If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[rmwilliamsll]

I put a simple challenge to lady Kate, gluadys, shernren, mrwilliams11. mallon, and Kerr-metric if you are still on line, demonstrate from evidence and observation whether naturally or by forced experimentation when a specific genera and all its species and sub species became another genera. By this I mean show me when a finch became something other than another kind of finch, or a fish become something other than a fish and you win!!

you simply do not understand the way that the TofE claims to work.

species change, species divide.
we currently model them as statistical populations, this definition/model has changed since Darwin.
the level at which NS works is an active area of research, it can be: gene, individual, sub populations, species.

what are the higher level taxonomic divisions like genera, families, etc.?
they are convenient human devised clumping mechanisms. do they have biological reality/definition like species=interbreeding population? probably not.

take an example from human organization to try to see this.

The Chinese have kept really good records of geneologies over the years. They have(had) a surprisingly large number of divisions.

families, clans, villages for example.
look at just the male ancestors.
i've seen ancestor halls with 13 generations of names hanging on a wall. each generation numbered from a single male that founded that clan hall.
that clan as compared to another clan is like a genius with all the current existent families as species.
now walk next door and look at their wall with 12-13 generation.

at that back 12-13 generations there was what we now would call a genera change, but the change did not occur in time for 12 generations. genera are a proposal back into time. those two guys that represent the heads of the clans lived together in this area, they may have been cousins, but their descendents now distinguish themselves as "i'm clan A because i am descended from J or i'm B from H". It is a convenient clumping mechanism.
go back 13 generations and there is nothing about J or B that would tell you that they would establish clans over the next 250 years.

 

[shernren]

You're doing excellent for such a huge load to juggle...

But you know what? Carnivorism isn't the only reason animals die. Even if all animals were vegetarians, animals would still have to die in order to keep animal populations finite over an indefinite period of time. That isn't even evolution, it's basic math.

Anyways.

Now we know Paul would not have been referring ot society for society consisted of only 2 people Adam and Eve. Also a better word to designate it referring to man would have been oikumene.

I never said Paul was referring to society. He was referring to the world. Before the Fall, there was no sin in the world, while after the Fall, there was sin in the world; that explains why Paul says that sin entered "the world". But sin entering "the world" brought death "to all men". That is plain reading, my brother.

Here's a good parallel:

Now, I assure you that wherever the gospel is preached all over the world (kosmon), what she has done will be told in memory of her."
(Mark 14:9 GNB)

Just because the gospel is preached all over the world, does that mean that all animals will be told about her?

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--
(Romans 5:12 ESV)

Just because sin came into the world, does that mean that all animals are subjected to death because of it?

But nearly all literalist and conservative linguists look at this and agree that Paul was referring to the universe as the harmonious arrangemet of things because the entire universe was declared very good by God after it was finished in six days. So the death thast was decreed fell to all inhabitants and was passed on to all men because of the sin of Adam.

Here's a literal and conservative commentary for you:

Sin entered into the world - He was the first sinner of the race. The word “sin” here evidently means the violation of the Law of God He was the first sinner among people, and in consequence all others became sinners. The apostle does not here refer to Satan, the tempter, though he was the suggester of evil; for his design was to discuss the effect of the plan of salvation in meeting the sins and calamities of our race. This design, therefore, did not require him to introduce the sin of another order of beings. He says, therefore, that Adam was the first sinner of the race, and that death was the consequence.
Into the world - Among mankind; Joh_1:10; Joh_3:16-17. The term “world” is often thus used to denote human beings, the race, the human family. The apostle here evidently is not discussing the doctrine of original sin, but he is stating a simple fact, intelligible to all: “The first man violated the Law of God, and, in this way, sin was introduced among human beings.” In this fact - this general, simple declaration - there is no mystery.

(Barnes' Commentary)

[Or are you going to say it is not a literal and conservative commentary because you happen to disagree with it?]

You still have to resolve the conflict between your interpretation and the following textual points:

Even though the general context of Romans 5 is not how sin affects all biological life.
Even though Paul says that death only passed into the world, not into all life.
Even though God never told the animals or Adam that anything would happen to the animals if Adam ate the forbidden fruit.
Even though God never said any punishment to the animals after Adam fell, while making a lot of other punishments that make complete sense without the imposition of animal death or the assumption of pre-Fall animal immortality.

Well lush tropical are adjectives not found in the genesis passage, but we do know that God said everything (meaning even the foliage ) was very good and lush tropical are adjectrives that would somewhat adequately supply a meaning to very good! You only complain because they describe God making a planet that was very good and not yet cursed with weeds and deserts and volcanoes and mega meteor strikes and hundreds of billions of dead things and mass extinctions because of Adams sin.

You know what would be "perfect" for us who live in a tropical climate? I've never firsthand seen snow, never delighted in the first budding of spring, never enjoyed getting sprayed by fire hydrants in the heat of summer, never enjoyed watching the green of the world turn around me to brilliant orange and red and yellow, never watched the pristine white of a snow-covered land. Many people from my country enjoy relocating to Western countries partly because of the beauty of experiencing seasons.

So can't I say that this hot, sweaty, constantly-raining, season-less tropical climate is the result of the Fall? The perfect world, I could argue, would have four seasons everywhere, in direct contradiction to what you believe.

And the Bible would never be able to decide between us two because God's idea of perfection is higher than either mine or yours.

Well you should say eisegesis on your part for it is not exegesis. Romans 8:

19For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

20For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Now creature and creation here are the same greek word (ktisis) so it is the same word.

Creation was made subject to vanity by god in verse 22 and in verse 23 creation will be delivered from its bondage to corruption and brought in to the liberty of us.

Now corruption is: phthora which is:

corruption, destruction, perishing
that which is subject ot corruption, perishing
in the christian sense, eternal misery in hell
in the NT, in an ethical sense, moral decay.

And because only mankind is subjected to morals and hell and not the creation we know that do not apply here so 1 and a are the operative definitions for this passage. In context Paul is talking about trhe human condition in Romans 8 I agree, BUT verses 19-22 are a parqanthetical which Paul is saying-- "Hey even the universe is groaning awaiting freddom from death and decay as well" ( I paraphrase) Why can we be sure Paul is talking about the rest of the universe?

verse 23:And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.

They are in contrast to us!! The they is the creation and the us is the sons of God! So see a little careful exegesis and comparing scripture with Scripture shows that death entered into the world by one mans sin and passed on to all the universe by God himself and awaits freedom from the curse.

I'll have to go in-depth into the Greek to differentiate between your interpretation and mine. But right now the biggest difficulty I have with your interpretation is this:
Why doesn't Paul come straight out and say "death" if that's what he means? Why does he have to use words which he uses everywhere else to refer to humans and their moral corruption if he's referring to the whole universe?

Some commentary work reveals a very interesting position in which most if not all of the "creation"s in Romans 8 are actually translated as "creature". There seems to be nothing wrong with this from the Greek, and it makes sense in a passage centered on man and the glory awaiting him upon salvation.

And I agree that Paul is contrasting us with creation:

Creation is under the stewardship of man's futility. Because of that, it groans waiting for God to reveal His divine sovereignty and remove the futility of man from man's stewardship of nature.
We have come under bondage because of the futility of our minds (Romans 7). Because of that, we are groaning waiting for God to reveal His divine sovereignty and remove the futility of our sin from our lives.

Well are you a panentiest or animist? Since when do we see the bible giving anything other than man a moral or spiritual cod ewhich they can veer from and be held accountable?? Animals are amoral as well as plants. If anything it should be the other way around as well as adding death to man as well.

When man trespasses his moral code, his actions naturally cause damage to the environment. This ancient truth of the Bible, that creation groans because of our futility in stewarding it, has come to light in modern science through the proclamations of environmental science warning us that we have to change our ways or we will destroy our environment. It is actually sin and greed in us that compels us to perform environmentally destructive things. And it is our sin and greed which has caused the environment to deviate from God's plan for it. Hence "the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God".

Inever clasimed you did reject the physical resurrection. All I was doing was asking a question based on teh fact that science cannot prove the supernatural or quantify it so it should be brought up in the public arena (like schools and government). Well the resurrection is a supernatural intervention and cannotbe quantified in any empirical measure so I was just asking of you used the same logic for this piece of biblical fact as well??

The resurrection is historical fact.
The resurrection is a myth as well.

If you don't understand how we can say this you will never learn how we think, and you will never understand the deep respect and knowledge we have of Scripture which we supposedly "reject".


It isn't TEs who are stuck in the rut of always wanting to prove things by science ... it's scientific creationists.

He calls it a designed feature and shows so -- which is supernatural in origin from a Christian perspective.

He never showed any such thing. He only showed that:

1. some antibiotic resistance is conferred by gene transfer.
2. some antibiotic resistance is conferred by random mutation.

If that's a definition of design then design isn't falsifiable and is therefore not a scientific alternative to evolution.

Well when you edit your woute to leavce out the rest of the bad-- which was that the antibiotic resistant bacteria have a disadvantage that reduces it s viability inthe nonantibiotic enviornment making it a bad mutation to the species overall. Yes resisitng antiobiotiucs is good for the bacteria in an antibiotivc enviornment but overall to the whole species-- it si bad and he showed why.

See here's what you're saying:

Resistant bacteria have a disadvantage
that reduce its viability in the non-antibiotic environment
making resistance mutation bad overall.

Then you accuse me of leaving out what happens in a non-antibiotic environment.

So here's what I'll say:

Non-resistant bacteria have a disadvantage
that kills them in antibiotic environments
making non-mutation bad overall.
And you are leaving out what happens in antibiotic environments, so you're wrong.

And you can't disprove me because it's the exact mirror of your argument.

It's like a game of "scissors-paper-stone".

You say "scissors is better than paper, because scissors beats paper."
I say "paper is better than scissors, because paper beats stone while scissors doesn't."
So which is really "better"? Even a kid knows that it's impossible to decide which is better. Your fitness function defines scissors = 1 and paper = 0, while my fitness function defines paper = 1 and scissors = 0, and your function is valid in certain circumstances (in direct confrontation) while mine is valid under other circumstances (going against common other element).

In the same way, you have a fitness function
for env = non-antibiotic
mutant = lower metabolism
non-mutant = higher metabolism
non-mutant > mutant

while I have a fitness function
for env = antibiotic
mutant = alive
non-mutant = dead
mutant > non-mutant

and neither of us can generalize our fitness function over the domain of the entire species.

 

[nolidad]

But you know what? Carnivorism isn't the only reason animals die. Even if all animals were vegetarians, animals would still have to die in order to keep animal populations finite over an indefinite period of time. That isn't even evolution, it's basic math.

Yes this is the normative order, but Romans 5 says that until sin entered the world death was not in the world--so this was divine intervention.

I never said Paul was referring to society. He was referring to the world. Before the Fall, there was no sin in the world, while after the Fall, there was sin in the world; that explains why Paul says that sin entered "the world". But sin entering "the world" brought death "to all men". That is plain reading, my brother

Almost! Sin entered the world, then death entered the world through sin-- and that is why death passed on to all men. Paul further clarifies this when he said that is why men died before the law was issued bercause where thewre is no law there is no sin- but sin entered the world and passed on to all men even though they did not sin like Adam did!

Just because the gospel is preached all over the world, does that mean that all animals will be told about her?

Of course not it means when the gospel is preached across the planet to men-- because we are commanded to preach across the planet to men--there are many verses clarifying that.

[Or are you going to say it is not a literal and conservative commentary because you happen to disagree with it?]

Well not wishing to demean Barnes for He is a great commentator, but world when strictly referring to the world of men is always oikumene and very rarely kosmos. Rule of greek grammar is that a word uses its primary meaning unless context requires a secondary or other meaning.

So can't I say that this hot, sweaty, constantly-raining, season-less tropical climate is the result of the Fall? The perfect world, I could argue, would have four seasons everywhere, in direct contradiction to what you believe.

Maybe troipical was a poor choice on my parts for its connotation of humid hot sticky bug infested forests. But the world was declared very good. Interestinngly enough ICR did computer modelloijng and found that with the antedeluvian water canopy and no rain (thus no wind patterns) the earth could have been around 68 degrees F. with a 60-65% humidity- perfect for optimal growth. Ands with the canopy still protecting earth from all the harmful rays life would have been elongated very much prior to the flood just as declared in Scripture.

Even though the general context of Romans 5 is not how sin affects all biological life.

You are right-- death entering the world is a subpoint to lead to how all men die.

Even though Paul says that death only passed into the world, not into all life.

But He did say there was no death on the planet till sin entered the planet through Adam. So unless the animals were on Mars or something before Adams sin- they fell under the death passin ginto the world through sin and not before.

Even though God never told the animals or Adam that anything would happen to the animals if Adam ate the forbidden fruit.
Even though God never said any punishment to the animals after Adam fell, while making a lot of other punishments that make complete sense without the imposition of animal death or the assumption of pre-Fall animal immortality.

I agree we have no direct written qoute saying animals were part of the curse in Genesis. But in Romans 5 and 8 we do have the universe being brought into bondage, death and decay by God and that is the result of sin.

Why doesn't Paul come straight out and say "death" if that's what he means? Why does he have to use words which he uses everywhere else to refer to humans and their moral corruption if he's referring to the whole universe?

If Paul just simply wanted to declare under th einspiration of the holy spirit that just death was involved-- I agree thanatos would have been the preferred word. but because he use phthora he had a much broader implication in mind. not just death and decay and corruption in animal life- but universal decay as well! Many conjecture that God intervened until the fall to keep things from any degradation but after the fall He instituted the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is binding on all of creation.

Some commentary work reveals a very interesting position in which most if not all of the "creation"s in Romans 8 are actually translated as "creature". There seems to be nothing wrong with this from the Greek, and it makes sense in a passage centered on man and the glory awaiting him upon salvation.

Again you are correct! ktisis is used not only of creatio (meaning everything) but of creatures as well. The context of Romans 8 shows that the KJV has done the best jopb of delineating between creature and creation.

Creation is under the stewardship of man's futility. Because of that, it groans waiting for God to reveal His divine sovereignty and remove the futility of man from man's stewardship of nature.
We have come under bondage because of the futility of our minds (Romans 7). Because of that, we are groaning waiting for God to reveal His divine sovereignty and remove the futility of our sin from our lives.

No right now creation is under Satans realm. Matthew 4 shows this as well as Ephesians. Man lost his steweardship after the fall and forfeited temporarily to Satan. That is why Satan is called the god of this kosmos and the prince of the powers of the air. This is the bondage God place dall of creation under.

Creation is under the stewardship of man's futility. Because of that, it groans waiting for God to reveal His divine sovereignty and remove the futility of man from man's stewardship of nature.
We have come under bondage because of the futility of our minds (Romans 7). Because of that, we are groaning waiting for God to reveal His divine sovereignty and remove the futility of our sin from our lives.

I agree we are awaiting the third and final aspect of our redemption from sin-- being removed fro mthe presence of sin!

When man trespasses his moral code, his actions naturally cause damage to the environment. This ancient truth of the Bible, that creation groans because of our futility in stewarding it, has come to light in modern science through the proclamations of environmental science warning us that we have to change our ways or we will destroy our environment. It is actually sin and greed in us that compels us to perform environmentally destructive things. And it is our sin and greed which has caused the environment to deviate from God's plan for it. Hence "the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God".

Yes mankind has been a lousy housekeeper of the planet-- Revelation says this is one of the reasons why God is going to visit the world with the 7 year trib!

It isn't TEs who are stuck in the rut of always wanting to prove things by science ... it's scientific creationists.

Well that is incorrect. YEC folks just defend against what the bible declares is "scinece falsely so called".

If you don't understand how we can say this you will never learn how we think, and you will never understand the deep respect and knowledge we have of Scripture which we supposedly "reject".

Well then please define myth for me. For I know of myth only as this:

an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining in a literary way the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts:

which uses fiction to show some truth IOW>

and I know fact as this:

something which is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:

so unless you use myth in another way your statement is contradictory. It woulkd be like saying it si abright dark day. or a wet dry rain.

Resistant bacteria have a disadvantage
that reduce its viability in the non-antibiotic environment
making resistance mutation bad overall.

This is not what I say but a close alteration of it. The resistant mutation is an advantage in an antibiotic enviornment- it keeps the strain alive- so in the antiobiotic enviornment it shows advantage. But oin a nonantibiotic enviornemtn (which happens more often that an antiobiotic enviornment) the advantage becomes a disadvantage to the species becuase it reduces it viability in the normal world it lives. So the advantage is a singular and localized benefit that overall leads to an ultimate disadvantage unless the bacteria lives consistently in an antibiotic world!!

If that's a definition of design then design isn't falsifiable and is therefore not a scientific alternative to evolution.

From mans perspective I would agree because men are willingly ignorant as Peter said, but from divine perspective it makes perfect sense and is not sdcience falsely so called but correctly so called. we YEC folk will never be able to fully defend all the things thrown out at us and all the research evolutionists do-- we are outnumbered about 900 to 1 but that is okay--God is still in control and those who want the truth will find it!

Science can never nor will ever be able to expalin how God created or why he created. It can only substantiate the now and the observable past. Reason, man wasn't there and has no way of knowing if his uniformitarian theories are correct. they appear logical I won't argue that and they seem to make sense-- but men weren't there and cannot know if there theories of the prehistoric oast are any where near accurate. But God was there and in the simplicity of genesis 1 laid out the entire wya He did things, how long He took it, and a scientific study of the first 11 chapters of genesis confirm all the proven laws of science to be accurate and correct.

 

[Mallon]

We cannot extract DNA form fossils

Actually, we can. Complete DNA sequences, on the other hand, are nearly impossible to get a hold of (though there was a recent paper suggesting some interesting possibilities...)

We see some creatures with unique features like archeaoptryx.

Actually, Archaeopteryx doesn't have any unique features. It has features shared by both reptiles and birds (symplesiomorphies and synapomorphies). The combination of features is unique, and this is just what evolution predicts.

When "transitionals" are found nearly always they are found at sites hundreds and thousands of miles away form the fossil in question instead of further up or down in the geologic columnon the site where the question fossil is found.

I've got a paper on a transitional mosasaur being submitted shortly, and it fits the exact specification you're looking for. Keep your eyes peeled.

Punctuated Equilibria as a mechanism for evolution is without any empirical evidence.... It could only be proven by the fossil record and the fossil record doesn't support it

That Punctuated Equilibrium and Anagensis are mutually exclusive is a myth. In fact, they are not. Both modes of evolution may very likely be at work and represented in the fossil record. (For examples of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record, do some reseach on python fossils -- look specifically at their intramandibular jaw joints).

Things like velociraptor hunting in packs like in Jurassic park and other web sites are jsut imagination.

Well... there is quite a bit of evidence that at least some theropods travelled in packs (trackways, bonebeds, etc.). You can deny the evidence all you want, but you would have to do it on scientific grounds.

I put a simple challenge to lady Kate, gluadys, shernren, mrwilliams11. mallon, and Kerr-metric if you are still on line, demonstrate from evidence and observation whether naturally or by forced experimentation when a specific genera and all its species and sub species became another genera.

Kinda hard to do since "genus" is a subjective term.
Another impossible hurdle you seem to be setting up is the fact that in doing speciation experiments, we do not have the benefit of hindsight or 'the Big Picture' that we do in the fossil record. If we produced something that was not a fish, how would we know? For all intents and purposes, it would look just like a fish, with some minor changes that would allow it to span the "genus" barrier. Everyone knows fish have caudal fins, but let's suppose we created something without such a fin that swam along just fine. Scientists might claim to have produced macroevolution; evolution-deniers such as yourself would claim that it's 'still just a fish'! (This despite the fact that fish have caudal fins).

The best info I could ger was what I thought-- they "appear" to be porcupine like barbs or quills. But definitely not feather barbs that would suggest some sort of tail plumage.

But how do you know? How do you know they aren't feather precursors?

The opinions range from-protofeathers. to feather like to hair like, to scute like protofeathers to hollow barbs to unsure. So it is a dino with some intersting qualities that no one quite knows what the "hairlike feature really is!!

Rest assured the integument of Sinosauropteryx is natural, and not collagen fibers as some believe. This type of preservation is seen only on small theropod dinosaurs and birds within the Liaoning sediments. All other Liaoning turtles, reptiles, amphibians, etc. do not preserve such features, as would be expected if they were collagen fibers (nor would we expect collagen fibers to exhibit banding, as seen in Sinosauropteryx.)
So again, since they are genuine integumentary structures, why can't they be feather precursors?

Even if all animals were vegetarians, animals would still have to die in order to keep animal populations finite over an indefinite period of time.

Exactly. God would have had to allow for death since the Beginning, since He ordered all Creation to not only eat, but fill the Earth and reproduce after its own kind. Eventually, the animals and plants would have reached carrying capacity and died off. There is no avoiding this.

 

[nolidad]

For those interested here is the link to download all 686 pages of the RATE research initiative paper.

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

other research works showing why radio dating is inaccurate:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=42

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=301

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=301

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=302

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=200


http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=73

enjoy them! also if you wish I beleive talkorigins seeks to discredit each of these finds as well so pick your poartner!!!


rmwilliams11 writes:

[you simply do not understand the way that the TofE claims to work.

species change, species divide.
we currently model them as statistical populations, this definition/model has changed since Darwin.
the level at which NS works is an active area of research, it can be: gene, individual, sub populations, species.

what are the higher level taxonomic divisions like genera, families, etc.?
they are convenient human devised clumping mechanisms. do they have biological reality/definition like species=interbreeding population? probably not./QUOTE]

Well anyway you wish to slice it and dice evolutrion has declared that al;l life started from single cell critters and speciated there way from to qoute a christian author from goo to you by way of the zoo!!

Show me empirical ewvidence of a fish speciating into something that is not a fish! Evolution says that happened absolutely-- so please show the speciation of fish to not fish (clue they supposedly becvame reptiles).

Please understand one thing-- I studied evolution thirty some odd years ago when evolutionists were very much involved with abiogenesis and the higher taxa nomenclature were very important on their research.

The fact that they have moved the goalposts to get away from theorizIng on abiogenesis (the truce reached by the pope and Stephen Hawkins) and focus just on speciation still does not absolve them from the fact they claim speciation has caused creatures to change phyla, order, class, family and genera--so if it is good enough for evolutionists to still use these terms (though I agree they try to avoid it at all costs nowe) we can still address it.

Just remember speciation has demonstrates that genus can be alterted but all it does is create another type of the same kind. Inother words you can get great speciation in dogs and cats but in the end they still remain dogs and cats- just differing kinds of dogs and cats.

 

[Willtor]

Stephen Hawking is not an evolutionary scientist. He's an astrophysicist. His meeting with Pope John Paul II dealt with the Big Bang, and the Pope told him (along with the others) that the precise moment of the Big Bang should be off limits. He didn't know that Stephen Hawking had been working on the moments leading up to it. Prof. Hawking doesn't deal with evolution. He also doesn't deal with abiogenesis. If he speaks to either of these things, it is as a non-expert.

 

[Willtor]

Also, I want to point out and emphasize that when you talk about all of the Kingdom, Phylum, Class, etc. stuff, this is useful for categorization, but it is a hinderance in thinking about evolution. When thinking in evolutionary terms, if one were to look at fish and reptiles (the examples you pointed out), reptiles are simply a sub-clade of fish. Calling them different things is useful (as has been said, for taxonomic purposes), but not in talking about the phylogenic tree.

So when you say that we will only get different species of dogs and cats, this is only correct insofar as reptiles are really just kinds of fish, just as mammals are.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes this is the normative order, but Romans 5 says that until sin entered the world death was not in the world--so this was divine intervention.
...
But He did say there was no death on the planet till sin entered the planet through Adam. So unless the animals were on Mars or something before Adams sin- they fell under the death passin ginto the world through sin and not before.

Hi folks

Paul doesn't actually say there was no death in the world before sin. He says sin entered the world and he says that death spread to all men. In fact he limits the death, depending on you translation, death spread to all men because all sinnedor death passed to all men, inasmuch as all sinned. As far as I know the phrase has two different meanings in classical and koine Greek. But both have the same effect on how this death spread from the sin. It limits it to the human race. Either death spread to all men because all sinned and therefore could not spread to animals that don't sin, or it only spread inasmuch as all sinned and was limited to sinners.

The other question we have to ask is whether it refers to physical or spiritual death, especially as Adam did not die physically the day he ate the fruit, but he did die spiritually. Paul describes this death that comes through sin in Romans 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Death spread to him when he sinned. But young Saul was still alive physically afterwards and he was no more less mortal than he was before he sinned, so presumably he was talking about spiritual death.

Certainly there is nothing in Romans 5 to suggest that no animals ever died before the fall, only a reference to the effect of sin on human beings.

I agree we have no direct written qoute saying animals were part of the curse in Genesis. But in Romans 5 and 8 we do have the universe being brought into bondage, death and decay by God and that is the result of sin.

Does Romans 8 say the bondage to decay was the result of the fall? He just says it was God's will but does not say when it happened. Is there anywhere in scripture that tells us no animals died before the fall?

Cheers Assyrian

 

[shernren]

Is there anywhere in scripture that tells us no animals died before the fall?

I second this challenge. As you can see the interpretation of Romans 5 and 8 seem to be inconclusive either way (Barnes on the section starting at Romans 5:12 said it was one of the most difficult passsages in the New Testament - funny, I never thought it was ... until now). The straightforward meaning is that through man's sin, all men are subject to death and the environment is subject to the decay and futility of being governed by corrupt man. But your meaning is that through man's sin, the whole universe has been subjected to death, whether it is able to sin or not, and I can see that you consider your interpretation straightforward and mine the twisted one.

So let Scripture interpret Scripture. Show me an independent passage which speaks of death coming to animals, or to the universe in general, through man's sin. Genesis 3 is out (since it doesn't mention animal death) and that in my book is a severe strike against your position. So can you show me Scriptural evidence to counter-weight Genesis 3's big "no"?

No right now creation is under Satans realm. Matthew 4 shows this as well as Ephesians. Man lost his steweardship after the fall and forfeited temporarily to Satan. That is why Satan is called the god of this kosmos and the prince of the powers of the air. This is the bondage God place dall of creation under.

Btw, I would disagree with you on this as well. Why are we taking Satan at his word?

8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

Remember that Satan is the father of lies. It isn't inconceivable that his claim to be able to give "all the kingdoms of the world" was simply one gigantic bluff.

Well that is incorrect. YEC folks just defend against what the bible declares is "scinece falsely so called".

Why are YECs so quick to trust scientific "defences" of God's word? It's because scientific creationism is really just scientism in "Christian" wrappings. The motivation of scientific creationism is that since science is always true, and since God's word is true, therefore God's word must be scientifically true. You can see easily that if we remove the scientism from this statement it is not necessary for God's word to be scientifically true to be true, and therefore there is no remaining motivation for scientific creationism without scientism. Irony of the highest degree: scientific creationism tries to fight atheists ... with weapons the atheists invented a few centuries ago.

The Scientific Myth of Creationism

Well then please define myth for me. For I know of myth only as this:

an ancient story or set of stories, especially explaining in a literary way the early history of a group of people or about natural events and facts:

Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time, God came to earth and became man. The God-man walked and talked with His chosen people, but they did not recognize Him for who He was. In fact, He offended them so much (though this was all part of God's plan) that they crucified Him like a common criminal. Little did they know that three days later He arose from the dead! And by that He demonstrated His complete victory over sin and death.

What I just told you is the resurrection myth: an ancient story or set of stories explaining in a literary way the early history of Christianity. It is a story that also happens to be entirely historical. And myths never have to be untrue even if they are ahistorical.

I like your definition of myth.

This is not what I say but a close alteration of it. The resistant mutation is an advantage in an antibiotic enviornment- it keeps the strain alive- so in the antiobiotic enviornment it shows advantage. But oin a nonantibiotic enviornemtn (which happens more often that an antiobiotic enviornment) the advantage becomes a disadvantage to the species becuase it reduces it viability in the normal world it lives. So the advantage is a singular and localized benefit that overall leads to an ultimate disadvantage unless the bacteria lives consistently in an antibiotic world!!

Good, I was waiting for you to qualify your statement in such a way. Now you have a way to say that your fitness function is more important than mine: by showing that it applies in more cases.

Except that the very article you quoted shows that microbial production of antibiotics is a natural phenomenon. The article would have us believe that soil bacteria have to deal with antibiotics in the soil practically all the time. So can you back up your claim that the non-antibiotic environment is more important than the antibiotic environment?

(And this grand detour hasn't done a single bit of damage to evolution, although I hope it has been enlightening to you. Evolution simply predicts that the proportion of mutant bacteria will increase in an antibiotic environment and that the proportion of non-mutant bacteria will increase in a non-antibiotic environment: and that is precisely what is observed. Chalk one up for evolution.)

Science can never nor will ever be able to expalin how God created or why he created. It can only substantiate the now and the observable past. Reason, man wasn't there and has no way of knowing if his uniformitarian theories are correct. they appear logical I won't argue that and they seem to make sense-- but men weren't there and cannot know if there theories of the prehistoric oast are any where near accurate. But God was there and in the simplicity of genesis 1 laid out the entire wya He did things, how long He took it, and a scientific study of the first 11 chapters of genesis confirm all the proven laws of science to be accurate and correct.

Nobody ever observes anything in the present. (But that requires intricate knowledge of science - "normal" science, not evolutionary science, and this would be true even if YECism were right - to explain, and so it's up to you whether you want to pursue this with me or not.) Man is never "there in the present" and for you to say science done in the past is inaccurate, implies that all science is inaccurate since all science is done in the past, and implies that it is impossible for us to know the world.

 

[gluadys]

1. Fossils

Fossils conclusively prove only one thing. That a certain creature existed at one time in the past and may or may not exist anymore now.

True. However, most of science does not deal with proof. It is based on evidence, and goes with the best explanation of the evidence. A fossil can be evidence of much more than the fact that a certain creature once existed.

We see some creatures with unique features like archeaoptryx. But we dont see how it got those features.

And here is the difference between proof and evidence. We did not see archeopteryx hatch out of its egg. Nevertheless, we reason that it did hatch out of an egg because all birds that we know of and most reptiles as well hatch from eggs.

And note that to arrive at this conclusion, we depended on the morphology of archeopteryx to establish that it was a bird, not a mammal. Again, we used evidence together with reason.

Finally, we also know that all creatures, whether hatched or born live, get their features from their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents. So, unless you are postulating another process, that is where archeopteryx got its features.

Hence, since many of its features are dinosaurian, we reasonably conclude that somewhere in its ancestry, it had dinosaurian ancestors.

Science is not saying there is proof of any of this. But this is evidence and reasonable conclusions from the evidence. Where is the evidence misconstrued? Where does the line of reasoning fail?

Punctuated Equilibria as a mechanism for evolution is without any empirical evidence.

Take a paper by Gould and/or Eldredge and show that the evidence they adduce is not empirical.

Furthermore, PE is not a mechanism for evolution. It is a description of a pattern and rate of evolution. The mechanism of PE is the same as for all evolution: mutation + natural selection.

We can make some reasonable assumptions but we cannot with certainty speak to meterologic and flora and fauna conditons on the earth at any given time int he prehistoric past.

Forget assumptions. They don't enter into the picture. What we can do is make reasonable conclusions on the basis of the evidence. We can, for example, conclude from the existence of a paleosoil, the existence of plants that grew in it, even if none of the plants have fossilized. We can conclude from a trackway the existence of the animal that made the track, even if we have no fossil specimen of the animal itself.

Science does not depend on certainty. It depends on evidence and reasonable inferences from the evidence. Some such inferences however approach closely to certainty.

fossils do not tell us how an animal
had societal structure, it just speaks to its existence .

It can speak to much more than its existence. The formation of teeth and jaw can tell about the diet of the fossil species. The linkage of limbs to torso can tell whether it was a crawler, swimmer or runner. Finding a dinosaur mother's skeleton on her nest with arms arranged protectively around it indicates that (unlike turtles) she cared for her eggs and probably nurtured her young.

Carefully following up evidence can yield remarkable information about a fossil species and its environment. You can only be dismissive of this evidence if you have never taken time to find out how to analyse it.

2. No one is arguing speciation. And for debate sake to move this on-- I will concede that any structural change in a species is mutation. But only in the sense that we define mutration as any change in a species and not the definition that calls mutation replication error in the DNA.

IOW you are only counting an expressed mutation as a mutation. I prefer to call an expressed mutation a variation, but as long as we understand each other.

But speciation does not show macro evolution!

Speciation is macro-evolution. Speciation is the end-point of the evolutionary process. The only thing you can have after speciation is more speciation.

Darwins finches-- he sqwe variation of finches but any mutation always produced another type of finch-- we have never observed mutation and variation take a finch and make it a nonfinch (say a pigeon or parakeet)

If we did see a finch turn into a pigeon or parakeet or anything that is not a finch, it would show that Darwin was dead wrong. The theory of evolution predicts that all descendants of a species will be modifications of that species. Descendants will never cease being what their ancestors were.

Do you understand the term "nested hierarchy"? Do you understand the concept of group within group within group? Now imagine a species H in group F which is nested in the larger group D which is nested in the larger group A. Group A holds the groups B and C as well as D. And Group D holds groups E and F, while group F holds species G, H and I. Now suppose H speciates into two species. We can call them H' and H".

Note that they must be modifications of H. They cannot be G or I or even L. Furthermore, they must remain in the larger nest F. They cannot show up as new species in E. Similarly, they must remain in group D. They cannot show up somewhere in groups B or C.

If you cannot grasp this concept, you cannot grasp the most basic concept of phylogeny.

We have seen all sorts of speciation within dogs and cats-- but they always remained dogsd and cats- just variant species or sub species or even sub sub species.

As we would expect from evolution. However, this does not prevent dogs and cats themselves from being variants within a larger group.

Fruit fly despite the intense experimentation of it always remained a fruit fly-- different species of it yes! But it was a fruit fly still!

Again, as we expect. If a fruit fly ancestor had a descendant that was not some sort of fruit fly, that would falsify evolution, not prove it. But that does not prevent the original population of fruit flies being a variant of some sort of fly, just as a fly itself is a particular variant of insect.

We still despite all the hundreds of billions of dollars in research spent sen gills turn to lungs in the fossil record

Because they didn't. Gills in terrestrial animals turned into jaw and ear bones. Meanwhile lungfish to this day have both gills and lungs.

Do you see why your rantings against phylogeny have no credibility? When you commit such gross errors, it is evident you know nothing about what you are condemning.

If radical altering of enviornments does help speed up mutations and thus advances evolution why do evolutionists worry about species going extinct or being threatened?

Because there is no guarantee it will happen in all species or even in any species. Everytime the environment has been radically altered, most species have become extinct. Nothing says that we won't be one of the species driven to extinction this time.

Evolutionary theory says this is normative

This is a false statement, one of many incorrect assumptions creationists make about evolution. Mass extinction due to radically altered environments is the exception, not the norm.

and should even be encouraged as it would propel evolution faster!!

Again, a false assumption. What merit is there in propelling evolution faster?

Why all of a sudden are we interfering with what I assume TE's would say is Gods ideal for the world

Again, your assumption about TEs and what they would say is God's ideal is incorrect.

I put a simple challenge to lady Kate, gluadys, shernren, mrwilliams11. mallon, and Kerr-metric if you are still on line, demonstrate from evidence and observation whether naturally or by forced experimentation when a specific genera and all its species and sub species became another genera. By this I mean show me when a finch became something other than another kind of finch, or a fish become something other than a fish and you win!!

As I have said, you need to grasp the concept of nested hierarchy. A finch will not become anything other than a modified finch. Taxonomists may give a modified finch a different name. So that in the future we will speak of bird X evolving from finches. But bird X will still be a modified finch.

Just so, all vertebrates within the clade of fish are either modern fish or modifications of fish. We call the most radical modifications amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. But when their ancestry is traced back it goes to a tetrapod which is a modification of a fish.

No genus becomes another genus. It may become a family, if it has to be sub-divided into new genera, but it does not become another genus.

 

[jewel77]

I beleive many evolutionary scientists put forward their so-called "proof" of evolution, simply because they want to believe in natural causes, because the other alternative is an intelligent Devine Creator, something they dont want to contemplate, because they would then have to acknowledge God's soveriegnty and laws concerning their own lives.

This is taken from a book by Grant R. Jefferey after analysing the so-called "missing links".

The Conclusion from Fossil Records.

The final result of this analysis of these famous ape-man "missing links" is that the evidence supporting human evolution simply does not exist. The evolutionary scientists have failed to find a single genuine transitiional form between ape-like ancestors and men, despite their constant search during the last 150 years. The museums and universities have more than 100 million fossils collected from every area on Earth during the last century and a half. The truth is this : There is no fossil evidence that supports the evolutionary theory of the gradual development of life from simple to complex forms, including humans.

 

[random_guy]

I beleive many evolutionary scientists put forward their so-called "proof" of evolution, simply because they want to believe in natural causes, because the other alternative is an intelligent Devine Creator, something they dont want to contemplate, because they would then have to acknowledge God's soveriegnty and laws concerning their own lives.

This is taken from a book by Grant R. Jefferey after analysing the so-called "missing links".

The Conclusion from Fossil Records.

The final result of this analysis of these famous ape-man "missing links" is that the evidence supporting human evolution simply does not exist. The evolutionary scientists have failed to find a single genuine transitiional form between ape-like ancestors and men, despite their constant search during the last 150 years. The museums and universities have more than 100 million fossils collected from every area on Earth during the last century and a half. The truth is this : There is no fossil evidence that supports the evolutionary theory of the gradual development of life from simple to complex forms, including humans.

Yeah, and the new land-fish transitional that made the news today was also faked, as well as the thousands of other fossils?

 

[Dannager]

I beleive many evolutionary scientists put forward their so-called "proof" of evolution, simply because they want to believe in natural causes, because the other alternative is an intelligent Devine Creator, something they dont want to contemplate, because they would then have to acknowledge God's soveriegnty and laws concerning their own lives.

Even if this rather ludicrous claim had any merit to it, that wouldn't change the fact that there remain a large number of religious scientists who agree with (and in many cases present) these evidences.

This is taken from a book by Grant R. Jefferey after analysing the so-called "missing links".

The Conclusion from Fossil Records.

The final result of this analysis of these famous ape-man "missing links" is that the evidence supporting human evolution simply does not exist. The evolutionary scientists have failed to find a single genuine transitiional form between ape-like ancestors and men, despite their constant search during the last 150 years. The museums and universities have more than 100 million fossils collected from every area on Earth during the last century and a half. The truth is this : There is no fossil evidence that supports the evolutionary theory of the gradual development of life from simple to complex forms, including humans.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

The man who wrote that book is lying to you. The evidences for human evolution we have discovered are detailed in the link above. By the way, Grant R. Jeffrey is a Bible scholar and financial planner with no formal education in any relevant field of science. Why would you trust someone who isn't even qualified to determine the validity of this evidence in the first place?

 

[shernren]

I put a simple challenge to lady Kate, gluadys, shernren, mrwilliams11. mallon, and Kerr-metric if you are still on line, demonstrate from evidence and observation whether naturally or by forced experimentation when a specific genera and all its species and sub species became another genera. By this I mean show me when a finch became something other than another kind of finch, or a fish become something other than a fish and you win!!

Let's say I'm studying the development of human races. And let's say I believe that each race was specially created, i.e. the Chinese were created by God, the Indians were created by God, etc. and they did not descend from a common ancestor. I'm going to make two false statements that mirror the false statements you've been hearing about evolution.

False statement no. 1:
"If a Chinese couple have kids, no matter what sort of mutations they accumulate in their genes, the kids will still be Chinese. And those Chinese kids will have Chinese grandkids, and the Chinese grandkids will have Chinese great-grandkids ... you'll never find a Chinese being able to give birth to an Indian! Therefore the Chinese and the Indians were separately created!"

(You know full well that just because the Chinese descended ultimately from Adam, and the Indians did as well, doesn't prove that a Chinese couple will have an Indian kid any time soon.

In the same way just because evolution says the finch, the parakeet, and the pigeon descended from a common ancestor, doesn't prove that pigeons are gonig to lay eggs that hatch into finches any time soon. Just because dogs and cats descended from a common ancestor doesn't prove that they're going to give rise to anything other than subspecies of dogs and cats respectively.)

False statement no. 2:
"Adam wasn't Chinese, but you say that eventually his descendants became Chinese. However, Adam and Eve never gave birth to any Chinese children! And their non-Chinese children never gave birth to any Chinese grandchildren! Therefore for you to claim that a Chinese could be descended from a non-Chinese is preposterous!"

(You know full well that Adam was not a Chinese, it's true, but he was a human. The first Chinese to be born didn't stop being human by virtue of being Chinese, and just because his parents weren't Chinese didn't stop him from being a Chinese - the first of the Chinese. And the decision to call him a Chinese was an arbitrary decision to draw a line somewhere in the genealogy and say "here are where the Chinese start".

In the same way, all existing clades are subclades of their ancestral clades. Descent with modification does not prevent fish from being the ancestors of amphibians, because all amphibians which evolved never exited the fish clade, but became a subclade of the fish clade (just as the first Chinese never stopped being a human).)

 

[jewel77]

I'll tell you what is ludicrous - that people actually beleive the earth with all its complexities, including the whole universe and man, is created by natural causes- THAT is ludicrous!

 

[artybloke]

I'll tell you what is ludicrous - that people actually beleive the earth with all its complexities, including the whole universe and man, is created by natural causes- THAT is ludicrous!

I'll tell you what's ludicrous - people with no knowledge of science or theology pontificating to others about what the Bible "obviously" says and expecting everybody to roll over and agree with them.

"Natural causes" just means that something has a scientifically explicable and verifiable reason for happening. It says nothing whatsover about whether God, accident or the Great Pumpkin was the original cause of it.

 

[Dannager]

I'll tell you what is ludicrous - that people actually beleive the earth with all its complexities, including the whole universe and man, is created by natural causes- THAT is ludicrous!

Arguments from incredulity are logical fallacies. You're going to need something better than "It's too unlikely for me to comprehend!"

 

[gluadys]

I'll tell you what is ludicrous - that people actually beleive the earth with all its complexities, including the whole universe and man, is created by natural causes- THAT is ludicrous!

What's ludicrous about God creating through natural causes?

Or did you think that "natural" = "without God"?

That's an atheist definition of natural. Why would a Christian agree to use it?

 

[jewel77]

I am very skeptical of evolutionists so-called discoveries, from what I've read they twist the facts to fit what they want it to fit.

"What about the famous fossils found around the world that pupportedly show the evolutionary "ascent of man" from primitive ape-man to his ultimate successor--the evolutionary scientist carrying his briefcase into a university? What of all those who have listened to professors, watched television documentaries, or read Time-Life books illustrating and declaring authoritively that we are all descended from primitive ape-men. But the scientific evidence is now overwhelmingly in support of the conclusion that the entire "ascent of man" from ape-man to modern humans is now one of the greatest scientific frauds in history. Hundreds of millions of students around the world have been taught a terrible lie to convince them that science has absolutely proven that evolution is true and that the Bible's account of Creation must therefore be logically rejected as unscientific and false."

That was taken from the same book by Jeffrey Grant.

What he writes is true because i have read similar statements in books by Henry M Morris who is a Creationist scientist. I have read many things about evolutionists and the dodgey methods used to validate their theories for evolution.

I have read much about evolution, but I cannot accept it, it's too illogical and certainly stretches the imagination. Whereas belief in God as the sole Creator is very logical and answers all the difficult questions..

 

[jewel77]

What's ludicrous about God creating through natural causes?

Or did you think that "natural" = "without God"?

That's an atheist definition of natural. Why would a Christian agree to use it?

Natuaral without God