- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by KellyJayBecause YEC scientists claims to do science. They admit that changes occur. But they claim that changes stop just before new "kinds" evolve. Here's the problem:
Why do you think a mechanism beyond this is what the darn thing was
designed to do was required?
1. They never define what a kind is.
2. They can't explain why it is that evolution only works up to a point.
When pressed on it, they fall back to goddidit. Goddidit is decidedly not a scientific statement. It's a religious statement. If they want to be taken seriously as scientists, they need to describe and demonstrate the mechanism god apparently put in place to prevent evolutionary processes from continuing past minor changes within kinds, and also clearly define what a kind is.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou continue in your belief that life origin science is the same subject as evolution, that without knowing life origins we cannot know evolution. But as we have pointed out many times, life origins is a different science than evolution.
You see you are really on weak ground, you do not know is the honest
answer, yet you claim vast amounts of knowledge on a subject whose
beginning you've really no clue!
How did everything get here, you don't know, except you know God had
nothing to do with it. How did life start from non-life, you don't know except
you know God had nothing to do with i ...[text shortened]... shonesty isn't resting
with the creationist, but those that have nothing to hang their hats on.
Again, evolution is the study of how life changed AFTER IT GOT HERE. They don't have to bother with the origin question because life is all around us in dazzling complexity, which evolution science and the study of DNA is pointing to the interrelatedness of all life forms from fungus to mankind.
We don't have to know the exact details of life origins to see that some leaf's are related. That's what evolution is all about, what we see NOW and in the fossil record. Evolutionists have their own discipline and that alone is a hard enough issue to crack, they let other scientists do the life origin studies which at this point in time makes no difference to evolution.
It might be found we are all Martians where life started first on mars and came to Earth on a meteorite. It might be found life first started on the hot vents in the bottom of the ocean.
It might be found life started in a clay bed which simulates cell membranes where many chemical reactions can take place. Or it could come from something totally unknown at this time. It still does not effect evolution studies, we are concerned with the here and now not the far distant past where it all started.
I think we WILL know that but maybe it will take 200 years but I think we will know eventually to complete the circle and to shut the mouths of YEC's forever.
Originally posted by C Hess1. They didn't come up with the word Kind that is Biblical term.
Because YEC scientists claims to do science. They admit that changes occur. But they claim that changes stop just before new "kinds" evolve. Here's the problem:
1. They never define what a kind is.
2. They can't explain why it is that evolution only works up to a point.
When pressed on it, they fall back to goddidit. Goddidit is decidedly not a scienti ...[text shortened]... ocesses from continuing past minor changes within kinds, and also clearly define what a kind is.
2. They tell you it was designed to behave that way, which seems like
a good explaination to me on why it does and doesn't do things.
The great thing about having someone design it when you ask them
why, you can point to the designer and say s/he did it! That is an issue
for you why? Even things that you know are designed you may not grasp
the why but it works nonetheless.
I don't see a problem that you do, the problems I see are that the ones
you have no answers for outside of I don't know. For me if you cannot
start a process without help, then trying to convince me it doesn't need
help is a problem from my prospective.
Originally posted by sonhouse"You continue in your belief that life origin science is the same subject as evolution..."
You continue in your belief that life origin science is the same subject as evolution, that without knowing life origins we cannot know evolution. But as we have pointed out many times, life origins is a different science than evolution.
Again, evolution is the study of how life changed AFTER IT GOT HERE. They don't have to bother with the origin questi ...[text shortened]... I think we will know eventually to complete the circle and to shut the mouths of YEC's forever.
If you cannot start a process without assistance then telling me that your
process does not require assistance is not a good stance. So yes, I keep
going back to it, because I don't believe it can be done. If it cannot be
done than all of your claims about a design-less process are worthless.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by KellyJayThat is all fine. Unless you claim to be doing science. If you claim to be a scientist and say that nature was designed to not allow evolution to cross the boundaries of "kinds", then you should be able to point to that part of the design, the mechanism, that prevents evolution from producing new "kinds".
1. They didn't come up with the word Kind that is Biblical term.
2. They tell you it was designed to behave that way, which seems like
a good explaination to me on why it does and doesn't do things.
The great thing about having someone design it when you ask them
why, you can point to the designer and say s/he did it! That is an issue
for you why? Ev ...[text shortened]... without help, then trying to convince me it doesn't need
help is a problem from my prospective.
As for the bible defining kinds, that's also not good enough, if you claim to be a scientist. You need to be able to describe exactly what properties exist that makes the horse kind totally different from the elephant kind, cat kind or dog kind. The biblical version of kind seems to be related to how animals look, which means that the chihuahua would be considered part of a different kind than a great dane, were it not for the fact that we know the chihuahua and great dane had a common dog ancestor. With a vague classification like that you can just define "kind" as whatever suits your current argument. Deeply unscientific.
But your point is well taken, were YEC scientists not to call themselves... well, scientists.
Originally posted by KellyJayWorthless? So all the gains in the last 20 years due to knowledge of DNA and the new medicines it generates is worthless? Where do you think the study of DNA came from? If it was up to the fundies, there would be no DNA studies and things would remain as they were in 1940, medically speaking. You can thank evolution sciences for the gain in medical knowledge we have today, even though we are still infants in the study of DNA and evolution.
"You continue in your belief that life origin science is the same subject as evolution..."
If you cannot start a process without assistance then telling me that your
process does not require assistance is not a good stance. So yes, I keep
going back to it, because I don't believe it can be done. If it cannot be
done than all of your claims about a design-less process are worthless.
Let's not kid ourselves, we have a long way to go to fully understand evolution and even longer to understand life origins but I think that day will be coming.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe discovery of DNA is more proof that the so-called "appearance of design" was really design from a superior intelligence, like the God of the Holy Bible.
Worthless? So all the gains in the last 20 years due to knowledge of DNA and the new medicines it generates is worthless? Where do you think the study of DNA came from? If it was up to the fundies, there would be no DNA studies and things would remain as they were in 1940, medically speaking. You can thank evolution sciences for the gain in medical knowledg ...[text shortened]... rstand evolution and even longer to understand life origins but I think that day will be coming.
Originally posted by C HessI've posed that question to the old earth creationists here before. If they accept DNA can change a small amount over a small period of time, why can't a large amount of DNA change over a large period of time. What's the mechanism stopping that process from happening? No answer was ever provided.
That is all fine. Unless you claim to be doing science. If you claim to be a scientist and say that nature was designed to not allow evolution to cross the boundaries of "kinds", then you should be able to point to that part of the design, the mechanism, that prevents evolution from producing new "kinds".
As for the bible defining kinds, that's also not go ...[text shortened]...
But your point is well taken, were YEC scientists not to call themselves... well, scientists.
Originally posted by Proper KnobTheir answer is the Earth can't be over 6000 years old so anything with a date older than that, processes that take longer than that, are automatically invalid. Pretty stupid, eh. Look at the Grand Canyon, WOW, they would say, all that in just 6000 years! My god, what a flood that did that!
I've posed that question to the old earth creationists here before. If they accept DNA can change a small amount over a small period of time, why can't a large amount of DNA change over a large period of time. What's the mechanism stopping that process from happening? No answer was ever provided.
Of course totally ignoring data clearly showing if the GC had come about because of a world wide flood the amount of deep cuts and huge eddies would be very different from the stately cut into the canyon we see today. That kind of evidence is forbidden in their brainwashing.
It's funny, the bible doesn't even SAY how old Earth is, they just go by all those bogus Josh begat Roger, roger begat bridgett, bridgett begat Gaga. As if all that data was totally accurate.
Originally posted by sonhouseAll of what you said above is proof that you don't know what the Bible says about anything.
Their answer is the Earth can't be over 6000 years old so anything with a date older than that, processes that take longer than that, are automatically invalid. Pretty stupid, eh. Look at the Grand Canyon, WOW, they would say, all that in just 6000 years! My god, what a flood that did that!
Of course totally ignoring data clearly showing if the GC had c ...[text shortened]... egat Roger, roger begat bridgett, bridgett begat Gaga. As if all that data was totally accurate.
And it will do no good to try to tell you anything because you already know it all.
Originally posted by josephwShow us your truth without referring to the bible. We show you our truth with thousands of books on subjects ranging from ultrasound to ultrafast to ultrasmall to DNA and galaxies billions of light years away. Where is ANY of that in the bible?
I think this is true and you think that is true.
How are we going to find out what is really true?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by Proper KnobBecause they have none. 🙂
I've posed that question to the old earth creationists here before. If they accept DNA can change a small amount over a small period of time, why can't a large amount of DNA change over a large period of time. What's the mechanism stopping that process from happening? No answer was ever provided.