The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

briancalgary wrote:

Need a road map to show exactly when and how it has been observed in teh wild.

You've already been given quite a few. To take three from the TO page that wicknight linked to:

1. A Mimulus (a flower) species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).
2. A new species of mosquito turned up in London's Underground, which speciated from a now-separate urban species (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).
3. In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).

There are plenty more examples.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

No, not satisfied with speciation. Need a road map to show exactly when and how it has been observed in teh wild.

Do you want real time evidence? In other words, not fossils, but speciation which has occured within the last 150 years. There are 1,000 cases of it, including rather complicated amphibians.

However if fossils would satisfy you, then fine.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

The topic is not evolution. The topic is existence of everything and how it got here. Which includes evolution but is not limited to evolution.

5uspect brought up Ultimately life began with self replicating molecules.. So I think that my question is valid.

Just remember how science works (wanted to say this before robindch continues), even if there were no explanation for where the molecules came from, evolution wouldn't be wrong. Just like not having a explanation for where electricity came from does not invalidate the theory of electricity.

jonny72

Most creationists will only believe in Evolution if a frog literally turns into a butterfly, because that is honestly the level that their brain works. When you talk about micro-changes in a species of stickleback, they couldn't care less.

They also want to see life instantaneously spark into being right now in front of their eyes or have video evidence of it, instead of the rather disappointing news that it happened under unique conditions over millions upon millions of years.

They also seem to think scientists just magically agree on ANYTHING that contradicts the bible, that scientists don't debate, analyse, criticise, attack, examine, scrutinize every minute detail of every single theory that has ever been put forward by other scientists.

The Bible is the Big Book of Easy Answers that even a child can understand. Every Religion on Earth is exactly the same. Easy answers to many very difficult/impossible to answer questions. I hate to spell it out to you religious folk, but Hello.. haven't you ever, you know, noticed this?

However.. even us heathen atheist scientists will be telling our kids that Mr Fluffy the rabbit has gone to heaven and we sure as hell are going to be praying to God when the plane's about to crash.

BrianCalgary

Son Goku wrote:

Just remember how science works (wanted to say this before robindch continues), even if there were no explanation for where the molecules came from, evolution wouldn't be wrong. Just like not having a explanation for where electricity came from does not invalidate the theory of electricity.

However if we are speaking about origins, we need to know where the first molecules came from. So, a valid question, on the first replicating molecules.

BrianCalgary

Son Goku wrote:

Just remember how science works (wanted to say this before robindch continues), even if there were no explanation for where the molecules came from, evolution wouldn't be wrong. Just like not having a explanation for where electricity came from does not invalidate the theory of electricity.

Agreed.

BrianCalgary

Son Goku wrote:

Do you want real time evidence? In other words, not fossils, but speciation which has occured within the last 150 years. There are 1,000 cases of it, including rather complicated amphibians.

However if fossils would satisfy you, then fine.

No fossils.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

You've already been given quite a few. To take three from the TO page that wicknight linked to:

robindch wrote:

1. A Mimulus (a flower) species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989)..

Did we start with a flower and end with a flower?

robindch wrote:

2. A new species of mosquito turned up in London's Underground, which speciated from a now-separate urban species (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998)..

Did we start with a mosquito and end up aith a mosquito?

robindch wrote:

3. In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151)..

And lastly, did we start with a fish and end with a fish?

(I'm being serious here, these are the questions that are asked and not answered satisfactorily to a layman. I do appreciate the answers I am getting from Robin, 5uspect and Son Goku.)

Galvasean

Sure we started with a mosquito and ended up (importantly) with a totally new kind of mosquito.
Imagine saying all apes are the same. On one hand you have a chimpanzee and on the other hand a human. I wouldn't say "Oh look two apes. They must be the same", the same way i wouldn't say two different species of mosquito are the same.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

Did we start with a flower and end with a flower?



Did we start with a mosquito and end up aith a mosquito?



And lastly, did we start with a fish and end with a fish?

(I'm being serious here, these are the questions that are asked and not answered satisfactorily to a layman. I do appreciate the answers I am getting from Robin, 5uspect and Son Goku.)

Something you might not appreciate is how large a group fish is. Even though you'll look at any fish and see a fish, they are a whole phylum which is the largest grouping of animals possible. Same for flowers. You have to understand that "fish" is as big a group as "mammal". For instance there are fish which look very similar to our eyes, which are as different from each other as we are from dogs. Starting with one fish and having it turn into another it a huge genetic difference, don't get caught up in the groupings the human mind puts things into.
For instance mosquito is equivalent to dog, fish equivalent to mammal and flower equivalent to vertebra. Massive difference in sizes on a genetic level, but because of the way we categorize stuff, you've spoken as if "fish" is like "mosquito".

An example would be the warblers of Eurasia, these songbirds have been observed to come from another bird which could not sing. The now have a totally different beak structure, e.t.c. but most importantly they cannot breed with the original bird species. Please respond seriously and not with something like "they're still two birds".*

*As Galvasean pointed out if you find evolution between two birds possible, then evolution between apes and humans is an equivalent process.

Galvasean

Son Goku wrote:

*As Galvasean pointed out if you find evolution between two birds possible, then evolution between apes and humans is an equivalent process.

Well, that wasn't what I was trying to say but I suppose it came out like that (i must be a genius without even knowing it!). I was trying to say that not all mosquitoes are the same species yet people don't seem to realize this. Humans are a species of ape, but everyone knows we are different from other apes.

Ekancone

Wicknight wrote:

That has already been discussed. Creationists don't accept this as a evolution because the bacteria is still the same species of bacteria. Which is why I'm trying to show Brian example where a species actually changes into a different species.

No, its not. E-coli and MRSA are entirely new species of bacteria that have emerged over the past 100 years as a result of natural selection favouring those who resist antibiotics. This is a fact. It astonishs me those who make big claims against evolution without having a shred of knowledge of how it works.

Ekancone

BrianCalgary wrote:

No, not satisfied with speciation. Need a road map to show exactly when and how it has been observed in teh wild.

Antibiotic resisting bacteria, Aids virus are examples of evolution that has been observed.

Hivemind187

daithifleming wrote:

No, its not. E-coli and MRSA are entirely new species of bacteria that have emerged over the past 100 years as a result of natural selection favouring those who resist antibiotics. This is a fact. It astonishs me those who make big claims against evolution without having a shred of knowledge of how it works.

Which e-coli?

E-Coli is a bacteria that has been around hell of a lot longer than 100 years.

A variant of e-coli can have evolved from minor mutation making one or two single bacteria resistant to chemical cleansers and antibiotics, which then devides repeatedly until it has devveloped and spread enough to be a broadly sustained strain of the bacteria.

The MRSA bug is similarly another pathogen that has survived the cleaning process to become a wide spread and highly resistant entity.

Both these examples show microevolution, where one breed of a species develops into another breed by means of natural selection (within an artificial environment).

It'll take another few hundred thousand years for those bacteria to become an algae or multicellular life form but in the mean time expect to see a lot more examples of drug resistant strains of MRSA, HIV, Hepatitis and anythign else we have been throwing anti-biotics at for 200 years.

Hivemind187

Son Goku wrote:

Something you might not appreciate is how large a group fish is. Even though you'll look at any fish and see a fish, they are a whole phylum which is the largest grouping of animals possible. Same for flowers. You have to understand that "fish" is as big a group as "mammal". For instance there are fish which look very similar to our eyes, which are as different from each other as we are from dogs. Starting with one fish and having it turn into another it a huge genetic difference, don't get caught up in the groupings the human mind puts things into.
For instance mosquito is equivalent to dog, fish equivalent to mammal and flower equivalent to vertebra. Massive difference in sizes on a genetic level, but because of the way we categorize stuff, you've spoken as if "fish" is like "mosquito".

An example would be the warblers of Eurasia, these songbirds have been observed to come from another bird which could not sing. The now have a totally different beak structure, e.t.c. but most importantly they cannot breed with the original bird species. Please respond seriously and not with something like "they're still two birds".*

*As Galvasean pointed out if you find evolution between two birds possible, then evolution between apes and humans is an equivalent process.

Agreed. at the end of the day Citosine, Adenine, Thiamine and Guanine are the basic components of ALL life. Its not so difficult to imagine a scenario in which self replicating molecules of this nature could result in the abundance of life and differences we see of how that life is expressed.

Ekancone

Hivemind187 wrote:

Which e-coli?

E-Coli is a bacteria that has been around hell of a lot longer than 100 years.

A variant of e-coli can have evolved from minor mutation making one or two single bacteria resistant to chemical cleansers and antibiotics, which then devides repeatedly until it has devveloped and spread enough to be a broadly sustained strain of the bacteria.

The MRSA bug is similarly another pathogen that has survived the cleaning process to become a wide spread and highly resistant entity.

Both these examples show microevolution, where one breed of a species develops into another breed by means of natural selection (within an artificial environment).

It'll take another few hundred thousand years for those bacteria to become an algae or multicellular life form but in the mean time expect to see a lot more examples of drug resistant strains of MRSA, HIV, Hepatitis and anythign else we have been throwing anti-biotics at for 200 years.

Sorry, you are right these are examples of new species of MRSA, etc, i should have specified that but i am at work so my time to type is limited!

But of course this is an example of microevolution but how is it un-natural? These are forms of life that are mututating and reacting to their surrounding environment. It is no different to a gazelle's evolution reacting to a lion.

Hivemind187

daithifleming wrote:

Sorry, you are right these are examples of new species of MRSA, etc, i should have specified that but i am at work so my time to type is limited!

But of course this is an example of microevolution but how is it un-natural? These are forms of life that are mututating and reacting to their surrounding environment. It is no different to a gazelle's evolution reacting to a lion.

Only the environment is artifical (since it is a man made construction). It is definitively natural selection at work. I agree with everything else.

Ekancone

Hivemind187 wrote:

Only the environment is artifical (since it is a man made construction). It is definitively natural selection at work. I agree with everything else.

How is it artificial? Is man not part of the natural world? Is this not a life-form reacting to its environment?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

And how did these first replicating molecules form?

Chemistry

Heat and radiation (which early Earth had plenty of) will cause certain molecules to clump together and start doing interesting things, such as primitive replication. This replication is driven by energy such as the sun, and works based on the laws of chemistry.

Once this replication happens a form of evolution starts, where these complex molecules are competing for limited resources on Earth and are evolving due to errors in their reproduction systems. Give it 1.5 billion years of this constant evolution and you end up with primitive cells similar to modern bacteria.

While naturally know one knows exactly what form this took in early Earth (it was close to 4 billion years ago), we know various ways that it can happen. Self replicating molecules have been produced in various chemistry labs, such as MIT, by re-creating the conditions that one would have found on early Earth.

With computer simulations it is also possible to model how these molecules would evolve over thousands of years in a relatively short period of time.

BrianCalgary wrote:

No, not satisfied with speciation. Need a road map to show exactly when and how it has been observed in teh wild.

Not quite sure what you mean by "road map"

Speciation (what Creationists call macro-evolution) has been observed in a large number of creatures, such as the ones listen in that web page I linked to. The road map of how this happened is detailed in the papers themselves, but it isn't exactly bed time reading.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Did we start with a flower and end with a flower?

That is kinda like watching a F15 fighter plane morph into a Boeing 747 and saying in a slightly unimpressed way "Well we started with a plane and we ended with a plane"

The fact of the matter is that you start with one species of flower and you end up with a different species of flower. That is pretty impressive. It also demonstrates that macro-evolution takes place.

If you want to see the original species of flower change into a tree or something you need to watch a couple of millions years of one species changing into another until the end result is so far removed from the one you started with a million years ago that you no longer call it a "flower"

Ultimately you have to look at what you mean when you say "flower", what are the characteristics of a species that make you call it a "flower"

Say for example petals. If after a few million years and a few thousand shifts of species (a few hundred million mutations), the species you end up with no longer has petals you would no longer call that a flower.

Now you might be saying that that is all very well, but it is not possible to watch something over a time period of a million years. I want to see a very dramatic change happen right in front of me damn it!!

That is of course difficult, since we are not talking about one or two or even a thousand changes that can be observed, we are talking about the accumulation of million of changes over long periods of time, hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions.

Rarely though it is possible to observer spectacular shifts from one form of life to another within manageable time frames.

This is a dramatic example that I've used before on this forum. There is a certain form of pond life that is single celled by nature. I can't remember the name and it is a long Latin one anyway so it would be largely meaningless (I can dig it up if you like).

As I said this is a single celled life form. But researches have discovered that this single cell life form can some times mutate in a particular way so that cells of it group together and produce a primitive wall around themselves (a skin as it were).

These series of mutations effectively change the life form from single celled to multicellular. This is like watching the F15 change into a Power Plant. It is a fundamental shift in the very form of life.

One can see this happen if one exposes a group of these life forms to a threat that slowly kills off the single celled variety. The ones that have evolved into multicellular form with this new wall can protect themselves in a way that the single celled ones cannot, and as such they slowly take over the bowl or jar or what ever they are in until only the multicellular ones are left.

The change is fundamentally astounding, a shift between single cellular organism to multicellular is one of the biggest jumps in evolution, and one of the things that baffled biologists for a long time. To actually be able to watch it happen is quite remarkable.

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote:

How is it artificial? Is man not part of the natural world? Is this not a life-form reacting to its environment?

It is unfortunately necessary when discussing Creationism and Evolution to avoid examples where the evolutionary response is triggered by man, ie that it is artificially constructed. A hospital is not an natural environment for bacteria to find themselves in, as such Creationists tend to reject these examples as being the product of intelligence (ie humans), as if we were genetically engineering these bacteria.

The reason for this is that Creationists then claim that man did it, man is intelligent, therefore other evolution needs intelligence too, ie God. Which is probably why Brian put "in the wild" after his call for examples. He won't accept examples that have been artificially created to demonstrate something, even if that fact makes no difference to the end results.

This is of course nonsense, the bacteria doesn't care if the environment is artificial or not, the process of evolution is exactly the same.

But when debating Creationists it is important to be very specific about what you are claiming. If one is claiming that evolution is a natural process one has to avoid examples where man has had a direct influence, such as antibiotics or sterile hospitals.

Hivemind187

daithifleming wrote:

How is it artificial? Is man not part of the natural world? Is this not a life-form reacting to its environment?

Artificial in that is being introduced deliberatly as a means fo erradication or experiment rather than as a consequence of environmental factors.

Pouring bleach on bacteria is an artifical act because we create the bleach, mix the relevant chemicals to ammounts that dont usualy exist in nature then purposesly choose to introduce the chemicles into the immediate environment of the bacteria.

In this sense it is artifical sinc it is a man made occurance. The REACTION to the stimulous is totally natural.

Just a minor disctinction of words rather than anything else.

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote:

It is unfortunately necessary when discussing Creationism and Evolution to avoid examples where the evolutionary response is triggered by man, ie that it is artificially constructed. A hospital is not an natural environment for bacteria to find themselves in, as such Creationists tend to reject these examples as being the product of intelligence (ie humans), as if we were genetically engineering these bacteria.

The reason for this is that Creationists then claim that man did it, man is intelligent, therefore other evolution needs intelligence too, ie God. Which is probably why Brian put "in the wild" after his call for examples. He won't accept examples that have been artificially created to demonstrate something, even if that fact makes no difference to the end results.

This is of course nonsense, the bacteria doesn't care if the environment is artificial or not, the process of evolution is exactly the same.

But when debating Creationists it is important to be very specific about what you are claiming. If one is claiming that evolution is a natural process one has to avoid examples where man has had a direct influence, such as antibiotics or sterile hospitals.

Couldnt have (and didnt) put it better myself.

Ekancone

I cannot agree with you im afraid. An environment is an environment, whether artificially made or not. Think of all the chemicals man is now spewing into the planet that were not there before. Does not mean we no longer have an environment anymore? Of course not. Natural environments and man-made environments are the same in terms of this discussion and even if they were classed as different there is no reason to believe that this alters evolution in anyway. One way or another we are discussing whether evolution occurs, and i have shown that it does.

Tzetze

BrianCalgary wrote:

And how did these first replicating molecules form?

Maybe this would be of interest to you? (you can't get much further removed from human interaction either)

Organic compound found in the stars
Life-building molecules might be spread throughout space.

Astronomers have found the largest negatively charged molecule so far seen in interstellar space. The discovery, of an organic compound, suggests that the chemical building blocks of life may be more common in the Universe than had been previously thought.

The molecule is a chain of eight carbons and a single hydrogen called the octatetraynyl anion (C8H¯). Two teams of scientists have spotted it near a dying star and in a cloud of cold gas.

The discovery, along with that of three smaller organic molecules in the past year, opens up a suite of potential chemical reactions and products. It suggests that 'prebiotic' molecules such as amino acids, the building blocks of protein, could form all over the Universe, says Tony Remijan, an astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Charlottesville, Virginia.

With sauce, of cauce

And with reference to the bold text in the above quote...

We are stardust, we are golden,
We are billion year old carbon

Ekancone

To be honest i think Creationists are fighting a losing battle. Think about what we knew about life on earth and its origins 150 years ago... 1000 years ago! Now try imagine what we will know in another 150 years! Scientists will have the whole thing cracked open eventually, and that will be the end of Creationism.



PS: I think it is hugely hypocritical of Creationists to attack genetics and molecular biology in terms of evolution, yet they would be more than willing to take medication and recieve treatment for illness which were discovered by this science.

robindch

Ah, the chatter has died down. I'll continue...

BrianCalgary wrote:

Did we start with a flower and end with a flower?

Yes, we did. The point here is that speciation has happened. New life forms which never existed before have been observed to evolve into existence without any intervention from anything other than the environment. That's what evolution is. Nothing strange or threatening.

To summarize where we are now -- can I assume that you're now happy that small scale genetic change happens without producing new species, and also that genetic changes can occur, through the process of natural selection, which gives rise to new species that did not exist before? If so, then we can take another step backwards and get a bigger view of what's going on.

What you're looking for is the evolution of obvious physical differences between the shape of the ancestor organism and the later organism. The rate of genetic variation (which is known) doesn't allow large physical things like horns or whatever to appear overnight. Instead, these things evolve over long periods of time. Now, as humanity has only been observing speciation for 150 years or so, that's not believed to be enough time for something obvious to have evolved. (Though there is recent evidence that, in certain cases anyway, surprisingly prominent physical features can arise very quickly. A recent paper described a monkey which turned up with very long fingers -- as this monkeys diet was tree-grubs, this was good news to the monkey as he could get more out of the tree holes than his short-fingered brothers and sisters. The error which caused this was traced to a single "letter" difference in the genetic code which controls the monkey's finger growth -- ie, as small a change as you can get.)

Anyhow, since there are no human records which describe large physical features, biologists have to go looking for other kinds of evidence. And that's where the contents of the fossil record comes in. There is a good booklet which describes what the fossil record is, how it's been found, how it works and what it's all about. The book is only 36 pages long and it's available here:

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf

One good example that they quote is of the evolution of whales which is well understood. The fossils in the oldest rocks (the deepest ones, generally), have fossilized remains of animals that walked on land. That was about 60 million years ago. As you go up through the layers of rock towards the younger surface, you see fossils with smaller and smaller back legs (which eventually disappear inside the whale''s body, where they remain), and stronger and stronger forelegs (which eventually become today's front steering flippers). But even today, you can still see how the whale's flipper is related to earlier organisms. Here's what the skeleton of a whale flipper looks like today:

And here's a human hand for comparison:

There are plenty of other similar cases of fossil records demonstrating slow changes over long periods of time. The whale is just one of them. Others include fossils of horses, birds, rats, monkeys, humans, dinosaurs, fish and many more.

That's enough for one posting. Have you understood what I've written here?

J C

Robin
Death threats to Professors of Biology

If it is true, then all Christians would utterly condemn any such threats, which would constitute a gross violation of Human Rights and Academic Freedom!!!


PDN
It is, in my opinion, impossible for anyone to be a polymath.

It is not impossible…........just very, very rare!!!:D


Wicknight
scientists have actually done exactly what these Creationists are talking about, created self-replicating molecules by modeling the conditions of early Earth………

Mention that to JC. His reaction to the MIT experiments shows pretty well how damning this fact is to the Creationists idea that life can never arise naturally.

So-called ‘self-replicating molecules’ are a long way from a living cell !!!!

In any event, I fully accept that it may be possible to artificially replicate certain aspects of living systems……… with the appliance of massive levels of ingenuity and Human effort, …….but this only PROVES the necessity of a massive intelligent input in the original Creation of life!!!:eek:


Bisar
If the purpose was just to wipe mankind of the face of the earth then surely an omnipotent god could have just snapped his fingers (or whatever it is that deities snap) and the job would have been done and everyone would have been a lot happier. Plus god could have sat back right now and watched the evolutionists try to explain why the entire human race (minus 8 people) instantaneously died for no earthly reason.

God could have ‘clicked His fingers’ and all life would have disappeared……..however, if He did this, there would be no evidence of such an event …..and the Evolutionists would deny that it ever happened …..and Creation Science wouldn’t be able to counter such a denial with evidence such as the billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth……that the Flood produced, and we can see today!!!!

……..and BTW the people didn’t die in the Flood for ‘no earthly reason’……they died because they had become irredeemably evil…..as Gen 6:5-6 says “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”

The Flood was used by God to make a number of points:-
1. That all living things are also affected by the actions and Fall of Mankind.
2. That God is prepared to directly intervene in the affairs of Mankind using physical processes.
3. That the wages of unrepented sin and evil behaviour is death.
4. That those who believe on God will be saved.


Giblet
It had very obvious back teeth seen on this fossil, and a very refined, sharpened beak at the front, not even wide enough to accomodate teeth. I suppose the top edge of the beak was "sharpened" over time. (In the many examples found of course).

OK ……so it’s a Rhino with a beak as distinct from a Rhino with a narrow browsing mouth (in the case of the Black Rhino) or a Rhino with a wide grazing mouth (in the case of the White Rhino)……
......if it looked like a Rhino, had the horns of a Rhino and was warm-blooded like a Rhino……guess what…..IT WAS A RHINO!!!!:D


Giblet
And of course, an olive branch floating on the top of the ocean waves doesn't really have the impact of the Dove finding LAND and returning to Noah. I mean, surely there were hundreds and thousands of bits of debris floating around in this flood.

The olive leaf was a sign that the waters were ABATING and plants were alive and sprouting new leaves…….and the Dove DIDN’T RETURN the third time, when the land had actually appeared!!!

The olive leaf, like the rainbow, was also a sign that God was moving into a fundamentally different phase in His relationship with Creation, after the devastation of the Fall and the Flood.


Giblet
Selective reading again as usual. Friend of a friend.

……a ‘friend of a friend’ ……is usually also regarded as a friend……

……..so can I be a ‘friend of a friend’ of yours then?????:D

That reminds me of an exchange that I think occurred between Winston Churchill and Oscar Wilde. Apparently Wilde sent two tickets to Churchill with the following note :-
“Mr Churchill please find two tickets for the opening night of my new play, one for yourself and the other for a friend ……….if you can find one!!!”
Churchill is said to have replied:-
“Sorry Mr Wilde, I can’t make the first night of your new play, will come the second night……….. if there is one!!!”

…….Ouch!!!!!


Giblet
Scientists like you? Or actual Scientists?

…..Actual Scientists like me!!!!!:)


5uspect
You'd almost think that its a story dreamed up by bronze age old men who didn't know better?

…No, that was Evolution actually!!!!


Jonny 72
So you must have believed in Evolution but that the Earth was 6000 years old, right?

I BELIEVED in the whole shebang……….or rather the whole big bang, billions of years…..the works…..

……..it was only when I STUDIED it CLOSELY that I found it to actually have no supporting evidence !!!:eek:


PDN
God is omnipotent, not just extremely potent. If one believes in an omnipotent god than why is the instantaneous destruction of all these people any less easy to believe than the giant flood theory?

The Flood Theory is the more credible……
…….and the EVIDENCE of billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth supports the Flood Theory……rather than the ‘finger clicking’ theory…..and so does the Genesis account!!!


Jonny 72
Some people require truth, fact, logic, evidence, etc before they believe in something..

Yes indeed, Creation Scientists DO require such evidence!!!
….but some others apparently don’t!!!:)


Wicknight
To reject the idea of the Flood one must either come up with a plausible idea for the story being a metaphor

….but any metaphorical interpretation is contradicted by the EVIDENCE of billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth!!!!


Dan 719
Not only that but you are propagating incest- shame on you!

I am certainly NOT propagating incest…….I am merely POINTING OUT that marriage occurred between consenting closely related adults during the early generations of Mankind…….and it was quite lawful at the time ……because it wasn’t banned until several generations had passed after the Flood……..

There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God). Therefore, the children born of unions between close relatives did not run any significant danger of being homozygous for serious genetic disorders (which is the main historical reason for banning incest among consenting adults).

Gen 11:29 actually records, for example, that Abraham’s wife Sarah was his niece (the daughter of Abraham’s brother Haran).

Genetic disorders largely arose after Noah’s Flood (as measured by the rapid collapse in longevity from several hundred years to an average of 70 years) – and a Law was then given by God in Lev 20:17 that siblings shouldn’t marry.

Incest between consenting adults is now, of course, sinful…….and genetically risky……but marriage between close cousins is still legally allowed by both church and state ……..so there shouldn’t be any great wonder about close relatives marrying each other during the early generations of Mankind!!!!!:eek:


Robin
the children who are well suited will survive and they can reproduce, giving their successful design (or something like it) to their own children. And so, if you do this for lots of generations, you get successive generations which are better and better suited to their environment.

That's what "evolution" is.

That is what NATURAL SELECTION is!!!…….

…….and it explains how populations of organisms that are already possessed of considerable genetic variety can change to match changes in the environment……..however, it doesn’t explain how these organisms and their massive quantities of tightly specified information came to be, in the first place!!!!

Evolution may explain the SURVIVAL of the fittest …… but it DOESN’T explain the ARRIVAL of the fittest!!!:D


Son Goku
Instead of realising he is incorrect, JC would rather imagine that I'm being over complicated. The truth is population is more complicated than you would guess and if you don't use the logisitic map you won't get any meaningful results.

You’re the guy who is incorrect…….and needlessly complicating a simple calculation.

All living creatures, including Humans, have an enormous POTENTIAL to reproduce…….and my figures show how it is theoretically possible to produce 8 BILLION people starting with just two people in about 1,000 years.

The fact of the matter is that it ACTUALLY took about 4,500 years to reach 8 billion people, because of the effects of resource limitations, population reversals, etc……..but the issue that I was originally addressing was the claim that 8 Billion people couldn’t (even theoretically) be produced from two people within the Post-Diluvian timeframe of about 4,500 years……

……..and in actual fact, a fertility rate of only 2.4 children per woman would produce well in excess of 8 billion people in the 130 generations that have elapsed since the Flood!!!:cool:


Wicknight
how many times has it been explained on this thread that evolution works by anything but random chance.

I accept that Natural Selection exists and is capable of ‘directional selection’ to match environmental pressures.

However, the process that produced the variety upon which NS works is the real issue……
…..i.e. was IT either Creation or Mutation????

Creation is a possible contender …….but mutation is totally implausible…..because it is observed to always be destructive of genetic information (and this is proven by the reluctance of EVERYONE, including Evolutionists to be exposed to X-Ray Mutagenesis, for example).

Mutagenesis is a random process, and therefore it is incapable of spontaneously producing the genetic sequence for a simple protein, even if all of the matter and time in the known universe was available to it!!!!

The type of ‘Evolution’ that Robin has referred to can degrade genetic information (via Mutagenesis) or produce amazing new varieties using pre-existing genetic diversity ……but it shows NO POTENTIAL to ‘change muck into Man’!!!!

……ONLY God can spontaneously change water into wine …….or clay into Man!!!!!:D

J C

5uspect
If there is too much of a change from one generation to the next then the organism will surely be a monstrosity, as Darwin called it, and surely die through harmful deformations or inability to breed.

If speciation occurs using pre-programmed diversity…….then significant changes can occur rapidly without affecting viability.

However, intermediates between Kinds are impossible and therefore most changes driven by mutation result in unviable monstrosities!!!


5uspect
the birds will continually pick them off reinforcing the "good" genes in the strong green fish.

…..firstly, this scenario will ALWAYS result in the survivors being FISH.

…..secondly, the surviving green fish may not even be the healthiest fish……if the green fish carry a ‘sickly’ gene…….but the yellow fish are all genetically healthy…..the predation pressure will eliminate the healthy yellow fish and leave a group of sickly, well camouflaged green fish ……that are very likely to become extinct themselves!!!

So, as a ‘blind force of nature’, NS is just as likely to be taking two steps backwards as it is to be taking one step forward……and it therefore shows NO POTENTIAL to produce the enormous levels of tightly specified complex information observed in living organisms!!!!


Wicknight
Macro evolution is simply micro-evolution happening over a very long period of time. It is the accumulation of all the micro changes, spread over many generations.
…… If micro-evolution happens then so does macro-evolution.

It doesn’t matter how long you wait, something that is dead will remain dead.
Equally, something of a given complexity will remain at that degree of complexity (or degenerate to a lower level of complexity) UNLESS an input of intelligently directed or programmed effort is expended upon it!!

Macro-evolution is QUALITATIVELY different to Micro-evolution.
It is the difference between washing and manufacturing your car.
The process of washing your car is SIMPLE and cosmetic……..and could be done by a very heavy shower of rain……..whereas the manufacture of a car requires a massive input of intelligent design that results in tightly specified complex components being sequentially assembled to produce a functional vehicle…..and natural processes are simply incapable of such tasks!!!!

.....ditto for living organisms!!!


Dathifleming
Is the Earth 10,000 years old?

No. Why?

The movement of continents. Now this requires a bit of science stuff called maths so you may find this hard to swallow but...

Look at two continients that were once joined, say South America and Africa. Calculate the speed they are moving away from each other at 5.7cm a YEAR.

So lets say that South America and Africa are, i dunno at least 6000km (6,000,000m) from each other.

6000000/5.7 = 1052631.5789473684210526315789474 years


Case closed.

The case would ONLY be closed if you ASSUME, for some reason best known to yourself, that South America and Africa were once right up against each other and the rate of movement of 5.7 cm observed today has remained constant.

Neither assumptions can be scientifically validated……. And so the case is very much OPEN!!!:eek:

……and your figure of only about 100 million years is but a ‘moment’ of Evolutionary Geological time……..and therefore, as an Evolutionist, you have to also explain what happened to the continents during the previous 4,000 million years…….or were they like ‘dogem cars’ happily bumping off each other all that time…….
........which kind of explodes you ‘neat theory’ that the continents of Africa and South America started off as right up against each other, in the first place!!!!:D

This theory is just like the rest of Evolution……superficially plausible……but it falls apart upon closer scientific examination!!!
I find that Evolutionists apply too much emotion, and not enough science, in developing their ideas about Evolution!!!:D


Dathifleming
The only way those fish could turn green was if there was some advantage to be had to being more green and if the neccessary genetic code existed to lead to a mutation of that code..

………and if the specific protein for green colour was only 100 Amino Acids long …….it would take 10 to the power of 130 attempts to ‘discover’ it using mutagenic processes……and there are only 10 to the power of 80 electrons in the Known Universe!!!!!

In fact, the necessary code for green skin protein would have to be already within the pre-existing genetic diversity of the fish……and then the predatory birds could put the yellow variants ‘under selective pressure’……and the 'sickly green fish' could struggle on to die of their own accord, on another day!!!!:)

This micro-evolutionary process is capable of producing sickly green fish……but it is not capable of kicking off anything that could possibly lead to the production of a Man…..or even a fish, in the first place!!!!!!!!


Robin
What you refer to as "macroevolution" (fishes to dogs or whatever), is what biologists call "speciation", ie, the creation of new species.

Speciation and/or micro-evolution involves the roll-out of pre-existing genetic information within Created Kinds.

Macro-evolution attempts, but fails to explain the origins of this complex specified information, in the first place.


5uspect
Its about the continued accumulation of mutations.

Why do Evolutionists believe that they themselves are the sum total of BILLIONS of ‘mistakes’…..:eek:

……yet none of them would buy a second hand car that had EVEN ONE serious ‘mistake’ in its construction…….

……..I can only hope that Evolutionists don’t apply their belief in the ‘benefits’ of making as many errors as possible to any other aspects of their lives……….and I suspect that they DON’T!!!


5uspect
Ultimately life began with self replicating molecules. All these molecules wanted to do was replicate.

Were they conscious beings or something????


5uspect
Its about the continued accumulation of mutations……….

……... Some developed additional features, errors in the replication process, helping them to adapt.

…..such faith in the power of MISTAKES!!!!:eek:

….on that basis, do you try to ‘upgrade’ the spec of your car to ‘aircon’ or ‘electric windows’ by ramming it up against a wall, in the hope that the damage caused could produce the said ‘aircon’ or ‘electric windows’…….

……..and if you DON'T do this with your car, then why do you believe that biological systems would fare any better, from a similarly damaging assault on their genetic integrity by mutagenesis????

‘Improvements’ are very tightly specified and the actions that produce them are equally tightly specified and occupy a tiny fraction of the potential ‘combinatorial space’ surrounding them.

‘Mistakes’ are almost infinite in their possibilities…..and therefore random processes (such as Mutagenesis) will statistically ALWAYS degrade information and design.

For example, if somebody hits their car randomly with a hammer, this will ALWAYS degrade the functionality and/or design of the vehicle…….
……on the other hand if the vehicle is subsequently brought to a 'panel beater' ……the intelligently controlled application of hammer strokes can restore the design and functionality of the vehicle!!!!

The appliance of intelligence is ALWAYS required to improve design or functionality…….because of the effective infinity of useless ‘combinatorial space’…..and the exceptionally small amount of useful ‘combinatorial space’ for any particular design to function.:cool:


5uspect
This would allow different species to arise, through accumulated gradual mutations.

…….just like your car will ‘improve from accumulated bangs and scratches….I suppose!!!:)

…….can you not 'get your head around' the fact that it is physically and logically impossible to ‘improve’ something using random processes, like Mutation………EVEN IF you have a ‘Quality Control’ mechanism, like Natural Selection coming along behind to try and eliminate the damage!!!!!

The problem isn’t with NS, it is with the inability of Mutagenesis to do anything other than degrade genetic information…….it’s akin to hitting your TV Remote Control with a hammer and then claiming that it has somehow ‘improved’ because it now turns off the TV every time you press the ‘Channel 1’ button!!!
Such an outcome may well be notable for the fact that the Remote continues to work at all…..
…….and it would therefore be a tribute to the robustness of the design of the Remote……but it certainly wouldn’t be any ‘improvement’ on the original perfectly functioning Remote Control!!!!:)

Perhaps Evolutionists would care to explain why they believe that Mutagenesis can literally ‘move’ muck to develop into Man………but they carefully AVOID ‘Mutagenesis’ for both themselves and their Remote Controls????


5uspect
The ability of an organism to consciously control itself and its movement would be a revolution in evolution.

IF such an ability were to develop spontaneously, it would be a MIRACLE for Evolution……
…..and there are no known Laws of Physics, Chemistry or Biology that indicates that such a development is even potentially possible…..
….it’s like expecting matter to spontaneously assemble itself into a Computer, complete with Windows XP, without any intelligent input into the process……..
…….and I don’t care how many billion years that were to pass, as you looked at a blob of plastic polymer, a nugget of Copper ore and a pile of silica sand……the chance of them EVER spontaneously producing a functioning computer using the known Laws of Physics and Chemistry are ZERO!!!!
…..ditto for the spontaneous production of your good self!!!!!:eek:


Jonny 72
Most creationists will only believe in Evolution if a frog literally turns into a butterfly,

Not really.....
A caterpillar turns into a Butterfly……which is almost as dramatic a transition as a Frog doing so…..but the KEY point is that this transition involves pre-existing, pre-programmed genetic information of mind numbing complexity and exacting specificity…..and the spontaneous production of such information within the known Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Biology is IMPOSSIBLE!!!

…..the only viable logical alternative is that it was produced by an infinite intelligence that happens to perfectly match the transcendent, yet imminent God of Judeo-Christianity!!!!:cool:


Jonny 72
They also want to see life instantaneously spark into being right now in front of their eyes or have video evidence of it, instead of the rather disappointing news that it happened under unique conditions over millions upon millions of years.

As an Evolutionist, you can obviously continue to believe, by FAITH alone, that life spontaneously emerged by some freak occurrence, billions of years ago…….

……however, the fact that it is not repeatably observable today, means that you cannot claim scientific validity for your faith in Evolution……..just like Creation Scientists ALSO don’t claim scientific validity for their belief in Direct Creation.

However, both Evolutionists and Creationists, can apply the Scientific Method to examining the artefacts of life, including fossilised and living organisms as well as taking account of the known Laws of Science and Logic…..
……and so far, the evidence overwhelmingly favours the Direct Creation Hypothesis!!!!:eek:


Jonny 72
They also seem to think scientists just magically agree on ANYTHING that contradicts the bible, that scientists don't debate, analyse, criticise, attack, examine, scrutinize every minute detail of every single theory that has ever been put forward by other scientists

Creationists accept that Evolutionists may have many heated arguments amongst themselves about the DETAILS of Evolutionary Theory…….
…..but the one thing that Evolutionists don’t seem to question is their faith in the Theory of Evolution ITSELF!!!


Jonny 72
The Bible is the Big Book of Easy Answers that even a child can understand. Every Religion on Earth is exactly the same. Easy answers to many very difficult/impossible to answer questions. I hate to spell it out to you religious folk, but Hello.. haven't you ever, you know, noticed this?

Yes, the Bible does appeal to the heart of every person…..and it can be fully understood by everyone indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Obviously, every religion isn’t exactly the same…..
…..but you are correct that the Bible does provide answers to many difficult and otherwise impossible to answer questions…..because it is the Word of God……who Created all life and knows each one of us by name!!!


Jonny 72
However.. even us heathen atheist scientists will be telling our kids that Mr Fluffy the rabbit has gone to heaven and we sure as hell are going to be praying to God when the plane's about to crash.

……goes to prove that there are no REAL Atheists……just people who prefer to ignore God, sometimes until it is too late to be saved!!!:D

J C

robindch wrote:

you can still see how the whale's flipper is related to earlier organisms. Here's what the skeleton of a whale flipper looks like today:

And here's a human hand for comparison:

.....and this is proof of the use of a common design ......by a common Designer.......
.....and it is not proof of a common ancestor!!!!!:D

The Mad Hatter

jonny72 wrote:

Every Religion on Earth is exactly the same. Easy answers to many very difficult/impossible to answer questions. I hate to spell it out to you religious folk, but Hello.. haven't you ever, you know, noticed this?

'Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. ' -Gautama Buddha