Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 8-5-19 | Jerry Bergman, PhD

[bwest]

There are plenty of scientifically rigid definitions of species—you can look it up yourself.
Can you describe the scientific rigor that underlies your definition of “kind”?

[Kalamata]

Nice rap. Even your own referencecsays it is vague. It is NOT part of the formal taxonomy. Your lengthy cut and paste seems to sugest it SHOULD. Opinion, not science.
****************************************************

I didn’t realize I was attempting to discuss science with a scientifically-challenged clown. I do now.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

Did you read your own question? Why should we think specialists in an area are more qualified than those NOT in that area? That is your question? And my example os dead on point.
**************************************************

Organisms are organized and operated by information, not theory.

[Kalamata]

I forgot: BEHE??????????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Next time quote rachael madcow. She has more credibility than behe.
******************************************************

You are more scientifically-challenged than I thought.

[freedumb2003]

I think your pop culture idea of science clashescwith reality.

[freedumb2003]

Now I KNOW your pop culture idea of science clashes with reality.

[Chaguito]

It wasn’t the Curia that showed that the earth revolves around the sun.

[Kalamata]

There are plenty of scientifically rigid definitions of species—you can look it up yourself.
***************************************************
I suspected you would punt on that question.

****************
Can you describe the scientific rigor that underlies your definition of “kind”?
***************************************************

I did, but it went right over your head. Let me try another way:

Real scientists have long known by way of scientifically repeatable observations (e.g., via real science) that animals were biologically restrained within their respective kinds by some type of internal barrier. We now know that barrier is genetic, and the “cut-off” point in the taxonomic hierachy is probably the “family”, that is, the biblical “kind” is within the ball park of the secular “family”.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

I think your pop culture idea of science clashescwith reality.
***********************************************

Nonsense. I abandoned the pseudo-scientific religion of evolutionism seven or eight years ago.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

Do you know how to turn a snarky evolutionist into a babbling idiot? Ask him or her for scientific evidence for evolution — not for devolution, but for evolution.

Mr. Kalamata

[freedumb2003]

Do you know how to turn a snarky cretard into a babbling idiot?

Ask him anything scientific.

[Kalamata]

Do you know how to turn a snarky cretard into a babbling idiot? Ask him anything scientific.
****************************************************’

You misspelled “evotard”.

[Truthsearcher]

The process of genes changing via random mutations.

[bwest]

It's sad that you don't recognize your definition of "kind" as a textbook example of the logical fallacy known as begging the question.

The ToE and Christian faith coexist perfectly. It is not blasphemous to fully subscribe to a divinely created universe, yet recognize that that which our senses perceive is merely the part that God chooses to reveal. We can study that part, measure it, theorize about it, and learn not only about what we see, but about God himself.

Blind adherence to creationism in the face of real scientific observation is rationalization, not science. It is practiced by those of weak faith.

God gave us the capacity to learn. We should use it.

[Kalamata]

You:
It’s sad that you don’t recognize your definition of “kind” as a textbook example of the logical fallacy known as begging the question.
***********************************************************

It is sad for our future that evolutionists ram the false worldview of common descent down the collective throats of our children without a shred of scientific evidence to support it.

**********************
The ToE and Christian faith coexist perfectly.
***********************************************************

That sounds like theistic evolutionism, which is a logical fallacy. Have you never read these verses?

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,” — Mat 19:4 KJV

“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” — Mar 10:6 KJV

**********************
It is not blasphemous to fully subscribe to a divinely created universe, yet recognize that that which our senses perceive is merely the part that God chooses to reveal.”
***********************************************************

God told us how he did it. He also told us that, from the beginning, Satan sought to convince mankind to doubt the Word of God. Satan is, after all, the great deceiver.

Almost forgot. Satan is also a murderer and the father of lies (John 8:44).

**********************
We can study that part, measure it, theorize about it, and learn not only about what we see, but about God himself.
***********************************************************

Why not simply take God at his Word? When God said he created the stars on the 4th day, the day after he created the plants, why doubt him? Is that less scientifically tenable than the universe magically appearing out of nothing, or stars being created by exploding stars, the first of which magically appeared?

**********************
Blind adherence to creationism in the face of real scientific observation is rationalization, not science. It is practiced by those of weak faith.”
***********************************************************

Surely you jest. What “scientific observation” are you referring to? Are you referring to the scientific observation that plants and animals never “stray”, not even in the fossil record, from their respective kinds, or families, or types, or whatever label you choose to assign them? That the fossil record shows abrupt appearance and then stasis, and disparity before diversity, both of which falsify common descent? That the layers in the geological column shows an almost universal lack of erosion and bioturbation, and that most layers contain marine fossils, even in the highest layers and highest mountain ranges? Or that mountain ranges are covered with folded, not cracked, sedimentary layers denoting the mountain ranges formed while the sediment was still pliable? What “scientific observation” are you referring to?

Frankly, I don’t have enough faith to believe what you believe. I don’t believe in magic.

**********************
God gave us the capacity to learn. We should use it
***********************************************************

Perhaps you should.

Mr. Kalamata

[bwest]

I, as a Christian, have the utmost respect for the faithful who adhere to the literal truth of the Bible.
I have none for those of little faith who choose to rationalize Biblical verse via creationism.

You are among the latter.

One last question: if creationism is science, what findings might you accept as falsification of creation? As you know, falsification is a key element of the scientific method.

[Kalamata]

I, as a Christian, have the utmost respect for the faithful who adhere to the literal truth of the Bible.
******************************************************************

Obviously you do not. Christ reminded us to believe the words of Moses. Christians believe the words of Christ. I believe the words of Christ and of Moses, and you do not respect me because I dare to challenge your faith in the pseudo-science of evolutionism.

************************************
I have none for those of little faith who choose to rationalize Biblical verse via creationism.
******************************************************************

Are you claiming that the great scientists who believed the Word of God, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and James Maxwell were rationalizing the Bible? That is the silliest thing I have ever read.

************************************
You are among the latter.
******************************************************************

Your sanctimonious attitude is not a rational defense for your faith in the doctrine of the anti-Christian “theologian” named Charlie Darwin, and that of the slick, Moses-hating lawyer named Charlie Lyell, over the Word of God. The only rational defense for your faith is scientific evidence for common descent, which you cannot provide.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

Evolutionists come up with some of the goofiest theories imaginable, one of which was the notion of “Junk DNA”. This is “theistic” evolutionist Francis Collins in his 2007 book, “The Language of God”, discussing “Junk DNA”:

“Some of these [”Junk DNA”] may have been lost in one species or the other, but many of them remain in a position that is most consistent with their having arrived in the genome of a common mammalian ancestor, and having been carried along ever since. Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as “junk DNA” just betrays our current level of ignorance. And indeed, some small fraction of them may play important regulatory roles. But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation.” [Collins, Francis S., “The Language of God.” Free Press, 2007, Chap.5, p.136]

A mere 8 years later, Collins had completely changed his tune, as reported in the New York Times:

“In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome — as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, “turns out to be doing stuff.”” [Zimmer, Carl, “Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?” New York Times, March 5, 2015]

Perhaps a better question to ask Collins would have been, “How on earth could you believe such silliness in the first place?”

Mr. Kalamata

[bwest]

Don’t you think you’ve embarrassed yourself enough?

[Kalamata]

>>Don’t you think you’ve embarrassed yourself enough?
***************************************************

Does that vain attempt at misdirection imply you can not point to any scientific evidence for evolutionism? Are you not embarrassed to put your faith in a lame brain scheme for which there is not a shred of scientific evidence?

Mr. Kalamata