I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks for the thoughtful response,

For the record, I don't agree with a person's faith hinging upon an issue like this either - I don't see it as a salvation issue. I think if we all love Jesus Christ we're probably allowed a few differences, because like you said, neither is really demonstrable.

As for Lenski - I agree that the experiment doesn't conclusively prove anything like macro-evolution. i thought it was an interesting response to an earlier point about a lack of experimental data on evolutionary forces. One thing I would mention (I believe in evolution) is that the scale of not only time but evolutionary pressure when we discuss macro evolution is really big. Lenski's experiment has a narrow focus, that only allows for evolutionary forces of genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection. In a real complex system, there are many more factors that push far beyond our ability to accurately measure at the moment. Perhaps those missing interactions can account for the limited results, as well as a shorter timescale and constant environmental factors.

This isn't my area of expertise, but I do think it's an interesting experiment, even though its limited in scope.

Do you think that most people consider this a salvation issue? The thing I have had posed to me is that a (albeit skeptical) belief in evolution requires a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, which some take to be heretical. I tend to take the approach that there are varying genres in the bible. Take Proverbs for example - there are many examples of proverbs that are contradictory on a literal reading. But if we apply a genre-savvy interpretation, we can begin to understand the nuances present in that form.

Well, there are different approaches. In the US, among Protestants and Catholics, I hear most often the discussion of whether or not Genesis is meant to be allegory or literal, and it depends more upon how a person approaches Scripture. Honestly, if that is the main problem, it isn't really much of a problem, imo.

I am Orthodox, and for us the big questions tend to be different ones. Our faith is very much intertwined with the nature of God and mankind, and what Christ accomplished with His death and resurrection, and salvation. Ah - I'm not explaining this well. Of course other Christians are concerned with these things also. It's just that our view of how everything fits together is different, and more interconnected. Evolution is not the issue, really, but we ARE concerned with God's initial intent for mankind, the restoration of that through Christ - specifically how mankind and creation came under the curse of death as a result of man's disobedience. And while I've seen some philosophical efforts, I have yet to see a reasonable explanation that allows for evolution (necessarily involving many years of death) with the statement that death entered the world through one man (Adam).

I'm not really looking to debate. I don't mind sharing, but I really don't like to participate in arguments of any kind.

But if the question is ONLY the literal-ness of Scripture in regards to creation (vs. evolution) then it is comparatively a non-issue, imo, because the only thing at stake there is what kind of literary devices God does or does not use in particular portions of Scripture. So from the point of view as a Protestant (which I was formerly) or I think even a Catholic, it isn't the kind of issue that determines one's faith.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Wow this is great, thanks for the explanation.

I didn't mean to come off as wanting a debate - I don't get the chance to many people from the Eastern Orthodox tradition, so it's been great getting to hear your thoughts.

Oh, you didn't come off as debating. Not at all.

I usually mention that in a post about rather controversial statements in hopes that anyone who might be lurking won't wish to argue. I should have been more careful not to imply you might be trying to argue. I didn't take it that way at all.

And you're welcome - I've also enjoyed the chance to revisit the topic a bit.

 

[mark kennedy]

The problem with those Creationist propaganda sites is that they misrepresent the content of the theory of evolution, essentially erecting a straw man. AiG is the most reputable of the lot and it may not be fair to say that they are actually lying about it. The worst of them is CRI, a commercial outfit who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the fanny.

For me they have been little more then a primer, I think Apologetics Press did some superior essays on the subject but I've never thought they were being dishonest. This is just another example of the inevitable ad hominem fallacy all Darwinians resort to when they run out of material.

Fallacious rhetoric? Like when you say that you can conclude atheism from a disbelief in your Bible doctrine?

Fallacious rhetoric is just arguments that never happened. I don't expect you to subscribe to my belief system, I have a number of positions creationists will take me to task on and I welcome their engagement. I know your not an atheist, the fact that your even willing to discuss this at such considerable length shows me you at least care what other Christians think.

Ah, the doctrine of perspicuity. Along with literal inerrancy, self-interpretation and plenary verbal inspiration, the spawn of that unfortunate event whose 500th anniversary we mark today.

I can only assume you are referring to Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to a church door on October 31, 1517, unless you have something else in mind. I do appreciate you introducing such an interesting term though, 'the doctrine of perspicuity', I like it already:

However, the two-source tradition accorded Scripture and the Church equal and complementary divine authority, effectively creating a ‘dual text’. The Spirit who had inspired Scripture had given the Church the key to its interpretation. In practice, this put the Church above Scripture, for Scripture was held to be unclear and in need of authoritative interpretation.11 As Calvin observed, ‘a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church’.12 Theologically, the alleged obscurity of Scripture compromised central doctrines, such as the bondage of the human will.13 Pastorally, it ‘keeps the common people from reading Scripture’.14 (Is the Bible clear? The Bible, the Reformation and Postmodernism)
​

I'm very comfortable with solo scriptura and the Scriptures being adequate to explain themselves.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

For me they have been little more then a primer, I think Apologetics Press did some superior essays on the subject but I've never thought they were being dishonest. This is just another example of the inevitable ad hominem fallacy all Darwinians resort to when they run out of material.

No, it's demonstrable. It's gotten so bad that when a Creationist starts out with something like "Science tells us..." or "The theory of evolution says..." you can just about bet the ranch that what follows will be a fib. I suppose it can be rationalized on the basis that if the theory of evolution is already a lie, misrepresenting it is not bearing false witness...sort of. But it's apologetics, right? Give the faithful what they want, a bogus version of the theory of evolution which is easy to refute, easy to think of as a transparent falsehood created by wicked scientists who desire to deny the Bible.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, it's demonstrable. It's gotten so bad that when a Creationist starts out with something like "Science tells us..." or "The theory of evolution says..." you can just about bet the ranch that what follows will be a fib. I suppose it can be rationalized on the basis that if the theory of evolution is already a lie, misrepresenting it is not bearing false witness...sort of. But it's apologetics, right? Give the faithful what they want, a bogus version of the theory of evolution which is easy to refute, easy to think of as a transparent falsehood created by wicked scientists who desire to deny the Bible.

That is simply not true, you can conclude anything you like from the evidence it doesn't mean someone with a different opinion has lied. What I have found is that the level of divergence is grossly misrepresented by evolutionists:

"Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level. When it comes to DNA, (Time, What Makes us Different? Not very much, when you look at our DNA. But those few tiny changes made all the difference in the world)
​

That's simply not true. This was conclusively disproved in May of 2005 with the publication of The Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome. The sequence identified 35 million single nucleotide substitutions, 5 million indels consisting of 95 million base pairs worth of divergence in the respective genomes. The article in Nature that they mention even says that only 29% of the genes are identical, having at least on divergent coden on average in the respective genomes. Even in the Weblog published by Nature Magazine they get that wrong:

What makes us human? We share more than 98% of our DNA and almost all of our genes with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. Comparing the genetic code of humans and chimps will allow the study of not only our similarities, but also the minute differences that set us apart. (Nature. The Chimpanzee Genome)
​

I've seen too many times the facts are twisted and evidence is buried and the biggest culprit is fallacious rhetoric. You want to talk facts or theology I'm listening, you want to sling mud then at least apply it to something tangible because I do check facts.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

That is simply not true, you can conclude anything you like from the evidence it doesn't mean someone with a different opinion has lied.

I'm not talking about whether the theory of evolution is true or not, I'm talking about what it says. We can argue all day about whether the theory of evolution is a valid theory or not, but what it claims is not really open for argument.
Let's take your quote for an example:

"Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level."

Now you think that is not correct, and you may be right. Or we could argue all day about it, whatever. But there can be no argument about what the statement says, right or wrong; there it is with quotes around it.

For another example, take John Safarti's description of Information Theory on the CRI website. I am not an expert in Information Theory by any means, but I have the math background and the work experience to at least have an informed opinion about it. Safarti describes a theory of information, using Information Theory terms, some with his own definitions, and pronounces it the theory of information. It isn't; it's as simple as that. And he's not just misinformed; if he has the educational background he claims (and there is no real reason to doubt it) he knows better.

No, if you want to argue that what science says is wrong, have it it. but there is no argument about what it is that science says.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not talking about whether the theory of evolution is true or not, I'm talking about what it says. We can argue all day about whether the theory of evolution is a valid theory or not, but what it claims is not really open for argument.
Let's take your quote for an example:

"Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level."

Now you think that is not correct, and you may be right. Or we could argue all day about it, whatever. But there can be no argument about what the statement says, right or wrong; there it is with quotes around it.

Oh I don't think there is any way out of this one:

Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome, with 1.06% or less corresponding to fixed divergence between the species.

Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with ~29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage.

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions. (Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome Nature 2005)
​

You accuse creationists of deception when all they are doing is analyzing the evidence. That's fallacious and when the divergence based on uncontested fact is obviously misrepresented you make excuses. Sounds like bias to me.

For another example, take John Safarti's description of Information Theory on the CRI website. I am not an expert in Information Theory by any means, but I have the math background and the work experience to at least have an informed opinion about it. Safarti describes a theory of information, using Information Theory terms, some with his own definitions, and pronounces it the theory of information. It isn't; it's as simple as that. And he's not just misinformed; if he has the educational background he claims (and there is no real reason to doubt it) he knows better.

No, if you want to argue that what science says is wrong, have it it. but there is no argument about what it is that science says.

I don't know what the problem is with information theory. What I deal with are tangible details and the one I've been showing you is not obscure and not left to interpretation, it's an obvious fact. You can't say one thing in a paper and the say something else in a magazine or weblog, the numbers simply don't add up. People in glass houses should not throw bricks, you can argue they are wrong and that's fine. Saying something is a lie requires two things, the truth as compared to the lie. Now you know how I do that and I'm not talking in circles around nebulous semantics and theory.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

Oh I don't think there is any way out of this one:

Single-nucleotide substitutions occur at a mean rate of 1.23% between copies of the human and chimpanzee genome, with 1.06% or less corresponding to fixed divergence between the species.

Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with ~29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage.

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45 Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes thus total ~90 Mb. This difference corresponds to ~3% of both genomes and dwarfs the 1.23% difference resulting from nucleotide substitutions. (Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome Nature 2005)
​

You accuse creationists of deception when all they are doing is analyzing the evidence. That's fallacious and when the divergence based on uncontested fact is obviously misrepresented you make excuses. Sounds like bias to me.



I don't know what the problem is with information theory. What I deal with are tangible details and the one I've been showing you is not obscure and not left to interpretation, it's an obvious fact. You can't say one thing in a paper and the say something else in a magazine or weblog, the numbers simply don't add up. People in glass houses should not throw bricks, you can argue they are wrong and that's fine. Saying something is a lie requires two things, the truth as compared to the lie. Now you know how I do that and I'm not talking in circles around nebulous semantics and theory.

Grace and peace,
Mark

So you get two different numbers from two different sources; very observant of you, and fair game for criticism. But that's not what I am talking about and you know it. I notice that you wouldn't touch Safarti with a bargepole. Here's another one for you from the AiG website about the Miller-Urey experiment:

"If we look carefully at Miller’s experiment, we will see that what he did fails to address the evolution of life. He took a mixture of gases (ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor) and he passed an electric current through them. He did this in order to reproduce the effect of lightning passing through a mixture of gases that he thought might have composed the earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago. As a result, he produced a mixture of amino acids. Because amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and proteins are considered to be the building blocks of living systems, Miller’s experiment was hailed as proof that life had evolved by chance on the earth millions of years ago."

Of course no scientists have ever made such a claim. It is a malicious misrepresentation of science to say so.

 

[mark kennedy]

So you get two different numbers from two different sources; very observant of you, and fair game for criticism. But that's not what I am talking about and you know it. I notice that you wouldn't touch Safarti with a bargepole. Here's another one for you from the AiG website about the Miller-Urey experiment:

"If we look carefully at Miller’s experiment, we will see that what he did fails to address the evolution of life. He took a mixture of gases (ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor) and he passed an electric current through them. He did this in order to reproduce the effect of lightning passing through a mixture of gases that he thought might have composed the earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago. As a result, he produced a mixture of amino acids. Because amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and proteins are considered to be the building blocks of living systems, Miller’s experiment was hailed as proof that life had evolved by chance on the earth millions of years ago."

Of course no scientists have ever made such a claim. It is a malicious misrepresentation of science to say so.

That's kind of their point, abiogenesis is fair game to. As far as the divergence thing, it's not subject to interpretation, the findings of the Chimpanzee Genome Consortium are conclusive. The Miller experiment isn't offering anything conclusive, or even tangible, skepticism is warranted. Divergence between Chimpanzee and Human genomes no longer is, thus the bias.

 

[Speedwell]

The Miller experiment isn't offering anything conclusive...

Of course it isn't. Interesting, but not conclusive. And no scientist ever claimed otherwise.
However, AiG has asserted that science did claim it was conclusive, which is not the truth. The Miller experiment was never "hailed as proof that life had evolved by chance on the earth millions of years ago."

 

[mark kennedy]

Of course it isn't. Interesting, but not conclusive. And no scientist ever claimed otherwise.
However, AiG has asserted that science did claim it was conclusive, which is not the truth. The Miller experiment was never "hailed as proof that life had evolved by chance on the earth millions of years ago."

And we are being told that we are 98% the same as chimpanzees in our DNA, which is not true. Is that honest?

 

[Radagast]

Basically, I've grown up in a home that believes in 100% biblical inerrancy and that's what I've believed, but recently I've been having a lot of doubts about creationism in particular.

There are Christians who believe in Inerrancy who do not believe in 144-hour creation.

But why are you trawling atheist websites? Why not read what Christians who are scientists have to say about it?

 

[Radagast]

And we are being told that we are 98% the same as chimpanzees in our DNA, which is not true. Is that honest?

It's probably about 95%. But there's a surprising amount of overlap even with insects.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hello everyone,

I'm assuming that this is the correct subforum in which to post this topic, but if not, forgive me. Basically, I've grown up in a home that believes in 100% biblical inerrancy and that's what I've believed, but recently I've been having a lot of doubts about creationism in particular. I'm so tired of doubting my whole life. If these can't be answered, I'm afraid I may start to slip away to agnosticism. So, if anyone has answers, please share them.
Thank you!

There is no honesty in your post. Honest people have no
obligation to believe a word you say.

 

[mark kennedy]

There is no honesty in your post. Honest people have no
obligation to believe a word you say.

Come on now, surely we should give the poster the benefit of a doubt. Maybe it's a put on but maybe someone is simply struggling

Be merciful to those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh (Jude 1:22,23)
​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

It's probably about 95%. But there's a surprising amount of overlap even with insects.

I think the average is around 96%, it varies. We are probably going to have 25% the same DNA just because there are only four basis, since they are base pairs it might come to 50%. That's not the point. If we had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago the divergence represents things that would have had to change in all that time. The real question is, how does the DNA in general and highly conserved genes in particular, accumulate the divergence in that space of time. It's too high. Some 35 million single base substitutions and then another 90 million base pairs involved in 5 million insertions and deletions, permanently fixed.

So with all that going on 5 million years ago and finally getting done humans diverge by less the 1%. It can't take 5 million years for those changes to accumulate or we would be a lot more different now and changing every generation. That plus the deleterious nature of genetic mutations makes the Darwinian tree of life simply untenable.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[SkyWriting]

Come on now, surely we should give the poster the benefit of a doubt. Maybe it's a put on but maybe someone is simply struggling

Be merciful to those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh (Jude 1:22,23)
​

Grace and peace,
Mark

Nope. The entire story is a lie.
And the poster has no interest in
talking to anybody anyway. They
just baiting.
"No recent activity information is available for LoveGodHateSin."

 

[~Anastasia~]

But the words are all public.

Who is to say that someone else might not benefit from reading? Even years from now, perhaps they search their own question and this pops up, rather than asking themselves?

And what is our Christian witness of love, when we react so to someone who comes on and posts just one question, nothing more?

Maybe they are a troll. But unless one knows it is a sock of a particular person, how can one post determine a person's intent? And even if they ARE a troll, what's the point of calling them out? Four pages of responses have already been given. The post hasn't been replied to in a week. It's not like it's a hotly going topic now, to spare people the trouble of replying? What's the motive for stomping on someone's post? It might scare a lurker away from participating. Indeed, what does it feed in the one making such a post?

I see no potential good to anyone, but potential harm.

 

[AvgJoe]

Hello everyone,

I'm assuming that this is the correct subforum in which to post this topic, but if not, forgive me. Basically, I've grown up in a home that believes in 100% biblical inerrancy and that's what I've believed, but recently I've been having a lot of doubts about creationism in particular. There are a few articles and websites that I have read that seem to completely and almost convincingly refute the idea of creationism. I'll link them below.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthr...ams-10-facts-that-prove-creationism-debunked/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_creationism

How am I, as a Christian, supposed to keep my belief in biblical inerrancy when there are all of these rebuttals that seemingly debunk creationism? Why can't creationists come up with good rebuttals to evolutionists' claims and rebuttals? If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam? If there wasn't then why did God even have to send Christ to die for us, or did He? Was there even divine intervention in the universe's creation or formation? Is my faith just weak? I don't mean to cause controversy, I just really need some answers. I'm so tired of doubting my whole life. If these can't be answered, I'm afraid I may start to slip away to agnosticism. So, if anyone has answers, please share them.

Thank you!

There is good evidence out there for Creation. One of my favs is Creation.com. They have 1,000s of articles~~~> http://creation.com/articles , Genesis verse by verse~~~> http://creation.com/genesis-verse-by-verse , Questions & Answers arranged by Topic~~~> http://creation.com/qa and you can use the search box, at the top of their site, to find all the relevant data for the topic you're looking for. Their book, 'The Creation Answers Book', in it's entirety, is on their website~~~> http://creation.com/the-creation-answers-book-index . There is also a video archive of their show Creation Magazine Live~~~> http://creation.com/creation-tv . Some of the interesting show topics are:

1. Cornerstones of Evolution Refuted: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=QaD8oZ0yR_E
2. Fossils: Evidence for Biblical Creation: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=CWV53IeYDzE
3. Radiometric back flips; how solid are those dates?: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=jga_Ha_LCZk
4. Was Noah's flood global?: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=c36LQILHQ18
5. Continental drift and the Bible: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=uyhOKnyWASE
6. The Key to Understanding the Age of the Earth Debate: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=RMUiilVIZB4
   
7. Scientific Evidence for a Recent Creation: http://creation.com/creation-tv?fileID=8T_RHfE4wUs

 

[Papias]

One of my favs is Creation.com. ......

I would avoid anything from Creation.com. The stuff there includes easily debunked stuff and outright falsehoods, both of which make one's argument for creationism look pathetic.

Just looking at the above, picking the last one and randomly jumping into it, I come to the Supernova remnants at 16:00. This argument has been debunked for decades, because anyone with a calculator can see that the remnants should be too dispersed to be visible quickly, so of course there are no old SNR.

and so on.

In Christ-

Papias