How Modern-Day Young-Earth Creationism Pushes People To Atheism

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@rtmcdge

There are kinds of lifeforms, (this is where the term species is wrongly used), And there are species that make up the different kinds of lifeforms.

Name one Biblical verse, church father, creed, or reformer, which even alluded to the idea that species descended from kinds, rather than God just having created them directly. That whole line of interpretation is invented whole cloth by modern YEC as a way the get around the difficulties of dealing with the vastly larger number of species now known compared to what the ancient Hebrews would have thought to be on the ark. What you are saying is just as unbiblical as it is unscientific.

[John_Harshman]

@rtmcdge

Again, kinds are all around you.

Once again you refuse to answer questions. Do you see how this prevents any sort of dialogue? Or are you even interested in dialogue? What are you interested in?

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@rtmcdge

There is no general agreement among biologists on what species are

This is true. However, “kind” is far more confusing than “species”.

Just with food, we have the vegetable kind and the fruit kind. And a tomato is taken to be of the vegetable kind, even though it is actually a fruit.

Why do people have dogs or cats? Shouldn’t they just stay with the pet kind, and not make that distinction?

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@rtmcdge

Still, that has no change in the fact that Genesis is historically accurate and must be accepted as God’s Word.

The first part of Genesis is absurdly wrong. To say that it is God’s word is to declare that God is an idiot.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@rtmcdge

You do not realize it, but Organizations like AIG, Evolution News, ICR, the Discovery institute, have previous evolutionists working on their staff.
This alone is good enough reason for me to reject UCA. And since I have been studying evolution. I’ve found it to be less scientifically supported than it is possible to be.

@rtmcdge

Allow me to talk with them myself and then let’s talk.

With the people on the FB group? I’ll get you links

Still, that has no change in the fact that Genesis is historically accurate and must be accepted as God’s Word.

No. There are many interpretations of Genesis within Christianity and none of them are doctrine. YOU may view it as historically accurate, but that is at odds with other recorded history, just ask any Sumerian.
This “historically accurate” version of history forces you through contortions of twisted logic to try to accommodate a document that was never meant to be taken literally. The troubles you have accepting evolution are your own apologetics, not a problem for science.

Meanwhile, the science of evolution works and produces results, which I have pointed out at least half a dozen times to you now. You haven’t responded to this fact - probably because even AiG/ICR/ENV don’t have any answer to that, and there is nothing for you to copy/pasta.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

You quote extensively from things you don’t understand. It’s no use arguing with you because you generally refuse to answer direct questions, ignore any calls for you to show you really understand the subject matter, and basically just repeat short sentences purporting to summarize all counter-arguments as “mere speculations” or similar.

But let’s try again:

@Rumraket

@rtmcdge

And your PAPER, is one of the other claims. It is not based upon fact, but wild imagination.

You must be able to explain the methods of the paper to support this claim, otherwise you do not understand what the paper is showing. So I would like for you to explain why the authors of the paper use the collection of loci found stated in the results/discussion (also found in Table S2):

Roughly equal amounts of coding (14742 bp) and non-coding (17185 bp) genomic regions were sampled from X chromosome (4870 bp), Y chromosome (2630 bp) and autosomes (27427 bp) (Table 4) using newly developed PCR primers derived from a bioinformatics approach specific to primates in addition to primers from previous large-scale phylogenetic analyses (Materials and Methods, Tables S2, S3, S4).

Explain, in your own words, why they pick this particular collection of data to use in the inference of the phylogenetic tree. What is the reason for using this distribution of both coding and non-coding DNA from multiple different chromosomes?

You claim to have studied evolution a lot, so you should be able to explain what this achieves and why doing it is relevant in phylogenetic inference.

[John_Harshman]

So are you saying that birds are a single kind, spiders are a single kind, shrimp are a single kind, whales are a single kind, and sharks are a single kind?

[Dan_Eastwood]

I can personally testify to scores of accounts from “new” atheists who were formerly YEC. If testimony doesn’t meet your personal standard of evidence, I can direct you to a FB group where people with this experience will be happy to describe it for you.

@rtmcdge

Allow me to talk with them myself and then let’s talk.

Here are links to the FB groups I mentioned.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook

[rtmcdge]

This has nothing to do with the information they are providing. In fact, when researchers, and those of the medical field realize that you can’t treat for evolution, they can find real cures to the maladies of life.

What I care about is distinguishing between good and bad science.
And the evidence shows UCA is bad science.

" “About 80% of all known fossils are marine animals, mostly various types of fish. Yet there is no evidence of intermediate forms. The most common explanation for the total lack of fossil evidence for fish evolution is that few transitional fossils have been preserved. This is an incorrect conclusion because every major fish kind known today has been found in the fossil record, indicating the completeness of the existing known fossil record.” Jerry Bergman, 2011

“The general lack of transitional forms between species in the fossil record is a constant theme in evolutionary biology.” Eugene V Koonin (Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information – pictured right), 2011

“Gould and Eldridge collected extensive evidence indicating that the history of the great majority of animal species, as reflected in the fossil record, represents mostly stasis−that is the virtual lack of change.” Eugene V Koonin, 2011

“There are so many different scenarios for how life got going and they all involve molecules that don’t get fossilized. It’s a clear limit.” Jerry Coyne, 2011

“When do we see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organism did not evolve elsewhere.” James Le Lanu, 2012

“The main reason for paleontologists’ loss of faith in the orthodox evolutionary doctrine was the realization that the most notable features of the fossil record is that most of the time nothing happens.” James Le Lanu, 2012

“This ‘stasis’ clearly contradicts Darwin’s supposition if a continuous process of gradualistic transformation” James Le Lanu, 2012

”Evidence for these theories [origin of life] come, of course, not from the fossil record but from inferences based on biochemical comparisons of living forms.” Eugenie Scott, 2013

”… the fossil evidence currently does not illuminate links among most of the basic vertebrate groups.” Eugenie Scott, 2013

“Evolutionary biologists and antievolutionists are united in one respect: both agree that there are gaps in the fossil record. The record of life as seen in stone does not present a smooth, intergrading continuum from earliest times until the present, nor is there a continuum of variation of form between all living things.” Eugenie Scott, 2013

“Why… does the fossil record always happen to be incomplete at the nodes connecting major branches of Darwin’s tree of life, but rarely−in the parlance of modern paleontology−at the terminal branches” Stephen C Meyer (philosophy of science – pictured right), 2013

“Of course, the fossil record does not show an overall increase in the complexity of organisms from Precambrian to Cambrian times, as Darwin expected.” Stephen C Meyer, 2013

“As more and more fossil discoveries fall within existing higher taxonomic groups…, and as they fail to document the rainbow of intermediate forms expected in the Darwinian view of life, it grows ever more improbable that the absence of intermediate forms reflects sampling bias−that is, an ‘artifact’ of either incomplete sampling or preservation.” Stephen C Meyer, 2013

“The problem is that the fossil record isn’t always obliging when it comes to direct evidence.” Brian Switek. 2014."
Source: Fossil Record By the Decade • Darwin, Then and Now

[rtmcdge]

@Mercer

Mediocre ones at best. Selling falsehoods is a lot easier than doing science

Evolutionists keep saying this, but they never provide any evidence to support their claims.

The quotes that follow are from the year 2010’s. They are made by scientists of evolution.
" “About 80% of all known fossils are marine animals, mostly various types of fish. Yet there is no evidence of intermediate forms. The most common explanation for the total lack of fossil evidence for fish evolution is that few transitional fossils have been preserved. This is an incorrect conclusion because every major fish kind known today has been found in the fossil record, indicating the completeness of the existing known fossil record.” Jerry Bergman, 2011

“The general lack of transitional forms between species in the fossil record is a constant theme in evolutionary biology.” Eugene V Koonin (Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information – pictured right), 2011

“Gould and Eldridge collected extensive evidence indicating that the history of the great majority of animal species, as reflected in the fossil record, represents mostly stasis−that is the virtual lack of change.” Eugene V Koonin, 2011

“There are so many different scenarios for how life got going and they all involve molecules that don’t get fossilized. It’s a clear limit.” Jerry Coyne, 2011

“When do we see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organism did not evolve elsewhere.” James Le Lanu, 2012

“The main reason for paleontologists’ loss of faith in the orthodox evolutionary doctrine was the realization that the most notable features of the fossil record is that most of the time nothing happens.” James Le Lanu, 2012

“This ‘stasis’ clearly contradicts Darwin’s supposition if a continuous process of gradualistic transformation” James Le Lanu, 2012

”Evidence for these theories [origin of life] come, of course, not from the fossil record but from inferences based on biochemical comparisons of living forms.” Eugenie Scott, 2013

”… the fossil evidence currently does not illuminate links among most of the basic vertebrate groups.” Eugenie Scott, 2013

“Evolutionary biologists and antievolutionists are united in one respect: both agree that there are gaps in the fossil record. The record of life as seen in stone does not present a smooth, intergrading continuum from earliest times until the present, nor is there a continuum of variation of form between all living things.” Eugenie Scott, 2013

“Why… does the fossil record always happen to be incomplete at the nodes connecting major branches of Darwin’s tree of life, but rarely−in the parlance of modern paleontology−at the terminal branches” Stephen C Meyer (philosophy of science – pictured right), 2013

“Of course, the fossil record does not show an overall increase in the complexity of organisms from Precambrian to Cambrian times, as Darwin expected.” Stephen C Meyer, 2013

“As more and more fossil discoveries fall within existing higher taxonomic groups…, and as they fail to document the rainbow of intermediate forms expected in the Darwinian view of life, it grows ever more improbable that the absence of intermediate forms reflects sampling bias−that is, an ‘artifact’ of either incomplete sampling or preservation.” Stephen C Meyer, 2013

“The problem is that the fossil record isn’t always obliging when it comes to direct evidence.” Brian Switek. 2014."
Source: Fossil Record By the Decade • Darwin, Then and Now

Add these to those admissions of Darwin, Gould, Eldredge and Patterson, and you have a clear picture that these groups are not selling falsehoods.

[Tim]

@Dan_Eastwood

You haven’t responded to this fact - probably because even AiG/ICR/ENV don’t have any answer to that, and there is nothing for you to copy/pasta.

One does not “copy/pasta” YEC apologetics – that is solely the province of FSM apologetics.

[Tim]

@rtmcdge

The quotes that follow are from the year 2010’s. They are made by scientists of evolution.

…

Source: Fossil Record By the Decade • Darwin, Then and Now

More quotemines copy-and-pasted from an apologetics website, this time from Richard William Nelson, “an American Christian young Earth creationist writer and internet troll.”[1]

Oh, and Stephen C. Meyer isn’t even a scientist – he is however the Director of the Discovery Institute’s anti-evolution propaganda arm, the Center for Science and Culture. Nor is James Le Lanu.

Jerry Bergman is a psychologist, so has no expertise relevant to evolution – he is however a YEC apologist.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

I’m remembering back to my childhood, when proselytizers would ring the door bell and talk to my parents.

The JWs were the very worst. They had a fixed spiel and would not allow interruptions. The SDA were only slightly better. You could interrupt and ask question, but they never really answered the question and just went back to their fixed spiel.

Now @rtmcdge is showing us that not much has changed. They are now pushing YEC instead of their view of the sabbath, but with still the same near-zombie behavior.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@rtmcdge

“This ‘stasis’ clearly contradicts Darwin’s supposition if a continuous process of gradualistic transformation” James Le Lanu, 2012

Who is James Le Lanu?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@rtmcdge

“Of course, the fossil record does not show an overall increase in the complexity of organisms from Precambrian to Cambrian times, as Darwin expected.” Stephen C Meyer, 2013

Except the quotes from actual scientists and biologists, which are sensible and measured, this one is just plain false and stupid. What fossils do we get in the precambrian, say 3 billion years ago? Stromatolites. 2 billion years ago? Stromatolites. And then somewhere in the Tonian, roughly 800 million years ago we start getting stuff like primitive sponges. The diversity and complexity of these organisms appear to have increased substantially by the Cryogenian about 720 million years ago. And once we move into the Ediacaran we of course get all the small shellies, worms, sponges, etc. Then comes the Cambrian and the associated explosion.

That looks like an increase in both diversity and complexity to me. Stephen “Flat out Liar” Cee-Meyer.

[Tim]

@RonSewell

Who is James Le Lanu?

James Le Lanu " (born 1950) is a British retired General Practitioner, journalist and author, best known for his weekly columns in the Daily and Sunday Telegraph. He is married to publisher Juliet Annan."

Le Fanu is an open critic of materialism (scientism) and the explanatory power of Darwin’s evolutionary theory whose fundamental premises he argued in his book Why Us? are undermined by the findings of the two revolutionary technical developments of genome sequencing and brain imaging. Le Fanu claims that the discovery of the equivalence of genomes across the vast range of organismic complexity has failed to identify the numerous random genetic mutations that, according to Darwinian theory, would account for the diversity of form of the living world. As for neuroscience, he claims that while sophisticated PET and MRI scanning techniques allow scientists to observe the brain in action from the inside, the fundamental question of how its electrochemistry translates into subjective experience and consciousness remains unresolved.[8]