Genetic expression within Mendelian limitations prevent evolution

Assyrian · Jan 17, 2012

Kirkwhisper said:
But it goes directly to Mendel's statements which anyone can read for themselves

Quote: "In this generation there reappear, together with the dominant characters, also the recessive ones with their peculiarities fully developed, and this occurs in the definitely expressed average proportion of 3:1, so that among each 4 plants of this generation 3 display the dominant character and one the recessive. This relates without exception to all the characters which were investigated in the experiments. The angular wrinkled form of the seed, the green color of the albumen, the white color of the seed-coats and the flowers, the constriction of the pods, the yellow color of the unripe pod, of the stalk, of the calyx, and of the leaf venation, the umbel-like form of the inflorescence, and the dwarfed stem, all reappear in the numerical proportion given, without any essential alteration. Transitional forms were not observed in any experiment." (emphasis in the original)...followed by this (in the Oxford Journal):

[Hugo de Vries, one of Mendel's "rediscoverers,"

later commented: "The lack of transitional forms between any two simple antagonistic characters in the hybrid is perhaps the best proof that such characters are well delimited units" (de Vries).](from the Oxford Journal of Heredity, p.211).

One can read Mendels paper in its entirety in his own words at:

Mendel's Paper (English - Annotated)

and see that all the quotes I made but one are found there in that particular paper.

Quite frankly, friends, I get weary of telling them the same things over and over again while he and his companions in denial persistently deny the facts - which is one of the big reasons why he has been on ignore. So now he goes back on ignore and he is going to stay that way.

So Mendel showed the existence of dominant and recessive genes with the dominant trait being expressed in average 3 times out of 4. The recessive trait is only expressed in the plant if there are two copies of the recessive gene. The traits are either expressed or not expressed, they do not gradually merge into each other. This is basic (if simplistic) genetics. How is this supposed to be contradicting evolution? Or do you think because he said 'transitional' he must mean transitional fossils rather then the transitional expression of dominant and recessive genetic traits?

Kirkwhisper · Jan 17, 2012

Quote: "I have no idea whether Mendel opposed Darwin's theory or not..."

Do you see how they selectively filter out anything that is against their position...as if by instinct; just like in Orwells novel. Crimestop: the mental habit of stopping short of any idea that is inimical to Big Brother (in this case, neo-Darwinian dogma).

I have posted several times the Oxford Journal of Heredity proving that Mendel was opposed to Darwinian theory and quoted Mendel himself but they each wish to dicker with words...no matter how many times I document what was said. They hit all around the issue but never made a bullseye. That's because they can't.

So why bother with them? You other posters, you're welcome to them. The case is long established by now anyway: they cannot give us the genetic formula for the transformation of man(homo) from the so-called common ancestor. What can so easily be done with the examples I posted on numerous occasions with existing organisms they cannot produce for their view.

I have just one last thing to say on this thread to those who still believe that utter nonsense called evolution:

Gozreht · Jan 17, 2012

Notedstrangeperson said:
Yes they can - it's available to anyone who's interested in reading about it.

So, how did the first organism with life in it actually become life? I would rather not go to the internet to read any of it because who can you trust?

Notedstrangeperson · Jan 17, 2012

Gozreht said:
So, how did the first organism with life in it actually become life? I would rather not go to the internet to read any of it because who can you trust?

Either through abiogenesis (life originating from non-life) or biogenesis (life can only originate from other forms of life).

Both have their pros and cons. For example, not all organic things are alive, but all living things on Earth are organic. It's also possible to create amino acids, which are the building blocks for DNA. That supports abiogenesis.

However, biogenesis has it's point. Viruses are the simplest form of life - and even they are fairly complex. It has it's own DNA, which can infect living cells. With the possible exception of prions, no living thing simplier than a virus has been found.

I can't recall any books off the top of my head, sorry. I know you said you'd rather not read anything on the internet, but you might be interested in in TalkOrigins (link). It's fairly popular among TEs.

And in case you're wondering, evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life.

Assyrian · Jan 18, 2012

Kirkwhisper said:
Quote: "I have no idea whether Mendel opposed Darwin's theory or not..."

Do you see how they selectively filter out anything that is against their position...as if by instinct;

Lets really see this selective filter at work...

just like in Orwells novel. Crimestop: the mental habit of stopping short of any idea that is inimical to Big Brother (in this case, neo-Darwinian dogma).

I have posted several times the Oxford Journal of Heredity proving that Mendel was opposed to Darwinian theory

Lets have a look at you quote from B.E.Bishop,

Kirkwhisper said:
Although the past decade or so has seen a resurgence of interest in Mendel's role in the origin of genetic theory, only one writer, L. A. Callender (1988), has concluded that Mendel was opposed to evolution. Yet careful scrutiny of Mendel's Pisum paper, published in 1866, and of the time and circumstances in which it appeared suggests not only that it is antievolutlonary in content, but also that it was specifically written in contradiction of Darwin's book The Origin of Species, published in 1859, and that Mendel's and Darwin's theories, the two theories which were united in the 1940s to form the modern synthesis, are completely antithetical.

Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin

A resurgence of interest in Mendel, yet Bishop could only find one writer who thought Mendel was opposed to evolution. This is your supposed proof?

What about your quote from Gustav von Niessl a friend of Mendel whom Mendel discussed his work with:

Professor Gustav von Niessl, a staff member of the school where Mendel taught, Mendel thought Darwin's theory was inadequate and "hoped that his own researches would fill this gap in the Darwinian system."

I pointed out to you that your quote meant Mendel saw his work as contributing to a vital part of Darwin's theory of evolution. Which of course, you never addressed. Sounds kind of selective to me.

Then there were your quotes from Mendel, which I took apart in
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608849-24/#post59422982
and showed you from the very same Mendel letter that he believe stable hybrids formed new species and were specially important role in plant evolution. You filtered that out too.

We see another big filter is the way you just quoted sfs.

Quote: "I have no idea whether Mendel opposed Darwin's theory or not..."

And ignore the rest of sfs's post, where he shows you your appeal to these Mendel quotes is completely irrelevant.

sfs said:
I have no idea whether Mendel opposed Darwin's theory or not, and not much interest in the matter either. He certainly should have opposed it when it came to heredity, since Darwin was clearly wrong on the subject. Both Darwin and Mendel were right about some things and wrong about some things. Biology has moved a long way past them in the last hundred-plus years, and we now know vastly more about both heredity and evolution than either did. Evolution isn't a religion: we don't have holy scriptures, and the only authority anyone has comes from being proved right.

Of course you have been told this again and again, that science is not a religion where you can try to prove a point by appealing to sacred proof texts. I told you these Mendel quotes were irrelevant from the beginning. But you just used it as an excuse to ignore what I said.

and quoted Mendel himself but they each wish to dicker with words...no matter how many times I document what was said. They hit all around the issue but never made a bullseye. That's because they can't.

If we never 'hit a bullseye' how come you were never able to answer when we showed you completely misunderstood what Mendel was saying?

So why bother with them? You other posters, you're welcome to them. The case is long established by now anyway: they cannot give us the genetic formula for the transformation of man(homo) from the so-called common ancestor. What can so easily be done with the examples I posted on numerous occasions with existing organisms they cannot produce for their view.

Have you ever explained what you mean by 'genetic formula for a transformation'? From your conversations here, (thinking evolution means cats should turn into bears), you clearly don't understand evolution, so it is hardly surprising you have trouble framing meaningful questions. But if you cannot frame a meaningful question it is hardly proof against evolution that people can't answer.

I have just one last thing to say on this thread to those who still believe that utter nonsense called evolution:

Really kind of you but no thanks. You know candy, strangers..

Kirkwhisper · Jan 18, 2012

Gozreht said:
So, how did the first organism with life in it actually become life? I would rather not go to the internet to read any of it because who can you trust?

There all yours, friend. You're welcome to them. I'll be posting another thread but not necessarily here.

They avoided the issue all the way through this debate. Thanks for the private advice about that trouble-maker.

The Dunning-Kruger effect thing is a laugh. All they had to do to prove this lowly creationist (& I never claimed I was anything else) wrong was to give us that formula which I so easily posted for so many organisms on the genus level...all of which are of course, sterile. But they can't do it. They never will do it.

I wasn't joking about the Orwellian effect. They have all been Orwellianized to NOT see facts that fly in the face of their fairy tale.

For example, there was this:

Um, earth to Kirkwhisper..... The only quote I asked about was that one that you now seem to be admitting isn't in the paper you cited. Just for the fun of it, I ran a search on that whole paper, and it's not in there - but I think you already knew that. Here is that quote again:

Kirkwhisper wrote:

"Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isnt anyone listening?" Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Father of Genetics

I mentioned that there all the quotes I made of Mendel but one were in the paper provided (Mendel, 1866), but that genius, like his comrades, practices selective reading.

Another example of this selective reading:

Although the past decade or so has seen a resurgence of interest in Mendel's role in the origin of genetic theory, only one writer, L. A. Callender (1988),has concluded that Mendel was opposed to evolution.

It's as if his eyes never even fell on what the Oxford Journal and B.E. Bishop said. Perhaps his Orwellianized brain wouldn't let him go there.

I tracked down the original statement to an article by David Coppedge but there were no quotation marks as it pertained to Mendel. But the fact is that Mendel made several clear-cut statements revealing that he didn't believe in Darwins idea of evolution which I have already quoted several times.

Mendel's statement concerning the lack of transitionals...as supported by DeVries about 40 yrs later didn't refer to the fossils and I never said that it did! It refers to the lack of any transitionals BETWEEN observed living offspring that makes the connections that I alluded to above!

And that is precisely what De Vries said: "The lack of transitional forms between any two simple antagonistic characters in the hybrid is perhaps the best proof that such characters are well delimited units"

A hybrid is defined as: the offspring of two animals or plants of different breeds, varieties,species, or genera, especially as produced through human manipulation for specific genetic characteristics.

In other words it is in the hybrids and/or sterile offspring of Mendels organisms that reveal the boundaries on them (deliminted units).

It is this Darwinian drone that failed to understand De Vries...just as he misunderstood what Mendel said. Now either he and his drone comrades lack the mental capacity for grasping what they were talking about or they are indeed true Orwellian victims. I am, however, persuaded of the latter.

How lost are these people? Well, after repeatedly explaining and illustrating what I was talking about; visible genetic evidence for the divergance of man(homo) from the so-called 'common ancestor'(hominini)...repeatedly!...I get this:

Not sure anybody knows what you are asking for.

Good grief. The poor child can't even be led by the hand!

But it's as simple as this: if lions & tigers can so easily cross and if horses & donkeys can so easily cross, and if bacteria can give offspring of so many different varities so easily then why can't that same bacteria give offspring to something that is not bacteria? Why can't felines give offspring to something that is not a feline? Why can't horses give offspring to something that is non-equidae? AND.....why can't man even cross successfully with his closest 'relative'; chimpanzee?

48 chromosomes 46 chromosomes

They can't figure this out but still less can they give the genetic formula for the connection between homo and hominini.

How lost are they? One of them even insists:

...'That supports abiogenesis.'

Gasp! Abiogenesis (life from non-living matter) has never been observed a single time in the history of science. Yet, despite the fact that Biogenesis is all that science has EVER observed in the history of mankind...they cling to the notion of abiogenesis is possible. Pasteur is rolling over in his grave.

Yet the brainwashed one continues, blindly affirming:

Yes they can - it's available to anyone who's interested in reading about it.

Oh? Where? Where is there even a single observed example of a living organism that developed from non-living matter....anywhere on earth or at any time? Sooner will they find the genetic formula for man's tie with the so-called 'common ancestor' then they will observe nature do an act of abiogenesis.

But you know, I think I've got them figured out.............I know what their problem is!

Until we cross paths again. Best wishes.

Notedstrangeperson · Jan 18, 2012

Kirkwhsiper said:
Oh? Where?

Have you literally never read a book or article about evolution or abiogenesis? Because that would explain an awful lot ...

Kirkwhisper said:
Gasp! Abiogenesis (life from non-living matter) has never been observed a single time in the history of science.

That depends on whether you're willing to stretch your definition of "life". Organic compound and amino acids are found in all forms of life - but they are also found in non-life. Organic compounds are found in soil and amino acids have even been found in asteroids.

If you consider organic molecules and aminos acids "life" (since no living thing on Earth can exist without them), then that is biogenesis. If you consider them "non-life" (since they are not actually living things) then that is abiogenesis.

But I suspect these arguments are wasted on you. Incidently I thought you had us all on your ignore list? How come you can still read our posts?

Assyrian · Jan 18, 2012

Kirkwhisper said:
There all yours, friend. You're welcome to them. I'll be posting another thread but not necessarily here.

They avoided the issue all the way through this debate. Thanks for the private advice about that trouble-maker.

The Dunning-Kruger effect thing is a laugh. All they had to do to prove this lowly creationist (& I never claimed I was anything else) wrong was to give us that formula which I so easily posted for so many organisms on the genus level...all of which are of course, sterile. But they can't do it. They never will do it.

I wasn't joking about the Orwellian effect. They have all been Orwellianized to NOT see facts that fly in the face of their fairy tale.

For example, there was this:

Um, earth to Kirkwhisper..... The only quote I asked about was that one that you now seem to be admitting isn't in the paper you cited. Just for the fun of it, I ran a search on that whole paper, and it's not in there - but I think you already knew that. Here is that quote again:

Kirkwhisper wrote:

"Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isn’t anyone listening?" Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Father of Genetics

Click to expand...

I mentioned that there (Mendel, 1866), but that genius, like his comrades, practices selective reading.

All but one of your Mendel quotes were actually by Mendel. Instead trying to hide behind "all the quotes I made of Mendel but one were in the paper provided", why not deal with the fact you attributed that quote to Mendel when it was made up by a creationist? Seems like you cannot even own up to a mistake.

Another example of this selective reading:

Although the past decade or so has seen a resurgence of interest in Mendel's role in the origin of genetic theory, only one writer, L. A. Callender (1988),has concluded that Mendel was opposed to evolution.

Click to expand...

It's as if his eyes never even fell on what the Oxford Journal and B.E. Bishop said. Perhaps his Orwellianized brain wouldn't let him go there.

You realise I was quoting Bishop and the Oxford Journal there?

Why don't you deal with the real issue. You accused sfs of having a selective filter, yet you latch onto Bishop and the one writer he found who agreed with him as 'proof', while you selectively filtering the whole resurgence of scholarly interest in Mendel that disagrees with them.

I tracked down the original statement to an article by David Coppedge but there were no quotation marks as it pertained to Mendel.

You tracked it down to Coppedge. I pointed out to you it wasn't a quote. Of course you ignored all that. Are you now admitting Coppedge is the the one who wrote that quote you attributed to Mendel?

But the fact is that Mendel made several clear-cut statements revealing that he didn't believe in Darwins idea of evolution which I have already quoted several times.

You had the opportunity to support you claims about Mendel when I looked at his paper and showed you what he was actually talking about, how he believed stable hybrids formed new species and played a really important roll in plant evolution. Of course you couldn't answer.

Mendel's statement concerning the lack of transitionals...as supported by DeVries about 40 yrs later didn't refer to the fossils and I never said that it did! It refers to the lack of any transitionals BETWEEN observed living offspring that makes the connections that I alluded to above!

And that is precisely what De Vries said: "The lack of transitional forms between any two simple antagonistic characters in the hybrid is perhaps the best proof that such characters are well delimited units"

A hybrid is defined as: the offspring of two animals or plants of different breeds, varieties,species, or genera, especially as produced through human manipulation for specific genetic characteristics.

In other words it is in the hybrids and/or sterile offspring of Mendels organisms that reveal the boundaries on them (deliminted units).

You see here is the problem. Your claims are so vague when they are not wrong, they are meaningless. You quoted the Mendel paragraph with the lack of transitional forms in bold, as if it were an argument against evolution, but you never said how it was supposed to disprove evolution, leaving us to guess you were suggesting he was denying transitional fossils. But your explanation here is wrong too. The delimited units Mendel was talking about are not species boundaries, but genes which are either expressed or not expressed, the traits of the parents do not blend gradually in the offspring. Of course I explained that in my post, you just selectively filtered it out.

It is this Darwinian drone that failed to understand De Vries...just as he misunderstood what Mendel said. Now either he and his drone comrades lack the mental capacity for grasping what they were talking about or they are indeed true Orwellian victims. I am, however, persuaded of the latter.

Yet I showed you from the Mendel quote he was talking about the expression of dominant and recessive traits, but somehow that got filtered out and you ignored it too.

How lost are these people? Well, after repeatedly explaining and illustrating what I was talking about; visible genetic evidence for the divergance of man(homo) from the so-called 'common ancestor'(hominini)...repeatedly!...I get this:

Sorry you still aren't asking a coherent question.

Good grief. The poor child can't even be led by the hand!

But it's as simple as this: if lions & tigers can so easily cross and if horses & donkeys can so easily cross, and if bacteria can give offspring of so many different varities so easily then why can't that same bacteria give offspring to something that is not bacteria? Why can't felines give offspring to something that is not a feline? Why can't horses give offspring to something that is non-equidae?

Wasn't this explained to you? Evolution never says felines evolve into anything other than felines or horses evolve into anything that isn't equine. Like I said you need to understand evolution before you can frame meaningful question about it. Unfortunately

AND.....why can't man even cross successfully with his closest 'relative'; chimpanzee?

Because we are not close enough a relative.

48 chromosomes 46 chromosomes
They can't figure this out

You mean like:

or

but still less can they give the genetic formula for the connection between homo and hominini.

You still haven't explained what you mean by 'genetic formula for the connection', since it is a meaningless term that only makes sense to you it is hardly surprising nobody else can answer you.

How lost are they? One of them even insists:
Gasp! Abiogenesis (life from non-living matter) has never been observed a single time in the history of science. Yet, despite the fact that Biogenesis is all that science has EVER observed in the history of mankind...they cling to the notion of abiogenesis is possible. Pasteur is rolling over in his grave.

You still claiming Pasteur disagrees with abiogenesis? Remember the quote I showed you?

The universe is an asymmetric whole. I am inclined to think that life, as manifested to us, is a function of the asymmetry of the universe and of the consequences it produces.
Louis Pasteur (1874) OP1, 360-363. Observations sur les forces dissymétriques

Yet the brainwashed one continues, blindly affirming:

Yes they can - it's available to anyone who's interested in reading about it.

Click to expand...

Oh? Where? Where is there even a single observed example of a living organism that developed from non-living matter....anywhere on earth or at any time?

Is that what you asked notedstrangeperson for, or have you switched questions?

Sooner will they find the genetic formula for man's tie with the so-called 'common ancestor' then they will observe nature do an act of abiogenesis.

But you know, I think I've got them figured out.............I know what their problem is!

Until we cross paths again. Best wishes.

Take care Kirk.

Smidlee · Jan 18, 2012

Anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry understanding why abiogenesis doesn't happen. Here is a video of John Walton explaining chemistry when it come to the origin of life.
The fact scientist defends and believes abiogenesis which it goes against all known science should bring doubts on a lot of their claims on evolution as well. Evolutionist wants abiogenesis separate from evolution on one hand while on the other claiming micro-evolution and macro-evolution are the same. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are two completely different things.

Gozreht · Jan 18, 2012

Notedstrangeperson said:
Either through abiogenesis (life originating from non-life) or biogenesis (life can only originate from other forms of life)...Both have their pros and cons. For example, not all organic things are alive, but all living things on Earth are organic. It's also possible to create amino acids, which are the building blocks for DNA. That supports abiogenesis....
However, biogenesis has it's point. Viruses are the simplest form of life - and even they are fairly complex. It has it's own DNA, which can infect living cells. With the possible exception of prions, no living thing simplier than a virus has been found...
I can't recall any books off the top of my head, sorry. I know you said you'd rather not read anything on the internet, but you might be interested in in TalkOrigins (link). It's fairly popular among TEs.

And in case you're wondering, evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life.

I have heard this before and had some discussions. Just wanted to make sure this is what I was going to be talking about with you. So my next question to you is, did God create the non-living things that could create life by itself or did He use these things to create organisms from them? I guess another way of asking is, was God part of this creative process? Did He create and allow the world and laws of nature to take over?

I personally do not think this would be the cases. I think only God would "create" (not make). I am anxious to hear from you.

PS. I do not trust Talk Origins. I have been there way too many times. It's like the evolutionist version of Wikipedia.

florida2 · Jan 19, 2012

Kirkwhisper said:
No one knows how, still less can evolutionists explain how a one-celled organism formed in the first place

Well, neither can you. I believe that the whole process of the Earth's creation and the rise of life was put into motion by God so it was He who created the first life, in my opinion.

Kirkwhisper said:

I's a huge joke and it does not befit intelligent or educated people to believe in it.

Click to expand...

Yet God snapping his fingers and creating the Earth in six days does, despite evidence of an old Earth? Really?

I want to genuinly ask you to stop being so self-righteous and actually have an open mind and realise that there are other opinions besides your own. Discussions on this forum should be civilised and polite - we are Christians after all. Calling people liars and getting on your high horse all the time does you no good at all.

Kirkwhisper · Jan 19, 2012

florida2 said:
Well, neither can you. I believe that the whole process of the Earth's creation and the rise of life was put into motion by God so it was He who created the first life, in my opinion.

Oh, yes, but I can; that is, if God is to be trusted in His Word. Do you trust Him? He said, "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things..."

Do you believe Him?

There was no 'rise to life'. It was all specially created by God and he said so in no uncertain terms.

Yet God snapping his fingers and creating the Earth in six days does, despite evidence of an old Earth? Really?

God did not 'snap his fingers'...and you dear, friend, are not paying attention to details.

"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth...
For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast." Psalm 33: 6, 9.

"Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created." Psalm 148:5

Do you believe these things?

Why would you believe Darwin or the modern neo-Darwinians over God?
Why would you believe their word over God's inspired servant, Moses? Even more, why would you believe them over Jesus?

...despite evidence of an old Earth?"

Jesus said, "Judge not according to the appearrance but judge righteous judgment."

So if (hypothetically) God created Adam instaneously and then allowed you to see him five minutes later then how old would you judge him to be by appearance? 15 yrs old? 20 yrs old? 23? 25? 30? But no matter what age you would judge his age by appearance he would still be only 5 minutes old. Adam had to be created as at least physically as a teenager to be able to care for himself.

So would you call God a liar if He told you that He made him 5 minutes ago? Of course not, not if you were in your right mind.

But that is the crux of your problem: you don't take God at his word preferring to believe the interpretations of theorists who, at best, can only guess as to the age of the earth and their conclusions are in question because their methods are fraught with assumptions. I know. I am an ex-believer in evolution theory.

I want to genuinly ask you to stop being so self-righteous and actually have an open mind and realise that there are other opinions besides your own. Discussions on this forum should be civilised and polite - we are Christians after all. Calling people liars and getting on your high horse all the time does you no good at all.

Stop it. We have had a congenial communication with each other until now and I haven't said an unkind word to you. Don't lower yourself to this. Any rebukes I gave those brick-minded, stubborn individuals who trust in modern evolutionary thought rather than what the Lord plainly told us was well-deserved. They deliberately shut their minds down to the obvious truth in the matter and I made it exceedingly obvious.

I am finished debating on this thread but I thought I would give an answer to you because you were at least courteous and civil as I was to you. What happened to that nice attitude?

P.S. one last thing. Perhaps you wouldn't be so filled with anger at me if you had seen one of your companions in error answer my challenge: give the genetic formula for the divergance of man from the so-called 'common ancestor'.

Like this as one of my many examples of what I asked for in the challenge;

A sterile hybrid...reflecting the limitations God imposed upon nature....'after his kind'.

It should have been just as easy to do as it was for all the organisms I listed in detail above. But not only did they not do it but you didn't do it either.

Assyrian · Jan 20, 2012

You are still not making any sense. You seem to want us to explain in terms of hybridisation how the common ancestor diverged into chimps and humans, when evolution doesn't say we diverged through hybridisation. Of course you aren't getting you question answered.

There was some hybridisation between us and the chimp line after we diverged and were still close enough to interbreed, but the original divergence was not the result of hybridisation. Like I said before you need to have some understanding of evolution before you can ask sensible questions. Otherwise, you can be asking a question that seems great to you, but you won't be able to tell if you are not getting an answer because you have science stumped, or simply because your question is nonsensical.

Notedstrangeperson · Jan 20, 2012

Gozreht said:
So my next question to you is, did God create the non-living things that could create life by itself or did He use these things to create organisms from them? I guess another way of asking is, was God part of this creative process? Did He create and allow the world and laws of nature to take over?

I don't know, I'm not an expert in abiogenesis. Sorry.

Gozreht said:
PS. I do not trust Talk Origins. I have been there way too many times. It's like the evolutionist version of Wikipedia.

I doubt you'll find any place that's completely neural about the evolution vs. creation debate. Obviously evolution sites are pro-evolution and creationist sites are anti-evolution. The ones you really want to avoid are the aggressively atheistic ones that use evolution to try and disprove religion i.e. The God Delusion.

Gozreht · Jan 20, 2012

Notedstrangeperson said:
I don't know, I'm not an expert in abiogenesis. Sorry.

Do you have an opinion though? Did God create matter that can create life on its own?

Let me give you my thoughts. I don't want you to think I am baiting you. I would say no. Now I know that comes as a shock to you but don't faint or anything.

If God created matter that could actually create life or produce life on its own without the hnad of God involved then He is no longer the Creator. He would be only a creator. And if all He did was allow nature to run its course then we are talking deism. Because if we believe He intervenes for us then He is going against not only some laws of nature but as Locke and Rousseau would have believed also laws of natural man. So to say He started a process such as evolution that "picks" part of nature to evolve goes against biblical teachings.

Another idea that came to me I guess I could put here. If God rested on the 7th day and is done with creating, then that means no more creating is done. No new species. So if you look at it literally then creation is done. If you look at it symbolically it still means no more new species as in no new evolutionary process. It would be done. But evolutionists say we are still changing.

The ones you really want to avoid are the aggressively atheistic ones that use evolution to try and disprove religion i.e. The God Delusion.

Those are the loudest ones and the ones Christians hear. Many will not make any distinction between the two.

Gozreht · Jan 29, 2012

Before any assumptions go on, I don't care if I "win" or "lose" the discussion. But I asked some questions and raised some issues here that were not addressed. Are we done with this topic? If we are that's cool. But I would like to hear your thoughts on what I said. (I am writing a post on my blog about this subject and I want more info).

Assyrian · Jan 29, 2012

What specific questions are you referring to Gozreht? The previous post or ones further back?

Gozreht · Jan 29, 2012

The questions and issues I addressed to Notedstrangeperson in post #75. It's not imperative she answers. She and I were having a good conversation. It's just that no one had responded in 9 days so I was seeing if had this run its course or not.

Notedstrangeperson · Jan 29, 2012

Gozreht said:
The questions and issues I addressed to Notedstrangeperson in post #75. It's not imperative she answers. She and I were having a good conversation. It's just that no one had responded in 9 days so I was seeing if had this run its course or not.

Sorry Gozreht, I forgot about your post:

Gozreht said:
If God created matter that could actually create life or produce life on its own without the hnad of God involved then He is no longer the Creator. He would be only a creator. And if all He did was allow nature to run its course then we are talking deism. Because if we believe He intervenes for us then He is going against not only some laws of nature but as Locke and Rousseau would have believed also laws of natural man. So to say He started a process such as evolution that "picks" part of nature to evolve goes against biblical teachings.

I disagree with two points you made. The first is that God will always be the creator simply because there are no other creators. The second (and this is more difficult to argue against) is that we simply don't know if this is what we're supposed to look like this.

Did God deliberately make all life on Earth carbon-based? Does that mean he "picked" a part of nature to evolve and just left the rest? What if we discovered aliens and they were scilicon-based? What would that prove?

I don't know, I can't answer this.
Yeah, lousy answer.

Gozreht said:
Another idea that came to me I guess I could put here. If God rested on the 7th day and is done with creating, then that means no more creating is done. No new species. So if you look at it literally then creation is done. If you look at it symbolically it still means no more new species as in no new evolutionary process. It would be done. But evolutionists say we are still changing.

Some evolutionist have claimed that we have "stopped evolving" but I don't think this is the case: we can't stop evolving. So long as our species to reproduce, we'll continue to evolve.

There's a book The 10,000 Year Explosion which argues that civilisation has drastically changed the way our species evolved. Interestingly, while the Bible has little to say about life before man, it has striking paralles with the begining of human civilisation. The timelines are just about right and it lists all the earliest known empires, all of which were in the Middle East.

Gozreht · Jan 29, 2012

Notedstrangeperson said:
I disagree with two points you made. The first is that God will always be the creator simply because there are no other creators. The second (and this is more difficult to argue against) is that we simply don't know if this is what we're supposed to look like this.

Did God deliberately make all life on Earth carbon-based? Does that mean he "picked" a part of nature to evolve and just left the rest? What if we discovered aliens and they were scilicon-based? What would that prove?

I don't know, I can't answer this.
Yeah, lousy answer.

Not a lousy answer. It is the first honest answer I have read. You actually gave an aswer from your own heart and mind instead of quoting science mumbo jumbo that can only be proven by actual eye witnesses, of which there is none. I appreciate this answer and will not comment on it since it is.

Some evolutionist have claimed that we have "stopped evolving" but I don't think this is the case: we can't stop evolving. So long as our species to reproduce, we'll continue to evolve.

There's a book The 10,000 Year Explosion which argues that civilisation has drastically changed the way our species evolved. Interestingly, while the Bible has little to say about life before man, it has striking paralles with the begining of human civilisation. The timelines are just about right and it lists all the earliest known empires, all of which were in the Middle East.

Does evolution equal species getting better or just changing? I will try and find more on the book. Thank you.

Genetic expression within Mendelian limitations prevent evolution

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency