"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[-57]

It presents no empirical evidence, just opinion.

I'm glad you took the time to tell me where my opinion was incorrect.

 

[-57]

And you haven't told me how the genetic variation got there.

Through mutations.

 

[-57]

As for demonstrating that genetic data is inconsistent with a recent Adam and Eve, that requires that you learn quite a bit of population genetics. Fortunately, Dennis Venema has done a nice job of summarizing much of it in layman's terms here.

I find biologos to be a heretical site. Perhaps when they explain our sin nature with out distorting scripture I might re-visit them for factual information.

 

[RickG]

I'm sorry that you find my belief in a six day creation time frame deplorable. Despite the FACT the bible tells us it was.

It's not the belief in a six day creation that I criticize, it is the use of "creation science" literature to support it.

 

[RickG]

I'm glad you took the time to tell me where my opinion was incorrect.

That is not what I said.

 

[bhsmte]

I find biologos to be a heretical site. Perhaps when they explain our sin nature with out distorting scripture I might re-visit them for factual information.

I assume you have received medical care from a doctor before. Have you ever asked them, if they agree with evolution and what role it has played in modern medicine?

 

[sfs]

Through mutations.

And how did so many mutations occur that are at 1% in the modern population? When do you think they happened?

 

[-57]

It's not the belief in a six day creation that I criticize, it is the use of "creation science" literature to support it.

So, when I'm told a rock is 65 MY's old...and they find soft dino tissue in it....You critize me for thinking the rock isn't as old as you claim?

When they find carbon 14 in diamonds and coal...you feel the need to critize me for thinking the rock is millions of years old?

Because I find tons of science that informs us the earth is young...like the bible claims...you critize me for believing the bible?

 

[-57]

I assume you have received medical care from a doctor before. Have you ever asked them, if they agree with evolution and what role it has played in modern medicine?

There are many medical doctors who don't accept evolutionism.

For example...
Earlier this month, Dr. Ben Carson announced that he’s running for president. Carson was previously the head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. He also rejects the theory of evolution. Here at Pacific Standard, his stance made us wonder: How can doctors deny evolution?
Rest of article if you desire to read it.

 

[Hieronymus]

I assume you have received medical care from a doctor before. Have you ever asked them, if they agree with evolution and what role it has played in modern medicine?

That's GENETICS, my friend, not evolution.

 

[sfs]

I find biologos to be a heretical site. Perhaps when they explain our sin nature with out distorting scripture I might re-visit them for factual information.

Again, why the irrelevant response? I wasn't asking you to accept their theology -- I was asking you to read a summary of scientific evidence that's presented there. It's not surprising that you think there's no evidence for evolution if you simply refuse to look at it when it's presented to you.

 

[sfs]

That's GENETICS, my friend, not evolution.

Both genetics and evolution are important in modern biomedical research. That's why the biomedical research institute I work for spends a lot of money and effort studying evolution, as does Harvard Medical School across the river.

 

[-57]

And how did so many mutations occur that are at 1% in the modern population? When do you think they happened?

After the fall of Adam and Eve the mutations started. They have been corrupting out genetics since then.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does creation from nothing mean that it shouldn't explain anything?

It should explain something: that's my point.

Creatio ex nihilo explains a lot.

For example, the creation of humans from nothing (or from dust) as a single pair a few thousand years ago would be a great explanation for why humans have strikingly low genetic diversity and a shortage of low frequency genetic variants -- because that (especially the second one) is what we would expect to see if recent special creation were true. The problem is, of course, that we don't see those things.

The creation of humans from nothing is now how it went down.

Adam & Eve were created ex materia, not ex nihilo.

As far as genetic diversity and low frequency genetic variants are concerned, God handled all that stuff.

Remember the call of Abram from Ur of the Chaldees?

He started a whole new line of DNA, did He not?

And don't forget Shem, Ham, and Japheth ... three men who also had their own lines of DNA.

One day you have one line of DNA: Noah's.

The next, three separate lines: Shem, Ham and Japheth's.

So why would you expect to see 'a shortage of low frequency genetic variation'?

 

[sfs]

The creation of humans from nothing is now how it went down.

Adam & Eve were created ex materia, not ex nihilo.

Yes, I said that (although I said it in English, since I don't speak Latin).

As far as genetic diversity and low frequency genetic variants are concerned, God handled all that stuff.

That doesn't explain anything -- it doesn't tell me why things are one way rather than another.

Remember the call of Abram from Ur of the Chaldees?

He started a whole new line of DNA, did He not?

No, he inherited his DNA (with a few mutations) from his parents, just like everyone else.

And don't forget Shem, Ham, and Japheth ... three men who also had their own lines of DNA.

Where did they get these new lines of DNA from?

One day you have one line of DNA: Noah's.

The next, three separate lines: Shem, Ham and Japheth's.

So why would you expect to see 'a shortage of low frequency genetic variation'?

Because nothing you've said would introduce low frequency genetic variation into the modern population.

 

[AV1611VET]

Incidentally, I hope everyone is enjoying their Labor Day weekend.

It's a picture of our Lord Jesus Christ, who did all the work to effect our salvation; and we don't have to do anything in the way of works.

In fact, right in the middle of Galatians -- our Magna Charta -- we see this verse ...

Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

It seems strange equating us with Isaac, until one realizes that Isaac in the Bible did nothing in the way of works.

Even his wife was picked out for him.

 

[sfs]

After the fall of Adam and Eve the mutations started. They have been corrupting out genetics since then.

A little more specifically, please. For a new mutation to be at 1% frequency in a rapidly expanding population, it has to occur when there are ~50 people in the population. According to YECs, there would only have been that small a population for a couple of generations at most. So how did all of those 1% mutations get here?

 

[-57]

A little more specifically, please. For a new mutation to be at 1% frequency in a rapidly expanding population, it has to occur when there are ~50 people in the population. According to YECs, there would only have been that small a population for a couple of generations at most. So how did all of those 1% mutations get here?

Of those 1% mutations what percentage of them are harmful, neutral and beneficial?

 

[Waterwerx]

Next thing you know, they'll want to call in the Hardly Boys to solve the case and try to prove we evolved from fossils they find in rocks and coal. Never mind what the book of Genesis says. God was just being allegorical. He really didn't create man as a separately unique species. My great x 1,000,000,000,000,000th ancestor was some single-celled organism that eventually evolved into a poo-slinging ape, from which evolved man.

You go on and on and on about fossil records and such, when all they have is a theory, and a very poor one. You know, the scientists proposing this trash remind me of some of the stupid crackpot scientists on the show called Ancient Aliens that usually airs on the History Channel. They present the material very convincingly, but then you find that it is all built on a bunch of lies. They should start a spinoff show and call it "Ancient Evolution", and say at the start of every other sentence in the show, "Ancient Evolution Theorists believe, claim, etc.".

 

[RickG]

So, when I'm told a rock is 65 MY's old...and they find soft dino tissue in it....You critize me for thinking the rock isn't as old as you claim?

If you knew the actual science you too would be able to see that the information they present is deliberate misrepresentations of the science. You have never actually read Schweitzers paper have you?

When they find carbon 14 in diamonds and coal...you feel the need to critize me for thinking the rock is millions of years old?

There's a perfect example of your total ignorance of any geologic dating method, and I have discussed this with you in other threads in the past as well. First, carbon dating does not date or try to date anything millions of years. Its half-life is only 5730 years. The 14C in diamonds and coal is "in situ" 14C, not atmospheric 14C which is used in dating. They form through different avenues, something the dishonest creation science literature purposely leaves out.

Because I find tons of science that informs us the earth is young...like the bible claims...you critize me for believing the bible?

No, you find tons of opinion and baseless claims that are not supported any original data or research. Think I'm wrong? Then provide a link to one of those tons of sources that provides "original data and research" to support their claims. Just one 57, just one.