Stunning victory of Creation

[Paul of Eugene]

But an animal that had back legs and used them for locomotion most certainly did not have the imposing whale flukes that whales now boast. Their formation came about by new information. In like fashion, horses once in an earlier epoch had three toes on their feet, and the enlargment and enhancement of the current single hoof required new information, in addition to the losing of the old.

 

[Scott J]

Paul, Rather than going into detail again I will just summarize. There is no definitive proof that any new information was acquired- that is an interpretation based ultimately on a bias. Possible? Yes. Definitive? No. Further, we have observed mechanisms for adaptation by loss or by use of inherited abilities to adapt that involve no higher level of complexity.

 

[UTEOTW]

Which is why I have asked you about Behe style ID. Remember, he accepts common descent (even for man) but says that evolutionary mechanisms are incapable of producing the irreducibly complex designs that we see all by itself. (A notion with which I disagree, BTW.)

You seem to agree that the best explanation of what we see with the whales is that they have a land dwelling ancestor. Otherwise much about them was given for no useful reason. (Even-toed ungulate DNA, olfactory pseudogenes, developmental legs, atavistic legs, etc.) But to make the change, they obviously got new traits. Flukes, echo location, the ability to process salt water instead of fresh (this progress can be traced in the oxygen isotope ratios of the fossils), the movement of the nose to the top of the head, the ability to seal the nose off from water, the filters of the baleen whales, the streamlined body and so on. These new traits came from somewhere!

Once you admit that these new traits came about, they are such major changes that you can no longer claim that change is restricted to minor variation within "kinds," whatever that may be. Denying these changes means going back to having no reason why an intelligent designer would provide traits as discussed to a marine mammal.

And though many YEers will claim that the basis for change is rich intial genome, none seem to be able to say exactly what this means or to provide any support for such a concept.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Which is why I have asked you about Behe style ID. Remember, he accepts common descent (even for man) but says that evolutionary mechanisms are incapable of producing the irreducibly complex designs that we see all by itself. (A notion with which I disagree, BTW.)

Maybe to a certain extent. I would definitely disagree that man shares an ancestor with a beast. However, I would not consider it unreasonable to surmise that not all descending branches of Adam's progeny were equally endowed.

But to make the change, they obviously got new traits. Flukes, echo location, the ability to process salt water instead of fresh (this progress can be traced in the oxygen isotope ratios of the fossils), the movement of the nose to the top of the head, the ability to seal the nose off from water, the filters of the baleen whales, the streamlined body and so on. These new traits came from somewhere!

Or they were inate traits of a distant past ancestor that were activated by environment while lost to the descendents that stayed on land.

Again, every example you have cited is dependent on descendents using the information inherited from the parents. These adaptations are according to programming.

For instance, I can write a formula into MS Excel. When I do so, I have simply used the function of the PC and program as intended by the designer. The PC didn't evolve into a PC with a better processor. The program didn't change into a different program.

Denying these changes means going back to having no reason why an intelligent designer would provide traits as discussed to a marine mammal.

Actually no. God doesn't owe either of us a reason for the way He made things no matter what method He used. There may have been no changes at all. For all we know, the purpose for these traits may never be known to anyone but God this side of glory. It could be for the express purpose of testing our faith in His Word.

The tests He allows us to face would not be tests if there weren't attractive alternatives to obedience. Several NT books are written to address dealing with false teachers that would sound good and lead people astray. We just finished 2 Peter in SS on this theme. God is not responsible for the false interpretations of men. If legitimate sounding interpretations of revelation were not possible then warnings about false teachers would be moot... but instead they are plentiful.

And though many YEers will claim that the basis for change is rich intial genome, none seem to be able to say exactly what this means or to provide any support for such a concept.

The same objection applies to abiogenesis, macroevolution, and the development of new species by acquisition of new genetic information.

In fact, given the resources we could probably give you "support" in the same vein as the 3 examples you posted on another thread. No proof just technical sounding explanations of possibilities. I acknowledge not having a mastery of the technical jargon that would impress you.

However, I do not see where the evidence you have posted is supported by any real, tangible proof any more than my layman's examples.

 

[lchemist]

The Jewish organization ADL in its web page,

http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/create/creationism_QA.asp

makes the following statements:

"Do scientific integrity and equity require that we teach a competing theory of human origins?

Equity, intellectual honesty and scientific integrity do not require the teaching of the religious theories of creation as a differing or alternative point of view to evolution. First, the religious theories of creation do not meet the tenets of science as scientists use the term.
Moreover, it is not a matter of equity to teach a religious point of view in a public school classroom; rather, it is both unconstitutional and very harmful to the integrity of the religious points of view. "

"Has anyone ever proved evolution?

Yes, in exactly the same way that scientists prove any other deeply and widely held scientific claim.

Holders of the religious theories of creation (especially "creation scientists") often demand a much higher level of proof for evolution's claims than they might for other scientific claims. Scientific conclusions are rarely, if ever, arrived at through deductive -- purely logical -- methods. Yet, creationists seem to demand this of evolution scientists; they demand a level of proof that closes every avenue of contention, whether reasonable or not.

Science proceeds by testing theories so as to determine which way the empirical evidence credibly points. The record amassed in favor of evolution is far and away sufficient to draw the conclusion that evolution is the only scientific theory for the origin of the universe appropriate for the classroom. "

"hy is intelligent design theory inappropriate for the science classroom?

As the PBS.org website notes in its discussion of evolution, "'Intelligent design theory' is built on the belief that evolution does not sufficiently explain the complexity that exists in life on Earth and that science should recognize the existence of an 'intelligent designer.' Proponents assert that their criticism of evolution is scientific, not religious. But the various aspects of intelligent design theory have not yet been subjected to the normal process of scientific experimentation and debate, nor have they been accepted by the scientific community. No research supporting the claims of intelligent design has ever been published in any recognized, professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Finally, the question of whether there is an intelligent designer is untestable using the methods of science, and therefore is not a scientific claim."

Since the claims of intelligent design are not adequately tested as science, they are inappropriate for the science classroom. "

What do you think?

Luis

 

[Charles Meadows]

Philip,

Yes I have thought of that. It's possible that all the similar accounts all derive from the same story.

If you are going to argue that the Bible is "God breathed" then you are saying that he used some old myths for the first and then decided to "get real" later on

But remember that it was "God breathed" for the ancient Israelites and not just for us! From the ancients' point of view it might well have made more sense to paint creation in familiar terms rather than to give a brief but exactly scientifically accurate account of the process.

I have no problem with an old earth or a young earth. I have no problem with a literal Genesis 1-11 or a nonliteral Genesis 1-11.

I simply want to know the truth!!

Forgive me but it seems like many here are unwilling to consider anything other than their predetermined desires - namely a literal Genesis 1-11. Which of us limits God?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by lchemist:
The Jewish organization ADL in its web page,

makes the following statements:

"Do scientific integrity and equity require that we teach a competing theory of human origins?

Equity, intellectual honesty and scientific integrity do not require the teaching of the religious theories of creation as a differing or alternative point of view to evolution.

Integrity requires the consideration of any theory that might be true. Education should be first and foremost a pursuit of truth, not an indoctrination dictated by biases.

First, the religious theories of creation do not meet the tenets of science as scientists use the term.

Neither does the purely philosophical presupposition of naturalism made by evolution.

Moreover, it is not a matter of equity to teach a religious point of view in a public school classroom; rather, it is both unconstitutional and very harmful to the integrity of the religious points of view. "

This is false in a number of ways. Number one, ideas that explain things credibly should not be discriminated against simply because they are religiously oriented. Two, it is not necessary to promote a particular religion to teach what the points of view are objectively- strengths and weaknesses.

BTW, secular humanism is a religious philosophy so by discluding all other viewpoints our educational institutions have de facto endorsed a religious opinion.

"Has anyone ever proved evolution?

Yes, in exactly the same way that scientists prove any other deeply and widely held scientific claim.

Wrong to the point of being ridiculous if we are talking about macroevolution.

Macroevolution has no practical application or use. Microevolution does. Practical, applicable science is never dependent on evolution.

Holders of the religious theories of creation (especially "creation scientists") often demand a much higher level of proof for evolution's claims than they might for other scientific claims. Scientific conclusions are rarely, if ever, arrived at through deductive -- purely logical -- methods. Yet, creationists seem to demand this of evolution scientists; they demand a level of proof that closes every avenue of contention, whether reasonable or not.

If evolutionists are going to close every avenue of contention then a high level of proof should be expected, should it not? Evolutionists want to arbitrarily declare these other avenues closed but it is the creationists who are being unreasonably demanding? On the one hand, it is being argued that only evolution be taught for origins and on the other that evolution should not be held to a high level of proof.

Science proceeds by testing theories so as to determine which way the empirical evidence credibly points. The record amassed in favor of evolution is far and away sufficient to draw the conclusion that evolution is the only scientific theory for the origin of the universe appropriate for the classroom. "

This is a subjective statement.

"hy is intelligent design theory inappropriate for the science classroom?

As the PBS.org website notes in its discussion of evolution, "'Intelligent design theory' is built on the belief that evolution does not sufficiently explain the complexity that exists in life on Earth and that science should recognize the existence of an 'intelligent designer.'

So what is wrong with pointing this fact out? You don't even have to teach an alternative theory if an honest criticism of evolution's enormous weaknesses were given.

But the various aspects of intelligent design theory have not yet been subjected to the normal process of scientific experimentation and debate, nor have they been accepted by the scientific community.

And of course if they can be purged from the classroom and the academic community, they never will be.

No research supporting the claims of intelligent design has ever been published in any recognized, professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

I am fairly certain that this is untrue. But even if it is generally true, it doesn't prove anything except institutional bias in favor or evolution and naturalism.

Finally, the question of whether there is an intelligent designer is untestable using the methods of science, and therefore is not a scientific claim."

So is the claim that all things have a natural cause.

What do you think?

Luis

I think I am not surprised that leftist groups like the ADL and PBS are biased in this way.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:


But remember that it was "God breathed" for the ancient Israelites and not just for us! From the ancients' point of view it might well have made more sense to paint creation in familiar terms rather than to give a brief but exactly scientifically accurate account of the process.

I disagree. For them, Genesis would have "literally" been an act of deception by God.

If you tell someone something knowing that they will accept it as meaning something that you know to be untrue- you have lied. There is no reason for God to have used the specific terms in Genesis if they were not a truthful representation of what occurred.

The OT is full of language that could have otherwise been employed. God did not have to be specific. He could have said in the days of eternity... or before man was formed... or before I knew man and lifted him up from among the beast of the field... or (fill in the blank).

The language used simply isn't all that ambiguous. It isn't as detailed as perhaps all of us would like but it isn't unclear as to its literal implications.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Scott,

I disagree. For them, Genesis would have "literally" been an act of deception by God.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Have you actually read much Assyrian, Babylonian, Ugaritic, or proto-arabic mythology?

These people didn't have the same mindset as we do.

I won't be so presumptuous as to say that I KNOW the ANE mindset. But it seems many here seem think that they CAN speak for them! Why is it that a Bedouin tribal chieftain can say be say he's 80 when actually no one knows how old he is? And yet none of his clan thinks he's a liar!

Like I said - I just want to know the truth!! My faith in God will not diminish no matter what - old earth or young.

Can YOU honestly say that?

 

[lchemist]

Scott:

You have made good points about the ADL statements, I was surprised of their refusal to admit a debate on the issue in the classroom.

Originally posted by Scott J:

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
[qb] There is no reason for God to have used the specific terms in Genesis if they were not a truthful representation of what occurred.

They are truthful, but not historical. Myth is probably the best way to convey spiritual truth.

The OT is full of language that could have otherwise been employed. God did not have to be specific. He could have said in the days of eternity... or before man was formed... or before I knew man and lifted him up from among the beast of the field... or (fill in the blank).

Again, he could, but he did not, we should deal with what he did.

The language used simply isn't all that ambiguous. It isn't as detailed as perhaps all of us would like but it isn't unclear as to its literal implications.

They have profound implications, but not literal, I prefer literary.

Blesings,

Luis

 

[UTEOTW]

"Maybe to a certain extent. I would definitely disagree that man shares an ancestor with a beast. "

God's creation disagrees with you. Take a look at this thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/19.html?

One example from the thread.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
The next subject to look at is retroviral DNA insertions.

"Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences," Welkin E. Johnson and John M. Coffin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 96, Issue 18, 10254-10260, August 31, 1999.

Here, about a dozen different retroviral DNA inserts are used to construct the evolutionary tree of human and the other apes and primates. See the following chart to see how closely the different inserts match.
http://www.pnas.org/content/vol96/issue18/images/large/pq1892815002.jpeg

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The genomes of modern humans are riddled with thousands of endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), the proviral remnants of ancient viral infections of the primate lineage. Most HERVs are nonfunctional, selectively neutral loci. This fact, coupled with their sheer abundance in primate genomes, makes HERVs ideal for exploitation as phylogenetic markers.
...
Endogenous retrovirus loci provide no less than three sources of phylogenetic signal, which can be used in complementary fashion to obtain much more information than simple distance estimates of homologous sequences. First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (&gt;1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14). Furthermore, integrated proviruses are extremely stable: there is no mechanism for removing proviruses precisely from the genome, without leaving behind a solo LTR or deleting chromosomal DNA. The distribution of an ERV among related species also reflects the age of the provirus: older loci are found among widely divergent species, whereas younger proviruses are limited to more closely related species. In theory, the species distribution of a set of known integration sites can be used to construct phylogenetic trees in a manner similar to restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis.

Emphasis added.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254

There are many such papers out there using LTRs to trace evolution. Here is another.

Liao, D., Pavelitz, T., & Weiner, A.M. (1998). Characterization of a novel class of interspersed LTR elements in primate genomes: structure, genomic distribution, and evolution. JMolEvol, 46, 649-660.

Phylogenetic analysis of the LTR13 family confirms that it is diverse, but the orthologous U2-LTRs form a coherent group in which chimpanzee is closest to the humans; orangutan is a clear outgroup of human, chimpanzee, and gorilla; and baboon is a distant relative of human, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan.

And another...
"Evolutionary implications of primate endogenous retroviruses," Shih A, Coutavas EE, Rush MG, Virology. 1991 Jun;182(2):495-502.

In the second study, a comparison of endogenous proviral DNAs and their adjacent sequences has been used to analyze the evolutionary history of three previously reported human endogenous retroviruses, HERV-E(4.14), HERV-R(3), and HERV-Ia. It is shown that these retroviruses have also been resident in the primate line since before the ape-Old World monkey divergence.

There are many more that can be found with a little searching. </font>[/QUOTE]And the hard part for you to explain related to this.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
There is another complication that arises when looking at these examples. Let me use the retroviral DNA insertions as an example.

As shown above, humans and the other apes and primates share insertions that demonstrate their common ancestry. (The quote is "Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place.") In a young earth hypothesis, this is a major problem. You would have to assume that the humans and all the "kinds" (whatever that may be) of primates and apes were infected by the same combination of virii, that they all inserted the exact same sequence in the same place, and that all these insertions were fixed into the various species.

Furthermore, since these insertions are common between essentially all humans, in a young earth they all must have taken place in the (about) ten generations between the creation and the last common ancestor (Noah) and none have taken place since. Unlikely.

It is quite a stretch to suggest that ALL of the retroviral insertion in humans happen to have been in just the first ten generations and that furthermore all other apes had all of the exact same insertions at the exact same locations. We are talking about a few percent of your TOTAL genome here.

And remember, we ar looking for the most likely explanation. Sure, God could have supernaturally placed all of that material there. But, if so, He then made a few percent of your genome useless viral DNA and carefully placed that DNA into a wide variety of animals in just such a pattern to make it look like evolution happened and in a way that agrees completely many many other independent ways in which evolution is indicated.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Integrity requires the consideration of any theory that might be true. Education should be first and foremost a pursuit of truth, not an indoctrination dictated by biases.

OK so far.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> First, the religious theories of creation do not meet the tenets of science as scientists use the term.

Neither does the purely philosophical presupposition of naturalism made by evolution.
</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but like all the sciences, the science of evolution does not deal with the philosophy of naturalism; it ignores all such philosophies. It is true that philosophers of naturalism have constructed their philosophy to be compatible with science but that is neither here nor there for our purposes.

Number one, ideas that explain things credibly should not be discriminated against simply because they are religiously oriented. Two, it is not necessary to promote a particular religion to teach what the points of view are objectively- strengths and weaknesses.

I'm sorry, but in the United States promoting religous points of view is against the constitution. This keeps us from having "equal rights" given to navajo, apache, hawiian, oriental religious theories of creation.

BTW, secular humanism is a religious philosophy so by discluding all other viewpoints our educational institutions have de facto endorsed a religious opinion.

Another false statement. "secular" MEANS not religious.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />[qb]"Has anyone ever proved evolution?
Yes, in exactly the same way that scientists prove any other deeply and widely held scientific claim.

Wrong to the point of being ridiculous if we are talking about macroevolution.
</font>[/QUOTE]Wrong to the point of being reidiculous about macroevolution. We have genetic relationships, vestigal remnants, retroviral insertion overlaps, genetic mistakes carried across species, morphological fossil histories, all showing the fact of common descent of life.

Macroevolution has no practical application or use. Microevolution does. Practical, applicable science is never dependent on evolution.

??? you judge science by the standard of "practical" instead of truth? Do you begrudge astronomers evaluating the expansion rate of the universe? Do you begrudge archeologists investigating ancient indian sites?

If evolutionists are going to close every avenue of contention then a high level of proof should be expected, should it not? Evolutionists want to arbitrarily declare these other avenues closed but it is the creationists who are being unreasonably demanding? On the one hand, it is being argued that only evolution be taught for origins and on the other that evolution should not be held to a high level of proof.

Evolution has met the highest standards of proof which suffices all objective viewers - only the power of religous dogma is able to blind the interpreter of the evidence.

why is intelligent design theory inappropriate for the science classroom?

Because it is not yet accepted as valid science. One does not put in the wildest speculations from the outskirts into the basic science courses.

God has marvelously prepared His scripture by first setting in the statements about the days of creation - which I personally think is the closest to the real truth God could get into the narrative and still have the ancients pass it along as a credible narrative from generation to generation - and then slip in the statement that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years!

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by lchemist:
Myth is probably the best way to convey spiritual truth.

Okay, sounds reasonable. Since we no longer understand the mindset of the 1st century Jew, I think we should consider Mathew, Mark, Luke and John as myth. Exactly what spiritual truth this mythical book imparts, I certainly wouldn't know.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lchemist:
Myth is probably the best way to convey spiritual truth.

Okay, sounds reasonable. Since we no longer understand the mindset of the 1st century Jew, I think we should consider Mathew, Mark, Luke and John as myth. Exactly what spiritual truth this mythical book imparts, I certainly wouldn't know. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you want to face God on judgment day and explain to him why you advised people who believe the facts as science has taught us to not believe in Jesus?

 

[UTEOTW]

"Or they were inate traits of a distant past ancestor that were activated by environment while lost to the descendents that stayed on land."

You are opening the door here to ALL artiodactyls being one "kind." We are talking whales, dolphins, deer, camels, pigs, hippos, etc. That is the partial list of modern descendents of that "distant past ancestor." Is that really the door you want to open? That is allowing for huge change within "kinds."

You also have the problem of explaining how such wide ranging changes as what were seen in the whales would have been programmed into the "distant past ancestor" without being expressed. Yes, I know that you do not "have control of billions of research dollars" you need to answer the questions. But I still have not seen a young earther give a good accounting of just how this would work nor of any evidence for it. It does not take billions to at least throw out a hypothesis. I even gave you two possibilities.

Do you mean that in the original population that different animals had genomes that differed widely from one another providing a genetically rich population? (If this, then all that diversity would go out the window at the Flood when you would have a bottleneck of only two individuals for most animals. You would have no genetic diversity with which to adapt afterwards. Most YEers assert that most speciation took place after the Flood to lessen the burden of trying to fit two of everything and their food into the Ark. So this cannot be it.)

Or do you think that each individual had a rich genome and that diversification occurred through the loss of function of specific genes? (This also falls apart. First, we would then see that the differences between what appear to be closely related species would be in which genes are turned on or turned off. What we actually see are that the differences are in the individual genes themselves. Second, this would mean that for any given allele, we would see little if any variability. Again, we actually see many functional versions of some genes.)

"For instance, I can write a formula into MS Excel. When I do so, I have simply used the function of the PC and program as intended by the designer. The PC didn't evolve into a PC with a better processor. The program didn't change into a different program."

Bad analogy. The program is not the computer. It is a tool of the computer.

"Actually no. God doesn't owe either of us a reason for the way He made things no matter what method He used."

You're right. But if He made things appear to have happened in a way completely different than they actually did, then we don't know what is real about us. Last Thursdayism could be true!

"The tests He allows us to face would not be tests if there weren't attractive alternatives to obedience. Several NT books are written to address dealing with false teachers that would sound good and lead people astray. "

But in this case it is God giving us the potential information to lead us astray. He is not the author of confusion and would not do such a thing.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by lchemist:
Myth is probably the best way to convey spiritual truth.

Okay, sounds reasonable. Since we no longer understand the mindset of the 1st century Jew, I think we should consider Mathew, Mark, Luke and John as myth. Exactly what spiritual truth this mythical book imparts, I certainly wouldn't know. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you want to face God on judgment day and explain to him why you advised people who believe the facts as science has taught us to not believe in Jesus? </font>[/QUOTE]I'm being sarcastic Paul, and I would imagine that every one of those great men of science know that.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Scott,

I disagree. For them, Genesis would have "literally" been an act of deception by God.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Have you actually read much Assyrian, Babylonian, Ugaritic, or proto-arabic mythology?

Can you demonstrate that the words delivered to the children of Israel by Moses after having spent time in the presence of God Himself were in some way equivalent to ancient mythology?

That goes way too far Charles.

These people didn't have the same mindset as we do.

Granted. But words still mean things and you didn't answer my objection concerning the known understanding of an audience.

Why is it that a Bedouin tribal chieftain can say be say he's 80 when actually no one knows how old he is? And yet none of his clan thinks he's a liar!

God is not a bedouin tribal chieftain and neither was Moses in fact.

There is no indication that I know of that the ancient Israelites took it upon themselves to assume that God took more than a day, "morning and evening", when He said so.

Like I said - I just want to know the truth!! My faith in God will not diminish no matter what - old earth or young.

Can YOU honestly say that?

Yes. There are a few variations of OEC that I could accept especially concerning the geological development of the world and the development of the cosmos.

My standard is simply that a theory be reconcilable to God's revealed truth in His Word without twisting and distorting the clear meanings of that Word. I simply have confidence that God has chosen to reveal the truth through special revelation rather than subjecting it to the wisdom of men... many of whom consciously ignore or reject him in their study of evidence.

I hold the Bible as the standard of truth. If it is truly the revelation of God, I can consider it no less. Many of you seem to be arguing that biblical creationism is not a scientific possibility, I am waiting for the proof that evolution is a biblical possibility- complete with cross-references indicating that Genesis 1-11 is intended to be allegory.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

You are opening the door here to ALL artiodactyls being one "kind." We are talking whales, dolphins, deer, camels, pigs, hippos, etc. That is the partial list of modern descendents of that "distant past ancestor." Is that really the door you want to open? That is allowing for huge change within "kinds."

God could have chosen whatever starting point He willed including making everything exactly the way it is now.

I am open to the idea that God recently created all living things in such a way that they would adapt and populate the world as He divinely ordained. There is no biblical necessity to open or close the door any more than that.

You also have the problem of explaining how such wide ranging changes as what were seen in the whales would have been programmed into the "distant past ancestor" without being expressed.

Nor have we seen a proof that any of the whale's ancestors acquired new genetic complexity that resulted in at becoming a new species. You surmise that the absence (due to complete loss) of an expression is not possible or reasonable yet the absence and subsequent acquisition of an expression is completely reasonable- with the same amount of tangible proof.

It does not take billions to at least throw out a hypothesis.

I did. You simply didn't like it.

Do you mean that in the original population that different animals had genomes that differed widely from one another providing a genetically rich population? (If this, then all that diversity would go out the window at the Flood when you would have a bottleneck of only two individuals for most animals.

That would depend on how many of the original types of animals went extinct before being taken on to the Ark.

You would have no genetic diversity with which to adapt afterwards.

You would have much more than if you accept evolution's idea that all life arose from a single celled organism of unknown origin that was genetically simple in the extreme.

Or do you think that each individual had a rich genome and that diversification occurred through the loss of function of specific genes?

Both.

First, we would then see that the differences between what appear to be closely related species would be in which genes are turned on or turned off. What we actually see are that the differences are in the individual genes themselves.

Which I theorize is a result of reinforcement of an "off" or "on" by breeding, non-catastrophic mutation (downward in nature), and environment, ie. disease that attacked a population with only those with specific "on"s and "off"s being preserved.

Second, this would mean that for any given allele, we would see little if any variability. Again, we actually see many functional versions of some genes.)

No it wouldn't. In fact, the remaining existence of variability is an indicator that more, not less, should have been present in the past.

"Actually no. God doesn't owe either of us a reason for the way He made things no matter what method He used."

You're right. But if He made things appear to have happened in a way completely different than they actually did, then we don't know what is real about us. Last Thursdayism could be true!

If what happened is completely different from what He said happened then truly how can we know what is real about us?

"Appear" is completely subject to human limitations and fallibility concerning the interpretation of physical data to an infinitely higher degree than the direct statements made in Genesis.

"The tests He allows us to face would not be tests if there weren't attractive alternatives to obedience. Several NT books are written to address dealing with false teachers that would sound good and lead people astray. "

But in this case it is God giving us the potential information to lead us astray. He is not the author of confusion and would not do such a thing.

Then you turn around and propose that He did exactly that in Genesis... except it isn't potential information, it is actual.

Again, evolution's interpretations of nature are not revelations from God by inspiration. None of its proponents that I know of claim that they got their information while spending quality time with God on a mountain in the Arabian wilderness.

There is a simple proposal about creation that can be true if God is the God described in the Bible... He made it Himself in 6 days through purely supernatural means. And in fact, this is what the only eyewitness account we have says.

 

[lchemist]

Originally posted by Scott J:

I hold the Bible as the standard of truth. If it is truly the revelation of God, I can consider it no less. Many of you seem to be arguing that biblical creationism is not a scientific possibility, I am waiting for the proof that evolution is a biblical possibility- complete with cross-references indicating that Genesis 1-11 is intended to be allegory.

And I would argue that YEC is not a biblical possibilty, I am waiting for the proof that YEC is a biblical possibility- complete with cross-references indicating that Genesis 1-11 is intended to be historical, considering the studies done in the last 200 years of biblical scholarship.

Blessings,

Luis

 

[just-want-peace]

Forgive me but it seems like many here are unwilling to consider anything other than their predetermined desires - namely a literal Genesis 1-11. Which of us limits God?

The ones who accept a literal Genesis, (me anyway) are simply, no more no less, accepting what the Word states, as it is stated, no embellishments, nor twisting words, no allegorizing.

Sombody earlier posted that perhaps these unprovable details of "vestigel limbs" etc., are nothing more than God giving us a choice to either believe His word, or the word of some "investigator" who may, or may not, consider Him as relevant. I thing this poster just may have a cracker-jack point .

As to limiting God, you folks are the ones doing that, by claiming that God didn't do what He said He did the way He said He did it, or, that if creation was as God said, then God was misleading us.

If you will reference some scripture that even hints at the Genesis passages being non-literal, then I will consider your premise. Until then you're just spittin' in the wind trying to be taken seriously.