Jump to content


Photo

What Would It Take For A Evolutionist To Consider Creation?


  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#61 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 03 August 2011 - 05:52 AM

Did you ask them your questions? If so, what was their answer?

Batten was discussing ERVs with me. He linked me to an article (also written by CMI) that said ERVs must all be functional since some paper (which he didn't cite or link) said that a function had been found for one of them. What function? What ERV? What study? I have no idea because he stopped responding to my emails.

Could you list some examples? I've never been, but I planned on going there once they're finished with the whole amusement park thing.

Like there being floating, circulating systems of tree trunks in the aftermath of the Flood that "explain" why species are distributed across the Atlantic the way they are.
Like the Flood waters evaporating over several months, yet today's oceans have been around for thousands of years without evaporating or mysteriously sinking below the mantle to places that science hasn't found.
Like speciation events occurring so frequently that species would die, not have anything to breed with, and/or not have enough time for gestation. Remember, this phenomenon of "super-evolution" must've only happened during a discrete timeframe since we haven't seen such speciation rates in recorded history.
Like God endowing the original created organisms with some sort of ability to "super-evolve".
Like fossil stratification being the result of some animals running uphill from the floodwaters faster than others


And let's not forget that "people of God" spent $27M on this atrocity to human thought.


There are many examples of canyons forming in very short periods of time. One that comes to mind is Mt. St. Helens. The landslides resulting formed sediment that was then cut into a canyon.


Canyons that have a serpentine path while cutting thru anything like the 2B-year-old Vishnu Schist? Cutting thru sediment and ash is one thing; cutting thru bedrock is totally different. At least St Helens included volcanic and seismic activity; I don't remember Genesis mentioning anything of the sort when discussing the Flood. Do we need to add to the Bible in order to make that work?

#62 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 03 August 2011 - 06:08 AM

It goes fine with my idea of things degenerating and getting worse. The animals were able to vary more right after the flood and are slowly losing that ability. I don't really understand this (non-creation) article to well, but it sounds like they end with that same thought.
DNA study sheds new light on horse evolution
If I'm wrong could someone please explain what he meant when he said:
"In contrast, ancient DNA studies have revealed that the loss of genetic diversity in many surviving species appears to have been extremely severe," Professor Cooper says.


"Loss of genetic diversity" within a species typically means local population extinctions of a specific species.

Imagine the entire population of Europe had been wiped out by WWII. That would result in far fewer European physical traits (red hair, etc) being in the gene pool. A "loss" of diversity despite the species itself surviving. This particular type of loss of diversity is called a "population bottleneck".

Scientific evidence backs the idea of "super-evolution". Do I believe it? Yes I do.

Define "super evolution" and describe what evidence science has produced of this. I've never read anything of the sort, at least nothing in the league of what the Creation Museum alleges. (And no, breeds of dogs don't count. Not by a long shot).

#63 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 03 August 2011 - 06:21 AM

Thanks for adding that, Chris. Super-evolution is much more plausible if looked at in the light of these facts rather than supposing that new things and new DNA coding are gradually developed.

#64 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 03 August 2011 - 06:24 AM

Batten was discussing ERVs with me. He linked me to an article (also written by CMI) that said ERVs must all be functional since some paper (which he didn't cite or link) said that a function had been found for one of them. What function? What ERV? What study? I have no idea because he stopped responding to my emails.

Do you think you could write down a question (your most important one) and I'll try to email them and see if I can get that article or something else they may have found out?

Like there being floating, circulating systems of tree trunks in the aftermath of the Flood that "explain" why species are distributed across the Atlantic the way they are.

That sounds funny, but you never know. I think of it like there being land bridges that were still above sea level that are now covered, perhaps by melting glaciers after the Ice Age or maybe they walked across the glaciers themselves.

Like the Flood waters evaporating over several months, yet today's oceans have been around for thousands of years without evaporating or mysteriously sinking below the mantle to places that science hasn't found.

I don't think the waters were evaporated. I think its still here, in the ocean. Thats why the earth is 70% water. It would have flowed off the continents with the geologic activity that raised the mountains and sunk the ocean basins.

Like speciation events occurring so frequently that species would die, not have anything to breed with, and/or not have enough time for gestation. Remember, this phenomenon of "super-evolution" must've only happened during a discrete timeframe since we haven't seen such speciation rates in recorded history.

Maybe animals can't speciate as fast as they used to, but did you read that article (about the horse)? Could you explain their conclusion or if its agreeing with what I say about this not being able to speciate as much as they used to?

Okay, thank you for answering.

Like God endowing the original created organisms with some sort of ability to "super-evolve".

What does "super-evolution" mean? I mean, I guess people could use that word as long as it dosen't involve the different kinds of animals becoming other kinds.

Like fossil stratification being the result of some animals running uphill from the floodwaters faster than others

What do you mean by this? Are you talking about the reason you find certain animals buried together? Because there are alot of reasons for that.

And let's not forget that "people of God" spent $27M on this atrocity to human thought.

Aww, come on, a museum that supports the scripture. I like it. :)

Canyons that have a serpentine path while cutting thru anything like the 2B-year-old Vishnu Schist? Cutting thru sediment and ash is one thing; cutting thru bedrock is totally different. At least St Helens included volcanic and seismic activity; I don't remember Genesis mentioning anything of the sort when discussing the Flood. Do we need to add to the Bible in order to make that work?

What am I adding? The Bible talks about water coming up through the crust of the earth and its logical that a bunch of catastrophic geologic events would have occured. Plates moving and earthquakes. Perhaps volcano's, but I don't know about this one. It wasn't rock when it was cut either, but soft sediment. What about the river flowing uphill though?

#65 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 03 August 2011 - 06:26 AM

Define "super evolution" and describe what evidence science has produced of this. I've never read anything of the sort, at least nothing in the league of what the Creation Museum alleges. (And no, breeds of dogs don't count. Not by a long shot).

Why not? We see that 2 wolves have the ability to produce the breeds of dogs with all of their variety. If we didn't have written history to attest this, the different breeds of dogs would be grouped into different species.

In the same way, 2 elephants produced Woolly Mammoths, Mastodons, African Elephants, Asian Elephants, etc. 2 cats produced Tigers, Lions, Panthers, Ocelots, etc. Just as dogs and horses changed in shape and size throughout the generations so did the other kinds of animals.

Try searching "speedy species surprise", or searching speciation on creation.com. All of the CMI articles have numerous secular references that you can find the original research to read from.

#66 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 03 August 2011 - 06:28 AM

"Loss of genetic diversity" within a species typically means local population extinctions of a specific species.

Imagine the entire population of Europe had been wiped out by WWII. That would result in far fewer European physical traits (red hair, etc) being in the gene pool. A "loss" of diversity despite the species itself surviving. This particular type of loss of diversity is called a "population bottleneck".

None of that contrasts with what creationists say on the matter.

#67 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 03 August 2011 - 06:37 AM

I will be blunt. I am afraid that your questions are coming from ignorance. Not to long ago I was a staunch OEC and was arguing with a YEC calling their ideas ridiculous. The YEC challenged me to actually read YEC material instead of arguing out of ignorance. I took her up on it. I started with Ham (not my favorite) in order to know where else to look. Now as soon as any JW got wind of me reading Ham the attacks and threats started. I took a chance. Will you?

Like there being floating, circulating systems of tree trunks in the aftermath of the Flood that "explain" why species are distributed across the Atlantic the way they are.
Like the Flood waters evaporating over several months, yet today's oceans have been around for thousands of years without evaporating or mysteriously sinking below the mantle to places that science hasn't found. You are aware that evolutionist invoke this rafting idea in order to explain the appearance of species in some places? This is not a creationist idea, but a scientific one.
Like speciation events occurring so frequently that species would die, not have anything to breed with, and/or not have enough time for gestation. Remember, this phenomenon of "super-evolution" must've only happened during a discrete timeframe since we haven't seen such speciation rates in recorded history. Ahem. Yes we have.
Like God endowing the original created organisms with some sort of ability to "super-evolve".
Like fossil stratification being the result of some animals running uphill from the floodwaters faster than others. I don't know if it is you or the museum that is presenting things in an oversimplified form. I do know that evolutionists do the same thing. All of my science books throughout my 14 years of schooling seemed to teach Lamarck's ideas. Ridiculous. I had to research things on my own as an adult to understand evolutionary theory.

And let's not forget that "people of God" spent $27M on this atrocity to human thought.
Um... okay, spending money bad. I will remember that if I ever decide to build a museum dedicated to one of my interests.

Canyons that have a serpentine path while cutting thru anything like the 2B-year-old Vishnu Schist? Cutting thru sediment and ash is one thing; cutting thru bedrock is totally different. At least St Helens included volcanic and seismic activity; I don't remember Genesis mentioning anything of the sort when discussing the Flood. Do we need to add to the Bible in order to make that work? Read the flood account in your Bible. Nothing is being added.

You seem angry. :(

#68 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 03 August 2011 - 06:45 AM

jamo0001, is this the article you read or a new one?
Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’
They have the sources at the bottom.

You are aware that evolutionist invoke this rafting idea in order to explain the appearance of species in some places? This is not a creationist idea, but a scientific one.

I forgot about that. They say that happened with an ape-like ancestor too right? Maybe not a bunch of trees floating around, but that they built a raft out of weak materials or something?

#69 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 03 August 2011 - 06:51 AM

Why not? We see that 2 wolves have the ability to produce the breeds of dogs with all of their variety. If we didn't have written history to attest this, the different breeds of dogs would be grouped into different species.


Yes, but a Chihuahua and a Great Dane could still theoretically interbreed genetically (and even physically, if you really wanna get graphic). They're not distinct species. If we're talking about individual varieties of species (like dog breeds) arising in only 6000 years, then the Creationist to-do list just got exponentially bigger.

There are 2M confirmed EXISTING species that cannot interbreed (plus extinct ones of which we have fossil evidence and which the CMIs and AIGs of the world are supposedly accounting for). Estimates for undiscovered species range up to 100M more than those we already know about, plus MORE extinct ones that we don't yet know about. CMI and AIG readily admit these facts, but they don't count on you doing the math. Think about it. 2M species divided by [x number of Biblical kinds] divided by, say, the first 3000 years post-Flood. You're talking about speciation events happening within hours of each other, even with species that have gestation periods in the range of 4-14 months each.

It makes the brain bleed to attempt to accept such things as factual. It is all a leap of faith and cannot be justified through science, math, or any other empirical discipline. But CMI, AIG, DI, etc have no problem with these things as long as people continue to throw their money at them via subscriptions, donations, speaking engagements, book purchases, etc., most of which would've been money spent by good, Christian people on charitable efforts.

#70 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 03 August 2011 - 06:52 AM

I forgot about that. They say that happened with an ape-like ancestor too right? Maybe not a bunch of trees floating around, but that they built a raft out of weak materials or something?

No... they actually invoke natural rafts just like the creationists. Here is one example: http://www.physorg.c...s183213283.html

#71 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 03 August 2011 - 07:05 AM

There are 2M confirmed EXISTING species that cannot interbreed (plus extinct ones of which we have fossil evidence and which the CMIs and AIGs of the world are supposedly accounting for).

I think I heard that out of those species, there are only like 800 kinds. I may be way off and math was my worst subject lol. There are some varieties of animals of the same kind that can't interbreed now, but could in the original creation, because of the way the environment changed after the flood and how they had to adapt.

Estimates for undiscovered species range up to 100M more than those we already know about, plus MORE extinct ones that we don't yet know about. CMI and AIG readily admit these facts, but they don't count on you doing the math. Think about it. 2M species divided by [x number of Biblical kinds] divided by, say, the first 3000 years post-Flood. You're talking about speciation events happening within hours of each other, even with species that have gestation periods in the range of 4-14 months each.

I'll email this, see what they say and let you know.

But you see what I mean about the uphill river? I don't think it formed the canyon.

No... they actually invoke natural rafts just like the creationists. Here is one example: http://www.physorg.c...s183213283.html

So, then this could be one plausible explanation aswell as the ones I mentioned. Thank you.

#72 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 03 August 2011 - 07:10 AM

No... they actually invoke natural rafts just like the creationists. Here is one example: http://www.physorg.c...s183213283.html


Yes, populating small, isolated islands is possible and dispersal theories like that have been around for over a century. But Madagascar doesn't have huge mammals; the primates in question in that article are tiny arboreal ones.

There's big difference between saying groups of small, tree-dwelling primates were washed out to sea by storms that knocked down their trees before the wind blew them 2 or 3 hundred miles to a neighboring island ....versus saying a couple dozen American Bison or moose mounted clumps of trees and managed to cross the Atlantic.

#73 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 03 August 2011 - 07:28 AM

Yes, populating small, isolated islands is possible and dispersal theories like that have been around for over a century. But Madagascar doesn't have huge mammals; the primates in question in that article are tiny arboreal ones.

There's big difference between saying groups of small, tree-dwelling primates were washed out to sea by storms that knocked down their trees before the wind blew them 2 or 3 hundred miles to a neighboring island ....versus saying a couple dozen American Bison or moose mounted clumps of trees and managed to cross the Atlantic.

Did you think the ideas I presented sounded plausible, given the creation model for the ice age and stuff?

#74 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 03 August 2011 - 07:39 AM

jamo0001, is this the article you read or a new one?
Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’
They have the sources at the bottom.


I forgot about that. They say that happened with an ape-like ancestor too right? Maybe not a bunch of trees floating around, but that they built a raft out of weak materials or something?


Thank you for finding that; I just read the paper and re-read CMI's summary article.

What CMI (I'm not sure if Batten was the author of that particular one) neglects to mention is that while 51,000 of the estimated 55k ERVs were shown to have promoter capabilities, only 1,700 were even within range of functional human genes, and only 114 of those 1700 were shown to alter frequency of gene expression. In the words of the study's authors: Most of the ERV promoter sequences were simply promoting "genetic noise". That's a far cry from "ERVs have a function and therefore cannot drift!" like Batten implied in the secondary CMI article which, when questioned, prompted his reference to the CMI article about ERVs suddenly having a widespread functional effect on the human genome.

Now, this next part I will have to run past other colleagues first, but my knee-jerk reaction to that article is this:
5% of the human genome is supposedly composed of ERVs. If there are 55k ERVs, then statistically, up to 2700 of them would be located in areas that could be in contact with genes (1700 were confirmed in the study above). 5% of 2700 is 135 (114 were confirmed in the study above to alter frequency of gene transcription). In other words, after my first glance thru this article, it is one of those "blind hog finds an acorn eventually" situations by saying that ERVs have been shown to alter gene expression frequency. No intelligent insertion of ERV sequences is needed; some of them are bound to land next to a gene if you're inserting 55000 of them.

Essentially, that article shows that large-scale viral insertions over evolutionary timescales can provide some of the raw materials for natural selection to act upon. They are not, however, evidence that a given lineage has always depended on them for anything beyond adaptation.

EDIT: It was Shaun Doyle, who has a bachelor's in environmental science, who wrote the CMI article about ERVs having some profound function. My favorite part of the article is where he says that ERVs promote transcription of "one-fifth of the human genome!". Remember, less than 2% of the human genome codes for protein or tRNA/etc. He quotes the study's authors as saying ERVs have widespread effects on human genome transcription, but he doesn't mention that the vast majority of this transcription is immediately destroyed by the cell since it is just superfluous genetic noise from the evolutionary peanut gallery of the genome.

#75 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 03 August 2011 - 09:12 AM

There's big difference between saying groups of small, tree-dwelling primates were washed out to sea by storms that knocked down their trees before the wind blew them 2 or 3 hundred miles to a neighboring island ....versus saying a couple dozen American Bison or moose mounted clumps of trees and managed to cross the Atlantic.

I don't recall ever reading anything like that. Bison and Moose traveled via land as far as I know. The shape of the land and the oceans has changed quite a bit. The difference between the creationists and the evolutionists ideas on this matter is only time. ie: How long did it take land bridges to appear and subsequently disappear and how many times did they do this.

#76 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 03 August 2011 - 09:33 AM

Thank you for finding that; I just read the paper and re-read CMI's summary article.

Your welcome

What CMI (I'm not sure if Batten was the author of that particular one) neglects to mention is that while 51,000 of the estimated 55k ERVs were shown to have promoter capabilities, only 1,700 were even within range of functional human genes, and only 114 of those 1700 were shown to alter frequency of gene expression. In the words of the study's authors: Most of the ERV promoter sequences were simply promoting "genetic noise". That's a far cry from "ERVs have a function and therefore cannot drift!" like Batten implied in the secondary CMI article which, when questioned, prompted his reference to the CMI article about ERVs suddenly having a widespread functional effect on the human genome.

Now, this next part I will have to run past other colleagues first, but my knee-jerk reaction to that article is this:
5% of the human genome is supposedly composed of ERVs. If there are 55k ERVs, then statistically, up to 2700 of them would be located in areas that could be in contact with genes (1700 were confirmed in the study above). 5% of 2700 is 135 (114 were confirmed in the study above to alter frequency of gene transcription). In other words, after my first glance thru this article, it is one of those "blind hog finds an acorn eventually" situations by saying that ERVs have been shown to alter gene expression frequency. No intelligent insertion of ERV sequences is needed; some of them are bound to land next to a gene if you're inserting 55000 of them.

Essentially, that article shows that large-scale viral insertions over evolutionary timescales can provide some of the raw materials for natural selection to act upon. They are not, however, evidence that a given lineage has always depended on them for anything beyond adaptation.

EDIT: It was Shaun Doyle, who has a bachelor's in environmental science, who wrote the CMI article about ERVs having some profound function. My favorite part of the article is where he says that ERVs promote transcription of "one-fifth of the human genome!". Remember, less than 2% of the human genome codes for protein or tRNA/etc. He quotes the study's authors as saying ERVs have widespread effects on human genome transcription, but he doesn't mention that the vast majority of this transcription is immediately destroyed by the cell since it is just superfluous genetic noise from the evolutionary peanut gallery of the genome.

Sir, I would love to see what you see in your head when you say this, but I am not a microbiologist or biologist. Your going to have to explain things to me on a fourth grade level lol.

#77 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 03 August 2011 - 09:53 AM

This was the response I received about the animal kinds not being able to split off into all the varities after the flood.

1. Scientists can’t agree within an order of magnitude how many species there actually are. Out of the species we know that are living today, many are acknowledged by all parties to come from a common ancestor—e.g. lions and tigers. Many can interbreed (ligers, zorses, etc), meaning that they are the same biological species.

2. The vast majority of species (both living and extinct) are marine animals, insects, plants, and tiny things like bacteria and protists. It is precisely these things we don’t have to account for, because the Ark only took on land vertebrates as obligate passengers. A secular Internet source I looked at said that there are around 31,000 known species of land vertebrates living today. I would argue that the addition of created kinds which have no living representatives would not be significant enough to affect our argument (for instance, maybe 50 basic kinds of dinosaurs-see Too many dinosaur names.)

3. This number counts, for instance, panthers, leopards, housecats, lions, and tigers as all different species. So we can agree surely that a very generous estimate to the atheist would put the number of ‘kinds’ as 10-15,000. Incidentally, John Woodmorappe in his Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study showed that it was possible to house and care for 16,000 animals and store food sufficient for a year with space left over on a vessel the dimensions of the biblical Ark. If the level of created kind is as high up as the family, then the number of animals is the hundreds—at most, just a few thousand.

4. Given that we’re talking about land vertebrates, the amount of speciation required is not one that exceeds the ability of these animals to procreate. If 1,000 kinds of animals aboard the Ark had to generate 31,000 species extant today, that’s less than 7 species per kind per millennium, which we can hopefully agree is not unrealistic. We need even less speciation if there are more created kinds.

Several articles may also be helpful:

Variation information and the created kind
Trilobites on the ark
Baranomes and the design of life
Variation inducing genetic elements
Creation Answers Book/Chaper 13

I also recommend Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study: Creation Store

#78 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 03 August 2011 - 10:16 AM

[quote] name='jamo0001' timestamp='1312335771' post='73632']
Instead of going quote by quote, I'll just sum up my response in these two points:

-Mathematics is not physical in any way, shape, or form. No gods are needed in order to look at a group of marbles and see mathematics. Same goes for truth, beauty, and (gasp!) morality. [Side note: a thread about the evolution of human morality would be downright riveting, however I'm waking up at 5AM and don't feel like starting one right now]. If you can't conceive of this, I cannot personally help you. I can recommend several monumental works of philosophy that can help you out, though, and I'll even pick ones written by Christians, if that makes you more comfortable.
>>Bottom line: Metaphysical things, including reason and logic, do not require a theistic worldview (whether or not any gods exist).
-Christians have plenty of reasons to believe that various laws of nature can be suspended (the Bible is full of instances where this was recorded as occurring). Evolutionists, however, have NO REASON to expect laws of nature to change. Find me a single scientific paper that asserts a law of nature has been broken.
>>Bottom line: The only people who even consider the possibility of natural laws being non-constant are theists or some sort of crackpot New Ager. You believe in a virgin birth, don't you?

And I'd just like to say that hearing a theist say that they're the only ones able to believe in the constancy of nature is pretty jaw-dropping. That's what divine intervention, intelligent design, the incarnation, the revelation of the Bible, and everything else is all about.

I would also love to recommend a fascinating lecture by a neuroscientist who will absolutely blow you mind regarding these things, but he uses evolution to explain the phenomena, so I'm afraid you wouldn't really feel comfortable sitting thru it long enough in order to hear his conclusions.
[/quote]

Jam,

First, your bio (now that I looked at it more closely) says that your are both a Christian and an atheist. According to the Law of Noncontradiction, you can't be a Christian and not be a Christian at the same time and in the same way. Do you agree with this?

Mathematics is not physical. My argument exactly. If we can use mathematics to describe the universe, doesn't this mean that Someone used mathematics putting it together? If math is not physical, then how can physical chemicals and molecuses produce math which is not physical? Mathematics would not exist if God did not exist. Can you explain how reasonless chemicals can give you mathematics? Now understand you don't have to BELIEVE in God to do math, but you do need for Him to exist. For example, Kepler discovered beautiful math equations that explained the rotation of the planets, whichI understand are still being used today. If the universe was simply a random explosion, how could Kepler use math to describe randomness?

I used morality as an example of something you can't justify in an atheist worldview. Atheists long ago have abandoned ABSOLUTE morality in favor of relative morality. Will you agree that only in a theist worldview that absolute morality can exist? If you disagree, then I will ask you for your FOUNDATION of absolute morality. And then you will be getting dangerously close to God.

Can you explain how reasonless chemicals (WHICH ARE PHYSICAL) can give you nonphysical reason and laws of logic? You don't have to BELIEVE in God to use logic and reason, but you do need His existence. Lifeless, reasonless chemicals can't give you what they do not have to give--immaterial, invariant, universal laws of logic. But a logical, reasoning God can.

Uniformity of nature, that the physical laws will not change arbitrarily. They will function today as they did yesterday. You are now arguing that because theists believe that God can do miracles and intervene in His creation, that this rescues you from this dilemma. A theist has a rational reason to believe that there is uniformity of nature and trust that God will not arbitrarily change the physical laws because God has promised us this in His word (Gen. 8.22 for example). And in Hebrews, He says that He "upholds all with the word of His power." The theist worldview is not arbitrary. When an atheist trusts that the physical laws will not change, he is being arbitrary within his worldview. His worldview does not justify his belief. If he were consistent, and stayed in his worldview, he could really know nothing.

Jam, I did not say that only a theist can BELIEVE in uniformity of nature. My argument is that an atheist has no reason to believe in uniformity of nature within his worldview. His worldview is random, reasonless chemicals existing in space with no guidance of any sort. The atheist worldview is irrational.

Jam, so far, I think I have proved one point. An atheist will see evidence through his worldview glasses and the theist will see evidence through his worldview glasses. So, it comes down to which worldview is rational, non-arbitrary, and consistent. Do you agree with this?

Questions: Is atheism logical? a. Yes. b. No.

Second question: Are the laws of logic absolute or conventional?

TeeJay

#79 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 03 August 2011 - 10:20 AM

First, your bio (now that I looked at it more closely) says that your are both a Christian and an atheist. According to the Law of Noncontradiction, you can't be a Christian and not be a Christian at the same time and in the same way. Do you agree with this?

You'd have to define being a "Christian" first, right? It clearly fits within his view of things. He may not believe in God (or may), but still consider himself a "Christian" by his definition. That's why I just try to avoid labels and just get to the bottom of the beliefs.

#80 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 03 August 2011 - 10:24 AM

Jam, I must tell you a bit of what I have learned recently. John 17:3. ""This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." I have studied the Bible my whole life. I had verses memorized to answer practically any theological question. But what I needed was to know God. I had to read the Bible with the question in my mind, "what does this tell me about God's personality." For the whole obligation of man is to imitate our heavenly Father. Now I find that the Bible verses I memorized to answer theological questions were quote mined, mistranslated, etc. and I may not now be able to answer every theological question put to me, but that is okay. I know my God. That is what is needed. All else will follow.

You'd have to define being a "Christian" first, right? It clearly fits within his view of things. He may not believe in God (or may), but still consider himself a "Christian" by his definition. That's why I just try to avoid labels and just get to the bottom of the beliefs.

Wen filling out the profile, the term Christian is listed as an affiliation. He is affiliated with a Christian Church, so that is why he filled the profile out in this way.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users