Creationists:: What would convince you that evolution has happened ?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by edge:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
e: But you are saying that since MSH deposits were laid down rapidly deposited and that the geological column must have been likewise rapidly emplaced. You are saying that since we can form laminations in laboratory settings rapidly, then all laminae must have been deposited rapidly.

​

m: or COULD'VE been, since we're discussing two philosophies.

---

e: Okay, then what about coral reefs? Rapid or slow? What about starved basins, rapid or slow? What about shelf deposits, rapid ro slow? What about the periods of hiatus between depositional events, rapid or slow? Melting glaciers, fast or slow? The point here is that in order to fit all of the geological events of history into a 6ky framework, they all have to be very fast. You may not know it but this is what you are saying.Reply:
m:And I don't have a problem saying that; I don't have a problem saying that some of the geological features (that you cite) can be accounted for by processes that took months, years, hundreds or even thousands of years, but not millions.quote:
e: And to top it off, all of the rapid events that you have mentioned are readily addressed by mainstream geology.reply:
Mainstream geology, as developed as it may be, is still an interpretive science.

quote:

---

m: I don't doubt that they arrived at their conclusions purely by reasoning. The shift in thinking from realism to naturalism influenced many to think of ways in which the popularized theory of evolution could be made to work.

---

e: Why do you think there was such a shift to naturalism? Could it be that the evidence pointed in that direction?Reply:
m: The evidence that seemed to support the philosophy was emphasized, and the evidence that contradicted it was ignored. I still think realism is more rational than naturalism, though.

quote:

---

M: Reply: Creationism hasn't failed scientifically (nor in any other way, except that, for mere sociological reasons, it has not become the state-embraced religion as naturalism has in many ways). It's one philosophy (that garners support from physics) versus another philosophy (that garners support from physics). Evolutionary scientists move on, and so do creation scientists move on.

---

quote:
e: No. It has failed miserably.reply:
m: What has? Evolutionism?quote:
e: No creationist yet has explained to us why flowering plants are found only in strata from the latest Mesozoic to the present.reply:
m: Evolutionists have not dared to concede what evolutionist Dr. E.J.H. Corner (Cantab.) admitted: "To any fair-minded person, the fossil record of plants is in favor of creation--not evolution." The truth is that many scientists believe in evolution, not because the scientific evidence favors evolution instead of creation, but because they prefer to believe in evolution, no matter what the scientific evidence says.quote:
No creationis has brought to the table a credible instance of a human being or human artifacts in existence in the Cambrian Period.reply:
No evolutionist has brought to the table a credible instance of a life form that led to the (actually, sudden appearance of) complex invertebrate life at the Cambrian level.quote:
e: Why is this? There are many other such questions that, in due time, you will be confonted withreply:
I can't wait.

quote:

---

m: I don't know how many creation SCIENTISTS might be postponing some responses regarding technical aspects of some arguments that are outside their field of expertise, but if most of the supporters of creationism who respond on this website are like me, they go head to head about this philosophy versus philosophy issue.

---

quote:
e: Why? We can give reasonable answers to these questions right now. It is not a matter of philosophy. It is a matter of evidence. Where is your evidence?reply:
I've taken down your questions. I've explained why I can't give pat answers right now for some technical matters--isn't that fair enough?

quote:

---

we can agree that:

​

(1) if a creationist who has an in-depth knowledge of scientific creationism, engages an evolutionist who is not very dedicated to the study of the scientific arguments for his position, in all liklihood, the evolutionist would have to put off some responses

---

The only thing I can agree on here is that some aspects of evolution are highly technical and a given layman may not have the expertise (This is, of course, opposed to creationism, where everyone is an expert in geology after reading a few papers and websites).Reply:
Have I written something on this website that leads you to believe that I think I am an expert?quote:
e: But there is always someone out there who can answer your questions. I have never seen a scientific question asked by a creationist that an evo did not eventually respond to.reply
m: So, if that is true, it means that evolution must be true? I think we're engaged in a trivial matter here. The important thing isn't "Who can come up with responses most readily (?)," it's "What does each person say, and how well do the responses address the issue at hand?" Delays may be interpreted as "No good response exists," but I wouldn't want my mindset to be influenced by such type of reasoning.

quote:

---

M: "ALL of the data" (compiled under the assumption of the validity of the philosophy of naturalism) would certainly "rule it out." All of the work on one side of the issue or another feeds back to the philosophy one starts with.

---

e: This is absolutely wrong. Remember it was creationists who eventually discovered the old earth and evolution. It was a matter of evidence.reply:
m: By "eventually discovered the old earth and evolution," I assume you mean that because some creationists capitulated to the popularized theory, it was also their project?

quote:

---

m: Yes, as I mentioned, there was that shift in philosophy that influenced some to embrace the notion of Darwinian evolution and the details of the argument that would enable it to be thought of as a possibility.

---

e: Martin, people 'convert' to evolution every day. They realize that the stories they have been told are fantasy.

​

Reply:
m: People convert to all sorts of false cults every day for various reasons. People with a "scientific" bent tend to get overcome by evolutionary marketing strategies easier than others, especially if they feel the need to identify with something that is perceived, at least in the popular culture, as being the most "rational" outlook.

​

In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)

​

--Marty

[QUOTE] Reply:
Now you're talking. You're right--no more of this naturalistic, it "must have" (happened this way) mentality that is being disguised in our textbooks as science.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty[/B][/QUOTE]OK, time to put up or shut up.Please list some textbook titles, publishers, page numbers, and quotes to back up your claim that science textbooks teach that there is no God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
I don't mind limiting science to empirical data. But I insist on distinguishing empirical data from governing philosophical systems that assume BECAUSE WE STUDY NATURE, NATURE IS ALL THAT EXISTS.

---

OK, but I think you are missing the more important point. How do we determine the veracity of a claim if we have no data? If you claim that we have non-natural data, explain what it is and how we can verify it.

quote:

---

". . . and this is the part of the story that is the most difficult to understand; at some point these physical particles must have come together to form life from nonlife."

---

Without assuming things for which we HAVE NO DATA, this is correct. How do you get around the problem of not having any data?

quote:

---

It is not empirical.

---

Empirical refers to data that we can sense, at least it is derived from such data. It is empirical. What you are proposing is NOT empirical.

quote:

---

It is not just procedurally innocent ol' blokes who use "naturalism" simply because they are limited to their senses when they investigate nature.

---

This, I think, I've covered. [quote][b]It is philosophical indoctrination. You disagree with this, don't you?[/quote][/b]Not entirely. I understand your meaning but it doesn't get you around the problem of evidence or the lack of it. I think I've asked you before but if not I'll ask now. How without data do you distinguish true from false?

quote:

---

I believe there are good grounds for making the case that we can appeal to the issue of secondary assumptions (and evolutionism's overuse of them) in order to illustrate the superior nature of creationism over evolutionism.

---

So make the case, in detail, please.

quote:

---

Here are some distinguishing traits of the meaning of "kind":
--One kind cannot transform itself into another kind.
--Each kind may experience a limited variation as per the genetic
barriers incorporated into the kind (thus, many different
varieties can emerge within the basic framework of each kind).
--A great many different kinds were created in each of the nine
major groups (excluding man) that are specifically listed in
Genesis.

---

But nothing here allows for rigid categorization and testing. If so, we could settle this issue in matter of years. This is just double talk.

quote:

---

That is a fantastic claim.

---

Well, thousands of archeologists and palentologists disagree with you.

quote:

---

We are created in God's image. God did use consistency. We do too. It's one of those secondary assumptions to conclude that this would imply a weakness on God's part.

---

I anticipated this. We are a reflection of God and so our nature says something about God. As above so below and beyond I imagine. It is just about the only argument I can think of that makes any sense at all.I said nothing about weakness.

quote:

---

Now you're talking. You're right--no more of this naturalistic, it "must have" (happened this way) mentality that is being disguised in our textbooks as science.

​

---

Good. Where is your hard evidence?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:
e: But you are saying that since MSH deposits were laid down rapidly deposited and that the geological column must have been likewise rapidly emplaced. You are saying that since we can form laminations in laboratory settings rapidly, then all laminae must have been deposited rapidly.

​

m: or COULD'VE been, since we're discussing two philosophies.
e: Okay, then what about coral reefs? Rapid or slow? What about starved basins, rapid or slow? What about shelf deposits, rapid ro slow? What about the periods of hiatus between depositional events, rapid or slow? Melting glaciers, fast or slow? The point here is that in order to fit all of the geological events of history into a 6ky framework, they all have to be very fast. You may not know it but this is what you are saying.

​

Reply:
m:And I don't have a problem saying that; I don't have a problem saying that some of the geological features (that you cite) can be accounted for by processes that took months, years, hundreds or even thousands of years, but not millions.

---

So are you saying that the Great Barrier Reef formed in months, or years? How much has it grown since we have been observing it? This might give a clue as to how fast it formed. And why not millions of years? You simply make a judgement call without any backup. If you look at the geological record there are hundreds of coral reefs built up at different times. How are you going to account for thousands of geological bodies that each took thousands of years to form?

quote:

---

e: And to top it off, all of the rapid events that you have mentioned are readily addressed by mainstream geology.

​

reply:
Mainstream geology, as developed as it may be, is still an interpretive science.

---

Your point being? Oh, maybe you have something better?

quote:

---

m: I don't doubt that they arrived at their conclusions purely by reasoning. The shift in thinking from realism to naturalism influenced many to think of ways in which the popularized theory of evolution could be made to work.

​

e: Why do you think there was such a shift to naturalism? Could it be that the evidence pointed in that direction?

​

Reply:
m: The evidence that seemed to support the philosophy was emphasized, and the evidence that contradicted it was ignored. I still think realism is more rational than naturalism, though.

---

Ignored? Heck that's all they had before naturalism. How could it have been ignored? Isn't it more reasonable to assume that evidence led the creationist scientists toward naturalism?

quote:

---

M: Reply: Creationism hasn't failed scientifically (nor in any other way, except that, for mere sociological reasons, it has not become the state-embraced religion as naturalism has in many ways). It's one philosophy (that garners support from physics) versus another philosophy (that garners support from physics). Evolutionary scientists move on, and so do creation scientists move on.

​

quote:
e: No. It has failed miserably.

​

reply:
m: What has? Evolutionism?

---

Please read my post in context. You are wasting time and space.

quote:

---

e: No creationist yet has explained to us why flowering plants are found only in strata from the latest Mesozoic to the present.

​

reply:
m: Evolutionists have not dared to concede what evolutionist Dr. E.J.H. Corner (Cantab.) admitted: "To any fair-minded person, the fossil record of plants is in favor of creation--not evolution." The truth is that many scientists believe in evolution, not because the scientific evidence favors evolution instead of creation, but because they prefer to believe in evolution, no matter what the scientific evidence says.

---

Are you saying that you can't explain it? And why should I care what someone else's opinion is? Do you want to play dueling quotes?

quote:

---

No creationis has brought to the table a credible instance of a human being or human artifacts in existence in the Cambrian Period.

​

reply:
No evolutionist has brought to the table a credible instance of a life form that led to the (actually, sudden appearance of) complex invertebrate life at the Cambrian level.

---

Are you answering my statement or diverting attention? In answer to yours, yes this has been done. There are precursors in the Vendian lifeforms.

quote:

---

e: Why? We can give reasonable answers to these questions right now. It is not a matter of philosophy. It is a matter of evidence. Where is your evidence?

​

reply:
I've taken down your questions. I've explained why I can't give pat answers right now for some technical matters--isn't that fair enough?

---

But that's the whole idea of science. To make reasonable explanations of nature. If you have something better it should be a better explanation.

quote:

---

we can agree that:

​

(1) if a creationist who has an in-depth knowledge of scientific creationism, engages an evolutionist who is not very dedicated to the study of the scientific arguments for his position, in all liklihood, the evolutionist would have to put off some responses

​

e: The only thing I can agree on here is that some aspects of evolution are highly technical and a given layman may not have the expertise (This is, of course, opposed to creationism, where everyone is an expert in geology after reading a few papers and websites).

​

Reply:
Have I written something on this website that leads you to believe that I think I am an expert?

---

No of course not! Besides, my statement was a generalization.

quote:

---

e: But there is always someone out there who can answer your questions. I have never seen a scientific question asked by a creationist that an evo did not eventually respond to.

​

reply
m: So, if that is true, it means that evolution must be true?

---

Please analyze the posts carefully. Is this what I said?

quote:

---

...I think we're engaged in a trivial matter here.

---

I was only responding to your post.

quote:

---

...M: "ALL of the data" (compiled under the assumption of the validity of the philosophy of naturalism) would certainly "rule it out." All of the work on one side of the issue or another feeds back to the philosophy one starts with.

​

e: This is absolutely wrong. Remember it was creationists who eventually discovered the old earth and evolution. It was a matter of evidence.

​

reply:
m: By "eventually discovered the old earth and evolution," I assume you mean that because some creationists capitulated to the popularized theory, it was also their project?

---

Is that what I said? No, they were convinced by the evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi:

Here are some distinguishing traits of the meaning of "kind":
--One kind cannot transform itself into another kind.

---

So lets for a moment assume that 'dog' is a kind. Scientists study it for years or decades or whatever. After a while they notices that it is no longer a 'dog'. They bring this evidence to a creationist. Using your definition of a 'kind' the creationist can claim that 'dog' isn't really a 'kind' because if it was it would not have been able to change. Therefore the 'kind' barrier must be higher up and this new form is just change within a 'kind'.Claiming that no creature can evolve between 'kinds' and then making that one of the points used to define 'kind' is circular reasoning.------------------
compmage

quote:

---

So lets for a moment assume that 'dog' is a kind. Scientists study it for years or decades or whatever. After a while they notices that it is no longer a 'dog'. They bring this evidence to a creationist. Using your definition of a 'kind' the creationist can claim that 'dog' isn't really a 'kind' because if it was it would not have been able to change. Therefore the 'kind' barrier must be higher up and this new form is just change within a 'kind'.

​

Claiming that no creature can evolve between 'kinds' and then making that one of the points used to define 'kind' is circular reasoning.

---

You got our position wrong. The bible doesn't say they don't change, it says that they reproduce after their own kind. Like if two dogs reproduce, they produce dogs. He's saying that if two dogs mate, then they don't produce cats. You agree with this, don't you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
You got our position wrong. The bible doesn't say they don't change, it says that they reproduce after their own kind. Like if two dogs reproduce, they produce dogs. He's saying that if two dogs mate, then they don't produce cats. You agree with this, don't you?

---

You've just described evolution.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

You've just described evolution.

---

No, evolution says that given enough time, a kind will evolve into several different kinds, or most likely get eliminated.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

You've just described evolution.

---

​

No

---

Yes. If they reproduce after their own kind AND they change, eventually the 'dog' won't look much like a dog at all and eventually won't be much of a dog at all; but at every step of the way creatures will be reproducing after there own kind.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

You've just described evolution.

---

​

No, evolution says that given enough time, a kind will evolve into several different kinds, or most likely get eliminated.

​

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-02-2002]

---

No, that isn't what evolution says.Evolution says that change happens.

quote:
So are you saying that the Great Barrier Reef formed in months, or years? How much has it grown since we have been observing it? This might give a clue as to how fast it formed.reply:
I've taken note of the Great Barrier Reef, and if you don't mind waiting, I'll get back with you about that example. One of the assumptions of naturalism that isn't necessarily correct (as it applies to this topic), is that observed geological structures were formed slowly, or over successive vast periods of time.quote:
And why not millions of years? You simply make a judgement call without any backup. If you look at the geological record there are hundreds of coral reefs built up at different times. How are you going to account for thousands of geological bodies that each took thousands of years to form?reply:
How do you know for sure that the reefs were built up at different times, in the sense of what I think you're suggesting (that there were vast spans of times between the growth of each)?

quote:

---

e: And to top it off, all of the rapid events that you have mentioned are readily addressed by mainstream geology.

​

reply:
Mainstream geology, as developed as it may be, is still an interpretive science.

---

e: Your point being? Oh, maybe you have something better?reply:
As familiar with the proponents of evolutionism as I am, it still surprises me to constantly encounter this shrugging off of the interpretive issue (that just feeds back to the philosophy of naturalism). There is something better than operating as if one's favored beliefs represents the best or most accurate beliefs, especially when such beliefs, by definition, rule out the possibility that a challenging view may be the right one. Of course, the problem really comes home when textbooks are imbued with that type of thinking.

quote:

---

m: I don't doubt that they arrived at their conclusions purely by reasoning. The shift in thinking from realism to naturalism influenced many to think of ways in which the popularized theory of evolution could be made to work.

​

e: Why do you think there was such a shift to naturalism? Could it be that the evidence pointed in that direction?

​

Reply:
m: The evidence that seemed to support the philosophy was emphasized, and the evidence that contradicted it was ignored. I still think realism is more rational than naturalism, though.

---

e: Ignored? Heck that's all they had before naturalism. How could it have been ignored? Isn't it more reasonable to assume that evidence led the creationist scientists toward naturalism?Reply:
No. The tide of Darwin's influence was so philosophically irresistible that event the most prestigious of scientists--Harvard's Louis Agassiz, for example--became an instant has-been for failing to join the movement.Paleontologists became so committed to the "new" way of thinking that fossil studies were published only if they supported the theory, and were discarded as failures if they showed an absence of evolutionary change. As Phillip Johnson correctly pointed out, "Darwin apparently passed the fossil test, but only because it was not allowed to fail."

quote:

---

M: Reply: Creationism hasn't failed scientifically (nor in any other way, except that, for mere sociological reasons, it has not become the state-embraced religion as naturalism has in many ways). It's one philosophy (that garners support from physics) versus another philosophy (that garners support from physics). Evolutionary scientists move on, and so do creation scientists move on.

​

quote:
e: No. It has failed miserably.

​

reply:
m: What has? Evolutionism?

---

e: Please read my post in context. You are wasting time and space.reply:
But evolution HAS failed miserably (--that was my point; I don't think it was a waste of space any more than your original comment there). If you're offended by the degree of light sarcasm, then I think that there's good fodder for offense throughout this website on both sides of the great divide.

quote:

---

e: No creationist yet has explained to us why flowering plants are found only in strata from the latest Mesozoic to the present.

​

reply:
m: Evolutionists have not dared to concede what evolutionist Dr. E.J.H. Corner (Cantab.) admitted: "To any fair-minded person, the fossil record of plants is in favor of creation--not evolution." The truth is that many scientists believe in evolution, not because the scientific evidence favors evolution instead of creation, but because they prefer to believe in evolution, no matter what the scientific evidence says.

---

e: Are you saying that you can't explain it?reply:
I'm saying that an honest expert, who is surely knowledgeable of your question (and of far more--enabling him to have a better perspective about botany than either of us), concedes what he concedes for a reason, i.e., due to the evidence.But, again, I've noted your question and I'll get back with you.e: And why should I care what someone else's opinion is? Do you want to play dueling quotes?reply:
You might not care at all about someone's informed opinion if that opinion undermines your philosophy of life. Statements by some honest evolutionists seem pretty noteworthy to me, though (especially when their credentials are better than most, perhaps better than anyone who is a regular on this website).

quote:

---

No creationis has brought to the table a credible instance of a human being or human artifacts in existence in the Cambrian Period.

​

reply:
No evolutionist has brought to the table a credible instance of a life form that led to the (actually, sudden appearance of) complex invertebrate life at the Cambrian level.

---

e: Are you answering my statement or diverting attention? In answer to yours, yes this has been done. There are precursors in the Vendian lifeforms.reply:
I'll see about the Vendian and previous claims.

quote:

---

e: Why? We can give reasonable answers to these questions right now. It is not a matter of philosophy. It is a matter of evidence. Where is your evidence?

​

reply:
I've taken down your questions. I've explained why I can't give pat answers right now for some technical matters--isn't that fair enough?

---

But that's the whole idea of science. To make reasonable explanations of nature. If you have something better it should be a better explanation.reply:
I have never had a problem with the idea of science making reasonable explanations of nature. I have a problem with the mindset that perpetuates the Darwinian error: arriving at conclusions by way of naturalistic philosophy rather than from empirical evidence.

quote:

---

...M: "ALL of the data" (compiled under the assumption of the validity of the philosophy of naturalism) would certainly "rule it out." All of the work on one side of the issue or another feeds back to the philosophy one starts with.

​

e: This is absolutely wrong. Remember it was creationists who eventually discovered the old earth and evolution. It was a matter of evidence.

​

reply:
m: By "eventually discovered the old earth and evolution," I assume you mean that because some creationists capitulated to the popularized theory, it was also their project?

---

Is that what I said? No, they were convinced by the evidence.[/B][/QUOTE]reply:
I guess I responded to the essence of your claim already in the above material.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

m: Creationism's validity has so much going for it that these sorts of (alleged, for now) errors don't really threaten the situation.

---

​

s: The woodpecker and bobmadier beetle arguments were refuted DECADES ago, yet they are still floating around Creationist circles and turn up every now and again.

​

They are stiill around because Creationists at all levels are notorious for caring very little, if at all, if the evidence which seems to support their view is of good quality, and also because there is no application of the scientific method to Creationism.

​

Creationists are not interested in finding out the truth about the natural world; they are interested in promoting a particular interpretation of an ancient religious book. The big Creationist names don't care about quality scholarship, intellectual honesty, or rigorous aherence to the scientific method. They care about winning as many converts as possibe. If the full truth is not disclosed about scientific research and people are misled, then so be it. If you are corrected over and over again about facual errors such as the woodpecker's tongue and the Bombadier bettle, it doesn't really matter because we are going to another town next week where the audience will be filled with people ignorant of science.

​

"Liars for Jesus" is the term, I think.

​

Reply:
You speak of quality scholarship, intellectual honesty, and rigorous adherence to the scientific method. Even IF your characterization of creation scientists was accurate, evolution scientists lie more if that's the term you'd prefer. Evolution scientists have so brainwashed the public that the public in effect believes as fact, the ridiculous notions that:
--chemicals have a tendency or ability to form living cells, and single-celled organisms have a tendency or ability to form complex plants and animals;
--"self-organizing systems" like snowflakes, rock crystals, lightning, etc., are analogous to different complex structures that are INFORMATION-rich, such as living systems;
--reproduction can produce radically new organs or organisms one tiny step at a time OR all at once;
--"simple" life forms can be transformed into the highly complex organisms that inhabit our planet today; natural selection in combination with random mutation, has the kind of creative power needed to make complex plants and animals out of much simpler predecessors;
--even though selective breeding, which in any case presupposes the guiding power of human intelligence, produces change only within the existing gene pool, the Darwinian mechanism made flowers, insects, whales, and human beings from single-celled microorganisms;
--nature has the resources to do its own creating;
--intelligence and purpose did not come into existence until they evolved;
--ETC.

​

In light of these few above-mentioned assumptions that naturalists have popularized as being virtually synonymous with empirical thought, I think the case for who the greatest liars are, is clearly against the promoters of the cult of evolutionism.

​

quote:

---

m: Let me get this straight, though, are you saying that YOUR sources that teach that those limitless related genetic mistakes that occured over and over to produce macroevolutionary change, are reliable?!

---

​

s: Genetic change is not limitless, so your argument is a strawman.

​

Reply:
m: Pardon the hyperbole . . . virtually limitless.

​

s: Genetic change is not all there is to evolution, either, so that is also a strawman.

​

Reply:
That was just an aspect of the subject I mentioned; I know that's not all that evolutionists appeal to for their tale.
OK, I'll rephrase: Are you saying that evolutionary conjecture is reliable, the sort of conjecture applicable to, say . . . well, let's use the issue of non-flying animals changing into flying animals--how about the bat. According to these supposedly reliable evolutionists, many marvelous things would have to happen in just the right order, so that the intermediates could not only survive, but actually be superior to the preceding form. A mutation (right?) had to lengthen the fingers in order for the bat to evolve. I think almost all of the fingers on the bat would have had to evolve in order to support the wing membrane. So, RELATED mutations were necessary that would lengthen almost all of the fingers. Unless I'm mistaken, evolution teaches struggle for existence--mutation--struggle for existence--mutation, all the while fingers getting longer and longer, and wing membranes and flight muscles developing oh so rationally. It would also be necessary, I think, for these mutations to produce an extremely complicated sonar system, "de novo," in that there was nothing (correct me if I'm wrong here) in the bat's supposed ancestor, from which the sonar system could have evolved.

​

First of all, in your view, is the ESSENCE of my idea about the evolutionary example here accurate? If so, I return to the original point of this part of our exchange: Do you think your evolutionary sources of information are RELIABLE?!

​

---

In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B][QUOTE] Reply:
Now you're talking. You're right--no more of this naturalistic, it "must have" (happened this way) mentality that is being disguised in our textbooks as science.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty[/B][/QUOTE]OK, time to put up or shut up.Please list some textbook titles, publishers, page numbers, and quotes to back up your claim that science textbooks teach that there is no God.Reply:
I pick the "put up." The first high school text book I picked up when I became interested in this controversy, is entitled, "BIOLOGY." It was authored by Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D., et al. (New Jersey, Prentice, pp.344-345, 1991). Here's one portion that I'd like to comment on:The next step in our story is the most difficult to understand. From the jumbled mixture of molecules in the organic soup that formed the Earth's oceans, the highly organized structures of RNA and DNA must somehow have evolved. Scientists do not know how these vital information carriers formed.That's it. Many evolutionists would emphasize that the last sentence straightens everything out--scientists don't know. But it doesn't straighten anything out--it's saying that the scientists don't know HOW THE EVOLUTION OCCURED, BUT THAT IT "MUST SOMEHOW HAVE EVOLVED." Because if it didn't evolve, well, well then . . . well, we can't even consider anything except that it HAD TO evolve.
I didn't read that whole book, but such irrational comments as this citation provides, is typical of the blatant assumptivism that runs rampant throughout "science" textbooks. No, it was not said explicitly that there is no God, but it doesn't need to--the force of such implicit statements as I allude to, especially when carried with the force of repetition throughout everything a student is exposed to, accomplishes the same job effectively enough. That whole organic soup nonsense is typical textbook evolutionary conjecture, nothing but an irrational requirement of a not so modern myth that the facts have failed.In remembrance that only Jesus must be reckoned with . . . (martinkoszegi@yahoo.com)--Marty

quote:

---

reply:
m: By "eventually discovered the old earth and evolution," I assume you mean that because some creationists capitulated to the popularized theory, it was also their project?

---

Is that what I said? No, they were convinced by the evidence.[/B][/QUOTE]reply:
I guess I responded to the essence of your claim already in the above material.[/QUOTE]Marty, it was Creationist Geologists who figured out that there was no evidence for a Biblical Flood, and that the Earth was very, very old.The idea wasn't "popular" at that time. It was the Creationist scientists who came up with the idea in the first place.Remember, at that time (pre Darwin) there were no other scientists other than Creationist scientists.Science was not formalized or professionalized.Science was something "gentleman naturalists" did, and many were also members of the clergy.The thing is, they were much better scientists that those that call them selves Creation "scientists" today, and possesed intellectual integrity, which is why they allowed the evidence they found in nature to guide their conclusions.Today, to be a Creation Scientist, you must not allow the evidence to goide your conclusions, because the conclusions are already decided for you, before you do a single bit of research. It doesn't matter what nature says; what you are "supposed" to find is what is allowed to be discussed.Just look at the research guidelines at AiG. They flat out tell the world that they are not interested in looking at any evidence or research which contradicts their interpretation of the Bible.So much for intellectual integrity. Ignoring evidence is what they are all about.

quote:

---

You speak of quality scholarship, intellectual honesty, and rigorous adherence to the scientific method. Even IF your characterization of creation scientists was accurate,

---

It is. Would you like me to provide some examples for you?

quote:

---

evolution scientists lie more if that's the term you'd prefer. Evolution scientists have so brainwashed the public that the public in effect believes as fact, the ridiculous notions that:
--chemicals have a tendency or ability to form living cells, and single-celled organisms have a tendency or ability to form complex plants and animals;

---

TheToE and science do not posit this. If the public believes this, it's because they get poor science education in school and none in college.

quote:

---

--"self-organizing systems" like snowflakes, rock crystals, lightning, etc., are analogous to different complex structures that are INFORMATION-rich, such as living systems;

---

First of all, I doubt if "most people" think this.Second, what scinece class did you learn this in? Sounds like a simple refutation of the age-old Creationist misunderstanding of the 2ndLoT; of not being able to get order spontaneously arising from disorder.

quote:

---

--reproduction can produce radically new organs or organisms one tiny step at a time OR all at once;

---

Tell me how you know "the public" thinks this to be the case?Also, please give an example of whare scientists have actually claimed that entire organs have arisen "all at once". Evolutionary theory has never posited this as far as I know.Are you sure you actually know what the theory actually states? I am thinking that you are using a cartoon-version of the ToE instead of the real one, and I am thinking that you are using Creationist sites as your sources instead of science-based sites.

quote:

---

--"simple" life forms can be transformed into the highly complex organisms that inhabit our planet today; natural selection in combination with random mutation, has the kind of creative power needed to make complex plants and animals out of much simpler predecessors;

---

I still don't think that most people understand even this much about science, but this is the first of your characterizations of the theory that is correct. There is a great deal of evidence to support this. There is no better explanation than the ToE so far.Creationists tend to do what you are doing now; spending no time doing the difficult, sometimes tedious work of understanding the mechanisms of nature and building their own theory. Instead, they spend all of their time trying to poke holes in one of the most rock-solid of all scientific theories, which has entire libraries worth of evidence to support it.All of this bluster on the basis of a particular interpretation of a particular version of a particular religion.

quote:

---

--even though selective breeding, which in any case presupposes the guiding power of human intelligence, produces change only within the existing gene pool, the Darwinian mechanism made flowers, insects, whales, and human beings from single-celled microorganisms;

---

yep, sure did. Isn't it just wonderful and amazing?Actually, Biology has gone far beyond Darwin, although his work still stands. There are other mechanisms other than Darwinian to consider, such as PunkEek.

quote:

---

--nature has the resources to do its own creating;intelligence and purpose did not come into existence until they evolved;

---

Sure, why not?OTOH, since most people belive in God, and most of those believe in something like Theistic Evolution, most people, therefore, don't think that nature is all there is.

quote:

---

In light of these few above-mentioned assumptions that naturalists have popularized as being virtually synonymous with empirical thought,

---

They are not assumptions.They are all based upon a great deal of evidence, and millions of hours of research by thousands of scientists over at least 140 years.Please read Talkorigins. Please buy a textbook of Biology. Please take a university-level Intro to Biology 101 class.

quote:

---

I think the case for who the greatest liars are, is clearly against the promoters of the cult of evolutionism.

---

No, sorry. Science has a self-correcting mechanism called peer-review. See, science is a pretty contentious business. Somewhere, somebody strongly disagrees with what you think the evidence says. It is time and many repeated tests (by different people and within different disciplines) which proves the validity and the accuracy of a theory.By contrast, Creation "science" is evaluated only by how closely it adheres to what an ancient religious book is interpreted by someone to mean.Sorry, there is just no discipline or intellectual honesty there.I will emphasize here that I don't care what you believe.I do care that Creationists are demeaning science and religion both by dressing their religion up in a lab coat, shoving a beaker in it's hand and trying to pass the poor thing off as science. Why does the Bible need the approval of science to be taken seriously? Why have you reduced the importance of the Bible to that which can be attempted to be supported by science? Isn't the important part of the Bible are the life lessons and guidence it provides for how to live a just and good life?

quote:

---

OK, I'll rephrase: Are you saying that evolutionary conjecture is reliable,

---

Evolution has been observed, so yes, I would say that it is reliable.Just as reliable as observing the evidence for gravity.

quote:

---

the sort of conjecture applicable to, say . . . well, let's use the issue of non-flying animals changing into flying animals--how about the bat. According to these supposedly reliable evolutionists, many marvelous things would have to happen in just the right order, so that the intermediates could not only survive, but actually be superior to the preceding form.

---

No, not surperior. Evolution is not goal-oriented. If environmental pressures favor a certain trait because it confers an advantage, then it will proliferate.

quote:

---

A mutation (right?) had to lengthen the fingers in order for the bat to evolve. I think almost all of the fingers on the bat would have had to evolve in order to support the wing membrane. So, RELATED mutations were necessary that would lengthen almost all of the fingers.

---

I don't think it had to be a mutation. I think that variation within individuals, with selection pressure favoring those with longer digits for reproduction, would be sufficient to produce longer digits.Remember, a bat wing has all the same bones as any other mammal forelimb. It's just a remodel. [QUOTE]Unless I'm mistaken, evolution teaches struggle for existence--mutation--struggle for existence--mutation, all the while fingers getting longer and longer, and wing membranes and flight muscles developing oh so rationally.

quote:

---

I think I agree...

​

This is not how I would describe it though...

​

[QUOTE]It would also be necessary, I think, for these mutations to produce an extremely complicated sonar system, "de novo," in that there was nothing (correct me if I'm wrong here) in the bat's supposed ancestor, from which the sonar system could have evolved.

​

First of all, in your view, is the ESSENCE of my idea about the evolutionary example here accurate? If so, I return to the original point of this part of our exchange: Do you think your evolutionary sources of information are RELIABLE?!

​

[/B]

---

Yup, I do think they are more reliable.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-03-2002][This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-03-2002]