Evolution is very obvious that is not true at all

[fragmentsofdreams]

Yes but partial wings (such as on the flying squirral) could happen quite feasibly. Over time, animals with partial wings could develop stronger muscles, making gliding easier or longer lasting, eventually developing into flight.

Don't forget the spoiler effect. A proto-bird using isn't wings as spoilers could run faster than otherwise possible.

 

[Gracchus]

Don't forget the spoiler effect. A proto-bird using isn't wings as spoilers could run faster than otherwise possible.

And young chukkars, using their wings as spoilers can actually run up slopes beyond vertical (~100 deg.) and glide away. Flapping wings would extend the gliding range.

 

[Magnus Vile]

I apologize for beating a dead horse, but I want to make sure I fully understand your wife's point of view so that there are no misunderstandings. How long does your wife believe each day of creation was? If she doesn't believe God created everything in six 24-hour days, then how long was each day? Does she believe God put some DNA in a single-celled organism, then made it evolve over time? I know you didn't state that each day lasted millions of years, but what other alternative would there be besides each day lasting for only 24 hours?

She doesn't believe the six day account at all. At least not as a scientific explaination for the universe. I've asked her and as far as she is concerned the account is a story told by the people who wrote it as a way of explaining their place in the world. As far as she is concerned god created the universe instantly with the big bang. He set up a universe to accomplish his purpose, (whatever that may be, I have no idea, and she says there is no way a human can understand it either. Gods apparantly a lot smarter than us. ). All the development since then is according to rules he set up at the start. 15 billion years of development leads to us (and every other intelligent species that may arise), and for god thats no time at all. He isn't in any real hurry to get it right. Or perhaps he is rushing things. but its on his time scale, not ours.

So, no days at all. Just an instant of creation, followed by a lot of care and attention. Like growing a tree, I suppose.

 

[lucaspa]

I would like an explanation from somoeone who is a Christian on how "evolution" and God could possibly co-exist. The ideologies are opposites, and evolution devalues the power of God.

What ideologies? Evolution isn't atheism! And how does evolution "devalue" the power of God? Is God any less powerful by using the process of evolution rather than zapping each species into existence in an instant?

See the second quote in my signature. That's how God and evolution co-exist.

"The scientific evidence in favour of evolution, as a theory is infinitely more Christian than the theory of 'special creation'. For it implies the immanence of God in nature, and the omnipresence of His creative power. Those who oppose the doctrine of evolution in defence of a 'continued intervention' of God, seem to have failed to notice that a theory of occasional intervention implies as its correlative a theory of ordinary absence." AL Moore, Science and Faith, 1889, pg 184.

"The one absolutely impossible conception of God, in the present day, is that which represents him as an occasional visitor. Science has pushed the deist's God further and further away, and at the moment when it seemed as if He would be thrust out all together, Darwinism appeared, and, under the disguise of a foe, did the work of a friend. ... Either God is everywhere present in nature, or He is nowhere." AL Moore, Lex Mundi, 12th edition, 1891, pg 73.

"The last few years have witnessed the gradual acceptance by Christians of the great scientific generalisation of our age, which is briefly if somewhat vaguely described as the Theory of Evolution. ... It is an advance in our theological thinking; a definite increase of insight; a fresher and fuller appreciation of those 'many ways' in which 'God fulfills Himself'. JR Ilingsworth, Lex Mundi, 12th edition,

"Creation is continuous --it is a creatio continua. The ongoing cosmic processes of evolution are God himself being creator in his own universe. If I had to represent on a blackboard the relation of God and the world, including man, I would not simply draw three spheres labelled respectively 'nature', 'man', and 'God' and draw arrows between them to represent their interrelation. Rather, I would denote an area representing nature and place that entirely within another area representing God, ... When I came to depict man, I would have to place him with his feet firmly in nature but with his sef-consciousness (perhaps represented by his brain?) protruding beyond the boundary of nature and into the area depicting God." A Peacocke, Biological evolution and Christian Theology in Darwinism and Divinity, 1985, pg 124.

 

[lucaspa]

If you study the Bible (a book that all Christians trust in), you will clearly see that the earth was created in six normal, 24-hour days. This alone makes it impossible for evolution to have occured. I apologize for alienating all of the non-Christians in this forum for a moment, but I think you will get over it.

But if you look at Genesis 2:4b, a literal reading of the Bible also states that creation took place in one day. This is only one of many contradictions between a literal reading of the 2 creation stories. Genesis 1 is one creation story and Genesis 2-3 is a completely separate creation story. So the text tells you that your literal reading is wrong.

Also, remember that God has two books. The Bible and Creation. Since God created, we can also trust Creation. You apparently only trust one and end up denying that God created. Not good.

 

[lucaspa]

If she doesn't believe God created everything in six 24-hour days, then how long was each day? Does she believe God put some DNA in a single-celled organism, then made it evolve over time? I know you didn't state that each day lasted millions of years, but what other alternative would there be besides each day lasting for only 24 hours?

The alternative is try to stop forcing Genesis 1 to be science and historically accurate! Instead of forcing your opinion on Genesis, put yourself in the position of the people of the time and try to understand what Genesis 1 was saying to them!

And it wasn't talking science. It was talking theology. Genesis 1 was written about 500 BC, shortly after or toward the end of the Babylonian Captivity. This was a traumatic event for Israel, because it indicated that the Babylonian gods were stronger than Yahweh. Remember, the power of the god was tied to the fortune of the country and believers, and the Hebrews had had their military butt kicked by the Babylonians. So there was strong pressure on them to abandon Judaism and worship the Babylonian gods.

Genesis 1 is meant to stop that. It is meant to show that the Babylonian gods do not exist because the physical objects that are the gods were created by Yahweh. So Genesis 1 takes the gods mentioned in the Enuma Elish and has them be created objects of Yahweh. Wonder why so much attention is paid to the "separation of the waters"? Doesn't make sense in science. But the first two Babylonian gods are Apsu and Tiamet and they are saltwater and sweetwater. When God separates the water, He is making saltwater and sweetwater, and thus Apsu and Tiament can't exist.

You mentioned that plants are created before the sun. That is because Marduk is the god of agricultural plants. He is the chief god but, more importantly here, he is the older brother of the sun goddess. So Genesis 1 destroys Marduk first by having Yahweh create herbs and fruiting plants (the ones in agriculture) and then destroys the younger sister by having Yahweh create the sun.

Genesis 1 makes sense, but only if you are willing to listen to God and stop trying to impose your will on Him.

 

[Jet Black]

Also, unless you believe in the "hopeful monster" theory, even Gould’s punctuated equilibrium requires small changes in successive generations. A small wing would be a hindrance, not a help, and would be eliminated by natural selection. Evolution cannot say, "this will be helpful later so keep it." The ideas that small wings could be useful for catching insects is pretty far fetched and coming up with uses for intermediate characteristics really runs out of credibility pretty quickly when you have to account for the plethora of life with all its variations.

would it? then if a small wing is such a hinderance, why are there fossils with them? We can follow the theropod lineage such that we see the change from slightly feathery/downy dinosaurs, right through dino/birds with primitive wings and intermediate feather types through to the slightly wierd dino/birds with feathers on their front and back legs, through to dino/birds with mostly avian features through to modern birds. If all of these intermediate forms are as bad as you suggest, then why did they even exist?

 

[lucaspa]

You are not identical to your parents. Adding the differences of many generations can produce large differences.

Everyone agrees with that but it does not mean that the change taking place is going to make fish into amphibians or dinosaurs into birds, much less bacteria into biologists.

Why not? As the changes accumulate, they will do exactly that.

For that you need NEW INFORMATION. You need lungs instead of gills to live on land. You need wings and guidance systems in order to fly. It is either naïve or downright deceptive to say as some evolutionists do, "ability to fly gave the protobirds a selective advantage."

Selection among possibilities is how you get an increase in information. Well, since more individuals are born (possibilities) than survive and reproduce (actuality), selection does generate new information.

Modification of structures gives "new" structures. For instance, lungs are modified swim bladders. Wings are modified forelimbs.

One of the demonstrated ways to get new structures is called "exaptation". That is, a structure evolves for one function and then is also good for another! Insect wings are a good example. They are modified gills. First they were modified as heat exchangers. With the high density of blood vessels, what was used to exchange oxygen with water is also useful for exchanging heat with air. The larger the modified gills are and the flatter they are, the better they are at being heat exchangers. People have done the studies and it turns out that heat exchangers at the optimum size to exchange heat are also at the minimum size to get the insect off the ground. So suddenly you have a new function for the heat exchangers. They are now wings. Not very good ones, but functional. So now incremental improvements can be made to make them very good wings.

Also, unless you believe in the "hopeful monster" theory, even Gould’s punctuated equilibrium requires small changes in successive generations.

Punctuated equilibria is standard Darwinism.

A small wing would be a hindrance, not a help, and would be eliminated by natural selection.

Not when the wing is a good heat exchanger! Or when the forelimb is also a very good limb for grasping prey.

Evolution cannot say, "this will be helpful later so keep it." The ideas that small wings could be useful for catching insects is pretty far fetched and coming up with uses for intermediate characteristics really runs out of credibility pretty quickly when you have to account for the plethora of life with all its variations.

The idea that feathered forelimbs would act as traps for insects was indeed far fetched -- and wrong. But that theory was falsified long ago.

Instead, as people pointed out, feathered forelimbs that could be pumped up and down during running (which helps balance; try running next time while holding your arms still) allows the animal to run up steep slopes after prey. Thus the prey can't get away and the feathered forelimbs are useful. Not as wings, but for catching prey (lizards, small mammals, small dinos) and chasing that prey up slopes. However, just at the point where the feathered forelimbs are most effective at running up slopes is also the point where they start to lift the animal off the ground! Voila! Instant wings. Exaptation.

 

[jb-creation]

In response to Nathan Poe's response of my explanation of the varying approaches to the Genesis account of creation, I was more or less directing this at the Christians in this thread, not the athiests. You never really gave a good reason for the basis on which one should decide what is to be read literally and what is to be read allegorically, especially since it reads in the same literary style as history. As to the 6,000 years never being mentioned in the Bible, it is a simple matter of the addition of the chronologies given to us (and, even if some individuals are missing from the chronological accounts as postulated by old-earth creationists, this does not alter the lengths of the time intervals themselves between individuals).

Now for some attention paid to various assertions of lucaspa:

Genesis 1:1, judging from textual evidence, is not meant to be a summary of the following verses, but instead is first in chronological order, thus being a part of the first day of the creation week. It seems quite likely that this entailed the creation of all space and all matter. Thus, the day of Genesis 2:4b could be a reference to the first day of the creation week. On the other hand, beyom can also be a Hebrew idiomatic expression essentially meaning "when."

As to the Bible and the creation being equal sources of revelation (the "double-revelation theory"), remember that, first of all, the whole of creation is cursed. Also, the general revelation of creation and the special revelation of the Bible are not necessarily equal in clarity. Yes, the Bible and the creation should indeed agree. Why is it always assumed that it is the Bible we misunderstand and not the creation?

As to Genesis 1 having been written around the time of the Babylonian captivity, there is no evidence for this. On the contrary, indications are that it is far older than that. To be noted, the six days of creation were referenced in Exodus, which was written by Moses at the time of the exodus (unless you actually accept the now-defunct documentary hypothesis, which is backed by not a shred of evidence and contrary to several statements in the Gospels, such as in Luke 24:27, John 5:46-47, etc.)

Also noteworthy with the creation "accounts" is that in Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus quotes from both Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 in the same context. If He did not consider the accounts to be contradictory, why should any Christian do so?

 

[Nathan Poe]

In response to Nathan Poe's response of my explanation of the varying approaches to the Genesis account of creation, I was more or less directing this at the Christians in this thread, not the athiests. You never really gave a good reason for the basis on which one should decide what is to be read literally and what is to be read allegorically, especially since it reads in the same literary style as history.

Then you have read some mighty odd history books.

If anything, Genesis 1 reads as poetry not history. Notice the constant repetition in the lines. These verse were meant to be sung, and still are in synagogues around the world.

As to the 6,000 years never being mentioned in the Bible, it is a simple matter of the addition of the chronologies given to us (and, even if some individuals are missing from the chronological accounts as postulated by old-earth creationists, this does not alter the lengths of the time intervals themselves between individuals).

All of which was done by Bishop James Ussher, who calculated the creation at 4004 B.C.
That you consider his calculations to be correct is your business.
That you consider them to be as infallible as the Bible is cause for some concern.

 

[jb-creation]

Genesis 1 has numerous earmarks of historical style. We have a clear indication of chronological order and an outstanding number of references to lengths of time. It has a verbal structure that one could expect from narrative history. I do invite you to submit a Hebrew passage or two and show the poetic style, though.

How is it a difficult and risky business to add a series of numbers? The number of years here (by the way, if the early chapters of Genesis were to be interpreted as pure allegory teaching solely theological truth, as a number here seem to be maintaining, what theological point to these numbers teach if they are not to be considered historical?) can be added fairly clearly by anyone with a piece of paper and a writing implement. Furthermore, a number of Bishop Ussher's contemporaries got similar ages. It is quite simple, you see. You take the differences between the births of the patriarchs, all the way down to Abraham (or one of his descendants in the next couple generations), and add them up. Now, we get these numbers right out of the Bible, OK? We aren't snatching them out of thin air here. It is true that there are a couple of discrepancies between a few different manuscripts, such as the difference between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. They aren't big differences, so using one or the other won't produce an exceedingly large discrepancy in the final answer. The next step is using the best of our historical data to approximate how long ago Abraham lived. Archaeology and historical records are very useful here. So, we take the one number (time between Adam's creation on day 6 and Abraham's birth [or Issac's, Jacob's, or Joseph's, whichever you choose to use here]) and add it to the other number (the time between the life of Abraham [or whichever of his descendants you chose to use] and now). Given the numbers, an elementary school student could probably do this pretty easily. Now, Bishop Ussher went a bit overboard when he tried to assign month, day, and hour to creation. This does not alter the validity of an approximation somewhere in the vicinity of Bishop Ussher's value.

 

[septembers_crash]

Yes but partial wings (such as on the flying squirral) could happen quite feasibly. Over time, animals with partial wings could develop stronger muscles, making gliding easier or longer lasting, eventually developing into flight.

Don't forget the spoiler effect. A proto-bird using isn't wings as spoilers could run faster than otherwise possible.

And young chukkars, using their wings as spoilers can actually run up slopes beyond vertical (~100 deg.) and glide away. Flapping wings would extend the gliding range.

Modification of structures gives "new" structures. For instance, lungs are modified swim bladders. Wings are modified forelimbs.

One of the demonstrated ways to get new structures is called "exaptation". That is, a structure evolves for one function and then is also good for another! Insect wings are a good example. They are modified gills. First they were modified as heat exchangers. With the high density of blood vessels, what was used to exchange oxygen with water is also useful for exchanging heat with air. The larger the modified gills are and the flatter they are, the better they are at being heat exchangers. People have done the studies and it turns out that heat exchangers at the optimum size to exchange heat are also at the minimum size to get the insect off the ground. So suddenly you have a new function for the heat exchangers. They are now wings. Not very good ones, but functional. So now incremental improvements can be made to make them very good wings...Instead, as people pointed out, feathered forelimbs that could be pumped up and down during running (which helps balance; try running next time while holding your arms still) allows the animal to run up steep slopes after prey. Thus the prey can't get away and the feathered forelimbs are useful. Not as wings, but for catching prey (lizards, small mammals, small dinos) and chasing that prey up slopes. However, just at the point where the feathered forelimbs are most effective at running up slopes is also the point where they start to lift the animal off the ground! Voila! Instant wings. Exaptation.

And this all happened in a non-intellegent way? By random mutations?

In order to better something, you have to have intellegent intervention. Any time you make inprovements to something, whether it be a house, your trees, or a Boeing 747, you make a conscious effort to improve it. It doesn't improve on its own. A 747 left in a field will not get better, but worse. A backyard will deteriorate without maintainance. Weeds will grow aroung your trees without your intervention. The tree loses nutrients to other plants that way. Natural order goes from order to disorder, functionality to non-functionality. All organisms gradually decay as they grow older. Animals of prey feed on older animals. Why? The older animals can't run as fast, can't fight as well. Even in humans this is apparent. My great grandfather has dementia. Do we see ANY improvement in the natural order of things? I don't see any.

You must have intellegent intervention to improve something. Either we can say that there is an intelligent designer who created all of what we see, or we can say that it all happened by random mutations.

God is omnipotent according to Christians, so (assuming creation for a moment) the probability of everything turning out right 1:1.

Evolution happens through random mutations (mutations making new organs, limbs etc. which allows them to have an edge on all other similar creatures). Assuming Evolution for a moment, the chances are EXTREMELY slim. According to Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D-

Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros"

Even one protein evolving is 1:10^75.


Looking at that, I find creation FAR easier to believe.

 

[Arikay]

Um, no. In order to better something you need an ability to add new information (mutations) and a way to organize it (Natural selection). You seem to be missing natural selection in your understanding of evolution.
These things happen to be non intelligent.

And this all happened in a non-intellegent way? By random mutations?
In order to better something, you have to have intellegent intervention. Any time you make inprovements to something, whether it be a house, your trees, or a Boeing 747, you make a conscious effort to improve it. It doesn't improve on its own. A 747 left in a field will not get better, but worse. A backyard will deteriorate without maintainance. Weeds will grow aroung your trees without your intervention. The tree loses nutrients to other plants that way. Natural order goes from order to disorder, functionality to non-functionality. All organisms gradually decay as they grow older. Animals of prey feed on older animals. Why? The older animals can't run as fast, can't fight as well. Even in humans this is apparent. My great grandfather has dementia. Do we see ANY improvement in the natural order of things? I don't see any.

 

[Tomk80]

And this all happened in a non-intellegent way? By random mutations?

Random mutations combined with natural selection. Noone here is claiming that these things came about by random mutations only. Natural selection is the process which gives the process direction.

 

[septembers_crash]

Random mutations combined with natural selection. Noone here is claiming that these things came about by random mutations only. Natural selection is the process which gives the process direction.

It all starts with mutations though. If no mutations were present, everything would be on the same playing field. Mutations must come before any organism can have any advantage over other organisms

 

[septembers_crash]

Um, no. In order to better something you need an ability to add new information (mutations) and a way to organize it (Natural selection). You seem to be missing natural selection in your understanding of evolution.
These things happen to be non intelligent.

First, for clarification, I understand natural selection as:
An organism is better equipped for their environment, and as a result, its descendents continue, while another organism's line, which is less equipped to live in that same given environment, tends to die out.

Second, Mutations don't ADD new information. They modify or delete information. DNA is either rearranged or deleted, but new DNA doesn't suddenly appear from somewhere and create something "new."

Thirdly, The first object used (747) was inanimate and was used as illustration. The second set of objects (trees, weeds) were animate objects for the same purpose.

 

[Arikay]

Mutations also add imformation as per insertion mutations. A good example is the ol nylon bug,
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Your illustrations were faulty because they are not good examples but strawmen.

First, for clarification, I understand natural selection as:
An organism is better equipped for their environment, and as a result, its descendents continue, while another organism's line, which is less equipped to live in that same given environment, tends to die out.

Second, Mutations don't ADD new information. They modify or delete information. DNA is either rearranged or deleted, but new DNA doesn't suddenly appear from somewhere and create something "new."

Thirdly, The first object used (747) was inanimate and was used as illustration. The second set of objects (trees, weeds) were animate objects for the same purpose.

 

[septembers_crash]

Mutations also add imformation as per insertion mutations. A good example is the ol nylon bug,
Your illustrations were faulty because they are not good examples but strawmen.

I've seen the article before. However, that new DNA still came from somewhere. It wasn't brand new DNA. It's not like it wasn't there before. The basic information was still there.

Can you explain how my arguments were strawmen?

 

[Tomk80]

First, for clarification, I understand natural selection as:
An organism is better equipped for their environment, and as a result, its descendents continue, while another organism's line, which is less equipped to live in that same given environment, tends to die out.

Looks to me like you've got this one down.

Second, Mutations don't ADD new information. They modify or delete information. DNA is either rearranged or deleted, but new DNA doesn't suddenly appear from somewhere and create something "new."

First, information is a pretty sketchy term, especially when talking about mutations. However, mutations can add 'information'. For the theory, see this thread.
For some examples of mutations creating new genes see this thread and this thread.
</FONT></FONT>

Thirdly, The first object used (747) was inanimate and was used as illustration. The second set of objects (trees, weeds) were animate objects for the same purpose.

And they're both strawmen.

 

[Tomk80]

I've seen the article before. However, that new DNA still came from somewhere. It wasn't brand new DNA. It's not like it wasn't there before. The basic information was still there.

But new information was created. That's what you were after wasn't it?

Can you explain how my arguments were strawmen?

Possible beneficial effects of mutation are not illustrated and selecting effects like natural selection are not illustrated.