A Question to the Creationists

[Phaedros]

That's absolutely right! Also:

The basics of reproductive science, along with all of the other little add-ons which are variations of the basic principle of random recombination and fertilization, pretends to show how new human beings can arise. However, this mechanism presupposes already existing, vastly complex humans.

It also generates a degenerate philosophy based on materialistic assumptions. It explains babies as a result of horny humans, or some such thing. It explains the production of human life as being based only on sex, and not even always with mutual consent. It claims that babies can only be made based on consensus between a man and a woman. This can lead to all kinds of problems as should be apparent.

Therefore, TrueChristians should not believe the lies of modern medical "science"! Instead, they should take the Bible literally when it declares that humans are "knitted together" in their mothers' wombs. Every human's conception and birth must be a miracle completely incomprehensible to science, or else God cannot take the glory for it.

After all, Christians who believe that natural processes can give rise to a human baby are essentially deists. They don't think that God acts in pregnancy after the first act of conception, when He inserts a human soul into the zygote (of course, since conception marks the start of human life, right?). God acted then he did not? Seems strange to me for a Christian to say something like that.

I think that the overarching narrative of prenatal development is vastly wrong and pushed as pure fact to the public. Basically they claim to know more than they actually do. They claim to show how a full-featured baby arises from, first, two simple cells, and attempt to show how a mother's womb can "act" against entropy because supposedly an open system is not affected by entropy or rather organization can increase in an open system. However, it's been shown that more energy into a system increases entropy, which means that scientifically speaking babies should simply fall apart inside their mothers' wombs as more nutrients are supplied to them, instead of growing to maturity. Science doesn't have an answer for how babies develop, because they are all MIRACULOUSLY KNITTED TOGETHER BY GOD!

[end parody]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Our knowledge of fetal development is vast compared to our knowledge about evolution. For example, to explain the Cambrian explosion something called punctuated equilibrium has been proposed. It does not explain the mechanism involved im such macroevolution it only describes the events that take place over vast amounts of time. It says that species stay the same for quite some time, millions of years or more, then suddenly there will be sped up evolution resulting in the emergence of wholly new phyla, in the case of the Cambrian explosion. However, this is merely naming a phenomena not explaining it.

 

[shernren]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Our knowledge of fetal development is vast compared to our knowledge about evolution. For example, to explain the Cambrian explosion something called punctuated equilibrium has been proposed. It does not explain the mechanism involved im such macroevolution it only describes the events that take place over vast amounts of time. It says that species stay the same for quite some time, millions of years or more, then suddenly there will be sped up evolution resulting in the emergence of wholly new phyla, in the case of the Cambrian explosion. However, this is merely naming a phenomena not explaining it.

But hang on. I thought our reading of the Bible was supposed to shape our view of creation, not the other way around. What does it matter how much scientists claim they know of evolution, or of fetal development? After all, you've never seen a fetus develop before, and neither have I. The best we have are ultrasound scans (I hope!), and for all you know the funny machines with grainy black-and-white pictures are really just part of a giant conspiracy of the scientific elite to prevent us from believing in miraculous conception.

Even if we knew a hundred times more about evolution than we do now, you would still believe that theistic evolutionists are deists and that it generates a degenerate philosophy based on materialistic assumptions, wouldn't you?

 

[Phaedros]

But hang on. I thought our reading of the Bible was supposed to shape our view of creation, not the other way around. What does it matter how much scientists claim they know of evolution, or of fetal development? After all, you've never seen a fetus develop before, and neither have I. The best we have are ultrasound scans (I hope!), and for all you know the funny machines with grainy black-and-white pictures are really just part of a giant conspiracy of the scientific elite to prevent us from believing in miraculous conception.

Even if we knew a hundred times more about evolution than we do now, you would still believe that theistic evolutionists are deists and that it generates a degenerate philosophy based on materialistic assumptions, wouldn't you?

Yes I would indeed. Here's why. God is necessary for these events to occur in the first place. Conception itself is the miracle. Simply because we know how it occurs does not mean that it's not a miracle. God's existence is evident in Creation.

 

[Willtor]

Yes I would indeed. Here's why. God is necessary for these events to occur in the first place. Conception itself is the miracle. Simply because we know how it occurs does not mean that it's not a miracle. God's existence is evident in Creation.

Why does conception get to be both understood by science and also a miracle? Why can't evolution be both? What is the dividing line between them?

 

[crawfish]

Yes I would indeed. Here's why. God is necessary for these events to occur in the first place. Conception itself is the miracle. Simply because we know how it occurs does not mean that it's not a miracle. God's existence is evident in Creation.

Are you suggesting that God works miraculously through both the supernatural AND the natural?

 

[Phaedros]

Are you suggesting that God works miraculously through both the supernatural AND the natural?

Of course. I don't disagree with evolution for primarily religious reasons. I have problems with it scientifically. The mechanisms that scientists have proposed are not adequate to account for the beginning of life and macroevolutionary changes. I think what we can explain are microevolutionary changes like viruses becoming resistant to antibiotics, etc. You guys should check out The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe. The problem we have in biology is that life is centered around information. What regularly uses information? Intelligence. Not only that but DNA is a code. Furthermore, DNA codes for proteins and regulates them in the cell according to signals coming from outside the cell. From what I can tell the information for the structure of the entire body may not even be in the DNA, but may lie elsewhere.

 

[crawfish]

Of course. I don't disagree with evolution for primarily religious reasons. I have problems with it scientifically. The mechanisms that scientists have proposed are not adequate to account for the beginning of life and macroevolutionary changes. I think what we can explain are microevolutionary changes like viruses becoming resistant to antibiotics, etc. You guys should check out The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe. The problem we have in biology is that life is centered around information. What regularly uses information? Intelligence. Not only that but DNA is a code. Furthermore, DNA codes for proteins and regulates them in the cell according to signals coming from outside the cell. From what I can tell the information for the structure of the entire body may not even be in the DNA, but may lie elsewhere.

Behe accepts common descent, btw. He accepts that the evidence overwhelmingly points to common descent. What he denies is that it could happen via purely natural means (i.e. he believes that humans evolved from apes & prior by supernaturally guided means of evolution).

 

[mark kennedy]

Phaedros,

Interesting how you have these two boxed in so quickly. I'd give you some help but it's been my experience that it's better to let things run their course. I'll jump in sometime later but if there is anything I can help you with let me know.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[crawfish]

Phaedros,

Interesting how you have these two boxed in so quickly. I'd give you some help but it's been my experience that it's better to let things run their course. I'll jump in sometime later but if there is anything I can help you with let me know.

Grace and peace,
Mark

All I see is, it's all about the bible until we talk science, and then it's all about science when we talk bible.

I actually have little problem with what Phaedros said. I personally disagree with YEC interpretation of Genesis mostly on theological reasons. If he doesn't have problem with common descent as long as God's supernatural handprints are evident, then he and I are actually pretty closely in agreement.

 

[Phaedros]

As far as common descent goes I just don't see the mechanism. Yes we have tons of fossils but the assumption of common descent comes from the theory of Mr. Darwin who had no clue about the cell or DNA. It seems froma design perspective the appearance of common descent comes from common design.

 

[crawfish]

As far as common descent goes I just don't see the mechanism. Yes we have tons of fossils but the assumption of common descent comes from the theory of Mr. Darwin who had no clue about the cell or DNA. It seems froma design perspective the appearance of common descent comes from common design.

You should read Behe, then.

Perhaps you should also read Francis Collins, who explains the problems with common design much more eloquently than I ever could, being one of the world's leading geneticists and all.

However, in my simplistic understanding, I see many problems with common design. There are a lot of quite horrifying "designs" in nature that seem to me a little difficult to attribute directly to God, but make quite a bit of sense in a "corrective" system like evolution. There is quite a bit of inefficiency in the genetic code. The similarity of placement of ERV's among descended lines are difficult to adequately explain with common design, but make perfect sense in an evolutionary model.

From my understanding, DNA could have utterly disproven the theory of evolution had it not followed a specific pattern. Instead, it has matched so closely the expected patterns that it can be considered supporting evidence. While I like the idea of common design, the more I look into it the less likely it seems.

 

[Phaedros]

What specific pattern do you mean? From what I understand the DNA code is optimal. DNA alread disproves evolution. I'm not sure how evolution is supposed to create information processing with error correction and repair systems. I honestly don't see it as a "corrective" at all as it is vastly more likely to break function than create new functions. Not to memtion the problem of irreducible complexity. One mutation is not coordinated with another. Irreducible complexity requires that many mutations are coordinated. Also, you know that at least 97-98 % of the genome is now considered functional? Look up Signature of Controversy online, it's a free e-book that has responses to Stephen Meyer's Signature of the Cell.

Here's an interesting video of Richard Sternberg talking about whale evolution and applying the method used in Edge of Evolution, which by the way was from peer-reviewed literature.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/41652...ichard_sternberg_phd_in_evolutionary_biology/

 

[Smidlee]

2) Why do creationists not cut off their eyes and hands when they sin?

This is an easy one. Because there is a better way , Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ didn't command people to cut their eyes or hands but stated that is better than enter into hell. The man at the graveyard who cut himself and naked was fully clothed and sane after Jesus pass by.
This was a dumb "trap" question since no where does it says in scripture to literally cut on your eyes and hands.

 

[crawfish]

What specific pattern do you mean? From what I understand the DNA code is optimal. DNA alread disproves evolution. I'm not sure how evolution is supposed to create information processing with error correction and repair systems. I honestly don't see it as a "corrective" at all as it is vastly more likely to break function than create new functions. Not to memtion the problem of irreducible complexity. One mutation is not coordinated with another. Irreducible complexity requires that many mutations are coordinated. Also, you know that at least 97-98 % of the genome is now considered functional? Look up Signature of Controversy online, it's a free e-book that has responses to Stephen Meyer's Signature of the Cell.

That's definitely not what I'm hearing from a variety of experts.

Evolution through natural selection allows for the creation of symbiotic relationships based on environmental issues. Thus, predator/prey relationships and parasitic relationships exist because, overall, they are good for the whole, and provide balance. To suggest that God created these relationships is to suggest that God built in ugliness.

Also, many "functional" genes are actually duplications or errors or ERV's that have been "re-purposed" from their original function. I cannot possibly do this justice myself, but a two-part series on Biologos explains it well:

Signature in the Pseudogenes, Part 1 | The BioLogos Forum
Signature in the Pseudogenes, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

At the very least, this is a very complex issue with a great deal of evidence in support, and a good deal of yet-unknown information. To dismiss it as something that is so obviously wrong is a slap in the face to a lot of very smart, very educated, and sometimes very Christian people.

 

[mark kennedy]

You should read Behe, then.

Perhaps you should also read Francis Collins, who explains the problems with common design much more eloquently than I ever could, being one of the world's leading geneticists and all.

However, in my simplistic understanding, I see many problems with common design. There are a lot of quite horrifying "designs" in nature that seem to me a little difficult to attribute directly to God, but make quite a bit of sense in a "corrective" system like evolution. There is quite a bit of inefficiency in the genetic code. The similarity of placement of ERV's among descended lines are difficult to adequately explain with common design, but make perfect sense in an evolutionary model.

From my understanding, DNA could have utterly disproven the theory of evolution had it not followed a specific pattern. Instead, it has matched so closely the expected patterns that it can be considered supporting evidence. While I like the idea of common design, the more I look into it the less likely it seems.

Yea by all means read Behe and Collins, these are two of the rare substantive thinkers on the subject. Now as far as DNA nothing followed the TOE model of commonality. Every homology argument they have used has fallen by it's own internal inconsistency and failed predictions. Comparative genomics being the most telling, ERVs made a nice argument for common ancestry for a while until it was found that they represent the biggest difference between Chimpanzees and humans. The direct comparisons have been found to be so different that evolutionists won't even be honest about what the differences are.

Still think that the statement that we are 98% the same as chimps is wrong Crawfish? You are going to find out why that's important very soon.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[shernren]

I'm not sure how evolution is supposed to create information processing with error correction and repair systems.http://www.metacafe.com/watch/41652...ichard_sternberg_phd_in_evolutionary_biology/

Can you define what information is, and how exactly the metabolic processes of the cell are considered "information processing"?

 

[mark kennedy]

Can you define what information is, and how exactly the metabolic processes of the cell are considered "information processing"?

It's a trick question, the only real answer is 'the information to build and maintain an organism's cells and pass genetic traits to offspring.' While you could just say that, you won't because, you have no theory for the origin of information, all you have is an a priori assumption:

A gene is a unit of heredity in a living organism. It is normally a stretch of DNA that codes for a type of protein or for an RNA chain that has a function in the organism. All proteins and functional RNA chains are specified by genes. All living things depend on genes. Genes hold the information to build and maintain an organism's cells and pass genetic traits to offspring. A modern working definition of a gene is "a locatable region of genomic sequence, corresponding to a unit of inheritance, which is associated with regulatory regions, transcribed regions, and or other functional sequence regions (Gene)​

A better question would be where the information from simple organisms was expanded in order to develop more complex life forms. Evolutionists have no answer for this, they can't scientifically quantify or qualify this so they simply ban the real questions branding them 'incredulous', which is a politically correct way of saying ignorant.

For the real question Phaedros, try getting ahead of these empty arguments.

One way to estimate the amount of new CSI that appeared with the Cambrian animals is to count the number of new cell types that emerged with them (Valentine 1995:91-93). Studies of modern animals suggest that the sponges that appeared in the late Precambrian, for example, would have required five cell types, whereas the more complex animals that appeared in the Cambrian (e.g., arthropods) would have required fifty or more cell types. Functionally more complex animals require more cell types to perform their more diverse functions. New cell types require many new and specialized proteins. New proteins, in turn, require new genetic information. Thus an increase in the number of cell types implies (at a minimum) a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information. Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions.
(INTELLIGENT DESIGN: THE ORIGIN OF BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION AND THE HIGHER TAXONOMIC CATEGORIES By: Stephen C. Meyer)​

Don't let them run you in circles, information theory is nothing new and it's been applied to problems for TOE across the board. Since the Darwinian has no answer to the real questions they simply ban the asking of the questions.

My advice is simply this, keep asking the questions, I know for a fact they don't have an answer Phaedros.

"The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite."...The law is completely nihilistic. It is a catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of all scientific method!. About this Einstein had said, "Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest," ... to Phædrus... To state that would annihilate the most basic presumption of all science! Through...theories and hypotheses, it is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones...Scientifically produced antiscience...chaos. (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanance)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Willtor]

It's a trick question, the only real answer is 'the information to build and maintain an organism's cells and pass genetic traits to offspring.' While you could just say that, you won't because, you have no theory for the origin of information, all you have is an a priori assumption:

A gene is a unit of heredity in a living organism. It is normally a stretch of DNA that codes for a type of protein or for an RNA chain that has a function in the organism. All proteins and functional RNA chains are specified by genes. All living things depend on genes. Genes hold the information to build and maintain an organism's cells and pass genetic traits to offspring. A modern working definition of a gene is "a locatable region of genomic sequence, corresponding to a unit of inheritance, which is associated with regulatory regions, transcribed regions, and or other functional sequence regions (Gene)​

A better question would be where the information from simple organisms was expanded in order to develop more complex life forms. Evolutionists have no answer for this, they can't scientifically quantify or qualify this so they simply ban the real questions branding them 'incredulous', which is a politically correct way of saying ignorant.

For the real question Phaedros, try getting ahead of these empty arguments.

One way to estimate the amount of new CSI that appeared with the Cambrian animals is to count the number of new cell types that emerged with them (Valentine 1995:91-93). Studies of modern animals suggest that the sponges that appeared in the late Precambrian, for example, would have required five cell types, whereas the more complex animals that appeared in the Cambrian (e.g., arthropods) would have required fifty or more cell types. Functionally more complex animals require more cell types to perform their more diverse functions. New cell types require many new and specialized proteins. New proteins, in turn, require new genetic information. Thus an increase in the number of cell types implies (at a minimum) a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information. Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions.
(INTELLIGENT DESIGN: THE ORIGIN OF BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION AND THE HIGHER TAXONOMIC CATEGORIES By: Stephen C. Meyer)​

Don't let them run you in circles, information theory is nothing new and it's been applied to problems for TOE across the board. Since the Darwinian has no answer to the real questions they simply ban the asking of the questions.

My advice is simply this, keep asking the questions, I know for a fact they don't have an answer Phaedros.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Mark, you often cite information theory, but I've never actually seen it applied to evolution, systematically. I am told that evolution requires an increase in information, but is that "information" in the sense used by information theory? If so, how is this field applied? I believe this is what Shernren meant by his question.

 

[crawfish]

Yea by all means read Behe and Collins, these are two of the rare substantive thinkers on the subject. Now as far as DNA nothing followed the TOE model of commonality. Every homology argument they have used has fallen by it's own internal inconsistency and failed predictions. Comparative genomics being the most telling, ERVs made a nice argument for common ancestry for a while until it was found that they represent the biggest difference between Chimpanzees and humans. The direct comparisons have been found to be so different that evolutionists won't even be honest about what the differences are.

That's what you say, but whenever I study this subject deeply I find you're the only one saying this. So I'm left to believe you or the experts.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's what you say, but whenever I study this subject deeply I find you're the only one saying this. So I'm left to believe you or the experts.

That's the difference between you and me, I read what they publish. The ERVs are a prime example:

CERV 1/PTERV1
With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. CERV 1/PTERV1 elements range in size from 5 to 8.8 kb in length, are bordered by inverted terminal repeats (TG and CA) and are characterized by 4 bp TSDs...Phylogenetic analysis of the LTRs from full-length elements of CERV 1/PTERV1 members indicated that this family of LTRs can be grouped into at least two subfamilies (bootstrap value of 99; Figure 3). The age of each subfamily was estimated by calculating the average of the pairwise distances between all sequences in a given subfamily. The estimated ages of the two subfamilies are 5 MY and 7.8 MY, respectively, suggesting that at least one subfamily was present in the lineage prior to the time chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor (about 6 MYA). This conclusion, however, is inconsistent with the fact that no CERV 1/PTERV1 orthologues were detected in the sequenced human genome.
Genome Biol. 2006​

All I can tell you is read what they publish, they will get it right there.

Have a nice day
Mark