Do creationists accept biology?

[Astrophile]

So, on what basis are these creatures grouped in a line of relatedness....."on the basis of shared characteristics".

So its basically saying that similarity is enough to assume relatedness. Sorry, that is weak grounds for an assumption....but no one seems to notice how weak it is unless you use the power of suggestion.
If your first premise is wrong, then everything you build on it will be false. That is how I see evolution.

No, similarity and shared characteristics are not the same thing. When you understand what shared characteristics are and why they are evidence for common ancestry, you will begin to understand why evolution is valid?

Look....here is a diagram from your link....these are members of the "lizard" family. Is the fact that all lizards share characteristics mean that all these are descended in a line of evolution? Why can't they just be various species of lizards?....created by a Being who loves his art...to explore new possibilities.....variations on a theme? God is not a magician.....so who said that these creatures must have evolved from one another?

The closest science can get without lying to to say they "might have" or "could have".....some then conclude they "must have"....sorry, but I am not buying it.

You know the thing that made me smile.....is the pigeon at the end.....he is so obviously a lizard.....

This is completely wrong. Archosauriformes 'is a clade of diapsid reptiles that developed from archosauromorph ancestors'; lizards and snakes (order Squamata) and tuataras are included in the subclass (not a family) Lepidosauria, not in the Archosauriformes. More to the point, how do you think that birds, dinosaurs, pseudosuchia, Proterosuchidae and Archosauriformes came to share characteristics if not by inheriting them from a common ancestor?

The rest of the argument is no better than saying 'why can't there be angels who push the planets round their orbits?' or 'why can't mental illness be due to possession by demons?'

 

[Astrophile]

If the guy thinks he is living in ancient Israel, he doesn't need a cop, but a man in a white coat!

Less than 160 years ago, millions of Christians in the USA were willing to go to war rather than disobey the commands of God about the treatment of slaves.

 

[Astrophile]

I do not find it beautiful to be descended from slimy germs or bugs or from animals.

Do you find it beautiful to have come out of a woman's vagina, 'born between urine and faeces'?

 

[nPeace]

First, hi all quoted below. I hope you're all well and also sorry it took me so long to respond.

I think I understand your perspective. You believe in God and use the Bible as your guide. In terms of biology let's say for the purposes of discussion that God created us (and everything) but the way he did it isn't fully clear. Is that acceptable to you?

I've studied some biology and there are a couple of motivations for this thread related to that. I don't claim to be an expert or an authority - I've taken classes, read some textbooks, carried out a bit of lab work etc. I learned that cells, the tiniest parts of living things, are mind-blowingly complicated, composed themselves of so many interacting and interrelating parts that it is brain melting for me to consider how much is going on inside a living being at any time. You can take this as being down to God's brilliance, I've known theists who do.

My point is this, the current understanding that we have in biology seems to me to indicate that life, like the world and all the ideologies and philosophies in it, is temporary in a very special manner. Not just that living things must pass as all things do but that they are in a constant state of flux from one moment to the next and from one generation to the next. Change seems to be either built in to life or just an inescapable feature of being a thing in the world.

I'm not going to try to get you to accept that evolution has to have happened. I believe it did and you can believe whatever seems most reasonable to you. But what I am curious about whether you and others who have doubts about evolution might want to look at some of the reasons, based on what we understand of biology, that it looks somewhat inevitable to many of us.

I'm trying to be strictly non-combative here. I'd quite like to just have a conversation that isn't peppered with either side making demands and trying to outwit each other, that's really boring to me. Part of that is people listening and no-one listens when it gets heated.

Ok. Good. I'm not a theist but from what you say in practical terms we aren't that far apart in our general attitude.

Would you agree that it is demonstrated to be true that within each living cell the DNA acts like a code for building the proteins that are organised into the structures and processes that go with being a living cell?

Hi. I've looked at all the hypotheses used to support the idea that all life came from one common ancestor. That's one reason why I don't believe in the idea.
Do you realize, the theory is quite circular - it starts with an idea, and then follows with a series of other ideas which lead back to the previous? It really cannot be proven.
Rather, it is built on a structure that is religion is accused of standing on. Which would make it a philosophy.
Don't you find that to be the case?

DNA is far more sophisticated than we think, imo.
I can only think of it as being designed by an intelligence whose knowledge is way higher than any human, and I think that any programmer would appreciate that conclusion, if they are reasonable.

You probably have an idea of what goes into designing a computer that writes various languages simultaneously. I don't think any one man can do that. He would be considered, out of this world - super.
Yet, a team has put together a Multilanguage Electronic Publishing System, that prints in 600 languages simultaneously.
It takes intelligence.
Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Darkstorn]

Hi. I've looked at all the hypotheses used to support the idea that all life came from one common ancestor. That's one reason why I don't believe in the idea.

Okay.

Do you realize, the theory is quite circular - it starts with an idea, and then follows with a series of other ideas which lead back to the previous?

No, i didn't realize. Can you list all of those things instead of just claiming it? What's with the leading questions?

It really cannot be proven.

Wait a second. In another thread you claimed that you read through an evolution 101 yet here you're still conflating proof with evidence. But for the record: There's plenty of evidence. Even Darwin found some, which resulted in him hypothesizing about a universal common ancestor.

Rather, it is built on a structure that is religion is accused of standing on. Which would make it a philosophy.

No, you're claiming this, but again, not demonstrating it.

Don't you find that to be the case?

What's with the leading questions? Do you find them a convincing argumentative method? I don't.

DNA is far more sophisticated than we think, imo.

You're welcome to your opinions, but it's more likely that it's only far more sophisticated than you think. I don't think you understand much about it.

I can only think of it as being designed by an intelligence whose knowledge is way higher than any human, and I think that any programmer would appreciate that conclusion, if they are reasonable.

No, they would accept it if the conclusion was reasonable. I'm a programmer. You've failed to demonstrate your conclusion in any way, you just list claims with zero evidence, or even rational objection, and then just say "it's concluded."

That is not convincing. It's at best pleading to emotion.

You probably have an idea of what goes into designing a computer that writes various languages simultaneously. I don't think any one man can do that. He would be considered, out of this world - super.

Uh... I don't think you understand computer science. A computer is just cracking numbers, plainly put. It's software that does the thing you're describing here. A specific type of software even: A translator. Which aren't actually writing any language: They are just translating what you input into them.

A computer only "speaks" one language: Machine code. You can use API's to translate human input into machine code.

Yet, a team has put together a Multilanguage Electronic Publishing System, that prints in 600 languages simultaneously.
It takes intelligence.
Wouldn't you agree?

I agree it takes intelligence to write software: So what? What point does this lead to? Another appeal to emotion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi. I've looked at all the hypotheses used to support the idea that all life came from one common ancestor. That's one reason why I don't believe in the idea.
Do you realize, the theory is quite circular - it starts with an idea, and then follows with a series of other ideas which lead back to the previous? It really cannot be proven.
Rather, it is built on a structure that is religion is accused of standing on. Which would make it a philosophy.
Don't you find that to be the case?

DNA is far more sophisticated than we think, imo.
I can only think of it as being designed by an intelligence whose knowledge is way higher than any human, and I think that any programmer would appreciate that conclusion, if they are reasonable.

You probably have an idea of what goes into designing a computer that writes various languages simultaneously. I don't think any one man can do that. He would be considered, out of this world - super.
Yet, a team has put together a Multilanguage Electronic Publishing System, that prints in 600 languages simultaneously.
It takes intelligence.
Wouldn't you agree?

You either do not understand the evidence or you do not know what circular reasoning is. It is probably a combination of the two. That is why I almost always get to the point with a creationist where I insist that they learn at least what the scientific method is on a rather basic level and then learn what is and what is not evidence.

it may seem circular to you, but that is a symptom of your ignorance. It is not the reality of the situation at all.

 

[nPeace]

So if a police officer tells you that you mustn't bore a hole through the ear of one of your slaves, or indeed that you mustn't keep slaves, do you respond by saying that that is not what God teaches you (Deuteronomy, 15:16-17) and that you will go to prison rather than disobey God's commands?

If God makes any request or command for a Christian, through his anointed - the Messiah, who proved to be Jesus Christ, as a Christian, I take the stand the apostles, or followers of Christ take (Acts 5:29).

The example set by Daniel, and his three companions who were given the Babylonian names Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, apply today, as well.
(Daniel 3:16-18) Respectfully...
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,answered the king: “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If it must be, our God whom we serve is able to rescue us from the burning fiery furnace, O king, and to rescue us from your hand. But even if he does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold that you have set up.”

Daniel was thrown to the lions. The early Christians were beaten... thrown into arenas to be torn by beast.... crucified... burned to death... What did that accomplish? Nothing.
Christians today don't compromise.
It boils down to what the apostle James said... "someone will say: “You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” (James 2:18)
Do we have mere words - "I believe". Or do we have faith, which is evident by our actions?
It's not that Christians want to be martyrs, but their faith in God moves them to act in harmony with what they profess - love for God. (1 John 5:3)

What do you think of Muhammad Ali... do you think he should have gone against his conscious and values?
In 1966, Ali refused to be drafted into the military, citing his religious beliefs and opposition to the Vietnam War. He was arrested, found guilty of draft evasion, and stripped of his boxing titles.
Look at another situation, if you were ordered to do something that you considered terribly wrong, and someone in authority pointed a gun at your head, and told you, "Do it! Or else." Would you?

So that you know though, Christians are not commanded by God to keep slaves. They are under the law of Christ.
God allowed and gave certain instructions to a nation living at a time, and in conditions that called for particular circumstances. God tolerated those for a time.

 

[Darkstorn]

So that you know though, Christians are not commanded by God to keep slaves. They are under the law of Christ.
God allowed and gave certain instructions to a nation living at a time, and in conditions that called for particular circumstances. God tolerated those for a time.

That's picking and choosing. How do you explain this: The 10 commandments are from those same times.

I'll try to guess it: You condemn some things in the bible, while propping up others, then make the conclusion that the bible is infallible. How close did i get?

 

[nPeace]

Okay.



No, i didn't realize. Can you list all of those things instead of just claiming it? What's with the leading questions?

What's the proposed idea? All life came from one common ancestor.
What is the evidence of this one common ancestor? Well, there is no physical evidence of it, so we have to look for evidence of it. What is that evidence? Meet me here, if you want to continue.

Wait a second. In another thread you claimed that you read through an evolution 101 yet here you're still conflating proof with evidence. But for the record: There's plenty of evidence. Even Darwin found some, which resulted in him hypothesizing about a universal common ancestor.

Who is equating proof with evidence? Why did you make such a huge assumption? Evidence is gathered, or collected, then evaluated to see what it fits.
To say that we have evidence for A, is one thing. Whether there is evidence for A or not, is another.
I am saying they can't prove any of it. Do you disagree?

No, you're claiming this, but again, not demonstrating it.




What's with the leading questions? Do you find them a convincing argumentative method? I don't.



You're welcome to your opinions, but it's more likely that it's only far more sophisticated than you think. I don't think you understand much about it.



No, they would accept it if the conclusion was reasonable. I'm a programmer. You've failed to demonstrate your conclusion in any way, you just list claims with zero evidence, or even rational objection, and then just say "it's concluded."

That is not convincing. It's at best pleading to emotion.



Uh... I don't think you understand computer science. A computer is just cracking numbers, plainly put. It's software that does the thing you're describing here. A specific type of software even: A translator. Which aren't actually writing any language: They are just translating what you input into them.

A computer only "speaks" one language: Machine code. You can use API's to translate human input into machine code.




I agree it takes intelligence to write software: So what? What point does this lead to? Another appeal to emotion?

Well, that was my point.

 

[nPeace]

That's picking and choosing. How do you explain this: The 10 commandments are from those same times.

I'll try to guess it: You condemn some things in the bible, while propping up others, then make the conclusion that the bible is infallible. How close did i get?

Out the ball park.

 

[Darkstorn]

What's the proposed idea? All life came from one common ancestor.

No one is proposing it as an idea over 100 years after Darwin's death. He might have. But the evidence supports that conclusion, so tough titty i suppose. Anyway, your bible starts with a "proposed idea." What's wrong with it?

What is the evidence of this one common ancestor? Well, there is no physical evidence of it, so we have to look for evidence of it. What is that evidence? Meet me here, if you want to continue.

I already posted in that thread and you had no idea how to respond.

But really: Your claim is just garbage. Darwin had hypotheses and then found evidence to back up his hunches(by none other than his finches.) Then multiple independently verified results over the last 100+ years have just confirmed it more and more.

We're still talking about just one aspect of evolution: Universal common ancestor.

Who is equating proof with evidence?

You are.

Why did you make such a huge assumption? Evidence is gathered, or collected, then evaluated to see what it fits.
To say that we have evidence for A, is one thing. Whether there is evidence for A or not, is another.
I am saying they can't prove any of it. Do you disagree?

I can't agree with a nonsensical and illogical statement, no. How the hell can you imagine such a reality where people can't "prove" that they have evidence?

Well, there's plenty of evidence: You just choose not to call it that. Now; Explain your objections. Currently you just make claims, a bit like a bad propagandist.

Well, that was my point.

What was? That covers a HUGE chunk of my post.

 

[Darkstorn]

Out the ball park.

I disagree.

 

[nPeace]

No one is proposing it as an idea over 100 years after Darwin's death. He might have. But the evidence supports that conclusion, so tough titty i suppose. Anyway, your bible starts with a "proposed idea." What's wrong with it?



I already posted in that thread and you had no idea how to respond.

But really: Your claim is just garbage. Darwin had hypotheses and then found evidence to back up his hunches(by none other than his finches.) Then multiple independently verified results over the last 100+ years have just confirmed it more and more.

We're still talking about just one aspect of evolution: Universal common ancestor.



You are.



I can't agree with a nonsensical and illogical statement, no. How the hell can you imagine such a reality where people can't "prove" that they have evidence?

Well, there's plenty of evidence: You just choose not to call it that. Now; Explain your objections. Currently you just make claims, a bit like a bad propagandist.



What was? That covers a HUGE chunk of my post.

Seems like you are just here to

Your response in the other thread was similar. You did not address the post, but basically just ranted.
This thread started civil, and out of respect for the poster of the OP, I will not discuss anything with you here.
When you are ready to address anything in a proper manner, you know where to find me.

 

[Darkstorn]

Seems like you are just here to

I hope you don't have an aversion to being wrong, because i've got some news for ya...

Your response in the other thread was similar. You did not address the post, but basically just ranted.

GIGO.

This thread started civil, and out of respect for the poster of the OP, I will not discuss anything with you here.
When you are ready to address anything in a proper manner, you know where to find me.

Yes, i'll find you in the thread where you literally failed to reply to my post addressed to you.

Twice.

I think this is likely: I presented arguments, and you are failing to respond in the appropriate manner, so you're inventing a straw man where i'm a bad man trying to make you feel bad. Good luck.

Whereas i'll just continue believing that you're failing to address several of my points.

 

[dad]

Magic is not an explanation.

Nor God denying ignorant naysaying. Magic is anything above the paygrade of manscience of today.

 

[dad]

We use the same terminology to describe the beginning or "dawn of a new era". Or "in my grandfather's day".

No. We don't. I do not say my granny died one day in the morning and really mean that she died a millions years from now and it was at night.

The fact that there was an evening and a morning does not designate a "day" to a Jewish audience. Their days ran from evening to evening.....

To God it does, He said several times the evening and the morning WERE the first day..second day etc.

The creative periods had definite beginnings and endings......that is all that was intended to convey.

Absolute made up hogwash.

 

[dad]

The man's name was Dr. Jekyll; you obviously haven't read the book.

I'll go with your spelling if you get the point.

Where did you get your numbers from? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/Abortion, 'about 56 million abortions are performed each year in the world, with about 45% [about 25 million] done unsafely.' 'Unsafe abortions result in complications for about 7 million women a year. Unsafe abortions are also one of the leading causes of deaths during pregnancy and childbirth (about 5-13% of all deaths during this period). Most unsafe abortions occur where abortion is illegal, or in developing countries where affordable and well-trained medical practitioners are not readily available, or where modern birth control is unavailable' - Unsafe abortion - Wikipedia . What are you doing to improve medical care for pregnant women in developing countries and to make birth control available, in order to reduce the number of unsafe abortions?

I was being very conservative using 40 million murders a year. If you want to confess to 56 million a year, fine, that puts it over half a billion in a decade.

It is estimated that the rate of miscarriage among all fertilisations is between 30% and 50% - Miscarriage - Wikipedia . That means that the number of miscarriages is more than half the number of babies successfully born and possibly as many as the total number of babies born. 'The global average birth rate was 18.5 births per thousand population in 2016' - Birth rate - Wikipedia - or about 4.3 births per second, or a total of about 136 million births for the 366 days of the year. The number of miscarriages was therefore between about 60 million and about 140 million. Research into preventing miscarriage isn't likely to save as many babies as are lost to abortions, but a combination of such research and introducing measures to reduce the number of unsafe abortions would probably make a significant difference.

Natural miscarriages are not murder. No comparison.

Premeditated murder in the form of child sacrifices are a serious crime to God, and one that will illicit a response.

 

[dad]

Less than 160 years ago, millions of Christians in the USA were willing to go to war rather than disobey the commands of God about the treatment of slaves.

Sorry if you thought that was the beginning and end of issues. Seems to me many down south would still be willing and slavery is not even an issue! But that has nothing to do with the conflation of issues you preach about how rules for one little country in a certain period of time long long ago have anything at all to do with the modern world.

 

[dad]

Do you find it beautiful to have come out of a woman's vagina, 'born between urine and faeces'?

Would you have found it more beautiful never to be born? Quit whining and thank God for life.

 

[Darkstorn]

Thank you, Shiva, for using your arcane magicks to conjure me up.