Answering Questions on Creation and Creationism

[Tomk80]

For the Christian there is a common sense element to knowing there
is a God. It also comes from the scriptures in verses like Romans 1:20.

Nice, but completely irrelevant. If you want to make a model that adheres to reality, you need to leave your preconceptions and common sense behind and test it.

To the intellectual who understands the logical fallacy of strong
atheism, technical atheism or agnosticism would be the starting
point, but you would expect, once they examined evidence, unless
they had a reason to reject a supreme being of some sort, the
conclusion would be axiomatic.

Euh. How about no?

If you examine what is going on in RNA and DNA from an "information requiring a source" standpoint, you have even MORE evidence for God. It is illogical to believe that information can arise on its own.
~Michael

What is information? If you mean DNA and RNa, then there is more than sufficient evidence that this does not require an outside source. It only needs natural process.

You again seem to be thinking of information in some sort of metaphysical way. There is no reason to do so.

 

[Tomk80]

Tom
<<Very simple, by looking at the evidence and using logic to arrive at a model that fits all the evidence. In other words, test, retest.>>

What if your "logic" is misguided because you rejected communication from the One you are actually studing about?

If that communication from "the One" does not adhere to reality, it is wrong.

How can you test and retest when you were not even there?

By testing the effects a process would leave.

When you do not observe mutations that would warrant such common

ancestry, AND you don't have fossil evidence for it?
~Michael

Then we look for the results those mutations would have. Such as a twin-nested hierarchy (which we observe), the mimicking of the pattens of the twin-nested hierarchy by ERV's (which we observe) etc. We can then compare those genetic results with the fossil evidence (which we do have), and see that it adds up.

 

[Breckmin]

[/b]
Sorry, but again no. Your own preconceptions do not an argument make. Many theists who assume a creator from the start do accept evolution and even abiogenesis. They see nature as the method used by God to create. Your basic premise on all of the above is that evolution is concluded because people reject God from the start, but that is a false premise to begin with.

And logically, since you begin with a false premise, you end up with the wrong conclusion.

Did I reject God when I believed in evolution?

What you are doing is making a strawman out of my claim regarding
wisdom from the scriptures by claiming that I said people reject
God from the start. Did I reject God from the start? There are
many many Christians who have studied science and fallen prey
to this system of interpretating data.

There is a big difference to following someone who does not
have wisdom and intentionally rejecting God.
~Michael

 

[Tomk80]

Did I reject God when I believed in evolution?

No idea. I don't know you other than from what you post here and what you imply therein.

What you are doing is making a strawman out of my claim regarding wisdom from the scriptures by claiming that I said people reject
God from the start. Did I reject God from the start? There are many many Christians who have studied science and fallen prey to this system of interpretating data.

Fair enough.

Have you got a better way of interpreting data? When that does not amount to making arbitrary claims?

There is a big difference to following someone who does not have wisdom and intentionally rejecting God.
~Michael

Fair enough. My apologies if I misrepresented your position.

 

[Breckmin]

[/b]
Show me evidence that a worldwide flood happened in the first place. Geology started out assuming this, but (test, retest) quickly found this to be wrong. quote]

I do not mean to nitpick here, but it is important to differentiate between
"geologists" who interpreted data, and the field or the "study" itself.

The reason I say that is because there are still "young earth" geologists
for example, although most of creationists who are geologists do prefer
old earth. Both camps would point to evidence.

I have no intention of debating geology again. I am through with it for now.
We could spend the next 10 years debating coral reefs or limestone
in the strata of the Grand Canyon. Been there. Done that. It has
never been fruitful. Plus, I do not require the young earth position.

~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

By testing the effects a process would leave.

O.k. I'll try to keep the [/ next time.

What if the effects of the processes it would leave have been
"affected" by something that you DON'T believe it, but He
actually told you about, through the authority of a prophet
representing the truth to His Chosen nation?

Something that would greatly affect interpretation of
evidence, both geological and mutation.

~Michael

I realize I am staying general here, but that is because I do not
see a reason to argue this right now.

 

[Breckmin]

We can then compare those genetic results with the fossil evidence (which we do have), and see that it adds up.

Maybe you should try multiplying instead.... and if you get one zero
in there....maybe you will finally have the correct answer.

Multiplying might actually lead to missing links.

~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

Fair enough. My apologies if I misrepresented your position.

Apology accepted and like I said in the beginning, I knew you were
a nice guy.

Thanks Tom

I hope I can just make you think a second time.

~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

What is information? If you mean DNA and RNa, then there is more than sufficient evidence that this does not require an outside source. It only needs natural process.

What do you mean by "natural process?" Please be specific. And
please explain how "information" arises naturally.

~Michael

 

[Tomk80]

I do not mean to nitpick here, but it is important to differentiate between "geologists" who interpreted data, and the field or the "study" itself.

Yes, this is important. It is important to note that the geologists who originally came up with theories on an older earth worked from the framework of a young one.

The reason I say that is because there are still "young earth" geologists
for example, although most of creationists who are geologists do prefer
old earth. Both camps would point to evidence.

But do their conclusions logically follow from the evidence? In the closing presentation of the sixth creationist conference, Snelling stated basically that the creationist models were "poor". And during his talk, he stated that "What if there was absolutely no evidence that the universe was young? No scientific evidence the universe was young. Would you still believe that it was young? Why? Because God's word teaches it.". Stop pretending that it is science these people are doing.

I have no intention of debating geology again. I am through with it for now. We could spend the next 10 years debating coral reefs or limestone in the strata of the Grand Canyon. Been there. Done that. It has
never been fruitful. Plus, I do not require the young earth position.

~Michael

Great, because that position doesn't concern itself with the evidence anyway.

 

[Tomk80]

O.k. I'll try to keep the [/ next time.

What if the effects of the processes it would leave have been
"affected" by something that you DON'T believe it, but He
actually told you about, through the authority of a prophet
representing the truth to His Chosen nation?

Something that would greatly affect interpretation of
evidence, both geological and mutation.

~Michael

I realize I am staying general here, but that is because I do not
see a reason to argue this right now.

Like what? What kind of process? And how would that amount to anything but a deceptive God. I like Loki of the Norse Mythology, but do you even think that this position holds up theologically in the first place?

 

[Tomk80]

Maybe you should try multiplying instead.... and if you get one zero
in there....maybe you will finally have the correct answer.

Multiplying might actually lead to missing links.

~Michael

Because if you find one link, you now have two "missing" ones?

 

[Breckmin]

Then why did you think tRNA is relevant to the discussion regarding retroviruses?

I still do for "some" classes of retroviruses. But I am rather rusty. It
has been many years (as you can probably tell).

~Michael

 

[Tomk80]

What do you mean by "natural process?" Please be specific.

Testable processes occurring in nature.

And
please explain how "information" arises naturally.

~Michael

"Information" arises naturally by the spontaneous reconfiguration of already existing materials through natural processes like chemical reactions.

Taking a very general approach to information as "every different thing in existence", information increased in the early universe when only hydrogen and helium existed by the naturally occurring fusion process in stars which gave rise to new elements (more kinds of elements, more information). Chemical reactions similarly increase information spontaneously by increasing the number of configuration in which elements can exist. This is an almost endless process, since every configuration will have new possibilities of reaction in new environments made by other elements. It can result in life in the right circumstances, and life can than increase in information (total number of different organisms or genes or genetic strings, take your pick) through events like mutation and duplication.

 

[Breckmin]

Like what? What kind of process? And how would that amount to anything but a deceptive God.

Oh, how about uniformity for starters? But you should condsider how
many Christians who reject DET and uniformity do not consider God
God deceptive because of the 2 Peter verse I quoted earlier.

Yes, I would like you to look it up and perhaps read the whole
chapter of 2 Peter while your at it. I believe everyone should
read the scriptures as often as they can.

~Michael

 

[Tomk80]

Oh, how about uniformity for starters?

What do you mean with it (I ask because my experience is that in this discussion the meaning of it is muddled) and on what basis do you reject it? Is there a good reason for that, or do you just revert to post-modernism because the evidence does not support your assertions?

But you should condsider how many Christians who reject DET and uniformity do not consider God God deceptive because of the 2 Peter verse I quoted earlier.

Yes, I would like you to look it up and perhaps read the whole
chapter of 2 Peter while your at it. I believe everyone should
read the scriptures as often as they can.

~Michael

This verse, or the whole of 2 Peter for that matter, still would only tell us that God created the earth. There are 2 options here. If 2 Peter is correct, the evidence we find on earth will be in accordance with the way it was created. If it is not, 2 Peter is not correct. The evidence shows an old earth and evolution happening to a large extent (not the different kinds of dog evolution but the dinosaurs to bird and ape diversifying to man evolution).

 

[plindboe]

I look at this little video and see God's Trademark in Creation and
the beauty of His Order and Sustaining Power, even though the
creation has been cursed with certain defects.

This doesn't prove anything because it is EXACTLY what we would
expect to find. Champanzees are the closest creation to our human
morphology to remind us how different we are from animals in
intelligence. We are created in God's Image and these animals
share almost 99% of our DNA and yet they are clearly NOT
created in His Image.
They have no human consciousness from which to be creative
understand complicated mathematics or abstract concepts or
infinity. This is what <<screams>> from this observation and
yet DET biologists are oblivious to it.

The arguments made from the creationist POV are something
I will look into but I have agreed in the past with one of them.

What you need to understand is the difference in interpreting
evidence. For instance, if you believe in endosymbiotic theory
your interpretation of micro biology and mitochondria is going
to be different than if you knew there was really no such
thing as prokaryotes. For the record I may use this term
in the future out of habit, but that does not mean I believe
in endosymbiotic theory.

The bottom line is that the ERV's are EXACTLY where we
would expect to find them, just as we would expect to see
identical proteins and the arrangement of nucleotides to also
be almost exactly the same.
~Michael

You didn't answer the question at all. Just saying "This is EXACTLY what we would expect" doesn't reveal anything, it's empty rhetoric. Again, why would creationism expect ERVs to be in the same positions? Why are these findings always in accordance with the nested hierarchy?

Here's a quiz:

1.If a chimpanzee and a human share an ERV in the same position will we also necessarily find it in the same position in an orangutan?
2.If an orangutan and a human share an ERV in the same position will we also necessarily find it in the same position in an chimpanzee?

What do you think evolution would predict, and why? What would creationism predict?

Peter

 

[agentorange20]

Ieven though thecreation has been cursed with certain defects.

Cursed? Explain please

This doesn't prove anything because it is EXACTLY what we would
expect to find.

Perhaps we should expect us and other closely related to species to share similar ERV's in the same genetic locations, but there is no reason a 'designer did it' or 'god made em that way!' explination works let alone is it required to explain the evidence.

Champanzees are the closest creation to our humanmorphology to remind us how different we are from animals in
intelligence.

mmmm, I don't know Bonobo's are fairly similar to use both genetically and morphologically, it's pretty much a toss up of the two and which are closer.

We are created in God's Image and these animals share almost 99% of our DNA and yet they are clearly NOT
created in His Image.

So, if we're not related, why do they posses the same identical ERV's in the same genetic locations? Keep in mind they insert at random.

Here, Google 'evidence for common ancestry ERV's', you'll find a vid explaining how they propogate via the germ line.

They have no human consciousness from which to be creative understand complicated mathematics or abstract concepts or
infinity.

They are smarter than you think bub, they might not rival us intellectually in all capacities but they are smarter in relation to virtually all other species. We are simply an extension of that.

The bottom line is that the ERV's are EXACTLY where we would expect to find them, just as we would expect to see
identical proteins and the arrangement of nucleotides to also
be almost exactly the same.

So you're sticking with the 'designer done it' hypothesis, ok. Problem: ERV"s insert at random and are non fuctional (unlike say those protien coded genes) they have no purpose, they are retro-elements and therefore with no fuctionality they shouldn't even be possed by different or closely related species at all. But they do, and their locations just happen to line up with the current nested hireacrchy.

 

[agentorange20]

I don't see how this is evidence of when we don't ever see those kinds of mutations resulting in speciation beyond the genus level.

What does is matter if it's at the Genus level or not? We have observed both specations both at the species and genus level, but not in the primate line, yet. ERV's and human chromosome 2 fusion evidence aren't likely mutations that would result in a speciation in the first place. These ERV"s, are, after all non-coding.

Without transitional species to observe such mutations to conclude common ancestry between apes and humans, you have to assume it and then prove it by showing all the different commonalities.

Easy, ( I can't post links, yet) Google hominid fossils pt1 and hominid fossils pt2, you should be able to find them on Youtube, done by yours truly. There is some fossil intermediates, deduce away. Explain away all the commonalities.

Scientists are so busy trying to find ways to prove relatedness, that they never stop to actually think whether there "is" relatedness.

Here's a hint, when we review the genomic composition of an organism we can then compare it to its parents and identify it readily and its relatedness, this isn't something people are out and about to prove, it's something that is predicted (in other words, its a falsifiable test) based other tests and evidence. With the discovery of genetics, all of Darwins work and others could have hypothetically been overturned, but it hasn't, it fact it's only filled in the gaps and to greater detail.

The process used in analyzing other species (extant apes) and us and our genomes is one in which we find plenty of evidence for evolution. Again, it's not one single thing which results in the 'a ha!' moment, rather like the overwhelming fossil evidence it is only when all the evidence is reviewed and understood and as it is all consistent does it come together. GULO? Explain away.

 

[Naraoia]

Ssssssshhhhhh, quite....you wouldn't want to let them know they carry the same defunct vitamin C synthesis pseudo-gene as other extant apes and in the exact same genetic location.

Apologies for spoiling your fun Next time when something like that rings a bell I'll just google it

My point wasn't that transposons result only in defunt duplicated genes. Sometimes they 'cut and paste', other times its a 'copy and paste' and in the later case we have clear indicators. Transposons (the pseudo gene variety) are useful in showing relatedness via descent, there is no real *other* explanation for many long sequences which are non-coding and found in identical genomic locations and are virtually identical save for few point mutations. Obviously, the entire copying and translocation of certain functional genes also support it, but the psedo genes are more compelling as from a 'designer did it' angle it can't work in explaining why for instance we and extant apes all share this GULO gene.

Ah, that's clearer, thanks.

Syncytin, this is a much, much older ERV that those other more recent ones only found in the primates and this is important to note.

Where on earth did I get that it was specific to us?

(Nevertheless, it does make the point that ERV =/= junk. Hmm, while we are at ERVs, is there any indication that some of the primate-specific ones might have a function? Or indeed, any useful ERV genes other than syncytin?)