Of course it is "more ludicrous" to say your example is more so when you attempt to equate differentiated cells to a fertilized ovum. NO cell other than a fertilzed ovum WILL develop into a full grown human being, but the ovum will because that is what it is designed to do.

If there is a "faulty argument" here, it is your attempt to equate such "lines" with a fertilized and developing egg. Yes, they both contain the entire genetic code within each cell in the body, whether that "body" is the single celled egg that is beginning to develop a new human being or whether that "body" is skin cell, a heart muscle cell, etc.

But it is something entirely more "ludicrous" to try to argue that autoclaving the cells you are working on is the same thing as killing a developing human being.



Whew! I am relieved, because then you would be autoclaving a person. :MrEEk:

Selah.



-ol' 2long

Hey, if they don't turn the heat on in here soon I will be autoclaving a person - myself!!!!!

No, rprynne, I "rule out" evolution because God has clearly revealed the truth that HE Created.

But when someone wants to play the game of "debunking" Creation as a "myth" as to the origin of life, I am comfortable enough with Science to talk to them on their level regarding their FAITH in Science and their FAITH that life arose from non-living material according to the RULES and LAWS of that very basis in Science that they accept as "true" without any proof whatsoever.

For the record, I have NEVER stated nor claimed that SCIENCE is a "bunch of bunk." There ARE scientific theories that I think are a bunch of bunk, as well as the INTERPRETATIONS of data that many scienTISTS bring to the table as they attempt to PROVE that no God created anything and that everything can be "accounted for" simply by an appeal to "natural processes."

But are YOU saying that science CAN prove that life came into being FROM non-life, if you think what I said was a "Bunch of Bunk?" If so, I really would be most interested in seeing that data.

I will tell you what I have found. "Evolutionists" HATE to address the issue of ORIGINS and want to avoid it, claiming that evolution ONLY applies to living organisms AFTER they somehow mysteriously came into being.

Furthermore, there is NO evidence anywhere in the world of Macroevolution, while there ARE Scientific LAWS that prevent such a thing from happening.

Evolution is adhered to on the basis of FAITH, not fact.

However, if will take the two theories, evolutionism and creationism, you will find that Creation theory more closely predicts what HAS BEEN found in nature and does not any of the "twisting" of data that evolutionism needs. In addition, evolutionism has no know way to account for the required INCREASE in informtion that is REQUIRED by higher and more complex forms of life. WHERE exactly did that information, that is vital and essential, come from? It DID NOT exist in the "lower" form of life, so where DID it come from and HOW did it "get into" the lower form of life in order to allow it to "change" into a completely different type of life, more complex than its "predecessor"?

Awwww, don't go autoclaving yourself.

Just pop some towels in the autoclave and warm them up. They make nice wraps to take the chill away.

Sounds cozy! Except if I do that everyone will want some!!! Then again, our autoclave is big enough to set up a card table and chairs. Maybe we'll move the lunch room into there!

I see. So you refuse to consider any other theories or hypothesis that entertain the possibility that God did not create? The reverse of what you said here?





I am not offering my opinion either way. I don't think you would be interested in seeing any data. (which is not a statement to imply I have such data.) You have already established that unless it supports what has been clearly revealed to you, then you will refute the data. If you know you will refute the data, it establishes that you have a bias (similar to the bias you ascribe to the Scientists you despise).


I must have misintrepreted you. Then there is science you agree with and science you don't. Is the demarcation line of those two groups defined by your understanding of scripture? i.e. its good science until conflicts with your religious beliefs?


And if this were true, do you think it conveys more information about the correctness of either theorey or more information about the complexity of the theories? To match with creation, it just needs to exist. The bar is set a little higher for evolution theories.

WOW! That is a BIG, dang autoclave!! :MrEEk:

I've never seen one that big. Just the little ones.

Oh, and BTW...slight t/j here...I don't know where that thread is anymore and I didn't have an opportunity to reply to you there, Tabby, but yes! It would be groovy if we could exchange information so we can go head to head in Word Twist!!

Look out! Ha-cha-cha!!

Charlotte

How do we do that? Can the moderators do that for us?

You each must e-mail justuss and give permission to exchange.

Thank you, tst!

Charlotte

Okay, your turn. Unless you beat me to the punch! LOL!!

Charlotte

Alright, I sent one!

Not at all, rprynne. I consider all theories and evaluate them. There was a time in my life when I accepted evolutionary theory simply because the "authority figure" of my professors "said THAT was how things got here."

After becoming a Christian, I "had to" examine BOTH theories, both of which "make sense" to the "believers" in each form of faith. The reason for that is very simple, there ARE only TWO possible ways that everything got here, especially how LIFE "got here," and ONLY TWO WAYS.

The DATA (the universe, the planet, the living things on the planet, etc.) are all the same and are NEUTRAL. It is the interpretation of that data that is open to differences of opinion.

But here's one very good starting point of anyone who might be interested in examining the claims of both theories: which model of origins (creation or evolutio) BEST predicts what is actually found without the need to manipulate the data? In other words, IF "A" is true, then what SHOULD be seen and what actually has been seen? If "B" is true, then what SHOULD be seen and what actually has been seen?




rprynne, you are making assumptions about me (my interest in seeing any data) that are groundless and false.

And I have never said that I don't have a "bias" that I would also bring to the interpretation of data. But I RECOGNIZE that bias and will NOT "reject" data that seems to contradict or be questionable toward the MODEL of origins that I DO support.

The same cannot be said for the "mainstream evolutionary scientists." They WILL NOT consider anything other than evolution and an evolutionary FAITH the rejects ANY possibility that any "Supreme Being" might actually HAVE "created."

In fact, they will quite often accuse scientists who DO believe in God and creation as being, at best, "pseudoscientists." They will often ask pejorative questions such as "what peer reviewed articles have they published?" That sort of question may "sound good," until one finds that those same dogmatic believers in evolutions CONTROL the journals and WILL NOT publish anything from anyone who might dare to present anything supportive of creation.

In addition, you might want to look at what the evolutionist zealots do to scientists/teachers in "their" institutions who might make the terrible mistake of admitting that they believe in God and creation.




No, rprynne. "Good science" has nothing to do with it. "Good science" is neutral, as I said earlier. It is the interpretions, the hypotheses, the theories, etc. that come from studying the data that form "good" or "bad" with respect to their claim for their opinion to BE "good science."

Many things in "science" are NOT opposed to God or creation, simply because they were established by God as the way that the universe operates. An example of those sorts of things are the various LAWS of science, i.e. the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Biogenetic Law, etc.




No, the bar is not set a little higher for evolutionary theories.

If I tell you that the sky is blue and you wanted to say that the sky is "not blue" but some other color, then it would be incumbent upon you to PROVE that the sky is "not blue," even if it turns out that the sky is a different color than what you thought it was. The DATA (the blue sky) is available to everyone to see and evaluate for themselves, but they are willing to "see what the 'non-blue-sky' scientist has as supportive PROOF for an obvious 'opposite' belief in the color of the sky, regardless of how the sky 'got there' in the first place.

Consider for a minute the "diveristy of life" issue. For a creationist the reason and the "how" of that diveristy (not the "how was it done") of the diversity of life is BECAUSE that was God's purpose and design, and He CREATED all life according to that purpose and design. In short, the diverity of life is a result of the PURPOSEFUL acts of a Living, Thinking, Being who ACTED according to His will and plan.

Contrast that with the evolutionary "explanations" for the diveristy of life and HOW supposed "evolutionary ideas" accounts for the increase in complexity and the diversity of life.

To paraphrase and use a statement from a movie that many might know, "Show Me The Money!" Not ONE proof has been offered by evolutionist. All that is offered is a dogmatic BELIEF that evolution and natural process are all that there IS.

The "latest" attempt at proof of this sort has been the concept of "Punctuated Equilibrium," invented out of thin air with precisely NO proof of the validity of the hypothesis, yet the "scientist" who made up that idea is celebrated withing evolutionary circles as a "Great Scientist." Phooey.

rprynne, THE underlying theory of evolution is the idea of Uniformitarianism, without which evolution will have a very hard time proving anything. Yet today, even more and more "evolutionist scientists" are moving away from Uniformitarianism as more and more data has become available to show it to be a "false" theory.

The theory, from the beginning of time, is that God created. Virtually ALL of the "founding fathers of Science" believed in God and creation, but that did NOT stop them from trying to learn HOW things operate according to the rules that God has established. There was, if you will, no denial of the existence of "electricty" as the motive force behind the actual working of the engine, but they wanted to know how the parts of the engine were put together, how it worked, why it worked, what it was designed to do, etc. But they did NOT deny the real existence of the "electicity," without which all they would be examaning would be a useless lump of whatever.

Now, if I want to argue that GOD created life according to His design and His purpose FOR life, and an evolutionist wants to say "no, life came about by some big cosmic accident of natural forces and not by the creative will of some living being," then it is INCUMBENT upon that evolutionist to PROVE their theory. And a believer in creation can also examine the claims of the evolutionist and examine whatever "data" they want to submit as "proof" of the correctness of their evolutiary claim.

That is NOT "setting the bar higher." That is just standard requirements for evaluation all theories and models. It holds "evolutionary theory" to the same standard of proof as creation theory is held to by evolutionists.

When it comes to the issue of ORIGINS, evolutionists DO NOT want to address HOW life began because the "origin of life" is NOT something that can be duplicated. On the contrary, EVERYTHING that Science knows about life PRECLUDES life forming from anything other than PREEXISTING life (as in a living God created life). Hence the Biogenetic Law that "Life begets Life," and it rejects spontaneous generation of life from non-life.

The constant refrain from evolutionists is along the lines of "well given enough TIME, and the presence of the chemicals that were themselves not created but always there, RANDOM CHANCE AND PROBABILITY alone makes it CERTAIN that the 'right combination of needed chemicals FOR life to exist WILL OCCUR."

In other words, they lean on Probability Statistics to "prove" that evolutionary theory is correct so that they can "gloss over" the question of ORIGINS. Then they try to limit their concept of "evolution" to "just" AFTER life already exists and then begins to "evolve" into more complex and higher forms of life.

At every turn, evolutionists choose to IGNORE data that conflicts with their theories and only "consider" data that supports their preconceived rejection of creation and supplanting of creation with evolution as THE "answer." Sometimes supporters of evolution have even tried to "invent" data to "prove" evolution. "Piltdown Man" would be one example.

Then there would be pigs tooth that was used in the Scopes trial, yet claimed to be a human tooth.

Deception has occurred several times on the evolutionist front, but to my knowledge has never occurred on the creationist side of the issue.

If you'd like another evolutionary "puzzle" to consider, consider the extinct "missing link" from fish and gills to land animals and lung breathing called the Coelocanth. This extinct "lung fish" was touted as a missing link (from the fossilzed remains found) as "proof" of an evolutionary step (or missing link, if you will). Imagine the "problem" that developed when the Coelocanth was found to be alive and well TODAY, some millions of years AFTER it was supposed to have "appropriately and beneficially to evolutionary theory" gone extinct and become only a fossilized specimen?

The fish is no different from the fossilized remains. It is STILL a Coeloncath today, "millions of years later," and it has far outlived its "evolutionary" niche and right to exist other than as some fossils in some rocks somewhere.

True.

Nor will they publish anything supportive of a geocentric cosmology.


And what the Catholics did to the infidels who dared to suggest a heliocentric cosmology.

Fair enough. Then is it safe to assume that you have rejected all parts of evolutionary theorey? Natural Selection, random genetic mutation, long time scales, etc.? I would find rejecting them all as indictive of not truly evaluating them. However, I would imagine that you would describe that as just a function of the fact that they are false. Are their parts of evolutionary theorey you have evaluated and concluded that they are valid? Even close to valid?


Its not that creation theorey fits what is observed, it is the fact that anything that can be observed will fit for a creation theorey.


Perhaps false. I will reserve judgement on whether they are groundless. I assumed you would not be interested in the data because I suspect that you have no choice but to reject it, and thus little interest in "false" data.


And what makes them "mainstream evolutionary scientists"? If they have considered that a "Supreme Being" created and rejected it based on their intrepretation of the data, do you lump them into that group. Or will you tell me no such scientists exist, for proof of considering this lies only in them accepting it?


This is not an answer to my question. I asked you if your intrepretation of scripture defines your opinion of science?


Sure sounds to me like you are saying the bar is higher, your are just saying it is due to a "primacy" issue. Because the creation theorey came first it is incumbent on scientists to proove evolution?


This is not true, many scientists, including evolutionists are attempting to address how life began. Google Abiogenesis. You phrase it this way to imply that they are terrified to pull back the curtain, which is not correct. They just haven't solved it. One can argue that because they haven't solved it, a solution does not exist, or the solution is creation, or its only a matter of time.


You are awfully dismissive of randomness. Its a bit more powerful than you might imagine. Ever play around with a Monte Carlo simulator?


I'm sure that deception has occurred. Some mistakes have also probably occurred. But is this deception proof of anything other than the fact that scientists seek fame and fortune as much as anyone else?

Okay, rprynne, I'll play your game for a little while to see just what it is you are arguing FOR rather than against.

Then is it safe to assume that you have rejected all parts of evolutionary theorey?

I guess about the same as all believers in natural process alone being able to explain where everything, especially life itself, came from. I guess that would make us about equal, eh?


Natural Selection, random genetic mutation, long time scales, etc.? I would find rejecting them all as indictive of not truly evaluating them.

Natural selection occurs.

Random genetic mutation occurs.

Long time scales? Define "long time" if you would. And while you are at it, what importance do you place on whatever "long time scale" you mean, and just how long IS that time scale?


However, I would imagine that you would describe that as just a function of the fact that they are false. Are their parts of evolutionary theorey you have evaluated and concluded that they are valid? Even close to valid?

I have evaluated all parts of evolutionary theory and have found evidence for none of it in the form of any proof. What has been found is proof that evolution is incorrect as a theory to explain what IS there.

However, I guess the sort of answer you might be looking at is Darwin's statement of what really caused HIM to think his theory of evolution (natural selection) might NOT be correct. That issue STILL causes insurmountable problems for evolutionists and is not likely to "go away." Part of the issue of "proving" a theory is in the "falsifying" of the theory. In other words, finding something that invalidates the theory, and in the case of evolution, finding something that "should not be" if evolution is true rather than false.

In the final analysis, rprynne, advocates of evolution do so because they don't want to admit to, let alone accept, the existence of a Supreme Being.

And there's the "rub, too. To sum it up, what is faced here is the reality of TRUTH. To put it succinctly;

1. Creation is correct

2. Evolution is correct

3. Both "could be" false (though everyone would be hard pressed to come up with a 3rd possibility that makes sense), but both CANNOT be true.

If Creation is correct, evolution CANNOT also be true.
If Evolution is true, Creation cannot also be true (my apologies to the folks who want to try to blend the two with God "kick starting" everything but then letting random chance take over and create life or not create life)



That's not how predictive models work, rprynne. The model predicts what should be seen if the model is correct BEFORE the data is evaluated.

However, what you are describing IS precisely how evolutionists use data to support the theory of Evolution. They simply reject any data that would conflict with the theory. That is NOT how one proves a theory, by getting rid of "troublesome data." But evolutionists do that all the time.



Please don't take this the wrong way, rpynne, but I really don't care what judgment you might come to of me.

Your assumption, again, is incorrect. I frequently look at the data. But let's be precise here. I DO NOT reject "data." I reject some interpretations of some data. Evolutionists, on the other hand, most often DO reject ANY interpretation of data that might suggest, let alone support, Creation and the Creation Model.



rpyrnne, you are playing games, either consciously or unconsciously. Show me ONE believer in the evolutionary theory who also believes that God created everything according to His will. Understand the distinction please. I did NOT say "scientists," I said "evolutionary scientists." There ARE MANY scientists who also believe in God and Creation.


You are asking the same sort of question as, if you'll allow me to make a couple of substitutions in the wording of your quote: "do you believe that...

And what makes them "mainstream atheists"? If they have considered that a "Supreme Being" exists and rejected it based on their intrepretation of the data, do you lump them into that group. Or will you tell me no such atheists exist, for proof of considering this lies only in them accepting it?

Rprynne, they can believe whatever they want to believe. But they CANNOT be intellectually honest and say that a THEORY is the same thing as PROOF. The belief in evolution is a FAITH, not a proven scientific fact. The belief in creation is a FAITH, not a proven scientific fact. They both form "MODELS" of origins and attempt to "explain" how everything that is seen actually "got here." The MODELS set up predictions of what Should Be seen if that given model is accurate, and the actual data should "fit" a given Model with little, if any, need to "manipulate the data."



No. Does that answer your question?

Now, does your interpretation of science define your opinion of Scripture?




Again, no, prynne. I thought the "blue sky" answer might be more understandable to you. Obviously I was wrong. Let me expand on that a little and then tie it directly to the question of evolution.

The sky IS blue. Everyone can see the blue sky no matter where they are on the Earth. Along comes "Darwin" and he says, "no, the sky is not blue, it is magenta. He says that everyone else's sight is faulty and the TRUE color of sky is magenta, because that is what HE sees through HIS eyes.

Now, let's focus on the aspect of evolution that restricts itself to "just" living organisms. There is a PLETHORA of life forms, from the microscopic to very large living animals to even larger extinct animals.

Along comes "Darwin" and he says, "No, God didn't create all KINDS of living things, they evolved. What proof do I have of that claim? NONE, but it just seems to "make sense."

Ever since then, evolutionists have been trying to prove that ANY macroevolution actually has taken place, is taking place, or will take place, because they SHOULD if evolution is true. To date, there have LOTS of failed attempts, but NOT ONE example of proof. ALL that is "offered as proof" are the opinions (interpretations) by PRO-Evolution scientists of the Data, and a rejection by those same scientists of ANY opinion (interpretation) of the same data that would suggest evolution is wrong or that creation is correct.



If you want to discuss Abiogenesis, we can.

However, the "salient point" is that NO attempt to "recreate" the so-called original conditions (ala the primordial 'soup') has been able to result in ANY success, let alone the actual creation of life.

Maybe what I'll do for you is to spend a little time on this issue and your "appeal" to "it just needs time." You might find it interesting, if not revealing.



No I have not. But I can imagine quite a bit, and have, when it comes to this "life from non-life" issue that is CRITICAL to evolutionary theory.

I guess I will have to spend some time "on the numbers," it would seem.


Now, let me ask you a question in return. Are you familiar with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, the Biogenetic Law, and Information Theory? If so, how does evolution "get around" these absolutes "killers" of the theory? (and yes, I already know the standard answers and the flaws inherent in those answers, but I want to know your level of underestanding of what you are advocating for).




I guess your suggestion as to their motivation is as good as any reason. However, when that false data is USED by 'serious scientists and people' to "PROVE" that evolution is correct and that creation is wrong, then there IS deception of great magnitude. Mistakes are one thing, but there is a deliberate and pervasive attempt by evolutionist of deny even the discussion of, let alone the consideration of, the Creation Theory. They will have nothing to do with anything that remotely suggests that there IS a "Being" out there that is vastly superior to Man and that Mankind IS NO ACCIDENT of nature.

Actually, it sounds a lot like "I was for the war before I was against the war, and I really don't think the war is 'just' even though I said it was previously."

Now, in the case of the Scopes trial, the ENTIRE case was built on a pigs tooth, the "misinterpretative mistakes of the scientists," and the INTENT to "do in the teaching of creation."

As in the case of DNA exhonorating a killer, the TRUTH about the evidence present SHOULD, wouldn't you think, DEMAND a reversal of the court's decision and the restoration of the teaching of creation theory AT LEAST alongside of the teaching or evolution theory?


Evolution, reprynne is a FAITH SYSTEM masquerading as "science."
Creationism is also a faith system, which evolutionist are "quick to point out" while adamantly denying that evolution is also a faith system and NOT a proven fact.

Both, imho opinion should be taught as models of origins with science as a tool to see the strengths and weakness of each model, without the prejudicial bias of evolutionists controling what is, and what is not, taught to "young skulls full of mush."

Thank you for proving my point, Jayne.

They won't publish anything they don't agree with because they see themselves as the only "holders of THE truth," proven or otherwise.


But here's an interesting question for you to play with:

If a line is of infinite length, can any point along that line be correctly referred to as the "center point?"

What about in a universe of infinite size?

Where IS the center of the universe?



I'm sorry Jayne, I thought we were discussing current events and current Science. If you want to talk about History, we can can that. We can talk about all sorts of things, but they are not relevant to the discussion of Evolution.

I'm not arguing for or against anything. I originally posed a question about using science theories created by scientists as support of the corruptness of scientists and their theories.


I find these statements curious. How do you reconcile randomness which is generally by nature not directed, nor purposeful, with creation?


Long enough to allow natural selection and random genetic mutation to account for the diversity of life, as defined by the evolution theories. i.e. earth billions of years old vs several thousand.


I understand predictive models. You are asking me to compare models and I am saying one model is constrained and the other is not, and that has more to do with the "fit" than the "correctness" of the models. Is there anything that a creation model can tell me can not exist?


I don't take it the wrong way. FWIW, it was not meant to be a judgement of you, it was a judgement about your interests in the data. Which I suppose can be viewed as the same thing, but anyway, I mean no offense.


I'm not playing games. I am poking at why you claim to be an open minded person who has reviewed data and its intrepretations on both sides of the debate and have landed on the side of creation, yet seem to imply that the only way anyone could have done the same things and landed on the side of evolution is if they are corrupt.


No.


No, the color of the sky is not the question, it is why is it that color. Darwin observed the diversity of life, (as did everyone else), and asked what could explain all this diversity.


I might. I'm always willing to listen.


Maybe not the numbers. Look up "Black Swans"


I have only a basic understanding of those things. I am not advocating one theorey or the other. I have never made up my mind about it either way.

I am always perplexed on this board why so much is taken as adversarial. I'm sure you are more learned in scripture than I will over be. Probably more learned in science. I just was asking about what appeared to me to be flawed logic.

I hate to derail this thread by getting back to the topic of the OP, but I can't think where else to post this:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/05/boxoffice.ap/index.html

In comparison, the movie "Expelled" on its opening weekend earned
$2,970,848 in 1,052 theaters, for an average of $2,824 per screen.