Creationists

[daws101]

Lenski's lab did an immense amount of careful work and deserves much praise. Yet the entirely separate, $64,000 question is, what do the results show about the power of the Darwinian mechanism? The answer is, they do not show it to be capable of anything more than what was already known. For example, in my review of lab evolution experiments I discussed the work of Zinser et al. (2003) where a sequence rearrangement brought a promoter close to a gene that had lacked one. I also discussed experiments such as Licis and van Duin (2006) where multiple sequential mutations increased the ability of a FCT. Despite Lenski's visually startling result -- where a usually clear flask became cloudy with the overgrowth of bacteria on citrate -- at the molecular level nothing novel occurred.

Another person who follows Lenski's results closely is Dennis Venema, chair of the Biology Department at Trinity Western University and contributor to the BioLogos website. Founded by Francis Collins, BioLogos defends the compatibility of Darwinian science and Christian theology. I agree that the Darwinian mechanism (rightly understood) is theoretically compatible with Christian theology. However, I also think Darwinism is grossly inadequate on scientific grounds. A number of BioLogos writers think it is adequate, and attempt to defend it against skeptics of Darwinism, most especially against proponents of intelligent design such as myself.

Rose-Colored Glasses: Lenski, Citrate, and BioLogos - Evolution News & Views

is not credible...

Discovery Institute intelligent design campaignsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Part of a series on
Intelligent design

see: Watchmaker analogy
Concepts
Irreducible complexity
Specified complexity
Fine-tuned universe
Intelligent designer
Theistic science
Neo-creationism
Intelligent design
movement
Timeline
Wedge strategy
Politics
Kitzmiller v. Dover
Campaigns
Critical Analysis of Evolution
Teach the Controversy
Organisations
Discovery Institute
Center for Science and Culture
Centre for Intelligent Design
ISCID
Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
Truth in Science

Reactions
Jewish · Roman Catholic
Scientific organizations

Creationism



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book · Category · Portal
v ·t ·e

The Discovery Institute has conducted a series of related public relations campaigns which seek to promote intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolutionary biology, which the Institute terms "Darwinism."[1] The Discovery Institute is the driving force behind the intelligent design movement and the Institute directs the campaigns through its Center for Science and Culture division with guidance from its public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts.[2]

Prominent Institute campaigns have been to 'Teach the Controversy' and to allow 'Critical Analysis of Evolution'. Other campaigns have claimed that intelligent design advocates (most notably Richard Sternberg) have been discriminated against, and thus that Academic Freedom bills are needed to protect academics' and teachers' ability to criticise evolution, and that there is a link from evolution to ideologies such as Nazism and eugenics. These three claims are all publicised in the pro-ID movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Other campaigns have included petitions, most notably A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

The theory of evolution is accepted by overwhelming scientific consensus.[3] Intelligent design has been rejected, both by the vast majority of scientists and by court findings, as being a religious view and not science.

Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daws101]

That is not what I am referring to. Let's stick to Homo Sapien. I'll give you the oldest undisputed fossil as being approx. 20,000 years old. So how has Homo Sapien changed physically in 20,000 years? Please provide examples of a different species that descended from Homo Sapien and went extinct.

P
What silliness. We know from the Christian creationist agenda that dating methods are "flawed" so you, as a fundie creationist, cannot even maintain a consistent argument. Secondly, the fundie creationist claim is that the earth is 6,000 years old so once again, you're confused as to what you're even arguing.

Hollie, I'm sorry but you are just downright stupid. I have told you at least ten times I am not a Creationist and I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. If you can't grasp something as simple as this after being told numerous times it is not surprising that you are unable to grasp other more complex concepts. Have you ever been tested for a learning disability?

that's a good lie if you can get the ignorant to buy it..you are just as much a creationist as YWC OR LS.
all you've done is slap lipstick on a pig a claim it's a unicorn.


or same bullshit different format!

 

[Hollie]

No. I believe that age is what they estimate how long ago man was created.

The earth's age in unknown and will always be so.

When God made creation it took seven days. But one can only guess how long a day is. Since time is a man-made concept a day to God could have been millions of years or the blink of an eye. IMO

That's convenient, of course. It allows you an exclusion from meeting any standard of proof or definition. You can just make it up as you go along.

I've witnessed proof.

You also command the French forces at waterloo, right?

 

[daws101]

No you are just to ignorant to reason on the evidence. Hmm a sponge connected to the brain that holds enough blood to prevent the giraffe from passing out when he quickly raises his head and a valve to prevent all the blood rushing to his head and blowing his brains out. Oh and don't forget just the right size heart to pump that blood up that neck.

You live in fanatasy land.

It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist Giraffe Conspiracy™ when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.

You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.

really funny since you have no proof of a "thinking" designer.
ahh "the process" is far from random

 

[daws101]

P
What silliness. We know from the Christian creationist agenda that dating methods are "flawed" so you, as a fundie creationist, cannot even maintain a consistent argument. Secondly, the fundie creationist claim is that the earth is 6,000 years old so once again, you're confused as to what you're even arguing.

Lastly, to suggest that a different species has necessarily evolved in the last 20,000 years from Homo Sapiens is yet another mindless claim emanating from someone never having exposure to an academic science education. You represent the dangers inherent in Christian creationist charlatans who have not a clue what they're writing about

Don't creationists put the age of the earth at something like 6000 years old?

No. I believe that age is what they estimate how long ago man was created.

The earth's age in unknown and will always be so.

When God made creation it took seven days. But one can only guess how long a day is. Since time is a man-made concept a day to God could have been millions of years or the blink of an eye. IMO

what you believe has no bering on reality,,,

 

[daws101]

Would you be referring to your ignorance that comes from never going to college??

Actually, you're projecting.

You obviously have an inferiority complex about your lack of education.

I studied Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona and did quite well. See? That wasn't so hard was it? Well, that is....


If you actually went to college!!!

yeah.... but did you graduate and what degree do you have...?
is it just me or does anybody else find it ironic that our two top fundies went to the same school?

 

[daws101]

the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years

Scientist believe that. It is not a fact and it could change.

no it a fact, proven mathematically... but you are right it could change science changes with evidence unlike religion.btw that change would most likely date the earth to be older not younger.

 

[daws101]

No. I believe that age is what they estimate how long ago man was created.

The earth's age in unknown and will always be so.

When God made creation it took seven days. But one can only guess how long a day is. Since time is a man-made concept a day to God could have been millions of years or the blink of an eye. IMO

That's convenient, of course. It allows you an exclusion from meeting any standard of proof or definition. You can just make it up as you go along.

I've witnessed proof.

no you haven't ,you either had an hallucination of some kind either brought on by stress from the revival meeting you were attending and worked yourself up to it.

 

[daws101]

That's convenient, of course. It allows you an exclusion from meeting any standard of proof or definition. You can just make it up as you go along.

I've witnessed proof.

You also command the French forces at waterloo, right?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Don't creationists put the age of the earth at something like 6000 years old?

No. I believe that age is what they estimate how long ago man was created.

The earth's age in unknown and will always be so.

When God made creation it took seven days. But one can only guess how long a day is. Since time is a man-made concept a day to God could have been millions of years or the blink of an eye. IMO

what you believe has no bering on reality,,,

Hey moron it's spelled "bearing".

My beliefs are just as valid as yours.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That's convenient, of course. It allows you an exclusion from meeting any standard of proof or definition. You can just make it up as you go along.

I've witnessed proof.

no you haven't ,you either had an hallucination of some kind either brought on by stress from the revival meeting you were attending and worked yourself up to it.

You do know that what your doing is fulfulling biblical prophecy.

So keep it up!

 

[Hollie]

I've witnessed proof.

no you haven't ,you either had an hallucination of some kind either brought on by stress from the revival meeting you were attending and worked yourself up to it.

You do know that what your doing is fulfulling biblical prophecy.

So keep it up!

Uh oh. The fundie is threatening us with his gods.

 

[konradv]

Do I have to start negging everyone that keeps posting to this thread? I said 10,000 posts is enough and I meant it! Everything's been said 100s of times already. Enough is enough.

 

[UltimateReality]

Lenski's lab did an immense amount of careful work and deserves much praise. Yet the entirely separate, $64,000 question is, what do the results show about the power of the Darwinian mechanism? The answer is, they do not show it to be capable of anything more than what was already known. For example, in my review of lab evolution experiments I discussed the work of Zinser et al. (2003) where a sequence rearrangement brought a promoter close to a gene that had lacked one. I also discussed experiments such as Licis and van Duin (2006) where multiple sequential mutations increased the ability of a FCT. Despite Lenski's visually startling result -- where a usually clear flask became cloudy with the overgrowth of bacteria on citrate -- at the molecular level nothing novel occurred.

Another person who follows Lenski's results closely is Dennis Venema, chair of the Biology Department at Trinity Western University and contributor to the BioLogos website. Founded by Francis Collins, BioLogos defends the compatibility of Darwinian science and Christian theology. I agree that the Darwinian mechanism (rightly understood) is theoretically compatible with Christian theology. However, I also think Darwinism is grossly inadequate on scientific grounds. A number of BioLogos writers think it is adequate, and attempt to defend it against skeptics of Darwinism, most especially against proponents of intelligent design such as myself.

Rose-Colored Glasses: Lenski, Citrate, and BioLogos - Evolution News & Views

is not credible...

Discovery Institute intelligent design campaignsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Part of a series on
Intelligent design

see: Watchmaker analogy
Concepts
Irreducible complexity
Specified complexity
Fine-tuned universe
Intelligent designer
Theistic science
Neo-creationism
Intelligent design
movement
Timeline
Wedge strategy
Politics
Kitzmiller v. Dover
Campaigns
Critical Analysis of Evolution
Teach the Controversy
Organisations
Discovery Institute
Center for Science and Culture
Centre for Intelligent Design
ISCID
Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity
Truth in Science

Reactions
Jewish · Roman Catholic
Scientific organizations

Creationism



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book · Category · Portal
v ·t ·e

The Discovery Institute has conducted a series of related public relations campaigns which seek to promote intelligent design while attempting to discredit evolutionary biology, which the Institute terms "Darwinism."[1] The Discovery Institute is the driving force behind the intelligent design movement and the Institute directs the campaigns through its Center for Science and Culture division with guidance from its public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts.[2]

Prominent Institute campaigns have been to 'Teach the Controversy' and to allow 'Critical Analysis of Evolution'. Other campaigns have claimed that intelligent design advocates (most notably Richard Sternberg) have been discriminated against, and thus that Academic Freedom bills are needed to protect academics' and teachers' ability to criticise evolution, and that there is a link from evolution to ideologies such as Nazism and eugenics. These three claims are all publicised in the pro-ID movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Other campaigns have included petitions, most notably A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

The theory of evolution is accepted by overwhelming scientific consensus.[3] Intelligent design has been rejected, both by the vast majority of scientists and by court findings, as being a religious view and not science.

Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's your point?

 

[UltimateReality]

P
What silliness. We know from the Christian creationist agenda that dating methods are "flawed" so you, as a fundie creationist, cannot even maintain a consistent argument. Secondly, the fundie creationist claim is that the earth is 6,000 years old so once again, you're confused as to what you're even arguing.

Hollie, I'm sorry but you are just downright stupid. I have told you at least ten times I am not a Creationist and I don't believe in a 6000 year old earth. If you can't grasp something as simple as this after being told numerous times it is not surprising that you are unable to grasp other more complex concepts. Have you ever been tested for a learning disability?

that's a good lie if you can get the ignorant to buy it..you are just as much a creationist as YWC OR LS.
all you've done is slap lipstick on a pig a claim it's a unicorn.


or same bullshit different format!

I thought I told you to run a long little whiney boy. So beat it.

 

[UltimateReality]

It really is strange that you're still carrying on about the silly creationist Giraffe Conspiracy™ when the creationist attempts to babble on as you have were long ago dismissed as mere creationist inventions.

You still fail to be able to provide a viable explanation that a totally random unintelligent process would provide such structures that are needed. A designer would think of such structures.

really funny since you have no proof of a "thinking" designer.
ahh "the process" is far from random

This is the biggest farce of all of evolutiondom. Natural selection doesn't make it not random. Random mutations are required or the whole thing false apart. Don't be so gullible. You obviously buy everything you read at the atheist websites without giving it a thought or questioning anything on your own. You're a sheep.

 

[UltimateReality]

Actually, you're projecting.

You obviously have an inferiority complex about your lack of education.

I studied Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona and did quite well. See? That wasn't so hard was it? Well, that is....


If you actually went to college!!!

yeah.... but did you graduate and what degree do you have...?

You and Hollie tell me where you went to college and I will gladly answer your question.

 

[UltimateReality]

the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years

Scientist believe that. It is not a fact and it could change.

no it a fact, proven mathematically... but you are right it could change science changes with evidence unlike religion.btw that change would most likely date the earth to be older not younger.

Wow that sounds intelligent. So it's a fact until new evidence comes to light. Doh!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

Do I have to start negging everyone that keeps posting to this thread? I said 10,000 posts is enough and I meant it! Everything's been said 100s of times already. Enough is enough.

This is a America... well, maybe for a little longer. You are free to put this thread on ignore anytime.

 

[konradv]

Do I have to start negging everyone that keeps posting to this thread? I said 10,000 posts is enough and I meant it! Everything's been said 100s of times already. Enough is enough.

This is a America... well, maybe for a little longer. You are free to put this thread on ignore anytime.

Negged for for being really, really boring.