Originally posted by me:
The origin of the DNA code is only unknown to those who disregard the information revealed in the Bible. It originated in the mind of God. God wrote the code for all of His creatures.
Well, that is ultimately true, but to a scientist that is not enough. You'll never have the fun of finding out how God did a thing if you just quit checking, secure in the fact God did it!
Oh, okay, ‘cause previously you wrote, “The origin of life with the DNA code is unknown at this time . . . “
By the way, how does what I said imply that I think we should “just quit checking” how God “did a thing?”
It is only an interpretation that no ANIMALS died before the fall of MAN. Many have argued that the death of men is uniquely a tragic event in a way that applies to no animal.
But didn’t you just describe us as animals? Ah, yes “parasitic animals” no less. Oh! There I go being facetious again!
It is a perfectly viable option to hold that the death that came because of Adam is death for MEN not death for ANIMALS; you will not find a verse that forces this interpretation to be false.
What about Romans 5:14:
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 5:14
Notice, death reigned from the time of Adam not a billion years before Adam.
What about the doctrine in Romans 8:
The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, . . .
You see, creation’s (this would include the animals of creation) problems began at the time of the one who subjected it to frustration
. . . in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay . . .
Question: What decays? Answer: Dead things
. . . and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
- Romans 8:19-21
Question: what is this freedom of the children of God that the creation longs to be brought into? Answer:
. . . the law of sin and death.
- Romans 8:2
Did you catch that? The creation (including the animals) longs to be freed from the frustration of death which began with Adam.
Revelation 21 says that the new heaven and new earth will have no tears, no death, no sorrow, no pain. Should we assume that the unchanging God considered suffering and death acceptable, yea, even preferable (since he could have done it instantly), in the making of the first creation, but not in the second?
No! A thousand times, no!
Of course I believe in the sky and the heavens. What I don't believe in is a dome over our heads that holds back the waters above from coming down and flooding the dry land that is made possible by this dome; a dome in which are spotted the Sun, Moon and Stars, with a chamber for the Sun when it isn't up in the sky.
Oh, okay. But who said anything about a
dome? The firmament, as mentioned in Genesis, is the space where the birdies fly and where God placed the sun, moon, and stars. You said, “firmament”, so I thought you were referring to the sky and the heavens
Nope, I’m pretty sure Genesis doesn’t say anything about a dome that, uh, “holds back the waters.”
It is a matter of historical record that protestant and catholics alike OPPOSED the upstart notions of Copornicus and Gallileo et. al. on literal interpretation grounds. You cannot deny that history.
The church wasn’t standing on a literal interpretation of God’s word so much as it was standing on its belief in the Aristotelian view of galactic geometry. Did you read any of links at the site I posted? I do hope some are. Here’s the link again
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geocentrism.asp .
Today the need for a literal interpretation is explained away, instead, as at the sites you posted.
More straw men! Look, you are the guy who keeps saying that biblical creationists insist on a literal interpretation of every line of scripture. I don’t know of any creationist who does. Rather we feel that scripture should be read as it was
intended to be read. The Joshua 10:12b passage
Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
is decidedly poetic, therefore, it is not rigidly incumbent to take it literally. After all, when was the last time you heard or read of a creationist saying, “That Gibeon sure must have gotten scorched when the sun was standing still upon it!” or “That valley of Ajalon must have been the mother-of-all-valleys to be big enough to hold the moon in it!”
I acknowledge that a literal interpretation of Genesis denies biological evolution.
Well, okay. But then don’t say that a “literal interpreation [sic]” of Genesis indicates “the common descent of all life from a single ancestor.”
C'mon, MUD, I have no problem with omnipotence and omiscience being able to make the earth in six days. Of course He could do that! But the evidence we find in the earth and in outer space is that He did something else.
What about the eye witness evidence of God as recorded in the Bible? Unless you think man’s limited, often flawed, knowledge should be held as a greater authority than God’s supposedly perfect word.
Now now, there you go again. Billions and billions? Hardly!
Yes, Paul, billions and billions. There are fossil
graveyards where the number of fossils is estimated to be over a billion
in a single fossil bed! See
Thundering Burial at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/burial.asp .
Tell me, if the flood came upon the earth in our day, would it be unreasonable to suppose that of the trillions of organisms alive on the earth, several billion would be fossilized? Well, the ancient earth was no less lush than our current earth.
Much more on fossils and biblical creation is here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp .
And as for intermediate characteristics, every time an intermediate is found, a guy like you will say, that's not an intermediate, instead its a whole creature to itself, and there are now two gaps where there used to be one!
Quite so! That’s because there is no indication that the organism was ever anything else. It just shows up fully functioning and there is no trail leading up to it.
Every time a guy like you is shown evidence that is contrary to evolution and long ages you will say, well that’s just not valid.
Lessee now. Can you spell Archeopterix? (hmmm . . can I?)
I had to look it up to be sure—there is an A after the H and before the first E and there is a Y instead of an I like so: Archaeopteryx. I am aware that archaeopteryx is routinely touted as the best example of an intermediate. And you surely know that it has been classified by evolutionists as a true bird. I know you could point out several anatomical features that are similar to reptiles (so please don’t bother), nevertheless it is a
true bird. Furthermore, fossils of unquestionably true birds have been found in strata “older” than those that archaeopteryx have been found in. So as I said, there are no
convincing intermediate forms in the fossil record.
Umm - as I recall, it was the fish air bladders that turned into our lungs, the gills just stopped showing up.
So, on the one hand, we have fish with air bladders, and on the other hand, we have animals with lungs. Is there anything in the middle? Say, a fish with air bags that have begun to fill with alveoli that are surrounded by an intricate capillary network which isn’t yet in communication with the heart? Or how about just with alveoli? No? The evidence is all in the imagination? Does that count?
Hey, here's a neat thought for you to digest -
(a) What would the fossil record be like if all life were created simultaneosly only 6000 years ago and
(b) what would the fossil record be like if life were evolved over the last billion years?
Your thoughts on that would be interesting to see.
Well, that would depend on whether there was a global flood. A global flood cannot really be considered if life evolved gradually from a common ancestor because the evolutionary scenario stands or falls with the
geologic column. If there was a global flood there is certainly not a geologic column testifying to age long stratification. Also, if there were no Flood there would be far fewer fossils around since fossilization requires rapid burial.
If the biosphere was created in the manner Genesis describes and was subsequently wiped out by a year long deluge we would find what we found. Abundant fossilization showing the early, sudden contemporaneous, appearance (Cambrian explosion) of many different types of complex organisms with no fossil evidence that one kind was derived from another. The fossils would tend to be sorted in the fossil record in a manner representative of both the geographical/ecological location of the organisms and their relative abilities to flee from (but ultimately succumb to) the flood waters. And there would be numerous instances of out-of-sequence fossils (i.e., simpler organisms buried above more complex organisms).
If life evolved gradually from a common ancestor, there should be no sudden appearance of radically different complex organisms at roughly the same time especially in the “oldest” strata of the earth. There should be many, many good examples of intermediate life forms. There would be almost no instances where a more complex organism was buried in strata deep to a simpler organism. And those embarrassing
living fossils should quit showing up!
From previous posts:
You:
Look right here on this forum there are modern people with a supposed general education who are unable to understand that God used a slow and gradual process of change to produce the life of our planet! What chance would a pre-modern individual have to understand?
Me:
Now you are being facetious!
You again:
I was dead serious. The facts are the facts.
C’mon, Paul. I was indoctrinated in evolution just like you were. I have clearly shown that I understand the supposed processes and mechanisms of evolution. My faith in evolution was a key factor in my skepticism regarding Christianity. By God’s grace alone was I enabled to stumble over that stumbling stone and receive Christ the Lord. I tried to mix biblical Christianity with evolutionism but both spiritual and intellectual integrity forbid it. So, I’ve been studying the biblical creationist viewpoint and have found it to be consistent with both real science and unadulterated scripture.
Radiometric age determination.
Seriously flawed as clearly demonstrated by the RATE group.
You mean the one devised, like, two hundred years ago, right? The one where strata were
assigned “ages” arbitrarily (after all, they didn’t have radiometric dating)? The one that doesn’t actually exist in the real world but only in text books?
Billions of light years distant stars.
In my opinion, probably the best evidence of an old universe. Work is progressing on this problem. Humphreys’ ideas
are promising.
Ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica showing 200,000 plus annual layers laid down.
Invalid. Have you heard about the squadron of war planes that crash landed on a Greenland ice field in the 40’s? When they were finally located (for salvage purposes) in the 80’s they were found under some 250 feet of ice in only 40 odd years. Was the ice layered? Yes, copiously.
The living tree of life in its consistent family relationships, confirmed by the fossil record and by the independently derived genetic family relationships.
Better explained by realizing the DNA code between animals having similar structures would show similarity. The instructions for building a simple doghouse would be quite similar to those for building a simple birdhouse. Likewise, the coding for hair, or eyes, or livers will have many similarities whether the DNA is that of a mouse, a monkey, or a man.
????
Annual layers of silt in a lake going back over 50,000 years.
Invalid. Fine layering can occur very rapidly. A mud flow subsequent to the Mt. Saint Helen’s eruption in the 80’s formed thousands of very finely layered strata tens of feet thick over the course of just a few hours. If geologists hadn’t been around the area before the event, they, no doubt, would have interpreted these layers as having been laid down over thousands of years.
Yes the earth speaks for those who will listen without having chosen to disregard all evidence in advance to their pre-chosen ideas.
Right back atcha!
All right, let me rephrase the choices.
Which is more likely, that
(a) God decided to literally tell the truth in Genesis and plant deceptive evidence in the earth and skies that say another story
or
(b) God graciously allowed men to receive his revelations about Himself in a manner that accomodated their inability to understand the literal truth and allowed the earth and universe to retain evidence of the true mode of creation?
A. There are no deceptive evidences in nature. There are merely facts which must be put into a framework to make sense of them. The facts make better sense in a biblical creationist framework than in an evolutionary/uniformitarian framework.
B. What inability to understand? The concept is simple. Non-living matter came to life. Simple life gradually changed into more complex life. I’m sorry if you had to struggle to grasp these ideas but most of us didn’t.
Me:
“Loaded words”??? Do you not realize that when dealing with the unobserved past one must make certain assumptions in order to make sense out of present day observations? And, in context, an assumption, as defined by Dictionary.com, is “The act of taking for granted, or supposing a thing without proof; supposition; unwarrantable claim.” Therefore, an assumption, by definition is tentative. So, you see, saying that historical science makes “tentative assumptions” is quite appropriate.
You:
There you go again, leaping from the need we all have to make assumptions every day to calling every one of them tentative.
Good grief, man! Every assumption
is tentative; it’s not a bad thing, it’s just the way it is. However, some assumptions are more
reasonable than others. We assert that the assumptions made in the historical sciences are, in many cases, unreasonable.
I could just as logically say the inspiration of the Bible is only tentative, because, after all, it is an assumption, is it not?
Oh, is that why you place man’s opinions in judgement over God’s word and feel justified in ignoring the clear meaning of scripture?
There. Perhaps that will show you that merely tagging labels on something is not an argument against it.
Alas, all you said on this matter is more tagging labels and claiming that makes a difference in reality.
I wasn’t applying labels. The distinction between
operational and
historical science is justified.
All science is both operational and historical; because every experiment ever done is now a past, historical experiement and it is only on faith we take it to be repeatable in the future; a faith that we think we recall having been sustained many times but . . . what about the next time?
What??? Bah! More confusion!
No experiments were done on evolution in the past. No one was there to record his observations of sedimentation over the years. No one was there to measure the relative amounts of parent and daughter products or to make observations ruling out accelerated decay. No one was there to make observations in the remote past
except God and you don’t believe what he has to say on the matter!
This is a far cry from the observations and measurements made in the past by scientists who recorded what they saw and did. We can repeat their experiments and see if we get the same results. The people who observed and recorded the Mount Saint Helen’s eruption and the aftermath saw the steam blast remove thousands of tons of rock in one horrendous convulsion. They watched as a million mature trees were ripped out of the ground and strewn about like matchsticks. They marvelled as a great canyon with walls hundreds of feet high was cut through solid rock in a matter of days. They chronicled the progression of a mud flow as it swept down from the hills and scoured the earth leaving behind thousands of fine grained layers. No one can go there now and say that these features were produced slowly and gradually because the events were observed and documented. However, if these events hadn’t been observed and recorded, there would be some who would speculate that some of them may have taken long ages to perform.
Me:
I’m sorry, but your challenge is quite confusing and I don’t have time to work on it right now and I may not bother anyway.
You:
OK, I understand. Just realize that until you can (a) show where the steps I gave are inconsistent with what science says evolution does or show where they just plain won't work
or, failing that,
(b) show where, somewhere, anywhere, in those steps something happens that is forbidden by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then you should, in all honesty, never ever claim to know that evolution is against the second law of thermodynamics, sometimes called the law of increaseing disorder.
Science doesn’t say what evolution does. Remember, it has never been observed. It’s supposed mechanisms of mutation and natural selection are inadequate to turn goo into you even in a billion years. Mutations
cannot produce the kind of specified complex information required by the genetic code to make new and better structures. Without new information, natural selection cannot do anything but sort what was already there or lose it completely. Therefore, we
can’t
start with having already gotten some living things that use our own DNA coding to reproduce
. Evolution can’t even take the step before your first step.
I say it again, without a plan and a mechanism for implementing the plan the 2LOT forbids evolution.
----------------------------------------------------------
Are we still debating the age of the earth?
