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

What Would It Take For A Evolutionist To Consider Creation?

Recommended Posts

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='jamo0001' timestamp='1312243804' post='73587']

Now that I got that out of the way, I'll go piece by piece on this one. I promised myself when I joined this board that I would not stray from the realms of molecular, cellular, anatomic, and medical biology, but this is too demeaning and insulting to let stand unchallenged.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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 are correct. But if atheistism were true, you could not trust that your senses and memory were reliable. Random unguided chemicals can't guarantee anythinng.

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Well, unless you just hate wasting your time.

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

.

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

I answered your 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.

 

 

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

 

 

 

Can we return to biology now?

 

 

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

 

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

 

TeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of going quote by quote, I'll just sum up my response in these two points:

 

-Mathematics is not physical in any way, shape, or form. No gods are needed in order to look at a group of marbles and see mathematics. Same goes for truth, beauty, and (gasp!) morality. [side note: a thread about the evolution of human morality would be downright riveting, however I'm waking up at 5AM and don't feel like starting one right now]. If you can't conceive of this, I cannot personally help you. I can recommend several monumental works of philosophy that can help you out, though, and I'll even pick ones written by Christians, if that makes you more comfortable.

>>Bottom line: Metaphysical things, including reason and logic, do not require a theistic worldview (whether or not any gods exist).

-Christians have plenty of reasons to believe that various laws of nature can be suspended (the Bible is full of instances where this was recorded as occurring). Evolutionists, however, have NO REASON to expect laws of nature to change. Find me a single scientific paper that asserts a law of nature has been broken.

>>Bottom line: The only people who even consider the possibility of natural laws being non-constant are theists or some sort of crackpot New Ager. You believe in a virgin birth, don't you?

 

And I'd just like to say that hearing a theist say that they're the only ones able to believe in the constancy of nature is pretty jaw-dropping. That's what divine intervention, intelligent design, the incarnation, the revelation of the Bible, and everything else is all about.

 

I would also love to recommend a fascinating lecture by a neuroscientist who will absolutely blow you mind regarding these things, but he uses evolution to explain the phenomena, so I'm afraid you wouldn't really feel comfortable sitting thru it long enough in order to hear his conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

Christians have plenty of reasons to believe that various laws of nature can be suspended (the Bible is full of instances where this was recorded as occurring). Evolutionists, however, have NO REASON to expect laws of nature to change. Find me a single scientific paper that asserts a law of nature has been broken.

 

The only people who even consider the possibility of natural laws being non-constant are theists or some sort of crackpot New Ager. You believe in a virgin birth, don't you?

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

How is abiogenesis not a miracle?

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Mouth of Colorado River doesn't have enough sediment for Grand Canyon

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

Could you list some examples? I've never been, but I planned on going there once they're finished with the whole amusement park thing.

 

I'll check this out too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

There are many examples of canyons forming in very short periods of time. One that comes to mind is Mt. St. Helens. The landslides resulting formed sediment that was then cut into a canyon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

It goes fine with my idea of things degenerating and getting worse. The animals were able to vary more right after the flood and are slowly losing that ability. I don't really understand this (non-creation) article to well, but it sounds like they end with that same thought.

DNA study sheds new light on horse evolution

If I'm wrong could someone please explain what he meant when he said:

"In contrast, ancient DNA studies have revealed that the loss of genetic diversity in many surviving species appears to have been extremely severe," Professor Cooper says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Batten was discussing ERVs with me. He linked me to an article (also written by CMI) that said ERVs must all be functional since some paper (which he didn't cite or link) said that a function had been found for one of them. What function? What ERV? What study? I have no idea because he stopped responding to my emails.

Could you list some examples? I've never been, but I planned on going there once they're finished with the whole amusement park thing.

Like there being floating, circulating systems of tree trunks in the aftermath of the Flood that "explain" why species are distributed across the Atlantic the way they are.

Like the Flood waters evaporating over several months, yet today's oceans have been around for thousands of years without evaporating or mysteriously sinking below the mantle to places that science hasn't found.

Like speciation events occurring so frequently that species would die, not have anything to breed with, and/or not have enough time for gestation. Remember, this phenomenon of "super-evolution" must've only happened during a discrete timeframe since we haven't seen such speciation rates in recorded history.

Like God endowing the original created organisms with some sort of ability to "super-evolve".

Like fossil stratification being the result of some animals running uphill from the floodwaters faster than others

 

 

And let's not forget that "people of God" spent $27M on this atrocity to human thought.

 

 

There are many examples of canyons forming in very short periods of time. One that comes to mind is Mt. St. Helens. The landslides resulting formed sediment that was then cut into a canyon.

Canyons that have a serpentine path while cutting thru anything like the 2B-year-old Vishnu Schist? Cutting thru sediment and ash is one thing; cutting thru bedrock is totally different. At least St Helens included volcanic and seismic activity; I don't remember Genesis mentioning anything of the sort when discussing the Flood. Do we need to add to the Bible in order to make that work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It goes fine with my idea of things degenerating and getting worse. The animals were able to vary more right after the flood and are slowly losing that ability. I don't really understand this (non-creation) article to well, but it sounds like they end with that same thought.

DNA study sheds new light on horse evolution

If I'm wrong could someone please explain what he meant when he said:

"In contrast, ancient DNA studies have revealed that the loss of genetic diversity in many surviving species appears to have been extremely severe," Professor Cooper says.

 

"Loss of genetic diversity" within a species typically means local population extinctions of a specific species.

 

Imagine the entire population of Europe had been wiped out by WWII. That would result in far fewer European physical traits (red hair, etc) being in the gene pool. A "loss" of diversity despite the species itself surviving. This particular type of loss of diversity is called a "population bottleneck".

 

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

Define "super evolution" and describe what evidence science has produced of this. I've never read anything of the sort, at least nothing in the league of what the Creation Museum alleges. (And no, breeds of dogs don't count. Not by a long shot).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for adding that, Chris. Super-evolution is much more plausible if looked at in the light of these facts rather than supposing that new things and new DNA coding are gradually developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Batten was discussing ERVs with me. He linked me to an article (also written by CMI) that said ERVs must all be functional since some paper (which he didn't cite or link) said that a function had been found for one of them. What function? What ERV? What study? I have no idea because he stopped responding to my emails.

Do you think you could write down a question (your most important one) and I'll try to email them and see if I can get that article or something else they may have found out?

 

Like there being floating, circulating systems of tree trunks in the aftermath of the Flood that "explain" why species are distributed across the Atlantic the way they are.

That sounds funny, but you never know. I think of it like there being land bridges that were still above sea level that are now covered, perhaps by melting glaciers after the Ice Age or maybe they walked across the glaciers themselves.

 

Like the Flood waters evaporating over several months, yet today's oceans have been around for thousands of years without evaporating or mysteriously sinking below the mantle to places that science hasn't found.

I don't think the waters were evaporated. I think its still here, in the ocean. Thats why the earth is 70% water. It would have flowed off the continents with the geologic activity that raised the mountains and sunk the ocean basins.

 

Like speciation events occurring so frequently that species would die, not have anything to breed with, and/or not have enough time for gestation. Remember, this phenomenon of "super-evolution" must've only happened during a discrete timeframe since we haven't seen such speciation rates in recorded history.

Maybe animals can't speciate as fast as they used to, but did you read that article (about the horse)? Could you explain their conclusion or if its agreeing with what I say about this not being able to speciate as much as they used to?

 

Okay, thank you for answering.

 

Like God endowing the original created organisms with some sort of ability to "super-evolve".

What does "super-evolution" mean? I mean, I guess people could use that word as long as it dosen't involve the different kinds of animals becoming other kinds.

 

Like fossil stratification being the result of some animals running uphill from the floodwaters faster than others

What do you mean by this? Are you talking about the reason you find certain animals buried together? Because there are alot of reasons for that.

 

And let's not forget that "people of God" spent $27M on this atrocity to human thought.

Aww, come on, a museum that supports the scripture. I like it. :)

 

Canyons that have a serpentine path while cutting thru anything like the 2B-year-old Vishnu Schist? Cutting thru sediment and ash is one thing; cutting thru bedrock is totally different. At least St Helens included volcanic and seismic activity; I don't remember Genesis mentioning anything of the sort when discussing the Flood. Do we need to add to the Bible in order to make that work?

 

What am I adding? The Bible talks about water coming up through the crust of the earth and its logical that a bunch of catastrophic geologic events would have occured. Plates moving and earthquakes. Perhaps volcano's, but I don't know about this one. It wasn't rock when it was cut either, but soft sediment. What about the river flowing uphill though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Define "super evolution" and describe what evidence science has produced of this. I've never read anything of the sort, at least nothing in the league of what the Creation Museum alleges. (And no, breeds of dogs don't count. Not by a long shot).

 

Why not? We see that 2 wolves have the ability to produce the breeds of dogs with all of their variety. If we didn't have written history to attest this, the different breeds of dogs would be grouped into different species.

 

In the same way, 2 elephants produced Woolly Mammoths, Mastodons, African Elephants, Asian Elephants, etc. 2 cats produced Tigers, Lions, Panthers, Ocelots, etc. Just as dogs and horses changed in shape and size throughout the generations so did the other kinds of animals.

 

Try searching "speedy species surprise", or searching speciation on creation.com. All of the CMI articles have numerous secular references that you can find the original research to read from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Loss of genetic diversity" within a species typically means local population extinctions of a specific species.

 

Imagine the entire population of Europe had been wiped out by WWII. That would result in far fewer European physical traits (red hair, etc) being in the gene pool. A "loss" of diversity despite the species itself surviving. This particular type of loss of diversity is called a "population bottleneck".

None of that contrasts with what creationists say on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be blunt. I am afraid that your questions are coming from ignorance. Not to long ago I was a staunch OEC and was arguing with a YEC calling their ideas ridiculous. The YEC challenged me to actually read YEC material instead of arguing out of ignorance. I took her up on it. I started with Ham (not my favorite) in order to know where else to look. Now as soon as any JW got wind of me reading Ham the attacks and threats started. I took a chance. Will you?

Like there being floating, circulating systems of tree trunks in the aftermath of the Flood that "explain" why species are distributed across the Atlantic the way they are.

Like the Flood waters evaporating over several months, yet today's oceans have been around for thousands of years without evaporating or mysteriously sinking below the mantle to places that science hasn't found. You are aware that evolutionist invoke this rafting idea in order to explain the appearance of species in some places? This is not a creationist idea, but a scientific one.

Like speciation events occurring so frequently that species would die, not have anything to breed with, and/or not have enough time for gestation. Remember, this phenomenon of "super-evolution" must've only happened during a discrete timeframe since we haven't seen such speciation rates in recorded history. Ahem. Yes we have.

Like God endowing the original created organisms with some sort of ability to "super-evolve".

Like fossil stratification being the result of some animals running uphill from the floodwaters faster than others. I don't know if it is you or the museum that is presenting things in an oversimplified form. I do know that evolutionists do the same thing. All of my science books throughout my 14 years of schooling seemed to teach Lamarck's ideas. Ridiculous. I had to research things on my own as an adult to understand evolutionary theory.

 

And let's not forget that "people of God" spent $27M on this atrocity to human thought.

Um... okay, spending money bad. I will remember that if I ever decide to build a museum dedicated to one of my interests.

 

Canyons that have a serpentine path while cutting thru anything like the 2B-year-old Vishnu Schist? Cutting thru sediment and ash is one thing; cutting thru bedrock is totally different. At least St Helens included volcanic and seismic activity; I don't remember Genesis mentioning anything of the sort when discussing the Flood. Do we need to add to the Bible in order to make that work? Read the flood account in your Bible. Nothing is being added.

 

You seem angry. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jamo0001, is this the article you read or a new one?

Large scale function for endogenous retroviruses

They have the sources at the bottom.

 

You are aware that evolutionist invoke this rafting idea in order to explain the appearance of species in some places? This is not a creationist idea, but a scientific one.

I forgot about that. They say that happened with an ape-like ancestor too right? Maybe not a bunch of trees floating around, but that they built a raft out of weak materials or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? We see that 2 wolves have the ability to produce the breeds of dogs with all of their variety. If we didn't have written history to attest this, the different breeds of dogs would be grouped into different species.

 

Yes, but a Chihuahua and a Great Dane could still theoretically interbreed genetically (and even physically, if you really wanna get graphic). They're not distinct species. If we're talking about individual varieties of species (like dog breeds) arising in only 6000 years, then the Creationist to-do list just got exponentially bigger.

 

There are 2M confirmed EXISTING species that cannot interbreed (plus extinct ones of which we have fossil evidence and which the CMIs and AIGs of the world are supposedly accounting for). Estimates for undiscovered species range up to 100M more than those we already know about, plus MORE extinct ones that we don't yet know about. CMI and AIG readily admit these facts, but they don't count on you doing the math. Think about it. 2M species divided by [x number of Biblical kinds] divided by, say, the first 3000 years post-Flood. You're talking about speciation events happening within hours of each other, even with species that have gestation periods in the range of 4-14 months each.

 

It makes the brain bleed to attempt to accept such things as factual. It is all a leap of faith and cannot be justified through science, math, or any other empirical discipline. But CMI, AIG, DI, etc have no problem with these things as long as people continue to throw their money at them via subscriptions, donations, speaking engagements, book purchases, etc., most of which would've been money spent by good, Christian people on charitable efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot about that. They say that happened with an ape-like ancestor too right? Maybe not a bunch of trees floating around, but that they built a raft out of weak materials or something?

 

No... they actually invoke natural rafts just like the creationists. Here is one example: http://www.physorg.com/news183213283.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2M confirmed EXISTING species that cannot interbreed (plus extinct ones of which we have fossil evidence and which the CMIs and AIGs of the world are supposedly accounting for).

I think I heard that out of those species, there are only like 800 kinds. I may be way off and math was my worst subject lol. There are some varieties of animals of the same kind that can't interbreed now, but could in the original creation, because of the way the environment changed after the flood and how they had to adapt.

 

Estimates for undiscovered species range up to 100M more than those we already know about, plus MORE extinct ones that we don't yet know about. CMI and AIG readily admit these facts, but they don't count on you doing the math. Think about it. 2M species divided by [x number of Biblical kinds] divided by, say, the first 3000 years post-Flood. You're talking about speciation events happening within hours of each other, even with species that have gestation periods in the range of 4-14 months each.

I'll email this, see what they say and let you know.

 

But you see what I mean about the uphill river? I don't think it formed the canyon.

 

No... they actually invoke natural rafts just like the creationists. Here is one example: http://www.physorg.com/news183213283.html

 

So, then this could be one plausible explanation aswell as the ones I mentioned. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No... they actually invoke natural rafts just like the creationists. Here is one example: http://www.physorg.com/news183213283.html

 

Yes, populating small, isolated islands is possible and dispersal theories like that have been around for over a century. But Madagascar doesn't have huge mammals; the primates in question in that article are tiny arboreal ones.

 

There's big difference between saying groups of small, tree-dwelling primates were washed out to sea by storms that knocked down their trees before the wind blew them 2 or 3 hundred miles to a neighboring island ....versus saying a couple dozen American Bison or moose mounted clumps of trees and managed to cross the Atlantic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, populating small, isolated islands is possible and dispersal theories like that have been around for over a century. But Madagascar doesn't have huge mammals; the primates in question in that article are tiny arboreal ones.

 

There's big difference between saying groups of small, tree-dwelling primates were washed out to sea by storms that knocked down their trees before the wind blew them 2 or 3 hundred miles to a neighboring island ....versus saying a couple dozen American Bison or moose mounted clumps of trees and managed to cross the Atlantic.

 

Did you think the ideas I presented sounded plausible, given the creation model for the ice age and stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jamo0001, is this the article you read or a new one?

Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’

They have the sources at the bottom.

 

 

I forgot about that. They say that happened with an ape-like ancestor too right? Maybe not a bunch of trees floating around, but that they built a raft out of weak materials or something?

 

Thank you for finding that; I just read the paper and re-read CMI's summary article.

 

What CMI (I'm not sure if Batten was the author of that particular one) neglects to mention is that while 51,000 of the estimated 55k ERVs were shown to have promoter capabilities, only 1,700 were even within range of functional human genes, and only 114 of those 1700 were shown to alter frequency of gene expression. In the words of the study's authors: Most of the ERV promoter sequences were simply promoting "genetic noise". That's a far cry from "ERVs have a function and therefore cannot drift!" like Batten implied in the secondary CMI article which, when questioned, prompted his reference to the CMI article about ERVs suddenly having a widespread functional effect on the human genome.

 

Now, this next part I will have to run past other colleagues first, but my knee-jerk reaction to that article is this:

5% of the human genome is supposedly composed of ERVs. If there are 55k ERVs, then statistically, up to 2700 of them would be located in areas that could be in contact with genes (1700 were confirmed in the study above). 5% of 2700 is 135 (114 were confirmed in the study above to alter frequency of gene transcription). In other words, after my first glance thru this article, it is one of those "blind hog finds an acorn eventually" situations by saying that ERVs have been shown to alter gene expression frequency. No intelligent insertion of ERV sequences is needed; some of them are bound to land next to a gene if you're inserting 55000 of them.

 

Essentially, that article shows that large-scale viral insertions over evolutionary timescales can provide some of the raw materials for natural selection to act upon. They are not, however, evidence that a given lineage has always depended on them for anything beyond adaptation.

 

EDIT: It was Shaun Doyle, who has a bachelor's in environmental science, who wrote the CMI article about ERVs having some profound function. My favorite part of the article is where he says that ERVs promote transcription of "one-fifth of the human genome!". Remember, less than 2% of the human genome codes for protein or tRNA/etc. He quotes the study's authors as saying ERVs have widespread effects on human genome transcription, but he doesn't mention that the vast majority of this transcription is immediately destroyed by the cell since it is just superfluous genetic noise from the evolutionary peanut gallery of the genome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's big difference between saying groups of small, tree-dwelling primates were washed out to sea by storms that knocked down their trees before the wind blew them 2 or 3 hundred miles to a neighboring island ....versus saying a couple dozen American Bison or moose mounted clumps of trees and managed to cross the Atlantic.

 

I don't recall ever reading anything like that. Bison and Moose traveled via land as far as I know. The shape of the land and the oceans has changed quite a bit. The difference between the creationists and the evolutionists ideas on this matter is only time. ie: How long did it take land bridges to appear and subsequently disappear and how many times did they do this.

Share this post


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

×

Important Information

Our Terms