Genetics and evolution

[TexasBama]

"So under nature with the nascent giraffe the individuals which were the highest browsers and were able during dearths to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved; for they will have roamed over the whole country in search of food. That the individuals of the same species often differ slightly in the relative lengths of all their parts may be seen in many works of natural history, in which careful measurements are given. These slight proportional differences, due to the laws of growth and variation, are not of the slightest use or importance to most species. But it will have been otherwise with the nascent giraffe considering its probable habits of life; for those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have
survived. These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either
inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again
in the same manner; while the individuals less favoured in the same
respects will have been the most liable to perish."

The Origin of the Species

http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Origin_of_Species/7.html/giraffe

"Examples of Lamarckism would include:

Giraffes stretching their necks to reach leaves high in trees, strengthen and gradually lengthen their necks. These giraffes have offspring with slightly longer necks. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckian

You can really learn a lot if you read this stuff yourself rather than accepting something prima facie from a creation science website.

 

[BeccaBama]

ID in no way disputes natuaral selection.

Sure it does. It accepts speciation, but claims genetics and natural selection are not sufficient to explain complex organisms. That's disputation as far as I'm concerned.

No, ID disputes the modern concept of evolution, not natural selection. The genes that are selected or copied incorrectly (mutations) were placed there by God when he created the organism. When God created the various kinds of creatures, he most likely created them with a vast amount of information. This would allow for enough variety in the information of the original creatures so that their descendents could adapt to various environments. Natural selection and genetics are not sufficient to explain complex organisms. There had to be genes to select from to begin with. Natural selection does not allow for increased complexity from a simple form to a complex form. It simply weeds out genetic traits already present that are not beneficial to its species in a particular environment, except in the case of mutations (copying mistakes). This does not account for increased complexity of an organism. There are many biological examples of complex systems that have irreducible complexity and could not possibly have arisen through numerous, successive, slight modifications i.e. the human ear, heart, and eye. If any one part of these organs were missing, it would cease to function. Therefore there are no possible transitional forms which would be beneficial to these organs. Although Darwin subsequently explained how he believed that the eye could evolve anyway, he himself admitted, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Regarding your response to KillVols, it looks like you are still bogged down in who came up with what theory rather than defending the validity of the general theory itself.

 

[KillVols]

I am the one that posted the reference to Darwin and I don't think it was from a creationist website. I have read and have studied it. At any rate you are splitting hairs and avoiding the point, and in either case it's not the issue.


Since your such a student of Darwin, what are your thoughts on the subject?
You take one little part of a long post and start going off the farm in an effort to avoid the discussion. A discussion that so far has been completely one sided.

My quotes again,
"Let's boil this down to one point. Let's discuss the part about information being added to genetic code creating new species. For everything to evolve from one organism (or from what ever starting point you wish) there must be new information added, and this would have had to happen countless times. If this had occurred, creating all of the species we see today, there would be many examples of added genetic information in nature, and there is not one. In fact it is the exact opposite, all the evidence points to a loss of information, not a gain."

and
"Evolutionists of course claim large-scale evolution has occurred (non-life turned into life, then the first 'simple' life evolved all the way up to people). Yet all they point to as proof of this are minor changes, such as varying beaks in finches, or different colors in moths. Also, evolution is supposed to be a process generating lots of new genetic information. Yet the examples they cite invariably turn out to show no such thing.

In short they do not have an answer to that question. That's why it's still a theory, one that developed in a time where knowledge of DNA and the complexity of the single cell and the study of genes were not factors."

 

[KillVols]

Regarding your response to KillVols, it looks like you are still bogged down in who came up with what theory rather than defending the validity of the general theory itself.

Thanks Becca, great post by the way... I'm sure maybe after TexasBama meets with his Liberal friends at UT he might come up with a substantive response... or maybe just another question.

 

[BeccaBama]

My pleasure!

Does natural selection extend to extinction by a predator? If so, then the passenger pigeon is a good example.

This is a fun topic

By the way, extinction by a predator is yet another example of the elimination or decrease of information/genes, not increased complexity of an organism.

This IS a fun topic.

 

[bamabake]

TB is not a liberal and is one of the more thoughtful posters here. I bet he was just being the devils advocate

 

[COBamaFan]

Actually, I was busy this weekend and didn’t have time to respond.

I won’t get to everything, because there is too much and, unfortunately, I have actual work to do. I’ll leave it to an excellent article from National Geographic on the subject entitled, “Was Darwin Wrong?”

You can find the beginning of the article here:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/

But for the rest, you’ll have to actually buy the issue. If you want answers to your questions about when, where, and what aspects of evolution have been tested then this article should provide you with the answers.

I will say this: evolution has been thoroughly tested. It is a valid scientific theory (of course, everyone who has pointed out that evolution is JUST a theory is correct but they’ve also missed the point. All science is based on theory. As the article states, “If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.”)

Finally, you cannot draw conclusions about how life began from evolution. Doing so is incorrect and bad science. Darwin’s book is titled “The Origin of SPECIES,” not LIFE. Darwin himself believed that God created life but that evolution was the mechanism by which different species arose on this planet.

 

[KillVols]

To bad Darwin did not have the advanced knowledge that we have today.
Evolution will end up in history right there with the Flat Earth theory. If you want to take the origin of life out of the discussion that is fine.. Let's start with the first animal that grew lungs and legs from nothing and go from there. I can post links here to that would answer any link you can post. That is why we have boiled it down to the additional information issue which should be simply enough to comment on. I can not get past this question because if we are to believe evolution... there must be more examples out there than Carter has pills. (That's Jimmy Carter for those of you that live in California.)

I ask the question because I know there is one of two responses... either it is ignored... or very few questionable examples might be given which can easily be shown as error. This is where evolutionist go in denial and where they turn it into their religion because it doesn't add up scientifically. To accept this one must look to alternatives like maybe God created and we can't have that!

BeccaBama quote.. . good one.
"Evolution is not really a “science” at all. It is more like a religion. It’s a belief system developed to explain the origin of life without having to believe in God."

Sorry for the liberal comment TexasBama... I saw Austin and made the natural assumption.

 

[bamabake]

Actually, I was busy this weekend and didn’t have time to respond.

I won’t get to everything, because there is too much and, unfortunately, I have actual work to do. I’ll leave it to an excellent article from National Geographic on the subject entitled, “Was Darwin Wrong?”

You can find the beginning of the article here:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/

But for the rest, you’ll have to actually buy the issue. If you want answers to your questions about when, where, and what aspects of evolution have been tested then this article should provide you with the answers.

I will say this: evolution has been thoroughly tested. It is a valid scientific theory (of course, everyone who has pointed out that evolution is JUST a theory is correct but they’ve also missed the point. All science is based on theory. As the article states, “If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.”)

Finally, you cannot draw conclusions about how life began from evolution. Doing so is incorrect and bad science. Darwin’s book is titled “The Origin of SPECIES,” not LIFE. Darwin himself believed that God created life but that evolution was the mechanism by which different species arose on this planet.

I will say this: evolution has been thoroughly tested.


Show us.

 

[COBamaFan]

I have, bamabake: read the article. Or, if you'd prefer:

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

KillVols, the answer to your question can be found in most biology books (a good one, anyway). Again, if you'd prefer, the above link will help you too.

I probably will not be able to respond to anything until tomorrow or the next day. You shouldn't take that as a sign that I won't respond. That ok with everybody?

 

[bamabake]

I have, bamabake: read the article. Or, if you'd prefer:

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

KillVols, the answer to your question can be found in most biology books (a good one, anyway). Again, if you'd prefer, the above link will help you too.

I probably will not be able to respond to anything until tomorrow or the next day. You shouldn't take that as a sign that I won't respond. That ok with everybody?

We cant live without you. BTW have you read this whole thread or just the most recent posts? I ask because modst of what you reference in this link has already been reponded too or discussed. You can respond later. We can wait.

 

[NYBamaFan]

Key point pertinent to this discussion:

The unifying principle of common descent that emerges from all the foregoing lines of evidence is being reinforced by the discoveries of modern biochemistry and molecular biology

The code used to translate nucleotide sequences into amino acid sequences is essentially the same in all organisms. Moreover, proteins in all organisms are invariably composed of the same set of 20 amino acids. This unity of composition and function is a powerful argument in favor of the common descent of the most diverse organisms.

And:

An interesting additional line of evidence supporting evolution involves sequences of DNA known as "pseudogenes." Pseudogenes are remnants of genes that no longer function but continue to be carried along in DNA as excess baggage. Pseudogenes also change through time, as they are passed on from ancestors to descendants, and they offer an especially useful way of reconstructing evolutionary relationships.

With functioning genes, one possible explanation for the relative similarity between genes from different organisms is that their ways of life are similar--for example, the genes from a horse and a zebra could be more similar because of their similar habitats and behaviors than the genes from a horse and a tiger. But this possible explanation does not work for pseudogenes, since they perform no function. Rather, the degree of similarity between pseudogenes must simply reflect their evolutionary relatedness. The more remote the last common ancestor of two organisms, the more dissimilar their pseudogenes will be.

The article does not mention the cause or mechanism for the addition of gene sequences over time, though it implies that they have occurred as a result of "random mutations" combined with "natural selection".

 

[BeccaBama]

Finally, you cannot draw conclusions about how life began from evolution. Doing so is incorrect and bad science. Darwin’s book is titled “The Origin of SPECIES,” not LIFE. Darwin himself believed that God created life but that evolution was the mechanism by which different species arose on this planet.

I realize that you want to stay away from the idea that evolution as a concept has anything to do with the origin of life, but just so you are aware, an evolutionist, G.A. Kerkut (author of Implications of Evolution) defined the ‘general theory of evolution’ (GTE) as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

If you prefer, we can stay away from that particular issue and focus on the so-called evidence given in National Geographic’s article. I happen to have a copy of that particular issue. The problem with that is, like COBamaFan said, there is so much. First of all, did you notice in the article that “no less than 45% of responding U.S. adults agreed that ‘God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.’” In addition, that number hasn’t changed much over the last 20 years in spite of the fact that the evolutionist worldview dominates America’s academic and media establishments. I believe that a big reason for this goes back to what I said about evolution being a belief system. You see, the theory of evolution has been developed through interpretation of data (facts). All data must be interpreted. People tend to interpret things through their own viewpoints and assumptions. For example, Darwin, as an agnostic, did not believe in the Bible. He may have believed in a “distant, impersonal deity” to initiate life, but he obviously did not take the Bible into account when he deduced that ‘common descent, as shaped by natural selection, modifying the inherited basics for different circumstances’ was reasoning for the “five-digit skeletal structure of the vertebrate hand that appears not just in humans and apes and raccoons and bears but also, variously modified in cats and bats and porpoises,” etc. As a Bible believing Christian, I look at the same facts (the five-digit skeletal structure) and see it as evidence for an intelligent designer, namely our Creator, God. Darwin was looking at facts with a humanist, materialist point of view which influenced how he interpreted his observations. Can you see how pre-determined viewpoints can affect the interpretation of data? To address a couple of other things about the article, I saw some more examples of change within a species, their admission that the fossil record is “like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor” and the two disputable examples of so-called transitional fossils from the dozens they claim they have. Frankly, I’m not that impressed. Still nothing that show an increase in complexity or gain of genetic information in an organism.

 

[jthomas666]

For example, Darwin, as an agnostic, did not believe in the Bible. He may have believed in a “distant, impersonal deity” to initiate life, but he obviously did not take the Bible into account when he deduced that ‘common descent, as shaped by natural selection, modifying the inherited basics for different circumstances’ was reasoning for the “five-digit skeletal structure of the vertebrate hand that appears not just in humans and apes and raccoons and bears but also, variously modified in cats and bats and porpoises,” etc.

I'm interested by your statement here. Why is it obvious that Darwin didn't take the Bible into account? Because he did not arrive at the same conclusion as you? What part of the Bible discusses the real explanation for skeletal structure (apart from women's extra rib, of course)?

My major concern is your classification of both evolution and religion as "belief systems." Science isn't always correct (Aristotle's classification of plants and animals put alligators and trees in the same group, after all (they're both green)), but it attempts to make some sort of sense out of the observable evidence.

Religion is a matter of faith, not logic. Lumping them together does a disservice to science and religion alike.

In any event, your posts have been quite thought-provoking. Welcome aboard!

 

[bamabake]

I realize that you want to stay away from the idea that evolution as a concept has anything to do with the origin of life, but just so you are aware, an evolutionist, G.A. Kerkut (author of Implications of Evolution) defined the ‘general theory of evolution’ (GTE) as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

If you prefer, we can stay away from that particular issue and focus on the so-called evidence given in National Geographic’s article. I happen to have a copy of that particular issue. The problem with that is, like COBamaFan said, there is so much. First of all, did you notice in the article that “no less than 45% of responding U.S. adults agreed that ‘God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.’” In addition, that number hasn’t changed much over the last 20 years in spite of the fact that the evolutionist worldview dominates America’s academic and media establishments. I believe that a big reason for this goes back to what I said about evolution being a belief system. You see, the theory of evolution has been developed through interpretation of data (facts). All data must be interpreted. People tend to interpret things through their own viewpoints and assumptions. For example, Darwin, as an agnostic, did not believe in the Bible. He may have believed in a “distant, impersonal deity” to initiate life, but he obviously did not take the Bible into account when he deduced that ‘common descent, as shaped by natural selection, modifying the inherited basics for different circumstances’ was reasoning for the “five-digit skeletal structure of the vertebrate hand that appears not just in humans and apes and raccoons and bears but also, variously modified in cats and bats and porpoises,” etc. As a Bible believing Christian, I look at the same facts (the five-digit skeletal structure) and see it as evidence for an intelligent designer, namely our Creator, God. Darwin was looking at facts with a humanist, materialist point of view which influenced how he interpreted his observations. Can you see how pre-determined viewpoints can affect the interpretation of data? To address a couple of other things about the article, I saw some more examples of change within a species, their admission that the fossil record is “like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor” and the two disputable examples of so-called transitional fossils from the dozens they claim they have. Frankly, I’m not that impressed. Still nothing that show an increase in complexity or gain of genetic information in an organism.

Well I have thought alot about how ones worldview flowed from where one stood on evolution vs creation debate. However I had not concidered a persons proclivity to believe in God or not and how they then interpreted data on the subject. In fact if one was, in my case, not a christian, one really might never be convinced that evolution isnt in fact a legitimate explaination because it would force them to look at the only explaination left. God.

 

[COBamaFan]

BeccaBama:

I prefer to stick with the actual theory. Drawing any conclusions about how life began from evolution is an incorrect interpretation of the theory. Yes, I did notice what the article said with respect to what Americans believe. Did you notice the tone in which it mentioned those statistics?

I have no doubt that your belief system affects your interpretation of data. That much is clear. However, that does not mean most, or even some, scientists are similarly hindered by their beliefs when they interpret data. Bear with me for a moment: I will assume that no one will contest the fact that the vast majority of Americans believe in a higher power (i.e., God). I think, and someone please correct me if I’m wrong, that something like 95 – 98% of Americans believe in God. Now unless you are saying that all biologists are members of the 2 - 5% of Americans that don’t believe in God, you’ve got a problem. Because, there is no debate within the scientific community about evolution. It is widely accepted. Thus, for your assertion to hold true, then most biologist would have to not believe in God. Otherwise, by your own reasoning, their belief in a higher power would force most, or, at the very least, many, to draw the same conclusions you have (i.e., intelligent design). So how, in your mind, do you reconcile this obvious contradiction? Do you think, perhaps, biologists put their beliefs aside for a moment (whatever they may be) and developed a theory that best fit the data?

And, of course you’re not impressed. You’ll never be. You said it yourself: your belief system affects your interpretation of data. Thus, you cannot make an objective assessment and your opinion, therefore, must be ignored. You have removed yourself, by your own admission, from this argument. Or, did I misunderstand you?

Bamabake:

I asked if that was ok with everybody not because I thought people were hanging on my every word, but last time when it took me a little while to respond, you and several other posters got all excited about my not responding quickly enough. I was merely preventing that from happening again. Thanks!

 

[KillVols]

Many Americans that say they believe in God or a higher power don't believe the biblical God. Still a majority do, and a large percentage of them have altered their views of Creation to include room for evolution. Maybe God used evolution to create, etc... This is more and more being challenged as our knowledge increases in all areas of science and on the age of the earth. The majority of scientists once believed the sun orbited the earth.

If 95% of Americans believed in a living God then we wouldn't be killing all these babies. But that's for a whole new thread...

Evolution is a belief system... all data is viewed thru the "evolutionist eyeglasses". When you find a fossil or something new to test and start out with the premise of evolution, then all the data is viewed thru those glasses before test one is performed. The outcome of those tests become tainted and changed to fit the evolution theory. If the method of dating doesn't add up to the evolution time table for example, another is used until desired results are achieved... or they just say that the sample must have been contaminated.

 

[ed4tide4u2]

One thing is for sure

Topics about Evolution and Creationism have always generated a lot of discussion and both sides have good points. The problem is, no one alive can answer the question. One day, each person will have an opportunity to find out which one is true but it will only be after they die. Perhaps we could get someone to report back? Barring that, I have always been a believer in Pascal's Pense': "It is better to believe and find out that there is no God, for then you have lost nothing, than not to believe and find out that there is a God, for then you have lost all". I will put my stock in Creationism as that is the only way to acknowledge the existence of God in the face of 'scientific evidence'. Faith is the key not data input.

 

[BeccaBama]

I prefer to stick with the actual theory. Drawing any conclusions about how life began from evolution is an incorrect interpretation of the theory.

So, I guess you chose to ignore the General Theory of Evolution (GTE) defined by evolutionist, G.A. Kerkut (author of Implications of Evolution) as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic (non-living) form.’ In addition, Douglas Theobold, PhD. states that the concept of evolution embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.

Yes, I did notice what the article said with respect to what Americans believe. Did you notice the tone in which it mentioned those statistics?

I did notice the tone in which those statistics were mentioned. It was quite condescending and indicated that millions of adult Americans are confused and ignorant. I’m not sure why they thought that using such condescension would be a good start to attempt to convince these poor, confused and ignorant people that evolutionists really are right.


Scientists are actually not as unbiased as you may think. Take for example the following quotes:

Prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”2

Stephen Jay Gould: “Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.”

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”

So much for unbiased interpretation of data. I guess I haven’t removed myself from the argument.

I won’t even address the ridiculous statement about my thinking that all biologists are members of the 2-5% of people who don’t believe in God.
I will however give you a few statistics of which you are probably unaware. A survey was conducted at the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) of all 517 members in biological and physical sciences. Just over half of them responded and the results were as follows: 72.2% overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7% believe in a personal God. Chances are that most of the non-responding half did not believe in a personal God either. NAS by the way produced the book 'Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science'. Hmm, interesting.

 

[bamabake]

Topics about Evolution and Creationism have always generated a lot of discussion and both sides have good points. The problem is, no one alive can answer the question. One day, each person will have an opportunity to find out which one is true but it will only be after they die. Perhaps we could get someone to report back? Barring that, I have always been a believer in Pascal's Pense': "It is better to believe and find out that there is no God, for then you have lost nothing, than not to believe and find out that there is a God, for then you have lost all". I will put my stock in Creationism as that is the only way to acknowledge the existence of God in the face of 'scientific evidence'. Faith is the key not data input.

I agree we will all find out. I am saddened by what some will discover. However regarding the first part, I believe in the God of the bible. He is the author ** reason. I find it unreasonable to believe that the answer to this question is not attainable. As has been posted already, it is clear the intellectually honest that evoluton cannot be proven, natural selection can be, and that intelligent design created it all. CBF even tries to demonstrate that others believe a "higher power " is involved. He only refuses to look at and admit that evolution in its modern discripton is NOT provable. In spite of the comments about biology books and so forth. There is a huge body of evidence that, AT THE LEAST, should cause the intellectually honest that have embraced evolution, to reassess.
Therefore Creationism isnt just an expression of faith:


Becca said:

In regards to the origins of life and “evolutionary science”, it is important to note the difference between operational science and origins (historical) “science”. Operational science deals with the way the present world works, and generally concerns things that we can observe and repeatedly test. For example, we can consistently get the same undisputed temperature for the boiling point of water since we can observe and repeat the test conditions. Origins science, however, deals with how we apply observations made in the present to non-observable events in the past. This is the area where “evolutionary science” falls. Scientific observations must be interpreted when applied to past events. The supposed events of evolution occurred in the unobservable past and are therefore not capable of being proven scientifically with certainty. Creation events are also in the past. The argument between creation and evolution is not one of science vs. religion rather of the science of one religion vs. the science of another religion.

The bottom line is, both creationism and evolution are belief systee of the comments about biology books and so forth. There is a huge body of evidence that, AT THE LEAST, should cause the intellectually honest that have embraced evolution, to reassess.
Therefore Creationism isnt just an expression of faith:


Becca said:

In regards to the origins of life and “evolutionary science”, it is important to note the difference between operational science and origins (historical) “science”. Operational science deals with the way the present world works, and generally concerns things that we can observe and repeatedly test. For example, we can consistently get the same undisputed temperature for the boiling point of water since we can observe and repeat the test conditions. Origins science, however, deals with how we apply observations made in the present to non-observable events in the past. This is the area where “evolutionary science” falls. Scientific observations must be interpreted when applied to past events. The supposed events of evolution occurred in the unobservable past and are therefore not capable of being proven scientifically with certainty. Creation events are also in the past. The argument between creation and evolution is not one of science vs. religion rather of the science of one religion vs. the science of another religion.

The bottom line is, both creationism and evolution are belief systems inter comments about biology books and so forth. There is a huge body of evidence that, AT THE LEAST, should cause the intellectually honest that have embraced evolution, to reassess.
Therefore Creationism isnt just an expression of faith:


Becca said:

In regards to the origins of life and “evolutionary science”, it is important to note the difference between operational science and origins (historical) “science”. Operational science deals with the way the present world works, and generally concerns things that we can observe and repeatedly test. For example, we can consistently get the same undisputed temperature for the boiling point of water since we can observe and repeat the test conditions. Origins science, however, deals with how we apply observations made in the present to non-observable events in the past. This is the area where “evolutionary science” falls. Scientific observations must be interpreted when applied to past events. The supposed events of evolution occurred in the unobservable past and are therefore not capable of being proven scientifically with certainty. Creation events are also in the past. The argument between creation and evolution is not one of science vs. religion rather of the science of one religion vs. the science of another religion.

The bottom line is, both creationism and evolution are belief systems inter comments about biology books and so forth. There is a huge body of evidence that, AT THE LEAST, should cause the intellectually honest that have embraced evolution, to reassess.
Therefore Creationism isnt just an expression of faith:


Becca said:

In regards to the origins of life and “evolutionary science”, it is important to note the difference between operational science and origins (historical) “science”. Operational science deals with the way the present world works, and generally concerns things that we can observe and repeatedly test. For example, we can consistently get the same undisputed temperature for the boiling point of water since we can observe and repeat the test conditions. Origins science, however, deals with how we apply observations made in the present to non-observable events in the past. This is the area where “evolutionary science” falls. Scientific observations must be interpreted when applied to past events. The supposed events of evolution occurred in the unobservable past and are therefore not capable of being proven scientifically with certainty. Creation events are also in the past. The argument between creation and evolution is not one of science vs. religion rather of the science of one religion vs. the science of another religion.

The bottom line is, both creationism and evolution are belief systems interpreting the same facts and observations according to their own predetermined beliefs. Origins cannot be explained by scientific means, because no human being was there to observe it, it cannot be repeated and it cannot be tested. The closest thing we have to a reliable observer is the divinely revealed account given to us in the Bible, a book that has been shown to be historically accurate.



I agree with this to some extent. However if evolution isnt observable et. al. Nothing HAS BEEN ADDED to the genetic code, only removed, then what is left. Logic says that chance and or an infinite amount of time CANT produce anything. So what are reasonable people left to think?