide of intelligent intervention."While the discussion of the theories related to abiogenesis is a perfectly acceptable topic of discussion, it is important to note that it is not part of evolutionary theory. Also, evolotuionary theory doesn't require abiogensis to succeed as a theory. For example, there is no conlusive evidence for what caused the big bang, however the formation of stars, galaxies, etc and their proccess are well known and scientifically valid. In the discussion of evolution, the generation of life has no bearing on the evidence or theories of evolution.