Issues with Creation

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

give me a good link

Only if you promise to read it this time.

that's not observation

How, exactly, does one notice DNA similarities without observing DNA? Or is this some strange definition of "observation" you're using? Is even the English language not safe in creationist hands?

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.

How does the mutation know whether the selection pressures being placed upon it are natural or artificial? In other words, what material difference does it make? Do we declare experiments to discover the breaking strength of lift cables to be invalid because the strain put on them is done purposely with a machine instead of by putting six people in a lift and making it plummet?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

give me a good link

If I do, will you actually read it?

that's not observation

It is an observation of the effects of evolution.

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.

It's change in the characteristics of a popultion over time, so it is evolution.

 

[Underdog77]

Thanks for at least being honest and admitting that it is your interpretation that makes it literal, and your interpretation is of course quite fallible.

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.

 

[Underdog77]

Only if you promise to read it this time.

I actually read most links given. Some of them are long and I browse through at first and then come back when I have time to read the whole thing.

How, exactly, does one notice DNA similarities without observing DNA? Or is this some strange definition of "observation" you're using? Is even the English language not safe in creationist hands?

What I meant was that is not observing evolution. You can decide that evolution produced the similarities in the DNA, but without monitoring the DNA through the genreations and seeing a slow change in the DNA, you do not observe evolution in DNA. Today we only see what is here today. We do not know if the DNA changed over the years because we did not see it and still do not see it today.

How does the mutation know whether the selection pressures being placed upon it are natural or artificial? In other words, what material difference does it make? Do we declare experiments to discover the breaking strength of lift cables to be invalid because the strain put on them is done purposely with a machine instead of by putting six people in a lift and making it plummet?

The point is that evolution does not happen naturally which is what needs to be seen in order for it to be a scientific theory, scientific being the operative word.

Evolution claims that things changed naturally in this world without man scientists coming in.

If you use this logic you come to other bizzare conclusions. Do you believe that since man can manipulate wood into the form of a house that sometimes it happens naturally in the world? If not, it seems ironic that you do beileve since man can manipulate genes and stuff that it can happen naturally in the world.

 

[Underdog77]

If I do, will you actually read it?

Again, I try to read everything given to me to give the opposing side a chance.

It is an observation of the effects of evolution.

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.

It's change in the characteristics of a popultion over time, so it is evolution.

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.

 

[herev]

Yes it is my interpretation, but my interpretation is more accurate according to the Hebrew language than yours.

Odd statement. If both are truly interpretations, then to say one is more accurate is then an opinion, which would mean that you recognize that another opinion that is opposite of your opinion is valid.

 

[herev]

I wonder how many evolutionists gamble? The chances are better at hitting the jackpot on a slot machine than for evolution having to take place.

But if God is in charge, it's a sure bet

 

[herev]

That's a lot of philosophical crud. Creationism may have some 'easy' answers but that doesn't mean they're wrong. Distrust anything that counters the Bible; e.g. evolution.

but I don't believe evolution counters the Bible

 

[herev]

I take the word of the One who was there at the beginging.

I do too, and yet, I am a TE, so why do you imply repeatedly that I don't believe the Bible, or that I trust man more than God, or that I misread Genesis 1 and 2? You have given no biblical support to believe Genesis as literal, yet you think we should not believe anything that is not explicitly stated in the Bible. Do you believe that everything in the Bible is literal? or do you accept that some portions are not?
Is Ecclesiastes 1:5 literal? The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
If so, then you dispute what we know as fact: that the earth's rotation causes it to look as it the sun is moving around the earth, but in fact, it is the other way around.
If not, then where does Ecclesiastes tell me to read it as non-literal?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

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.

Evolution predicted that there would be similar DNA before we knew whether this was true.

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.

Both fossils and DNA allow us to observe biological history.

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.

We do see small-scale evolution suitable for small-scale observations.

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.

Evolution is evolution. The source of the selection pressure doesn't really matter.

 

[Underdog77]

Odd statement. If both are truly interpretations, then to say one is more accurate is then an opinion, which would mean that you recognize that another opinion that is opposite of your opinion is valid.

Technically you can interpret anything to mean anything you want even if it is ridiculous and that is what I mean. My 'interpretation' is more accurate, if not completely accurate, than TE or OEC.

I can say "I walked down the street to the store" and you can say it means whatever you want but what would most accurate is to believe I meant that I literally walked down the street to the store.

I recognize that others may think the Bible means something different but they have no passages that indicates it.

 

[Underdog77]

But if God is in charge, it's a sure bet

So what about the Bible? Is God in charge enough to reveal to us His word?

 

[Underdog77]

but I don't believe evolution counters the Bible

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.

 

[Underdog77]

I do too, and yet, I am a TE, so why do you imply repeatedly that I don't believe the Bible, or that I trust man more than God, or that I misread Genesis 1 and 2? You have given no biblical support to believe Genesis as literal, yet you think we should not believe anything that is not explicitly stated in the Bible. Do you believe that everything in the Bible is literal? or do you accept that some portions are not?
Is Ecclesiastes 1:5 literal? The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.
If so, then you dispute what we know as fact: that the earth's rotation causes it to look as it the sun is moving around the earth, but in fact, it is the other way around.
If not, then where does Ecclesiastes tell me to read it as non-literal?

I don't how many times I've explained the Biblical evidence and I'm tired of writing it so go to the "Old and Young Earth-Translations" thread and read my post which is #18. It ought to explain Yom in a good way but again if it is too muddled I'll rewrite it in better form.

Also, when I claim to be a literalist (a name I would not choose but rather was bestowed upon me and the others like me) it simply means that I know the creation account depicts 6 literal days. I do know that some of the Bible is figurative, poetry, and prophecy but most of it is clearly non-literal. The creation account on the other hand is clearly literal. The reason people want to change that is because the feel the need to compromise to the evolution belief.

 

[Faith In God]

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.

not only that. there is a verse in 1 Corinthians talking about how we know that man's flesh and animal's flesh are different kinds of flesh. there is one for man, animal, bird, fish, etc.

 

[Underdog77]

Evolution predicted that there would be similar DNA before we knew whether this was true.

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.

Both fossils and DNA allow us to observe biological history.

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."

We do see small-scale evolution suitable for small-scale observations.

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.

Evolution is evolution. The source of the selection pressure doesn't really matter.

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.

 

[Underdog77]

not only that. there is a verse in 1 Corinthians talking about how we know that man's flesh and animal's flesh are different kinds of flesh. there is one for man, animal, bird, fish, etc.

I've never heard of that verse. It sounds pretty good so I'll have to look it up.

 

[Faith In God]

I've never heard of that verse. It sounds pretty good so I'll have to look it up.

1 corinthians 15: 39

 

[Underdog77]

Thanks. Good verse.

 

[notto]

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."

Then you haven't looked very closely at the fossil record. The fossil record shows us not only what lived, but when and how things lived. It shows us that not all animals that are represented in the fossil record were alive at one time and that new species and types of animals came onto the scene over time as others went extinct.

Lots of new thing were produced and things certainly changed quite a bit.

How come we don't find any mammals with the dinosaurs? How come the we can see the evolution of hominids by looking at the location and timeframe of fossils that have been found? How come all of this is predicted by evolutionary theory and continues to be verified with each new find?

You keep talking about new 'kinds'. New 'kinds' are abundant in the fossil record. At one point, mammals were a new 'kind' as well as birds. They did not exist for the entire history as layed out in the fossil record.

Evolutionary theory and mainstream geology explain this evidence quite well. It makes sense of what we see an does a better job of predicting what we will continue to find than any other hypothesis that has been proposed.