Guest / Limited Access /

Most of us have heard the numbers by now. Thirty percent of the generation born in the '80s and '90s check the box labeled "none" when asked about their religious affiliation. A top reason they disengage from faith is their perception ...

Read More

Displaying 1–20 of 104 comments.

1 2 3 4 5  …  6 next page

Brian Ingalls

March 14, 2014  8:30am

Robert, Brian misunderstood nothing from evolution and was just busy trying to show you what even one of the foremost authorities on sickle cell anemia has said, namely that sickle cell anemia does not add information or prove evolution, but does the opposite. It does not ADD DNA information it creates an error. A working function no longer works, and is resistant to malaria only temporarily because of the physical results. Your theory here is a desperate attempt. And if you would use your logic and pay attention to what people tell you instead of spending all day trying to win a losing debate, you'd understand that I wasn't appealing to authority to win the argument but to merely give you my source. YOU said I didn't understand sickle cell anemia, so naturally I'm going show you where I got my information. You've lost this argument. You should try another.

Report Abuse

robert puharic

March 13, 2014  2:18pm

No, black holes evaporate via Hawking radiation. But black holes have, at their core, a 'singularity' just like the big bang did.

Report Abuse

THOMAS F HARKINS JR

March 13, 2014  2:04pm

Robert, I think I have made my point about biblical creation versus evolution as being the better explanation for humans, life, earth, and the universe we see as well as I can, and we just disagree. I am curious, though, about your statement: "nature itself replicates the big bang via black holes." Don't black holes "suck in," whereas the big bang "pushed out"? I hope I am not demonstrating ignorance again, but I don't see how big bang can be considered proved as "replicated" by black holes. (I even thought some scientists see black holes as still somewhat theoretical as opposed to being "observed.")

Report Abuse

robert puharic

March 13, 2014  12:08pm

As I said, god can do anything. You keep appealing to metaphysics about god's 'character'. That's not science. Creationists do this all the time. They look at nature, rule out science, then make up reasons why what they see proves god is real. Again, if god just wanted to show his power and made stuff pop into existence, you'd be able to rationalize THAT as well. ANY world that exists can be rationalized with god's character. That's why it's not science. And Stephen Hawking got his idea of the big bang singularity from Roger Penrose's physics of black holes. We can see the effects of black holes, so yes, in so far as the limits of energy are concerned, nature itself replicates the big bang via black holes.

Report Abuse

THOMAS F HARKINS JR

March 13, 2014  11:53am

Robert, you were asking whether creationism could be falsified. By that I understood you to mean, could the account in Genesis be falsified. If things stared becoming different "kinds" in reproduction, that would falsify the creation account, but it does not happen, so no falsification. It is true in one sense that God can do whatever he likes, but, in fact, God is restricted to acting in conformity with his revealed character. He has revealed himself as a logical, orderly being. Therefore, if the universe simply "started going crazy," that could falsify God as Christians believe him to be; but, of course, that does not happen. You say that Big Bang has been supported by experiment--what, Big Bang has been "replicated"? I think not. The bottom line is that there is an expectation of organization and laws if you have the Christian God of the Bible, and that is what we do see. What we don't see is a lot of "undirected" activity which a "godless" universe might be expected to demonstrate.

Report Abuse

robert puharic

March 13, 2014  11:09am

Sorry, Thomas I'm not playing the creationist word game. If you think humans and chimps are all 'apes' so evolution is wrong, good for you. And if you can't differentiate between SPACE expanding and objects IN space not moving faster than light, go argue with the cosmologists. A bunch of them won Nobel prizes a few years ago for confirming the rapid expansion of space, so the THEORY was supported by EXPERIMENT...another creationist failure. And god COULD make lollipops come from trees. There's no MECHANISM to prevent that. Evolution works ONLY on what already exists. God can do anything, so creationism isn't science. Basing science on god's good will isn't science unless you have a good will meter that can measure things god will or won't do. Evolution is mechanistic. Creationism is magic.

Report Abuse

THOMAS F HARKINS JR

March 13, 2014  10:54am

Robert, horse evolution is pretty weak, given they are all "horses," not pigs turning into horses. There should be MILLIONS of examples. I won't belabor the point about space "expansion"--as though somehow that meant the objects in space weren't "moving" that fast. As far as lollipops springing from apple trees (paraphrasing from your examples), certainly that would contradict God saying that plants and animals should reproduce "after their kind" (which is yet more evidence for the creation account and falsification of evolution). Plenty of things could theoretically happen which could falsify the creation account, if you wanted to get creative, but they don't. Why not? Because the all-powerful, all-knowing God is logical and orderly, so we can expect his universe to be--and lo and behold, it is. Things don't happen in all sorts of "random" fashions, as one might expect from a universe "outside of any controls," as evolution maintains ("undirected"). Creation is true so not falsified.

Report Abuse

robert puharic

March 13, 2014  10:41am

Thomas, check the Wikipedia site on horse evolution for 50 million years of intermediate fossils. You missed the boat on relativity since you've confused expansion of SPACE between objects with the velocity of objects themselves. They're not the same. Einstein was hardly a special creationist! And if new objects just started popping into existence, why would that falsify creationism? God can do anything. He can make a wheeled mountain lion pop into existence. In fact that would be a pretty dramatic demonstration of creationism! And what is the MECHANISM of creationism? Evolution's mechanism is differential reproduction. What is the mechanism of creationism?

Report Abuse

THOMAS F HARKINS JR

March 13, 2014  10:33am

Robert, you say: "If fossils were randomly distributed or if DNA evidence didn't show the nested hierarchy of evolution, evolution would be wrong." So, there could be natural observations which would "falsify" evolution. Consider then--where are the millions of "intermediate" fossils? Their absence falsifies evolution. And, although you discount the point, the assumed speed of universal "expansion" is falsified by special relativity. Your assertion that the matter which is moving away from other matter in the universe is just being "taken along for the ride," as one evolutionist stated it, and therefore is not subject to special relativity, is just so much mumbo jumbo to avoid the falsification. When DID matter in the universe become subject to special relativity, in your view? As far as creationism not being falsifiable, if new objects suddenly started popping into existence and behaving in all sorts of crazy manners, that would falsify the creation account. But no such thing happens.

Report Abuse

robert puharic

March 13, 2014  5:09am

Thomas says science says 'blind chance' produces an 'explosion'. It's apparent Thomas doesn't know what this means, but is relying on creationist assertions about science. We need not discuss this propagandistic view of evolution. BUT where's the mechanism of creationism? Saying "God did it" can justify ANYTHING and its opposite. That's why creationism isn't science. A 'theory' that is untestable since it predicts EVERYTHING can't be falsified. If fossils were randomly distributed or if DNA evidence didn't show the nested hierarchy of evolution, evolution would be wrong. Where's the testable disproof of "God did it"?

Report Abuse

robert puharic

March 13, 2014  5:06am

James Ely...I've taken 5 course in thermo and have an MS in chemical physics. GO ahead. Prove to me the 2nd law says evolution is impossible. I'll wait for your response.

Report Abuse

robert puharic

March 13, 2014  5:04am

Brian naturally misunderstands evolution which is why he resorts to the 'argument from authority'. We weren't discussing sickle cell anemia as proof of MACROEVOLUTION. We were discussing it as an example of NEW INFORMATION creating a SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE for differential reproduction...the testable mechanism of evolution. And that's what we see. A source of NEW information...mutation...leading to differential reproduction, as evolution predicts. Brian's response about how creationism explains this? "God did it". That can also explain a fish giving birth to a light bulb, which is why creationism isn't science.

Report Abuse

James Eby

March 12, 2014  11:53pm

To Robert Puharic: Of course no one knows how creation happened since no one is alive who was there. Your tongue in cheek reference, however, to "a fish giving birth to a lightbulb" is almost exactly what evolutionary scientists (?) ask us to believe today. It's much more "magical" than creationism and much more difficult to believe. It asks us to believe exactly the opposite of what we can observe and have observed since observation was first recorded. There certainly is no testable law of evolution. In fact, the Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that Darwinian evolution is not true and never could have happened, even though it's a "proven scientific fact." So let's be careful of what "science" proves. C. S. Lewis says he gave up on much of so-called science long before he became a Christian precisely because it regularly asks us to accept as fact something that cannot be observed and is exactly the opposite of what we observe.

Report Abuse

Wayne Froese

March 12, 2014  10:52pm

More specifically there is nothing wrong with the science that robert talks about here, yet look at the reception he receives. His motives are questioned as if he has an agenda to deceive when what he has done is bring ideas that make predictions and have been tested and best match with observations. People who insist that the Bible makes a specific scientific claim yet have not shown superior evidence might instead question their reading of Scripture. There are different interpretations that do not require science denial.

Report Abuse

Wayne Froese

March 12, 2014  7:40pm

Christians sometimes take the position that science conspires against the truth. I don't see a calling for us to believe conspiracy stories like that. It beggars belief in all those who scratch the surface of that claim.

Report Abuse

Brian Ingalls

March 12, 2014  3:24pm

Robert, I really will end with this. The sickle cell anemia information, including the refutation of your claim that it proves macro-evolution, came from Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, M.D. a world authority on sickle-cell disease, with 25 years’ experience as a physician, clinical geneticist and consultant physician in Ghana and subsequently in London, visiting professor at Howard University College of Medicine in Washington, and honorary consultant to its Center for Sickle Cell Disease. Author of a major 643-page text, The Sickle Cell Disease Patient. --He strongly disagrees with you. Regarding this claim he wrote: "The answer is of course ‘no’. In the early 1950s I did a course on evolution and metaphysics at the feet of Professor J.Z. Young, perhaps the greatest evolutionist of recent years. Nothing has happened during the past 30 years in molecular biology in general, and the sickling phenomenon vis-à-vis malaria in particular, to have raised evolution from theory to established fact."

Report Abuse

THOMAS F HARKINS JR

March 12, 2014  3:22pm

Robert, we are likely reaching the point of "diminishing returns" in continuing the debate. You say evolution explains everything, but castigate creationists for saying the same thing, suggesting that our view invokes "magic." Actually, what creationists believe is that an almighty Creator who knows everything would create a universe with consistent natural laws that result in order. This is NOT what one would expect to result from "blind chance" causing things from an "explosion." So, the effects verify the source in the instance of creation, but not evolution. Where did all the hundreds of laws you rely on come from, in your view? As far as the "light bulb" suggestion, I imagine such a thing would likewise cause problems for evolution, so--what's your point? You say that creationism cannot "predict" anything, but look at Isaac Newton and numerous other pre-evolutionary CHRISTIAN scientists who came up with natural laws like gravity which predict accurately. What more do you want?

Report Abuse

robert puharic

March 12, 2014  2:42pm

Again, Brian, if scientists thought junk DNA was junk they never would have wasted time on it, so creationists were wrong. Evolution is about change. Change via differential reproduction. That's a testable mechanism. There's NO testable mechanism for creationism. In fact creationism can produce ANYTHING. If a fish gave birth to a light bulb, creationism can explain it since it's magic. And your clipped view of genetic differences in sickle cell anemia shows you may have read some stuff, but don't understand the 3 differences I pointed out since you ignored them. You also ignored my comment on helium dating...another creationist fallacy. But since you failed to tell us HOW creationism happens, it's apparent you don't know. Don't feel bad. No one does.

Report Abuse

Brian Ingalls

March 12, 2014  2:37pm

I was paraphrasing from several scientific sources on sickle cell so you can write to them and tell them they don't know understand "sickly cell anemia". And I know junk DNA is irrelevant now because the evidence turned out to be the opposite of what evolutionists predicted. Guys like you used to throw the proof of junk DNA at me to prove evolution. Now that we know the opposite is true, it's irrelevant. I get it. And noooo... natural selection is about survivability. Evolution is about evolving from one kind to another. Perhaps you don't understand evolution? Creationism would PREDICT that DNA can lose information and errors can form in the code that cause deleterious effects. That is what we see. What we don't see, is macro-evolution. Ever. Have a good one.

Report Abuse

Brian Ingalls

March 12, 2014  2:30pm

Robert, I have to get back to my real work over here, but I maintain a couple of things. First the evidence for evolution and it's mechanisms are woefully short. They are claims. They are theoretical. But under the microscope don't hold up. Second, making emotional claims using Hiroshima victims does not prove that measuring decay in isotopes is accurate. Third, a disease causing defect in DNA is woefully short of proving macro evolution ever happened. Fourth, creationists have made many predictions and changed or rejected many of their own theories. Fifth, creationism is the idea that the universe was formed out of nothing by a creator. Science backs up the nothing part, so the mechanism is the creator. That is an argument over God's existence. I would propose the God of the Bible and would measure that historically & Scripturally. Finally, I would suggest that the Bible says only a few things about origins and leaves plenty of room for scientific theories on "how".

Report Abuse

Displaying 1–20 of 104 comments.

1 2 3 4 5  …  6 next page

View this article in Reader Mode