Does God Exist?

[Hollie]

Galileo and Newton believed in both the Bible and science as sources of truth - it did not seem like Kaku realizes the connection of the Bible and science - seems like he believes there is a disconnect.

I don't cite Kaku because I believe in his version of God. I'm not even 100% certain what it is.
I only know he claimed that he couldn't account for the universe in any other way than to attribute it to God
which I find pretty amazing for a high profile scientist these days as it's very popular to scoff at the idea of God.
Especially if you are a theoretical physicist.

In my poor humble unscientific way I can only infer and logically deduce a creator based on what I see
and the universe itself. How can you find a machine in an old mountain creek bed and decide the machine had no creator?

I agree - I was simply posting my viewpoint. Certainly Kaku was right that the universe did not have to turn out as it has - he gave the example of laws of physics that can be written on one page (cp. Job 38:33) [e.g. E=Mc^2].

Actually many scientists believe in God. Some scientists are Jehovah's Witnesses.

Your point about machines (as Behe has detailed) is stated simply in this verse:

Hebrews 3:4
Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

“... laws of physics that can be written on one page (cp. Job 38:33) [e.g. E=Mc^2].”

You have that wrong. Job 38:33 is the mathematical solution to the elliptical orbit of the sun around the earth.

 

[Hollie]

I

Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Actually it has an enormous amount of observational evidence.

As to Noah, why didn't he take any dinosaurs on board his ark?

Macro-evolution has zero evidence. I challenge you (in a friendly way) to post an example you are thinking of.

Dinosaurs went extinct long before Noah's time. Note that elephants were on the ark - the elephant kind survived. The mammoth species went extinct.

There is mammoth evidence for this! (pun intended).

There is evidence for elephants riding aboard Noah’s Ark?

Cool!

Where?

 

[Newtonian]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Sure.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

www.talkorigins.org

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910: New species

Need more?

I already posted we believe in speciation but not in macro-evolution. Can you post an example in your own words?

My example was cats - multiple 'species' but one 'kind'

I will also post a specific Bible verse concerning this - please post whether you agree or disagree:

Genesis 1:11
And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed,+ fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds,*+ the seed of which is in it,+ upon the earth.” And it came to be so.

NW ref. footnote for "according to their kinds_ -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Lit., “according to its kind (genus).” Heb., lemi·nohʹ; Gr., geʹnos; Lat., geʹnus. The term “kind” here means a created or family kind, its older meaning or definition and not as present-day evolutionists use it."

So, do you agree that if you plant a carrot seed you will not get a watermelon vine? But what about a different variety of carrot? Ditto any plant btw.

Bottom line: Two bee or not two bee.

Bee's can cross pollinate but the seed resulting will only produce a plant within the same kind even if the bees mixed pollen from different plants.

 

[Newtonian]

I

Galileo and Newton believed in both the Bible and science as sources of truth - it did not seem like Kaku realizes the connection of the Bible and science - seems like he believes there is a disconnect.

I don't cite Kaku because I believe in his version of God. I'm not even 100% certain what it is.
I only know he claimed that he couldn't account for the universe in any other way than to attribute it to God
which I find pretty amazing for a high profile scientist these days as it's very popular to scoff at the idea of God.
Especially if you are a theoretical physicist.

In my poor humble unscientific way I can only infer and logically deduce a creator based on what I see
and the universe itself. How can you find a machine in an old mountain creek bed and decide the machine had no creator?

I agree - I was simply posting my viewpoint. Certainly Kaku was right that the universe did not have to turn out as it has - he gave the example of laws of physics that can be written on one page (cp. Job 38:33) [e.g. E=Mc^2].

Actually many scientists believe in God. Some scientists are Jehovah's Witnesses.

Your point about machines (as Behe has detailed) is stated simply in this verse:

Hebrews 3:4
Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

“... laws of physics that can be written on one page (cp. Job 38:33) [e.g. E=Mc^2].”

You have that wrong. Job 38:33 is the mathematical solution to the elliptical orbit of the sun around the earth.

I have what wrong?

 

[Newtonian]

I

Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Actually it has an enormous amount of observational evidence.

As to Noah, why didn't he take any dinosaurs on board his ark?

Macro-evolution has zero evidence. I challenge you (in a friendly way) to post an example you are thinking of.

Dinosaurs went extinct long before Noah's time. Note that elephants were on the ark - the elephant kind survived. The mammoth species went extinct.

There is mammoth evidence for this! (pun intended).

There is evidence for elephants riding aboard Noah’s Ark?

Cool!

Where?

They are not riding on the ark anymore - you used present tense btw.

Seriously, the evidence in the arctic permafrost is consistent with the Biblical account concerning Noah's ark. Noah only brought animals of the same kind on the ark. Thus all 'kinds' found frozen in the arctic permafrost (now melting due to global warming) still exist - but many species of those kinds are extinct. 3 examples: mammoths (an extinct species of the elephant kind); extinct species of bison; extincts species of horse.

 

[Hollie]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Sure.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

www.talkorigins.org

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910: New species

Need more?

I already posted we believe in speciation but not in macro-evolution. Can you post an example in your own words?

My example was cats - multiple 'species' but one 'kind'

I will also post a specific Bible verse concerning this - please post whether you agree or disagree:

Genesis 1:11
And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed,+ fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds,*+ the seed of which is in it,+ upon the earth.” And it came to be so.

NW ref. footnote for "according to their kinds_ -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Lit., “according to its kind (genus).” Heb., lemi·nohʹ; Gr., geʹnos; Lat., geʹnus. The term “kind” here means a created or family kind, its older meaning or definition and not as present-day evolutionists use it."

So, do you agree that if you plant a carrot seed you will not get a watermelon vine? But what about a different variety of carrot? Ditto any plant btw.

Bottom line: Two bee or not two bee.

Bee's can cross pollinate but the seed resulting will only produce a plant within the same kind even if the bees mixed pollen from different plants.

You don’t seem to understand the term “speciation” or “macro-evolution”.

“Kinds” is a meaningless term. Creationists have varying interpretations but like so much in Christian apologetics, there’s no identifiable standard.

So yes, the links supplied do document speciation.

 

[Hollie]

I

Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Actually it has an enormous amount of observational evidence.

As to Noah, why didn't he take any dinosaurs on board his ark?

Macro-evolution has zero evidence. I challenge you (in a friendly way) to post an example you are thinking of.

Dinosaurs went extinct long before Noah's time. Note that elephants were on the ark - the elephant kind survived. The mammoth species went extinct.

There is mammoth evidence for this! (pun intended).

There is evidence for elephants riding aboard Noah’s Ark?

Cool!

Where?

They are not riding on the ark anymore - you used present tense btw.

Seriously, the evidence in the arctic permafrost is consistent with the Biblical account concerning Noah's ark. Noah only brought animals of the same kind on the ark. Thus all 'kinds' found frozen in the arctic permafrost (now melting due to global warming) still exist - but many species of those kinds are extinct. 3 examples: mammoths (an extinct species of the elephant kind); extinct species of bison; extincts species of horse.

The Biblical account of Noah’s Ark is inconsistent with the relevant science. There’s a problem with the argument for something creationists call “kinds” when that argument rests on an event they claim happened a few thousand years ago, an event that has left no physical evidence and an event instigated by angry gods who remain undemonstrated.

Basically, your argument resembles an aircraft on fire, plummeting to the ground in flames.

 

[Newtonian]

T

Wow. Methinks thou doest protest too much. I don't know anything about all the chemistry involved, but I'd rather believe in chemistry than in some supernatural being.

Sure, creation science is about chemistry, too. This chemistry doesn't reflect the volcanic gases that were present in the primordial atmosphere, i.e. Miller-Urey was rigged.

You can try it for yourself online here -- Miller-Urey Experiment.

I figured it out. Can you?

I bet you a cyber beer you will cause it to explode .

If you're going to post a link to Miller-Urey, you might consider posting a link to a reliable source.

Have $40 to spend? This is the article cited by Thaxton et al in figure 3-2, page 23, of the free access book I linked to - but only one page is provided free (you need to pay 39.99 to view the entire article):

The atmosphere of the primitive Earth and the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids - Discover Life

The atmosphere of the Earth at the time of its formation is now generally believed to have been reducing, an idea proposed by Oparin and extensively discussed by Urey. This atmosphere would have contained CH4, N2 with traces of NH3, water and hydrogen. Only traces of NH3 would have been present...

link.springer.com

Of course, this does not happen to be the page where the specific amino acids produced by Miller-Urey are listed by S. Miller, with the chemical reaction product proportions. The page provided does contain some useful information about amino acids produced by others in similar type synthesis experiments - but the product proportions are not provided. A couple of excerpts from the page:

"The first prebiotic electric discharge synthesis of amino acids showed that surprisingly high yields of amino acids were synthesized. Eleven amino acids were identified, four of which occur in proteins. Hydroxy acids, simple aliphatic acids and urea were also identified. These experiments have been repeated recently, and 33 amino acids were identified, ten of which occur in proteins, including all of the hydrophobic amino acids. "

While helpful, this is relatively useless since the chemical reaction products are not listed with the actual proportions produced. The advantage of the chart Thaxton provides in figure 3-2 page 23 of the following link is that not only is a complete list of amino acids produced provided, but also

Not really interested in spending $40 to read a predefined conclusion from a hack working for the Disco’tute.

It goes without saying that Thaxton will find a conclusion consistent with the Politburo mouthpieces at the Disco’tute. Further, what you “quoted” is the usual creationist dogma that will attempt to vilify science. As none of the creationist ministrues do research, there is no indication that Thaxton did anything but present baseless opinion. Otherwise, please present the peer group he submitted his testing to.

For all your frantic cutting and pasting from creation websites, we're left with observing the stereotypical creationist agenda: vilify science using opinions from those with a singular agenda. I have to note that nothing claimed by Thaxton brings anyone closer to your evidence for your Gods.

The link was to Miller's article - that is what would cost $40 to read. You consider Miller a hack?

Btw - what is your definition of "hack?"

The link to Thaxton et al is free. Truth should be free - our literature is also free of charge.

The chart on page 23 (fig. 3-2) has free access here:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

That is not a creationist website - it is a link to a book I am researching.

So, see if you can find a free access link that lists the chemical reaction products identified by Miller by name and in relative proportion as the chart on p. 23 does.

 

[Hollie]

I

Galileo and Newton believed in both the Bible and science as sources of truth - it did not seem like Kaku realizes the connection of the Bible and science - seems like he believes there is a disconnect.

I don't cite Kaku because I believe in his version of God. I'm not even 100% certain what it is.
I only know he claimed that he couldn't account for the universe in any other way than to attribute it to God
which I find pretty amazing for a high profile scientist these days as it's very popular to scoff at the idea of God.
Especially if you are a theoretical physicist.

In my poor humble unscientific way I can only infer and logically deduce a creator based on what I see
and the universe itself. How can you find a machine in an old mountain creek bed and decide the machine had no creator?

I agree - I was simply posting my viewpoint. Certainly Kaku was right that the universe did not have to turn out as it has - he gave the example of laws of physics that can be written on one page (cp. Job 38:33) [e.g. E=Mc^2].

Actually many scientists believe in God. Some scientists are Jehovah's Witnesses.

Your point about machines (as Behe has detailed) is stated simply in this verse:

Hebrews 3:4
Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

“... laws of physics that can be written on one page (cp. Job 38:33) [e.g. E=Mc^2].”

You have that wrong. Job 38:33 is the mathematical solution to the elliptical orbit of the sun around the earth.

I have what wrong?

Yes. That’s correct.

 

[Newtonian]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Sure.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

www.talkorigins.org

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910: New species

Need more?

I already posted we believe in speciation but not in macro-evolution. Can you post an example in your own words?

My example was cats - multiple 'species' but one 'kind'

I will also post a specific Bible verse concerning this - please post whether you agree or disagree:

Genesis 1:11
And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed,+ fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds,*+ the seed of which is in it,+ upon the earth.” And it came to be so.

NW ref. footnote for "according to their kinds_ -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Lit., “according to its kind (genus).” Heb., lemi·nohʹ; Gr., geʹnos; Lat., geʹnus. The term “kind” here means a created or family kind, its older meaning or definition and not as present-day evolutionists use it."

So, do you agree that if you plant a carrot seed you will not get a watermelon vine? But what about a different variety of carrot? Ditto any plant btw.

Bottom line: Two bee or not two bee.

Bee's can cross pollinate but the seed resulting will only produce a plant within the same kind even if the bees mixed pollen from different plants.

You don’t seem to understand the term “speciation” or “macro-evolution”.

“Kinds” is a meaningless term. Creationists have varying interpretations but like so much in Christian apologetics, there’s no identifiable standard.

So yes, the links supplied do document speciation.

We are not creationists. I have told you that numerous times. Are you hard of hearing?

Also I have told you we believe in speciation - we agree on that.

Try posting a specific example of macro-evolution.

So, what do you think the definition of Hebrew leminoh is in Genesis 1:11? Or did you even read the NW ref. footnote on this Hebrew word for 'kind?'

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Try posting a specific example of macro-evolution

A nonsensical term that no longer has any meaning outside of nutball religious circles.

 

[Newtonian]

N

I

Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Actually it has an enormous amount of observational evidence.

As to Noah, why didn't he take any dinosaurs on board his ark?

Macro-evolution has zero evidence. I challenge you (in a friendly way) to post an example you are thinking of.

Dinosaurs went extinct long before Noah's time. Note that elephants were on the ark - the elephant kind survived. The mammoth species went extinct.

There is mammoth evidence for this! (pun intended).

There is evidence for elephants riding aboard Noah’s Ark?

Cool!

Where?

They are not riding on the ark anymore - you used present tense btw.

Seriously, the evidence in the arctic permafrost is consistent with the Biblical account concerning Noah's ark. Noah only brought animals of the same kind on the ark. Thus all 'kinds' found frozen in the arctic permafrost (now melting due to global warming) still exist - but many species of those kinds are extinct. 3 examples: mammoths (an extinct species of the elephant kind); extinct species of bison; extincts species of horse.

The Biblical account of Noah’s Ark is inconsistent with the relevant science. There’s a problem with the argument for something creationists call “kinds” when that argument rests on an event they claim happened a few thousand years ago, an event that has left no physical evidence and an event instigated by angry gods who remain undemonstrated.

Basically, your argument resembles an aircraft on fire, plummeting to the ground in flames.

Nice rhetoric! Congratulations!

So, can you post anything specific? Like a specific example of macro-evolution which you evidently believe in and I do not believe in?

 

[Hollie]

T

Wow. Methinks thou doest protest too much. I don't know anything about all the chemistry involved, but I'd rather believe in chemistry than in some supernatural being.

Sure, creation science is about chemistry, too. This chemistry doesn't reflect the volcanic gases that were present in the primordial atmosphere, i.e. Miller-Urey was rigged.

You can try it for yourself online here -- Miller-Urey Experiment.

I figured it out. Can you?

I bet you a cyber beer you will cause it to explode .

If you're going to post a link to Miller-Urey, you might consider posting a link to a reliable source.

Have $40 to spend? This is the article cited by Thaxton et al in figure 3-2, page 23, of the free access book I linked to - but only one page is provided free (you need to pay 39.99 to view the entire article):

The atmosphere of the primitive Earth and the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids - Discover Life

The atmosphere of the Earth at the time of its formation is now generally believed to have been reducing, an idea proposed by Oparin and extensively discussed by Urey. This atmosphere would have contained CH4, N2 with traces of NH3, water and hydrogen. Only traces of NH3 would have been present...

link.springer.com

Of course, this does not happen to be the page where the specific amino acids produced by Miller-Urey are listed by S. Miller, with the chemical reaction product proportions. The page provided does contain some useful information about amino acids produced by others in similar type synthesis experiments - but the product proportions are not provided. A couple of excerpts from the page:

"The first prebiotic electric discharge synthesis of amino acids showed that surprisingly high yields of amino acids were synthesized. Eleven amino acids were identified, four of which occur in proteins. Hydroxy acids, simple aliphatic acids and urea were also identified. These experiments have been repeated recently, and 33 amino acids were identified, ten of which occur in proteins, including all of the hydrophobic amino acids. "

While helpful, this is relatively useless since the chemical reaction products are not listed with the actual proportions produced. The advantage of the chart Thaxton provides in figure 3-2 page 23 of the following link is that not only is a complete list of amino acids produced provided, but also

Not really interested in spending $40 to read a predefined conclusion from a hack working for the Disco’tute.

It goes without saying that Thaxton will find a conclusion consistent with the Politburo mouthpieces at the Disco’tute. Further, what you “quoted” is the usual creationist dogma that will attempt to vilify science. As none of the creationist ministrues do research, there is no indication that Thaxton did anything but present baseless opinion. Otherwise, please present the peer group he submitted his testing to.

For all your frantic cutting and pasting from creation websites, we're left with observing the stereotypical creationist agenda: vilify science using opinions from those with a singular agenda. I have to note that nothing claimed by Thaxton brings anyone closer to your evidence for your Gods.

The link was to Miller's article - that is what would cost $40 to read. You consider Miller a hack?

Btw - what is your definition of "hack?"

The link to Thaxton et al is free. Truth should be free - our literature is also free of charge.

The chart on page 23 (fig. 3-2) has free access here:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

That is not a creationist website - it is a link to a book I am researching.

So, see if you can find a free access link that lists the chemical reaction products identified by Miller by name and in relative proportion as the chart on p. 23 does.

The Thaxton book is merely an appeal to creationist dogma. As creationists don’t submit for peer review, any research you might do will amount to little more than pursuing creationist websites.

 

[Newtonian]

A

Try posting a specific example of macro-evolution

A nonsensical term that no longer has any meaning outside of nutball religious circles.

Actually, macro-evolution is a term started by evolutionists and still used by evolutionists. Try searching the talkorigins website under macroevolution.

All seriousness aside:

What is a nutball?

Oh nuts! I get it! I love nuts - like cash you!

 

[Newtonian]

A

T

Wow. Methinks thou doest protest too much. I don't know anything about all the chemistry involved, but I'd rather believe in chemistry than in some supernatural being.

Sure, creation science is about chemistry, too. This chemistry doesn't reflect the volcanic gases that were present in the primordial atmosphere, i.e. Miller-Urey was rigged.

You can try it for yourself online here -- Miller-Urey Experiment.

I figured it out. Can you?

I bet you a cyber beer you will cause it to explode .

If you're going to post a link to Miller-Urey, you might consider posting a link to a reliable source.

Have $40 to spend? This is the article cited by Thaxton et al in figure 3-2, page 23, of the free access book I linked to - but only one page is provided free (you need to pay 39.99 to view the entire article):

The atmosphere of the primitive Earth and the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids - Discover Life

The atmosphere of the Earth at the time of its formation is now generally believed to have been reducing, an idea proposed by Oparin and extensively discussed by Urey. This atmosphere would have contained CH4, N2 with traces of NH3, water and hydrogen. Only traces of NH3 would have been present...

link.springer.com

Of course, this does not happen to be the page where the specific amino acids produced by Miller-Urey are listed by S. Miller, with the chemical reaction product proportions. The page provided does contain some useful information about amino acids produced by others in similar type synthesis experiments - but the product proportions are not provided. A couple of excerpts from the page:

"The first prebiotic electric discharge synthesis of amino acids showed that surprisingly high yields of amino acids were synthesized. Eleven amino acids were identified, four of which occur in proteins. Hydroxy acids, simple aliphatic acids and urea were also identified. These experiments have been repeated recently, and 33 amino acids were identified, ten of which occur in proteins, including all of the hydrophobic amino acids. "

While helpful, this is relatively useless since the chemical reaction products are not listed with the actual proportions produced. The advantage of the chart Thaxton provides in figure 3-2 page 23 of the following link is that not only is a complete list of amino acids produced provided, but also

Not really interested in spending $40 to read a predefined conclusion from a hack working for the Disco’tute.

It goes without saying that Thaxton will find a conclusion consistent with the Politburo mouthpieces at the Disco’tute. Further, what you “quoted” is the usual creationist dogma that will attempt to vilify science. As none of the creationist ministrues do research, there is no indication that Thaxton did anything but present baseless opinion. Otherwise, please present the peer group he submitted his testing to.

For all your frantic cutting and pasting from creation websites, we're left with observing the stereotypical creationist agenda: vilify science using opinions from those with a singular agenda. I have to note that nothing claimed by Thaxton brings anyone closer to your evidence for your Gods.

The link was to Miller's article - that is what would cost $40 to read. You consider Miller a hack?

Btw - what is your definition of "hack?"

The link to Thaxton et al is free. Truth should be free - our literature is also free of charge.

The chart on page 23 (fig. 3-2) has free access here:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

That is not a creationist website - it is a link to a book I am researching.

So, see if you can find a free access link that lists the chemical reaction products identified by Miller by name and in relative proportion as the chart on p. 23 does.

The Thaxton book is merely an appeal to creationist dogma. As creationists don’t submit for peer review, any research you might do will amount to little more than pursuing creationist websites.

Again, I challenge you to post a link that lists by name the chemical reaction products identified by Miller along with their relative proportions. I assume you are not willing to pay $40 to access Miller's article.

 

[Hollie]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Sure.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

www.talkorigins.org

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910: New species

Need more?

I already posted we believe in speciation but not in macro-evolution. Can you post an example in your own words?

My example was cats - multiple 'species' but one 'kind'

I will also post a specific Bible verse concerning this - please post whether you agree or disagree:

Genesis 1:11
And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed,+ fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds,*+ the seed of which is in it,+ upon the earth.” And it came to be so.

NW ref. footnote for "according to their kinds_ -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Lit., “according to its kind (genus).” Heb., lemi·nohʹ; Gr., geʹnos; Lat., geʹnus. The term “kind” here means a created or family kind, its older meaning or definition and not as present-day evolutionists use it."

So, do you agree that if you plant a carrot seed you will not get a watermelon vine? But what about a different variety of carrot? Ditto any plant btw.

Bottom line: Two bee or not two bee.

Bee's can cross pollinate but the seed resulting will only produce a plant within the same kind even if the bees mixed pollen from different plants.

You don’t seem to understand the term “speciation” or “macro-evolution”.

“Kinds” is a meaningless term. Creationists have varying interpretations but like so much in Christian apologetics, there’s no identifiable standard.

So yes, the links supplied do document speciation.

We are not creationists. I have told you that numerous times. Are you hard of hearing?

Also I have told you we believe in speciation - we agree on that.

Try posting a specific example of macro-evolution.

So, what do you think the definition of Hebrew leminoh is in Genesis 1:11? Or did you even read the NW ref. footnote on this Hebrew word for 'kind?'

Odd that you claim “we are not creationists” when you consistently use ID creationists (individuals associated with the Disco’tute), to pose creationist dogma.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

ctually, macro-evolution is a term started by evolutionists and still used by evolutionists

Actually, no it isn't. Its a meaningless term. If it slips from a scientist, they are referring to evolution over geologic time scales, not speciation versus a small genetic change within a species. You just don't know what you are talking about and have spent too much time on creationist goober websites.

 

[Hollie]

A

T

Wow. Methinks thou doest protest too much. I don't know anything about all the chemistry involved, but I'd rather believe in chemistry than in some supernatural being.

Sure, creation science is about chemistry, too. This chemistry doesn't reflect the volcanic gases that were present in the primordial atmosphere, i.e. Miller-Urey was rigged.

You can try it for yourself online here -- Miller-Urey Experiment.

I figured it out. Can you?

I bet you a cyber beer you will cause it to explode .

If you're going to post a link to Miller-Urey, you might consider posting a link to a reliable source.

Have $40 to spend? This is the article cited by Thaxton et al in figure 3-2, page 23, of the free access book I linked to - but only one page is provided free (you need to pay 39.99 to view the entire article):

The atmosphere of the primitive Earth and the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids - Discover Life

The atmosphere of the Earth at the time of its formation is now generally believed to have been reducing, an idea proposed by Oparin and extensively discussed by Urey. This atmosphere would have contained CH4, N2 with traces of NH3, water and hydrogen. Only traces of NH3 would have been present...

link.springer.com

Of course, this does not happen to be the page where the specific amino acids produced by Miller-Urey are listed by S. Miller, with the chemical reaction product proportions. The page provided does contain some useful information about amino acids produced by others in similar type synthesis experiments - but the product proportions are not provided. A couple of excerpts from the page:

"The first prebiotic electric discharge synthesis of amino acids showed that surprisingly high yields of amino acids were synthesized. Eleven amino acids were identified, four of which occur in proteins. Hydroxy acids, simple aliphatic acids and urea were also identified. These experiments have been repeated recently, and 33 amino acids were identified, ten of which occur in proteins, including all of the hydrophobic amino acids. "

While helpful, this is relatively useless since the chemical reaction products are not listed with the actual proportions produced. The advantage of the chart Thaxton provides in figure 3-2 page 23 of the following link is that not only is a complete list of amino acids produced provided, but also

Not really interested in spending $40 to read a predefined conclusion from a hack working for the Disco’tute.

It goes without saying that Thaxton will find a conclusion consistent with the Politburo mouthpieces at the Disco’tute. Further, what you “quoted” is the usual creationist dogma that will attempt to vilify science. As none of the creationist ministrues do research, there is no indication that Thaxton did anything but present baseless opinion. Otherwise, please present the peer group he submitted his testing to.

For all your frantic cutting and pasting from creation websites, we're left with observing the stereotypical creationist agenda: vilify science using opinions from those with a singular agenda. I have to note that nothing claimed by Thaxton brings anyone closer to your evidence for your Gods.

The link was to Miller's article - that is what would cost $40 to read. You consider Miller a hack?

Btw - what is your definition of "hack?"

The link to Thaxton et al is free. Truth should be free - our literature is also free of charge.

The chart on page 23 (fig. 3-2) has free access here:

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

That is not a creationist website - it is a link to a book I am researching.

So, see if you can find a free access link that lists the chemical reaction products identified by Miller by name and in relative proportion as the chart on p. 23 does.

The Thaxton book is merely an appeal to creationist dogma. As creationists don’t submit for peer review, any research you might do will amount to little more than pursuing creationist websites.

Again, I challenge you to post a link that lists by name the chemical reaction products identified by Miller along with their relative proportions. I assume you are not willing to pay $40 to access Miller's article.

And your melodramatic challenge serves what purpose?

If you want a challenge, support your arguments for Arks, global floods, talking snakes, YEC creationism and the supernatural.

 

[Hollie]

You're missing my point...I love theories that drive improvements in science.

But you don't love the ones that conflict with the Bible (e.g., evolution and expansion)?

Expansion is referred to in Isaiah 40:22 and other similar verses. Micro-evolution is confirmed by the limited size of Noah's ark (albeit very large) which allows for all kinds of animals to have been saved on the Ark - but not all species (e.g. likely 2 cats which have become multiple 'species' of cats) would have fit on the ark.

Micro-evolution is fact - it has been observed in many ways, including newer observations in the field of epigenetics. Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Macro-evolution (speciation), has a great deal of observational evidence.

False - but you must be thinking of an example - why not post one and enlighten me!

Sure.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

www.talkorigins.org

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB910: New species

Need more?

I already posted we believe in speciation but not in macro-evolution. Can you post an example in your own words?

My example was cats - multiple 'species' but one 'kind'

I will also post a specific Bible verse concerning this - please post whether you agree or disagree:

Genesis 1:11
And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed,+ fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds,*+ the seed of which is in it,+ upon the earth.” And it came to be so.

NW ref. footnote for "according to their kinds_ -

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Lit., “according to its kind (genus).” Heb., lemi·nohʹ; Gr., geʹnos; Lat., geʹnus. The term “kind” here means a created or family kind, its older meaning or definition and not as present-day evolutionists use it."

So, do you agree that if you plant a carrot seed you will not get a watermelon vine? But what about a different variety of carrot? Ditto any plant btw.

Bottom line: Two bee or not two bee.

Bee's can cross pollinate but the seed resulting will only produce a plant within the same kind even if the bees mixed pollen from different plants.

Hurling bible verses at others does nothing to support your claims.

Vestigial limbs / organs are a rather powerful example of speciation (religionists incorrectly using the termmacro-evolution).

Maybe you believe the gods had a sense of humor and created “kinds” using spare parts they had left over when they didn’t correctly assemble the designs they rebuilt.

I had some vestigial parts when I tried to fix my dishwasher with only pliers.

 

[Hollie]

N

I

Macro-evolution is theory which has no observational evidence but just speculation.

Actually it has an enormous amount of observational evidence.

As to Noah, why didn't he take any dinosaurs on board his ark?

Macro-evolution has zero evidence. I challenge you (in a friendly way) to post an example you are thinking of.

Dinosaurs went extinct long before Noah's time. Note that elephants were on the ark - the elephant kind survived. The mammoth species went extinct.

There is mammoth evidence for this! (pun intended).

There is evidence for elephants riding aboard Noah’s Ark?

Cool!

Where?

They are not riding on the ark anymore - you used present tense btw.

Seriously, the evidence in the arctic permafrost is consistent with the Biblical account concerning Noah's ark. Noah only brought animals of the same kind on the ark. Thus all 'kinds' found frozen in the arctic permafrost (now melting due to global warming) still exist - but many species of those kinds are extinct. 3 examples: mammoths (an extinct species of the elephant kind); extinct species of bison; extincts species of horse.

The Biblical account of Noah’s Ark is inconsistent with the relevant science. There’s a problem with the argument for something creationists call “kinds” when that argument rests on an event they claim happened a few thousand years ago, an event that has left no physical evidence and an event instigated by angry gods who remain undemonstrated.

Basically, your argument resembles an aircraft on fire, plummeting to the ground in flames.

Nice rhetoric! Congratulations!

So, can you post anything specific? Like a specific example of macro-evolution which you evidently believe in and I do not believe in?

I gave you examples in post #979.

I have no need to “believe in” speciation. I can look at the peer reviewed and conclude that the evidence supports the theory.

Can you give me a specific set of data that provides evidence of supernatural events such as winged angels playing harps?