Do the doctrines of evolutionism protect the Bible?

"Imagine if every volcano on earth erruped at the same time... and every fault line on earth quaked at the same time... so much so that the earth actually split and water from within the earth gushed out... as did lava, sulfer, etc. Now you are just starting to get a picture of the cataclysm of the global flood.

I am still waiting for the explanation of how the Baumgardner runaway subduction model, weren't you the one who brought that up, manages to work without boiling all the oceans away. I did point out to you the Baumgardner himself says that enough heat was released to boil the oceans completely away THREE times! Also, how did all those fossils get sorted in just the particular manner that we find them instead of being jumbled up. Not a single whale fossil in any Cambrian deposit. Or Ordovician. Or Silurian. Or Devonian. Or Mississippian. Or Pennsylvanian. Or Permian. Or Triassic. Or Jurassic. Or Cretaceous. Do I need to repeat that strangness for a long list of creatures?

"Take a look, for example, at the Scopes trial. Mostly all of the 'overwhelming evidence' used to argue on behalf of evolution in that trial has since been disproven."

I do not believe that you can post five things admitted into evidence at the Scopes Trial that have since been disproven.

"I have pretty much always accepted that Darwin came up with evolution and I have also moderately accepted that evolution is a modern idea. However, this article sheds some new light on that.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJ_v15n2_evolution_natural.asp "

Well, let us just take one look. AIG says "In short, Empedocles’ pre-Darwin ‘survival–of-the-fittest’ theory taught that life evolved by pruning the less-fit life forms—i.e. the merciless destruction of the weaker animals and plants." Now, I found the following writeup on Empedocles. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekScience/Students/Jesse/Jesse.html The author says regarding this that " Second, Empedocles asserts that life--as we know it--is the consequence of an evolutionary process. Empedocles believed that Love agglomerated the four elements into the various bodily parts--such as arms, legs, feet and fingers. These stray limbs roamed free until Love further unified them into bodily masses. Empedocles argues that some of these bodily forms were better suited for survival than others, resulting in the disappearance of monstrous beings and the evolution of modern life." Somehow I fail to see how this relates to the modern theory of evolution. Sounds more like a pagan creation account to me. Is there supposed to be something against modern science in there? Somethings we know today actually do have their origin that long ago. Does that affect their validity?

 

Actually, a time reference occurs before this point. The very first words of Genesis are "In the beginning...". Time must have started at that point when God created the heavens and the earth. Time was already progressing as the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. Nowhere does the text indicate that time didn't begin until God said "Let there be light." Certainly you can make that claim, and you may be able to list scientific findings that align with that view, but please don't forget that it is only an interpretation, not what the text clearly says.

Which statement of mine are you referring to? I am not willfully ignorant of the intended meaning of the passage: to me, it is clear that the passage means something different than what you claim. We can each call the other willfully ignorant, or we can admit that we disagree and try to look at the facts. Let's try the second approach.

Those are fine ideas, but of course they are what you imagine, not what the text says. You may be right -- we don't have all the details recorded in Scripture -- but don't make the mistake of putting your imagination on the same level as inspired Scripture. Other people imagine that God taught Adam language through naming the animals, and others have totally different views. All those views start with what the text clearly says and then extrapolate from there.

I think your reluctance to considering other views comes from not being able to distinguish between what you imagine and what the Scriptures say. If you think my view is out to lunch, please point out where it conflicts with the text, not where it conflicts with your imagination. That will help us both get closer to the truth.

 

"Indeed it does not. What it predicts is that ..."

Indeed! Here "again" you are forced to ignore the "obvious." Order has "spontaneously" been generated without any "violation" of the laws of entropy. Yet you cannot "accept the obvious."

You got that full Asimov quote yet to show that you are not misquoting him? I think you have been.

 

If you do not have the full quote I'll take a technical discussion about how the chemistry of a good mutation differs from that of a bad mutation.

 

Do not find them useful at all except to show that you KNOW you have quoted him out of context, a dishonest practice, and you find no shame in that fact.

 

SINCE BobRyan is so enamored of the entropy expertise of Isaac Asimov, I'll go ahead and quote him (Isaac, not Bob) on the subject of Entropy and Evolution.

The following is from VIEW FROM A HEIGHT by Isaac Asimov, published by Avon Books, 1963, I begin from the bottom of page 146.

Thus did Isaac Asimov explain the apparant contradiction between his stance about generalized entropy and his acceptance of evolution.

Personally, I think he also missed the chance to point out that there is an enormous amount of entropy created every time an organism dies and decays. The little amount of increased "organization" as evolution procedes generation by generation is more than offset by this death and decay of every single member of every generation sooner or later. Remember that the amount of increased organization in a single generation has to be small; evolution procedes incrementally, little by little, here a little, there a little, until over the ages the changes add up.

 

Ahh - an honest appraisal of the text in its most apparent and blatant form. Indeed literal days - one rotation of the planet - it is hard to miss.</font>[/QUOTE]Wow, we agree! The days of Genesis 1 are just as literal as the sheep of Jesus' parable.

 

"#1. Because the "standard" response from evolutionists whenever they are confronted with a Creationist scientist claiming that the principle of entropy applies to biological (systems by driving those systems to decay and dissorder -) is that "Christians are inexplicably incapable of understanding thermodynamics. They are ignorant about science no matter what their training.". (AS if that is some kind of requirement in the Gospel)."

We are all capable of understanding such things but that does not mean that we all do so. Entropy has to do with disorder at a molecular level. That is it has to do with how many different positions and orientations molecules can be in with respect to those around it. Thermodynamics in general has to do with the flow of energy during various types of processes. If you care to look through the pages of this thread above, you will see that I have pulled definitions of entropy and thermo from textbooks on the subject and given examples of the actual proceses to show how real entropy has nothing to do with the caricature of entropy that Bob presents.

But I do run into a wee problem. Thermodynamics is a fairly difficult subject to master and entropy is one of the harder to grasp concepts in thermodynamics. As it happens, the standard way for people trained in thermo to try and explain entropy to lay people is to use an analogy in which the thermodynamic concept of entropy is related to the kind of disorder on a macro scale that people are familar with. So there is no shortage of quotes available, the Asimov one is a fine example, that do this. But, no amount of quoting such analogies can do anything to change the actual science behind thermodynamics.

Bob wants to claim that he is "using a level of objectivity not even "attempted" by the evolutionists" but if you read the thread you will see that he has no objectivity on the matter. Indeed, he refuses to accept textbook definitions of the subject, instead preferring over and over to return to his quoted analogy which has been misquoted to deceiptfully imply that Asimov believed entropy to be a problem for evolution even when he does not believe it to be the case. Since Bob has refused many requests for him to give a fuller quote so that we may all see the context, instead choosing to attribute sarcasm to a dead man, I would like to thank Paul of Eugene for providing us with the rest of the story, so to say, on what Asimov though of entropy and evolution.

Another thing that you will notice is that though young earthers will go to great lengths to give quotes such as we see, they will never actually give any steps of evolution that are prevented by entropy. They may assert some general things, but there will never be anything factual. Look again at the above thread. I have been asking Bob in various ways to give us one thing that happens in evolution that is not allowed by entropy. He has never answered the question. Never! Now he has tried to assert quite a few times that only harmful mutations are allowed, we'll get back to that in a second, but he has never offerred us any reason why this is so. I have asked repeatedly for an explanation on what is different between a good mutation and a bad one chemically but there has never been an answer. Only assertions and out of context quotes.

Now, allow me to put the mutation question on a finer point. Let's suppose that in some gene of some animal the three letter codon "CAC" appears. This codon will code to place the amino acid histidine into the protein. Now let us suppose that a single base pair mutation happens in which the "CAC" become "CAA." The codon will now place the amino acid glutamine into the protein instead. Now, this substitution of one nucleotide for another will be chemically identical whether the resulting protein is better suited or worse suited for its job. This is the important point. Bob is unable to answer why this substitution is allowed if harmful but not allowed if is is helpful. But let me explain further. These two amino acids have similar affinities for water and therefore when the resulting protein folds up it will have a similar shape and function to that which it had before the mutation. Therefore, this mutation is very unlikely to cripple the function. Now, since the protein is different, it may perform its job a bit better than before or it may perform its job a bit worse than before. I have no way of knowing. If Bob does, this would be a great time to step in and show us. But whether it acts better or worse, natural selection is free to act on the individual to survive to reproduction or not. Entropy has its role to play in the chemistry of the reaction and indeed of the whole life cycle of the organism and in the flow of energy throughout the universe. But it does not know ahead of time if this mutation will be harmful or not. And neither does Bob.

Now I have been rather harsh in my treatment of Bob on this subject. But let me explain.

First, there is a fundamental misunderstanding about what entropy is going on here. This line of reasoning, or lack thereof, comes up quite often and I find it important to continually hammer home the point that young earthers cannot point to any specific step in evolution and give us a technical reason why it is not allowed by entropy. There has been a lot of smoke and mirrors done with assertions and misquotes but this has never been addressed in a factual way. I can see no better way to show this than to keep asking for the proof as long as he wishes to keep the point going and letting him twist in the wind. And you will never see the issue addresses in a factual way because it cannot be. Look at my example above. There is no difference in how that mutation happens if the mutation leads to an improvement or if it leads to a problem. Indeed, the whole code of translating DNA into proteins is setup in that way such that a single mutation is likely to either substitute a very similar amino acid that will only change the function a bit or to substitute an amino acid where one is a precursor of the other. This destroys the myth about everything running down because it shows that most mutations only make minor changes not the crippling blows that young earthers would have you believe and that these mutations can be good or bad.

Second, and this may be more important, is that it acts as a warning about believing young earthers when they quote scientists in a way that seems to make them appear to go against evolution. As PoE has shown by filling in the blanks for us, Asimov did not really believe that entropy posed a problem for evolution in contrast to the way the quote was presented to us. Even more telling, it is obvious that Bob, too, KNEW this as you can see by his turning to sarcasm after ignoring the request for a while. Young earthers seem to have absolutely no misgivings about deliberately misquoting respected scientists if they feel it serves their purpose. But think of the damage done when the lies are exposed. We are all Christians here, we know that everyone makes mistakes, we all have a sinful nature. But think about the unsaved out there who get the impression that Christians must result to purposeful lies to defend their fatih. Do you think we ever have a chance of reaching them after such behavior?

 

I don't know where you got your numbers - I certainly didn't bring them up. Because of dislocation creep/slip, the energy build up (and heat build up) is non-linear, so it is unlikely for the energy build ups you are talking about. Once dislocation creep occurs, the friction coefficient drops almost to zero and the production of heat energy is lessened significantly. A point many people fail to grasp is that these weakening mechanisms can reduce the silicate strength by ten or more orders of magnitude without the material ever reaching its melting temperature.

Often, layers are classified according to the fossils found in them. It is no surprise that evolutionists dont 'find' fossils in the wrong layers. If you look back to fossil discoveries which pre-date evolution becoming the accepted theory you will find much more 'out of place' fossils and evidences. What does this tell us? That the worldview of the observer has much to do with the interpretation of evidence.

If young earth creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence to consider (we have the same fossils... same rocks... etc) and yet we come to very different conclusions regarding the same evidence (take the Grand Canyon for example) then it must be our interpretation based on our pre-suppositions. If your worldview includes evolution, then by default you have excluded the Bible's version of events as a possible conclusion when interpreting the facts and evidences you observe. Of course all of your conclusions are going to match each other and be exclusive to the Bible... that is the nature of humanistic evolution. It, by definition excludes the Bible and supernatural influence. It, by definition, adopts a uniformitarian worldview that everything has always happened exactly as we observe it happening today. Any conclusions based on interpretation with this mindset is naturally exclusive to the truth. It is not surprising then that all of your 'evidences' and 'conclusions' follow directly your assumptions.

You mean like Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, Vestigial Organs, "The biogenetic law" known also as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (which means the embryo retraces its past evolutionary forms while in the mother's womb - such as human embryos having gill slits), The Horse Sequence, Homologous Structures - as well as asking questions many creationists were unprepared to answer, such as "where did Cain get his wife?" and "How could all the races develop?", etc.

I did a google search and these are some that I have found. I don't know if all of these were used as direct evidence, but all the pages I found listed these as Scopes Trial material. Obviously, I wasn't there.

Clearly, this is not a measurement of time. We can see that the measurement of our known concpet of time didn't start until the creation of light. As you said - what is the purpose of creating light, but not creating any light source. How can light exist without a light source? The starts, sun, moon etc were not created until day 4. However, in the context of the verse we can see that the creation of light and it's separation from darkness is the beggining of measurable time. Gen 1:1-2 is the what, Gen 1:3 an onward is the how. Note that it does't say 'and God hovered over the waters for 3 days' or 'God hovered over the water during the day'. There is no reference to progressing time until the creation of light. Then IMMEDIATELY and in the same verse time is born. He calls the light day, and the darkness night... the evening and morning are the first day. I would say that is pretty irrefutable evidence that this is the point when Time was introduced. You asked for scientific evidence - we know that it is gravity that holds celestial bodies in a spherical shape. It says that the earth was without form when God moved upon the face of the waters. So the 'laws of the universe' such as gravity, light, time must not have been in action. Additionally, in the 'evening and morning' statement we can surmise that the earth is now spinning, so gravity is indeed now present.

YOu said the following:

</font>

• So, I view the creation of the earth and its surroundings described in Genesis 1 as being an example of God's condescension. He revealed what we were not capable of fathoming by putting it in story form (perhaps even in a form quite familiar to the original audience, if other creation accounts were around before Genesis).</font>
• Frankly, I'm not willing to depart that far from the clear meaning of the text. Once one starts reading modern science into Genesis, there's no limit to how far one can go. If you get space, time and energy from the words light, day and night then the inspired words of Scripture no longer have any meaning.</font>

I was trying to show you that you claim that God treats us like we are stupid (condescending) and then you refuse to take an intelligent or reasoning approach to the scriptures. Perhaps I was a little overly critical and harsh, and if I offended you I apologize. However, my point should now be clear. You claim that God is making it some jocular story because we wouldn't understand it anyway, then you refuse to take an intellectual approach to reading it. These behaviors re-inforce each other and do not allow yourself to prove or disprove the validity of your belief regarding Genesis 1 and 2.

I am willing to be proven wrong. However, the Bible makes it quite clear that Adam was the first, and at one time only, man. Eve was created because Adam had no mate. Adam was able to communicate with God to tell him of his lonliness, as well as name all the animals. God also demonstrated our stewardship role in having Adam name the animals. He was able to exclaim 'this is bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh' when Eve was created. Clearly, Adam was created with knowledge. We also know from the Tower of Babel and from the events of Acts chapter 2 that language has many supernatural aspects.

Alright - check out Psalms 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6. When you are done with that, go read Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and realize that Jesus died for human beings, and no other created entity - God's own son. While you are reading the Gospels spend some time noticing how much Jesus references Genesis and 'creation' and things that are 'created'. The whole new testament is filled with references to how Jesus is the new or 2nd Adam... these make no sense except for in light of literal genesis creation.

 

Except that whenever YOM is used in conjunction with the word 'morning' it always means a literal day. Whenever YOM is used in conjunction with the word evening, it always means a literal day.

Genesis is very obviously written with a historical, matter of fact tone. There is no sensationalism, symbolism, or otherwise. Clearly, it is written so as to be as absolute and descriptive as possible - leaving very little doubt to meanings when the gramatical and linguistic rules are applied and followed.

Moses, who was trained as would be an egyptian king, could have added in the sensationalistic or symbolistic style that we see in ancient egyptian writing... but he didn't. It is frank, honest, and concise.

I think he is referring to using evolutionist material based on correctness rather then rejecting it because it came from an evolutionist. No evolutionist would be caught quoting anything from a creationist, regardless of truth or correctness (unless it was in a critical nature) - it might lend credibility to those dirty YEC's! Bob's personal feelings are quite clear, as is his support for the YEC view. This is not the objectivity, however, he was referring to. He was referring to objectively using correct material regardless of the source - and he pointed out most evolutionists are unwilling to do so when the source is a creationist... regardless of the validity of the material in question.

Actually this is an misrepresentation of the 'young earth' position. We do not claim that no mutations are beneficial. We claim that all mutations, beneficial or not, decrease information. At creation an organism is at it's highest level of information. Through mechanisms such as mutation, selection, entropy, etc... the information content has decreased in the genome.

For the definition and quantificatin of information, see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/tj_v10n2p181.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_10September2001.asp

In simplest terms, information is specified complexity. Any mutation, while possibly being beneficial, is a decrease in information. This is directionally the wrong type of change necessary for molecules to man evolution to even be possible. Evolutionists say that genes duplicate, then one set of duplicates remains the same while the other set mutates into new information. This, however, has never been observed. If there is a mutation it ALWAYS involves a loss of information. Even if novel or different traits are expressed that were not there before, a loss of information occurs. For example, look at anti-biotic resistant germs (or supergerms). There are some germs that hospitals greatly fear because there is no known anti-biotic or medicine that can kill them. Sometimes these germs are fatal. Evolutionists claim that this is an example of increased information. However, if we take a closer look we find the resistence is due to the inability of the germs to obsorb things into their cells properly. Once the patient recovers, they are ofen left with an infection of these supergerms. The doctor tells them to go about their normal lives and even roll around in the dirt a few times. Why? Because once normal germs are re-introduced (outside the 'clean' environment of the hospital) the 'normal' germs our breed, out replicate and outlive the 'supergerms' because the supergerms can't compete in a naturally selective environment. Why? They lack the information for correct operation.

As I said, this comes from the lack of correct information you have about our position. Beneficial mutations happen and we are fine with them... however, they still represent a loss of information. Also, you have to realize that any sexually reproducing organism will have multiple genes representing the same function (some from each parent). If a gene is damaged, there still may be an undamaged gene from the parent to avoid loss of function. This is why close relations should not marry - they have the same genetic mistakes and their offspring are at huge risk for health problems, retardation, or infant death.

Again, you misrepresent the young earth creationist view. We do not assert that all mutations are harmful, just that all mutations involve a loss of information. In your example you say that CAC becomes CAA. However, for molecules to man evolution, CAC must become CAC+CAA. It must be a building upon to keep the old genes while adding novel genes. In the new organism, CAC+CAA takes the place of CAC in the parent organism. We can see that this doesn't happen... even in the famous nylon eating bacteria, the nuclear DNA of the bacterium remains unchanged, but the change is on a plasmid that can be seen to only become activated when the bacterium is under stress (showing it is probably the plasmid's function to adapt when needed).

For every person who turns away from the gospel because they were misled by someone who didn't fully understand the truth, there are 10 who turn away because they think the Bible is not authoritative or true, and why should they believe all this Jesus stuff when science tells them that Genesis is a fairy tale. If you look at the Bible you will find that all the prophets and priests... and anyone who matters seems to believe the scripture is true in every detail... including the flood and genesis 1... including Jesus. Why should we be any different? Why should we celebrate the offspring of ancient false religions and mythologies (evolution) instead of the Bible.

 

Well you've misstated the obvious. The days of Genesis One are 24 hour days, not epochs. That is clear. Now the next question is - do we take that passage literally. To take it literally is to believe in 24 hour days. To not take it literally is the option some of us are forced to take because of the evidence for an older earth and an older universe..

But nobody actually believes the literal cosmology of Genesis, which would include a dome over a flat earth into which are stuck tiny stars, small sun, small moon, which then circle around over the fixed, flat earth.

I'm wondering if you read the same words I do. BobRyan is trying to prove that even an evolutionist proclaims a version of the second law of thermodynamics that rules out evolution. BobRyan is mistaken about what 2Lot says and about what Isaac Asimov says. That's all.

Actually this is an misrepresentation of the 'young earth' position. We do not claim that no mutations are beneficial.
</font>[/QUOTE]You can't speak for all young earth creationists. Some of them have, in fact, asserted that no good mutations are possible, and therefore it is appropriate to point out that they are possible.

Your problem is you haven't understood the breakthrough in evolution theory - put forth by Darwin. Information in the heredity can increase over time by the simple process of survival of the fittest. After a few generations, the less fit genes are made manifest by their dwindling away. The more fit genes are made manifest by their accumulating in greator numbers. By this means the species gains information as to which of the genes are to be retained.

But after a few generation, we have information in the form of surviving genes. Those that survive have informed the species, by their survival, that they can promote survival. This is now information, that is, information as to how to build a newly improved member of the species.

That is a verbal piece of trickery. Why not call it a new shielding ability against hazardous antibiotics?

They might have a better view of the Bible if people like you stop asking them to give up what they know to be true about the age of the earth and the common origin of all life. Why can't people be allowed to accept BOTH the truths of science and the spiritual truths of the Bible?

 

Condescension is talking down to someone. It is insulting when done between equals (or perceived equals), but it is not insulting otherwise. A father condescends when he deals with his toddler, but this is done out of love, not aloofness. Similarly, God condescends when he deals with us. Compared to him, I am indeed stupid, and I have no problem admitting that.

Second, you claim that I "refuse to take an intelligent or reasoning approach to the scriptures" but you have not yet stated what things I've said that have been stupid or unreasonable. If you do have specific things you disagree with, please state them. (Edit: your post on this page raised some specific issues; thank you.)

Third, I never claimed that "God is making it some jocular story". I never mentioned jocularity or humour in the story at all. I think this shows quite graphically how you read into a text something that isn't there. If you can't accurately interpret what I'm writing to you, even though I use modern English and live in the same country as you, then why should you be more capable in interpreting Genesis?

No, actually I didn't. There's that misinterpretation happening again. I'm not a scientist, and while I find it interesting and awe-inspiring to see what scientists have discovered about God's creation, I don't claim to be an expert in any scientific field. I have a great interest in creation, but I choose to study it mainly from the theological side, not the scientific side. I'm sure UTEOTW and Paul of Eugene would love to converse with you on the scientific side of things.

It's not a matter of proving you wrong -- it's opening your eyes to see that you may be wrong, and we won't know for certain this side of eternity. What you overlook in the section I quoted here is that Adam does not communicate, either to voice his loneliness or describe Eve, until after he names the animals. (God does communicate with Adam prior to that, but God can communicate to animals and even rocks if he wants to.) If that naming of animals was how God taught Adam to communicate, then that explains why Adam only talks afterward. So, the details of Genesis 2 can support this interpretation as well as your interpretation. The facts do not show that "Clearly, Adam was created with knowledge." Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.

Another point: you may say that even though Adam doesn't speak before he names the animals, he may have already had the ability to do so. We just don't know enough about Adam's first moments. True enough. Similarly, I could say that even though morning and evening aren't mentioned before the creation of light, that does not prove that time started with God saying "let there be light". We just don't know enough about the first moments of the universe. I don't believe Genesis 1 was written to tell us exactly when time or gravity started, and I don't believe Genesis 2 was written to tell us whether or not Adam was created with higher-level knowledge embedded within him.

I certainly agree -- Jesus died for humans. That's why I think it's spurious to try and combine animal death with Adam's sin. Jesus didn't die for the animals, and they didn't need a perfect man to die for them. The problem was with humanity. "Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned... how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!" (Romans 5:12,15b). I believe the "all men" and "the many" in these verses refer to human beings.

If you think I doubt that Jesus created the world, then you've seriously misread me. I believe the universe we live in was made from nothing by God our Creator and Saviour.

"Filled" is a bit of an overstatement. There are two passages that reference this: Romans 5 (which I already mentioned) and 1 Corinthians 15. Adam is also referenced as a historical figure in Luke's genealogy, in 1 Timothy in reference to leadership, and in Jude to place another historical figure, Enoch, but none of these references talk about how Jesus is a second Adam.

However, even though I disagree that the New Testament is "filled" with these references, I certainly don't discard the two that do exist. I doubt I take them any less literally than you do.

I agree that the days are literal within the context of the account. In the same way, when Jesus talks about a lost sheep, the sheep is literal within the context of the parable. When Jesus talks about a missing coin, the coin is literal within the context of the parable. I assume that you are not Catholic, so I'll go further and say that when Jesus talked about his body being bread and real food, the "food" was literal within the context of his saying. Hebrew and Greek do not contain two sets of words, one set for literal meaning and another set for figurative or symbolic meaning. The same words are used for both, and the only way to tell the difference is by reading the text carefully and humbly. I do not believe that Genesis 1 is historical narrative. You can't prove me wrong by appealing to the word yom any more than I can prove a parable to be a real event by appealing to the words "sheep" or "coin" within it, or any more than a Catholic can prove transubstantiation or Real Presence by appealing to the words "bread" and "real food" in John 6.

Do you see how it is possible to take some of John 6 as symbolic without writing it off as fiction? If so, you'll be a lot closer to seeing how I interpret Genesis 1 without writing it off as fiction. Here's my challenge to you: how is Genesis 1 obviously more "literal" than John 6?

 

"I don't know where you got your numbers - I certainly didn't bring them up."

I have told you. You brought up Baumgarder and I use his own numbers. I think the correct citation is Baumgardner, John R., 1990a. Changes accompanying Noah's Flood. Proceedings of the second international conference on creationism, vol. II. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, pp. 35-45. The number is his. The number is also 3 times larger than the number of joules needed to evaporate ALL of the water on earth. This is also the paper where he admits "The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn't work without miracles." Furthermore, we have not even really discussed the heat problem that his model requires a hotter mantle to reduce the viscosity to let things happen the way he claims. All that heat had to go somewhere also.

" If you look back to fossil discoveries which pre-date evolution becoming the accepted theory you will find much more 'out of place' fossils and evidences. What does this tell us?"

This tells us that 200 years ago people were not as exact in their documentation of finds. The work was sloppy and it shows. Once the methods are cleaned up and the results are better documented, these problems disappeared.

"Often, layers are classified according to the fossils found in them."

Thank you for making an excellent point. We can often get fairly close on the date just by looking at what fossils are found in a given layer. They are not jumbled up. How could we ever make use of index fossils if everything was jumbled up. I believe that the discovery of index fossils lead to the recognition of the geologic column and the abandonment of flood geology way back in the 19th century. But of course you know that index fossils are not of use without the other part of the story. You have to find this mix of index fossils in layers that CAN be directly dated. And they always have a habit of working out.

But, let's look at another large sea creature, the shark. Do we not find sharks in all these layers, except the Cambrian, starting with the earlist sharks way back in the Ordovician and getting more modern as we go forward? If sharks, why not whales? Maybe we'll look at something else later. You still have no explanation on how the fossils were sorted into the peculiar pattern we see rather than being all jumbled up.

"You mean like Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man..."

On July 17, 1925, judge Raulston ruled that the expert defense testimony could not be admitted to the court. So, no, none of these things were admitted into court at the Scopes trial.

But, why do we not take a look at some of them anyway?

Piltdown Man - A fraud exposed by scientists and never really as widely accepted as some think. Shows science is self correcting.

Neanderthal Man - A species of human that went extinct in the last tens of thousands of years. They were very much like modern humans but had a few key anatomical differences that showed that they were not modern humans. Evidence is that their behavior was not quite the same as modern humans, such as a lack of evidence for abstract thinking on the same level as us. What is the problem here?

Java Man - A Homo erectus skull found on the island of Java. Another H. erectus skull, Sangiran 17, was also found on Java and is nearly complete in contrast to the "Java Man" example. What is the problem here?

Nebraska Man - A single tooth that a few scientists attributed to an ape for a short time. It was never widely accepted nor even very enthusiastically endorsed by Osborn to whom the tooth was sent. Another example of self correcting science. Not that there was ever much to correct except for a few people.

Vestigial Organs - I am just going to repost something from recently here.

Why do we have all these shared traits with the animals that we cannot use if we do not share ancestry with them?

"ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" - Too complex to do in a few sentences.

The Horse Sequence - What problem do you have with the horse sequence? It seems pretty good to me.

Homologous Structures - I think I covered these under the vestigal quote from above.

 

"I think he is referring to using evolutionist material based on correctness rather then rejecting it because it came from an evolutionist. No evolutionist would be caught quoting anything from a creationist, regardless of truth or correctness (unless it was in a critical nature) - it might lend credibility to those dirty YEC's!"

The problem was that Bob was quoting Asimov in a dishonest manner. His lack of objectivity is shown in that he kept making the same claims even after it was pointed out that he was making a serious error in how he was quoting Asimov and in that he failed to see the difference when actual thermodynamics from a real textbook on the subject was pointed out to him to show him what entropy really is. If he were treating the subject objectively he would have withdrawn his claim in the face of the facts and moved on to something else. That he kept giving the bad quoate and that he never accepted the scientific definition entropy shows his lack of objectivity.

BTW, what is your opinion on Bob's quoting ability? Do you support his quote or do you think it was dishonest and should be condemned.

"We do not claim that no mutations are beneficial. We claim that all mutations, beneficial or not, decrease information."

Once you allow that beneficial mutations happen and that new traits can develop, then you have lost your position. I don't really care what you have to say about information theory at that point. It is all talking around the facts. I'll give you one good way to get new information. Some segments of the DNA will get duplicated. One copy continues to provide the existing function. One copy is free to mutate into something new and useful.

"As I said, this comes from the lack of correct information you have about our position. Beneficial mutations happen and we are fine with them... however, they still represent a loss of information. "

So, the specific example I gave in that post. You substitute one base pair. The new protein does its job slightly better. Improvement and no loss of information.

" In your example you say that CAC becomes CAA. However, for molecules to man evolution, CAC must become CAC+CAA."

Yes, as I said, sometimes genes get duplicated allowing both to exist.

"even in the famous nylon eating bacteria, the nuclear DNA of the bacterium remains unchanged, but the change is on a plasmid that can be seen to only become activated when the bacterium is under stress"

You can define anything away. The bacteria's genome changed. It gained the ability to metabolize something new. So what if it is a plasmid. I believe environmental stress is accepted as a driving force for evolution, so why is that included.

While we are talking about genes, do you yet have an answer to the problem of retroviral inserts? Both the part where we share sequences with the apes and the part where we have such a large portion of our DNA filled with this junk. If all those sequences were placed recently, there would be wide variation amoung humans. There is not. If common descent did not happen, man would not share specific sequences with the other apes. We do.