Evolution wording removed from draft of Arizona school science standards

[Greg Dent]

Would it matter? The bible is clear that life started here not on some other planet. He created everything here out of the matter that he built here. Sure matter started with the big bang and that spread the material around the universe. But everything Jesus needed to make us was already on this planet when it was created.

[Old]

27 minutes ago, Greg Dent said:

Would it matter? The bible is clear that life started here not on some other planet. He created everything here out of the matter that he built here. Sure matter started with the big bang and that spread the material around the universe. But everything Jesus needed to make us was already on this planet when it was created.

 

I believe the Bible is quite clear on how life started here on earth. The Bible tells us nothing about the rest of the universe except for the fact that "In the beginning, God created the heavens..."  

[Qapla]

Who knows .... there could be planets with fully functioning ecosystems complete with animal life waiting for human colonization - Adam and Eve sinned before this planet was subdued ....

[Tortuga]

38 minutes ago, Greg Dent said:

The bible is clear that life started here not on some other planet.

All life or just human life?

[EccentricM]

4 hours ago, humbleebee said:

 

 

 

The video I was thinking about The exact same discovery is repeated with those fruit fly tests which were spoken about in our mags.

 

“Almost all the mutants…died or were weaker than wild varieties. Mutations cannot transform an original species of plant or animal into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” – Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig

 

 

Basically... micro-evoution, yes. Macro. No. Evolution has not caused apes.. or ape related creatures to evolve into humans according to the scriptures. Science has not shown one species becoming another. Reptile to mammal, etc. If something splits.. it's still "within it's kind". Hence you can say wolves from the ark evolved into the dog breeds we see now. But you can't say a fish became a lizard with became a bird.

 

It's all framework. Satan is a genius. He flooded the minds of man with the wrong lens for years, making people teach that micro can account for macro, and then people trying to squeeze the oh so lacking fossil evidence and even DNA evidence into this theory. But if you really look into it (I did), several flaws, just on a scientific scale, then they can't explain why scripture is prophetically true.

 

Quoted from my blog from my own research and reasoning.

 

Quote

Let’s take a look at a human embryo development;  

 

 

We can see each stage of development proving where it come from and where it ends up, inch by inch and it’s observable in front of our very eyes in the modern day. Evolution, not so much.  If we compared embryo development to how evolution fossil records are read we’d only see something like this; 

 

 

You might say, “well yeah, but you can still see the transition!” But I must confess something to you. I just deceived you. The three development stages you see here are ‘nothing’ to do with each other. The first is a dog embryo, the second is an elephant, the third a human. But because of the huge jumps I made, skipping the process, I can easily cut and paste similar looking things together and claim one developed into the other. You most likely didn’t suspect any foul play and just accepted what you saw because you were looking at these pictures through a singular lens of perception, one of human embryonic development. This is what evolutionists do. It’s the same deception. We never see one thing actually “becoming” another over time, only large jump cuts between different species or variety of a species.

 

“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.” – David M. Raup, Evolutionary Paleontologist

 

 

 

 

Again, much like my embryo example, nothing is found ‘between’ each “stage” to ‘prove’ one is developing into the other. Nothing is on those lines. Erase the green lines and you will only see a random collection of different shaped skulls. They take the process of various animals or variety of species, line them up and say one became the other with no actual evidence that this is what we are seeing.

 

Speaking of videos, and what I quoted from my blog. This man took the words out my own mouth about imposing the theory of macro evolution with our own minds.

 

 

 

But to take one of the main quotes of my blog...

 

Quote

 

The confirmed scientific facts tell us that;

• All life shares DNA
• Mutations are leading to entropy, not advancment or development of new species
• All life contains the Earth’s components
• All life can adapt within it’s own species
• That life began in the sea, then to the land animals and finally to man

What evolution claims but has yet to prove;

• That we all share a common ancestor
• That one species can change into an entirely new species over time

What the Bible claims;

• That all life shares a common creator (Colossians 1:16)
• That all life was created from the Earth’s elements  (Genesis 2:7)
• That the first life forms were made in the sea, then land animals and finally man (Genesis 1:20-26)
• That man has been declining since the beginning (Genesis 5:5, Psalm 90:10, 1 Corinthians 15:22)

 

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by EccentricM

[Tortuga]

9 minutes ago, Qapla said:

Who knows .... there could be planets with fully functioning ecosystems complete with animal life waiting for human colonization - Adam and Eve sinned before this planet was subdued ....

There could be dinosaurs terra-forming a planet right now. That stuff doesn't happen overnight and a 7000+ year detour is nothing in Jehovah's timeline...

 

The recent news about finding building blocks of life on Mars is probably driving some evolutionists crazy but I don't think it's out of harmony with the Bible. 

Edited June 10, 2018 by Tortuga

[Old]

7 minutes ago, Tortuga said:

All life or just human life?

To say nothing about life that spirit creatures enjoy.

[Tortuga]

1 minute ago, Old said:

To say nothing about life that spirit creatures enjoy.

I often wonder if the angelic workers are doing more than watching a bunch of dead planets spinning around...

[Witness1970]

6 hours ago, Wm-Scott said:

Similarly as a species we are healthier and living longer than at any time in our history.

Psalm 90:10 says 70 or 80 years.  In my own genealogy there has certainly been no increase in life span of individuals.

 

My GGGgrandfather on my father's side was born in 1800 and his wife was born in 1802.  He lived to the age of 89 (died in 1889), and his wife lived to the age of 91 (died in 1893).   None of their descendants except one has made it to 89 years old.

 

My GGgreatfather on my mother's side was born in 1788. Records show him working in a coal mine in Dahlonega, GA after 1870. He was working there between the age of 85 and 90. ( I am sure that he must have been working in a less physical job.)   None of his descendants have managed that.

 

So, in my genealogy there has been no increase, at least for the past 200 years.  If anything there has been a decrease in longevity and vitality for most of the descendants.

 

So just how far do we have to go back to see any increase in life span? ( And I do not mean average life span, because if you just take an average you are fooling yourself.  That would include women who died in childbirth due to lack of hygiene among doctors and children who died due to lack of hygiene.)

Edited June 10, 2018 by Witness1970

[Wm-Scott]

3 hours ago, humbleebee said:

Very interesting and I have quoted the post above, which is seemingly credible because the interviewee claims to be a Biophysicist. If this is totally inaccurate, then we all need the accurate knowledge so that we are not misled, or indeed mislead others - and for that, I thank you for contributing

I watched the video and it was obvious that Dr. John Standford doesn't know what he is talking about and made several major mistakes in the interview. As I immediately suspected, he is a young earth creationist. Creationists have a very impressive ability for bare faced lying. Then can tell the most obvious lies with total sincerity because they have a complete and total blind faith. Evidence means nothing to them. Everything is twisted, bent, cherry picked and lied about, to make it a appear to support creationism. 

 

I checked Dr. Standford's book on Amazon and found an excellent review that explained many of the problems with the arguments in the book. The reviewer summed up his research as,  "My efforts show that the book's impression of scientific authority is a sham. That bothers me. I don't like to see people misled. I don't like to see credentialed scientists like John Sanford exploit people who trust him for his obvious intelligence and apparent sincerity. All I can do is tell you what I've learned, so that you can draw appropriate conclusions from the evidence. I don't know everything about genetics, but I do know that "Genetic Entropy" is unprofessional and intellectually irresponsible. I can't recommend that anyone read it without critically examining every statement." 
Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Classroom/product-reviews/0981631614/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=

[EccentricM]

Even if he is a YEC.. surely his research on negative mutations is still valid, given that it lines up with other studies, such as the fly mutations? I've not seen people try to discredit him or prove his research wrong in any scientific community, he himself in that video said no scientist can deny the observations of negative mutations.

 

What mistakes did he make?

Edited June 10, 2018 by EccentricM

[Wm-Scott]

2 hours ago, Greg Dent said:

We simply cannot fight off the bugs and viruses like we could years ago. More people die of influenza than have ever in the past. I am not talking of the black plague is spanish flu. Common flu that goes around every year kill more and more every year. The flu vaccine continues to be ineffective as a preventative measure.

 

"An overall and substantial decline in influenza-classed mortality was observed during the 20th century, " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC237480

[Wm-Scott]

58 minutes ago, EccentricM said:

What evolution claims but has yet to prove;

• That we all share a common ancestor
• That one species can change into an entirely new species over time

See earlier post on changing species.

[Wm-Scott]

40 minutes ago, Witness1970 said:

longevity and vitality for most of the descendants.

 

So just how far do we have to go back to see any increase in life span? ( And I do not mean average life span, because if you just take an average you are fooling yourself.  That would include women who died in childbirth due to lack of hygiene among doctors and children who died due to lack of hygiene.)

The increase referred to, was for average life span, not maximum which has been unchanged for a very long time.

[EccentricM]

13 minutes ago, Wm-Scott said:

See earlier post on changing species.

Seeing how you seem to support evolution to the degree you do...  are you under the impression that Genesis was not literal and that man came from ape ancestors by means of Jehovah? Genuine question, not as disrespect, just curious, as that's the vibe I get.

 

If not, why so?

Edited June 10, 2018 by EccentricM

[Wm-Scott]

15 minutes ago, EccentricM said:

Even if he is a YEC.. surely his research on negative mutations is still valid, given that it lines up with other studies, such as the fly mutations? I've not seen people try to discredit him or prove his research wrong in any scientific community, he himself in that video said no scientist can deny the observations of negative mutations.

 

What mistakes did he make?

He is completely discredited and without any scientific support. Hardly no one bothers to discredit him since it is a waste of time, on a par with disproving the flat earth theory. If you want a more detailed rebuttal, I recommend the Amazon reviewer I quoted. He gave a thorough and well reasoned rebuttal of Dr Stanford's arguments. He gave the one star review, so it should be easy to find, all the other reviews were five stars reviews written by glassy eyed creationists.

[Wm-Scott]

2 minutes ago, EccentricM said:

Seeing how you seem to support evolution...  are you under the impression that Genesis was not literal and that man came from ape ancestors by means of Jehovah? Genuine question, not as disrespect, just curious, as that's the vibe I get.

No, not at all. Please read my first posts to understand what I am saying.

[Shawnster]

23 minutes ago, Wm-Scott said:

 I recommend the Amazon reviewer I quoted. He gave a thorough and well reasoned rebuttal of Dr Stanford's arguments. He gave the one star review, so it should be easy to find, all the other reviews were five stars reviews written by glassy eyed creationists.

 

 

Can you please share the link again?  It looks cut off above or some reason did not convert to a hyperlink. 

 

Also it helps using his correct name, John Sanford.  You keep typing his name wrong.  When I Google the name you use, I get no results.  When I Google Dr. John Sanford creationist, I get all kinds of results. 

[Wm-Scott]

30 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

Can you please share the link again?  It looks cut off above or some reason did not convert to a hyperlink. 

 

Also it helps using his correct name, John Sanford.  You keep typing his name wrong.  When I Google the name you use, I get no results.  When I Google Dr. John Sanford creationist, I get all kinds of results. 

https://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Classroom/product-reviews/0981631614/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&rev

 

Hopefully the link works this time, if it doesn't, go to Amazon, search for "genetic enthropy" and look for the class room edition, click on the one star review.

 

Sorry about the typo, couldn't get the cut& paste to work and got it wrong.

[EccentricM]

20 minutes ago, Wm-Scott said:

https://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Classroom/product-reviews/0981631614/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&rev

 

Hopefully the link works this time, if it doesn't, go to Amazon, search for "genetic enthropy" and look for the class room edition, click on the one star review.

 

Sorry about the typo, couldn't get the cut& paste to work and got it wrong.

Solid points in there. (There are also counter arguments to the review in there also, but they are beyond me to examine as I'm no geneticist or mathematician.)

 

What I wish to ask though is if there is "anything" in his research that can be salvaged? He clearly has tried to perform calculations in accordance to YEC math, but I wonder if there is anything in his finds that can be reconciled with accurate science and biblical teachings.

Edited June 10, 2018 by EccentricM

[Witness1970]

2 hours ago, Wm-Scott said:

The increase referred to, was for average life span, not maximum which has been unchanged for a very long time.

The problem with using Average Life Span to indicate anything is that, as I have said, a lot of that change would be due to changes in hygiene. I have read that doctors 200 years ago would go from one room conducting an autopsy into the next room to help in the delivery of a baby without bothering to wash their hands.  They had no idea about germ theory back then and they knew no better. Their way of treating illness might be to bleed someone.  If someone was really sick they might draw a lot of blood.  For a headache they would blister someone with a hot rod.  If they wanted to appear really knowledge they would apply the blister in some remote location like the big toe.  When someone was sick, they usually recommended withholding water and forcing the patient to eat.  A very sick patient cannot digest food so forcing them to eat was the wrong thing to do.  Withholding water would make the patient dehydrated. When the patient managed to get some water and improved they would recommend not letting him get to any more water.

 

Using average life span data from that period can be very misleading.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Witness1970
addition for clarity and spelling correction

[Witness1970]

Jerry, Unobtainium member:  Avatar, the movie?

[Wm-Scott]

2 minutes ago, Witness1970 said:

Using average life span data from that period can be very misleading.

"The fact is that the maximum human lifespan — a concept often confused with "life expectancy" — has remained more or less the same for thousands of years. " https://www.livescience.com/10569-human-lifespans-constant-2-000-years.html

[Shawnster]

1 hour ago, EccentricM said:

Solid points in there. (There are also counter arguments to the review in there also, but they are beyond me to examine as I'm no geneticist or mathematician.)

 

What I wish to ask though is if there is "anything" in his research that can be salvaged? He clearly has tried to perform calculations in accordance to YEC math, but I wonder if there is anything in his finds that can be reconciled with accurate science and biblical teachings.

The man did invent the gene gun, so he does know something. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_gun

[jwhess]

The three points I would like to make (in reference to the genetics) are:

 

The mule, the ass or donkey and the horse are all of the same "kind" or genus, which is equine in nature.  None of the breeding experiments attempt to mate horses with black bears for instance.  So the production of a new "species" is not the kind of evolutionary trends textbooks tout as the cause of all of the animals on the planet.

 

The virus is not exactly a "living" organism.  It lacks some key identity factors (like cell structure).  It is basically a chunk of DNA waiting to invade an existing cell.  So manipulating this type of material is not a form of "life-creating" science.

 

I am trained in more Thermodynamics than Biology but the physical laws apply.  Without any "outside" influence or energy input, all things lose energy and seek a lower state.  In other words they 'wind down'.  If man's genetics are improving then what is the "outside" energy force causing this upgrade?

 

Just a few thoughts. In God's New World we will be sustained (or even improved) by the strength of His Spirit.