How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So simple and so WRONG. You think that DNA can tell the difference between
good or bad mutations? It can't. It can tell original from changed. You are just
as likely to remove the few to none beneficial mutations as the 99.99% of bad
mutations.

DNA doesn't tell the difference between good and bad mutations. You're absolutely right about that. LIFE tells the difference between good and bad mutations. Creatures with bad mutations SUFFER. That suffering hinders them from getting more kids. This tends to reduce the amount of DNA with that bad mutation in the FOLLOWING GENERATIONS.

The opposite for good mutations.


Of course, some mutations are just neutral and don't really matter that they happened . . . they don't make a difference after being there.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If God is a liar and you can't trust everything he had written about himself,
why would you accept him as God? He would be an imposter of the true God.

God's writing is found in creation itself, and creation doesn't lie.

This is why I don't believe in the god of the Mormons, the Muslims or other
religions. I do believe in the God of the bible, and everything he inspired the
authors to write in it.

Do you believe those authors had free will?

 

[pat34lee]

So which is it? Is it impossible to remove the function of DNA through mutations or is there some magical force field that prevents deleterious mutations from happening in these regions?

Most mutations are never seen because the individual cells either repair
the DNA or the cell self-destructs.

 

[pat34lee]

We're not talking about corruptions, we're talking about mutations. That can either be beneficial, neutral or non-beneficial for the species eventually.

That is like saying we're proofreading books. Mutations, or misspellings can be beneficial,
neutral or damaging. There is no good mistake.

 

[pat34lee]

God's writing is found in creation itself, and creation doesn't lie.
Do you believe those authors had free will?

Yes. That is why we have such garbage as the gnostic gospels.

Satan is able to get writers inspired too.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Most mutations are never seen because the individual cells either repair
the DNA or the cell self-destructs.

Citation for this? Sounds like something you made up off the top of your head.

That is like saying we're proofreading books. Mutations, or misspellings can be beneficial,
neutral or damaging. There is no good mistake.

No. We're looking at the genome of a living system. Books are not alive.
Your comparison is inconsistent

Yes. That is why we have such garbage as the gnostic gospels.

Satan is able to get writers inspired too.

If God's message is so important, why would he allow his enemy to inspire people to write something that isn't true? Shouldn't he have the power to stop this?
It sounds like a mistake a human would make not a God.[/QUOTE]

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes. That is why we have such garbage as the gnostic gospels.

Satan is able to get writers inspired too.

So, as long as you're dismissing anything you don't agree with as inspired by Satan, let me ask this:

Why do you believe that the creation account is literal truth, and not a story on the same level as, say, Jesus' parables?

 

[Reasoning]

That is like saying we're proofreading books. Mutations, or misspellings can be beneficial,
neutral or damaging. There is no good mistake.

No, that's not like proofreading books at all, you are making a faulty comparison. A mistake needs a purpose or goal (you need to know what's right to make a mistake after all), and evolution has no purpose or goal. It is only afterward that we can say if mutations have been beneficial or not. I have given examples numerous times about how this works, please look those up, read them, and you'll understand (as will anyone).

 

[Hoghead1]

Another interesting question here is this: How do you objectively determine which gospels are the true ones? The Gnostics or ours? It is one thing to say such-and-such is s of the Devil, it is quite another to demonstrate that.

 

[The Cadet]

That is like saying we're proofreading books. Mutations, or misspellings can be beneficial,
neutral or damaging. There is no good mistake.

Well in that case, the analogy is flawed, because a "mistake" in our gene code can be greatly beneficial. Case in point: there is a man with two fully functional penises. This is clearly a very rare genetic mutation, a "mistake", if you will, but I guarantee that it is beneficial for reproduction, because the line of women who want to get a piece of that starts at his apartment and ends somewhere past the border.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Case in point: there is a man with two fully functional penises. This is clearly a very rare genetic mutation, a "mistake", if you will, but I guarantee that it is beneficial for reproduction, because the line of women who want to get a piece of that starts at his apartment and ends somewhere past the border.

The AMA that guy did on reddit was one of the most bizarre and interesting 'ask me anything' I have ever read.

 

[The Cadet]

The AMA that guy did on reddit was one of the most bizarre and interesting 'ask me anything' I have ever read.

The saddest part? He's currently in a monogamous long-term relationship. I mean, that's great for him, but not so great for everyone else who isn't his wife.

 

[Loudmouth]

Most mutations are never seen because the individual cells either repair
the DNA or the cell self-destructs.

Doesn't change the fact that each person is born with 35 to 50 mutations. Those are the mutations that make it past those repair mechanisms. Half of those new mutations are passed on to each offspring, who themselves have 35 to 50 new mutations specific to them.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is like saying we're proofreading books. Mutations, or misspellings can be beneficial,
neutral or damaging. There is no good mistake.

They are not mistakes. They are mutations.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why is it when I post about ID...show the organelle inside of a cell.....then ask how they evolved via a process that uses random chance to change the information in the DNA code...all I hear is crickets?

That's laughter you're hearing. No one who knows anything at all about evolution supposes that it's just due to random chance. Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't random.

 

[The Barbarian]

That would be 200%. Good fence-sitter math.

Christ is 100% God and 100% man. So I guess that's your answer.

 

[Hoghead1]

Good point about Darwin. He actually argued that in order for life to get started, the Creator had to breathe in life into the primordial ancestor. Darwin saw the process as God directed. After all, he was clergy.

 

[46AND2]

Christ is 100% God and 100% man. So I guess that's your answer.

It's paradoxes like this and many others which make it impossible for me to believe no matter how much I may want to.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's paradoxes like this and many others which make it impossible for me to believe no matter how much I may want to.

The photoelectric effect demonstrates that light is formed of particles. The two-slit experiment demonstrates that it is merely waves. Both have been repeatedly verified.

The only thing to conclude is that there is a more fundamental truth that allows light to be waves and particles. This is only one of several paradoxes in science. Mysteries are part of the human experience. I don't lose confidence in science because of them, nor does it affect my faith in God when there are mysteries about Him.

 

[Reasoning]

Good point about Darwin. He actually argued that in order for life to get started, the Creator had to breathe in life into the primordial ancestor. Darwin saw the process as God directed. After all, he was clergy.

Could you show me where he argued that, and from what that conclusions is drawn? His book is wrongly quoted way out of context, way too often.