Creation vs. Evolution

[gary-ramey]

Not really. Take sharks as an example; early in their evolution they've hit on a few important adaptations - anti-marine growth skin and a streamlined form. Any mutation which changes those features would be detrimental, and therefore be selected against.

Which begs the question of what happened to sharks that didn't have this beneficial adaptation to start with. I'd love to hear your explanation of the Wombat and how the upside down pouch was beneficial to burrowing underground.

There are no pre-determined outcomes - PE didn't turn out the way most of us expected, likewise the selfish gene hypothesis has legs no one expected. At the end of the day your problem is simple - you have a pre-determined outcome, and you're desperate to explain away everything which disagrees with your beliefs. And since you cannot do it on an evidence-based basis, all you can do is libel those who've spent their lives trying to figure out how this universe of ours works.

Actually I'm quite confident in my beliefs and have stated them here before. I believe in Genesis 1:1...other miracles that occurred after that wouldn't surprise me. For example, God making an Earth like you see it today, fossils and all. As a scientist, you would see exactly what God wants you to and nothing more. Trickery? Only to those who seek empirical evidence to make God irrelevant. Ultimately, its His creation and He has the authority to do do with it what he wants..right?

 

[sheck33]

Which begs the question of what happened to sharks that didn't have this beneficial adaptation to start with. I'd love to hear your explanation of the Wombat and how the upside down pouch was beneficial to burrowing underground.

Actually I'm quite confident in my beliefs and have stated them here before. I believe in Genesis 1:1...other miracles that occurred after that wouldn't surprise me. For example, God making an Earth like you see it today, fossils and all. As a scientist, you would see exactly what God wants you to and nothing more. Trickery? Only to those who seek empirical evidence to make God irrelevant. Ultimately, its His creation and He has the authority to do do with it what he wants..right?

What is up with this persistent idiotic notion that science has as its ultimate goal the disproving of god or gods? Science tries to explain the natural world around us, no more, no less. If adding some god to a scientific theory would make the theory better, more complete and more universal than scientists would do that, but so far no scientific theory has ever required adding anything supernatural. As it stands now, god is irrelevant to science but not because science had this outcome as its ultimate goal.

 

[gary-ramey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
Doesn't Hawking discuss the tearing of the space-time continuum?

No, he doesn't. Unless you're making an odd reference to his writings about singularities (black holes); which, of course, has no bearing on the universe in which we live.

I thought sure that I read something on Hawking where he was discussing how the curvature of space affects time itself.

Strange, that as a scientist, I cannot think of any static models that we use. Perhaps an example is in order...

Doesn't radiometric dating assume a constant decay rate? Isn't time considered a constant in these equations (ie not a reference point but a true constant)?

 

[deco_martini]

For example, God making an Earth like you see it today, fossils and all. As a scientist, you would see exactly what God wants you to and nothing more. Trickery? Only to those who seek empirical evidence to make God irrelevant.

Tell me more about this God that seeks to deceive his children and who honors ignorance over knowledge. He doesn't sound like a thing like Jesus to me.

 

[gary-ramey]

What is up with this persistent idiotic notion that science has as its ultimate goal the disproving of god or gods? Science tries to explain the natural world around us, no more, no less. If adding some god to a scientific theory would make the theory better, more complete and more universal than scientists would do that, but so far no scientific theory has ever required adding anything supernatural. As it stands now, god is irrelevant to science but not because science had this outcome as its ultimate goal.

Where did you draw the corollary at? "Only to those who seek empirical evidence to prove God doesn't exist" doesn't necessarily equate to science or a scientist.

 

[gary-ramey]

Tell me more about this God that seeks to deceive his children and who honors ignorance over knowledge. He doesn't sound like a thing like Jesus to me.

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.


Matthew 18:3
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[gary-ramey]

Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

 

[deco_martini]

'd love to hear your explanation of the Wombat and how the upside down pouch was beneficial to burrowing underground.

Well, many marsupials have rear facing pouches. Its not "upside down" on a wombat. Its rearward facing. This means the wombat can burrow without it acting as a plow. It also means it doesn't get snagged when fleeing predators.

I'm not even sure why would bring up the wombat... A rearward facing pouch is a great evolutionary advantage for a 4 legged marsupial.

 

[deco_martini]

Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Well, Matthew 19:13 says:
Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.

You are taking that Bible verse out of context to support your notion of a trickster god who places false fossils in the ground to fool the intelligent people into not believing?

If you persist in distorting the Bible to support a frankly perverse point of view, I will tell you the truth about the story of Abraham and Isaac.

 

[deco_martini]

Couldn't have asked for better timing:
Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount: Page 1

An article that just hit my RSS feed about a study showing evolution working in the lab environment and the outright denialism and attacks it was met with for daring to advance knowledge. Some people are just determined to try keep their fellow man stuck in the dark ages.

Richard Lenski and his colleagues have been conducting a long-term experiment in bacterial evolution, one that has encompassed over 30,000 generations of bacteria going back over 20 years. Many of the bacteria have evolved the ability to better utilize the sugar available in their cultures, but one strain underwent at least three distinct changes (at generation 27,000, 31,000 and 33,000) that enabled them to access citrate present in the medium—something their parents were incapable of.

The denizens of Conservapedia were not amused. They apparently subscribe to the belief that acceptance of some scientific data goes against conservative values. The site tends to present the views of mainstream science and "creation science" as equally valid scientific perspectives, as evidenced by their discussion of kangaroo origins (which is actually much improved since we first checked)