Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, the secular model suggests it is 150-125 Ma (following their assumptions of uniformitarianism). This isn’t too perfect, because it messes up the theory of bird evolution (which it should’ve otherwise fit snugly into with everything else found by now), it seeming to be a truly unique creature amidst the reptiles and birds around it (not helped by some artistic impressions).

The Archaeopteryx baramin survived the Flood and differentiated into multiple airborne species which is why we no longer find it. But the Pre-Flood specimens are there for us to confirm it existed when the rock layer was layer down.
 
Gigantals said:
That’s why we need to be so careful with fossils from China.
Click to expand...
We have to be careful with any who label themselves as Evolution scientists as well.

The evolving story - even beyond China - has been fraught with fraud and falsehoods.
 
Last edited:
Gigantals said:
Funny you bring up suppressing evidence. When they claimed that our DNA was 98% similar to chimp DNA, it turned out they were omitting a significant percentage of the genome to reach such a high figure.
Click to expand...
Reference please to the original paper. I am well aware that some scientific papers are misrepresented in the press, by both sides.

Percentage similarities are very dependent on the method used, for example, the size of pieces examined has an effect on the final result.

Take two pieces of DNA: AAAAAAAAA and AAAAAAAAG. Taking them as is they do not match, so there is a 0% similarity. Now split them into codons: AAA AAA AAA and AAA AAA AAG. Two out of three codons are the same, that is 66.7% similarity. The different size of pieces tested has an effect of the result.

Beyond the effect of the size of the pieces we can look at the amino acids those codons represent: AAA codes for lysine. AAG also codes for lysine. So both nine base sequences code for: Lys, Lys, Lys. That is 100% similarity between the proteins from two sequences.

Hence the need for the reference to the original scientific article where the details of the measurement technique will be explained. That is the sort of detail second hand reports in the scientific press often leave out.
So you’re telling me that those who support evolution in this are completely neutral in their research, and will only mention the results without interpretation of their own? And then the interpretations comes afterwards depending on the individual, right?
Click to expand...
All results are interpreted. Since they are scientific results they are interpreted within science. Do you expect scientists to write a long appendix to every paper re-interpreting their results in the light of the Hindu scriptures saying that the universe is over 500 billion years old?

Do you want Hindu, Muslim or atheist scientists giving the Christian interpretation of their results? Would you follow their interpretation? Do you agree with Francis Collins, a Christian on his interpretation of science? How about Ken Miller? Do you agree with him?

You are asking for the impossible here, especially given that Christians cannot agree on a single interpretation: you have YEC, OEC and theistic evolutionists at the very least.
 
If an evolution scientist tries to find evidence for evolution, then surely it’s fine for a Creation scientist to do the same for Creation? I mean, we both require a framework of interpretation for some of our work, and we’re not going into this with a 100% open mind.
 
EndTimes said:
Well, reality/actuality/Creation/Existence -Including God, Heaven and hell as well?
Click to expand...
Yes. God=Everything=Truth. But truth resides in a mind.

Hos 4:6My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you as My priests. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I will also forget your children.
 
Noose001 said:
Yes. God=Everything=Truth. But truth resides in a mind.
Click to expand...
Jesus is TRUTH Itself …
and He has a Mind from which we can learn and absorb into our own mind.

A long Journey is that from the Mind to the Heart -
whereby Good Knowledge becomes Us.
_
 
EndTimes said:
Jesus is TRUTH Itself …
and He has a Mind from which we can learn and absorb into our own mind.

A long Journey is that from the Mind to the Heart -
whereby Good Knowledge becomes Us.
Click to expand...
Correct.
Jesus is the embodiment of the Truth and we are just like Him.

1 Cor 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.

All existence is from God but through a man, first through Adam and all in Adam and then a spiritual recreation through the man Jesus and all in Him.
 
Freddy said:
You said no-one supported it (highlighted above).
Click to expand...
Another weak attempt to do the “Freddy Flees the Thread” dance?

Not anyone else on the thread came to your rescue. But, let’s keep this local. You have not supported its validity.
 
Freddy said:
If you continue to get your information from sites with ‘creation’ in the title then you are going to limit your quest for knowledge. All you need to do is use the search terms ‘scales to feathers fossils’ and you’ll have enough reading to keep you busy all weekend.

This is the first one - a more scientific report.

favicon.ico
PNAS – 19 Feb 19

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The molecular evolution of feathers with direct evidence from fossils​

During the dinosaur–bird transition, feathers of bird ancestors must have been molecularly modified to become biomechanically suitable for flight. We report molecular moieties in fossil feathers that shed light on that transition. Pennaceous feathers…

And this is another on the very first page which contains this:

Last year, scientists announced the discovery in Siberia of Kulindadromeus , a small, 150 million-year-old, plant-eating dinosaur that had both scales and feathers . https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/03/most-dinosaurs-had-scales-not-feathers-fossil-analysis-concludes

If you’re not going to be bothered even to attempt to find the answers to your questions before you’ve asked them, then this will be a short discussion.

You might respond to this question: Why didn’t you look for the evidence yourself?
Click to expand...
The more I read from creationist sites, the more it seems that they’re grasping at straws.
 
All I want is unbiased information. Not from a creationist,not from someone who believes strongly in evolution.
 
It was referenced in the comment above that one. Here: Hughes, J.F. et al. , Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature

Other religions? Christianity has the strongest historical and archaeological (and theological) evidence out of all of them, and Catholicism has the strongest out of any denomination (we are on an apologetics site after all). Most people just ignore it for their convenience or misconceptions about it (YEC is the opposite of convenient, I can tell you; and there are too many misconceptions).

But now we’re getting to the point that makes evolution itself sound like a faith-based system that can be supported by some evidence, and provides the basis of a framework of interpretation through which its supporters can interpret data through (welcome to the club).

So then why is it that Creationist sites are untrustworthy, but evolutionist sites are? We to have evidence to support us (evolution and Creationism share a lot of the same evidence, but use different interpretations).

Which one’s correct though? Well, misconceptions and rumours aside, if we look at all the evidence then we’ll find an interpretation that fits them fine.

Speaking of which, want to see 101 reasons for a Young Earth?
 
You don’t want information from a Creationist or evolutionist; or you don’t want information with a Creationist or evolutionist interpretation attached?

Forgive me, it could just be my mistake in reading
 
Last edited:
Gigantals said:
You don’t want information from a Creationist or evolutionist; or you don’t want information with a Creationist or evolutionist interpretation attached?

Forgive me, it could just be my mistake in reading
Click to expand...
The latter. I just want unbiased information, but I realize that’s next to impossible.
 
I know what you mean. What if both were contrasted at once? Or looking at both with a critical mindset regardless of what they present?
 
Last edited:
Or I I could find something for you to interpret yourself, without outside influence.
 
Gigantals said:
I know what you mean. What if both were contrasted at once? Or looking at both with a critical mindset regardless of what they present?
Click to expand...
Maybe. Right now I’m leaving Lutheranism due to their belief that the earth is only 6000 years old. I’ve received emails from fellow parishioners about creationism and it’s unhelpful to me.
 
Were they pushing their beliefs on you too hard? Maybe only answering with the principle of ‘Sola Scriptura’; hence you wanting neutral evidence?
 
Last edited:
Gigantals said:
Were they pushing their beliefs on you too hard? Maybe only answering with the principle of ‘Sola Scriptura’?
Click to expand...
No, they didn’t really talk about the age of the earth unless I asked about it. It’s just a sticking point with me. The emails were mostly information from Answers in Genesis which I really don’t respect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top