Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

[Gup20]

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

That argument has just as much, if not more, basis in scientific fact as evolution.

You see... radiation from the sun strikes the metal, causing it to mutate. This produces energy. We all know that engergy and matter are interchangeable and can be converted into one another... therefore, the muffler ... caused by mutagentic agents... morphs and evolves from nothing. It naturally organizes itself into functioning components... moreover, many multipart systems also appear at the same time. For example, the carborator evoved into the fuel injection system... on it's own... naturally.

This has FAR GREATER chance of happening than for a person to be the result of evolution. For the machinery that makes up a person has FAR FAR FAR more complex machinery than any automobile.

I have demonstrated in a great deal of detail why this assertion is incorrect. You assert that we can only lose "information." Yet I have shown you one specific method of generating new "information." Duplication and mutation. I have shown that duplications happen. I have shown that mutations happen. I have shown that mutations can lead to new functions. I have given the empiracle evidence of the large number of gene families where many different functions are based on the same basic sequence.

And I have shown each time how all of these are a decrease in information.

Lets say we create a robot. Let say we give that robot the machinery to reproduce itself. How many millions of years would it take that robot to teach itself to reproduce itself if we didn't program it to do so? Matter does not spontaneously give rise to information. Information can only come from greater information. Any code has to have a sender and a reciever.

How do we know the robot would NEVER EVER program itself to reproduce without human intervention? How do we know that mutation cannot give rise to new information? Because matter does not spontaneously create information.

Cells are far more complicated than any machine created by man. The chances of even the simplest machines programing themselves to reproduce are none. The chances of a biological machine doing the same are less than none.

Unless God programmed our cells when plopping the bowl of goo down on earth. While I know you guys see Genesis as a fairy tale, maybe it says something about programming cells to reproduce.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

[rhetorical]Maybe God's command to be fruitful and multiply was the command... or program to reproduce... but shucks, there is that darned 'after it's own kind' thing again. Too bad God didn't just tell us the truth there and tell us how they would produce greater and greater offspring which evolve. Instead they only re-create themselves. Drat. Well... we know what God meant... I know he told us something different, but God didn't really say THAT. He gave that author an impression and the author put a little bit of his own words in there. But that's no biggie, right? I mean... that really doesn't change anything in the later books where it really counts.[/rhetorical]


[Christian evolutionist]Hath God said? Did God really say that? Surely He didn't mean THAT. No... that apple actually looks like it is MADE for eating. Why would God make food and then tell us we can't eat it? That's just religious dogma. It tests clear of any toxins, and it's nutrition content tests very high. No... there's nothing wrong with that apple tree at all. We should be eating more of those apples, in fact. Those are the good apples. You know what else? If we eat those applese, we will be stronger, faster, healthier, live longer, be wiser. You know... God's word says not to... but that was so long ago. Whoever heard that we are not to eat them must have got it wrong! Clearly, they didn't have the ability to test the apples as we do today. I believe that God intended us to eventually evolve to a point where we could study these apples scientifically and know that we should eat them. [/Christian evolutionist]

how dare you attempt to sit in judgment of me.

It has been commanded of me that I pull down that which exhalts itself against the knowledge of God. God commands us to resist evil in the earth. I do not condemn you, friend. Your own words fly in the face of scripture. The Word is a two edged sword rightly dividing the word of truth. If you feel judged it is not me whom is judging you but the spirit within you crying out for truth. I have used a great deal of scripture to back up everything I say. You have quoted many men.

Can you make a point with misrepresenting and slandering?

I am sorry if the truth is painful. I am only here to present the truth to you. You are indeed indicating that you do not believe the Bible as written. You try to make some intellectual distinction between factual and literal, but this is simply an attempt at misdirection. You are like Adam - "It was that woman, Lord... she gave me the apple". Trying to shift from you disbelieving the Bible to some neutered Bible scenario where the Bible just isn't clear and so we just don't know. In fact, the Bible is very clear, it's very specific, it's absolute, and it's true. The Bible tells us VERY SPECIFICLY and VERY PRECISELY how it happened, when it happened, what actually happened, in what sequence, how long each step took, etc. Just as prcise as the geneologies are the steps of creation. In X year of A's life he beget B. A lived to be Y. In Z year of B's life he beget C... etc etc etc. All the components are there for an exact and accurate geneology. In the same mannor, and same matter of fact language, God tells us the account of Creation. On X day A happened. Y signified the duration of A. On Z day B happened... etc There is nothing story-bookish about it. There is nothing non-factual about it. It is all matter of fact, point by point, methodical and detailed. It really comes down to your choice NOT to believe it. You have been influenced by the World, by Humanism, and by Satan. Certainly, no where in scripture is it advocated that Genesis isn't absolute or true or literal. The entire Bible supports and treats Genesis as literal and factual. NOTHING IN SCRIPTURE INDICATES THAT THE BIBLE IS A LITTE OFF, OR THAT GOD DOESN'T DEEM IT IMPORTANT TO TELL US THE TRUTH - ESPECIALLY WHERE GENESIS IS CONCERNED!! These are the ideas of Satan, Humanism, and man.

For example, the 7 day week - the People are actually commanded in the law. THE VERY 10 COMMANDMENTS QUOTE GENESIS AND UPHOLD IT AS TRUTH!! Notice from the following that this is the things that GOD Himself said. Remeber, Moses was banned from entering the land of Canan for striking the rock twice when God told him once. How lenient do you think God would be if Moses misquoted God? God himself said that he created the world in six days. He shows here how it's the same six days that is the work week.


Exd 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
Exd 20:2 I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exd 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exd 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:
Exd 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;
Exd 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Exd 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Exd 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exd 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exd 20:10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:
Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.Exd 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Exd 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Exd 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Exd 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
Exd 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Exd 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.
Exd 20:18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw [it], they removed, and stood afar off.


So you guys think that this part of the 10 commandments is 'a little off'? What other commandments from God would you discard? Perhaps thou shalt not commit adultery? Maybe God wanted us to have a lot of wives? Those in the olden days did... Jacob had a few of them... Solomon had like 700. Surely what's the harm in having a few girlfriends on the side?

You can't even see how your disregard for the truth of God's word has undermined your own belief, can you?

The ancient Jews had a worldview of a flat earth surrounded by the "deep" with a dome overhead containing the stars and keeping the waters above out. It is obvious that the plain reading of the text from the first of Genesis to the New Testament reflects this worldview. I think it is clear that you cannot honestly deny that this is what they thought.

No, they never thought this. The flat earth philosophy is a result of much later intellectualism and 'sailor's stories'. The Bible never supported this.

Christianity has often been held responsible for promoting the flat Earth theory. Yet it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the ‘official Christian viewpoint’.

Lactantius
The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245–325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life.

He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived).

So AD 245-325 was the FIRST time these ideas began to surface.

Cosmas Indicopleustes and Church Fathers
Next was sixth century Eastern Greek Christian, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who claimed the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens (consisting of a rectangular vaulted arch). His work also was soundly rejected by the Church Fathers, but liberal historians have usually claimed his view was typical of that of the Church Fathers.

Many such historians have simply followed the pattern of others without checking the facts. In fact, most of the Church Fathers did not address the issue of the shape of the Earth, and those who did regarded it as ‘round’ or spherical.

Washington Irving and Rip Van Winkle
In 1828, American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) published a book entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was a mixture of fact and fiction, with Irving himself admitting he was ‘apt to indulge in the imagination’.

Its theme was the victory of a lone believer in a spherical Earth over a united front of Bible-quoting, superstitious ignoramuses, convinced the Earth was flat. In fact, the well-known argument and the Council of Salamanca was about the dubious distance between Europe and Japan which Columbus presented — it had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

Later writers repeated the error
In 1834, the anti-Christian Letronne falsely claimed that most of the Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, held to a flat Earth. His work has been repeatedly cited as ‘reputable’ ever since.

In the late nineteenth century, the writings of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White were responsible for promoting the myth that the church taught a flat Earth. Both had Christian backgrounds, but rejected these early in life.

Englishman Draper convinced himself that with the downfall of the Roman Empire the ‘affairs of men fell into the hands of ignorant and infuriated ecclesiastics, parasites, eunuchs and slaves’ — these were the ‘Dark Ages’. Draper’s work, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), was directed particularly against the Roman Church, and was a best seller.

Meanwhile White (who founded Cornell University as the first explicitly secular university in the United States), published the two-volume scholarly work History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, in 1896.

Both men incorrectly portrayed a continuing battle through the Christian era between the defenders of ignorance and the enlightened rationalists. In fact, not only did the church not promote the flat Earth, it is clear from such passages as Isaiah 40:22 that the Bible implies it is spherical. (Non-literal figures of speech such as the ‘four corners of the Earth’ are still used today.)

Encyclopedias erase the myth
While many will have lost their faith through the writing of such men as Irving, Draper and White, it is gratifying to know that the following encyclopædias now present the correct account of the Columbus affair: The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1985), Colliers Encyclopædia (1984), The Encyclopedia Americana (1987) and The World Book for Children (1989).

There is still a long way to go before the average student will know that Christianity did not invent or promote the myth of the flat Earth.

So you can see then, that the 'flat earth' myth was never a part of Jewish society or culture. It was actually a much more modern idea.

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

In fact, I am calling evolutionists the liars. God told the truth in the Bible, which states the opposite of evolution happened. Special creation is the cause and it happened 6000 years ago as the Bible describes, not billions of years as evolutionists try to assert.

Where have I told a lie?

You lie to yourself each time you tell yourself you can disbelieve Genesis as non-literal but factual. You lie to us each time you try to defend that self-incriminating position.

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

What is even more pathetic, is I didn't substitute what YOU said... I substitued what I said! You see I asked you "Did he create people and land animals separately in the space of 24 hours?" to which you responed "No".

When I quoted you, I simply replaced the words of the Bible with the passage the words came from.

For example, Genesis 1:24-31 describes how on the 6th day of creation, God created animals, then man. I asked if you believed that, you said no. It is no different from asking, do you believe Genesis 1:24-31 because that is what it says:

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

I asked "Did he create people and land animals separately in the space of 24 hours?". This is exactly what Genesis 1:24-31 says... I asked if you believe it, you said no. My quote of your answer stands as accurate and correct. However, now you see that to reject that man and animals were created in the same 24 hour period you are actually rejecting scripture.

I am glad to see you admit that simply using your own eyes top look at Creation will reveal its great age.

As long as you admit that this is the same approach Eve took... to trust her eyes which were in contradiction to the truth. I will freely admit that evolutionists have produced many credible distractions from the truth. If anyone did look at that evidence without knowing the truth, they would certainly be lead astray.

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

Yes, he does, but thre is always supernatural influencing the natural. For example, when Elijah and woman never ran of meal an oil. God used natural substances and occurences promoted by supernatural influence. When the children of Israel were preparing to leave Egypt, there were many natural plagues.

In fact, the supernatural is constantly influencing the natural. This influence is seemless and invisible as the wind - we do not see it, but we can see it's effects, so we know it's there.

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

Unfortunately for you, the Bible does not give "another option". It states quite clearly and specifically how we came to be, in what time frame, and by what means. You, however, refuse to believe or accept the Bible is true.

Well the truth is this. We have differences in how certain scriptures should be interpreted. We can go on forever asserting that ours is correct. (And with you slandering those that do not agree with you.) But I consider the physical evidence to be on topic. The Creation itself is part of God's revelation to us. It can be used to settle who is right.

As I have stated, we can discuss these things when you are ready to believe the Bible is true. For example, evolutionists say that there was no global flood - the Bible clearly and plainly says there was. If I go to interpret stratigraphy, I take the Bible's truth into consideration. If I am an evolutionist, I try to explain geography outside of this revelation of truth. Any model I come to is going to be flawed or wrong... no matter how convincing it sounds. If there was a world wide flood as the Bible clearly states... then any model that does not include this is going to be inaccurate.

The apple is not as good for eating as it appears.

 

[Deacon]

The question was asked:

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

Here is a tongue in cheek scientific paper with a full scientific explanation.

See Evolution of the Auto, a parable

Rob

 

[Deacon]

Here's another article on Auto-evolution

Evolution and Hopeful Monster Trucks
Under a classic Neo-Darwinist point of view, genetic variability maintained in natural populations is considered to be the pacemaker of adaptation in changing environments, however a revolutionary hypothesis is being promoted by the biomechanic Rich Goldschmidt, which states that vehicular evolution occurs by sudden and large changes in the offspring of a species, resulting in radically different but well adapted organisms, i.e. "hopeful monster trucks". In this framework, we are working on developing mechanisms to explain the formation and rapid adaptation subsequent to catastrophic environmental changes, by submitting a laboratory population of Pickup Trucks to the action of a high dose of modern potent contaminants as experimental model. The studies suggest that in the presence of high levels of Stupidity, (i) adaptation of certain truck populations to sudden environmental changes emanate mutations of monster proportions and occurs only in rare spontaneous pre-selective instances; (ii) as a rule the monster mutants exhibit a diminished fitness (and reduced primary production) that handicap their survivorship in natural populations in the absence of the contaminant, stupidity, (competition experiments between resistant mutants and wild type have shown that in small populations the resistant mutants are driven to extinction); (iii) after their occurrence, the resistant mutants increase their fitness in the contaminated environment, in addition to short-term evolutionary processes involving mutation and selection. This transmissional form has been termed a “Hopeful Monster Truck”. Only in rare spontaneous pre-selective mutational environments can the survival of these Monster Truck populations be assured specifically environments exhibiting high levels of density in the cranial regions.
Selected References:
Blower, R., (1995). Ford’s Dangerous Idea. Truck Med., 5: 358.

Deaff, R.U. (1988). The origin of Transmissions and their transitional states. Garage Science , 345: 142-245.

Drunk, Ima, & Stupor, Ina. (1999). Beneficial mutations observed during Delirium Tremens . Bar and Tavern Science Daily, 2072: 1822-1854.

Barnum, P.T. (2000). Adaptive mutations among Hooters. BiomechanicalEssays 202: 2063-2094.

Rob

 

[UTEOTW]

"That argument has just as much, if not more, basis in scientific fact as evolution.

You see... radiation from the sun strikes the metal, causing it to mutate. This produces energy..."

One more wrong assertion. There is no information carrying unit in an automobile to mutate. There is no reproduction to pass on this information to a new generation and, in the case of sexual reproduction, to mix the information together in a new way. And there is no selection process to act upon the variations to preserve the good features. Your strawman is nothing like reality.

"And I have shown each time how all of these are a decrease in information."

First, you have not addressed at all the one method of adding new "information" which I have discussed. The duplication and mutation of of an existing gene. I have given you empirical evidence of families of genes with widely varying function that show evidence of being generated through this process. Not only do these families share very similar sequences, but before you jump in with an unsubstantiated claim of common design, the detail of their differences show that they were the product of evolution. THis is because each position in a 3 letter codon has a different reaction to changes. These genes show much more variation in the less sensitive positions and less in the more sensitive positions. If the genes were the product of design, these variations would not exist in the given pattern. Second, I have given you a large number of references to new traits, only one or two of which have you attmpted to address. So it is certainly not true that you "have shown each time how all of these are a decrease in information." SOme of the unanswered items.

Let's take a look at serine proteases. These proteins cut peptide bonds in other proteins. SOme are secreted by the digestive system to break up proteins to aid in digestion. Some are proteins involved in blood clotting (you might be famialar with thrombin). Some are involved in the complement cascade of the immune system. Now if you look at the sequence of amino acids in all of these various proteins, you will see that they are quite similar. You have very good circumstantial evidence that this whole family of genes is the result of repeated duplications of an original gene and the evolution of new functions from the varieties produced by mutation.

Another good family of related genes to look into in the hemoglobin / myoglobin family. These are oxygen carrying molecules.The evidence is that an original oxygen carrying gene duplicated early in evolution. One duplicate has since duplicated additional times, mutated, and become the myoglobins that carry oxygen withing muscle tissues. The other becamce hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood. Hemoglobin is further split into two families, the alpha and beta. All of these involve a cluster or family of related genes. Many of these genes are related to development where specific genes are expressed at different points in the life cycle.

Development is controlled in part by a family of genes called homeobox genes. They first have the odd trait that they contain a section of exactly 180 nucleotides called, well, a homeobox. There is great simularity between these selector genes indicating that they were the result of gene duplication and mutation. Another case of evolution making new use of something that prexisted when developing a new trait. The similarity of some genes of this family across great ranges of species is also a good piece of evidence for the common descent of all life on earth.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=7242661&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=6456024&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8765308&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=92130261&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9098062&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=90212054&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=84172188&dopt=Citation

http://www.americanscientist.org/amsci/articles/99articles/Hardison.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8794877&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9060395&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=96275651&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=1688138&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8056788&dopt=Citation

There is a mutation found in a particular ethnic group in Africa. From the pattern in which the mutation has spread, it is believed to have happened about 1000 years ago. There is a substitution in a single nucleotide of the gene that makes hemoglobin, the oxygen carrying molecule in the blood, that changes which amino acid is inserted at that spot. The new form is known as hemoglobin C. People with this gene ara about 14 times less likely to die from malaria. Before anyone asks, this is a different mutation than the one that causes sickle cell anemia. Here is an abstract. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11001883&dopt=Abstract

There is a gene, CKR5, in which a mutant version appears in some people of European ancestry. This mutated gene makes it more difficult or impossible for HIV to infect the persons cells, depending on which type of mutation the individual has.

Here is another abstract to a mutation in a plant that offers increased disease resistance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14576290&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.

"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.

So please do not claim that you have shown that all these were the result of a loss of information or that you have addressed my method of adding new "information."

"How do we know the robot would NEVER EVER program itself to reproduce without human intervention? How do we know that mutation cannot give rise to new information? Because matter does not spontaneously create information."

Ahhh, there you go again making reference to your AIG claims on information while ignoring the problems I demonstrated with the theory. Though I have shown you why the assertion that new information can only come from intelligence is flawed and I have shown you a method that produces such information and I have given you evidence that shows such new information having been generated, you continue to assert that it is not possible.

 

[Gup20]

UTE - let me ask you some direct questions. Please search your heart and give me direct answers.

1. Are you a Christian?
a)Why?
b)How do you know?
2. Are you going to heaven when you die?
a)Why do you believe this?
3. Was/is Jesus a real person?
a)What makes you sure of your answer?
4. Was/is Jesus the Son of God?
a) How do we know he was/wasn't the son of God?
5. Do you believe there is a God?
a)How do you know?
b)If there is a God, who is He?
6. Do you think Jesus had the power/ability to die for your sins?
a) Why?
7. Did Jesus need to die for your sins?
8. Is it possible for a person to never sin throughout their lives and go to heaven?
9. Do you believe in Hell?
10. Do you think Adam was a real person?
11. Do you think that Adam actually lived over 900 years?
12. Do you think Noah's worldwide Flood actually happened?
13. Do you think that there was one world-wide language up until the tower of babel?
14. Do you think the Children of Israel crossed the sea because of a natural phenominon (a mud slide, for example)?
15. Do you believe that Jesus was raised from the dead?
a) Why?


Here are 15 personal questions for you, UTEOTW. Please answer them as directly as possible. Answer from your heart - tell me what YOU truely think. Your answers here will tell me what you do believe. I feel I have been pretty harsh towards you. This is your chance to tell me how you really feel about these 15 issues, and set me straight. It is my perception that you do not believe the Bible. I feel that you are too indoctrinated in a humanistic - and to be honest... a downright atheistic ... worldview, and it is my perception that you are bearly, if at all, a christian. Speaking to you feels like conversing with an atheist. To be entirely candid, I honestly don't understand how you can believe in evolution and call yourself a christian. In an effort to understand this position, and not cast you off without at least hearing your side of the story, I have asked these 15 questions. Please answer them truthfully and from your heart. You mentioned that the 'big things' were what is important. These 15 questions will reveal to me what you think and feel about ... what I consider anyway ... to be some 'big things'.

By all means, if you feel the need to ask me 15 'big things' questions, please do so. But please answer these before you do.

 

[UTEOTW]

"While I know you guys see Genesis as a fairy tale..."

If I believed it was all just a fairy tale, why would I be here?

"So you guys think that this part of the 10 commandments is 'a little off'? "

I do not think that any is off. But I also do not think that the creation was a literal six day creation.

"What other commandments from God would you discard? Perhaps thou shalt not commit adultery? Maybe God wanted us to have a lot of wives? Those in the olden days did... Jacob had a few of them... Solomon had like 700. Surely what's the harm in having a few girlfriends on the side?"

This is the fallacy of the slippery slope. There is no reason to think that because the creation account was not literal that I will disregard the clear will and commandments of God.

"No, they never thought this. The flat earth philosophy is a result of much later intellectualism and 'sailor's stories'. The Bible never supported this.

Christianity has often been held responsible for promoting the flat Earth theory. Yet it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the ‘official Christian viewpoint’."

You know, if you are going to quote word for word so much, you really should give the reference. Otherwise some might call it plagarism. In this case, don't worry, I found it. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

Now, what is interesting is that I have said that the Jews at the time of the writing of the Bible had a certain geographic worldview. You deny this and then begin quoting about what other people believed. I never said that the Greeks promoted a flat earth, so what does somebody rejecting the Greek way have to do with it? And my claims about the Church in the second millenium was that they persucuted those who set out to dispel geocentrism with the same zeal and surity of their Biblical quotes as you put forth. But few of us remain geocentrists, eh?

This is the first time in a while, but sometimes with you I feel as if I am at a Bill Clinton press conference. He was a master in that setting. But there were strange things about it. It often seemed that he had a number of prepared statements and he would just pop them out whenever he thought a question was close enough. Never mind that he never answered the question, he was so slick and persuasive that no one seemed to notice. I sometimes think that you are sitting upon a standard set of response and you just pop things out as you see fit. Never mind that it doesn't always fit or that you really do not answer the question. But any how, I have asserted that the ancient Jews believed in a flat earth and the Church in the time of Copernicus in geocentrism. Yet you answer about a flat earth in the second millenium.

Now let's see, I have said that the Jews and the other people of the region believed in a particular geography which you deny.

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/geography/form.html

AMONG various rude tribes we find survivals of a primitive idea that the earth is a flat table or disk, ceiled, domed, or canopied by the sky, and that the sky rests upon the mountains as pillars. Such a belief is entirely natural; it conforms to the appearance of things, and hence at a very early period entered into various theologies.

In the civilizations of Chaldea and Egypt it was very fully developed. The Assyrian inscriptions deciphered in these latter years represent the god Marduk as in the beginning creating the heavens and the earth: the earth rests upon the waters; within it is the realm of the dead; above it is spread ``the firmament'' - a solid dome coming down to the horizon on all sides and resting upon foundations laid in the ``great waters'' which extend around the earth.

On the east and west sides of this domed firmament are doors, through which the sun enters in the morning and departs at night; above it extends another ocean, which goes down to the ocean surrounding the earth at the horizon on all sides, and which is supported and kept away from the earth by the firmament. Above the firmament and the upper ocean which it supports is the interior of heaven.

...

But the strictly biblical men of science, such eminent fathers and bishops as Theophilus of Antioch in the second century, and Clement of Alexandria in the third, with others in centuries following, were not content with merely opposing what they stigmatized as an old heathen theory; they drew from their Bibles a new Christian theory, to which one Church authority added one idea and another another, until it was fully developed. Taking the survival of various early traditions, given in the seventh verse of the first chapter of Genesis, they insisted on the clear declarations of Scripture that the earth was, at creation, arched over with a solid vault, ``a firmament,'' and to this they added the passages from Isaiah and the Psalms, in which it declared that the heavens are stretched out ``like a curtain,'' and again ``like a tent to dwell in.'' The universe, then, is like a house: the earth is its ground floor, the firmament its ceiling, under which the Almighty hangs out the sun to rule the day and the moon and stars to rule the night. This ceiling is also the floor of the apartment above, and in this is a cistern, shaped, as one of the authorities says, ``like a bathing-tank,'' and containing ``the waters which are above the firmament.'' These waters are let down upon the earth by the Almighty and his angels through the ``windows of heaven.'' As to the movement of the sun, there was a citation of various passages in Genesis, mixed with metaphysics in various proportions, and this was thought to give ample proofs from the Bible that the earth could not be a sphere.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_circlesea.htm

Heaven is opposite the deep, and they meet at the horizon which is circular. The horizon was not only the boundary between heaven and earth, light and darkness; but also a link between the dome of heaven, and the surface of the earth and sea. The phrases, "circle of the seas" and "circle of the deep" seem to be parallel in meaning. "Sea" and "Deep" are sometimes used synonymously in OT poetry. These phrases refer to the circular horizon which forms the boundary line between heaven and earth.

The sea is said to have doors and bars to keep the waters from overflowing in Job 38:8-11 which says:

Who shut the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, when I said, This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt (NIV)?
...
There is an important Babylonian world map that depicts the earth as circular surrounded by a circular sea.
...
It seems that the Hebrew concept of the heavens was very similar to the Babylonian concept which compared the universe to a mollusk or clam in Enuma Elish. The upper curved shell represents heaven, and the lower half represents the deep with the earth stretched out in the middle. Under the earth was the waters of the deep. Surrounding the earth were also the waters of the deep. Beyond the waters were the islands which were the remotest parts of the earth. The islands were the pillars that held up the dome of heaven, and were the foundations that supported the deep. The firmament was a solid substance that held up the waters of the heavenly ocean. When it rained, gates or windows were opened to allow water from the heavenly ocean to fall to earth. Other gates controlled the winds and snow.
...
By observing the sky as blue just like the color of the ocean, and that rain came from the sky, it was very easy to surmise that there is a heavenly ocean.
...
Josephus in Jewish Antiquities writes, "On the third day he established the earth, pouring around it the sea" (Book I:32; LCL 242, 15). Because "sea" is singular some think that Josephus is referring to the earth encircling ocean. According to Franxman, "The picture we are given, therefore, includes nothing of a separation of a previously existing admixture of earth and water. Earth is merely manipulated into the sort of raised position so that there is something to pour the sea around. The dry land alone was what lay beneath the moist vault of the heavens at the end of the Second Day" (1979, 42).
...
The phrase of Isaiah 40:22, "the circle of the earth" is very controversial. There are five main views of this phrase. The first interpretation says that the word "circle" means "sphere" indicating that the earth is a sphere. This view seems most unlikely since we have all ready seen that the Hebrew word gh means "circle," and it seems very remote that it means "sphere" because of the context, and there is a better Hebrew word for "sphere," rwd. In Isaiah 22:18 the word rwd is translated "ball." If the LXX translators understood gh as "sphere," they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. Plugging the meaning of "sphere" into every passage that gh occurs will result in awkward interpretations.

The second interpretation is that the earth is a round flat disk. Although the ancient world thought the earth was round and flat, this phrase seems to refer to the shape the vaulted heavens above the earth from which the inhabitants look like grasshoppers.

The third view, which is set forth by Seybold, is that "circle" refers to the ring of the ocean that surrounds the earth. This is mainly based on the supposed meaning of the word guros used in the LXX for gwj.

The fourth interpretation is that "circle" refers to the vault like sky over the earth. This seems to be partly right as well as the next view where "circle" refers to the horizon. It may be best to combine theses two views so that "circle" refers to the circle of the horizon that arches up over the earth. From the top of this dome God looks down to see the inhabitants on earth as small as grasshoppers. In the later part of this same verse (Isa.40:22) the heavens are described like a curtain and a tent. There seems to be a descriptive parallelism of the heavens in this poetic verse.
...
St. Basil in his Hexaemeron states:

Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth. If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the forth of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle; all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor. It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes. Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls (Homily 9)?

This should at least be enough to demonstrate that I tell the truth when I say that the Jews and the other people of the region has a geographic worldview as I say.

"What is even more pathetic, is I didn't substitute what YOU said... I substitued what I said!"

Did I say that you substituted my words? ("Nice trick there of substituting what was said with something else. Any one can look above and see that what I said was that these things were not literal. You have dishonestly substituted to make it appear that I do not believe the Bible. Pathetic.")

No you took my answers, which in context clearly indicate that I was saying that I do not believe the creation account to be literal, and substituted new questions in a manner that suggests that I was saying the Bible is false. That is dishonest.

 

[UTEOTW]

1. Are you a Christian?

Yes.

a)Why?

I recognized that I was a sinful man. I recognized that only through the blood of Jesus, Son of God, could the price of my sins be paid. I asked that Jesus forgive me of my sins and save me.

b)How do you know?

See above.

2. Are you going to heaven when you die?

Yes.

a)Why do you believe this?

See above.

3. Was/is Jesus a real person?

Yes.

a)What makes you sure of your answer?

A personal relationship with Him for one. The witness of the Gospels and other New testament writers for another.

4. Was/is Jesus the Son of God?

Yes.

a) How do we know he was/wasn't the son of God?

See above plus the fulfillment of the OT prophecies.

5. Do you believe there is a God?

Yes.

a)How do you know?

Personal relationship with Him.

b)If there is a God, who is He?

The One True God, The Alpha and the Omega, the Creator of All, Our Heavenly Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

6. Do you think Jesus had the power/ability to die for your sins?

Yes.

a) Why?

He was God incarnate. Only He could live a perfect life and pay the sins for others.

7. Did Jesus need to die for your sins?

Yes.

8. Is it possible for a person to never sin throughout their lives and go to heaven?

No. We all sin. Daily?

9. Do you believe in Hell?

Yes.

10. Do you think Adam was a real person?

I do not know. This is one of the questions I do not know the answer to. Guess? Likely.

11. Do you think that Adam actually lived over 900 years?

I do not know.

12. Do you think Noah's worldwide Flood actually happened?

Worldwide? No. Regional? Yes.

13. Do you think that there was one world-wide language up until the tower of babel?

There is good evidence for the relationship of many of the languages to one another so I doubt that all or even most of the languages we have today we created instantly then. The basal languages could have originated through this.

14. Do you think the Children of Israel crossed the sea because of a natural phenominon (a mud slide, for example)?

I do not know. God intervened to provide them dry land upon which to cross. Based on the fact that landslides are known to cause temporary dams consistent with what is recorded, I find it quite possible that God could have arranged for such a landslide at the needed time. Or He could have intervened in a different yet still miraculous way. Wait, that was the Jordan. The sea? Similar answer. Whether He used a natural phenomenon or directly intervened, God provided.

15. Do you believe that Jesus was raised from the dead?

Yes.

a) Why?

See above.

Forgive the short answers, it is 3:00 in the morning. Not exactly peak thinking time.

 

[danrusdad]

The possibility of a localized decrease in entropy is not enough. There has to be some sort of energy conversion mechanism (as in the tree), evolution cannot explain the ORIGIN or DEVELOPEMENT of theis energy conversion mechanism. Further the ordered snowflakes represent a LOWER energy state and therefore are preferred for the crystalline structure. But crystalline structure is an eternity away from the self-developing structure evolution requires.

 

[The Galatian]

I wonder if anyone here thought to mention that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

However, naturally-formed amino acids found in the Murchison meteorite show an excess of L-forms, which is what you would expect if life began naturally.

One poster above is quite right about notions of the spherical Earth. Columbus' critics did not assert the Earth was flat. It had been demonstrated to be spherical hundreds of years before Christ was born, and Eratosthenes, a few hundred years before Christ, came up with a remarkably good measurement of it's circumference.

The language in the Bible reflects an very early belief among Hebrews that the Earth was flat, with a domelike sky. But that didn't last very long. Certainly by Hellenistic times, they knew better.

In Job, the Earth is described as a "circle" instead of a sphere, possibly showing the transition in thinking, as the Early Greeks inferred that the Earth was a disk because of its shadow on the Moon during lunar eclipses.

 

[The Galatian]

The possibility of a localized decrease in entropy is not enough. There has to be some sort of energy conversion mechanism (as in the tree), evolution cannot explain the ORIGIN or DEVELOPEMENT of theis energy conversion mechanism.

True. Evolution only describes the way existing living things change. You are thinking of abiogenesis.

However, since we know that complex, high-energy organic molecules form in the absence of living things, there are no known difficulties in such a thing happening. However, if you prefer to imagine that God used magical, rather than natural means to create life, it's not a problem for evolutionary theory.

 

[Gup20]

You know, if you are going to quote word for word so much, you really should give the reference. Otherwise some might call it plagarism. In this case, don't worry, I found it. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

My mistake. I forgot to post the link at the end of the quote. However, notice that I did set the entire thing off in italics.

Now to your answers.

When asked why you knew you were a Christian, the reason you gave was that you 'recognized that you were a sinful man, and that only through the blood of Jesus, the son of God, could you price of your sin be paid. You asked Jesus to forgive you of your sins and save you'.

I am going to take 'Devil's Advocate'.

[begin]

Just about any time I asked WHY you believed something, you pointed to this statement. This statement seems to be the hinge upon which all of your Christian beliefs hang. However, it also seems to be the sum total of what you believe, and why you believe it. I expected you to say something to the effect of "the bible says xyz". But you never did. The closest you come to referring to the Bible is by saying that you believe the Gospels and the OT prophecies.

Let's break this down, however. You believe that you are a sinful man? What is sinful? Surely you are not referring to 'Biblical Morality'? We already know that Genesis is figurative, and not literal. Most of the Old Testament do's and don'ts come from Genesis. The very idea of morality and 'sin' comes from Genesis. Because Genesis is figurative, so must any verse that quotes or mentions Genesis or the concepts that are in Genesis. For example, the 10 commandments in Exodus - those actually quote God as again saying that the earth was created in 6 calendar days - so we know that this language is figurative, and not meant to be adhered to. It is simply a 'good way to live'. Actually, it is more a part of the Jewish culture of the day then it is pure revelation from God. The early Jews were pretty warlike and so Moses, being a good leader, simply said God was telling them things when in fact, very litte of it was actually God's words... it was more Moses words in the position of authority that God put him in. The Bible describes these things not as a basis for Christian morality, but so that we could see the later struggles of the Israelites and compare & contrast that to the religious freedom we have in Jesus.

Furthermore, I disagree with your interpretation of the Gospels. Clearly, the majority of the Gospels are in parables. These can mean many different things to many people. It's clear from the sytle of the Gospels and from the rest of the Bible's figurative language, that again, these things are non-literal. Jesus' death and resurrection, OBVIOUSLY didn't happen (it is a physical impossibility). These are simply another parable from God. He knew that the people of that time had absolutely no ability to comprehend what was being said, so - like Genesis - God gave us a story of non-literal events to try to reveal the spiritual truth that was far greater than our capacity to understand. He did so through the story of a Jewish prophet named Jesus. The only corroboration of Jesus being the actual 'son of God' is that other men said he was... Peter - who later denied him according to the stories... and then the only other times in the story that Jesus was called the son of God were by supposed raving mad lunatics who were supposedly 'demon possessed'. I don't think we can take the opinions of any of these people... and we can't take Jesus' own word. Sure he was perhaps a prophet, but the things that Jesus supposedly did are simply physically impossible. It is not possible for a virgin to get pregnant, for example. This is further evidence that the entire account of Jesus in the New Testament is entirely non-literal and figurative.

It clear from this then, that it is not important in WHAT we believe, but that we DO believe that God is out there somewhere. I mean we can look at the physical evidence and see that 99.9% of the Bible didn't actually happen. History tells us, for example, that there was not a time when the Jews were slaves of the Egyptians. During the dynasties of the pharaoh's there is no mention of them in Egyptian culture. This is a clear indication that even this part of the Bible is figurative and not literal. We can see from evolution that the creation account in Genesis never happened. We can see from Geology that the world-wide flood of Genesis never happened. Moreover it is a rediculous impossibility for Noah to round up two of every single animal on the earth.... and that two of each animal could produce the magnificent variety we see today. Supposedly this flood was a few short millenium ago, yet we can see fossil records dating back millions, and billions of years. We can see stratigraphy that is millions of years. You would think that if the whole world flooded just a few thousand years ago there would be some pretty serious evidence in Geology... yet all we see are millions of years of layers.

Clearly, then, UTE our interpretation of the scriptures is different. I do believe they are true, just not literally as they are written. I just think that for you to try to base your belief in the Christian religion based on the Bible is really absurd. Clearly, and you agree with me, the majority of what is in the Bible didn't happen the way the Bible says it did. Clearly, most of it is story and not literal language. Why then are you so apt and willing to base your life on something that isn't real? You seem pretty sure that you are going to heaven based on a literal interpretation of that book that we have now proven isn't literal at all. What gives the Christian religion any more relevance to 'going to heaven' then any other religion. Every other religion i have seen has had their own creation myths... their own flood myths... their own savior myths. Why can't a Muslim, for example, also go to heaven. Their Bible, the quaran, is supposedly based on ancient Jewish culture as well. There is no reason that I see to put any greater trust in the bible over the quaran? What about Buddism? Those guys are for more peaceful and do right things much more than most Christians I have ever seen. It seems to me that the evidence of the way they live their lives far outweighs the good any christian has done. There is no reason to take the Christian religion over that.

No... the message that we can learn from the bible is that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are a good person. All religions basically point to that. Try to be a good person and you will see heaven. The bible is no more a literal 'revelation from God' than any other 'holy book'. You yourself have confirmed this. You and I agree that the Bible is almost primarily figurative. Yet you hold to some literal meaning as though that one literal paragraph in an entire book we have proven to be inaccurate and non-literal would somehow "save you".

You really need to get enlightened here, UTE. I think that after this you can see how foolish any literal belief in the Bible is. Only, try to learn all you can about all the religions, and then try to find a commonality and hold fast to that commonality. No one religions has all the right answers.

Especially christianity... based on a book with so many inaccuracies, inconsistencies that it definately can't be literal.

[/end devils advocacy]


Those reading keep in mind that the potion of 'devils advocate' there is not my feeling, but I was simply trying to show UTEOTW the result or end game to his position.

Had I answered those questions, UTE, I would have given the scripture references to why I believed what I believed on each question. Why? Because I believe that every word of the bible is inspired truth. I believe it is entirely factual, accurate, and I believe that Genesis is literal. I believe that the Gospels which quote and are based on Genesis are also literal.

If you actually ran accross an unsaved person and tried to give them this load of crap that you believe Genesis is not literal, they would agree with you. Furthermore they would tear your faith to shreds because it is based on a fairy tale.

Let me ask you a question, UTE. How much have you personally contributed to the observation and formation of the Theory of Evolution? Do you support it, or have you actually done published scientific work defining and sustaining the theory?

I am going on the assumption that it is something that you have been convinced is true. I doubt that you have actually dug up fossils... radiometicly dated them... etc etc etc.

So then it can accurately be said that you believe the evidence of evolution.

I would submit that the evidence that supports and upholds evolution was, for the vast majority, collected and obtained by atheists and humanists. Moreover the theories behind evolution were created by humanists. Moreover evolution itself is one of the most cherished and celebrated achievements of humanists and atheists. Darwin, for example, and his brother were both proclaimed humanists. Darwin day is the biggest holiday and celebration on the 'humanist society' calander.

What I am getting at is that you have demonstrated that you are far more willing to believe the word of atheists and humanists above the Word of God (the Bible). You are more apt to believe people who are out to disprove and discredit God directly, then supporting the Bible. In a day and time when good and evil are becoming such distict polar opposites, you are siding with the wrong side, my friend.

But I truely believe that you are willing to believe the Bible. Otherwise I would have given up on you on page 10 of this thread. For example, if we were to sit down together and speak of God's love (rather than creation vs evolution) I am confident that you would have no problem seeing the verses on love as literal and quote from the Bible left and right (as I do with creation). However, any verse that opposes natual humanistic evolution you put up this wall against. Anything in the Bible that gives us clues that evolution is not the answer you shy away from and claim to want to look rather at the physical evidence to make your decision. If we sat down with one another and spoke of Jesus, or his resurrection you would probably be able to quote verses to me supporting and revealing truth about the resurrection. You would quote them freely and trust their literal meaning. Yet, we come to any verses describing or backing anything that the modern scientific community has scientifically rejected and that portion of scripture is suddenly non-literal... it didn't happen as the Bible says it did.

UTEOTW, the Bible says that all one must do to be saved is believe and confess with your mouth. You have told me you believed - so according to the Word you are a christian... you will go to heaven. However, I think that it is a slippery backward slope that you are treading on. I have shown you in the Devil's advocate section only a tiny glimpse of what is possible, and the holes in your arguments that lead to rejection of Christ entirely. I was prayinig for you and for this conversation last night, and that is why I felt lead to ask you those 15 questions. I did pray that whether I be right or wrong that truth would be reavealed to both of us through this conversation.

I hope something I have said makes an impact.

 

[Gup20]

The possibility of a localized decrease in entropy is not enough. There has to be some sort of energy conversion mechanism (as in the tree), evolution cannot explain the ORIGIN or DEVELOPEMENT of theis energy conversion mechanism. Further the ordered snowflakes represent a LOWER energy state and therefore are preferred for the crystalline structure. But crystalline structure is an eternity away from the self-developing structure evolution requires.

Great post, and welcome. It's a breath of fresh air to have new people posting in this thread!

BTW, I agree with you. Your point is very good.

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

Clearly the Bible advocates that the earth will 'wax old' and wear out as does a garment. It says that those that live on the earth do the same! WOW! The Bible actually supports the 2nd law of thermodynamics and it's application to biological systems! As a matter of fact this verse is a very 'down to earth' description of 'Entropy'.

I wonder if anyone here thought to mention that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

Hello and welcome to you as well. It is good to have new folks join the discussion.

I disagree with your point, however. It shows the origin of MAN. That's really what humanism is all about... did we get here through a natural random process or were we directly created and accountable to our creator. Are we accountable to Nature or to God?

However, if you prefer to imagine that God used magical, rather than natural means to create life, it's not a problem for evolutionary theory.

The only problem with evolution is that it is the opposite of what God tells us happened in the Bible. I use the parallel to Eve in the garden of eden. God's word was that any who eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would die. Satan tried to question that word of God to Eve (Hath God said?), and eve quoted God's word to Satan. However, she did get part of the word wrong. God never said they shouldn't touch the tree... just that they shouldn't eat of it. She quoted what God had said and then opened to the door for Satan when she misquoted the Word. Satan then went after Eve's knowledge of the Word - contradicting the Word with a lie (surely God hath not said...). Then Eve was convinced to eat the apple because of the physical evidence - she saw the apple that it was pleasing to look at and good for eating. Had she interpreted what she saw by the truth of God's word, she would have seen the apple for what it was - sin and death. But she allowed herself to contradict the word of God in her interpretation of the 'evidence' around her.

So I do not question that the apple looks good for eating - evolution has some compelling evidences - however if we interpret those evidences within the truth of God's word instead of with a humanistic, Satanically influenced lens, we can arrive at a truthful conclusion. The Bible says that God created the Earth and all life on it in six literal days. By the genealogies we know that it was ~6000 years ago. We know that there was a worldwide flood about ~4300 years ago. If we do not take this truth from the Word of God into account when interpreting the evidences around us, we will come to the wrong conclusions.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian muses:
I wonder if anyone here thought to mention that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

Hello and welcome to you as well. It is good to have new folks join the discussion.

Thank you for your kindness.

I disagree with your point, however. It shows the origin of MAN.

That is not the orgin of life. There were living things on the Earth long before man arrived.

That's really what humanism is all about...

This is what humanism is all about:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/humanism.htm

It was a Christian reform movement that sparked the Reformation. You are probably thinking about "secular humanism", which is quite another thing, and misleadingly named. It has nothing whatever to do with Christian belief.

did we get here through a natural random process or were we directly created and accountable to our creator. Are we accountable to Nature or to God?

You may be pleased to know that evolutionary theory does not say we arrived here by a random process, or that we are accountable to nature rather than God. Most of us accept God as the Creator of nature and of each of us, albeit by natural means.

Barbarian observes:
However, if you prefer to imagine that God used magical, rather than natural means to create life, it's not a problem for evolutionary theory.

The only problem with evolution is that it is the opposite of what God tells us happened in the Bible.

No, that's a common misconception. In fact, most Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with God's creation. The Bible really says nothing at all about the mechanism of evolution. It says nothing about superconductivity, or plate tectonics, either.

The Bible is about man and God and our relationship, not about science.

I use the parallel to Eve in the garden of eden. God's word was that any who eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would die. Satan tried to question that word of God to Eve (Hath God said?), and eve quoted God's word to Satan. However, she did get part of the word wrong. God never said they shouldn't touch the tree... just that they shouldn't eat of it. She quoted what God had said and then opened to the door for Satan when she misquoted the Word. Satan then went after Eve's knowledge of the Word - contradicting the Word with a lie (surely God hath not said...). Then Eve was convinced to eat the apple because of the physical evidence - she saw the apple that it was pleasing to look at and good for eating. Had she interpreted what she saw by the truth of God's word, she would have seen the apple for what it was - sin and death. But she allowed herself to contradict the word of God in her interpretation of the 'evidence' around her.

The serpent was a Biblical literalist. He told Eve that she would not die in the day she ate from it. But the serpent meant a physical death and God was speaking of a spiritual death. So Adam and Eve ate, and did not die. That is, not the way the serpent meant. The serpent, BTW, symbolized wisdom, healing, and immortality among the semetic peoples at that time.

Do you think the serpent was telling the truth when he told them that they would become like God, if they ate from the tree?

So I do not question that the apple looks good for eating - evolution has some compelling evidences

Science, as you know is value-neutral. Evidence is all that counts.

however if we interpret those evidences within the truth of God's word instead of with a humanistic, Satanically influenced lens,

Is that what you've been taught scientists do? No wonder you think you hate it. I'd hate it, too, if I believed that.

we can arrive at a truthful conclusion.

As you might know, "truth" in science is always provisional on the evidence. It remains open to new evidence and revision or removal of theories as the evidence indicates. That's why evolutionary theory has changed from time to time, as new evidence has appeared.

The Bible says that God created the Earth and all life on it in six literal days.

That is not something evolutionary theory can say anything about. It is only about the changes in existing life.

By the genealogies we know that it was ~6000 years ago.

The geneologies clearly have gaps and some of it is clearly figurative. Adam's death, for example, as God predicted it, did not happen that day as a physical phenomenon. It was a spiritual death. God used Genesis as a figurative way to discuss creation and man's fall.

We know that there was a worldwide flood about ~4300 years ago.

The evidence rules out such a thing. It is not possible, unless God very carefully planted a great deal of false evidence. Would you like to talk about some of the evidence?

If we do not take this truth from the Word of God into account when interpreting the evidences around us, we will come to the wrong conclusions.

When reality and Scripture seem to be in conflict, it is because we have misunderstood one or both of them. Either is equally likely.

Let's talk about some of this and see if we can get some common ground.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
[qb] I wonder if anyone here thought to mention that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

Click HERE
to see where in this thread it was "last" noticed that Richard Dawkins states certain "claims" of evolution and "Starting from Nothing" and then evolving a living planet.

Of course - you won't see this "detail" admitted to by our believers in evolutionism on this board - but that just provides opportunity to - point to the "fact" again.

(This post made with certain acknowledgements to Mercury)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Galatian --
When reality and Scripture seem to be in conflict, it is because we have misunderstood one or both of them. Either is equally likely

So very true. In fact as has been shown repeatedly on this an other threads - it is really the battle between God's Word and "junk-science". Evolutionists seek to appeal to junk-science "as if" it were an embrace of "good science" and then use blue-sky speculation as "proof" that the Word of God is false, untrustworthy in its "detail" etc.

In their attempts to cast junk-science (speculation in the obscure, absurd and "improbable" as Richard Dawkins admits) as "good science" they reveal the lack of objectivity and critical thinking "needed" for the myths and fables of evolutionism to "survive" -- among atheist and even among some Christians.

What THIS thread was "trying" to address - is the glaring contrast between scripture and that junk-science that is called evolutionism today.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only problem with evolution is that it is the opposite of what God tells us happened in the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galatian
No, that's a common misconception. In fact, most Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with God's creation. The Bible really says nothing at all about the mechanism of evolution.

That is a common fallacy. As when the obvious statement is made that the Bible DOES address the subject of creation, the CREATOR, the origin of all life on the planet and then to have a response in the form "No - not true. The Bible says nothing about how the easter bunny works".

Obviously the Bible does not promote evolution or speak to it except to say "The fool has said in his heart - there is no God". Meaning that the fool must then account for all of life and nature "without God" as the explanation.

hmmmm - sound familiar?

Anyway - the point is -- it is a rabbit trail often taken by our evolutionist brethren. Who can blame them?

The Genesis 1-2:3 "account" speaks of the ORIGIN - the CREATION of all plant life, all life in the sea and all life on the land INCLUDING mankind AS well as the creation of the TWO GREAT lights in the heavens.

(Obviously).

The believers in evolutionism will counter with "but pretend you did not notice those details -- pretend you only started reading the Bible in the account where God is already TALKING to mankind in the garden".

Pretend the Bible account is JUST about

Galation
... about man and God and our relationship,

As opposed to thinking that the Bible is trying to address the junk-science of evolutionism.

I realize that this is a favored fairytale for the believers in evolutionism. What I don't understand is "HOW" they think it is a compelling argument to "pretend" we don't actually READ the details in scripture where God explicitly addressing God MAKING all forms of life.

FOR in SIX days the LORD MADE the heavens the earth the sea and ALL that is in them...

And God SAID let the earth bring forth...

And evening and morning where the 3rd day.

These glaring Bible contradictions to the junk-science myths we know today as "evolutionism".

The contradictions "exist" - the emperor has no clothes.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gup20]

Hello again Galatian - allow me to respond to some of your points.

When I refer to humanism, I refer to any idea, theology, or principle that attempts to assert man's ideas as being superior to God's, or any of such which attempt to elevate man or man's wisdom to be equal with God.

http://glhumanist.org/

This is the type of humanism I refer to.

You may be pleased to know that evolutionary theory does not say we arrived here by a random process, or that we are accountable to nature rather than God. Most of us accept God as the Creator of nature and of each of us, albeit by natural means.

While it does please me most Christians accept God as the Creator of nature, I do not agree that it was entirely by natural means that each of us were created.

It is clear from your post that you either have not read this entire thread, or still have questions. Those who have been following this thread throughout may find a lot of what I will say to be review, however, I do not mind. It is worth repeating. I welcome the opportunity to share the Word with you.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The only problem with evolution is that it is the opposite of what God tells us happened in the Bible.

No, that's a common misconception. In fact, most Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with God's creation.</font>[/QUOTE]Evolution describes a process whereby single cell organisms increased in information, changing form and evolving into higher creatures from lower creatures via mutation. Natural selection directionally forced the mutative changes upward through the tree of life molding organisms into simple animals, then complex animals and ultimately into man. It did this by killing off creatures containing non-beneficial mutations, so that only those with good mutations survived to breed and mutate. This process took billions of years.

In contrast, the Bible describes the creation of the earth in six literal days approximately 6000 years ago. It says that man was created within three solar days (~ 72 hours) of the first living cells. It says that man was created instantly from dust on the 6th day of the creative process as a stand alone unit, and not as the result of billions of years of evolutionary process (man did not come from monkeys, for example). Some period of time after the creation of the world by God, man sinned and at this point death entered the world as a result of that sin. Man was now condemned to death and hell. The world became increasingly corrupted and evil and violent until the days of Noah when God killed every living thing on the earth except for Noah, his family, and the animals which Noah had taken with him on the Ark. Through the Hebrew people God made a way for us to have atonement in the sacrifice of His son Jesus Christ who came as a man to the earth to die and be resurrected. Those who believe on Jesus will be given new bodies to live forever with Christ in heaven. This is a stark contrast to the evolution process. If we believe the Bible is true, then we must accept that the world was created in 6 actual days, including all the lifeforms therein. Clearly 24 hours is not enough time for the evolution process to occur.

The Bible really says nothing at all about the mechanism of evolution.

God specifically says that specific Kinds of creatures do not reproduce other kinds of creatures, but only creatures like themselves. The specific kinds listed include fish, land animals, and birds (and others). Therefore we know that fish cannot turn into land animals, and land animals cannot turn into birds, for example. Moreover, the Bible specifically states (Romans 5:12) that death did not enter the world until Adam's sin. Therefore the mechanism for evolution (Natural Selection) would not have occured before the sin of Adam at The Fall. Moreover the New Testament gives further credence to Genesis. In 1 Corinthians 15:39 it says:

1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

That is a pretty direct statement against the possibility of evolution turning fish into beasts and then beasts into men.

It says nothing about superconductivity, or plate tectonics, either.

I would respectfully disagree with this notion as well. The Bible does indeed give us an indication that plate tectonic activity had occured. It says in Genesis 1:9 that the water was gahered into one place ... the assumption being that the land was also in one place. AiG has an article on Techtonics that is very interesting. It says: The model also provides a mechanism for retreat of the flood waters. Psalm 104:6-7 describes the abating of the waters which had stood above the mountains. Verse 8 most naturally translates as, ‘The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down,’ implying that vertical earth movements were the dominant tectonic forces operating at the close of the flood, in contrast to the horizontal forces dominant during the spreading phase.

Plate collisions would have pushed up mountains, while cooling of the new ocean floor would have increased its density, causing it to sink and thus deepen the new ocean basins to receive the retreating flood waters. It may be significant, therefore, that the ‘mountains of Ararat’ (Genesis 8:4), the resting place of the ark after the 150th day of the flood, are in a tectonically active region at what is believed to be the junction of three crustal plates.

The Bible is about man and God and our relationship, not about science.

However, the Bible is ultimate truth. While it is not a book of science, where it touches on science and history it is accurate and true. How do we know that we can trust the history and science of the Bible? Jesus himself tells us we can trust the Bibles history and science -

Luk 16:10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
Luk 16:11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true [riches]?

Which is to say, if you can't trust the natural, how can you trust the spiritual. This whole chapter attacks materialism and humanism. I believe it is God's word to the evolutionist.

Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

The serpent was a Biblical literalist. He told Eve that she would not die in the day she ate from it. But the serpent meant a physical death and God was speaking of a spiritual death. So Adam and Eve ate, and did not die. That is, not the way the serpent meant. The serpent, BTW, symbolized wisdom, healing, and immortality among the semetic peoples at that time.

Actually, the serpent was Satan. The serpent questioned God's word. A Biblical literist would have said - dont' eat that apple... you will die. The serpent's lie was in contradicting the literal word of God. Hath God said? Surely God hath not said.

Do you think the serpent was telling the truth when he told them that they would become like God, if they ate from the tree?

Yes, the serpent was telling the truth in this. This was not a lie. The lie was the contradiction to God's word.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:


The lie was th econtradiction to God's Word. He told them they wouldn't die, when God said they would if they ate the fruit. We see from scripture that death entered the world on that day.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

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

The geneologies clearly have gaps and some of it is clearly figurative. Adam's death, for example, as God predicted it, did not happen that day as a physical phenomenon. It was a spiritual death. God used Genesis as a figurative way to discuss creation and man's fall.

The geneologies are sound without gaps. And please tell me how geneologies can be figurative - remember however:

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

In fact death did enter Adam's body on that very same day he sinned. Death entered the whole of creation on that day.

The evidence rules out such a thing. It is not possible, unless God very carefully planted a great deal of false evidence. Would you like to talk about some of the evidence?

However, the Bible proclaims irrefutably that the whole earth was flooded. You must choose at this point which to believe - the Bible, or man.

Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Would I like to talk about evidence? I am giving you all the Biblical evidence you need to arrive at the truth. For Biblical truth is able to stand on it's own without physical evidence. It is my policy to debate christians with biblical evidence and non-christians with... Biblical evidence supported by physical evidence.

When reality and Scripture seem to be in conflict, it is because we have misunderstood one or both of them. Either is equally likely.

Let's talk about some of this and see if we can get some common ground.

While reality and Scripture seem to be in conflict for the evolutionist, it is in perfect harmony for the Young Earth creationist (or Biblical literist or whatever label suits us). Moreover, God and his Word never change... science and our carnal understanding changes from day to day. I am glad the Bible is not a scientific textbook... it would have to be re-written every year! The Bible is, however ultimate truth, and where it touches on science and history it is 100% accurate and true.

 

[BobRyan]

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

The facts are not changing - though your stories are more fun to read.

#1. The glass of water on the back porch - falls and breaks - when it does - heat is produced but the glass does not return to its former shape.

#2. Asimov admits that INSTEAD of seeing local DECREASES in entropy - we see local INCREASES and the evidence is in the every day individual "effort" needed to maintain all biological systems.

The fact does not change - though your story is confused by it.

#3. Asimov ALSO admits that evolutionism NEEDS a "massive DECREASE" in entropy for molecule-to-brain evolutionism to have taken place.

We have what Asimov clearly shows that we SEE (real science) vs what evolutionism NEEDS (junk-science).

The fact remains. Though your story is confused by it.

Your G-H-TS model fails to account for the simple facts that Asimov stated regarding the REAL increase in entropy in local biological systems - SEEN every day - constant and continuous. But it only fails - because you fail to apply it. G-H-TS may notice that the stove gets hotter as the gas burns - but then take it up a level - and it will observe that WORK is needed to get the experiment setup in the first place. Stoves don't naturally acquire propane.

Your scenario is somewhat contrived.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
[qb] I wonder if anyone here thought to mention that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

Click HERE
to see where in this thread it was "last" noticed that Richard Dawkins states certain "claims" of evolution and "Starting from Nothing" and then evolving a living planet.

I don't give Dawkins much credibility, because he keeps trying to use science to disprove God.
However, Darwin, who actually came up with the theory, did not include the origin of life in his. The only major reworking of the theory came about when geneticists added their part to it, but that didn't involve the origin of life, either.

In science, a theory is responsible only for the claims it actually makes.

If you want to hoot at Dawkins' modification of the theory, I'll join you.

Just so we're all on the same page, here's the basic theory:

1. More organisms are produced than can live.

2. Every population has variation (due to random mutation or recombination)

3. Some variations affect an organism's ability to live long enough to reproduce.

4. The favorable ones tend to be preserved, and the unfavorable ones tend to be eliminated.

5. Changes accumulate over time, to produce new species.

That's it. Nothing about the origin of life. And all of it has been observed.

 

[The Galatian]

Barbarian observes:
When reality and Scripture seem to be in conflict, it is because we have misunderstood one or both of them. Either is equally likely

So very true. In fact as has been shown repeatedly on this an other threads - it is really the battle between God's Word and "junk-science". Evolutionists seek to appeal to junk-science "as if" it were an embrace of "good science" and then use blue-sky speculation as "proof" that the Word of God is false, untrustworthy in its "detail" etc.

I take it you aren't a biologist. Perhaps if you learned a bit about evolution and the evidence for it, you'd be less emotional in your aversion to it.

In their attempts to cast junk-science (speculation in the obscure, absurd and "improbable" as Richard Dawkins admits) as "good science" they reveal the lack of objectivity and critical thinking "needed" for the myths and fables of evolutionism to "survive" -- among atheist and even among some Christians.

Your post lacks content. It's difficult for me to help you understand, if I don't know what's bothering you about it.

What THIS thread was "trying" to address - is the glaring contrast between scripture and that junk-science that is called evolutionism today.

I have no idea what "evolutionism" is, but most Christians admit that scripture and evolutionary theory are compatible.