No submissions of creation science papers:

Originally posted by sonhouse
But RJ insists creation is a science and then posts bogus video's to 'prove' it.

He is free to believe what he wills, we disagree, it doesn't mean I'll going to call him names.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Er, even 8 year old kids know we did not evolve from apes. Both lines evolved from a much earlier line millions of years ago. I know, that goes against your religion but that is your problem not ours.

Yes, most 8 year old kids know we did not evolve from apes becasue they are the ones that have not yet been corrupted by evolution propaganda like some 73 year old men. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
He is free to believe what he wills, we disagree, it doesn't mean I'll going to call him names.

In August, I won't call him names, I bite my lips and sit on my hands. But my birthday comes up in September.....

Originally posted by sonhouse
In August, I won't call him names, I bite my lips and sit on my hands. But my birthday comes up in September.....

Good for you. While you are waiting and since you are more interested in reading papers than viewing video, perhaps these websites will give you some interesting reading.

Answers Research Journal

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/

Institute of Creation Research Technical Papers

http://www.icr.org/articles/search/?f_typeID=12

Journal of Creation Theology and Science

http://www.creationbiology.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=201240&module_id=120319

Recent Peer Reviewed Intelligent Design Paper Exposes Serious Flaws In Evolution Theory

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Good for you. While you are waiting and since you are more interested in reading papers than viewing video, perhaps these websites will give you some interesting reading.

Answers Research Journal

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/

Institute of Creation Research Technical Papers

http://www.icr.org/articles/search/?f_typeID=12
...[text shortened]... nt Design Paper Exposes Serious Flaws In Evolution Theory

[youtube]IX7T8zOoYUg[/youtube][/b]

I suppose you didn't notice the words he actually said, 'Darwinian evolution in general works'. He is not trying to kill evolution, just clarify it. Sorry to show your dude as being not anti evolution.

He implies a lot, clearly reaching for a supernatural intervention in the GAIN of function Vs his LOSS of function theory but he is not overall dissing evolution. It sounds like he doesn't realize life origin and evolution are in fact, two separate disciplines. It was clear he would have said more if he was talking to a dude like Ham or Hovind, speaking what he REALLY thought which is his god is directing evolution. But he can't outright say that in a scientific community.

On a side note, the audio sucks, it is weak like a phone call and a poor one at that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I suppose you didn't notice the words he actually said, 'Darwinian evolution in general works'. He is not trying to kill evolution, just clarify it. Sorry to show your dude as being not anti evolution.

He implies a lot, clearly reaching for a supernatural intervention in the GAIN of function Vs his LOSS of function theory but he is not overall dissing e ...[text shortened]... munity.

On a side note, the audio sucks, it is weak like a phone call and a poor one at that.

You did not pay close enough attention or as the Duchess would say you show your abysmal reading comprehension. He is an evolutionists and that is the only reason he was allowed to publish in one of those scientific journals. So any change is defined as evolution to him. But even he admits that the changes even when they might be benefical are a loss of funtion, not a gain of functions that were never there. He says the cells adapt to things by breaking some function they already had. The evolution reported, he says, is only a degrading of complexity and functions they already have, but never an increase in complexity to gain new functions.

So Intelligent design is the only way to account for an increase in complexity.
😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
In August, I won't call him names, I bite my lips and sit on my hands. But my birthday comes up in September.....

In September you can call me names on your birthday if you'd like. 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
In September you can call me names on your birthday if you'd like. 🙂

Compared to RJ you are the light of reason.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Compared to RJ you are the light of reason.

And RJHinds, a.k.a. The Near Genius, is the light of common sense. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
Exactly how do you put together a paper on God did it?
Creationism is a matter of faith, if it were provable there would be no discussion on either
side. With respect I think demanding something that cannot be given to show it is valid is
not really looking at it properly.

Creation is a matter of faith, that does not mean it isn't true, only that science cannot measure or mark out its truthfulness in any ...

If you believe that God created the universe, that is a matter of faith, and I don't think anyone here would challenge you on that (that it is a matter of faith, I mean). As soon as you, or anyone else, use the word "creationism" however, you have moved into a different universe of discourse. The word was coined specifically to give the religious claim of creation ex nihilo a shimmer of scientific respectability. Furthermore, there was a quite definite political agenda behind the attempt to give the religious claim of creation ex nihilo a shimmer of scientific respectability: the political agenda was to get Genesis taught as scientific fact (rather than as a matter of religious faith) in the state-funded school system in America. This has been well-documented (I'll give you the ISBN number if you care to look it up), and there have been several court cases in several states regarding the teaching of creationism as science in American schools. In short, America is still re-running the Scopes Trial from 1925.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
... even he admits that the changes even when they might be benefical are a loss of funtion, not a gain of functions that were never there. He says the cells adapt to things by breaking some function they already had. The evolution reported, he says, is only a degrading of complexity and functions they already have, but never an increase in complexity to ...[text shortened]... functions.

So Intelligent design is the only way to account for an increase in complexity.

First of all, your conclusion, that "Intelligent design is the only way to account for an increase in complexity" is a nonsequitur; it does not follow from the fact that some adaptations are disfunctional.

Second, evolution does not claim that every genetic change is going to prove to have survival value. Some will, others won't. That's why some species die out.

Third, evolution does not claim that species must become more complex. Some adaptations may indeed drop functions which prove to be superfluous in a changed environment (such as gills in creatures which have moved onto land).

In terms of sheer numbers, the most successful life forms on the planet are very simple ones (e.g., viruses and funghi).

EDIT: in biology there is only criterion of success, and it's not complexity. It's surviving long enough to reproduce. If getting simpler increases that likelihood, than that too is an example of evolution (successful adaptation).

Originally posted by moonbus
If you believe that God created the universe, that is a matter of faith, and I don't think anyone here would challenge you on that (that it is a matter of faith, I mean). As soon as you, or anyone else, use the word "creationism" however, you have moved into a different universe of discourse. The word was coined specifically to give the religious claim of cr ...[text shortened]... g the Scopes Trial from 1925.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm

I am also of the opinion that as soon as you accept anything you assume that can cannot
be proven is correct, you have also entered into that universe of discourse. Between us
none of us really knows what happen in the distant past, and if you are sure, that is faith,
it is a belief. The distant past is really beyond us with so many things and our projections
all have assumptions about them that may not be true.

If God created the universe a few thousand years ago, than no matter how accurate you
grasp the distance of the stars are away, and how spot on we know light travels that no
longer would they be a good measuring stick for universal age.

It is like when we apply OHM's law to circuitry to gather what is going on in the circuit, and
we can with our formulas project what will be the end date of the device under test we
are looking at in real world use, it is still just a theoretical projection! It maybe based upon
solid data, but the data may not be all that is going to come into play in the real world,
something unknown could occur, or is occurring we failed to grasp. So all the projections
made on the best data at the time could be very far off. Yet we do still do it, we still move
forward on faith, we gather what we can, and do the very best we can, but it is all still a
leap of faith.

If you think when I say something is faith that I am still not talking about something I do
believe is true, you are mistaken. Faith simply is accepting something is truth that I cannot
prove, it doesn't mean that all the facts go against it and I still believe. The facts if true
will be a reflection of reality.

We just need to ensure what we believe are indeed facts are a real reflection of reality no
matter how we look at it all we are all still creatures of faith.

If you think that believing in Ohm's Law is basically the same sort of thing as believing that God created the universe ex nihilo, then we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Originally posted by moonbus
If you think that believing in Ohm's Law is basically the same sort of thing as believing that God created the universe ex nihilo, then we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

No, I did not suggest that believing in Ohm's law is basically the same sort of thing as
believing in God, or that God created the universe. I suggested that we take what we
know and use it to make a prediction, or explain the past we can get it wrong, due to
things we are either over looking, be unware of, not really understanding what is before
us. We are limited and as such we will always be attempting to get it right, and when we
think are spot on we can still be wrong.

Originally posted by moonbus
First of all, your conclusion, that "Intelligent design is the only way to account for an increase in complexity" is a nonsequitur; it does not follow from the fact that some adaptations are disfunctional.

Second, evolution does not claim that every genetic change is going to prove to have survival value. Some will, others won't. That's why some species d ...[text shortened]... reases that likelihood, than that too is an example of evolution (successful adaptation).

What you call "evolution" here is nothing more than the ability to adapt that was programmed in by the Creator. The evolution or evilution is the idol god that atheist bow down to and worship in place of the Creator God of the universe.