Philosophy Now Forum

jinx wrote:Everyone one earth (including evolutionists/atheists) shares a common ancestor with Adam and Eve ~6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden. They sinned now mankind is fallen. Jesus was the offering for mankinds sin.

So this incest began with instruction to their children to propagate via their siblings?

jinx wrote:

Strictly speaking, evolution by natural selection, is also not falsifiable; what kind of experiment are you going to conduct to refute it?

It is, however, a very good theory with a huge amount of evidence

all the best, rantal

'Evolution' has multiple meanings. 'Change in gene frequency via natural selection' is a scientific fact. 'Speciation via natural selection' is also a scientific fact. 'Any change in any living thing ever via natural selection' is also a scientific fact given the complete absence of a Mendelian mechanism for anything otherwise. 'Fish to something other than a fish via natural selection' is by definition scientifically impossible. Again that has never been observed so it is not science to begin with. Someone is welcome to believe it by religious faith but it is not science.

Baraminology is devoted to classifying created kinds.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ar ... nology.htm

http://creation.com/ligers-and-wholphins-what-next

Yes it is a 'scientific theory' IF someones definition of science is the ACTUAL definition of it (any dictionary- ie OBSERVABLE phenomena) if someone either because of indoctrination or because they just hate God wants to restrict science to 'evolution did it' then no it is not. It is a completely different model based on Genesis and not Charles Darwins myths.

I would argue that it is the same model. The problem with identifying the scientific origins of a theory (Genesis giver rise to Baraminology ) is that the origins of any scientific theory carry no truth bearing when it comes to the validity of theory itself.

In other words, the theory of Baraminology ( like every scientific theory needs} to stand on its own in order to determine its validity. I am sure you would agree that as a science of Baraminology needs to be subject to the scientific process you have already outline in order to obtain the validity of the the theory. The Genesis origins of the theory has about as much relevance as Von Strandonitz's claim that the structure of the benzene ring was revealed to him in a dream.

jinx wrote: Genesis predicts animals bring forth after their 'kind'. Fish bring forth fish, dogs bring forth dogs, cats bring forth cats, birds bring forth birds. This is science. This is observable. Thank you for your utter ignorance of science, life and the religion of the worship of the corpse of an idiot (Darwin).

Existing organisms right outside your window, right now, as we speak, stand as evidence supporting Natural Selection. They are not organized into "kinds", that is to say, there are no clean, differentiable, separated categories. This problem, being measurable, tangible, repeatable, and verifiable, was exactly the problem that was addressed by the theory of Natural Selection. In fact, Darwin wrote Origin of the Species as a book which addresses the problem. In short, his motivation for writing the book was to address the taxonomical problem that organisms in the wild do not appear in "kinds". I have written extensively on this topic in other threads on this forum.

jinx wrote: 'Evolution' has 0 explanatory power because it never happened and no, 'evolution' is NOT open to questioning (have to protect a process that never happened from critical analysis and thought, or else no one would believe it).

"Evolution has 0 explanatory power".

Let me give you not one, but three instances of the theory of Natural Selection having explanatory and predictive powers.

1) "If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

Darwin wrote this 150 years ago. To annihilate his theory, you need to produce 1 trait on 1 organism. Just one counter-example will suffice. In 150 years of field work, no one has found a single example of this in the wild. That is to say, the theory has both explanatory, and predictive power. The prediction is thus: all the traits of any organism you pluck from the wild, will serve that organism's reproduction. They do not serve the reproduction, safety, or well-being of another species. In the case of symbiosis, the good is not exclusive, it is quid-pro-quo.

2) Darwin found an orchid flower with its reproductive stamen buried deep behind inside the pedals, which formed into a stiff long cup shape. From this, Darwin applied his theory, and predicted that there must exist a moth with an 8-inch long probiscus. Such a strange moth had never been observed in the wild, ever, by anyone. But Darwin was sure it must be around somewhere. Over 140 years later, a moth with an 8-inch long probiscus was found in the wild. That is to say, through application of his theory, Darwin was able to predict the existence of something not yet seen. In other words, Natural Selection is a theory which contains PREDICTIVE power.

3) In the 1930s, Erwin Schroedinger predicted that the traits of organisms must be encoded inside a molecule which is carried around inside their bodies. Schroedinger's exact words were there must exist an (quote), "aperiodic crystaline molecule". Twelve years later, the DNA molecule was discovered. Schroedinger's prediction was spot-on. That is to say, the theory of Natural Selection contains predictive, and hence explanatory power.

jinx wrote: People dont seem to realise the complete absence of genetic mechanism for adding NEW things like organ systems, biochemical pathways etc etc.

Well, in the first place, genes do not drive evolution, the envrionment does. The "mechanism" you desire for adding new biochemical pathways is variation in a population and selection by the environment. "Genetic mechanisms" only concern themselves with making copies of genes and producing proteins. You are looking in the wrong place.

jinx wrote: #1. 'Evolution' is not falsifiable because it is not even science (not change in gene frequency or speciation). Genesis predicts animals bring forth after their kind (fill in the gaps yourself).

Animals bring forth after their kind. This is science. This is observable.

"Evolution is not falsifiable".

To falsify evolution, you demonstrate that a single trait on a single organisms exists for the exclusive good of another species. Not symbiosis, but 1-way altruistic helping from species A to species B. Just one example will annihilate the theory. That is called falsification.

"Evolution is not even science".

Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory that was arrived at by collecting evidence in field work for over three decades. The theory is meant to address a problem in that species do not appear in "kinds", which is to say categories with sharp boundaries. Natural Selection is a theory meant to explain a body of evidence collected in the natural world. That is science. It is science.


"Genesis predicts animals bring forth after their kind (fill in the gaps yourself)"
"Animals bring forth after their kind. This is science. This is observable."

This is not even true for organisms who are alive today outside your window. But just wait until you see the fossil record.

jinx wrote: 'Fish to something other than a fish via natural selection' is by definition scientifically impossible. Again that has never been observed so it is not science to begin with. Someone is welcome to believe it by religious faith but it is not science.

The theory of evolution by NS does not claim that fish turned into dogs. It says that there was a common ancestor between fish and amphibians, who were so successful at reproducing that its population began to fill up various environmental niches. Differentiation of the common ancestral population gave rise to the two so-called "kinds" now observed. Doubtlessly, there were stages not seen or recorded in the fossil record. The lack of these fossils means nothing at all, because fossils do not always form. They only form very rarely, under strange conditions involving the complete lack of oxygen in the location of the corpse.

jinx wrote: Im sorry i cant elaborate. I would recommend everyone on earth buy and read Charles Darwins 'On the origin of species'. One book. One myth. 'Evolution'=the lie.

Next question.

reasonvemotion wrote: How we came into existence. The revelation was that the earth and the universe were created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago (Genesis 1:1-2:1).

The continent of Antarctica is at least 800,000 years old. Because the ice on top of it is at least that old. That's the lower bound. (i.e. that is definitely some age older than that).

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10330

reasonvemotion wrote: This can be seen in geological and fossil evidence and is consistent with a catastrophic flood.

Absolutely false. Whereever you got this from, you were lied to.

reasonvemotion wrote: There is a very real state of uncertainty over evolution among scientists.

Within academic biology and academic genetics departments, the theory of evolution by natural selection has been confirmed to the same level of confidence as the Germ Theory of Disease.

That is to say, reasonvemotion, that you would have an easier time running around claiming that illness is caused by demons and is cured by prayer.

reasonvemotion wrote: The Bible's accuracy in predicting the future can be read in The Book of Daniel. This is an outline of world history from Daniel's time to our time today.

Are you card-carrying member of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society?

Yes Cain married his sister.

Please link that Schrodinger prediction (or where can i read it)?

God of Genesis created Mendelian genetics (really quite genius we each have a backup copy in our diploid state) and natural selection so created kinds could propagate in any environment. Natural selection REDUCES genetic variation (as does speciation). No one care about these two processes/mechanisms.

The smallest prokaryotic genome is 160,000 bps. Prokaryote to a brachiosaurus. What is the source of new genetic information (NEW genes for NEW proteins)? Neo-darwinian 'evolution' says mutation. Mutations are mistakes. There is no source of new genetic information. It never happened. Animals bring forth after their 'kind'. No one expects their goldfish to give birth to a lizard or a cat or something different than a fish. Dogs bring forth dogs, cats bring forth cats. Darwins finches may share a common ancestor and the common ancestor is a......BIRD. Start with birds end with birds (genetic variation was lost during 'speciation' events). 'Speciation' in commas because Genesis predicts animals bring forth after their kind, not species.

Mankind is accumulating 100-300 new mutations a generation in germ line cells. There is a decline in fitness. Could link literature but i have come to understand 99% of atheists can not even read scientific literature nor are they interested in it.


Every observed law of nature in 6,000 years of written history (another name for this starts with the letter 's' but i will not use that word as it is used dogmatically by atheists with 0 understanding of what it means) shows neo-darwinian 'evolution' to be baseless.

I will not respond to the 99% of atheists who have not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' CULT (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of faeces i mean species').

It IS science vs religion. Science vs 'evolution' religion. Science wins. 'Evolution' religion loses. Thank you all for your ignorance of science, life and the religion of the worship of the corpse of an idiot (Darwin).

Reasonvemotion wrote:
How we came into existence. The revelation was that the earth and the universe were created in six literal days about 6,000 years ago (Genesis 1:1-2:1).

Kuznetzova wrote:
The continent of Antarctica is at least 800,000 years old. Because the ice on top of it is at least that old. That's the lower bound. (i.e. that is definitely some age older than that)..

R wrote:
That is a rather hazy description.

K wrote:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10330

R wrote:
Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rock, so it cannot accurately "know" the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution.

R wrote:
This can be seen in geological and fossil evidence and is consistent with a catastrophic flood.

K wrote:
Absolutely false. Whereever you got this from, you were lied to.

R wrote:
Give me some evidence to substantiate your claim of absolutely false.


R wrote:
There is a very real state of uncertainty over evolution among scientists.

K wrote:
Within academic biology and academic genetics departments, the theory of evolution by natural selection has been confirmed to the same level of confidence as the Germ Theory of Disease.

R wrote:
The "confident" theory of evolution. For example, it is claimed with "confidence" that life arose so many million years ago. There is no reputable scientific paper explaining a proven mechanism for how a living cell could arise from nonliving molecules. On the other hand there are scientific findings that show it cannot happen. Furthermore, nobody knows how evolution works because nobody has ever observed evolution.

K wrote:
That is to say, reasonvemotion, that you would have an easier time running around claiming that illness is caused by demons and is cured by prayer.

R wrote:
The Bible's accuracy in predicting the future can be read in The Book of Daniel. This is an outline of world history from Daniel's time to our time today.

K wrote:
Are you card-carrying member of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society?

R wrote:
No.

I am a believer in the wisdom and the prophecy of the Scriptures and I have given you one example, an accurate prophecy from the Book of Daniel.

Japanese scientists have observed the evolution of a new species of fish in Lake Victoria, this has been heralded as an important observation being the first observed observation of the evolution of a new species of large bodied creature

Yes no one cares about 'speciation'. Started with fish ended with fish. Animals bring forth after their kind. An original interbreeding population may no longer interbreed and so it gets called a new 'species'. It is still a fish. Not a bird or a cat or a dog or an ant or a t-rex or a brachiosaurus. Fish produce fish.

jinx wrote:Fish produce fish.

So you don't believe that life arouse form simple cellular forms, as examples of increasing complexity? You think they just popped into existence?

reasonvemotion wrote:The Bible's accuracy in predicting the future can be read in The Book of Daniel. This is an outline of world history from Daniel's time to our time today.

It clearly describes what King Nebuchadnezzar had seen in his dream, a statue made up of gold, silver, bronze, iron and then the feet of iron and clay.

Each of these correspondending metals represents a kingdom that would rule the world. Daniel 2:31-35.

Gold, the head represented Babylon, which ruled the world from 605 BC to 539 B.C. It would not last forever and was overthrown by the second dominant world power.

Silver, the breast and arms, which was the Medes and Persians, they ruled from 539 B.C. TO 331 B.C.

Bronze, the belly and thighs, was the nation of Greece. They were known for their bronze-plated armor. Greece has been described as the goat that tramples down Media-Persia, the ram. Greece over threw the Medes and the Persians in 331 B.C.

Iron, the legs, the feet part of iron and clay, was the Roman Empire. They conquered the Greeks in 168 B.C. and of course the Romans ruled the world during the time of Christ. In the book, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, it was referred to "the iron monarchy of Rome" using the exact expression from the bible.

The feet of the statue were made up of iron and clay which do not cleave. It was then predicted the Roman Empire would divide, which occurred from A.D. 351 TO A.D. 476. "but they will not adhere to one another, Chapter 2, Verse 43.

History has followed this prophecy like a blueprint. Dictators and rulers have attempted to unite Europe, but have failed. The Roman Empire was divided, the divisions of the empire into the easten and western sections formed the foundation of the nations located in Europe today.

The last part of the prophecy is in Daniel 2:44, 45.

How eurocentric of you.

Where do China and the Mongols, et al fit into this 'prediction'?

reasonvemotion wrote:This can be seen in geological and fossil evidence and is consistent with a catastrophic flood. ...

If this were so then the fossil record would be a jumble and Geology would be a nonsense with respect to sedimentation and rock formation.

As to how we came to be, science really has no explanation.

Its has a few explanations and they are being refined as we speak. The main thrust is that we came to be through a process called Evolution and so far it appears to be the best explanation that fits the facts we see. Of course you can believe that a great 'skyfather' knocked it all up in six days and is still interfering in the physical processes but thats a matter for Psychology rather than Physics, Biology and Geology I think.

So you don't believe that life arouse form simple cellular forms, as examples of increasing complexity?

Your question is phrased correctly in what you stated is a religious belief and not science. A prokaryote has never been observed to produce anything except a prokaryote. Life from non life has never been observed and spontaneous generation was falsified centuries ago yet remains a fundamental tenet of the 'evolution' myth. No i do not believe in the thousand year old myth of SG.

You think they just popped into existence?

I believe Genesis 1:1-31. It is the atheism cult that has the universe 'popping' into existence from nowhere with no cause 13.75 billion years ago.

If this were so then the fossil record would be a jumble and Geology would be a nonsense with respect to sedimentation and rock formation.

We have coal and hydrocarbons because of Noahs flood (trees got buried in mud).

Thank you for your ignorance of science life and the etc etc etc.

jinx wrote:God of Genesis created Mendelian genetics (really quite genius we each have a backup copy in our diploid state) and natural selection so created kinds could propagate in any environment. Natural selection REDUCES genetic variation (as does speciation). No one care about these two processes/mechanisms.

There you go! All you have to do is say your 'God' started the process. But is this not a contradiction for you as you also claim the process does not exist? And I think you're in trouble as you also wish your 'God' to be able to interfere with the world at the same time.

The smallest prokaryotic genome is 160,000 bps. Prokaryote to a brachiosaurus. What is the source of new genetic information (NEW genes for NEW proteins)? Neo-darwinian 'evolution' says mutation. Mutations are mistakes. There is no source of new genetic information. It never happened. Animals bring forth after their 'kind'. No one expects their goldfish to give birth to a lizard or a cat or something different than a fish. Dogs bring forth dogs, cats bring forth cats. Darwins finches may share a common ancestor and the common ancestor is a......BIRD. Start with birds end with birds (genetic variation was lost during 'speciation' events). 'Speciation' in commas because Genesis predicts animals bring forth after their kind, not species.

Since you like links http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... new-paper/

I thought the latest thinking was that Birds are the evolved descendants of dinosaurs? But then I guess you don't believe in dinosaurs either.

Mankind is accumulating 100-300 new mutations a generation in germ line cells. There is a decline in fitness. Could link literature but i have come to understand 99% of atheists can not even read scientific literature nor are they interested in it.

There is no arrow of 'fitness'. Mutations only matter if they actually affect the reproduction of the species via the effect of natural selection by the environment.

Every observed law of nature in 6,000 years of written history (another name for this starts with the letter 's' but i will not use that word as it is used dogmatically by atheists with 0 understanding of what it means) shows neo-darwinian 'evolution' to be baseless.

There is no "6,000 years of written history"?

I will not respond to the 99% of atheists who have not even read the bible of the atheism/'evolution' CULT (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of faeces i mean species').

Have you read it?

It IS science vs religion. Science vs 'evolution' religion. Science wins. 'Evolution' religion loses. Thank you all for your ignorance of science, life and the religion of the worship of the corpse of an idiot (Darwin).

For a 'Christian' you appear to lack one of its major tenets.

jinx wrote:Your question is phrased correctly in what you stated is a religious belief and not science. A prokaryote has never been observed to produce anything except a prokaryote. Life from non life has never been observed and spontaneous generation was falsified centuries ago yet remains a fundamental tenet of the 'evolution' myth. No i do not believe in the thousand year old myth of SG.

And there has been no observable instance of a 'God'? How do you resolve this with your wish to be scientific in your beliefs?

Once again you confuse what science seeks with your wish for an answer to your existential 'Why?' desire. Nowhere do the Biologists in the Theory of Evolution say that life arose from 'non-life'(whatever that is), all they say is that the variation of species that we see can be explained by biological processes and and external environment that requires survival and reproduction.

I'm also puzzled as SG appears to be exactly what you have been proposing in some of your posts, i.e. fully formed creatures popping into existence without an evolutionary process.

I believe Genesis 1:1-31. It is the atheism cult that has the universe 'popping' into existence from nowhere with no cause 13.75 billion years ago.

Why are you talking about Astrophysics now? Once again you fail to understand what science says, as it does not say anything of the sort, it just provides "How" explanations that appear to fit the facts without the need for a 'creator'. That you think this threatens your existential need for a "Why?" answer is a problem with your psychology and your version of your religion that still accepts the older creation stories as true. Me, I think scientific theories are open to revision, unlike religious dogma, and accept them as being useful and the current best explanation for the facts around us.

We have coal and hydrocarbons because of Noahs flood (trees got buried in mud).

Thank you for your ignorance of science life and the etc etc etc.

How long do think coal takes to form? How do you explain the age difference between Anthracite and Lignite?

What do you think oil is?

reasonvemotion wrote:...
R wrote:
Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rock, so it cannot accurately "know" the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution. ...

Given your beliefs how are you even contemplating using this as an argument? As you've got 94,000 years you can't account for.