1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Gup20, Jun 25, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    True enough. Genesis 1-2:3 has the PURPOSE of giving us the trustworhty chronological account - the sequence for all life on earth and the creation of our solar system.

    Genesis 2:5- end has the PURPOSE of explaining marriage and the ground rules for the first married couple. The sinless state - the command of God and the BASIS for eternal life or the FALL depending on their free will choice.

    They address entirely differnt points in the origin of mankind and this planet.

    You seem to understand some of that.

    Genesis 1 is the clear obvious glaring CHRONOLOGICAL account, complete with EVENING and MORNING boundaries for EACH day. Each day is numbered and actions on EACH day are provided.

    Nothing could be more obvious or more contradictory to the ORIGINS stories of evolutionism!!


    I guess if you "ignore the details" then you can "at least" get that.

    But paying attention "to the details" we see a huge glaring contradction between God's account of ORIGINS and humanism's account for origins.

    We also see in GOD's account the CLEAR LINK between ORIGINS and the FALL of mankind.

    Genesis 2 sets the stage for explaining all the issues in the fall of mankind and WHY we need a Savior.

    The Gospel story begins in chapter 1 telling us about our creator and RELIABLY telling us what He did on EACH of the 7 days of creation week. A trustworthy Chronological sequence SHOWING in clear explicit terms the 7 days and what our creator DID.

    Chapter 2 continues the Gospel story with the subject of MARRIAGE and the RULES for the FIRST human couple - sinless - perfect and perfectly PROVIDED for.

    These are "the details"

    Well - now if we could only get you to "read the details" in what you claim to confess "is true" - the Word of God.

    This address the point of God making mankind complete on the 6th day "IN the beginning God MADE" and "FROM the beginning they were MADE male and female" -- the origins of life on earh - in that SAME WEEK - mankind exists AS God MADE them -- (not simply as they EVOLVED).

    The text could not BE more contradictory to evolutionists when you pay attention to the details of scripture.

    On the other hand - you "could" ignore all of scripture and just assert "they were not sexless"!!!

    Entertaining as that joke is - it is nothing more than a very "short" rabbit trail to occupy one's thoughts while ignore the details of God's Word.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Bob said " have shown you that PROVEN science disputes the myths and stories of evolutionism."

    On the contrary - for the two cases I provided (Entropy and Chiral mix for ALL LIVING CELLS) I SHOW that all of science is in my favor and that you have absolutely nothing (Noting that you even confess it at times on the chiral problem.)

    Though you have tossed in obscure quesswork after obscure guesswork - in the end - even you admitted it was just guesswork.

    Odd - how you claim that vapor of a foundation is "sufficient" to challenge all of scripture on the subject of origins -- don't you think?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Bob said
    "Each of your attempts to misdirect the topic of the thread or the one or two cases where we contrast evolutionism to PROVEN science - you appeal to obscure speculations."


    Indeed. You admitted you had nothing to go on - that you were relying on pure guesswork.

    Thanks. That was a satisfactory response -- as good as it gets for evolutionism.

    Of course with each guesswork "story" there is something about clay or chalk that can be dredged up to prop-up-the-story but "in the end" you admit that it comes short of "proof" and is in the final analysis "guesswor".

    Odd that this is taken as "sufficient" to base your faith on - in your response above.

    Even when Isaac Asimov shows us the contrast between entropy SEEN vs entropy NEEDED by evolutionism -- (an icon for atheist evolutionists that he is) you still refuse to allow yourself to "see" the problem.

    It was an instructive response on your part.

    Do you notice how these facts "do not change" simply because they do not reflect well on evolutionism? That seems to surprise you each time they are admitted. Why?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Recall that "YOU" where the one to suggest that we get OFF the topic of the Bible contradicting evolutionism AND ON to the subject of entropy??

    Then after reams of posts PROVING you have "nothing" either in entropy or in cell biology to support your views - you say "I am not responding"!!!????

    Don't you really mean - I am not cooperating with your attempts to change the subject "again"?

    Bob said
    "I prefer to stay on focus - stay on topic rather than strew red herrings all through the thread."



    Critical thinking will be needed here UTEOTW and that is where you seem to be weak. Your claim is that "any old rabbit trail that UTEOTW throws out should be considered valid refutation". But guess what? It has to make sense!! It has be based on something besides Junk Science! And at the end you have to say something beside "of course this is all just guessworkl"!!

    Why does that not compute with you?

    Why do you go on insisting that "any old guesswork is compelling refutation" AS IF such a silly idea "becomes true" just because you say it???

    This is the part that really amazes me!

    Again you do it. "SHOWN to be incorrect" in an argument on your point that ends with "UTEOTW has no facts on this and it is all just guesswork"!!!

    How can you live with yourself in making those blind assertions??

    As for refuting Isaac Asimov - you were totally incapable of coming with one single point. In fact when you went to find MORE quotes form Isaac - you only dug your hole deeper!! Show show him contasting entropy SEEN in human biology against entropy NEEDED by the stories of evolutionism!!

    And now you claim "THAT" as proof for your beliefs in evolutionism??

    I am amazed!

    "Surely you "see" the absurd nature of this misdirection above??"

    You do have one point though. In your attempts to "change subjects again" off the Bible and evolutionism, OFF the junk science of abiogensis, OFF the subject of Asimov SHOWING the contrast between entropy SEEN and entropy NEEDED by the junk-science of evolutionism... you leap on to "chalk stories" and have been holding you feet to the fire on these other points of "emperical science"

    Is it now your claim that your entropy problem is sovled in your "chalk story"??

    Is it yhour claim that I have an opportunity to justify that entropy fact that Isaac SHOWS us in the contrast between entropy SEEN vs entropy NEEDED in evolutionism -- by switching topics to your "chalk story"???

    Or are you claiming that the abiogensis problem I show for you where EVEN YOU admit you have nothing but guesswork to support you - is challenged by "the chalk story"??

    Does it ever occur to you to "notice" how you go to more and obscure and oblique lengths to contrive a junk-science tale to address clear indisputable evidence in the lab when it comes to entropy and the chiral problems with evolutionism's junk science??

    Huh??

    Are you reading the thread at all??

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    "You keep claiming that the only reason you abandon God's Word is that your junk-science stories were so compelling - but here you admit that your junk-science is known by you - in this case - to ONLY be guesswork."

    I don't dispute that part of evolutionism's story when you say you can not be sure and that it is all quesswork.

    What I DO dispute is you proclivity to claim that pure guesswork "DISPROVES" the solid science I am showing that NO LIVING cell in all of biology is based on what "Evolutionism NEEDS" for abiogenesis.

    When I prove that you would need ENTIRELY NEW laws of biochemistry - blue-sky invention - you toss out "GUESSWORK" as your defense and then want to claim you PROVED something???

    As if "any old rabbit trail" you come up with (even GUESSWORK) is actually "PROOF" of something?????

    Can't you allow yourself to SEE how that is going to be hard for anyone to swallow that is using objective thinking???

    I just can't understand why you don't see this.

    Hhmmm Richard Dawkings CLAIMS evolutionism explains EVERYTHING starting "with nothing" in his words. Is it your claim now - that HE is a YECer??????

    Or "is HE is over his head??"

    Or is this just ANOTHER embarrassing confession from evolutionists icons that you need to refute as in the case of your opposing Isaac Asimov??

    I think we all can see which it is.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  6. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, that refers to the sun and moon. During the description of the fourth day, it goes on to say "He made the stars also." The stars are not great lights; they are small lights in the sky (at least from our perspective).

    Do you disagree with this and think the stars were created at some other time? If so, how do you reconcile this your statement that "Gen 1-2:3 is a chronological sequence an 'account' historically accurate and true and appealed to by the Exodus 20:8-11 summary God speaks to"?

    I hope you don't think this is a diversion. I'm honestly quite curious as to how you interpret creation from the Bible.
     
  7. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Your argument is that because Jesus came to give us eternal life, and we don't see Christians living forever, that everything is somehow figurative or purely spiritual.

    In fact, let me paint a different picture for you. I believe that Jesus' resurrection was a PHYSICAL RESULT of his work on the cross. He quite literally went to hell and took the rule and dominion of earth and man away from Satan - he took the keys that Satan had stolen from Adam in Genesis. Jesus was resurrected... THAT IS A PHYSICAL OCCURENCE!! It really happened. It's not a fairy tale in some book of fairy tales. He was physically alive here on earth AFTER HIS DEATH - and the Bible says that there is no death after the resurrection. The Bible also says that we who believe on Jesus shall be partakers of the same resurrection.

    Now then, why is there death for the Christian? Why doesn't the Christian just live forever? Here is where faith comes in. Once you believe in Jesus, you believe to be partakers of His death. You are saved, however, your body is not. Your body is judged. However, Christ made a way - He is the way. Because of Christ's work on the cross, Death has been condemned to die with your mortal body. That is what the resurrection is all about - it is a physical result of our faith in Christ. Jesus called it the 2nd birth - why? Because we recieve new bodies... eternal bodies. Because we are 'in Christ' our spirits - which are now made alive in Christ instead of dead from Sin - must live on ... therefore because part of us lives on and part of us dies... we need a replacement for the dead part. This, I believe, is the message of Romans chapter 6 - That death is condemned to be part of our mortal bodies. This is why Christians die like everyone else - BUT - we remain alive in the resurrection of Christ. This was not possible until the death and subsequent PHYSICAL resurrection of Christ. I can't stress enough how the resurrection of Christ was physical... following the NATURAL LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE! Open your eyes... the spiritual is not as far away as you suppose it to be. The Bible is real... Adam was real... Jesus was real. Death is a physical result of Adam's sin, and we all see and understand that. Life is a physical result of Faith in Christ, but we will not see it until we die.

    Now... whether you believe this or not - Go back and re-read Romans 5 and 6 with this in mind. Pretend if you must that Genesis is real and that it really happened. I promise you, under those conditions you will find revelation in those chapters.

    Besides Romans 5 & 6, here are the rest of the scriptures that I referred to in order to form my belief:

    Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
    Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

    Luk 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

    Jhn 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
    Jhn 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
    Jhn 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

    Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:

    Phl 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

    1Pe 1:3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

    1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

    Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.
    Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

    Once you are done reading Romans 5 & 6 again, go read 1 Corinthians 15, and also Revelation 20. Revelation 20 is a direct link back to Genesis 1:28. We can see that our pupose or role... our reason for being ... we are administrators ... stewards for God to creation ... and in the resurrection we will continue (according to Rev 20) in the capacity for which we were created.

    An evolutionist could never see Genesis to Revelation in such union and consistancy. However, under the light of young creation (which is nothing more than insisting on Biblical truth and inerrancy - Biblical authority) the entire Bible becomes aligned as a consistent, unified message. If you believe that the Bible has inconsistencies or doesn't make sense as a whole, then friend - you don't have a proper understanding of the foundation of the Bible ... Genesis! It is the first book for a reason. It is the foundation upon which the Cornerstone is laid (cornerstone being Jesus). It is the key to understanding scripture. Meditate on Genesis when doing your daily devotions and Bible reading and I guarentee your personal prayer time will come to life. You see... one of the things Genesis does is bring God and the spiritual into the practical and physical. Once evolution started taking hold in our society, God was delegated to our churches... sunday morning ... once a week. He doens't want to be a sunday morning participant in your life... he wants to be your every day. God is not some detached 'start it and see where it goes' God - that's agnosticism - and some of the evolutionists here are dangerously close to being or becoming agnostic.

    This is inconsistent of you. If you believe in evolution, you say that man evolved from monkeys. Remember... God isn't personally involved? He just set the goo in place and let time and chance have it's perfect work, right? So either the monkeys were eternal, or man evolved from un-eternal beings.

    Really, it's not something the text is clear on.

    Not nearly as clear as God creating the world in 6 literal days and creating separate kinds of animals, and man in a separate process... and there being a global flood... not nearly as clear as those things, eh?

    Yes... all death entered the world when Adam sinned. Romans 5:12 says:

    Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

    That first sentence can be broken down - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world and [by one man] death [entered the world] [because of] sin;

    Clearly, Sin entered the world because of one man, Adam (Romans 5:14 names Adam). Clearly death entered the world because of Sin.

    Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Clearly, death is the result of Adam's sin. It is the physical judgement of Sin. It is the result of disobedience to God. God told them not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or they would die. He gave them a rule... and then the punishment for breaking the rule.

    If you believe the scriptures, you see that death entered the WORLD through Adam's sin. Lets take a look at the word 'world'. You say that this word means 'men'. I say this world means 'the universe'. Here is my evidence: the greek word used in Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world; the Greek word here is "KOSMOS". I laughed right out loud when I read that. "By one man sin entered the kosmos and death because of sin".

    Kosmos literally means:

    1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
    2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars,
    'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
    3) the world, the universe
    4) the circle of the earth, the earth
    5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family

    Of 5 definitions of the word, only one of them means 'men'. So then, we can't be absolutely certain it doesn't mean 'only men' by the word 'world'. So lets check other places in scripture where KOSMOS was used:

    Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

    Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the [/i]foundation of the world[/i]:

    Mat 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

    The foundation of the world? That sounds like Genesis to me. Here Jesus is being described as the person an Old Testament scripture spoke of. Looking in my Bible, I wanted to see what scripture Matthew was referencing. It is Psalms 78:2 which reads:

    Psa 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:

    Dark sayings does not mean evil... it means confusing, perplexing questions, or riddle. The word for old here (qedem) literally menas ancient time, aforetime, ancient, from of old, earliest time, or beginning. A form of this word also means 'east' and is used in Genesis when describing the location of the Garden of Eden.

    So what Romans 5:12 says is that death entered the world because of (and at the time of) Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden.

    Moreover, Mark 16:15 says:

    Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

    Now it is clear from the context of Mark 16, that Jesus is speaking and referring to people... however, I find it very telling that he uses the phrase 'every creature'. Here Jesus is referring to people, but he lumps 'every creature' in with our fate/state of affairs. If we look at the word 'creature' in this verse, it is the greek word ktisis. Ktisis literally means:

    1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc
    a) the act of creating, creation
    b) creation i.e. thing created
    1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation
    a) anything created
    b) after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called)
    c) the sum or aggregate of things created
    c) institution, ordinance

    This word literally doesn't mean only a man at all! Furthermore, lets look at other verses that use this word 'ktisis'.

    Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

    And here we are... right back to the very same verse that started this thread. We have Jesus quoting Genesis.

    Now either, the creation started with people... in which case God didn't create the universe or the earth, but simply came upon the scene after the fact and plopped man down... or... Man has been here since the beginning of time... since the creation of the world during the 6 days of creation. Either way you look at that verse, that puts man at the end of the creative process. Just as man is the final creature to be created. Therefore, we can still see that God called every step of creation, leading up to and including man GOOD. Again, there could not have been death, suffering, corruption, violence, etc - otherwise God would have called those things Good. So then, why would God say that death is evil and good at the same time?

    Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.

    (we all know who the 'theif' is in that verse: satan)

    Eze 33:11 Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

    Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn [yourselves], and live ye.

    Psa 23:4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou [art] with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

    In this verse we see that death is the opposite of Good:

    Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

    Hbr 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

    Is the story of Enoch a fairy tale too? Are they simply perpetuating the fairy tale as you suggest? The writer of Hebrews seems to think it was a real event.

    Rev 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong [is] the Lord God who judgeth her.

    If death is a plague, then how is it considered Good?

    Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
     
  8. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Moreover, please try to explain how the death of an animal sacrifice could attone for the Israelite's sin in the Old Testament? If animal death was meaningless and inconsequencial to God (for example, if he could declare everything Good in the presence of animal death), how could killing one attone for the sin of PEOPLE?

    No... death entered the world by Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden. Death passed upon all that was within Adam's dominion and rule. Adam was the head of creation, as Christ is the head of the the church. Notice Romans 5 doesn't say that because of Eve's sin, death entered the world... but because of Adam's sin. The body cannot live without the head. Once the head is cut off, the body dies. Death passed upon all creation as a result of the 'master'. Adam was given dominion over all the earth. Why could Jesus come and die for us? Because he is the only one who could take dominion of the physical universe away from Satan, who had stolen it from us.

    Why would God call the death of Christ a good thing? Because it is a sacrifice so that men might live. The prey of the lion is no different. It is necessary that the prey die (because we live in a fallen world - note this is not the designed or intended way) so that the lion might live. It is to the Glory of God that the creation survives the death brought into this world by Adam. Otherwise, Satan would succeed in destroying what God had created.

    Therefore, it is good, however only in a fallen world, that the lion eat to continue and survive and live out God's command to animals after the flood to be fruitful and multimply. In that the animals are simply obeying the word of God.

    Note that the Bible says that the Lion shall one day lie down with the Lamb... that this is the intended way... the preferred way... God's way. Further evidence that it was not God's original design to have animals eating other animals... further evidence that death was not the original design. For when things are restored, the lion will once again be at peace with the lamb.

    Well, I simply believe there isn't time in 6000 years to deviate too drastically from the original creature created within a kind. We can say with certianty, for example, that a fish did not mutate into lizard... and a lizard did not mutate into a bird. Clearly, that would be crossing the bounds of the specific kinds that God lists in the Bible. However, I believe that the truth of "kinds" can be extended on down the line. Land animals will not turn into fish... land animals will not turn into birds... land animals will reproduce after their own kind. Dogs will create more dogs. There may be variation within this, but in a corrupt and dying world, we don't see the creation of new, we see the isolation of the specific from the diverse... we see the extinction of more species that we see new species. We loose information rather than gain. The gist of Bob's arguments on entropy is this - if you have a perpetual motion machine, you do not have entropy. With God sustaining everything eternally, that is just what you have. Perpetual everything - nothing dies... nothing withers... everything continues with the sustaining power of God. Remove God from the creation, and it begins to 'spin on it's own'. It will eventually run down. Biological things are the same. Without God sustaining them at the original design giving eternal life and health... things deteriorate and 'wind down'. We go from no entropy absolute order and function to high entropy, lower order, lower function... what Bob is trying to say is that we have gone from being physically eternal to being physically mortal. Because there is no known force natural force that can create somehting eternal from something mortal, we can see, therefore, the trend is for things to become increasingly inert. Decay rates of atomic particles for example. Without something to sustain us, we die.

    The point is that ferns don't turn into frogs. Ferns turn into other ferns... frogs turn into other frogs.

    A good analogy is an automobile. Like a car, our body is full of machines. While they may be biological and not mechanical, the same principles of physics that governs the operation of a car, governs the operation of our biological processes. Our cells still have to transmit heat and energy. If the muffler falls off your car, it will not hinder the operation of the vehicle, however it may effect performance. Our bodies are billions upon billions of times more complex than an automobile, however, to my knowledge not a single car has ever had the ability to evolve into something else.

    "dude... I was driving down the road the other day and I felt this boost of power... I checked under the hood and my engine had evolved an extra cylinder!! This is soo cool!"

    This is rediculous to us all because we all know that it is impossible for a car to 'grow' new parts. Moreover, even if a new cylinder did appear, who is to say there would be pistons for it... the header would also have to change... the exhaust and timeing would be all screwed up... an engine is a finely calibrated machine! Like I said... our biological systems are far more complex.

    And what about entropy and sustaining power. Well, lets say you stopped chaning your oil (an analogy for God's eternal sustaining power being removed). Your engine would eventually burn up the oil... and eventually seize up. Why? Because we all know that it is not the nature of things to decrease in entropy over time... but it is natural to wear out and break down... go from better to worse. Without sustaining power... and sometimes by random pressures exerted on the engine... the engine eventually wears out.

    Our genomes are the same. Without God to hold them up to their original design, they run down, not up. Evolution asserts that biological systems increase with efficency, function, use over time... this is not true. The best shape our genomes were ever in is at creation... since the fall, they have been running down... wearing out... loosing information, not gaining it.

    I know that it is unfathomable to call yourself a christian and hold the view that portions of scripture are not quite right.... or that God didn't think it was important to tell us the truth. How can one be a christian and not believe the Bible? You can't pick the parts you think are real and the parts you think are fairy tale. Have you ever read the Geneologies in Genesis? Does that bit of reading sound poetic or historical to you? It is distinctly historical to me. The tone of Genesis never changes throughout. It is all historical matter of fact. Yet you relegate the first 11 chapters to some fiction fairy tale told to us because we couldn't understand the story of evolution even if God had told us.

    I am sorry, UTE, but a 3 year old could understand evolution - the fishy turns into the lizard and then into the kitty and then into the monkey and then into you. But this is not what God told us... he told us he created the universe and the world ... and every living thing in the world... in 6 literal days. He told us He created land animals and human beings separately in one day... not that one turned into another. He gave five 24 hour (solar) days from the creation of our planet and time to the creation of man in Adam, the first man - NOT MILLIONS OF YEARS. He gave us detailed geneologies leading up to Jesus so we know it was ~4000 years after the creation of the world... ~4000 years after the creation of plants... ~4000 years after the creation of fish... ~4000 years after the creation of birds.... ~4000 years after the creation of man. History tell us it's been about 2000 years since then. We can't trust history as much as we can the Word of God, so we say that the earth is ~6000 years old.

    While cleverly worded your statements mean exactly this:

    "you know that the Bible is wrong about the world, and that Genesis is a fairy tale"

    Perhpas if you spent less time trying to prove the scripture false, and more time believing it, your faith would not be shaken so hard by challenge. Isn't that the real reason you argue in favor of evolution? To appear wise in the eyes of man? You can't take the criticism because of your disbelief in the word, so you try to marry yourself to both beliefs to try to convince yourself that Genesis isn't real... that creation isn't real, and it's ok for you to think that and still call yourself a Christian.

    Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

    You have demonstrated where your belief and loyalties lie. I would advise drastic change. You cannot serve God and Man.

    Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

    Choose to believe God over man. Just about the only thing that remains of evolution since Darwin is it's humanistic worldview that everything came to be by natural means without the direct influence of the Creator. Evolution true seeks to exhault itself against the knowlege of God.

    2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Evolution goes in DIRECT OPPOSITION & CONTRADICTION to the word of God! It is the same tool that Satan used against Eve when he said "hath God said? Surely God hath not said". God DID say... he was specific... he was direct... Creation happened, not evolution. The Bible is clear, and plain, and specific and True.

    Your flat earth dome philosophies are desparate reaches in the dark. You seek desparately to overcome the condemnation you feel in your own spirit for dismissing the word of God. You keep trying to convince yourself that if you just prove evolution, you can justify your dismissal of scripture. It will never work.

    Whether or not it's figurative makes no difference. This is what God told us is true. For us to believe anything different would be wrong. I believe that God never lied to us... I believe that he knows exactly what we are capale of understanding... he created us afterall. He is God afterall.

    In fact, it is not me who questions God, it is you. You have taken the path of stating "hath God Said... surely God did not say". You are the one who has decided not to believe what the scriptures say. Your statement is based on the assumption that God didn't mean what he said. You play little games saying "if God didn't say what he meant would you still believe as you do now?"

    I believe WHAT GOD SAID AS HE SAID IT. If God had said that the earth was made of cheese no matter what science says, I would believe him. You on the other hand must be convinced by science... by what man tells you is true rather than by what God tells you is true.

    This is EXACTLY the type of question that the verse was written:

    Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

    I will not answer you according to your folly. You assume that the Word of God is incorrect, and you ask me to answer a question based on the confines of this belief. Nope... not going to happen. I have exposed your fallicous lie instead.

    That is NO DIFFERENT from secular evolutionists asking creationists to prove creation without all this Bible stuff. They say 'we know you believe the Bible... but we want to know what PHYSICAL evidence you have... convince us without the BIble. No friend... the Bible IS THE ANSWER. God's word is the proof. God said it, I believe it. Now I can show you ... using the word... why and how your interpretations of the physical evidence is wrong - as I have done with Death and evolution, for example. But keep in mind that the Word is ultimate truth... not science. It must always be born in the Word FIRST. If it doesn't disagree with scripture, then it's open to human interpretation.

    So you think God is willing to lie and give false witness as long as He got the 'bigger things' right? No so, my friend. In fact, Jesus said that it is Good that brings for good... and evil that brings for evil. You cannot build good with evil. You will never be able to build the truth using lies.

    Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
    Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
    Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

    Good begets Good... evil begets more evil. Evil does not beget Good. You cannot build the truth upon a lie, for the truth will not stand. You cannot build your house upon the sand, or it will fall. The 'bigger things' must be based on the foundation of truth to stand. The little things are just as important as the big things.

    I would submit that any christian who professes faith in evolution is like the man who built his house upon the sand.

    Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

    Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
    Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
    Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
    Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
    Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
    Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

    Lets take a look at what's really being said here:
    Jam 1:7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
    Jam 1:8 A double minded man [is] unstable in all his ways.

    Since God says he did it another way, I choose to believe Him rather than man. The Bible simply doesn't give the picture that evolution was ever part of creation.

    When you are willing to believe the Bible over your own eyes, let me know and we'll talk. Eve believed her own eyes and she was wrong. Here is a hint... God's word is true... believe it. But you would have to accept that God is smarter than you... you might not be willing.

    Actually, what you are really saying is "God hath not said". Verily I say to you... God HATH indeed said.

    I take God's word over man's word any day. I would rather be considered a fool for believing God's word to be true, then wallow in the filth of my own self interest.

    Seems to me that Adam walked and talked with God. Even to Enoch who walked so closely with God that God took him. Seems like they could have simply asked and God would tell them the truth. So the 'modern idea' is a pathetic theory. They knew Genesis 1 & 2 because they were there and lived it. They passed that knowledge onto other generations. It wasn't until much later in history (probably after Babel) that 'other' religions, traditions, and worldviews took hold. For example, the 'flat earth' philosophies were not even around until people started venturing out into the oceans. These were myths and stories that were glorified by fear. The 'evidence' of the day (sailor's stories for example) seemed to promote the idea, and the church capitulated the Word to accept it - just as some here have done with Evolution today.

    Yes, they are called 'creationists'.
     
  9. Mercury

    Mercury New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope, read it again. You've created a straw man that implies I don't believe eternal life is real or that Jesus was really resurrected. That is false, and I do not take kindly to you putting such statements in my mouth. You're arguing against a position of your own imagining, not against what I wrote. This is why I am so skeptical of your biblical interpretation, Gup. You can't even understand me, and I'm writing in modern English. Either you have trouble with reading comprehension (I have mild dyslexia myself, and as a result I usually read things a few times before responding), or you're willfully distorting me in order to make my position easier to attack and/or to appear more spiritual than me. I really hope it's not the latter.

    Here is what I actually said. Note the complete lack of any statements about Christians not living forever, or Jesus' resurrection not being physical:

    Romans 5 directly states that death spread to all men as a result of one man's sin.

    Once again, here's the verse you're referring to: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned". My view is that the phrase "death spread to all men" clarifies what kind of death is being discussed. Your view is that the first instance of the word "death" is generic and the phrase "death spread to all men" zeroes in on one aspect of it. Both are literal interpretations. But, which one makes sense in the larger context?

    Let's analyze your interpretation by seeing if it works throughout the passage. Romans 5 talks about both death and life, so let's look at two verses that describe the life Jesus provided us. Here's verses 17 and 21: "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ"; and "so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

    Now, is the life spoken of in verse 17 talking about eternal life, or life in general? If your interpretational approach is correct, then verse 17 talks about life in the generic sense being given to all men through Jesus' act of righteousness. In other words, neither Adam nor any other human would have ever lived -- not even in a pre-fallen state -- without Jesus' death and resurrection! Obviously that's not true: while Scripture states that Jesus was active in creation, it was not Jesus' gift on Calvary that physically created us.

    My approach is to use the clarification in verse 21 to further understand verse 17. We had life before, but thanks to Jesus we have eternal life! Both verses speak of this eternal life, regardless of whether they use the phrase "eternal life" or just say "life". Just as verse 21 clarifies what kind of life verse 17 refers to, the second half of verse 12 clarifies the kind of death the first half of that verse refers to.

    Yes, death entered the world by Adam's sin. There's no need to try fancy definitions of the word "world". I could also truthfully say that chaos enters a house when school's out and Tommy gets home. That doesn't mean that every person in the house is chaotic. It means chaos is in the house, because Tommy is there. Similarly, I believe people are in the world! So, because people sin, death enters the world!

    Because it was symbolic of what Jesus would some day do. I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that God required a symbol that really was abhorrently evil to him? In that case, he would have ordered human sacrifice, not animal sacrifice. The animals didn't really save -- they were a symbol. They are worthless except as pointers to the true sacrifice for all mankind.

    And I'm sure your definition of "information" would be as nebulous as your definition of "kind". No doubt a nylon-eating bug has lost information by your reckoning. If you're serious about backing up assertions like this, I encourage you to take it up with some of the others in this thread. I would enjoy reading it. So far, I've never read a YEC explanation of what information is that is coherent.

    So God has been removed from creation since the fall, and that's why it's spinning down? On the contrary, I believe the heavens still declare the glory of God, and God still sustains the universe and everything in it. If God ever walked away, even for a moment, not only would we cease to exist, but I believe we'd never have existed in the first place! Creation is fully dependent on God.

    And poodles don't turn into great danes. Poodles give birth to other poodles. If you can see how this doesn't disprove that all dogs share a common ancestor (or are part of the same "kind") then you should also be able to see how your argument is useless against evolution proper.
     
  10. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "On the contrary - for the two cases I provided (Entropy and Chiral mix for ALL LIVING CELLS) I SHOW that all of science is in my favor and that you have absolutely nothing (Noting that you even confess it at times on the chiral problem.)"

    Then again (for what, the fortieth time) I ask you what specifically is it that entropy prevents from happening with regard to evolution? I mean, this is your pet subject, maybe you could enlighten us with what your point is. The truth is that you have none. You cannot tell us a single solitary thing that entropy prevents from happening. All you give are vague references to "massive" (Oh wait. Excuse me... "MASSIVE") decreases in entropy. But you never tell us exactly what this is supposed to mean. As your very own Asimov quote shows, the universe trends towards increased entropy but can have local decreases. Let's take a look again at the salient part of the quote.

    So you see what he is saying now? The universe trends towards disorder but local decreases are allowed. He gives you the example of working to straighten a room. Are you denying the local decreases in entropy are allowed in thermodynamics? I think I have shwon you the technical aspect summarized by G=H-TS which shows that local decreases in entropy can be both thermodynamically favorable and spontaneous. I have also shown you that there has been a huge local decrease in entropy just to grow that oak tree in my front yard. Yet there it sits.

    In typical YEC fashion, you have no answer to any of this. You cannot tell us what entropy prevents. And you certainly cannot admit to the favorability of local decreases in entropy. You have an assertion with no apparent consequences. Yet you ignore everything presented before you and continue to assert the same things over and over without ever even being able to give us a consequence.

    And you are doing the same thing with the chiral compounds. Your assertion is that amino acids are formed in racemized mixtures and therefore proteins could not be formed that were using solely one isomer. Yet I have given you references that show you how catalyst can result in an enantioselective reaction. Here is another. "Physical and Chemical Rationalization for Asymmetric Amplification in Autocatalytic Reactions," Angew. Chemie, in press (with F.G. Buono and H. Iwamura). So, if catalyst can give us reactions that favor a given isomer, then you no longer have a racemic mixture. YOur problem goes away.

    Yet you continue to post the same things. You still assert that there is a chiral problem despite all the references to catalysts that favor a given isomer. But you cannot deny that catalyst provide a solution because the evidence is out there, it would look foolish. Yet you continue to post the same things. Interesting. No wonder you dread the thought of getting into other subjects.

    "Indeed. You admitted you had nothing to go on - that you were relying on pure guesswork...Again you do it. "SHOWN to be incorrect" in an argument on your point that ends with "UTEOTW has no facts on this and it is all just guesswork"!!!...I don't dispute that part of evolutionism's story when you say you can not be sure and that it is all quesswork."

    Oh how many thing can we find wrong here? We should stay focused. I ahve freely admitted that there is no hard evidence that can be possibly be found to know if a particular abiogenesis hypothesis is true or not. Yet you commit a fallacy (I would say equivocation) by extending this to evolution. There is lots of evidence for evolution. And it is dishonest quoting for you to attribute my statements on the subject of abiogenesis to the subject of evolution. But when have YECers ever been concerned with playing the facts very tightly?

    "When I prove that you would need ENTIRELY NEW laws of biochemistry - blue-sky invention - you toss out "GUESSWORK" as your defense and then want to claim you PROVED something???"

    Just what new laws of biochemistry am I inventing? I think I have shown you autocatalytic reactions. I think I have shown you references and lab experiments to back up by claims.

    "Is it now your claim that your entropy problem is sovled in your "chalk story"?? "

    Nope. I have given you the answer to the imaginary entropy problem using your own quote. I am merely pointing out one of the many subjects that you refuse to address.

    "It has be based on something besides Junk Science! "

    YECers are experts in junk science.
     
  11. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Our bodies are billions upon billions of times more complex than an automobile, however, to my knowledge not a single car has ever had the ability to evolve into something else."

    What a strawman. Just how would a muffler go through the process of mutation and selection?

    "Our genomes are the same. Without God to hold them up to their original design, they run down, not up. Evolution asserts that biological systems increase with efficency, function, use over time... this is not true."

    I have demonstrated in a great deal of detail why this assertion is incorrect. You assert that we can only lose "information." Yet I have shown you one specific method of generating new "information." Duplication and mutation. I have shown that duplications happen. I have shown that mutations happen. I have shown that mutations can lead to new functions. I have given the empiracle evidence of the large number of gene families where many different functions are based on the same basic sequence. I have shown you the details that show tha the variations i nsequence that give rise to the different functions is a result of evolution by showing the increased divergence in the silent coding positions of each codon. Yet you still continue to make the same assertions.

    BTW, what exactly is "information" ion the sense of the genome? I suppose I will get that anser about the same time you anser what a "kind" is exactly.

    "I know that it is unfathomable to call yourself a christian and hold the view that portions of scripture are not quite right.... "

    First, you are again misrepresenting my position.

    Second, how dare you attempt to sit in judgment of me. "Judge not..."

    ".... or that God didn't think it was important to tell us the truth. "

    I am not the one attempting to judge God. You are the one attempting to judge what God revealed to us.

    "How can one be a christian and not believe the Bible?"

    More slander. Who are you to judge whether I am a CHristian? Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I do not believe the Bible. I ahve not said that the Creation account is not factual, I said it is not literal. Huge difference.

    "You can't pick the parts you think are real and the parts you think are fairy tale."

    More slander. Just because I do not take the Creation to be literal does not mean I think it is a mere fairy tale.

    "While cleverly worded your statements mean exactly this:

    "you know that the Bible is wrong about the world, and that Genesis is a fairy tale"
    "

    Can you make a point with misrepresenting and slandering?

    I think the point is clear. The ancient Jews had a worldview of a flat earth surrounded by the "deep" with a dome overhead containing the stars and keeping the waters above out. It is obvious that the plain reading of the text from the first of Genesis to the New Testament reflects this worldview. I think it is clear that you cannot honestly deny that this is what they thought. I think it is clear that you instead choose to twist the plain reading and clear intent of the writers to fit your own modern preconceptions. You do this because you know to admit defeat on this point is to admit that God chose to work through what the people receiving the message thought of the world. If you were to ever admit this, then your whole reasoning for insiting upon a literal interpretation goes out the window. So instead you twist the plain reading of scripture to fit your own devices and slander me by asserting that if I do not go along with your way of looking at things that I call God a liar, that I view the Bible as nothing more than a "fairy tale," and questioning my CHristianity. When cornered, sling mud I guess.

    It is also curious all the persecution that those who first proposed things such as a non-geocentric earth received by those who just as confidently were quoting scripture as you do now. They just knew they were right. They know they were so right they they refused to look through GG's telescope at the moons of Jupiter. Just as you are so convinced that you are right that you refuse to address the overwhelming evidence against you.

    "Perhpas if you spent less time trying to prove the scripture false"

    I am not trying to prove scripture false. I do not think that any of the things I have asserted indicates Biblical error.

    "Isn't that the real reason you argue in favor of evolution? To appear wise in the eyes of man?"

    No. Why would I want to appear wise in the eyes of man. I do not need to assert evolution to appear wise to them. If I were interested in that, I can easily point to examples of my own accomplishements to demonstrate that. But that kind of praise is not something I have ever been comfortable with nor concerned with.

    No, I think that YEC discredits CHristianity through its dishonest practices. Whether it is the abhorent practice of quote mining or the rules of the major organizations that make you agree to your conclusions beforehand or the twisting and ignoring of the facts to the slandering of those who are against them. I think YEC, especially its practices, area a horrible representation of Christianity to the world.

    "Evolution true seeks to exhault itself against the knowlege of God."

    More misrepresentation. It seeks to explain the current diversity of life on earth.

    "Whether or not it's figurative makes no difference. This is what God told us is true. "

    Could not have said it better myself. It is the truth whether it is figurative or literal. Glad you agree.

    "You are the one who has decided not to believe what the scriptures say. Your statement is based on the assumption that God didn't mean what he said."

    More slander and misrepresentation. Just because I think it is non-literal does not mean that I think it is untrue.

    "So you think God is willing to lie and give false witness as long as He got the 'bigger things' right? No so, my friend."

    More slander and misrepresentation. I think He told us exactly what He wanted us to know. It is not lying to use non-literal language. I still am amzed by your hubris in questioning how God chose to do things. As if you are the final arbitor of what God may do.

    "You cannot build the truth upon a lie, for the truth will not stand. "

    Quit calling God a liar. There can be truth in non-literal accounts. Or did you forget about the parables?

    "I have exposed your fallicous lie instead."

    More slander. Where have I told a lie?

    </font>[/QUOTE]Nice trick there of substituting what was said with something else. Any one can look above and see that what I said was that these things were not literal. You have dishonestly substituted to make it appear that I do not believe the Bible. Pathetic.

    "When you are willing to believe the Bible over your own eyes, let me know and we'll talk."

    I am glad to see you admit that simply using your own eyes top look at Creation will reveal its great age. Interesting admission. But you are still slandering me by asserting that if I disagree with you that I do not believe the Bible.

    "I would rather be considered a fool for believing God's word to be true, then wallow in the filth of my own self interest. "

    What exactly self interests of mine do you think are being served by being filleted by a fellow believer?

    "Yes, they are called 'creationists'. "

    Ha. Where do any YECers do respected work in a germane field? YOu ignore that many people who are Christians work in the various fields. They do their work and maintain their Christian beliefs. There are not out, as you assert, to try and destroy God. Such claims are ridiculous.

    And you never addressed the issue of whether God acts through natural means at times to accomplish His will. The way you quoted me indicted that you not only thought that this never happens but also that you think that anyone who does think that He does so does not believe God.

    Your whole argument is based on the fallacy of the false dilemma. EIther I agree with you or I think the Bible is a "fairy tale." You ignore the truth, that there is another option. That I can believe the Bible and recognize that parts are truthful but not literal.

    YOu an Bob constantly complain that it is a an attempt to change the subject and avoid the issues by trying to look at the physical evidence. Well the truth is this. We have differences in how certain scriptures should be interpreted. We can go on forever asserting that ours is correct. (And with you slandering those that do not agree with you.) But I consider the physical evidence to be on topic. The Creation itself is part of God's revelation to us. It can be used to settle who is right. But you prefer to continue to assert the same things over and over and to question the salvation of those who disagree with you. It is not a change of subject. I mean, how many times can you insist it must be literal and I insist that it need not be literal to be true?
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Your interest in mincing words is not found in scripture. The number in scripture is correct "two". And the "LESSER light" was to rule the night.

    The reference to "the stars also" was merely to point out that the Creator of the TWO great ligths ("HE MADE TWO great light" on the 4th day) was also the direct, divine "maker" of the stars "also".

    So -- Two is the number I am sticking with. Though I suppose you could make the case that he made the other planets (stars) in our solar system on the 4th day. However I do not intend to sidetrack on such minor points.

    Yes. But I don't want to pull you off onto this side trail. (As much as I myself like this one). So please continue with the 7 days of creation as listed in scripture.

    For Gen 1-2:3 gives us a chronological sequence bounded by evening-and-morning for EACH day.

    So -- please feel free to actually begin to address how this directly contradicts evolutionism's stories. (Though I admit that this side trail is pretty interesting).

    As I said - the text is correct - the number is TWO.

    The text is also correct in pointing out that God is the one that ALSO made the stars.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You are addressing the cause of entropy.

    In my argument I don't address the cause - I simply point out that the EVOLUTIONIST's icon Isaac Asimov HIMSELF points out that we OBSERVE entropy decayind and degrading human biological systems every day - at the individual level.

    But then Asimov also notes that the story of evolutionism NEEDS us to observe MASSIVE DECREASES in entropy to go from molecule-to-human-brain. (This is in the quote that I gave from Asimov combined with the quote that UTEOTW gave).

    It provides an instructive contrast between what Asimove admits that we SEE in good science vs what evolutionism NEEDS (and tries to use junk science to get at).

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Bob said "On the contrary - for the two cases I provided (Entropy and Chiral mix for ALL LIVING CELLS) I SHOW that all of science is in my favor and that you have absolutely nothing (Noting that you even confess it at times on the chiral problem.)"

    And I respond for the forty first time - that Asimov ALREADY gave you this answer.

    He ALREADY admits that what we SEE in human biology is INCREASE in entropy such that all human biological systems are impacted by decay and disorder requiring EFFORT (energy and work) to maintain them.

    By contrast to what he says we SEE - Isaac admits that the stories told by evolutionism NEED to see a "massive decrease" in entropy so they can get from molecule to human brain evolution.

    Nothing could be more obvious than that instructive contrast.

    It is a contrast between what we SEE in the lab (good science) to the "stories" told by evolutionism (junk science).

    "Pretending" that you "don't get it" is not a kind of "proof" in your favor.

    The fact that your OWN group is saying this - makes your case even worse as you pretend not to notice what THEY say we SEE IN nature.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  15. Brett

    Brett New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob,

    We see localized decreases in entropy all around us every day. Plant a tree: if localized decreases in entropy don't exist, how can the tree grow? If you live someplace cold (like Saskatchewan in the winter :D ), you can see what used to be disordered condensation turn into ordered snowflakes.
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Indeed that is entropy at the LOCAL level - and requires WORK to counter as in our work in straigtening the room.

    Asimov points out that we see this SAME LOCAL entropy increase with our human biology.

    This is the part you conveniently cut out - and constantly pretend not to read.

    I will quote it again for you.

    Notice that Asimov gives these LOCAL examples of increased entropy as his example of what “the 2nd law is all about”. This is “Good science”!


    This is in fact a complete failure in your resonse. Because the seed is complex transforming "machine". It's function is to transform light, water, minerals into organized, specific organic tissue.

    The INCREASE in entropy that one "expects" given that "machine" is forces that tend to starve, dry out, infect, decay degrade the tree.

    Lack of rain, too much heat, too much cold, failure to get the right mineral, too much shade, too much sun.

    God provides a wide range of "Work" in the ecosystem that is working against the natural entropy degrading the tree "engine".

    Your appeal to the intelligently designed systems of God - as "decreased entropy" makes MY point - not yours.

    Asimov is right - in his appeal to GOOD science. We DO see decay and disorder impacting LOCAL human biological systems. He is 100% correct on that observation.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    In fact I show that NO experiment in the lab has as its products - ONLY mono-chiral amino acids that are then used to form viable proteins as building blocks for a living system.

    Since you can provide no evidence that we have reached even that modest point you settle for more obscure experiments with less compelling results.

    I don't blame you for working with whatever you can find. I am just pointing out that having GOOD science and the Word of God in my favor on this one - is far superior to your reliance on "guesswork".

    Bob said
    "Indeed. You admitted you had nothing to go on - that you were relying on pure guesswork...Again you do it.

    "SHOWN to be incorrect" in an argument on your point that ends with "UTEOTW has no facts on this and it is all just guesswork"!!!...

    I don't dispute that part of evolutionism's story when you say you can not be sure and that it is all quesswork.
    "



    i.e. No good science showing abiogenesis to be a fact - it is still just a "hope" for evolutionists - 'guesswork' based on junk science.


    It is dishonest of you to continually "pretend" that your OWN atheist evolutionist ICONS are not making the SAME claims I have stated for evolutionism abiogensis and "starting from NOTHING".

    I keep bringing it up.

    You keep pretending the reader won't read it.

    Here it is "again".

    What is really "instructive" is that Dawkins does not make this confession about EVOLUTIONISM's claims in a vaccuum. Rather he makes in the CONTEXT of people like you trying to marry evolutionism to the Gospel.

    How much more "instructive" can this be??!!

    Then you "try" the standard evolutionist "ploy" that christians are too stupid to understand evolutionism or abiogenesis whenever the evolutionist finds himself in a corner.

    As "standard" as that answer is -- you fail to respond to the fact that IN THIS CASE - it is DAWKINS that is placing you in the corner. Are you saying he is too stupid to understand evolutionism or what it is claiming?

    Are you saying he is too stupid not to know that "LIFE starting from nothing" is abiogensis?

    I keep asking this and you keep dodging it with canned evolutionist answers - without noticing that you are not addressing the details of the point.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "This is in fact a complete failure in your resonse. Because the seed is complex transforming "machine". It's function is to transform light, water, minerals into organized, specific organic tissue.

    The INCREASE in entropy that one "expects" given that "machine" is forces that tend to starve, dry out, infect, decay degrade the tree.
    "

    And the complete failure in your response is that natural selection is the driving force that allows for the development of new traits.

    Sure, you can posit that entropy leads to the mutation of the genome. But you know what? Natural selection then acts upon those changes. Those that happen to be detrimental tend to get weeded out. Those that are beneficial tend to get conserved.

    And you have been demonstrated this time after time. YOu have been given plenty of examples of new functions and traits that result from mutations. For larger scale changes, I have gone through with you in some detail about families of genes that have evolved together through duplication and mutation. We know that they evolved from the same gene because of the similarities in sequence and because of the specifics of how the silent positions in each codon show the most variability.

    As I keep pointing out to you, Asimov gives you your answer right there in the quote. Through work, local entropy decreases can occur. Not even you can deny this. And as I have shown through G=H-TS, these local decreases can be spontaneous and favorable. This dismisses the appeal you attempt to make that only an intelligently designed system can make such decreases. Again, if you doubt this, I invite you to put a glass of water on your back porch the next really cold night. That thing will decrease in entropy all by itself until it's all ice. Or do you suppose some intelligence is needed for basic heat transfer?

    Besides, just what do you think the difference in entropy is between successive generations? You think that is too much to overcome? Come on Bob, show us some "critical thinking" and apply your theory. You say "By contrast to what he says we SEE - Isaac admits that the stories told by evolutionism NEED to see a "massive decrease" in entropy so they can get from molecule to human brain evolution." So tell us what prevents this from happening. Apply your theory. As far as I can tell, you are still asserting a problem without telling us why it applies or what the consequences are. The "NEED to see a massive decrease in entropy" means that WHAT will not happen and why? It is still as simple a question as when I first asked it.

    Does anyone out there in the peanut gallery understand his objection? I would be happy to have someone explain it to me or to tell me what part of my response is unclear.

    As far as the chiral compounds go...

    I think I have already shown you why your supposed problems are not problems. YOu say "In fact I show that NO experiment in the lab has as its products - ONLY mono-chiral amino acids that are then used to form viable proteins as building blocks for a living system." Now, what I have shown you is that we can make all right handed ribose sugars that can then be polymerized into RNA all of the appropriate isomer. That sounds pretty close to the mark to me. Further, I have shown that these RNA strands can perform all of the processes needed for simple life such as storing genetic information and catalyzing reactions. Now you see, here is where you get into trouble. I have shown you repeatedly that catalyst are capable of making one isomer. I have shown you that RNA can act as a catalyst and still does in extant life. I think you already know about RNA's role in making proteins. Put it all together and you have RNA catalyzing the correct amino acids and then putting it together into working proteins. What? You do not take my word for it? Well...

    Bailey, JM 1998 “RNA-directed amino acid homochirality” FASEB Journal 12:503-507
    Remember how we talked about the surfaces of borax and clays acting as catalyst. Well they found that RNA makes the left handed proteins even from a mixture of amino acids when on such a surface. SO that gives us three possible cases. The catalysts make the left handed amino acids. The catalyst makes the right handed ribose which then makes RNA which then serves as a catalyst for the left handed amino acids and puts them into proteins. Or RNA on a catalyst makes proteins using only lefthanded amino acids from a mix of amino acids.

    How about one more catalyst to throw in the mix? This time another very common material: calcite.

    Hazen RM, Filley TR, Goodfriend GA, 2001, "Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality" PNAS 98:5487-5490

    You might want to study up on the general concepts of that one. How catalyst can arrange molecules in specific ways on their surfaces such that two things can happen. Either reactants that would normally make a racemic mixture can come together in such a way that only one isomer will be made. Or, if you have a randon mix of isomers, that one one will fit on the surface in the right way for a reaction to take place and therefore you can selectively pick out one isomer from a mix.

    "I don't dispute that part of evolutionism's story when you say you can not be sure and that it is all quesswork."

    Ah, still misquoting. I said you cannot have anything concrete on abiogenesis, you know, the origin of life. You are applying that to evolution, you know how life changes with time, which has plenty of evidence.

    "It is dishonest of you to continually "pretend" that your OWN atheist evolutionist ICONS are not making the SAME claims I have stated for evolutionism abiogensis and "starting from NOTHING"."

    First, I have given you several possible scenarios which you do not seem to have any real objection to. So what is dishonest about my stance? YOu are the one applying what I have said about one subject and quoting it as if I was talking about something else.

    Second, why do you think these guys are my "icons?" You used something like this the first time after I casually mentioned I was reading an Asimov book, Foundation. So since I read a science fiction book by one of the most famous science fiction writers, he is my "icon?"

    And you know that whenever you quote Dawkins opinion on God that I will point out that it is the fallacy of an appeal to authority. He has no special expertice to talk on religious matters.

    But since you bring up the quote, and he is an expert in evolution, look closely at somethings he says in there. One, he says "Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true." It sounds like that in a field in which he IS an expert, he is fairly confident that evolution happened. He goes on to say "The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos. Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation." So, in a field in which he is an expert, he does not see any of the objections that you as a layman are trying to assert. It's your quote, I suppose we should take it.

    "Are you saying he is too stupid not to know that "LIFE starting from nothing" is abiogensis?"

    Yes, you finally understand. I believe Dawkins likely does as well. And evolution is the change in that life once it gets started. Real progress here.

    "Then you "try" the standard evolutionist "ploy" that christians are too stupid to understand evolutionism or abiogenesis whenever the evolutionist finds himself in a corner."

    I do not think you are stupid. I am sure you could understand it if you tried. It really is not that difficult. But you might have to remove your blinders first. I think if you were to give it a good unbiased attempt, you would come to accept evolution and would find that it does not interfere with your Christian life. If not, maybe you would at least understand it well enough to better object to it.
     
  19. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    23
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You and UTE keep asking me to argue about something other than the real issue. Just because I am focussing on the problem instead of getting distracted by your hand waving, don't think that I am not comprehending. The real issue here is the complete chop-shop job evolutionists (those who profess christianity anyhow) do to the Bible in order to cling to their humanistic belief. YOu are in discomfort only becuase your spirit knows the truth - that evolution and the Bible are opposites. Is the Bible absolute truth? You say yes... and then continue on to explain to me why it is NOT! You are both double minded... you know what the scriptures say, and you create reasons not to believe it. THAT is the issue here... not whether it was millions of years or thousands of years. Once you are willing to accept that God means what he says it will be an easy thing to convince you of creation... it's what is plainly written. In fact, it is clear you that did't read my entire posting, but merely skimmed. I encourage you to go back through it with the intention of comprehension and understanding.

    Yes, indeed it does say that. It also directly states that death entered the world at the same point. This means that there was no death in the world before Adam's sin. Death entered the world for the first time... and passed upon all men as a result. Just because Jesus' came to save men doesn't mean that death did not enter the world as the scripture says it did. In fact, at the time of Adam's sin, Adam and Eve were the only people alive - yet the Bible clearly states that death entered THE WORLD. Moreover, death would not have passed 'to all men' until later, seeing as how Adam & Eve had not yet had children. So yes, I agree that Romans 5 is speaking about humans, however we do learn that death entered 'THE WHOLE WORLD' at this point. This has the implication that death was not a part of the world up until this point.

    As I stated before, there is no known natural process that can give rise to an eternal or sentient being from an animal. I would also like you to look at one other scripture.

    Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

    This verse CLEARLY AND UNDISPUTEDLY states that Man (in this case Adam) was created from DUST, not from monkeys.

    "But wait Gup... this says 'from dust' so it could mean evolution molecules to man over millions of years".

    If it means molecules to man over millions of years, then the flip side is also true. "from dust you were taken, and unto dust you will return". If you were taken from dust means evolution, unto dust you will return means de-evolution. Therefore, if we were to throw out the whole of scripture and pretend that verse somehow indicated evolution, then we must also state that the world is currently de-evolving.

    Moreover, I would re-assert that Jesus confirms Genesis as written. So Genesis is True, and real, and not simply a story told to us because we couldn't understand evolution.

    Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

    Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.


    This is incorrect. Adam (and therefore all of us) did not need a savior until sin entered the world. Remember that part of Adam's punishment for the apple was that he would die. In the same day that he ate the apple, God cursed Adam to return to the ground from which he was created. It seems to me that the life spoken of in Romans 5 is much more inclusive than you would like to think. You have to understand - God is ultimately just. He also honors his Word. When he says that you will die for sin... you must die for sin. Jesus did not come to save our bodies, but to provide a way for us to change bodies. Our bodies will be judged to death in accordance with the judgement that has already been determined. It is the judgement of Adam in which we are all partakers. Just because Jesus made a way to save our souls, does not mean we can throw out or ignore the way or reason that our bodies have death in them in the first place.

    Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

    Clearly, the gift (eternal life) is not the same as the offense (life in general). This verse states that directly. We can, therefore, say that while all death is a result of Adam's sin, we are 'born again'... we are 'a new creation' in Christ if we believe in Him. Jesus said, "i am the way the truth and the life. no man comes to the father except by me".

    Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

    1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

    2Cr 5:17 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

    You are making the grand mistake of all evolutionists and are using uniformitarianism to interpret facts.... even those you see in the Bible. However, one thing you must realize is that the world is very, very different now from when it was originially created. In studying origins, we have to look at Truth (God's Word) because once sin entered the world, the world changed. It is now a judged planet. It will not again function as it did before the fall until it is purified by fire in the last days. We cannot look at the current state of things and see what was there before the fall. We must take what we know from scripture to be true and hold all observation to that lens. The Bible is indeed an eyewitness account of what things were like before the Fall. Romans 5:12 describes the point at which the change was made. Romans 5:15 basically says that our salvation is not the same as our damnation. Our judgement has been decreed by God and must stand. However, Jesus made a way for us to be re-born into new bodies so that our souls (not our bodies) can be saved from eternal judgement.

    So yes, while the life spoken of in Romans 5 is eternal life, it is not as the offense unto general life. I think we could replace those with the words 'spiritual life' and 'physical life'.

    Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

    Jhn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

    Uh oh... even the spirit reproduces after it's own kind! (that was jocular for your entertainment)

    Well I would disagree that animals are worthless. I think the life of an animal bears significance. However not as much or the same kind of significance as man. Take the following verses into consideration:

    Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.

    Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
    Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
    Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

    Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
    Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
    Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

    So here we see that we have life in the blood, and that, because of God's justice, death must be meeted out - wages for sin. So life is extinguished in sacrifice to make atonement. We see that animal life and death does indeed hold significance.

    Moreover, in the account of Noah, God said that all flesh had become corrupt and violent and that he was going to distroy all flesh. If he merely meant man, he could have caused the beasts to rise up and destroy just people (he made balaams donkey talk, so we know he has power over animals in that way). But God said that all flesh was corrupt... so he was going to distroy all creaturs. However, he did save Noah and his family because they were righteous. He also saved two of most seven of some creatures on the ark. If God felt that animals were pointless except as pointers to Christ, why build a huge ark? Why save all those animals from the Flood?

    Oh wait... I forgot... Evolutionists dont' believe the flood ever happened. It's just another Biblical fairy tale to you guys. :rolleyes:


    Definition of Information
    Audio Description of Information
    Some quantitative answers about information

    "The laws of Nature determine that the nature of information is non-material. Matter and Entergy cannot give rise to new information. Because of these two factors, man's physical body cannot create new information. Therefore, since man's being does create new information, there must be a non-material component." (from the audio link)

    Indeed, death is separation from God. God is life. Our bodies have been judged and condemned to death. Our world has also been condemned (the physical ground).

    However, you must recognize that God honors his Word.

    Gen 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

    This was part of the covenant between God, Man, and all the animals after the flood. Yes, God did make a covenant with the animals. Further evidence that they are simply pointless except to point to Christ.

    Psa 78:69 And he built his sanctuary like high [palaces], like the earth which he hath established for ever.

    Psa 104:5 [Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.

    Psa 146:6 Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein [is]: which keepeth truth for ever:

    Ecc 1:4 [One] generation passeth away, and [another] generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

    God has said that the earth will last forever. It is on that word, that the earth and universe continues. It was the command of God. But that does not mean that things are not currently winding down. In fact, there is Biblical evidence to show that the earth is wearing out... winding down... increasing in entropy:

    Isa 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

    Wow! A direct correlation is reffered to here between the death of those in the earth and the earth itself. That is a clear indication of entropy to me. It is a clear indication that the same death that is upon us is upon our world. Now we are assured that the world will never end... but we are promised that all will be purified by fire before restoration.

    If we look at the children of Isreal when they left Egypt we see an example of what happens when God's eternal sustaining power is applied. Do you remember the movie The 10 Commandments? I always chuckle when they show the people leaving Egypt. Some are on carts... some on crutches. But the Bible says that there was not one feeble amoung them. Furthermore, it says they wandered the desert for 40 years and no one's clothes wore out.

    Psa 105:37 He brought them forth also with silver and gold: and [there was] not one feeble [person] among their tribes.

    Also... when they gathered manna it stank the next day, except for EVERY sabbath, they would gather enough for two days, and it wouldn't spoil.

    Also with Elijah and the woman with the oil and meal. That lasted perpetually.


    Did you know that Poodles are one of the most mutated of the dog kind? They have more problems and genetic diseases then most other breeds. Clearly they are an example of a highly speciated variety of the kind. They are a marvellous example of what I have been talking about. Poodles are an example of what happens when so much information is lost.
     
  20. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "You and UTE keep asking me to argue about something other than the real issue."

    Nope. As pointed out, we try to address your issues. We also point out areas in which you are inconsistent with what you demand of us. But we both consider the broader topics to be germane. Each side here is insisting that they have the right means of interpreting the scriptures. I assert that as long as we disagree on this, that one method of settling the dispute is to look at the general relevation from the Creation itself. You seem to agree, constantly asserting that this general relevation supports you, but instead you only seem interested in continbuing to assert that you must have the right interpretation and slandering those who disagree with you. We can go back and forth to the second coming asserting that our side is right. But since we have an empirical set of data that can confirm things one way or the other, it seems prudent to use such information.

    "The laws of Nature determine that the nature of information is non-material. Matter and Entergy cannot give rise to new information. Because of these two factors, man's physical body cannot create new information. Therefore, since man's being does create new information, there must be a non-material component."

    I was really hoping that you could give us the Gup20 summary to show us what you think "information" is but I guess this will have to do.

    We'll look at your first link. Gitt is trying to make it look as if he is using Shannon information, yet his third theorem distances himself from Shannon.

    "Theorem 3: Since Shannon’s definition of information relates exclusively to the statistical relationship of chains of symbols and completely ignores their semantic aspect, this concept of information is wholly unsuitable for the evaluation of chains of symbols conveying a meaning."

    So we are no longer talking about Shannon information. This is key since he is trying to build upon Shannon to make his case. Above, he had stated that "On the basis of Shannon’s information theory, which can now be regarded as being mathematically complete." What good is a mathematically complete theory if you are going to later say that it does not apply? He wants to use the acceptance of Shannon to support his theory while later telling us why Shannon's theory does not apply.

    Of course he has to get away from Shannon because Shannon allows for random sequences to be information while Gitt's second sufficient condition says "A sequence of symbols does not represent information if it is based on randomness." His next sentence then contridicts himself by saying "According to G. J. Chaitin, an American informatics expert, randomness cannot, in principle, be proven."

    SO he his basing his work on Shannon exept when he is not basing his work on Shannon. And random sequences, which are information in Shannon, are not information for Gitt though he admits that there is not any way to determine if something is truely random or not.

    So now we are left with nothing but Gitt's theorems and his necessary and sufficient conditions. He offers no mathematical basis for these theoems. If you will go to http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/shannon1948.pdf in contrast you will see how Shannon DOES support his position with the mathematics. The whole point of Gitt finally boils down to his tenth theorem "Theorem 10: Each item of information needs, if it is traced back to the beginning of the transmission chain, a mental source (transmitter)." Which by this point, since he has abandoned the mathematical underpinnings when he abandoned Shannon, is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. And a circular one at that since his assertion and his conclusion are the same.

    We also have empirical evidence that contradicts this assertion. As I have shown, we can get new "information" through duplication and mutation. I have shown much empirical evidence of cases where this has happened to show that it is not just a theoretical construct. I have also given you plenty of examples of mutations that led to new traits.

    Do you want to try for a definiton of "kind" now?

    "Did you know that Poodles are one of the most mutated of the dog kind? They have more problems and genetic diseases then most other breeds. Clearly they are an example of a highly speciated variety of the kind. They are a marvellous example of what I have been talking about. Poodles are an example of what happens when so much information is lost."

    No, they are an example of artificial selection. They, and the other pure bred dogs, have been selected based on characteristics desired by the breeders. This has resulted in a lot of interbreeding. The interbreeding leads to a concentration of genetic problems. Many of the problems are the result of recessive genes. In a population with much diversity, this is not an issue because those recessive genes will rarely come together. But with the inbreeding seen in pure breeds, these genetic issues get bred back into the population and increase in frequency. YOu then see problems crop up much more often

    Or, are you willing to support your assertion by showing us that the traits seen in poodles are not the result of selective breeding but are instead the result of new traits that have evolved during the course of the breeding? Can you show us what information has been lost? Maybe some genetic sequences that are fine in other dogs or wolves bu that have changed in poodles that both give rise to their specific physical traits but that also cause the problems?

    Also, are you still asserting that God never acts through natural means and that one does not belive the Bible if he believes that God ever does act through natural means?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...