Answering Questions on Creation and Creationism

[ChordatesLegacy]

On this point we are going to have to disagree. Since I believe in
divine revelation I would appeal to the prophet Isaiah in Isa. 1:18
and say that we need to step back first, and look at the whole
picture, before we dive into inductions that can mislead.
(i.e. ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny - never had an explanation
for that sperm and egg, BTW)

I refuse to leave common sense behind. We do not share
common ancestry with chimpanzees, and they are actually a
gift to us to teach us that we are created in God's Image.
But they are VERY much like us biologically.

It is unwise to abandon common sense.
~Michael

That’s exactly what science is giving us; not the whole picture, but far more of it that magical mysticism ever give us.

So what the picture tells us now is that the universe is ~13 billion years old, the earth is ~4.5 billion years old and the human race shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees ~5-6 million years ago.

Ho, it also shows us than magical mystical creationism is not only wrong, but so far of the mark it is laughable.

 

[Tomk80]

mimicking patterns?

Independent variables give the same results.

or Trademarks from a Creator who uses the same
patterns and the same biological structures for SEVERAL reasons.

No, because the patterns are not the same for the same biological structures. The pattern for a wing is not the same for birds, bats and flies. It is not related to function.

Also, you are "assuming" outside source.
~Michael

Which one.

 

[paug]

It's what he does best. No point in trying to make him try to explain how God would place ERV's - he'll always find a solution he's comfortable with. It's about showing that ERV's are the most convincing proof of evolution to the layman. If he doesn't accept this, I don't know what he's doing at the C&E forum. Not contributing, not constructing, but refuting and making empty claims.

The fact remains: evolution predicts ERV's. We find ERV's. This lends credibility to evolution.

But literalists have to look long and hard at their scriptures to find something that they can knead into a pleasing and satisfying proof of the Creation.

What's with all the clinging? Why not learn?

 

[Breckmin]

Wow, you do talk a lot...

quote]
Well,
I also do not feel called to debate this right now, so I will cut this
long, but short by not debating.

1. I do not feel deceived. I see the consistency in the mechanisms
that I know are cursed and I know many of them are dormant or
have no use, but I do not assume that at one time there was not
a purpose for them. Once again, "curse" is the answer to what
is petitio principii here.

2. We can't test mutations we don't observe taking place around
us. IOW, mutations that we actually know DO take place.

3. I know everyone is hungry to debate a creationist who will
actually start laying out some evidence and supporting it, but
even if I start to go that route I'm not sure there is going to
be a change here.

4. I would love to stay and actually start debating. It used
to be favorite past time to engage point for point. But I do
not feel "called" (if you can understand that from a religious
point of view) to do this right now, and I am not being as
fruitful in other areas of ministry right now.

5. After reading up on reverse transcription I was wrong
about tRNA, I believe, but I am so used to finding out I was
right about something that an evolutionist told me I was
wrong on, so perhaps that biased me. I consider retroviruses
a relatively new field (for me) even if it is over 10 years old,
and it is obvious that I need to break out some old texts, or
look stuff up online, but I just don't have time to study these
different viruses and retroviruses right now.
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

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?

Regarding uniformity it is a pick and choose. Would we argue uniformity
for heat conduction from the Sun??? No, we have to employ something
consistent with stellar evolution which I also reject, as Im sure you
would expect. I do not, for one second, believe that the earth is 4.5
billion years old, anymore than the myth of paleontology (95% science
fiction). There are just too many problems with these theories.
My original reference was in regards to things like geometric dating.

Assumptions regarding uniformity of the earth's carbon rates would ALSO
be another (Carbon-14).


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).

It would also tell us that mockers forgot about the water and assumed
uniformity.
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

And what does this matter? My question was related to ERV's and Human Chromosome 2 fusion (you still haven't tried to explain this one). Regardless of how the first life was formed, God, aliens, or natural, common descent and our shared ancestry with apes is still viable. Quit the bullet dodging, explain the evidence for them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

I will watch these videos later. But as I was watching the first half of
the first one, again, I can't help but think that if I edited this and the
first video, and rewrote them and showed them at my church, they
would all be amazed at how this actually is evidence for creation.
The complexity alone is going to be evidence for creation. They will
see all of this and say "wow, that is amazing how God created."
Now "why" is this??

Because they will not assume external source for viruses and retro
viruses for humans. They will not even think it is a possibility that
the ERV's came from an ancestral ape, because they "know" better.

1. They see clearly the differences between animals and humans
just with spirituality alone, so they would step back away from the
10's of thousands of inductions that univeral common descent
has engulfed itself in and KNOW that there is no shared common
ancestry.

2. They would not only see the spiritual issues involving worship
and spiritual warfare, but they would also see the intelligence
factor in that there is NO comparison in intelligence between
apes and humans.

3. They know that there is a human consciousness factor that
allows humankind to be artistic and expressive and creative and
use mathematics like Calculus and infinity as a determiner that
monkeys nor dolphins nor any animal would ever come close to.
O.k. that was back to intelligence. But they would see it as
the Image of God that they were created in.

In other words, they would just use what they consider
common sense to interpret the data.

We already expect to find many more similarities. But what will
guide us in this new information we are finding??? Will it be wisdom???

Or just pure induction with the wrong assumption.
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

4. Back to point one. Someone made the mistake of claiming
science can never point to the supernatural,and everyone followed along like little puppy dogs and ignored the evidence that proved special creation:
​

<<Didn't you debut here by calling out Thaumaturgy on an ad hominem? I don't know, I find this "puppy dog" phrase a bit... insulting. Especially in the light of the fact that I usually prefer to do my own thinking.>>

Yes, on this point I am guilty. This is a little too strong, if taken personally, and I was venting frustration perhaps about losing some posts, etc. and I DO apologize.

Let me rephrase it. Because I believe that science teaches that there
is a God, (various arguments one of them being Information needs a
Source, mRNA a message or code that needs a Writer or an Author)
I believe that you bring this "theology" to science as an assumption.

Likewise I am frustrated when groups of people follow things that do
not make sense to me. One that I noted was the polygraph. There
are others, as I am sure there are for you as well.

If a doctor uses scientific observation and finds cancer in a patient
and with repeated lab tests over and over verifies this scientifically
and then a group of people come and pray over that individual and
that individual has had no Chemo therapy or any treatment and
afterwards, scientific observation demonstrates that the cancer
is completely gone, I believe it is logical to conclude the supernatural.

This is primarily of course, because I know there is a God, and because,
yes, the supernatural has happened with me personally once 22 years
ago.

Likewise, all scientific data points to supernatural necessity for a
living cell or for information in RNA and DNA, I believe it is wrong
for science to remain silent on the need for special creation.

So let me rephrase and say that "everyone followed along with
a materialistic and naturalistic philosophy and ignored the evidence
that demonstrated special creation.
If you say there is no evidence.
petitio principii "What about all of the "alleged" evidence for special
creation, starting with Information needs an Informant.

~Michael

 

[paug]

The fact that we don't understand something doesn't mean you can attribute it to a supernatural force.

 

[plindboe]

The commonalities between chimpanzees and humans are always
expected, but we do not share common ancestry. Creationists
would expect the same positions because of the chromosomes
and what we have always seen as God's Trademark in creation.

This doesn't prove common ancestry at all. I'll post more on
it later.
~Michael

Again you didn't give any answers. An omnipotent god could have created any way he wanted and you'd be exclaiming "Hallelujah! That's just what we would expect!" no matter how it actually looks.

With evolution it's very different. I'm not just talking about commonalities, I'm talking about the pattern of commonalities that has to be very specific if common descent is true. Back to my earlier questions:

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?

If common descent is true the answer to question 1 is "NO" and the answer to question 2 is "YES". Do you understand why?

Peter

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Likewise, all scientific data points to supernatural necessity for a
living cell or for information in RNA and DNA, I believe it is wrong
for science to remain silent on the need for special creation.

Now that’s plain ignorance, there is no need for special creation in anything we see. Science explains the natural world without any need for magical mysticism.

Special creationism is for people afraid of their own mortality, so that they can be more than other creatures, get a grip; you and I are just the same as any other creatures, i.e. here for a while and then recycled.

Does your information necessity also stretch to crystals; I mean in your eyes they must need a creator.

 

[Breckmin]

Mice too, IIRC.

I had a friend ask me for these finds.

What were the "results" of these fusions? And where can I
reference them?
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

The fact that we don't understand something doesn't mean you can attribute it to a supernatural force.

Oh, but we DO understand it. We understand information needs a
source all too well. We know that the physiology and metabolism
of a living cell can not be reconstructed once we separate it ALL
too well.

And we know exactly what this points to.

I would say, <<stop clinging>> to not knowing Who it points to.

~Michael

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Oh, but we DO understand it. We understand information needs a
source all too well. We know that the physiology and metabolism
of a living cell can not be reconstructed once we separate it ALL
too well.

And we know exactly what this points to.

I would say, <<stop clinging>> to not knowing Who it points to.

~Michael

Information does not need a source. That’s the same logic creationists use when they say matter needs a creator. Of course we do not know what is outside our universe and we do not know how abigenesis occurred, but making a statement like the following:

DNA carries information - - - therefore - - - Information needs a source:

Is total creationist bull excrement, because take this to its logical conclusion:

Information needs a source - - - therefore - - - - God is the source:

But this argument is infinite as you have to create gods to be the creators of gods already created.

Turtles come to mind.

 

[paug]

Oh, but we DO understand it. We understand information needs a
source all too well. We know that the physiology and metabolism
of a living cell can not be reconstructed once we separate it ALL
too well.

And we know exactly what this points to.

I would say, <<stop clinging>> to not knowing Who it points to.

~Michael

Information does NOT need a source. It has been shown many many times that under certain conditions, pre-existent compounds can rearrange as to form a sequence that can relay or constitute information.

You are blinded by the ignorance bestowed to you by your priest and pro-creation sources for "information" on evolution. You're the posterchild for them - sucking in the phrases (in this case: Information necessitates a creator or author) and reciting them without reservation.

E: CL beat me to it.

 

[Breckmin]

Now that’s plain ignorance, there is no need for special creation in anything we see. Science explains the natural world without any need for magical mysticism.

God is not a man that He would need to perform "magic." Since we
are in the Christian forums I will tell you freely that God is FACTUAL.

No Christian who was godly would ever claim that they were any
better than those who do not know there is a God.
I am sorry that there are people who somehow do not know there is
a Creator. I was never an atheist, just a person who thought creation
was theistic evolution. Even then I still called myself a creationist,
but I was clearly wrong I know what got me.
Of course, DET makes sense on the surface without solid foundation.
But when you start from the ground up with "abiogenesis" (the first
common ancestor) and they ARE connected no matter how many times
you make the claim that they are not connected, (you have to justify
your start) there is no foundation for such.

Creationism has a solid foundation on a Creator Who is the Owner
of this Universe and we see His miracle of life through cells and we
see His Information in RNA and DNA (even though it has been corrupted
had has all sorts of problems now).

This is either true or untrue, independent of me acknowledging it to you.
~Michael

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

God is not a man that He would need to perform "magic." Since we
are in the Christian forums I will tell you freely that God is FACTUAL.

And I am telling you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is factual.

PROVE ME WRONG

 

[Breckmin]

Information does not need a source. That’s the same logic creationists use when they say matter needs a creator. Of course we do not know what is outside our universe and we do not know how abigenesis occurred, but making a statement like the following:

DNA carries information - - - therefore - - - Information needs a source:

Is total creationist bull excrement, because take this to its logical conclusion:

Information needs a source - - - therefore - - - - God is the source:

But this argument is infinite as you have to create gods to be the creators of gods already created.

Information is the product of something. God by very definition is not
the "product" of anything so this is a pseudo arguement.
IOW, God is not "intelligence." Being intelligent is a discription.

But I do enjoy the philosophical consistency of where this is headed.
Please feel free to keep going.
~Michael

 

[Tomk80]

I had a friend ask me for these finds.

What were the "results" of these fusions? And where can I
reference them?
~Michael

For example: http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=14966

Chromosome analyses were conducted on 15 animals in a pedigree of Somali wild ass, Equus africanus somaliensis. G- and C-banded karyotypes are presented for the first time on this endangered species. The diploid number ranged from 62 to 64. Numerical chromosomal variation was the result of a centric fission which was accompanied by a heterochromatic deletion. The fission polymorphism involved acrocentric elements 19 and 21 as determined by G-banding. These autosomes are homologous to those involved in centric fission/fusion polymorphisms in other equids: E. asinus (domestic donkey), E. hemionus (onager), E. kiang (kiang), and E. burchelli (common zebra). Banding analyses also revealed a paracentric inversion polymorphism in submetacentric chromosome pair 2 of E. a. somaliensis. Both the centric fission and paracentric inversion polymorphisms involved heterochromatic regions. One individual was found to be heterozygous for two de novo chromosomal rearrangements: a centric fission (involving acrocentric elements 19 and 21) and a heterochromatic deletion of chromosome 2.

Robertsonian fusions occur in humans too. If the fusion is "balanced" (meaning that there is no change in the amount of genetic material) it has no effects. If it is "unbalanced", resulting in less or more genetic material, it often produces birth defects.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Information is the product of something. God by very definition is not
the "product" of anything so this is a pseudo arguement.
IOW, God is not "intelligence." Being intelligent is a discription.

But I do enjoy the philosophical consistency of where this is headed.
Please feel free to keep going.
~Michael

The vary nature of god/s is pseudo in nature; just remember where your god fables come from.

Bronze Age Israelite parables, passed down by word of mouth.

Anyway if its evidence you want to destroy creationism, every natural science does that including; geology, biology, astronomy, chemistry, physics, planetary science, anthropology, genetics and probably a lot more.


The spaghetti monster is the greatest creator.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Tomk80]

Regarding uniformity it is a pick and choose. Would we argue uniformity for heat conduction from the Sun??? No, we have to employ something consistent with stellar evolution which I also reject, as Im sure you would expect. I do not, for one second, believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, anymore than the myth of paleontology (95% science fiction). There are just too many problems with these theories. My original reference was in regards to things like geometric dating.

Assumptions regarding uniformity of the earth's carbon rates would ALSO
be another (Carbon-14).

And again you didn't answer the question. And I thought it was a very simple one. What do you mean when you talk about uniformitarianism?

Care to try again?

It would also tell us that mockers forgot about the water and assumed uniformity.
~Michael

Again, what do you even mean with "uniformity"?