Creation questions

[Liz Ward]

Craig,

Surely you are not denying that mutations are random? Natural selection may act on those random mutations to establish a new characteristic in a population, yes, but the process of mutation itself is wholly random, isn't it?

Liz

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Liz Ward:
Surely you are not denying that mutations are random?

Natural selection may act on those random mutations to establish a new characteristic in a population, yes, but the process of mutation itself is wholly random, isn't it?

There is an element of randomness in genetic mutations. Often they follow patterns of probability. For intance, chemically induced mutations are more likely to happen at certain DNA bases than others because of the organic chemical properties of those bases.

Genetic mutations are an observable fact in our present world.

By describing how genetic mutations may have impacted the diversity of life in the past, evolution isn't making any statements of increased randomness over what we already know to exist.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Surely you are not denying that mutations are random? Natural selection may act on those random mutations to establish a new characteristic in a population, yes, but the process of mutation itself is wholly random, isn't it?

No, I am NOT denying that the data overwhelming supports the concept that mutations are random. And because they are random, the degree of speciation that some cracked pot creationists claim took place after the flood giving us nearly 3,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals is an absolute impossibility. And, by the way, the examples that you posted several pages back of divergent populations of animals that interbreed with the result of fertile offspring are NOT examples of genetically discrete populations, but established variants within a single genetically discrete population. And since there are very many of these established variants that cytogenetics has proved to have been around for more than more than 10,000 years, they too would necessarily have been aboard the ark in order for us to have them with us today. If you were to complete even just a bachelor’s degree in biology, you would learn for yourself that the creation “scientists” have been willfully deceiving you. They apparently believe that proving their particular literary theory about Genesis 1-11 is more important than telling the truth. Those who are that extremely insecure in their faith may not have any true faith at all. If you believe that this issue is genuinely important, I can not strongly enough encourage you to earn at least a bachelor’s degree in biology and learn what biologists really believe and why they believe it. You may not agree with them, but at least you will know for a fact what they really believe and why they believe it.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Craig, criticising the intelligence of those who disagree with you by saying they need to get a degree is not conducive to a productive and Godly discussion within the body of Christ.

NASB - John 13:35

By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I have struggled with old earth or young earth for a while now. I am still holding on to the young earth theory. It is extremely difficult for me as an Engineer because I like facts and figures and positives and there is a lot of scientific evidence for an old earth. However, what I have to rely on here is the inerrancy of the Word and my faith in God that he would not try and confuse me with contradictions. He is timeless and His Word wouldn't have different meanings to people in 1000BC versus 2005AD. I am still holding on to young earth.

The intrinsic meaning of the Bible is an unchangeable constant, but it means very different things to the many different denominations that make up the body of Christ today. And, of course, the Bible means something very different today than it did to those who read it 2,000 years ago. An excellent example is the doctrine of eternal security, a doctrine that was unknown for the first 1,450 years after the close of the New Testament Canon. Those Scriptures that are used by most Baptists today to argue for the doctrine of eternal security mean something vastly different to them than the very same Scriptures meant to anyone during that span of 1,450 years, and they mean something vastly different to them than the very same Scriptures mean to the large majority of non-Baptists today. The word of God is unchangeable, but the understanding of it is constantly changing. May I suggest than you read some volumes on the history of the interpretation of the Bible? May I also suggest that you bring the matter of the interpretation of Gen. 1-11 to God in prayer and trust Him to help you to arrive at a correct interpretation of that portion of Scripture that is causing the conflict in your life?

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I am saying that we need to evaluate and interpret Gen. 1-11 without the encumbrances of preconceptions that may lead to wrong conclusions.

Well, I did. I read it after being saved when I was over 40 years old. I had no preconceptions as I had never believed in either creation or evolution before I was a Christian.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:


Thus saith Craig: The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

God said it not only floated but preserved the ancestors of all life existing on earth today.

Thus saith Craig: The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

God said it wasn't. BTW, it is the same God who defied the laws of physics by using a few loaves and fishes to feed 5000+ with 12 baskets left over.

Thus saith Craig: The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.

God told Noah what to store. Noah, as opposed to Craig, believed that what God told him to bring was sufficient... and it was.

Thus saith Craig: Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

The Bible says they survived without them.

Thus saith Craig: Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.

[/qb] Quite obviously God made another provision for them since Noah only took land and air animals.

Thus saith Craig: The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.

God's Word says that a dove brought back an olive branch.

BTW, the pressure would vary according to depth. God's Word says that the mountains were covered to a depth of about 22.5'. This would not be sufficient to crush the plants.

Thus saith Craig: After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast mount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

Again, God's Word says that the dove brought back a fresh olive branch.

Thus saith Craig: Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

God's Word doesn't say whether they were kept on the ark or not. It does say that the ark was the means by which God kept the animals alive. The Bible doesn't describe a famine after the animals left the ark. Since it was divine act of God to destroy the earth and to preserve a remnant, I can only suspect that He provided the means to accomplish that willful choice.

Thus saith Craig: The Animals could not all be released at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.

God's Word doesn't speak directly to the timing of their release but it does say they were released out of the ark on Mount Ararat.

It also didn't say whether any species were lost by being eaten by others.

Thus saith Craig: Collecting the animals from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas. The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties.

God's Word said that it happened. He didn't see fit to share His means of accomplishing this other than to command Noah to take the animals on board.

Thus saith Craig: After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

Apparently God didn't see Craig's opinion as a limitation.

Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.

Apparently God didn't feel constrained by Craig's assumption of naturalism.

BTW, it is quite possible that all of the necessary habitats were re-established by the time Noah sent the dove out and it didn't return.

Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

Again, God gave us certain details and withheld others.

A God that can turn a few fishes and loaves into tons of food really isn't limited by any of your objections, is He?

There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.

We aren't told other than that the fountains of the deep broke up. Indicating a very dramatic seismic occurrence. The source of the water seems to have been from below and above. This also would have significantly changed the surface of the planet.

As far as where it went, some of it is possibly trapped in the ice caps. Some evaporated into the atmosphere. The rest ran off into the oceans or was absorbed back into the earth.

God simply said that the waters decreased and dry land appeared.

If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

Assumptions about assumptions are not a disproof of anything.

Any rational man or woman can see at once that the story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event.

Any rational person can see that you read your objections from between the lines rather than simply accepting what the text says and being humble enough to accept that God choe not to share every detail of the methods He used.

Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary,

God is capable of indescribably huge miracles.

and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural means of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.

Nope. You read "natural means" into the text.

God didn't choose to give many of the details about how it happened just like He didn't choose to give us the mechanics of how He multiplied the fishes and loaves or how He literally performed the miracle of resurrection.

In fact there is a direct correlation there. We aren't told how the resurrection occurred only that it did. We aren't told how these flood details were accomplished only that they were.

Just because you assume naturalism doesn't mean that God is limited by it.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Scott J wrote, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Then the problem is perhaps your own ignorant arrogance rather than the supposed deficiencies of your opponents.

If I am ignorant, what word would you use to describe my opponents in this thread?

</font>[/QUOTE]Humble enough to accept what God said and then shape their views around that rather than shaping what He said around their presuppositions.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Gold Dragon wrote,

Craig, criticising the intelligence of those who disagree with you by saying they need to get a degree is not conducive to a productive and Godly discussion within the body of Christ.

Please don't distort the words that I post. I have made NO reference to the intelligence of any of those contributing to this thread. There is a vast difference between one’s intelligence and one’s knowledge of a given field of study. I wrote to Liz Ward,

“If you believe that this issue is genuinely important, I can not strongly enough encourage you to earn at least a bachelor’s degree in biology and learn what biologists really believe and why they believe it. You may not agree with them, but at least you will know for a fact what they really believe and why they believe it.”

Please notice that I did not tell her that she “needs” to earn a degree; I encouraged her to do so in order that she might learn what biologist actually believe regarding evolution, the very subject in which I myself disagree on some important points with most biologists. Very much misinformation has been posted in this thread about what biologists believe today, causing needless confusion.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Please don't distort the words that I post. I have made NO reference to the intelligence of any of those contributing to this thread.

I apologize if I distorted your words. But as I'm sure you are aware, tone is difficult to convey over text and message boards and I think you need to soften the tone of your comments which I often agree with outside of the tone that is conveyed.

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Please notice that I did not tell her that she “needs” to earn a degree; I encouraged her to do so in order that she might learn what biologist actually believe regarding evolution, the very subject in which I myself disagree on some important points with most biologists. Very much misinformation has been posted in this thread about what biologists believe today, causing needless confusion.

While I agree that misinformation abounds in these threads, I think the best approach is to gently provide good information instead of suggesting that folks should get a degree.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Humble enough to accept what God said and then shape their views around that rather than shaping what He said around their presuppositions.

The truth is that some people are so extremely and sinfully arrogant that they presume that God has said what He has not said. And as though that sin is not damnable in and of itself, they heap upon that sin an additional sin by stating their extremely and sinfully arrogant presumption as a fact rather than as a grossly ignorant and misinformed opinion that is radically irresponsible in the light of what God has made known to us through science.

What three men did God choose to use to write the large majority of the New Testament? He used Luke, a scientist; Paul, a student of literature; and John, a successful business man who had gone to school and was polylingual. Should not Christians find these three men to be role models?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
What three men did God choose to use to write the large majority of the New Testament? He used Luke, a scientist; Paul, a student of literature; and John, a successful business man who had gone to school and was polylingual. Should not Christians find these three men to be role models?

God also used in very powerful ways fishermen, carpenters and wildmen in the desert to be our role models.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
What three men did God choose to use to write the large majority of the New Testament? He used Luke, a scientist; Paul, a student of literature; and John, a successful business man who had gone to school and was polylingual. Should not Christians find these three men to be role models?

God also used in very powerful ways fishermen, carpenters and wildmen in the desert to be our role models. </font>[/QUOTE]Craig left off Moses, "the alleged fool without a degree".

 

[Craigbythesea]

Scott J wrote,

Speciation is not equivalent to macroevolution and you very well know it.

Talk about distortion and deception.

Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution takes place. Living things possess the genetic ability to adapt according to the information passed to them by their ancestors.

Several creation “scientists” (none of whom were educated in the biological sciences) have argued that only representatives of the “families” (a unit used by biologist today) of animals were aboard the ark rather than representatives from the nearly 3,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals. They further argue that “speciation” took place giving us the nearly 3,000,000 genetically discrete populations of animals that are alive today. I do not know of a single Ph.D. biologist teaching in major university who would use either the term “speciation” or the term “microevolution” for such a process that requires tens of millions of years to take place. Even I have serous doubts about the possibility that evolution on such a grand scale has ever taken place. This is yet another example where the creation scientists are being willfully dishonest with their reading public.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Scott J wrote,

Speciation is not equivalent to macroevolution and you very well know it.

Talk about distortion and deception.

Please refrain from posting personal attacks against members of this message board.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Scott J wrote,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Speciation is not equivalent to macroevolution and you very well know it.

Talk about distortion and deception.

Please refrain from posting personal attacks against members of this message board.

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes sir Mr. "Pot".

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
OldRegular wrote,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It is stupid, radical statements like this that make rational discussion with people of your mindset impossible. Every scientist that does not believe in an old earth evolutionary model is described as "liars, fools, or something much worse".

Dear Sir,

Have you completed even one course in biology at a university ? Do you have any knowledge at all of this subject, or are you arguing exclusively from willful ignorance?

</font>[/QUOTE]Craig do you have to work at confirming the truthfulness of every charge that is made against you on this Forum or does it just come naturally?

Actually I didn't mention biology. I just questioned why you describe every scientist that does not believe in an old earth evolutionary model as "liars, fools, or something much worse".

Perhaps if I had a PhD in evolutionary biology I could make the connection.

 

[Liz Ward]

If you believe that this issue is genuinely important, I can not strongly enough encourage you to earn at least a bachelor’s degree in biology and learn what biologists really believe and why they believe it. You may not agree with them, but at least you will know for a fact what they really believe and why they believe it.

Funny you should say that, I am planning to do precisely that. I have about one third of a degree's worth of directly relevant and "countable" Open University credits and plan to bring them up to a Life Sciences BSc hons over the next couple of years.

Liz

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Humble enough to accept what God said and then shape their views around that rather than shaping what He said around their presuppositions.

The truth is that some people are so extremely and sinfully arrogant that they presume that God has said what He has not said.</font>[/QUOTE] I presume nothing but what I read in the Bible... and presume that God Himself said it through human writers.

It is you that presume that Genesis must say something other than what the words actually say since if they mean what they actually say then they contradict your opinion about origins.

And as though that sin is not damnable in and of itself, they heap upon that sin an additional sin by stating their extremely and sinfully arrogant presumption as a fact rather than as a grossly ignorant and misinformed opinion that is radically irresponsible in the light of what God has made known to us through science.

You cannot prove that we have presumed anything. Reading something that is written as a narrative with no indication from the author that it is to be taken as anything but a narrative is not presumption. However it is presumptuous to do so and deny that it can be a narrative since sources other than the Author declare that the account cannot be so.

What three men did God choose to use to write the large majority of the New Testament? He used Luke, a scientist; Paul, a student of literature; and John, a successful business man who had gone to school and was polylingual. Should not Christians find these three men to be role models?

None of the three wrote anything even remotely supportive of your opinion about the literal nature of Genesis. In fact, it seems that all three would have disagreed with you from what they did leave us in writing.

FTR, I have a degree as well as various forms of professional education over the course of my career in manufacturing management/engineering.

Further, if all of man's schools set themselves against the Word of God I would still accept it as absolute truth with no need to conform it to man's latest "wisdom".

 

[Craigbythesea]

Scott J wrote,

God said it not only floated but preserved the ancestors of all life existing on earth today.

Please post where in the Bible it says that God Himself “said it not only floated but preserved the ancestors of all life existing on earth today.” And if we assume that Moses was describing in a literal manner an historic event, we are assuming that Moses didn’t know what he was talking about because the ark has been proven time and again to be only a very small fraction of the size necessary to displace the necessary cubic feet of water to keep the boat afloat.

God said it wasn't. BTW, it is the same God who defied the laws of physics by using a few loaves and fishes to feed 5000+ with 12 baskets left over.

Please post where in the Bible it says that God Himself “said it wasn't.” And in the cases of the loaves and the fishes, the gospels make it expressly clear that a miracle took place. The only miracle mentioned in Genesis 6-8 is found in 7:16

16. Those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God had commanded him; and the LORD closed it behind him. (NASB, 1995)

I suppose, if you really want to, you can add 101 Dalmatians—whoops, I mean miracles— to the text of Gen. 6-8 in your own personal copy of the Bible.