Issues with Creation

[theFijian]

Yes it is my interpretation, but my interpretation is more accurate according to the Hebrew language than yours. If willing to go against the normal language usage then yes the creation account can be read as non-literal.

But if you are going to follow the grammer and context then it is impossible to boldly say that the creation account is not literal.

Your dogmatism is most tiresome, but it's to be expected from YECs. There is language used in Gen 1 whhich is quite clearly figurative. For example, the word for 'expanse' in vs. 6, 7 whose verbal root means a hammered out plate. Job 37:18 uses the same word to talk of the skies as 'hard as a mirror of cast bronze'. Using a word that represents what we know, and they knew, to be ethereal - namely the sky - by a word which means a hard mirror, it seems highly implausible that this was to be taken literally.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

On the same note, common sense and also creationism predicted similar DNA before it was true. We have common DNA with a horse. How do I know? Have I personally compared the two DNA structures? No, but I do know we both have heads, hair (of sorts), legs, eyes, ears, etc... We are very similar but the slight change in DNA is what makes us different.

Duh! A computer monitor and a TV both look the same and do the same things. Now I have never opened up either one but I expect to find similar stuff. Its just common sense and just because evolution predicted similar DNA doesn't give any weight to your arguement because creationism did as well.

But the similarities are also found in sections that don't appear to do anything. These can't be explained simply because of similar structures and functions.

Furthermore, while they are similar, they aren't identical. Why would God use multiple variations of the same gene? Why would His choices of variations follow a pattern consistent with evolution?

How? I understand how the fossils help us observe what animals lived in the past but what do see that lived in the past? The same things that lived now. Actually there are some species that went extinct that no longer exist. So fossils just makes us go "Wow. Things haven't changed much. Nothing new has been produced."

There are plenty of new things coming about. Vertebrates weren't always around. Neither were land animals, flying animals, or mammals. Your assertion that nothing has changed is just silly.

Define small scale. Does this mean a change of color? I believe that animals will sometimes vary within a kind and every now and then throw at us something kinda different. But this never has, isn't, and never will happen so as to produce new kinds and such.

Changes in finch sizes over the years in response to variation in weather. Resistance of bacteria to anti-biotics. All are examples of evolution on a small scale.

But again this doesn't give us any indication that it happens in the natural world.

I go back to my very weak house analogy: Just because we can build a house doesn't mean it happens in the natural world. Or do you believe different? I mean if you believe in evolution then I guess it would make sense that you would also believe houses can come about on their own. Actually (although I haven't done the math) I believe the chances would be greater for houses to come about naturally than for evolution happen at all in the natural world.

Can you show how artificial selection pressures is qualitatively different than natural selection pressures?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

A point to consider on the literal sense of words:

I am currently reading The Fellowship of the Ring. In it, Gandalf is described as a wizard. This description is very literal. However, this does not mean that Gandalf is a real person.

 

[Faith In God]

A point to consider on the literal sense of words:

I am currently reading The Fellowship of the Ring. In it, Gandalf is described as a wizard. This description is very literal. However, this does not mean that Gandalf is a real person.

okay. so?

God is not Tolkein, i'm sorry.

 

[Bushido216]

You have explained nothing. You view is false and you do not have sufficient data to uphold it.

Your inability, or unwillingness, to grasp the fact that you are wrong is unsettling but prophesied.

I have broken everything down into the simplest bits possible! Did you actually read anything I said or were you just preparing for the next thing you were going to say?

 

[Bushido216]

give me a good link
that's not observation
that's not evolution. that's genetic manipulation. Evolution happens naturally in the real world. Or at least that's how it has to be observed in order for it to be a possible theory for the creation of the world.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

Then what would you consider an observation to be? An observation is anything we can test for, see, etc.

Selective breeding shows that the mechanisms requisite for evolution to happen in the natural world exist.

See, that's how science works. Part of showing that a theory is valid is demonstrating the various mechanisms involved, then you get to the fun part of showing how those parts interact to form your theory.

 

[Bushido216]

Yes it is my interpretation, but my interpretation is more accurate according to the Hebrew language than yours. If willing to go against the normal language usage then yes the creation account can be read as non-literal.

But if you are going to follow the grammer and context then it is impossible to boldly say that the creation account is not literal.

If you are willing to ignore science, then Genesis is literal.

 

[Bushido216]

Again, I try to read everything given to me to give the opposing side a chance.
Assuming evoution is true. You're using circular reasoning there. You say we no evolution happened because of the DNA and then you say we know the DNA is like this because of evolution.

You may observe things in their present state all you want but you will not be able to begin to figure out their biological history unless you view their past (which in most cases we cannot do) and/or view the progession in the furture. The latter is being done right now and evolution is not happening.

Some may say that evolution takes a long time to happen and that's why we aren't seeing it. That's fine to say but if that's true then we cannot uphold evolution as a scientific theory. Nor can we say creationism is scientific but we creationists do try that, we know it isn't scientific because it includes a suprenatural being influencing (actually creating) the natural world.

I hold true to the fact that evolution is not a scientific theory but rather a belief that exists outside of science.

Rather than saying that science is the biggest supportor of creationism (which it does), my faith lies in God and His word, the Bible. I take the word of the One who was there at the beginging.
Again, I should have said natural evolution, which again is what needs to be observed order for the evolutionary theory as we know it to be plausible.

The similarities in D.N.A. structure is only one of many evidences that we have. It isn't everything.

Also, evolution does indeed take a long time to have a seriously noticeable effect. However, we can observe the effects of evolution in the past. In things like the fossil record (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates) and the similarities in D.N.A. structure in current organisms (like chimpanzees and humans).

 

[Faith In God]

If you are willing to ignore science, then Genesis is literal.

do you agree with trusting your eyes rather than God's word?

 

[Bushido216]

Oh but it does. The Bible says God created in 6 literal days and evolution (any form of it) says the earth and everything come about over millions and millions of years.

Actually, that would be things like Big Bang theory, First Cause, and Abiogenesis. Please do not confuse your scientific theories.

 

[Bushido216]

So if God is in charge enough to reveal His word to us and we know that He said He created the universe and everythin in it in 6 literal days then evolution is impossible!

Just because you want it to be false, doesn't make it false!

You are doing science backwards. You are attempting to use theory to disprove data. It goes the other way around. You have an idea that because you think the Bible says A, the data supporting evolution must be false.

It's the opposite! Because of the data supporting evolution, your interpretation of the Bible must be false!

 

[Bushido216]

do you agree with trusting your eyes rather than God's word?

I use my eyes to tell me what God's Word is saying.

 

[Bushido216]

okay. so?

God is not Tolkein, i'm sorry.

This is disturbing. I swear, with some people (butxifxnot, JohnR7, Underdog77) if you write anything in anything more than the most basic of language, or write anything that requires any critical thinking to comprehend, you have just wasted your time.

 

[Faith In God]

Just because you want it to be false, doesn't make it false!

You are doing science backwards. You are attempting to use theory to disprove data. It goes the other way around. You have an idea that because you think the Bible says A, the data supporting evolution must be false.

It's the opposite! Because of the data supporting evolution, your interpretation of the Bible must be false!

alright. you asked for critical thinking. You made a nice point, i suppose, but then, you also have good physical descriptions of real people, and they literally existed. poof.

as for the bible, it is anti-evolution. Paul wrote about how man and animal have different kinds of flesh. kind of goes against the theory of common ancestry among all living organism.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

okay. so?

God is not Tolkein, i'm sorry.

The point is that a non-historical story can use literal language.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

do you agree with trusting your eyes rather than God's word?

No, it is reading the Bible differently, realizing that non-historical stories can convery much more important messages.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

alright. you asked for critical thinking. You made a nice point, i suppose, but then, you also have good physical descriptions of real people, and they literally existed. poof.

as for the bible, it is anti-evolution. Paul wrote about how man and animal have different kinds of flesh. kind of goes against the theory of common ancestry among all living organism.

My flesh is different from your flesh.

 

[Faith In God]

My flesh is different from your flesh.

we are both human, no?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

We are. But if I had your kidney implanted in me, what would be the chances of it taking without immuno-suppressant (i.e. suppressing the "hey, this isn't my flesh!" response) drugs?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

But more to the point.

Fish flesh is indeed different to mammal flesh, evidenced by the fact that I like the taste of most of the latter (which I've eaten, anyway), and none of the former (which I have eaten, or tried to eat).

But this does not mean they do not have a common origin. French is different from Italian, but they both have the same origin in Latin.

On to DNA similarities. Since you know your stuff, Underdog, you no doubt know about retro-viral insertions in the genome. Presumably you can therefore also explain how it is that DNA similarities include similarities in these insertions.

You presumably also know that humans and chimpanzees share the same broken vitamin C production gene. You might want to extend your explanation to explain why God put the same non functional, faulty, broken gene in both of us, but not in the monkeys or other mammals. He did, apparently, put a broken one in guinea pigs, but theres is broken in a different place. I trust you can explain this?

You might also want to explain how it is that human chromosome 2 is quite clearly cobbelled together out of two seperate ape chromosomes, and indeed still has the termination sequences right where the two ape chromosomes appear to be fused. Was God short of chromosomes that day, but did have a pot of superglue?

All these are adequately explained by evolution; indeed, if the retro-viral insertion data did not follow the same pattern as the other phylogenetic evidence, evolution would be in a certain creek with no means of propulsion.