Do the doctrines of evolutionism protect the Bible?

[UTEOTW]

Paul

The first option is the one that is such a danger. So many insist on the first part, that when some learn of the true, ancient age of the universe, they cannot handle it and lose faith. The unsaved see the insistance as evidence that Christianity is incompatible with reality, and we never get the chance to share the truth with them

The second choice becomes the only one available to them. They have no choice but to deny all evidence contrary to what they have already set up in their minds as true. Since nothing can be contrary to their interpretation, evidence that would challenge them is simply dismissed. It does not matter how persuasive or how overwhelming, their minds are closed to the possibility that they, a human, could be wrong in their interpretation. Facts are short but the insistance is long.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
[QB] OK, BR, in your view the logic to be accepted is this:

ONLY the literal interpretation of Genesis one is legitimate
Since the evidence is that the universe is old, contrary to the literal interpretation of Genesis, it follows that our religion is false.

Wrong.

Genesis does not argue that the Universe is only as old as the earth.

Since you have already given up on the "details" of the Creator's account as being "Accurate" you seem to have lost interest in "Exactly what those details are".

In the mean time - evolutionism is contradicted "at the minimum" if the ONLY thing you "get" from the Creator's account is that "IN SIX DAYS" God created all life on this earth.

Even if you got "nothing else" - evolutionism is contradicted at that point.

Get it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Paul of Eugene said --

Or, if we hold that our religion is true regardless of all evidence, then we simply acknowledge we disregard all evidence no matter how convincing.

Wrong.

You hold that the myths of evolutionism "are true" no matter what scientific evidence you have to refute it.

Entropy denies it.

You have no case of "descent with modification" increasing genetic information yet you "believe it anyway".

You have no ability to MANUFACTURE abiogensis let alone have it occur "on its own" - yet you "believe it anyway".

As Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the DNA molecule) observed - "it is impossible that this evolved on earth - it could not have happened in all of time". So "again" you "believe" in evolutionism's mythologies "in spite of the data" and not "because of it".

Your faith in evolutionism is "in spite of the data" and not "because of it".

Your rework of the Creator's account is "in spite of the wording of the text" and not "because of it".

As even your own evolutionist posts on this board have shown "I have no idea why God chose to use creationist language" - it is hard for you to escape the eisegetical approach you take when undermining the text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Paul of Eugene said --

Not a happy choice, since we come to accept the Bible as true only on the basis of some kind of reasoning or evidence in the first place anyway. Why accept one set of evidence and not another?

It is this logic that endangers our religion in the minds and hearts of so many. Your continued insistance that Genesis One must be interpreted literally will have the effect of turning many away from Christ on grounds that need not cause them to turn away!

This is the great mythical "boogy man" of Christian evolutionists. They "fear" that ONE Day this might be "true". And the IF that day comes - THEN the Bible will be "at risk" it will be "exposed to criticism".

But we clearly observe the following.

#1. That day HAS not come. RATHER what we have today is evolutionists IGNORING the data that disconfirms their beliefs in evolutionism.

#2. The thing that you are trying to avoid - (Criticism of Christianity by those evolutionists who find in humanism a better PROOF for reality than that which supports God's Word in science) - IS ALREADY happening with respect to those SAME atheist evolutionists when they see your compromised "God plus humanism" approach to evolutionism.

They see (and all other Bible believing Christians who trust the Creator's account) that your views are horribly conflicted and undercut the value AND BASIS for Christianity itself.

Dawkings is right to observe this is so -- and so are we.

Fearing the heat you leaped into the inferno.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Notice that we have shown that evolutionist scientists THEMSELVES declare your views to be absurd and conflicted.

WE show ALSO that evolutionist atheist scientist THEMSELVES challenge some of the very evolutionist doctrines that you believe in "no matter what the evidence against it".

You just respond with a kind of "la la la talk to the hand the head is not listening".

But these are not Christians objecting (you know - those mean old Christians) it is atheist evolutionists "Admitting" the problems you seek to deny.

So does your compromised position of marrying God to evolutionism "protect" The "Creator's Account"?? Obviously not.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"Genesis does not argue that the Universe is only as old as the earth."

Wrong. The word used for heaven in verse one is "shamayim" which from Strong's means "1) heaven, heavens, sky a) visible heavens, sky 1) as abode of the stars 2) as the visible universe, the sky." Verse 14 tells of the creation of the stars. You are moving away from the literal interpretation that you insist upon.

But never mind. Let's do some word substitution so we can get a question for you to answer. Let me ask Paul's question this way. "ONLY the literal interpretation of Genesis one is legitimate. Since the evidence is that the [the earth is old and that all life on earth shares a common ancestor], contrary to the literal interpretation of Genesis, it follows that our religion is false."

"Entropy denies it."

Entropy does not deny it. Your misapplication of thermodynamics may deny a strawman form of evolution, but not the real thing. If so, tell us which step in evolution violates the 2LOT and show your math. If you cannot do this, your complaint is without merit.

"You have no case of "descent with modification" increasing genetic information yet you "believe it anyway"."

First, then you have no way of explaining the allele frequency seen in nature. Since your position is that everything went through a bottleneck of one pair recently, there should not be any more than 4 versions (two from each individual) of a given allele floating around. If there are more, information has been created contrary to your claim. For instance, the gene for alpha-1 antitrypsin has 75 known variations in humans when there should only be a possibility of 10 (2 each from Noah and his wife and each of their son's wives. The sons would necessarily carry some combination of noah and his wife.).

Also look up the case of the nylon bug. Information on it is widespread. In this case a bacterium had a frame shift mutation that allowed it to begin metabolizing nylon. Now this is a new trait not found in nature. This was the result of the mutation causing a new code to be formed in the genome. So there you have it. A mutation that yields new information and a new trait. Would you like some other examples?

"This is the great mythical "boogy man" of Christian evolutionists. They "fear" that ONE Day this might be "true". And the IF that day comes - THEN the Bible will be "at risk" it will be "exposed to criticism"."

Mythical?

What about these two quotes from Glenn Morton?

"But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"'From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,'

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, 'Wait a minute. There has to be one!' But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

"And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist."

and

"After receiving a B. S. in Physics I spent one year in graduate school studying the philosophy of science. I entered the oil industry as a seismic processer where I began to learn geology on the job. Before this education in geology was complete, I published 27 articles and notes in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, presented a paper at the first International Conference on Creationism, and ghost wrote the evolution section in Josh McDowell's book Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity. During this period I switched sub-disciplines within geophysics and began to interpret seismic data. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems.
"By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. Eventually my doubts about the reliability grew so large that I was driven to the edge of becoming an atheist."

http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.htm

"Notice that we have shown that evolutionist scientists THEMSELVES declare your views to be absurd and conflicted."

I do not believe this to be the case. Where have you done so?

And you never really answered the question of "Or, if we hold that our religion is true regardless of all evidence, then we simply acknowledge we disregard all evidence no matter how convincing."

 

[BobRyan]

And you never really answered the question of "Or, if we hold that our religion is true regardless of all evidence, then we simply acknowledge we disregard all evidence no matter how convincing."

I don't see a question there. I see pure speculation in the form of a circular argument "assuming its own point rather than proving it".

Demonstrating (as a case in point) the fact that the cyclic fallacies of evolutionism continue to form a weak and non-compelling argument.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Also look up the case of the nylon bug. Information on it is widespread. In this case a bacterium had a frame shift mutation that allowed it to begin metabolizing nylon. Now this is a new trait not found in nature. This was the result of the mutation causing a new code to be formed in the genome. So there you have it. A mutation that yields new information and a new trait. Would you like some other examples?

Sure would. And would also like to see the genome mapping for the one that you are claiming above - before and after the claimed infusion.

But notice in the article - the supposed "scientists" always "admit to the disconfirming facts about evolutionism only AFTER they think they finally have a response".

“The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution,” says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. “How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.” "

WHERE was it that UTEOTW or Paul of Eugene OR THESE evolutionist sources were proudly saying "Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how "

This is not unlike the way the plasma physicists belatedly "admit" that there is more mass in the universe than the big bang theory can account for.

It is the way S. J. Gould promotes punctuated equilibrium as a way to "explain" what Evolutionists had been denying in debates with Creationists until that time.

Basically - they stone wall on the evidence "no matter how obvious" until they think they have a "first excuse" for an answer for the problem.

This is just another shining example in a long string of them. And of course - in the case of the "nylon bug" it is another example of grasping at straws. But they do so at the great cost of admitting to another obvious flaw in their armor.

It would be much more logical - to simply accept the Creator's account.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

“The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution,” says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. “How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.” "

Observe the atheist devotee of evolutionism - when confronted with a problem they can not solve -- they simply "cling to hope upon hope and faith upon faith" that an answer (no matter how flimsy) will one day emerge because after all "what other explanation is there -- God???".

In the same way the Christian trusting the Creator's account takes the SAME approach on in favor of the Creator when THEY are confronted by an apparent puzzle. Claiming "faith upon faith" and "hope upon hope" that a well reasoned solution will be found before the 2nd coming - if you will. After all "there is no other alternative" in their view.

This is not surprising for either group.

What IS surprising is that we find CHRISTIAN evolutionists CLINgING to atheist's faith upon faith and hope upon hope WHEN confronted by the SAME evolutionist-disconfirming data.

They ALSO take the atheist's tactic of covering up the problem UNTIL they can find a straw man excuse to hold up as a kind of "Response". Then suddenly they are JUST as happy to go about admitting to the problem and now proudly showing the strawman solution. (As "if" they had done something).

But why? Why do they cling to that same "hope" as the Atheist evolutionist does when confronted by a problem without a solution?

Go figure! That puzzle is FAR deeper than any science problem yet posed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said --"Genesis does not argue that the Universe is only as old as the earth."

UTEOTW responds --

Wrong. The word used for heaven in verse one is "shamayim" which from Strong's means "1) heaven, heavens, sky a) visible heavens, sky 1) as abode of the stars 2) as the visible universe, the sky." Verse 14 tells of the creation of the stars. You are moving away from the literal interpretation that you insist upon.

Wrong "again".

(And in so many ways this time).

The "details" in the text are clear - and the number that God gives is "TWO". TWO great lights were made on day 4 - not THREE and not "a zillion and three" as you pretend to read into the text.

Knowing that you must be anxious to read the text of the Creator's Word for yourself - I provide it here...

14 Then God said, ""Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth''; and it was so.
16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; (He made the stars also).

17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

And as pointed out in 2Cor 12 - When Paul makes the point about the "THIRD HEAVENS" and in Genesis one we see that the BIRDS fly in the midst of the heavens that were created then and there.

20 Then God said, ""Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.''

"Again" demonstrating that the "deatils" of the Creator's account are essentially "unknown" to evolutionists - and for good reason. It is because "they don't trust them".

But in this case - Paul and Moses are in perfect agreement.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The argument for mitochondrial eve - as already stated on other threads - is in fact "predicted" by the Creator's account. Those trusting in that account have no awkward facts to "explain away".

But our evolutionist brethren go through great contortions to explain how "all other lines died out" to result in ONE parent.

Fascinating!

Why not just "trust" the Creator's account to start with?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
[QB] OK, BR, in your view the logic to be accepted is this:

ONLY the literal interpretation of Genesis one is legitimate
Since the evidence is that the universe is old, contrary to the literal interpretation of Genesis, it follows that our religion is false.

Wrong.

#1. The Creator's account does not require that the stars be younger than the earth. That is simply a strawman invented by evolutionists who "admit" they place no trust in the details of the Creator's account.

#2. My claim is that the "boogy man" dreamed up by evolutionists sitting around their campfires is the "great fear" that "some dark and stormy day a long long time from now - a scientist MIGHT create life or MIGHT come up with evidence that LIFE creates itself. And THEN - where will Christians be??? whooooooo!".

It is that "fear" that is "supposed" to drive Christians that trust in the Creator's account - away from that trust.

My point is - it does not work.

Paul --
Or, if we hold that our religion is true regardless of all evidence, then we simply acknowledge we disregard all evidence no matter how convincing.

Evolutionists ALREADY show that they ignore science as in the case of the Nylon bug where they ADMIT that they HAD NO ANSWER (nothing of substance that they could SHOW - as SCIENCE - as anything other than pure FAITH). AND yet they were not "publically admitting this" until they came up with their strawman response for the problem.

How transparent!

But "oh yes" I forgot! We have to "pretend we don't see you doing that"!

Paul of Eugene Your continued insistance that Genesis One must be interpreted literally will have the effect of turning many away from Christ on grounds that need not cause them to turn away!

As Richard Dawkings statement confirms - you non-sensical - compromised position is turnig the non-believer away with such a compromised argument that EVEN Christians are amazed that you would hold it - AS are atheist Evolutionists.

The "fear" that you seek to avoid - that of opening the Word to ridicule you ALREADY incur by such a compromised self-conflicted position.

Both atheist evolutionists AND Christians trusting in the Creator's account - see this clearly.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

"And would also like to see the genome mapping for the one that you are claiming above - before and after the claimed infusion."

Good. Go read the following.

"Sequence analysis of a cryptic plasmid from Flavobacterium sp. KP1, a psychrophilic bacterium," Makoto Ashiuchi, Mia Md. Zakaria, Yuriko Sakaguchi, Toshiharu Yagi, FEMS (Federation of European Microbiological Societies) Microbiology Letters 170 (1999), 243-249.

"A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) on Plasmid pOAD2 from a Flavobacterium sp.," Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, Dec. 1992, p. 7948-7953.

"Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence", Susumu Ohno, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 81, pp. 2421-2425, April 1984.

But I do not expect even that to change your mind. Proof of what you say is impossible. I predict you will ignore it.

Since you indicated that you wanted others, look these up while you are at it.

Franceschini G, et al. (1980) "A-IMilano apoprotein. Decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family." J Clin Invest. 66, 892-900 The abstract can be read at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7430351&dopt=Abstract

Francis, J. E., and P. E. Hansche, 1972. Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics 70: 59-73.

Hall, B. G. and T. Zuzel, 1980. Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 77(6): 3529-33.

Boraas, M. E., 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 64: 1102.

Lin, E. C. C., and T. T. Wu, 1984. Functional divergence of the L-Fucose system in Escherichia coli. In R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (pp. 135-164) Plenum, New York.

Hartley, B. S., 1984. Experimental evolution of ribitol dehydrogenase. In R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (pp. 23-54) Plenum, New York.

Direct question. Do you now accept that mutations can lead to new information? If not, what specific objection do you raise to each of these assertions of new traits and new "information" from mutations? A failure to object to any one on factual grounds implies an acceptance of new "information."

Did you read the article from which you quoted McGinnis or did you grab this from some website? Hard to tell with the lack of references. Anyhow, you might want to read the entire article. It can be found here. http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm It is an article that explains how specific genetic evidence has been found about how ancient life was able to evolve changes to their body plans.

"This is not unlike the way the plasma physicists belatedly "admit" that there is more mass in the universe than the big bang theory can account for."

You might want to prove this assertion. I explained earlier to you how inflation makes very detailed predictions that have been shown to be true with the latest studies of the CMB. Let's take this a little further. I explained how the sound waves in the early universe would have left some areas more compressed and some more rarified. Dark matter would not be affected by these sound waves. But it would be attracted by the increased gravity in the compressed areas. By carefully measuring the differences in the CMB, it is possible to calculate the amount of dark matter in the early universe. The amount, five time the amount of baryonic matter, matches what is seen later in the universe. More consistency between different ways of measuring the same thing. For more information, I would suggest The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of COsmic Origins by Guth and Lightman, 1998.

"It is the way S. J. Gould promotes punctuated equilibrium as a way to "explain" what Evolutionists had been denying in debates with Creationists until that time."

How many time do I have to correct mistatements of Gould. First, let GOuld do it himself.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

Emphasis mine.

from Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, Norton, New York

If you want to keep using Gould when it comes to transitionals, that is what he has to say on the matter. PE explains that most evolution happens in small, isolated populations in very short (geologically speaking) lengths of time that make it rare for transitions to be recorded in the fossil record. It does not mean that species level transitions do not exist. It is just that you expect better evidence for higher level transistions. I have given you so many examples of higher level transisitons. Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are two of my favorite. Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and Dorudon are another favorite group. There is always Microrator, Caudipteryx, Sinosauropteryx, and Archaeopteryx.

But, since you want to quote Gould, let's move into the issue of species to species transitions. If you really think that there are no fossil transitions, then disprove the following species to species transition.

Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of selected Jurassic Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

You should have no trouble showing that this is not a valid transitional series on factual grounds. Again, failure to do so is an admission that it is in fact a valid transitional series.

"Basically - they stone wall on the evidence "no matter how obvious" until they think they have a "first excuse" for an answer for the problem."

Who is stonewalling? Look at the references just in this post alone. How many references did you make in your last post? Do we need an exhaustive list of all the questions you have failed to answer just in the last few threads?

"This is just another shining example in a long string of them. And of course - in the case of the "nylon bug" it is another example of grasping at straws. But they do so at the great cost of admitting to another obvious flaw in their armor."

Nope. The nylon bug is a great example of showing something that you claim is impossible. It shows a new trait developing from a mutation. You have no way around this as an example of new "information" so you dismiss it as "grasping at straws." Why do you not instead either mount a factual challenge of the evidence or admit to new "information." You cannot do the former and I predict you will not do the latter.

Where is your math proof of where evolution violates 2LOT?

Why do you continue to abandon the literal interpretation you seek to impose on everyone else by denying the universe is part of the Genesis description? I gave you the word used for "heaven(s)" in the first two chapters and showed how it means the universe. Yet you deny this, too.

 

[UTEOTW]

"The argument for mitochondrial eve - as already stated on other threads - is in fact "predicted" by the Creator's account. Those trusting in that account have no awkward facts to "explain away"."

This again? !SIGH!

I'll do this again for the benfit of those who might be reading. I tire of explaining the same thing over and over.

mDNA is passed down only through the females line. Let's suppose that we have population P0 of females. Population P1 is the population of the mothers of population P0. Since no one can have more than one mother, P1 can only be equal to or less than P0. That is P1 <= P0. In a real breeding population you will find that P1 < P0 because some females will have more than one daughter. Now you just extrapolate back in time. You will find that P0 > P1 > P2 > ...Pn.

The size gets samller with each generation as you go back in time. Eventually it is a mathematical certainty that you will get to a Pn where the population of Pn is one. There is no way around it. This is a prediction for any sexually breeding popuation. You can ALWAYS trace back up through the male or the female line to a single common ancestor. It is important to note that this does not in any way indicate that the individual was the only one alive at the time. It only indicates that at some point along the other mDNA lines that a daughter was not produced.

I predict you will raise all your normal objections to this. But none of them will be a rebuttal of the math proof I gave you above. You cannot factually challenge it. Therefore all your objections are without merit as I have proven that you MUST be able to make the kinds of connection you have shown. There is no way around it.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Evolutionists ALREADY show that they ignore science as in the case of the Nylon bug where they ADMIT that they HAD NO ANSWER (nothing of substance that they could SHOW - as SCIENCE - as anything other than pure FAITH). AND yet they were not "publically admitting this" until they came up with their strawman response for the problem."

What are you saying? If you have a problem with the science of the nylon bug, give it. I have given you sufficient references to draw upon. If you are saying that this is the only example that can be given of new information, this is false. Please see the several references I gave you in the other post.

"The Creator's account does not require that the stars be younger than the earth. That is simply a strawman invented by evolutionists who "admit" they place no trust in the details of the Creator's account."

Nope. The word used throughout Genesis 1 & 2, "shamayim,", means the universe. I quoted you the definition from Strong's as "1) heaven, heavens, sky a) visible heavens, sky 1) as abode of the stars 2) as the visible universe, the sky." YOu move further from the literal interpretation you attempt to force on others.

 

[BobRyan]

I already gave the evidence in the case of the nylon bug ...You have trouble reading read my post because it requires critical thinking about the statements posed by evolutionists.

Here it is again -- IT IS THEIR statement

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm

“The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution,” says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. “How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.” "

"This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science." .

W.R.Thompson, (pro-evolution), in his introduction to Origin of Species by Darwin


Darwin’s statement is unwittingly pointing at evolutionists today.

Where were the evolutionist confessions of this Creationist debate point BEFORE this strawman response with the Nylon Bug?

The tactic until then was “deny and assault” when Creationists brought it up. But here they admit they should have been confessing the “Science problem” in the following words "Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how "

This is not unlike the way the plasma physicists belatedly "admit" that there is more mass in the universe than the big bang theory can account for.

It is the way S. J. Gould promotes punctuated equilibrium as a way to "explain" what Evolutionists had been denying in debates with Creationists until that time.

Basically - they stone wall on the evidence "no matter how obvious" until they think they have a "first excuse" for an answer for the problem.

This is just another shining example in a long string of them. And of course - in the case of the "nylon bug" it is another example of grasping at straws. But they do so at the great cost of admitting to another obvious flaw in their armor.

It would be much more logical - to simply accept the Creator's account.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

If you would read the article you would have your answer. They have found a genetic way to get those changes. Besides, that article does not deal even indirectly with the Nylon bug. Do you have anything that deals directly with it or are you conceeding new information?

While we are at it, since you are not refuting the other cases of new "information" are you conceeding that they, too, show new information.

 

[UTEOTW]

Again, from your own quote "And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome."

"Until now..." They have shown how this could be done.

Do you care to give us the date and the context for what Thompson was discussing? Or would that undermine your use a bit?

Still waiting for answers to all those other questions above. Or are you conceeding new "information," and transitionals, and the entropy "problem," and such?

 

[Gup20]

Hello. Blessings to you all. Let me address a couple of issues here.

Firstly that the universe is 'older' than the earth.

"Genesis does not argue that the Universe is only as old as the earth."

In fact, I would tend to disagree - but only in part. There has recently been a lot of movement in both secular and creationist science away from the long held view that the universe is some infinte exapanse, and that the 'big bang' (not endorsing that theory) was an infinite explosion with infinite properties. The pendulum (lead by creationists) is starting to swing towards a universe with a center, and with an edge. In fact, several secular cosmologists, as well as creationist Dr Ruessel Humphreys have hypothesized that the universe is actually a massive 'white hole'. This is a black hole running in reverse (which Einstein's theories allow for). It has the basic properties of a black hole, but it runs in reverse - namely that it has a center and an edge (or an event horizon). This would explain many holes and gaps in the 'big bang' theory.

One exciting perspective this cosmology gives is that time would be extremely relativistic. Things that were closer to the center of the white hole would experience slower time than things nearer the edge. It is the Young Earth Creationists (YEC) perspective that the earth is at or very close to the center of this 'white hole'. Therefore, we are able to see light from stars that are millions of light years away because, for them, millions of years certainly may have passed.

These concepts and equasions were proven by Einstien, and are also touch on in the Bible (the 'day is as a thousand years' verses demonstrate time relativity as you approach the speed of light)

For the Secular Version, visit Here. Also there is an oral commentary.

For the creationist view, visit AiG and also visit this other AiG article which refers to the secular paper.

Here is the way that I see it.

Being a literal creationist, we would believe that the earth and the universe were created according to the account in Genesis. Here are the verses we will reference (they are essential to the YE-creationist view of the creation of time and space).

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

We see that God created light, and then separated light from darkness. He called it day and night. THEN, the first mention of TIME is recorded in the Bible - evening, morning, were the first day. Lets break that down -

1. God created light. In other scriptures it says that God is light. God is eternal, therefore we can surmise that God is separating time from eternity. God is creating our 'space/time continuum' as it were. This is further supported scientifically. Look at Einstein's theory - E=MC^2. Energy and mass are dependent on the constant of the 'speed of light'. Even Newton's equasions on Gravity are based on mass. Moreover, the way we often measure gravity is by acceleration which is a speed calculation - distance and time. So, we can see that the very laws of the universe are insepperable from light and time. In creating light, God basically created the 'constants' he would need from which all the laws of the universe follow.

2. God separated light from darkness and called the light day and the darkness night. Here we see the clear separation of 'eternity' from 'time'. If God is light and God is eternal, we can see that separating light from dark is actually the creation of time. It is very important to note that God does not create the sun or stars until day 4 - so this light here is NOT physical light from the sun.

3. The evening and the morning were the first day. This is also very important. If we do a word study in the Bible - the Hebrew word YOM is used for 'day'. Whenever YOM is used in conjunction with 'evening' it always means a literal (1 earth revolution) day. Whenever YOM is used in conjunction with the word morning, it always means 1 literal day. Whenever YOM is used in conjuction with a number (such as the word 'first') it always means a literal day. So from this verse we can accurately see that this is the first mention in the bible of literal passing of time. However, like I mentioned, the sun, moon, and stars have not yet been created - that happens on day4. This is further indication that it was written this way to give the reader an accurate representation of the ammount of time that was passing. One literal day.

So, in summery - God creates light, separates it from darkness, and in doing so starts time - which is evidenced by the 'begining of the clock' when he says 'the evening and morning were the first day'. The purpose of DAY 1 of the creative week was the creation of all space, time, and energy.

If indeed the universe as we know it has a center and an edge, and if we are close to the center than we are to the edge, then time is relativistic. For those planets and galaxies close to the edge (or event horizon) of the universe, time is much faster. For those things nearer the center of the universe, time would pass more slowly. Therefore, there is time dialation between us and the stars - this is how we can see light from stars that are millions of light years away while only 6000 years passes on earth.

Keep in mind, according to the creationist point of view, God spent several additional days beyond the creation of the 'rest of the universe' in creating life on earth (plants, then sea creatures, then land animals and finally man). Therefore, it stands to reason that the earth is very near or at the center of the universe, or even, perhaps, that the earth was somewhat uneffected by the established laws of the universe as God - who is not bound by time or space - continued his work here.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Dr. Humphreys does, in fact, invoke the name of Einstein to establish his theories. But he makes a basic mistake about what Einstein's theories predict. In particular, he assumes earth is at the bottom of a deep gravitational well, and this accounts for how our time got slowed down compared to the rest of the universe.

Unfortunately, this position also would make a positive prediction about how the rest of the universe would appear. The rest of the universe would appear to speeded up. Light from the rest of the universe would appear to be highly shifted in frequency towards the blue end of the spectrum. Actual astronomical observations are of the opposite kind.

Humphrie's explanation fails the most basic of tests.