Jump to content


Photo

How Does Evolution Prove There Is No God Of The Bible?


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#41 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 14 April 2011 - 02:58 PM

I made a strong case for a designer such as God earlier in this post. However I'd like to add a bit more.

While you have acknowledged that the validity of The Bible is off topic, I will use the validity of The Bible as my second piece of evidence for God. You say that you can quote Bible verses that you say contradict each other, but a simple google search for the contradiction will provide an answer to any contradiction that you can muster. All "contradictions" of The Bible have been addressed and The Bible remains infallible and is verified by historians and archeology. This is the most telling evidence for the Christian God.


I am aware that rebuttals have been made to arguments that the bible has flaws, but many of them are not very convincing although some explain things perfectly. Since you are using the bible as evidence of creation, then I will have to address its claims. First I will give you my position of the bible. I positively believe that the bible is not divine. Many atheists think that the bible is all forgery and evil and then many theists think it is divine. In find these positions to be extreme and I try to have a balanced view of the book.

The old testament is a collection of the religious writings of the Hebrew people that has many good things in it but is also just as fallible as the people who wrote it. The old testament contains Hebrew history, poetry, laws, moral philosophy, and mythology. In many places these are quite intertwined. The new testament contains the gospels which were written about Jesus decades after his death that probably contain an exaggerated version of his life. Subsequent books in the New Testament contains the various moral writings, history of the Christian churches, and philosophy of the followers of Jesus.

The bible has been translated and retranslated several times and many of the books were probably written well after the events they describe. The bible contains the documents that were approved by Roman Emperor Constantine in the Council of Nicea and many religious documents were left out of the bible. The bible contains factual and moral imperfections because its writers were imperfect.


I disagree. The findings of DNA fits the Creationist model and leaves evolution with more questions.
I believe the evidence is contrary to The Big Bang, but you are right, it is off topic.


Of course, just like subsequent findings in atomic theory give atomic theory more to explain. This still does not displace the tons of evidence of in favor of atomic theory as long as new data does not disprove the theory. Usually new data disproves minor points of the theory that has to be tweaked and added to.

Genetic information is written via tinkering of DNA, activating/deactivating present genes, and deleting genes. If you are talking about gene duplication, it is a poor explanation for the variety of life. Especially if you believe that the variety of life came from a single replicating cell, gene, or what have you.

View Post


Addition is a situation in which mutations add genes to the genome. Individual genes can be added or entire sequences or chromosomes. Usually additions that have very little effect on the body are the best. Mutations are an integral idea in microevolution or the evolution within speces.

Before we talk about information to much, I would like you to define it.
Which of the below options is information?
Increased genetic variety in a population.
Increased genetic material.
Novel genetic material.
Novel genetically-regulated abilities.
Something else.

#42 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 14 April 2011 - 06:25 PM

ALL the books of our New Testament were considered Biblical Scripture long before the “First Council of Nicaea”. Christians in different countries and different councils all chose the same canon. I also have a book that goes over the canon and one way that the books are determined genuine is if other Bible writers or people in the Bible books (Jesus does on many occasions) quote them.

One way to know that a copy is accurate is to compare it to an older copy and see what has or hasn't been changed. They have found older and older copies and these confirm that the later manuscripts are accurate.

Translators compare the earliest translated versions of the scriptures. For the Hebrew scriptures we have The Samaritan Pentateuch, The Aramaic Targums, and the Greek Septuagint. For the Greek scriptures we have the Latin Vulgate, Coptic, Armenian and Syriac versions.

If you compare the New Testament to other writings, no other ancient works come close to the accuracy, number of copies, and short time span between the original writing and the earliest surviving copy.

http://www.digisys.n...cient_books.htm

In addition, there have been many attempts to wipe out the people who wrote and kept copies of the Bible and many attempts to destroy the Bible itself. The survival of the Bible throughout the years is remarkable, and on top of survival it is readily available in many places and languages.

#43 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 14 April 2011 - 07:31 PM

Of course.  What I meant was that even macroevolution to the point of universal common descent can still be true with abiogenesis being complete garbage.

Do you think that all life originated from a single replicating cell after life was somehow conceived? I agree that evolution happens regardless of abiogenesis, but starting at abiogenesis is a great way to test the validity of evolution by an unguided premise. I'm leaving abiogenesis out of it though since you don't really have a strong opinion on the subject.

Well, microevolution or evolution within a species is an example of natural selection and mutations doing some logical coding.

I'm talking about the conception of the first replicating cell or gene. We can create programs on computers to do automated task. It is apparent that the designer did the very same thing. Don't worry about micro/macro evolution. I only reject common descent. There is no need for us to talk about those terminologies. We can just call it evolution if you'd like. Micro/macro evolution is a misleading term for both sides. If you have ever seen a creationist and an evolutionist get in a discussion using those terms you'll see that it gets confusing pretty fast.

That is one conclusion we can draw, and the existence of DNA does not contradict creationism. I think that the fossil record has very strong evidence for evolution but much evidence for evolution does not come from the fossil record.

If we are to look at the fossil record for evolution, it is very fragmented. Theoretically we should see gradual changes in animals in the geologic column, changes that would point to common descent, but we don't see that. We see animals appear in one strata, completely disappear for a few stratas, then reappear. That isn't a solid record for common descent. Does it disprove common descent? No, but it is a problem for the advocates of common descent. One that is downplayed on a regular basis, it doesn't make the problem go away however.

By your statement, are you reconsidering the statement you made earlier that evolution trounces on the literal interpretation of Genesis? I hope so. :P


The evidence from Ken Miller was presented in the Dover trial and shows how a precise prediction of evolution was supported by evidence.  This is only one piece of data and much more is needed to make the theory believable.  It is possible to have this data make sense from a creationist perspective but it does not back up creationism in any way.

The issue that I have is that evolution via chromosome variation has been debunked. Anyone who believes that we were designed would also expect similarities in organisms, because that is the nature of any creator. This is repeatedly demonstrable. How you interpret similarities in DNA depends on the world view that you are approaching it with.

Do you want more evidence for evolution?

You can throw as much evidence at me as you'd like. It doesn't bother me. I'm just here to debate. :P

You will have to give me an example to work with so we can have a more analytical debate.  So, give me your best shot.

View Post

About kinds? What manner of an example are you looking for?

#44 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 14 April 2011 - 07:49 PM

I am aware that rebuttals have been made to arguments that the bible has flaws, but many of them are not very convincing although some explain things perfectly.  Since you are using the bible as evidence of creation, then I will have to address its claims.  First I will give you my position of the bible.  I positively believe that the bible is not divine.  Many atheists think that the bible is all forgery and evil and then many theists think it is divine.  In find these positions to be extreme and I try to have a balanced view of the book.

The thing about reading any book is that there is a lot of ways to read the same sentence. Have you ever had someone tell you something but you weren't sure of what they meant because you could take it several ways? I think this is the issue that both atheists and Christians have with The Bible at times. You could ask "Well, how do we know if we have a good interpretation?" When you are doing intellectual gymnastics, then it probably means that you have a bad interpretation.

The old testament is a collection of the religious writings of the Hebrew people that has many good things in it but is also just as fallible as the people who wrote it.  The old testament contains Hebrew history, poetry, laws, moral philosophy, and mythology.  In many places these are quite intertwined.  The new testament contains the gospels which were written about Jesus decades after his death that probably contain an exaggerated version of his life.  Subsequent books in the New Testament contains the various moral writings, history of the Christian churches, and philosophy of the followers of Jesus.

Well, when you argue morality, you are really talking philosophy. The ten commandments is God's standard for morality. Are you referring to Israeli Law in the old testament?

As for stating that Jesus' life is exaggerated, that is really just an opinion of what you believe really happened. However, there were letters to roman leaders with concern about the rise of Christianity shortly after Jesus's death.

http://www.allabouta...e-for-jesus.htm


The Bible has been translated and retranslated several times and many of the books were probably written well after the events they describe.  The bible contains the documents that were approved by Roman Emperor Constantine in the Council of Nicea and many religious documents were left out of the bible.  The bible contains factual and moral imperfections because its writers were imperfect.

There is really no evidence to substantiate this statement. The Hebrew Bible has been translated into different languages. That is it really. Yes, there are different English versions, but all versions that were translated has remained unchanged and point to the same presumed truth.


Of course, just like subsequent findings in atomic theory give atomic theory more to explain.  This still does not displace the tons of evidence of in favor of atomic theory as long as new data does not disprove the theory.  Usually new data disproves minor points of the theory that has to be tweaked and added to.

You are correct, but I'm pointing out that DNA is a hinderance for naturalistic evolution when you consider the diversity of life originating for a single duplicating gene, cell, or whathaveyou.(Depending on which story you are telling.)

Addition is a situation in which mutations add genes to the genome.  Individual genes can be added or entire sequences or chromosomes.  Usually additions that have very little effect on the body are the best.  Mutations are an integral idea in microevolution or the evolution within speces.

All information produced on a genome is derived from coding that was already there. What I am looking for is a mutation that did not utilize information that was already on the genome, which would have to be the case at some point if you were arguing that life came from a single replicating cell. That is as clear as I can tell you as to what I am looking for.

Before we talk about information to much, I would like you to define it.  
Which of the below options is information?
Increased genetic variety in a population.
Increased genetic material.
Novel genetic material.
Novel genetically-regulated abilities.
Something else.
[right][snapback]70903[/snapback][/right]
I define genetic information as coding in DNA. See above if you are asking what I am looking for as far as genetic evidence for evolution is concerned.

#45 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 April 2011 - 08:20 PM

May I change you statement slightly?
“I believe that atheists use evolution to Insinuate  there is no God.” :P

View Post


No probs, I like the changes :P


@Dan4

Yes I agree that DNA is (potential) information on the genome, however in order for this information to be realised there needs to be a mechanism of de-coding / translating the information. This is not just relegated to the processes of translation and transcription... It goes beyond that, whereby what enabled the ribosomes to correlate their information with DNA... for example how does the ribosomes "know" which amino acids go to what codon sequence??

Looking at the codon sequences and you see a PATTERN to most times an amino acid will have many codons coding for it, and the first two bases will be the same whereas the third will be different.. This is to ensure that the mechanism of tRNA wobble doesn't upset what amino acid is used.. (Since the wobble means that the third base used can change, due to the ribosome)

Such things cannot be logically concluded as coincidence, hence since naturalistic science cannot find an answer a supernatural one must be invoked as the null hypothesis.

#46 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 14 April 2011 - 08:59 PM

No probs, I like the changes :P
@Dan4

Yes I agree that DNA is (potential) information on the genome, however in order for this information to be realised there needs to be a mechanism of de-coding / translating the information. This is not just relegated to the processes of translation and transcription... It goes beyond that, whereby what enabled the ribosomes to correlate their information with DNA... for example how does the ribosomes "know" which amino acids go to what codon sequence??

Looking at the codon sequences and you see a PATTERN to most times an amino acid will have many codons coding for it, and the first two bases will be the same whereas the third will be different.. This is to ensure that the mechanism of tRNA wobble doesn't upset what amino acid is used.. (Since the wobble means that the third base used can change, due to the ribosome)

Such things cannot be logically concluded as coincidence, hence since naturalistic science cannot find an answer a supernatural one must be invoked as the null hypothesis.

View Post

You just hit on my point before I even stated it. Thanks for ruining the surprise. :P

#47 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 14 April 2011 - 10:21 PM

Guys can I please ask you to get back on topic!!

#48 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 14 April 2011 - 11:15 PM

How are we off topic? Dan is presenting a case for evolution that supposedly trounces on the literal interpretation of Genesis, I'm getting to the bottom of his claims.

#49 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 15 April 2011 - 02:24 AM

How are we off topic? Dan is presenting a case for evolution that supposedly trounces on the literal interpretation of Genesis, I'm getting to the bottom of his claims.

View Post

I can see why you went on this route. And I do understand your frustration.
My original question was.
“How does evolution prove there is no God of the bible?”
I also made it clear that in this OP I’m not interested in why an atheist does not believe in God.
What I challenging is atheist like Richard Dawkins who use evolution as a tool against the existents of God.
In Post #35 I point out the two effects that evolution have on the existent of God. You will find that Dan has not responded on this. Atheist like Dan will argue the literal historical account of Genesis vs. Evolution. But I did give an alternative (a non literal genesis). They also argue design vs evolution. Then I give another alternative.
I think most atheist don’t believe in God because of evolution. They do not what to believe in God and use evolution as an excuse.
By arguing DNA you are defending the design argument. Focus has shifted. From “evolution prove there is no God” to “is there a design”.

Here is my challenge. Lets from here on consider evolution as an empirical proven fact. Atheists like Dan do not need to defend evolution anymore. All they have to do is to defend the notion that evolution prove there is no God.

#50 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 April 2011 - 03:04 AM

How are we off topic? Dan is presenting a case for evolution that supposedly trounces on the literal interpretation of Genesis, I'm getting to the bottom of his claims.

View Post


I know your frustration, however this IS off topic, whereby the topic was the Original post..(and thus the actual title of the thread)

I apologized in post 36 for this as it is quite frustrating when a persons thread goes off the rails and doesn't achieve the intended discussion that the original poster made the thread for.


Claims of "how the bible is incorrect" and "how evolution is incorrect" have no relevance to the original post... (Dan is as guilty of this as any of us)


As Crous said before, (in correcting my post :P ), that evolution perhaps insinuates that there is no God...

Perhaps by showing that everything can be explained via a naturalistic conclusion that shows how there is no "room" for the supernatural... However this idea fails because science cannot explain ALL such things, (the beginnings of the universe / life), let alone the philosophical questions of purpose and meaning... Hence what I believe is that evolutionary belief does attempt to insinuate that there is no God, however it fails to do so.

#51 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 15 April 2011 - 10:28 AM

Dan acknowledged at the beginning of the thread that evolution doesn't disprove God, but makes it easier to be an atheist. I think the issue now is that he says that evolution trounces on the literal interpretation of Genesis, that is what he and I are currently debating about. I do see that as on topic because of a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect, then I consider Christianity to be destroyed. That is why I believe that he and I's discussion is relevant. I do at least want the claim that evolution trounces on the first chapter of Genesis addressed though.

If I'm outnumbered here, I'll give him the last word and let the thread carry on. I do not believe that we did anything wrong though as every thread in this forum inevitably take a course such as this once the original question has been addressed. Let me know.

#52 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 15 April 2011 - 11:40 AM

Dan acknowledged at the beginning of the thread that evolution doesn't disprove God, but makes it easier to be an atheist. I think the issue now is that he says that evolution trounces on the literal interpretation of Genesis, that is what he and I are currently debating about.

So far this is also relevant and even agreed on.

I do see that as on topic because of a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect, then I consider Christianity to be destroyed. That is why I believe that he and I's discussion is relevant. I do at least want the claim that evolution trounces on the first chapter of Genesis addressed though.

The problem is that one can loose onself into details there! And I think there are other discussions that focus on those details.

If I'm outnumbered here, I'll give him the last word and let the thread carry on. I do not believe that we did anything wrong though as every thread in this forum inevitably take a course such as this once the original question has been addressed. Let me know.

View Post

You could also do an excourse on the details and come back with the results later.

#53 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 15 April 2011 - 01:48 PM

I can see why you went on this route. And I do understand your frustration.
My original question was.
“How does evolution prove there is no God of the bible?”
I also made it clear that in this OP I’m not interested in why an atheist does not believe in God.
What I challenging is atheist like Richard Dawkins who use evolution as a tool against the existents of God.
In Post #35 I point out the two effects that evolution have on the existent of God. You will find that Dan has not responded on this. Atheist like Dan will argue the literal historical account of Genesis vs. Evolution. But I did give an alternative (a non literal genesis). They also argue design vs evolution. Then I give another alternative.
I think most atheist don’t believe in God because of evolution. They do not what to believe in God and use evolution as an excuse.
By arguing DNA you are defending the design argument. Focus has shifted. From “evolution prove there is no God” to “is there a design”.

Here is my challenge.  Lets from here on consider evolution as an empirical proven fact. Atheists like Dan do not need to defend evolution anymore. All they have to do is to defend the notion that evolution prove there is no God.

View Post


Ok. Fine. I will break off the discussion about whether evolution is true or not and focus on its effect on the bible.

I will respond to your points. The design argument says that immense complexity cannot happen through non-design. The theory of evolution demonstrates the immense complexity of life coming through the very simple forces of natural selection and mutations. The theory of evolution shows that complexity and information can build up to great heights without a designer doing it.

There is nothing to indicate in the bible that genesis is non-litteral and that is how Christians interpreted it for several millenia. In fact geneologies later in the bible go all the way from Adam. Apparently the bible thinks that Adam and Eve existed. Much of the doctrine in the bible is based on the events in the Garden of Even.

So, if the genesis account is falsified, then this is a demonstration of the poor track record of a litterally interpreted bible. For all you know, the flood is non-litteral, the 10 plagues of Egypt is non-litteral, the story of Job is non-litteral, heck, maybe the life of Jesus is non-litteral. Saying genesis is non-litteral is a Christian's way of saying that its claims are wrong but they still want to be Christians.

Evolution IS the strongest reason many atheists don't believe in God and that includes me because it destroys the strongest argument in favor of God's existence, however, it does not disprove God. It simply gives us far less reason to believe in one.

#54 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 15 April 2011 - 02:03 PM

Dan acknowledged at the beginning of the thread that evolution doesn't disprove God, but makes it easier to be an atheist. I think the issue now is that he says that evolution trounces on the literal interpretation of Genesis, that is what he and I are currently debating about. I do see that as on topic because of a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect, then I consider Christianity to be destroyed. That is why I believe that he and I's discussion is relevant. I do at least want the claim that evolution trounces on the first chapter of Genesis addressed though.

If I'm outnumbered here, I'll give him the last word and let the thread carry on. I do not believe that we did anything wrong though as every thread in this forum inevitably take a course such as this once the original question has been addressed. Let me know.

View Post

There are several verses later in the bible that take genesis literally.

1 Timothy 2:13 -- For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

1 Corinthians 15:47 -- The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.

Acts 17:24 -- "God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.

mark 10

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Isaiah 45:12 -- I have made the earth, And created man on it. I; My hands; stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.

It is hard to take genesis non-litterally.

#55 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 15 April 2011 - 02:13 PM

The theory of evolution shows that complexity and information can build up to great heights without a designer doing it. 

View Post


May I ask how evolution shows that complexity and especially information can come about without a designer?

There is something called the Laws of information (theory?) and it goes against any sort of information coming about randomly without any "sender".

#56 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 15 April 2011 - 03:08 PM

May I ask how evolution shows that complexity and especially information can come about without a designer?

There is something called the Laws of information (theory?) and it goes against any sort of information coming about randomly without any "sender".

View Post


This thread seems more about debating the truth of evolution rather than its implications on God and the bible if true.:P

I don't remember being any law of information, and by the way, evolutionists don't say that information is created randomly. It is created with random muations yes, but organized with natural selection.

#57 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 15 April 2011 - 07:24 PM

Yeah, since the OP(Not blaming him, it's his thread.) doesn't like the direction of the discussion we have to focus more of the validity of God and the literal interpretation of Genesis.

#58 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 15 April 2011 - 07:28 PM

There are several verses later in the bible that take genesis literally. 

1 Timothy 2:13 -- For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

1 Corinthians 15:47 -- The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.

Acts 17:24 -- "God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.

mark 10

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Isaiah 45:12 -- I have made the earth, And created man on it. I; My hands; stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.

It is hard to take genesis non-litterally.

View Post

You are right, it is hard(It actually should be impossible.) to take Genesis in a non literal sense, but evolution does nothing to dismiss a literal interpretation of Genesis. I accept the literal interpretation of Genesis.

#59 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 April 2011 - 11:00 PM

Look, evolution CAN be true with abiogenesis being complete bogus, therefore proving the Theory of Evolution does not require abiogenesis being proven. 

I really only have a general knowledge of the main hypotheses of abiogenesis and know that there is a little evidence to support then but they are nowhere near being solid explanations.  This is why they are only hypotheses.


Saying that evolution does not need abiogenesis is like saying creation does not need a Creator.

Example: Creation just happens, no Creator needed.

I am very skeptical of them and will not say that I believe them, but I will not say that I disbelieve them either.  I suspect that life began naturally and not through design but this idea is not scientific, only philosophical, and I will hold myself back from making any assumptions about the origin of life. 


The reason science is moving away from abiogenesis is because they cannot move any further with it. The new idea which puts origins of life out of reach to where no one can challenge it is the idea of Panspermia. Which is basically that our seed for life was planted here by an outside source.

According to the theory of evolution, every species is related and has a last common ancestor with any other given species.  It follows that there is a very strong correlation between the genetic and morphological differences between any two species and the time in the past at which these species diverged.  It is a reasonable conclusion that the humans are most related to apes and diverged from them long ago. 


What all life has in common is RNA and DNA. You guys figure out for certain where that came from and you will have an answer. Abiogenesis failed at doing that. Also, common ancestor exists because all life has a common template (RNA DNA). Not because of evolution.

The problem is that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs.  The most likely thesis is that the last common ancestor had 24 pairs like the apes and the ancestors of humans eventually diverged with only 23 pairs.  The best way this could happen would be a chomosome fusion.  If this was true, then one pair of human chromosomes should almost perfectly resemble two pairs of fused ape chromosomes.  Chromosomes have structures called telomeres on their ends and if two ape pairs fused, the resulting pair should have telomeres in the center as well as on the ends.


And what is the process of Chromosome fusion, and why would it need to happen? The immune system will react to even the smallest change. Just ask anyone who has had a organ transplant. So how much does fusion of a Chromosome change the DNA structure? Plus, there are over 3 million differences in base pairs in just .1% change. Do you think you would survive a 3 million change all at once? So what this shows is that there would have to be 1/2 a million missing links in order for change to work without activating the immune system. Are we anywhere near finding that many missing links? Nope.

This is exactly what we find in human chromosome #2 and this almost perfectly resembles the appearance of chimpanzee chromosomes 2a and 2b stacked right on top of each other.  We even know the exact point of fusion.  This is a powerful example of the sheer predictive power of the theory of evolution. 
How do living fossils contradict evolution?


And the reason we are related is because of the common template (RNA DNA) not evolution.

Living fossils disprove that it is a record of time for living and extinct animals. One example of many is the Coelacanth fish. It is found about halfway down the column, but in no layer above that proving that it existed until present times. In fact every living fossil found has this problem. No living fossil has been found above it's original layer. So for a fossil record to be accurate for being evidence for evolution, these living fossils have to be found in other layers showing they survived and did not change.

Another example of a living fossil disproving the fossil record supporting evolution is the sea pen. The sea pen fossil can be found in the very bottom lay of the column, yet in no layer above that proving it survived until present time.

Also, if the fossil record supports evolution, there should not be any complexity in the lowest layer. Yet the trilobite has fully formed organs.

Posted ImagePosted Image

And so does the nautilus which is also found in the lowest layer and is a living fossil.

Posted Image

Being found in the lowest layer means there is no evolution tree going to these sea creatures. So the question of how they evolved complex, can never be answered. But if you use deductive logic, creation is the only answer. How?

The flood would not be sorting according to complexity. And since complexity in the lowest layer is unexplainable, it fits. Also the Bible says the fountains of the deep broke up. Which means the burying started with bottom dwellers and worked it's way up. And that's exactly how the column works. Which also means the land animals were last, and that's what we see.

The flood also would not sort by how a living thing survived (it's time-line). Living fossils prove this by not being found in any other layer (time-line broken) than what it was buried in. Showing by column record standards that it should not be alive today.

If macroevolution has mountains of evidence, then it is very very likely that creationism is wrong.  But anyway, I am very interested to hear about what evidence there is for creation.


Evidence? How about an observable process? Evidence minus an observable process is only an educated guess. So what is your empirical evidence for macroevolution? And is there mountains of this empirical evidence?

Actually no.  When DNA was discovered we at last had a rigorous scientific explanation for how evolution happens on the genetic level with knowledge of different kinds of mutations, and natural selection picking the good ones.
You already know my position on abiogenesis.  I believe in the big bang because the evidence supports it but that is not what this debate is about.
Genetic information can also come from mutations.  If we are assuming that creating more genetic code means an increase in information.
Well, I would bring out some bible contraditions but I would be going way off topic.

View Post


Conformism. Like I said and will repeat, what makes "all" life related is the common template (RNA DNA). Want to impress me with evolution? Evolve a whole new and better template for life.

And about the Bible contradictions. Start another thread and bring your copy and paste ideas and post them. I love a good challenge. That is if you have new ones, if not I will just shoot them out of the air. I can almost bet they are old ones that have been around for 50 years or more.

#60 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 April 2011 - 11:27 PM

No I am not saying that.  All I am saying is that you need life to begin with in order to have evolution.


Hence the need for abiogenesis or panspermia. Neither are anywhere near becoming a viable scientific theory.

If evolution is true, then humans evolved from earlier forms and has a common ancestor with every species we see today.  Evolution also tells us that there is a correlation between the genetic and morphological simmilarities between any two given species and the distance in time at which the ancestor of these two species diverged from a last common ancestor. 


Because we all have something in common, RNA and DNA. Does not prove evolution. And observable empirical process for macroevolution would prove it.

Since humans are the most related to apes, it makes sense that it is most likely that apes are the most closely related to humans above of all other animals.  If this is true, we should find transitional fossils which will probably have ape-like features and human-like features.  Indeed we find this in a species called homo erectus which is older than humans and lived right before we start seeing humans.


Changes conflict with our immune system, can you tell us how these changes happened without activating our immune system to work against us? How sensitive is our immune system? Do you know what causes arthritis? It's where the immune system thinks the cartilage in your joints is foreign material, so it attacks. Nothing has changed to make it do so, but it does because it's so sensitive to change.

So in .1% change which equals 3 million differences in our base pairs compared to apes or chimps. How did that change take place without activating the immune system? In fact if evolution is true and proven as most evolutionists will claim, you should be able to tell us just how much of a change the immune system will take during evolution before it will activate? But you cannot because the immune system totally debunks evolution because it does not allow change on the scale that evolutionists claim that it has happened.

If not then an explanation about the immune system and evolution would be addressed instead of ignored. So let's make a list of what should have been addressed but never has and never will.

1) A tolerance test to see how much change the immune system will take before it attacks.
2) A record kept of how each life form's immune system works regarding change.
3) A record made so that it can be estimated just how many missing links there should be between each species of life forms so that we will know when we are close to finding all that we need to know concerning each species.

The truth be told, most animals have a much stronger immune system than we humans do. What this means if that their immune system is more sensitive, and will react more violently to change. Attacking and killing any foreign material it finds.

Any cell that forms to create a new organ, or system, would be considered foreign material.

Trees can be burried where they are in volcanic blasts and also be slowly buried in swamps.  The fact that the earth is billions of years old is cross verified by several dating techniques.
Mutations and natural selection.

View Post


And God can create live matter (Adam and Eve) with age, which means He can also create dead matter the same way. If age dating were 100% true, all matter would date the same because according to Big Bang it all came from the same source, right?

Creating with age fits, and I'd like you to show me how it does not if you disagree.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users