The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Galvasean

Okay, mister Wolfsbane I would suggest not getting my information exclusively from Creationism websites.

The first thing you find when you google 'whale evolution' is the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_evolution
Its a brief overview but there are several links at the bottom of the page to scientific papers where the article obtained its information from.

The origin of birds is more of a read, but rewarding if you have the time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Hope this helps you out.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

But it didn't turn into a lion...

Or anything other than a bacteria. So no indication of a process required to lead from molecules to man. Just a process agreed by both creationists and evolutionists.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Usually because they say so.

Ok ... and you think proper scientists are lying when they say so because ...?

wolfsbane wrote: »

But you haven't answered my question: Please point out where it says mutation is not the cause..

Certainly ...

"However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to information theory, as shown in chapter 9 on ‘Design’."
...
Only when coupled with hypothetical information-gaining mutations could natural selection be creative.
...
In other cases, antibiotic resistance is the result of a mutation, but in all known cases, this mutation has destroyed information.


As I asked, did you actually read the article?

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I did. First search on a creationist site:

Dude -- I can google too.

If you're not prepared to engage with an argument and phrase it in your own terms then please don't waste my time by quoting from drivel-websites.

Somebody else take up from here. I've got work to do.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Or anything other than a bacteria. So no indication of a process required to lead from molecules to man. Just a process agreed by both creationists and evolutionists.

By your account the Creationists seem to agree with evolution. They just differ in opinion about the creation of the universe, something evolutionary theory has never stated

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Or anything other than a bacteria. So no indication of a process required to lead from molecules to man. Just a process agreed by both creationists and evolutionists.

We have already listed you examples where one species has evolved into another species. In fact Creationists require this to happen in more than evolutionists for their ideas to work.

I'm not sure why you keep asking for examples of this as if it cannot happen ...

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Dude -- I can google too.

If you're not prepared to engage with an argument and phrase it in your own terms then please don't waste my time by quoting from drivel-websites.

Somebody else take up from here. I've got work to do.

Reposted:

The first thing you find when you google 'whale evolution' is the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_evolution
Its a brief overview but there are several links at the bottom of the page to scientific papers where the article obtained its information from.

The origin of birds is more of a read, but rewarding if you have the time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Hope this helps you out.

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

Okay, mister Wolfsbane I would suggest not getting my information exclusively from Creationism websites.

The first thing you find when you google 'whale evolution' is the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_evolution
Its a brief overview but there are several links at the bottom of the page to scientific papers where the article obtained its information from.

The origin of birds is more of a read, but rewarding if you have the time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Hope this helps you out.

Sorry, I took robin's assertions as a given for the evolutionist position. I then pointed out that other scientists disagreed with what he said was fact.

I'm not trying to be an expert on evolution - just to point out that evolution is challenged by scientists and so cannot be taken as proven.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Dude -- I can google too.

What really annoys me is that he Googles websites and then links to them without actually reading (and certainly not understanding) the websites he links to, and then expects us to read through them and some how get how these websites answer the questions.

And then any problems he just goes "Oh well I'm not a scientist"

Talk about lazy ... we can all link to websites and go "Here, read this" ... decent manners is to attempt to explain things proper in your own words and tailored to the actual question asked.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

Moses was writing what God told him - and surely He is the best eye-witness?

Jesus was revealed in John as being 'The Word of God'. Jesus regularly spoke in illustration, calling himself the bread of life. telling people they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Only to his apostles then, did he give his meaning, until after his ressurection when he sent the spirit to give meaning to all. So if the Word spoke in such a manner on earth, why would it be so difficult to fathom he spoke with symbolism when he was in heaven?

As to the apostles, can they not be speaking metaphorically, even if it appears to be historical narrative?

No, because there is no language that suggests such a thing.

Did they not mean us to get the spiritual truth rather than any historical or scientific truth? Science tells us dead people don't rise again.

TBH, this conversation has nothing to do with science for me, so it doesn't matter what a study of Gods creation tells us about. People misuse science to say that it backs up their atheistic views, but science cannot do such a thing, as it can only deal with what god has given them. I.E. his creation. They can't measure beyond that, so using it to say someone cannot rise from the dead is useless.

Maybe the apostles were talking about Jesus' spirit, or even His example, in a symbolic manner. Like Him, we live on after we are dead - and the better people we are, the longer we live in people's minds. And God never forgets us. Etc., etc.

Again, i can only use my sense. There is no language in the gospel account, that would in any way indicate symbolism. Unless you have something that you feel could be interpretted in such a manner? However, the Genesis account has quite a few things that could be deemed symbolic. To reiterate though, I'm not saying it is symbolic, just that I wouldn't have a problem with it being symbolic. There ae certainly curious moments in it.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not trying to be an expert on evolution - just to point out that evolution is challenged by scientists and so cannot be taken as proven.

Sweet holy Allah :pac:

Everything is challenged somewhere by someone on the Internet :rolleyes:.

Do you want us to all start linking to the websites of the guy who thinks Christianity was really just a bunch of guys eating magic mushrooms, or the Flat Earth society again?

And please don't let us have the whole "proven" discussion again Wolfsbane, you know nothing in science is proven.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

We have already listed you examples where one species has evolved into another species. In fact Creationists require this to happen in more than evolutionists for their ideas to work.

I'm not sure why you keep asking for examples of this as if it cannot happen ...

You need to follow more closely - 'species' is used by evolutionists to mean 'kinds' as creationists understand them. 'Species' for creationists are the variations within a 'kind'.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You need to follow more closely - 'species' is used by evolutionists to mean 'kinds' as creationists understand them. 'Species' for creationists are the variations within a 'kind'.

I know.

Which means both Creationists and Evolutionists accept that a species of creature can evolve into another species of creature.

So why do you keep asking for evidence of this happening? It must happen for both ideas, and in fact you require that it happens very very fast (which you have not produced evidence of )

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Sweet holy Allah :pac:

Everything is challenged somewhere by someone on the Internet :rolleyes:.

Do you want us to all start linking to the websites of the guy who thinks Christianity was really just a bunch of guys eating magic mushrooms, or the Flat Earth society again?

And please don't let us have the whole "proven" discussion again Wolfsbane, you know nothing in science is proven.

I said challenged by scientists - no just by someone.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

I know.

Which means both Creationists and Evolutionists accept that a species of creature can evolve into another species of creature.

So why do you keep asking for evidence of this happening? It must happen for both ideas, and in fact you require that it happens very very fast (which you have not produced evidence of )

You completely misunderstand: The 'species' change creationists accept - and can be observed in real life - is new species of butterfly, ant, or whatever. Not ants changing into non-ants, pigs into whales, etc. A pig into a whale would be a 'kind' change; a butterfly into a brighter/darker butterfly is a species change.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

What really annoys me is that he Googles websites and then links to them without actually reading (and certainly not understanding) the websites he links to, and then expects us to read through them and some how get how these websites answer the questions.

And then any problems he just goes "Oh well I'm not a scientist"

Talk about lazy ... we can all link to websites and go "Here, read this" ... decent manners is to attempt to explain things proper in your own words and tailored to the actual question asked.

But no need to re-invent the wheel. I too have limited time, so I like to get to the nub of any issue. Posting the whale sites allowed me to show that robin's certainty was not unchallenged. For any interested, they could read the creationist arguments for themselves. Maybe that's what bothers you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Usually because they say so.

Ok ... and you think proper scientists are lying when they say so because ...?

In the real world, Wickie, scientists often disagree - without any of them being guilty of lying. 'Doctors differ, patients die.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But you haven't answered my question: Please point out where it says mutation is not the cause..

Certainly ...

"However, Ayala believes the genetic information came ultimately from mutations, not creation. His belief is contrary to information theory, as shown in chapter 9 on ‘Design’."
...
Only when coupled with hypothetical information-gaining mutations could natural selection be creative.
...
In other cases, antibiotic resistance is the result of a mutation, but in all known cases, this mutation has destroyed information.


As I asked, did you actually read the article?

I think you are confusing natural selection with speciation based on information gain. Creationism holds that natural selection involves loss of information, if anything.

Let me try to simplifiy it for you:
Creationism holds to natural selection.
Creationism does not hold to information gain.
Creationism holds that species change within their kind by natural selection (bright butterfly to dark butterfly).
Creationism does not hold that that species change outside their kind (bright butterfly to non-butterlfy).

Hope that helps.

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

By your account the Creationists seem to agree with evolution. They just differ in opinion about the creation of the universe, something evolutionary theory has never stated

No, you've missed the point. Creationists hold that, say, butterflies change by natural selection - new species of butterfly arise when some existing information gets mutated or when existing information is reshuffled by isolation, enviroment, etc. All still butterflies.

Evolutionists hold that butterflies can eventually give rise to non-butterflies. The former 'evolution' has been observed, the latter never; all it has are speculations over fragments of fossil bone and great imagination as to what creature they came from and how those were related to others.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Dude -- I can google too.

If you're not prepared to engage with an argument and phrase it in your own terms then please don't waste my time by quoting from drivel-websites.

Somebody else take up from here. I've got work to do.

I've explained myself in the other posts, so I won't waste time doing so again.

Your whale-of-an-argument has been challenged by other experts, whom you can google for yourself, as I've given you both popular and technical sites many times before.

You don't get away with just claiming science says so and so, when other science denies it. At least creationists admit there is a debate.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but you have picked position despite claiming to be completely lacking in the ability to assess if the side you have picked has any standing or merit.

You don't know if the different "interpretations" have are pointing out have any merit to them or if they are just nonsense.

I can follow some of the stuff. What you are saying is that a biologist should not point to a site defending the Big Bang since he cannot follow the physics. Surely he is entitled to point to those physicists who, by their training, can? That's what I have done.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Well, you will be able to tell me where bugs have been observed to evolve into non-bugs, then. But I take it the time-scale has not enabled that?

Well you would have to define "bug" first. Its a phrase you seem to enjoy using, probably because you know it has no scientific meaning and as such your question is completely unanswerable in any proper fashion.

Here I meant bacteria.

You might as well ask when has a "creepy-crawly" ever evolved into a non-creepy-crawly

Ok - when has a species of ant ever evolved into a species of non-ant?

Oh and by the way, any time you want to demonstrate evidence of a species evolving into another species "within its kind" please go ahead ...

Glad to oblige:
Speedy species surprise
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

That's the second time in a week that you admit that your interpretation must be absolutely flawless, or the bible is useless.

Do you trust your own interpretive skills to be absolutely flawless?

I don't recall ever saying such a thing. What I did say is that one must have a consistent hermeneutic, otherwise the Bible - or any other human communication - becomes impossible. There are areas in our communication where we may be unsure if narrative or metaphor is meant - but Genesis 1 & 2is not one of them. It is as narrative as Matthew 1 & 2. So if the former can be metaphor, so can the latter. Or indeed any otherwise 'narrative' passage.

Hmm, maybe your post was not meant in the historico-grammatical sense? Is it really a metaphorical expression of your belief in my divinity: 'week' meaning billions of years; my flawless interpretation, validating the Bible, being repeated for emphasis?

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your whale-of-an-argument has been challenged by other experts, whom you can google for yourself, as I've given you both popular and technical sites many times before.

Yes, but the evolution of whales is the orthodox view of science. The avst majority of scientists believe it over the number who don't. Should we place our trust in many scientists or just a few?

As for the concept of 'kinds'. surely the links about whale evolution are specific enough? Surely this:

is a different kind to this:


Simply, this 'kind' of evolution probably wont be observed in a single life time.

Young Catholic

Those who may wish to study the topic further can check this information out:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Dr. Brown's hydro-plate theory is explained here. http://youtube.com/watch?v=u6lw9wSVXcw

More Dr. Brown videos start here. http://youtube.com/watch?v=u9X8O8tkNfU

Galvasean

How naive to think we hadn't stumbled across that in the 600+ pages of discussion here.

Oh, and welcome to the thread Young Catholic.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

You don't get away with just claiming science says so and so, when other science denies it. At least creationists admit there is a debate.

You have yet to identify a single creation scientist working in the field. Where exactly is the scientific debate as opposed to the philosophical?? Where is the science? :pac:

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Here's what I propose...neither of us will mention the micro/macro issue, directly or tangentially, until I've had a chance to review the entire thread and present a compiled list of links to when it was seriously discussed before
...
Given that we're talking about a thread thats over 10,000 posts in length, I hope you'll be willing to give me a short amount of time to prepare this. I'd ask for a week to ten days,

wolfsbane wrote:

Er, OK, if you abide by the same rules.

bonkey wrote:

The strawman I am referring to is the artificial, ill-defined micro-macro distinction...which is what I'm going to go and get links for.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yep, that is a good description of the issue: whether the distinction between micro and macro evolution is artificial or real. I look forward to your presentation.

It all looked so good. We agreed on a set of conditions....we agreed what we wouldn't discuss. It seemed so simple...neither of us would mention the micro/macro issue for the week to ten days that it wouild take me to provide the links of where the issue had been discussed before, so we could avoid going over old ground.

...

Yesterday, in work, my schedule was turned on its head. Today, more crises in work. I'm looking at working through most of the weekend.

I felt bad about having to sacrifice some of the time I wanted to spend on compiling this list, but hoped I could catch up. I didn't want to disappont wolfsbane, after he had been so courteous and agreeable to my suggestion, and insisted that he was looking forward to seeing the finished work. I honestly thought that we might finally be able to move this debate to a new level, rather than rehashing the same old, time after time after time.

This evening, I finally found time to come back and have a look at where things had gone, to see if anything interesting was happening while wolfsbane and I were both agreed that neither of us would mention the whole micro/macro issue....I said to myself that I could affor dhte 5 minutes before starting into that compilation work.

This is what I found...

wolfsbane wrote:

But if the bugs ever evolve into non-bugs, I expect things would get really scary. Thankfully, that's only an evolutionary fairy-tale.

wolfsbane wrote:

Humour an old layman by telling me specifically where the kid might see this "new information" being generated in his microscope.

wolfsbane wrote:

But the evolution is still of the micro-level sort, which is common to both the creationist and evolutionist cases. Bacteria micro-evolving into antibiotic resistant bacteria. Not bacteria evolving into non-bacteria, as the theory of evolution says happened to all the present biosphere.

wolfsbane wrote:

Looks like 'micro-evolution' to me - that God's system of adaptation and variation within the created 'kind' is at work.

wolfsbane wrote:

Well, you will be able to tell me where bugs have been observed to evolve into non-bugs, then. But I take it the time-scale has not enabled that?

So you will point to the fossil record and assert that it displays a series of incremental steps from a more primitive organism into an entirely different one - organic slime to, say, a snail? Or whatever. I'll be glad to hear your best example.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, I know evolutionists are not talking about sudden total changes a la frog/prince. For proof of their type I expect either fast-breeding bugs to be observed to produce non-bugs, or the fossil record to show such a change in any organism.

wolfsbane wrote:

So no indication of a process required to lead from molecules to man. Just a process agreed by both creationists and evolutionists.

wolfsbane wrote:

Ok - when has a species of ant ever evolved into a species of non-ant?

It seems wolfsbane has done nothing but discuss micro/macro evolution in my absence.

There I was, feeling bad about how I was already falling behind, but preparing for a long night of catch-up. Now I feel a lot better, knowing I haven't already wasted hours of work.

Thanks pal. I appreciate it. Its...enlightening...to see how seriously you took my offer.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've explained myself in the other posts, so I won't waste time doing so again. [...] You don't get away with just claiming science says so and so, when other science denies it. At least creationists admit there is a debate.

No, creationists manufacture a controversy and call it "debate", while you provide links and call them "explanation". Tacitus would have found both quite funny

We have explained what science required -- the notion of falsifiability. Creationists deny that it applies to them, therefore they are not scientists and you seem quite unable to tell the difference. In effect, all you're doing is pointing at some bloke on the web and equating what he writes with what I show you -- demonstratable in a suburban kitchen (BTW, I can't help but notice that you have chosen to ignore entirely my the example I gave you, (not surprising since it reduces your argument to dust and rubble)).

As above, you're free to call a post with half a dozen links an "explanation" and perhaps there is somebody who believes it is, but I don't.

In an online debate, if you're not prepared to make the mental effort required to read up on, understand and summarize your own point of view, then it should not be surprising to you that your point of view is not taken seriously.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm interested to hear exactly how the crocodile and duck are linked by their DNA. Is it one feature that only they possess? Or is it that they both have eyes? I'm all ears.

Not far off!

The Archosaur:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur

It's lineage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosaur#Phylogeny

The genetic link:

The Nocturnal Reptiles
01.01.2003
by Kathy A. Svitil
Belinda Chang and Thomas Sakmar, both molecular biologists at Rockefeller University, have re-created a gene from archosaurs, dinosaur ancestors that lived 250 million years ago. Chang says they're not exactly about to clone the whole creature—still a scientific impossibility—but the achievement offers a hint of how reptiles viewed their world during the Triassic Period.


Eoraptor, a dinosaur relative, may have had an eye for the night life.
Photographs courtesy of Paul Sereno.

Sci-fi thrillers like Jurassic Park make the study of ancient DNA look like a snap, but it is extremely difficult to distinguish ancient molecules from modern ones. Moreover, DNA and proteins degrade into useless junk after just a few thousand years. So Chang and her colleagues opted to rebuild from scratch a bit of archosaur DNA—specifically the gene for rhodopsin, a light-sensing pigment in the eye. First the researchers use a computer program to analyze the rhodopsin gene sequence from 30 living vertebrates, including alligators and chickens, which are directly descended from archosaurs. Because the rhodopsin gene in each species evolved from a common ancestor, the program reveals how the gene has changed through the aeons and predicts the most likely archosaur version. Chang's team then synthesized that gene and plunked it into cultured monkey cells, which churned out fully functional rhodopsin.

The synthetic archosaur rhodopsin responds best to slightly redder colors than the light that most modern vertebrates sense. "This raises the possibility that archosaurs could see fairly well at relatively low light levels," says Chang. If so, archosaurs might have been active at night. Chang is now sorting through rhodopsin sequences of about 50 vertebrates to push even further back in time and to determine what the pigment looked like 400 million years ago. "This approach can not only reconstruct animals that no longer exist, but it also highlights major changes in gene function," she says.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/jan/breakreptiles

And of course the peer review literature:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enIE236IE237&q=archosaur%20dna&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I said challenged by scientists - no just by someone.

You think being a scientist makes someone special?

You don't respect the vast majority of scientists out there, any particular reason you hold "YEC scientists" in some particular high esteem?

The special thing about science is the process, not the people doing it. Which is why I don't hang a picture of Richard Dawkins on my wall. I think he is a very clever guy, but it isn't who he is that is important, it is the work he has done, and his work can be reproduced by anyone. You don't need to be Dawkins, or Hawkings, or Einstein.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The 'species' change creationists accept

Well a lot of them appear not to, as groups including AiG have stated that macro-evolution cannot happen, that a species cannot change into another species.

If one accepts that can happen there there is no issue. The higher terms in the biological classification tree are simply orders of removal. If a species change happens enough times it will jump these groups as well.

So what exactly is the issue here?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not ants changing into non-ants, pigs into whales, etc.

But that is exactly what you just said can happen. One species changes into another species into another into another. That is pig to whale, ant to non-ant.

wolfsbane wrote: »

a butterfly into a brighter/darker butterfly is a species change.

And that happens enough times the changes build up so the species no longer has the (human) classification of "butterfly"

You seem to be agreeing with everything neo-Darwinian Evolution says.