A Reccommendation To Fellow Young Earth Creationists

[Dannager]

Next, you said evolution can explain those characteristics, I'd love to hear, they might give us a good ...

No need to be flippant, tomc. If you'd love to hear, go ahead and start a thread in the OT board.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Yeah, Dannager, I believe you when you said
that many human characteristics can be found also in animals because
my dog told me so last night while we were watching TV together,
he told me :

- he got sense of beauty (he's looking for a female dog which looks like Nicole Kidman);
- he listens to Mozart;
- he loves cleaniness (he washes his hands after toilet, and before meals);
- he hates bad smells (he does not get together with other dogs because he thinks they stinks);
- he has sense of dignity (he wears tuxedo and wants me to address him Sir);
- he only eats cooked food (he cooks his own food with a pan);
- he has free will (he can control his gastronomic appetite and sexual appetite);
- he has sense of humor (he watches Mr Bean and laughs out louder than me);
- once he fainted after seeing blood;
- he has sense of morality (he reads moral books and behaves according to their teachings).

Dannager, I am only joking, but you started it first.

Next, you said evolution can explain those characteristics, I'd love to hear, they might give us a good ...

Very good points. One only needs to open their eyes and observe the world around them to realize that man isn't some evolutionary offspring of some ape like creature.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hey everybody,

I just wanted to share a thought and get some feedback.

I am a YEC and I have noticed that many of us tend to get hung up on debating evolution with non-creationists. I think it would be far more beneficial if all creationists made our main point of contention with non-creationism and atheism the improbability of abiogenesis. As I see it, abiogenesis is the most significant weak point in a non-creationist world view. Logically, scientifically, and statistically it just doesn't make any sense.

Know that I am not saying we should abandon debating evolution and a young Earth, only that we should leave this debate to be with people who have already admitted to the necessity of a creator.

I think if we choose to make this abiogenesis our main point of contention we will all do a lot better in our discussions with non-creationists.

Any thoughts?

I think abiogenesis is a slam dunk and evolutionists know it. The Cambrian Explosion is another obvious problem for TOE.

The Cambrian Explosion

The “Cambrian explosion” refers to the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans about 530 million years ago. At this time, at least nineteen, and perhaps as many as thirty-five phyla of forty total (Meyer et al. 2003), made their first appearance on earth within a narrow five- to ten-million-year window of geologic time (Bowring et al. 1993, 1998a:1, 1998b:40; Kerr 1993; Monastersky 1993; Aris-Brosou & Yang 2003). Many new subphyla, between 32 and 48 of 56 total (Meyer et al. 2003), and classes of animals also arose at this time with representatives of these new higher taxa manifesting significant morphological innovations. The Cambrian explosion thus marked a major episode of morphogenesis in which many new and disparate organismal forms arose in a geologically brief period of time​

Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories By: Stephen C. Meyer


My personal favorite is the expansion of the human brain from that of apes. Our mythical ancestors had a cranial capacity almost identical to that of apes then suddenly the cranial capacity doubles in a very brief period. Two major problems with this, for one the genetic basis for this kind of an expansion does not exist. Secondly, did you know that there are no ancestors represented for the chimpanzee from 5 million years ago to very recent natural history. That is because every ape fossil is immediatly proclaimed a human ancestor.

Finally this fraud was undiscovered for nearly half a century. The reason for it is a desperate attempt to find an impossible transition and don't believe for a second that evolutionists are above conflating the evidence.

The evidence was there the entire time. Any researcher could have looked at the teeth with a microscope and noticed an artificial wear pattern, or the fact that one tooth had a coat of paint on it. But why didn't anyone recognize this forgery? One reason is that beacause Piltdown affirmed many scientists' hypotheses, they were reluctant to put it under scientific scrutiny that might have proved it wrong. Museums prominently displayed casts of Piltdown as scientific fact. Ales Hrdlicka, a leading anthropologist here at the Smithsonian, was one of the few scientists to question whether the jaw and cranium went together. But even here in our museum there was an exhibit on display: "Evolution of the Bony Chin" -- from chimpanzee through Piltdown Man to modern humans! -- see to the right. The Piltdown mandible is the second from the top. Many researchers not associated with the forgery simply saw what they wanted to see in Piltdown. Publications on the "ape-like qualities" of the cranium of Piltdown were not uncommon, and these were authored by trained anatomists looking at a fully modern human cranium.​

The Piltdown Hoax

Arguements for TOE are loaded with gross misconceptions, picking them apart is not difficult if you are patient enough to wade through the actual science.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No, not in the least. Evolution is largely void of evidence, but for every bit of contestable evidence for evolution, abiogenesis has none. It is simply an easier point of contention. It is also easier to get someone to see the problems with evolution if they understand the need of a creator. I am not saying evolution is right, or even that it is difficult to correctly refute, only that abiogenesis is easier, and more important.

but abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution... even if you believe God instantly created the firsdt cell from nothing, that doesn't mean you can't believe in evolution! That cell would then be subject to the laws of natural selection

 

[FallingWaters]

but abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution... even if you believe God instantly created the firsdt cell from nothing, that doesn't mean you can't believe in evolution! That cell would then be subject to the laws of natural selection

Creationists believe in Natural Selection.
Natural Selection is a function that God put into place to preserve species (to prevent extinction).
Natural Selection allows variation within species so as to allow adjustment to the environment and such.
The variation is available as information that is already coded in the DNA in the form of recessive genes (and other stuff too probably).
Creationists do not believe that healthy variation takes place by mutation. Either the information is there or it's not.

 

[gluadys]

Creationists believe in Natural Selection.
Natural Selection is a function that God put into place to preserve species (to prevent extinction).
Natural Selection allows variation within species so as to allow adjustment to the environment and such.
The variation is available as information that is already coded in the DNA in the form of recessive genes (and other stuff too probably).
Creationists do not believe that healthy variation takes place by mutation. Either the information is there or it's not.

Interesting. Except for the bolded part, what you are describing is evolution.

The last sentence, however, is a physical impossibility. If you or anyone else wants to question that statement, I will discuss it further in the main forum.

 

[busterdog]

Creationists believe in Natural Selection.
Natural Selection is a function that God put into place to preserve species (to prevent extinction).
Natural Selection allows variation within species so as to allow adjustment to the environment and such.
The variation is available as information that is already coded in the DNA in the form of recessive genes (and other stuff too probably).
Creationists do not believe that healthy variation takes place by mutation. Either the information is there or it's not.

Yes. There is all kinds of evidence for this.

 

[FallingWaters]

... what you are describing is evolution. ...

What I was describing was Natural Selection.
Natural Selection is a real thing that actually happens.
Evolution does not happen.
In the simplest of terms, Evolution insists that organisms break through genetic boundaries and become something different that they were not before.

Natural Selection is white moths making black moths.

Evolution is whales becoming cows.

 

[gluadys]

In the simplest of terms, Evolution insists that organisms break through genetic boundaries and become something different that they were not before.

Natural Selection is white moths making black moths.

Evolution is whales becoming cows.

No, that is not evolution. That is a classic strawman caricature of evolution. And btw, that is not natural selection either.

You know, years ago, J.B. Phillips wrote a little book called Your God is too small. In it he discusses a lot of the wrong ideas people have about God that lead them away from faith in God. He discusses the importance of this for evangelism. Often the block to successful evangelism is one of these misconceptions about God. Get a person talking about the God they don't believe in, and a Christian can often answer: "You know something? I don't believe in that God either. May I tell you about the God I do believe in?"

Same here. Evolution, as you think of it, doesn't happen. I completely agree with that. But in this forum, I will not ask the obvious follow-up question.

 

[FallingWaters]

Fine.

 

[busterdog]

Fine.

Everyone knows that it is not the same, but that a theory without a cogent starting point has some problems. Whether it is fatal or not is a different argument. But, I am with you. There is no sense pretending that abiogensis is not an issue for evolution. Nor is it fruitful to pretend that creationists don't understand the difference.

Here is what I say about all this pretending ..

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

What I was describing was Natural Selection.
Natural Selection is a real thing that actually happens.
Evolution does not happen.
In the simplest of terms, Evolution insists that organisms break through genetic boundaries and become something different that they were not before.

Natural Selection is white moths making black moths.

Evolution is whales becoming cows.

I always have said evolutionists are guilty of false advertising. They advertise that humans have come from some goo like substance after enough time and steps. All they really give us are birds with different beak sizes, flies missing wings and the poodle. I want my tax money back!!!

 

[mark kennedy]

Creationists believe in Natural Selection.

Natural Selection is just the preservation of favored traits through the death of the less fit. On an evolutionary scale it is not the sweeping explanation it is often billed as.

Natural Selection is a function that God put into place to preserve species (to prevent extinction).

Most of the example of natural selection in action are cyclical. My favorite example are Darwin's famous finches, in one context the short strong beaks have and advantage and the long thin ones die off. When introduced to another environment the long thin beaks can provide a selective advantage and the short strong ones die off.

These are random recombinations of genes that are not altered in any significant way. In other words natural selection may do little to provide adaptive evolutionary changes.

Natural Selection allows variation within species so as to allow adjustment to the environment and such.

Genetic mechanisms are known to adjust expressed traits. Cells and ultimately populations are sensitive to the changing environment and adaptations are occurring well before the death of the less fit.

The variation is available as information that is already coded in the DNA in the form of recessive genes (and other stuff too probably).

Genes can also flip from dominate to recessive and even be turned on and off by prions.

Creationists do not believe that healthy variation takes place by mutation. Either the information is there or it's not.

Of course it's there by design, mutations are going to do nothing at all or harm the carrier the vast majority of the time. The harmful effects offset the rare beneficial effect by a considerable margin.

Evolutionists know this and argue in circles around it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I always have said evolutionists are guilty of false advertising. They advertise that humans have come from some goo like substance after enough time and steps. All they really give us are birds with different beak sizes, flies missing wings and the poodle. I want my tax money back!!!

actually, evolutionary theory gives you a lot more then that... ever taken anti-biotics?

 

[mark kennedy]

actually, evolutionary theory gives you a lot more then that... ever taken anti-biotics?

Alleles change over time, particularly in immune systems. The point is that there are limits...see my signature.

 

[busterdog]

actually, evolutionary theory gives you a lot more then that... ever taken anti-biotics?

Does this imply that anyone thinks evolution is worthless as a discipline? I don't remember anyone saying that.

And what Fleming found was not the result of evolution.

 

[Smidlee]

actually, evolutionary theory gives you a lot more then that... ever taken anti-biotics?

Only and only if they are intelligently designed. Thus another example that TOE is dogma as it take all the credit for advances in medicine even though in reality had no effect.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

actually, evolutionary theory gives you a lot more then that... ever taken anti-biotics?

The study and progress of antibiotics doesn't require evolution in the sense that you'll see a simple cell organism develop into an advanced life form by natural processes if given enough time. If they would take ideas like that and stop representing them as facts I wouldn't have such a big deal with evolution. Most creationists have no problem with mutations, natural selection, resistance to antibiotics and such.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Does this imply that anyone thinks evolution is worthless as a discipline? I don't remember anyone saying that.

And what Fleming found was not the result of evolution.

Indeed, what Flemming found does NOT necesarily support the ToE... however, the FACT that, here we are, 50 years later, and the original anti-biotics discovered by Fleming are almost useless against many forms of bacteria that they WERE once effective against, DOES support the theory of evolution

 

[Smidlee]

Indeed, what Flemming found does NOT necesarily support the ToE... however, the FACT that, here we are, 50 years later, and the original anti-biotics discovered by Fleming are almost useless against many forms of bacteria that they WERE once effective against, DOES support the theory of evolution

Everything and anything support evolution because it the only option allowed. Anyone who doubt TOE are claimed to be anti-science. Evolutionist claims even the complex flagella is evidence of TOE.