God of Gaps?

[KerrMetric]

STOP USING STRAWMEN!!!!!

Drastic changes into new types of creature (dogs becoming cats)? No.

After all? If everything came from a common ancestor? Not only were dogs becoming cats? But cats were becoming pigs! Illogic, anyone?

The illogic is you using a strawman. Evolutionary theory not only does not say this - it says something completely different.

What you are doing here is an embarrassment. Go and learn something!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You have no scientific means to verify that what you just stated is factual and truth. Its only conjecture.

Inasmuch that TofE is an historical science, it is true that no one will ever be able to recapitulate evolution in the laboratory. The question is if going through all the steps that evolution may have taken is the only way to demonstrate it or to supply evidence that the theory is true.

Part of the problem is that science works with plausibility structures, with ways and means of proving evidence and convincing practioners that the evidence is in fact persuasive. YECist challenge this plausibility structure by seemingly require laboratory evidence for historical theories.

Switch around a little bit. How do you know that Jesus existed? Well, we have evidence of it. What evidence, texts can be faked, ossurarys with fake carved letters, etc. What i want to see is real evidence, akin to laboratory evidence that is reproducible and anyone can do the experiment to prove to themselves that X is true. history and historical studies have their own plausibility structures, they aren't the same as physics or chemistry or other laboratory topics. But that doesn't make them less real or less important or less true, only different from physics.

but TofE does have a substantial component of laboratory type of evidence. Something that is increasing daily, with each piece supporting TofE, thus far, AFAIK there is no evidence against TofE in molecular or developmental biology but a great deal of substantiation of basic pieces of the theory.

But i think that the most important thing is to realize that the demand for reproducible evidence a la laboratory is a criticism that can be directed at the historical components of any science, with the same answer. History has a different plausibility structure than does laboratory science.

 

[laptoppop]

Amen, brother. Of course it cuts both ways. Switch around a few words here and there and something very similar could be said for YEC. Ultimately, we cannot "prove" history, we can just describe it and assign probabilities.

 

[Smidlee]

Y, AFAIK there is no evidence against TofE in molecular or developmental biology but a great deal of substantiation of basic pieces of the theory.

There is no theory of evolution especially in molecular biology. All you got in comparing similarities between animals either by structures or DNA which has be shown can be misleading. Comparing similarities and difference is one thing but have a theory which actually explain in detail steps how structures and feature arrived is another. (natural selection exaplins nothing how these arrived and mutation alone is nothing short of a supernatural miracle) There isn't nothing to really test. The real question would be like exact how did the bat's sonor abitility came to be for example. (Of course it easy to see the benefit of sonor once it came into existance. who would argue that?)All I ever heard from evolutionists is their make-believe stories without any hard evidence.

"Biochemical changes do not seem to be a main driving force in the diversification of living organisms ... nor it is biochemical novelty...What distinguishes a butterfly from a lion, a hen from a fly, or a worm from a whale is much less a difference in chemical constituents than in the organization and the distribution of these constituents."

Exactly what and how all this organization came to be is the real issue. DNA isn't the only thing which carries information but also protein themselves. Proteins carries information by their shapes as we learned from the mad cow diseases. Not only does protein have to have the proper sequence of amino acids but many times it has to have the correct shape as well. So mutating the DNA all you want but still many proteins are useless unless they are properly shaped. Again Darwinism said nothing of this, for this went againest it's central dogma. This is one time Darwinism failed.

The problem with evolution is it's just too simple to explain many of the complex features we find in both cells and creatures. It's mostly story telling which can't be falsified. "With your imagination anything possible" is something you will hear both in Disney world and from evolutionists.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There is no theory of evolution especially in molecular biology. All you got in comparing similarities between animals either by structures or DNA which has be shown can be misleading. Comparing similarities and difference is one thing but have a theory which actually explain in detail steps how structures and feature arrived is another.

this is simply wrong. i'd point to Doolittle's rebuttal of Behe's _Black Box_ about blood clotting proteins or the work done comparing myoglobin and the various chains of hemoglobin for well developed theory of homology explained by TofE, at the mobio level in terms of common descent.


Exactly what and how all this organization came to be is the real issue.

no, that is a issue in abiogenesis not evolution. TofE doesn't begin until you have a replicator, everything that is before that replicator, in this case DNA, is unimportant to TofE.

It's mostly story telling which can't be falsified.

again, just wrong. TofE could have been completely refuted by a genetic code that was specific and different for every kind. Chimeras would falsify TofE and so would swapped modules. Lots of things can falsify TofE, if is rather brittle to a whole bunch of defeators involving basic theory. These few we've discussed here in detail.

 

[Smidlee]

this is simply wrong. i'd point to Doolittle's rebuttal of Behe's _Black Box_ about blood clotting proteins or the work done comparing myoglobin and the various chains of hemoglobin for well developed theory of homology explained by TofE, at the mobio level in terms of common descent.

I remember reading how weak Doolittle's rebuttal was and it error but it been a while. I found all those rebutals of Behe's example to be very superifical. Of course they had to come up with something.
Also all of the evidence for common descent makes just as much, if not more, sense for common design. There many articles I read where I see I can easily replace the word "descent" with "design" without doing any damage to the facts.

no, that is a issue in abiogenesis not evolution. TofE doesn't begin until you have a replicator, everything that is before that replicator, in this case DNA, is unimportant to TofE.

the origins of life isn't the only problem evolutionist have. Even if you leave out origins of life you still have to deal with the origins of sex, multicellur, eukaryotes, body plans, consciousness, etc.

again, just wrong. TofE could have been completely refuted by a genetic code that was specific and different for every kind. Chimeras would falsify TofE and so would swapped modules. Lots of things can falsify TofE, if is rather brittle to a whole bunch of defeators involving basic theory. These few we've discussed here in detail.

I read someone claimed if a dog turn into a cat would falsified TOE but we already got examples of this; a caterpillar into a butterfly. If all we had was fossil of caterpillar and butterflies there's no way anyone would have believe they were the same creature.

The fossil record has always been evidence againest evolution which it suppose to be history. Even according to Darwinists interpretion of the fossil record shows creatures sudden appear then later disappear with no or little change. We got so many examples of creatures remaining exactly the same for millions of years.

Coelacanths is one of the best examples that is against Darwinism as well reveal how bad evolutionist story telling was. It was suppose to have vanished 80 millions years ago then evolved legs and walk on land. Obviously is was proven false when we found them alive. Still those who put their faith in Darwinism will continue to beleive no matter how strong the evidence is against it.

Even with strong evidence is agianst a scientific theory , history has shown it take years before science(scientist) is corrected. This is because scientist will fight with all they got to save their life work as well their followers like talkorigins.

P.S also I want to mention that just last year they discovered that bacteria mutation could be stopped. This is suppose to be an great example of evolution but it now seems that bacteria are programed to mutate in hot spots, thus if you learn how to disrupt this process you can keep bacteria from mutating at all. This was learned in spite of Darwinism.

 

[Mallon]

I remember reading how weak Doolittle's rebuttal was and it error but it been a while. I found all those rebutals of Behe's example to be very superifical. Of course they had to come up with something.

I'm not familiar with the Doolittle article in question, but I would be curious to see your scientific rebuttal of his comments. Something beyond "he's wrong, but I can't remember why" would be especially appreciated.

I read someone claimed if a dog turn into a cat would falsified TOE but we already got examples of this; a caterpillar into a butterfly. If all we had was fossil of caterpillar and butterflies there's no way anyone would have believe they were the same creature.

And how does this relate to dogs evolving from cats?!? This is one major non-sequitur. I really don't follow your logic, here. Can you please explain further? I just can't see how, according to the evolutionary theory, dogs must evolve from cats because caterpillars turn into butterflies.

The fossil record has always been evidence againest evolution which it suppose to be history. Even according to Darwinists interpretion of the fossil record shows creatures sudden appear then later disappear with no or little change. We got so many examples of creatures remaining exactly the same for millions of years.

The devil's in the details. There are no species that have remained "exactly" the same for millions of years. Crocs, snakes, turtles, tuataras, and other "living fossils" have all evolved over the last million years. You will never find a Cretaceous turtle that looks exactly like an extant one. They may look similar, having retained similar bodyplans, but they will not be the same species. I challenge you to find an example proving otherwise. Species change over time; that is evolution.

Coelacanths is one of the best examples that is against Darwinism as well reveal how bad evolutionist story telling was.

On the contrary, it shows how bad your understanding of evolution is. Modern coelacanths (e.g., Latimeria) swimming around in today's oceans are NOT the same coelacanths seen in the fossil record. Again, they retain similar bodyplans because they are not under strong selective pressure to change (oceans tend to be insulating environments). As they say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

It was suppose to have vanished 80 millions years ago then evolved legs and walk on land.

Not coelocanths, no. They're the sister group to the first tetrapod-grade fish. You're thinking of the rhipidistian sarcopterygians.

Still those who put their faith in Darwinism will continue to beleive no matter how strong the evidence is against it.

Hopefully, I've been able to show here why your understanding is misinformed.

Even with strong evidence is agianst a scientific theory , history has shown it take years before science(scientist) is corrected. This is because scientist will fight with all they got to save their life work as well their followers like talkorigins.

Unfortunately, it seems much of your understanding of evolution comes from sources like AiG, ICR, DI, etc. -- all of which have a vested interest in preserving the post-Enlightenment notion that the Bible can only be true if a literal interpretation of Genesis is scientifically valid. They are fighting for something more precious than a simple "life's work"; they think they are fighting to preserve the Christian faith. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that we are not saved through the testimony of scientific evidence, but through the testimony of the Gospel at work in our lives. As such, they hold to strawmen (such as the ones you have presented above, through no fault of your own), which do not phase real scientists working in the field, but all too often fool those laymen who don't know any better when they're being lied to. That's why I like to hang out around these forums, to patiently and graciously (given God's strength) break the truth to you given the entrenched creationist misinformation perpetuated through a sea of sermons and videos. And when I do so, I will always make an attempt to support myself with empirical evidence. I hope you will do the same.

 

[GenemZ]

STOP USING STRAWMEN!!!!!




The illogic is you using a strawman. Evolutionary theory not only does not say this - it says something completely different.

What you are doing here is an embarrassment. Go and learn something!

Oh..... sorry I embarrass you. Should I not let anyone know I believe in Christ?

I am not using a strawman. You've seen a strawman that talks and thinks? I think you are looking at something quite different than a strawman. One that bugs you with what you do not wish to deal with.

OK... "Dogs can not become cats." AGREED!

But? To get dogs and cats? According to evolution? At one time a certain creature had to do just that. If not? We would only have dogs.

Why is this so difficult for you that you must resort to the "Strawman" ploy? Would it not be much easier to tell me not to bother you with my stupidity? After all? I must be stupid. Right? If not? Embarrassments are not from brilliance. Right?

Now that you have gotten the insults off your chest?
Why not now try a new tact? Educate us.

Can you?

If you can not? Then I suggest you drop this debate. For if you can not? All you can do is to approve of those who agree with your view, and to insult those who do not.

How does that win a debate?

It does not.

It only gives license for one to expresses an attitude only. And, I might add. Not a very nice one at that.

So are you willing to stop insulting and to begin educating? If you are not willing to teach what you know? How can I learn and repent of my evil ways of thinking against the truth?

Or is it? You're a book salesman? You came here so we will have to go and buy books to know what you already do?

Well? Which is it? Insults? Or, to educate?

In Christ. GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

And, Allah is the God of all?

Just because someone declares a theory to be fact, ex cathedra. Does not make it so.

No one has declared the Theory of Evolution to be fact, ex cathedra. In fact, scientists will tell you that theories never become facts. The point of a theory is not to become fact but to make sense of fact. It is a way of organizing and relating facts to each other so that we have a better understanding of their significance.

Those pre-existing structures, "just came about!?"

No, they evolved. Evolution is not "just coming about." It is an observed process and the basic mechanisms are understood. Though we do have a long way to go in getting a better grasp of the details.

Random and small mutations? Yes.

Drastic changes into new types of creature (dogs becoming cats)? No.

Right. Evolution relies on small mutations selected and accumulated over generations. No drastic changes into new types of creatures. No dogs becoming cats.

After all? If everything came from a common ancestor? Not only were dogs becoming cats? But cats were becoming pigs! Illogic, anyone?

No, that is not a description of common ancestry. The illogic is all yours.

In the mean time? Evolutionists fold their arms, and want us to ignore the doubtful man hiding behind the curtain.

Instead, they want us diverted towards concentrating on a grand image of a wizard being projected on the screen.

They do not want us exploring and asking the wrong questions, about what had to be the source and foundation of what they claim is so.

Trying to play the evolution=atheism card in the Christians Only segment of the forum is rather silly. No one here is going to quarrel with you about the source and foundation of life and its evolution.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I found all those rebutals of Behe's example to be very superifical.


since Behe published _Darwin's Black Box_ an enormous amount of research has been done into his two major examples: flagellum and blood clotting proteins. It is not superficial work at all, but extensive and intensive science that results in showing how something with function A can be duplicated and the copy modified to do function B. This co-opting is at the root of the rebuttal to irreducible complexity. lOok at the science of the blood clotting proteins or at the research showing that flagellum arose from secretory proteins. One thing it is not is superficial.

origins of sex, multicellur, eukaryotes, body plans, consciousness,

origins of sex read Lynn Margulis
multicellularity see the obligate intracellular parasitic origin of mitochrondria, chloroplasts
on body plans read about the hox genes
consciousness see the work in emergent properties

there are potential answers, it is not as if people are not aware of the problems and glossing over them. lots of people are putting time, effort and money into solving them. one big problem is that Christians tend to stay out of the research arena because they've been told by so many YECists that evilution is atheistic so in fields like consciousness research it can be very materialistic. another side effect of YECist propaganda.

 

[gluadys]

There is no theory of evolution especially in molecular biology. All you got in comparing similarities between animals either by structures or DNA which has be shown can be misleading.

Science is fundamentally about classifying our experiences. And classification requires comparison of similarities and differences. We classify the wave-lenghts of the visible light spectrum into groups we call "colours". We classify different sorts of rock according to their similarities and give them names: slate, shale, limestone, etc. We classify personality types according to similar ways of interacting in social encounters. So, of course, the classification of life forms also relies on similarities and differences.

How would we recognize anything if we did not have the capacity to spot similarities and differences? How would we know that an oak and a pine are both trees if we did not have a set of similarities that identifies them as this class of plant? In some languages, I am told, there is no word for "tree" and each sort of tree must be identified separately. Oaks and pines are not seen as being similar enough to group them under one label.

So please spare us derogatory remarks about the use of similarity and difference. Marking similarity and difference is fundamental to any comprehension of experience. Without it we could not function as thinking beings at all.

There isn't nothing to really test.

That is silly. There is plenty to test and plenty of testing that is happening and has happened.

The real question would be like exact how did the bat's sonor abitility came to be for example.

No, that is far from the real question. It's an interesting question, but only one of thousands like it. And we may never know exactly how it did happen, but we may be able to figure out how several ways it could have happened.

What you are looking for here is a molecular history of evolution. That is incredibly detailed work that has scarcely begun. There is so much we don't yet know about the relationship of genes and phenotypes. It's not a simple one gene=one character trait.

However, the lack of a molecular history to date does not mean we have no history of evolution. We can trace what changes have occurred in many lineages even when we cannot fully explain how they occurred.

"Biochemical changes do not seem to be a main driving force in the diversification of living organisms ... nor it is biochemical novelty...What distinguishes a butterfly from a lion, a hen from a fly, or a worm from a whale is much less a difference in chemical constituents than in the organization and the distribution of these constituents."

Good quote. Do you have a source for it?

So mutating the DNA all you want but still many proteins are useless unless they are properly shaped. Again Darwinism said nothing of this, for this went againest it's central dogma. This is one time Darwinism failed.

I think you need to catch up on your reading. There is nothing here which goes against the central "dogma" of "Darwinism" (I assume you mean the Theory of Evolution). And there is a lot of study happening in this field. You might like to see how many papers have been catalogued at PubMed in the last year on the evolution of proteins.

The problem with evolution is it's just too simple to explain many of the complex features we find in both cells and creatures.

Your opinion. What do you have to back it up? Or is it no more than an expression of incredulity?

 

[gluadys]

Oh..... sorry I embarrass you. Should I not let anyone know I believe in Christ?

It seems to me that if you believe in Christ you should stop using strawman arguments since that is a dishonest tactic.

But? To get dogs and cats? According to evolution? At one time a certain creature had to do just that. If not? We would only have dogs.

No. Not according to evolution. That whole paragraph is a strawman. And if you do not realize that it is a strawman, you do not know anything about evolution.

Why not now try a new tact? Educate us.

I'm trying to. Lesson one: the paragraph above on dogs and cats is a strawman. It is not an accurate description of evolution.

Now, when you are willing to ditch the strawman, you might like to learn something real about evolution.

 

[GenemZ]

Right. Evolution relies on small mutations selected and accumulated over generations. No drastic changes into new types of creatures. No dogs becoming cats.

Then? How did we get cats? Dogs? horses? Pigs?

Yet? All of those creatures have teeth. Eyes. Nostrils. Lungs. Stomachs. Digestive enzymes. Blood. Boool vessels. Hearts. Bones. Bone marrow. Joints. Ligaments. Brains. Nervous systems. Ears, etc.

Each and every creature has complex organs that function in harmony as an ultra complex organic machine.

Now? If a cat's fur changes color in winter to match the snow? Does that mean evolution took place?

If a turtles shell becomes of a different density as to better float in shallow water? Is that evolution?

The birds beaks that Darwin observed having changed, was not a slow process.

If anything? It was a change just waiting for the proper setting for the change to take place. Like a chameleon that always appears green in a green forect. Men never saw it any different.

Then one day when a chalemeon is caught and placed on a wooden table? Is the change of color? Evolution? Or, something that God had already designed into the creature, just waiting to happen at the right time?

Of course. Its not evolution. Yet, that's the type of evidence that science uses to show we have evolved today from what was once the Mesozoic Era.

You see my point?

I think what you are observing is misleading you. There is change. But it does not explain previous creations.

For the one thing Satan does not want anyone to understand. YEC's, especially! Is that there were prior creations that he and his angels had dominion over. Ones he bollixed up.

That if believers begin to peer back into the prehistoric realities? And begin to understand what took place? That what we face today in the world surrounded by evil? Will begin to make sense! And, the believer can become secure and stabilized like never before! He wants to hide the truth about why we find fossils and previous creations. And, he will work one blind side against another to keep us diverted from the truth.

No, that is not a description of common ancestry. The illogic is all yours.

I actually had a group in the Compuserve Religion forum back in its glory days admitting that, because of all the ultra complexity that many creatures possess. That they could not have originated independently of each other, if it were by chance. That is how that got started. By chance. If not? Why do we call God's Word a lie?

Trying to play the evolution=atheism card in the Christians Only segment of the forum is rather silly.

I am not doing that. Read my posts? I never say that.

No one here is going to quarrel with you about the source and foundation of life and its evolution.

Translate, please? I do not like to guess. Even if I feel that the answer I will get is likely what I am thinking.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Now? If a cat's fur changes color in winter to match the snow? Does that mean evolution took place?


YECists keep talking like this, and people continue to point out that this is NOT evolution. Populations evolve, the % of alleles for different characteristics change from generation to generation. Individuals do NOT evolve. a cat's fur color changing has nothing to do with evolution, in this example, it would be a changing % of the population with white coats over time, say an increasingly long winter over many years.

 

[gluadys]

Then? How did we get cats? Dogs? horses? Pigs?

From common ancestors that were not cats, dogs, horses or pigs.

Yet? All of those creatures have teeth. Eyes. Nostrils. Lungs. Stomachs. Digestive enzymes. Blood. Boool vessels. Hearts. Bones. Bone marrow. Joints.
Ligaments. Brains. Nervous systems. Ears, etc.

Each and every creature has complex organs that function in harmony as an ultra complex organic machine.

True. So?

Now? If a cat's fur changes color in winter to match the snow? Does that mean evolution took place?

No. Individuals do not evolve. Only populations evolve. Seasonal changes in coat colour is not evolution.

If a turtles shell becomes of a different density as to better float in shallow water? Is that evolution?

Not if you are thinking of only one turtle. But if this characteristic is inherited and over several generations becomes more common in the population, yes that change in the characteristic of the population is evolution.

The birds beaks that Darwin observed having changed was not a slow process. If anything?

Evolution does not have to occur slowly. Under intense selection pressure it can occur quickly. Also, because of averaging effects, evolution appears to happen more slowly if one is looking at many generations as opposed to just a few generations. Its a matter of perspective.

Then when a chalemeon is caught and placed on a wooden table? Is the change of color? Evolution?

No, that is not evolution. Individuals do not evolve.

You see my point?

I see again that you don't really know what evolution is. Every example you provide of what you think is evolution is not evolution. If you understood evolution, you would not provide these examples.

I actually had a group in the Compuserve Religion forum back in its glory days admitting that, because of all the ultra complexity that many creatures possess. That they could not have originated independently of each other, if it were by chance. That is how that got started. By chance. If not? Why do we call God's Word a lie?

Well, they did not originate independently. They had common ancestors and evolved from them. Nor did they originate by chance. Evolution is an orderly process, not chance. And no one is calling God's Word a lie.

No one here is going to quarrel with you about the source and foundation of life and its evolution.

Translate, please? I do not like to guess. Even if I feel that the answer I will get is likely what I am thinking.

We are all Christians in the Origins Theology Forum. We have all agreed with the summary of Christian doctrine called the Nicene Creed. We have all said "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, who created heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible."

Both those of us who agree with evolution and those who disagree with evolution are united in knowing the source and foundation of creation is the Creator.

Clear enough?

 

[GenemZ]

It seems to me that if you believe in Christ you should stop using strawman arguments since that is a dishonest tactic.

Since when does a strawman expose inconsistencies of the other side's logic?

No. Not according to evolution. That whole paragraph is a strawman. And if you do not realize that it is a strawman, you do not know anything about evolution.

Wait! Wait! Wait! According to evolution, as you want us to see it. If one sees an illogical inconsistency, and its painful to the one who is being shown this? The pain is taken as rejection, and an insult. As if this is s personal matter. Its all because I personally do not like you. Not, what you think.

I'm trying to. Lesson one: the paragraph above on dogs and cats is a strawman. It is not an accurate description of evolution.

I never said it was. But if we do have the great diversity of creatures? Which all share a common design which is ultra complex?

What can I say? If God created a dog? It will remain a dog. Maybe, to mutate slightly from time to time.

But? If you try and claim we are an offshoot from the Paleozoic era? Then a lot more than simply dogs becoming cats has taken place! Yet? You say, dogs can not become cats! I agree! That is why we can not have evolved from the Mesozoic era!

Why can't you see why I always sic those cats and dogs on you? Its to make you face your own inconsistencies.

Cats can not evolved into dogs. I know that. Yet? I am to believe that creatures from the Jurassic period ended up becoming what we see today? How?

For, if cats can not become dogs? But, we have come to be what we are from a kingdom of creatures that do not even resemble what we see today? That is what I call...."inconsistency."

It would be easier for me to believe that a cat evolved from a dog, than to think that the creation we now have living on this earth evolved from bacteria, or a single cell creature (that is still with us today!).....

If I use a strawman? Its only after I lit it with a match and threw it your way. To get you to do something.
For if it were only a strawman? Why do you stomp on it so fiercely, as you do?

Jeremiah 4:23-26 (New International Version)


23 I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.
24 I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.
25 I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away. 26 I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the LORD, before his fierce anger.

The words in verse 23 in the Hebrew, are the same words that appear in Genesis 1:2. Tohu wa Bohu. Means utter chaos and disorder...with an eery sense of emptiness about it.

God did not create the world that way. And, what Jeremiah was seeing in his prophetic spirit, was a prehistoric catastrophy brought about by God's fierce judgement of a past creation. The Hebrew word translated 'people' is a generic term for a humanoid.

There was a previous creation. Fossils abound in evidence of this. All life was wiped out. That world was a quivering mass when God got done with it.


And..... that will not be the last time that happens. For, this creation will be replaced with a new one, once more.

Isaiah 65:17-18 (New International Version)
"Behold, I will create new heavens
and a new earth. The former things
will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind."

​

This present creation will not be remembered. Just like the previous creation has not been.

Animal life will be similar. But also, drastically different at the same time.

The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent's food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,"
says the LORD.

​

Evolution caused this? Or, a new creation? Similar? But entirely different at the same time! Comparing both worlds on paper might cause some to believe that it was because of evolutionary change. But, this drastic change will come about quickly! Over night!

Isaiah 11:7-9 (New International Version)
"The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest.

They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea."

Grace and peace, GeneZ​

 

[pastorkevin73]

Since I joined CF I have come and gone and come back to the OT board. In this time it seems to me that the debates are circular. TEs present their "evidence", creationists give the biblical truth, TEs say "God of gaps" or "strawman", creationists say "evolution of gaps" and the whole thing goes around and around and around again. Since I came back I have asked questions (I am thank all who responded to my questions) to try to understand the TEs pov. I have even read material on both sides of the debate and links posted in responce to my questions. Through this I have come to this:

1) There is to many questions which evolution does not attempt to answer or cannot answer.
2) Evolution uses fragment evidence. A part of the evidence is used, not the whole.
3) We do not know enough about DNA or RNA to make evolution a conclusion. We have only scratched the surface of DNA and RNA research and we don't know how to interprete what we do know.
4) The fossil record does not have process of change from species to species.
5) Evolution is not testable. None of use were at the creation of the first life and any experient that is done is in a controlled enviroment made by humans. The only thing that such experiements prove is that as intelectual beings we can manipulate some change. However in the end as one poster said "a fruitfly and the end of such an experiement is still a fruitfly" (paraphrased).
6) There is no biblical support for evolution.
7) There is support throughout the Bible that Genesis is literal with a literal Adam and Eve, a literal flood, a literal creation, a literal geneology, etc...
8) There are just to many things biologically needed for life to be in place. Without those things life is not possible.

I have decided that I shall end posting on OT threads, because of the circular arguing. What it comes down to is do you believe God is who He says He is and did/does what He says did/does or do you not? I leave you all and challange you all to see God earnestly and allow the Holy Spirit to lead and guide you in the truth.

God Bless!
Kevin

 

[random_guy]

Since I joined CF I have come and gone and come back to the OT board. In this time it seems to me that the debates are circular. TEs present their "evidence", creationists give the biblical truth, TEs say "God of gaps" or "strawman", creationists say "evolution of gaps" and the whole thing goes around and around and around again. Since I came back I have asked questions (I am thank all who responded to my questions) to try to understand the TEs pov. I have even read material on both sides of the debate and links posted in responce to my questions. Through this I have come to this:

1) There is to many questions which evolution does not attempt to answer or cannot answer.
2) Evolution uses fragment evidence. A part of the evidence is used, not the whole.
3) We do not know enough about DNA or RNA to make evolution a conclusion. We have only scratched the surface of DNA and RNA research and we don't know how to interprete what we do know.
4) The fossil record does not have process of change from species to species.
5) Evolution is not testable. None of use were at the creation of the first life and any experient that is done is in a controlled enviroment made by humans. The only thing that such experiements prove is that as intelectual beings we can manipulate some change. However in the end as one poster said "a fruitfly and the end of such an experiement is still a fruitfly" (paraphrased).
6) There is no biblical support for evolution.
7) There is support throughout the Bible that Genesis is literal with a literal Adam and Eve, a literal flood, a literal creation, a literal geneology, etc...
8) There are just to many things biologically needed for life to be in place. Without those things life is not possible.

I have decided that I shall end posting on OT threads, because of the circular arguing. What it comes down to is do you believe God is who He says He is and did/does what He says did/does or do you not? I leave you all and challange you all to see God earnestly and allow the Holy Spirit to lead and guide you in the truth.

God Bless!
Kevin

Well, it basically boils down to whether you accept science or not. If you accept science (and understand it), then you'll understand how evolution is testable, how the fossil record supports evolution, why every fossil is a transitional fossil, why there is no evidence supporting a global flood or YECism.

I, personally, accept science as a good way to study our natural world and I accept many of the conclusions of science. You, on the other hand, seem to not accept science and choose to believe in your interpretation of the Bible over science. Each to their own. As long as your beliefs are not taught in school, and science is continued to be taught in school, I'm happy.

 

[GenemZ]

Well, it basically boils down to whether you accept science or not. If you accept science (and understand it), then you'll understand how evolution is testable, how the fossil record supports evolution, why every fossil is a transitional fossil, why there is no evidence supporting a global flood or YECism.

Noah's flood was not global. Man only lived on a small chunk of land at that time. He was yet in his infancy. The main objective of the flood was to wipe out what man had become. There was no need to destroy the entire face of the earth.

Here:

Genesis 11 niv...

1 "Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. "

Notice? The "whole world" was living on a single plain! The word usage in the Bible does not run parallel with how we think today. The "whole world" was living on a single plain!

That was all there was to man at that time! All living on a small chunk of land. And, on a small chunk of land before Noah's flood.

And, the Bible has the abililty to differentiate between the 'known world of man' (where the flood took place), and how to express what would have been a universal flood. Just look a few verses down to see that.

4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."

They knew that God wanted them to become scattered over all the earth this time. They decided to build a high tower as to save themselves from a next flood. For they wanted to stick together.

They feared God's wrath once more, for the tower was to be their way to conquer God's judgement like man faced last time. For, they did not believe God when he said he would never destroy all man that way again.

They felt if they did not scatter God would destroy them. In their thinking? Build a tower high enough, and then they can safely disobey God's desire and not worry about another flood killing them.

That's when God struck them with different languages so they could no longer have the same old unity.

In Noah's flood, God was only out to destroy man. God was not angry with the Kangaroo in another part of the world! Only man. Only animals that were indegenous to man's habitat were preserved on the Ark, so that the eco-system could be continued after the flood was over.

I, personally, accept science as a good way to study our natural world and I accept many of the conclusions of science.

So do, I. SO?

You, on the other hand, seem to not accept science and choose to believe in your interpretation of the Bible over science.

Broadstroke, anyone?

Each to their own. As long as your beliefs are not taught in school, and science is continued to be taught in school, I'm happy.

I think both sides of this equation are equally dense about their own point of view. That's the real problem we face with this issue. For, YEC's suffer from religious blindness. Evolutionists, suffer from a form of quasi religious/secular blindness.

Both find their greatest strength of conviction in seeing the impossibility in the other one's point of view. Yet, they both fail miserably to see their own failure as it is.

Till Christ returns? For most of you all? It will not be resolved for that reason. You are too busy seeing the inconsistencies of the other, to be able to see your own.

And? The answer is not to be found in either side. I call that a vicious cycle. And, I have noticed that some here do become verbally vicious in expressing their frustration in not being able to resolve what they can not prove, yet crave to believe in.

Isaiah 65:17 niv
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."

​

And... that will not be evolution taking place! It will be a new creation. Just like what we now live in has been a new creation over the previous creations we find the fossils from.

Dancing along in grace, GeneZ

 

[shernren]

I have a question about gap theory: what does it tell us God is, which is different from YECism or TEism?

What I mean is that in a positive theology of God, God is revealed in creation through His acts of creation and redemption. Who God is, is encapsulated in what He did/does and in His authorized narrations of those actions. The actions and descriptions claimed by TEism imply certain things about God and His relationship towards nature, so do the actions and descriptions claimed by YECism. What do you think gap theory, and its picture of how the world was created (as well as the way this was related in the Scriptures) tell you about God? In particular, do you think that what it tells you any different from what TEism and YECism present in terms of creation as a revelation of God?