Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Unbelievable!!! Mk II

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Unbelievable!!! Mk II

    Hello fellow TWebbers,


    Below, I bring to your attention, a CMI article which, in opposition to creation scientists at ICR, suggests that creationists should not be afraid of natural selection.

    There is an admission amongst creationists that such an acceptance is failing to give due Glory to God who is master of his whole creation.

    And right they are. EVERY Biblical Creationist knows that kind gives rise to kind. The Bible makes no mention of natural selection and speciation. Yet here we have this creation scientist trying to undercut what is so patently obvious to true Creationists.


    This is an outright appeal by certain creation scientists to accept Natrualism

    Gasp. Shock. Horror



    Here is the offending article:-

    The fact of natural selection

    CMI Creation scientist says that natural selection is a fact, in opposition to creationist scientists like Dr Randy Guliuzza of ICR --- but this might make people think he supports naturalism, and natural processes.

    This article from CMI illustrates the hysteria - the FEAR - that grips those even thinking of being unfaithful to the Natural Selection Sacred Cow (NSC).

    Below I've highlighted certain sections of that article.
    It's the kind of stuff that you have to see to believe.
    I have the following all-encompassing comment:

    If creation "scientists" won’t look for fear of what they might find ... if creation "scientists" won't follow the evidence to its logical conclusion ... if creation "scientists" won't speak out supporting what is patently obvious ... then what the devil are they doing in science? What kind of "science" are they practicing?


    However, I know all-too-well that the Natural-Selection-Faithful here at TWeb will deny, Deny, DENY and fight this tooth and nail. As I have stated on numerous occasions, such are the 'ethics' of the Natural-Selection-Flock.
    .
    .
    The CMI article asserts that creationists ”should not be afraid of natural selection and thus abandon the concept to evolutionists.” and is written by noted creationist Dr Jonathan Sarfati. He’s pushing for a general acceptance of what he says is Natural Selection (NS).


    Here we go AGAIN - yet another version of naturalism in which the goalposts will undoubtedly be placed into the next county. The "NS" or “NSC” is essentially a new naturalistic idea that rejects some of the core tenets of Biblical Creationism (like the views that natural selection coupled with mutation, can bring about altered genes and so cause speciation even going so far as to bring about new genera and new families, so long as it’s not molecules to man evolution). The CMI article contains a stunningly forthright admission: some creationists avoid accepting natural selection lest they end up taking “from the Glory of God, who is lovingly sovereign over all His creation.”


    FROM THE CMI ARTICLE:

    "To be blunt, we think Dr Guliuzza of ICR is just wrong about natural selection. I discussed this with a couple of his colleagues a couple of years ago. Since that discussion, another ICR scientist, geneticist Dr Nathaniel Jeanson, has written a powerful critique of Dr Guliuzza’s idea.1

    CMI scientists are unanimous that natural selection is a fact, and part of this fallen creation where unfit creatures die and sometimes even become extinct.”

    But here I must agree with Darwin, who pointed out

    No one objects to chemists speaking of ‘elective affinity’ and certainly an acid has no more choice in combining with a base, than the conditions of life have in determining whether or not a new form be selected or preserved."


    With this I can pretty much close my case - thank you. 
    WOW !!!  

    Roland. (Here endeth the screeching and hysteria)


    Last edited by rwatts; 10-11-2014, 06:01 PM.

  • #2
    More and more young earth creationists are inching closer and closer to accepting evolution (or at least all of its features) -- but only as long as you don't call it evolution

    The folks over at AnswersinGenesis (AiG) -- Ken Ham's outfit -- have abandoned the notion that species are all divinely and separately created and acknowledge that not only speciation (the splitting of a single biological lineage into two or more genetically distinct ones) takes place but that natural selection and mutation are involved. That's pretty much the core of evolution!

    Source: AiG: Top Ten: Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change


    "A popular caricature of creationists is that we teach the fixity of species (i.e., species don’t change). And since species obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in the first place... Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches.

    © Copyright Original Source



    And according to an article by Ham himself along with Terry Mortenson

    Source: AiG: Science or the Bible?


    Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases. ... Of course, evolutionary scientists can test their interpretations using operation science. For instance, evolutionists point to natural selection and speciation—which are observable today.

    © Copyright Original Source



    In a couple more decades they'll probably embrace all of the elements of basic evolutionary theory, insist that they have done so all along, but call it "Biblical Adaptationism" or something like that so they can still keep saying that Darwin was wrong

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      More and more young earth creationists are inching closer and closer to accepting evolution (or at least all of its features) -- but only as long as you don't call it evolution

      The folks over at AnswersinGenesis (AiG) -- Ken Ham's outfit -- have abandoned the notion that species are all divinely and separately created and acknowledge that not only speciation (the splitting of a single biological lineage into two or more genetically distinct ones) takes place but that natural selection and mutation are involved. That's pretty much the core of evolution!

      Source: AiG: Top Ten: Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change


      "A popular caricature of creationists is that we teach the fixity of species (i.e., species don’t change). And since species obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in the first place... Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches.

      © Copyright Original Source



      And according to an article by Ham himself along with Terry Mortenson

      Source: AiG: Science or the Bible?


      Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases. ... Of course, evolutionary scientists can test their interpretations using operation science. For instance, evolutionists point to natural selection and speciation—which are observable today.

      © Copyright Original Source



      In a couple more decades they'll probably embrace all of the elements of basic evolutionary theory, insist that they have done so all along, but call it "Biblical Adaptationism" or something like that so they can still keep saying that Darwin was wrong
      To add to this, AiG has also acknowledged that Darwin got something right

      Source: AiG: Do Species Change?


      To his credit, Darwin corrected a popular misunderstanding. Species do change. Since Darwin’s day, many observations have confirmed this. In fact, new species have even been shown to arise within a single human lifetime. For example, one study gave evidence that sockeye salmon introduced into Lake Washington, USA, between 1937 and 1945 had split into two reproductively isolated populations (i.e., two separate species) in fewer than 13 generations (a maximum of 56 years).

      © Copyright Original Source


      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        ...so they can still keep saying that Darwin was wrong
        He was MARRIED, wasn't he? So of COURSE he was wrong!
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • #5
          Um, I haven't seen creationists argue that NS doesn't happen at all. Most accept adaptation as a given which is part of NS.


          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
            Um, I haven't seen creationists argue that NS doesn't happen at all. Most accept adaptation as a given which is part of NS.

            Back in the early days when Harold W. Clark published "Genes & Genesis" (1940), suggesting that species were the result of hybridizations he came under withering attack from other YECs who held to a total fixity of species and accused him of being a "semi-evolutionist."

            Over at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) just the mention of speciation and natural selection can send the majority of YEC posters in the evolution/creationism forum into virtual fits. One refers to such things as "specularization" (speculation by secularists).
            Last edited by rogue06; 10-11-2014, 07:43 PM.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              He was MARRIED, wasn't he? So of COURSE he was wrong!
              That's wrong, Wrong, WRONG, to you, mr., Mr., MR.

              :guffaw: :Guffaw: :GUFFAW:

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                That's wrong, Wrong, WRONG, to you, mr., Mr., MR.

                :guffaw: :Guffaw: :GUFFAW:
                This is lao's imitation of Jorge.


                Captain O strikes again

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Captain O strikes again
                  That's redundant, Redundant, REDUNDANT.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                    That's redundant, Redundant, REDUNDANT.
                    Admit it. You winced, Winced, WINCED when you read it

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                      Hello fellow TWebbers,


                      Below, I bring to your attention, a CMI article which, in opposition to creation scientists at ICR, suggests that creationists should not be afraid of natural selection.

                      There is an admission amongst creationists that such an acceptance is failing to give due Glory to God who is master of his whole creation.

                      And right they are. EVERY Biblical Creationist knows that kind gives rise to kind. The Bible makes no mention of natural selection and speciation. Yet here we have this creation scientist trying to undercut what is so patently obvious to true Creationists.


                      This is an outright appeal by certain creation scientists to accept Natrualism

                      Gasp. Shock. Horror



                      Here is the offending article:-

                      The fact of natural selection

                      CMI Creation scientist says that natural selection is a fact, in opposition to creationist scientists like Dr Randy Guliuzza of ICR --- but this might make people think he supports naturalism, and natural processes.

                      This article from CMI illustrates the hysteria - the FEAR - that grips those even thinking of being unfaithful to the Natural Selection Sacred Cow (NSC).

                      Below I've highlighted certain sections of that article.
                      It's the kind of stuff that you have to see to believe.
                      I have the following all-encompassing comment:

                      If creation "scientists" won’t look for fear of what they might find ... if creation "scientists" won't follow the evidence to its logical conclusion ... if creation "scientists" won't speak out supporting what is patently obvious ... then what the devil are they doing in science? What kind of "science" are they practicing?


                      However, I know all-too-well that the Natural-Selection-Faithful here at TWeb will deny, Deny, DENY and fight this tooth and nail. As I have stated on numerous occasions, such are the 'ethics' of the Natural-Selection-Flock.
                      .
                      .
                      The CMI article asserts that creationists ”should not be afraid of natural selection and thus abandon the concept to evolutionists.” and is written by noted creationist Dr Jonathan Sarfati. He’s pushing for a general acceptance of what he says is Natural Selection (NS).


                      Here we go AGAIN - yet another version of naturalism in which the goalposts will undoubtedly be placed into the next county. The "NS" or “NSC” is essentially a new naturalistic idea that rejects some of the core tenets of Biblical Creationism (like the views that natural selection coupled with mutation, can bring about altered genes and so cause speciation even going so far as to bring about new genera and new families, so long as it’s not molecules to man evolution). The CMI article contains a stunningly forthright admission: some creationists avoid accepting natural selection lest they end up taking “from the Glory of God, who is lovingly sovereign over all His creation.”


                      FROM THE CMI ARTICLE:

                      "To be blunt, we think Dr Guliuzza of ICR is just wrong about natural selection. I discussed this with a couple of his colleagues a couple of years ago. Since that discussion, another ICR scientist, geneticist Dr Nathaniel Jeanson, has written a powerful critique of Dr Guliuzza’s idea.1

                      CMI scientists are unanimous that natural selection is a fact, and part of this fallen creation where unfit creatures die and sometimes even become extinct.”

                      But here I must agree with Darwin, who pointed out

                      No one objects to chemists speaking of ‘elective affinity’ and certainly an acid has no more choice in combining with a base, than the conditions of life have in determining whether or not a new form be selected or preserved."


                      With this I can pretty much close my case - thank you. 
                      WOW !!!  

                      Roland. (Here endeth the screeching and hysteria)


                      Define 'Natural Selection'
                      To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                        Hello fellow TWebbers,


                        Below, I bring to your attention, a CMI article which, in opposition to creation scientists at ICR, suggests that creationists should not be afraid of natural selection.

                        There is an admission amongst creationists that such an acceptance is failing to give due Glory to God who is master of his whole creation.

                        And right they are. EVERY Biblical Creationist knows that kind gives rise to kind. The Bible makes no mention of natural selection and speciation. Yet here we have this creation scientist trying to undercut what is so patently obvious to true Creationists.


                        This is an outright appeal by certain creation scientists to accept Natrualism

                        Gasp. Shock. Horror



                        Here is the offending article:-

                        The fact of natural selection

                        CMI Creation scientist says that natural selection is a fact, in opposition to creationist scientists like Dr Randy Guliuzza of ICR --- but this might make people think he supports naturalism, and natural processes.

                        This article from CMI illustrates the hysteria - the FEAR - that grips those even thinking of being unfaithful to the Natural Selection Sacred Cow (NSC).

                        Below I've highlighted certain sections of that article.
                        It's the kind of stuff that you have to see to believe.
                        I have the following all-encompassing comment:

                        If creation "scientists" won’t look for fear of what they might find ... if creation "scientists" won't follow the evidence to its logical conclusion ... if creation "scientists" won't speak out supporting what is patently obvious ... then what the devil are they doing in science? What kind of "science" are they practicing?


                        However, I know all-too-well that the Natural-Selection-Faithful here at TWeb will deny, Deny, DENY and fight this tooth and nail. As I have stated on numerous occasions, such are the 'ethics' of the Natural-Selection-Flock.
                        .
                        .
                        The CMI article asserts that creationists ”should not be afraid of natural selection and thus abandon the concept to evolutionists.” and is written by noted creationist Dr Jonathan Sarfati. He’s pushing for a general acceptance of what he says is Natural Selection (NS).


                        Here we go AGAIN - yet another version of naturalism in which the goalposts will undoubtedly be placed into the next county. The "NS" or “NSC” is essentially a new naturalistic idea that rejects some of the core tenets of Biblical Creationism (like the views that natural selection coupled with mutation, can bring about altered genes and so cause speciation even going so far as to bring about new genera and new families, so long as it’s not molecules to man evolution). The CMI article contains a stunningly forthright admission: some creationists avoid accepting natural selection lest they end up taking “from the Glory of God, who is lovingly sovereign over all His creation.”


                        FROM THE CMI ARTICLE:

                        "To be blunt, we think Dr Guliuzza of ICR is just wrong about natural selection. I discussed this with a couple of his colleagues a couple of years ago. Since that discussion, another ICR scientist, geneticist Dr Nathaniel Jeanson, has written a powerful critique of Dr Guliuzza’s idea.1

                        CMI scientists are unanimous that natural selection is a fact, and part of this fallen creation where unfit creatures die and sometimes even become extinct.”

                        But here I must agree with Darwin, who pointed out

                        No one objects to chemists speaking of ‘elective affinity’ and certainly an acid has no more choice in combining with a base, than the conditions of life have in determining whether or not a new form be selected or preserved."


                        With this I can pretty much close my case - thank you. 
                        WOW !!!  

                        Roland. (Here endeth the screeching and hysteria)



                        WOW is right!!!

                        I also read some of the posts from the other trained seals here on TWeb, barking and clapping for a fish to be thrown to them. It's the kind of stuff you have to see with your own eyes or your mind will refuse to accept it as true.

                        Finally, like most other Evolutionists, originality is not your forte. You must steal the original ideas of the "dumb" Creationists and co-opt them for your own purposes. Oh well, other than to point it out there's nothing to be done about that.

                        Jorge

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post

                          SQUAAAAWK!! BWAAAAAK!! buk buk buk SQUAAAAWK!


                          Hey Clucky, how's your revolutionary new book on "information theory" coming? Weren't you supposed to have it published by now? Are you going to buy another fake PhD to claim on the dust jacket like you did with the last pile of anti-intellectual vomit you and Gitt barfed up?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            Um, I haven't seen creationists argue that NS doesn't happen at all. Most accept adaptation as a given which is part of NS.

                            Clearly from what Dr Sarfati (a creationist) writes, many creationists refuse to accept that natural selection happens.


                            On many of the forums I post on, getting a creationist to admit that speciation and/or mutation+selection happens is an impossibility. They will often admit to variation or sub-speciation, but when asked as to the mechanism behind it, silence always follows.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              WOW is right!!!

                              I also read some of the posts from the other trained seals here on TWeb, barking and clapping for a fish to be thrown to them. It's the kind of stuff you have to see with your own eyes or your mind will refuse to accept it as true.

                              Finally, like most other Evolutionists, originality is not your forte. You must steal the original ideas of the "dumb" Creationists and co-opt them for your own purposes. Oh well, other than to point it out there's nothing to be done about that.

                              Jorge
                              Joooooorge, wouldn’t it be AMAZING if you actually showed some kind of ability to sensibly CRITIQUE this essay:-

                              Dinosaur to bird-tail transition Testing the theory. Genetics and the fossil record

                              - or this one:-

                              “DeNovo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes” or How Some New Genes Come About.
                              Last edited by rwatts; 10-12-2014, 05:29 PM.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              3 responses
                              30 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Christianbookworm  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              4 responses
                              58 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              30 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-09-2020, 06:36 PM
                              2 responses
                              17 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X