Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism

[Anthony Puccetti]

Sorry, theistic evolution is by definition not naturalistic. What part of "theistic" do you fail to understand, after many post and many threads, you still post saying that theistic evolution isn't theistic. It makes it harder and harder to think that you simply don't understand, and harder to avoid the conclusion that you are being dishonest.

Theistic evolution as it is usually proposed is nothing but a theistic spin on the theory of evolution,which is a naturalistic theory. It is an illogical belief. Can you tell the difference between the theory of evolution as it is proposed by scientists and your personal belief that "God did it"?

Sure they have, as an allowable and supported view of origins, as long as it is theistic evolution and not atheistic evolution.

Cardinal Schonborn has denied that the pope and the Church has accepted or acquiesced to the theory of evolution. Theistic evolution is never endorsed or even mentioned by the pope or the ITC document.

If you are against atheistic evolution,why do you accept a godless theory of evolution that portrays nature as self-sufficient and say that God has worked that way?

The rest of Anthony's post repeats the same deceptive tactic he's used over and over.

That tactic is as follows:

1. Find quotes where the Catholic church has argued against atheistic evolution. (not hard, since we all agree that atheistic evolution is wrong).

2. Show these and then try to do a bait and switch to argue that they are actually arguing against any evolution, and specifically against theistic evolution.

I never said that they argue against any evolution. They argue against materialistic,reductionist,neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. You know,the same theory you believe in and illogically render as theistic.

3. hide, deny, or make excuses for the many sources that show clear support for theistic evolution from the Vatican and the Pope.

They don't support theistic evolution as you do because the theory of evolution is materialist,reductionist,and neo-Darwinian. Saying that God did what the theory claims to have happened does not make the theory true.

You can see all of these in his post, most clearly in the fact that he present many quotes against atheistic evolution, and then tries to suggest that these are against theistic evolution, while hiding the fact that the very article he quotes has Cardinal Schonborn saying that "Common descent might be true, but..."

I never hid that.

The document from the ITC, headed by the Pope, is a clear exposition of theistic evolution, throughout the document.

No,the document is an exposition on the doctrine that man is created in the image of God.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

The fact that a process is self-sufficient doesn't mean there isn't something or someone guiding it.

If a natural process is portrayed as self-sufficient,then that is to say God is not guiding it. In regard to the theory of evolution,it can not even be demonstrated that the whole process happened,and it is illogical to believe that the processes of natural selection and genetic mutation could make it happen,because they are not the means by which living creatures are produced.

Here's an intentionally silly argument to show that being self-sustaining doesn't mean there wasn't a creator (or two)

Sperm belongs to my father, they contain his genes. Eggs belong to my mother, they contain her genes. When sperm met egg they stopped belonging to my mother and father and now belong to me. The fertillized eggs deceive their mothers into taking care of them, creates it's own placenta and signals to the mother when it's time to give birth. Therefore I created myself and my mother and father had nothing to do with my conception. Parents don't make their children.

Sperm and eggs are alive by the power of the spirit of God,as with everything else that lives. Conception happens by the power of the spirit of God.

 

[Greg1234]

"Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution": 5 pages.
"Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism": 16 pages and counting.

Surprise surprise



The fact that a process is self-sufficient doesn't mean there isn't something or someone guiding it. Here's an intentionally silly argument to show that being self-sustaining doesn't mean there wasn't a creator (or two)

Sperm belongs to my father, they contain his genes. Eggs belong to my mother, they contain her genes. When sperm met egg they stopped belonging to my mother and father and now belong to me. The fertillized eggs deceive their mothers into taking care of them, creates it's own placenta and signals to the mother when it's time to give birth. Therefore I created myself and my mother and father had nothing to do with my conception. Parents don't make their children.

This process would model creation in the debate. Darwinism is where none of the above happens. Firstly, we observe that organisms can adapt to their surroundings. Pupils dilate, musclular growth, fight of flight response, shivering, etc. From that, Darwinists extrapolate that these processes occur randomly and the ones who randomly attain a change are naturally selected. Given enough time, these changes, in their unlimited capacity, eventually produce fishes. The heart beats faster till you get gills. Skin shivers faster and faster till you take off in flight having spontaneously obtained feathers.

The fact of the matter is that random mutations cannot create organisms. After millions upon millions of generations with random mutations via mitosis we dont observe the kinds of changes promulgated in Darwinism. The idea that randomly shuffling the code would facilitate an abstinence from degeneration was unfounded and preposterous from the outset. We also know that adaptive mutations via reproduction are not random and emulate pupil dilation.

 

[gluadys]

I don't believe majority rule is that useful when trying to separate truth from falsehood.

I don't think individualistic subjectivity has much to recommend it either.

Gods "dreaming" state may be more powerful and complex than ours. It may also be a more worthy creation. It is the dream of the infinite after all. Ours is merely a dream within a dream coming from a finite body-mind.

In God will and act are one;it may be God always creates his dreams. But I would still differentiate thinking of something and making it.

The mind creates the dream world. All the images, tactile sensations, sounds, etc. arise from it. Previously they were not there and then when the dream starts they all manifest. It is all made of consciousness. The chair in your dream is consciousness as chair (or maybe you could say consciousness chairing) for example.

In this case you exit your sleeping dream state, create something using the "stuff" of this world, and then call it separate from you. Is it separate from God though? Couldn't the thing you create be composed of God- consciousness just as the chair in your dream is composed of consciousness?

In Christian theology, God made all "stuff" visible and invisible. And yes, the stuff God made is not God. That is why creation was said to be ex nihilo. Stuff other than God did not exist until God made it.

Your line of thought would say my consciousness is no more separate from God-consciousness than the chair. I don't actually have consciousness. I am just another bit of God-consciousness. So my relationship to God is I-to-I rather than I-to-Thou. God speaks through me, but never to me.

It exists as a misperception or illusion. I'm not saying there isn't a Reality behind the illusion.

This is exactly where I expected we would end up. Now I have no problem with this viewpoint when it is identified as Hinduism or Buddhism or Platonism or Gnosticism. It is a view espoused by millions of devout practitioners of these faiths. And who knows--it may even be true. But in that case, as I see it, Christianity would be false.

I do have a problem seeing how it can be reconciled with the view of creation which is central to the Abrahamic faiths. How does it honour God to say that God's creation is an illusion?

I think when most Christians say "God created the heavens and the earth" they don't mean God created an illusion. They don't mean Reality is something hiding behind an illusion. They mean God's creation, the heavens and the earth and all things in them is Reality.

As for it's positive value that's hard to answer. Some people call it the play or sport of God. Some like Plotinus teach that it is the Nature of God to overflow and manifest something "below" Him. Some say that God was divided for loves sake for the joy of reunion. Ultimately I'm here so I have to find a way with dealing with it even I don't yet know Gods reason. God can be hard to fathom sometimes.

Do you see how in Plotinus teaching, God has no free choice? Being, existence, flows from God because it is God's very nature, not because it is God's active choice.

But in Christian teaching creation is God's choice, a free act of love, and an act of risk, since it brought into existence that which could stand over against God. With creation, God no longer enjoys a situation of being simply "I". God enters into a new status of relationship with a "Thou".

The kernel of truth I see in Plotinus is the note of love. But Plotinus sees this as possible only if God is divided. In Christian theology, the trinity is a unity of love without division. Certainly creation was an act of love. Most importantly the redemption of creation was an act of supreme love. The reunion envisaged in Christianity, it is not a reunion of God with God but a reconciliation of creation--especially the human creation--with God. And in this reunion, it is not self melding into self, but the distinction of I and Thou is maintained so that love will always endure.

Basically, I am familiar with what you are saying, but it seems to me that the Church fought hard, and rightly so, to correct the extreme idealism of neo-Platonic thinking. I think any Christian needs to take seriously the reasons the Church chose creation rather than emanation, the reality and worth of matter as well as idea, and taught the resurrection of the body as well as the soul.

I am not suggesting simply knuckling under to tradition because it is tradition, but respecting that they had reasons to make the choices they did, and perhaps we need to consider why Gnosticism was rejected as an adequate expression of Christian faith.

If you think it was simply a mistake on their part, fine. But their view is still what has been handed down as the core Christian view. And so long as you call yourself a Christian, that is also something you need to reckon with.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

If a natural process is portrayed as self-sufficient,then that is to say God is not guiding it.

My example was to show that this isn't the case. Self-sustaining beings still need a guide.

Darwinism is where none of the above happens.

I'm sure in order for evolution to work a certain amount of porking is involved.

The heart beats faster till you get gills. Skin shivers faster and faster till you take off in flight having spontaneously obtained feathers.

Oh dear. You think those are examples of evolution? That might explain something.

 

[Assyrian]

In God will and act are one;it may be God always creates his dreams. But I would still differentiate thinking of something and making it.

Isaiah 46:9 for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,' Sounds like God imagines, purposes and declares thing long before they come to pass.

 

[theFijian]

I second that, and if all God did was set off a Big Bang (which has issues in itself as well such as the horizon problem), then it whispers Deism way too much for my interpretation of the Bible.

Then the problem is your interpretion of the Bible pure and simple. God ordains the means as well as the ends, God is the preemminent cause of all things that happen in occordance to his will.

Col 1:16, 17 - For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

How many times must you be shown this verse for you to actually believe it?

It ignores the Pentateuch,

False.

it disputes the entire idea of sin,

False.

it makes 99.9% of everything God has done vain,

False. Try actually constructing an argument rather than just throwing out bald assertions.

it limits the almighty limitless God,

Spoken like someone who does not understand nor appreciates the wonder, beauty and intricacy of God's Creation

and last but not least, it happily masquerades itself as 'explaining change' because the mechanism for common descent is non-existent.

Quit grandstanding and come up with a cogent non-self-contradictory argument.

Says a lot about 'empirical evidence' that is really not empirical at all except to the people who want to believe it.

Says a lot about you that you address character of a person rather than address the content of theirs beliefs. This is because you are not able to construct a consistent reasoned and logical argument so you pretend to know a persons motivations for holding a belief

Sum it all up in a paragraph, and you can see the true gravity of what is at hand with theistic evolutionists who believe in the God of Abraham. They are walking on a tightrope, with a pit of blasphemy underneath.

Bald assertions with nothing of substance to back it up.

That is why I find it very important that people know the facts and not wishful thinking.

Very few people care what you find important.

I think that if TE's really want to make a case and yet cannot get away from fossils and geography, then they need to just drop common descent altogether and start paying attention to what OEC's have to say.

Ah yes, get away from the evidence you mean? Sounds emminently sensible advice for your fellow Creationists.

Like Hugh Ross, for example. I don't necessarily agree with him, but I do respect that puts the Bible first, and not science.

I've laid the Bible before you yet you refuse to address how it refutes your false ideas. Now who takes the Bible seriously?

He does not believe in evolution. Rather, he feels that as species died out, God simply kept making new ones in their place. And this continued for a long time. He can reconcile with the fact that common descent is missing a key element that likely is not even there.

Umm so actually you like the unbiblical idea that God has not rested from his work of Creation? Hint: Read Genesis 2:1-3

I personally feel that TE's at their founding of the theology had simply just became so overwhelmed by what scientists proclaim, that they feel that it must be considered unequivocal.

I pesonally feel that some Creationists are not as hot on scripture as they like to make out.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

This is exactly where I expected we would end up. Now I have no problem with this viewpoint when it is identified as Hinduism or Buddhism or Platonism or Gnosticism. It is a view espoused by millions of devout practitioners of these faiths. And who knows--it may even be true. But in that case, as I see it, Christianity would be false.

Many of the people labeled "gnostic" were Christians to begin with. You might as well say "that's not Christian it's Lutheran (or catholic, etc..)".

Your line of thought would say my consciousness is no more separate from God-consciousness than the chair.

Consciousness is only in the singular.

So my relationship to God is I-to-I rather than I-to-Thou. God speaks through me, but never to me.

God can manifest Himself as "thou" to you. God can have forms and God can be formless and He is ultimately beyond anything we can imagine in that regard.

When the illusion is completed removed it's not I to I though because that implies duality. It's simply "I".

In Christian theology, God made all "stuff" visible and invisible. And yes, the stuff God made is not God. That is why creation was said to be ex nihilo.

I'm not disagreeing with that. God is No-thing.

I do have a problem seeing how it can be reconciled with the view of creation which is central to the Abrahamic faiths. How does it honour God to say that God's creation is an illusion?

I'm not sure it had anything to do with honor. It was pure creative play.

I think when most Christians say "God created the heavens and the earth" they don't mean God created an illusion. They don't mean Reality is something hiding behind an illusion.

You are probably right.

I'll respond to the rest later. Have to go to work. Great discussion.

 

[gluadys]

Isaiah 46:9 for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,' Sounds like God imagines, purposes and declares thing long before they come to pass.

At least so far as human understanding of time goes. Scripture also speaks of Christ as the Lamb slain "from the foundation of the world", yet he was crucified under Pontius Pilate around year 33 CE.

I am not sure that past and future appear to God as they do to us.

In any case, I think this supports what I am saying about distinguishing imagination, vision, purpose, declaration from actual doing/making. If they are separated in time, even for God, they are not the same. And even if they are not separated in time, they are still not the same. All that God wills comes to be, immediately or later, but to dream or purpose it is not the same as doing it. Reality comes with the doing.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

The fact of the matter is that random mutations cannot create organisms. After millions upon millions of generations with random mutations via mitosis we dont observe the kinds of changes promulgated in Darwinism. The idea that randomly shuffling the code would facilitate an abstinence from degeneration was unfounded and preposterous from the outset. We also know that adaptive mutations via reproduction are not random and emulate pupil dilation.

And that is what I do not understand about many who believe in ToE so much that they even include it in religion.
The fact that it has become part of religion for many hilariously gives it some kind of heralded status.
But the fact remains that our coding is like a deck of cards. It can be shuffled, but nothing can be added to it. And it really just makes the whole idea of TE and even common descent itself just seem ridiculous.

Is it really possible that creationists are the ones taking all the heat? It really portrays the way the world is today. I think what many people do not see, perhaps even theistic scientists themselves, that ToE and common descent is the atheists cup of tea. It's their 'bible' so to speak, because it's the only attempt at describing life as not being issued by a Maker. And that is precisely why it has not died. That is why it is still prevalent. If all these atheists were Christian, I doubt we would even be having this discussion right now, because the impossibility of additional information to a species' coding damns the idea. They have known this for a long time and it still doesn't stop people like Dawkins, who even fully admits it, from keeping on keeping on with heralding atheism and telling religious people they are hallucinating when the evidence tells something different.

 

[Papias]

Anthony's argument, as usual, is a classic example of the straw man fallacy. He argues that my position is the same as atheistic evolution, then argues against atheistic evolution (the strawman in this case), which he knows full well both the Pope and I reject.

Anthony wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Sorry, theistic evolution is by definition not naturalistic. What part of "theistic" do you fail to understand, after many post and many threads, you still post saying that theistic evolution isn't theistic. It makes it harder and harder to think that you simply don't understand, and harder to avoid the conclusion that you are being dishonest.

Theistic evolution as it is usually proposed is nothing but a theistic spin on the theory of evolution,which is a naturalistic theory.
​

I don't care how you usually perceive it being proposed. I'm pointing out that the theistic evoluiton affirmed in the Pope's ITC document is fully theistic.

It is an illogical belief. Can you tell the difference between the theory of evolution as it is proposed by scientists and your personal belief that "God did it"?

If you think it is illogical, you need not ascribe to it, as the Pope and I do. The difference is simple - my view is that God is the one doing all of the things that we see as "natural" processes. This is affirmed in Scripture, and is about as big a difference as one can get.

​

Sure they have, as an allowable and supported view of origins, as long as it is theistic evolution and not atheistic evolution.
​

Cardinal Schonborn has denied that the pope and the Church has accepted or acquiesced to the theory of evolution.

False. Cardinal Schonborn has correctly denied that the church as accepted or acquiesced to any ATHEISTIC theory of evolution. Could you please show me where he denies that all evolutionary approaches are not allowed?

Theistic evolution is never endorsed or even mentioned by the pope or the ITC document.

It is described and affirmed throughout the document. Here is the link to it: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/RATZINGER.PDF
Could you please clarify what you mean by "endorse"?

"Endorse" can be taken to mean "I establish this as the only acceptable view." Is that what you mean?

Or, "Endorse" can be taken to mean "This is what I see to be correct, though others may hold different views."

Which do you mean? Thanks.

If you are against atheistic evolution,why do you accept a godless theory of evolution that portrays nature as self-sufficient and say that God has worked that way?

I don't accept any godless theory of evolution, and I don't portray nature as self-sufficient. Without God continually causing all natural processes, they would cease instantly.

This is what God himself has told us in Scripture. Heb. 13 states this:

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
​

Anthony wrote:

Papias wrote:

The rest of Anthony's post repeats the same deceptive tactic he's used over and over.

That tactic is as follows:

1. Find quotes where the Catholic church has argued against atheistic evolution. (not hard, since we all agree that atheistic evolution is wrong).

2. Show these and then try to do a bait and switch to argue that they are actually arguing against any evolution, and specifically against theistic evolution.

3. hide, deny, or make excuses for the many sources that show clear support for theistic evolution from the Vatican and the Pope.

I never said that they argue against any evolution. They argue against materialistic,reductionist,neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. You know,the same theory you believe in and illogically render as theistic.

.....They don't support theistic evolution as you do because the theory of evolution is materialist,reductionist,and neo-Darwinian.

​

Here is another clear example of Anthony's use of the strawman fallacy. He says that I believe in the materialistic theory of evolution, when I do not, and have said so repeatedly in this thread and in other discussions with Anthony.

Saying that God did what the theory claims to have happened does not make the theory true.

No, but it does make it theistic. It is the scientific evidence that establishes it as true.
​

Anthony wrote:

Papias wrote:

You can see all of these in his post, most clearly in the fact that he present many quotes against atheistic evolution, and then tries to suggest that these are against theistic evolution, while hiding the fact that the very article he quotes has Cardinal Schonborn saying that "Common descent might be true, but..."

I never hid that.

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed that. Where did you post, on this thread, Cardinal Schonborn saying that "Common descent might be true, but...", either before or after you appear to have followed the steps I laid out above, on this thread ?

​

The document from the ITC, headed by the Pope, is a clear exposition of theistic evolution, throughout the document.

No,the document is an exposition on the doctrine that man is created in the image of God.
​

Of course man is created in the image of God. That's exactly what theistic evolution teaches. As the document explains, God did this as the active agent behind the processes you are calling "naturalistic". This is explained throughout the document (see link above), and one good example is in section #68, here:

With respect to the evolution of conditions favorable to the emergence of life, Catholic tradition affirms
that, as universal transcendent cause, God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God’s
action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their
natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the
universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the
unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes
to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation.
​

The upshot of all of this is that creationists work hard to push God out of everything. They want to exclude God from the workings of the natural world, even though scripture is clear that God's action in the world includes the processes the creationists consider "natural" and Godless.

Which leads me to another question for Anthony. Anthony, do you consider gravity to be an atheistic theory that should be vigorously fought against?

Papias

P.S.

Anthony wrote:

Sperm and eggs are alive by the power of the spirit of God,as with everything else that lives. Conception happens by the power of the spirit of God.

Woo hoo! We agree on that.

If a natural process is portrayed as self-sufficient,then that is to say God is not guiding it.

OK, fine. I'm not portraying evolution as self-sufficient, without God, and neither is any other TE I'm aware of. Perhaps you've heard too many creationists falsely portray TE's as doing so. Why can you so easily see the process of sperm and egg being sustained by God, and refuse to see how the process of evolution can be sustained by God?

 

[Papias]

Greg wrote:

But the fact remains that our coding is like a deck of cards. It can be shuffled, but nothing can be added to it.

Here are some basic types of mutations and how they work:

• Duplication of a stretch of DNA. This is like accidentally copying part of a book twice. Example – when making a copy of a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, you end up with a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12
• Deletion of a base pair. AATCTGTC becomes ATCTGTC
• Addition of base pair AATCTGTC becomes ACATCTGTC
• Transposition (like a mirror) AATCTGTC becomes CTGTCTAA

All of these can have no effect, an effect which is selected for, or an affect which is selected against.

To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation. That won’t hurt the organism, since the second copy is simply redundant. Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new. The organism still has the original copy doing whatever it is supposed to do, but now has the added ability of whatever the new gene does (such as digesting nylon, as in a species of bacteria). This has been observed by scientists numerous times, and denying that it happens is simply denying the real world.

So adding information - new information - is easy, expected, observed, and non-controversial.

Papias

 

[Ishraqiyun]

If you think it was simply a mistake on their part, fine. But their view is still what has been handed down as the core Christian view. And so long as you call yourself a Christian, that is also something you need to reckon with.

I also read the more mainstream catholic church fathers fairly often. I've really been blessed by the writings of Origen and Clement of Alexandria as well as many of the monastic writers like St Anthony, Evagrius of Pontus, and Maximus the Confessor. In fact I have a special love for the writings of Origen and Evagrius.

I believe many of them were very wise and loving people and that they often present a Christian worldview that is conducive to spiritual growth and that allows people to better love God and their fellow man. My path isn't exactly like the one laid out by them though. The Christian faith is big enough to contain expedient means (and that is what I view beliefs as) for a variety of different types and orientations of people.

I've also been blessed by reading the writings of many of the Christian who were labeled "gnostic" as well. I think they got a bad rap for no legitimate reason. It was simply "if my path works for me every path that seems different must be wrong" type thinking. That's bad enough but when the power of the state (the Roman Empire, Byzantium, etc) gets involved it gets really messed up.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

So adding information - new information - is easy, expected, observed, and non-controversial.

The 'new information' is limited and is hardly 'adding' at all, but rather mostly just deleting or copying from the same material. It hardly explains going from microscopic jelly to advanced human beings.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

To reject creationism is not to reject God as a creator, it is simply to name a different process by which he has our universe and all therein.

For the record, the Pope and the majority of the Catholic Church accepts theistic evolution, the official position of the Church is that it does not conflict with Biblical teaching.

Oh yes it does, unless you want to write off genesis and infer an explanation that is extra-biblical. Universal common descent is invariably incompatible with the genesis narrative, in the same way as it is invariably incompatible with the fossil record.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

The 'new information' is limited and is hardly 'adding' at all, but rather mostly just deleting or copying from the same material. It hardly explains going from microscopic jelly to advanced human beings.

^This

 

[sniperelite7]

Oh yes it does, unless you want to write off genesis and infer an explanation that is extra-biblical. Universal common descent is invariably incompatible with the genesis narrative, in the same way as it is invariably incompatible with the fossil record.

Because we are talking billions of years of geologic processes, layers of strata, etc, etc. You aren't going to have a perfect fossil record, but can at least infer from the pieces you have and make an educated guess.

Take the fossil record of our species development. We look pretty damn similar to the creatures that came before, indeed we share features with them all the way down the line. Our DNA matches up about what 98%?

Ever think that the creation account was not meant to be read literally? Read around. I've yet to see that point rebuked by any creationist. At least, without resorting to some kind of "Dur bible sayz".

But don't fear, just because your wild fantasy about evolution being an atheistic conspiracy to destroy your faith isn't true, doesn't mean God did not create the universe, earth, and life. Contrary, the truth is more fabulous than one could possibly imagine. God actually designed a process by which his creation can spring forth in an everlasting cycle of adaptation that ensures life can flourish. We call it..Evolution.

So, am I still a christian?

 

[mark kennedy]

The 'new information' is limited and is hardly 'adding' at all, but rather mostly just deleting or copying from the same material. It hardly explains going from microscopic jelly to advanced human beings.

A mutation is a disruption of the existing information, not a viable means for creating new information. In other words, going from this:

To this:

and this:

Requires this:

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. (Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington May 18, 2007)​

Here are some basic types of mutations and how they work:

Duplication of a stretch of DNA. This is like accidentally copying part of a book twice. Example – when making a copy of a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, you end up with a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12

This can result in:

unequal crossing over created a second copy of a gene needed for the synthesis of the steroid hormone aldosterone.​

Or it can result in:

However, this new gene carries inappropriate promoters at its 5' end (acquired from the 11-beta hydroxylase gene) that cause it to be expressed more strongly than the normal gene. The mutant gene is dominant: all members of one family (through four generations) who inherited at least one chromosome carrying this duplication suffered from high blood pressure and were prone to early death from stroke.

Gene duplication has also been implicated in several human neurological disorders. (Kimbal Biology Pages)​

Deletion of a base pair. AATCTGTC becomes ATCTGTC
Addition of base pair AATCTGTC becomes ACATCTGTC

AKA Indels (insertions/deletions), should this happen in a protein coding gene the most likely outcome is a truncated protein. Insertions and deletions in the reading frame is most likely going to disrupt the sequence:

Extra base pairs may be added (insertions) or removed (deletions) from the DNA of a gene. The number can range from one to thousands. Collectively, these mutations are called indels.

Indels involving one or two base pairs (or multiples of two) can have devastating consequences to the gene because translation of the gene is "frameshifted". This figure shows how by shifting the reading frame one nucleotide to the right, the same sequence of nucleotides encodes a different sequence of amino acids. The mRNA is translated in new groups of three nucleotides and the protein specified by these new codons will be worthless. (Kimbal)​

Prime examples of this would be Huntington's disease, Polyglutamine Diseases, Muscular Dystrophy and the fragile X syndrome.

Transposition (like a mirror) AATCTGTC becomes CTGTCTAA

Translocations are the transfer of a piece of one chromosome to a nonhomologous chromosome. Translocations are often reciprocal; that is, the two nonhomologues swap segments.​

The break may occur within a gene destroying its function. Other examples include Burkitt's lymphoma and chronic myelogenous leukemia.

All of these can have no effect, an effect which is selected for, or an affect which is selected against.

When there is an effect strong enough for selection to act the vast majority of the time the effect is deleterious (harmful).

To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation. That won’t hurt the organism, since the second copy is simply redundant. Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new. The organism still has the original copy doing whatever it is supposed to do, but now has the added ability of whatever the new gene does (such as digesting nylon, as in a species of bacteria). This has been observed by scientists numerous times, and denying that it happens is simply denying the real world.

No one is denying that this happens. What has raised skepticism is what can be reasonably expected from gene duplication:

Although many scientists assume that Darwinian processes account for the evolution of complex biochemical systems, we are skeptical. Thus, rather than simply assuming the general efficacy of random mutation and selection, we want to examine, to the extent possible, which changes are reasonable to expect from a Darwinian process and which are not. We think the most tractable place to begin is with questions of protein structure. Our approach is to examine pathways that are currently considered to be likely routes of evolutionary development and see what types of changes Darwinian processes may be expected to promote along a particular pathway. (Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues, Protein Science 2004)​

So adding information - new information - is easy, expected, observed, and non-controversial.

When DNA is being replicated it undergoes frequent chemical change, most of them are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (Kimbal)

That last statement is absolutely absurd given the devastating number of diseases and disorders resulting from genetic mutations and the limited number of mutations with a beneficial effect.

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral (Rates of Spontaneous Mutation, Genetics 1988)​

Easy, expected, observed and non-controversial? Nonsense!

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Because we are talking billions of years of geologic processes, layers of strata, etc, etc. You aren't going to have a perfect fossil record, but can at least infer from the pieces you have and make an educated guess.

It's my guess that chimpanzee ancestors are being passed off as our ancestors since, if they were not alive today there would be no evidence that they ever existed.

Take the fossil record of our species development. We look pretty damn similar to the creatures that came before, indeed we share features with them all the way down the line. Our DNA matches up about what 98%?

Which species are you referring to? If you are talking about chimpanzees we are 95% the same and that's not counting chromosomal rearrangements.

Ever think that the creation account was not meant to be read literally? Read around. I've yet to see that point rebuked by any creationist. At least, without resorting to some kind of "Dur bible sayz".

That's how it is written and how the New Testament writers that spoke of it, took it. But maybe you know more then the Apostle Paul, Luke and Christ himself.

But don't fear, just because your wild fantasy about evolution being an atheistic conspiracy to destroy your faith isn't true, doesn't mean God did not create the universe, earth, and life. Contrary, the truth is more fabulous than one could possibly imagine. God actually designed a process by which his creation can spring forth in an everlasting cycle of adaptation that ensures life can flourish. We call it..Evolution.

The truth is that what you are describing is not evolution, it's an a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. That is by it's very nature, atheistic.

So, am I still a christian?

You might be, you might not be, it all depends on how far you extend those naturalistic assumptions. Since theistic evolutionists are strangely silent about the miracles of the rest of the Bible I guess it's safe to say, God only knows.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[JVPITER]

Hi -- Just trying to follow along.

To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation. ... Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new.

No one is denying that this happens.

Sure they are, in this thread -- post #170.

What has raised skepticism is what can be reasonably expected from gene duplication:

Although many scientists assume that Darwinian processes account for the evolution of complex biochemical systems, we are skeptical. Thus, rather than simply assuming the general efficacy of random mutation and selection, we want to examine, to the extent possible, which changes are reasonable to expect from a Darwinian process and which are not. We think the most tractable place to begin is with questions of protein structure. Our approach is to examine pathways that are currently considered to be likely routes of evolutionary development and see what types of changes Darwinian processes may be expected to promote along a particular pathway. (Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues, Protein Science 2004)​

But that skepticism is not really justified according to that paper:

We strongly emphasize that results bearing on the efficiency of this one pathway as a conduit for Darwinian evolution say little or nothing about the efficiency of other possible pathways. Thus, for example, the present study that examines the evolution of MR protein features by point mutation in duplicate genes does not indicate whether evolution of such features by other processes, such as recombination or insertion/deletion mutations, would be more or less efficient.​

So adding information - new information - is easy, expected, observed, and non-controversial.

That last statement is absolutely absurd given the devastating number of diseases and disorders resulting from genetic mutations and the limited number of mutations with a beneficial effect.

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral (Rates of Spontaneous Mutation, Genetics 1988)​

Easy, expected, observed and non-controversial? Nonsense!

I googled that quote (its from 1998 by the way). You discussed it here in the thread "Horizontal Gene Transfer - Your Opinion" in November 2010 with "shernren" who pointed out several more recent papers showing that selection deals with the observed rates of mutation so that adaptive evolution is not undermined.


Cheers