Evolution and Genesis account of creation

[NobleMouse]

actually we do have a sort of spectrometer that points to all life having a common ancestry. But we usually call it genetics!

PRATT - points refuted a thousand times. Another PRATT for you -the common creationist claim that evolution has been discarded or refuted by the scientific community. And still another- That macroevolution doesn’t happen

You do NOT have a "sort of" spectrometer (good use of words though, already moving away from absolute/concrete/definitive to waffling/loose/iffy terms) as DNA does not exist in the fossils and [again] does not conclude evolution. Using DNA as a claim for evolution is just a repetition of the presupposition that evolution is true. This is the false dilemma that if there are similarities in DNA among living life forms, then they must be evolutionarily related. This omits the possibility that God [logically] used the digital coding in DNA in similar ways to produce similar structures with similar functions for a similar purpose in different life forms on days 5 and 6 of creation. In fact, I'd be less apt to believe God exists if the DNA was completely different/random in life as that really would suggest an unintelligent and unguided process. It makes just as much sense that God created similar life forms with similar DNA on days 5 and 6 of creation.

The longer you continue to evade questions about what you do and don't believe about God's word, the more dubious you appear. I'll give you another opportunity: Do you believe God caused Moses' staff to turn into a serpent, then back into a staff, or do you believe Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead?

If cannot even give a simple testimony of what you do and don't believe about God's word, you will continue to appear more as a faithless Christian that doesn't know what they believe, and less as a faith-filled Christian that is confident in the word of God.

This question is open to any and every one who insists evolution over billions of years is the truth. I'm just trying to see what you do/don't believe as far as what is stated in the Bible and where/why you draw lines of what you do/don't believe from God's word. It's really simple: you're in Christian Forums, there's not a "secret Saul" around the corner looking to have you stoned to death for believing.

 

[NobleMouse]

You have misunderstood what I am saying.

Do you believe God turned Moses' staff into a serpent then back into a staff, or that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? Where do you draw the line of what you'll believe and what you won't from God's word?[/QUOTE]Your questions appear absurd. Would you care to get real?[/QUOTE]
Having trouble answering the question? It's simple: do you believe, or not?

 

[KWCrazy]

One question we must ask ourselves is whether all impossible things are equally impossible. Impossible things are totally contradicted by natural law; they cannot happen without violating natural law. If impossible=impossible, then how can one accept that a man died and was resurrected but not accept that God could create the world in the manner He described? If one accepts that God created the world, why would they presume He lied about how He did it? If God reigns supreme then natural law bows to His command and acceptance of creation is the only logical choice. If one rejects the supremacy of God and holds His word subservient to the machinations of a world controlled by natural forces alone, then that person could embrace evolution. They who believe in both evolution and God's word have a firm understanding of neither. They are exclusive, and we must make a choice; God's word or evolution.

 

[miamited]

Do you believe God turned Moses' staff into a serpent then back into a staff, or that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? Where do you draw the line of what you'll believe and what you won't from God's word?

Your questions appear absurd. Would you care to get real?[/QUOTE]
Having trouble answering the question? It's simple: do you believe, or not?[/QUOTE]

Hi misput,

I must agree with NM here. Why do you think that asking whether the account of an event written in the Scriptures is absurd?

The Scriptures account for us that there was a time that the 12 sons of Israel moved to Egypt where they were, within a few dozen years or so, mistreated rather badly by the Egyptians. After some 400 years of living under the thumb of the Egyptians God called Moses from a burning bush. (believe/don't believe?) He sent Moses and his brother Aaron to approach Pharaoh of Egypt requesting that the Israelites be set free. To show that he was speaking for the most high God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, God directed him to throw his staff down before Pharaoh and it became a serpent. When Moses picked up the staff, it immediately changed from a slithering serpent to a wooden staff again. (Believe/don't believe?) God then sent a number of pretty much just as miraculous plagues against Egypt. (Believe/don't believe?)

I think it also a reasonable question for someone who claims that science trumps God's word, to ask whether or not Lazarus was raised to life after being, according to the Scriptures, 3 days dead in his tomb. I mean, as far as any science will prove to you, that's just as impossible as God creating this realm in which we live in 6 days. I'd challenge you to show me any way that someone else has done such a thing or that science can answer how Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead any more than science can tell you how God created this realm in 6 days. The scientific method cannot prove either of those events. Did Jesus raise Lazarus from the tomb alive after being physically dead for 3 days?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Brightmoon]

DNA exists in living organisms and and we do have DNA for some extinct ones . So the gaps in the fossil record are filled in with genetics . Scientists realized that reality back in the 1990s when we got the answer that the ancestors of whales were related to deer . We laughed at such an odd answer until we started to find more protowhale fossils which confirmed it. Genetics filled in every gap except the one involving turtles by the early 2000s . There are no more gaps in the fossil record . We just get more and more details filled in. Evolution along with old earth and the Big Bang has won and modern day creationists are in the same position as those isolated Japanese soldiers that they found still fighting WW2 40years after the war was long over and long lost . Give it up . Creationism just makes you look ignorant and/or delusional and silly ! You just don’t like what scientists say about the universe so you call us all atheists when we’re not. I actually have some respect for my atheist scientist and atheist teacher coworkers because I know that they are at least telling me the truth about natural phenomena

 

[Brightmoon]

Failed [again] to answer a few basic questions about the Bible.

Scientism is (per Wikipedia): "an ideology that promotes science as the purportedly objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values." In less polysyllabic terms: that it is the unbiased and ultimate way to truth... and I will say it seems you hold the views of science in higher regard from our interactions thus far - especially given you have so little to say regarding the Bible and your views about the statements it makes... such as whether you believe God changed Moses' staff into a serpent and then back into a staff, or whether you believe Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead.

You only get that impression because I’m so disgusted by creationists lies and distortions by this point that I almost lost my faith. I had to decide not to throw out the baby with the bath water. I guess I’ll take the truth about natural phenomena AND keep my faith . Just so there’s no mistake , the truth about natural phenomena includes the Big Bang, the old earth , the old universe and evolution/ common descent

 

[misput]

Do you believe God turned Moses' staff into a serpent then back into a staff, or that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? Where do you draw the line of what you'll believe and what you won't from God's word?
Having trouble answering the question? It's simple: do you believe, or not?

At first glance your questions seem absurd because the obvious answer by any christian is yes. I will not guess what your next question will be. even though I think I know.

Would you agree the story of Jesus and Lazarus was a visual but figurative illustration/example/event of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and the same for any man who follows Him? This event probably took place over the period of a few hours or minutes but do you see how it actually represented the years of Jesus or a mans life? Do you see any correlation between this event and the creation event? Do you think the time involved in the two events is critical to our salvation? Do you think Genesis 3:15 is a prophesy of Christ? Do you think there was a literal talking snake? Do you believe there was a literal tree of life? Do you understand what the flaming sword was? Do you know what the mark of Cain was?

 

[JackRT]

The men you believe do.

What makes you think they are lying about evolution? I have seen Christians tell lies about evolution right here on CF. Well, maybe they were mistaken or misinformed. If that were the case they wouldn't be liars, just uneducated.

 

[Brightmoon]

I’ve long since figured out that being told a lie which you then repeat doesn’t make you the liar . You just might be gullible though. Creationists who write those misleading articles and pretend that scientific terminology can be changed to mean what they want it to mean - they’re lying and they’ve been lying for decades

 

[NobleMouse]

You only get that impression because I’m so disgusted by creationists lies and distortions by this point that I almost lost my faith. I had to decide not to throw out the baby with the bath water. I guess I’ll take the truth about natural phenomena AND keep my faith . Just so there’s no mistake , the truth about natural phenomena includes the Big Bang, the old earth , the old universe and evolution/ common descent

I think it is fairly clear where you stand now, but please do still feel free to respond so I'm not left having to infer (though your silence on the miracles of the Bible speaks pretty loudly). You said you'll take the truth about natural phenomena AND keep your faith, but I cannot see what you faith is in (you've not demonstrated you have faith in anything miraculous as stated in the Bible).

I could be wrong, but so far you are coming across as the "me too" Christian, the one who says in their heart they will continue to believe the things they have always previously believe in even if it contradicts the truth of God's word, but also like the idea of being saved from their sins. Just so there's no mistake, I don't believe this is necessarily a case where your salvation is at stake because salvation comes by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. But I just wonder what it is that you DO believe about Him given that He is the central figure throughout the Bible... all things are made through Him, and He is the word made flesh. He is the one who performed miracles attesting to who He claimed to be and it seems evident to me that He is not restricted to operating within the limitations of what we call natural law.

 

[NobleMouse]

At first glance your questions seem absurd because the obvious answer by any christian is yes. I will not guess what your next question will be. even though I think I know.

I'm not interested in "any christian's" answer, I'm interested in your personal belief. Do you believe?

Would you agree the story of Jesus and Lazarus was a visual but figurative illustration/example/event of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and the same for any man who follows Him? This event probably took place over the period of a few hours or minutes but do you see how it actually represented the years of Jesus or a mans life? Do you see any correlation between this event and the creation event? Do you think the time involved in the two events is critical to our salvation? Do you think Genesis 3:15 is a prophesy of Christ? Do you think there was a literal talking snake? Do you believe there was a literal tree of life? Do you understand what the flaming sword was? Do you know what the mark of Cain was?

I would not agree that the story of Jesus and Lazarus was figurative, it was literal/physical/real:

John 11:45-48 ESV (this is after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead)

"Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

Who told you this was figurative - their exegesis of the text was completely wrong. Clearly this was narrative and there were numerous witnesses and the Pharisees were apparently distressed at this event that had just taken place.

As I told Brightmoon, I don't believe this is necessarily a case where your salvation is at stake because salvation comes by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. But I just wonder what it is that you DO believe about Him given that He is the central figure throughout the Bible... all things are made through Him, and He is the word made flesh. He is the one who performed miracles attesting to who He claimed to be and it seems evident to me that He is not restricted to operating within the limitations of what we call natural law.

If you can't believe these miracles, it is of no surprise you don't believe any of the others and why you hold science in higher regard than you do God's word.

Also, yes I believe Genesis 3:15 is referring to Jesus Christ, but that the bible refers to a "serpent" (not explicitly a snake, though the connotation is often made), and that serpent did speak to and deceive Eve. I also believe the tree of life was an actual tree just as there will be a tree in the new Jerusalem. The details of the flaming sword are not given other than it flashed back and forth, guarding the way to the tree of life. I conclude it too was real as nobody is afraid of a symbol or a metaphor, but would be afraid of an actual flaming sword. Lastly, the mark of Cain is not clarified by scripture as to what this means - it could have been a literal "mark" (like a birthmark), or a sign or perhaps a token - something others would have been able to recognize or be shown so that they would know if they did something to harm Cain, God would bring it back upon them seven-fold.

Having faith isn't having all the answers (otherwise it would not be faith). Belief in evolution requires more faith than believing God created life as He said. Let's take a brief tour of a logical fallacy. If I say/demonstrate cause [a] didn't result in evidence [x]; therefore, cause must be true, I have committed a logical fallacy (because I have not considered the possibilities of causes , [c], [d], etc...).

This; however, IS NOT the case for creation. I can say natural unguided processes do not result in the evolution of complex life, and sure enough no experiment to date has caused life to arise from non-life (abiogenesis) and never has it been demonstrated where a single-celled organism could be evolved into, say a bird (evolution) - it is only by speculation/conjecture that evolution is inferred. Now if I stop there and say creation must be true, then I've committed a logical fallacy. So, I'll go on. From the Bible, we know there were many many eye witnesses attesting to the miracles being performed by the word of God made flesh (Jesus). So we don't just have a refuting of evolution by the lack of being able to demonstrate it, but there is also positive affirmation attesting to the reality and power of miracles... there is a KNOWN cause that could have done what the Bible says about creation - that cause is the word of God, that cause is Jesus.

 

[The Barbarian]

You do NOT have a "sort of" spectrometer

It's quite a good one. Common descent was first inadvertently shown by Linnaeus, who had no idea why all living things on Earth fit neatly into a family tree. Later on, Darwin realized why. And much later, genetics confirmed this by analyzing the DNA of living things. And we know it works, because we can "calibrate" it by looking at DNA of organisms of known descent.

as DNA does not exist in the fossils and [again] does not conclude evolution.

It does, however, exist in various groups of organisms, which tells us this is true. It's been confirmed by the discovery of heme and collagen in dinosaurs, which turns out to be more like that of birds than of other reptiles. Which is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts.

Using DNA as a claim for evolution is just a repetition of the presupposition that evolution is true.

You have it backwards. DNA is a test for the prediction of common descent. As you learned, that's been confirmed.

This is the false dilemma that if there are similarities in DNA among living life forms, then they must be evolutionarily related.

Perhaps you don't know what "dilemma" means. We know from testing living organisms that DNA is a measure of common descent. The prediction was that given the evidence from Darwin and Linnaeus, ostriches and eagles should be more closely related than eagles to bats, and that humans and birds should be more closely related than birds and fish. These predictions have been confirmed. This is why almost all scientists accept the fact of evolution.

This omits the possibility that God [logically] used the digital coding in DNA in similar ways to produce similar structures with similar functions for a similar purpose in different life forms on days 5 and 6 of creation.

If that were true, then whales and sharks would have very similar DNA and pigeons and bats would have very similar DNA. So your conjecture fails.

Do you believe God caused Moses' staff to turn into a serpent, then back into a staff, or do you believe Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead?

If one accepts the fact of miracles, that is not license to imagine up a miracle for every flaw in your argument.

Why not just leave it up to God and accept that evolution is one of ways He creates things in this world?

 

[misput]

I'm not interested in "any christian's" answer, I'm interested in your personal belief. Do you believe?


I would not agree that the story of Jesus and Lazarus was figurative, it was literal/physical/real:

John 11:45-48 ESV (this is after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead)

"Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

Who told you this was figurative - their exegesis of the text was completely wrong. Clearly this was narrative and there were numerous witnesses and the Pharisees were apparently distressed at this event that had just taken place.

As I told Brightmoon, I don't believe this is necessarily a case where your salvation is at stake because salvation comes by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. But I just wonder what it is that you DO believe about Him given that He is the central figure throughout the Bible... all things are made through Him, and He is the word made flesh. He is the one who performed miracles attesting to who He claimed to be and it seems evident to me that He is not restricted to operating within the limitations of what we call natural law.

If you can't believe these miracles, it is of no surprise you don't believe any of the others and why you hold science in higher regard than you do God's word.

Also, yes I believe Genesis 3:15 is referring to Jesus Christ, but that the bible refers to a "serpent" (not explicitly a snake, though the connotation is often made), and that serpent did speak to and deceive Eve. I also believe the tree of life was an actual tree just as there will be a tree in the new Jerusalem. The details of the flaming sword are not given other than it flashed back and forth, guarding the way to the tree of life. I conclude it too was real as nobody is afraid of a symbol or a metaphor, but would be afraid of an actual flaming sword. Lastly, the mark of Cain is not clarified by scripture as to what this means - it could have been a literal "mark" (like a birthmark), or a sign or perhaps a token - something others would have been able to recognize or be shown so that they would know if they did something to harm Cain, God would bring it back upon them seven-fold.

Having faith isn't having all the answers (otherwise it would not be faith). Belief in evolution requires more faith than believing God created life as He said. Let's take a brief tour of a logical fallacy. If I say/demonstrate cause [a] didn't result in evidence [x]; therefore, cause must be true, I have committed a logical fallacy (because I have not considered the possibilities of causes , [c], [d], etc...).

This; however, IS NOT the case for creation. I can say natural unguided processes do not result in the evolution of complex life, and sure enough no experiment to date has caused life to arise from non-life (abiogenesis) and never has it been demonstrated where a single-celled organism could be evolved into, say a bird (evolution) - it is only by speculation/conjecture that evolution is inferred. Now if I stop there and say creation must be true, then I've committed a logical fallacy. So, I'll go on. From the Bible, we know there were many many eye witnesses attesting to the miracles being performed by the word of God made flesh (Jesus). So we don't just have a refuting of evolution by the lack of being able to demonstrate it, but there is also positive affirmation attesting to the reality and power of miracles... there is a KNOWN cause that could have done what the Bible says about creation - that cause is the word of God, that cause is Jesus.

Wow!!! You have almost totally misunderstood my post! I will explain later. Meanwhile would you want to take another crack at it?

 

[miamited]

Hi barbarian,

Let me shout out loud and clear for everyone, I am, by no means, particularly schooled in DNA science.

However, you write:

It's quite a good one. Common descent was first inadvertently shown by Linnaeus, who had no idea why all living things on Earth fit neatly into a family tree. Later on, Darwin realized why. And much later, genetics confirmed this by analyzing the DNA of living things. And we know it works, because we can "calibrate" it by looking at DNA of organisms of known descent.

What is it exactly that is shown in DNA that 'proves' that all creatures have a common ancestor? Is it commonality in various DNA strands? Is it that we have unearthed DNA strands in say, a squirrel, that have little post it notes attached that say, "I was in a monkey 2 million years ago"? Just what exactly is it that scientists have found within DNA strands that confirms without question that this particular strand can absolutely be proven to have evolved out of some other creature in some age past? I'm also curious as to what is meant by 'calibrate', as applies to DNA sampling? How exactly do you 'calibrate' DNA samples to 'prove' that a particular DNA came from some other animal form in ages past?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[The Barbarian]

What is it exactly that is shown in DNA that 'proves' that all creatures have a common ancestor? Is it commonality in various DNA strands?

The earliest tests were "DNA hybridization." It's a very rough indicator, in which one puts strands of different DNA together and sees how well they match up. I think the first major study was by Smith and Margolias. (Barbarian checks)

The DNA of one organism is labeled, then mixed with the unlabeled DNA to be compared against. The mixture is incubated to allow DNA strands to dissociate and then cooled to form renewed hybrid double-stranded DNA. Hybridized sequences with a high degree of similarity will bind more firmly, and require more energy to separate them: i.e. they separate when heated at a higher temperature than dissimilar sequences, a process known as "DNA melting".

To assess the melting profile of the hybridized DNA, the double-stranded DNA is bound to a column and the mixture is heated in small steps. At each step, the column is washed; sequences that melt become single-stranded and wash off the column. The temperatures at which labeled DNA comes off the column reflects the amount of similarity between sequences (and the self-hybridization sample serves as a control). These results are combined to determine the degree of genetic similarity between organisms.
DNA–DNA hybridization - Wikipedia

More accurate determinations are possible by genome sequencing, which is more costly and involved, but rapidly become less expensive.

Is it that we have unearthed DNA strands in say, a squirrel, that have little post it notes attached that say, "I was in a monkey 2 million years ago"?

Not quite. It works kinda like paternity tests, "23 and Me." If we take several creatures, and look at the degree of similarity in DNA for each of them, it gives us a "phylogeny" a sort of family tree showing which ones had common ancestors more recently than others. The phylogeny for Hominidae

The degree of match gives us an estimate of the times for each branching.

Just what exactly is it that scientists have found within DNA strands that confirms without question that this particular strand can absolutely be proven to have evolved out of some other creature in some age past?

In science, nothing is absolutely proven. So when they say "this guy is the father", they mean that the odds of being wrong are so tiny as to be negligible. So that's where we are with DNA phylogenies. The fact that this is reinforced by evidence from anatomy, embryology, evolutionary development, biochemistry, fossil records, and so on, gives us even more confidence.

I'm also curious as to what is meant by 'calibrate', as applies to DNA sampling?

By checking DNA from organisms of known descent, we can determine how it changes over time as populations diverge. It's just a way to make sure the data actually means common descent.

How exactly do you 'calibrate' DNA samples to 'prove' that a particular DNA came from some other animal form in ages past?

We look at how far the DNA has changed. It's a measure of time since that branching.

 

[NobleMouse]

Hi barbarian,

Let me shout out loud and clear for everyone, I am, by no means, particularly schooled in DNA science.

However, you write:


What is it exactly that is shown in DNA that 'proves' that all creatures have a common ancestor? Is it commonality in various DNA strands? Is it that we have unearthed DNA strands in say, a squirrel, that have little post it notes attached that say, "I was in a monkey 2 million years ago"? Just what exactly is it that scientists have found within DNA strands that confirms without question that this particular strand can absolutely be proven to have evolved out of some other creature in some age past? I'm also curious as to what is meant by 'calibrate', as applies to DNA sampling? How exactly do you 'calibrate' DNA samples to 'prove' that a particular DNA came from some other animal form in ages past?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Thanks for your input within this thread MT!

I've generally found that evolutionary principles are built upon logical fallacies. For example, looking at the following syllogism:

If evolution is true, then we'd expect to find similarities in the DNA of all organisms.
Similarities are found in the DNA of all organisms.
Therefore, evolution is true.

The logical fallacy committed here is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. In its simplistic form this fallacy follows as:

If [p] then [q]
[q]
therefore [p]

The IF statement asserts that if premise p then conclusion q occurs, so if we see q, then p is true. The above statement in blue is relatively subtle, so below is a more obvious example:

If it's raining outside, the car will be wet
The car is wet
Therefore, it must be raining

This argument is invalid because the initial IF statement assumes that the premise is the only cause by which the conclusion can follow. The car could also be wet because the sprinkler is on, or kids are running around with squirt guns, or the car is simply being washed.

Similarly, as far as DNA similarities goes, another possibility is that God just used similar DNA as the code for creating similar structures with similar function for a similar purpose and He could have done this all on days 5 and 6 of creation. This would not be illogical or irrational as when people create computer programs of similar function and purpose, the underlying code is also similar even though one program did not necessarily "evolve" into the other.

Thanks again and have a Merry Christmas!

 

[The Barbarian]

I've generally found that evolutionary principles are built upon logical fallacies. For example, looking at the following syllogism:

If evolution is true, then we'd expect to find similarities in the DNA of all organisms.

Similarities are found in the DNA of all organisms.
Therefore, evolution is true.

No. That's a mistake. The way science works is to make predictions based on hypotheses and then test them. If the predictions are repeatedly confirmed, then the hypothesis is a settled theory.

For example, "if birds evolved from dinosaurs, then there should be transition forms of dinosaurs with feathers."

The prediction was confirmed.

Another is "if common descent is a fact, then DNA analyses should show the same family tree of living things first noticed by Linnaeus.'

The prediction was confirmed.

And so on. Since we now know that DNA similarities show common descent (because we can check it on organisms of known descent) the DNA evidence unequivocally shows common descent of all known life on Earth.

Similarly, as far as DNA similarities goes, another possibility is that God just used similar DNA as the code for creating similar structures with similar function for a similar purpose and He could have done this all on days 5 and 6 of creation.

If this were true, whales and sharks would have similar DNA, and pigeons and bats would have similar DNA. But they don't.

So that belief is demonstrably false.

 

[miamited]

Hi NM,

I pray that you also enjoy a day of reflection on the gift that God has given us by the birth of His Son, also.

You responded: Similarly, as far as DNA similarities goes, another possibility is that God just used similar DNA as the code for creating similar structures with similar function for a similar purpose and He could have done this all on days 5 and 6 of creation. This would not be illogical or irrational as when people create computer programs of similar function and purpose, the underlying code is also similar even though one program did not necessarily "evolve" into the other.

Yes, that has long been my understanding also. Just as people will say that because man has a tail bone, then this 'proves' that he at one time had a tail. That's purely a logical fallacy or, in it's more simple explanation, not true.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi barbarian,

You wrote:

For example, "if birds evolved from dinosaurs, then there should be transition forms of dinosaurs with feathers."

Of course, it couldn't be that there were some dinosaurs with feathers. I'd even be skeptical in even 'knowing that we know' that some creature we have found evidence of several thousand years ago could even be proven to be a 'transitional' form. Why can't it be a slightly different form that we just don't have existing with us today. There are, I believe, a number of creatures that existed upon the earth that we don't have with us today. Is there really some way that we can prove that one of them is a transitional form of two other creatures and completely rule out the possibility that the supposed 'transitional' creature was just a different creature that lived in that day. The oceans are choc-a-bloc full of fish forms for which many are merely a tail fin different than another.

How exactly does DNA science 'prove' one account or the other?

I realize your post wasn't directed to me, but, I believe it's a valid question.

You then wrote:

If this were true, whales and sharks would have similar DNA, and pigeons and bats would have similar DNA. But they don't.

Why do you believe that to be a true statement? Why would pigeons and bats have similar DNA? Perhaps God doesn't separate the various species as man does. Why would whales and sharks have similar DNA? Whales are mammals as man separates creatures. Sharks are not. If they are fairly separate creatures in their basic make up, perhaps they wouldn't have similar DNA. What I'm asking is how you know that you know that whales and sharks should have similar DNA if one proposes the theory that NM has proposed. Are you God? Did you create all the creatures of the world? If not, then how do you know how God would have, should have, could have created all the animal world? How do you know that DNA strands should be similar in this creature but not in that one?

All you can do is look at commonality and then make the bold claim, "Ah-ha!!!!! This must prove something!!!!!!" But the truth is that other than the link of commonality, it doesn't really prove squat about the previous generations of a creature. I believe that it's very possible that God, in creating creatures and creating DNA to copy creatures as they reproduced, that a lot of similar creatures should be expected to have some commonality in DNA coding. But, I don't know if that means that the creature phylum, as man has scientifically separated it, is similarly separated by God. God may have a whole other basis on which He defines 'species' or 'kinds'.

I mean, as I understand DNA, it contains the building block codes for pretty much every cell in a creature. So, a creature that has some sort of pliable skin, may, in that area of pliable skin have fairly similar DNA coding, but likely not exactly the same. A creature that has fingernails and claws should have some DNA coding that causes some cells to be built as fingernails and claws. Both of these are similar in creatures, but not exactly the same. So there may well be some commonality that makes these cells to be the way they are, but not exactly like another creatures. I would imagine that when we get down to the very basic building blocks, similar animals will have a lot of commonality. However, the shark gets its oxygen from filtering water through its gills. The whale gets its oxygen by actually breathing much like a human does. I would expect that there is quite a bit of difference between a shark and a whale on the DNA level. Just because two creatures swim around in the ocean doesn't make them fully common one to another any more than a snake, who lives and breathes on dry land is like a man, who also lives and breathes on dry land.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Tayla]

To me if evolution is fact then Adam evolved and there was no garden of eden

Yes. This is why Christians must reject evolution, as well as the pseudo-science that supports it.