Wild claims about only SDAs being young Earth Creationists in the 1800's and early 1900's.

[boughtwithaprice]

Your beliefs are not relevant. The fact is that there is an immense amount of evidence from numerous fields for a common ancestor.

Why do you need that? In any case, it's pretty easy to reconstruct with high (but not perfect) accuracy the genome of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees (which not the genetic code, by the way -- that's something different).

They don't prove or even provide much evidence for common descent. The evidence comes from comparative anatomy, fossils, biogeography, and above all from comparative genetics.

That was done in 2018 (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar6343) for a chimpanzee and an orangutan. The exercise improved our detailed reconstruction of those genomes but did nothing at all to change the evidence for common ancestry.

As @The Barbarian pointed out, that's ancient history. The chimpanzee genome was sequenced base by base in 2005 and the sequencing has been steadily improved since then.

I see these argument all the time from creationists -- that's it's just a matter of what assumptions people use. But somehow they're never able to come up with a consistent explanation for genetic data based on creationist assumptions. Generally, they just change the subject when asked. Here is one set of genetic data that supports common descent that I keep asking creationists about. I've yet to get a creationist explanation for it.

It's real. There's a reason that the overwhelming majority of Christian biologists accept evolution. We accept it because it works. We reject young-earth creationism because it is wildly inconsistent with reality.

Sure. It also shows they were each individuals who were part of large populations who lived at the same time and not the Biblical Adam and Eve -- the names were just poetic labels researchers stuck on them. There's also an Adam or an Eve for every bit of the rest of our genomes, many of them, one for each bit. Most of them lived long before mt Eve or Y Adam.


That's simply false. I believe God -- I just don't believe you.

What field do you have a PhD in? Mine's in experimental particle physics, and I can assure you that what you've just written is simply nonsense. (I mean the part about a PhD defense -- the part about R01s is just funny, since doing research on evolution is a lousy way to get R01 grants.)

Evolution is a scientific theory, not an idol. I have a religion and it has nothing to do with science. (Your comment about statistics is merely baffling -- are you under the impression that other fields of science don't rely on statistics?)

What you have failed to note is that humans have chromosome 2, not just a rearrangement of alleles. Primates do not have chromosome 2. Fusion of 2a and 2b has been proposed as a mechanism for the divide between primates and humans from a common ancestor.
The question is how did this fusion take place from a common ancestor. Have fusion events been observed and what is the effect on fertility?
Yes fusion events have been observed but to the detriment of fertility in the offspring of a given population. Also how frequent is a fusion event?
It would have to be frequent enough to occur in a male and a female to begin a new population. If it is not that frequent then scarcely the man and woman ever meet. If more frequent then it should be observed today on a regular basis
If it is infrequent then you have a fused organism that does not live long enough to reproduce
This shows that evolution from a common ancestor is a fantasy put forth by those that want to wish something to be true, but it does not work that way

The fusion event would require divine intervention for it to work. God does not need an organism to preexist the creation of man. The fact that mit Eve and Y Adam exist shows that they did. You say that they were just unique members of a vast population, but then how did they come together? If separated by thousands of years? Could it be that your calculations are wrong ?

There are too many unanswered questions for the common ancestor story to pass a PhD defense unless you are surrounded by all yes men.
Doesn’t matter what you think my credentials are, your colleague the Barabrian has already shown that he does not care. What would you get out of knowing? I have sat through PhD defenses, but that is not my degree, as I did not desire it. I have performed research using PCR and reverse transcriptase PCR. Our team sequenced the DNA of the GABA receptor to study how it relates to anesthesia. My degree is doctor of medicine. Having been around scientists most of my academic career, most that rely on evolution suffer the “this and only this” bias.

In one class a man was asked where he thought the “suck reflex” came from. His answer was that since it increased survivability it had to develop. That was most absurd, as the reflex is a complex neurological process that cannot develop. An organism either passes it or it dies. Don’t eat? Can’t live. Development of necessity violates the philosophical rule of an ancestor cannot give what he does not have. A complex neurological reflex just does not appear because it is needed. But as usual his ascertain went unchallenged even by the professor. The same happens with evolution, there is no real thought involved just indoctrination. United negro college fund said it best, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, which is what happens when you study evolution and it gets even worse with those that claim to believe in God and evolution.
Abandon all hope of academic debate all ye who enter here. Toe the line or else. Skepticism
Is frowned upon in this establishment

 

[sfs]

What you have failed to note is that humans have chromosome 2, not just a rearrangement of alleles.

I haven't said anything about chromosome 2. Are you going to respond to anything I wrote?

Primates do not have chromosome 2. Fusion of 2a and 2b has been proposed as a mechanism for the divide between primates and humans from a common ancestor.

Not just proposed. Examination of human chromosome 2 and chimpanzee chromosome 2a and 2b shows quite clearly that the human chromosome lines up perfectly with the chimpanzee chromosomes placed end-to-end, with the remains of telomeres (end sequence) still present at the junction in chromosome 2, along with remains of one of the centromeres where it should be. It's quite obviously the result of a fusion. What's the alternative explanation?

The question is how did this fusion take place from a common ancestor. Have fusion events been observed and what is the effect on fertility?

Various kinds of fusion have indeed been observed. They are generally compatible with reproduction but cause reduced fertility, which may or may not translate to reduced fitness. You can read more about the chromosome 2 fusion

It would have to be frequent enough to occur in a male and a female to begin a new population.

No, that's incorrect. The fusion only has to occur once.

The fact that mit Eve and Y Adam exist shows that they did. You say that they were just unique members of a vast population, but then how did they come together? If separated by thousands of years? Could it be that your calculations are wrong ?

They didn't come together. What makes you think they did? Mt Eve is just the most recent common ancestor of all living humans by purely female descent, while Y Adam is the equivalent for male descent. There is zero reason to think they lived anywhere near each other in space or time.

There are too many unanswered questions for the common ancestor story to pass a PhD defense unless you are surrounded by all yes men.
Doesn’t matter what you think my credentials are,

Your credentials matter if you're going to make the kind of grossly disparaging remarks you've just repeated here. Sitting through a PhD defense requires no knowledge of science. Professional scientific associations, research universities, national academies of science, scientific publishers, philosophers of science, historians of science -- they all think evolutionary biology is scientific. You disagree, so clearly you think your knowledge of science is superior to theirs, but it's clear from your comments about mt Eve and Y Adam that your knowledge of evolutionary biology is rudimentary. So yeah, you need to give some reason for thinking your opinions are credible.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

So yeah, you need to give some reason for thinking your opinions are credible.

You want a response? Have you defended a thesis? If so, you would not have made that statement. The purpose of a sceptic is to get you to clarify your position so that it can be seen that you know what you are talking about.
Your statement that a fusion has to only occur once is incorrect. A single fusion is most likely not able to be a fertile organism. It would be considered a disease in the population
There is some study around the alleged fusion point and there are some similarities but other observations are that the genes contained in 2a and 2b are not retained in humans at chromosome 2, but distributed all over the genome. It is not cut and dried and cannot be shown as directly related.
When I read evolutionary literature it’s like a lawyer’s nightmare. Objection, assumes facts not in evidence and then the assumption is presented as evidence. The only tactic used is to ridicule the skeptics rather than revise their presentation. Try this in a PhD defense and you alienate your examiners and you will not get your degree. I know no panel that would put up with that behavior. Try it and see how long it takes to get a degree or even a PI that would retain you to continue your work.

It is not my job to make myself credible, it is yours. So far it sounds like Adam Schiff promising that he has evidence of Trump colluding with Russians, but never thought to share it with the special prosecutor that found no evidence. Everyone in the media just believed Schiff because they “knew” Trump was guilty.
Where is your evidence? Let’s take a look at an article and subject it to higher criticism. We will have to read the references too, as they have the same problems.

I remember a discussion with a physician that recommended that I read a book “Bright Air, Brilliant Fire” as proof of evolution. I went home bought it and read it that weekend. The reasoning was so full of holes that one could drive a truck through them, but all the guy could say was that I was a voracious reader. He did not want to discuss the book or the logic contained in it, his mind shut off. Most evolutionist love to build the straw man YEC rather than address or admit their own flaws.
Evolution uses statistics to come to its conclusions. It does not operate in the scientific method. In science if a theory is to hold, it must do so across all situations. One contrary piece of evidence is enough to nullify the whole theory.
Not so with statistics, it works on the bell curve system where data points at the extreme are eliminated as aberrations, not flaws in the theory.

Statistics are a powerful tool when they are used properly. The only thing that they do is to show that a proposed result could not have happened by chance. They do nothing to show the mechanism of the situation observed. When used that way, they become misleading. This is why we have heard of the gradations of falsehood from least to worst be read as Lies, Damnable Lies, and then we have Statistics

 

[The Barbarian]

The natural sciences can only come to conclusions based on observed phenomena. It cannot tell how or why a thing is created. It makes extrapolations and assumptions that have no basis in fact. I have a post graduate degree in medicine, and we studied human organisms .
There is a characteristic of mammals called the “suck reflex” A baby mammal is presented with a nipple and its immediate reaction is to suck. The question was where did the suck reflex come from? The evolutionist in the group said that the suck reflex came about because it improved survival. He failed to note that it is all or nothing. If a baby does not eat it does not live.

Your argument is just "well, I can't see how this evolved, and I'm a really smart guy, so it can't be true."

But if you had a little more background in biology...

Not all mammals suckle. Monotremes just lick up milk from the mother which secretes the milk from openings lacking nipples. So a transitional form still lives. Even more interesting, we find the anatomy that permits sucking was already there in mammal-like reptiles:
More recently, to better understand how suckling evolved, Crompton and his colleagues analyzed the heads of North American opossums, platypuses, and monitor lizards, as well as fossil skulls. At the 5th International Paleontological Congress here last week, Crompton's co-author, research technician Catherine Musinsky, described the anatomy of two mammalian ancestors: Thrinaxodon, which lived roughly 250 million years ago, and Brasilitherium, which lived about 220 million years ago, both before the first common ancestor of living mammals. (That animal is thought to have lived in the early Jurassic, which began about 200 million years ago.)

Modern reptiles lack the tensor veli palatini and it seems Thrinaxodon didn't have one either. But in Brasilitherium, the researchers found that the shape of the bones and the scars where muscles attached suggest that a primitive version of the muscle was present. That, along with other evidence, led them to the surprising conclusion that this ancient mammal relative could probably form a tight seal between its tongue and palate and might have suckled. The idea "is very well supported," by the researchers' combination of modern anatomy and fossil evidence, says paleontologist Zhe-Xi Luo of the University of Chicago in Illinois, who has also closely examined Brasilitherium.

https://www.science.org/content/article/got-milk-even-first-mammals-knew-how-suckle

It's good to be well-educated; I take some pride in my graduate degree. But it's better to be informed and capable of a cogent argument.

 

[The Barbarian]

When I read evolutionary literature it’s like a lawyer’s nightmare. Objection, assumes facts not in evidence and then the assumption is presented as evidence. The only tactic used is to ridicule the skeptics rather than revise their presentation. Try this in a PhD defense and you alienate your examiners and you will not get your degree. I know no panel that would put up with that behavior. Try it and see how long it takes to get a degree or even a PI that would retain you to continue your work.

See above. Pot, kettle.

There is some study around the alleged fusion point and there are some similarities but other observations are that the genes contained in 2a and 2b are not retained in humans at chromosome 2, but distributed all over the genome. It is not cut and dried and cannot be shown as directly related.

The odds of all that material in exactly the spot where it would be, if there was a fusion make it a compelling fact. Genes do move around sometimes, in all organisms, (Read up on the work of Barbara McClintock, who got a Nobel for her work on it) but the bulk of the DNA right where it should be, is unexplainable on the basis if probability alone.

When I read evolutionary literature it’s like a lawyer’s nightmare. Objection, assumes facts not in evidence and then the assumption is presented as evidence.

Even honest YE creationists admit that there is lots of evidence for evolution. Would you like to learn why they say that?

Statistics are a powerful tool when they are used properly. The only thing that they do is to show that a proposed result could not have happened by chance.

No. At best, they can say that it's highly unlikely that they happened by chance. It's an important distinction if you have to use statistics. Do you see why?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Your argument is just "well, I can't see how this evolved, and I'm a really smart guy, so it can't be true."

But if you had a little more background in biology...

Not all mammals suckle. Monotremes just lick up milk from the mother which secretes the milk from openings lacking nipples. So a transitional form still lives. Even more interesting, we find the anatomy that permits sucking was already there in mammal-like reptiles:
More recently, to better understand how suckling evolved, Crompton and his colleagues analyzed the heads of North American opossums, platypuses, and monitor lizards, as well as fossil skulls. At the 5th International Paleontological Congress here last week, Crompton's co-author, research technician Catherine Musinsky, described the anatomy of two mammalian ancestors: Thrinaxodon, which lived roughly 250 million years ago, and Brasilitherium, which lived about 220 million years ago, both before the first common ancestor of living mammals. (That animal is thought to have lived in the early Jurassic, which began about 200 million years ago.)

Modern reptiles lack the tensor veli palatini and it seems Thrinaxodon didn't have one either. But in Brasilitherium, the researchers found that the shape of the bones and the scars where muscles attached suggest that a primitive version of the muscle was present. That, along with other evidence, led them to the surprising conclusion that this ancient mammal relative could probably form a tight seal between its tongue and palate and might have suckled. The idea "is very well supported," by the researchers' combination of modern anatomy and fossil evidence, says paleontologist Zhe-Xi Luo of the University of Chicago in Illinois, who has also closely examined Brasilitherium.

https://www.science.org/content/article/got-milk-even-first-mammals-knew-how-suckle

It's good to be well-educated; I take some pride in my graduate degree. But it's better to be informed and capable of a cogent argument.

You have made no cogent argument. It’s all speculation and you won’t admit it. You need better education in philosophy and not speculative biology.

Look at the words that are used. “Could probably”, “might have” “found that….suggest”
“Thought to have lived” That is a narrative and not science. A narrative is reduced to the opinion of the speaker. That is not how science works.

You may have a degree, but if you were a thinking man, you would know that pride is a deadly sin, and actually the first sin by Lucifer himself. Lucifer does believe in God, but he is not Christian

 

[Phoneman-777]

We can compare the genes of organisms of known descent. Turns out it does indicate common descent. No point in denial.

It just points to excellent design useful on a variety of platforms...like ABS or fuel injection.

 

[Phoneman-777]

You're confusing evolution and abiogenesis again. Darwin actually never predicted a single common ancestor, thinking there could be any number of them. Only after the discovery of the way DNA functions, did we know for sure.

That was a book written by a follower of Myung Son Moon, who said he was acting on "a mission from Father" to "destroy evolution." It has a lot of religious philosophy by a person who thinks Moon was an improvement on Jesus, but not much of scientific merit.

And the direct observation of evolution in populations is pretty good evidence. Perhaps you've confused evolution with common descent?

I'm not confused - it's those who refuse to accept a literal reading of Genesis that are confused. Is God not capable of doing in six days what He says He's done in six days? No need to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Actually, it's rare. Even Gould, who developed the theory of punctuated equillibrium, admitted cases of gradual evolution. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Why don't you just cross over from punctuated equilibrium and just become a Creationist?

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, it's rare. Even Gould, who developed the theory of punctuated equillibrium, admitted cases of gradual evolution. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Why don't you just cross over from punctuated equilibrium and just become a Creationist?

There are evolutionary creationists. But I don't like trying to put religion into science. As you might know, punctuated equilibrium is entirely consistent with Darwinian theory. Huxley himself was convinced that the pace of evolution could be slow or quite fast.

And the evidence shows he was right. Would you like to learn about that?

I'm not confused - it's those who refuse to accept a literal reading of Genesis that are confused.

We're just willing to take it as written. YE creationists try to revise it to be a literal account, but for all the reasons you've seen here, that fails.

It just points to excellent design useful on a variety of platforms..

You're confusing homlogy with analogy. Wings work on a lot of organisms. But the analogous structures are never on organisms that show evolutionary descent with genetics. Homologous structures do. Hence, genetics shows that bats are not birds (contrary to a literal reading of the Bible) because their wings are homologous with the flippers of whales, legs of horses, and arms of humans.

like ABS or fuel injection.

That's an important issue. You see, mechanical engineers have learned that evolutionary processes are more efficient at solving complex problems than design can be. So they've started copying nature (God's creation, remember) to use evolution to solve those problems. The Genetic Algorithms have been highly successful. Turns out God knew best, once again. Man learned from His example.

Optimization of automotive diesel engine calibration using genetic algorithm techniques

Although the advancements in automotive diesel engines in the last two decades have resulted in the possibility of achieving better performance with l…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[The Barbarian]

You have made no cogent argument.

I've show you a great deal of the evidence for the evolution of the suck reflex. Not only do we have living transitionals between nursing by sucking and no nursing at all, we also have fossil evidence showing the tissues necessary for this were almost certainly present in transitional mammal-like reptiles.

And your assumption that there is no way for this to evolve, went down in flames. You, see, when someone claims something to be impossible, one only has to show that it is possible to refute that assumption. And as you now see, it's not only possible, it's almost certainly true.

You need better education in logic. When I was in college, logic was part of philosophy. Maybe you missed that lecture.

Look at the words that are used. “Could probably”, “might have” “found that….suggest”
“Thought to have lived” That is a narrative and not science. A narrative is reduced to the opinion of the speaker. That is not how science works.

This is how we know you don't know much about science.

More recently, to better understand how suckling evolved, Crompton and his colleagues analyzed the heads of North American opossums, platypuses, and monitor lizards, as well as fossil skulls. At the 5th International Paleontological Congress here last week, Crompton's co-author, research technician Catherine Musinsky, described the anatomy of two mammalian ancestors: Thrinaxodon, which lived roughly 250 million years ago, and Brasilitherium, which lived about 220 million years ago, both before the first common ancestor of living mammals. (That animal is thought to have lived in the early Jurassic, which began about 200 million years ago.)

Modern reptiles lack the tensor veli palatini and it seems Thrinaxodon didn't have one either. But in Brasilitherium, the researchers found that the shape of the bones and the scars where muscles attached suggest that a primitive version of the muscle was present. That, along with other evidence, led them to the surprising conclusion that this ancient mammal relative could probably form a tight seal between its tongue and palate and might have suckled. The idea "is very well supported," by the researchers' combination of modern anatomy and fossil evidence, says paleontologist Zhe-Xi Luo of the University of Chicago in Illinois, who has also closely examined Brasilitherium.

https://www.science.org/content/article/got-milk-even-first-mammals-knew-how-suckle

A large body of information and facts showing exactly what you claimed to be impossible. You made the claim because you had no idea what the evidence is, and were therefore easily fooled.

I know you're proud of your degree, but but if you were a thinking man, you would know that pride is a deadly sin, and telling us what you think is impossible, without even knowing the evidence is evidence of that pride.

Lucifer does believe in God, but he is not Christian

I'm not saying you aren't a Christian; I'm merely pointing out that you made the claim without knowing what you were talking about. There's more, BTW. Would you like to see more?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I've show you a great deal of the evidence for the evolution of the suck reflex. Not only do we have living transitionals between nursing by sucking and no nursing at all, we also have fossil evidence showing the tissues necessary for this were almost certainly present in transitional mammal-like reptiles.

And your assumption that there is no way for this to evolve, went down in flames. You, see, when someone claims something to be impossible, one only has to show that it is possible to refute that assumption. And as you now see, it's not only possible, it's almost certainly true.

You need better education in logic. When I was in college, logic was part of philosophy. Maybe you missed that lecture.


This is how we know you don't know much about science.

More recently, to better understand how suckling evolved, Crompton and his colleagues analyzed the heads of North American opossums, platypuses, and monitor lizards, as well as fossil skulls. At the 5th International Paleontological Congress here last week, Crompton's co-author, research technician Catherine Musinsky, described the anatomy of two mammalian ancestors: Thrinaxodon, which lived roughly 250 million years ago, and Brasilitherium, which lived about 220 million years ago, both before the first common ancestor of living mammals. (That animal is thought to have lived in the early Jurassic, which began about 200 million years ago.)

Modern reptiles lack the tensor veli palatini and it seems Thrinaxodon didn't have one either. But in Brasilitherium, the researchers found that the shape of the bones and the scars where muscles attached suggest that a primitive version of the muscle was present. That, along with other evidence, led them to the surprising conclusion that this ancient mammal relative could probably form a tight seal between its tongue and palate and might have suckled. The idea "is very well supported," by the researchers' combination of modern anatomy and fossil evidence, says paleontologist Zhe-Xi Luo of the University of Chicago in Illinois, who has also closely examined Brasilitherium.

https://www.science.org/content/article/got-milk-even-first-mammals-knew-how-suckle

A large body of information and facts showing exactly what you claimed to be impossible. You made the claim because you had no idea what the evidence is, and were therefore easily fooled.

I know you're proud of your degree, but but if you were a thinking man, you would know that pride is a deadly sin, and telling us what you think is impossible, without even knowing the evidence is evidence of that pride.


I'm not saying you aren't a Christian; I'm merely pointing out that you made the claim without knowing what you were talking about. There's more, BTW. Would you like to see more?

There is no need to see more. I was referring to the information given in a class room lecture. There was no discussion. That was a fact. The man answering the question made an absurd statement and the professor did not correct him.

You cannot say the suck reflex developed because it increased survivability. There is no mechanism in matter to simply obtain something for the mere fact that it is needed. To allow that in a classroom with no objection is not science.

Even the article you show me is full of assumptions which is only the thoughts of men, not necessarily reality. Just because you think you know how something happened does not mean that it did. The author of that alleged scientific paper is not arguing from philosophical first principles, he is using his imagination.

The first principle that has been abandoned by modern materialism, which is not science but philosophy, is that the Universe was created and is held together by the will of God. The Universe does not exist apart from God. He loves us and continually maintains us. If He did not, we would cease to exist. If you say you are Christian, you are supposed to believe that.

The new philosophy that has arisen after Descartes, Kant, and Hegel, and expanded upon by Nietzsche is Deism. They say God created the Universe, but then left it on its own to fend for itself, everything can be explained by natural laws. The problem is that the natural laws as we know them are insufficient to explain what we see, so we invent Dark matter, dark energy, and evolution over millions of years in order to explain what we don’t know. That is a fallacy and an extremely arrogant way of looking at things.

The fool says in his heart there is no God. The universe cannot exist apart from God’s will, but it most certainly exist apart from us. Therefore men, being created beings, have no control over the Universe. Why should I let the imaginations of men tell me to be true what they do not know?

The article you have shown me for the second time is of the imaginations of men and it even admits it in the text. Do you see it?

The other philosophical principle ignored by evolution is the principle of the integral good. Which is what God says in Genesis. He saw His creation and it was very good. Evolution says no, they say God created slime, and creatures arose from themselves. One batch of goop produced the diversity we see today. I am sorry, but that is idolatry to which I will not bow.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is no need to see more. I was referring to the information given in a class room lecture. There was no discussion. That was a fact. The man answering the question made an absurd statement and the professor did not correct him.

Perhaps the professor was unfamiliar with what has been learned about it.

You cannot say the suck reflex developed because it increased survivability. There is no mechanism in matter to simply obtain something for the mere fact that it is needed. To allow that in a classroom with no objection is not science.

It's the nature of adaptations to increase survivability. Perhaps you're unaware that Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels for showing that adaptation does not appear in response to need. Need merely selects out any variation that tends to increase the odds of an organism surviving. The early mutations to muscles and mouth in mammal-like reptiles happened to enhance survival. So they were retained. And any improvements were also likely to be retained.

Even the article you show me is full of assumptions

Data. Facts. That's how science works. Thought you knew. As you saw from the data, it's not only possible for the suck reflex to have evolved, the evidence shows that it's so likely as to be virtually certain.

Just because you think you know how something happened does not mean that it did.

I merely showed you that your assumption was demonstrably false. You asserted that it was impossible for that reflex to have evolved, and I showed you that the evidence clearly shows that it did evolve. It doesn't prove in the mathematical sense that it did evolve. but the data proves that your assumption that it couldn't evolve, is false.

The first principle that has been abandoned by modern materialism, which is not science but philosophy, is that the Universe was created and is held together by the will of God.

You merely confused science and materialism here. Science does not and cannot deny anything supernatural. You might as well carp at plumbers for ignoring the demons of blockage as a possible problem. Plumbing, like science, is methodologically naturalistic, but not ontologically naturalistic. Look it up; the difference is important.

The other philosophical principle ignored by evolution is the principle of the integral good. Which is what God says in Genesis. He saw His creation and it was very good. Evolution says no,

Evolution considers nature to be what it is. But creationists say God's creation is not good. I notice that you conflated the origin of life with evolution, again. Please read up on some of this, so you can discuss it without such errors.

From an honest YE creationist:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
...
It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.
YE creationist Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution (my emphasis)

He's talking to you. Listen to him.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

You have more faith in evolution than the claim that you have faith in God. I understand why you think that brother, pride is a powerful motivator. We don’t like to admit we are wrong.

When you read the words of the articles you cite, the language is of assumption, extrapolation and narrative. Even the world is starting to see it, but believers knew all along. You don’t get life from dust without divine intervention, not is God so weak that He creates a single being and it “evolves” into all the species we see.

Adam was a real man. God breathed life into him and he became a living soul. Adam sinned and the whole race of man requires redemption. Jesus was sent through the Virgin Mary by divine action, “today I have begotten thee”, not some random chance or primitive genetic fusion.

You spin a good tale, powerful enough to mislead those that love not the truth, but we find God when we search for Him with all of our heart. He gave us reason so that we can search for Him. Philosophy has shown us that reason can show there is a God, He is intelligent, I am not God. “Come, let us reason together says the Lord” The rest has to come from revelation.

We have the historical record, the testimony of the Gospels, and the history of the Church. Belief in evolution is easy for now because many people tell you to believe it. Pride and peer pressure, the truth does not make. Christ told us if we followed him, we would be hated by the world.

I have no pride or need for you to believe what I say is true. Coming to Catholic faith takes honesty and pleading with God for help, but I have found grace in Jesus and His Church founded on His Apostles. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I have listened to the tales of other men, both in science and professed religious. All failed until I submitted to the Catholic Faith with all my heart. There is no contradiction in the Bible to the Catholic Faith, and there is no contradictions in science.

The deception is ending and high level academics are seeing it, not non-Catholics overwhelmed by data. I take no stock in what Ken Ham says nor do I use him as a citation

Here is an article for you

Skepticism About Darwinian Evolution Grows as 1000+ Scientists Share Their Doubts
Evolution News Feb 4, 2019

Their statement is located at dissentfromdarwin.org

Continue in your narrative of evolution, and not only will you be left behind by the Church, odds are you will be left behind by the world as well.

I pray for you brother and ask Our Lord by His Sacred Heart and Our Lady through her Immaculate heart may show you the truth and welcome you into the Body of Christ.

I care not what you think of me, brush me off as an annoying gnat. I am but dust and a worm. You will have to face the truth one day and give account for your reasoning and decisions.

 

[Ragdoll]

Evolution considers nature to be what it is. But creationists say God's creation is not good. I notice that you conflated the origin of life with evolution, again.

I have yet to hear a YEC say God is not good. Sounds to me like you want to twist things in defense of godless evolution. That is a very dishonest approach to discussion and benefits nobody here. To be honest, when I see someone preaching evolution and dismissing Genesis as true I cannot help but see such a person as an unbeliever. We have 2000 years of Christian theology and it wasn't until the Darwinian synthesis that Christians began to accept evolution theory and reject the Bible. Prior to Darwin, all Christian ministers rejected evolution theory. The churches first refutation of evolution is found in the 2nd century A.D. Of course, there is also Romans 1:18-32 and the Apocrypa book Wisdom 1--3.

Romans 1:18-32
Bible Gateway passage: Romans 1:18-32 - Modern English Version

Wisdom 1--3
Bible Gateway passage: Wisdom 1-3 - Revised Standard Version

 

[The Barbarian]

I have yet to hear a YEC say God is not good.

I hear it a lot. All that death and pain and suffering seems to be wrong to them. Now, I realize that some creationists say that it's Adam's fault and God is torturing hundreds of billions of innocent animals to get even with Adam. But I don't believe it.

To be honest, when I see someone preaching evolution and dismissing Genesis as true I cannot help but see such a person as an unbeliever.

Well, Genesis is true. You'll just have to get used to that. I don't think you're an unbeliever, I just think you aren't happy about the way God created some things.

We have 2000 years of Christian theology and it wasn't until the Darwinian synthesis that Christians began to accept evolution theory and reject the Bible.

They didn't accept plate tectonics until that was found to be true, either. But of course they didn't reject the Bible. Most Christians just reject your new revision of it.

Prior to Darwin, all Christian ministers rejected evolution theory.

That would be impossible since there was no evolution theory before Darwin. Some hypotheses, but none of them were verified until Darwin's work.

Romans 1:18-32
Bible Gateway passage: Romans 1:18-32 - Modern English Version

Wisdom 1--3
Bible Gateway passage: Wisdom 1-3 - Revised Standard Version

If you read them carefully, you wouldn't be tossing those verses out, given what you've written in this discussion. Just saying.

 

[Ragdoll]

I hear it a lot. All that death and pain and suffering seems to be wrong to them. Now, I realize that some creationists say that it's Adam's fault and God is torturing hundreds of billions of innocent animals to get even with Adam. But I don't believe it.


Well, Genesis is true. You'll just have to get used to that. I don't think you're an unbeliever, I just think you aren't happy about the way God created some things.


They didn't accept plate tectonics until that was found to be true, either. But of course they didn't reject the Bible. Most Christians just reject your new revision of it.


That would be impossible since there was no evolution theory before Darwin. Some hypotheses, but none of them were verified until Darwin's work.

If you read them carefully, you wouldn't be tossing those verses out, given what you've written in this discussion. Just saying.

I don't know here but I think I can speak for YEC members here when I say you are very hard to read and digest. This is because everything you say here is foreign to our knowledge of YEC. Most of us are well read on the subject and you are saying things here that just don't jive with YEC education. I think you have more faith in evolution than you do God. If indeed God is Who He says He is, then why can't He create this world in just 6 days? I trust all of Genesis as true and I don't have a problem with science or knowledge of tectonic plates. I also have no record of creationists denying tectonic plates. I have some very old books on creationism and all of them apeak about tectonic plates.

 

[Phoneman-777]

But I don't like trying to put religion into science.

The only science that's opposed to religion is the "false science" of evolution. The Bible told us many scientific facts that were eventually substantiated by empirical means. Have you ever considered that Satan is behind the attack on Genesis?

We're just willing to take it as written. YE creationists try to revise it to be a literal account, but for all the reasons you've seen here, that fails.

There's no "revision" needed. We have the plain words of Scripture, plenty of YE and ID evidence, as well as unanswered criticism of evolution to support taking the words of Genesis at face value.

Bible symbolism is reserved for prophetic passages of coming future events - past events are either literally accounted or in obvious parable ie. Jotham's parable of the trees.

There's nothing in Genesis that suggests God is speaking in parable, seeing that the flowers which He created on day 3 would have all died "millions of years" before the the bees were created on day 6.


Perhaps I should say that if the methodology should be, "Make the days of Genesis symbolic, translate them into millions of years, then appeal to God's supernatural power to preserve the flowers", why not just believe the supernatural 6 dat Creation that's plainly written as is and skip all those steps?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

The evolutionist primary argument is to straw
man Ken Ham and other YE creationists and paint them as crack pots or losing a debate and admitting evolution has sufficient evidence

We all know that the straw man is a logical fallacy and has no place in Science. We know the word of God is true by studying Jesus commandments and what happens to people when they violate them, and when they follow Him in full submission. If they word of God was false, we would not have great saints and tragic sinners.
It seems that sin always leads to pain misery and death.

If Jesus is true in that respect, He is worth a look in the rest of scripture also, especially because He rose from the dead against all laws of nature. Atheists try to argue that the Virgin birth is false, and we take it on faith as there is no way to verify it, but the Resurrection is an historical fact that is undeniable, though some try. If the resurrection is true, then we believe what is written about the Virgin birth and other unverifiable truths that are not arrived at by reason, but revelation.

Evolution wants to claim that it is non falsifiable and those that are skeptical are just religious nuts. There is increasing evidence that is not true. A group of atheistic or non-religious scientists have started a group, called the Discovery Institute and the Center for science and culture

They have some of the world’s top scientists showing the flaws in Evolution, and they tear the theory apart. Check them out on the web, they have books and DVDs that are scientific and have irreligious arguments against evolution. It’s very refreshing to see real science and not the evolutionary indoctrination we see in our schools, university, entertainment and media. Even atheists are coming to the conclusion that there is intelligence in biology and not random natural selection. They are not believers but are a step up in thinking over standard evolution.
I believe evolution is a theory that is about to go on the trash heap of history

 

[The Barbarian]

don't know here but I think I can speak for YEC members here when I say you are very hard to read and digest. This is because everything you say here is foreign to our knowledge of YEC.

Perhaps you should read some of the material from ICR and AIG.

The Bible told us many scientific facts that were eventually substantiated by empirical means. Have you ever considered that Satan is behind the attack on Genesis?

I don't think Satan was encouraging YE creationists to attack Genesis. Indeed, most of them seem to think that God likes their revisions.

And you probably know that the sky is not a solid dome over a flat Earth, with windows in it.

There's nothing in Genesis that suggests God is speaking in parable

The fact that the text mentions mornings and evenings with no sun to have them makes it clear that the "days" of Genesis were not literal ones.

Perhaps I should say that if the methodology should be, "Make the days of Genesis symbolic, translate them into millions of years, then appeal to God's supernatural power to preserve the flowers"

Most Christians realize that they aren't periods of time at all. Why not just accept it as it is, and stop trying to fit it into a literal history?