The theories of Creation & Evolution compared

[A_Christian]

It all works together for the glory of GOD. Some seeds fall onto hard rocky soil and some seeds find the good soil. Note that not all seeds get harvested.

 

[Gup20]

I think you would find that to be a hard assertion to demonstrate. I believe that most biological scientists (read those who have actually looked at the data and have a far better idea of how "shaky" it is) would strongly disagree. And you have quite an assertion to show that things such as geological, physical, and chemical processes operated under a different set of laws in the past such that results today are not the results of the past.

Actually, this is extremely simple to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. One must simply take the Bible as truth. If you believe that the fall of man was an actual event, then you already disbelieve in uniformitarianism. If you believe Romans 5:12 to be true, then you already know that uniformitarianism is untrue.

If you believe that there were not thorns before the fall of man - that these are a result of the curse - then you already believe that uniformitarianism is false.

UTEOTW - I need only scripture - which is FAR more infallible than any science textbook on earth - to disprove uniformitarianism.

Let me also submit that if you DON'T believe in The Fall, then what reason would Jesus have for coming? You see - uniformitarianism undermines Christ and God's Word. The Bible tells us that The Fall is precisely WHY Jesus came - it is what he came to 'save us' from. The whole Bible points to this concept. If you say that things have always been the same for all time, then you undermine Jesus Christ himself and his reason for coming here. How can he be our redeemer if we were not lost? Being lost implies a change of possession - aka not uniform, but different. Jesus didn't come to change us into something we have never been... he came to save them who were LOST and RESTORE us to what we were meant to be.

 

[Gup20]

Actually, the Bible NEVER indicates that animals are related in ANY way to man. If they are, then you are eating your relatives (albeit distant).

Actually, the Bible portrays something VERY different -

1Cr 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
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.

I did not say that there are not changes in the gene pool. Did you not notice where I said that, on average, you should expect that you have about 6 mutations that your parents do not have. Those are changes but not jumps

Yet all of these mutational changes are directionally LESS information (specified complexity). Adam, for example, was created and God called him Good. Then, later, God sent the flood because ALL FLESH (remember some of the different kinds of flesh listed in 1Cor 15?) had corrupted it's way upon the earth.

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.
Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

The Bible makes it clear the directional change that things go - as does common sense. Things go from a pure/perfect state to a corrupted state of loss (aka wear & tear or entropy).

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.

We can be certain, and science bears witness, that all things are moving directionally from a higher state of specified complexity to a lower state of specified complexity. For example, as genetic mutations build up in the human genome, we move farther and farther away from where we were when God declared our creation 'good'. Another example of that is with increased resilience of some bacteria to anti-biotics. We have seen that it isn't that these bacteria are stronger, but that they have lost the ability to absorb nutrients properly, thereby keeping them from absorbing the antibiotics that would kill them. This is better described as 'de-evolution' rather than popular evolution.

WHy would that simularity extend to scattering the genomes of both humans and the other apes with the same snippets of viral DNA?

Evolutionists will believe ANYTHING as long as it's not written in Genesis 1-11. Instead of inventing ways to support humanism, why not give in the Spirit of the Lord and believe His Word?

What I said was that there is a series of intermediates that trace from modern horses and rhinos back to a common ancestor. When you test the modern animals DNA, you come up with the same relationship.

Chevy and Toyota both use steel in the construction of their vehicles. Does it mean that one evolved naturally over millions of years from the other, or that steel is a good construction material for cars? Perhaps the DESIGNERS of each company have similar knowlege and both knew making cars with steel is a good idea.

The evidence from genetics and from the fossil record is that those similarities with the other mammals in your list are because of the common ancestry.

Again, you are looking at evidence from a fallen, cursed (aka CHANGED) world and trying to draw conclusions about what happened BEFORE the change based on uniformitarian assumptions. You cannot make that connection - especially when the Bible is so clear that things were different before The Fall.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Iamfree63:
Dr. Kent Hovind answers these questions and more.

Kent Hovind is a fraud. The fact that any program would give him credence leaves that program suspect. Those espousing a YEC should refrain from referncing him.

 

[Gup20]

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!

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

It is not that we doubt evolutionists faith... but that they flirt with corruption having a reprobate mind so casually. Instead of believing the full Word of God, they pick and choose which parts they think they should and - and most disturbingly - shouldn't believe. Especially, when evolution fits the description of a 'high thing that exhalts itself against the knowlege of God'.

2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

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

The problem is, we don't need science to convince us that the Word of God is true in Genesis. We work from the assumption that God doesn't lie, and that the Bible is absolute truth. You are so busy trying to prove it wrong that you have managed to become entirely focused on the curse - on the science - rather than on God. You are focused on the creation, rather than the Creator. As I said - you are attempting to explain a supernatural event using uniformitarian naturalism. It's not going to work. Things changed at the fall - and no ammount of uniformitarianistic study of things in the fallen natural state are going to show you how things were before the fall... because they have changed.

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.

Unfortunately, there is not credibility to that statement. It's not that we have chosen to put God in this box - God told us how He did it, and we have chosen to believe him. Yes - I believe God is truthful ... I believe His Word is infallible and absolute truth. Why? Because He says so. We are not limiting God ... we are beliving what He tells us.

On the contrary, however, YOU are indeed limiting God. You are going outside of his Word and constraining God to what is naturalisticly possible or scientifically viable.

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.

True, but in this case God didn't say that the Stork carries the babies to our homes and science discovered otherwise. Our scientific discoveries are not 'exhalting themselves AGAINST the knowlege of God', they are confirming his Word and His greatness. Evolution is not like this. Evolution contradicts God's Word and tries to elevate humanistic thought above the Word of God. Evolution is like Eve thinking she can eat the fruit and become like God. Evolution is like Abraham thinking Hagar was God's method of delivering on His promise. Evolution is man's ideas - contrary to God's Word - elevating itself to a place of higher glory than God's Word.

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.

We keep showing you scripture after scripture with undeniable evidence, yet you ignore it time and time again. What is more relavant and true than God's Word? There is no physical evidence which carries more credibility than God's own Word. We have repeatedly demonstrated that God's Word contradicts evolution, yet you continue to champion it as your idolic creator. We have repeatedly shown you how God's word advocates a Young Earth, yet you ignore this evidence in leui of a uniformitarian interpretation of a physical observation of a cursed and fallen world.

Problem with Evolution - defies observable science with information gaining mechanisms rather than information loosing mechanisms.

Problem with Geology - uses uniformitarian interpretation (unprovable and unreasonable/unrealistic assumption) of all evidences ignoring both the Bible, and the fact that just about every culture on earth has some sort of world flood mythology or legend.

Young Earth Evidence - read the Word and add up the dates. Period.

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

Charles, I appriciate your approach. However, keep in mind that Eve also had this choice before her. She knew what God's Word said, and she chose to eat the fruit in part because of her natural observations:

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Not only did it appeal to her in appearance, but it also appealed to her sense of wanting to know more - maybe God didn't tell her the truth... maybe God didn't tell her everything she COULD know by taking it. That is precisely the attitude and spirit that evolution is in. It is contradictory to scripture, and it invokes 'you can know more than God is telling you' as an appeal to your flesh.

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.

Still, you have yet to offer a non-literal explaination. We have given undisputable evidence to support a literal Genesis. Yet when challenged, evolutionists say Genesis is non-literal. Then, Genesis is dismissed and Evolution - which all evolutionists here have agreed is not supported by scripture in any way - is substituted in place of a non-literal exegesis of Genesis.

It is not that scripture is being honored or our interpretation is wrong - it is that evolutinists wish to replace Genesis entirely with evolution. Never have I heard any evolutionist here who claims Genesis is non-literal give a non-literal exegesis of Genesis. Rather, they say "we don't have to believe Genesis because it's non-literal" and then they dismiss the word and insert evolution in it's place which has zero compatibility with Genesis at all.

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.

Indeed you can be a christian, and contribute to the body of christ and still disbelieve Genesis. But we are not talking about skimming by with the bare minimums... we're talking about right and wrong, creation and evolution - which is a more excellent position. I aspire to be the best Christian I can rather than to simply 'limp into heaven' on my get out of hell free card. We need only faith to get to heaven, but we need our works to line up with scripture so that we can fulfill all of our great comission - to bring truth (the Gospel) to all we can. To do that effectively, we need to support doctrine and belief that is firmly grounded in the Word - not contradict the Word for releif of secular criticism.

 

[A_Christian]

This is also true of people and "religions" who consider themselves "Christian". There is truth and there is fraud. By their works you will know them.
Notice, I didn't say by their works they are saved.
Mormons are a prime example. They rest in their works while they value a book that has no reality or historic foundation. The evolutionists do the same.

 

[Gup20]

Kent Hovind is a fraud. The fact that any program would give him credence leaves that program suspect. Those espousing a YEC should refrain from referncing him.

I am not that familiar with Hovind, though I have heard the name before. I would probably be careful whom you call a fraud - keep in mind that IF THE BIBLE IS TRUE (and I believe that it is) that means that every evolutionary scientist is also a fraud. They are manufactering evidence that is contrary to truth.

It bears repeating:

2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

That means if it doesn't line up with the Word, then we are to resist it. What is one of our roles as Christians? To resist Evil in the earth. How do I know that to be true?

Jam 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.

2Th 2 talks about the anti-christ and how he cannot be revealed until the one that hinders anti-christ (the church or christians) is taken out of the way (presumably talking about the rapture).

The AMPLIFIED bible says it this way:

2 Thessalonians 2:7
For the mystery of lawlessness (that hidden principle of rebellion against constituted authority) is already at work in the world, [but it is] restrained only until he who restrains is taken out of the way.

 

[Charles Meadows]

You guys keep equating nonliteral biblical interpretation as equivalent to trusting man's wisdom over God's. Interpreting the bible nonliterally in places does not mean one considers it to be false!

And the comparison of evolutionists and mormonists is not very accurate.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Gup20:
I am not that familiar with Hovind, though I have heard the name before. I would probably be careful whom you call a fraud

The man has a fraudulent degree. He's not allowed to use the title "Dr", but does anyway. He has been caught in lies about his thesis, and about other aspects of his education.

AIG has confirmed much of this, and advises people not to cite Kent Hovind or Carl Baugh in regards to YEC topics.

 

[UTEOTW]

"If you believe that there were not thorns before the fall of man - that these are a result of the curse - then you already believe that uniformitarianism is false. "

So you believe that ALL the laws of physics changed dramatically at the fall? Any support for this unusual belief?

Well, we can work with that. Tell us which layers are the flood layers. These would be after the change in physcis so from those layers up we can use what we know about how the world works to investigate them.

"Yet all of these mutational changes are directionally LESS information "

I have given you an incredible amount of data to support the idea that new "information" arises through the duplication and mutation of genes. I have given you many, many such examples of genes wherethis has been shown to happen. These are new, novel features being born, while the old feature is preserved. It is an increase in "information" in any recognized defintion of the word. Of course, even a simple point mutation, which you say is a loss of information even if it leads to improvement, is an increase in information according to the father of the theory.

"Chevy and Toyota both use steel in the construction of their vehicles. Does it mean that one evolved naturally over millions of years from the other, or that steel is a good construction material for cars? Perhaps the DESIGNERS of each company have similar knowlege and both knew making cars with steel is a good idea"

You do not address the science. There is a long series, often very finely grained, of transitionals from one ancestor to the horse, the rhino, and the hyrax. Genetics support this. For your idea, there is no reason to suppose that any one animal should be closer genetically to any other. Especially for two such apparently different creatures as a horse and a rhino. You can only predict such a link after the fact.

"Problem with Evolution - defies observable science with information gaining mechanisms rather than information loosing mechanisms. "

Nope. i have shown you how to get new genes. You define information in such a convoluted way that all change, no matter what, is a loss of information. That is a circular argument.

"Problem with Geology - uses uniformitarian interpretation (unprovable and unreasonable/unrealistic assumption)"

Then show the problems. SHow us specific of where things behaved differently.

"You see - uniformitarianism undermines Christ and God's Word. The Bible tells us that The Fall is precisely WHY Jesus came - it is what he came to 'save us' from. The whole Bible points to this concept. If you say that things have always been the same for all time, then you undermine Jesus Christ himself and his reason for coming here. How can he be our redeemer if we were not lost?"

Jesus had to come to save us because of geology???

That there is sin in the world for Jesus to redeem us from means that the laws of physics have been changing???

 

[A_Christian]

I couldn't bring myself to watch the entire NOVA presentation. When they asserted that the asteroid that wipped out the dinosaur had been a common weekly occurance when the earth was "new", that a planet the size of mars collided with earth in the distant past, and comets and meteors likely originated life on earth; I just threw up my hands and said those evolutionists would rather believe ANYTHING but what the Bible says. Just like some will vote for ANYONE but Bush-----even Kerry.
I've come to the conclusion that "educated guesses," "authoritative opinions," and "speculative imaginings" are valid and publically
acceptable if they are secular and are sponcered by secular institutions at large. If a creationist presented such, the likes of UTEOTW would be shouting, "Where is the proof." Go figure!

Yeh know, that impact crater really DOES NOT look to be 50,000 years old. Maybe 5000 is closer to reality.

 

[UTEOTW]

I let TIVO record it but I have not watched it. Might be a while, too.

"When they asserted that the asteroid that wipped out the dinosaur had been a common weekly occurance when the earth was "new""

Weekly...I don't know about that. Common? Yes, we have a record of that in many of the other moons and planets in the solar system.

"that a planet the size of mars collided with earth in the distant past"

It is the leading theory, but I doubt there will ever be a way to prove it. It does explain many of the traits we see in the moon such as its composition and density. One problem I have is that it takes such a finely tuned glancing blow in the models to produce what we actually see. It is a good idea though.

"comets and meteors likely originated life on earth"

If you are talking pansperia, I doubt that is how it happened. Now we have found that many of the precursor molecules are found in space and it is likely that comets would have delivered these materials. Just in the last week was an announcement that sugar was found in an interstellar cloud. That is reasonably complex chemistry going on in those clouds. The Titan probe in a few months should be interesting. I am quite curious to see what has cooked up in the atmosphere of Titan over the years. Anyone want to speculate?

 

[Bro. James]

Having watched the NOVA presentation, ORIGINS, I have a few observations to pass out:

1. The same speculative buzz words are still being sprinkled among "scientific" jargon. It appears, it is supposed, perhaps, maybe are used to the point of redundancy.

2. The pseudo-science buffs still have not a clue as to the mechanism of something living from something dead. Here we are.

3. I see the Comets from the Ort cloud is still a popular pseudo-science myth. With all that water out there, could that be a part of the Deluge recorded in the Book of Genesis? Sure would help explain how the marine life got to the mountain tops.

Why do we not believe the One who made it all? He has told us what happened and who did it.
We want to believe that we came from monkeys. They certainly do not claim us. Monkeys do exactly what they were created to do. We live in open rebellion to our Creator. From whence did Sin evolve?

I know, that is not very scientific; neither is believing that everything evolved from a chance combination of the right chemicals in a primordial soup. In fact, it takes more faith to believe the latter than the former. Should not both of these subjects go to the the religion class so that evolution can be taught as the "religion of science(so-called)?"

I must admit I was dozing a lot during "ORIGINS." Did anyone speculate on the possible mechanism of the male parts and the female parts of most species on this planet getting together in the same place at the same time such that the species could reproduce? i.e. Why does it take a pair with complimentary parts to reproduce? Also: How did homosexuals evolve? And how do they propagate?

Wake up people. The I AM THAT I AM made us; and we will all give an account of what we have done with our lives in this world. "... every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord..." Then some will go to the "Pit"(probably not the Ort Cloud), forever.
The others will be with their Creator--forever.

Where will you spend your eternity?


Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Gup20]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"If you believe that there were not thorns before the fall of man - that these are a result of the curse - then you already believe that uniformitarianism is false. "

So you believe that ALL the laws of physics changed dramatically at the fall? Any support for this unusual belief?</font>[/QUOTE]While your question is a valid one, it irregularly references my statement. I don't see a lot of physics majors studying thorns.

However, the answer to your question is yes - physicis were indeed different. For example - there was no death. That means there was no 'wearing out' of the human body. Many also believe there was no pain or suffering in the Garden of Eden. In addition, Adam & Eve did not require food to live.

No death:
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:

Look at the case of Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego. They were in the fire so hot it killed those outside the fire, yet their clothing was untouched and the smell of smoke was not even in their clothing. The children of Israel when they wandered in the wilderness for 40 years... their shoes never wore out. These are events that defy the laws of physics... yet they are what is possible when the eternal sustaing power of God is present. Before the Fall of man, this was true for mankind. I would say that is a HUGE blow to uniformitarianism.

Pain, need for food to live, death (in the curse of the fall):
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
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.

Moreover we see a geologic event surpassed only by the original creation itself in the scale of geologic events in Noah's flood. Here is a tremendous change to the world - a massive, massive geologic event (equivalent to every volcano on earth going off at once, and every plate shifting at once causing earthquakes). Yet it is unaccounted for in the uniformitarian mindset.

Well, we can work with that. Tell us which layers are the flood layers. These would be after the change in physcis so from those layers up we can use what we know about how the world works to investigate them.

Oh! So you are a geologist? I didn't know that. Well, what I would say is that when doing your work, you can easily begin to "work with that" by realizing that the earth is ~6000 years old, and you have 4 main classifications of rocks - you have creation rocks (ones formed during the creative week), you have pre-flood rocks, you have rocks from the catastrophe of the flood, and you have post-flood rocks. When doing your work, you should begin classifying these rocks accordingly. For example, if you find fossils in the rocks, you know they were not creation rocks. Feel free to use the Word to help you devise methods of classifications.

I have given you an incredible amount of data to support the idea that new "information" arises through the duplication and mutation of genes. I have given you many, many such examples of genes wherethis has been shown to happen.

And in each and every situation I have shown you how no new information arises, and in most cases it is a loss of information. For example, in the blood anemia cases you presented... a large percentage loss in function of the cells caused increased resistance to malaria (if I remember correctly). The nylon bug was non-nuclear plasmid designed to adapt the bacteria to new food sources under selective pressure. The resilience to AIDS was a destruction of the receptor cells AIDS attacks. In every situation, the organism lost something complex to gain simplistic 'novel' ability. No where do we see complex or multi-part systems arising from mutations, but we see exactly what we would expect to see if we believe the Word - we see complex systems mutating (or getting damaged) into simple... we see multi-party systems loosing parts... we see ENTROPY rather than a gain of information. What we see is DE-evolution. If life originated with single cell organisms, science has proven they will mutate into less functional single cell organisms, and eventually break down and die all together.

Dr. Gary Parker - a Biologist - says that biological death is the triumph of chemistry over biology. When our cells start functioning according to nature, rather than adhering to biological influence, death occurs... and soon decomposition and decay because THAT is the direction nature forces things to go.

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.

This verse says that things wear out and become old, and then it says that "those that dwell in the earth shall die in like manner". This is a pretty good description of entropy and death. What do our bodies do as we get older? They wear out just like a garment does. Well according to Romans 5:12 this didn't happen before Adam sinned.

You do not address the science. There is a long series, often very finely grained, of transitionals from one ancestor to the horse, the rhino, and the hyrax. Genetics support this. For your idea, there is no reason to suppose that any one animal should be closer genetically to any other. Especially for two such apparently different creatures as a horse and a rhino. You can only predict such a link after the fact.

I do not need to address the science when God's Word is so clear. For your sake, however, I will address the science. Actually God created Kinds. These Kinds speciated from the originals as mutations and natural selection removed and isolated particular sets of information. I have no doubt that many animals are related in some way to each other - even those we currently classify as separate species. For example, all Cat kinds were most likely decended from one Cat. All dog kinds were most likely decended from one dog. These original kinds were declared good after creation. They had no genetic mistakes or diseases. We know this because Jesus equates sin with sickness and disease (aka entropy and death) in Matthew 9:

Mat 9:5 For whether is easier, to say, [Thy] sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?

We know from Romans 5:12 that there was no sin or death in the world until Adam's Fall. God declared everything good at the end of creation... meaning there was no sin, sickness, or desease before the fall of Adam. That means that there was no sin, sickness, or death in any of the creation until after the fall. Remember, God sent the flood because all flesh (1Cor 15 tells us of the different kinds of flesh) had been corrupted and was no longer in a state of "good". So everything up to Adam was good - that means no death, sin, sickness, disease before Adam - meaning there could be no evolution leading up to Adam.

Science has shown us that directionally, genetics goes from higher specified complexity to lower specified complexity. It goes from high information low specificity to low information high specificity. For example, if you have a rabbits in an arctic environment, and you have some rabbits with brown hair and small feet, and some rabbits with white hair and big feet - the 'information' for brown hair and small feet may be present in the population, but it will get naturally selected out of the population. Eventually, you will end up with a large (or vast majority) population of white, large footed rabbits. The only way for the population to get the information for brown hair again is to mate with brown hair rabbits - Mendel and Punnett's squares can tell us that much. If the population is isolated, however, from any brown rabbits, then the population will continue to be all white. Once an animal has LOST information for a trait, it can't get it back unless it mates with another animal that has that gene. This is why close relations don't marry amoung people - people of the same family have the same genetic defects and it is much more likely that the defects will be expressed in the offspring if close relations procreate. If you go outside your family, you are more likely to find someone with a good gene to cover up your bad one.

Nope. i have shown you how to get new genes.

And I have shown you how in every case, there is no new information. Common sense and observable science win out over your argument every time. You can attempt to manufacture support for your case, but that's all it is... manufactured data. Truth is on my side becuase my argument is founded in truth - it's founded in God's Word.

"Problem with Geology - uses uniformitarian interpretation (unprovable and unreasonable/unrealistic assumption)"

Then show the problems. SHow us specific of where things behaved differently.

Problem #1: Bible says there was a global flood, and current uniformitarian views do not account for this global cataclysm.
Problem #2: Uniformitarianism assumes that everything has always happened at the same rate for billions of years.
Problem #3: Uniformitarianism assumes that there was no outside influences or contamination for billions of years.
Problem #4: Uniformitarianistic interpretation of evidence in trying to discover origins assumes that everything is the same now as it was when it was created or as it was when it came into being.

Lets visit scripture that supports the view that physics, biology, geology has changed in any way since the creation of the earth.

Fall of man - Genesis 3:
verse 14 says that all land animals are cursed - the serpent mose of all - biology, zoology
verse 16 deals with physiology and pain - biology
verse 17 curses the ground and adam to eat of it for the rest of his life - biology, botany, geology, death
verse 18 mutational biology and botany
verse 19 death - biology

We also see other changes differences in the pre-flood world.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

That shows an entirely different ecosystem than we are used to. It says this happened over the WHOLE face of the ground - it happened on ALL land.

The Bible talks about the flood - killed every living land animal except those in the ark, and it covered the entire earth with water. Moreover, the 'fountains of the great deep' were opened and water came up outof the earth besides. The flood is the most powerful geologic and biologic event our planet has ever seen, and it is entirely ignored by uniformitarianists. The Bible says it's true though - and I have chosen to believe the Bible.

We see anthropology and 'people races' as well as languages at the tower of Babel. The Bible is full of scientific answers. It's not the Bible's intention to be a scientific textbook, but whatever area of knowledge and information it touches upon is truth.

Jesus had to come to save us because of geology??? That there is sin in the world for Jesus to redeem us from means that the laws of physics have been changing???

Jesus came to restore us to what we were originally created as/for. We were created and declared GOOD. Then the FALL and death came. We were no longer good, but rather corrupted and fallen from glory. Jesus came to restore us to the Father so that we are no longer under death.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Gup20:
I do not need to address the science when God's Word is so clear.

I don't wish to enter the debate, but I feel this phrase is a dangeropus one. It's reminiscent of what Galileo, Kepler, and Columbus had to deal with. Even Mendel and his genetics theories were met with that type of thinking by hyperfundamentalists of his day. And it's a variation of that theme that resulted in the Salem Witch Trials.

 

[UTEOTW]

"These are events that defy the laws of physics... yet they are what is possible when the eternal sustaing power of God is present. "

Yes miracles happen but you are supposing somehting quite different. That throughout the history of the earth that evidence has been laid down in such a way that when viewed through our given laws of physics that a much different picture emerges than what actaully happened.

"you have 4 main classifications of rocks - you have creation rocks (ones formed during the creative week), you have pre-flood rocks, you have rocks from the catastrophe of the flood, and you have post-flood rocks."

Fine then. Tell us which layers are which and how we should be able to identify them. What characteristics would you expect to find for each one and then tell us which layers meet these tests.

"And I have shown you how in every case, there is no new information. "

So, if I have a gene and it does one thing. That gene becomes duplicated. I now have two identical genes. One mutates and does something new. I now have two different genes and two different functions. That is a decrease in information? Then evolution does not need increases in information to proceed if we can get novel genes and functions without increases in information.

Some of the examples I have presented in the past.

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 famialr 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. (Since this is an example of a common situation, I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find further information.) You have very good circumstantial evidence that this whole family of genes is the result of repeated duplicaduplications of an original gene and the evolution of new functions from the varieties produced by mutation.

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.

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.

I cannot find the rest of the list at the moment, but I question how you can say that developing a whole family of genes with diverse functions through duplication and mutation is loss of information.

 

[Gup20]

Yes miracles happen but you are supposing somehting quite different. That throughout the history of the earth that evidence has been laid down in such a way that when viewed through our given laws of physics that a much different picture emerges than what actaully happened.

Well for one thing - you are making the assumption that all the data collected has been accurately observed and interpreted. This is not the case. For example, when uniformitarianists see many thousands of layers, they immediately assume they were laid down over many thousands of years. But science has shown us that often these layers are laid down quickly by catastrophic forces. For example, you can go to Mt. St. Helens and see thousands of layers that distinctly resemble Grand Canyon type layering that scientists know were laid down over a matter of hours, not over thousands of years. Because of clear, observed evidences like this, we cannot assume the uniformitarian mindset when studying these layers - yet that is precisely how most geologists perform their interpretations. Moreover, the Bible gives us the information we need to establish that there was, in fact, a massive catastrophe large enough to cover the globe and cause many of these layering effects throughout the globe in Noah's Flood. Yet, this information remains ignored by the majority of scientists as they labor to manufacture any possibility that will work so they don't have to accept God's Word as truth. If you start with God's Word as truth (you can't go wrong with that mindset) and make your interpretations of evidences based on what you know is truth, then your interpretations will be much closer to being accurate - as they will be founded on truth. The converse to that can also be applied. If your pre-supposition is that the Word of God is wrong, then your conclusions based on those pre-suppositions will not contain truth.

Fine then. Tell us which layers are which and how we should be able to identify them. What characteristics would you expect to find for each one and then tell us which layers meet these tests.

While I am not a geologist, I would guess that - as I stated before - you could start by saying that any rocks with fossils in them are clearly not creation rocks. I would say that the vast majority of rocks with fossils in them have the highest probablility of being flood period rocks (as billions of animals would have died in a way that would preserve the fossils in a world-wide deluge). If there is evidence of wind erosion mixed in with fossils, they might have a higher probability of being post-flood rocks. Formed layer upon formed layer is most probably flood layering - yearly layering will typically show weathered transition lines rather than smooth, uniform lines (such as the smooth layering we see in the Grand Canyon).

These are just a few logical ideas - I am certainly not a geologist. These would be consistant with the Word, though, rather than supporting ideas contrary to the scripture.

So, if I have a gene and it does one thing. That gene becomes duplicated. I now have two identical genes. One mutates and does something new. I now have two different genes and two different functions. That is a decrease in information? Then evolution does not need increases in information to proceed if we can get novel genes and functions without increases in information.

If I have two engines - and I break the oil filter off of one of them in such a way that the oil splatters around all over the place instead of going where it is directed, the oil splattering all over the place is a NEW function as you have described - but it is not new information .... it is a loss of information. Lets say the oil splatters on the hinges for the hood making it easier to open the hood - hey, we have increased function of the hinges! That's new information, right? No - the engine has lost it's ability to properly lubricate it's components and run efficiently. It may benefit the hinges, but overall it is detrimental to the engine and leads to an earlier demise of the engine, and decreased horsepower, function, efficency. The overall information content is lowered.

This is precisely the process that happens in increased immunity to anti-biotics in bacteria, for example, which evolutionists say is an increase in information. The bacteria looses the ability to absorb nutrients properly, and in doing so looses the ability to injest, absorb, or break down the poison that would kill them. It's not that they are suddenly stronger - but that they have actually lost specifed complexity.

You have very good circumstantial evidence that this whole family of genes is the result of repeated duplicaduplications of an original gene and the evolution of new functions from the varieties produced by mutation.

Well it agrees with the rules of nature and physics (not to mention with scripture) that we were created perfect and whole, and that we have 'worn out' and 'build up mistakes' since then (the Bible says "waxed old like a garment"). It agrees with actual observation that we have been de-evolving since creation, rather than moving to increase specified complexity. We were created good, and the design became corrupted after the fall.

I cannot find the rest of the list at the moment, but I question how you can say that developing a whole family of genes with diverse functions through duplication and mutation is loss of information.

So you were there when these genes first came into being? Can you give us references of the people who watched them form? Or are you just infering that they evolved because they are all similar?

Like dogs and cats - there is most likely a common - yet distinct - ancestor from which all of these variations derrived. This does not in any way diminish the case for special creation, nor does it strengthen the case of evolution. Things change... creationists and evolutionists agree on that. What we seem to disagree on is the direction of that change. Many genes are designed with the ability to adapt to pressure (as we saw in the nylon bug's plasmids). I have no doubt that there are many hemoglobin varieties, but this does not mean in any way that they evolved from less information to more information. Again, you are dealing with multi-part systems. Often, if you have a coding system that understands ABCD, and you remove B, then the system will attempt a sort of 'error correction' to re-establish the B that was lost. Even if the B that is recovered is different from teh original B, it is still part B of a multipart system, and no new information has been gained.

If I removed all the nouns from a sentence and replaced them with pronouns - have I increased the information content of the sentence? If I replaced ALL the nouns with pronouns, then I would have effectively decreased the information in a sentence, as it would be functional, yet less efficient.

Jim went to the Viking's game with Sarah. -- or He went there with her. Both mean the same thing... the first sentence has more information - why? Because of SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. You might increase the complexity of something, that doens't increase the information. You might change something that doesn't increase the complexity or specificity.

 

[Gup20]

I don't wish to enter the debate, but I feel this phrase is a dangeropus one. It's reminiscent of what Galileo, Kepler, and Columbus had to deal with. Even Mendel and his genetics theories were met with that type of thinking by hyperfundamentalists of his day. And it's a variation of that theme that resulted in the Salem Witch Trials.

This is an entirely valid point. There have been many instances of abuse in the past. However, it is the Devil who wishes us to focus on past mistakes and hinder us from future progress. If he can get you to change what you know is right to avoid coming close to a potentially abusive situation, he will. I have seen this happen in the body of Christ in general. Someone will make a mistake and then an overextended reaction will handcuff the local body.

For example, look at the tithing issue. Clearly tithing is Biblical, yet there are some ministers who will not touch this subject with a 50 ft pole because of the potential to sound like a money grubber or get the 'TV Evangelist' stigma attached to their name. Their local body misses out on an opportunity for spiritual growth and blessing because of that leader's unwillingness to deal with the subject for FEAR of appearances (for pride, really). In reality, tithing benefits the tither more than the local church because it's a spiritual principle rather than a dead work under the law.

So we can get into a dangerous ditch if we begin qualifying God's Word because of fear based on the mistakes of others. We should never make decisions based on fear - and should attempt in all matters to follow the leading of the Word, even if others who have tried have failed or succomb to temptation along the way. At the same time, we need to be mindful that we are not abusing the Word or adding to it and using that as an excuse to force our will in a particular area. That is why careful and honest exegesis of scripture is very important. If we are honest, we will see that Genesis is written in a historic, factual manner. It is nothing like the poetry of Psalms & Proverbs, for example.

See the AiG article Should Genesis be Taken Literally

 

[El_Guero]

Johnv & Gup20,

That is not a logically VALID stance: Because some one used God's Word to commit evil DOES NOT equate God's Word with evil.
However, just because God has spoken, DOES NOT mean that Gup20 has the correct interpretation ...

In Him

El Guero

 

[El_Guero]

UTEOTW,

I will catch back up soon, my internet took a one week vacation ...

El Guero