My veiw on creationism

Toztabud

Newbie
Aug 5, 2011
21
0
✟7,631.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
That's very open-minded of you!

The theory of evolution is an explanation for observed phenomena. What you are asking for is like asking for a three-legged stool with only two legs.

Natural selection does not arrange and collect information.

Mutation may add, change or remove information.

You seem to be using non-standard definitions. What do you think "natural selection" is? What do you think "mutation" is? Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide us with your definition of those terms?

:confused:

Ok. According to "The New Answers Book 1" edited by Ken Ham. Chapter 1: "Is There Really a God?" by Ken Ham & Jason Lisle:

Natural Selection:
According to L.P. Lester and R.G. Bohlin in "The Natural Limits to Biological Change", natual selection only uses information already in the genes. It does not produce extra information.

For instance, natural selection has given to us many kinds of dogs and wolves, but no new information is produced. All variants are the result of rearranging, sorting out and seperation of the information in the original wolf/dog kind. It has never been observed or documented (despite many claims) of one kind changing into another. Dr. Michael Denton confirms that intelligent input is needed for an increase in information, as stated in "Evoltion: A Theory in Crisis".

Mutation:
Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist, in his book, "Not by Chance," states that he has never found a mutation that added information. "All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it." (p. 138)

Dr. Werner Gitt of the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology confirms that mutations can only cause change to existing information.



I can go more in-depth if you like.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Toztabud

Newbie
Aug 5, 2011
21
0
✟7,631.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Then please explain this (from Answers in Genisis):


Pond-scum-to-people evolution teaches that, over time, by natural causes, nonliving chemicals gave rise to a living cell. Then, this singlecelled life form gave rise to more advanced life forms. In essence, over millions of years, increases in information caused by mutations plus natural selection developed all the life forms we see on earth today.
For molecules-to-man evolution to happen, there needs to be a gain in new information within the organism’s genetic material. For instance, for a single-celled organism, such as an amoeba, to evolve into something like a cow, new information (not random base pairs, but complex and ordered DNA) would need to develop over time that would code for ears, lungs, brain, legs, etc.
If an amoeba were to make a change like this, the DNA would need to mutate new information. (Currently, an amoeba has limited genetic information, such as the information for protoplasm.) This increase of new information would need to continue in order for a heart, kidneys, etc., to develop. If a DNA strand gets larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesn’t code for anything (e.g., it doesn’t contain information for working lungs, heart, etc.), then the amount of DNA added is useless and would be more of a hindrance than a help.
There have been a few arguable cases of information-gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don’t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite—organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction! How can losses of information add up to a gain?

...

Conclusion
The biblical perspective on change within living things doesn’t require that new information be added to the genome as pond-scum-to-people evolution does. In fact, we expect to see the opposite (loss of genetic information) due to the curse in Genesis 3. Biblically, we would expect mutations to produce defects in the genome and would not expect mutations to be adding much, if any, new information.
Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires.
Mutations, when properly understood, are an excellent example of science confirming the Bible. When one sees the devastating effects of mutations, one can’t help but be reminded of the curse in Genesis 3. The accumulation of mutations from generation to generation is due to man’s sin. But those who have placed their faith in Christ, our Creator, look forward to a new heaven and earth where there will be no more pain, death, or disease.


N.B. Information is the number of meaningful chemicals, not the number of chemicals themself. If I throw a whole string of random letters together, with no language system, I have not created information, only a jumbled, illegible mess.

Also, the organism would die from genetic malfunction long before the DNA code created anything legible, and the code itself would just be bred back into it's original state or be lost due to the organism's death.

It takes a lot of genetic information to create just one limb. Such a thing just could not happen without outside input.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2005
6,032
116
45
✟6,911.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
The explanation is that, as usualy, AIG is misleading you. The processes by which new information can be formed in genes and DNA is quite well understood.

Some advice. When you are after information about biology, go to a scientific site, as biology is a branch of science. Given that AIG quite clearly has an agenda, they can not be trusted to give accurate scientific information.
 
Upvote 0

Toztabud

Newbie
Aug 5, 2011
21
0
✟7,631.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
And so, we come back to my first point: Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true. You can believe the fallible ideas of fallible men (who are divisive and have the credentials) or trust the perfect word of God (supported by people who are not divisive and also have credentials). It is simply a matter of faith.

If I'm wrong, it doesn't matter, but if you're wrong, then you are in deep trouble. Thus, the question now is, "Are you willing to risk being wrong?"

I am, because I have nothing to lose.

However, I will challenge you with your statement. If the processes are well understood, would you please explain them to us?

For instance: the famous experiment of Stanley Miller does not stand up to the "proof" scientists atribute to it.

The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 23 (AiG)
1) There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller in his experiment.

2) The next problem is that in Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma facing the evolutionist can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

3) The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.

4) Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from? Chance does not generate information. This observation caused the late Professor Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleague, Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe of Cardiff University, to conclude that the evolutionist is asking us to believe that a tornado can pass through a junk yard and assemble a jumbo jet.

Give me something that does, or show where this interpretation is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2005
6,032
116
45
✟6,911.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
And so, we come back to my first point: Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true. You can believe the fallible ideas of fallible men (who are divisive and have the credentials) or trust the perfect word of God (supported by people who are not divisive and also have credentials). It is simply a matter of faith.

What are you talking about? The processes by which new information occurs in the genome have been observed, tested and verified. How do you claim it is on faith?

If I'm wrong, it doesn't matter, but if you're wrong, then you are in deep trouble. Thus, the question now is, "Are you willing to risk being wrong?"

I am, because I have nothing to lose.

You're seriously playing the tired old Pascal's wager? My goodness...

However, I will challenge you with your statement. If the processes are well understood, would you please explain them to us?

Ahem. perhaps you need to read THIS again...

A gene gets duplicated during, and the copy of this gene can mutate. Wah-lah, new genetic information.

For instance: the famous experiment of Stanley Miller does not stand up to the "proof" scientists atribute to it.

The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 23 (AiG)
1) There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller in his experiment.

Yeah, according to the WIKI page on the experiment, when an atmosphere more in line with what the atmosphere back then is now thought to have been like, the experiment produced even more amino acids than the first time.

2) The next problem is that in Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma facing the evolutionist can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

And if all this was occuring near hydrothermal vents on the sea floor where UV radiation can't penetrate, it's not much of a problem. There's also a bunch of other ways in which the amino acids could have been protected from the UV radiation.

  • A UV-scattering oceanic ice layer, expected in the absence of greenhouse gases.
  • UV-absorbing and -scattering oil slicks that may have been formed by the photopolymerization of methane or by the accumulation of hydrocarbons carried by meteorites.
  • A UV-scattering layer of foam that may have been generated by UV light acting on compounds like pyrene and hexadecene.
  • The UV-opacity of sea water itself in the 200-220 nanometer range, which would have protected aliphatic amino acids (but not aromatic amino acids or nucleic acid bases, which need protection in the 260 nanometer range).
  • An adequate concentration of some of the organic compounds produced by prebiotic synthesis, including (but not limited to) the junk polymers generated in spark discharge experiments.
  • An adequate concentration of Fe2+ or SH-, one of which would have been in excess in the early oceans.


3) The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.

Excuse me? As long as the left handed amino acids are presented, how does the addition of right hand amino acids render the whole thing useless?

4) Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from? Chance does not generate information. This observation caused the late Professor Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleague, Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe of Cardiff University, to conclude that the evolutionist is asking us to believe that a tornado can pass through a junk yard and assemble a jumbo jet.

You do know that evolution ISN'T random, doncha? The "Junk yard 747" argument has been debunked so many times it just isn't funny any more. Please learn what evolution actually is before you start attacking it, because most of what creationist websites tell you about evolution is just plain WRONG.
 
Upvote 0

Toztabud

Newbie
Aug 5, 2011
21
0
✟7,631.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
This is exactly the kind of behaviour expected of an evolutionist, or Pharisee, or any other non-believer. Whenever the facts are shown in their true light, they always find a way to change them and, instead, accuse us of the trickery. It's all they really have.

For more information, see this response to feedback from AiG:

Stop all the trickery, fraught and wishful thinking.
In this particular tactic of emotive language, no facts are offered to back up the assertions of trickery—just personal biased opinion. Besides, on what moral grounds can an evolutionist appeal to us to stop our “trickery”? What makes it wrong in that worldview?
The above plea appeals to some sort of authority that describes what is good (not tricking) and what is bad (trickery, deception). This is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for “good” or “bad.” By making such a statement, the evolutionist is actually borrowing morals from the Christian worldview and the Bible in order to claim something is “trickery.”
Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains.
I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right.
As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.

In my own conclusion:
Arguments for and against can go back and forth all day, with both sides trying to support their own claim. What is true, though, is all stances in an argument are a matter of faith. A person can always find something to support their claim, whatever it is. The fact is, though, that many people are unwilling to question their own faith.

Many years ago, people believed the earth to be flat, but we now know otherwise. This is because our knowledge increased to allow an understanding of the solar system. Perhaps those who argue an evolutionary idea have yet to find the next level up - the spiritual realm of God. Perhaps they do not wish for it to exist, as the old world did not want to believe in a round earth, or the fact that it went around the sun, when it did. Time will tell.

Finally, if evolution is right, there will never be unity as people will always continue to fight for their side (even the Ceasers of Ancient Rome, with all their power, had to constantly watch their backs), however, if creationism is right, one can find a unity in God which the world can never equal.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gracchus

Senior Veteran
Dec 21, 2002
7,198
821
California
Visit site
✟23,182.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Ok. According to "The New Answers Book 1" edited by Ken Ham. Chapter 1: "Is There Really a God?" by Ken Ham & Jason Lisle:

Natural Selection:
According to L.P. Lester and R.G. Bohlin in "The Natural Limits to Biological Change", natual selection only uses information already in the genes. It does not produce extra information.

For instance, natural selection has given to us many kinds of dogs and wolves, but no new information is produced. All variants are the result of rearranging, sorting out and seperation of the information in the original wolf/dog kind. It has never been observed or documented (despite many claims) of one kind changing into another. Dr. Michael Denton confirms that intelligent input is needed for an increase in information, as stated in "Evoltion: A Theory in Crisis".


Mutation:
Dr. Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist, in his book, "Not by Chance," states that he has never found a mutation that added information. "All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it." (p. 138)

Dr. Werner Gitt of the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology confirms that mutations can only cause change to existing information.

I can go more in-depth if you like.
First of all: In order to quantify information you must use a metric. Information Theory is a branch of mathematics. An increase of information means a decrease of uncertainty. For instance if I say that "The answer is 7,8, or 9.", there are three possibilities. or two degrees of freedom. If I say "The answer is 8 or 9.", there is one degree of freedom and therefore the second statement contains more information than the first. If I say "The answer is 9.", there is no uncertainty and information is maximized. So, if a mutation occurs, there is an increase in the number of possible alleles in the genome of the species, which means that there is a decrease of information. And selection, because it removes alleles from the gene pool, decreases the uncertainty and so increases information.
So Spetner is right. Mutations do not increase information. They add variability to the species, increase uncertainty and decrease information. It is selection that decreases variability and uncertainty and increases information.
Now of course Spetner knows this but he also knows that most of the people reading his paper don't understand how to quantify information, and so he can mislead them by telling the truth, but with the intent to deceive
.
:wave:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Exiledoomsayer

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
Jan 7, 2010
2,196
64
✟17,737.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
My last post can also be said of the above. Evolutionists accusing us of being divisive, when in fact they are the ones who have contradicting theories. It all comes down to one's interpretation of data.

Hey Tonztabud,
I'll attempt to keep my english readable :)

I was reading this thread alittle bit and I just wanted to make sure you understood, the problem that people are trying to point out is that your source of information may be mistaken or misleading.
Now I realize your first instinct is to declare that 99% of the scientific world is supressing all creationist thought and flying blind on their own dogma's, but I just wanted to suggest entertaining the possiblity and reading some books from the science side so you will get all the information.

Because from what I have read you only have the 'creationists view' of evolution. And that is rather like having 'Richard Dawkins view' of christianity, not nessisarily entirely accurate.
It would be better to get your information from the source instead of from the one who openly declare that if evolution is true there is no god. (I'm sure you see how that might color ones view if the fate of your soul hangs in the balance.)
Not to mention the majority of christians accept evolution as gods tool.

If you want to read a christian perspective I would suggest Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller which might be more in your field of interest.

Don't feel like I'm attacking you or anything I just thought you might like to get the full picture. Most folks here have familourized themselfs with all sides aswell.
 
Upvote 0

Toztabud

Newbie
Aug 5, 2011
21
0
✟7,631.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
You want a full picture? Then read this:

Because the scientific evidence contradicts the origin of life by natural processes, Miller resorted to unrealistic initial conditions to develop amino acids in his experiment (no oxygen and excessive energy input). However, there is more to the story. Producing amino acids is not the hard part. The difficult part is getting the right type and organization of amino acids. There are over 2,000 types of amino acids, but only 20 are used in life. Furthermore, the atoms that make up each amino acid are assembled in two basic shapes. These are known as left-handed and right-handed. Compare them to human hands. Each hand has the same components (four fingers and a thumb), yet they are different. The thumb of one hand is on the left, and the thumb of the other is on the right. They are mirror images of each other. Like our hands, amino acids come in two shapes. They are composed of the same atoms (components) but are mirror images of each other, called left-handed amino acids and right-handed amino acids. Objects that have handedness are said to be chiral (pronounced “ky-rul”), which is from the Greek for hand.
Handedness is an important concept because all amino acids that make up proteins in living things are 100 percent left-handed. Right-handed amino acids are never found in proteins. If a protein were assembled with just one right-handed amino acid, the protein’s function would be totally lost. As one PhD chemist has said:
Many of life’s chemicals come in two forms, “left-handed” and “right-handed.” Life requires polymers with all building blocks having the same “handedness” (homochirality)—proteins have only “left-handed” amino acids. . . . But ordinary undirected chemistry, as is the hypothetical primordial soup, would produce equal mixtures of left- and right-handed molecules, called racemates.
A basic chemistry textbook admits:
This is a very puzzling fact. . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants from higher organisms and from very simple organisms—bacteria, molds, even viruses—are found to have been made of L-amino [left-handed] acids.
The common perception left by many textbooks and journals is that Miller and other scientists were successful in producing the amino acids necessary for life. However, the textbooks and media fail to mention that what they had actually produced was a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids, which is detrimental to life. The natural tendency is for left- and right-handed amino acids to bond together. Scientists still do not know why biological proteins use only left-handed amino acids.
The reason for this choice [only left-handed amino acids] is again a mystery, and a subject of continuous dispute.
Jonathan Wells, a developmental biologist, writes:
So we remain profoundly ignorant of how life originated. Yet the Miller-Urey experiment continues to be used as an icon of evolution, because nothing better has turned up. Instead of being told the truth, we are given the misleading impression that scientists have empirically demonstrated the first step in the origin of life.
Despite the fact that the Miller experiment did not succeed in creating the building blocks of life (only left-handed amino acids), textbooks continue to promote the idea that life could have originated by natural processes. For example, the following statement from a biology textbook misleads students into thinking Miller succeeded:
By re-creating the early atmosphere (ammonia, water, hydrogen and methane) and passing an electric spark (lightning) through the mixture, Miller and Urey proved that organic matter such as amino acids could have formed spontaneously.
First, note the word proved. Miller and Urey proved nothing except that life’s building blocks could not form in such conditions. Second, the textbook completely ignores other evidence, which shows that the atmosphere always contained oxygen. Third, the textbook ignores the fact that Miller got the wrong type of amino acids—a mixture of left- and right-handed.
The Miller experiment (and all experiments since then) failed to produce even a single biological protein by purely naturalistic processes. Only God could have begun life.

(AiG)
 
Upvote 0

Exiledoomsayer

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
Jan 7, 2010
2,196
64
✟17,737.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The biology scientists come at their conclusions in one of two ways: an evolutionary/humanary perspective OR a Godly perspective. Those who have an evolutionary/humanary perspective are prone to manipulation of the facts given to them.
And you know this how?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Exiledoomsayer

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
Jan 7, 2010
2,196
64
✟17,737.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
And you know they don't, how?
Is that your best answer?

I know they do not because scientists of every religion look at the same data and come to the same conclusion. over 99% of biologists agree on evolution all of different faiths (Christian, jewish, muslim all have no problem seeing the facts for what they are and see no conflict with god).

The 1% of fundamentalist christian 'creation scientists' have a clear agenda as they will tell you that if evolution is true there is no god. Thats some pretty darn high stakes, they cant ever admit they are wrong then can they? (Nevermind they are lying to begin with, evolution does not rule out god the majority of christians accept evolution.)

You realize that the group that AiG claim is "prone to manipulation of the facts" is the overwhelming majority? A mass scale conspiracy right in broad day light in a enviroment that will award nobel prizes for anyone that rip a wellestablished theory down?

If you look at any other conspiracy theory you will find a simular line of reasoning, a small group has THE TRUTH but the majority is supressing it! For instance take the age of the earth, Yecs will tell you the geologists are twisting the evidence and not looking at it. Or take vaccines the anti-vac's will say that all the studies done that show no harm are false and only the 1 doctor they have backing them up is producing real tests.

I'm sure you see the pattern here, for each conspiracy its always a tiny group claiming the majority are lying about the facts. On such a massive scale that the coverup would be impossible to pull off. And each time the small groups motives are easily found in their deeply held believes being challenged by the consensus that they are unwilling to change.
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,356
13,114
Seattle
✟907,985.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums