"So are you saying you support the idea of teaching in public schools that a supernatural event, by creation of 'you know who' is science and thus can be taught as such?" You think that because you can make a single point about something (which I personally know very little about) that this justified the complete shut down academic freedom? There very well could be a legiti...more

"So are you saying you support the idea of teaching in public schools that a supernatural event, by creation of 'you know who' is science and thus can be taught as such?"

You think that because you can make a single point about something (which I personally know very little about) that this justified the complete shut down academic freedom? There very well could be a legitimate, explainable cause out there (that frankly, I just don't care enough to go out and find) for this phenomenon. I weep for my country if this is the point to which we have come.

This whole bill is based around students and teachers having the freedom to disagree, that's it. It's not about abiogenesis, evolution, chromosomal changes, or anything else. It's about kids not having to worry about flunking a class because they disagree with something. If whatever the subject matter is is an uncontravertable fact, then it is incumbant upon the teacher to do just that - to teach and help the kids to understand where they might be wrong. But, in the end, science does not trump the constitution, and the first amendment guarantees kids the right to freedom to exercise their religious beliefs. Period.less

"to support virtually anything if read in a certian way" Right, and that is why people don't read the Bible that way, like making a passage a metaphor when it isn't one. There are ways to read the Bible, such as context, that determine how to understand what something says.

"Evolutionary biology explains only the processes and methods on how life diversifies..." Blah, blah, blah - strawman! Howard was talking about the mathematics of the size of the universe, and my comment was in response to that post. Once again. I'm saying that no matter what you argue, I can give you evidence to the contrary, which in reality, just brings back my earlier post...more

"Evolutionary biology explains only the processes and methods on how life diversifies..."

Blah, blah, blah - strawman! Howard was talking about the mathematics of the size of the universe, and my comment was in response to that post. Once again. I'm saying that no matter what you argue, I can give you evidence to the contrary, which in reality, just brings back my earlier post about having retreaded this same stupid argument so many times before. Frankly, I'm tired of it, and its pointless.less

agentorangex: Deflect, deflect, deflect - a lack of evidence is not evidence. You're deflecting. If you want to discuss the infallibility of the word, and its inpriration, bring it. You'll lose.

agentorangex: "Didn't you ever consider all the other religions in the era around at the time genesis was being penned? most of which were elemental religions that refered to mutiple gods each having intergral parts within the overall creation?" You've given me only alleged evidence that is external to the Bible itself, so, that's not gonna cut it. Where does the Bibl...more

agentorangex: "Didn't you ever consider all the other religions in the era around at the time genesis was being penned? most of which were elemental religions that refered to mutiple gods each having intergral parts within the overall creation?"

You've given me only alleged evidence that is external to the Bible itself, so, that's not gonna cut it. Where does the Bible say that we should read Genesis as metaphor?less

agentorangex: "Historical huh..." You completely ignored the question, and gave me evidence of something totally different. I'm asking, if we're suppose to read the first 11 chapters of Genesis figuratively, where does it say that? I mean, c'mon, Jesus himself was a young earth creationist! He believed in a literal reading of Genesis. And, if it's good enough ...more

agentorangex: "Historical huh..."

You completely ignored the question, and gave me evidence of something totally different. I'm asking, if we're suppose to read the first 11 chapters of Genesis figuratively, where does it say that? I mean, c'mon, Jesus himself was a young earth creationist! He believed in a literal reading of Genesis. And, if it's good enough for my Lord, it's good enough for me.

Howard: "..somebody did the math.."

Yeah, someone did the math about the probability of a single amino acid evolving, and you know what the probability was? 1 in 3.88 x 10^82. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/marcus.asp)less

agentorangex: "Well Miller brings it up b/c it's the only way creationists can't explain such evidence, there is no other way around it." Are you just completely ignoring the snippet I posted? The author directly addresses one possibility that is not supernatural: "One possibility I had considered is that humans and apes (and perhaps other animals too) were created...more

agentorangex: "Well Miller brings it up b/c it's the only way creationists can't explain such evidence, there is no other way around it."

Are you just completely ignoring the snippet I posted? The author directly addresses one possibility that is not supernatural:

"One possibility I had considered is that humans and apes (and perhaps other animals too) were created with the same number of chromosomes with similar banding patterns."

Duhhhh????less

"...that has nothing to do with biological evolution and still YEC's can''t accept that either. this is bigger than simply evolutionary theory." I meant what I was saying in the broadest context. Genesis, specifically Genesis 1 - 11 is not allegorical or metaphoric - there's simply no evidence to support that viewpoint. Instead, Genesis is historical, and should ...more

"...that has nothing to do with biological evolution and still YEC's can''t accept that either. this is bigger than simply evolutionary theory."

I meant what I was saying in the broadest context. Genesis, specifically Genesis 1 - 11 is not allegorical or metaphoric - there's simply no evidence to support that viewpoint. Instead, Genesis is historical, and should be read as such. I think that, perhaps, what you might be claiming is that we shouldn't read Genesis 1 literally. However, there is no reason not to. The book doesn't claim anywhere to be an allegory or a metaphor. It literally says that God created the universe and everything in it by speaking it into existance. I have no reason to doubt that what it says is the Truth.

What evidence do you use to explain that Genesis is allegorical or a metaphor?less

agentorangex: "Look how AIG attempts to explain the factual evidence regarding Human Chromosome 2 fusion. the only thing they can say is 'god made it that way'." Uhh, you might want to read down a couple more paragraphs, x. AiG specifically addresses your exact criticism in the paragraph: <snippet> Blind to alternatives While the evidence for a fusion appears co...more

agentorangex: "Look how AIG attempts to explain the factual evidence regarding Human Chromosome 2 fusion. the only thing they can say is 'god made it that way'."

Uhh, you might want to read down a couple more paragraphs, x. AiG specifically addresses your exact criticism in the paragraph:

<snippet>
Blind to alternatives
While the evidence for a fusion appears consistent with the evolution model, Dr. Miller implies that it is inconsistent with ID or creation models. <i><b>He makes the ludicrous claim that the only way creationists can respond to this evidence is: <b>“That’s the way the designer made it.”</b></i> This statement reveals Dr. Miller’s inability to think outside his paradigm. As a creationist who finds chromosomal rearrangements fascinating, I can honestly say I never thought of that possibility. One possibility I had considered is that humans and apes (and perhaps other animals too) were created with the same number of chromosomes with similar banding patterns.14 Since chromosome numbers vary within created kinds, it is not in the chromosome number where we should expect the most significant differences to lie, but in the coded information.

Although Ken Miller’s story does not properly consider current scientific understanding of chromosomal fusions or significant genomic differences between apes and humans, he promotes it enthusiastically to support his belief that humans descended from apes. Furthermore, he is ardently opposed to teaching intelligent design in the schools, claiming that it is not scientific.15 He appears to be blind to the fact that the belief that humans descended from apes is a religious (atheistic) one; such changes have never been observed. Thus, he is not able to distinguish between science and religious indoctrination.
</snippet>

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/tale-of-two-chromosomesless

agentorangex: Howard's specific statement was "Surely you don't think these uneducated people have any value." My response: They aren't uneducated, they're the exact opposite - again, an argument from ignorance.

"...to worry about loosing faith over it like you and other YEC’s do." You're presuming an awful lot to think, too, that somehow you are "challenging" my faith. Evolution or no evolution, it doesn't change the fact that God is God, and is in control. It doesn't change the infallible Word, nor the fact that God came to live among us and die for our sins....more

"...to worry about loosing faith over it like you and other YEC’s do."

You're presuming an awful lot to think, too, that somehow you are "challenging" my faith. Evolution or no evolution, it doesn't change the fact that God is God, and is in control. It doesn't change the infallible Word, nor the fact that God came to live among us and die for our sins.

However, to have an internally consistant view of the Word, one must, and I use that word specifically, believe in creationism. There is no other way. Otherwise, Genesis makes no sense. So, if you're a Christian, and you're an evolutionist, there there is a huge disconnect, and my argument would be that your science education far surpases that of your theology.

"What about cosmology and astronomy and physics, geology and paleontology. None of these can be taking by YEC’s as it challenges their faith."

Now you've just fallen off the reservation because it is now patently obvious that you understand nothing about creation research, specifically because all of these disciplines are directly dealt with by the organizations I've mentioned before. I'd highly encourage you to spend some time at AiG's website to see some of what their answers are to these very specific disciplines and how they fit into God's creation.

"How can you presume what I believe, I could be a Deist for all you know. "

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. (Matt 7:15-16)

I see your fruits, that's how I can presume.less

Howard: Your ignorance proceeds you - AiG is an organization with literally dozens of people with post graduate degrees in scientific fields from secular universities. They are nothing if they are not educated. There are also hundreds of credentialed scientists from around the workd who contribute to creation research, both for AiG and other creation-based research organizations. To say otherw...more

Howard: Your ignorance proceeds you - AiG is an organization with literally dozens of people with post graduate degrees in scientific fields from secular universities. They are nothing if they are not educated. There are also hundreds of credentialed scientists from around the workd who contribute to creation research, both for AiG and other creation-based research organizations. To say otherwise is silly, simply silly.less

agentorangex: Here's the bottom-line with me - I've argued this same weary argument wtih dozens of folks like yourself, both PhD worldy-wise and educated people, and those who were dumber than a box of rocks. And, in the final evaluation, it comes down to this: Evolution is your belief system, it is your god. You put all of your faith in it, because it takes at least as much fait...more

agentorangex:

Here's the bottom-line with me - I've argued this same weary argument wtih dozens of folks like yourself, both PhD worldy-wise and educated people, and those who were dumber than a box of rocks. And, in the final evaluation, it comes down to this: Evolution is your belief system, it is your god. You put all of your faith in it, because it takes at least as much faith to believe in what you believe in as what I believe. We can go back and forth all day long, punching and counter-punching, but, in the end, no one will be convinced of anything new. You see, for you to believe in what I believe would take a work of the Holy Spirit Himself and the very Word of God ("Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." Romans 12:2).

If you truely want to blow my socks off, let me know that you can agree that what I believe in (from the creation perspective) is just as scientifically based as what you believe in. That would be a huge shock. But, the reality is, it won't happen. In order for it to, you'd have to admit to the very possibity that God does exist, and that He's in control. And, knowing very well that you probably won't do that, we'll just continue this very banal argument in which no one wins.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. (1 Cor 1:18-25)less

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/about - ;-> It's been impossible for organizations to get peer-reviewed because evolutionists own the process. You can't play ball if they won't even let you on the field. Instead, they've created their own processes for peer review.

"we have at our disposal nearly 4 dozen dating methods to know the age of the layer we are inspecting" Yes, perhaps. But, there are good reasons to suspect that these dating methods themselves are flawed (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp and also the RATE project's http://www.nwcreation.net/presentations/thousands_notbillions.html). As for your wal...more

"we have at our disposal nearly 4 dozen dating methods to know the age of the layer we are inspecting" Yes, perhaps. But, there are good reasons to suspect that these dating methods themselves are flawed (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp and also the RATE project's http://www.nwcreation.net/presentations/thousands_notbillions.html).

As for your walking fish, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0307tiktaalik.asp.less

"the mutation rates per generaion are predictable" - this assumes that mutation rates are constant (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/genetic_algorithm.asp). Nearly all mutations cause a loss, not a increase, of information. To argue to the contrary is simply silly. Mutations cause a loss of information in DNA vis-a-vie nucleotides. For a very good answer to t...more

"the mutation rates per generaion are predictable" - this assumes that mutation rates are constant (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/genetic_algorithm.asp).

Nearly all mutations cause a loss, not a increase, of information. To argue to the contrary is simply silly. Mutations cause a loss of information in DNA vis-a-vie nucleotides. For a very good answer to this question, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are-mutations-the-engine.less

agentorangex: The prediction, though, starts with an assumption - that the strata somehow represent a geological "timeline" dating back billions of years. The starting point is fallacious - it assumes facts not in evidence. The YEC viewpoint also predicts that this particular creature, namely a fish, would be found in the strata, namely becuase it was buried there in the flood. T...more

agentorangex: The prediction, though, starts with an assumption - that the strata somehow represent a geological "timeline" dating back billions of years. The starting point is fallacious - it assumes facts not in evidence. The YEC viewpoint also predicts that this particular creature, namely a fish, would be found in the strata, namely becuase it was buried there in the flood.

This again speaks to my argument that we're both dealing with the same set of facts. The difference is how those facts are interpreted.less

agentorangex: You've posted a terrifically large amount of information in a short amount of time. I can see that you're very passionate about what you believe, and that's good - so am I. I would like to ask you one quick question: How does evolutionary theory explain the fact that there is a loss of genetic information over time, yet, in order to have a higher-level species,...more

agentorangex: You've posted a terrifically large amount of information in a short amount of time. I can see that you're very passionate about what you believe, and that's good - so am I.

I would like to ask you one quick question: How does evolutionary theory explain the fact that there is a loss of genetic information over time, yet, in order to have a higher-level species, as predicted by macroevolution, it would require a gain of genetic information?less

agentorangex: How do these predictions specifically and uniquely fit the theory of evolution, and not YEC? For instance, your first prediction is also a prediction of YEC. Namely, that a Creator God has used the same "building blocks" in all of creation. As of yet, no falsifying evidence has been found on this front! Again, this is just another example of how the facts are the same, ...more

agentorangex: How do these predictions specifically and uniquely fit the theory of evolution, and not YEC? For instance, your first prediction is also a prediction of YEC. Namely, that a Creator God has used the same "building blocks" in all of creation. As of yet, no falsifying evidence has been found on this front! Again, this is just another example of how the facts are the same, just the interpretation of those facts is the difference.

All of these features and predictions can also be explained by YEC/Creation Science.

Back to you ;->less

I quickly skimmed a response on AiG's site related to tiktaalik - looks to me that, like all of the other "transitional" forms, this one is not "transitional" at all (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0307tiktaalik.asp). I would also argue that finding a fish buried in rock does not necessarily rise to the level of a "prediction" since the prediction itse...more

I quickly skimmed a response on AiG's site related to tiktaalik - looks to me that, like all of the other "transitional" forms, this one is not "transitional" at all (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0307tiktaalik.asp). I would also argue that finding a fish buried in rock does not necessarily rise to the level of a "prediction" since the prediction itself pressuposes materialistic causation. I would suggest that YEC also predicts that fish would be buried under layers of rock (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/world-graveyard). Again, I would suggest that this is further evidence of my earlier claim that evolution and YEC use the same facts - the difference is in the interpretation.

Also, AiG has a pretty technical response to your claim about fused chromosomes (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pseudogenes_genomes.asp).less