Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by Gene Fortner.
George: Creationists fatuously argue that macro evolution can’t be proven in the lab so its not scientific.
That is a straw man, Creationists argue that RM/NS has an edge, and that it is incapable of producing new organs / body types. So far the evidence is on the side of intelligence.
George: How does one run a lab experiment over hundreds of millions of years?
One doesn’t, one makes up a historical narrative.
It is called a “Just So Story”, like “How the Camel Got His Hump”.
They are common in evolutionary literature.
George: there are mathematical models that macro evolution can work,
There are also over 60 mathematical models that have been proven wrong by empirical data that are used to justify $billions to fight Climate Change . Another “consensus’ to avoid debate.
George: weight of the evidence according to scientific consensus
> I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet because you’re being had.
>
> Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
>
Michael Crichton
@george:
Gene Fortner Also Commented
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
Pauluc,
It would seem to me that a more appropriate test would be to map the requirements from a fish to man, find your inner fish so to speak.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
@george:
The way I understand the Bible, we will all be able witness a miracle when Christ comes. Be patient.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
@george:
George,
The “Pillars of Evolution” are decaying rapidly,
Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. – December 20, 2013 (Link)
Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013.
1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%)
2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk)
3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site) All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function.
The Fossil record does not support it, long term experiments in genetics do not support it.
So why is it still popular dogma;
Lynn Margulis Criticizes Neo-Darwinism in Discover Magazine (Updated) – Casey Luskin April 12, 2011
Excerpt: Population geneticist Richard Lewontin gave a talk here at UMass Amherst about six years ago, and he mathemetized all of it–changes in the population, random mutation, sexual selection, cost and benefit. At the end of his talk he said, “You know, we’ve tried to test these ideas in the field and the lab, and there are really no measurements that match the quantities I’ve told you about.” This just appalled me. So I said, “Richard Lewontin, you are a great lecturer to have the courage to say it’s gotten you nowhere. But then why do you continue to do this work?” And he looked around and said, “It’s the only thing I know how to do, and if I don’t do it I won’t get grant money.”
– Lynn Margulis – biologist
Recent Comments by Gene Fortner
GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
yes
GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
Bill “How inane would it be to claim an apple tree is not an apple tree unless and until it has apples on it?”
Bill,
Comparing babies and apple trees is a bit more inane than comparing apples and oranges.
BTW,
“The ONLY DEFINITION FOR SIN that we have in the Bible is that it is the transgression of the law… IT CONDEMNS EVERY SIN, AND REQUIRES EVERY VIRTUE.” E.G. White, ST, March 3, 1890 par. 3.
If it is a sin to possess a fallen nature then there must be a law against it. Has God given a law forbidding anyone from being conceived with a fallen human nature? If there ever was a law that was impossible to keep, this would be it, for how could one choose not to violate it before one existed?!
Summary of 60th General Conference Session (2015)
Thanks Sean
GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
Ethan,
IMHO,
No statement was necessary.
In fact I consider it thoughtless.
FB#6 should have absolutely no effect on their ability to support the world church and perform work faithfully and with integrity.
GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
@Bill Sorensen:
Bill,
Sin is transgression of the law.
Where does it say being born is a sin?
