Jump to content


Photo

What Would It Take For A Evolutionist To Consider Creation?


  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#41 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 01 August 2011 - 08:01 PM

[quote] name='jamo0001' timestamp='1312241760' post='73585']
First off, I'm not sure how atheism got brought into the debate regarding my two (probably errant) requirements for creation to be placed back on the table as an alternative to evolution. At least for myself.[/quote]

Jam,

This is the second time you accused me of being "off topic." I don't think I am? But if I am, I'll let the moderator judge. You posted what it would take for you to consider creation: "A body of evidence that can't be explained by current evolution theories."

Now your bio says you are an atheist and you are arguing for evolution. So I gave you a body of evidence that can't be explained by an atheist/evolutionist. The body of evidence I presented that can't be explained by evolution, random chance chemicals: rational thought, laws of logic. In your worldview, where only matter exists, laws of logic can't be "explained." They are immaterial, invariant, and universal.

In an evolutionary worldview, where your brain is an accidental composition of chemicals, how can you have rational thought and know that you can reach truth? And how can physical chemicals tell you that something is true?

How can there be morality in an evolutionary worldview? If you are the result of random chance chemicals and your thinking is just chemical reactions, then how can an absolute universal morality exist?

How can an atheist justify his assumptions that the physical laws will operate tommorow as they have today within his worldview? He can assume they will, but he has no rational reason to know that they will.

So, I submit that I have presented some evidence that "can't be explained" by current evolution theories."

[quote]Secondly, I could not disagree with the above-quoted statement more. It is patently false and makes me incredibly sad to read. Are you saying that reason, logic, and observations of nature did not occur and could not occur until the inception of any type of Christianity/Christian worldview? I have read your entire post twice and I still do not understand what in the world you are trying to say.[/quote]

No! I did not say that. Atheist evolutionists reason rationally, use laws of logic, observe nature, do scientific experimentation, rail against moral industices, and assume that the physical laws are uniform and will not change tomorrow. But because none of these things can be justified by an atheist worldview, they are being inconsistent within their worldview. They are being arbitrary within their worldview. And they are being irrational based on their worldview. None of these things can rationally exist within an atheist/wvolutionist worldview. He has no rational reason to justify their existence apart from a Creator God. So when he uses them, he is borrowing from the Christian worldview and hence affirming evolution false.

[quote]Socrates, Pythagoras, Democritus, and all of the other great Greek logicians and philosophers predated Christ by centuries and were largely insulated from any type of Hebrew/Jewish influence. In fact, Paul himself uses their monumental work in order to lend support to the Christian religion theologically. How could you possibly say that Christianity or a Christian worldview is necessary for reason and logic to occur?
[/quote]

I do not accept that Paul endorsed any pagan Greek philosophers. Now you do understand that when I argue for Christianity, the Old Testament is included as God's word. The Old Testament prophets prophesied of Jesus' Coming. The Greek philosophers don't exactly predate Jesus Christ. He is Creator God and He was BEFORE creation. Now you can argue that they predate His coming in the flesh. Also, just because someone "predates" someone does not make the older correct and the younger wrong. Aristotle predated Galileo. Galileo proved Aristotle wrong--that the sun did not revolve around the earth.

How can I say that reason can't occur apart from God? Because both reason and logic are not physical. Lifeless, reasonless chemicals can't give you these things. God exist because of the impossibility of His not existing.

TeeJay

#42 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 01 August 2011 - 10:46 PM

I sincerely appreciate the conversation, man. My responses:

No problem and I appreciate it too. Thanks for the response.

That's exactly what has happened; both evolution and ID would agree on this.

Awesome, but I would say that it once functioned within its created kind and not an ancestor of that creature that had the functionless sequence, from a different kind.

Again, this is possible, but it begs the question about why it looks exactly like a functional GULO gene that has become disrupted.

Right, thats why I'd prefer the first option. That it once functioned in its kind.

I don't quite follow you here

I was asking if you'd consider that even if the GULO sequence never functioned in a created kind (which I don't believe), that it wouldn't be any indicator different kinds of animals can be other kinds.

So far, the only possible explanation, which is more of an observation and not an explanation.

Only possible explanation if it has an as-of-yet-unknown function (which I doubt [just asking you to consider that as a second possibility]). In my view, it fits fine with God creating different kinds of animals that the sequence once functioned in and later was lost (by the effects of the curse) in those that it dosen't function in.

?

You said:
"Why not some other sequence that confers the same unknown function?"
I'm saying, if this functionless sequence does some have unknown function (my second option), maybe there is some other sequence that confers the same unknown function that nobody has ever seen, but how would we even know, seeing as how the function would be unknown.

The problem arises when the data show that the primates, which evolution says are related, have lost the enzyme in a particular fashion (let's say a deletion at gene location X) while the rodents have had a deletion at location Y.
If this were a natural degenerative process after The Fall, then what are the odds of the several primate species losing it ONLY in manner X and the rodents only losing it in manner Y? The odds of that happening using the "Biblical kinds" model are virtually 0, while the odds of it happening in an evolutionary framework are closer to 1.

Seeing as how similiar ape-like creatures and apes are with humans, perhaps the gene stopped functioning in the same way? I'm not really going to know why this is the case, I wish I did, but I see what your saying now and I see the whole idea behind ape-like creatures or apes being similar to humans, but I don't see the similarites as an indication of ancestry. I see the similarities like I see the similarities between the elephant kind and tapir kind and I don't think they are related.

Could you please tell me how these different things I am about to post would be explained in your view.

All the gigantic animals and plants that have been found. From insects to rhino's to 60 foot cattails. Everything seemed to be alot larger in the past. This seems to fit a degenerative model to me and it seems to fit the fact that the enviroment before the global flood would have been much better and healthier.

Giant roach
Giant dragonfly
Giant shark

I don't want to list a bunch, but there are so many more examples if you research them. These are of the same kind we have today and they used to get huge and now no longer do.

8 foot tall man with tall wife

About 2000 years ago, Roman Emperor Maximus was 8'6". - Chronicles of the Roman Emperors 1995, p.160
Maximus

"Benaiah son of Jehoiada from Kabzeel was a man of many valiant deeds. ... He also smote an Egyptian man, a giant of five cubits (8 1/2 feet)." (1 Chronicles 11:22-23)

"At Walkerton, 20 miles southwest of South Bend [IN], a group of amateur archeologists opened a mound in 1925 and unearthed the skeletons of eight giants ranging from eight to nine feet (2.5-2.75 M) long. All were wearing heavy copper armor..." Weird America by Jim Brandon p.84

"Buried beneath heavy layers of shell some 30 miles below the city (Shreveport?, LA). Mr. J.M. Clay found unmistakable evidence of a prehistoric race. Huge bones similar in every respect to a man's were found imbedded in thick layers of clam shells. As many as a score (20) of skeletons were found intact. Every skeleton was fully nine feet (2.7 M) high." - The Daily Town Talk Dec. 9, 1902/ The Coushatta Citizen, Thursday Dec 12. 2002 p.4a NW Louisiana

Posted Image

A skeleton nine feet eight inches (2.95m) tall was recovered from a stone burial mound at Brewersville, Indiana in 1879. - Indianapolis News, November 10, 1975, quoted in Reader's Digest's Mysteries of the Unexplained/ Also call Renee and Peter Schissel @ 9985 W. 208th St. Lakeville, MN 55044 612-469-4060

"A champion marched forth from the array of the Philistines; his name was Goliath of Gath, a man of lofty six cubits and a span (9-10 feet). ... he had put on a scale body-armor with the weight of of the body-armor being 5,000 bronze shekels (126 lbs or 57 kilograms). ... and the cutting blade of his spear was 600 iron shekels (approximately 15 lbs or 7 kg)." - (1 Samuel 17:4-5,7)

A skeleton nearly ten feet (3+ M) long was found in the Humbolt Lake (NV) bed in June, 1931. - Lovelock Review-Miner's June 19, 1931

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

A skeleton 12 feet tall (3.66 M) was found by soldiers in Lompoc Rancho, California in 1883. The remains were reburied due to objections by local Indians. - The Unexplained by Karl Shuker p.151

Another skeleton 12 feet tall was reported in many papers near Tucson, AZ in 1891. The man had 6 toes, long hair and a bird-shaped headdress. - Weird America by Jim Brandon p.2/ Lost Cities of North and Central America by David Hatcher Childress p.315, 351, 390, 468, 496, (815)-253-9000

"There was again fighting at Gath. A gigantic man came with six fingers on his hands and six toes on his feet, twenty-four in number; he too was a votary of the Rapha." - (2 Samuel 21:20)

12 foot 2 inch fossilized giant with six toes on the right foot, propped up for viewing against a 19th century railway carriage. It was found during mining operations in County Antrim, Ireland. Published in Strand magazine in December 1895, the article appears in W.G. Wood-Martin's book, Traces of the Elder Faiths of Ireland:
Posted Image

Near the outlet of Lake Noquebay, in NE Wisconsin, mounds were found containing hundreds of skeletons. "One skull found was about three times the size of the ordinary human and other bones were correspondingly big." - The Index Wausaukee, Wisconsin, Friday October 14, 1904, Vol.11 No.9, (Mounds are a few feet underwater now in the lake in front of Ahle's Resort 1-715-854-2171)

When Cortez went to Mexico:
"Our friends told us how and whence they came into this country, and how they had settled themselves there; how it came that, notwithstanding their vicinity to the Mexicans [Aztecs], they resembled each other so little, and lived in perpetual warfare with each other. The tradition was also handed down from their forefather, that in ancient times there lived here a race of men and women who were of immense stature with heavy bones, and were a very bad and evil-disposed people, whom they had for the greater part exterminated by continual war, and the few that were left gradually died away. In order to give us a notion of the huge frame of this people, they dragged forth a bone, or rather a thigh bone, of one of those giants, which was very strong, and measured the length of a man of good stature. This bone was still entire from the knee to the hip joint. I measured it by my own person, and found it to be of my own length, although I am a man of considerable height. They showed us many similar pieces of bones, but they were all worm eaten and decayed; we, however, did not doubt for an instant, that this country was once inhabited by giants. Cortes observed, that we ought to forward these bones to his majesty in Spain by the very first opportunity."
- Discovery and Conquest of Mexico and New Spain by Bernal Diaz de Castillo, p.185

Legends from Guam tell of giant ancestors that built the "Latte" stones found there. - Ancient Infrastructure, Remarkable Roads, Mines, Walls, Mounds, Stone Circles by William Corliss 1999, p.293
Posted ImagePosted Image

Giant stones found in Lebanon. - Feats and Wisdom of the Ancients, Time Life p.65
Posted Image
Who was cutting and moving these objects? How were they being moved?

"While we were in the sandhills, scouting the Niobrara country, the Pawnee Indians brought into camp some very large bones, one of which the surgeon of the expedition pronounced to be the thigh bone of a human being. The Indian said the bones were those of a race of people who long ago had lived in that country. They said these people were three times the size of a man of the present day, that they were so swift and strong that they could run by the side of a buffalo, and, taking the animal in one arm, could tear off a leg and eat it as they ran." - Colonel William Cody's (Buffalo Bill) Autobiography, 1920

Posted Image

A 39 lb axe-head was found. Who is using a 39 lb axe-head? - Ancient American, PO Box 370, Colfax, WS 54730, 715-962-3299, p.4
Posted Image

The story of Beowulf talks about people killing giants and also says:
"Also the giants who
fought with God and got
repaid with the flood."

And I've heard that Beowulf's grave was found so not all of the story was completely fabricated.


There are giant human legends from all around the world that describe them and alot talk about how the giants, atleast those then, were killed by the global flood. Some are of course exaggerated (Greek titans), but I don't believe everyone in the world was just making this stuff up. I mean its where we get all this corny giant fairytale stuff we see in old stories or Harry Potter movies. The Bible talks about them loads of times and I'll post all the references if you want, but I'm getting tired and I've just been looking for this giant stuff all day to show you so I hope you consider it. There's plenty more cases of giant related things that have been found.

You've got giant buildings all over the world like the pyramids and giant stone monuments like Stonehenge and other larger ones that'd be impossible for primitive people to move around.

I'd recommend getting this little thin book called Lost World of Giants by Jonathan Gray. The Genesis 6 Giants book has some bizarre theories about these guys being aliens which I don't believe for one minute. Its good for research though because his is a huge encylopedia type book.

For more information on giant human remains, contact Todd Jurasek 918-481-1710 7311 S. Utia Apt 802, Tulsa, OK 74136

I think the megafauna and these finds confirm the Bible's history and a degenerative process, but don't fit in with the idea of us coming from smaller ape-like creatures and the animals coming from smaller ancestors. What would you say though?

:::ERV DISCUSSION:::


This video does a better job visually illustrating the process than I can do in pages and pages of written explanation. Apologies for the bias of the uploader, but it does a good job of explaining the biology in fairly simple terms. Also, the middle third of the video is pretty boring, but stick with it until the end.

ERV Summary

I'm going to watch this tomorrow and respond because I'm pretty tired, but I will check it out.

These vestigial pelvic girdles are the size of a shoe box and are buried deep within the animal's torso, so a current functionality is pretty unlikely, at least for most cetaceans.

I've heard they do help with some of the stuff I listed, atleast to a small degree, and their function in the past would have been greatly enhanced if I'm right about the extra flippers.

If you say it's merely the result of a degenerative process, then why is the girdle built like a terrestrial vertebrate's instead of like aquatic fish or amphibians?

Because dolphins and whales are different from them. Isn't that why they're classified as mammals and they got the blow hole. Its a different kind of fin/flipper structure. They are unique animals. There are similarities to human arm bones and their front flipper, right? If so, they don't indicate ancestry. Having similar bone setups don't really show that one came from the other.

So basically they're just meaningless?

If they didn't have a function (but they do, like helping with those muscles and so forth and they once could have been flippers).

Are you saying that vestigial pelvic girdles exist in other non-mammalian aquatic species and yet somehow havent been noticed over the past several millennia?

There's always that possibility, but I was thinking more along the lines of an undiscovered creature. We're still discovering creatures all the time and there's large parts of the ocean that people never travel over.

So the anatomy of the vas deferens either (1) was engineered inefficiently in the beginning merely to illustrate creativity, or (2) changed after The Fall?

How do you find it inefficient? I haven't had a problem with it yet and it wouldn't have changed after the fall, the injuries that are prone to occur in it would have came about. It was just fine back then before the curse.

I'm honestly not trying to be rude or condescending here, but I can tell that those definitions of the circuit were gleaned from non-technical sources like Wikipedia. You'd have to go to a neuroscience or neuroanatomy textbook in order to get a better feel for how the RST works. It is one of several "lower brain" circuits that are, frankly, leftovers from previous needs of the species. In the case of the RST, it sets our "default" state to "flexed extremities". Such a default setting makes plenty of sense for tree-bound primates (in which the RST is enlarged relative to humans), but it makes zero sense in upright humans. It means that it takes longer for toddlers to learn how to walk and that it limits the CNS's ability to remove itself from trauma that is damaging the higher levels of the brain.

I hope someone more knowledgable than me can come along and give you more plausible alternatives to your questions, but its all so confusing to me lol. I like the historical and geological stuff.

I do not accept that Paul endorsed any pagan Greek philosophers.

He did mention them, but not as an endorsment. He was trying to show the Greeks the similarities about their belief of coming from Zeus or whatever it was with the fact that God made us. I haven't read that part in a while, but Paul was smart like that. He pointed out the flaws, similarities and unanswered questions in someone else's religion and showed them how the truth that he was speaking made much more sense and put those unknown and unanswered pieces together. Like when he saw that they worshipped someone called an "unknown god", he said, this god that you don't know about, I will tell you who he is, and then he taught them about the true God and how there were no others besides him.

#43 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 02 August 2011 - 04:17 AM

Yessssss!! We're getting back to science!

No problem and I appreciate it too. Thanks for the response.


Awesome, but I would say that it once functioned within its created kind and not an ancestor of that creature that had the functionless sequence, from a different kind.

Right, thats why I'd prefer the first option. That it once functioned in its kind.


I was asking if you'd consider that even if the GULO sequence never functioned in a created kind (which I don't believe), that it wouldn't be any indicator different kinds of animals can be other kinds.


Only possible explanation if it has an as-of-yet-unknown function (which I doubt [just asking you to consider that as a second possibility]). In my view, it fits fine with God creating different kinds of animals that the sequence once functioned in and later was lost (by the effects of the curse) in those that it dosen't function in.

Seeing as how similiar ape-like creatures and apes are with humans, perhaps the gene stopped functioning in the same way? I'm not really going to know why this is the case, I wish I did, but I see what your saying now and I see the whole idea behind ape-like creatures or apes being similar to humans, but I don't see the similarites as an indication of ancestry. I see the similarities like I see the similarities between the elephant kind and tapir kind and I don't think they are related


I believe we're in agreement that, using the baraminological model (did I spell that correctly? it's not in my spellcheck), each of the major species of primates had a functioning GULO gene at creation, but they all ended up losing functionality because of The Fall. Assuming the primates do not have a common ancestor, then they would have each have had to lose functionality independently over the past 6,000 years.

(I'll spare you the mind-grating details and analogize for the next couple of sentences). Assume there are 150 locations along the GULO gene, any one of which would deactivate the gene if it were changed. What are the odds that when humans lost GULO activity, it happened at location 8 and only location 8? Well, 1/150. What are the chances that chimps ALSO lost it at location 8 and only location 8? (1/150)*(1/150). What are the chances that in addition to humans and chimps, gorillas, baboons, capuchins, and spider monkeys ALSO lost it at location 8 and only location 8? Odds are falling fast....unless there's a common ancestor.

Now, I know what you're gonna say: "You're assuming all 150 locations have equal probability. What if only location 8 is likely to be mutated?". Well, we know that location 19 (again, these are made up "locations"; it doesn't actually work like this) can be mutated because guinea pigs have lost GULO functionality at that location! So, at the VERY BEST, it would be 1/2 probability for each baramin that's lost GULO. That means that, if you're assuming each modern haplorrhinic (the suborder of primates that's had a GULO mutation) family is its own baramin, that would be (1/2)^9, not to mention the odds of the group of rodents (mainly guinea pigs) that have also lost GULO function. That's a probability of 1 out of 1,024 cases if we both (1) assume there are only two naturally-occurring ways to deactivate GULO, which there are most certainly more, and (2) that primate FAMILIES are baraminic in nature (which is going to be difficult to accept since speciation events in every single family occurring multiple times in only 6k years is pretty much impossible, but that's a different argument for a different thread.)

Hopefully that explains why the GULOP situation developing in only 6,000 years without a common ancestor is so incredibly far-fetched.

You said:
"Why not some other sequence that confers the same unknown function?"
I'm saying, if this functionless sequence does some have unknown function (my second option), maybe there is some other sequence that confers the same unknown function that nobody has ever seen, but how would we even know, seeing as how the function would be unknown.

Fair enough. You will certainly find no disagreement from me when saying that genetic structures are constantly surprising us.

Could you please tell me how these different things I am about to post would be explained in your view.

I think this could be split into three different questions:
Explain megafauna (giant sloths, mammoths, dinosaurs, etc. etc.) and why we don't have them today
Explain megastructures in the ancient world
Explain giants of human origin and why we don't see them today.

:::MEGAFAUNA:::
-First off, we have swimming around in our oceans right now some of the largest marine megafauna the earth has ever seen, so we'd have to limit the discussion to only reptilian megafauna and mammalian megafauna (with a few other rare exceptions)
-The explanation as to why there aren't very many extant terrestrial megafauna today is not really compatible with both an evolutionary timeline and a creationist one. If you'd like the full evolutionary explanation, I can give that to you, but I can't come up with a natural mechanism to wipe out such species in only 6,000 years unless we place the blame solely on humans (which are partly to blame even in the evolutionary model).
-I find it interesting that the disappearance of such species is now being blamed on some sort of genetic degradation. When Ken Hamm came and lectured to our 6th grade class back in the day, he said that the disappearance of large species was due to human hunting, not any sort of genetic factor.

:::MEGASTRUCTURES:::
-I'm not a historian or anthropologist, so you probably won't find a logical explanation from me on this one
-I'll put it this way: Five thousand years from now, when colonists are settling on the moon and they find our lunar plaques and flags and junk from the 1960s, they're probably going to say "How in the world did those knuckleheads make it to the moon when they couldn't even drive their cars cross-country without wrecking them?". I guess what I'm trying to say is: Human ingenuity is more than capable of surprising us.

:::HOMINID GIANTS:::
-Setting aside acromegaly, pituitary tumors, and other medical causes of gigantism which are observed all the time and can explain several of those cases you listed...
-How many of these have you seen in museums? How many are just grainy photos from the 19th century when hoaxes (yes, including Piltdown Man, etc) where rampant? If they were being found all the time prior to 1950, why aren't they being found today? Yes, I'm being super skeptical here...
1925
1902
1879
1931
1911
1883
1891
1895
1904
-Are some of those accounts factual? Most likely. Are some of them exaggerated or outright fabricated? Probably. Regardless, we don't need to posit some sort of genetic degradation mechanism in order to explain human skeletons up to 9ft in length.

I've heard they do help with some of the stuff I listed, at least to a small degree, and their function in the past would have been greatly enhanced if I'm right about the extra flippers.

Perhaps we need to get a little more specific here and mention which species we're talking about.


Because dolphins and whales are different from them. Isn't that why they're classified as mammals and they got the blow hole. Its a different kind of fin/flipper structure. They are unique animals. There are similarities to human arm bones and their front flipper, right?

-That's about 0.005% of the reason they're considered mammals.
-Yes, as are the pelvic structures in question.

If so, they don't indicate ancestry. Having similar bone setups don't really show that one came from the other. If they didn't have a function (but they do, like helping with those muscles and so forth and they once could have been flippers).

-You probably know this, but just for clarity sake: I'm not saying one came from the other. I'm saying that they both came from a common ancestor (the first amphibian creatures that started to show the classic pentadactyl limb)
-See, I DO think that such a consistent pattern shows common ancestry. Why not quadradactyly? Why not hexadactyly? There's no logical reason why God should arbitrarily determine every terrestrial vertebrate should have this particular limb structure that's so highly conserved. If you can think of one, I'm all ears.

>>I'm very, very happy that the pentadactyl limb came up in conversation. This is one of the most mysterious phenomena in biology and lends HUGE support to common ancestry. The discovery of tiktaalik in 2004 had my comparative anatomy professor giddy like a schoolgirl because of how beautiful it was. Things like that are why evolutionists, whether Christian or not, find taxonomy and evolutionary patterns so beautiful and elegant. You truly are missing out on some wonderful aspects of God's creation around us if you haven't had to chance to learn about such things!<<


There's always that possibility, but I was thinking more along the lines of an undiscovered creature. We're still discovering creatures all the time and there's large parts of the ocean that people never travel over.

Fair enough. I'll definitely concede such a possibility.

How do you find it inefficient? I haven't had a problem with it yet and it wouldn't have changed after the fall, the injuries that are prone to occur in it would have came about. It was just fine back then before the curse.

I guess we just differ on this part. I'm not one to imagine God creating something that's grossly inefficient and chaotic in its organization.

I hope someone more knowledgable than me can come along and give you more plausible alternatives to your questions, but its all so confusing to me lol. I like the historical and geological stuff.

And I'm the opposite! haha


He did mention them, but not as an endorsement. He was trying to show the Greeks the similarities about their belief of coming from Zeus or whatever it was with the fact that God made us. I haven't read that part in a while, but Paul was smart like that. He pointed out the flaws, similarities and unanswered questions in someone else's religion and showed them how the truth that he was speaking made much more sense and put those unknown and unanswered pieces together. Like when he saw that they worshipped someone called an "unknown god", he said, this god that you don't know about, I will tell you who he is, and then he taught them about the true God and how there were no others besides him.

I'm not going to get involved in a theological debate because, quite frankly, I'm incredibly unqualified. Philosophy? Maybe. However, I will say that my assertion that Paul, and in turn the development of a Christian theology separate from a Jewish one, was greatly influenced by Greek philosophy is not some crack-pot, unorthodox statement. The person I learned this from was my childhood pastor, who was a faculty member at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for over a decade before he felt called to the ministry. Not exactly some radical, unsubstantiated opinion.

#44 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 02 August 2011 - 07:22 AM

Jam,

This is the second time you accused me of being "off topic." I don't think I am? But if I am, I'll let the moderator judge. You posted what it would take for you to consider creation: "A body of evidence that can't be explained by current evolution theories."

That is interesting. I had a whole lot of things that weren't explained satisfactorily until I read YEC materials.

#45 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 02 August 2011 - 07:27 AM

That is interesting. I had a whole lot of things that weren't explained satisfactorily until I read YEC materials.


Biological ones? Perhaps I can help!

#46 xbox

xbox

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Northfeild, Vermont

Posted 02 August 2011 - 08:14 AM

never mind - off topic

#47 xbox

xbox

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Northfeild, Vermont

Posted 02 August 2011 - 08:19 AM

That is interesting. I had a whole lot of things that weren't explained satisfactorily until I read YEC materials.

Yes, do tell!

#48 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 02 August 2011 - 10:03 AM

(I'll spare you the mind-grating details and analogize for the next couple of sentences). Assume there are 150 locations along the GULO gene, any one of which would deactivate the gene if it were changed. What are the odds that when humans lost GULO activity, it happened at location 8 and only location 8? Well, 1/150. What are the chances that chimps ALSO lost it at location 8 and only location 8? (1/150)*(1/150). What are the chances that in addition to humans and chimps, gorillas, baboons, capuchins, and spider monkeys ALSO lost it at location 8 and only location 8? Odds are falling fast....unless there's a common ancestor.

I believe you spelled it right lol. I'll just stick with kinds because I'm not Hebrew lol. I understand what your saying. It is pretty "unlikely" that that would happen, and I don't really know why that'd be the case, but my reasons for not believing in a common ancestor for humans and other hominids would have to be based on scripture, that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. I see no reason to assume evolution over long ages, because I believe the layers of rock don't represent long ages. I've never seen the scripture "disproven" with my own eyes (an animal turning into another kind). Which of course could never possibly be seen if it takes millions of years.

Hopefully that explains why the GULOP situation developing in only 6,000 years without a common ancestor is so incredibly far-fetched.

I understand and I hope creation researchers will find a plausible explanation.

First off, we have swimming around in our oceans right now some of the largest marine megafauna the earth has ever seen,

Are you talking about whales? There are squids and octopus too (Off topic: Did you hear about the 200 foot octopus found in Florida, that would have been scary to see lol). Maybe those are just giant creatures in themselves and there were once bigger versions? I mean, we don't see the megalodon, giant turtles, or crocodiles (atleast not that many [50 foot crocodiles were reported by Congo natives in Roy Mackal's book, A Living Dinosaur? Giant Crocodile Sketch) (which I'm sure there is an evolutionary explanation for).

so we'd have to limit the discussion to only reptilian megafauna and mammalian megafauna (with a few other rare exceptions)

I've seen other giants that are not alive today apart from mammals. There are birds, plants, insects, arachnids, and I'm sure some more I can't think of off the top of my head, but you did say with some exceptions, but I think its pretty spread across the board. I'd have to say I think there may be dinosaurs still alive in the Amazon jungles (reports by Colonel Fawcett and Scientific American) and African swamps (Mokele-mbembe, Ngoubou) (right on the equator where its warmest and they can still be maintained by the vegetation and climate [there original pre-flood environment allowed them to live anywhere]), but they are probably not the size they once reached before the flood as found in the fossil record, but about the size of an elephant or hippo at most (so "degenerated", if not gene-wise, because of the post-flood environment).

I can't come up with a natural mechanism to wipe out such species in only 6,000 years unless we place the blame solely on humans (which are partly to blame even in the evolutionary model).

More so than a degenerative process wiping them out would be the flood, wiping not only them out, but the wonderful environment that sustained that type of life. Huge plants covering most of the globe with tropical environments all over (indicated by the plants and animals found fossilized in the polar regions).

I find it interesting that the disappearance of such species is now being blamed on some sort of genetic degradation. When Ken Hamm came and lectured to our 6th grade class back in the day, he said that the disappearance of large species was due to human hunting, not any sort of genetic factor.

Don't take the genetic degradation theory as a widespread belief. I just think it makes sense, but I'm not sure exactly how the other creationists would explain their disappearance. I'm sure human hunting could have also played a part.

I'm not a historian or anthropologist, so you probably won't find a logical explanation from me on this one
-I'll put it this way: Five thousand years from now, when colonists are settling on the moon and they find our lunar plaques and flags and junk from the 1960s, they're probably going to say "How in the world did those knuckleheads make it to the moon when they couldn't even drive their cars cross-country without wrecking them?". I guess what I'm trying to say is: Human ingenuity is more than capable of surprising us.

This is true, but isn't it claimed that Egyptians built these pyramids with primitive tools and things like this because they weren't smart enough to build great machines or whatever the case may be. There are some stones found that not even a modern crane could lift up. Either they had some big machines (which we don't really find evidence for), some big animals helping them, or alot of big strong people moving these things around.
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Setting aside acromegaly, pituitary tumors, and other medical causes of gigantism which are observed all the time and can explain several of those cases you listed...

I'm aware of these explanations and tried to avoid those cases (like Robert Wadlow), but don't these symptoms usually make someone weak or not live that long. Some of the things I tried to show was there immense strength and durability. As in they were advanced humans, not regular diseased people.

How many of these have you seen in museums?


I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I just don't see them fitting into the museums, especially along side those flawless evolution displays. I think there's enough cases of people reporting that they found the bones of these giant people (not mammoths or dinosaur bones, and being ignorant of what these were) to see that they have been in fact finding them.
Newspaper article about a giant skull found with picture

There are also alot more cases of giant tools and objects that couldn't have been used by modern sized people.

Some funny shaped giant skulls in the Gold Museum in Lima, Peru
Mt. Blanco Museum (Not much info on the actual find)
Unknown Museum and Unknown Size but looks giant sized (I realize thats a midget besides him)

There could be more in all kinds of museums out there who don't mind displaying them. I don't know.

How many are just grainy photos from the 19th century when hoaxes (yes, including Piltdown Man, etc) where rampant?


Definitely true. I've seen modern looking pictures online that were faked and later exposed by creation websites, but they didn't have photoshop back in those days, not that they couldn't have faked them somehow. I just don't see a reason to assume fraud right away, just like evolutionists didn't with Piltdown Man.

I think these picture kind of support the idea, of course they could have alternate explanations:
Posted Image
Posted Image
Could be exaggerated, but still what made them think to make the lion so much comparatively smaller.

Posted Image
See museum pictures first.

Posted Image

Queen Puabi's headdress was three times the size of a normal persons head: Link

Posted Image

If they were being found all the time prior to 1950, why aren't they being found today? Yes, I'm being super skeptical here...

I don't know whether or not they haven't been. I'm sure its a possibilty they have been, but I just don't see these fitting in with the paradigm, so they would tend to not be mentioned. I'd have to do some more research. I'm waiting for that Genesis 6 Giants book to arrive in the mail and thats a pretty thick book so I'm hoping they will have examples going on throughout history.
Report ten foot tall giant (picture of tomb [always questionable])

Are some of those accounts factual? Most likely. Are some of them exaggerated or outright fabricated? Probably.

I'd agree, but there is alot of those cases, too much for me to assume the majority are fabricated. There's more cases listed in those books I described and I'm sure elsewhere. I just didn't want to sit around typing them all up. One of the reasons the Paluxy tracks were discredited was because of giant footprints:

Posted Image

But here's more information on their authenticity: Paluxy Tracks

Regardless, we don't need to posit some sort of genetic degradation mechanism in order to explain human skeletons up to 9ft in length.

I did list several skeletons and other examples that would suggest people exceeding 9ft. My guess would be that they reached a maximum of 15-20ft. The twelve footers with their extra toes seem entirely plausible to me, given the account of a giant with those characteristics in the Bible.

You didn't mention the countless legends describing these guys. The ancient tribes all knew about them and describe encounters with them.

Native Americans believed that the first peoples to inhabit Earth were a race of gigantic Indians. These giants did not respect the Great Spirit, committing crimes against both man and nature, so the Great Spirit sent a Great Flood to destroy them.

In Greek mythology the gigantes (γίγαντες) were (according to the poet Hesiod) the children of Uranos (Ουρανός) and Gaea (Γαία) (The Heaven and the Earth).They were involved in a conflict with the Olympian gods called the Gigantomachy (Γιγαντομαχία), which was eventually settled when the hero Heracles decided to help the Olympians. The Greeks believed some of them, like Enceladus, to lay buried from that time under the earth and that their tormented quivers resulted in earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

Herodotus in Book 1, Chapter 68, describes how the Spartans uncovered in Tegea the body of Orestes which was seven cubits long—around 10 feet. In his book The Comparison of Romulus with Theseus Plutarch describes how the Athenians uncovered the body of Theseus, which was of more than ordinary size. The kneecaps of Ajax were exactly the size of a discus for the boy's pentathlon, wrote Pausanias. A boy's discus was about twelve centimeters in diameter, while a normal adult patella is around five centimeters, suggesting Ajax may have been around 14 feet (~4.3 meters) tall.

Here's some websites with alot more information on giants:
Mysterious World
Genesis 6 Giants
Giants on Wikipedia
(please ignore the weird theology, scripture compromises and alien theories lol, they were just human descendants of Adam). Please visit these sites (the first one more-so) and read a little, so you can see how widespread this giant stuff is. There's just so much out there and I could keep looking and posting these interesting reports and anamolies (but you should read about them for yourself), and I'm not trying to be rude and not see where your coming from (no doubt some of these things are fake), but its like the flood legends all around the world, I don't think I could be convinced this giant phenomenon thats all throughout the worlds cultures wasn't real and that they were diseased nine footers. They seem strong, swift, and frightening in all the reports about them and when you picture it from the perspective of a 6000 year old history, it all becomes interesting and fits together. History itself, which I would find really boring if I thought the evolutionary history was true, is alot more interesting when you see God actually doing something throughout it and you find that what he says in the Bible about it, fits with everything thats out there.

Perhaps we need to get a little more specific here and mention which species we're talking about.

Which would you like to talk about? I was just saying how my explanation for the vestigal structures in the aquatic creatures that have them, could be better explained in my view, by an extra set of flippers instead of legs.

See, I DO think that such a consistent pattern shows common ancestry. Why not quadradactyly? Why not hexadactyly? There's no logical reason why God should arbitrarily determine every terrestrial vertebrate should have this particular limb structure that's so highly conserved. If you can think of one, I'm all ears.

I mean, you'd have to ask God. Why couldn't he design limbs with the same number of fingers? Crocodiles and humans both have a radius and ulna and you wouldn't consider them closely related.

>>I'm very, very happy that the pentadactyl limb came up in conversation. This is one of the most mysterious phenomena in biology and lends HUGE support to common ancestry. The discovery of tiktaalik in 2004 had my comparative anatomy professor giddy like a schoolgirl because of how beautiful it was. Things like that are why evolutionists, whether Christian or not, find taxonomy and evolutionary patterns so beautiful and elegant. You truly are missing out on some wonderful aspects of God's creation around us if you haven't had to chance to learn about such things!<<

Have you heard about the tetrapod footprints found "10 million" years before Tiktaalik in the fossil record? So, I mean, maybe in your view they could have still evolved into tetrapods, but tetrapods were definitely already on the scene long before Tiktaalik would have evolved into one.Link to article
The Tiktaalik seems like a fish to me and the "leg precursors" seem like fins.

Fair enough. I'll definitely concede such a possibility.

Thank you

I guess we just differ on this part. I'm not one to imagine God creating something that's grossly inefficient and chaotic in its organization.

It wasn't inefficient though, when it was first created. Its "chaotic" state, or as I would see it, complex, structure wouldn't have been a problem originally. Then man's sin is what has it now being a problem. It would have been designed fine originally, but I don't know if we're going to resolve this one. I don't see why its so important that it wasn't designed in a straightforward pathway? Maybe the way it works is better for something we don't know about?

I'm not going to get involved in a theological debate because, quite frankly, I'm incredibly unqualified. Philosophy? Maybe. However, I will say that my assertion that Paul, and in turn the development of a Christian theology separate from a Jewish one, was greatly influenced by Greek philosophy is not some crack-pot, unorthodox statement. The person I learned this from was my childhood pastor, who was a faculty member at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for over a decade before he felt called to the ministry. Not exactly some radical, unsubstantiated opinion.

We won't start a talk about this to not get off subject, but I hope you found my post in your other thread informative about the way the scripture describes God's operation of all things. It turns lifes circumstances from aimless and meaningless to everything having a plan designed by God. The "evil" things that happen won't seem evil in the end when we realize what there purpose was in God's design.

#49 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 02 August 2011 - 11:13 AM

Do you have any real idea how the baramins are divided?

Now, I know what you're gonna say: "You're assuming all 150 locations have equal probability. What if only location 8 is likely to be mutated?". Well, we know that location 19 (again, these are made up "locations"; it doesn't actually work like this) can be mutated because guinea pigs have lost GULO functionality at that location! So, at the VERY BEST, it would be 1/2 probability for each baramin that's lost GULO. That means that, if you're assuming each modern haplorrhinic (the suborder of primates that's had a GULO mutation) family is its own baramin, that would be (1/2)^9, not to mention the odds of the group of rodents (mainly guinea pigs) that have also lost GULO function. That's a probability of 1 out of 1,024 cases if we both (1) assume there are only two naturally-occurring ways to deactivate GULO, which there are most certainly more, and (2) that primate FAMILIES are baraminic in nature (which is going to be difficult to accept since speciation events in every single family occurring multiple times in only 6k years is pretty much impossible, but that's a different argument for a different thread.)

There are many examples of speciation occurring very rapidly... in scientific journals with evolutionists exclaiming in surprise at the findings no less!

#50 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 02 August 2011 - 11:17 AM

Do you have any real idea how the baramins are divided?


Nope. I had never even encountered the term until I joined this site a few days ago. I had heard of "Biblical 'kinds'" quite often, obviously, but this specific term is new to me. I'd be interested to see how they're determined and classified.

#51 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 02 August 2011 - 11:44 AM

Nope. I had never even encountered the term until I joined this site a few days ago. I had heard of "Biblical 'kinds'" quite often, obviously, but this specific term is new to me. I'd be interested to see how they're determined and classified.

Me too. I haven't bought any books on the subject. I was trying to get the information for free. I tried looking into some of it... the horses seem to be right. It follows the evolutionary model to a T. But the methods of how they determine things seem to be off in some other areas. <_<

#52 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 02 August 2011 - 01:50 PM

Me too. I haven't bought any books on the subject. I was trying to get the information for free. I tried looking into some of it... the horses seem to be right. It follows the evolutionary model to a T. But the methods of how they determine things seem to be off in some other areas. <_<


And I'm still hoping to hear how YEC materials were able to explain scientific facts for you that mainstream science couldn't ;)

#53 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 02 August 2011 - 02:35 PM

And I'm still hoping to hear how YEC materials were able to explain scientific facts for you that mainstream science couldn't ;)

I will try to get to it and post a new thread on the topic when I do. :)

#54 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 02 August 2011 - 03:45 PM

[quote] name='jamo0001' timestamp='1312243804' post='73587']
Now that I got that out of the way, I'll go piece by piece on this one. I promised myself when I joined this board that I would not stray from the realms of molecular, cellular, anatomic, and medical biology, but this is too demeaning and insulting to let stand unchallenged.[/quote]


Fair enough. But what I want you to realize is that absent a God, who promises uniformity of nature and "upholds all things by the word of His power,” you could not trust the above disciplines to be law-like.




[quote]Because someone would've won a Nobel Prize had they found it. No questions asked. You must have a very, very cynical and warped view of scientists, as human beings, to believe otherwise. To believe that there is some sort of worldwide scientific conspiracy to suppress any evidence that would disprove evolution is lunacy. For every 1 scientist you find that supports creationism, I can find 100 that are practicing, devout Christians, Muslims, or Jews who would love to find this apparent contradiction between faith and reason disappear in the sands of history.[/quote]


This is a very big "straw-horse." I'm surprised that you were able to kick it over. If you look, I also posted that creationists also have a worldview through which they interpret evidence. For years I've watched evolutionists and creationists look at the same evidence and interpret the evidence differently. For example: A creationist will look at red tissue in the recently unearthed dinosaur and conclude that if it were 65 million years old, no red tissue could exist (common Texas horse-sense). The evolutionist will immediately search for a rescuing device to explain how this tissue could be preserved for 65 million years. Now creationists do the same thing. They interpret through their worldview as well. So it comes down to which worldview is rational, non-arbitrary, and consistent.




[quote]Of course. That is the point of science. "Science" is no longer "science" if we introduce supernatural explanations. Therefore every scientist, atheist or not, must put on the "atheist glasses" when they're in the lab in order to acquire reproducible data.[/quote]


But without a Supernatural God, no science is possible. Rational thought and laws of logic can't evolve from a lifeless, reasonless matter. The atheist scientist has to use God's gift of rational thought and laws of logic to try to argue for His non-existence. An atheist uses atheist glasses. A creationist uses his glasses. There is no neutral position.



[quote]The only way using an "atheist worldview" in the science laboratory is any of the above would be if God were a universally accepted fact, consistently demonstrable and evident. Obviously, this conversation would not be happening if that were so. An atheist worldview is therefore, at the very least, equally as rational and consistent as a theistic one.[/quote]


His existence is foundational to my transcendental argument. Whether your worldview is rational, non-arbitrary, and consistent is yet to be proved. Let's just take one, laws of logic. In your worldview, only matter exists. Right? If so, how do you explain laws of logic, which are immaterial, invariant, and universal, coming from physical matter which is lifeless and reasonless. Why would random chance chemicals give you something that is not physical, invariant, and true all over the world? Laws of logic are not part of the physical universe.




[quote]Of course you would. What would be the point, otherwise?[/quote]


But you have no rational reason to assume laws of logic, uniformity of nature, etc. can exist in your random chance/chemical evolution worldview. When you assume and use these things, you are borrowing from God to argue against Him.




[quote]Define "morality", because every definition I've looked up in the past 10 minutes has never included any mention of logic, reason, pursuit of knowledge, etc. All of them have, however, included mention of conduct, good/evil, doctrine, conformity, and virtue. Totally separate realms, unless you have some other definition of morality.[/quote]

The Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law given to Moses by God. And "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." Love your neighbor as yourself." Also, something can't be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. So too, some particular act can't be both moral and immoral at the same time and in the same way. But in an atheist worldview, absent a Moral Prescriber, how can there be morality of any sort? Absent a God, an atheist has no moral obligation to hold to any universal morality.

To reach truth, do you agree that we have to reason logically? So we have a moral obligation to reason logically to reach truth and be truthful--within a theist worldview. But this is not necessarily true for an atheist. Now many atheists are moral and rail against injustices. But they are inconsistent with their atheist worldview.




[quote]Of course you would. What would be the point, otherwise?[/quote]


But when an atheist assumes these things, he is not staying within his worldview. He is borrowing from the theist worldview. Why won’t you acknowledge this?





[quote]Patently false. You do not need to believe in a God in order to look at an apple falling from a tree the same way over and over.[/quote]

You are correct. But if atheistism were true, you could not trust that your senses and memory were reliable. Random unguided chemicals can't guarantee anythinng.
[quote]You do not need a God in order to see that 2 marbles plus 3 marbles always equals 5.[/quote]

You don't have to BELIEVE in Him, but you do NEED Him to exist reason logically.

[quote]You do not need a God in order to come to a consensus with your neighbors regarding the acceptable level of noise from fireworks during July.[/quote]

In an atheist worldview, why should one be concerned for the good of another?

[quote]I'm honestly not sure if this is sarcasm or a serious question.[/quote]



Jam, I apologize. I don't mean to sound sarcastic. I'm arguing that rational thought is MORE than chemical reactions in the brain. Reasoning is not physical. In this physical world, we can't "think" without our brain, but thinking is beyond the physical and in a sense is not physical. An adding machine can add two plus three but it can't know and tell you it's true. There is a part of your reasoning that is beyond the physical brain. In an atheist/materialistic worldview, this is unexplainable.






[quote]Again, I have no idea what definition you're using here. Atheism relates to the existence of a deity. It does not stipulate that the metaphysical doesn't exist. I have never heard of an atheist denying the existence of mathematics, truth, beauty, etc.[/quote]


Atheism, by definition, does not believe in a Supernatural God, outside the physical universe. So are you now saying that you believe that a Creator God exists? If only the physical exists, then the metaphysical can't exist. And if a rational, logical God does not exist, then you have to look to reasonless matter for these things. The atheist with only matter to rely on can't justify the above abstract beauty for example.




[quote]Well, unless you just hate wasting your time.[/quote]


Believe it or not, I have debated people (not necessarily atheists) who denied logic to maintain their position. People do not like to be proved wrong. Ask Jesus. In the cities where He did most of His miracles, they totally rejected Him. And the Pharisees demanded a sign. So Jesus gave them a sign by raising Lazarus from the dead. The Pharisees immediately made plans to kill Him. Why is this? Because when God does a miracle, He shoves the truth of HIs existence in their faces and proves them wrong. As I said, people do not like to be proved wrong.



[quote]Again, you're either using a unique definition of "atheist" or you're just plain wrong. Atheism, agnosticism, etc do not deny the existence of the metaphysical.[/quote]


And I think they are straddling both sides of the fence. If God does not exist, then the metaphysical can't exist. I think atheists should be honest and state implicitly that the material world is the whole show and nothing else exists. Then when the atheist can't explain the immaterial laws of logic, he has no rescuing devices. Either God exists or God does not exist. There I go again, using logic.



[quote]Totally to the contrary. Atheists are DEVOID OF A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING WILL CHANGE THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS. Theists, however, have every reason to believe that such suspension of natural phenomena can occur at any time.[/quote]

.
But WHY are they devoid of a reason to believe that the future will not be the same as in the past. They can only assume that the future will be like the past. But you can't just assume that which you are trying to prove. In logical discourse, one should not affirm something arbitrarily for now reason. Otherwise, I could just arbitrarily affirm the opposite. Theiss can rely on uniformity of nature because God has promised this in His word




[quote]At the risk of totally derailing this thread, no it can't. A theistic worldview creates more questions than it does answers. But that's a topic for another forum and thread.[/quote]


I don't think you’re off topic. You wanted something that “can't be explained in an evolutionist worldview.” I think I am giving this to you. I argued that the theist worldview has a rational reason to believe that there can be rational thought because we are created by a rational God. We can use laws of logic, because laws of logic can only come from a logical God. A theist can trust that the universe will be law-like because God has promised this in His word. A theist can have absolute morality because the moral laws come from a moral God.




[quote]He also has reason to believe that the natural order of things can be temporarily suspended. See: Joshua and the midday sun, Jesus being born of a virgin, the Grand Canyon being formed in a torrential flood, etc.
An atheist has no such reasons to believe that the laws of nature will change, which in turn makes science more practical.[/quote]

But you don't believe in God. Please stay in your worldview. When you leave it and step into mine, you are being inconsistent with your worldview.




[quote]I've already addressed this demeaning and unsupported diatribe in my previous post.[/quote]


I answered your previous post.


[quote]Apologies in advance to all who read this. This is as heated as I get and it's mainly because these quotes were borderline ad hominem.[/quote]


It's okay to get a little heated. I enjoy a spirited debate, and I don't think you and I have been rude to each other. I took all your arguments as being an expression of your worldview. Nothing you said offended me personally.



[quote]Can we return to biology now?
[/quote]


Yes you can. But I gave you what you asked for--evidence that is unanswerable "by current evolution theories.” And I will make you one guarantee: Whatever evidence is presented to you, you will interpret through your worldview. In doing so, you will not become a theist nor will any theist on this thread become an atheist. Both sides have a set of presuppositions before looking at any evidence. So all I am asking you is if your worldview can't explain the reality you experience, then you need to re-examine your foundation for what you believe.

Will you admit that an atheist worldview can’t justify the existence of laws of logic, morality, and uniformity of nature?

TeeJay

#55 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 02 August 2011 - 06:42 PM

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.

#56 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 02 August 2011 - 10:29 PM

Me too. I haven't bought any books on the subject. I was trying to get the information for free. I tried looking into some of it... the horses seem to be right. It follows the evolutionary model to a T. But the methods of how they determine things seem to be off in some other areas. <_<

I think for the great majority of the cases, its extremely obvious by looking at them.

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.

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?

"[The Big Bang] …represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle—transcending physical principles…." - Davies, Paul, The Edge of Infinity, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981, p161.

He believes in the big bang and he could see how this would be a "miracle". How is abiogenesis not a miracle?

Have you heard of polystrate fossils (my avatar)? If so, whats different about the layers of rock they're found in, with the layers they're not found in? Why assume, the layers they're in formed catastrophically and not all the others? You still find fossil graveyards in the others and you find that some of these layered deposits stretch all around the globe. Here's a good article from creation.com showing how easy it is to form rock layers catastrophically: Rock language

If you would consider how geology supports a catastrophic flood, how you find sea fossils on Mt. Everest, the world-wide flood legends, the eye-witness account in the Bible, and the many other lines of evidence, its easy to apply that and see why our earth looks like a geological wasteland. You would see how thats a reasonable approach to take, instead of assuming these layers just piled on top of each for millions of years, somehow, capturing the graveyards of animals in them. Here's a huge section with a bunch of articles showing how geology (which I know you hate, sorry, but this is where the evolutionary idea of millions of years really wouldn't work in my view) supports the Bible and global flood: Geology Questions and Answers

Also, for your biological questions. Have you tried emailing creation.com, answersingenesis.org, askjohnmackay.com, drdino.com, or the many other websites that would be glad to try and help. They very well may have an answer to the questions you have. I email these groups all the time and they respond quickly and politely.

#57 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

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

Posted 03 August 2011 - 04:30 AM

"[The Big Bang] …represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle—transcending physical principles…." - Davies, Paul, The Edge of Infinity, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981, p161.

That's like saying Madison was breaking the law of the land when he was drafting the US Constitution.

How is abiogenesis not a miracle?

Because various abiogenesis models do not rely on breaking the laws of chemistry or physics. The sum is greater than its parts.

If you would consider how geology supports a catastrophic flood, how you find sea fossils on Mt. Everest, the world-wide flood legends, the eye-witness account in the Bible, and the many other lines of evidence, its easy to apply that and see why our earth looks like a geological wasteland. You would see how thats a reasonable approach to take, instead of assuming these layers just piled on top of each for millions of years, somehow, capturing the graveyards of animals in them. Here's a huge section with a bunch of articles showing how geology (which I know you hate, sorry, but this is where the evolutionary idea of millions of years really wouldn't work in my view) supports the Bible and global flood.

So the Grand Canyon looks like the result of a torrential, forceful wall of water instead of a gently-winding river?

Also, for your biological questions. Have you tried emailing creation.com, answersingenesis.org, askjohnmackay.com, drdino.com, or the many other websites that would be glad to try and help. They very well may have an answer to the questions you have. I email these groups all the time and they respond quickly and politely.

I have had exchanges with Don Batten over a CMI article, yes. I've also been to lectures by Ken Hamm and Sarfati. I've also been to the Creation Museum (it's an hour north of me).

I would encourage every single creationist to visit the Creation Museum at least once. That place will go down as the greatest mistake in the ID/Creationist political movement for one reason: They attempt to answer questions that the creationist public is never exposed to. Remember, the (non-creationist) people who have asked those questions can predict how ludicrous the answers would have to be in order for Creationism to work, but the Joe Bob Creationist who visits in the expectation for his beliefs to be bolstered is instead greeted with the grim reality of the necessary consequences of his beliefs.

What "Biblical kinds" must mean happened after the Flood...

I've talked to multiple friends who are fellow Evangelicals who have said they "wish they wouldn't have gone" because it did more to destroy their faith in Creationism than to support it.

#58 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 03 August 2011 - 05:11 AM

That's like saying Madison was breaking the law of the land when he was drafting the US Constitution.

What do you mean? I'm not really up on my American history lol.

Because various abiogenesis models do not rely on breaking the laws of chemistry or physics. The sum is greater than its parts.

You definitely would say it couldn't be done on our planet today, right? Thats why we can't create life today? I'd have to go find the source, but I heard the rocks indicate that there has always been oxygen here.

So the Grand Canyon looks like the result of a torrential, forceful wall of water instead of a gently-winding river?

The top of the canyon is higher than where the river enters it by over 4000 feet. How did it flow uphill to carve out the whole top of the thing?

People tend to forget how much sediment would have been mixed in with the water due to erosion. The flood laid down the sediments that make up the walls of the canyon. The actual canyon was not carved during the flood, but a short time afterwards when the sediment was still soft. At the end of the flood, crashing hydroplates lifted mountains and thickened continents. As the flood waters drained off these continents, basins were left full of water (ex. The Great Lakes). Therefore, lakes were abundant immediately after the flood. Later, many lakes breached their banks and carved relatively small canyons. Massive mountain ranges settled into the upper mantle, hydraulically lifting adjacent regions, forming plateaus. You can still see the beach line of two huge lakes (Grand Lake and Hopi Lake) that were once at the "beginning" of the Grand Canyon (to the east). Grand Lake’s breaching triggered the breaching of Hopi Lake. (Spillage from other lakes higher in the Rocky Mountains or other topographic changes produced by the rising Colorado Plateau, including earthquakes, volcanic activity, and fault production probably contributed to the final breaching of Grand Lake.) Surging water from both giant lakes quickly swept off the still soft Mesozoic sediments from at least 10,000 square miles south and west of the funnel. As the lowest point started to erode more and more, the water flow would have increased and speeded up. With the sediments still soft, it would have carved out the canyon rapidly within a few weeks.

Mouth of Colorado River doesn't have enough sediment for Grand Canyon
Grand Canyon caused by post-flood event (If not what I said about it starting with it flowing over the top, this link says the canyon started as a smaller crack first and then the water poured in there and made the crack bigger [lol read it for yourself please, because I don't know if I word things correctly])

Like MamaElephant said, also check out Mt. St. Helens. They had large canyons forming rapidly. There's a huge canyon (bigger than Grand Canyon though) on Mars that no one suspects was eroded slowly by a river, but by a crater that was filled with water and then spilled over the top, causing a similar event to happen like at the Grand Canyon.

What do you make of all the flood legends that describe a vessel of some kind? The stories vary, but alot of them have animals and one family being saved. The Babylonian story is amazingly similar.

I have had exchanges with Don Batten over a CMI article, yes. I've also been to lectures by Ken Hamm and Sarfati.

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

I would encourage every single creationist to visit the Creation Museum at least once. That place will go down as the greatest mistake in the ID/Creationist political movement for one reason: They attempt to answer questions that the creationist public is never exposed to. Remember, the (non-creationist) people who have asked those questions can predict how ludicrous the answers would have to be in order for Creationism to work, but the Joe Bob Creationist who visits in the expectation for his beliefs to be bolstered is instead greeted with the grim reality of the necessary consequences of his beliefs.

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.

What "Biblical kinds" must mean happened after the Flood...

I'll check this out too.

#59 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 - 05:17 AM

I've talked to multiple friends who are fellow Evangelicals who have said they "wish they wouldn't have gone" because it did more to destroy their faith in Creationism than to support it.

I have seen videos of tours and it seems that not enough information is given, so I could see that being a problem.

What "Biblical kinds" must mean happened after the Flood...

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

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.

#60 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

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

Posted 03 August 2011 - 05:47 AM

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

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.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)