Foundation

[philadiddle]

Logic? Coherency even?

You had a "go" with me? What kind of language is that?

I "preach" and you don't? My imagination?

If you fancy another "go" with me I hope you will do me the courtesy of staying on topic. The quotation I responded to was totally unsubstantiated and uncalled for, a cheap shot out of nowhere, calling into question the motives and character of creationists. I thought that kind of thing was discouraged here.

What you were quoting was a comment that comes from understanding the paralyzing effects that creationism has in both science and theology. No Christian will ever get a job where they can use creationism in the field because it simply doesn't fit with reality. Companies who don't care about religion and only care about money don't hire because of religious preference, they hire because of what gets them results. Oil companies and pharmaceutical companies only use old earth/evolution to do their research because that is what actually gets them results. It is dangerous to tie the gospel message to creationism because some people are going to find out that creationism just doesn't work with reality and that will cause them to doubt their faith in the gospel message. See the Glen Morton Story as an example.

Also, understanding the creation/flood accounts in their context forces the recognition that they use many elements of the mythologies of the surrounding cultures, and in addition they teach an ancient cosmology (ie waters above the sun moon and stars). If you think that it was a literal scientific passage and then you discover this, what is it going to do to your faith when the literal understanding has been so closely tied to the gospel message? It's also worth noting that by comparing the creation account in the bible to the creation myths of the surrounding cultures we can contrast them to get even more meaning out of it that actually applies to us.

 

[shernren]

First you set up a strawman, viz. "there is a 'creationist' campaign against science." Well, that's a cinch because setting up a strawman is about as intellectually challenging as pouring the proverbial liquid out of the proverbial footwear.

Second, you employ that favored tactic of totalitarians, viz. you instill fear: "is really dangerous."

Well, shucks, nobody wants to be doing anything dangerous.

I wonder how you'd like it if your children talked the way you did.

"Stop! Don't play with matches! It's dangero - "
"AHA! You're employing that favored tactic of totalitarians, instilling fear!"
"But it really is!"
"Well, shucks, nobody wants to be doing anything dangerous, Dad. That's soooo totally convincing. You're just trying to ruin my fun. Next thing you'll be telling me not to talk to strangers!"
​

I won't even mention how the childish petulance with which you lash out at the slightest defense of evolutionary theory, as a mark of your immaturity, is rivalled only by your prominent inability to stand up for your posts in any thread where you are replied to substantively, as indicated by the abrupt silence that ensues whenever someone shows just how misguided you are. After all, I have yet to ascend to the lofty heights of vacuous insult which your honored self has so effortlessly trod; why should I try to imitate you when I know I will fall far short? Two could play rhetorical bazookas, but I doubt I could match the stamina of your endless verbiage.

All I have to say is this: in your many posts on this forum you have not once personally presented a positive argument for creationism.

And that void speaks volumes more than your empty words.

 

[Mallon]

There is, in plain fact, no "creationist campaign" against science. What there is is a creationist counter-movement against the monolithic evolution lobby that, having pontificated for so many decades without being worrisomely opposed now finds itself embarrassingly on the defensive, not because of any "creationist campaign," but because of recent scientific breakthroughs (such as what we now know in the field of microbiology) that undermine, not to say invalidate, the claims of evolution.

I think the "creationist counter-movement" extends a lot further than just evolution. YECism rejects whole swaths of biology, geology, and physics (and chemistry?), and rejects the scientific method as a whole, such that the conclusion is assumed before the evidence is examined. Even neocreationist organizations like AiG admit to rejecting the scientific method.

 

[philadiddle]

YECism rejects whole swaths of biology, geology, and physics (and chemistry?)

You forgot to mention, astronomy, anthropology, history, biochemisty, biogeography.....(etc)....and common sense.

But they only reject the parts that tread on the turf of their false god. For some reason in all of those fields scientists know what they are doing with all of the rest of their research.

 

[Mallon]

You forgot to mention, astronomy, anthropology, history, biochemisty, biogeography.....(etc)....and common sense.

But they only reject the parts that tread on the turf of their false god. For some reason in all of those fields scientists know what they are doing with all of the rest of their research.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they worship a false God, but I don't disagree with anything else you've said.

 

[philadiddle]

I wouldn't go so far as to say they worship a false God, but I don't disagree with anything else you've said.

You'd have to read the argument in the link to know why I would say that. I don't think it's true for all YECs, but for some it sure seems to be.

 

[Kennesaw42]

What you were quoting was a comment that comes from understanding the paralyzing effects that creationism has in both science and theology. No Christian will ever get a job where they can use creationism in the field because it simply doesn't fit with reality. Companies who don't care about religion and only care about money don't hire because of religious preference, they hire because of what gets them results. Oil companies and pharmaceutical companies only use old earth/evolution to do their research because that is what actually gets them results. It is dangerous to tie the gospel message to creationism because some people are going to find out that creationism just doesn't work with reality and that will cause them to doubt their faith in the gospel message. See the Glen Morton Story as an example.

This is a melange of fact (Creationists are discriminated against) and flights of fancy ("paralyzing effects..." that's really a gas; no foundation in fact). And reiterating "creationism doesn't work" ad nauseum is pretty lame when it's evolution that patently doesn't do what it claims to (like adducing a single example where random mutations have actually yielded an increase in information such as could begin to produce a new faculty or function or organ or species).

..the creation/flood accounts...use many elements of the mythologies of the surrounding cultures

There is no proof whatever that the author of Genesis "used" pagan creation/flood accounts. It would be natural, on the contrary, for certain corrupted versions of the true account to have developed and been handed down as myths.

Can I explain to your (or even my own) satisfaction every detail of the Genesis account? Of course not, just as you cannot begin to explain to anyone's satisfaction every detail of the Big Bang.

But thanks for honoring me with a more cordial response that at least was coherent. I appreciate that.

 

[Mallon]

it's evolution that patently doesn't do what it claims to (like adducing a single example where random mutations have actually yielded an increase in information such as could begin to produce a new faculty or function or organ or species).

You mean like this paper which demonstrated an evolutionary pathway to the antifreeze gene that protects fish from freezing in Antarctic water?

 

[Kennesaw42]

I won't even mention how the childish petulance with which you lash out at the slightest defense of evolutionary theory, as a mark of your immaturity, is rivalled only by your prominent inability to stand up for your posts in any thread where you are replied to substantively, as indicated by the abrupt silence that ensues whenever someone shows just how misguided you are.

(my emphasis)

This is really pretty funny stuff. Your friends need to explain to you that such ad hominem attacks fall into a category of logical fallacy, meaning they have no force whatever in logical argument, besides which they are rude and out of place in a forum such as this that calls itself Christian.

But I rejoice in such reactions, for two reasons. (1) I know that I must be touching some raw nerves when I get these kinds of reactions. (2) More importantly, Jesus said "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." Matt 5:11

Oh, and about the "abrupt silence." I assume you allude to my hasty departure from the TE branch of this forum some days back. I left that area because I found it to be an environment inimical to any reasonable debate, being completely under the domination of evolution apologists, many of whom I found to be abrasively obnoxious and a few of whom behave as bullies. And you have the audacity to call me immature?

Yes, I bid adieu to that area of these forums, in the spirit of Mark 6:11.

Now I hoped that this area of the forum would be more hospitable and amenable to the views and opinions of Creationists, since the TE folk have such a stranglehold on the TE forum. I hoped that here I would be afforded a modicum of respect (I'm twice the age of many of you) and that I would not simply be subjected to ridicule and bombast. I hoped that here I would find at least a minimal level of Christian civility. If the overall tenor of the responses to my post are any indication, perhaps I hoped too much.

As to the subsequent posts, I simply have not the time at present to reply to each, being not yet retired but, out of necessity, still gainfully employed.

 

[Mallon]

If you only want to hear from like-minded people, ken, try the creationism subforum.

 

[philadiddle]

This is a melange of fact (Creationists are discriminated against) and flights of fancy ("paralyzing effects..." that's really a gas; no foundation in fact). And reiterating "creationism doesn't work" ad nauseum is pretty lame when it's evolution that patently doesn't do what it claims to

Alright, you've just received a core sample that an oil company has dug up. It contains many layers of sedimentary strata and several fossilized sea creatures. How will creationism help to determine, based on this core sample, where we could find oil?

Or maybe you work for a pharmeceutical company and a new virus has just attacked humanity (such as H1N1). How does creationism help you find a treatment?

Or maybe you've just observed a supernova that is 150,000 light years away, and surrounding it is a gas cloud that can be measured at .3 light years from the supernova. How will creationism help you predict when the gas cloud will light up? How will it help you understand the dimmness of the supernova from this distance, or the redshift of the light?

I'd be happy to continue with this if I thought it is worth it, but I think that you probably won't actually address these. In every case here old earth/evolution actually helps us understand these things, and I can explain how if you are willing to hear it.

(like adducing a single example where random mutations have actually yielded an increase in information such as could begin to produce a new faculty or function or organ or species).

How about nylonase bacteria that developed an enzyme to digest nylon? It happened in nature, and then was repeated in the lab in Osaka Universty under direct observation.

Also, the Lenski experiments with e coli where it developed the ability to use citrate as a food source. (E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

There is no proof whatever that the author of Genesis "used" pagan creation/flood accounts. It would be natural, on the contrary, for certain corrupted versions of the true account to have developed and been handed down as myths.

So you recognize the similarities? Why does the Genesis account still use an ancient cosmology then?

 

[Kennesaw42]

Come on Mallon, you can do better than this. I looked at the "paper" which turns out to be a short abstract that makes a claim but does not substantiate it. Here's a quote from the abstract:

"Although EAC has been suggested as a common process in functional evolution, definitive cases of neofunctionalization under EAC are lacking, and the molecular mechanisms leading to functional innovation are not well-understood. We report here clear experimental evidence for EAC-driven evolution of type III antifreeze protein gene...." (my emphases)

I'm underwhelmed. This is proof of nothing, just a bald claim. Evolutionary apologists are most adept at making claims like this, but they always turn out to be lacking and far from conclusive. And what does "leading to" really mean anyway? This is grasping at straws. And I wonder, have you read the full paper, or were you just sufficiently impressed with the abstract?

The abstract touts "clear experimental evidence." Right. But, like, what is that evidence. we're not told. A dollar to a doughnut says the "evidence" will turn out to be no more than an interpretation forced upon certain laboratory results. It's happened a million times before.

I guarantee you, if this were "clear evidence" of Darwinian evolution (simple-to-complex cross-species evolution), it would be heralded from the housetops (read major media) and not relegated to some obscure mention on some obscure website.

When I talk to evolutionists, they often refer me to an article or book or link somewhere, and that's just fine, particularly if this is done in the spirit of FYI. I've done it too. But if supposed authorities are cited to substantiate points argued on a forum like this one, I think that's a cop-out. If the authority persuaded you then you should be able to persuade me of what you were persuaded of, under your own steam.

 

[Mallon]

Come on Mallon, you can do better than this. I looked at the "paper" which turns out to be a short abstract that makes a claim but does not substantiate it. Here's a quote from the abstract:

"Although EAC has been suggested as a common process in functional evolution, definitive cases of neofunctionalization under EAC are lacking, and the molecular mechanisms leading to functional innovation are not well-understood. We report here clear experimental evidence for EAC-driven evolution of type III antifreeze protein gene...." (my emphases)

I'm underwhelmed. This is proof of nothing, just a bald claim.

kennesaw42,
An abstract is not the same thing as a paper. Abstracts appear at the front of most science papers, introducing the problems addressed and summarizing the contents therein. If you're interested in the data, you're going to have to read the paper itself -- NOT just the abstract. Maybe then you'll be less underwhelmed. I assume you have access to the scientific literature, given the grand denouncements you make against it.

 

[Papias]

Kennesaw wrote:

it's evolution that patently doesn't do what it claims to (like adducing a single example where random mutations have actually yielded an increase in information such as could begin to produce a new faculty or function or organ or species).

First of all, please recognize that in making a statement like that, the burden of proof is on you. That would entail getting information from someone trained and competent in the relevant fields of genetics and biology to back up your statement. Simply making the statement as if you are an authority on biology, without any references, doesn't help others see Christians as having integrity.

However, to be generous, I see that some have already supplied you with documented examples of new information and functions arising from mutations. I'll also add to that, while helping with a basic background on how that happens.

Here are some basic types of mutations and how they work:

• Duplication of a stretch of DNA. This is like accidentally copying part of a book twice. Example – when making a copy of a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, you end up with a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12
• Deletion of a base pair. AATCTGTC becomes ATCTGTC
• Addition of base pair AATCTGTC becomes ACATCTGTC
• Transposition (like a mirror) AATCTGTC becomes CTGTCTAA

All of these can have no effect, an effect which is selected for (in other words, a beneficial mutation), or an affect which is selected against.

To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation. That won’t hurt the organism, since the second copy is simply redundant. Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new. The organism still has the original copy doing whatever it is supposed to do, but now has the added ability of whatever the new gene does. The process can also add entire chromosomes…

OK, now lets list some mutations that could be what you are looking for:
Tails in human babies. Since creationists generally deny that humans evolved from lower primates, these tails would be “new”. As such, that mutation has certainly added something new. There have been a number of babies born with fully functional tails, including the ability to use the tail to signal emotional state (think of how a pooch does this already).
Other atavisms, such as mutations which make hind legs in whales. Since creationists generally don’t believe whales evolved from land-lubbers, being able to clamber onto land is a new and beneficial feature.

Antibiotic resistance – I don’t understand how this isn’t a beneficial mutation that adds information.

The ability to digest nylon in one strain of bacteria. This is also clearly a very beneficial mutation, and more, it has been studied to show which gene mutated and how it did so. I don’t understand how this isn’t a beneficial mutation that adds information.

The ability of the monkyflower to metabolize copper compounds

The evolution of new organs (cecal valves) in Italian wall lizards.

OK, so that’s around a half dozen, even if one doesn’t like one or two of them.

Most importantly, perhaps, kennesaw, is that evolution is not the enemy of Christianity. Evolution supports the core doctrines of Christianity, and gives a more powerful, more vast God. Christians arguing against evolution is like my Catholic forebears arguing agaist Galileo in the 1600s. It only makes Christianity look silly.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Knee V]

I was really just hoping that those who see things (the things in the OP) differently than I do could explain why.

 

[Kennesaw42]

You've just cited a gaggle of supposed examples of "beneficial" mutations. You're just claiming all this is so without demonstrating or proving a single one.

Sorry, but mutations simply don't fill the bill for a mechanism or engine to drive upward lurching (why it was always or predominately upward is anyone's guess) evolution. Arthur Koestler, an amazing scientist, in The Case of the Midwife Toad and other works, demolished neo-Darwinianism decades ago (and he was a non-Christian evolutionist), but nobody paid him any mind.

To say that mutations produce more advanced organisms is like saying that cancer is going to improve my body. (Well, I had this backache, you see, and darned if the cancer didn't just eat away my back, so now I have no more pain, and have more fun at yoga now. Yesiree Bob.)

Mutations do not add new genetic information, your claims that they do notwithstanding. They can only destroy or corrupt some of the information that's already there. Okay, so maybe once in a blue moon they manage to "copy" something that's already there. So then what? A snake gets two heads instead of one? Marvelous.

But once in a while I really need a reality check here. Do you mean to tell me that mutations "led" to the development of hollow bones and perfectly shaped airfoils and produced feathers (all simultaneously) so that reptiles became, over lots and lots of time, of course, birds? You really believe that? Never mind that it took modern man, with all his ingenuity, thousands of years to figure out how to fly, random "nature" did that thousands of times over (for all the different bird species) all by chance?

I'm just sad that I wasn't around "back in the day" when that stuff was happening. I mean, it would have been fun watching mutant lizards with nascent "winglets" running their little legs off trying to get up to liftoff speed. Then, a few gadzillion lucky mutations later, when one of these babies did get airborne, but before it learned to properly aviate, it would have been a real gas watching it crash into trees or sloths or whatever.

And then there is that pesky problem of the one and the many. Don't know what that is? Well, it's the question of whether such dramatic evolution, from species A to species B, happened in one long line of individuals (series evolution) or simultaneously (simultaneously!!!) in a whole population (many A's turning together into many B's) (parallel evolution)?

If the former, what's the probability, since such dramatic development would have to be through thousands or millions of generations, that that one evolving line would survive? (hint: think very large denominator)

But if the former, then what's the probability that the same evolutionary trend is going to just randomly happen simultaneously, in parallel? (hint: think even larger denominator)

How can either of these scenarios be taken seriously by any reasonable person? Explain to me how this is supposed to have happened. Until you do, I will not be swayed by allusions to resistance-developing bacteria or "legs" on whales, etc., etc.

And finally, please stop telling me I have to have advanced training in biology before I can engage in this debate, that otherwise it's off-limits to the unwashed. Never mind how insulting and condescending that is. It just happens to be complete bologna and a blowing of smoke. It doesn't take a PhD in zoology to see through the pretensions of evolution; it only takes a logical mind. That, and eyes to see what God has done.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Rom 1:20

 

[Mallon]

You've just cited a gaggle of supposed examples of "beneficial" mutations. You're just claiming all this is so without demonstrating or proving a single one.

Did you ever get around to reading the paper I cited you? You asked for evidence for the evolution of beneficial mutations, and I directed you to a recent, pertinent study. If you're genuinely interested in investigating the mechanisms of evolution, try doing a little digging, rather than simply asking for evidence for evolution, ignoring it when you get it, and then pretending like none exists. It's very disingenuous of you, and not becoming of a Christian.

But once in a while I really need a reality check here. Do you mean to tell me that mutations "led" to the development of hollow bones and perfectly shaped airfoils and produced feathers (all simultaneously) so that reptiles became, over lots and lots of time, of course, birds? You really believe that?

Why are you assuming that hollow bones and feathers had to evolve at the same time? In fact, fossil evidence shows that hollow bones evolved in theropod dinosaurs first, and feathers evolved later.

Never mind that it took modern man, with all his ingenuity, thousands of years to figure out how to fly, random "nature" did that thousands of times over (for all the different bird species) all by chance?

Equating evolution with chance just demonstrates how little you truly do understand about the subject. Mutations may arise via chance, but the filtering of the resultant mutant phenotypes through the process of natural selection is most certainly not a chance process.

I'm just sad that I wasn't around "back in the day" when that stuff was happening. I mean, it would have been fun watching mutant lizards with nascent "winglets" running their little legs off trying to get up to liftoff speed. Then, a few gadzillion lucky mutations later, when one of these babies did get airborne, but before it learned to properly aviate, it would have been a real gas watching it crash into trees or sloths or whatever.

Sloths didn't evolve until long after the dinosaurs were extinct, actually. Funny little strawman, though.

And then there is that pesky problem of the one and the many. Don't know what that is? Well, it's the question of whether such dramatic evolution, from species A to species B, happened in one long line of individuals (series evolution) or simultaneously (simultaneously!!!) in a whole population (many A's turning together into many B's) (parallel evolution)?

Oy ve. More evidence that you just don't know what you're talking about.
Beneficial mutations only need to occur in one or two individuals in order for them to propagate through a population, thanks to the process of natural selection. And new species evolve via the reproductive isolation of different populations. You should really learn some basic evolutionary biology, ken, because you're sorely out of the loop. A good place to start is here:
Speciation

And finally, please stop telling me I have to have advanced training in biology before I can engage in this debate, that otherwise it's off-limits to the unwashed. Never mind how insulting and condescending that is.

And how should the majority of professional biologists feel when, after having dedicated their lives and money to studying the wonders of God's creation, they're told by someone with a BA in Japanese that they have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to biology? Should they not be insulted by such hubris?

It amazes me how you can come on so strong when it's so obvious that you just don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[Kennesaw42]

Just give me a scenario for how birds evolved from reptiles.
The sloth thing was a joke, Mallon. A joke, okay? Is a little levity okay here?

"Beneficial mutations only need to occur in one or two individuals in order for them to propagate through a population."

No, that doesn't work. Because we're not talking about one super mutation that, presto, gives the guy wings. But of thousands and thousands, just to get from a to b. So it doesn't work.

No again on bird wings. These components form an irreducible complexity; they all have to be present at once for any one of them to function. So, likelihood of that randomly occurring: very close to zero.

Fact is, there are thousands of instances of interlocking functionality in nature, where two faculties or abilities or functions are interdependent. Evolution has no explanation.

Take a spider. It has to develop the ability to exude the sticky web stuff, but also, simultaneously, the knowhow required to weave the web. Oh, and by the way, it already was a blood-sucker, presumably, so...I wonder how it got to the jugulars (that's another joke, okay?) of its prey without the, uh, web thingy. And this is a gross oversimplification, of course, of a very sophisticated creature.

And then there's the diving bell spider. You like links? Try this one (not a creationist site either, and I apologize for it's being readily understandable without advanced biological training): Diving bell spider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These guys build their web-nests underwater, haul air down into it, and live there, breathing air underwater. What's the problem? Couldn't have evolved, that's what. No way. Too many things have to go right the first time, or it fails.

Or how do you evolve the interdependency of plant pollination via honeybees?

Oh, if the probability of animal life evolving weren't super small by itself, then you have to multiply that by the probability of plant life evolving in tandem, and then multiply that by the probability that they would both happen in parallel, in just the right environment, on just the right planet, with just the right types and amounts of elements and compounds (like the miracle compound water; boy, that was a lucky one), and just the right amount of heat, and gravity, and atmosphere, and on and on.

And what about consciousness? Boy that must have been quite an event the first time that happened. Hal: "Hey, Bob. I'm aware of you dude!" Bob: "?" Hal: "Hey, wait a minute. You mean you aren't conscious yet? Well, this is no fun, being the only guy with consciousness in the universe."

But I have to stop. There are just too many problems with evolution to keep track of.

These are fundamental questions. These are basic questions. Until you can answer these, I'm not going to try to find and wade through some obscure paper on the "antifreeze gene." Hopefully there's also an "anti-brainfreeze gene."

 

[philadiddle]

Kennesaw42, I'll assume that this got lost in the thread too quickly, hopefully you can reply to it:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7532860/#post56721733

 

[Kennesaw42]

Creationism is a view of the origin of life and the universe, just as Evolution is. Both are, thus, philosophical constructs. Neither works very well as a tool for making short-term predictions. Billions of dollars have been invested in pro-evolution research. If it can be argued that the evolutionist philosophy aided or guided such research to achieve noteworthy results, it can be argued with at least as much rigor that said philosophy served rather to retard and misguide such research. In view of the fact that the evolution crowd has gotten virtually all of the grants, you would have thought that we would be awash in infallible proofs for evolution, whereas in reality, if I were an evolutionist, I would be embarrassed by the paucity of "evidence." Darwin himself would be embarrassed.

In view of that same fact, how do you explain that we've "come so far" and yet there are sites like this one, where grown men and women expend quite a lot of energy arguing with one another. If the evidence is that obvious and that unassailable, why bother to argue about it? After all, evolutionary teaching has constituted the accepted orthodoxy for nearly a century now, in academia, in the media, in the laboratory.

I have never been an evolutionist, but I suspect that, were I one, I would be feeling very insecure right about now, as advances in cell biology, for example, are posing enormous problems for the theory. Isn't that it? Isn't it an unspoken and unspeakable insecurity that drives many of the posters here? How else explain the tenacity and even ferocity with which you argue your cause?

I know you will suggest that I'm insecure in my belief in the factuality of the Genesis account. I assure you that is not so. I defend the Genesis account because, to do so, is to defend the honor of God, who either did what he said in Genesis, or cannot be trusted to have done what he said he did in the New Testament. Either the creation account and the biblical history of redemption are trustworthy, or neither are. You can't have it both ways. If the Genesis account is false, then God has deceived us, and cannot be trusted not to have deceived us about other issues, such as our redemption through Christ's blood.