The theories of Creation & Evolution compared

Ok, now deal with what I actually posted.

I had two related abstracts and I inadvertantly posted one instead of the other. They both actually support my postion. Humans share with the apes and primates retroviral DNA sequences that are easily explained through common descent. THough I missed the one I meant to post, I think the one I did post may even be better. The one I actually posted tie it back all the way back to the primates. The one I meant to post traced the evolution of apes with LTRs. I'll have to see if I can find it. I am still waiting for how you explain them.

Yes I could have done a normal citation. I publish papers so I know how to cite. (Last week I submitted a paper for publication in the conference proceedings of a symposium I am presenting at next month.) But then it is up to you to track down the citation. This way you get the abstract without searching. Since most papers are unavailable online, you still have to go to the library if ou want the actual paper. What difference does it make if you get the necessary information off the abstract or from a proper citation? I saved you the work of looking it up.

"How did Moses get so much correct? How did he know the order of creation/evolution?"

Ah ha! SO you do accept the scientific explanation!

While I do not think that the creation is literal, there is some logic to why the general order is so close to reality. How much closer to a description for the ancients of the Big Bang than "Let there be light." You are not talking to some atheist here, so getting the general order right is significant. May even play into my hands of using a non-literal description to tell us what happened.

"Logically, the Creator (*) could create young earth (Y.E.), or old earth (O.E). "

Absolutely. The evidence is that He did it OE though.

"Even Steven Hawkins claims there was a creator - I have not received the book, yet, so I can not give you a page reference - BUT TO USE YOUR METHOD IT IS IN THE VIDEO SERIES "THE UNIVERSE" Published by PBS ... ;o) "



Got me.

Do you have more information on this. Long ago, when I was YE, I read A Brief History of Time. In it, he seemed pretty hostile to the idea of a creator and seemed to me to go out of his way to prevent the universe from having an absolute beginning. In what I thought was an otherwise good book, I found it disturbing that he went out of his way to avoid any place at all for God (or a god).

"Second, your logic is interesting. Because you want to believe something, you preface your statement with: "Why would a common designer ... ?" WELL, has HE told YOU yet?"

ID type people try and say they are looking for design and compare it to things we accept as designed. Say a watch. YOu do not see a bunch of eatra gears that do nothing floating around a watch. So why would an omnicient designer scatter snippets of viral DNA that is the same between humans and apes? Or give humans and the other primates all machinery for making vitamin C but with one gear all broken in the same way? They are trying to infer design but these things match nothing we know about design.

"When your premise is to prove what you want to believe, you are NOT USING scientific method."

Yes. Religious believe is not logical. We cannot prove what we believe through any acceptable means. That is the essence of faith. A belief in things unseen.

But, in the debate over origins, we can examine the data and use the scientific method. And the overwhelming evidence points to an old earth and common descent.

 

"WHY? Why was a shepherd SO SMART?"

Ummm? God told him?

Look, if you are a YE believer then the order of the history of the universe throughout the past 13.7 billion years means nothing because you do not believe it. On the other hand, if the creation account is meant to reveal truths to us in a non-literal method then the fact the general order in Genesis matched the general order in science becomes very important. Thee may be something to this whole old universe thing since even Moses put the events in roughly the same order.

"debate uses sources"

Just in the last few days of posts. (Look above.)

"Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates", Shimamura et al, Nature 388,666 (14 August 1997)

This one shows that whales are related to even toed ungulates. Think deer, pigs, elk, hippos, etc.

"Use of mitochondrial DNA sequences to test the Ceratomorpha (Perissodactyla:Mammalia) hypothesis", C. Pitra and J. Veits, Journal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research, Volume 38 Issue 2 Page 65 - June 2000

This gives genetic support for the fossil evidence linking horses and rhinos (and hyrax).

And to put it in a form more to your liking.

"Intronic sequence motifs of HLA-DQB1 are shared between humans, apes and old world monkeys, but a retroviral LTR element (DQLTR3) is human specific", H. Donner1, R.R. Tönjes2, R.E. Bontrop3, R. Kurth2, K.H. Usadel1, K. Badenhoop1, Tissue Antigens, Volume 53 Issue 6 Page 551, June 1999

This one shows shared retroviral LTRs between humans, apes and primates.

Any response yet to any of these?

 

"The only method withing the scientific method that is observable is the last 50 or so years"

I am curious about your statement.

Does this mean that you think that studies such as I cited above that use genetics to probe ancient relationships are not using the scientific method?

Does that mean that you think that astronomers who can directly observe the past because of the finite speed of light and the great distances involved are not using the scientific method?

Does that mean that you think that nothing about the past can be learned through studying geology or by studying fossils?

I would like a better explanation of this. I think that you can make hypotheses about the past and test them by going out and digging around in the ground. Other scientists can also dig around and can examine what you found to test your ideas and to check that they come to the same conclusions. I do not see the difference.

 

One last thing. PM me if you want the link to the science forum if you don't have it.

 

Perhaps not. If one insists that the earth was created in 4004 bc in six literal 24 hour days, yet is cmpletely oblivious to what Genesis is trying to say about who God is, what He is, and why he made us, the objective of the account is lost. If one insists that Noah's ark is on Mt Ararat, but are oblivious as to what God was telling Noah, the objective of the account is lost. If one insists that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish instead of a whale, yet is completely oblivious to why Jonah was swallowed in teh first place, the objective of the account is lost. If one insists that the color of Jesus' robe was purple, but are oblivious as to why the robe was the color it was, the objective of the account is lost. If one insists that the stone was rolled away after Jesus rose, but are oblivious to why Jesus rose, the objective of the account is lost. </font>[/QUOTE]Unfortunately, man is becoming more oblivious because he considers ever growing portions of the Bible fantasy. Evolution isn't an encouragement to find GOD. It is a reason not to.

 

I might point out a few differences among various old earth positions. Consider two men...

The first says, "I don't need God and his book of myths and fables - science alone gives truth and is alone believable."

The second says, "I am grateful for Christ's sacrifice and for God's wonderful bible. I'll use some of the tools God has allowed us (like scientific investigation) to see what more I can learn about the bible."

Both have an old earth view but they are different!

The second believes on Christ for salvation while the first does not.

The first relies entirely on human wisdom while the second does not.

The first says in effect, "I don't need God" while the second does not.

I think some of the YECers tend to consider every old earther and agnostic evolutionist - and this is definitely NOT the case.

 

Charles:

I don't know of any EVOLUTIONIST (Christian or otherwise) who consults the Bible to help him understand the insights he witnesses in scientific investigations. As long as the Old Testament is going to be ingored in the arena of Public Education, I feel that animosity is all to be expected along with all the antagonism.

 

Then help us out. Connect you interpretations with some good science.

 

Well, you connect your interpretations with good science also and make them relevant to GOD's Word.
If you beleive GOD to be the CREATOR then science must reflect HIM. If it doesn't, then it isn't of GOD.

 

I feel you have put God into a box where if He did not chose to create the way you think He should have, then there is no miracle to it, no supernatural, no need for God, no universal plan.

I disagree.

When I look at the creation I can see the means the He chose to use to give us all that we see.

Let me boil it down to a simpler idea. We speak of the miracle of birth. We each think that God had a plan and a role in personally creating each of us. Yet, we can also boil the process down to its physical bits. We can observe eggs and sperm forming. We know how they are brought together. We can observe their union. We can follow the development of the individual. We are even beginning to learn about what genetic switches activate when to control that development. Yet none of this takes away from the power of God. Just because we can understand the biology does not mean that God is not in control nor does it take away from the miracle of birth.

It is the same thing here. God gave us the ability and desire to study His creation and figure out how things work. And in the process, we learn about the specific means that He used for His creation. And the overwhelming evidence points out to us that He chose to do so through natural means under His control. Just as He does most things. (If you are having financial problems and ask for God's help and He choses to answer that prayer do you expect to wake up to find 10000 dollars miraculously under your pillow or do you expect to having something else happen, like a new job or a raise or a larger than expected bonus or tax refund? That He chose to not make money magically appear under your pillow change the fact that He influenced His creation to bring about His will?) And this does not at all take away from the awe and grandeur of what He has given us.

God is not a deceitful God. He is not going to give us a world that looks as if He did something other than what He actually did. The stars carry a real history, not a supernatural movie. The rocks tell a real story, not some fake set of scars. The fossils and the genes reveal an actual history, not something that just looks different than what it is.

I keep giving you examples of this and you dismiss them without even being able to make an attempt and telling what is wrong. Without even being able to attempt to give a supportable alternate theory. I keep asking for you to show me what is wrong with what I offer you and you refuse.

I keep asking you to present me evidence of some great problem with evolution or geology or astronomy and you don't.

I keep asking you to give me some set of evidence that conclusively shows a young earth. You refuse.

I keep waiting for you to make your case or to refute the one I am providing. And I still wait.

 

A_Christian,

Consider the "second man" again. As I said I do not necessarily consider myself an evolutionist. I am grateful for the Bible and I do believe it is God's word to us. I also believe that God gave us intellectual abilities that we can use to better understand things. I would disagree that studying the bible with an archeologist's or a biologist's eyes means that we're putting science and thus human wisdom before God.

It still boils down to the fact that you assert that the literal interpretation is the only one. We have discussed the many reasond not to see it as literal - not that you have to accept them yourself - but there ARE reasons that they make sense.

A person who sees Genesis as nonliteral can still be a good Christian and hold God's wisdom above all things - and have an old earth view.

 

That's an empty arguement. Science, in general, is not an encouragement to find God.

In addition, a non-literal understanding of a writing in scripture is not the same as viewing it as fantasy. OTOH, Song of Solomon is romantic fantasy, and is perfectly scriptural, not to mention somewhat erotic. The "fantasy" arguement is, again, an empty arguement.

 

The Song of Solomon is a romantic song. It isn't a HISTORY book. If Christian scientists are not looking to encourage the finding of GOD through their studies, I feel that their studies are vain and a waste.

UTEOTW:

You fall to see the box you have CREATED for GOD. Man didn't create the Bible. GOD used man to establish it. Evolution was not written by GOD. It was theorized by man. I am only guilty (if I'm guilty) of holding GOD to HIS WORD (which I didn't establish). If you are guilty, you are guilty of building a box and placing your god in it in order to fit what you see, hear, and think. You exalt man and what he sees and thinks he has learned.
You've built the box------I've built nothing----I just want to believe GOD.

 

Well then we disagree with that point.

I have presented you considerable physical evidence from God's creation. I am still waiting for you to factually refute it or present any evidence that supports your position.

 

Tonight on PBS, they will be offering a "science" show with "Genesis" in the title. We will see just how much science is actually demonstrated and substantiated and how much is just a lot of HOT AIR pondering.

My guess is that this will be the typical evolutionary biassed propaganda hype.

 

Fine. Watch it. Bring us your objections. And we will discuss it.

 

Well, every month for the past year on Sky Angel Christian satellite there has been a two hour special series called The Creation Science Evangelism Questions & Answers. This Oct. 3rd is "How does carbon dating work?" - "What is Bigfoot?" - "Where did the races of man come from?" Dr. Kent Hovind answers these questions and more.

Any, we already know what hot air they are blowing, how about get really educated on how to evangelize by knowing creation science.

 

Do you have any specific Dr. Dino answers you would like to give us?

"Any, we already know what hot air they are blowing, how about get really educated on how to evangelize by knowing creation science. "

Because it is my personal belief that what passes as creation science does much more harm than good because of the poor quality of most of it and the misrepresentations and distortions they are willing to perpetuate. Many people lose their faith after being exposed to real science after the indoctrination of YE. Many more will never even consider Christianity because they feel that Christians cannot have "The truth" if they must deny basic truths from science at the start.

If you have some information to present or refutations of what I have presented, please join the debate with us. We can always squeeze one more in.