Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Theory of evolution » Darwins Theory, did it bring any good in scientific research ?

Darwins Theory, did it bring any good in scientific research ?

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Otangelo


Admin
Darwins Theory, did it bring any good in scientific research ?

Evolutionary biology contributes nothing to medicine. Comparative biology? Sure. Scientific method? Yep. Information science? Yep. So I'd say everyone who uses these latter methods are more compatible with IDers than Darwiners.

Seriously, Darwinism has only hindered science - ever heard of vestigial organs, phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny, or junk DNA? All bogus, science-inhibiting fictions based largely on Darwinian thinking.

― Philip S. Skell, Why do we invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology
“I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done I their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: no. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome: the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions: improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers

Biomimetics

The evidence of the imitation
1. The hard work of the scientists to find and make the complex designs of nature is seeing and imitating the creation of the first creator who already created everything perfectly long time ago.
2. Thus, God the primeval supreme designer most probably exists.

The smart money is on biomimetics, a hot new trend built on intelligent design principles, assuming, as it does, that nature's designs are so good they are worth imitating. If any investors want to send even a small portion of Lonsdale's promised funding to support biomimetics projects or intelligent design organizations, such as Biologic Institute, Discovery Institute or Illustra Media, they can rest assured it won't take 150 years to show some returns.

Darwins Theory, did it bring any good in scientific research ?
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1647-darwins-theory-did-it-bring-any-good-in-scientific-research

Daniel Sinclair 
Evolutionary biology contributes nothing to medicine. Comparative biology? Sure. Scientific method? Yep. Information science? Yep. So I'd say everyone who uses these latter methods are more compatible with IDers than Darwiners. 





Naturalism is stopping more science today than fundamentalism
http://www.uncommondescent.com/genetics/naturalism-is-stopping-more-science-today-than-fundamentalism/

Over at Access Research Network,, David Tyler comments on “Exonic Transcription Factor Binding Directs Codon Choice and Affects Protein Evolution,

   Genomes contain both a genetic code specifying amino acids and a regulatory code specifying transcription factor (TF) recognition sequences. We used genomic deoxyribonuclease I footprinting to map nucleotide resolution TF occupancy across the human exome in 81 diverse cell types. We found that ~15% of human codons are dual-use codons (“duons”) that simultaneously specify both amino acids and TF recognition sites. Duons are highly conserved and have shaped protein evolution, and TF-imposed constraint appears to be a major driver of codon usage bias. Conversely, the regulatory code has been selectively depleted of TFs that recognize stop codons. More than 17% of single-nucleotide variants within duons directly alter TF binding. Pervasive dual encoding of amino acid and regulatory information appears to be a fundamental feature of genome evolution. (paywall)

noting

   The decision to endorse a naturalistic explanation rather than advance agnosticism about the origins of hidden overlapping codes is a pointer to hidden ideologies in origins-science. It seems that as long as materialism/naturalism is presumed, then a great number of unwarranted assertions (usually linked to Darwinism or abiogenesis) go unchallenged in academic papers. As soon as it is pointed out that only intelligent agents write codes, there is an outcry that science is being subverted by religious fundamentalists. However, the converse is true: intelligent design theory is based on the evidence of complex specified information. The evidences for naturalistic alternatives all evaporate under close scrutiny. More.

Naturalism is stopping more science today than fundamentalism, by forbidding many discussions and making many questions unaskable. By preferring famous fables and long, convoluted just-so stories by definition.

See also: There is nothing “controversial” about materialism = It’s a circus that can’t leave town because all the wagons are milling around in a circle.

http://www.isikansascity.org/notable-inventions-discoveries-developments-by-creationist-scientists.html


"Directed evolution has been successfully used to engineer proteins for basic and applied biological research. However, engineering of novel protein functions by directed evolution remains an overwhelming challenge. "

Translation: can't be done without engineering, i.e. intelligence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17721862

Credit to: Bill Holbert
With much publicity, the National Academy of Science has launched yet another glossy anti-creationist booklet, Science, Evolution and Creationism (SEC) that claims biological science is based on evolution.

But what about the biology-based science that SEC rightly credits with the vast drop in losses of children to disease? No joy here to the evolutionists either. Many of the most important medical advances were made without the slightest use being made of evolution:
Vaccination was discovered by Edward Jenner (1749–1823—note that Darwin published Origin in 1859)
Antisepsis by Joseph Lister, creationist.(1827–1912)
Anaesthesia by James Young Simpson (1811–1870), who believed that God was the first anaesthetist, citing Genesis 2:21.
Germ theory of disease by Louis Pasteur, creationist (1822–1895), who disproved spontaneous generation, still an evolutionary belief.
Antibiotics, developed without the slightest input of evolution, by the serendipitous discovery by Alexander Fleming (1881–1955), who had previously discovered lysozyme, the ‘body’s own antibiotic’. And Ernst Chain (1906–1979), who shared the 1945 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine with Fleming (and Howard Florey (1898–1968)) for discovering penicillin, was a devout Orthodox Jew and anti-Darwinian. His biography noted ‘Chain’s dismissal of Darwin’s theory of evolution’, and his belief that ‘evolution was not really a part of science, since it was, for the most part, not amenable to experimentation—and he was, and is, by no means alone in this view’. As an understanding of the development of life, Chain said, ‘a very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory.’ And speaking of certain evolutionary examples, he exclaimed, ‘I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.’1 
Insulin: its vital function was first discovered by the creationist Nicolae Paulescu (1869–1931), who named it ‘pancreine’. He anticipated the discoveries of Frederick Banting and John Macleod, who were awarded the 1923 Nobel Prize for Medicine for their work on insulin. See Denied the prize.
‘A very feeble attempt it is, based on such flimsy assumptions, mainly of morphological-anatomical nature that it can hardly be called a theory … I would rather believe in fairies than in such wild speculation.’—Ernst Chain, co-winner of 1945 Nobel Prize for discovery of penicillin, on Darwinian evolution 
In modern times, we have the outspoken biblical creationist Raymond Damadian (1936–), inventor of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner, and Graeme Clark (1935–), the inventor of the Cochlear bionic ear who is a Christian.
Certainly combating the SARS virus was great medical science, but was evolution really necessary? All the science actually found was a virus changing into a virus, which says nothing about how viruses might have evolved into virologists. It also says nothing about how viruses could have originated in the first place. They are incapable of independent reproduction, but are still very sophisticated, including a powerful miniature motor to wind up DNA. 

But this whole evolutionary claim is an example of the usual evolutionary fallacy of equivocation, or playing bait-and-switch with the term ‘evolution’: using the term to mean any sort of change, which no creationist doubts, then using evidence for this ‘so-called evolution’ to prove the ‘goo to you via the zoo’ theory, which is what SEC is really all about. The important point is that the latter requires new genes with new information; while most of the ‘proofs’ of evolution in SEC are nothing of the kind. So the ‘evidence’ that SEC adduces for ‘evolution’ cannot be extrapolated for millions of years, since it involves the wrong type of change, in the wrong direction. 

The claim that ‘existing infectious agents evolve into new and more dangerous forms’ is also fallacious. Once again, there are a number of ways that virulence could arise that have nothing to do with the changes required to turn germs into gymnasts. 

SEC also discusses antibiotic resistance as an example of evolution:
However, natural selection also can have radically different evolutionary effects over different timescales. Over periods of just a few generations (or, in some documented cases, even a single generation), evolution produces relatively small-scale microevolutionary changes in organisms. For example, many disease-causing bacteria have been evolving increased resistance to antibiotics. When a bacterium undergoes a genetic change that increases its ability to resist the effects of an antibiotic, that bacterium can survive and produce more copies of itself while nonresistant bacteria are being killed. Bacteria that cause tuberculosis, meningitis, staph infections, sexually transmitted diseases, and other illnesses have all become serious problems as they have developed resistance to an increasing number of antibiotics.
As usual, we have already shown why antibiotic resistance has nothing to do with bacteria-to-biologists evolution. In most cases, the resistance was already present, and the antibiotic knocks out the non-resistant forms. So there is indeed natural selection, but not evolution.
As SEC says, sometimes a genetic change can cause resistance, but even these changes are akin to scorched earth war, where things the enemy can exploit are destroyed, rather than new machinery arising. E.g. antibiotic resistance is in one sense a war between the germs and the fungi that produce the antibiotic. Sometimes the fungus uses the germ’s own machinery against them—they produce an antibiotic that the germ’s own machines (enzymes) turn into a poison, killing the germ. But if the germ has a mutation that disables the machine, the antibiotic is rendered harmless. But this germ is still disabled, and could not compete with the germs outside the hospital.



Last edited by Admin on Sun Apr 26, 2020 8:00 am; edited 2 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
“Why do we bother with evolution? What part does it actually play in experimental biology?"
By Dr Philip S. Skell. PhD. Duke University. Member of the National Academy of Science. Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University.
“I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome: the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions: improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”
- Dr Philip S. Skell. PhD. Duke University. Member of the National Academy of Science in ‘Why do we invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology.’, “The Scientist”, 19/16 (2005) p10.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 ). “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
- Dr Marc Kirshner. Former Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
I accepted  Tony's suggestion to debate the topic: "Real-world applications of Evolution and Creation". But not with the purpose to meed that challenge, and provide a number of examples where scientific predictions have been made based on creationism, and then confirmed. While they exist, my purpose in this debate is to put some things straight. I suppose ( i might be wrong on that ), that Tony thinks, that if that challenge is not met as he expects, that means that evolution tops creationism because it has apparently more explanatory power. But I think, a very important distinction has to be made here. I hear very often that Creationism or Intelligent Design is not science. And that implies that it is therefore not true.  These are all in my view strawman questions and assertions. Science asks two relevant questions. One is, how things work, and the other is, how did things probably came to be and to exist. One is operational science, and the second is historical science. Creationism is based on a worldview that explains our existence though a unique creation event in the past, where God created the physical universe, life, and biodiversity. 

Cosmological, chemical, and biological evolution, on the other hand, tries to explain our history and answer the same question without invoking a deity. Events that have eventually occurred only once in the past, do not need to be repeated, and neither requires that testable predictions are made. So the creation versus evolution debate is about if what we have discovered in the natural world leads us either to intelligent design, or natural mechanisms as the best explanation of how things came to be. Tony can of course claim, that upon my initial admission, he won the case. But my only concern is how we can best explain why there is something rather than nothing. If creationism does and can make successful scientific predictions is entirely irrelevant to the case if creationism is compelling or not. 

So I do not see this as a debate about science versus religion. The evidence in the natural world is the same for all of us. When the question is about origins, the issue is how can we best explain our existence in a philosophical manner. It is not about proving things. Nobody has a time machine to go back and see what happened deep far in the past. Science judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data.

Creationism is not about making scientific predictions, but either post-dictions confirm the creation account in Genesis or not. Creationism permits drawing inferences in regards to religious claims,  which shapes our worldview, our moral values, and meaning. The claim made by Tony in another debate with Nephilim free is that creationism has no scientific application. It is evident, that if a creator indeed exists, he is supremely more intelligent than we are. And as such, we can observe how things in the natural world work ( which was actually the driving force of almost all science fathers, which were Christians, and attempted to understand the world we live in ), our observations can help us advance our modern world by imitating what is observed in the natural world, which is basically in all cases, far more sophisticated than what humans have invented so far.  We see the practical application in biomimetics, and Nephilim free has given several examples.  And I can eventually add a few more. 

At the same time, there are a number of falsified evolutionary predictions, to which I can give a link, and the audience can have a look. 

And Philip Skell wrote in the New Scientist in 2005:
Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct?  Most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas,"  My own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

But more smacking than that, the thing is that common ancestry and macroevolution are false. NEVER, in over 150 years, since Darwin's book " On the origin of species " was published, has even ONE, amongst hundreds or thousands, if not millions of science papers, provided ONE DEMONSTRATION, and empirical verifiable replicable evidence, that any of the evolutionary mechanisms proposed, could produce a primary macroevolutionary transition zone of speciation and population differentiation, with the rise of new body plans, What is an evolutionary novelty? photosynthesis,  wings, legs, flowers, eyes, hearts, and the origin of Hox genes)

Norman Geisler:
The creation-evolution debate is not religion versus science or the Bible verses science, it's about good science versus bad science. Likewise, it's not faith versus reason, it's about reasonable faith, versus unreasonable faith.

Evolution, as probably understood by Tony, but certainly by many atheists,  is more than just an attempt to explain biodiversity. It aims to make scientific predictions and help to advance the scientific endeavor, supposedly to make scientific predictions, and applications to find solutions for the modern world, in medicine, artificial intelligence, and so on. But it is, and foremost, as well an attempt to explain reality without a creator, and as such, evolution is presented as an overarching materialistic worldview, that tops creationism in explanatory power.  I will demonstrate that the advance of the scientific endeavor, rather than explaining the origin of things more and more by natural means like unguided random events, physical necessity, and evolution, is demonstrating that the world we live in, is far more complex than originally thought, based on instructional complex information, and irreducible and interdependent machines and molecular cell factories and computers, and as such, demonstrates the imprints of an intelligent designer. 

About one hundred years ago scientists thought our galaxy constituted the entire universe. The scientific consensus was that the universe was static and eternal. The beginning of the universe in a fiery big bang was not even remotely suspected. But in the thirties, Lemaître proposed what later became known as the "Big Bang Theory". with the implication that the universe had a beginning. Today, the Big Bang theory is consensus amongst astrophysicists. 

We find therefore scientific advance perfectly confirming what the Bible says for millennia: Genesis 1:1: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 

Genesis 1 explains the origin of vegetation, plants,  the origin of animals, the origin of humankind, male and female, and the origin of the soul
Darwinian thought comes from the Victorian era, from a time where it was believed that biological Cells could come from some warm little pond, ready to undergo still more complex changes... So basically, from the pre-history of biological sciences, where nobody had any idea of what was going on. And Haeckel thought that biological cells are mere structureless protoplasm.He wrote, in 1871 in Nature magazine: The simplest independent organisms which we know, consist in fact of a structureless bit of protoplasm.  

Today, we know better. Cells are not simple structureless bits of protoplasm, but of unparalleled gigantic complexity, a city, hosting billions of interconnected chemical factories, unimaginable for the human mind. Full of computers, information, machines, and factories. Fully automated, robot-like operated, enormously well suited to adapt to the environment. Such things come undoubtedly from a super-intelligent creator. and confirm the Genesis account. 


No scientific experiment has been able to come even close to synthesize the basic building blocks of life and reproduce a  self-replicating Cell in the Laboratory through self-assembly and autonomous organization. 
When the Miller Urey experiment was made in the fifties, the hope was that in a predictable future, the riddle of how life would emerge would be solved. That prediction has not been met. Rather than coming closer to explain how life emerged, what science has unraveled, is that the task is in the realm of the not solvable by natural, unguided means. 

Darwin claimed that all life forms originate from a common ancestor. A view that is still held by a majority of evolutionary biologists. But evidence demonstrates that this is not conceivable, in face of the huge differences between the three domains of life. I can list at least six issues that refute the claim of common ancestry. Based on evidence seen in biochemistry on a molecular level, we can now say affirmatively and conclusively, that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in regards to primary speciation & macroevolutionary level has been falsified.

The real mechanisms that explain biodiversity and complex organismal architecture is preprogrammed instructional complex INFORMATION encoded in various genetic and epigenetic languages and communication by various signaling codes through various signaling networks



1. The DNA replication machinery, most of the core replisome enzymes and components are not homologous. 
2. Bacteria and Archaea differ strikingly in the chemistry of their membrane lipids. 
3. Sequences of glycolytic enzymes differ between Archaea and Bacteria/Eukaryotes.
4. There are at least six distinct autotrophic carbon fixation pathways. Since the claim is that this is how life began fixing carbon, and the first carbon fixation pathways were anaerobic, this represents a major puzzle for proponents of common ancestry
5. There is a sharp divide in the organizational complexity of the cell between eukaryotes, which have complex intracellular compartmentalization, and even the most sophisticated prokaryotes (archaea and bacteria), which do not. 
6. A typical eukaryotic cell is about 1,000-fold bigger by volume than a typical bacterium or archaeon and functions under different physical principles. 

In engineering it is axiomatic, that we use our planning minds to project, invent, conceive, develop elaborate, engineer, architect, devise, plans, blueprints by the use of instructional complex codified information to execute and construct functional things by arranging elements, sizes, materials, forms, integrated parts like in machines, or production lines in fabrics,  to accomplish specific goals, functions, and purposes, according to those plans. We know by experience, that our intelligence is the most capable tool to make:

- something made based on mathematical principles
- systems and networks functioning based on logic gates
- things purposefully made for specific goals
- elaborate plans containing specified complexity, the instructional blueprint or a codified message  
- constructing irreducible complex and interdependent systems or artifacts composed of several interlocked, well-matched parts contributing to a higher end of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system.
- hierarchically arranged systems of parts based on order or orderly patterns
- Intelligence can create artifacts which use might be employed in different systems ( a wheel is used in cars and airplanes )
- Fine-tuning

Adapting,
choreographing,
communicating,
controlling product quality,  
coordinating,
constructing,
cutting,  
duplicating,
elaborating strategies,    
engineering,
error checking and detecting, and minimizing,
expressing,
fabricating,
fine-tuning,  
foolproof,
governing,
guiding,    
implementing,
information processing,
interpreting,    
interconnecting,
intermediating,
instructing,  
logistics organizing,
managing,
monitoring,
optimizing,
orchestrating,
organizing,
positioning,
quality monitoring and managing,
regulating,
recruiting,
recognizing,  
recycling,
repairing,
retrieving,
shuttling,
separating,    
self-destructing,
selecting,
signaling,
stabilizing,
storing,
translating,
transcribing,
transmitting,
transporting,
waste managing,

are all actions either pre-programmed by intelligence in order for machines to perform such actions,  or are performed or done so directly by intelligence.

Even IF someone would invent evolutionary algorithms to perform all actions described above, that invention would be the result of intelligent action, and it is by no means clear to me, how these algorithms would lead to achieving a specific goal in a more advanced manner.




Darwins Theory, did it bring any good in scientific research ? 1sdfsd10
Darwins Theory, did it bring any good in scientific research ? 1sdfsd11

Naturalism is stopping more science today than fundamentalism, by forbidding many discussions and making many questions unaskable. 1

Darwins Theory, did it bring any good in scientific research ? 1sdfsd15

Darwins Theory, did it bring any good in scientific research ? Geisle12

Darwins Theory, did it bring any good in scientific research ? 33785614

Lawrence M. Krauss and Robert J. Scherrer
The observable universe contains only a finite amount of information, so information processing (and life) cannot endure forever
http://burro.case.edu/Academics/USNA229/endofcosmology.pdf

1. https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/naturalism-is-stopping-more-science-today-than-fundamentalism/
2. https://www.the-scientist.com/opinion-old/why-do-we-invoke-darwin-48438

Failed and falsified evolutionary predictions
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1666-failed-and-falsified-evolutionary-predictions

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?
https://www.the-scientist.com/opinion-old/why-do-we-invoke-darwin-48438



Last edited by Admin on Fri Aug 07, 2020 1:21 pm; edited 17 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
dr. Marc
Kirschner founding chair of department
systems biology
at Harvard University and says this in
fact over the last 100 years almost all
of biology has proceeded in independent
of evolution except evolutionary biology
itself microbial molecular biology
biochemistry and physiology have not
taken evolution into account at all in
other words you don't have to know
anything about what you believe about
the origin of things to do science with
it all you need to know is the
properties of it
for example physicians don't need to
have a clue about evolution theory to do
medicine and they don't use it when they
treat disease because it just doesn't
matter it doesn't figure in professor
Phillips Kell in evolutionist American
chemist emeritus Evan hew professor at
Pennsylvania State University one of the
most prominent university research
universities in the world says none of
the discoveries of biology and medicine
in the past century are dependent on
guidance from Darwinian evolution it
provided no support so my statement is
that evolution is not scientifically
true and can never be applied in science
in any way people evolutionists believe
they're applying evolution to science
but they are not so the kinds of changes
the evolutionist proposed antibiotic
community somatic mutation genetic
recombination mutation changes to allele
frequency physiological adaptation these
are not evolutionary changes these are
horizontal change not vertical change it
doesn't support evolution you can't
apply evolution to science when you're
talking about these things and these are
the things that eeveelution is talk
about cleaning you can apply them in
science 

Steve for example features are
still Fincher's the morphological
difference between them is not
anatomical there's no evolution there
neither is there any evolution in
getting various breeds of dog from
wolves that's horizontal change not
vertical change no evolution you can't
apply that science so evolutionists
claim that they're applying evolution to
science when they see dogs very or when
they see various things that they're in
their imagination but it's not applying
science evolution to science it's
playing applying their ideas about
evolution to science vertical change is
what you see on the right that can't be
applied to science horizontal change can
be the evil
idea vertical change cannot be and has
never been applied to science for
example these are the things that
evolution has claimed that they're
applying to science
the discovery of evolutionary past one
tacks it to another by studying genetic
similarities phylogenetic for example
well firstly genes are created they
can't have arisen by evolutionary
processes therefore you're not applying
anything evolutionary to science gene
prediction increased likelihood of
finding a gene in a specific location in
genome of one species because a similar
gene with a similar function is found in
the genome of another species but
similar similarities and genetics is not
evidence of evolution I'm going to give
more information about that so you're
not applying anything evolution to
science when you do this immunology
designing drugs to defeat the immune
system of viruses and bacteria
evolutionists claim the the ability of a
bacteria to gain an immunity to an
antibiotic is evolutionary change and
therefore we're doing science when we
design antibiotics that's not true
that's not evolutionary change it
doesn't change the structural design of
a bacteria or a virus one iota for it to
gain an immunity nothing no number of
such changes can ever morph a bacteria
into something fundamentally different
it's not evolutionary change that's
horizontal change you're not applying
evolution to science when you talk about
ingenuity it's not evolution algorithms
using the algorithms found in the DNA
molecule to design better human computer
algorithms for search and in comparison
of information this is actually being
done this is applying intelligent design
because algorithms arise from
intelligence only evolution cannot have
departed even algorithms to the
information in the DNA it's impossible
algorithms arise from intelligence only
it's not even possible for an algorithm
to rise by chemistry therefore when we
find algorithms in DNA and try to apply
them to computer science what we're
applying is creation to into a science
not not evolution the fact that the
universe illogical systems were created
makes science possible because the
ordering complexity and dependency and
purpose of the things that exist make us
possible for us to study and utilize
them in example a treatment of a disease
depends upon a properly functioning
system
there's experience in traffic change
beliefs about the origin of the system
play no part in treatment of disease
however the properties of biological
systems verify that they were created so
we're applying creation to science and
medicine not evolution so here are some
examples of how evolution creation in
through intelligent design has been
applied in science the design feature or
bump like to becomes on the humpback
whales which reduced stall and improve
aqua dynamics the application is that
scientists are now using this to create
things like improved fans you see that
the bumps on the fan it improves
aerodynamics it's a superior design
where'd they get that idea from whales
here's another the design feature of the
the feet of the Gecko enables the
creature to walk straight up and down
glass a perfectly smooth surface this is
being applied to all kinds of dry glues
where'd they get the idea from geckos
geckos were designed
here's another mercedes-benz took this
took the shape of the particular box
fish and used it to design the front end
of my automobile for improved
aerodynamics where'd you get the idea
from creation the evolution couldn't do
that velcro is another beautiful example
velcro is a feature of cockle burrs that
allows their seeds to attach to things
so they can be transported and promote
the species and other environments and
the result was the invention of velcro
so here's an outer the I hope I say this
right
the high-speed Shinkansen bullet train
in Japan the designers took inspiration
from the beat of type of bird called
kingfishers to design the front end of
it and the result is more stability in
better aerodynamics they used creation
to do it here's another the the skin of
shorts was used as inspiration for NASA
to create what's called riblets film
which improves air aqua dynamics it was
even used on a ship the boat that won a
race because partly because of its
increased awkward dynamics those sharks
the wings otto lilienthal is the man who
was the first successful
for numerous unpowered flights he got
his inspiration from the wings of birds
that's implying intelligent design not
devolution
here's another the design feature of the
what's called the Lotus effect the
petals of the Lotus plant they cannot be
wedded the water will beat on them all
the time and this is being applied in
science to all kinds of materials that
create waterproofing as you can see in
the picture below
here's another the design of the
termites used to create their mounds
automatically creates a airflow which
creates improved cooling and
condensation this is now being applied
in an architecture such as an East Gate
Center in Zimbabwe the building has
automatic cooling and condensation it
creates its own water supply to some
degree because of the design of the
mounds created by termites using that
and here's another bird protection glass
this is glass that birds can see so they
don't fly into and break their necks
design based on a design feature in life
here's a recent one an efficient new
depth sensor was inspired by spider eyes
that's this was a recent article
biometrics laboratory at MIT they're
using all kinds of features that are
designed into living systems to create
technologies that improve our lives and
these are just a few of them Engineers
proteins stick like glue and they've
figured out how to make better adhesives
by looking at proteins another here
comes the Sun a new sunflower inspired
pattern
and here's another this website here
provides numerous examples now
predictions can predictions be made
absolutely in 1984 creation scientist
dr. Russell Humphreys former director of
Sandia National Laboratories predicted
the magnetic fields of the various
planets in our solar system based on the
idea that they were created only six
thousand years ago when NASA sent out
their their their their space probes and
measured the Voyager 2 spacecraft for
example it measured their magnetic
fields and guess what dr. Humphreys
prediction of their magnetic fields was
spot-on based on a 6,000 year old
creation for the solar system he
predicted every single one of them and
was right about every single one of them
based on the idea of the understanding
that they're only six thousand years old
not millions how's that the prediction
in between 1997 and 2006 a team
scientist creation of scientists at two
different creationist organizations
created a project called radioisotopes
in the age of the earth and they get
they estimate they predicted that if the
earth was only thousands of years old we
should find because helium is a very
slippery molecule super small and
escapes from from granite crystals very
rapidly we should find that the rate and
the amount of helium in the in the
crystals of zircon crystals or Granite's
throughout the earth should show a 6,000
year old age for those Granite's they
were exactly

 are enough the time has
come do you want to wrap it up you want
a couple more seconds yeah yeah I'll
just say I have other predictions they
show the science the predicting a young
earth creation model has shown that
science can be applied by prediction can
be made based on young earth creation a
model and in whole true 




that the continental plates was abducted
at the rate your fingernails grow over
millions and millions of years
John Baum Garner's model was accurate in
fact his software that he developed for
predicting a continental plate movement
and the materials we find in the earth
is still to this day the most accurate
say a computer model that has ever been
written for that product how do you
explain Bumgarner's ability to predict
cold slabs of continental crust deep
inside the earth using the flood model
if it's not applying science well first
of all you're misrepresenting what the
actual the findings were they're
definitely cold compared to the sub
crustal environment they're in but no he
didn't predict that they were cold
they're just cold they're just not as
hot yes it would be expected if they had
subducted from above however if you want
to talk about predictions in that years
you're you very you're very vocal about
being against
abduction in 1972 American geologist
Robert Coates published his observations
of subduction in the Aleutian arc in the
journal geophysics it was among the
first account list papers that detailed
the detection of earthquakes deep within
the crust upon the paths of subduction
zones and that in culminated in 2013
with Marko kills
Stefano para lie and you know bhindi
publishing results of their experiments
using a passive seismic sonar and a
technique that kind of resembles an
ultrasound but on a grand scale and this
result was a three-dimensional image of
the Issyk auto salt in Kyrgyzstan and a
visual confirmation of the process of
subduction being observed these theories
of plate tectonic tectonics and
continental drift are continually
vindicated I can go on on that forever
I've done an entire episode on that with
it what I meant to when I asked you was
are there any other arguments you made
in your opening statements that you'd
like me to address yes I well you you
misrepresented my statement I've never
been against unsub duck I'm not against
subduction and and when you you
misrepresented the statement when when
when I said that he predicted them to be
cold this means in relation to the
materials around them it doesn't mean
they're ice cold anyway that was kind of
a straw man kind of a straw man okay so
show them there or did we have a
dramatically different temperature and
an unexpected difference in temperature
and that's exactly what was found that's
why it's lately it's we call it a
colloquially call it coal who says that
was unpredicted uh well the time
unpredicted icked it millions of years
of material going and going down into
the earth that the rate your fingernails
grow is not plausible to believe that
the material is going to remain at a
significant difference in temperature I
mean can you show me a scientific reason
to believe that you take something of a
considerably different temperature and
push it at the rate your fingernails
grow into something it's 500 or a
thousand or 1500 degrees warmer and that
it's not going to warm up so yeah it
doesn't Anna that's the thing done that
nobody's saying it wouldn't warm up were
saying it would be lower in temperature
and that was predicted you said he
predicted it in 1981 this was predicted
in 1962 so congratulations you just
predicted something that are been
predicted but again I'm gonna go back to
the question I just asked are there any
other are there any other arguments you
made in your opening statement that I
had that you'd like me to address
specifically well III doubt seriously
that that was predicted in 1962 I think
you're misrepresenting the scientific
nor the science for information but okay
I've got the paper on it I'll go ahead
and put it in the comments that they'll
let me okay but but the design features
or living things have been used you say
science can't be upper high creation
can't be applied but the design features
of living systems are being applied to
create and prove technology constantly
so your your idea that creation can't be
used to apply in science is is false in
fact the very fact that bacteria gain
immunity is is predicted by intelligent
design it's it those things are
intelligently designed the somatic
mutation mechanism in the immune system
of living things it's algorithmic it
operates with algorithms algorithms come
only from intelligence you cannot apply
bacterial immunity where it cannot be
said to be evolution being applied to
the field of medicine it's impossible
because algorithms cannot be produced by
an evolutionary process they come only
from intelligence so the algorithmic is
somatic mutation system of the immune
systems of every living thing in this
world cannot be a product
of evolution and but must be a product
of intelligent design and therefore were
applying a symptom of creation which
isn't that the creation was
intelligently designed in science it's
certainly not anything evolution could
do so it's not evolution obliged science
can you understand that
okay first of all when we planned this
debate you promised me I wouldn't bring
up anything about micro evolution and
what you're talking about is micro
evolution I did which very Terrence
Norton it's not is it
I didn't say any such thing and
nonetheless all right hold on debating
micro evolution already interrupting me
I showed you the respect of listening to
every word you had to say but you
misrepresent show me the same respect
well respect me by not misrepresenting
when I say you did in are you saying
that's not a result of a change in
allele frequency I'm not debating micro
evolution
I'm telling round are you doing no I'm
pointing out then that these changes are
not evolution a product of evolution
therefore we're not applying it
evolutionists claim that a bacterial
immunities is an example of evolution
being applied in science is that not
true



Last edited by Admin on Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:15 am; edited 3 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
of course it's true and so I'm pointing
out my resolution which you're not
refuting correct I am pointing out that
that that isn't that statement of
evolutionists is not true that bacterial
immunity is gaining immunities is an
example of evolution being applied in
science is not true because bacterial
immunities are not evolution that's what
I'm bringing up well you did admit that
they were make micro evolution and I'm
not disagreeing with it you're not
disagreeing with it so it's irrelevant
to this conversation no no now this said
I'm gonna go ahead and address the rest
of what you said because you were
talking about all these designs that we
see in nature and you're calling it
designed features in nature but they
were not predicted by a ballute by
creation they were observed first then
you retro actively apply them to
creationism
after they've been used to develop
something else they were not there was
nobody who said if creationism and true
is true we should see velcro we should
see cockles and be able to develop
velcro we should see whale bumps at
those as an example of that telling us
right on it no I said we're not
recording here
no I showed those as an examples of
intelligent design that are being
applied in science I didn't say they
were predicted you missed a pin you are
not you're not objective already funny
subject is how do you apply creationism
to science this is about getting listen
I'm gonna let you talk you you got like
five minutes to talk okay here's the
deal you did not present any prediction
made by creation ahead of time what
you've noticed is what you've pointed
out was people seeing something that
already existed and then making it
making a discovery on it and then you're
applying it to creationism that's
completely the opposite of science no
that's that's not at all you're
misrepresenting what I said I provided
examples where intelligent design
properties have been apply in science
I'm also provided two examples where the
prediction that of creation has been
applied in science here's another one in
2000 dr. David DeWitt along with several
other creationist scientists predicted
that the changes that occurred in the GM
genome of Neanderthals would be very
much like this the the locations and the
types of changes that have occurred in
in modern humans based on the fact that
Neanderthal was fully in modern human
which is what creationists have always
been saying that they were a
disease-ridden tribe of mankind produced
after the flood of Noah after the Tower
of Babel affair and that's what
creationists have always been saying
scientific study determined found out
that that is exactly correct that the
the types in locations of genetic change
that have occurred in the DNA of of
Neanderthal it's very much like those
that
her in modern humans therefore this is
evidence you see that Neanderthal was
nothing but human but you know that's
not the story we've been getting from
the evolutionists that they were I'm
gonna I'm gonna interrupt you just for a
moment I'm gonna pause the time and Tony
before you address that I think that
it's worth noting that from the outside
looking in pause and the outside looking
and it looks like there's a little bit
of confusion and I think it's worth
disentangling a couple of things in Neff
in your 10 minute introduction you spent
some time showing how design features of
living systems are used within
technology and engineering innovations
and for you that is creation being
applied in science because science and
can encompass technology and engineering
is that a fair assessment I guess okay
the only reason why I bring it up is
because I think that you using it for
that purpose I think that it's it's
worth phrasing like that to Tony because
for Tony for it to be applied to science
mean something different right so I I
think when it comes to the QA part I'm
gonna ask you guys to define what you
mean by science but if you want to
address that now I think that it'll help
disentangle what Neffs efforts are to
show how create created design features
of living systems are being used in
science science being technology science
being engineering stuff like that in
addition to as a separate argument that
there are predictions made from
creationist stances that are used for
scientific purposes right I think those
are two different branches that Annette
is bringing up so moving forward if they
can be addressed as separately as the
separate things that they are I think
it'll help with a more productive
conversation sure okay so Tony I'm gonna
use you said that my statement about the
magnetic fields is not right but I paste
it into the text chat of this hang out
of this discussion a paper called
evidence for crustal magnetic signature
on on mercury from messenger magnet and
magnetometer observations
and this was what they discovered was
that mercury had a magnetic field that
was much more strong than they predicted
they predicted it had burped it would
have an extremely weakling but it had a
far stronger magnetic field so this is
an example of what you said is not true
that they acted in NASA was not
surprised not left scratching their
heads based on the magnetic the
discovery of the magnetic field which
Humphreys accurately depicted another
example is paper titled Mercury's decay
rate is so rapid from some future space
probe could detect it fairly soon in
nineteen the nineteen ninety a plan
planet magnetic field should have been
1.8 percent smaller than its 1975 value
that was not a science paper but that's
that's a discovery so the magnetic
fields of these planets is it for
example
Venus's magnetic field was discovered to
be very different than what they
believed it would be the same thing is
true for several of the body of the
moons in our solar system not just the
planet I can provide several scientific
sources secular scientific sources that
where they predict the magnetic field of
a planet should be X and they come find
out it's dramatically different based on
what Voyager found out so I think you're
uninformed about this matter the papers
that I the fact that NASA wasn't that
scratching their heads because their
predictions were considerably off it's
true maybe not you're not aware of it
are you looking at a different chat than
I am because I don't see him anywhere
I'm sorry okay up so I'm giving some
water to my wife she's thirsty so I I'm
Norma I paste it up on one source in in
the in the and here here's an example
here's another I'll read it to you the
overall intensity of the field is
declining at a rate of 26 nano Tesla
lines per year if this rate of decline
were to continue the magnetic field
would reach zero in 1,200 years this is
from magnetic field decline science June
28th 1980 so it's been a long time
they've been predicting these magnetic
fields to discover whoa were way ahead
off we are so Scientific American
published this in the next student
millennia if the present rate of decay
is sustained the dipole component of the
Earth's magnetic field should be zero
that was published scientific American
December 1989 but yesterday well it's
not seen so their predictions with
magnetic fields based on their their
model for the solar system formation the
is has not worked out it's been off well
first of all you haven't posted those
links so I can't really comment on
exactly what they say what I can say is
from what I've read on it all is
I mean I've even done an episode on just
Earth's magnetic field and we know that
there are you know artifacts we found in
villages in Mesopotamia from just six
6,000 years ago where the magnetic field
is significantly lower than it is now so
what we know for sure is that the
magnetic field has changed several times
now Russell Russell Humphreys has has
admitted that the magnetic field has
reversed polarity many times which I'm
going to congratulate you for agreeing
with him on that because there's another
person I've debated Kent Hovind who
claims that that's just a certain
measure of weakness he didn't know it's
almost like he didn't ever
magnetites but the magnetic moment is is
recorded in every single material
artifact that that is that is solidified
and we have seen over the years that V
are at least as is we go back in history
that the magnetic field has has changed
going up and depth and down several
times throughout history
yeah it's not oh I don't see what you're
going that doesn't contradict anything
to creationist plea oh I'm sorry
well yeah yeah it does no I completely
since Russell Humphreys entire models
based on what's the incremental decline
or by sorry an exponential decline
that's not what we that's not what we
observe Russell Humphreys predicted that
we would find those fluctuations in the
magnetic field did you know that
here's another he he definitely pretty
after was already discovered certainly
okay he predicted so here's another
example evolutionist have been claiming
that the majority of the DNA molecule is
junk left garble left over that's been
abandoned by evolution over the last
hundreds of thousands of years and in
our genome is largely junk and they've
actually believed that the only thing in
the human genome that wasn't junk was
almost exclusively protein codes the
information the codes for a protein
production so they relegated the rest of
the genome to junk as far back as the
1970s and 80s creationist scientists
were making the prediction that the vast
majority of the DNA molecule would be
discovered to be useful in functional
information and that none of it if any
of it was garbled left over by evolution
that we would find it had function today
we know 87% that as current knowledge we
might find more its percent of the DNA
molecule is transcribed by by polymerase
into RNA the workhorses of the cell so
so this prediction of evolution failed
and the creationist was right now please
don't tell it please if the creation is
what you say about creations can't
predict things based on a creation model
can you explain to me why the creations
creationists predicting that the vast
majority of DNA would be found to be
functional in some way and and is they
even predicted that it would be
information used during fetal
development to create the organism
that's holding true as well therefore
based on this one example alone isn't
your claim that the creation the
predictions based on creation that can't
be applied in science isn't invalidated
okay well first of all let's start with
your misrepresentation of creationists
which said that all of the DNA would
have function now here's the thing we we
don't know that for sure but second is
in the scientific literature and here's
another misrepresentation you've made
junk DNA has never meant functionless
David Cummings coined the term junk DNA
in 1972 and what he said was this is a
quote these considerations suggest that
up to 20 percent of the genome is
actively used and the remaining 80 plus
percent is chunk but being junk doesn't
mean it is entirely useless common sense
suggests that anything that is
completely useless would be discarded
there are several possible functions for
deep junk DNA and quote and in fact
several functions were proposed not just
in that paper but they were observed
starting even earlier such as buffering
against mutations this was before he
published that fluctuations in
intracellular solute concentration
serving as binding sites for regulatory
molecules facilitating recombination
inhibiting recombination influencing
gene expression maintaining chromosome
structure and behavior coordinating
genome function and providing multiple
copies of genes to be recruited when
needed so he never it never once it's
meant it was useless it's more like a
junkyard you ever go to a junk yard
there's not not most of that stuff is
actually useful you have a Buick that's
missing a Fender you can go to a
junkyard and get a Fender do you have a
junk drawer in your kitchen I'll bet you
there's rubber bands and paper clips in
there
none of them are functionless
they just aren't used very often and
therefore they're not subjected to
natural selection or at least they're
there they're less insulated from
natural selection that's kind of what
they were talking about with junk DNA
now what they did find was not that it
all had function what they found was
that it was transposed into messenger
RNA that in turn ended up doing nothing
in almost every single case so you're
misrepresenting the findings you're
misrepresenting the position of
evolution and you're misrepresenting
creationists in general
okay Tony everything you just said is
false first off the term junk DNA was
cleaned by Japanese geneticists ooh sumo
oh no not the feller you said and and
and you've also you Richard what I see
you're doing is you're in denial of the
fact that evolutionists have been
claiming that it's junk and what they
mean by junk is junk and they have not
said that they believed that the
majority of it or unique even large
percentage of it would be discovered to
be functional begin in the in human
beings that is not right your your your
statement that statement is a complete
misrepresentation of the historical
facts and it's also here and also well
the author is the man is sue Simone oh
no and it was 1972 that's when the term
junk DNA was coined by him and so but
you're also you've misrepresented
something else here
when creationists have not you said that
it's been discovered that these RNA
transcripts from the D it from what has
been labeled for forty-five years by
evolutionists holding back genetic
science for forty years by the way has
been discovered to be useless in every
case that is I don't know where you got
that out of your hat and that said of
you that was false that is a every not
true we don't Tony because we don't know
the function of many of those RNAs
doesn't mean that their function must
this is a bit work well you just alluded
that that the RNA transcripts from from
the their junk DNA is functionless in
every case you said quote you in every
case in Kuo I did not that is the words
that came out of your mouth I read it in
nearly every case they found no function
for it nearly every case okay so no no
you said is functionless you need not
say they didn't know the function lists
no sir we're gonna play that back later
please do see you that you're wrong
that's not what you said and so that
statement is wrong I know you maybe
you're excited and you want to support
the evolution but you misspoke it's that
if nothing else so what because we don't
know the function of it
had lots of evolutionists tell me that
that we don't know the function of those
RNAs therefore they're junk they don't
do anything I debated dr. Dan Lorimer
geneticist at University of Uppsala
Sweden he made the same ridiculous claim
oh they're junk
he said the RNAs they're useless they
don't have any function it's not true we
just don't know what the function is
because there's a lot that has not been
discovered about the cells yeah so again
the the junk DNA paradigm of
evolutionists you're in denial of it now
you're trying to say we never really
thought it was junk but lots of
scientists have been saying it's junk
and it's functionless and and some
scientists or even said you could
probably snip it out in the so we're
going functioning just fine and and so
you've misrepresented the facts well
here's the difference is that I'm
willing to bet you can't find any case
where as scientists published for peer
review his assertion that none of that
DNA had any purpose or function I
guarantee you can't do it why because it
hasn't happened and so I don't care
about what an individual scientist said
off the cuff to you in the middle of a
debate trying to rescue his own position
against your your Gish Gallup from one
thing to this what I care about is what
is presented as science and if you want
to tell me that the textbooks are wrong
I'll go ahead and agree with you I think
textbooks are written poorly I think
they're doing their best to present tête
present science well but it's difficult
especially when I hear
misrepresentations like this I have
actually presented the quote from
Cummings in 1972 now maybe
Susumu Ohno was attempting to compete
with him with the term junk DNA but they
but the first to publish it was Cummings
in 1972 and I hit Helen it approved me
published it he didn't clean the term
oh no coined the term but no he didn't
he didn't publish it into and stake his
reputation on it right you know if I say
something first that doesn't mean have
to publish it okay so but Toni you've
misrepresented the fact here the
evolutionists have been claiming for
45 years that did the majority of DNA
because it doesn't code for the proteins
is in fact junk and they thought it
functionless so you're what you're doing
is an evolutionist attempt to save face
in fact in the light of these facts
Englishness like to cover up the fact
that they've made these scientific
blunders for 40 years and by saying well
we never really thought it was junk it's
just leftovers and somehow it's still
being used even though it's junk that's
not what was they scientists have
believed
it's not much secular scientists have
been believing for 40 years so gentlemen
what you have about 10 more minutes left
in this section and I have to be honest
I think that the junk DNA argument has
been played out between the two of you
I've paused at the time and the only
reason why I say that is because Neph it
seems like you're arguing against the
idea that evolutionists have this
perspective Tony doesn't think
evolutionists have that perspective so
going down that rabbit hole doesn't
really tether to the topic of this
particular debate so I would very much
like to get back on track with that and
if you know references are going to be
used if at all possible references that
the both of you are familiar enough to
talk about because when bringing up
references that the other person doesn't
have access to or is familiar with it it
lends itself to cross talking let's try
to reduce the amount of cross talking
and just like get to the genuine points
that the two of you want to bring up so
I'm going to start the clock again
please proceed okay so I'll just go
ahead and address two of you two more of
your arguments number one nurses and
doctors that work in the medical
profession and CPC patients they are
applying science but they aren't the
ones that are making the discoveries
they're just benefiting from the
discoveries that other scientists make
no disrespect to what they do they know
a lot and that's great and possibly they
even know more than the people that
actually make the discoveries in many
cases but all they are doing is applying
the work that other people have done and
no religious disrespect to you as well
as well as Christopher at the same time
the other one I was going to talk about
I
you were talking about Michael Behe
Michael Behe accepts ID when he has no
problem with evolution he just thinks
that it in certain places it required an
intelligent designer to be along the way
but he has no problem with evolution I
understand it but you're falling into an
evolutionist hold there Tony because
there are people who believe in
evolution or creation is not an argument
against whether or not creation or
evolution is being applied to science
this really makes no difference who
believes what what the data the what the
facts are that's that's what matters
that's the only thing that matters now
you believe I I assume like so many
evolutionists that the changes that
occur in bacteria that enable them to
become immune to antibiotics is is
evolution in progress
do you know as every evolutionist I've
ever heard speak on the subject or
engaged with as acknowledged do you not
agree with with everybody else let me
restate what just said because I won't
want to make sure that I'm not
misrepresent it by that answer because
this if if I was thinking of it from
what I think is your point of view it's
a leading question the answer to your
question is do I believe or what I do in
fact believe that antibiotic resistance
is a product of changes in allele
frequencies in bacteria over time
certainly but I have disagreed with you
ahead of time to separate just a simple
change in allele frequency from macro
evolution which is once the which is
that same process after speciation has
occurred I'm not saying that they've
speciated yet yeah that's to me
irrelevant you believe this was an
evolutionary processed on you because
every evolutionist I've ever heard speak
about it and every evolutionist I've
ever engaged with cites bacterial
immunities as an example of evolution
ongoing microevolution and
macro-evolution irrelevant to me it's
they call it evolution it's evolutionary
processes next room and well first of
all well you just asked me a question
let me answer
I don't care what other evolutionists
have said to you I don't care what
somebody who debates you on a YouTube
channel has ever said what I'm saying is
what I say
and what what my position is so don't
ascribe to me other people's positions
okay
I'm more than if you if you want me to
gang up on them with you to tell them
that they're wrong feel free I'm okay
oh so you disagree with them that this
is evolution in action
if by evolution you mean a change in
allele frequency no if you say if you
mean as if you mean evolution as in
something beyond the species level again
I would agree with you that it is not a
change beyond the allele frequency but
you have a different definition of
evolution and I'm not going to speak to
your definition of evolution I'm going
to speak to the scientific definition of
evolution you know I don't have a
definition for evolution I just thought
that's the evolution is what
evolutionists say it is according to
them anyway so I'm glad to hear that you
say these things however then because
then it seems you disagree with every
evolutionist I've ever spoken to the
including PhDs that are geneticists for
example that this is an example of
evolution in action and I would of
course argue with them as I've already
said this cannot be evolution in action
so what can you cite for me an example
of evolution itself that is actually
being applied in science yes I can give
me a moment here I'll actually bring up
a paper I have but first of all I don't
care if they've got a Jeanette if
they're geneticists when they're did
when they're debating you well first of
all it's this is an anecdotal thing that
you're presenting here but I can tell
you that there was a population of a
particular worm called an erase Akuma
not a--
which was isolated on the west coast of
the US in in california I'm unable to
bring up the paper right now and I'm
going to eventually but in the interest
of not boring everybody I'll go ahead
and continue here
this this population it was eight
individuals that they ended they
isolated from the coast of California
and then they went ahead and let them
reproduce in a lab for a few years and
then after a while once they got to
several thousand that there was a small
population to population small
populations that they isolated in
Macedon brought to Massachusetts and in
Massachusetts those two populations were
able to individually continue to
propagate and then after about twenty
years these species were brought back
together these individual populations
are brought to brought back together the
population from from the west coast was
no longer able to reproduce with either
of the populations on the east coast
that would be speciation any any
potential level or changes in allele in
allele frequency from there is by
definition macro evolution now you
however in the past when we've debated
on your on your particular channel that
you're you're looking for a for changes
in morphology now on that I would do you
have something I'll let you go ahead and
energize an Anatomy not morphology okay
the word you use like seven years ago is
morphology obviously you're gonna change
over time because you know that's
evolution
okay so Tony fallen into another
evolutionist hole you're you just
claimed that the ring species and this
kind of thing to something is an example
of evolution where the inability of one
population to breed with another is an
example of evolution real quick
interception about four minutes left I
mean about four minutes left but but you
haven't provided that that's not an
example of evolution so you've failed
there that the inability to breed is is
not by cannot be said to be evolution it
doesn't move the organism in its
structural design in one ayah towards
becoming a fundamentally different type
of organism that's not evolution that's
the genetic divergence perhaps but that
doesn't show a structural design change
in the organism that is arisen because
of a change in genetic information
that's what you gotta have if you're
going to say evolution occurs so you
haven't provided an example of evolution
there at all that's like well well first
of all you're using your definition of
what evolution is you're not using the
scientific of definition once again
which is evolution is evolution at or
beyond the speciation point if you're
right hold on no no I'll let you finish
talking you can let me show me the same
respect now so what you're saying is
something should become a fundamentally
different in different creature now I'm
gonna tell you this that's not what
evolution presents what evolution says
is that you're going to stay the same
thing is your ancestors but you're going
to diversify in a different path than
the other descendants from that ancestor
so for a good example here I'm going to
show you these here well hopefully
people can see these in fact share there
we go I think I'm hitting share okay so
these are a bunch of different species
here there are different species of dog
most people would probably think they're
this yeah what would spate think they're
different animals but really when you
know what they are this is a the wolf
all of these are descendants very
different morphologically and then I
would say they are not that much
different from this particular species
particular species here but but yep Tony
showing a picture I'm not showing up oh
really
yeah well I'd done that suck what are
you seeing are just notes I just see the
term oh really
that sucks um I thought I was showing
that were you ate were you seeing it
earlier no it's the same stuff Wow
cuz all I see is these pictures of
skulls alright well I'm done
okay well me now no maybe you have to go
to the pictures itself on your computer
and not sure sure now I don't I can't
see anything
okay I don't know what to do well
regardless of the pictures if he can
make your point so the pictures were
different species of dogs like to just
describe what the picture was so that
you can get to your point I've added a
couple minutes to the time because its
technical difficulties I don't think
that you should be how can you see that
I'm I can see it and resume that but
it's not being broadcast to the YouTube
channel interesting yes try one more
time how's that now yeah we see your
computer screen but no pictures oh that
doesn't work
alright well I don't know we see the
pictures in your a little window but not
full screen yeah I'm not sure the way
leave it the way that it just was I
think that we'll be able to get the
point yeah yeah I see I see
don't scoffs is that correct that is
correct okay and then look how
difference those are but then when you
look at these not as different but I'm
sure you're gonna be the first one to
say that macaques are nowhere near the
same species as human so as far as
morphological differences kind of
irrelevant as opposed to the differences
between
humans and say they're there chimp
ancestors as I mean when you consider
that dog skulls are that much of a
diversity so I don't know what you're
asking for the evolutionary theory
though is about changes in allele
frequencies can I share something now
would you mind I think that would be
fine okay I yeah so here okay so great
dog skulls can are different in
morphology these are human skulls they
differ in morphology - that's not
evolution either
okay morphology doesn't equal evolution
evolutionists believe any change
constitutes evolution the change does
not constitute evolution usually here's
the Taung child the evolutionists claim
this is ancestor human beings really
there's a skull of a adolescent can
fancy right next to it guess what it is
it's a baby chimp it's not a human
ancestor it's just a baby chimp so human
skulls vary considerably - but that's
not evolution but you know what you've
done that now is on you you seem to be
running from evolution which I find
evolutionists often do when you bring to
bear their claims you're claiming that
you've attempted to say that this is not
evolution of bacterial immunities but so
Tony the question is this if if if
fundamentally different types of
organisms never arise when the only see
varieties of elephant but they're always
elephant can evolution theory could we
and that were true of all the the
attacks on living things what would that
could we say that we we see evidence of
evolution occurring would evolution
theory even believe if evolutionists
didn't believe that fundamentally
different types of Organists
organisms arise by incremental change
naturally well first of all the the
thing you said was that changes in
morphology don't equal evolution and
then you said that all descendants of
'evil elf
would be elephants but if we see a
change in morphology and elephants those
always see over time and we see
speciation which you now say isn't
evolution either then I don't understand
what your argument is since we see both
changes in allele frequency we see we
see speciation and third of all I should
I said both at the beginning but third
of all we also see morphological change
even within species yeah and what you're
arguing and I don't know what you think
I'm running away from well it's clear
that the kinds of changes you shion's
point to are not evolution at all they
don't move an organism towards becoming
a fundamentally type of organism
bacteria immunity is another one this is
why you're running from it the the
changes to allele frequency doesn't
provide evidence of it differences in
the shape of the skull of a dog are not
anatomical that doesn't show us that a
dog is producing something non dog and
neither in any example do we know in



Last edited by Admin on Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:31 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin
this world a living or fossil so but
you're you're claiming is examples of
evolution like creatures not being able
to breed with each other doesn't promote
the I in any way doesn't provide
evidence that organisms change in such a
way is to produce fundamentally
different types of organisms over any
imaginable period of time so my point is
this it's not evolution okay you say I
represent a swift resident on yep I'll
just say evolutionists think they're
applying evolution to science but
they're not because these are imaginary
processes they're processes that result
in something imaginary and then they
don't have the the ability to create the
fundamentally different types of
organisms evolution claims arise all
right so now it's time to go to the
closing statements excuse me Tony since
you had started I'm going to allow you
to begin the closing statements as well
these were to last a five minutes I will
set the timer and Tony you can begin
your closing statements just closing
statement all right folks I would I
would try to go ahead and pod casts or
make this a an actual cast but I have
been messing it up recently the point
the debate was supposed to be about the
scientific applications of creationism
versus those of evolution over the
course of the past hour so Nephilim free
has prevailed to present any real-world
applications for creationism as I
predicted he what he did was take
already observed phenomena and apply
them and then say they were creationism
but nobody predicted them ahead of time
the strength of evolution is that you
can just take a little bit of evidence
use the assumption of evolution even if
it's 100 percent wrong and predict the
future evidence now his claim that
design features were used to predict
technology it's just a result of
observing and then recto retroactively
Lee cook reading it to creationism he's
also gone out of his way to misrepresent
evolution in the way that I see over and
over not just by him but everybody
including Hovind and every other person
that I've ever dealt with
in this particular subject matter nobody
is saying that the descendant of a dog
would ever be anything but a dog well
let me rephrase that nobody is saying
that and this descendant of a dog would
ever stop being a dog what they would
say though is that the descendant of a
dog could be different than other
descendants of a dog they'll still be
dogs but they'll be different then that
is what we do in fact observe now if you
want to compound those you'll see
there's a difference there now as far as
being shut out of scientific community
the creationism thing
it's creationism it's not being shut out
of science it's useless
as I said at the beginning even if
creationism or 100 percent correct
it still has absolutely zero
applications and is therefore not
science
conversely if evolution were 100 percent
wrong you are currently benefiting from
countless applications of the theory so
to give you some examples of not just
evolution but everything that just
isn't part of the creation model if
you're accessing if you're accessing
this debate right now the fact that
there is an internet and devices to
access it with it's due to the physics
behind the Big Bang Theory if you're
driving if you eat I'm sorry if you even
know about most of the fossil species in
any I'm sorry par me I'm gonna move
forward here if you eat the fact that we
even know about most of the fossil
species in any proposed transitional
images whether or not there even are
transitional it's due to the testing of
predictions made by evolutionary
theories if you are driving a car in
your daily life you are benefiting from
the Bennet from the application of
uniformitarianism to find these minerals
like oil and coal and gold and you know
what just a couple months ago a new
synthetic organism was announced and
it's able to digest the plastics that
are polluting not just our oceans but
just about everywhere on the planet and
it's due to applying the predictions of
abiogenesis so it doesn't matter which
which version of evolution you want to
address every single one of them makes
predictions that we can apply into the
real world
so unlike creationism you can call
evolution unproven all you want you can
call it a lie all you want you can call
it dangerous all you want you could try
to refine it all you want what you can't
honestly do is claim that evolution has
no scientific applications so again I
want to say thank you to standing for
truth to praise I am that I am -
Christopher Mau D and a Nephilim free of
course and especially a huge thank you
to everyone watching right now
well done Tony so that was Tony's
closing statement we are now going to
move on Neff you now have five minutes
for your closing statement show us what
you got
all right so evolutionists believe
they're applying evolution to science
when they're only providing their
philosophy to science my opponent was
not able to provide an example of
evolution being applied in science
instead what he pointed to or two things
which not even evolution changes in
bacterial immunities for example changes
to the morphology of the skull neither
of these have play any part in an
organism moving towards becoming a
fundamentally different type of organism
they don't change the structural design
of an organism one iota
in fact in vector of immunities it could
only be put it happened if intelligent
design were true that's creation
intelligent design is a symptom of
creation when somebody wants to create
an automobile they have to design it
intelligently and it's going to show
that it's been intelligently designed
I've shown the Toni statement that we
can't find predictability in creation is
false
with my examples and I could provide
other examples of scientists predicting
something basing on based upon a young
earth creation model and then the
subsequent data verifies that prediction
is correct Tony said that well that
can't be shown I've shown three four
examples I could show a dozen more so
that that's that's what me not true I've
shown also that that the design features
of living things which cannot be a
product of evolution or being applied in
science constantly in development of new
technologies and in all kinds of fields
of science in many fields of science and
those things cannot be a product to be
evolution any more than bacterial
immunity or the change in morphology of
the skull of a dog so these are not
changes to evolution what we did see
though is that my opponent ran from
evolution theory by by by saying that
acknowledging that bacterial immunity
doesn't really show evolution and if I
pressed him on the skulls dog thing and
we had the time to do it I'd probably
get him to admit well that's not really
observed evolution that's just the shape
of the thing and
and we hear and go so far as to say well
you know the evolution provides us
doesn't tell us that the offspring of
something will ever change but
extrapolated over time that's exactly
what evolutionists claim did a
fundamentally different type of organism
will arise what does evolution theory
posit after all I mean I I just can't
get it you know so evolutionists when
you when you when you put them on the
spot they often start to run from their
own theory now he mentioned it feels
daga and fishy evolution into amphibian
tetrapods this is an Oracle I produced
over 10 years ago Tony told me in the
email he's ready if he read this article
you'll see that the whole fish to
amphibians touchpad idea is is junk
science it's not science the the
features of these creatures do not show
evolution from land dwelling into land
dwelling creatures from amphibian
tetrapods that's not that's a scientific
idea that's completely bogus and and one
of the things that proves that is this
right here this the roofing and snot
bones of these creatures they advance
they change account going up down every
whichaway from sunday on this was like
saying a bicycle evolved into a truck
and then went back to a motorcycle named
it evolved into a space shuttle and then
went back to being a car and then went
on forward to being a it's ridiculous
it's it's a story in their mind it's not
science so he also addressed the cosmic
radiation background but would he didn't
fail it failed to tell you is that the
horizon problem which is something the
scientists universally acknowledged is
the astrophysicist for example is a
problem for their idea that the cosmic
background radiation was produced by a
big bang I'd say it was produced by a
big creation because the horizon problem
tells us the key can't
you can't get the cosmic background
radiation to be solar modernist but
using the billions of six four and 1/2
billion years of age for for the earth
or even 15 and a half billion years of
age for the universe it's not nearly
enough time need a hundred or hundreds
of billions of years time for the cosmic
background radiation to become so
homogeneous so God could have created it
that way like that if you wished it
cannot have gotten there over 15 billion
years you need exponentially more time
than that so he didn't tell you about
the horizon problem so in conclusion
what we've heard is no evidence of
evolution being applied in science we've
heard ideas that something is evolution
and then when queried about whether
something is 28 seconds thank you sir
it's something is evolution examples of
what evolution is called evolution my
opponent tries to back swim on that and
almost agrees with me that it's not
evolution and therefore those examples
can't be applied to science either so I
think I've shown that science creation
does provide predictability creation is
applied in science and the philosophy of
evolutionists has never been in ever be
tied to science okay so that was Neffs
closing statement so again we are at the
end of our debate but not completely the
end but wait there's more just when you
thought it was safe we are going to have
another 20 minutes of Q&A the queues are
coming from you the viewing audience and
if you like what you see I'm sure that
I'm sure that SVT would very much love
for you to like their channel and
subscribe and you know do all the
thumbs-up happiness social media things
that make social media churning the way
that it does but let's begin our
20-minute question-and-answer period and
I'm actually going to take a little bit
of a Liberty being the moderator and I'm
gonna for the first question because
this is supposed to be about whether or
not science or I'm sorry evolution or
creationism is applicable in science
and it's pretty clear that the two of
you are working from different
definitions like there is not a meeting
of the minds about what operational
definitions are for any of these two
perms and I think that that is
contributed to a little crosstalk that
being said I would like each of you to
at least define what you see evolution
as and what you see science as toponi
I'd like to start with you only you're
muted I can't hear you
sorry about that guys there it is
I evolution I mean ultimately it just
means change over time but when we're
talking about biology it literally means
the change of allele frequencies over
time now there is also the fact that
these allele frequencies correspond to
phenological changes morphological
changes they are expressed so that is a
consequence of it and that is what what
we're actually debating here is the
validity of calm and dissent which is
the theory of evolution that all life on
Earth that we are aware of the rain
descended from one common ancestor what
it doesn't say is that anything changed
what it was it if it became something
else it still retained what it was it
just happens to be more so to use a very
non evolutionary example or not non
macroevolutionary example dogs the first
dog was not a poodle and it was not a
Great Dane and it wasn't a st. Bernard
but we now have poodles that were that
are still dogs but they're not st.
Bernards they're not grant gains now you
extend that change over time you now
have what we're talking about macro
evolution when there's when they're
changed enough they're speciated so to
say that really quickly she came to
morphology happens all the time
speciation makes that change
now as far as what science is ultimately
it's the product of the application of
the scientific method as I said earlier
the scientific method goes like this you
have a theory you want to explain the
matter you see or whatever phenomena you
see and you explain it by making a
hypothesis which goes like this if we
assume this to be true then we should
expect to see this when we perform this
experiment or observation and what I
have what I have presented whether
natural nephilim free wants to admit it
or not is that the discoveries we've
made in science have come from taking up
a theory and saying well if that theory
is true we should expect to see let's
just say for example a Kansas sago or
Tiktaalik in this particular strata in
this particular location when we do this
particular observation that is the
difference the science is the
application of the scientific method
okay fair enough so Neff I would like
for you to take a little bit of time to
explain how you define evolution and how
you define science okay all right
according to evolutionists evolution is
a process whereby organisms change in
their structural design incrementally
over time which gives rise to new
structural designs and their body plans
which ultimately results in
fundamentally different types of
organisms if that didn't happen there'd
be no evolution theory we if
evolutionists didn't believe that
happened then there wouldn't even be an
evolution theory that's what evolution
theory is in a nutshell the changes
occur which give rise to structural
design changes in the anatomy of living
things ultimately producing
fundamentally different types of
organisms over a vast array age of time
period of time so that's what evolution
theory is now what science is is in in
in truth science is queries about the
creation
and investigative processes to discover
its properties in how it functions
science is a method and it is a method
of investigation to find an answer as to
what is the cause of the phenomenon and
this is the scientific method the
scientific method can't be applied to
eeveelution evolution theory is a set of
hypotheses about the arrival of new
features in living things which give
rise to fundamentally different types of
organisms there's not even anything any
examples that we can point to in all of
biological fauna to show to point to
that we could use to apply that to so in
it's my opinion the evolution theory is
a philosophy but it's not science ok so
now that we've got that out in the open
and I'm going to now turn it to the
audience the awesome audience that is
now going to be the interactive and
engaged awesome audience where they're
gonna be able to ask questions and have
the two of you answer them Tony you're
in the hot seat for the first question
brother a ni FB javea aroma ramos asks
how can adaptation work because genes
always stay the same within the same
species I'll say it again
how can adaptation work because genes
always stay the same within the same
species genes don't always stay the same
within the same species they don't even
stay the same within the same family do
you look like your dad probably resemble
them but you don't look completely like
him except in probably a few very random
examples you probably don't look exactly
like your mom either now here's a thing
from birth you have well over a hundred
different mutations that you did not
have that your parents did not have and
you will gain several more of your
lifetime so not even you are the same at
the end of your life as you are at the
beginning of your life
so the question really doesn't apply and
it also isn't an application
of the theory
all right Neff I got you in the hot seat
please define and this is from
emotionally-stunted
emoticon please define anatomical change
in biology
okay Anatomy is the study of the
features of organisms and where they lie
in the body plan of an organism and
evolution posits that that changes over
time to results in fundamentally
different types of organisms so the
definition of anatomy and button
morphology and these things they're
freely available on the Internet
ok and he has a follow up to the second
part to that question apparently there's
a person called ROM at ROM Matt accepts
that rice corn and bamboo are all the
same kind aren't they anatomically
different and if not explain why well I
haven't examined those examples so I
don't want to speak for somebody else I
can't actually comment in because I
haven't studied that that a specific
subject about the the you know
relationship of these d or whether real
or imagined of these different taxa hey
I know that I know it's I'm speaking out
of turn here that was a good question
and and nephilim gave a great answer to
it and it would be the same answer I
would give so could you give a reference
for that
to whom you're asking with a question
death no the person that actually asked
that question I mean I'm not I'm not I'm
not refuting them I just never heard
that those are the same I mean I know
that that cabbage and and kale and all
those came from mustard seeds but I'd
love to hear about the the the common
the common nature of rice and corn I've
never heard that before and I'm a little
confused by the question because there
he's the word kind I don't know where
the reason referring to like like Kent
Hovind will frequently talk about kinds
as his category categorization word of
choice I don't know where three is using
it in that term or in a more scientific
term but to your point Tony
emotionally-stunted emoticon if he can
pull a reference for the fact that rice
corn in bamboo are the same kind or that
somebody says that people are a
reference for that post too that would
be great
excuse me moving back to you let's see
Tony what do we got here for some reason
I don't really have that many more feet
view um hold on one moment there are
more oh yes there are more okay Tony
how do outside pressures and forces
affect blind reproduction to produce an
offspring that can survive and changed
conditions I know that this is a very
complex it there's even more to this
question but I think that that's that's
a lot to bite off this is from Colin
Smith I'll say it again how do outside
pressures and forces affect blind
reproduction to produce an offspring
offspring that can survive and changed
conditions considering reproduction
doesn't sink or question fair enough
it's a fair question in our daily lives
we see people that are more adapted they
either can run faster or they can
they're stronger they can climb faster
they can speak faster they can think
that
than others we all have different
abilities and as the environment changes
your particular set of skills are more
likely to be well that the the
environment just might be perfect for
your set of skills and for somebody else
not so much and so from there on you are
your your you're more likely to
reproduce the person who's not as
adjusted to this environment is is less
likely to reproduce it has in case
somebody wants to bring it up it's not
about death it's about reproduction now
that said if you're more likely to
reproduce you're more likely to continue
if you're less likely reproduce you're
less likely to present to to to continue
it isn't an absolute there are certain
people who are definitely not fit for
the environment that tend to reproduce
and they have a chance perhaps they're
their offspring probably have a chance
in in the next generation but it has
every it the the the in fat impact of
the environment is just your playground
and if you're better suited to play in
that playground and and reproduce you
just happen to be more likely to
continue that's it
okay question
moving on to Neff Balaam asked Neff this
is from Beach Price wife Edith's why'd
try to decipher this
why do fetuses have lizard muscles in
their hands that disappear before births
why would intelligent design do that
well I'm not familiar with that but the
assumption that their lizard muscles I
think is is his problem
during fetal fetal development
outrageously complex process it's so in
fact complex the expression of various
sets of genes being turned on and off
like the instruments in an orchestra in
a humongous Orchestra there was show a
the organic stadium in fact being turned
on and off in concert during to develop
the two specialized cells into just to
prescribe their arrangement and to
create the structural designs of an
organism is so complex that man will
probably never be able to fully decipher
it I have no matter how long we study
genetics I think anybody can see gives
honest consideration to that fact the
absolutely mind-bending complexity of
phenotypic of the fetal development
process would drop evolution like a rock
if they were intellectually honest with
themselves i evolutionists make many
assumptions you know that this is a
human's has this feature in them that
came from you know lizards or fishapods
and none of those have really buried out
I see it as an assumption that that this
was a lizard muscle first of all is it
really a muscle I'd have to examine the
papers find out is a muscle there's a
common does it go it does it have a
purpose does it actually transform into
a different muscle I need more details
than what I've been provided and I'm
quite sure that if I study the subject
I'd find its no such thing as our lizard
muscle this is just based on an
evolution paradigm it's an assumption
that doesn't hold water
you
all right Tony Colin has another
question for you how do you justify
uniformity and basic abstract laws of
logic apart from your own experiences I
don't really know what the question is
asking I think that it's trying to get
at
so is there's some follow-up questions
trying to get at the difference between
objectivity and subjective experience
right is uniformity in nature objective
if so how do we know that apart from
experience seems to be a subjective
objective kind of a question that dances
on on that distinction I'll do my best
to answer that question but I'm not sure
how the two go I mean if you're talking
about the subjective forces excuse me
pardon me when I talk about uniformity
I'm usually talking about geological
uniformity so if you're gonna talk about
the the forces at work in a particular
area versus over the overall world um
well I guess that's the answer and the
subjectivity is in one area whereas
objectivity would be the entire the
entire map that we're playing with which
would be the entire world if you're
talking about our personal experience
well there's a different question all we
can do is comment on our own subjective
experience so yeah it is very likely and
so when when I even when I talked about
this from the beginning I said I'm
working under the assumption that
evolution is completely wrong and that
evolution is completely right and so
that even in that case we are able to
make these predictions based on
evolution now that's still that it's
basically a statement about what we've
experienced subjectively as a species or
as a community but there is always a
chance that all of it is completely
wrong we just happen to
made so many guesses right beforehand
I hope that answered the question I
really do I think that it was the I
think that was rooted in like more
presuppositional apologetics which try
to I'm not like independent as moderate
I'm not gonna give in to explain what
that is but that's an assumption of mine
what actually Colin just posted
something you can't justify uniformity
apart from your experiences in other
words the scientific method cannot
justify the scientific method so he's
pointing out a circularity philosophical
circularity it seems okay so then I
guess the difference is when it comes to
scientific method it's based on what I
can show you and what you can show me
now you're welcome to believe in
creationism all you want but once you
ask me to believe it then I'm gonna ask
you for evidence and if you can present
a prediction based on on creationism I'm
more than happy to consider it now when
it comes to evolution
I can make predictions and I can present
them to you it's up to you whether you
accept them but I mean it it all comes
down to I can present my evidence I can
take the assumption of uniformity and
file and find oil for you I can take the
assumption of quantum mechanics and
create the internet or create a computer
for you I can take the assumption of the
theory of relativity and get a guy to
the moon what can you do with
creationism that's what I've been asking
this entire debate
all right and so we only have a couple
minutes left for this Q&A section so
Neff how would you like to answer Toni's
question that you just asked well I
would just say that our ability to
predict and to discern the properties of
things and to be able to apply them
depends on the existence of objective
reality and I think that that wouldn't
be if if if subjectivity if there is no
objective reality then science wouldn't
exist
our thoughts wouldn't exist we couldn't
observe test demonstrate or repeat
anything the existence of an objective
reality is everything is dependent from
the existence of an objective reality so
the fact that we're here the fact that
we're thinking about it the fact that we
can show things demonstrate things
hypothesize about things demonstrates
objectively that there is a reality that
has a fundamental basis that is so the
the basis that is so fundamental is that
I don't believe the atheist or
evolutionist worldview could begin to
account for it that's my thoughts
all right well we only have about 30
seconds left so we're gonna wrap it up
from there and I would like to thank
both Tony Reed and nephilimfree for
dedicating some time for this
conversation today this debate about
whether creationism or evolution or
applicable in science I would also like
to thank standing for truth for hosting
the debate as well as praise I am that I
am for all the technical awesomeness
that facilitated this becoming a reality
if anybody wants to have a post hang
about this I'm sure that you will have a
lot of willing participants wanting to
debate the topics and stuff and other
than that I think that's it from my end
thank everybody for watching and
contributing all right good night

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum