Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Air-run last won the day on October 6 2017

Air-run had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

12 Good

About Air-run

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/13/1978

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
  • What is your Worldview?
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Detroit, Michigan
  1. Mike - regarding that verse in Genesis 1:30 - do you think it could be a general statement, but not a complete treatise on animal diets? Green plants are the basis of the food chain, so the verse could be interpreted as saying that plants are the basis of food for everyone. Maybe the verse isn't giving us all the details. The verse doesn't say anything about giving the animals fruit to eat - even though fruit is mentioned as food for man in vs 29 - and we know animals eat fruit. Anteaters seemed designed to eat ants. Someone mentioned to me that eating insects isn't an example of carnivorous activity, so it wouldn't go against a vegetarian world. But, if we assume that anteaters ate ants from the beginning - we must acknowledge that vs. 30 isn't a complete treatise about animal diets because it doesn't say anything about insects.
  2. Just to push back a little bit... You said "In the beginning there were no such harm-causing agents." I agree there were no harmful viruses or bacteria in the beginning. There were most definitely bacteria from the beginning, but all were beneficial. Maybe the same could be said about viruses. But, do you think it was possible for man or animal to get sick from the beginning? There are a number of flowers that could make an animal sick if eaten. Do you think an animal would have gotten sick from eating one - or do you think their immune systems would have been more optimized from the beginning to deal with poisons? Also, where does it say that all animals were herbivores from the beginning? I happen to believe carnivorous animals are necessary for life to exist.
  3. The idea of developmental constraints doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense for a designer supposed to have created life from scratch, especially if that designer is supposed to be supernatural. Is there any design deficiency that couldn't be explained away with "well it's probably the best design possible given these constraints"? The moment the creator chooses a set of physical parameters to govern the world, all designs he puts in the world are limited by the chosen parameters. You could say that the designer should have created a world with no parameters - but how would anything operate with any regularity if the laws of physics didn't keep it churning along? You could say the world should have been created with fewer parameters and more freedoms - but that assumes the world we live in isn't already maxamized with the fewest parameters and the greatest freedoms. No matter what the world is, you will always run into boundaries.
  4. Air-run

    Was God's Initial Creation Perfect?

    Well, the "perfectionists" would argue there were no incorrect copies of DNA before the Fall. I would say that God is fully capable of using the physical laws and chemical processes to achieve His goals. Agree to a point... Yes God initiated the laws with a purpose in mind. The laws will achieve what they are able to achieve - but obviously not what they are unable to achieve. I think evolution requires more of the physical laws than the laws are able to give. Physical laws can't govern code. The pairing of the proper amino acids to the proper codon is not ultimately achieved by chemistry. Yes, the chemistry is intricate and wonderful to build proteins from amino acid building blocks - but when you continue to take one step back, you ultimately find the chemistry is guided by information - and without that information, the chemistry would be incapable of producing anything worthwhile.
  5. Air-run

    Was God's Initial Creation Perfect?

    As others in the other topic mentioned, at the end of each day of creation God declared his day's work good. What they fail to realize is that at the end of the sixth day when everything was created, including man, God declared it very good. In God's eyes how much better is very good than good? Does it mean perfect? There are no clues from the text. But there is something in context that should lead us to believe that what God created was perfect for his purpose. We know that sin cannot exist in the presence of God. Yet God walked freely with Adam and Eve in Eden, communing with them. Therefore Adam and Eve, as created, were sinless. There was no death, no discomfort in Eden, just a perfect existence with God their Creator. We all know what happened. Eve gave in to the whiles of the devil and disobeyed God, causing her and Adam to be banished from Eden and all of creation to be cursed. God cannot commune with sin. Adam and Eve blew it, and all of creation has suffered the consequences to this day. But, like Mike the Wiz stated, this was to be only temporary. When do we see again that God communes directly with his creation in a perfect world where there is no death or discomfort? That would be in the new heaven and the new earth, the new city of Jerusalem of Revelation 21. As types are often used to tie together seemingly incongruous elements of Scripture I believe that Eden, the first of perfect creation, was a type of the new heaven and earth, which would be God's final perfect creation. However, there is one major, huge difference between the two: At the end, Satan, the fallen angels, demons and all those who rejected God's gift of salvation will be cast into the lake of fire no longer able to wield their corruption and evil influence. The new heaven and new earth will be literally sinless. Those communing with God in the new heaven will be in their glorified bodies, as were Adam and Eve before the fall, and before they "discovered" their nakedness. Remember, they were created in God's perfect image. So, was God's creation initially perfect? I believe that by God recreating virtually every condition in the new heaven and new earth that existed in Eden before the fall it tells us that, yes, Eden was perfect. The only difference between the two is Satan deciding he wanted to be "like the most high" and become a false god corrupting what God had created in Eden. It's the free will thing. In a similar vein - I was wondering to myself if God created Adam and Eve to live forever. If they were created to live forever, why would the tree of life be able to make them "live forever" if they ate from it (Gen 3:22)? If they weren't created to live forever - would they die? Or would God take them to heaven at some old age without them experiencing death? (if they didn't sin) One other related thing - God created us with intricate DNA repair proteins - that can detect and repair incorrectly copied DNA. If God gave us those repair mechanisms from the very beginning - this means God knew that even Adam's DNA would not be copied 100% accurate all the time, and would need to be corrected. I can only chalk this up to the limits of the laws of physics and chemistry. God created us with awesome internal mechanisms - but mechanisms that rely on physics and chemistry that can only accomplish a limited degree of perfection. I would say that from the moment God created this world and the physical laws that govern it - He knew that there was a limit to how perfect those laws could make it.
  6. Air-run

    Evolution Of The Proton Pump

    As mike mentioned - we're talking about a stage before ATP synthase. The discussion is how ATP synthase evolved. Yes it can run backward and forward depending upon the needs of the modern cell. But, if the cell is using H+ ions to import nutrients, it also needs a mechanism to pump extra H+ out of the cell. And if it doesn't have the mechanism to pump the extra H+ out, it can't continue to import nutrients. So basically, the early cell would need to evolve both of these mechanisms at the same time for either of them to work. well, like koonin said, animal phyla arrived here ready made.science doesn't know how this stuff "evolved", except it was extremely rapid. it certainly wasn't any kind of "gradual mutation" type of evolution. koonin seems to think animal phyla arrived here radially from eukaryote super groups, not by any kind of bifurcated treelike pattern. IOW, science doesn't know what the early stages were to ATP synthase, but it does seem that bacteria flagella uses a similar type of mechanism. This would have been pre-eukaryotes, and probably pre-flagella. At this point, the prokaryotes only source of ATP would have been fermentation. I'm not sure if that would have provided enough ATP to power a flagella. But, I don't know how these organisms could have survived if they needed to import H+ ions to get their nutrients, but didn't have a way to get rid of the excess H+. As a side note, I love it how (don't really love it) the evolution story is always something like this: "such and such organism needed this part to survive, and that pressure led to them evolving it." You need a proton pump? Boom! Evolution got you covered. No need to bother with trying to figure out HOW it happened or IF it could happen - just need to know WHY it happened. If the need is there, the solution is magically there.
  7. Air-run

    Evolution Of The Proton Pump

    As mike mentioned - we're talking about a stage before ATP synthase. The discussion is how ATP synthase evolved. Yes it can run backward and forward depending upon the needs of the modern cell. But, if the cell is using H+ ions to import nutrients, it also needs a mechanism to pump extra H+ out of the cell. And if it doesn't have the mechanism to pump the extra H+ out, it can't continue to import nutrients. So basically, the early cell would need to evolve both of these mechanisms at the same time for either of them to work.
  8. These are some thoughts swirling in my brain about materials from my cell bio course... We talked about the evolution of the hydrogen ion pump - which would have been a precursor to ATP synthase - which we require to make sufficient ATP. Our professor mentioned that the evolution of a hydrogen ion pump would have been necessary as early cells were becoming dangerously acidic inside. I asked her why they were becoming acidic inside. She said one of the reasons was that these early cells used hydrogen ions outside the cell to bring certain nutrients into the cell via a coupled symporter protein pump. I don't think she really understood my responding critique of this notion. If these early cells used the energy of hydrogen ions to pump nutrients inside, the increase in H+ ions would begin to acidify their internal pH from the very beginning - which would throw off their chemistry and ruin the cell. In short, if these cells were using hydrogen ions to power their intake pumps, they would also need pumps to expel the excess hydrogen ions at the same time. If the cell didn't evolve both of these pumps at the same time, the cell would have been toast. If anyone has a deeper understanding of this subject than I - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
  9. Air-run

    Misleading Whale Exhibit - Update

    Mike - that's true. And they will use the term vestigial to describe an organ that has a "reduced" or "different from original" function - not just organs that don't seem to have any function. With this cloudy definition, any organ can be described as vestigial if it has a function that is different from its original function in the proposed ancestor.
  10. In 2012 I posted a topic to this forum concerning my visit to the Pacific Science Center - they had an error in their gray whale skeleton display: link They dangled the pelvic bones like little legs - and they had a sign posted that invited the viewers to look at the little hind limbs from the animals terrestrial past. I contacted the museum to let them know about the error. I was told they would look into the issue and make changes as funds became available. Fast forward to 4 years later. We visited the museum again, but there were no changes made. I contacted the museum again and I was told they were still aware of the issue but the funds haven't been made available. If they didn't have funds to bend the bones into their right position, I at least offered to pay for a new display sign that omitted the reference to the mistaken hind limbs. I didn't receive any reply.
  11. Air-run

    Is Ccm "of The Devil"?

    I just finished listening to four sermons my friend sent me about rock music, such as this one: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=922131717127 He had a lot of quotes from secular rock stars and their use of rock music, but only a few Bible verses. I think the verses were not properly interpreted.
  12. Hey all, I have a friend on facebook who posts harsh comments now and then about contemporary Christian music. I've been hesitant about starting a conversation with him about these views because the last time I addressed one of his issues, the conversation ran into several roadblocks concerning his specific beliefs (such as KJV only). However, he just recently posted several videos of him and a group from his church doing megaphone style "evangelism" outside a Christian concert. His comment is that everyone going to the event is a "so-called Christian" but is really a child of the devil. This is a bit much, from my point of view. I've decided to question him on these views. Does anyone share his beliefs? Or does anyone have any suggestions as to how to talk about this with him. The only thing I can gather so far is that he thinks CCM feeds your flesh - and that is bad.
  13. Species is not a black and white subject - it is open to the interpretation of the scientists. If a group of birds experiences genetic drift and develops slight variations in their anatomy, are they really a different species from their parent group? At what point did they become a new species? When .05% of their genome changed? Or when 1% changed? What is the cutoff point? It is subjective labeling. Neanderthal are 99.7% similar to MODERN man. Any two modern humans are 99.9% similar. What if we found a remote Amazon tribe who by genetic drift were only 99.8% similar to the majority of modern humans. Would we suggest that they are not humans because they fall outside of the 99.9% boundaries that we have already established? No, we would re-establish the human boundaries to include 99.8%. Why do we assume that 99.7% is outside of the boundaries of humanity? It's because of subjective bias. If we could go back in time and hang out with the Neanderthal and see that they act and talk just as human as us, we would realize that we need to extend our boundaries to 99.7%. You want to know what is really difficult? Trying to find information about genetic studies done on fossils that are considered to be modern homo sapiens. I wonder how the genome of early homo sapiens differs from modern homo sapiens? One interesting case in point is the Denisovian finger. Upon discovery, the fossil was thought to be of an anatomically modern human. It was found in a cave where humans were known to have lived, and in a time where humans would have been in the area. Similarly, the Denisovian molar falls well within the boundaries of anatomically modern humans. However, genetic analysis showed enough genetic dissimilarity to modern humans that it is considered a different species from Homo sapiens. Instead of extending the genetic boundary of homo sapiens to include these homo sapien resembling fossils - they were considered something different. A scientists paradigm can determine how they interpret the data. If we find a more complete Denisovian fossil that is nearly identical to modern humans, what will the scientists do? Will they welcome the genetic variant into the family? Or will they stick to their subjective guns and insist it is another species?
  14. "Primitive" is such a subjective term. It assumes lower intelligence and more "ape-like" behavior. How do you gather the intelligence of a hominid based on the size of its brow ridges? Your assertion is based on the false premise that a creationist believes that every creature that exists today looks and acts exactly like it did when it was first created. Creationists readily accept genetic/phenotypic plasticity. Lets assume that God created all humans to look one particular way - but as they spread around the globe, certain alleles became more dominant in certain tribes and each tribe began to take on a unique look. We see the same today - although maybe not to the same degree as it might have been in the early days of mankind. Just because the pygmies of Australia have features quite unlike the 7 ft tall Dinka people - it doesn't mean they are a different race.
  15. lifepsyop - those are some great quotes, thanks. For me, ERV's have been one of the more difficult "proofs" of evolution to deal with - and there isn't a whole lot of creation based information on the topic. I'll share some of the tidbits I've researched on the subject. 1.) For one, evolutionists have a hard time explaining how viruses came to be in the first place. One possible explanation is that a genetic packet from a prokaryote or eurkaryote exited the organism and took on a "life" of its own. If this happened with any regularity, this could explain why modern retroviruses share sequence similarities with ERV sequences. 2.) LTR-retrotransposons are transposable elements within oranisms that are not thought to be viral in origin, yet they share most of the core proteins that make up an ERV sequence. ERV sequences are composed of LTR, Pol, Gag, and Env genes. LTR-retrotransposons only lack the Env gene, yet many varieties contain an "Env-like" gene that can perform a function similar to the true Env gene. The purpose of the Env gene in viruses is that it builds a protein sheath through which a virus can export its genetic material out of a cell to infect more cells. The significance of LTR-retrotransposons to the debate is that they demonstrate to the evolutionist that sequences very similar to a viral sequence can "naturally evolve" through trial and error within a cell without being introduced by a viral predator. But to the creationist who doesn't believe our genes are the product of random evolution - we can view LTR-retrotransposons as part of the original genetic code - and therefore it is not a stretch to see ERV sequences in the same way. 3.) It is now thought that we have DNA insertions from filoviruses. The problem with this is that filoviruses are not retroviruses - they don't have the tools to insert their DNA into ours. One scientist commenting on this wrote: She recognized the impossible leaps for this to happen, but she shrugs it off as another miracle of evolution. 4.) In order for a retrovirus to insert its DNA into a host so that the ERV sequence becomes part of the hosts genome, the virus would either have to infect a gamete cell or a blastula during the early stages of reproduction. Most of the experimental evidence that a virus can infect a gamete (that I am aware of) involves the experimenters directly injecting the gamete with the virus. There have been experiments to see if the retrovirus HIV is able to infect male gametes. The gametes that appeared to be infected were also rendered immobile by the infection - eliminating the possibility of male gametes being a vector for ERV infection. 5.) If an ERV were to infect a fetus so that all of its cells had the ERV genetic code - this could be potentially fatal if every cell were producing viral proteins.

Important Information

Our Terms