@gregrutz How does variation within a species, caused by the sorting or loss of genetic information (Gene Depletion) lead a finch into becoming a bunny rabbit or whatever religious fairy tale you believe?
"kind" is a biblical term & according to Strong's Concordance is defined: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. A new species is not a new kind but a partitioning of an existing kind
professor, I am beginning to truly feel sorry for you. I think that you do protest too much. What this person was saying is that they base their interpretations of evidences on God's word first, other peoples interpretations second. Since man's interpretations are often times taught as "fact" for many years, then proven to have been completely wrong it seems to be a logical position
"Since man's interpretations are often times taught as "fact" for many years, then proven to have been completely wrong it seems to be a logical position"
Yes well YEC interpretations are proven to be wrong from the start, but you believe them as fact anyway.
Darwinism serves as the philisophical foundation for communism so once again you are wrong - there is something to be said about being consistant!
Darwin's idea has led to the premature death of billions of people as I show in our teaching, "The Evil Fruits of Darwinism."
Keep in mind that the title of his book was "Origin Of the Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life"
Argh dude. All this stuff has never refuted "Darwinism". Everything here is a creationist classic. Everything here has failed to impress before.
Also when you get to the "giant conspiracy" level or argumentation, that is when it's time to admit defeat. The conspiracy IS the "last bastion for those with no evidence to back up their crumbling beliefs".
I thought I had heard the last from you when I quickly shot down what you claimed was your very best proof for Darwinism - and it probably was your best supposed proof
Again (getting boring) NO EVIDENCE to back your claims
What conspriacy? Just real science undermined by the false religious tale of goo-to-the-zoo-to-you Darwiinian evolution
I tried to explain that that what I would provide was evidence for evolution. If you remember you claimed there was "no" evidence for evolution. I tried to explain to you that I would address that and provide evidence to support evolution.
Which is what I did.
You quickly (copy paste) shooting it down is debatable and besides the point. This is because I simply did what I said I'd do ... I provided evidence to support evolution.
No, you tried to show proof but I showed how further scientific testing revealed the results had been mis-interpreted and actually provided NO proof for Darwinism Had Darwinisn taken place shouldn't there be millions of easily understood and undeniable examples? I could show millions of examples of "kinds bringing forth after their kind" like the bible tells us will occur The simple fact is that the religious fairy tale of Darwinism should not be taught in science classes
You are so fanatical about it that you cannot even let there be ANY evidence for evolution.
I find it intensely interesting and perplexing that you adjust you view of reality so that you cannot even permit there to be evidence to support evolution.
I did not try to prove evolution, I just provided evidence to support it.
If you claim there is NO evidence to support evolution YOU are living in a dream.
I apologize for pointing out that you have provided NO EVIDENCE of Darwinism having occurred. You have chosen a losing battle since Darwiniam NEVER took place - it is a scientific impossiblilty as I show in our various teachings, especially in "Refuting Darwinism in 7-Seconds Flat" - (it actually only takes 5.5 seconds) The rest of your comments get pretty weird so I will not post them
How is what Christian believe be crumbling? The Bible is still here, after thousands of years, it is stronger today than ever before in history! Your belief, on the other hand has only been around for 150 years. And in that 150 years the only proof you have in text books and museums are frauds that have been revealed 50-100 years ago! I'd say, yours has crumbled, my friend. It's the ungodly that try to hang on and use these frauds as proof to this day. It seems it's their only evidence!
Your entire video misrepresents what science is and how it works. It's not surprising that the actual scientists have reached different conclusions than the religionists. It's also not surprising that the religionists feel qualified to "teach" science.
Both creation and evolution are BELIEFS on how we came about. Neither is "science" which is supposed to be the search for truth based upon the study of the evidences that all beliefs have to look at
No open-minded person would argue with this
Darwinists are left with nothing but trying to divert attention from the frauds used to support their claims - or insults and name-calling. These are the last bastion for those with no evidence to back up their crumbling beliefs
"DNA Code Barrier" - a creationist fiction that doesn't exist. I.e., just one more lie.
"Gene depletion" - Creationist canard supported by lies about the inadequacy of gene duplication, transfer, and neutral mutations to fuel natural selection
Macro vs Micro - a matter of degree with no substantive difference
"Information" - Always creationist "Gitt" information. Derived w/pseudo-mathematics and rejected by professional information theorists.
professor, in Genetic Entropy: The Mystery of the Genome, Dr. J. Sanford, retired from Cornell with 25 patents for genetic research, reveals compelling new genetic evidence that the human genome is deteriorating due to mutational genetic losses (Gene Depletion) He lays out the scientific case against Neo-Darwinism showing that the more we learn about the genome the less plausible Darwinism becomes and that : Gene Depletion + Natural Selection makes Neo-Darwinism a scientific impossibility
Yes I have Sanford's book. In this book, he uses a creationist definition of "information" from Werner Gitt (as do creationists generally). Gitt's work is considered meaningless pseudo-mathematics by professional information theorists (Sanford is not one), who use Shannon's definition of information. There is no evidence that DNA has "Gitt" information at all (or indeed that the concept even means anything). So all talk about barriers to depleting it or expanding is rubbish.
Most of these patents were earned as an atheist. But all this is irrelevant.
Sanford's book is rejected because it's wrong, not because he's a creationist. He is a plant horticulturalist who suddenly starts promoting creationist information theory. And he clearly is not very good at it!
Credentials are important, but not all important. The problem with Sanford's "entropy" book has nothing to do with his religious belief. The problem is that it is really lousy! He clearly does NOT understand information theory!
"Oh, I see...he was a genuis until he realized there is a God so now he is "irrelevant.""
You misunderstood me - I didn't say that Sanford was "irrelevant", I meant that it is "irrelevant" whether Sanford was an atheist or creationist. His entropy book is pseudo-mathematics regardless.
@gregrutz Keep telling yourself that. Darwinism says all things evolve to different levels and was published while we still had slavery in the USA
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
@gregrutz How does variation within a species, caused by the sorting or loss of genetic information (Gene Depletion) lead a finch into becoming a bunny rabbit or whatever religious fairy tale you believe?
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
We all have the same evidence is a lie. Creationists have never studied the fossils. Yes all scientists have accepted it because it has been proven.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Greg, don't embarrass yourself
CreationMinistries 1 year ago
So chimps and humans are from a single kind then?
It's pretty clear from ERV's and the fusion of chromosomes to form human chromosome #2 that we shared a common ancestor.
malranch 2 years ago
That is your biased interpretation of the evidences at hand but the complexity is the opposite of Darwinian needs.
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Define "kind" and give a complete classification system in kinds.
Yes, I know full well that the "baraminology" project is a complete failure!
malranch 2 years ago
"kind" is a biblical term & according to Strong's Concordance is defined: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. A new species is not a new kind but a partitioning of an existing kind
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
If different species can be from the same kind, then how do you determine - biologically - what species belong to a common kind?
malranch 2 years ago
A Darwinian believing professor once presented two zebras to me as "proof of Darwinism in action."
Some had been separated from the main group by a sea and lost the ability to interbreed - they were two species - but still the same kind
Also, this was caused by the loss of genetic data, the opposite of Darwinian requirements
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
"we all have the exact same evidence"
Yes perhaps - but creationists ignore it. As one AIG proponent said - "We know that if the data disagree with the Bible, the data are wrong."
Now *that's* lying!
malranch 2 years ago
professor, I am beginning to truly feel sorry for you. I think that you do protest too much. What this person was saying is that they base their interpretations of evidences on God's word first, other peoples interpretations second. Since man's interpretations are often times taught as "fact" for many years, then proven to have been completely wrong it seems to be a logical position
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
"Since man's interpretations are often times taught as "fact" for many years, then proven to have been completely wrong it seems to be a logical position"
Yes well YEC interpretations are proven to be wrong from the start, but you believe them as fact anyway.
malranch 2 years ago
So you are basically saying:
"There! Take that!"
You are a professor, correct?
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
CreationMinistries -- Yoiu are not interested in the truth. Your only interest is to spread the gospel.
You are no better then propagandists for marxism or any other ideology.
Philos2006 2 years ago
I spread both the truth and the Gospel
Darwinism serves as the philisophical foundation for communism so once again you are wrong - there is something to be said about being consistant!
Darwin's idea has led to the premature death of billions of people as I show in our teaching, "The Evil Fruits of Darwinism."
Keep in mind that the title of his book was "Origin Of the Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life"
Favored Races?
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
well done. thanks
tls1697 2 years ago
Argh dude. All this stuff has never refuted "Darwinism". Everything here is a creationist classic. Everything here has failed to impress before.
Also when you get to the "giant conspiracy" level or argumentation, that is when it's time to admit defeat. The conspiracy IS the "last bastion for those with no evidence to back up their crumbling beliefs".
Danmill23 2 years ago
I thought I had heard the last from you when I quickly shot down what you claimed was your very best proof for Darwinism - and it probably was your best supposed proof
Again (getting boring) NO EVIDENCE to back your claims
What conspriacy? Just real science undermined by the false religious tale of goo-to-the-zoo-to-you Darwiinian evolution
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
I tried to explain that that what I would provide was evidence for evolution. If you remember you claimed there was "no" evidence for evolution. I tried to explain to you that I would address that and provide evidence to support evolution.
Which is what I did.
You quickly (copy paste) shooting it down is debatable and besides the point. This is because I simply did what I said I'd do ... I provided evidence to support evolution.
Danmill23 2 years ago
No, you tried to show proof but I showed how further scientific testing revealed the results had been mis-interpreted and actually provided NO proof for Darwinism Had Darwinisn taken place shouldn't there be millions of easily understood and undeniable examples? I could show millions of examples of "kinds bringing forth after their kind" like the bible tells us will occur The simple fact is that the religious fairy tale of Darwinism should not be taught in science classes
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
You are so fanatical about it that you cannot even let there be ANY evidence for evolution.
I find it intensely interesting and perplexing that you adjust you view of reality so that you cannot even permit there to be evidence to support evolution.
I did not try to prove evolution, I just provided evidence to support it.
If you claim there is NO evidence to support evolution YOU are living in a dream.
Cont... (1)
Danmill23 2 years ago
I apologize for pointing out that you have provided NO EVIDENCE of Darwinism having occurred. You have chosen a losing battle since Darwiniam NEVER took place - it is a scientific impossiblilty as I show in our various teachings, especially in "Refuting Darwinism in 7-Seconds Flat" - (it actually only takes 5.5 seconds) The rest of your comments get pretty weird so I will not post them
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
How is what Christian believe be crumbling? The Bible is still here, after thousands of years, it is stronger today than ever before in history! Your belief, on the other hand has only been around for 150 years. And in that 150 years the only proof you have in text books and museums are frauds that have been revealed 50-100 years ago! I'd say, yours has crumbled, my friend. It's the ungodly that try to hang on and use these frauds as proof to this day. It seems it's their only evidence!
cathy356 2 years ago
Your entire video misrepresents what science is and how it works. It's not surprising that the actual scientists have reached different conclusions than the religionists. It's also not surprising that the religionists feel qualified to "teach" science.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago 2
Both creation and evolution are BELIEFS on how we came about. Neither is "science" which is supposed to be the search for truth based upon the study of the evidences that all beliefs have to look at
No open-minded person would argue with this
Darwinists are left with nothing but trying to divert attention from the frauds used to support their claims - or insults and name-calling. These are the last bastion for those with no evidence to back up their crumbling beliefs
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Ah - another "strawman" creationist video.
"DNA Code Barrier" - a creationist fiction that doesn't exist. I.e., just one more lie.
"Gene depletion" - Creationist canard supported by lies about the inadequacy of gene duplication, transfer, and neutral mutations to fuel natural selection
Macro vs Micro - a matter of degree with no substantive difference
"Information" - Always creationist "Gitt" information. Derived w/pseudo-mathematics and rejected by professional information theorists.
malranch 2 years ago
professor, in Genetic Entropy: The Mystery of the Genome, Dr. J. Sanford, retired from Cornell with 25 patents for genetic research, reveals compelling new genetic evidence that the human genome is deteriorating due to mutational genetic losses (Gene Depletion) He lays out the scientific case against Neo-Darwinism showing that the more we learn about the genome the less plausible Darwinism becomes and that : Gene Depletion + Natural Selection makes Neo-Darwinism a scientific impossibility
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Yes I have Sanford's book. In this book, he uses a creationist definition of "information" from Werner Gitt (as do creationists generally). Gitt's work is considered meaningless pseudo-mathematics by professional information theorists (Sanford is not one), who use Shannon's definition of information. There is no evidence that DNA has "Gitt" information at all (or indeed that the concept even means anything). So all talk about barriers to depleting it or expanding is rubbish.
malranch 2 years ago
professor, here is a perfect example of bias trumping science.
Sanford holds 25 patents in genetic research but because his findings debunk Darwinism he is suddenly "anti-science"
Thanks for the example
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Most of these patents were earned as an atheist. But all this is irrelevant.
Sanford's book is rejected because it's wrong, not because he's a creationist. He is a plant horticulturalist who suddenly starts promoting creationist information theory. And he clearly is not very good at it!
malranch 2 years ago
Oh, I see...he was a genuis until he realized there is a God so now he is "irrelevant."
Like I said, it is your bias, not science, that supports Darwinism
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Credentials are important, but not all important. The problem with Sanford's "entropy" book has nothing to do with his religious belief. The problem is that it is really lousy! He clearly does NOT understand information theory!
malranch 2 years ago
The gist of Sanford's book , a man with 25 U.S. patents in genetic research is that :
Gene Depletion + Natural Selection makes Darwinism a scientific impossiblity - just as I have been saying
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
"Oh, I see...he was a genuis until he realized there is a God so now he is "irrelevant.""
You misunderstood me - I didn't say that Sanford was "irrelevant", I meant that it is "irrelevant" whether Sanford was an atheist or creationist. His entropy book is pseudo-mathematics regardless.
malranch 2 years ago
So just his information became irrelevant (in your opinion) when he stopped being an atheist and began believing in God...Glad we cleared that up
CreationMinistries 2 years ago