How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[Hieronymus]

That's just to make people used to the idea of life outside earth.
Anyone with a mild interest in the matter knows aliens are demons, they have always been here.
At least, since Genesis 3.

What can i say...
If you asume life can arise by accident, yes, then we're probably not alone in the universe.
But can it? Of course not.
It's way, way, way too complex and genius.
It's got 'design' and 'purpose' written all over it.
Dead mindless things create nothing.
Apparently that's too obvious or something...

I mean, let's not underestimate the power of peer pressure, repetition and indoctrination.
But whosover discusses this subject has no excuse to be an atheist (in my ever so humble opinion.)

 

[The Cadet]

It's way, way, way too complex and genius.
It's got 'design' and 'purpose' written all over it.

Complexity is not a hallmark of design. More often, simplicity is. Also, how did you come to this conclusion? Did you have a non-designed object to compare the designed objects to?

Dead mindless things create nothing.

Natural, mindless processes create things like crystals and snowflakes all the time.

 

[Hieronymus]

Complexity is not a hallmark of design. More often, simplicity is. Also, how did you come to this conclusion? Did you have a non-designed object to compare the designed objects to?



Natural, mindless processes create things like crystals and snowflakes all the time.

No, that's the laws of physics, not the material itself.
And compared to living nature, that's really simple stuff.
But then the question arises: Where do the laws of physics and constants come from?

 

[The Cadet]

No, that's the laws of physics, not the material itself.

As said: mindless processes.

And compared to living nature, that's really simple stuff.

So what? The processes that led to modern life have been running for billions of years.

But then the question arises: Where do the laws of physics and constants come from?

Good question! I don't know. Do you?

 

[pat34lee]

By definition, a "good" mutation in the context of the discussion of evolution is one that assists, rather than hinders, the reproduction of descendants. Therefore your statement is in error. If there is no assistance in reproduction, it isn't a "good" mutation.

It doesn't matter after a few generations. It only takes one
mating to remove one mutation, or many for that matter.

 

[pat34lee]

What is 'perfect DNA?'

DNA with no mutations, copy errors or genetic damage or loss.
Something you will never see in nature today.

 

[lasthero]

DNA with no mutations, copy errors or genetic damage or loss.
Something you will never see in nature today.

Or ever.

We have DNA from the oldest humans we've ever found. It's not like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

We have DNA from the oldest humans we've ever found. It's not like that.

From the Genesis saints!?

I highly doubt you have Methuselah's DNA.

He was the oldest.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

DNA with no mutations, copy errors or genetic damage or loss.
Something you will never see in nature today.

Genetic mutations are copying errors.

A common mutation in a key gene in Tibetans allow them to thrive in high altitude. So, you're wrong. We do see them in nature.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jul/02/mutation-gene-tibetans-altitude

 

[Hoghead1]

But complexity is a mark of design, The Cadet. Beauty, for example requires complexity. Who wants to hear a one-note tune? Next, you assume matter is passive, inert, dead. I question that. I believe mind and matter are one reality, not two separate ones. Hence, even atoms have tiny minds. And I certainly don't think that all the atoms that make up my body held a meeting and voted to do this. I think they were all lured to do so by God, like an orchestra following a great conductor.

 

[The Cadet]

But complexity is a mark of design, The Cadet. Beauty, for example requires complexity.

But not all beauty is designed. A sunset does not have a designer. What's more, you can make incredibly beautiful patterns with very simple rules - the Mandelbrot set is a great example of this.

Who wants to hear a one-note tune?

There was an entire musical movement based around trying to make good-sounding music with the least possible notes and themes. Personally, I think it holds up fairly well.

Next, you assume matter is passive, inert, dead.

No, I'm referring explicitly to matter that is passive, inert, and dead. Rocks, snowflakes, etc.

Hence, even atoms have tiny minds.

Citation needed. Seriously, even beyond the problem of demonstrating this, is this even a coherent thought? What is this even supposed to mean?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, but we also don't live 1000 years and have perfect DNA
anymore either.

Our genomes differ from chimps by 40 million mutations. How can this be if mutations are supposedly so harmful?

 

[Loudmouth]

It doesn't matter after a few generations. It only takes one
mating to remove one mutation, or many for that matter.

We are each born with 35 to 50 mutations.

"Here we present, to our knowledge, the first direct comparative analysis of male and female germline mutation rates from the complete genome sequences of two parent-offspring trios. Through extensive validation, we identified 49 and 35 germline de novo mutations (DNMs) in two trio offspring, as well as 1,586 non-germline DNMs arising either somatically or in the cell lines from which the DNA was derived."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html

If those mutations are evenly distributed across pairs of chromosomes, then you will pass on half of those mutations to your children, as will you spouse. Each child receives 35-50 mutations from their parents, and 35-50 of their own.

 

[Astrophile]

I think we need to be careful when making statements against evolution.

John Yates mentioned something in yesterday's video which was interesting: Science is all about cause and effect. I remember learning that years ago: everything has a cause and effect. Which means scientifically, evolution can't exist!

I think you need to be careful here.

What caused you? What caused your parents? What caused your grandparents? What caused your ancestors of 2000 years ago? What caused your ancestors of ten thousand years ago? What caused your ancestors of a million years ago? Of ten million years ago? Of a hundred million years ago?

 

[Astrophile]

If you assume life can arise by accident, yes, then we're probably not alone in the universe.

And if you assume life was created by a God, then we're probably .....?

 

[pat34lee]

Or ever.

We have DNA from the oldest humans we've ever found. It's not like that.

Would they know perfect DNA if they saw it?
Even if early DNA was preserved, who knows what being in the
ground for 4000 to 5000 years did to it?

 

[pat34lee]

Our genomes differ from chimps by 40 million mutations. How can this be if mutations are supposedly so harmful?

You have that worded wrong. We differ in at least 40 million places.
You are assuming that mutations caused the difference and not design.

 

[pat34lee]

We are each born with 35 to 50 mutations.

"Here we present, to our knowledge, the first direct comparative analysis of male and female germline mutation rates from the complete genome sequences of two parent-offspring trios. Through extensive validation, we identified 49 and 35 germline de novo mutations (DNMs) in two trio offspring, as well as 1,586 non-germline DNMs arising either somatically or in the cell lines from which the DNA was derived."
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v43/n7/full/ng.862.html

If those mutations are evenly distributed across pairs of chromosomes, then you will pass on half of those mutations to your children, as will you spouse. Each child receives 35-50 mutations from their parents, and 35-50 of their own.

Most mutations are non-transferable, and those that are, are usually weeded out
within a few generations. Anyhow, there is nothing proving that mutation rates
are stable across the board. Some species or even individuals are more prone to
mutations than others.

 

[pat34lee]

Genetic mutations are copying errors.

A common mutation in a key gene in Tibetans allow them to thrive in high altitude. So, you're wrong. We do see them in nature.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jul/02/mutation-gene-tibetans-altitude

How do we know it is a mutation and not just a variant of the original genes,
like brown hair or red hair in populations having mostly black hair?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

How do we know it is a mutation and not just a variant of the original genes,
like brown hair or red hair in populations having mostly black hair?

Ummmm...there is a gene that determines your hair color. A change in that gene, making a hair color different is a mutation.