Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ikester7579

What Would It Take For A Evolutionist To Consider Creation?

Recommended Posts

Ha! Yes. Yes I did realise that ;)

 

So, to answer the clarified question, "What would it take for an evolutionist to consider creation?", then my simple answer would be if that it agreed with the consensus scientific view on things like the age of the earth, and diversity of life forms.

 

There are excellent reasons why the scientific community doesn't take creationism seriously, and it has nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy, satanic influences, etc. It is purely because the facts point elsewhere.

 

Facts like what? You mean finding that 95% of the fossil record is marine in nature? That limestone, which can only be made by planktonic, and diatonic creatures, covers 10% of the earth's continental crust, and that many of the soft tissue fossils found in limestone laggerstatten prove rapid burial? That many fossils which are measured by other (the rocks around them) dating methods, have 14C in them. That shale, which covers much of the earth's crust also, can contain kerogen, which comes from the decay of organic material, sucn as diatoms, plankton, spores and woody material. And that many marine fossils, including Cambrian fossils, are found in shale and limestone.

 

So no matter how many people who have paid to be educated by others, who have also paid others to be educated in only one view--the state endorsed view of the ToE-- Which politicians, lawyers, judges, and all professionals have been educated in exclusively. And all other scientists who hold agnostic science to be the only possibility, with no rebuttal allowed, unless it upholds the ToE. No matter what they want to pass on you, they also intentionally ignore these facts by framing these facts into ad hoc stories which are unmentioned foundational footers, which only a few care to delve into. However the data that covered the earth is unquestionable, and no geologist would argue--they just "change the story" into many coverings, and smugly ignore the Bible, which tells of a historical flood.

 

The rest (like yourself) just take the word of the "vogue" science of the day. We're talking about agnostic state science which allow the ToE assumption to ride upon every new fact that arises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a simple question. What would it take for a evolutionist to "consider" creation.

 

Consider = not a trap type question.

Believe or convert = a trap type question.

 

One has to ponder or consider something before changing their mind. So what would make a evolutionist ponder or consider creation?

 

I think it would require two things:

 

(1) A body of evidence that cannot be explained by current evolutionary theories

(2) An alternative, plausible explanation for existing evidence besides current evolutionary theories

 

If these two conditions are met, creation (along with any other current theories) would become a possible explanation.

 

Becoming "accepted", though, requires a much higher threshold of plausibility than does "considered" (obviously).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) A body of evidence that cannot be explained by current evolutionary theories

Why do you believe this does not exist and do evolutionary theories have a body of evidence? If so, could you please list three examples?

 

(2) An alternative, plausible explanation for existing evidence besides current evolutionary theories

Please list the evidences and I while try to give you that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you believe this does not exist and do evolutionary theories have a body of evidence? If so, could you please list three examples?

 

Please list the evidences and I while try to give you that.

 

I'll just throw out a couple that fit both bills:

 

GULO gene in primates and rodents

ERV inheritance in primates

Vestigial structures (pelvic girdles in whales, for example)

Vas deferens pathway

Rubrospinal tract in humans

 

All five of these make sense from a phylogenetic standpoint (Requisite 1), but a creation that produced such anomalies wouldn't make much sense (Requisite 2)

 

I don't have any experience in geology, so that's why I won't dare say the six-letter "F" word here haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GULO gene in primates and rodents

ERV inheritance in primates

Vestigial structures (pelvic girdles in whales, for example)

Vas deferens pathway

Rubrospinal tract in humans

Could you please be a tiny bit more specific about why you believe these things indicate evolution? Like a sentence or two for each? So I can get a better understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please be a tiny bit more specific about why you believe these things indicate evolution? Like a sentence or two for each? So I can get a better understanding.

 

 

GULO: a gene encoding parts of the enzymatic pathway required for Vitamin C synthesis (thus making a creature's diet VitC-independent)

-Why is a non-functional GULO sequence present in certain species? If it does provide some as-of-yet unknown function, then why is it so incredibly similar to functional sequences? (almost 100% similarity between functional and non-functional) Why not some other sequence that confers the same unknown function?

-If the mutations that caused this gene to deactivate were due to The Fall, then why did they occur at the same location in a group of primates and yet in a different location in a group of rodentia? (EX: deactivating mutation occurred at location X in a certain group primates, but in location Y in a certain group of rodents).

 

ERV Inheritance Patterns: genetic segments virtually identical to ancient viruses that were integrated into host DNA

-If this is a result of The Fall, then what are the odds of a particular virus inserting in the same location in two different animals? What are the odds of this happening several (in the case of chimp:human genomes) and many (primate:primate) times in various species?

-Why does such an "ERV Relationships Tree" resemble the phylogenetic trees yielded thru comparative anatomy, etc.? What are the odds of this?

 

Pelvic Girdle of the Whale: cartilaginous structures homologous to terrestrial mammalian pelvic girdles

-What is the function of these structures?

-Why did it only happen to occur in an aquatic species that evolution says lived on land at one time? Why isn't such a mysterious structure found in species that evolution has said always lived in water?

 

Vas Deferens Pathway: A convoluted pathway of the vas deferens that lends itself to injury and blockage

-Why would a structure take such a convoluted pathway?

 

Rubrospinal Tract: A neural circuit in humans that possesses ape characteristics despite humans not needing such a circuit

-Why would such a circuit be engineered into a human brain if it's not needed?

-Why would such a circuit be engineered into a human brain if it makes certain types of injuries even worse than they would be otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is a non-functional GULO sequence present in certain species?

Would you consider that perhaps:

 

- The GULO sequence once functioned and later lost its function (hence the similarities it has with functional sequences)?

- It has an as-of-yet unknown function?

- Its functionless does not indicate one kind of creature (ex. homo, canidae, felidae) can be become another and that God did not create those different kinds of creatures?

 

If it does provide some as-of-yet unknown function, then why is it so incredibly similar to functional sequences?

- It has an as-of-yet unknown function, but is still incredibly similiar to functional sequences?

 

Why not some other sequence that confers the same unknown function?

- It's the only sequence that confers that unknown function?

- The other sequence hasn't been discovered?

 

If the mutations that caused this gene to deactivate were due to The Fall,

- The mutations that caused this gene to deactive were due to a gradual degenerative process (which itself was due to the curse God placed on Adam and the ground [Gen. 3:17-19]) that is still active today (i.e., some of the problems [ex. functionless sequences] that would be associated with God's curse didn't all suddenly appear at once, placed in his creation, directly after the curse began)?

 

then why did they occur at the same location in a group of primates and yet in a different location in a group of rodentia?

- Given the idea of a degenerative process, this just happened to work that way for those different creatures (i.e., it was not due to a sudden insertion by God, therefore he wasn't discordant in where he placed the functionless sequences in those creatures after the curse)?

- God suddenly inserted them in different locations after the curse?

 

Or are you taking into account a degenerative process and still wondering why this functionless sequence didn't appear in the same location?

 

If this is a result of The Fall, then what are the odds of a particular virus inserting in the same location in two different animals? What are the odds of this happening several (in the case of chimp:human genomes) and many (primate:primate) times in various species?

-Why does such an "ERV Relationships Tree" resemble the phylogenetic trees yielded thru comparative anatomy, etc.? What are the odds of this?

I'm not understanding the big picture with this one. Could you please explain it on a more elementary level?

 

Pelvic Girdle of the Whale: cartilaginous structures homologous to terrestrial mammalian pelvic girdles

-What is the function of these structures?

- Given the idea of a degenerative process, whales used to (some may still [ex. dolphin]) have an extra pair of flippers (or is it fins lol?) (not terrestrial legs) that helped them to swim more efficiently, assist the reproductive process as anchor points for special muscles, and strengthen the pelvic wall?

- They are functionless, but don't indicate terrestrial animals became aquatic animals?

 

Why did it only happen to occur in an aquatic species that evolution says lived on land at one time? Why isn't such a mysterious structure found in species that evolution has said always lived in water?

- Cartilaginous structures exist in other aquatic animals, but haven't been discovered?

- The animals that have them are unique?

 

The dolphin needs its fully functioning sonar to find food and survive. How could its ancestors survive before they evolved sonar capabilities?

 

Vas Deferens Pathway: A convoluted pathway of the vas deferens that lends itself to injury and blockage

-Why would a structure take such a convoluted pathway?

- To demonstrate God's intricacy (its more interesting than being a straightforward pathway?), especially when it worked flawlessly (the injuries and blockage wouldn't have occured before God's curse, and today could be from a combination of the effects of the curse and not taking care of yourself in the right way)?

 

Rubrospinal Tract: A neural circuit in humans that possesses ape characteristics despite humans not needing such a circuit

-Why would such a circuit be engineered into a human brain if it's not needed?

- "It is the main route for the mediation of voluntary movement. It is responsible for large muscle movement such as the arms and the legs as well as for fine motor control. It facilitates the flexion and inhibits the extension in the upper extremities" (Wikipedia)?

 

Why would such a circuit be engineered into a human brain if it makes certain types of injuries even worse than they would be otherwise?

- There woudn't be these certain types of injuries before God's curse and therefore the Rubrospinal Tract would be a fine engineering feat?

- The injuries that become even worse with the Rubrospinal Tract could have come about sometime after the curse as a part of the degenerative process?

 

I don't have any experience in geology, so that's why I won't dare say the six-letter "F" word here haha

Transitional fossils are lacking

There are gaps between land mammals and whales

 

I hope I provided some plausible alternative explanations for your evidence, but please let me know more about the ERV Inheritance Patterns. Thanks for reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely appreciate the conversation, man. My responses:

 

:::GULO DISCUSSION:::

Would you consider that perhaps:

 

- The GULO sequence once functioned and later lost its function (hence the similarities it has with functional sequences)?

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

 

- It has an as-of-yet unknown function?

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

- Its functionless does not indicate one kind of creature (ex. homo, canidae, felidae) can be become another and that God did not create those different kinds of creatures?

I don't quite follow you here

- It has an as-of-yet unknown function, but is still incredibly similiar to functional sequences?

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

- It's the only sequence that confers that unknown function?

As above

- The other sequence hasn't been discovered?

?

- The mutations that caused this gene to deactive were due to a gradual degenerative process (which itself was due to the curse God placed on Adam and the ground [Gen. 3:17-19]) that is still active today (i.e., some of the problems [ex. functionless sequences] that would be associated with God's curse didn't all suddenly appear at once, placed in his creation, directly after the curse began)?

- Given the idea of a degenerative process, this just happened to work that way for those different creatures (i.e., it was not due to a sudden insertion by God, therefore he wasn't discordant in where he placed the functionless sequences in those creatures after the curse)?

- God suddenly inserted them in different locations after the curse?

These three possibilities go straight to the issue with the GULO data. The issue of multiple species losing oxidase functionality isn't the problem for creationism (and the whole concept of discrete "kinds"). 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.

 

 

 

 

:::ERV DISCUSSION:::

I'm not understanding the big picture with this one. Could you please explain it on a more elementary level?

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.

 

 

 

 

:::VESTIGIAL PELVIC GIRDLE IN CETACEAE:::

- Given the idea of a degenerative process, whales used to (some may still [ex. dolphin]) have an extra pair of flippers (or is it fins lol?) (not terrestrial legs) that helped them to swim more efficiently, assist the reproductive process as anchor points for special muscles, and strengthen the pelvic wall?

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.

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?

- They are functionless, but don't indicate terrestrial animals became aquatic animals?

So basically they're just meaningless?

- Cartilaginous structures exist in other aquatic animals, but haven't been discovered?

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?

- The animals that have them are unique?

So "just meaningless" as above?

 

 

 

 

:::VAS DEFERENS DISCUSSION:::

- To demonstrate God's intricacy (its more interesting than being a straightforward pathway?), especially when it worked flawlessly (the injuries and blockage wouldn't have occured before God's curse, and today could be from a combination of the effects of the curse and not taking care of yourself in the right way)?

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?

 

 

 

 

:::RUBROSPINAL TRACT DISCUSSION:::

- "It is the main route for the mediation of voluntary movement. It is responsible for large muscle movement such as the arms and the legs as well as for fine motor control. It facilitates the flexion and inhibits the extension in the upper extremities" (Wikipedia)?

- There woudn't be these certain types of injuries before God's curse and therefore the Rubrospinal Tract would be a fine engineering feat?

- The injuries that become even worse with the Rubrospinal Tract could have come about sometime after the curse as a part of the degenerative process?

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.

 

 

 

Again, all five of these issues are easily and intuitively explained when viewed using an evolutionary mechanism, but become nonsensical, illogical, and even impossible when viewed from an ID or creationist perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amigo, that source is almost 20 years old. I've got a book on the shelf next to me (printed 2010) that lists ten different intermediates between modern cetaceans and their most recent common ancestor with hippos.

 

We have had good discussions on this matter with links and pictures. I encourage you to do a search. (I think Isabella provided the evidence, and I asked a question about it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dolphin needs its fully functioning sonar to find food and survive. How could its ancestors survive before they evolved sonar capabilities?

 

 

Not sure how I missed this question earlier:

 

Dolphins, unlike bats, use their lower jaw (including the bones that function in the inner ear of most terrestrial mammals) for echolocation. Thus, it is easy to see that ossicles-for-hearing gradually drifted into jaw-for-echolocation as the various species' skulls were adapting to their new aquatic lifestyle (nostrils drifting backwards and upwards to merge eventually into a modern "blowhole", orbits drifting from vertically-oriented to horizontally- and frontally-oriented, etc.)

 

All of these morphological changes in the cetacean skull enabled the whales/dolphins/porpoises to spend more and more time underwater and less time at the surface. Echolocation=better in darker areas than just hearing/eyesight, blowhole=more efficient and faster air exchange, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='jamo0001' timestamp='1312163357' post='73522']

I think it would require two things:

 

(1) A body of evidence that cannot be explained by current evolutionary theories

(2) An alternative, plausible explanation for existing evidence besides current evolutionary theories

 

If these two conditions are met, creation (along with any other current theories) would become a possible explanation.

 

Becoming "accepted", though, requires a much higher threshold of plausibility than does "considered" (obviously).

 

Jam,

 

There is no "evidence" that can convince an atheist of creation. Why? Because whatever evidence is presented to him, he will interpret through his worldview. I define a worldview as a network of presuppositions, untested by natural science, and in light of which all experience is interpreted. The creationist also has a worldview and he will interpret evidence through his worldview. A worldview is unavoidable; a rational worldview is not. For a worldview to be true, it must be rational, consistent, and non-arbitrary. I submit that the atheist worldview is irrational, inconsistent, and arbitrary.

 

To interpret evidence, you would have to assume a few things. you would have to assume that your senses and memory are functioning properly. You would have to assume that there are laws of logic. You would have to assume that you can use laws of logic with rational thinking to reach truth. You would have to assume that there is absolute morality (reasoning rationally is a moral obligation because one can't reach truth otherwise). And, most importantly, you would have to assume that there is uniformity of nature, that the physical laws will not arbitrarily change in the future.

 

In an atheist/evolutionist worldview, the atheist has no rational reason to assume that any of these things exist. How can an atheist believe that rational thought can exist if his senses, memory, and thinking are simply chemical reactions in the brain--a random chance accident. If thinking is simply physical chemical reactions, then he could not know that anything was true--not even that his brain is made of chemicals. Computers can reach correct conclusions doing logic, math, and playing chess even. But the computer does not KNOW that its conclusions are true or false--or that it is doing logic, math, or playing chess.

 

In an atheist worldview (where only matter exists), laws of logic can't exist. Laws of logic are immaterial, invariant and universal. They are not part of the physical universe. The atheist has no rational reason to believe that these laws of logic can exist in his worldview.

 

Unless there is absolute morality, there would be no mandate to reason logically to reach truth. If you reason illogically, you reach falsehoods. So we have a moral obligation to reason logically using laws of logic. But there can be no absolute morality in the atheist worldview--simply preferences.

 

And, most importantly, the atheist has no rational reason (within his worldview) to assume that the physical laws will be law-like or that they will not change tomorrow. Now atheists do scientific experiments assuming that the physical laws will not change, but they have no reason to assume so.

 

If one does not have a rational reason to believe something, he can't really know it. I can believe that there are little green men inside Jupiter, but my belief is simply arbitrary. Even if future exploration of space reveals little green men in Jupiter, I still had no rational reason to know it. So it comes down to which worldview (set of presuppositions) best explains the reality we experience around us.

 

The theist worldview does this best. A theist, who believes that a rational thinking God exists, can justify laws of logic and rational thought within his worldview. While the theist can rationally reason that rational thought can come from the mind of a rational God, the atheist can't likewise reason that rational thought and logic can come from lifeless, reasonless matter. The theist can rationally believe that he can reach truth, because Jesus said, "I am the Truth." The theist can believe that there is absolute morality because he has a moral Authority above man. (Atheists try to live in the relative world of subjective morality, but can't really do so. In fact they seem to be the first to rail against any injustice or evil they see or experience.) But when they do this, they are being inconsistent, arbitrary, and irrational.

 

And the theist has a rational reason to believe that the future will be like the past (uniformity of nature) because God has promised us this (in Gen. 8:22 for example). And he "upholds everything by the word of His power [Hebrews]." An atheist has no rational reason to believe the future will be like the past.

 

Now when an atheist thinks rationally using laws of logic, assumes morality, assumes uniformity of nature, he is borrowing from the Christian worldview. He is using God's laws of logic and the rational mind that God has given him to argue against the existence of God. In reality, he is like a man who does not believe in the existence of air, all the while breathing air to make his argument. In doing so, he is being irrational, inconsistgent, and arbitrary. And when he uses laws of logic, rational thought, morality, uniformity of nature, he affirms his worldview to be false and the theist worldview to be true.

 

TeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now when an atheist thinks rationally using laws of logic, assumes morality, assumes uniformity of nature, he is borrowing from the Christian worldview. He is using God's laws of logic and the rational mind that God has given him to argue against the existence of God.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

There is no "evidence" that can convince an atheist of creation. Why?

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.

 

Because whatever evidence is presented to him, he will interpret through his worldview.

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.

 

I define a worldview as a network of presuppositions, untested by natural science, and in light of which all experience is interpreted. The creationist also has a worldview and he will interpret evidence through his worldview. A worldview is unavoidable; a rational worldview is not. For a worldview to be true, it must be rational, consistent, and non-arbitrary.

I totally agree.

 

I submit that the atheist worldview is irrational, inconsistent, and arbitrary.

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.

 

To interpret evidence, you would have to assume a few things. you would have to assume that your senses and memory are functioning properly. You would have to assume that there are laws of logic. You would have to assume that you can use laws of logic with rational thinking to reach truth.

Of course you would. What would be the point, otherwise?

 

You would have to assume that there is absolute morality (reasoning rationally is a moral obligation because one can't reach truth otherwise).

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.

 

And, most importantly, you would have to assume that there is uniformity of nature, that the physical laws will not arbitrarily change in the future.

Of course you would. What would be the point, otherwise?

 

In an atheist/evolutionist worldview, the atheist has no rational reason to assume that any of these things exist.

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. You do not need a God in order to see that 2 marbles plus 3 marbles always equals 5. 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.

 

How can an atheist believe that rational thought can exist if his senses, memory, and thinking are simply chemical reactions in the brain--a random chance accident.

I'm honestly not sure if this is sarcasm or a serious question.

 

In an atheist worldview (where only matter exists), laws of logic can't exist. Laws of logic are immaterial, invariant and universal. They are not part of the physical universe. The atheist has no rational reason to believe that these laws of logic can exist in his worldview.

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.

 

Unless there is absolute morality, there would be no mandate to reason logically to reach truth.

Well, unless you just hate wasting your time.

 

If you reason illogically, you reach falsehoods. So we have a moral obligation to reason logically using laws of logic. But there can be no absolute morality in the atheist worldview--simply preferences.

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.

 

And, most importantly, the atheist has no rational reason (within his worldview) to assume that the physical laws will be law-like or that they will not change tomorrow.

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.

 

The theist worldview does this best.

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.

 

And the theist has a rational reason to believe that the future will be like the past (uniformity of nature) because God has promised us this (in Gen. 8:22 for example). And he "upholds everything by the word of His power [Hebrews]." An atheist has no rational reason to believe the future will be like the past.

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.

 

Now when an atheist thinks rationally using laws of logic, assumes morality, assumes uniformity of nature, he is borrowing from the Christian worldview. He is using God's laws of logic and the rational mind that God has given him to argue against the existence of God. In reality, he is like a man who does not believe in the existence of air, all the while breathing air to make his argument. In doing so, he is being irrational, inconsistgent, and arbitrary. And when he uses laws of logic, rational thought, morality, uniformity of nature, he affirms his worldview to be false and the theist worldview to be true.

 

I've already addressed this demeaning and unsupported diatribe in my previous post.

 

 

 

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.

 

Can we return to biology now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a simple question. What would it take for a evolutionist to "consider" creation.

 

Consider = not a trap type question.

Believe or convert = a trap type question.

 

One has to ponder or consider something before changing their mind. So what would make a evolutionist ponder or consider creation?

 

A gradual almost imperceptible softening, perhaps... the same thing that made a Jehovah's Witness consider converting while at the same time preaching to others. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Yes, do tell!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms