Help a (creationist) brother out?

[tas8831]

A few weeks ago, a creationist claimed:

"God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."​

I asked for evidence for this claim, no response. I provided a link for a genome database search tool to help this creationist find the evidence he apparently thought existed, to no avail.

Can any creationist provide what your creationist brother was incapable of doing?

Or shall we chalk this u to lame 'winessing'?

 

[Occams Barber]

A few weeks ago, a creationist claimed:

"God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."​

I asked for evidence for this claim, no response. I provided a link for a genome database search tool to help this creationist find the evidence he apparently thought existed, to no avail.

Can any creationist provide what your creationist brother was incapable of doing?

Or shall we chalk this u to lame 'winessing'?

Interesting.

I wonder if your Creationist friend has considered why many animals fail to adapt - i.e. go extinct.

Did God fail to cover all contingencies?

OB

 

[Rachel20]

Is this an example of what you're looking for? Cave fish losing their eyes not because of genetic mutations, but pre-existing genetic switches that were turned off by environmental conditions (epigenetics) ?

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...lost-eyes-by-unexpected-evolutionary-process/

 

[Occams Barber]

Is this an example of what you're looking for? Cave fish losing their eyes not because of genetic mutations, but pre-existing genetic switches that were turned off by environmental conditions (epigenetics) ?

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...lost-eyes-by-unexpected-evolutionary-process/

If you read all of the article you'll see that there is a view that this epigenetic change is in turn caused by genetic change.

From your linked article:

“This is a most interesting paper,” says evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma of Stony Brook University in New York. But he doesn’t think it poses any challenge to standard evolutionary theory as the epigenetic change is itself most likely a result of a genetic change.

Gore’s team shows that the silencing of the eye genes is due to the increased activity of a specific gene involved in methylation, Futuyma points out. So the question then is, what is making this gene more active?

“I think it likely that there has been an alteration in DNA sequence of that gene,” he says.

“You cannot completely rule out genetic mutations,” says Eva Jablonka of Tel Aviv University, Israel, who thinks evolution can occur via epigenetic changes and that we need a new evolutionary synthesis. “Maybe there was genetic variation that contributed to the eye loss.”

OB​

 

[Rachel20]

If you read all of the article you'll see that there is a view that this epigenetic change is in turn caused by genetic change.

Yes, it's still debateable. But saying it's likely from a prior genetic change without evidence is kinda like Dawkins answer to panspermia - any life that seeded life would still itself have evolved. You can always say this, but it's not really an answer that can be proven/disproven (yet).

 

[Rachel20]

I wonder if your Creationist friend has considered why many animals fail to adapt - i.e. go extinct.

Did God fail to cover all contingencies?

Maybe it went exactly as planned. We now have a vast reserve of fossil fuels without having to deal with Godzilla over Tokyo issues

 

[Occams Barber]

Maybe it went exactly as planned. We now have a vast reserve of fossil fuels without having to deal with Godzilla over Tokyo issues

There's no link between extinction and fossil fuels unless we're talking about the possible extinction of the human race (and other lifeforms) through fossil fuel pollution.

OB

 

[ViaCrucis]

Maybe it went exactly as planned. We now have a vast reserve of fossil fuels without having to deal with Godzilla over Tokyo issues

I don't think it's God's will that we poison our water and air, raise global temperatures, and all around make the planet a less hospitable place for us--especially the poorest and most vulnerable of us.

Also, fossil fuels are generally derived from dead plants that have over the course of millions of years turned into carbon. Not dinosaurs.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Rachel20]

I don't think it's God's will that we poison our water and air, raise global temperatures, and all around make the planet a less hospitable place for us--especially the poorest and most vulnerable of us.

Neither do I. But linking these things to dinosaur distinction (which you obviously understood I was referencing) makes no sense at all.

 

[Occams Barber]

Neither do I. But linking these things to dinosaur distinction (which you obviously understood I was referencing) makes no sense at all.

According to the OP:

A few weeks ago, a creationist claimed:

"God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."

My response in Post #2 was:

I wonder if your Creationist friend has considered why many animals fail to adapt - i.e. go extinct.

Did God fail to cover all contingencies?

Since most animal species go extinct as a result of failing to adapt God has obviously failed to provide the genetic information which allowed them to adapt.

Consequently the Creationist claim, in the OP, makes no sense.

OB

 

[Bradskii]

A few weeks ago, a creationist claimed:

"God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."​

​

Sounds like whatsisname. You know, that theory. Charles somebody or other developed it. I forget the name. Evo something...

 

[partinobodycular]

I don't think it's God's will that we poison our water and air, raise global temperatures, and all around make the planet a less hospitable place for us--especially the poorest and most vulnerable of us.

Boy you quickly run into a real sticky wicket if you try to differentiate between what's God's will and what isn't. I've seen theistic fur fly when faced with the reality that everything, good and bad, must be God's will.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Boy you quickly run into a real sticky wicket if you try to differentiate between what's God's will and what isn't. I've seen theistic fur fly when faced with the reality that everything, good and bad, must be God's will.

I'm generally not the sort that engages in divining the secret will of God. The Lutheran tradition emphasizes against engaging in idle speculation about what can't be known. But on this particular issue I am confident, as a Christian, based on the historic teaching and tradition of the Christian Church, and the historic understanding of Scripture to make this comment in the context of Christianity.

It's not an argument I'd be making to convince a non-Christian about the importance of ecological and environmental issues; but in the narrower context of Christian-to-Christian, it is meaningful because there's substantially important theology at stake. The historic Christian faith maintains faith in the innate goodness of the material universe, and that ultimately salvation is about the renewal and restoration of the whole of creation. As opposed to souls floating up into some place called heaven for all eternity, a position entirely foreign from the Historic Creeds and Confessions of basically every denomination of Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm generally not the sort that engages in divining the secret will of God. The Lutheran tradition emphasizes against engaging in idle speculation about what can't be known. But on this particular issue I am confident, as a Christian, based on the historic teaching and tradition of the Christian Church, and the historic understanding of Scripture to make this comment in the context of Christianity.

It's not an argument I'd be making to convince a non-Christian about the importance of ecological and environmental issues; but in the narrower context of Christian-to-Christian, it is meaningful because there's substantially important theology at stake. The historic Christian faith maintains faith in the innate goodness of the material universe, and that ultimately salvation is about the renewal and restoration of the whole of creation. As opposed to souls floating up into some place called heaven for all eternity, a position entirely foreign from the Historic Creeds and Confessions of basically every denomination of Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

As a non-Christian I think the will of God thing gets interpreted with a measure of hypocrisy by certain Christians.

• If a plane crashes and a toddler is the only survivor of 200 passengers, it's a 'miracle' performed by God. The other 199 deaths seem to be conveniently ignored.
• Similarly a Christian doing good can be seen to be inspired by God while a Christian doing something bad is, of course, acting out of his/her God-granted free will.
• God gives people free will yet still interferes with the course of things occasionally - typically as a result of prayer.

There's a strong element of "Heads I win. Tails you lose".

OB

 

[inquiring mind]

As a non-Christian I think the will of God thing gets interpreted with a measure of hypocrisy by certain Christians.

• If a plane crashes and a toddler is the only survivor of 200 passengers, it's a 'miracle' performed by God. The other 199 deaths seem to be conveniently ignored.
• Similarly a Christian doing good can be seen to be inspired by God while a Christian doing something bad is, of course, acting out of his/her God-granted free will.
• God gives people free will yet still interferes with the course of things occasionally - typically as a result of prayer.

There's a strong element of "Heads I win. Tails you lose".

OB

I think most Christians understand that we do not know the ‘how’ or ‘why’ of God’s work. We are given ‘hope’ through His word and our faith, and that hope for a better place usually leans toward prayer, and thanks for positive occurrences and miracles. I suppose the gift of hope makes most want to give Him credit for the good because of the understanding of the love he showed us by sending his son to die for our salvation. There may very well be some Christian hypocrisy where negatives of this world are involved, but for most it’s simply that there is no understanding on our part for why they take place.

 

[driewerf]

As a non-Christian I think the will of God thing gets interpreted with a measure of hypocrisy by certain Christians.

• If a plane crashes and a toddler is the only survivor of 200 passengers, it's a 'miracle' performed by God. The other 199 deaths seem to be conveniently ignored.
• Similarly a Christian doing good can be seen to be inspired by God while a Christian doing something bad is, of course, acting out of his/her God-granted free will.
• God gives people free will yet still interferes with the course of things occasionally - typically as a result of prayer.

There's a strong element of "Heads I win. Tails you lose".

OB

A few others:

• Everything is part of God's Plan, but praying causes God to intervene. So can God forget about hi magnificient Plan? Or was the healing of the desperate cancer patient part of the Plan and was praying useless?
• Is me sinning part of God's Plan - in which case I don't deserve to be punished in Hell, or is God's Plan so shabby that it didn't take me in account sinning?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As a non-Christian I think the will of God thing gets interpreted with a measure of hypocrisy by certain Christians.

• If a plane crashes and a toddler is the only survivor of 200 passengers, it's a 'miracle' performed by God. The other 199 deaths seem to be conveniently ignored.
• Similarly a Christian doing good can be seen to be inspired by God while a Christian doing something bad is, of course, acting out of his/her God-granted free will.
• God gives people free will yet still interferes with the course of things occasionally - typically as a result of prayer.

There's a strong element of "Heads I win. Tails you lose".

It's a good point, but, to be fair, I don't think it's explicit hypocrisy, more a case of unconscious bias (selection bias, confirmation bias, etc).

It takes an objective viewpoint to see that the net result is exactly what one would expect from a world where supernatural entities do not interfere and miracles are just statistically rare (unlikely) events.

 

[Thera]

A few weeks ago, a creationist claimed:

"God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."​

I asked for evidence for this claim, no response. I provided a link for a genome database search tool to help this creationist find the evidence he apparently thought existed, to no avail.

Can any creationist provide what your creationist brother was incapable of doing?

Or shall we chalk this u to lame 'winessing'?

It's just a theory, same as Charles Darwin's theory. This one makes more sense, though, as it better explains the reasons for extinction and the observed limits of speciation.

 

[inquiring mind]

Everything is part of God's Plan, but praying causes God to intervene.

Why is it that non-believers think everything happens naturally, but think praying for help is not natural for those who recognize and accept God’s love for us (sending His son to suffer and die for our sins) despite our sinning condition (that we even recognize, and you even admit)? Through faith we believe we are helped eternally, so again it’s only natural to ask for His help in the ‘here and now.’ As for the answers, most Christians understand that we do not know the ‘how’ or ‘why’ of God’s work.

So can God forget about hi magnificient Plan?

The magnificent plan that is revealed to us from Genesis to Revelation… is through recognition of our sin, confessing them, asking for forgiveness, and accepting Jesus and his role here as the path to salvation.

Or was the healing of the desperate cancer patient part of the Plan and was praying useless?

Some things man will never figure out… the nature of God’s work is one of them.

Is me sinning part of God's Plan - in which case I don't deserve to be punished in Hell, or is God's Plan so shabby that it didn't take me in account sinning?

Deserve has nothing to do with it, His word plainly tells us that we are all born into sin because of Adam (not blaming him, just the way it is). Not recognizing and accepting God’s plan of salvation in your heart is what we’ll be held accountable for.

 

[Ophiolite]

It's just a theory, same as Charles Darwin's theory. This one makes more sense, though, as it better explains the reasons for extinction and the observed limits of speciation.

You realise, I hope, that the phrase "just a theory" brands you as someone ignorant of biology in general and evolutionary theory in particular. Consequently, your posts are likely to be ignored, treated with indifference, or simply laughed at. I doubt you were aiming for that - so you might want to avoid the phrase in future, or at least learn why it is so foolish.