Creationists and the Heart

[Dale]

Going to disagree with your opinion that fossils prove anything, and just clarify the Creationist position for you.

Creationists don't deny evolution. We don't deny the role of evolution in the appearance of many different dogs, produce, viruses, whatever.
We deny the idea of evolution being stretched to justify the belief that creatures evolved from different kinds of creatures.
did the dog and the wolf have common ancestor? sure! probably. did the dog and the tulip have a common ancestor? No. We disagree on that one.

I'm just clarifying the Creationist position for you on Evolution.

You say that creatures don't evolve from different types of creatures.


It is obvious to me that snakes are lizards that have lost their legs. I really don't need a biologist to tell me that but they agree. They say that the lizards that became snakes lived on muddy, marshy terrain where legs were of little value. They lost their hind legs first and later lost their front lets. Even today, some rattlesnakes hatch out with tiny front legs, a reminder of their ancestry.

Snakes are descended from a venomous lizard and some have retained the feature of having venom and others have lost that trait and became non-venomous.

Genesis says that snakes once had legs, it just gives a different impression of how they lost them.

 

[Grandpa2390]

You say that creationists don't deny evolution. From my home, I could walk to churches where ministers preach that only atheists believe in evolution. There is no one creationist position, there are many, a bewildering number. One problem with modern creationists is that what creationists believe today is very different from what literal believers in Genesis believed centuries ago.

Educated People do not deny evolution. The definition of which my atheist freshman biology professor described as

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations

Evolution is a loaded term that conjures your religion to mind whenever the term is used. It is your religion they are rejecting, not the definition above.

It sounds like you are one of those who says that lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, pumas and all other cats are descended from Noah's cats. Wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingos, and all members of the dog family are descended from Noah's dogs. That's quite a bit of evolution to happen in a few thousand years.

actually, foxes are in a different Genus. I don't know where the lines are drawn. But I feel comfortable saying that wolves and dog and coyotes are descended from the same creature.
You find it hard to believe that dogs and wolves could have evolved from a similar creature, I find it hard to believe that one can be so confident with the little evidence we have.

It's obvious you want to believe in an old earth; that's fine with me. I am perfectly content and happy to confess that what I believe is a religion. a religion supported by science but still a religion. I'm also a scientific minded person. you're going to have to do more than say "it's impossible" to convince me.

 

[Grandpa2390]

You say that creatures don't evolve from different types of creatures.


It is obvious to me that snakes are lizards that have lost their legs. I really don't need a biologist to tell me that but they agree. They say that the lizards that became snakes lived on muddy, marshy terrain where legs were of little value. They lost their hind legs first and later lost their front lets. Even today, some rattlesnakes hatch out with tiny front legs, a reminder of their ancestry.

Snakes are descended from a venomous lizard and some have retained the feature of having venom and others have lost that trait and became non-venomous.

Genesis says that snakes once had legs, it just gives a different impression of how they lost them.

The problem with this kind of argument, is that it has been done in the past.

And the arguments have always turned out be frauds (such as the embryo drawings).
or later research found that the evolutionary assumption was wrong (vestigial organs)

So that cause the scientific minded skeptics amongst us to say, I believe there is probably a purpose, and one day they will figure out what it is.

Examples like this are ensnaring you in the same problem Creationists are criticized for. Rather than saying, the snake has legs, fascinating. why?
your religion just causes you to write it off to evolution. They are vestigial from their lizard ancestor, therefore I don't have to actually think about what they might be used for.

Further, how do you know the snake isn't evolving legs???? hm???? maybe? We've only been looking at them for a short time. I doubt it. I think those legs serve an important purpose. I believe a baby rattlesnake needs those legs for something. Even if it is just for the embryo stage.

otherwise it is just a deformity (which happens to every creature on this planet occasionally). Seems like a step down to lose your legs. Would like to hear the story behind that natural selection.

 

[JacksBratt]

If fossils don't prove anything, it sounds like you are rejecting all evidence from the physical world that can be seen, touched and examined. Do the ruins of the Jewish Temple mean anything?

Well, fossils do prove one thing.... the animal lived and died.

They do not say what their great great great grandparents were. They do not say what their great great great grand kids were either. They don't say how many brothers and sisters it had or of it had any offspring of it's own either. Just that this animal lived, and died.

The ruins of the Jewish temple do tell that their was a designer. A designer who designed a building. A designer who had intelligence and purpose for his designs. A designer who proved that the temple:
1/did not come into being by chance
2/ it was created with a purpose
3/ it was destroyed because of that purpose.

A fossil does the same. It proves there was a designer. It was created for a purpose and, now, people purport that it is evidence of chance random appearance of all the animals, in order to destroy the purpose. The purpose God had for each and every kind of animal He created. Evolutionists are trying to take that away from God.

You say that creationists don't deny evolution. From my home, I could walk to churches where ministers preach that only atheists believe in evolution. There is no one creationist position, there are many, a bewildering number. One problem with modern creationists is that what creationists believe today is very different from what literal believers in Genesis believed centuries ago.

Years ago, people believed many different things. As we gain knowledge, these things of belief change.
However, there is still not near the fossil record that was predicted. There is still not any transitional fossils. There is still all the hoaxes and fakes of the past that are still presented as facts.

As time goes on, all we find is how extremely more complex the living cell is. How much more complicated DNA and protein and enzymes are compared to the simple "cell" that Darwin assumed is where life started.

Yet, still, we cannot start life in any way shape or form. Or describe how the first protein was formed, not to mention the complex array and order necessary for any DNA in any tiny one cell, which contains all the information of the entire organism... every cell contains the entire blue print.

No, the more we learn, the less that evolution has left to stand on.

The only reason it stands is due to the fact that it is taught in every school, at every level, every year and if you contradict it...you fail.

It sounds like you are one of those who says that lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, pumas and all other cats are descended from Noah's cats. Wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingos, and all members of the dog family are descended from Noah's dogs. That's quite a bit of evolution to happen in a few thousand years.

People who have trouble with this idea of all cats coming from one cat.... forget that cats can have litters at a very young age. So can dogs and rabbits and birds and most other animals...

SO.. this "few thousand years" is not as short as you think. Do you know how many litters of pups that our dog has had in ten years? Do you know how many she would have had in the wild with no control? Or how many females one male will mate with?
We always compare things like this to the life of a human. Humans take way longer. I will have one group of offspring in my 70 or more years.... A dog could have more than 35 times that many.... Kinda shows that the "few thousands of years" could create a myriad of dog types.

And, to top it all off, no matter how many breeds of dogs you create... they are all DOGS.

 

[Dale]

So, you are saying that due to the fact that people don't have knowledge of the physical anatomy of the circulatory system........they, then, cannot possibly understand where humans came from?

Really? Seriously?

How about this.....

The main driving person at launcher of the TOE, Chucky Darwin, had absolutely no idea of the complexity of every single living cell of any living being. Nor was he aware of DNA and the complexity and vast amount of information which it contains, or the fact that all this information for the organism it is in, is in every single cell of that organism....

So, the question to you is:

Would Darwin continued with his assumptions about the origin of species if he knew the complexity of each living cell and the DNA that is within every living cell? He already had his doubts...

I bet he would have canned the whole silly concept.

The complexities of cells, which Darwin did not know of, the complexities of proteins, and of DNA, make evolution more reasonable, not less so. It means that cells are more capable of adaptation.

For instance, when lizards or snakes evolved venom, a sequence of DNA came into being to code for proteins, which function as venom.

 

[Dale]

Everyone knows that species were changing....within the species.

Fossils prove nothing as far as the TOE is concerned. They are static items of the proof of one thing and one thing only.....that this animal lived and died.

They cannot tell you how many siblings it had, what it's parents, grand parents or great great great grand parents looked like, what it's children, grand children or great great grand children looked like OR if it even had any.

They don't even know it 's age as fossils are to precious to cut open and see....

The fossil record is completely lacking in the phenomenally large numbers of species that would have been necessary for slow transitions that would have been necessary over billions of years.

If you say that fossils only happen in certain circumstances.....then your snapshot of time that they present is severely lacking in data to confirm any of your, or the TOE"s concepts.


In a failing and struggling effort to make fossils actually prove something... they have been formulated, fabricated and manufactured in combining different pieces from miles apart of filed teeth or what have you. These efforts to make fossils show any of the promoted events of the TOE have been proven in courts as hoaxes and frauds.

There is your fossil record.....Even Darwin knew it was severely lacking..... and it hasn't gotten any better.

Oh ya...you have a bunch of men and women in white coats who will say otherwise and I am supposed to believe them.... over God's word.......not happening.

It still remains a joke that someone can say that due to society not knowing what the heart was that they could not understand the TOE.....bahahahahahaha...

These people were not unintelligent.... they were just not technologically advanced.... Understanding the TOE is so easy you teach it in grade school.... come on... the people of that time are, now, less intelligent than 8 and 9 year old's of today???

Ya,....right.

Jack Bratt:
<< They don't even know it 's age as fossils are to precious to cut open and see.... >>


This is not true at all. Not all fossils are rare, not all are valuable. Many are bought and sold. Apparently you say this because you don't accept the layering of strata.


Here is some info on how fossils are dated.


Heading:
"How do we know the ages of fossils and fossil-bearing rocks?"


"Once it was possible to measure the ages of volcanic layers in a stack of sedimentary rock, the entire sequence could be pinned to the absolute time scale. In the Wyoming landscape shown ... the gray ash layer was found to be 73 million years old. This means that fossils in rock layers below the tuff are older than 73 million years, and those above the tuff are younger. Fossils found embedded within the ash, including the fossil leaves shown below right, are the same age as the ash: 73 million years old."



Link:
https://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/questions-answers.cfm?know=a24

 

[JacksBratt]

The complexities of cells, which Darwin did not know of, the complexities of proteins, and of DNA, make evolution more reasonable, not less so. It means that cells are more capable of adaptation.

For instance, when lizards or snakes evolved venom, a sequence of DNA came into being to code for proteins, which function as venom.

This is an example of "adding information". There is no system, left to it's own motivation, with no outside influence, that will migrate from disorder, to order, from less information to more information, from simplicity to complexity. In all systems, left alone, they migrate the opposite way.

Your example of DNA making "evolution more reasonable" shows your lack of understanding in the behavior of systems and the total impossibility of something as complex as DNA happening by random chance.

DNA has thousands of complex codes that are governed by the order and sequence of proteins. In any creature, changing one of these codes and orders....one tiny change... can be catastrophic for the creature to the extent that it won't even reach gestation, be born and if it makes it that far... survive.

Not only is DNA complex, but every protein in DNA is complex. Then, the order of these proteins, for each creature, is specific and complex... Not to mention the enzymes that, too, are complex and totally necessary.

DNA is a beacon, a neon sign, a billboard which shouts that not even one cell could have happened by chance.

 

[JacksBratt]

The complexities of cells, which Darwin did not know of, the complexities of proteins, and of DNA, make evolution more reasonable, not less so. It means that cells are more capable of adaptation.

For instance, when lizards or snakes evolved venom, a sequence of DNA came into being to code for proteins, which function as venom.

As for the evolution of venom.... the DNA of the snake would have to be altered in order to form the components necessary to produce the venom. Then, somewhere to store the venom. Then some method to transport the venom to the fang...not only that but a hollow fang that would allow for delivery to the victim....All this would have had to happen all at once....

Do you comprehend the immense complexity and total impossibility of this happening all at once? Not to mention that the venom must not cause injury or affect the snake itself.

The whole idea is preposterous.

 

[JacksBratt]

Jack Bratt:
<< They don't even know it 's age as fossils are to precious to cut open and see.... >>


This is not true at all. Not all fossils are rare, not all are valuable. Many are bought and sold. Apparently you say this because you don't accept the layering of strata.


Here is some info on how fossils are dated.


Heading:
"How do we know the ages of fossils and fossil-bearing rocks?"


"Once it was possible to measure the ages of volcanic layers in a stack of sedimentary rock, the entire sequence could be pinned to the absolute time scale. In the Wyoming landscape shown ... the gray ash layer was found to be 73 million years old. This means that fossils in rock layers below the tuff are older than 73 million years, and those above the tuff are younger. Fossils found embedded within the ash, including the fossil leaves shown below right, are the same age as the ash: 73 million years old."



Link:
https://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/questions-answers.cfm?know=a24

Don't even start with the "geologic column"

This has been shown to be a pipe dream and totally unreliable many times. Not only that but it is circular reasoning in it's purist form.

Just recently, God provided a perfect reenactment of the production of strata.... at Mount St Helen's.

The explosion at Mount St Helen's shows all the evidence you need including:

rapid deposition of sedimentary layers, rapid canyon formation, an explanation for petrified trees standing upright through multiple rock strata and even showed a theory for the rapid formation of peat and coal.

Maybe check out the DVD, "Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe,"

 

[Dale]

As for the evolution of venom.... the DNA of the snake would have to be altered in order to form the components necessary to produce the venom. Then, somewhere to store the venom. Then some method to transport the venom to the fang...not only that but a hollow fang that would allow for delivery to the victim....All this would have had to happen all at once....

Do you comprehend the immense complexity and total impossibility of this happening all at once? Not to mention that the venom must not cause injury or affect the snake itself.

The whole idea is preposterous.

JacksBratt,

It doesn't all have to happen at once. Biologists believe that first the lizard evolved poison saliva, which was used to immobilize prey and also for defense. Then, later, fangs and fang sacks slowly evolved to make the delivery of the venom more efficient.

 

[Dale]

This is an example of "adding information". There is no system, left to it's own motivation, with no outside influence, that will migrate from disorder, to order, from less information to more information, from simplicity to complexity. In all systems, left alone, they migrate the opposite way.

Your example of DNA making "evolution more reasonable" shows your lack of understanding in the behavior of systems and the total impossibility of something as complex as DNA happening by random chance.

DNA has thousands of complex codes that are governed by the order and sequence of proteins. In any creature, changing one of these codes and orders....one tiny change... can be catastrophic for the creature to the extent that it won't even reach gestation, be born and if it makes it that far... survive.

Not only is DNA complex, but every protein in DNA is complex. Then, the order of these proteins, for each creature, is specific and complex... Not to mention the enzymes that, too, are complex and totally necessary.

DNA is a beacon, a neon sign, a billboard which shouts that not even one cell could have happened by chance.

JacksBratt:
<< This is an example of "adding information". There is no system, left to it's own motivation, with no outside influence, that will migrate from disorder, to order, from less information to more information, from simplicity to complexity. In all systems, left alone, they migrate the opposite way. >>


Jack,

You are mis-stating, misunderstanding, something that goes back to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. It cannot be applied to the earth because the earth isn't a closed system, it received huge amounts of energy from the sun every day. The Second Law of Thermodynamics actually says nothing about complexity, it predicts that the amount of available energy will gradually decrease, but only in a closed system.


By the way, I have a degree in Chemistry from Georgia Institute of Technology. I have studied thermodynamics at the college level.

 

[JacksBratt]

JacksBratt,

It doesn't all have to happen at once. Biologists believe that first the lizard evolved poison saliva, which was used to immobilize prey

But didn't poison the lizard? Phewf.... lucky that....

and also for defense. Then, later, fangs

solid fangs or hollow fangs... then, I guess, the solid fangs randomly hollowed out...you know... to make way for the poison saliva that wasn't poison for the lizard....

and fang sacks slowly evolved

... like half a sack? maybe a whole sack but nothing to hold. Then maybe a whole sack with a tube that miraculously joined to the fang? Hollow fang er um no.... solid fang but the fang version 2.01.02 was hollow... what in the world ?

to make the delivery of the venom more efficient.

OK, you can believe that. However, think of all the intricate functions of all the animals on the face of the earth. For the snake to develop venom and a delivery system, as you have described... is a fantastic win against very high odds... now times that by every characteristic function of the thousands of creatures from snakes, to fire flies, to skunks, to spittle bugs, to dung Beatles, to angler fish, to chameleons, to woodpeckers.... not to mention that every single one of the billions of organisms have a male and female of the species that have a reproductive system that is perfectly evolved to function with each other...

This could happen once,,,, maybe, against huge odds, if at all... but billions of times?

I`ll stick with akum`s razor....God made the snake... with venom, with venom sacks and with hollow fangs with which to deliver it. Just like He told us that He did.

 

[JacksBratt]

Jack,

You are mis-stating, misunderstanding, something that goes back to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. It cannot be applied to the earth because the earth isn't a closed system, it received huge amounts of energy from the sun every day.

So, the fact that we get our energy... all of our energy from the sun and that you now believe that the earth is not a closed system... changes everything? I hardly think so. The energy coming from the sun has absolutely no implication with adding information to DNA...

Oh and theoretically...

the universe is a closed system... we are part of the universe.

Secondly... this has nothing to do with thermodynamics or any law...

In nature, any system, left to its own devices, will go from order to disorder.

It is only due to the fact that the experiment on thermodynamics is the bases for proof of the fact that nothing moves from disorder to order.. oh ya... in a closed system...

There is no system anywhere that moves in any direction other than order to disorder. Even if the sun shines on it.

By the way, I have a degree in Chemistry from Georgia Institute of Technology. I have studied thermodynamics at the college level.

Congratulations.

I have diplomas in Science Laboratory Techniques and Mechanical Engineering.

But you know what..... the pieces of paper we hold, that tell us what information we have stored in our heads....the certificates that prove we answered enough of the questions right... that we regurgitated all the information they read to us and we read ourselves.......

means nothing if it is contradictory to the words of God.


If you cannot take the words and wisdom of men and hold it to the trials of fire by the word of God, if you still believe all the "wisdom" that some other human has told you that was burned by that fire... then the Bible has a name for you.... it is..........Fool.

 

[Speedwell]

If you cannot take the words and wisdom of men and hold it to the trials of fire by the word of God, if you still believe all the "wisdom" that some other human has told you that was burned by that fire... then the Bible has a name for you.... it is..........Fool.

Right now some other human (you) is trying to tell me "wisdom." Why should I believe you? Why should I reject the reasonable findings of science for a reading of scripture which runs against my faith tradition and which I consider to be wrong regardless of what science says?
Look: we are all Christians here; we all believe in God's creation of the universe and man, in man's fall into sin and need for redemption through the life, death and bodily resurrection of Christ as revealed in divinely inspired scripture. You obviously think there is something more to be believed. You are an Evangelical, are you not? Evangelize!

 

[Dale]

So, the fact that we get our energy... all of our energy from the sun and that you now believe that the earth is not a closed system... changes everything? I hardly think so. The energy coming from the sun has absolutely no implication with adding information to DNA...

Oh and theoretically...

the universe is a closed system... we are part of the universe.

Secondly... this has nothing to do with thermodynamics or any law...

In nature, any system, left to its own devices, will go from order to disorder.

It is only due to the fact that the experiment on thermodynamics is the bases for proof of the fact that nothing moves from disorder to order.. oh ya... in a closed system...

There is no system anywhere that moves in any direction other than order to disorder. Even if the sun shines on it.




Congratulations.

I have diplomas in Science Laboratory Techniques and Mechanical Engineering.

But you know what..... the pieces of paper we hold, that tell us what information we have stored in our heads....the certificates that prove we answered enough of the questions right... that we regurgitated all the information they read to us and we read ourselves.......

means nothing if it is contradictory to the words of God.


If you cannot take the words and wisdom of men and hold it to the trials of fire by the word of God, if you still believe all the "wisdom" that some other human has told you that was burned by that fire... then the Bible has a name for you.... it is..........Fool.

I have a book to recommend.


The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1977
Ilya Prigogine
"for his contributions to non-equilibrium thermodynamics, particularly the theory of dissipative structures"

Link:
All Nobel Prizes



Ilya Prigogine wrote a book, Order Out of Chaos, with Isabelle Stenger.

Yes, order has been observed to arise out of disorder, with inputs of energy.

 

[JacksBratt]

Right now some other human (you) is trying to tell me "wisdom." Why should I believe you? Why should I reject the reasonable findings of science for a reading of scripture which runs against my faith tradition and which I consider to be wrong regardless of what science says?
Look: we are all Christians here; we all believe in God's creation of the universe and man, in man's fall into sin and need for redemption through the life, death and bodily resurrection of Christ as revealed in divinely inspired scripture. You obviously think there is something more to be believed. You are an Evangelical, are you not? Evangelize!

If it is "human" wisdom to tell someone exactly what the word of God says.... then don't listen to my advice.

It is not my "wisdom" that I am defending.... it is the plain and simple word of God.

You, on the other hand, are using the observations and teachings of men, outside the word of God, to contradict the simple literal truths of God's word.

 

[Speedwell]

If it is "human" wisdom to tell someone exactly what the word of God says.... then don't listen to my advice.

It is not my "wisdom" that I am defending.... it is the plain and simple word of God.

You, on the other hand, are using the observations and teachings of men, outside the word of God, to contradict the simple literal truths of God's word.

It is your "human" wisdom which tells you that you and your creationist cohort alone know exactly what the word of God says, and how it says it.

 

[JacksBratt]

It is your "human" wisdom which tells you that you and your creationist cohort alone know exactly what the word of God says, and how it says it.

Well, the word of God states that God spoke, and it happened. So I am only stating what the word says.

Others say God spoke and a billion years went by................ so, who's not stating what the word of God says?

 

[Speedwell]

Well, the word of God states that God spoke, and it happened. So I am only stating what the word says.

Others say God spoke and a billion years went by................ so, who's not stating what the word of God says?

...and how He says it.

 

[JacksBratt]

...and how He says it.

......because people were so ignorant back then that they wouldn't have understood it if He had said....

" and multitudes of years went by, there was the next day"............ and multitudes of years went by and the second day"

However... they can be told that "there was evening and there was morning, the first day" and be expected to figure out that a billion years or so must have gone by....

.or... some people in white coats, cannot figure out what they are looking at now and how God did it in six days......most of them atheists who are trying to prove the bible wrong and that God doesn't exist.