Jump to content


Photo

If a Creationist Understands What Evolution Says...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
36 replies to this topic

#1 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 August 2009 - 07:55 PM

"Many people just dismiss one or the other without knowing what is wrong with it. Many Christians are clueless about evolution and verse visa."

View Post

So Arch, as a gauge, would you share any particular creationists whom you believe does a fair appraisal of evolution?

#2 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 August 2009 - 08:01 PM

So Arch, as a gauge, would you share any particular creationists whom you believe does a fair appraisal of evolution?

View Post


I'm afraid I haven't met anyone on this forum who seems to understand how mutations and natural selection theoretically work together to create new species. All the creationists I've met so far have their own ideas of how this system works, but I've never seen it reflect the actual theory. Being a biology teacher, hopefully Jeff can shed some light.

Likewise I'm learning how pitiful my understanding of Christianity is.

Regards,

Arch.

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 August 2009 - 08:08 PM

I'm afraid I haven't met anyone on this forum who seems to understand how mutations and natural selection theoretically work together to create new species. All the creationists I've met so far have their own ideas of how this system works, but I've never seen it reflect the actual theory. Being a biology teacher, hopefully Jeff can shed some light.

View Post

I believe I could tell you what evolution teaches but don't be surprised when I have my own ideas regarding the implications. I can give you the nuts and bolts as far as what our high school and college students will be taught next month all across our country but when the dialogue goes beyond that, it's a whole different paradigm that I'd be analyzing it from. :o

Likewise I'm learning how pitiful my understanding of Christianity is.

View Post

Arch, you're candor always reminds me that human beings are marvelous creatures even in their fallen state. :P

#4 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 August 2009 - 08:23 PM

I don't want to hijack the forum, but I'd be interested in hearing what you think the theory of evolution says. Particularly in regards to how natural selection and mutations work together to create change. Hold off on why you think it's inaccurate for now, I just want to see if you understand how it's meant to work.

Jeff, any chance you'd also like to give an explanation? Surely someone who taught the subject for so many years should have a more accurate idea of what the theory says.

Regards,

Arch.

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 August 2009 - 09:21 PM

I don't want to hijack the forum, but I'd be interested in hearing what you think the theory of evolution says. Particularly in regards to how natural selection and mutations work together to create change. Hold off on why you think it's inaccurate for now, I just want to see if you understand how it's meant to work.

View Post

Sure.

This is probably the perfect place to do this and then Jeff can grade my paper. :)

1st - Evolution equals change over time. This is a fact and it is a solid concept. Change over time means that things will transform and be different day by day whether it's the universe expanding, galaxies rotating, star's burning, life forms procreating, and organisms aging and dying, things change over time.

The more specific and 'scientific' definition, as ordinarily ascribed to the work that Charles Darwin popularized, and later 'fine-tuned' by Neo-Darwinism after the verification of genetics, starts with the simple concept that there will be changes in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Evolution's focus is to deal with life. Natural selection is applied to living organisms only, because their capacity to produce offspring. This is what allows the wheels of natural selection to spin.

In laymen terms, this is the observation that variations occur within populations due to genetic mutations. These mutations are passed on to offspring. The mutations are random, but because of natural selection, the organisms that are more likely to survive, will... giving them the privilege of procreating more offspring that are likely to pass on these acquired superior traits. Due to pressures of a changing environment and competition for resources adaptation has resulted in the variety that we see around us and even such things as symbiotic relationships and S@xual reproduction.

Finch beaks change as resources and environment change. Larger beaked populations will dominate during dry times due to their ability to forage for harder to reach food supplies and small beaked finches will die off. During wet seasons, fruit is plentiful, so the smaller beaked finches will be better suited to the environment, therefore they will dominate. This demonstrates the short term effects of how natural selection will adapt an organisms body plan, in subsequent generations, to a suited environment as the more fit offspring survive and the less fit perish. It also shows how a sub-species forms as one population goes towards an arid climate and another migrates to a more tropical climate a sub-species or more correctly a ring species is demonstrated potentially eliminating inter-fertility poising the populations for further evolution.

Through the fossil record we can confirm that life had been different in the past. Most notably there are organisms that have died out in the past to be replaced, by evolution, with different life forms as the selective pressures, and even global catastrophes, favored certain organisms over others. While some organisms have maintained a niche allowing for some discernible stasis, other creatures, like the apes we call humans, have taken advantage of and adapted to their environment through the usefulness of a larger brain and better cognitive skills.

Though the fossil record is not entirely complete the transitional sequences are 'overwhelming' :D as they recall how such creatures like Australopithecus Afarensis, with it's narrow gate and other human like features, are likely ancestors to modern day humans and the inner ear of the Pakicetus and subsequent fossils such as Ambulocetus show how land dwelling mammals adopted sea going qualities culminating in the body plan of our modern day whales.

The theory of evolution shows that with the vast amounts of time and the ability to adapt to environments, you will end up with complex chunks of matter that seem designed to live in there environments. However, since the discovery of natural selection and how genetics are utilized through this process we can see 'plainly' :o that our current day organisms are merely the result of a long linage of branching phylogenies that adapted to there environment generation after generation as surely as the earth rotates around the sun and as surely as the apple falls from the tree due to gravity, from a single or a few simple forms.

It's so simple, a child can even understand it.

How's that? :D

<Edit: Adam - I just want to add for clarity that the above discourse is how I believe an evolutionist could/would go about describing the properties and concepts of evolution. I myself think it's low grade story telling. Just in case any of the lurkers mistakenly thought I was 'seeing the light'. :P >

#6 Jeff Wilhelm

Jeff Wilhelm

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Butler, PA

Posted 09 August 2009 - 06:21 PM

Sure.

This is probably the perfect place to do this and then Jeff can grade my paper. :D

1st - Evolution equals change over time. This is a fact and it is a solid concept. Change over time means that things will transform and be different day by day whether it's the universe expanding, galaxies rotating, star's burning, life forms procreating, and organisms aging and dying, things change over time.

The more specific and 'scientific' definition, as ordinarily ascribed to the work that Charles Darwin popularized, and later 'fine-tuned' by Neo-Darwinism after the verification of genetics, starts with the simple concept that there will be changes in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Evolution's focus is to deal with life. Natural selection is applied to living organisms only, because their capacity to produce offspring. This is what allows the wheels of natural selection to spin.

In laymen terms, this is the observation that variations occur within populations due to genetic mutations. These mutations are passed on to offspring. The mutations are random, but because of natural selection, the organisms that are more likely to survive, will... giving them the privilege of procreating more offspring that are likely to pass on these acquired superior traits. Due to pressures of a changing environment and competition for resources adaptation has resulted in the variety that we see around us and even such things as symbiotic relationships and S@xual reproduction.

Finch beaks change as resources and environment change. Larger beaked populations will dominate during dry times due to their ability to forage for harder to reach food supplies and small beaked finches will die off. During wet seasons, fruit is plentiful, so the smaller beaked finches will be better suited to the environment, therefore they will dominate. This demonstrates the short term effects of how natural selection will adapt an organisms body plan, in subsequent generations, to a suited environment as the more fit offspring survive and the less fit perish. It also shows how a sub-species forms as one population goes towards an arid climate and another migrates to a more tropical climate a sub-species or more correctly a ring species is demonstrated potentially eliminating inter-fertility poising the populations for further evolution.

Through the fossil record we can confirm that life had been different in the past. Most notably there are organisms that have died out in the past to be replaced, by evolution, with different life forms as the selective pressures, and even global catastrophes, favored certain organisms over others. While some organisms have maintained a niche allowing for some discernible stasis, other creatures, like the apes we call humans, have taken advantage of and adapted to their environment through the usefulness of a larger brain and better cognitive skills.

Though the fossil record is not entirely complete the transitional sequences are 'overwhelming'  :D  as they recall how such creatures like Australopithecus Afarensis, with it's narrow gate and other human like features, are likely ancestors to modern day humans and the inner ear of the Pakicetus and subsequent fossils such as Ambulocetus show how land dwelling mammals adopted sea going qualities culminating in the body plan of our modern day whales.

The theory of evolution shows that with the vast amounts of time and the ability to adapt to environments, you will end up with complex chunks of matter that seem designed to live in there environments. However, since the discovery of natural selection and how genetics are utilized through this process we can see 'plainly'  ;) that our current day organisms are merely the result of a long linage of branching phylogenies that adapted to there environment generation after generation as surely as the earth rotates around the sun and as surely as the apple falls from the tree due to gravity, from a single or a few simple forms.

It's so simple, a child can even understand it.

How's that? :D

<Edit: Adam - I just want to add for clarity that the above discourse is how I believe an evolutionist could/would go about describing the properties and concepts of evolution. I myself think it's low grade story telling. Just in case any of the lurkers mistakenly thought I was 'seeing the light'. ;) >

View Post


A+

Jeff

#7 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 August 2009 - 08:07 PM

A+

Jeff

View Post

Thanks. ;)

#8 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 09 August 2009 - 08:43 PM

Wow Adam, quite an epic! I was only looking for a brief description; a paragraph or two at most. You've outdone yourself.

I think I'll have to give you an A+ too, but mind you that's only 95%...there were a couple of grammatical errors ;)

It seems we all agree on what the theory says. Could you give me the top few theoretical reasons why you don't think the theory works?

At the moment I'd like it if we kept this at the theoretical level without applying it to the real world - we can deal with real world examples next.

So assuming mutations do happen, assuming natural selection can select the strongest for survival...what prevents evolution being the result? Jeff, I'd like to hear your reasons too.

Regards,

Arch.

#9 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 August 2009 - 06:07 AM

Wow Adam, quite an epic! I was only looking for a brief description; a paragraph or two at most. You've outdone yourself.

I think I'll have to give you an A+ too, but mind you that's only 95%...there were a couple of grammatical errors ;)

View Post

My wife tells me that I always mixing up the words 'then' and 'than'. I'm always concerned that I'm not real clear where to place commas but I use them a lot because I believe they help with clarity. Other then/than that. I'm a victim of unattentive misuse of the usuals:

their/there/they're

your/you're

That kind of stuff. :D

It seems we all agree on what the theory says. Could you give me the top few theoretical reasons why you don't think the theory works?

View Post

Arch, if you don't already have a handle on the reasons why I think evolution is bunk then you are revealing that you aren't here to learn what we believe. This question saddens me.

If you wish to redeem yourself here, why don't you try answering your question for me and I'll grade your answers. :D I want to see if you're learning the material. :D

At the moment I'd like it if we kept this at the theoretical level without applying it to the real world - we can deal with real world examples next.

View Post

I'm sorry, I only discuss evolution on the theoretical level... that does apply to the real world. That's probably why I can't enter your fantasy land, theoretically. ;)

So assuming mutations do happen, assuming natural selection can select the strongest for survival...what prevents evolution being the result? Jeff, I'd like to hear your reasons too.

View Post

Evolution is the result, if you mean change over time or changes in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Yup, if that's all evolution is, the debate is over and we're all evolutionists.

You need to ask yourself what the debate is really about and is basic evolution the problem? Evolution dogma takes a perfectly good observation and stretches it unrealistically with the assumption that all things must be explained through philosophical naturalism (without an alternate paradigm interference) in order to remain scientific. This was the result of Darwin's rhetoric on the intellect. His paradigm shift helped add an insult to anyone's intellect who dared to question his naturalistic explanation regardless of how unsupported and lacking in evidence that it was and regardless of how supported and evidence rich a paradigm like Biblical creation is. Why do you think 'the god of the gaps' argument and 'creation isn't science' are so popular? These arguments stem directly out of Darwin's form of argumentation. Darwin didn't give us a scientific argument. He gave us a rhetorical argument meant to shift the paradigmatic thinking of the reader. Unfortunately, on a large scale, it worked.

If you don't understand what that means I'll gladly reword that and expand it but the implications here are huge.

#10 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 August 2009 - 07:16 AM

My wife tell me that I always mixing up the words 'then' and 'than'. I'm always concerned that I'm not real clear where to place commas but I use them a lot because I believe they help with clarity. Other then/than that. I'm a victim of unattentive misuse of the usuals:

their/there/they're

your/you're

That kind of stuff.

View Post


It was a their/there error. Hardly a big deal. Oh, and just in case you were honestly confused the 'then/than' example you've got above, it should be a 'than'.

...

Why on earth am I trying to explain this to you. My spelling and grammar are terrible ;) I'd be stuffed if it wasn't for the firefox plugin that spell checks for me. :D

Arch, if you don't already have a handle on the reasons why I think evolution is bunk then you are revealing that you aren't here to learn what we believe. This question saddens me.

If you wish to redeem yourself here, why don't you try answering your question for me and I'll grade your answers. :D I want to see if you're learning the material.

View Post


I can probably put together a bunch of reasons why you don't follow evolution, but I don't think any of them relate specifically to the theory, only to real world examples. I've also never seen a direct answer to this question from anyone here...but I really do think you might be the first.

I'm sorry, I only discuss evolution on the theoretical level... that does apply to the real world. That's probably why I can't enter your fantasy land, theoretically. ;)

View Post


I only ask because I want to know exactly what it is that you disagree with. I think Falcon tried to get a straight answer once before and it never got there.

Real world and theories don't always match. Theoretically I think God could exist, however I don't believe that to be the case. It may be that you're perfectly okay with the theory, but it fails to meet your real world expectations. I think it's important to make the distinction.

Evolution is the result, if you mean change over time or changes in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Yup, if that's all evolution is, the debate is over and we're all evolutionists.

View Post


I don't want to put words in your mouth, but this does seem to say you think evolution works in theory, but fails in real world examples. Is this the case? If yes, then we're ready to move onto real world examples, but I really do want to clarify this first.

Regards,

Arch.

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 August 2009 - 07:24 AM

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but this does seem to say you think evolution works in theory, but fails in real world examples. Is this the case? If yes, then we're ready to move onto real world examples, but I really do want to clarify this first.

View Post

It means that I see evolution as a sort of elaborate science fiction. A good science fiction takes known technologies and observed phenomena and makes colorful anecdotes out of how science could be manipulated provided that certain conditions can be met or overcome. A cheesy science fiction will be uninteresting because it has an overwhelming amount of ad hoc constraints and conditions that go far beyond reality to be entertaining or even mildly plausible. I put the story telling associated with evolutionary 'history' somewhere between a good and a cheesy science fiction.

#12 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 August 2009 - 07:40 AM

Hey Arch,

I have a question for you because I want to see if you're following what's going on here. What do you think the argument is really about? If creationists agree with change over time and changes in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next then what's our problem? This is the question you want answered right? Well, what do you think the debate is about? Make me proud. Show me that we're are at least mildly good at educating people on the creationist position. ;)

Adam

#13 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 10 August 2009 - 09:46 AM

Hey Arch,

I have a question for you because I want to see if you're following what's going on here. What do you think the argument is really about? If creationists agree with change over time and changes in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next then what's our problem? This is the question you want answered right? Well, what do you think the debate is about? Make me proud. Show me that we're are at least mildly good at educating people on the creationist position.  :)

Adam

View Post


I'd like to take a stab at this if you all don't mind!

The issues for creationists seem to stem from the fact that the theory of evolution is being forced upon people. They feel that Evolution has not/will never be falsified, so it doesn't fit a Scientific Theory such as gravity is a Scientific theory.

Creationists feel that their interpritation of the current evidence that exists in the world does not support Evolution, but supports the biblical stories of the Flood and Creation. Seeing that is the case then Creation should also be taught in the same classes as Evolution as an alternate Theory.

Am i close?

Now I personally feel from what I have read that there may be an underlying stream of "If Evolution is true then Creation is false, so my religion is also false" fear. That's just me reading between the lines, or it might be a personal assumption that I already have already made :) .

#14 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 August 2009 - 04:53 PM

It means that I see evolution as a sort of elaborate science fiction. A good science fiction takes known technologies and observed phenomena and makes colorful anecdotes  out of how science could be manipulated provided that certain conditions can be met or overcome. A cheesy science fiction will be uninteresting because it has an overwhelming amount of ad hoc constraints and conditions that go far beyond reality to be entertaining or even mildly plausible. I put the story telling associated with evolutionary 'history' somewhere between a good and a cheesy science fiction.

View Post


I'm sure it's not your intention Adam, but this need to compare the theory of evolution of other things just makes it seem like you're avoiding what I think is a very simple question. Perhaps this is why I'm still not 100% sure why you don't think evolution works; because you don't seem to give a straight answer. It always needs to be tied up with another story or metaphor.

Again I'll ask the question in the hope I can get a simple yes or no answer. Do you have a problem with the theoretical application of evolution? If yes, what is it exactly that bothers you? If no, then we're ready to move onto why you don't think it works in the real world.

Regards,

Arch.

#15 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 August 2009 - 05:45 PM

Hey Arch,

I have a question for you because I want to see if you're following what's going on here. What do you think the argument is really about?

View Post


Honestly I think it's about people not being able to let go of the past, but that's more of a deep rooted psychological issues rather than what the arguments are about.

If creationists agree with change over time and changes in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next then what's our problem? This is the question you want answered right?

View Post


Awesome, at least I know we're on the same wavelength here. That's exactly the question I'm trying to get answered. :)

Well, what do you think the debate is about? Make me proud. Show me that we're are at least mildly good at educating people on the creationist position.  :)

View Post


That's kind of the problem, I'm not entirely sure. The reason possibly being every time someone asks this question we end up with metaphorical stories like the sci-fi example you gave above that obviously tries to answer the question, but falls short because I'm never 100% certain what is it you're trying to say.

However it seems important to you that I at least try and answer this question, so I'll give it a shot :)

From what I've seen the Creationist perspective starts with the Bible. Like most religions Christianity speaks of an afterlife, as well as how the world was created. There is an assumption (and not an undue one I think) that says if the stories of the world's creation are false, then there is a good chance the parts about an afterlife are also false. Heaven sounds pretty alright, so it would be unfortunate if the afterlife part was wrong.

Evolution in general refers to change over time, which I don't think anyone has any problem saying is true. Evolution in biology however, also requires a great deal of time to have passed, which gets in the way of the Christian creation story. It stands to reason that Christians would be against this.

From the evidence I've seen, combined with your above statements in this thread, I don't think you have any problem with evolutionary theory, only it's application. A perfect example of evolution has never been found. There are some tests that might give it some credibility, but nothing concrete as of yet. For this reason you reject the biological theory of evolution (specifically the part about it taking a long time).

But this is where I become even more uncertain. Do you reject the entire biological theory of evolution, or just the part about it taking a long time? I.e You think creatures have been adapting (maybe even evolving?), but only for the past 6000 years or so.

I hope this is accurate, as I have been trying to understand your position, but like I said, I've never got what I thought was a straight answer so I can't be sure.

Regards,

Arch.

#16 Jeff Wilhelm

Jeff Wilhelm

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Butler, PA

Posted 10 August 2009 - 06:51 PM

From what I've seen the Creationist perspective starts with the Bible. Like most religions Christianity speaks of an afterlife, as well as how the world was created.

View Post

\\

Christianity is not like other religions. In other religions, people try to reach God. In Christianity, God, in the form of Jesus, reached people.

There is an assumption (and not an undue one I think) that says if the stories of the world's creation are false, then there is a good chance the parts about an afterlife are also false. Heaven sounds pretty alright, so it would be unfortunate if the afterlife part was wrong.

View Post

\\

You did well on this part, Arch. I personally think that this is a central tenant of Christianity.

So assuming mutations do happen, assuming natural selection can select the strongest for survival...what prevents evolution being the result? Jeff, I'd like to hear your reasons too.

View Post

\\


Quoting a former post is tedious.
BTW, Arch - I just noticed you are from Australia - cool. Australians were responsible for leading me to Christ. Have you been to the Answers in Genesis website? You can get many of your questions answered there.

Answers in Genesis

The problrm with evolution is the assumption part. Assuming mutations do occur - well they do - they are neutral or harmful and don't produce new information.
Natural selection cannot select a favorable mutation, even if one were to occur. Natural selection selects an organism that is most fit. There is an excellent book by a real scientist who did real research - his name is J.C. Sanford. You can get the book from amazon.com. Amazon.com

If you only ever read one book that does not support evolution - I recommend this one. It attacks what Dr. Sanford calls the Primary Axiom - that mutation is acted on by natural selection to produce new organisms.

Evolution is an attractive premise - that all organisms are related and developed from the simple to the more complex through mutation and natural selection. (BTW - this is evolution in a nutshell. This is what most people mean when they talk about evolution. They are not talking about organisms adapting to their environment or a change in allelic frequency. Those are side issues. It's like talking about cookie sheets and spatulas when explaining how to bake cookies.

The problem with the premise is that it's wrong. In fact, it is so wrong that even IF Creation wasn't true, evolution still isn't the cause of all the different organisms, their ability to interact, reproduce, etc. I am talking about the evolution in a nutshell definition.

This is another problem with evolution - the word has so many different definitions. Parts of it also have many different definitions and meanings. Look up the definition of a species - whoa! - There are at least 4 that are commonly used, depending on the organism being discussed, environmental conditions, etc. That makes evolution difficult to discuss.

Don't spend so much time on the forum - go to AIG and also read J.C. Sanford's book.

Jeff

#17 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 August 2009 - 07:08 PM

Quoting a former post is tedious.

View Post

I hope you're cut & pasting what you need and not retyping it. :)

#18 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 August 2009 - 08:52 PM

Christianity is not like other religions. In other religions, people try to reach God. In Christianity, God, in the form of Jesus, reached people.

View Post


No offence Jeff, but I think you need to do some more study into religions. Christians today are most definitely trying to "reach God". What's the point of all the praying otherwise?

As for Christianity being the only religion in which God comes to the people...how about Hercules?

You did well on this part, Arch. I personally think that this is a central tenant of Christianity.

View Post


Woohoo! I win points! :)

So assuming mutations do happen, assuming natural selection can select the strongest for survival...what prevents evolution being the result? Jeff, I'd like to hear your reasons too.

Quoting a former post is tedious.

View Post


Not entirely sure what you're trying to say here.

BTW, Arch - I just noticed you are from Australia - cool. Australians were responsible for leading me to Christ. Have you been to the Answers in Genesis website? You can get many of your questions answered there.

Answers in Genesis

View Post


I admit I have a bit of an issue with AiG. The first article I ever read there was so full of misconceptions and straight out lies it made me feel nauseous. Since then I've read a couple of quite good articles there, so I'm probably being a little unfair on them, but I still get a bad taste in my mouth from that site. Still, if you have anything specific you'd like me to read I'm willing.

The problem with evolution is the assumption part. Assuming mutations do occur - well they do - they are neutral or harmful and don't produce new information.

View Post


Interesting, you've asked me later in your post to read about Sanford, but from what I know he actually says beneficial mutations do occur...they're just incredibly rare.

Natural selection cannot select a favorable mutation, even if one were to occur. Natural selection selects an organism that is most fit.

View Post


I think this is true, but by selecting the organism the mutation is also selected. I don't see how this stops natural selection.

There is an excellent book by a real scientist who did real research - his name is J.C. Sanford. You can get the book from amazon.com. Amazon.com

If you only ever read one book that does not support evolution - I recommend this one. It attacks what Dr. Sanford calls the Primary Axiom - that mutation is acted on by natural selection to produce new organisms.

View Post


Oh fantastic! The reason I originally came to this site was from discussion with another creationist about Sanford. Have you read his book? I'd be very interested to keep talking with you if you have. He raised some great issues that I've never been able to get answers to.

Evolution is an attractive premise - that all organisms are related and developed from the simple to the more complex through mutation and natural selection. (BTW - this is evolution in a nutshell. This is what most people mean when they talk about evolution. They are not talking about organisms adapting to their environment or a change in allelic frequency.

View Post


Hmmm, interesting. Virtually every evolutionist I've spoken with speaks of evolution in terms of organisms adapting to their environment, and not of increased complexity. To my knowledge science is still up in the air as to whether evolution has a tendency towards complexity. Some think it is just a byproduct of adaption.

I'm currently reading Dawkins "The God delusion". I've been considering asking for a good creationist book to balance things out a bit. Sanford's might to a good one to pick up. Thanks.

Regards,

Arch.

#19 Jeff Wilhelm

Jeff Wilhelm

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Butler, PA

Posted 11 August 2009 - 07:43 PM

No offence Jeff, but I think you need to do some more study into religions. Christians today are most definitely trying to "reach God". What's the point of all the praying otherwise?

As for Christianity being the only religion in which God comes to the people...how about Hercules?

View Post

I guess you're just trying to goad me Arch. I thought we were having a serious discussion?

All but 4 of the major religions of the world are based on philosophical propositions. Of the 4 that are based on personalities, only Christianity claims an empty tomb for its founder. Why was the tomb empty? God came to man to die for man's sins. In no other religion did this happen. Think about that for a second or 2. In no other religion does God die for the sinner.

Arch, you and many others think that all religions are pretty much the same. Nothing could be further from the truth. That empty tomb makes all the difference. In other religions, men strive to be good and do good so that they can please God. In Christianity, nothing we can do will let us reach God. We can never be good enough for God. He is pure, we are not, no matter how hard we try.We get our salvation by his grace. All we have to do is ask him to come into our heart and repent of our sins.

I am suggesting that the people you are calling Christians might not be Christians if they are trying to reach God. In a Christian, the Holy Spirit is already inside the person. He doesn't have to reach out for God, God is already inside, 24/7/365.

The purpose of prayer is to commune with God. ACTS Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication. I'm not saying people pray for the right things. If you're at a gambling casino and ask God to let you hit the big one, I'm not sure he is going to pay attention to you.

Evolutionists make many assumptions You were assuming mutation and natural selection work together and so must result in evolution. Here's that definition thing again. Adaptation is not evolution in the nutshell definition I gave you. And of course, going from simple to complex is what evolution is all about. No eyes, then eyes. No heart, then a heart. No muscles, then muscles. No endocrine glands, then endocrine glands. No nerves, then nerves. No legs, then legs. No brain, then a brain. Simple to complex. Talking about the other stuff is - (here comes an Adam word!) obfuscation. Goo to the Zoo to You.

It's not whether or not a mutation is beneficial, it's whether or not it makes new information. In order for evolution to occur, there has to be new information. That does not happen by mutations. Natural selection selects the most fit individual, which does not strictly depend on the genes present.

I have read Sanford's book several times. .

What article did you read at the AIG that was full of misconceptions? I have read every article on the site at least once - haven't seen any misconceptions. Sometimes, though, misconceptions are in the eyes of the misconciever. (My own word.)

It seems like you're hunting around for different definitions of evolution and are missing the main concepts. If your knowledge is coming from blogs you are going to be misinformed. To get yourself straightened out on the basics of evolution, get a high school biology book at the local library.

To get yourself straightened out on Christianity get a modern translation of the bible and read the gospel of John first. Then Acts, Romans, Genesis.

Later,
Jeff

#20 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 11 August 2009 - 09:44 PM

To get yourself straightened out on Christianity get a modern translation of the bible and read the gospel of John first. Then Acts, Romans, Genesis.

Later,
Jeff

View Post



You know something. This was what started me towards Atheism. I approached my pastor and told him that I had never read the bible (I was 8 at the time) and he gave me this same advice. I couldn't understand it at the time, and I still question it. Why not read the whole bible from beginning to end? Why the specifically start with John?

lol although maybe if I did follow his advice I would still believe today!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users