Joined: Mar 2003 Gender: Male Posts: 56 Location: In transition between county
IMPORTANT NOTICE « Result #1 on Nov 18, 2003, 9:49pm »
If anybody is still posting on the old creo-forums, I must say that we have a set of forums @ http://www.creo-forums.tk . Sign up there if you want any responses
It has been some time since I have visited this site. I sen a response to your item which commenced with the line "Welcome, Leonid! It's been pretty slow around here....."
"God actually wants us to discover the truth and will not stop us if that's what we are looking for. But God does not want us to stop there - he wants us to use that knowledge.
And if that truth is, as all of biology and paleontology points, that we are descended from a common ancestor with the other apes, what then? We're already starting to use that precise knowledge to combat diseases like AIDS. Is that what you mean?"
I had said "God won't stop us if we look for truth." He wants us to find truth. If we are hell-bent (and I mean that literally) on trying to find ways to wipe out God, we are deceiving other people and being deceived ourselves. God, in His mercy and grace might try to stop us, but in the end if we continue to rebell against Him, He hands us over to having minds that are lied to.
Using ape-ancestry belief (that sure makes evolution sound as ugly as idol worshipping religions) to combat AIDS - I am no biologists (I am a mathematician). But this I will say about that; animals may have a similar manufacturing design. Just like a machine factory makes many different, non-related items, with similar designs. If that is the case, experiments on diseases in apes could be beneficial for man. This does not imply ape-ancestry, only similarities in mechanical design.
"If you had a Paul-like experience on the road to the next town, with God telling you that he created man through the process of evolution, would you believe him, or stick with the book you've got now?"
If I had such an experience, I can tell you this. (And I am speaking on behalf of myself, based on my Bible knowledge.):
God does not lie. He does not say something, then 2000 years later, say that He lied back then. God is able to tell the truth, get that truth to be written down and preserve the book containing it. If anyone doubts those accounts (the Bible), that person does harm to himself. If anyone adds or takes away from the Bible, he does himself and many others harm. He is believing a lie and spreading one.
There have been and will be many who do this - add or take away from the truth of the Bible. Many have claimed that God told them to do it. They are lying. The only supernatural beings who would twist God's Word and lie about it is the devil and his angels (called demons).
So, if "God" came up to me and said that the Bible is false; and this person who claimed to be God, said that the evolution & big-bang theory (which are opposed to the Bible) are true; I would know immediately this - this person is not God; he is the satan (the accuser) or one of his angels (demons).
I, personally, know God has not lied in the Bible and would not lie. That's where I stand.
"Do you know any biologists or physicists that worship images of reptiles? I don't. Where do they hang out?"
I was expecting you to think carefully over those words, but evidently you did not. Perhaps you have not engaged in modern-day idol worship and do not understand it. I do, for I used to worship the military of Russian and of Germany. By worship, I mean, to acknowledge as being above God, and to get really excited about in your heart whenever you hear about it. At the slightest mention of Russia or Germany, my heart would leap and I would pay full attention. I loved those two nation's military might. Now, I know some physicists who, are thrilled about certain things in nature. My friend back in school loved the stars. He loved atoms, quantum theory. Basically an idol is anything we place above God in our hearts and lives. I did this with the military of Russia and of Germany (and of a few other things). The Bible quote I placed, if spoken to today's scientific audience would read:
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and decaying systems in nature and the large dying bodies in space. --They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator. --Romans 1:18-23, 25.
Joined: May 2003 Gender: Male Posts: 5 Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: How can life come from non-life? « Result #3 on Nov 11, 2003, 1:11pm »
Quote:
"Prejudices"? Thats an interesting spin to put on a viable scientific theory.
Well, it is a viable naturalistic theory, providing, of course, that naturalism is a true view of universal reality. The fact is we humans, scientists or not, are biased and predjudiced and the nature of the evidence for macro-evolution vs. some form of supernatural creationism is hardly empirical, observable, or testable.
Quote:
Such acumen and clarity of thought - surely you must have an advanced degree in paleontology and studied it for many years to compose so lucid and fact-filled a rebuttal as that.
Do you think you could argue a point without ad hominim attacks?
No, I am not a paleontologist. Darwin was degreed in theology, Charles Lyllel was a lawyer, and Albert Einstein was a patent office clerk. What's your point? I can read and there are people who have studied these evidences (and , no, I don't only read creationist literature, I used to be an atheist).
Quote:
Though I wonder - had you considered, in your in-depth studies, that is, the possibility that the nautiloids and clams may have 'macroevolved' prior to their lengthy seperate lineages?
I believe several species of clams may have micro-evolved from a common ancestor just as some of the different nautiloid forms may have micro-evolved from a common ancestor... I don't think there is any real evidence that a clam became a nautiloid, however.
Quote:
That is actually a small difference. But you forgot the punchline - YOURS is the RIGHT 'worldview'. Right?
I think all scientists recognize this as well. Creationists, however, seem to believe that when reality conflicts with their 'worldview', their 'worldview' wins by default. YOu still want to claim that evolution requires abiogenesis, don't you?
Seing as how there is no demonstratable empiracle evidence of macro-evolution except in the minds of those that behold it, I would say that both of our metaphysical preconceptions are just that - yours is based on naturalism and mine is based on supernaturalism.
As to abiogenesis, if naturalism is true, then abiogenesis MUST have happened. Either life arose by a purely naturalistic means or it didn't. Seing as how our real space-time universe appears to be finite in size and time, one cannot argue effectively that we were designed or placed here by any previously evolved material being as they would also have had to been formed by a process of abiogenesis then biological evolution. so, do you have a real third alternative?
Quote:
Ooooh - mistakes in sequencing! Evolution MUST be wrong!
I think you protest too much by putting words in my mouth. I do not think finding mistakes proves evolution false... it simply proves that it is not the infallable holy grail that many evolutionists make it out to be.
Quote:
So? Who cares what YOU question? Who are you that anyone should take your personal prejudices as calls to action?
And if I ask you the same question?
Quote:
But the Hebrew tribal deity CAN make men from dust - then kill them in a flood...
Yep, God can destroy His creation if He wishes... and He will again.
Quote:
If you say so. Your prejudices seem to dictate your thoughts. Shame....
Re: How can life come from non-life? « Result #4 on Nov 8, 2003, 8:07pm »
Quote:
I thought he might like to question whether or not the naturalistic explanation is as solidly based as the evolutionary propaganda indicates.
That you refer to science as propaganda is indicative of your naivete and willingness to be deceived. Quote:
Amino acid monomers do form into polypeptides, but the polypeptides formed from all naturally formed "prebiotic soups" are racemized and biologically inactive...
They are? How do you know what they were like? Were you there? Quote:
they are neither proteins nor enzymes. Yet, at least 239 true proteins are required to produce even a minimalist basic form of life and there seems be no natural way to produce the 100% pure lavorotary soup of amino acids required to produce these proteins.
Interesting. I would like to know how it was that you came to this ultimate knowledge. Where are the 'minimal' number of proteins defined and how was this determined? Who defined the "minimalist" basic life form and how was this determined? Why would life as we know it require 100% pure L-form amio acids to choose form? How do you know this?
As you stated the abover as facts, it should be no problem for you to support them. Quote:
I do try to read the research papers when I get time. Neither life nor anything closely resembling it has yet been created in the lab. Even if life could be created would that prove that the required basic molecules could naturally arrange themselves against the highly improbable odds into the symbiotically complex bio-chemical equivalent of a self-replicating, self-repairing, metabolizing von Neumann machine? Or would such a feat merely demonstrate that it takes incredible intellect along with highly controlled and contrived conditions that would be impossible in the real world in order to make these molecules behave in a fashion that is highly improbable in any natural environment.
TRANSLATION:
If you want me to believe in evolution, create life in a lab, but then if you do this, it will actually be proof of creation! Quote:
snip creationsafari links=== If you know of something other than a typical evolutionary "just so" story, please enlighten us. In fact, if anyone thinks they can answer the question as to the mystery of life’s origin and the origin of the information required, there are organizations that will reward anyone who can contribute a workable scenario.
Why would you expect evolutionists to be interested in abiogenesis? Can't you tell the difference? Or doesn't it matter? Quote:
Not just would a Nobel Prize be in order, but also there is at least one organization offering $1.35 million to anyone who can come up with an abiogenesis scenario that actually works: The Origin-of-Life Prize (NOT from a creationist organization): http://www.us.net/life/
Actually, that is a bogus 'prize.' Several of the supposed judges, when contacted, hadn't ever heard of the 'prize.' Quote:
I am saying that the belief in an intelligent creator God is not irrational especially in light of the fact that it is the evolutionists who are promoting their own faith in their naturalistic "just so" stories without any real evidence.
Repeated mantreas are the creationists' forte, it seems. At least the evolutionist has the ability to support their 'just so stories' with evidence. The creationist has either more just-so stories or bible verses. Quote:
The observations of reality indicate that naturalistic processes are insufficient to produce life and molecules-to-man evolution. The implications of that reality is that a creator exists.
Gibberish. The evidence indicates that evolution did and does occur. Quote:
Well, the ID movement (Intelligent Design) is opening up discussions in universities.
Anyone can rent rooms at universities and claim a university affiliation. That does not make it so. The discussions, by the way, are almost universally negative. A few of the same old talking heads (Behe, Meyer, etc.) claiming victory for ID right around the corner, legitimate non-political scientists keep asking them for the beef...
Re: How can life come from non-life? « Result #5 on Nov 8, 2003, 7:54pm »
Quote:
Jumping the gun a little, aren't we? ALL of biology and paleontology does NOT point to the "fact" that we are descended from a common ancestor with the other apes (e.g., http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0103.htm#gene105 - 100 Microbial Genomes Confuse, Not Clarify, Evolutionary Histories 01/16/2003 and http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev1102.htm#gene94 - Is Darwin’s Tree of Life Visible in the Genes? 11/26/2002). In fact, MOST of biology and biological research works just fine without the Darwinian macro-evolutionary predjudices.
"Prejudices"? Thats an interesting spin to put on a viable scientific theory. This is, of course, opposed to the objective, truth seeking scientists associated with the various creationist organizations. You know - the ones that are not permitted to question their chosen dogma and all that... Quote:
Paleontology also offers us clear delineations between the different orders of once living organisms. The only clear "evolution" demonstrated being that of micro-evolution (e.g., various forms of clams or nautiloids which remain 100%clam or nautiloid throughout the series). The paleontological evidence of "macro" evolution is not so clear and in fact rests squarely upon many subjective interpretations.
Such acumen and clarity of thought - surely you must have an advanced degree in paleontology and studied it for many years to compose so lucid and fact-filled a rebuttal as that. Though I wonder - had you considered, in your in-depth studies, that is, the possibility that the nautiloids and clams may have 'macroevolved' prior to their lengthy seperate lineages? Quote:
The big difference between creationism and naturalistic evolutionary theory has to do with how that same raw data of biology, paleontology, etc. is interpreted and "colored" based on one's subjective interpretation based on the underlying worldview of the person examining and interpreting the data.
Thta is actually a small difference. But you forgot the punchline - YOURS is the RIGHT 'worldview'. Right? Quote:
Creationists recognize that science is limited and cannot define all of reality
I think all scientists recognize this as well. Creationists, however, seem to believe that when reality conflicts with their 'worldview', their 'worldview' wins by default. Quote:
(especially, if God actually does exist, He is, by definition, excluded from direct study by the scientific method... His existance can, however, be inferred by evidence that natural processes cannot create life or evolve into ever increasing life forms
YOu still want to claim that evolution requires abiogenesis, don't you? Quote:
As to the "evidence" that man and apes share a common ancestor, the data seems to not be as certain as once proclaimed by evolutionists (e.g., the better than 98% "similarity" between human and chimp genes appears to be have faded somewhat http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev1002.htm#earlyman51 - Human-Ape Differences Grow Wider 10/25/2002 as well as
Typical creationist disinformation. The fact of the matter is, using the 'new' method of distance calculations, all creatures - including individual humans - would be farther apart genetically. But why should I expect creationist propagandist websites to be concerned with something like the truth? Quote:
[url]http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0203.htm#gene110[/url] - Mitochondrial DNA Database Full of Mistakes 02/19/2003, and
Ooooh - mistakes in sequencing! Evolution MUST be wrong! Its a funny thing - I read Sarfati's "Refuting Evolution" and found numerous errors in it. Does that mean that creationism is wrong? Quote:
[url]http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0503.htm#gene127[/url] - Treasure Found in DNA Junkyard 05/23/2003).
Relevance?
NONE. Quote:
I question ANY experience that does not align itself with God's revealed Word.
So? Who cares what YOU question? Who are you that anyone should take your personal prejudices as calls to action? Quote:
Blind, naturalistic evolution is the antithesis of mind and direction as provided by the ultimate mind, God. Chance + natural selection + time + natural processes do NOT appear to be capable of either creating life (abiogenesis) or evolving men from microbes (naturalistic macro-evolution).
But the Hebrew tribal deity CAN make men from dust - then kill them in a flood... Quote:
One worships (believes in and trusts) whatever one replaces God with. Atheists replace God with creation. Humanists bow to the alter of "self", nature , and human reasoning detached from any notion of God. In other words, they honor the creation, not the creator.
If you say so. Your prejudices seem to dictate your thoughts. Shame....
Joined: Mar 2003 Gender: Male Posts: 20 Location: West Texas
Re: Review of Evolution the Fossils.... « Result #6 on Aug 13, 2003, 9:42pm »
Quote:
(Science 128: 1 1958).
1958? Do you think Gish asks for a DC-6 or a DC-7 when his speaking engagements require air travel? Or does he perhaps think that aeronautical engineers work on new stuff, while paleontologists just keep looking through the fossils that Owen dug up in the 1840's?
Read Cradle of Life by J. William Schopf for a slightly more up-to-date treatment of Precambrian fossils.
Joined: Mar 2003 Gender: Male Posts: 56 Location: In transition between county
Review of Evolution the Fossils.... « Result #7 on Aug 13, 2003, 3:15am »
DG next quotes Axelrod:
One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multi-cellular marine invertebrates in lower cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age. (Science 128: 1 1958).
Later in the same publication, Axelrod says about the Precambrian layers. "These sediments apparently were suitable for the preservation of fossils because they are often identical with overlying rocks which are fossiliferous, yet no fossils are found in them."
G.G. Simson in "The Meaning of Evolution, p 18 says this: "[The absence of Precambrian fossils] is the major mystery of the history of life."
Recently, Gish notes, fossils of simple organisms such as coelenterates and echionoderms have been found in pre-Cambrian rocks in Australia, Russia, England, and South Africa. But there cannot be said to be an ancestor to Cambrian fossils, as they are identical to them. The Cambrian explosion has so puzzled Dawkins that he states in p. 229 of The Blind Watchmaker that
And yet we find many of them [the major invertebrate groups] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history"
DG replies that this is exactlly what is predicted by Creationism. DG then goes on to talk about other evolutionists who are puzzled by the Cambrian Explosion and mentions that 1984 discovery of a rich array of complex invertebrates in China. He observes that "evolutionists are getting squeezed more and more" with their dates, as they now have raised the date of the Cambrian period from 600 mil years to around 520 mil. years. DG then quotes S. Bengtson, who makes a most interesting observation:
If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us... (Nature 345: 765 1990).
Gish then spends a while refuting various mechanisms which evolutionists have offered to explain the Cambrian Explosion:
#1: Hidden Evolution
It has been claimed by some that the ancestors of the complex life in Cambrian layers evolved, but left no record behind them. Obviously, this is based on nothing more then the view that evolution has occured.
#2: Skeletons and Evolution
Many suggest that no fossils of the ancestors were left, as these animals were soft bodied, and therefore not readily fossiliferous. However, many discoveries of bacteria and single celled organisms existing as fossils have been reported. If we can find fossils of bacteria, surely we can find fossils of all intermediates between these and higher life forms in the Cambrian.
#3: Oxygen and Animals
Some think that complex invertebrates could only have evolved after a sufficient quantity of O2 had accumulated in the atmosphere. But distribution of uranium, iron, carbon, and sulfer in sedimentary rocks is dependant on the presence of oxygen. Sedimentary rocks assumed to be very young and very "old" sedimantary rocks (3 bil years) were analyzed and no difference was found between them.
#4: Carbonate, Phosphate, and Ocean Chemistry
Some scientists have claimed that a change in ocean chemistry enabled invertebrates to form skeletons whereas they could not before the change. But skeletons of calcium, carbonate, calcium phosphate, biogenic silica, and agglutinated skeletons all appear at once in a great variety of invertebrates.
Joined: Mar 2003 Gender: Male Posts: 23 Location: W81.9 N27.0
Re: Evolution? The fossils..... « Result #8 on Aug 12, 2003, 12:50pm »
Hi Robert,
I hate it when you lose posts like that.
I've looked at the discussion you are having at NAiG and think a few good points have been made, e.g., we haven't found all the fossils yet.
What I think is improtant at this point is to determine exactly what is a "transitional" or "intermediate". What are we talking about here ? What are we looking to find ? What should it look like and why ? Does DG address this at all ?
Joined: Mar 2003 Gender: Male Posts: 56 Location: In transition between county
Re: Evolution? The fossils..... « Result #10 on Aug 12, 2003, 2:33am »
Quote:
Thanks for posting Robert. Do you want to finish your review before any of us make a comment ?
It's up to you. Over at NAIG, they are critqing my reviews as soon as I write them, but whatever you like. I'm opening up another thread under "Geology" for my reviews actually.
![[Home]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[Help]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Reply]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/reply.gif "[Reply]")
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif "[Send Topic To Friend]")
![[Print]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[homepage]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[Quote]](http://s2.images.proboards.com/buttons/quote.gif "[Quote]")
Logged![[image]](http://www.silentgrove.com/creo.jpg "[image]")
Author
Author
I'll try again tomorrow. Sorry.