The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

pH

pH wrote:

Just for the record, here's a list of some of the things the theory of evolution doesn't explain:

• Planetary motion
• The origins of the universe
• The speed of light
• Magnetic fields
• The price of goods in a free economy
• The origin of the first self replicating molecules
• The periodic table of elements

Feel free to add to it if you must.

I suppose you'd better add entropy to that.

Scofflaw wrote:

To find one flaw in the Bible casts doubt on the validity of the rest - after all, if it's not God's word, and 100% accurate, what is it?

Rabbits really do chew their cud and dragons do exist? :eek:

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

Rabbits really do chew their cud and dragons do exist? :eek:

It's God's word, yo.


cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> Rabbits really do chew their cud and dragons do exist?

And the earth is flat, and witches exist, and slaves and kids should be murdered for insubordination. Some more, er, "moral restraints that religion nurtured" (to use wolfsbane's comment), can be found in this rather pointed essay:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=189

robindch

> All that is left of the Evolutionary Hypothesis, [...] is effectively
> Natural Selection – which happens to be a valid Scientific Theory,
> that Creation Scientists have no difficulty with.

JC, great to have you back again to agree with what I wrote above:

Evolution in the sense that Darwin wrote about it, explains absolutely nothing about where life came from. Nor does it explain where the Earth or the Sun or the Milky Way came from. Or why the Big Bang happened. All it says is why organisms change over time and seem to adapt to their habitats. I don't "want evolutionary theory not to have to explain how life began" because IT DOESN'T attempt to. It has absolutely *NOTHING* to do with the topic at all. Zilch.

I knew you'd see the light if we stuck at it long enough! That's two creationists in a week who've accepted that evolution is not only exactly what biologists say it is, but have gone on to accept the idea as correct as well.

I think we should all give ourselves a pat on the back here -- we're all making progress. Well done everybody.

robindch

...and while it's not related to biological evolution, there's a lecture this evening in TCD given by a Nobel Laureate in which the origin and cultural adaptions of religion itself will be discussed (amongst other things)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=51259988

Hope yiz can all make it.

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

I think we should all give ourselves a pat on the back here -- we're all making progress. Well done everybody.

Welcome home JC

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Don't talk rot, wolfsbane. Morals do not come from God, they come from Man.

Leaving aside the issue of the origin of conscience, I agree that morals come form Man. What a man believes in his heart, that's how he eventually behaves.
That's why we have so many behaving as if we were animals - having been indoctrinated in evolutionary 'truth', they believe that's all we are.

Another evolutionist gets upset with Christian teaching on creation:
Nailing the BNP’s colours even firmer to the secularist mast, Dr Edwards (whose real name according to a number of websites is Stuart Russell) told Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice: ‘If you don't believe in Darwinian evolution then you are even dafter than you appear.’
See: http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Alerts/alert004.html
These folk seem to have based their morals firmly on evolution. A bit more sophisticated than the average hoodie, but same heart.

A few(or more) christians seem to base their morals on persecuting anyone different, does that make all christian morals bad or stupid?

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-christians10apr10,0,6596503.story
Discrimination not just in their religion, but in public. Pah.
Not as if they have *that* strong a biblical ground to stand on, in any case.

robindch

> That's why we have so many behaving as if we were animals - having
> been indoctrinated in evolutionary 'truth', they believe that's all we are.

Out of interest - given that you think that indoctrination in evolutionary 'truth' (despite there being no such thing) has caused all the evil in the world, including shell suits and hoodies, perhaps you'd care to share with us any thoughts you might have on why people were nasty to each other before "Origin of the Species" was published in 1859?

BTW, while on the topic of animal behaviour, that's a nice quote from Stephen Green, the guy behind Christian Voice. In case anybody's forgotten, Green was the guy who published the names, addresses and phone numbers of people whom he thought might have been involved with the screening of "Jerry Springer - The Opera" on BBC2 last year, and which resulted in physical threats against quite a few employees and their family members (see here). Thrilled with his success with anonymous intimidation, Green immediately went public and threatened a cancer charity into rejecting a cash donation of around £10,000 (see here). While it did offer him a fine opportunity to put his money where his mouth was, Green's christian charity didn't unfortunately quite extend to replacing the donation, though I'm sure his bank (ironically, it was the Co-operative Bank!) closing his account a few months later didn't help. "Christian Voice -- Bringing the Taste of the Middle Ages to Britain Today!"

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

A few(or more) christians seem to base their morals on persecuting anyone different, does that make all christian morals bad or stupid?

No, it just means these folk are not teaching or living Christian morality. Their behaviour is based on their own ideas, not the Bible. But when folk behave like animals, they are only being consistent with the evolutionary fable.

Discrimination not just in their religion, but in public. Pah.

The Christian response to the homosexual is just like that to the adulterer or fornicator: their behaviour is to be condemned, but the person is to be recovered from their sin, if possible. Christians cannot agree with society that these things are morally neutral and are not to be taught against. That hardly amounts to persecution. Creationists are taught against. Some folk would not socialise with them. That cannot be equated with persecution.

Only when denial of jobs, promotion, or other denial of civil rights come into play can we talk of persecution.

I don't see how any of the Christians on your link were guilty of that.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

bluewolf said:

No, it just means these folk are not teaching or living Christian morality. Their behaviour is based on their own ideas, not the Bible. But when folk behave like animals, they are only being consistent with the evolutionary fable.


The Christian response to the homosexual is just like that to the adulterer or fornicator: their behaviour is to be condemned, but the person is to be recovered from their sin, if possible. Christians cannot agree with society that these things are morally neutral and are not to be taught against. That hardly amounts to persecution. Creationists are taught against. Some folk would not socialise with them. That cannot be equated with persecution.

Only when denial of jobs, promotion, or other denial of civil rights come into play can we talk of persecution.

I don't see how any of the Christians on your link were guilty of that.

I suppose I could try find you more.
What gets me is when they try to base it on Leviticus.

Evolution doesn't make moral claims, it's a description of how living things adapt over time.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

And the earth is flat, and witches exist, and slaves and kids should be murdered for insubordination. Some more, er, "moral restraints that religion nurtured" (to use wolfsbane's comment), can be found in this rather pointed essay:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/...nt.php?num=189

We've already seen how the Bible does not teach a flat earth, so I won't rehearse that.

Witches don't exist? Do the Wiccans know this? :rolleyes: http://www.bbc.co.uk/southampton/features/fireworks/witchcraft.shtml

As to the rest mentioned in your link, a couple of factors need mentioned:

1. God's legislation for the nation under Moses was not His ideal, but sometimes a concession to man's moral frailty:
Matthew 19:7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

2. God's anger against sin is immense and to be avoided:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 11 Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to God, and I also trust are well known in your consciences.

3. God is the Creator of all and is entitled to do with His creation as He pleases, consistent with His holy character. Man being wicked, no suffering or punishment from Him can justly be complained of:
Lamentations 3:38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High
That woe and well-being proceed?
39 Why should a living man complain,
A man for the punishment of his sins?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Out of interest - given that you think that indoctrination in evolutionary 'truth' (despite there being no such thing) has caused all the evil in the world, including shell suits and hoodies, perhaps you'd care to share with us any thoughts you might have on why people were nasty to each other before "Origin of the Species" was published in 1859?

Of course I didn't say belief in evolution caused all the evil in the world. Just that it has provided the moral basis of the hedonist hoods of this generation.

Evolutionism effectively destroys Christianity, by falsifying the Bible. One can pretend it does not and so continue to hold to the Christian faith, but the foundations have been removed and the theistic evolutionary house must fall.

With the discrediting of Christianity and the elevation of Darwin's theory of origins to replace it, the moral conclusions of this seep into the heart and mind of all who fall for it. Perhaps social status or hopes for it restrain amorality, but for those who have nothing to lose, or little chance of being caught, the inherent amorality of such a theory of origins soon bears the fruit we see today.

BTW, while on the topic of animal behaviour, that's a nice quote from Stephen Green, the guy behind Christian Voice. In case anybody's forgotten, Green was the guy who published the names, addresses and phone numbers of people whom he thought might have been involved with the screening of "Jerry Springer - The Opera" on BBC2 last year, and which resulted in physical threats against quite a few employees and their family members (see here). Thrilled with his success with anonymous intimidation, Green immediately went public and threatened a cancer charity into rejecting a cash donation of around £10,000 (see here). While it did offer him a fine opportunity to put his money where his mouth was, Green's christian charity didn't unfortunately quite extend to replacing the donation, though I'm sure his bank (ironically, it was the Co-operative Bank!) closing his account a few months later didn't help. "Christian Voice -- Bringing the Taste of the Middle Ages to Britain Today!"

I don't go in for the protest thing myself - I believe sinners should be allowed to sin within the law of the land, and let God punish them. Public protests are likely to be abused in the way you pointed out. But Green seems to have seen that himself:
Yesterday Green was repentant. "I have certain God-given gifts and it is a privilege to use them because we love our Lord and care for our fellow man. But it was naive of us to expect when we posted the home addresses of the BBC staff that the site wouldn't only be visited by Christians. We regret that there have been threats. It brings no honour on the name of Jesus Christ." Shouldn't he have thought of this before? "I make mistakes because I'm fallible."

I once protested outside Ian Paisley's church in Belfast, pointing out a few home truths to them.:eek: :eek: :eek:
It was effective, but I now doubt it was the best Christian way to go about it.

J C

Quote Scofflaw
Welcome to the ranks of the evolutionists (J C)!

Thanks Scofflaw – but I have ‘been there and done that’!!

• I WAS an Evolutionist – until I discovered that Evolution was unable to spontaneously generate the sequence for a simple protein.
  
• I then had a PERSONAL FAITH CRISIS – in Evolution!!!!

Quote pH
Just for the record, here's a list of some of the things the theory of evolution doesn't explain:

[*]Planetary motion

[*]The origins of the universe

[*]The speed of light

[*]Magnetic fields

[*]The price of goods in a free economy

[*]The origin of the first self replicating molecules

[*]The periodic table of elements

Feel free to add to it if you must.


You forgot to add that Evolution ALSO doesn’t explain how life arose and developed on Earth.

Natural Selection does provide a good explanation for how populations adapt to changing environments by selecting from EXISTING genetic diversity within Created Kinds.

Natural Selection may explain the SURVIVAL of the fittest – but it doesn’t explain the ARRIVAL of the fittest.
Evolution “from GOO to YOU via the ZOO” requires a massive INCREASE in genetic information – and Information Theory shows that new information INVARIABLY originates with an intelligent source – and NOT through random natural processes.

The critical scientific problem ISN’T explaining the shuffling of existing genes through sexual reproduction, their degeneration by mutation or their isolation/recombination through natural selection/speciation. The real challenge is answering the question of HOW and WHEN all of this purposeful genetic information arose in the first place.

As you have confirmed above, Evolution has NOTHING to contribute in this regard.

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

BrianCalgary

Oh Oh JC now you've done it. You have said "survival of the fittest". Beware the assault.:)

J C

Quote Robin
I knew you'd see the light if we stuck at it long enough! That's two creationists in a week who've accepted that evolution is not only exactly what biologists say it is, but have gone on to accept the idea as correct as well.

Sorry to disappoint you, Robin - but:

1. Many Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified Biologists – so it shouldn’t be any surprise that they know all about Natural Selection – especially the fact that it’s a valid Scientific Theory about how EXISTING genetic diversity gets SELECTED, isolated and recombined.

2. Many Creation Scientists are former Evolutionists – so they equally know all about Evolution – especially the fact that it explains NOTHING about HOW all of the purposeful genetic information that is observed in living organisms arose in the first place.

J C

BrianCalgary wrote:

Oh Oh JC now you've done it. You have said "survival of the fittest". Beware the assault.:)

Hi Brian,

I did qualify it by saying that NS MAY explain the survival of the fittest!!

Equally, the 'fittest' isn't always the most agressive, biggest, etc - it could just as easily be the most sociable, co-operative or indeed smallest in many cases!!!

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Of course I didn't say belief in evolution caused all the evil in the world. Just that it has provided the moral basis of the hedonist hoods of this generation.

Evolutionism effectively destroys Christianity, by falsifying the Bible. One can pretend it does not and so continue to hold to the Christian faith, but the foundations have been removed and the theistic evolutionary house must fall.

With the discrediting of Christianity and the elevation of Darwin's theory of origins to replace it, the moral conclusions of this seep into the heart and mind of all who fall for it. Perhaps social status or hopes for it restrain amorality, but for those who have nothing to lose, or little chance of being caught, the inherent amorality of such a theory of origins soon bears the fruit we see today.

And would you like to remind us again why it is that lots of church-going correlates positively with a whole range of bad social indicators? You might also like to explain the "hoodies" of previous generations and eras - for example, why was the crime-rate higher in Medieval Europe than now, despite the greater prevalence of faith? They weren't evolutionists, surely?

Come on - "the moral basis of the hedonist hoods of this generation" is the same as ever - selfishness. Their new excuse may be "evolution", but I don't see what that can possibly have to do with the validity of a scientific theory. To be honest, if evolution is correct (which is a scientific discussion), then it's up to you as a Christian to work with the consequences. Wishing it away by claiming a fairy-tale is just burying your head in the sand rather than facing up to your responsibilities.

You might also consider the viciousness of public hypocrisy, and the negative consequences of a rigid church-mandated morality. Perhaps you should consider the priestly child-abuse scandals and the Magdalene laundries, the wasted lives of those who don't "fit in", and the dirty little crimes of the pious.

Perhaps, in fact, you would like to prove that the loss of "public morality" actually relates to a decline in belief, as opposed to a decline in community?

Or perhaps you can't?

Scofflaw

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

1. Many Creation Scientists are conventionally qualified Biologists – so it shouldn’t be any surprise that they know all about Natural Selection – especially the fact that it’s a valid Scientific Theory about how EXISTING genetic diversity gets SELECTED, isolated and recombined.

2. Many Creation Scientists are former Evolutionists – so they equally know all about Evolution – especially the fact that it explains NOTHING about HOW all of the purposeful genetic information that is observed in living organisms arose in the first place.

Again, this thread has dealt with the issue of "many Creation Scientists" already - the numbers of them are so tiny (less than 0.1% of all scientists) that the word "many" is simply inappropriate.

Please, JC, if you're just going to go back over all the old rubbish, at least explain what wolfsbane couldn't:

If Genesis is correct, and therefore the Flood, why do oil companies not use Flood geology, when to do so would earn them more money?

regards,
Scofflaw

J C

Quote Asiaprod
Welcome home JC

Thanks for the warmth of your greeting, Asiaprod – but I didn’t actually go away!!!

J C

J C wrote:

2. Many Creation Scientists are former Evolutionists – so they equally know all about Evolution – especially the fact that it explains NOTHING about HOW all of the purposeful genetic information that is observed in living organisms arose in the first place.

Well done. Of course it doesn't. It doesn't claim to.
It's not a creation thing, it's a how things develop thing.

Asiaprod

J C wrote:

Quote Asiaprod
Welcome home JC

Thanks for the warmth of your greeting, Asiaprod – but I didn’t actually go away!!!

Well, I still missed you:) and all those !!!!!!

Assyrian

Hi folks sorry for the delay, I've been away. actually I've been in back in Ireland but my mother in law doesn't have a computer.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, the morality didn't change - for God is sovereign over all His creation and can determine what happens to it.

Agreed. But it means there is nothing morally wrong with God providing prey for lions either before or after the fall.

The point is: He cannot do evil, nor declare that which is evil to be good. Death and suffering as a consequence of sin is within those moral parameters. Death and suffering without sin and being declared 'very good' is without.

The bible never says animal death and suffering was the result of the fall, so it is pretty hard to claim it as the moral parameter for death after the fall. You have however provided the biblical morality for animals being killed when you said God is sovereign over all his creatures. God gave them life and he is free to take it away. But this applies equally before and after he fall. I don't see how this moral basis is changed by a non biblical parameter.

Death is not 'very good' - the Bible tells us it is an enemy. Speaking of the resurrection of the physical body, Paul tells us:
1 Corinthians 15: 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

When do you think death became the enemy, or do you think God created an enemy?

Suffering is not 'very good' - the natural world joins us in our 'bondage of corruption', hardly a mark of Eden:
Romans 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

Paul says the bondage to decay was God's will, but he doesn't link it to the fall.

Now we come to the objection that the animals did not sin, so why did death and suffering come upon them? The answer lies with Adam's headship over creation: when he fell, everything did.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

So according to Genesis Adam didn't actually have dominion over everything, he had to subdue it first. Given that he lived in a garden in the middle east, he couldn't have subdued much of it before he sinned. So why did the rest of creation fall? Is there any scriptural basis for saying creation was cursed because man had dominion over it when he sinned, or is this just another human tradition?

Romans 5: 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
1 Corinthians 15:21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

These passages are talking about human death not animals

Why are you and I born sinners, since we did not sin like Adam? Because we are of him. We die both spiritually and naturally; the animals and indeed the material universe dies naturally.

According to Paul we share in the death that came from Adam because we sin too. As you quoted yourself death spread to all men, because all sinned Rom 5:12

God plainly shows us this link of the animal world with Man in His wrath against us, even though they have not sinned:
Genesis 6:
5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.

I think a better analogy here is when as part of God's judgement on an area, the animals there are 'devoted to destruction'. Their lives were his all along, now he claims them back. The thing is, when an animal was devoted to destruction, it was to be killed immediately and people got into real trouble for hanging onto animal that had been devoted. Saul wanted to bring the cattle back to sacrifice them to the Lord later. He was rejected as king for that sin. In the flood God destroyed Noah's land and all the animals that were not in the ark were effectively devoted to destruction and died very quickly.

Now does the YEC view of God cursing the animals in the fall fit into this picture? Not only are the animal allowed live for years and years after being cursed, according to YECs they not only lose their lives, eternal life actually, but they are subject to torture of lives racked with pain, suffering and disease before their death. Why do you think God ordered the torture of animals because of man's sin?

You err in linking God's provision for the lions with pre-Fall creation. This Psalm is an expression of praise to God for both His creation, and provision since. Otherwise you would have ships in pre-Fall times:
Psalm 104:26 There the ships sail about;
There is that Leviathan
Which You have made to play there.

Given that Psalm 104 is based on the creation account in Gen 1 following the order of creation days, do you think this means you should change the way you read the account in Genesis? An inspired Psalmist could have a clearer understanding of how to interpret scripture than you do.

Cheers Assyrian

Assyrian

Here's the transition from a vegetarian diet to an omnivorous one for man:
Genesis 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.

Now that shows the eating of animals was not according to God's will in the original creation order. The original giving of plants to both man and animal strongly suggests animals were also intended only to eat plants, since that is clearly what was implied for man.

I am not sure the relevance of this passage to carnivores before the fall, even so I don't think it actually says man was vegetarian before the flood. God is certainly introducing a new law forbidding eating blood, but is he giving man permission to eat meat for the first time, or reinstituting an old permission or practice based on having given man dominion in Genesis 1? 'I have given you all things' is in the perfect tense.

No doubt the Fallen animal world had quickly resorted to predation after Eden, just as man had quickly resorted to murder to advance his cause (Cain and Abel).

I don't think Cain had to kill his brother, but predators like lions and killer whales did not just have to resort to predation, they were designed to be highly efficient predators and do not actually survive very well on a vegetarian diet.

As I pointed out, the physical sensation that begins with pleasure can move to pain.

Physical sensations that begin with pleasure are not painful. It was pain God multiplied.

Gnosticism viewed the material world as evil; Christianity views the world God created as 'very good' and the one we now live in after the Fall as far from that, groaning in the bondage of corruption. Nothing sentimental about that.

You're view is certainly not Biblical. Everything is not 'very good' even if most of life is pleasant. It is the pain, fear, and dying that rule out our Fallen world as 'very good'. See the poor animal crippled with arthritis; mauled by a predator; riddled with cancer. See it starving to death, or choking with thirst. Tend to our fellowman who is in similar situations. Nothing pleasant about it. Many of us have sat praying for the Lord to take them out of their suffering. But this is the way God made His creation to be, according to theistic evolution.

Asceticism and a rejection of the material world as sinful came as a result of Gnostic and Manichaean influence of the church. In contrast, the bible writers believed creation was very good, that it glorified God.
Psalm 148:7 Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all deeps,
8 fire and hail, snow and mist, stormy wind fulfilling his word!
9 Mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars!
10 Beasts and all livestock, creeping things and flying birds! The YEC theology of a cursed creation is alien to the biblical view of the world. Incidentally, in nature, sick animals usually don't last that long.

Here's a tip - when you visit the ATM machine, don't worry about the religious fundamentalist standing next to you. Instead, watch out for the hoodie evolutionist, who believes we are just sophisticated slime.

YEC fundamentalists usually mug people with a combination of bad science and offering baskets and are usually much more successful than the scientifically illiterate hoodie with a knife.

Hi JC

JC wrote:

Could I gently point out that finding one flaw in a Scientific Hypothesis IS enough to scientifically invalidate it.
Could I also point out that the ‘flaw’ that I have discovered in Evolution goes to the very heart of what it is attempting to scientifically explain – the origins and development of life.

So would one flaw in YEC invalidate it? How about the fact that the bible never says the world was made in six literal days?

Information Theory shows that new information INVARIABLY originates with an intelligent source – and NOT through random natural processes.

To my understanding Information Theory studies information that does originate with an intelligent source, communications for example. If you want to describe DNA as 'information' it does not mean that this information has to have an intelligent source too.

A big difference between the sort of information studied by information theory and genetics is that a communicated message cannot grow it can only deteriorate. You can lose bits but anything gained is just noise. DNA is quite different. My genetic makeup may be an imperfect copy of DNA from my mother and father. There may be mutations duplications and deletions from the information they passed on. In terms of information theory data was lost in the communication. But in terms of me, my genome defines how I am built. It is a perfect description of me. If my genome is larger than my parents, then there has been an increase on information between the information they had and the information that is me. If my brother has the original version of a gene and I have a new version, then the total genetic information that makes up the human race has increased.

Cheers Assyrian

robindch

> I did qualify it by saying that NS MAY explain the survival of the fittest!!

Well, letting pass the tiny fact that Natural Selection isn't "survival of the fittest" but is actually defined as "differential reproductive success" (see large numbers of previous postings), I'm really impressed that you do really seem to have started to understand evolution! This is good.

> Equally, the 'fittest' isn't always the most agressive, biggest, etc - it
> could just as easily be the most sociable, co-operative or indeed smallest
> in many cases!!!

You're now really beginning to understand not only the definitions upon which the theory is built, but also how the processes and concepts which they define actually work! This is even better.

BTW, thanks too, to BrianCalgary for pointing out to you, the "survival of the fittest" fallacy. This gives me hope that Brian too is also starting to understand what we're all saying. First wolfsbane agreed with us, then JC joined up, and now Brian. This is best of all.

Well done, all 'round, guys.

J C

Quote Scofflaw
If Genesis is correct, and therefore the Flood, why do oil companies not use Flood geology, when to do so would earn them more money?

Petroleum Geologists (of all religious persuasions and none) do very important work both at the prospecting and production stages of oil exploration and development.
I must say that whether a Working Geologist believes in the scientifically defunct Theory of Evolution or the scientifically valid Theory of Natural Selection will have little effect on their efficiency when it comes to finding and exploiting oil deposits.

It is widely known that certain types of sedimentary rock formations can hold and trap oil – and this knowledge is completely independent of whether you believe in Creation or Evolution.
Both Creationists and Evolutionists who are Petroleum Geologists, use this knowledge to identify the best prospecting sites for oil exploration.
There should therefore be no real difference between Evolutionists and Creationists when it comes to finding and pumping oil!!!

Of course, searching for oil is actually not a very ‘exact science’.
It is a chastening fact that eight out of ten exploratory wells drilled in areas that have never produced oil before, are dry. This indicates that our knowledge of how Oil was originally produced remains quite incomplete. It also indicates how limited and precious our oil resources actually are.

Of course, once oil is discovered, the measurement of the extent and potential of an oilfield is a precision activity. The Dry-Well Rates plummet and Petroleum Geologists (of all religious persuasions and none) provide invaluable help and guidance on the optimum drilling locations to fully exploit the resource.

I must also say that all Geologists have been much more successful at finding oil than they have been at explaining where the oil has come from originally.

The idea that oil originated from microscopic animals has a number of conceptual problems.
The gradualist processes proposed have many difficulties including the need to trap ENORMOUS volumes of zooplankton on a continuous basis while also preserving them from natural decay processes.
The fact that oil is found in less than 1% of sedimentary rock deposits is also peculiar if oil was in fact derived from the WIDESPREAD entrapment of Zooplankton in sediment basins as postulated by the Conventional Petroleum-Geological Theory.
The great depths at which oil appears to originate, the massive LOCALISED volumes and pressures involved as well as the fact that many oil wells continue to be ‘re-charged’ by further oil migrating RAPIDLY upwards from very great depths BELOW the reservoirs in which it is found also doesn’t ‘tie in’ with gradualist processes.

It is looking increasingly likely that most Mineral Oil reserves DIDN’T have a biological origin.
Oil may indeed be a natural resource that is part of God’s Created Bounty, which He has made available as part of His patrimony to Mankind.

J C

Quote Bluewolf
Originally Posted by J C
Many Creation Scientists are former Evolutionists – so they equally know all about Evolution – especially the fact that it explains NOTHING about HOW all of the purposeful genetic information that is observed in living organisms arose in the first place.

Well done. Of course it doesn't. It doesn't claim to.
It's not a creation thing, it's a how things develop thing.


OK – so you admit that Evolution is merely Natural Selection of EXISTING genetic information – and the ‘origins’ of all life remains a mystery to Evolutionists.

I happen to agree with you on the above assessment.

I would also like to inform you that both Intelligent Design and Creation Science can take you to the next stage (of explaining how all of the purposeful tightly specified information present in all of life arose).


Quote Asiaprod
Well, I still missed you and all those !!!!!!

And I missed you too Asiaprod - even without any !!!!!!!


Quote Assyrian
So would one flaw in YEC invalidate it? How about the fact that the bible never says the world was made in six literal days?

The short answer is that it would – if it did - but it DIDN'T!!

The slightly longer answer is as follows:-

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 1 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.

Exodus 20:11 re-emphasises that the basis for the 7 day working week is the 7 day Creation Week – just in case anybody missed the point in Genesis 1 that the Days of Creation were 24 hour days.
The “Theistic Evolutionary” concept of a “Creation Week” lasting 7,000 million year is certainly quite a novelty!!! I would hate to be waiting for the weekend to come around if an Evolutionary time-frame applied to our working week!!

Of course, God COULD create the Universe and all living organisms in 6 seconds, in 6 days or over 6 billion years. He has told us that it was 6 days – and all observed phenomena support a rapid Creation and a young Earth. That is good enough for me – until somebody shows me repeatably observable evidence i.e. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to the contrary.


Quote Assyrian
To my understanding Information Theory studies information that does originate with an intelligent source, communications for example. If you want to describe DNA as 'information' it does not mean that this information has to have an intelligent source too.

Information is the virtual expression of INTELLIGENCE using an encoded language that is capable of being decoded by the recipient. It can be as simple as saying ‘I love you’ or as complex as a computer programme or the DNA code.
Both a computer code and a DNA code are examples of purposeful information.
The fact remains that ALL ultimate sources of information that have been identified, have been observed to be intelligent.
Where the source has been identified, the quality of the intelligence applied is also always observed to be directly proportional to the quality of the resultant information created.

The source of the purposeful information in living systems HASN’T been identified by Science but it is of such an effectively infinite quality (as indicated by the enormous complexity and density of the information in living systems) as to be of God.

As a Theistic Evolutionist, I would have thought that you would accept all of the above – which is fully compatible with BOTH Theistic Evolution and Creation Science.

Do you not believe that God had any hand act or part in Evolution – or do you think that God ISN’T intelligent?


Quote Assyrian
A big difference between the sort of information studied by information theory and genetics is that a communicated message cannot grow it can only deteriorate. You can lose bits but anything gained is just noise. DNA is quite different. My genetic makeup may be an imperfect copy of DNA from my mother and father. There may be mutations duplications and deletions from the information they passed on.

DNA can lose bits of information via mutations – and if this lost information controls critical biochemical pathways – catastrophic problems will arise.
However DNA is a very sophisticated information storage and retrieval system analogous to a computer operating system – complete with auto-repair systems (which themselves obviously contain information as well).

Your genetic makeup ISN’T an imperfect copy of your father’s and mother’s DNA – it is a PERFECT recombination of their genetic diversity – otherwise you would be dead or suffering from a very serious congenital disorder.

Quote Assyrian
In terms of information theory data was lost in the communication. But in terms of me, my genome defines how I am built. It is a perfect description of me. If my genome is larger than my parents, then there has been an increase on information between the information they had and the information that is me. If my brother has the original version of a gene and I have a new version, then the total genetic information that makes up the human race has increased.

Neither yourself or your brother will have NEW genetic information.

I will use the analogy of MS Windows – with you having the Grey option in relation to your Desktop colour scheme while your brother has the bright Green Desktop.
Please note that neither Desktop is NEW information – both colour schemes were PRE-PROGRAMMED into your MS Windows Software before you purchased it.

Similarly, both yourself and your brother have unique combinations of PRE-EXISTING genetic information.

Quote Assyrian
If my brother has the original version of a gene and I have a new version, then the total genetic information that makes up the human race has increased

The total DIVERSITY of the Human Race has been increased by yourself and your brother – but not it’s total INFORMATION. Whenever, I decide to change the colour-scheme on my desktop the total information in MS Windows worldwide doesn’t increase – merely it’s diversity – using PRE-PROGRAMMED information.

Of course if I were to re-programme the Source Code of MS Windows to produce a Purple Green and Blue Desktop using applied intelligence - that would be NEW INFORMATION in MS Windows.

However, if I made RANDOM changes to the Source Code (as Materialitic Evolutionists would have it) - then my Desktop would be likely to disappear as the system crashed!!

The basic sexual reproduction processes of meiosis and fertilization are observed to be precise ordered phenomena – as one would expect from systems handling enormous quantities of tightly specified critical information at ‘microdot’ levels of resolution.

When these precision processes actually DO get messed up (by critical mutations, for example) severe deformities or embryonic death normally results.

Sexual reproduction does allow RECOMBINATION of genetic material – but such recombination is observed to be tightly constrained within very defined limits – you may get a black-haired cat or a white-haired cat – but it is ALWAYS a cat.
These constraints also cause the so-called ‘genetic selection wall’ that animal and plant breeders rapidly come up against when intensively selecting for single traits. This ‘selection wall’ ALSO constrains how much change Natural Selection can ultimately achieve within any particular ‘kind’.

Natural Selection SELECTS – i.e. it discards certain genetic combinations and keeps others. This process is objectively SUBTRACTIVE, in that the discarded genetic combinations may contain other valuable genetic information that may also be permanently lost. That is one of the reasons why genetic diversity disappears so fast when a population is subjected to high unrelenting selection pressure. Pedigree animals provide a perfect illustration – a Poodle is an example of extreme Artificial Selection – to the point where it has practically lost ALL genetic diversity. If you breed a pedigree Poodle with another pedigree Poodle – you invariably get a Poodle.

Evolution is postulated as an information INCREASING mechanism. If Evolution existed then by repeatedly breeding Poodles you should get a Wolf or maybe even a Sheep!!!

The Evolution Hypothesis is defunct, because it lacks any plausible mechanism for creating the genetic diversity that it claims to supposedly produce. The only ‘genetic modification’ mechanism currently observed – genetic mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage most of the time. This is hardly a plausible mechanism to provide the massive INCREASE in useful, ordered genetic information evident at all points on the spectrum between “primordial chemicals and man”.

J C

J C wrote:

OK – so you admit that Evolution is merely Natural Selection of EXISTING genetic information – and the ‘origins’ of all life remains a mystery to Evolutionists.

There's more to it than "natural selection" iirc, but yes, abiogenesis is a different matter.

I would also like to inform you that both Intelligent Design and Creation Science can take you to the next stage (of explaining how all of the purposeful tightly specified information present in all of life arose).

That it must have had a creator?

Evolution is postulated as an information INCREASING mechanism. If Evolution existed then by repeatedly breeding Poodles you should get a Wolf or maybe even a Sheep!!!

JC, let's not get into arguing with straw men, please?

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Quote Scofflaw
If Genesis is correct, and therefore the Flood, why do oil companies not use Flood geology, when to do so would earn them more money?

Petroleum Geologists (of all religious persuasions and none) do very important work both at the prospecting and production stages of oil exploration and development.
I must say that whether a Working Geologist believes in the scientifically defunct Theory of Evolution or the scientifically valid Theory of Natural Selection will have little effect on their efficiency when it comes to finding and exploiting oil deposits.

Since you made one of them up, the question does not arise.

J C wrote:

It is widely known that certain types of sedimentary rock formations can hold and trap oil – and this knowledge is completely independent of whether you believe in Creation or Evolution.
Both Creationists and Evolutionists who are Petroleum Geologists, use this knowledge to identify the best prospecting sites for oil exploration.
There should therefore be no real difference between Evolutionists and Creationists when it comes to finding and pumping oil!!!

Neat sidestep - and I agree - neither Creationist nor Evolutionist Geologists use Flood Geology. Why is that, do you think?

J C wrote:

Of course, searching for oil is actually not a very ‘exact science’.
It is a chastening fact that eight out of ten exploratory wells drilled in areas that have never produced oil before, are dry. This indicates that our knowledge of how Oil was originally produced remains quite incomplete. It also indicates how limited and precious our oil resources actually are.

Of course, once oil is discovered, the measurement of the extent and potential of an oilfield is a precision activity. The Dry-Well Rates plummet and Petroleum Geologists (of all religious persuasions and none) provide invaluable help and guidance on the optimum drilling locations to fully exploit the resource.

And again, Flood Geology is not used in determining the extent and nature of the reservoir once oil is found. Of course, if Genesis was correct, they'd be much better off using Flood Geology, wouldn't they? Shame it's complete rubbish.

J C wrote:

I must also say that all Geologists have been much more successful at finding oil than they have been at explaining where the oil has come from originally.

The idea that oil originated from microscopic animals has a number of conceptual problems.
The gradualist processes proposed have many difficulties including the need to trap ENORMOUS volumes of zooplankton on a continuous basis while also preserving them from natural decay processes.
The fact that oil is found in less than 1% of sedimentary rock deposits is also peculiar if oil was in fact derived from the WIDESPREAD entrapment of Zooplankton in sediment basins as postulated by the Conventional Petroleum-Geological Theory.
The great depths at which oil appears to originate, the massive LOCALISED volumes and pressures involved as well as the fact that many oil wells continue to be ‘re-charged’ by further oil migrating RAPIDLY upwards from very great depths BELOW the reservoirs in which it is found also doesn’t ‘tie in’ with gradualist processes. It is looking increasingly likely that most Mineral Oil reserves DIDN’T have a biological origin.

That's certainly one theory of oil origin. However, it may not be correct, and it may not apply to all oil. And the alternate model of oil origin is also gradualist.

J C wrote:

Oil may indeed be a natural resource that is part of God’s Created Bounty, which He has made available as part of His patrimony to Mankind.

He could perhaps have provided more, then.

Well, you've done a lot of hand-waving, and sidestepped the issue quite neatly in one answer, so I'll give you 1/10 for effort. However, it is clear that you can't explain why Flood Geology is not used by oil companies, despite the billions to be earned. Even the Creationists who work in petroleum geology have to use evolutionist geology, because it works, and the religious drivel doesn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Quote Robin
Well, letting pass the tiny fact that Natural Selection isn't "survival of the fittest" but is actually defined as "differential reproductive success"

Could I gently point out that “survival of the fittest” in a genetic sense IS THE SAME AS “differential reproductive success”.


Quote Robin
I'm really impressed that you (J C) do really seem to have started to understand evolution! This is good.

Thanks for the compliment, Robin. However, the more I understand Evolution – the less I believe in it!!

You will find that this will happen to you as well – if you REALLY study it.


Quote Robin
(J C) You're now really beginning to understand not only the definitions upon which the theory is built, but also how the processes and concepts which they define actually work!

Thanks again for the compliment, Robin. I hope that my answers also help you in your understanding of the basis of Evolution!!!