If you don't accept common descent...

[Embalmer]

...how do you explain human chromosome 2?

evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

 

[Biblewriter]

...how do you explain human chromosome 2?

evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

I worked for many years as a designer of machinery.

Two concepts dominated my design work. I went out of my way to design parts that could be used in as many ways as possible, and new designs were developed from previous designs.

Evolutionists insist that similarities indicate common ancestry. But that is only obvious if your logical system is based on an assumption that there is no God. If we instead admit that there might be a God that designed the universe and everything in nature; then the manifold similarities observed in nature can just as logically be concluded to be evidence of an intelligent designer who used just such design principles.

 

[Embalmer]

I worked for many years as a designer of machinery.

Two concepts dominated my design work. I went out of my way to design parts that could be used in as many ways as possible, and new designs were developed from previous designs.

Evolutionists insist that similarities indicate common ancestry. But that is only obvious if your logical system is based on an assumption that there is no God. If we instead admit that there might be a God that designed the universe and everything in nature; then the manifold similarities observed in nature can just as logically be concluded to be evidence of an intelligent designer who used just such design principles.

Isn't a principle of design also to keep it simple? Why does an omnipotent god need to reuse parts when he can just breathe things into being?

It's also odd a designer would make 24 chromosomes for a chimp or gorilla and the choose to make humans by fusing two of them together. Surely a more efficient design would be to create the 23 needed for humans and then just make the 24th.

Also, you can see from the link, HC2 is an exact replica of two chimp or gorilla chromosomes, include gene and retroviral insertions, and the extra centromere and telomeres. If you are a designer, then Occam's Razor gives a pretty clear answer.

 

[Biblewriter]

Isn't a principle of design also to keep it simple? Why does an omnipotent god need to reuse parts when he can just breathe things into being?

It's also odd a designer would make 24 chromosomes for a chimp or gorilla and the choose to make humans by fusing two of them together. Surely a more efficient design would be to create the 23 needed for humans and then just make the 24th.

Also, you can see from the link, HC2 is an exact replica of two chimp or gorilla chromosomes, include gene and retroviral insertions, and the extra centromere and telomeres. If you are a designer, then Occam's Razor gives a pretty clear answer.

A principle of design is to keep it as simple as is practical, considering the intended use of the object being designed. If you are designing a computer, you need to make it much more complex than the proper design for an axe.

The simplest living organisms are more complex than even our most sophisticated computers. At a bare minimum they have to obtain their own energy, rather than having it supplied to them, and they must reproduce themselves.

Your argument is nonsense, for everything you argue as proving common ancestry can just as logically be argued to prove design by a common mind. You are not prepared to question the judgment of such a mind unless you have at least a similar mental capacity.

 

[Biblewriter]

The issue is not so much with the simlarities themselves as it is with the pattern of similarities. Hair and three inner-ear bones are both useful designs. And yet, no creature with the latter lacks the former. Why not? If hair is useful for mammals who have three inner-ear bones, then why isn't it useful for any reptile or bird or fish? And why are those traits shared in creatures that vary greatly in environment, from the north pole to the desert to the sea? A polar bear and a dolphin share these traits, a dolphin and a shark do not, despite having much more similar environments.

Three inner-ear bones are found only in mammals. How is that evidence of re-use of design rather than common ancestry?

I didn't say it was evidence of re-use of design rather than common ancestry. I said that everything you argue for common ancestry can JUST AS WELL be argued as evidence of a common designer.

As to patterns of similarities, that SCREAMS common designer.

 

[Skaloop]

I didn't say it was evidence of re-use of design rather than common ancestry. I said that everything you argue for common ancestry can JUST AS WELL be argued as evidence of a common designer.

As to patterns of similarities, that SCREAMS common designer.

Quite the contrary, it whispers common designer, but screams common ancestry.

Would one expect a twin-nested hierarchy from a designer? No. A designer is free to use designs however he sees fit, across any and all boundaries. On the other hand, a twin-nested hierarchy is exactly what one would expect from evolution and common ancestry.

So yes, technically it can be used as an argument for a common designer. But ANY sort of pattern (or even lack thereof) could be used as an argument for a common designer. A twin-nested hierarchy is practically required for evolutionary theory, and lo and behold, there it is.

A common designer could have given a non-mammalian organism three bones of the middle ear. But he didn't. Why not? Can you provide a reasonable explanation as to why three middle-ear bones are exclusive to mammals? Because I can.

 

[Calypsis4]

Quite the contrary, it whispers common designer, but screams common ancestry.

Would one expect a twin-nested hierarchy from a designer? No. A designer is free to use designs however he sees fit, across any and all boundaries. On the other hand, a twin-nested hierarchy is exactly what one would expect from evolution and common ancestry.

So yes, technically it can be used as an argument for a common designer. But ANY sort of pattern (or even lack thereof) could be used as an argument for a common designer. A twin-nested hierarchy is practically required for evolutionary theory, and lo and behold, there it is.

A common designer could have given a non-mammalian organism three bones of the middle ear. But he didn't. Why not? Can you provide a reasonable explanation as to why three middle-ear bones are exclusive to mammals? Because I can.

Can you provide a reasonable explanation as to why you can so clearly intimate God's 'purpose' in the design of living organisms but fail to come to the same conclusion about what He plainly inspired Moses to write in Genesis as to the account of the origins of life to begin with? Those of your persuasion are so sure that God used evolution to bring about the world as it is today and in many cases the same individuals argue that the Lord would not 'lie' to us by giving a mere 'appearance of age' in the evidence available, yet you don't apply the same line of thinking to what He told us plainly is His inspired revelation of the creation in six days.

"For in six days the Lord God made the heavens and the earth..." Exodus 20:11.

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6

I Timothy 2:13 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve."

 

[Embalmer]

Can you provide a reasonable explanation as to why you can so clearly intimate God's 'purpose' in the design of living organisms but fail to come to the same conclusion about what He plainly inspired Moses to write in Genesis as to the account of the origins of life to begin with? Those of your persuasion are so sure that God used evolution to bring about the world as it is today and in many cases the same individuals argue that the Lord would not 'lie' to us by giving a mere 'appearance of age' in the evidence available, yet you don't apply the same line of thinking to what He told us plainly is His inspired revelation of the creation in six days.

"For in six days the Lord God made the heavens and the earth..." Exodus 20:11.

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6

I Timothy 2:13 "For Adam was first formed, then Eve."

Hmmm...possibly because it's a made up story. Moses, who probably didn't exist didn't write Genesis.Neither did god, who almost certainly doesn't exist.

When are you guys going to realise that the bible isn't a SCIENCE BOOK! Poetry, yes. History, some. Science, no.

 

[Calypsis4]

Hmmm...possibly because it's a made up story. Moses, who probably didn't exist didn't write Genesis.Neither did god, who almost certainly doesn't exist.

When are you guys going to realise that the bible isn't a SCIENCE BOOK! Poetry, yes. History, some. Science, no.

God answers my prayers and the prayers of my Christian companions often, sometimes in the most detailed & specific ways. I have, on a number of occasions offered prayers to God without telling anyone else of the requests and seen Him answer quickly and specifically. Over 40 yrs this has happened on numerous occasions.

Who said the Bible is a science book? That isn't even the issue. The issue is that it correctly and truthfully conveys to us what God did in the creation of our world and the evidence points to that special creation as Moses wrote it.

It is not Moses or Jesus whom I question in this matter; it is you and those of your persuasion.

No, the Bible is not just poetry, it is the truth.

May God be honored forever and ever.

 

[Embalmer]

God answers my prayers and the prayers of my Christian companions often, sometimes in the most detailed & specific ways. I have, on a number of occasions offered prayers to God without telling anyone else of the requests and seen Him answer quickly and specifically. Over 40 yrs this has happened on numerous occasions.

Who said the Bible is a science book? That isn't even the issue. The issue is that it correctly and truthfully conveys to us what God did in the creation of our world and the evidence points to that special creation as Moses wrote it.

It is not Moses or Jesus whom I question in this matter; it is you and those of your persuasion.

No, the Bible is not just poetry, it is the truth.

May God be honored forever and ever.

Hi YC

I know that you interpret the bible as truthfully conveying the creation of the world, but even you must know in your heart that this isn't the case. Given the amount of reality you have been given by actual scientists (tons of it at CARM), I figure that you must be struggling mightily with your cognitive dissonance.

The bible no doubt contains some truths, but it certainly isn't THE truth.

 

[Biblewriter]

Hi YC

I know that you interpret the bible as truthfully conveying the creation of the world, but even you must know in your heart that this isn't the case. Given the amount of reality you have been given by actual scientists (tons of it at CARM), I figure that you must be struggling mightily with your cognitive dissonance.

The bible no doubt contains some truths, but it certainly isn't THE truth.

I am a scientist, and I absolutely KNOW that there is absolutely NO proof that the account given in Genesis is not true and correct in all of its details.

I personally know many other scientists who share this opinion. But we are shouted down when we express our opinions. I was personally forced to sign a document saying that I was aware that I would be fired from my job if I shared my beliefs with anyone in any way connected with my employer, whether a fellow employee or a customer, whether on or off the job.

And I can remember seeing such treatment advocated in professional journals.

So don't tell me this is a settled issue. This is an issue in which dissent is reghularly and systematically squelched. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. IT IS FAITH IN THE NON_EXISTENCE OF A GOD.

By the way, non Christians are not allowed to post here.

 

[Embalmer]

I am a scientist, and I absolutely KNOW that there is absolutely NO proof that the account given in Genesis is not true and correct in all of its details.

I personally know many other scientists who share this opinion. But we are shouted down when we express our opinions. I was personally forced to sign a document saying that I was aware that I would be fired from my job if I shared my beliefs with anyone in any way connected with my employer, whether a fellow employee or a customer, whether on or off the job.

And I can remember seeing such treatment advocated in professional journals.

So don't tell me this is a settled issue. This is an issue in which dissent is reghularly and systematically squelched. THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. IT IS FAITH IN THE NON_EXISTENCE OF A GOD.

By the way, non Christians are not allowed to post here.

If you were truly a scientist, you would know that science, by definition, has no place for supernatural explanations. Science deals with nature. You should also know that science doesn't deal with proofs, but with validation based on evidence. Since no evidence actually exists that validates the Genesis account, then no genuine scientist would ever make your opening statement. Besides, you should also know that it impossible to prove a negative.

Since 99.5% of all scientists working in the relevant fields subscribe to the ToE, it hardly seems like a mass suppression is occurring.

Who said I'm not a Christian. It isn't a requirement to subscribe to your YEC craziness to be a Christian.

 

[Biblewriter]

If you were truly a scientist, you would know that science, by definition, has no place for supernatural explanations. Science deals with nature. You should also know that science doesn't deal with proofs, but with validation based on evidence. Since no evidence actually exists that validates the Genesis account, then no genuine scientist would ever make your opening statement. Besides, you should also know that it impossible to prove a negative.

Since 99.5% of all scientists working in the relevant fields subscribe to the ToE, it hardly seems like a mass suppression is occurring.

Who said I'm not a Christian. It isn't a requirement to subscribe to your YEC craziness to be a Christian.

I never said, or even implied, that science proves anything about God. I said that the entire body of REAL science does not contain any proof that the Genesis account is not accurate.

I said this with full knowledge of the far reaching implications of what I said. I have debated this issue with scientists (specialists in their respective fields) many times, and almost every one of them has finally admitted that they personally knew that the things I was pointing out were correct.

As to my statement about your not being a Christian, I was basing my statement on your statement in post #9 in this thread that "Moses, who probably didn't exist didn't write Genesis.Neither did god, who almost certainly doesn't exist."

A man who believes that God "almost certainly doesn't exist" is not a Christian.

 

[Sophophile]

I never said, or even implied, that science proves anything about God. I said that the entire body of REAL science does not contain any proof that the Genesis account is not accurate.

Hi Biblewriter

Do you believe that Genesis teaches the fixity of kinds of animals and plants, or that the universe is less than 20,000 years old?

Thanks and regards
S.

 

[Biblewriter]

Hi Biblewriter

Do you believe that Genesis teaches the fixity of kinds of animals and plants, or that the universe is less than 20,000 years old?

Thanks and regards
S.

It most certainly teaches a fixity of kinds, but it does not teach that the universe is less than 20,000 years old. Genesis 1 at the very least allows for a gap between verses 1 and 2, and in my opinion teaches it, if verse 2 is correctly translated. And the Hebrew of Isaiah 45:18 clearly states that the earth was not created in the state described in the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2. These two passages not only use the same Hebrew word, but the same form of the same Hebrew word.

 

[Darkness27]

I am a scientist, and I absolutely KNOW that there is absolutely NO proof that the account given in Genesis is not true and correct in all of its details.

No offense but no scientist I have ever heard of would say anything like that. Sorry if this next part is too personal; I looked on your profile and I didn't see any hint of a formal education in any science or a job related to science. If you could say what formal education you have to call yourself a scientist and what job you held that stopped you from talking about creationism that would be great. Thanks.

 

[Biblewriter]

No offense but no scientist I have ever heard of would say anything like that. Sorry if this next part is too personal; I looked on your profile and I didn't see any hint of a formal education in any science or a job related to science. If you could say what formal education you have to call yourself a scientist and what job you held that stopped you from talking about creationism that would be great. Thanks.

You must not know very many true scientists. I personally know many men with doctorates in various scientific fields that completely agree with me.

My profile was written in regard to my work as a minister of Jesus Christ, so I said little or nothing about the professional career which I used to finance my ministry.

I have a degree in science which I received from Murray State University in 1966. This degree, which is admittedly unusual, required one ot two courses short of a degree in every one of the major sciences, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, with additional course work in Geology and Psychology. To this I added a degree in Mathematics and sufficient private study to obtain licensure as a Registered Professional Engineer.

In the course of obtaining my degree I researched scientific objections to the theory of evolution, presenting my findings in a formal research paper. The professor for whom I did this paper read excerpts from it as a model of objective thinking in all of his classes.

I followed this with a senior level research paper on beneficial mutations (or more properly the lack thereof) in drosophilas melanogaster. The professor for whom I did this research paper publicly stated that it was "one of the best, if not the best, papers I have received in my 20 years' teaching experience."

I worked many years in the field of applied ecology, where I repeatedly received recognition as an outstanding professional.

 

[Darkness27]

You must not know very many true scientists. I personally know many men with doctorates in various scientific fields that completely agree with me.

Congratulations on your connections. Will you extend your hubris a little farther and allow me to say you are the first person that I've met, not just heard of, who claims to have a degree in science and supports creationism.

My profile was written in regard to my work as a minister of Jesus Christ, so I said little or nothing about the professional career which I used to finance my ministry.

I understand why you did that.

I have a degree in science which I received from Murray State University in 1966. This degree, which is admittedly unusual, required one ot two courses short of a degree in every one of the major sciences, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, with additional course work in Geology and Psychology.

That is an unusual degree, if you don't mind me asking, what is it?

To this I added a degree in Mathematics and sufficient private study to obtain licensure as a Registered Professional Engineer.

What kind of engineer?

I followed this with a senior level research paper on beneficial mutations (or more properly the lack thereof) in drosophilas melanogaster.

But there have been documented beneficial mutations for the fruit fly, one of them being the ability to live in an environment that is 10 degrees colder than their original habitat. There are other documented beneficial mutations for a myriad of species including humans. Not to mention you cannot say that beneficial don't exist because the majority of beneficial/neutral/harmful mutations are dependent on the environment in which the organism, or population, lives in.

I worked many years in the field of applied ecology, where I repeatedly received recognition as an outstanding professional.

From what I've seen I'm not entirely convinced, you seem to have lost objectivity which is chief to being a good scientist.

 

[Biblewriter]

Congratulations on your connections. Will you extend your hubris a little farther and allow me to say you are the first person that I've met, not just heard of, who claims to have a degree in science and supports creationism.

As I said, I personally know many of them, and I know about very many more. In fact, one of the items I discovered when writing on evolution was that a full third of the books published on the subject of evolution in the twenty years preceding the date of my paper were attacks on the theory. But where were these books? Not even one in the university bookstore, or in the university library. And the reference I used (Cumulative List of Books In Print) did not even list "cheap and paper bound editions."

That is an unusual degree, if you don't mind me asking, what is it?

I already told you what it involved. It was called a science area.

What kind of engineer?

Mechanical.

But there have been documented beneficial mutations for the fruit fly, one of them being the ability to live in an environment that is 10 degrees colder than their original habitat.

I would be interested in seeing the alleged documentation of this mutation. Unless this included documentation that no individual in the parent stock was able to survive in this cooler environment, no mutation was demonstrated. As of 1965, when I did my research, a little over five thousand mutants of the fruit fly had been documented, In studying through all five thousand of them, I found only one allegation that a beneficial mutation had ever been observed, and that allegation did not cite what it had been.

There are other documented beneficial mutations for a myriad of species including humans.

In order to document the fact that a beneficial mutation has occurred, it is necessary to first establish as fact that the alleged mutation did not previously exist within the available gene pool for the species in question. Unless this has been rigorously established, the allegation that a beneficial mutation has occurred is pure fiction.

I have never seen even one allegation that such a beneficial mutation has occurred that was not based on an assumption that evolution is indeed a fact, and therefore the alleged new characteristic must have been absent from the previously available gene pool and have arisen through beneficial mutation.

Not to mention you cannot say that beneficial don't exist because the majority of beneficial/neutral/harmful mutations are dependent on the environment in which the organism, or population, lives in.

This is an unproven hypothesis based on the assumption that evolution is a proven fact.

From what I've seen I'm not entirely convinced, you seem to have lost objectivity which is chief to being a good scientist.

If you wish to see examples of objectivity, you need to carefully read the scientific journals I have read, such as the following note I found in the journal of geology concerning hominoid footprints found in carboniferous strata over a wide area of the eastern United States.

"If man, or man's early ape ancestor, of that early ape ancestor's early mammalian ancestor, lived as far back as in the carboniferous period, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these footprints in the mud of the carboniferous period with his feet." (This is an approximate quote made from memory. I did not bother to look it up again for this post.)

I have read articles in scientific journals calling for boycotts against publishers who dared to publish books questioning the theory of evolution.

I have known professor level university instructors to teach items as proof of evolution to beginning biology students, and teach their advanced students that these fare not actual facts.

I have known professor level university instructors to publicly rage against students who dare to say they do not believe in evolution, and then privately tell their advanced students that "actually, evolution is not a very good explanation of the facts. It's just the best one we have."

I am not the only one who has been threatened with termination for daring to voice his opinion. This practice has been widespread, and I have heard many complaints of such treatment from others who do not believe in evolution.

 

[howlingwolf]

If you wish to see examples of objectivity, you need to carefully read the scientific journals I have read, such as the following note I found in the journal of geology concerning hominoid footprints found in carboniferous strata over a wide area of the eastern United States.

"If man, or man's early ape ancestor, of that early ape ancestor's early mammalian ancestor, lived as far back as in the carboniferous period, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these footprints in the mud of the carboniferous period with his feet." (This is an approximate quote made from memory. I did not bother to look it up again for this post.)

Citation?