Genesis Creation Theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shalom everyone,

Here is a Biblical and scientific explanation of the Six Day Creation history. The weight of Biblical and scientific evidence reveal several important facts.

First, the universe was already there with all the heavenly bodies.

Second, planet earth was rotating and revolving around the sun just as it is today. But the land mass was submerged in water, and there was a dark envelope over it.

Third, each day of creation sketches a 24 hour normal day or a short period of time.

Fourth, Moses does not describe the creation of the whole universe, but he only illustrates what happened on the surface of the earth during the creation week.

Fifth, Moses described the events of creation using the language of visual appearance rather than the language of precise scientific description from the visual perspective of the earth's surface. Thus, we must apply the scientific method to Moses' visual description of the events of the creation week to understand how these events unfolded.

Day 1: The first Creation act was the admission of light (not the creation of light). The light that hit the earth was sunlight! But the sun was not visible because the atmosphere was overcast and still very cloudy. It is possible that the darkness was due to a heavy and thick envelope of water vapor (or frozen ice), but it is also possible that hydrocarboniferous vapors released from the earth's interior during its formation was also responsible. God did not create Planet Earth just before the Six day Creation. Planet earth could be a few billion years old.

Day 2: In order to create land on the third day, God had to remove the waters surrounding the land mass. We can assume geological activities that released much heat, causing the waters to boil and evaporate, creating the 'waters above the firmament'. A primitive sky was formed with much rain clouds hanging from it. I do not believe there was a water vapor canopy around the earth from this time onwards. If there was one, it had to be extremely thin, because to see the sun and the moon and the faint stars, the sky had to be clear by the fourth day.

Day 3: God caused the land masses to rise and this caused the waters to recede into one large ocean around it. The earth's crust is a shell of rock, and land masses are granite 'blocks' imbedded in the basaltic rocks beneath. The usage, 'Let the waters gather to one place' indicates there was only one ocean. In other words, all the fragmented land masses joined together into a single land lass, forming a Supercontinent. This was the Good Earth God had created. The earth (land) was wet, so God created only Plant life. How God made these plants is not told, but God could have supernaturally placed the seeds in the soil and let them grow in an instant at His command. Therefore, there existed only one gigantic super-continent during the third day of creation called PANGEA by geologists.

Day 4: The sun and the moon and the stars appeared in the sky. They were not created on the fourth day. 'Made to appear' is the correct rendering, not 'created'. Until the fourth day, the sky was very overcast, but the continuing action of the wind cleared the sky so much that even the faint stars could be seen. These stars were there for millions and even billions of years ago, and the fact that their light reached on the fourth day alone testifies to the fact that they were in existence for a very long time. It takes millions and even billions of years for light to reach the earth from the distant stars.

Day 5: Now the ocean and the atmosphere were both clean and filled with breathing air, so oceanic life and aerial life could be introduced. These life forms were probably supernaturally formed out of the waters or out of the earth underneath the ocean during a single day.

Day 6: Land animals, reptiles and finally man were created. The earth was dry enough by the sixth day. God probably formed the animals out of the dust of ground during a single day. Man's creation is given more coverage in Genesis 2 which I will examine later on this discussion board.

In conclusion, we see the biblical phrase, 'after its kind' used each time a major branch of living things is introduced. In modern terminology, the word 'Species' would be appropriate. Evolution has never shown that one species would transform to another. All scientific evidence suggests that such major jumps are impossible. We do see minor variations within a species, and evolutionists make the assumption that given millions of years, one species would convert to another. The fossil record does not warrant anyone to make that assumption. All living systems existing today originated from an originally created genetic kind. After the creation of these originally created genetic kinds, all living systems went through a devolutionary process of micro-evolution. This is why the fossil record contains so many extinct species of animals and why animals living today appear a little different from animals of the prehistoric past.
 
Shalom everyone,

Summary: the four primary creation theories are incorrect because they disagree with biblical and scientific evidence.


1. The Fundamentalist View
The fundamentalist view is that the Genesis account is literal and the world came into being in six literal days about six thousand years ago (as deduced from biblical chronology). They further assert that the whole universe came into being 'out of nothing' (creatio ex nihilo). However, this theory is incorrect because it argues that the Universe and planet earth were created six thousand years ago or about 4000 BCE. The weight of biblical and scientific evidence indicates that this teaching is simply false because the universe and planet earth are older than 4000 BCE.

2. The Progressive Creation View
This view holds that the creation days are literal, but there were huge time spans in between the days during which gradual changes happened. Evolution is not accepted, though. God simply chose to step in after prolonged periods to create the next set of life forms etc., in a literal day. However, this theory is false because it embraces the evolutionary time frame. Evolution assumes that there is a development process of living systems, but science has clearly demonstrated that life appeared suddenly and dramatically. The bible demonstrates that God creates suddenly and dramatically with almost no time involved because God controls the dimension of time and space.

3. The Gap Theory
This holds the view that God made an original earth with life including prehistoric creatures such as the dinosaurs in the remote past. Lucifer, the exalted angel, ruled the earth. When Lucifer sinned, God destroyed the earth which accounts for the 'chaos' alluded in Gen. (1:2) by the phrase, 'formless and void'. Then in recent times, God recreated the earth with life as we see now. Isa. 14:12-15 and Ezek. 28:13-15 are quoted in support. However, this theory is false because all paleo versions of the Hebrew Scriptures do not support the existence of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This theory really attempts to compromise with evolutionary arguments.

4. Theistic Evolution
As mentioned before, this view holds that God used the method of evolution to 'create' life over millions of years. The order of creation is somewhat the order of evolution (this is not strictly true). The American Scientific Affiliation of Christians promotes this view. However, this theory is false because the weight of biblical and scientific evidence indicates that evolution is impossible.
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,646
1,811
✟304,171.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Welcome to Christian Forums, ELWAR! :wave:

Every one of your points, and then some, are already being discussed in other threads. Take a few minutes and get familiar with this forum. LOL!!! We are now seeing duplicates of duplicates. ;)


Anita, is your caps-lock key stuck? :D


John
 
Upvote 0
Shalom Anita,

No I was not there during the creation of the universe and the planet earth; therefore, only God knows the correct answer to that questions. However, since the Holy Scriptures does not give an exact date for the creation of the earth, we must look to the weight of scientific evidence to find a possible correct answer to your question. Most astronomers believe that the universe is approximately 10 to 15 billion years old and most geologists believe that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. It is scientifically possible that the universe and earth are younger than the ages given by the scientific community, but I have not seen the hard evidence to support such a theory.
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by ELWAR
Shalom seebs,

Where is your evidence to challenge my position?

What position? You've waved vaguely in the direction of a few *MILLION* words of research done over the last two hundred years, and said "evidence says this is impossible". What evidence, specifically, are you talking about? There is a great deal of accumulated evidence supporting macroevolution. None of it is "conclusive", in the sense that you look for conclusive evidence in a court of law, but the sheer bulk of the evidence means that very few serious biologists have *ANY* doubts about macroevolution as a part of the theory of evolution.

As a trivial starting point, we have:
* transitional fossils
* life-forms which appear to have split from a tree during one of the major changes that led to multiple branches (e.g., the platypus)
* comparison of the DNA of different life forms also supports the basic theory that most mammals have a very small number of common ancestors, which later spread out into the whole tree of known mammals today

There's an awful lot of this. (Oddly, I've been told that it's only in America that many people consider literal interpretations of the creation story to be of interest.)
 
Upvote 0
Shalom seebs,


Your response to my posts is based upon your faith in macro-evolution and you have produced no real evidences in defense of your position. There are two major models of macroevolution and they are gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.

Evolutionists who believe in gradualism argue that changes in the morphology of species are the result of gradual changes in the genomes of species. The apparent lack of gradualism in the fossil record is due to an incompleteness of the fossil record.

Evolutionists who believe in Punctuated Equilibrium argue that changes in morphology are due to species sorting following geographic isolation and major reductions in population numbers. The punctuated appearance of the fossil record is real.


My Refutation of Gradualism>>> The major problems with gradualism is that it is not reflected in the fossil record. By far, the fossil record is extremely discontinuous. There are a few examples of gradualism, but they are the exception. Even the most famous example of gradualism (the horse) suffers from a lack of intermediates for most species. Here is an admission by an evolutionist:

"Eldredge and Gould not only showed that paleontologists had been out-of-step with biologists for decades, but also that they had unconsciously trying to force the fossil record into the gradualistic mode. The few supposed examples of gradual evolution were featured in the journals and textbooks, but paleontologists had long been mum about their 'dirty little trade secret:' most species appear suddenly in the fossil record and show no appreciable change for millions of years until their extinction." (Dr. Donald Prothero).

My Refutation of Punctuated Equilibrium>>>Punctuated equilibrium requires the occurrence of two unlikely events. First, a number of beneficial mutations must accumulate in a small number of individuals. Since the mutation rate is low, the species' population must be large in order to accumulate any beneficial mutations (most mutations are neutral and the remainder and mostly detrimental). Next, these few individuals must become genetically isolated from the larger population (species sorting). Without genetic isolation (usually involving geographic isolation) the multiple mutations, needed to produce the punctuated appearance of a new species, would never get co-expressed. Therefore, punctuated equilibrium requires the unlikely events of multiple mutations in presence of a few individuals of large population, and the unlikely genetic isolation of these specific individuals from the vast majority of the main population. Although it is possible that such unlikely events could occur by chance occasionally, punctuated equilibrium requires that these unlikely events occur all the time, as revealed in the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium truly is a faith in the miracles of chance.

A recent study destroys the idea of species sorting . Instead of becoming a new species, populations that suffer drastic reductions in numbers are characterized by decreased genetic variability and an expression of detrimental genes. This happens because normally heterozygous (containing 2 different alleles of each gene) individuals become homozygous, due to inbreeding. As a result, detrimental, non-expressed, recessive genes become homozygous and, therefore, are expressed, resulting in a less fit population. The study examined the effect of a 35-year population decline of greater prairie chickens on their fitness and fertility. The results showed that population decline and isolation of the prairie chicken led to decreased genetic variability, reduced egg viability (from near 100% to less than 80%), and a decline of fertility rates (from 93% to 74%). Only after human intervention (which brought in genetically diverse individuals from other areas) did the population begin to recover. This study calls into serious question species sorting as the underlying mechanism of punctuated equilibrium. Another study showed that low relatedness (high genetic diversity) is favored in social insects. This low relatedness improves the fitness of the colony, but prevents the kind of species sorting expected in punctuated equilibrium.

In conclusion, there simply exist no evidence for Macro-evolution.
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by ELWAR

Your response to my posts is based upon your faith in macro-evolution and you have produced no real evidences in defense of your position. There are two major models of macroevolution and they are gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.

This is a bit of an oversimplification, but sure. And no, I haven't produced any "real evidence", because I haven't seen any substantive counterarguments yet.


Evolutionists who believe in gradualism argue that changes in the morphology of species are the result of gradual changes in the genomes of species. The apparent lack of gradualism in the fossil record is due to an incompleteness of the fossil record.

Also due to other qualities, such as the likelihood that a new species will form in a relatively isolated area, then spread from there.


Evolutionists who believe in Punctuated Equilibrium argue that changes in morphology are due to species sorting following geographic isolation and major reductions in population numbers. The punctuated appearance of the fossil record is real.

Roughly, yes.


My Refutation of Gradualism>>> The major problems with gradualism is that it is not reflected in the fossil record. By far, the fossil record is extremely discontinuous. There are a few examples of gradualism, but they are the exception. Even the most famous example of gradualism (the horse) suffers from a lack of intermediates for most species.

And yet, a single example is enough evidence to say "this appears to be consistent with the data".

You have a nice-sounding quote. Unfortunately, there are dozens of quotes by people on both sides, as they work through theories, and I don't take much stock in a specific quote unless I know when, where, and what context it came from; there's too much quote-mining in Creationist debate.


My Refutation of Punctuated Equilibrium>>>Punctuated equilibrium requires the occurrence of two unlikely events. First, a number of beneficial mutations must accumulate in a small number of individuals. Since the mutation rate is low, the species' population must be large in order to accumulate any beneficial mutations (most mutations are neutral and the remainder and mostly detrimental). Next, these few individuals must become genetically isolated from the larger population (species sorting). Without genetic isolation (usually involving geographic isolation) the multiple mutations, needed to produce the punctuated appearance of a new species, would never get co-expressed. Therefore, punctuated equilibrium requires the unlikely events of multiple mutations in presence of a few individuals of large population, and the unlikely genetic isolation of these specific individuals from the vast majority of the main population. Although it is possible that such unlikely events could occur by chance occasionally, punctuated equilibrium requires that these unlikely events occur all the time, as revealed in the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium truly is a faith in the miracles of chance.

Actually, this is almost all wrong. There's statistical errors galore in it. I recommend learning about selection and sample errors. First off, those particular individuals don't need to be isolated; all that needs to happen is that circumstances change so that their particular trait suddenly becomes a measurable advantage. Secondly, I think you're vastly underestimating the degree of influence that selection pressures have; research shows that bacteria can adapt measurably within *DAYS* to fairly hostile environments.



In conclusion, there simply exist no evidence for Macro-evolution.

But this, my friend, is either ignorance or a lie. There is an *AMAZING* amount of evidence.

In short, evidence includes:

1. Out of thousands of possible ways of using amino acids, all observed life forms so far use exactly one. This argues for common descent - and thus, for macro-evolution.

2. We have found transitional fossils. All it takes is *ONE* to say "look, here's an intermediate step." Furthermore, consider the platypus; it's got most of the traits of a mammal, but it lays eggs. If the fossil record predicted, hypothetically, that mammals probably acquired fur before they changed from eggs to live birth, then the platypus would be a very good example of a transitional animal.

3. Genetic relationships tend to correspond strongly to predicted relationships between species. Thus, all primates tend to have very similar genetic code. If you look at predicted branches, based on primates in the fossil record, the amount of genetic differentiation between species corresponds closely with the time since the "split" between the two families.

4. Many other arguments for common descent (more than I feel like going into right now.)

5. Continued observation of animals which are straddling the "boundaries" between types of animals; arguably, these *are* the transitional forms for animals that haven't happened yet; come back in 10k years and check.

For convenient examples, consider dolphins, whales, and their relationship to other mammals. Also, look at penguins.

6. We have observed instances of speciation, including two instances of single-cellular life forms turning into multi-cellular life forms. (Very, very, simple ones, of course... But multi-cellular nonetheless.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Shalom Seebs,


All arguments rise and fall based upon the weight of evidence and the so called evidence that you have presented is simply not evidence. You have only demonstrated your faith in the philosophy of macro-evolution, which is an unproven religious philosophy and explanation for the subject of origins. My refutation of your faith based arguments are sketched in the following responses.

1. Out of thousands of possible ways of using amino acids, all observed life forms so far use exactly one. This argues for common descent - and thus, for macro-evolution.

My response>>> This is really evidence for a common design pattern originating from a single omniscient mind, which is GOD. Similarities in DNA, RNA, and proteins only prove that living systems were created to live on planet Earth rather than planet Mars; therefore, your interpretation of the scientific date reflects your belief, which is not evidence. In addition, all life contains DNA, so for evolution to be true the DNA molecule must first evolve. The first problem is that the rate of destruction of even relatively simple chemical compounds, such as amino acids, by ultraviolet light or electrical discharges far exceeds their rate of formation. Thus, no significant quantities would be produced. Another insurmountable barrier is that these amino acids would have to be arranged in an exact sequence to form a protein…like the letters in a sentence. Mere laws of probability prohibit this from happening. Even the very simplest cell contains several thousand different kinds of proteins, and many billions of each kind, plus all kinds of DNA, RNA, and other highly complex molecules, along with many complex structures, arranged in an incredibly complex system. In order to believe in maco-evolution, you have to believe this happened, even though it is statistically impossible. It is more rational, logical, and scientific to believe that a higher intelligence, God, supernaturally created this complex universe.

2. We have found transitional fossils. All it takes is *ONE* to say "look, here's an intermediate step." Furthermore, consider the platypus; it's got most of the traits of a mammal, but it lays eggs. If the fossil record predicted, hypothetically, that mammals probably acquired fur before they changed from eggs to live birth, then the platypus would be a very good example of a transitional animal.

My response>>> this is simply an intellectually dishonest argument because macro-evolution requires a 3.75 billion year history, which is clearly enough time to discover millions of different types of transitional forms, but every so called transitional form has been proven to be false sometimes by evolutionary scientists. For example,Archaeopteryx This bird-like critter was touted as the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds. But further study revealed that Archaeopteryx's wing was designed as are other birds' - properly equipped for flight. One of the characteristics which led paleontologists to consider a link between reptiles and birds was the fact that Archeopteryx had teeth. But there are other examples of birds in the fossil record that had teeth and we also know that there are also reptiles that don't have teeth. Coelacanth Formerly when scientists studied the bones of this 6-foot-long fish, they championed it as an example of an early Cretaceous "index fossil" supposedly extinct for 80 million years, but living specimens have been found near Madagascar. It formerly was said to be ancestral to the amphibians, but living specimens have proved it really is a true fish. Horse series This collection of unrelated fossils was assembled to look like a series and appears almost ubitiquously in children's textbooks everywhere. Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, where the series is displayed, said it is "lamentable" that this still is shown in textbooks by people "who know of its speculative nature." The Platypus fossils are exactly the same as modern forms, indicating no proof of its evolution. More typical mammals are found in much lower strata than the egg-laying Platypus. God is omniscient and creative; therefore,the Platypus is only a unique and distinct kind of animal and not a transitional form. Most evolutionists nolonger use the Platypus as good example of evolution.


3. Genetic relationships tend to correspond strongly to predicted relationships between species. Thus, all primates tend to have very similar genetic code. If you look at predicted branches, based on primates in the fossil record, the amount of genetic differentiation between species corresponds closely with the time since the "split" between the two families.

My response>>>Again this is simply not evidence, but it reflects a common design originating from a single MIND, which is GOD. The genetic make up of human beings cannot be radically very different from other primates because humans and primates were created by God to live on planet earth. Therefore, we have to function with similar genetic information in order to survive and thrive on planet earth. If God created humans to live on Mars or some other planet,we would have different genetic information. Remember, God formed humans and other animals out dust of the earth; therefore, Creationists can predict that there would be similar genetic information in humans, primates, and other animals. Today macro-evolutionists focus upon genetic arguments because they realize that the fossil record does not support their mythology. For example, "Lucy" Believed to be a primitive arboreal ape - has been proven to have no relation to humans because computer analysis of these Australopithicines shows that these were primitive apes that now are extinct.


4. Many other arguments for common descent (more than I feel like going into right now.)

My response>>> show some evidence because the whole world is waiting for real evidence.

5. Continued observation of animals which are straddling the "boundaries" between types of animals; arguably, these *are* the transitional forms for animals that haven't happened yet; come back in 10k years and check.

My response>>> This clearly exposes the problems with macro-evolution because it either happened so fast that you can't see the evidence (Punctuated Equilibrium) or it happened so slow you can't see the evidence (GRADUALISM). Both arguments have failed to produce evidence. Also, evolution is suppose to happen over a period of millions and billions of years not thousands of years. Dolphins and whales have no relationship to modern land mammals because there exists no physical evidence in the fossil record that they evolved from land animals. Penguins have always been Penguins in the fossil record.. The fossil record has a 3.75 billion year history and there exist no evidence of transitional forms, indicating that macro-evolution is myth

6. We have observed instances of speciation, including two instances of single-cellular life forms turning into multi-cellular life forms. (Very, very, simple ones, of course... But multi-cellular nonetheless.)

My response>>> this is a weak argument and is simply not evidence of macro-evolution. Let me help you a little, what you observed may have been micro-evolution which is not macro-evolution and it is perfectly consistent with the special theory of creation.

In conclusion, FACTS and EVIDENCES are things that can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. There are PLENTY of reasonable doubts about the THEORY of macro-evolution. Science, in its purest definition, is the study of laws that have been demonstrated through experimentation. Macro-Evolution has never been demonstrated ANYWHERE. (Remember, I'm not talking about Micro evolution, I'm talking about Macro-evolution). Therefore, macro-evolution cannot be considered science. Macro-Evolution is a system of belief which is inextricably woven together in Greek and Babylonian philosophy.It is a theory with religious roots not scientific evidence, in order to subscribe to it, one must BELIEVE in macro-evolution. Many well-respected scientists do not BELIEVE in macro-evolution. The fact that macro-evolution is not technically science also places it squarely in the category of a belief system.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by ELWAR
In conclusion, FACTS and EVIDENCES are things that can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. There are PLENTY of reasonable doubts about the THEORY of macro-evolution. Science, in its purest definition, is the study of laws that have been demonstrated through experimentation. Macro-Evolution has never been demonstrated ANYWHERE.

Do you equate "facts" with "evidences" here? Are you sure that being demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt is a part of the definition of evidence? Do you realize that we have reasonable doubts about most every thing? There are hundreds of defense attorneys looking just for you!

I also take exception to the "purest definition" of science. Do you really think that we can experimentally create a supernova? A hurricane? As usual you select an extremely restrictive definition that suits your purpose.

I wonder what you think is demonstrated by the fossil record. Do you have an alternative explanation to macroevolution?

Therefore, macro-evolution cannot be considered science.

You have a rather absolutist definition of science, then. You line of logic is becoming increasingly tenuous. Science can also be defined as the systematic knowledge of the physical world. How does macroevolution violate this definition? It is a systematic description of how life arose and explains the fossil record better than any other theory.

Macro-Evolution is a system of belief which is inextricably woven together in Greek and Babylonian philosophy.It is a theory with religious roots not scientific evidence, in order to subscribe to it, one must BELIEVE in macro-evolution.

Tell us then, how it ever arose. At one time we were all creationists, inluding Darwin, et al. Your post is ranging farther into the realm of uncertainty and therefore is not scientific by your own definition.

Many well-respected scientists do not BELIEVE in macro-evolution.

Well, most in the field do, so there!

The fact that macro-evolution is not technically science also places it squarely in the category of a belief system.

Then you have to exclude most of the things we call science, such as astronomy, geology, archeology, and even economics. You have simply defined macroevolution out of science, by using your own arbitrary definitions that most people do not accept. This is a standard creationist tactic, by the way: take arbitrary and absolutist definitions and weave a convoluted logic that suddenly defines evolution out of existence. You are doing semantics, not science...
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by ELWAR
Shalom Seebs,


All arguments rise and fall based upon the weight of evidence and the so called evidence that you have presented is simply not evidence.

Sure it is! It's just not *proof*, but nothing ever is.

You have only demonstrated your faith in the philosophy of macro-evolution, which is an unproven religious philosophy and explanation for the subject of origins.

I see no religious philosophy here. The theory of evolution doesn't tell me how to treat my neighbors, or what to think when I see evil in the world.


1. Out of thousands of possible ways of using amino acids, all observed life forms so far use exactly one. This argues for common descent - and thus, for macro-evolution.

My response>>> This is really evidence for a common design pattern originating from a single omniscient mind, which is GOD. Similarities in DNA, RNA, and proteins only prove that living systems were created to live on planet Earth rather than planet Mars; therefore, your interpretation of the scientific date reflects your belief, which is not evidence.

It isn't proof - but it's certainly evidence. If there were no macroevolution, there would be no particular reason for God not to have made each life form with the patterns and DNA best suited to it, rather than equipping many creatures with hundreds of millions of molecules of totally unused genetic code.

In addition, all life contains DNA, so for evolution to be true the DNA molecule must first evolve. The first problem is that the rate of destruction of even relatively simple chemical compounds, such as amino acids, by ultraviolet light or electrical discharges far exceeds their rate of formation. Thus, no significant quantities would be produced.

This is widely asserted, but there's no argument here, just hand-waving. What if the amino acids formed in a sheltered pool?

Another insurmountable barrier is that these amino acids would have to be arranged in an exact sequence to form a protein…like the letters in a sentence. Mere laws of probability prohibit this from happening.

No, they don't. This is, once again, mere hand-waving. You don't substantiate your claim. What laws of probability are those?

The most likely problem is that you're not considering what we know about chemical compounds. They tend to form certain patterns which have stronger bonds. This same argument would, for instance, indicate that most laboratory chemical experiments shouldn't work, because it's sheer chance whether or not a given molecule forms.

Even the very simplest cell contains several thousand different kinds of proteins, and many billions of each kind, plus all kinds of DNA, RNA, and other highly complex molecules, along with many complex structures, arranged in an incredibly complex system.

Yes. And many creatures have the code for proteins they're no longer using, and all creatures so far tested (including plants) have some substantial code in common - even if they aren't using it in any way, today.

In order to believe in maco-evolution, you have to believe this happened, even though it is statistically impossible. It is more rational, logical, and scientific to believe that a higher intelligence, God, supernaturally created this complex universe.

But it's *not* statistically impossible. Furthermore, several major objections are raised at this point: Why did God create life forms with such a variety of faults? Why did He use only one of thousands of ways of organizing proteins to make life forms?


My response>>> this is simply an intellectually dishonest argument because macro-evolution requires a 3.75 billion year history, which is clearly enough time to discover millions of different types of transitional forms, but every so called transitional form has been proven to be false sometimes by evolutionary scientists.

No. Every one has been challenged, but they have sotod up to challenges. Furthermore, if there should be millions of transitional forms, there should be trillions of non-transitional forms... But we haven't found them. The fossil record is less complete than you think it is.

For example,Archaeopteryx This bird-like critter was touted as the "missing link" between dinosaurs and birds. But further study revealed that Archaeopteryx's wing was designed as are other birds' - properly equipped for flight.

And so was a pterodactyl's.

One of the characteristics which led paleontologists to consider a link between reptiles and birds was the fact that Archeopteryx had teeth. But there are other examples of birds in the fossil record that had teeth and we also know that there are also reptiles that don't have teeth.

In other words, more transitional forms!

B]
My response>>>Again this is simply not evidence, but it reflects a common design originating from a single MIND, which is GOD. The genetic make up of human beings cannot be radically very different from other primates because humans and primates were created by God to live on planet earth.[/B]

This reveals your ignorance of the sheer bulk of genetic material available to alter which would have no visible effects, because it's not being used right now.

Furthermore, this is no better an argument for design than it is for evolution. I think it's a worse argument for design; design doesn't explain why the degree of variation is correlated to our theory of when the families split, rather than directly to how similar the species are today!

[BTherefore, we have to function with similar genetic information in order to survive and thrive on planet earth.[/B]

This really doesn't mean much. After all, dogs and cats survive just fine, and are substantially further from us genetically than chimps and apes. Why would God make humans with essentially the same design he used for animals? Shouldn't the animals all have one design, and the humans another?

I give up. You're not familiar enough with the basic results in the field, and I still don't see why this is such a big deal. It's a theory. If new data comes up, the theory changes. We're all fine either way.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Shalom Seebs and Edgeo,

I really enjoy debating the two of you because your macro-evolutionary arguments don't carry MUCH weight. However, I have to attended Church this evening; therefore, I will continue my refutation your religious macro-evolutionary arguments after I have given glory honor and praises to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (YASHUA HAMASHIACH).
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.