In the beginning...

[TwinCrier]

Literal 6 day creationist here too. I've heard of some who believe the 6 days are actually 6 thousand years due to verses Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. I think theistic evolution, as a theory would counter the literal interpretation of the bible most Baptist denominations adhere to.

 

[BT]

Since there is absolutely no example or evidence of any species jump (from a glob to an animal as example... or from an ape to a man), we develop other ideas, and postulate that the "missing link" will inevitably be found (meanwhile they risk their souls on a theory and ride a train straight to hell while waiting).[/qutoe]
How do you account for these observed speciations in real time -- http://www.christianforums.com/t155626 -- and these series of individuals linking what you call "speciation jumps" in the fossil record and the picture below -- http://www.christianforums.com/t43227 -- in God's Creation?

I've read the posts. The first one has no evidence of species jumps. Development may be but jump no.

The second one deals more with deviations or devolutions i.e. feline disease mutating into a canine gene.

There is no "missing link" nor will you ever find one. There is no proof of a species jump (from one to another). Making hybrids in a lab with plants does not count as a species jump. Neither does mixing a labrador and a pit bull to create a new type of dog, qualify as a species jump. While I get the impression that you believe in this strongly, don't let me worry you. I'm a fundamentalist through and through and thus unswayable. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, so if He says it was 6 days... I'll go with God thanks.

As for the fossil record.... ha. You can do better than that.. Creation Ex Nihilio has many pictures of fossils that formed over decades/decade. That's right decades not billions of years. Showing a change from plant or animal to fossil proves nothing more than some people have way too much time on their hands. And that calcification works. Yipee!

Anyway like Bleechers said this isn't the place for debate.. I just noticed that you asked me the question that's the only reason that I came back...

 

[lucaspa]

I've read the posts. The first one has no evidence of species jumps. Development may be but jump no.

10. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436. are not new species? Why not?

There is no "missing link" nor will you ever find one.

Why aren't these "missing links"? A "missing link" is between two species, right?

Afarensis to habilis: OH 24 is in between A. afarensis and habilis
B Asfaw, T White, O Lovejoy, B Latimer, S Simpson, G Suwa, Australopithecus garhi: a new species of early hominid from Ethiopia. Science 284: 622-629, 1999. All individuals are intermediate between A. afarensis and H. habilis.

Habilis to erectus:
Oldovai: Bed I has Habilis at bottom, then fossils with perfect mixture of characteristics of habilis and erectus, and erectus at top. At bottom of Bed II (top of Bed I) have fossils resemble H. erectus but brain case smaller than later H. erectus that lies immediately above them. pg 81
OH 13, 14 was classified by some anthropologists as H. habilis but others as early H. erectus. 650 cc
D2700 from Dmasi has features of both hablis and erectus. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
Koobi Fora: Another succession with several habilis up to 2 Mya, then transitionals, and then erectus at 1.5 Mya.

Erectus to sapiens: Omo valley. Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics" pg. 70.
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Omo Valley, Ethiopia: ~ 500,000 ya. mixture erectus and sapiens features
Sale in Morrocco: skull discovered in 1971, ~300,000 ya. also shows erectus and sapiens features.
Broken Hill skull: another skull with mixtures of erectus and sapiens features

Tautavel, 200Kya: large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy." pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya: ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Bouri http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0611_030611_earliesthuman.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_bones-background.shtml
actual paper: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v423/n6941/full/nature01669_r.html
Vertesszollos, 400 Kya. Teeth like H. erectus but occipital bone like H. sapiens. brain ~ 1300 cc

There is no proof of a species jump (from one to another). Making hybrids in a lab with plants does not count as a species jump.

When the hybrid can't interbreed with either parent but can interbreed with other hybrids, why isn't that a new species?

I'm a fundamentalist through and through and thus unswayable. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, so if He says it was 6 days... I'll go with God thanks.

I didn't ask about your beliefs or if you were swayable. I asked how you accounted for the specific evidence from God's Creation.

Anyway like Bleechers said this isn't the place for debate.. I just noticed that you asked me the question that's the only reason that I came back...

I'm not debating your answers. I'm just asking questions.

 

[bleechers]

The examples give are rife with assumptions. The dating is based on assumptions. The term "mixture" is an assumption. The creation of a new species is genetically impossible. If evolution were the law, it would not only be evident and continual it would be easily observed.

The theological problems I raised are the most valid questions here, for they are not based on assumptions. Darwin's theories were produced with no understanding of genetics. The law of "slow change" has been replaced by "rapid change"... Evolution is a theory that mutates itself every time the bedrock upon which it is built is destroyed.

When the hybrid can't interbreed with either parent but can interbreed with other hybrids, why isn't that a new species?

Without following the specific example, a hybrid plant is not a new species no matter its ability to reproduce for it is a combination, not a deviance. In any case, it is the product of intelligent design and could not happen by chance (random mutation).

I realize that most Methodists have little regard for the infallibility of scripture, so how do you answer the theological problems that I posed? I think I know the answer, but I'll give you a shot at it.

The bigger problem you have is not trying to fit evolution into Genesis, it is trying to get your god of "strong kills weak" and "death is good" into the gospel.

I also think it is only fair that you state in what discipline you are an "Associate Professor".

 

[lucaspa]

The creation of a new species is genetically impossible. If evolution were the law, it would not only be evident and continual it would be easily observed.

Why are these not "easily observed" speciations? http://www.christianforums.com/t155626

For my next question, I have to tell you that, in this study -- G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. -- the investigators split an original species into 4 different populations and put the populations on different diets and temperatures. After 5 years the different groups could not breed with each other or with the original species kept in original conditions. The investigators analyzed the genetic difference between the original species and one of the altered populations. The genetic difference was over 3%. The equivalent genetic difference between chimps and humans is less than 2%. If new species are, as you say, "genetically impossible", then how did these investigators get new species with a genetic difference greater than between chimps and humans?

Darwin's theories were produced with no understanding of genetics.

What about the Modern Synthesis that showed that Mendelian genetics fit evolution perfectly?

The law of "slow change" has been replaced by "rapid change"...

Do you mean Punctuated Equilibria? Have you seen this?

"Punctuated equilibrium is neither a creationist idea nor even a non-Darwinian evolutionary theory about sudden change that produces a new species all at once in a single generation. Punctuated equilibrium accepts the conventional idea that new species form over hundreds or thousands of generations and through an extensive series of intermediate changes. But geological time is so long that even a few thousand years may appear as a mere "moment" relative to the several million years of existence for most species. Thus, rates of evolution vary enourmously and new species may appear to arise "suddenly" in geological time, even though the time involved woudl seem long, and the change very slow, when compared to a human lifetime." Stephen J. Gould, Science and Creationism, A view from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edition, pg 29, 1999. www.nap.edu

Without following the specific example, a hybrid plant is not a new species no matter its ability to reproduce for it is a combination, not a deviance. In any case, it is the product of intelligent design and could not happen by chance (random mutation).

How is the hybridization done by intelligent design? Did the investigators move the genes around?

What is a species? A Biblical kind in Genesis is something that can breed after its kind. Wouldn't the hybrid be a new kind?

I realize that most Methodists have little regard for the infallibility of scripture, so how do you answer the theological problems that I posed?

I'm not allowed to debate here. Also, I didn't ask you your opinion of Methodists. I asked how you accounted for the data in God's Creation. Of all the instances of observed speciation, why do you only talk about one?

The bigger problem you have is not trying to fit evolution into Genesis, it is trying to get your god of "strong kills weak" and "death is good" into the gospel.

I didn't ask you who you thought my "god" was. Can you point me to anything in Darwin that says "strong kills weak" or "death is good"? If Christians go to meet God, why do you think death is not good?

I also think it is only fair that you state in what discipline you are an "Associate Professor".

Why? Have I mentioned my academic position anywhere in this thread or attempted to use my position as "authority"? However, I will correct my Profile such that it tells you the discipline of my Ph.D. if you are interested.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Baptist here who has a strong science background and believes that the evidence supporting evolution (allele shifting over time and common ancestry) to be strong enough to be considered a well established scientific theory. Big bang theories are less established and abiogenesis can barely be considered more than speculation.

Regarding the number of 24-hour periods passed in the creation story in genesis, I choose to remain agnostic on that issue but would lean towards theistic evolution if pinned to a corner. I do subscribe to the possiblity that the YEC position of a 144hr creation story to be possible because all things are possible with God. However, I believe that theory is not supported by the scientific evidence available to us currently despite the pleadings of "Creation scientists".

 

[bleechers]

Do you mean Punctuated Equilibria? Have you seen this?

Have I seen this argument? Depends on which expert on the "Science" of evolution that you read. Some swear by it, some do not.

I didn't ask you who you thought my "god" was...

You have carefully avoided the vast chasms in your theological arguments. You would rather take a theological board and center on your area of expertise.

The greater concern you should have is not whether hybrids equal speciation, rather it should be whether your god is a lower genetic form of an inferior genetic mix.

If you want to argue with Ph.Ds who reject evolution, I suggest you go there. You have obviously attempted here to take research that you have handy and place it in a context and time frame that prohibits such research. Such research is readily available, but you choose to ignore it.

You have aggressively entered a Baptist board and have carefully and callously avoided the grave theolological implications of your man-made belief system.

I'm not allowed to debate here. Also, I didn't ask you your opinion of Methodists. I asked how you accounted for the data in God's Creation. Of all the instances of observed speciation, why do you only talk about one?

Yiou have billions of fossils. You do the math.

You are disingenuous to suggest for a moment that you entered a Baptist board without the intention of antogonizing Baptists and/or debating. Do you take us for fools?

You speak of "God's creation" yet your posts are devoid of God's gospel.

 

[@@Paul@@]

My church is showing "Dr. Hovind's Creation Seminar Series" on Sunday nights... I think it's something everyone should watch.

Or listen.
http://www.drdino.com/Downloads/Seminar/mp3/index.jsp

 

[Ave Maria]

I most definitely believe in a literal 6 day creation! And that is 24-hour days too by the way. I believe God created the entire universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th day.

 

[lucaspa]

You have carefully avoided the vast chasms in your theological arguments. You would rather take a theological board and center on your area of expertise.

I would remind you that, by the rules of this Forum, I'm not allowed to post any theological arguments. I am only allowed to ask questions to see what your theological position is. If you want to hear my theological position, you will have to come to either the Creation vs Evolution Forum or the CO Creation Science and Evolution forum. This is not the appropriate forum.

The greater concern you should have is not whether hybrids equal speciation, rather it should be whether your god is a lower genetic form of an inferior genetic mix.

Why would evolution lead anyone to think God is a part of Creation?

You have aggressively entered a Baptist board and have carefully and callously avoided the grave theolological implications of your man-made belief system.

I have entered a Baptis board and asked for the Baptist response to questions. Sometimes the answers led me to new questions. One of the answers I have is that you, and perhaps all Baptists, think there are grave theological problems with evolution.

You speak of "God's creation" yet your posts are devoid of God's gospel.

I have no questions about your personal, and perhaps the Baptist, position on the Bible. Posters have made that position abundantly clear. What was unclear to me was the Baptist position on the evidence in God's Creation. Thus the questions.

 

[bleechers]

Why would evolution lead anyone to think God is a part of Creation?

It's a theological basic in Christianity called "the incarnation". There are the implications thereof (to which I have reffered twice in previous posts).

 

[P_G]

--<MOD HAT ON>--

Because of the fact that there seemed to be a debate going on and then
some members not like it AFTER they entered into debate with other denominiations I have decided that it was better off to move this thread to the Creation Science and Evolution forum.

Enjoy your discussions and debates be nice to the Mods here!

--<MOD HAT OFF>--

Blessings

Pastor George

 

[herev]

meanwhile they risk their souls on a theory and ride a train straight to hell while waiting

you didn't really go there, did you? Are you prepared to judge my soul based on an interpretatin of the first two chapters of the Bible?

 

[BT]

you didn't really go there, did you? Are you prepared to judge my soul based on an interpretatin of the first two chapters of the Bible?

If you read it in context I was refering to evolutionists outside of Christianity, at least that's what I thought I was refering to. I won't judge your soul on anything, it's not my job. But if you said that you were an evolutionist non-Christian then I think the statement is quite fine (especially if you were atheistic because of your evolution belief).

 

[gluadys]

I was wondering why I hadn't seen a thread started in July before. So it was just moved here from the Baptist board. I'm Presbyterian myself.

In any case, now that we are here, I think I'll pick up on a few topics.

To be honest, I'm not sure 100% sure what to believe. I have yet to launch a full research into this. My first thought is that the six days is literal mainly because I think that information is passed down in ways that can be understood by the reader and if it's figurative (without telling the reading or making it obvious that it's figurative) then there should be some kind of key to decipher what is really being said.

Of course, you have to remember that the scripture was not being written directly to us. We are, as it were, overhearing a conversation between the writer and the first readers.

Probably the clues that it is not literal were a good deal more obvious to them than to us. We have to get our heads into their culture and mind-set to see what they saw, and that is not the easiest thing to do.

Of course, the big picture is clear enough. God created the world and everything in it. God created us male and female in God's image and gave us the job of taking care of everything else on earth.

But the subtleties by which the author upholds the God of Israel against the gods of Babylon can only be latched onto through study of the time in which it was written, and analysis of the literary form.

 

[gluadys]

There is enough "evidence" of a young earth to show the point.

Such as.....?

There is actually enough "evidence" of creation to refute any evolutionary theory (big bang).

If you think the big bang has anything to do with the theory of evolution, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[gluadys]

Might I suggest you check out icr.org. They have articles and tons of materials. They also run a fully accreditted creationist graduate school in CA.

Glenn Morton is one of their graduates. Nearly lost his faith because of the education he got there. His story is well-worth reading, especially about the evening he called eight other ICR graduates working in geology and asked them: "Is there one thing you learned at ICR, different from standard geology, which turned out to be true?" and all eight said "No."

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

Check out other stories of former Young-Earth Creationists at the same site.

Evolution not only presents some fantastic scientific and logical problems... the theological implications are intrinsically anti-gospel.

Such as......?

 

[gluadys]

Sure.


The evolutionist will tell you that we started off as some "glob" of certain chemicals

Not so. The TOE assumes that life is already in existence. It doesn't say anything about how life originated.

But what does science say?

One (of many) example of science pointing away from evolution and to creation....

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which you will learn in any and every school)

I would appreciate your comments on what this Christian chemical engineer says about the 2LOT.

http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html


In particular, I would like specific comments on what scientific errors he has made.

 

[gluadys]

If you've discovered some change from one species to another (despite what we know about genetics) you might want to call somebody. There exists absolutely no evidence of such a thing.

What do we know about genetics that is in conflict with the TOE? I understand they mesh together very well.

If you accept evolution is any way, you accept the following:

1. God prefers the "survival of the fittest" over the weak, blind and lame.

2. Death is a good thing.

3. Jesus was not the perfect man, He was only an inferior version of an ever-changing gene pool.

4. God used mutations in the genetic code, leading to deformities and inferior species to somehow effect a change in evolutionary advancement (although no such "positive mutations" have ever been documented or observed).

5. "The first Adam" is a misnomer which casts aspersions of the concept of "the last Adam".

6. Cain didn't murder his brother, he merely decreased the surplus population during a time of competetive consumption. The fittest survived.

7. Evolution is extremely inefficient (if possible at all). Taking the curse of sin out of the equation (which is necessary before Adam), you have God creating a sloppy world full of death and horrible mutations.

8. Death before sin? That destroys the entire reasoning of the Book of Romans and touches directly on the death burial and resurrection of Christ!

9. Jesus "conquered death"? But why? In evolution, death is not onlt necessary for the "strong" to survive, it is a "good" thing because it eliminates the "weak"!

1. Are you saying that God acts to be sure the weak, blind and lame have more children than the strong, seeing and walking? Besides, don't most of these conditions occur after birth, and so have no effect on the children? e.g. my spouse has difficulties with memory due to an accident which left him with brain damage. I guess by some standards he is "not fit". But my children both have excellent memory. That's because Lamark was wrong. Characteristics acquired during a life-time are not passed on to the children---so they don't affect the evolution of the species.

2. You can't have living things reproducing without having them dying as well. Maybe you don't think life is a good thing? or at least not good enough to be worth the price of death?

3. I believe Jesus' perfection consisted in him being without sin. Why would he have to have a perfect physical physique as well?

4. Have you any idea what a genetic mutation actually is and what it does? This does not describe mutations at all.

5. How so?

6. Evolution happens to species, not to individuals. As individuals, the less fit can murder the more fit. Evolution does not need to rely on murderers to preserve the more fit. Differential reproductive success is all that is needed.

7. Inefficient at what? It is pretty effective at ensuring adaptation and survival.

8. Romans is speaking only of humans with a soul. Not of animals, and not of human beings untouched by the image of God. The creation stories of Genesis make it clear that plants and animals died prior to the fall.

9. Death is not needed to eliminate the less fit---only lack of offspring. An unfit individual may live to a ripe old age, but if s/he never attracts a mate or is sterile, or unable to beget/bear a child, s/he will not pass genes to the next generation.

It's funny (odd) how those who are supposedly the most compassionate among us, believe in a theory whose primary tenet is based on the idea that the strong must eliminate the weak; the superior must eliminate the inferior.

It's funny (odd) how those who are supposedly the most compassionate among us, believe in a literal global flood that destroyed all living beings save the few on the ark, and in the imminent destruction of all living non-human beings in the fiery judgement of the end of the world, and in the literal eternal torment of the damned.

 

[gluadys]

The creation of a new species is genetically impossible.

why?

If evolution were the law, it would not only be evident and continual it would be easily observed.

It is.

Without following the specific example, a hybrid plant is not a new species no matter its ability to reproduce for it is a combination, not a deviance.

So what is a species?