The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

dalk

The Out of Africa opinion has become the accepted theory

I presume Creationists would refute that theory, with the Biblical 'Out of Eden' facts...

robindch

> there is a tendency for certain scientists to react
> badly to any dissention against evolution

Yes, indeed -- some biologists do react energetically to creationists because creationsts continually demean, insult and and lie about scientists and their work, and these scientists can understandly get upset about this.

If you had people running around saying things like the following about you and what you do:

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=53 (Kent Hovind)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0427social_evil.asp (Ken Ham)
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=877 (ICR)

...wouldn't you get upset too? Do you think, on balance, that creationists are behaving honestly in all of this and that the anger of scientists is unjustified?

Dades

Good article here, about a Vatican press conference today. Intesting to hear the words of various members of the Vatican hierarchy.

Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest said:

"evolution was assuming ever more authority as scientific proof develops".

But on the other hand Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture stressed that:

what was important was that "the universe wasn't made by itself, but has a creator."

Refreshing to see how he reinforces the key idea of ID while not insisting it happened in 7 days.

J C

Quote Son Goku
Eh,.....you have to use the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution if they are Macro-atomic.
Standard discrete probability doesn't apply, because:
You are not taking about a discrete Bernoulli trail, you're talking about a statistical mechanical system.........................................Quantum Mechanics deals with anything smaller than a buckminsterfullerene directly and indirectly with anything up to very long protein chains.
And thats just for kinematics, for bonding it almost always applies

Whatever about the "tongue-twisting" jargon, the REALITY is that the odds AGAINST the undirected achievement of the specific sequence for a simple useful protein is a number greater than the number of seconds required for a snail to transport ALL of the 10^82 electrons in the known universe over and back across 20,000,000,000 light years taking just ONE ELECTRON at a time.

The fact that a 10 year old can accomplish this ‘feat’ with certainty in 20 minutes says something very profound about the requirement for the involvement of a 'great intelligence' AKA God in the creation of life.


Quote Son Goku
How could you not see any difference, they (Nothing, an area of extreme Ricci curvature & a unique coordinate set defined on spacetime) are totally different.
They have completely different definitions and different effects, so I don't no how you can say there isn't any practical difference.
Instead of me explaining why they are different (again), why don't you explain how they are the same

I DIDN'T say that they were the SAME – they are obviously different words.

I said that I could see no PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE between the three concepts – and that is still the case.

"An area of extreme Ricci curvature" & "a unique coordinate set defined on spacetime" just uses more words to describe "NOTHING" !!

Quote Son Goku
The nVidia corporation have coolents in their newest graphics cards to prevent heating from quantum tunneling.

There is no argument about the fact that these graphics cards need to be cooled – but there does remain considerable debate over what exactly IS heating them.

Even though I find quantum mechanics fascinating, could I say that other members of this thread are showing signs of boredom with it’s technicalities – and as Creation Scientists don’t actually have any major issues with quantum mechanics in the first place, little will be served by prolonging this particular aspect of the debate.


Quote Asiaprod
why don`t we all agree to differ and move on to debate other stuff that does not require an advanced physics degree, something most of us do not posses.

I agree Asiaprod – the 21 questions that I have asked about evolution might be a good place to start – as they are pretty straightforward relatively simple questions – and they DON’T require membership of Mensa to either understand or indeed to answer them.

However the fact that they are so devastating to the concept of evolution means that no evolutionist will dare to answer them for fear of completely losing his or her faith (in evolution).

robindch

> There is no argument about the fact that these graphics
> cards need to be cooled – but there does remain considerable
> debate over what exactly IS heating them.

Many think it's explained by the Theory of Electromagnetism, but that's only an atheistic "theory" after all!

P'raps it's caused by "Intelligent Heating"?

J C

Quote Wibbs
While the direct process (of the Big Bang) may not be repeatedly observable, it's effects are. Background radiation, expansion and all that guff.

”Background radiation, expansion and all that guff” is ALSO consistent with Special Divine Creation.

Quote Wibbs
How can anything exist before, when the very concept of "before" itself couldn't exist without spacetime?

Because Humans are eternal Beings under the authority of an eternal God (who always existed) we do NOT have to confine ourselves to the limitations of the current temporal Universe and it’s spacetime when talking about God or indeed about our own eternal destiny.

Quote Robin
Don't be mislead by religious fundamentalists telling you what biology is -- listen to biologists instead!

Very good advice indeed Robin.

As I AM a qualified Biologist (amongst other things) – you should take your own advice and LISTEN TO ME when I say that there is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for “muck to Man evolution”.


Quote Robin
It's been observed in nature and in the lab. BTW, you can breed something as simple as a radish and a cabbage together to produce a new species (in that the resulting, er, 'radage' can breed with others of its kind, but not with either of its parents).

Robin, it is ALWAYS a good idea to NOT breed with EITHER of your parents!!!

In any event, all of this is fully accepted by Creation Science – and I have covered this ‘speciation’ phenomenon already in a previous posting.

Species DO ‘evolve’ and indeed new species can and do arise – often very rapidly, even instantaneously as your above example shows.

However, all of this ‘speciation’ is OBSERVED to utilise EXISTING genetic diversity and to be confined within Created Kinds (which approximates to the Genus level of taxonomic nomenclature).
In the case cited above both the Radish and the Cabbage are members of the Genus Brassica (aka the Brassica Kind).

The critical scientific problem ISN’T explaining the shuffling of existing genes through sexual reproduction or their isolation through natural selection and speciation. The real challenge is answering the question of HOW and WHEN all of this genetic information arose in the first place – and that IS where evolution spectacularly fails!!!


Quote Robin
Quote Wibbs
some scientists, especially evolutionary theorists can be accused
> of being as closed minded as many religious types. [...] Holes that
> many evolutionists ignore or worse refuse to acknowledge.

Can you substantiate these fairly serious claims on the honesty of biologists?

I don't know - but the following extract from a recent Irish Times report may help.

Please Note :- Prof Richard Steinberg is an evolutionary scientist and a research assistant at the Smithsonian Institute with two Ph.Ds, one in molecular biology and the other in theoretical biology.

“Everything about Prof Richard Sternberg, (who published a peer-reviewed paper on Intelligent Design) was investigated by his colleagues to see if it could provide grounds for dismissal. Some even suggested using the fact that his sympathetic sponsor (supervisor) had died as an excuse to remove him.

On his website, Professor Sternberg explains that his "failure" related to an unstated requirement in his role as an editor of a scientific journal.
He was supposed to act as a gatekeeper, turning away unpopular or controversial explanations of puzzling natural phenomena. He goes on: "Instead, I allowed a paper to be published that is critical of neo-Darwinism, and that was considered an unpardonable heresy."

How odd it is that scientists, who are supposed to examine the evidence and see which model best fits the available facts should be reduced to vengeful fury because of one paper. It shows that scientists, for all their claimed belief in objectivity, can have beloved dogmas which must not be questioned.”

How odd indeed!!!


Quote Robin
Yes, indeed -- some biologists do react energetically to creationists because creationsts continually demean, insult and and lie about scientists and their work, and these scientists can understandly get upset about this.

Robin, take a long deep breath and count to 10 – THEN GO AND ANSWER MY 21 QUESTIONS ON EVOLUTION.

I don't know if it will achieve much for evolution – but it will work wonders for your blood pressure !!!

Quote The Atheist
Good article here, about a Vatican press conference today. Interesting to hear the words of various members of the Vatican hierarchy.

Well, whatever next!!
An atheist admiring the Vatican hierarchy – are you sure you are REALLY an atheist?

Quote
Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest said: “evolution was assuming ever more authority as scientific proof develops".
That should keep Evolutionists happy!!!

Quote
But on the other hand Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture stressed that: what was important was that "the universe wasn't made by itself, but has a creator."
That should keep Creationists happy!!!

That should keep EVERYBODY happy!!!


Quote The Atheist
Refreshing to see how he reinforces the key idea of ID while not insisting it happened in 7 days.

He was RIGHT not to insist that it happened in 7 days – because it actually HAPPENED in SIX days.

REFRESHING to see how God reinforces the key idea of ID in Ex 20:11 “For in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh DAY”. (NIV)

robindch

> As I AM a qualified Biologist (amongst other things)

We've been down this road before, when you demonstrated that you didn't know things that a teenager would know. While that's fine (actually a necessity!) for creationists, it's not ok for real biologists, I'm afraid

> REFRESHING to see how God reinforces the key idea of ID

Refreshing also to see your god turning up in Leviticus too, with a home cure for leprosy:

(Leviticus 14:2-52)
Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly away. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally find another pair of birds. Kill one and dip the live bird in the dead bird's blood. Wipe some blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle the house with blood 7 times. That's all there is to it.

Can't say finer medicine than that -- it's heaven sent!

Sapien

By all that is holy - stop feeding this troll!! You are doing a disservice to the inhabitants of the internet by allowing this creature to put his thwarted nonsense before the purview of Google scans.

He lives in a world other than our own. Leave him there.

Infra Dignitatem.

Wibbs

dalk wrote:

I presume Creationists would refute that theory, with the Biblical 'Out of Eden' facts...

JC wrote:

Because Humans are eternal Beings under the authority of an eternal God (who always existed) we do NOT have to confine ourselves to the limitations of the current temporal Universe and it’s spacetime when talking about God or indeed about our own eternal destiny.

Lovely, but words like "eternal" and "always" are concepts that require spacetime. They make no sense whatsoever without it.

robindch wrote:

Yes, indeed -- some biologists do react energetically to creationists because creationsts continually demean, insult and and lie about scientists and their work, and these scientists can understandly get upset about this.

What are they, children? Sicks and stones and all that. Upset fine, but acting just as petulant as their opponents doesn't help science much. I do agree with you in general, but as I've pointed out before, I wasn't just talking about creationists. They react energetically as you put it to any variance on the mantra that evolution is a fact, regardless of source(including other non creationist scientists). They refuse to even acknowledge gaps in the theory(and gaps do exist and I'm no creationist). This was the point I was trying to make. Because of this polarisation, if a respected scientist came up with an alternative, even a re jig of the current theory, the possiblity exists that it may not get past the peer review stage for fear of the loony religious fringe jumping on it as support for their side(which it wouldn't be).

Let me put it another way; lets say that evolution as a theory, in it's current form is wrong(steady at the back there). Let's say that another theory comes along, equal in science. You can be sure it won't be based on the story contained in Genesis. In fact you can be sure if a new theory emerges J C and his ilk will be back here arguing against that too, so why the worry about looking at evolution objectively?

J C

Quote Robin

We've been down this road before, when you demonstrated that you didn't know things that a teenager would know. While that's fine (actually a necessity!) for creationists, it's not ok for real biologists, I'm afraid

The ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating’ – and I can see no logical reason why Biologists who believe in evolution should know any more than me – when I completed the same NUI degree course as themselves, indeed coming third in my finals, as I recall.

However, IF they do know something that I don't – then they should go and answer my 21 questions on evolution – and stop stalling!!!


Quote Robin
Refreshing also to see your god turning up in Leviticus too, with a home cure for leprosy:

Robin this wasn’t a CURE for Leprosy – it was a process under Law for proving publicly that a person was cured of this dreadful contagious disease.
It also outlined the sacrificial offerings to be made in gratitude for becoming free from Leprosy.

You could characterise these passages of Leviticus as one of the first public health policies to control a dreaded disease – which even today sadly blights many precious peoples lives.

Jesus Christ DID cure Lepers during His Earthly Ministry – and His Perfect Sacrifice on the cross has permanently removed the need for any further blood sacrifices of atonement to God – another good reason to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be SAVED.


Quote Sapien
He lives in a world other than our own. Leave him there.

You are indeed correct Sapien, as a Christian I live IN the World, but I am not OF the World.

Jesus Christ loves you too Sapien, and He wants you to spend an eternity of bliss with Him in Heaven – “say but the words (I believe on Jesus Christ) and your soul will be healed”.

Quote Son Goku
Quote Asiaprod
I don`t see any conclusion coming from this thread in the foreseeable future.
When do conclusions ever come from forum threads?
You are correct, threads GENERALLY go nowhere. However, this thread seems to be an exception in this regard.

The Theory of Evolution is in an intellectual ‘check-mate’ on this thread – and NO EVOLUTIONIST has ‘stepped up to the plate’ to defend it by answering ANY of my 21 scientifically devastating questions in relation to it’s validity.

This is of considerable significance – and the Boards CHRISTIANITY Forum is a very appropriate host for such an EVENT.

“My words are TRUE” says the Lord “and the TRUTH will set you free”.

robindch

> By all that is holy - stop feeding this troll!!

Hey, I'm enjoying it!

Wibbs

J C wrote:

However, IF they do know something that I don't – then they should go and answer my 21 questions on evolution – and stop stalling!!!

Ok I'll bite.

1. Have we observed any mechanism spontaneously generating life – it should still be there somewhere if Evolution is true?

As you point out by it's very nature it's a rare event. It only has to happen once. Maybe it's still happening in environments we know little about(deep sea etc)

2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?

It's not.

3. If the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy../..so why do evolutionists not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is also proof of intelligence AKA God?

It could also be proof of more advanced alien intelligence. Doesn't have to be God/Allah whoever.

4. If evolution is ongoing there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures. Why has not even ONE continuum ever been observed among either living or fossil creatures for a functioning useful structure?

Actually there is. In trilobites there is a pretty good line from primitive photosensitive pits to compound eyes. That's one example there. Given the fossilisation is so rare that's pretty good going.

5/6. Why do our Mitochondrial DNA sequences (which are inherited in the female line i.e. 100% from our mothers) show that all human beings are originally descended from ONE woman? ONE man?

Not quite. It show that the DNA sequences came from a very small population in Africa. It shows that a group of closely related women/men were the only survivers into the present day of that particular sequence. It does not mean that there were no other women around before or since African "eve". In fact I personally find the original research pretty crap TBH. They still haven'y collected enough samples to make me feel comfortable about that particular African eve theory. Not by a long shot.

7/8. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design and production of observed biochemical systems.../... computer systems?

Just because we cant do it yet doesnt require God to do it, but that point is interesting.

9. Why do some scientists continue to believe that the Human Genome was an ”accident of nature” .../... were created through the purposeful application of intelligent design?

In this huge ancient universe it only had to happen once. For all we know we're the only time it did happen(not withstanding fat yanks getting probed by aliens).

10. Why do we observe great perfection and genetic diversity in all species when “dog eat dog” Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity necessary for the short-term survival of the individual?

True, valid point.

11. Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions most of the time?

Another area of agreement from me.

12/13/14/15.

Again I see your point. These are questions that the standard theories have few answers for. Blind acceptance that it just happened is not enough. Workable mechanisms would be nice.

16. With odds in excess of 10 to the power of 1,800,000,000 against the production of the nucleic acid sequence of the Human Genome by accident – how do you explain it’s existence using random chance Evolution when the number of electrons in the known universe are only 10 to the power of 82?

That's just sleight of hand dubious mathematics there.

17. Why is it claimed that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment../..when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a scientific mystery?

Well we don't really know the early conditions that well. It's mostly supposition, though it was probably very low in O2 and high in CO2.

18. What is the evolutionary explanation for the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

Shows your lack of knowledge there I'm afraid. Simple fact is that what we know about that time comes from rare deposits like the Burgess shales. They show even more diversity than was expected. In fact it looks like most of those groups found there were actually winnowed out and left us with a smaller animal/plant pool. Recent discoveries of earlier pre cambrian fauna show many early versions of those groups that follow(sea cucumbers/shellfish etc). There have been many explosions other than the cambrian. In fact the speed of some of them may actually poke some holes in natural selection as a theory.

19. Why is it claimed that beak changes in Galapagos finch.

Agree here as well. The use of those bleedin finches... dont get me started. As an example, all of those Galapagos finches are the same species. They can interbreed producing fully fertile young. You would think that they were all different species by reading the standard lit. on it.

20. Why is it claimed that fruit flies with../..cannot survive outside the laboratory?

Yep. Agreed, at least in part.

21. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

We are "just" animals(though why that's an issue is beyond me). Observe how you walk. You'll notice that when your right leg goes forward, your left arm not your right goes forward.
Reason? We still have vestiges of 4 legged locomotion. If you observe 4 legged animals walking their legs oppose in step to avoid striking. Kinda proves a common ancestor now, does it not?

The human origin debate is an interesting one. The fossil record is very sparse so much supposition has resulted. We're getting there though and we do have quite a good idea who some of our ancestors were and how they looked. It's just ignorance to say we have no idea.

J C wrote:

Robin this wasn’t a CURE for Leprosy – it was a process under Law for proving publicly that a person was free of this dreadful contagious disease.
It also outlined the sacrificial offerings to be made in gratitude for becoming free from Leprosy.

Equally daft regardless and very scientific I'm sure.:rolleyes:

robindch

> They refuse to even acknowledge gaps in the theory
> (and gaps do exist and I'm no creationist).

As above, this is false. Holes in the general framework *are* acknowledged. People know about them. They are the topics of ongoing research. They are discussed and dissected in the literature, they are the topics of scholarly dispute, and they are mentioned, for all to see, on the internet:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Please check this reference (it's quite long) to get a feel for where biologists are at and what they're saying.

> if a respected scientist came up with an alternative, even
> a re jig of the current theory, the possiblity exists that it
> may not get past the peer review stage [...]

Yes, you're quite right, because the guy may have written a load of junk -- people do this from time to time and peer-review exists to root out the rubbish.

It does help if one remembers that creationism (biblically-derived) is logically equivalent to creationism (FSM-derived). Do check out the good folks over at:

http://www.venganza.org/

J C

Quote Wibbs
What are they, children? Sticks and stones and all that. Upset fine, but acting just as petulant as their opponents doesn't help science much. I do agree with you in general, but as I've pointed out before, I wasn't just talking about creationists. They (evolutionists) react energetically as you put it to any variance on the mantra that evolution is a fact, regardless of source(including other non creationist scientists). They refuse to even acknowledge gaps in the theory(and gaps do exist and I'm no creationist). This was the point I was trying to make. Because of this polarisation, if a respected scientist came up with an alternative, even a re jig of the current theory, the possiblity exists that it may not get past the peer review stage for fear of the loony religious fringe jumping on it as support for their side(which it wouldn't be).

I agree 100% with your sentiments Wibbs (except for the ‘loony religious fringe’ comment).

I think that you make a very valid point Wibbs, and I know that leading evolutionists are already very aware of what you say. I actually once heard a top Evolutionary Scientist bemoan the fact that he cannot express any of the doubts that he himself has about certain parts of evolutionary theory, for the reasons that you have so eloquently enumerated above. He openly admitted that this was holding back the actual development of the theory.

The fact that even people of this person’s eminent status are, ‘prisoners’ in some sense of evolutionary orthodoxy, says something very profound about the current state of Evolution Science.
Equally I must also say that my 21 questions also say something very profound about ‘muck to Man’ evolution and indeed about it’s very validity!!!!

I can assure you that Creation Scientists treat all evolutionary scientists with the professional respect and courtesy that their distinguished academic qualifications deserve – and in turn I think that it is not unreasonable that Creation Scientists should also be afforded a similar courtesy – it is only common decency and civilised behaviour to do so.

The concepts and evidence for evolution and indeed for creation are ‘fair game’ for valid scientific criticism and evaluation – but not the personalities or the careers of the people who study them.

Indeed, practically all of the evolutionists and all of the creationists that it has been my pleasure to know, have been honest decent people who ‘hunger after truth’.

Creation Scientists certainly WILL be listening very closely to the exciting new discoveries of the Intelligent Design movement – evolutionists can, of course chose to ignore them.

J C

Quote Wibbs
As you point out by it's very nature it's a rare event. It only has to happen once. Maybe it's still happening in environments we know little about(deep sea etc)

I’m not at all sure that it would only have to happen once for success to be achieved. Thousands of different ‘once-offs’ (with enormous odds against each of them ever happening) would be required to produce even a so-called simple cell.

However, be that as it may, there is also no reason to believe that some postulated primitive self-replicating molecule or even a proto-cell would ever progress ‘upwards and onwards’ by some unknown evolutionary process.
Natural Selection can only SELECT – the real problem is producing the genetic diversity for NS to work on, in the first place.

The emergence of life from non-life is also severely “observationally challenged” to put it mildly, and unless and until it is repeatably observable it has actually no more scientific validity than Divine Special Creation (which is precisely none in BOTH cases).

If I started claiming scientific validity for Divine Special Creation you would correctly point out that I couldn’t claim it to be scientific because I couldn’t prove it by repeatable observation. What is sauce for the Goose and all that!!!

The fact that exceptionally well designed creatures “cling to life” around deep sea vents, doesn’t help resolve the ‘origins question’ either, as these creatures show the same evidence of purposeful intelligent design by God as all other living organisms

Quote Wibbs.
Quote JC
How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?

It's not.

It actually is.

It is now known that there are sections of the amino acid chain that are ‘critical’. These are the sections of the amino acid chain where even one ‘incorrect’ amino acid will fundamentally change the three dimensional shape of the protein thereby rendering it biologically USELESS. Because the exact amino acid sequence works and ALL other sequences don’t work at all, you cannot ‘work up’ to the correct sequence using Natural Selection – you either 'hit the jackpot' or it is functionally useless.

The latest research into how DNA actually works shows massively complex switching abilities and little understood interactions between different DNA strands as well as frame shifting abilities of mind numbing complexity. In addition, the exact same DNA sequence can specify completely different structures in different organisms. It is as if we ‘climbed Mount Everest’ when we decoded the Human Genome only to find an even higher ‘mountain’ of complex DNA interactions awaiting us when we got there.

The luxury of being supposedly able to have 10^130 attempts to produce the correct critical amino acid sequence for a particular protein cannot exist in practice because there are only 10^82 electrons in the known Universe – and every unsuccessful attempt would be likely to result in a dead organism (even if it had gotten all of it’s other proteins perfected at the time, thereby setting back not only progress in relation to one protein - but progress in relation to ALL proteins and indeed all other bio-molecules).
Natural selection can only begin to select when you have a population of reproducing viable living organisms with significant extant genetic diversity in their genome and the ability to express it. The Laws of Mathematical Probability and Big Numbers rule out ever getting to this stage in the first place, using undirected processes.
The analogy of a monkey trying to understand the electrical circuitry of super computer doesn’t even begin to describe our current state of knowledge in relation to DNA where there appears to be multiple layers of purposeful information working in perfectly synchronised highly complex ways


Quote Wibbs.
It could also be proof of more advanced alien intelligence. Doesn't have to be God/Allah whoever.

It could be, but the outright rejection of Intelligent Design by neo-Darwinian evolutionists when it is literally ‘staring them in the face’ is now untenable, and that was what this question was establishing.

Quote Wibbs.
Actually there is. In trilobites there is a pretty good line from primitive photosensitive pits to compound eyes. That's one example there. Given the fossilisation is so rare that's pretty good going.

Fossilisation is actually quite common and fossils are in general well preserved (indicating instantaneous death and entombment). Fossils are also widespread and worldwide – which is strong evidence for Noah’s Flood.
Could I suggest that the fossilised ‘photosensitive pits’ of many Trilobites may be creatures whose compound eyes had actually decayed before they were fossilised.

Quote Wibbs.
Not quite. It show that the DNA sequences came from a very small population in Africa. It shows that a group of closely related women/men were the only survivers into the present day of that particular sequence

Originally it was announced that it was ONE woman who lived about 20,000 years ago – but when it was pointed out by Creation Scientists that this was proof of Eve – it was rapidly revised to a ‘small group of closely related women who survived a catastrophy’ – the wives of Noah and his three son’s actually now ‘fit the bill’!!!

Quote Wibbs.
In this huge ancient universe it only had to happen once. For all we know we’re the only time it did happen(not withstanding fat yanks getting probed by aliens).

If the Universe ISN’T big enough or old enough to be able to produce the amino acid sequence for a useful protein – I think that the chances of producing a Human using undirected processes can be safely assumed to be ZERO!!
Aliens only move the problem of the origins of life to another planet without explaining how life could arise in the first place - and the 10^82 limit includes any electrons buzzing around in any aliens that may be out there as well.


Quote Wibbs.
Simple fact is that what we know about that time comes from rare deposits like the Burgess shales. They show even more diversity than was expected. In fact it looks like most of those groups found there were actually winnowed out and left us with a smaller animal/plant pool. Recent discoveries of earlier pre cambrian fauna show many early versions of those groups that follow(sea cucumbers/shellfish etc). There have been many explosions other than the Cambrian. In fact the speed of some of them may actually poke some holes in natural selection as a theory.

I agree with all of the above – but I think that the evidence that you have cited points towards a conclusion that the so-called Geological Column is the approximate sequence of fossil burial during Noah’s Flood (sea floor creatures and flocculated plankton first and terrestrial animals and birds last) – rather than the sequence of the supposed evolution of life on Earth.


Quote Wibbs.
We are "just" animals(though why that's an issue is beyond me). Observe how you walk. You'll notice that when your right leg goes forward, your left arm not your right goes forward.
Reason? We still have vestiges of 4 legged locomotion. If you observe 4 legged animals walking their legs oppose in step to avoid striking. Kinda proves a common ancestor now, does it not?

In a word, No!

A Horse WALKS by moving one leg at a time, a Lion uses both front legs and both hind legs alternately when bounding and a Horse RUNS as you have described.
We do of course share many physical characteristics with animals and this is evidence of a common designer (rather than a common ancestor).
Humans, however are much more than “animals with large brains”. Their capacities for conceptualisation, language, mathematics, belief in God and non-circumstantial moral behaviour places them in a category that is distinctly apart from all animals.
God also confirmed our special status when He told us that we are made in His image, are capable of eternal life and have been given power to rule over all other living things.
Practically all of the so-called vestigial organs that Humans supposedly possessed have now been discovered to have useful functions by Medical Science and so they are no longer classified as vestigial.

Quote Wibbs.
Originally Posted by J C
Robin this wasn’t a CURE for Leprosy – it was a process under Law for proving publicly that a person was free of this dreadful contagious disease.
It also outlined the sacrificial offerings to be made in gratitude for becoming free from Leprosy
Equally daft regardless and very scientific I'm sure

It might seem daft to us in the 21st Century, because we are largely insulated from serious disease epidemics.
However, should a pandemic develop even now, extraordinary measures would be taken – and who knows how these measures would ‘rock our sensibilities’!!!.

The blood sacrifice of animals is also quite alien to our increasingly urbanised lifestyles – but a visit to an abattoir will soon show us how divorced many of us have become from the reality that we are omnivores who require significant amounts of animal protein in our diet – and there is still only one practical way to obtain it – and it involves the death of animals.

The people of the Old Testament respected the profound reality of animals dying so that they might live.
Jesus Christ’s death on a cross, so that we might live eternally with Him in Heaven echoes this reality of sacrifice as well.

robindch

> I can assure you that Creation Scientists treat all evolutionary
> scientists with the professional respect and courtesy that their
> distinguished academic qualifications deserve [...]

JC, my old friend! Why not stop spouting bollocks for a short while, even if only just to see what it feels like? :rolleyes:

Here's a few creationist quotes which demo some "professional respect and courtesy":

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=53

...evolutionism as being largely responsible for molding the thinking of hosts of people like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot of the Khmer in Cambodia, Margaret Sanger, and Karl Marx, who have caused untold suffering in our world

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0427social_evil.asp

[...] people who share a Darwinian worldview, [...] will overall see more immoral behaviour, even atrocities. The 20th century of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot made this clear. Hitler made his debt to evolution abundantly clear. [...] many more people have been killed (most by their own governments) in the name of evolution-inspired ideologies than in all the wars of recorded history put together

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=877

The practices of sexual promiscuity, homosexuality and abortion are already widely promoted and accepted as "normal" and even "good" in our culture, in the name of evolutionism. Infanticide, and euthanasia are being increasingly advocated, on the same basis. And now even rape?

Hitler, Stalin, gays, abortion, communism, Pol Pot, atrocities, rape -- all caused by Darwin! Imagine that! And these quotes actually come from the few enough creationists who can stand upright and fart at the same time -- this isn't even the loony fringe! :eek:

Anyhow, Sapien's ultra-dig advice is worth noting and any further contribs from me are likely to be limited. Just two brief notes:

JC -- you've been a good laugh in this thread, and the topic of more than a few good giggles, and the odd belly-laugh (what was Cronauer's 'dire need' line in GMV again?) Anyway, thanks, I'm much obliged!

Wibbs -- try reading a book on biology, or the links I gave you, or google a bit, or anything at all really. There are legit answers around to your excellent questions; you've just not found them yet, but you will with a bit of application. Enjoy the trip -- it's fun and you'll learn a lot.

ChilleR~

I find a few of these points interesting:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
COMMENTS?

J C

Quote The Recliner
Where in The Bible did he (God) say (that) he didn't create Mankind by a process of evolution

In Gen 1 and 2, in Ex 20:11, in Mk 10:6, in Rom 5:12-14 and in 1 Cor 15:45-48 amongst others.


A new Departure – but within the objectives of this thread
As the SCIENTIFIC arguments in favour of Creation and against Evolution have been exhaustively debated on this thread already, I think that it is opportune to now consider the THEOLOGICAL arguments in this regard.

It will also give the secular evolutionists a chance to ‘collect their thoughts’ and ‘have another go’ at answering my 21 questions on the scientific validity of evolution.

Theistic Evolutionists interpret the Bible as supporting the gradual evolution of life on Earth as described by the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence. Theistic Evolutionists accept that the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence starts with simple life and ends with Mankind in a process that extended over millions of years. They apparently only differ with secular evolutionists on the mechanism of this evolution.
Theistic Evolutionists believe that God directed the evolution of life while atheists deny any involvement of an “outside intelligence” in the process.

So let us look at the THEOLOGICAL basis for Theistic Evolution.

Firstly let us consider the charge of Theistic Evolutionists against Creationists on this thread, that Creationists are “Bible Literalists” i.e. people who believe that there are no metaphors, poetry or allegories in the Bible and that EVERY word in the Bible means literally what it says.

I can confirm that Creationists in general DO accept that metaphors, poetry and allegories ARE employed in the Bible – but they also believe that there are many passages that describe LITERAL EVENTS and they believe that these accounts SHOULD be taken literally.

I think that BOTH Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists accept that the parables of Jesus Christ were ALLEGORICAL.
In addition, I also believe that both factions would agree that the words of Jn 19:30 LITERALLY mean that Jesus said “It is finished” and equally, that He LITERALLY “bowed His head and gave up his spirit”.

The only Book of the Bible that Theistic Evolutionists and Creationists substantially disagree about is Genesis. Theistic Evolutionists believe that the early chapters of Genesis are largely an ALLEGORICAL account of the evolution of life by God – while Creationists believe them to be SUBSTANTIALLY literal accounts of Special Divine Creation. This difference in interpretation is actually the main reason for the debate currently underway on this thread.

It has been argued on this thread by Theistic Evolutionists that the DAYS of Creation in Gen 1 and 2 are not LITERAL 24 hour days – but they are instead ALLEGORIES for “Eons” of time.

Creationists argue that the Hebrew word for Day “Yom” (when it is accompanied by a number, as in first, second, etc.) is ALWAYS a literal day EVERYWHERE else in the Bible and so there is no reason to believe that it is not a 24 HOUR day in Genesis as well.
Equally, they argue, that Genesis 1 refers to ‘evening and morning’ in relation to ALL SIX DAYS of Creation – again indicating that these were real 24 HOUR days because an ‘evening’ or a ‘morning’ is completely meaningless if the DAYS of Creation were actually EONS of Evolutionary time.

Anyway, let’s examine how an interpretation of the DAYS of Creation as being EONS of Evolutionary time would actually ‘stack up’ when applied to the Genesis account of the origins of the Universe and all life therein.

If the FIRST DAY of Creation is the actually the first EON of Evolution then we have a problem straight away.

The Biblical account states that the Heavens (i.e. empty space) and a WATER-COVERED Earth were made on the First DAY (or EON) while the ‘modern theory of evolution’ postulates that empty space and the stars (including our Sun) were the first to appear in a massive explosion of heat energy and matter. Genesis indicates that God started with a WHISPER while Theistic Evolutionists believe that He started with a (big) BANG!!
I can also confirm that Creation Scientists DO believe in ‘The Big Bang’ – and it will happen upon Jesus Christ's return in glory as described in Mt 24:30-31.

The Biblical account of The SECOND DAY of Creation describes a process of dividing ABUNDANT WATERS on the Earth into two parts – while evolutionists postulate that a FIERY HOT Earth was formed from interstellar dust with water obviously arriving much later (by some unknown process).

The Biblical account of The THIRD DAY of Creation states that dry land appeared and MACROPHYTE TERRESTRIAL plants were created, as the first life on Earth – while evolution postulates that the first life was MICROSCOPIC and AQUATIC.

The Biblical account of The FOURTH DAY of Creation states that the Sun and stars were created, AFTER plants were created on the Third Day – while evolution postulates that the first life evolved billions of years AFTER the Sun had come into existence.

The Biblical account of The FIFTH DAY of Creation states that all aquatic animals (including marine mammals) and birds were created – while evolution postulates that early animal life evolved into fish but that birds and marine mammals evolved millions of years afterwards via intermediate amphibian and reptilian ancestors. In addition marine mammals are supposed to be amongst the ‘last arrivals’ because evolutionists postulate that they actually evolved from land mammals who ‘returned to the sea’.

The Biblical account of The SIXTH DAY of Creation states that land mammals, INVERTEBRATES and REPTILES were created i.e. AFTER birds and marine mammals were created, on the Fifth Day – while evolution postulates that INVERTEBRATES were amongst the earliest multi-cellular creatures to evolve and reptiles WERE ANCESTRAL to birds.
The Biblical account also states that Man was directly created by God on the same DAY as other mammals, INVERTEBRATES and REPTILES.

I hasten to add that the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence is the only plausible Sequence IF gradual evolution did, in fact occur – i.e. primitive life would logically have to have evolved into ever-higher life forms if evolution is TRUE
However, the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence CANNOT be logically or coherently reconciled with Genesis, as I have illustrated above – so somebody must be WRONG.

IF God WAS the guiding force behind the postulated Conventional Evolutionary Sequence then when He came to provide an account of His activities in Genesis, He didn’t just merely become ‘poetic or allegorical’ – He completely ‘lost the plot’ and gave such an obviously defective and ‘mixed up’ account that a "10 year old evolutionist" would have made a better job of writing it up.

I believe that many “10 year old evolutionists” and some considerably older ones, no longer believe in God for this very reason. This is one of the reasons why churches who have accepted the idea of Theistic Evolution are now noted for their falling congregations and the ‘greying locks’ of their members.

The idea that Genesis was a ‘simple account of creation for a simple people’ is patently preposterous – the people who built the Pyramids in Egypt were certainly NOT ‘a simple people’. In addition, the fact that many of today’s 10 year olds can describe the basics of evolution but cannot identify the location of America on a map of the World, proves that the concept of ‘Theistic Evolution’ would have been within the abilities of even a ‘simple people’ to understand – if it were TRUE.

If we conclude that Genesis is based on the erroneous personal opinions of Moses, then because Jesus Christ gave Moses His wholehearted endorsement in Mt 5:17-18 and Lk 16:16-17 this means that the entire basis of Christianity i.e. the Infallible Divinity of Jesus Christ is ‘on the line’ here. Jesus Christ Himself confirmed both the veracity and the importance of EVERY WORD in the Bible in Mt 4:4 when He said “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God.” (NIV) The fact that ALL SCRIPTURE (i.e. the entire Bible, including Genesis) is “God breathed” is also confirmed in II Tim 3:16.
IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE – IT IS AS STARK AND AS SERIOUS AS THAT and no amount of ‘allegorising’ will solve the problem!!!!.

On the other hand, Creation Science coherently explains how life was actually CREATED EXACTLY AS GENESIS SAYS IT WAS. Creation Science research also PROVES this to be true using objective, repeatable (i.e. scientific) means.

Theistic Evolutionists are manifestly losing the battle for people’s souls, yet they spurn the assistance offered by Creation Science as they continue to believe, despite ALL evidence to the contrary, that ‘muck evolved into Man’.

In summary, if the Days of Creation were literal 24 hour days, Genesis provides a coherent and scientifically verifiable account of the origins of life and the early history of the Earth and Mankind.

However, if they were Eons of Evolutionary Time, as Theistic Evolutionists would have us believe, then it becomes IMPOSSIBLE for, even the poets amongst us, to believe in the veracity of the Bible.

As Christians we have a choice – to believe in the unfounded notion that ‘muck evolved into Man’ over millions of years – or to accept the fact that the Sovereign Creator God DID create the Universe and all life in SIX DAYS just like He said He did in Ex 20:11.

Puck

J C wrote:

However, if they were Eons of Evolutionary Time, as Theistic Evolutionists would have us believe, then it becomes IMPOSSIBLE for, even the poets amongst us, to believe in the veracity of the Bible.

Speak for yourself please. As a Christian, I have no problem beilieving that Genesis' creation story is both true and poetic and indeed it speaks more to me as such than it does as a matter-of-fact documentation of how the universe was created. I am so tired of hearing literalists (for that is what I'll refer to you as, because to distinguish you from me by calling you a "creationist" is like saying I do not also believe God created the universe when in fact that is what I do believe) over-simplify and limit the Word of God like you have done in the above quote. It is perfectly possible, perfectly acceptable as a Christian and not at all "un-Biblical" to believe that God created us and that evolution is the way he did it.

Oh and by the way, one exclamation mark will do, there's no need to shout at people, it's quite ugly to be honest.

J C

Quote Puck
I have no problem believing that Genesis' creation story is both true and poetic and indeed it speaks more to me as such than it does as a matter-of-fact documentation of how the universe was created.

You may, of course interpret Genesis as you wish.

However, I have clearly demonstrated that the sequence of actions of God as recorded on each of the Days of Creation in Genesis 1 do not correspond in almost any respect with The Conventional Evolutionary Sequence.

You are quite entitled to ignore these glaring anomalies – but the fact that I know, as a scientist, that The Conventional Evolutionary Sequence has NO scientific validity means that I am duty bound to point out this fact. In this regard, evolution itself has 21 serious questions that utterly demolishes it’s scientific credibility outstanding on this thread – and these remain unanswered.

In addition, because I am also aware that Creation Science has made considerable progress in proving many aspects of the Biblical account of Creation and disproving many aspects of Conventional Evolution I am also duty bound to highlight these facts.

The events on the six Days of Creation are actually recorded as “matters of fact” in Genesis 1. God went into considerable detail down to a ‘time and motion report’ of His activities during Creation Week.


Quote Puck
It is perfectly possible, perfectly acceptable as a Christian and not at all "un-Biblical" to believe that God created us and that evolution is the way he did it.

You are of course, perfectly entitled to believe whatever you wish.

However, if you wish to claim Biblical Authority for evolution the onus is upon you to quote Book, Chapter and Verse in support of your contention.

Puck

You have clearly demonstrated nothing other than the fact that you love using exclamation marks and words full of uppercase letters, the online equivalent of shouting through a megaphone.

Only some of you're beloved 21 questions directly relate to the theory of evolution and they have been answered by someone (although they appear to an be an atheist and have given answers from an aetheistic point of view). I guess you're choosing to ignore that.

You hop between subjects, going from trying to disprove evolution to trying to prove the existence of God, these are not the same thing. When tackled on any one subject you simply move on to the other one or just ignore.

I believe that by condensing things down to a story of 6 days that God did not go into detail and was indeed being poetic.

I do not have to "claim Biblical Authority" for everything I believe and do. As far as I'm aware, nowhere in the Bible is the wearing of trousers encouraged, indeed it is a practice invented by pagans (gasp!) but I do it everyday.

J C

Quote Puck
You have clearly demonstrated nothing other than the fact that you love using exclamation marks and words full of uppercase letters, the online equivalent of shouting through a megaphone

I have used uppercase letters to clarify the exact points that I was attempting to make. As I compose my replies in Word I have found that other forms of emphasis such as italics or emboldening don’t transfer onto the Boards – it is something that might be usefully addressed by the ‘powers that be’.

Quote Puck
Only some of you're beloved 21 questions directly relate to the theory of evolution and they have been answered by someone (although they appear to an be an atheist and have given answers from an aetheistic point of view). I guess you're choosing to ignore that.

ALL of my 21 questions relate to the theory of evolution – please point out one that doesn’t.

Wibbs did challenge the validity of 9 questions, accepted 9 questions as valid and partially accepted/quibbled over 3 questions.
I provided detailed responses to all of the issues raised by Wibbs and no reply has been forthcoming – therefore all 21 questions continue to REMAIN unanswered.
Perhaps you would like to ‘save the blushes’ of evolution and answer the questions yourself.

Quote Puck
You hop between subjects, going from trying to disprove evolution to trying to prove the existence of God, these are not the same thing. When tackled on any one subject you simply move on to the other one or just ignore

I do not hop between subjects.

I have given enumerated proofs for the existence of God – to which I have received little response thereby indicating tacit acceptance by the thread.

I have provided 21 enumerated questions on the validity of evolution and they remain there for anybody who would like to respond to them.

I have outlined in a SINGLE post the serious theological difficulties with Theistic Evolution.

As threads go this is very well organised and very clear.

I have responded to each and every ‘tackle’ – please point out where I didn’t do so.

Evolutionists (of every possible belief and none) are the ones ‘on the run’ on this thread – and there are at least ten of them to ONE of me, last time that I counted!!

Quote Puck
I believe that by condensing things down to a story of 6 days that God did not go into detail and was indeed being poetic.

Poetry is expansive and evolutionary concepts such as enormous "Eons" of time and elegant gradual massive changes of living structures would be the “very stuff” of great poetry, IF evolution was true. One could imagine God saying things like "over great eons of time I formed you" or "you once were an Ape but when I gave you a soul all of the trouble started" - really great poetry, if it was TRUE!

Because God used very ‘matter of fact' PROSE to provide a relatively detailed ‘blow by blow’ account of His activities over 6 DAYS, a Theistic Evolutionist would have to conclude that God was almost as bad at poetry as he was at recording what He actually did.
Genesis 1 is an awe inspiring account of a truly awesome Creation Event but it is surely not even a remotely accurate account of the Conventional Evolutionary Sequence.

Of course, if God actually DID what He claimed in only 6 Days, then He moves up from being a bad poet and ‘midwife’ to some undefined 'process of change and death' to being the Sovereign Creator God of the Universe and of ALL LIFE therein.

That is the kind of God that I would put my faith in, if my (eternal) life depended upon it (and that is what I have actually done).


Quote Puck
I do not have to "claim Biblical Authority" for everything I believe and do. As far as I'm aware, nowhere in the Bible is the wearing of trousers encouraged, indeed it is a practice invented by pagans (gasp!) but I do it everyday

Your dress code is entirely your own business.

You did say in your previous post that “It is perfectly possible, perfectly acceptable as a Christian and not at all "un-Biblical" to believe that God created us and that evolution is the way he did it.”

You were therefore claiming Biblical Authority for your belief in evolution by claiming that it was ”not at all "un-Biblical" – and I was merely pointing out that such a claim needed to be substantiated by quoting Book, Chapter and Verse.

Indeed, if Theistic Evolutionists wish to claim Biblical Authority for Theistic Evolution the first thing that they should do is to quote Book, Chapter and Verse.

Puck

J C wrote:

1. Have we observed any mechanism spontaneously generating life – it should still be there somewhere if Evolution is true?
2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?
3. If the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy, evolutioists would definitively conclude that they had found proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – so why do evolutionists not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is also proof of intelligence AKA God?
4. If evolution is ongoing there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures. Why has not even ONE continuum ever been observed among either living or fossil creatures for a functioning useful structure?
5. Why do our Mitochondrial DNA sequences (which are inherited in the female line i.e. 100% from our mothers) show that all human beings are originally descended from ONE woman?
6. Why do our Y-chromosome sequences (which are inherited in the male line i.e. 100% from our fathers) show that all men are originally descended from ONE man?
7. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design and production of observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind?
8. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design of the observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are multiple orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems?
9. Why do some scientists continue to believe that the Human Genome was an ”accident of nature” – while they know that the super computers and gene sequencers that they had to use to decode it, were created through the purposeful application of intelligent design?
10. Why do we observe great perfection and genetic diversity in all species when “dog eat dog” Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity necessary for the short-term survival of the individual?
11. Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions most of the time?
12. Any putative ‘evolving organism’ is statistically just as likely to be taking two “critical amino acid sequence” steps backwards for every one step forwards, as it is to be going the other way around. If ALL critical amino acid sequences except the CORRECT one will confer NO advantage – how can a population “work up” to the correct critical amino acid sequence through “genetic drift” or Natural Selection ?
13. Why do we observe that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and not the other way around, if Evolution is true?
14. How do you explain the origins of DNA when the production of DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”?
15. Why have we never observed any species to actually INCREASE genetic information over time if “upwards and onwards” Evolution is in action out there?
16. With odds in excess of 10 to the power of 1,800,000,000 against the production of the nucleic acid sequence of the Human Genome by accident – how do you explain it’s existence using random chance Evolution when the number of electrons in the known universe are only 10 to the power of 82?
17. Why is it claimed that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a scientific mystery?
18. What is the evolutionary explanation for the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
19. Why is it claimed that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
20. Why is it claimed that fruit flies with an extra pair of wings is evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
21. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

Questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 17, 21 are not directly related to evolution, the questions relate to the existence of a Creator, the highly remote chance of life just coming about on its own, the inability of scientists to copy God's work in a lab and... art. That's over half of your questions. You're questions have already been answered by someone apparently far more knowledgeable regarding evolution than I, if those questions don't suit you then tough, you can't just cover your ears and refuse to listen. The fact remains that the questions have been answered.

J C wrote:

God moves up from being a bad poet and undefined ‘midwife’ to some undefined 'process of change and death' to being the Sovereign Creator God of the Universe and ALL LIFE therein

Sigh.
None of the Christians here are saying that God is not the "Sovereign Creator God of the Universe and all life therein". This is the reason I don't use the word "creationist" to describe you but choose to use "literalist" instead.

If you want to criticise God's skill as a poet then go ahead but I won't be joining you. I love the beautiful poetic imagery in Genesis, I'm a big fan of God's poetry.

J C wrote:

You did say in your previous post that “It is perfectly possible, perfectly acceptable as a Christian and not at all "un-Biblical" to believe that God created us and that evolution is the way he did it.”

That's right I did use the term "un-Biblical", putting it in quotes because it's not a term I would use normally. If taken poetically then Genesis doesn't make a mention of how the universe was created, it addresses the far more important question of why it was created. The Bible makes no mention of evolution making it just about as "un-Biblical" as putting on my pants in the morning. If we are only to do and believe things explicitly mentioned in the Bible (and not use our God-given common sense) then we all have some drastic changes to make in our lives, including ceasing the pagan activity of trouser wearing.;)

wolfsbane

Puck, I think any impartial student of the Bible - Christian or not - will agree that JC's reading is the only coherent one. Either one accepts the Bible as the Truth - the historic Christian response - or one rejects it as mere inventions of men. To try for a compromise that allows for evolution but insists the rest of the Bible is to be taken at face value is intellectually dishonest. Its bankrupcy is quickly determined when the unbelieving assault moves on to the other supernatural aspects of God's interventions in history - the miracles, the virgin birth, the incarnation, the resurrection, etc. These can also be explained away by the very same hermenutic you are using. Better to accept the plain statements of the Bible as plain truth and let the unbelievers scoff. They are the ones without hope and without God. We can look real scientific research in the face, knowing that the Universe is made to a wonderful design.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Whatever about the "tongue-twisting" jargon, the REALITY is that the odds AGAINST the undirected achievement of the specific sequence for a simple useful protein is a number greater than the number of seconds required for a snail to transport ALL of the 10^82 electrons in the known universe over and back across 20,000,000,000 light years taking just ONE ELECTRON at a time.

The fact that a 10 year old can accomplish this ‘feat’ with certainty in 20 minutes says something very profound about the requirement for the involvement of a 'great intelligence' AKA God in the creation of life.

You see man, you're doing yourself a disservice.
If you want to actually debate science then you just can't dismiss things like that.
I'll accept the phrase "tongue-twisting" jargon from a bored lay-person who just wants to know the information.
However if you actually want to argue science, then you have to be able to account for that "tongue-twisting" jargon.
Probabilities like the ones you are using only work for things like rolling a dice or judging the odds of a royal flush coming up in a game of poker.
Independent events.
Using standard Bernoulli probability is just wrong.
If you want to argue atoms and molecules, you have to use Maxwell-Boltzmann distributions.
No matter how "jargony" you feel it is, you just do.
If there is one thing I know it's mathematics and the odds of a useful protein forming are no where near that low.

"An area of extreme Ricci curvature" & "a unique coordinate set defined on spacetime" just uses more words to describe "NOTHING" !!

Same thing again.
I used these words for a reason, if you want to argue against the Big Bang you need to understand differential geometry.
If you think these words describe "Nothing", then you are wrong.
They're used in General Relativity for a reason and that reason is that they are needed.
You seem to be arguing against the Big Bang using information in a pop-science book.
I'll take an argument against the Big Bang any day, but if you can't differentiate between the simplest terms in General Relativity, then how do you honestly expect your criticism to be taken seriously?
If you think it's intellectual elitism that you need a MENSA level IQ and significant training to tackle it, then tough.
That's how hard it is.

There is no argument about the fact that these graphics cards need to be cooled – but there does remain considerable debate over what exactly IS heating them.

No, there is not.
That's simply a matter of fact, I'm not even going to argue.
nVidia have known the causes of the heating for years.


The reason nobody has responded to the 21 points against evolution is because of stuff like this.
You'll argue to the left of what we are saying and when we actually show you the scientific reasoning behind the conclusions,
you'll say it's jargon or make patently wrong proclamations.


And also, evolution is not Atheistic or Secularist, it's just the theory that fits the most observations.
and it fits a lot of observations.

Puck

wolfsbane wrote:

Puck, I think any impartial student of the Bible - Christian or not - will agree that JC's reading is the only coherent one. Either one accepts the Bible as the Truth - the historic Christian response - or one rejects it as mere inventions of men. To try for a compromise that allows for evolution but insists the rest of the Bible is to be taken at face value is intellectually dishonest. Its bankrupcy is quickly determined when the unbelieving assault moves on to the other supernatural aspects of God's interventions in history - the miracles, the virgin birth, the incarnation, the resurrection, etc. These can also be explained away by the very same hermenutic you are using. Better to accept the plain statements of the Bible as plain truth and let the unbelievers scoff. They are the ones without hope and without God. We can look real scientific research in the face, knowing that the Universe is made to a wonderful design.

You can think what you like, I disagree with you. A purely literal interpretation of the Bible is going to throw all sorts of contradictions at you. For instance, did the Israelites walk out of Egypt or were they carried on eagle's wings? You will eventually have to draw the line somewhere between metaphor/poetry and plain speaking. A poetic reading of the parts of the Bible that are clearly not literal enables one to know that the Israelites walked out of Egypt and also see the beauty and truth of the "eagle's wings" line.

Excelsior

wolfsbane wrote:

the historic Christian response -

from the contemporary Rabbinical tradition of Jesus to Origen (student of John's school) to Augustine, the historic response of Christianity has been to see what we know unbiblically call "Genesis 1" as a figurative piece.

Literalism in this issue began as a movement as a result of the lobbying of 7th Day Adventists and grew to the state it has now reached due to the epistemological malaise that struck American conservative Christianity in the 1960s.

Literalism is not the historic response. Creation science cannot be the historic response since it is parasitic on the body of evolution theory. "Science" didn't exist in 300AD. Augustine therefore could not be a Creation Scientist. Barnabas did not concern himself with flood geology.

They both concerned themselves with John 17 though. Something the Christians have largely, to their sad detriment, chosen to ignore. This thread is a waste of time.

To the very bright regular visitors to this forum like Son Goku and Robin and so on, it would be great if you wouldn't feed the trolls.

Wibbs

J C wrote:

I provided detailed responses to all of the issues raised by Wibbs and no reply has been forthcoming – therefore all 21 questions continue to REMAIN unanswered.

No they don't. While you have asked some questions that need to be answered scientifically, all 21 answers are no way unanswered. It's just that you don't seem to like any answers that don't include the old Testament.

It is now known that there are sections of the amino acid chain that are ‘critical’. These are the sections of the amino acid chain where even one ‘incorrect’ amino acid...../....The Laws of Mathematical Probability and Big Numbers rule out ever getting to this stage in the first place, using undirected processes.

I agree these numbers can apear to be difficult to comprehend and these are questions that need answering scientifically, but as Son Goku points out, they're not that large to the initiated in such mathematical matters. I don't subscribe to the "we don't know, therefore it's God" position. It strikes me as lazy.

Fossilisation is actually quite common and fossils are in general well preserved (indicating instantaneous death and entombment). Fossils are also widespread and worldwide – which is strong evidence for Noah’s Flood.
Could I suggest that the fossilised ‘photosensitive pits’ of many Trilobites may be creatures whose compound eyes had actually decayed before they were fossilised.

While fossils are quite common(esp. among sea creatures), fossilisation itself is a rare event. The idea that fossils are found worldwide as evidence for Noah's flood is quite frankly a bit loopy IMHO. In any event, as I pointed out animals/plants most likely to be fossilised are sea creatures. Surely a flood wouldn't affect them at all? If you believe in Noah's flood, you would expect more fossils of land animals as a result. As for trilobite eye; fossilisation of many of these eyes is pretty complete. In fact one can even examine the eyes down to the levels of fossilised cells. Decay in such situations would be quite easy to spot.

Originally it was announced that it was ONE woman who lived about 20,000 years ago – but when it was pointed out by Creation Scientists that this was proof of Eve – it was rapidly revised to a ‘small group of closely related women who survived a catastrophy’ – the wives of Noah and his three son’s actually now ‘fit the bill’!!!

Actually it was over 100,000 yrs ago IIRC and it was always stated in the lit. that it was a closely related group of women, not the "eve" popularised in the media. Anyway if it was Noah and his wives and son's then they would all have to be so closely related as to be family for your theory to work.

I agree with all of the above – but I think that the evidence that you have cited points towards a conclusion that the so-called Geological Column is the approximate sequence of fossil burial during Noah’s Flood (sea floor creatures and flocculated plankton first and terrestrial animals and birds last) – rather than the sequence of the supposed evolution of life on Earth.

As I said before, the sea creatures are already flooded.:rolleyes: As for the rest.:eek:

We do of course share many physical characteristics with animals and this is evidence of a common designer (rather than a common ancestor).
Humans, however are much more than “animals with large brains”. Their capacities for conceptualisation, language, mathematics, belief in God and non-circumstantial moral behaviour places them in a category that is distinctly apart from all animals.

The humble bee has a language. Bonobos have moral behaviour(many would say more than us) and conceptualisation.

God also confirmed our special status when He told us that we are made in His image, are capable of eternal life and have been given power to rule over all other living things.

That's in the realms of your faith so fair enough.

Practically all of the so-called vestigial organs that Humans supposedly possessed have now been discovered to have useful functions by Medical Science and so they are no longer classified as vestigial.

Not practically all, only some. Most are just vestigial.

It might seem daft to us in the 21st Century, because we are largely insulated from serious disease epidemics.
However, should a pandemic develop even now, extraordinary measures would be taken – and who knows how these measures would ‘rock our sensibilities’!!!.

Yes, well when bird flu finally kicks off, I doubt we'll be smearing ju ju blood on each other as an indicator of immunity.

The people of the Old Testament respected the profound reality of animals dying so that they might live.
Jesus Christ’s death on a cross, so that we might live eternally with Him in Heaven echoes this reality of sacrifice as well.

Again that's your personal faith so whatever floats your ark. You'll get no criticism from me on those points.

robindch wrote:

Wibbs -- try reading a book on biology, or the links I gave you, or google a bit, or anything at all really. There are legit answers around to your excellent questions; you've just not found them yet, but you will with a bit of application. Enjoy the trip -- it's fun and you'll learn a lot.

:rolleyes: I have read many books on biology and evolutionary theory and many answers are not forthcoming when evolutionary theory is doing the questioning. Speciation is one such question. Your link trotted out some of the same old lazy chestnuts. None of which, if applied outside evolutionary theory would be tolerated scientifically as evidence. Those Galapogos finches are all the same species. No full speciation event has ever been observed in nature. The only thing that has been observed is sub speciation arising from an existing DNA sequence. If we consider genetic mutation as the engine of evolution we run into further problems. 99%(if not higher) of all mutations are detrimental to the organism, the rest would likely confer no advantage. Even if one did, the natural response of any organism is to breed out such genetic mutations. The chances of a freak inheritable advantageous mutation surviving into successive generations is incredibly slim. At that point you are as guilty as J C of appealing to the statistics of large numbers. If you consider homology as evidence for common evolution you find in this a major flaw as well. Different animals, some very closely related use different genes and different body segments to grow apparently similar limbs. Natural selection itself cannot be usefully used as a predictor of future events, it can only be used retrospectively to explain the present state of things. DNA evidence is another problem. If evolution is to be believed you would expect to find closely related species to have more genes in common which they don't in many cases.Eg 3500 species of frog with a greater DNA variation than between a mouse and a whale. You would also expect to find more "evolved" complex life to have more complex DNA. Not the case. The humble carp has more chromosomes than a human(47 to our 23). All valid issues with current evolutionary theory. Regardless of creationists, there are problems aplenty.


TBH from the religious point of view I think Puck has covered it pretty well. Literalism in any field is dangerous, religious or no.

Asiaprod

We do of course share many physical characteristics with animals and this is evidence of a common designer (rather than a common ancestor).

That alone has got to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever hard. You were already out on a limb, but that one just snapped it.

Son Goku

Excelsior wrote:

To the very bright regular visitors to this forum like Son Goku and Robin and so on, it would be great if you wouldn't feed the trolls.

Yeah, absolutely.
Sorry for dragging it on.