Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

Basically they have already conceded the Bible argues for Creation not evolutionism.

Yes, but only in the sense that Genesis established God as the Creator of the universe. This does not mean that I believe that He did it recently in 6 days. You have no problems taking other parts of the Bible non-literally when convenient for you and because of outside knowledge. Yet you condemn others who do so. The Creation itself speaks of great age and of common descent. I gave a few evidences of that above which you have not refuted.

 

"BUT if you are a scientist observing LIVING systems then you SEE that "emperical science" is always showing evolutionism to be false "

Give me you best places where the science shows evolution to be false. Start with the lines of evidence presented above.

 

"Good science today "observes" that all living organisms use the levro chirality AND also "observes" that when incidentals occur the right-handed bond is eliminated by the correcting mechanism that is a part of the system...I guess that is the part where you "confess" that your blue sky speculation that "in the beginning living cells consisted of rasomized chiral distributions of amino acids" was pure fabrication stated only because you "need it" to be true for the myth of evolutionism - not because you (or anyone else on the planet) observes such a thing to be true."

No. Did you read my posts?

Proteins can be either right handed or left handed. They happen to be all left handed in life on earth. There is no reason for this to have always been the case. We do not know, the evidence is not preserved. Today they are left handed because a specific enzyme that is involved in the sequencing of all of the amino acids used on life on earth is left handed and therefore makes left handed amino acids. This enzyme, helping to make needed amino acids more easily, would have been a boon for early life and is preserved in all life that we see. Once life had this enzyme, then all proteins were left handed. It was advantageous. Before that, who knows. But, just because they are left handed today does not mean they were in the past. And that destroys the point the posted was trying to make about the long odds of making random chains with all the same chirality.

 

"Dawkins claims that what is not understood... "

Dawkins is not an expert in religion and quoting him on religious matters is the fallacy of an appeal to authority. He has no special expertise in religion and is therefore no more suited to discuss religion than the average guy on the street.

 

"Certainly not biochemistry in this case. UTEOTW has already confessed that we do NOT abserve living systems to be composed of amino acids having a random distributions of Right and Left handed chirality. He also admitted he has no way of showing that any change from what is actually SEEN in biochemistry today - ever existed in all of time."

But I did show why the change would have occurred. An enzyme developed, shared by all life, that helps make amino acids. It is left handed so the amino acids areleft handed.

 

"Hmm. So why would an evolutionist WANT to get OFF the topic...by side stepping the point with each post?"

I think that if you look back at the first page you will see that the first responses, mine included, were to address to issues raised. So there was not any side stepping there. Now, to justify my assertion that the Creation account is meant to be a non-literal account, I brought up some things from the Creation itself (enzymes that lead to chirality, families of genes with similar sequences, index fossils, retroviral DNA insertions, and homology to name a few) that I believe support my position. Now these have so far been side stepped. I brought them into this thread from the previous thread because they were being side stepped there also.

 

You are correct - according to God's Word - plants came along 3 whole days prior to man and birds one whole day before.

God's word says that our day - our weekly cycle day is in fact locked in as the same as the Genesis 1-2 day.

Notice what HE says... (as opposed to what evolutionists speculate)

Notice - No mention of "I hereby make a holy day - the 7th day will now be a holy day" – since it was already made holy and blessed in Gen 2:1-3.

Rather we are already to "Remember it" and then are pointed back in time to when it was made the Holy Day of God. This command demands that the listener “understand” that the 7 day cycle of Creation Week – is the same 7-day cycle at the foot of MT Sinai 1000 years after the flood. Mankind is to follow God’s example “on the very day” of the week He points to.

Again notice past tense action of blessing the Sabbath of God and making it Holy in Gen 2:1-3. .

Note The Action commanded -
Note The reasonthat establishes the commandment

Oh that everyone would embrace God's Word just as it reads – evolutionism would not be so well accepted among Christians – if they did.
</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

Again UTEOTW - you are misdirecting the point away from what it says. Darwin was not speaking of religion but of the science and physical process of abiogenesis.

The point remains (side stepping noted however)

As I said -- your misdirection here is noted.

In Christ,

Bob

 

From the opening post

Jesus on creation
by Charles Taylor

‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6).

In these words of Jesus we find He teaches that Adam and Eve were created in ‘the beginning of the creation’—not billions of years after the beginning!


The point is clear - CHRIST is the one making this claim and it is NOT in an evolutionist form talking about natural selection, or killing, or starvation, or carnage, or predation (and yes the supposedly "stupid people" of the Bible ages knew about killing and starvation).

Rather Christ states that the event is God HIMSELF MAKING mankind - and MAKING both genders FROM the very start - from the actual 7 days of actual creation week.

And as alreay noted here - a point consistently sidestepped and diverted away from by evolutionism's faithful.

(At least so far on this thread).

The last thing they want to do is discuss "What the Bible says".

The reason is that although Christian - they have already "admitted" that the Bible uses Creationist models - not evolutionism.

And so Bob said ...

But then amazingly UTEOTW claims..

I think I did miss that come to think of it. In fact - I was hoping this was where you would post your own statement that God used creationist models/language/text because the people of that day were not skilled in creating living planets. You know dealing with the point of the quote of Christ in Mark 10!

Ahhh yes - the side stepping again.

My point has been that you keep jumping off the thread with each post - hoping to make it a discussion about chirality in amino acids that you "hoped" would have been "in the beginning" if "only you had the science to see that" -- instead of sticking with the point of Mark 10.

Do you see the point?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Again you are trying to obfuscate the point.

I never argued that you said God created the World in 6 days. Your statement does not address the point.

Also the point YOU made in the earlier evolutionism threads - was that the REASON God used creationist models to explain the entire origin of this World, life, sun and moon etc IS that the people of that day were ignorant and supertitious. (So basically you say God was speaking in creationist models that a superstitious people would understand - but NOT speaking in scientifically true - or accurate terms).

NOW you are misdirecting the point as if to say that all God said to them was that in some unknown way HE is stil the creator.

But when we see how that twist and turn compares with your earlier "AND He said this because they were too ignorant to know the truth accurately" - you are saying that God is NOT really the creator He only says that to stupid ignorant people.

When the "truth is" we all know that you think that IT IS accurate and correct to say that God is the creator - as long as He does not ACTUALLY create anything.

Claiming that "God is the Creator" is the big compromise/symbolism/poetic truth - of scripture because people were too stupid to know the REAL truth - is not what you believe - though your message-spinning now has you painted into the corner of saying that very thing. (when combining your statement above with your earlier "HE only said that because they are too supertitious to know the truth"..)

You see UTEOTW - when you have to make stuff up to prop up the myths and fables of evolutionism THEN it only makes the situation worse - because you have to remember the arguments you made up in the past.

Sticking with the Mark 10 subject -- lets see how fast you jump off the subject of that quote ... again.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Not in living cells - stick with the point please.

Sure there is - you can't "make a cell" with right-handed amino acids comprising the proteins.

Your statement is like saying "There is no reason for gravity to attract objects -- perhaps it used to repel objects at one time - though we have no evidence of that and have never seen it".

You continually "demonstrate" evolutionism flying the face of "good science".

My hat is off to you for believing in evolutionism "anyway".

Great faith!

Notice how your "faith" in evolutionism is based on pure "hopeful speculation"

How sad - to abandon what science SEES every day for the 'wishfull hopeful monsters of evolutionism".

Then - in classic evolutionism "logic" your own "Speculation" becomes your "proof" for evolutionism - as IF speculation on your part meant something.

There it is - point "refuted by blue-sky fact-less speculation" and that is "more than enough" for evolutionism's faithful to "believe it".

Your post is worth framing as the poster child for evolutionism's methods and practices - for what it will accept as "proof".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Classic "I can't see" defense of evolutionists when confronted with a blatant problem in their mythologies.

In this case - UTEOTW has already admitted that he has NO evidence of living cells comprised of right-handed proteins (proteins comprised of amino acids with right-handed chirality). Not even one. AND UTEOT has also admitted that he has no "ancient evidence" that this EVER was the case.

So -- no where to go there but pure blue-sky speculation for UTEOTW while he "pretends not to see" the problem.

Then we notice that all experiements to intelligently FORM amino acids result in random distributions of right and left handed chirality -- that all agree are LETHAL to life-building proteins. Not ONE of those amino acid chains would contribute to a living cell's protein.

The "Obvious" problem here is that this points to a DIVINE source an ENGINEERED solution for the start of life - not a "just so happened" start. This is WAYYY too much God for evolutionists so they simply "speculate" that there was an easter bunny solving this problem a long time ago - though we have no evidence that easter bunny's exist.

And then UTEOTW confusingly makes the argument above -- of the form "I still can't see a problem".

This is why confessions be well known evolutionists - like ASIMOV on the fact that entropy IS seen in living systems pulling them into disorder and decay - is so devastating to evolutionism's faithful. IT is because their classic defense has been "lets all close eyes hold hands and pretend we don't see it". But hen someone breaks ranks. IN the case of Asimov - we had an evolutionist "seeing" that the 2nd law of thermodynamic WAS apparent and obvious in biological systems by observing how it constantly degrades them.

But again - the evolutionist can only respond "well then Asimov may see but the REST of us don't see".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Notice the taxonomy that the OT Bible writers used? It used the term "fish" to represent ALL that swam in the sea.

Mark 10 disproves evolutionism - but the point above does not. However when evolutionists THEMSELVE leap on to straw man arguments about whales not being fish - then the texts above simply show the lengths and futility to which evolutionists will cling in order to hold their faith in evolutionism's mythologies rather than the Word of God.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Moreover, Natural selection is the mechanism in evolution for directionally administrating mutational change upward according to evolutionary thought. If there was no death, there is no 'survival of the fittest'."

I disagree with you on what "death" means here. I think to take it as simply physical death, and the the physical death of all life at that, is to miss the point. To quote "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Now, they did not suffer physical death on the day that they ate of the tree, did they? No. "Death" here is something more. With this difference of opinion, the rest of the argument falls apart.

"[rhetorical]Lets keep this religious creation mumbo jumbo out of schools... lets teach our kids that the Bible is not practical or true - it's simply an ideology. There's no real world relevance to it - it's just a book we use to see where the concept of morals came from ... it's not really for today. [/rhetorical]"

HOGWASH!! The Bible is just as true today as it was when it was written. (Sorry to keep quoting you there but to attribute it to me.) The Bible is true. It is relevent. But not every word is literal. You do not take everything in it to be the literal truth. Things can be true without having to be factual. There is a difference.

"We need to come at this issue from the Bible's perspective, and not worry so much about trying to refute the science."

But for you to refute the science is at the heart of the matter. This, to me, seems to be an admission that the facts are not on your side so you had just as soon talk about something else. There are many issues where believers have differing opinions on interpretation. Nothing wrong with that. In this case, we have a clear advantage in that it is possible, simply by looking at the Creation itself, to see what the correct interpretation is. And the evidence, from God's own Creation, is overwhelming that the universe is ancient. If you disagree, then there is a whole lot of refuting you have to do. Starting with the topics above.

 

"I think I did miss that come to think of it. In fact - I was hoping this was where you would post your own statement that God used creationist models/language/text because the people of that day were not skilled in creating living planets... Also the point YOU made in the earlier evolutionism threads - was that the REASON God used creationist models to explain the entire origin of this World, life, sun and moon etc IS that the people of that day were ignorant and supertitious. (So basically you say God was speaking in creationist models that a superstitious people would understand - but NOT speaking in scientifically true - or accurate terms). Claiming that "God is the Creator" is the big compromise/symbolism/poetic truth - of scripture because people were too stupid to know the REAL truth - is not what you believe - though your message-spinning now has you painted into the corner of saying that very thing. (when combining your statement above with your earlier "HE only said that because they are too supertitious to know the truth"..)"

Was the initial audience ignorant? Yes, at least in these matters. Were they stupid? Of course not. And there is a difference between the two. I am a reasonably smart guy, but there are many areas in which I am ignorant. (You may have a few in mind.) But that is not a strike against me. The initial audience did not have the prior knowledge necessary to get a blow by blow account. And it was unneeded. God managed to communicate everything they needed, and thet we need, to know in a succinct narrative. That it is not meant to be literal does not take away from the fact that it is true. God is the Creator.

"Ahhh yes - the side stepping again. My point has been that you keep jumping off the thread with each post - hoping to make it a discussion about chirality in amino acids that you "hoped" would have been "in the beginning" if "only you had the science to see that" -- instead of sticking with the point of Mark 10. Do you see the point?"

I see your point. Now do you see mine?

We can go back and forth till eternity claiming that each other's interpretation is wrong. But, unlike many other areas where good people have differences of interpretation, we have the unique ability in this debate to look at the Creation itself and get the answer to who is right. I am not sidestepping anything. We differ on our interpretation. Nothing wrong with that. Now let's settle the issue. Look at all the facts and see who is right. I think all the facts come down on the side of an old earth and of the common descent of all life on earth. You disagree. Let's go to the Creation and see who is right.

 

I hope we are not about to go down the same black hole that we did with entropy...

"Not in living cells - stick with the point please... Sure there is - you can't "make a cell" with right-handed amino acids comprising the proteins... Then we notice that all experiements to intelligently FORM amino acids result in random distributions of right and left handed chirality -- that all agree are LETHAL to life-building proteins. Not ONE of those amino acid chains would contribute to a living cell's protein."

Bob

I have been clear. All life today has left handed proteins because the enzyme that makes the amino acids (well, their precusor, at least)that make the proteins is left handed. This results in all the other products, all the way to the final proteins being left handed.

But there is no reason for one to suppose that this was always the case. And that is the problem with the initial reference. It calculated long odds that a long, left handed protein could form from a mixture of right and left handed amino acids. The problem with the statement is that there is no reason to suppose that had to happen. The left handedness today is a result of how the amino acids are synthesized. Before this helper enzyme came along, there is no reason to suppose that was the case.

You can make proteins today with mixed left and right handed amino acids. But they would not be useful to life because it uses all left handed. But, what about before this enzyme? If the the amino acids were mixed, life could still make proteins. And size it was making proteins that were mixed, it could have used coumpounds that were mixed. You cannot demonstrate that all all points in history that only lefthanded proteins were used. For that matter, I cannot prove my assertion either, because the evidence is lost to time. But I do have that enzyme on my side. You are left with only assertions.

You are trying to make hay on how things are today when the situation was different at the time we are discussing. An that, is where things fall apart for you.

Now, quit side stepping the issues. Where did all those retroviral LTRs in the genome come from? Why do familes of genes show evidence that they evolved from a single gene through duplication and mutation? Why do we have index fossils in the first place, everything should be all jumbled up? Why do we share so many traits with other animals that are useless to us today but that would have benefitted our ancestors? Why do we share mutations and pseudogenes with the apes and primates?

 

100% correct. Survival of the fittest relies (as in lies and re-lies) on the idea that new more faviorable traits result in more offspring and better chances of survival. It relies on the extinction of all the various flavors of less-favorable traits to explain away the fact that we don't see those transitional forms any more. (Otherwise we would be seeing smooth step-wise transitions from one species to another instead of hunting for "missing links".)

Marvelous misdirection. Comparing the spiritual death of mankind in moral disobedience to the carnage, death, extinction, starvation and predation that evolutionism's god uses to "CREATE" new species.

Fascinating misdirection.

IN Christ,

Bob