What do you believe regarding creation and evolution?

[Nathan Poe]

Apologies in advance for spelling errors. I broke my glasses, and the world looks like I'm looking at it through an ice cube. But we all have our jobs to do, so without further delay...

*RANT MODE ON*

Originally posted by Jedi


So quick to point the finger and say that my arguments are leading to a conspiracy theory. I never asserted that was the case, but merely thought it logical that had all scientists accepted evolution, the already accepted examples wouldn’t have been given a closer look. Perhaps evolutionists were double-checking their prized examples since they were experiencing opposition from the Creationists.

Actually, the evolutionists experience far more opposition from each other. And well they should, for what good is an idea that can't be defended? (about as good as a God that needs to be defended, I would imagine.)

Anyway, we know that an intelligent being created the universe because of this: If our solar system came about by an accidental (meaningless) collision, then the appearance of earth is also an accident. If this is true, the appearance of organic life on earth is an accident. If so, then the entire evolution of man is also an accident. Further still, this would mean all of our thought processes (i.e. of astronomy, and evolution) are accidents as well (the mere accidental collisions of the movement of atoms). If this is so, why should we believe our thoughts to be true? I see no reason to believe that one accident can take a correct account of all the other accidents. You’d be thinking and speaking mere accidental gibberish.

Argument from adverse consequences: You "see no reason to believe" (i.e. you wouldn't want to believe) that our existence is the result of billions of years of accidents, so you choose not to. But if we are here as the result of cosmic accident, so what? If it turns out that we're not God's special little creatures after all, so what? Some things are true even if we find them unsettling.

The evidence of design within our universe is remarkable. From the tilt of the Earth’s axis (just right – not too cold, not too hot), to the irreducible complexity found in the genetic codes of living organisms. Design requires a designer.

Intelligent Design rears it head. Design does not require a designer. Design only requires an explanation. Despite the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" (which is often misapplied anyway), Order arises from disorder all the time. Take snowflakes for instance. These marvelous unique crystalline structures arose from the random collision of water molecules in the atmosphere. Or does God craft each and every single one of them by hand in his workshop?

Besides. even a six-year-old is savvy enough to ask the question, "If God created everything, what created God?" That question slams ID into a brick wall. Answer "nothing" and it turns out that design doesn't require a designer after all. Any other answer and the next logical questions are: "and what created that? and after that? and after that?" ad infinitum. Once you stop, design no longer requires a designer.

If there exists no Creator/God, then your life is meaningless (as is the rest of our lives), since there is no Ultimate source from which meaning comes. For something to have meaning, someone must give it meaning. If there’s no one to give humanity meaning, then humanity does not possess meaning to give to other things (like words, thoughts, devices, etc). All of our words then become utter accidental/meaningless by-products of our surroundings, and if that’s the case, there’s no reason to believe such accidental gibberish to be true.

Ok, first of all, not only is this another argument from adverse consequences, it's also a false dilemma. You're assuming that if there is no God, existence is meaningless (I suppose this might also count as a non sequitor).

Actually, it seems a lot like Plato's philosophy about the world of "Forms." A nice idea, but Aristotle shot that one down over two millennia ago, for reasons similar to the ID refuation above.

I agree that the Earth is probably very old, however, the topic of the flood is still an unsettled dispute in the scientific world. According to the text, it might have been global or local (and there’s massive evidence for a huge flood around Noah’s time in the Mesopotamian Valley).

A Global flood would have been physically impossible (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html has some great pages devoted to why), and Noah would've hardly needed to gather all the animals on Earth to ride out a local flood.

Evolution isn’t limited only to the biological world. It depends on geology, astronomy, and other things as well. Suppose someone could amazingly prove that the earth is only 7,000 years old. Wouldn’t that pretty much crush the current acceptance rate of evolution? Biology isn’t the only aspect of science which could make or break evolution (or at least the doctrine thereof anyway).

Very true, hovever, no reputable geological, astronomical, or other proof has surfaced to directly contradict evolution yet.

Ideas, beliefs, and theories only get stronger when put to the test. On that note, thanks for the mental workout.

*RANT MODE OFF*

 

[Morat]

  Let me echo something: The concept of a global flood is settled in geology. One never happened. Professional geologists look upon people who think one did in much the same light most people view those who think the Earth is flat, or the moon landings were faked.

   Now, whether or not there was a large local flood that inspired those stories is still somewhat debated, although I believe the main problem is nailing down which of the floods inspired what stories, assuming they weren't written based on a particularly nasty river flood (civilizations appeared along river valleys. River valleys flood. ).

  Large scale floods aren't unknown. There was a nice huge one in North America some time back. Geologists can trace local floods going back tens of millions, even billions of years. But they don't see a year-long, world-wide flood happening less than 10,000 years ago. And, not to put to fine a point on it, such a think would be unmistakable.

   A global flood less than 10,000 years ago couldn't be missed. Couldn't be overlooked. The evidence would not be subtle. The evidence would not be debateable. It would leave behind evidence that would be undeniable. Yet not only does no such evidence exist, YEC's can't even agree on which strata are flood strata. (Not that I blame them. Whichever strata they pick causes them problems. You can find things like salt flats, fossilized rain drops, animal tracks, insect burrows, and all sorts of "can't happen underwater" stuff in any strata.).

  People who claim there is evidence for a global flood belong in two camps: Ignorant of geology or blinded by theology.

 

 

[seebs]

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html

To summarize: Between 1825 and 1831, one of the leading proponents of "evidence for the flood" admitted that, while he believed the flood to have happened, he felt it was *inescapable* to grant that the evidence available did not show it, and indeed, showed something *else*.

A theory as to what it would have been did not surface for some time, but the facts were not consistent with the theory, so the theory had to be dropped. That, my friends, was an honest man.

 

[Morat]

  I'll have to add that one to the Young Earth Creationist thread. Of course, being a mere Reverend, it's possible Sedgwick wasn't a Christian. *grin*

  Actually, I was looking for that very post, as I knew there was a very good example of what I was talking about. Thanks, seebs.

 

 

[seebs]

I'd say he was a pretty good Christian; his faith wasn't shaken by the mere fact that he was obliged to admit that the evidence he had accumulated looked to be unrelated to the flood he believed had happened.

 

[Kookaburra]

Okay, I don't know whether this was mentioned before, but....

I have recently done some ( a little ) research into the 'evolution' of animal species since the Flood ( or, since there was little enough that regards that as a fact on the internet, since 'Life Officially Began' ), I found that the variety of species of animals today is because of the loss of genetic material. ( I like science at our school, but they make you do waaay too manya assignments ).

See, for example...the dog.

There are around 850 seperate species of dogs today, and that number is continually increasing about 2 or 3 every year.

There are about 10 species of wild dogs that are still 'pure' in the sense they have not inbred with any other types.

If you take the 'origional' Coyote, Timber Wolf, African Wild Dog, Hyena's and Dingos, you have five breeds of wild dogs that have a more 'complete' or 'whole' genetic sequence than the more common domestic dogs today, because the latter have lost some of their genetic information, and thus have not 'evolved' but 'devolved' instead.

I don't believe in evolution...I believe in 'adaptation', simply because the aforementioned wild dogs ( as an example ) contain very similer genetic sequences, and the wild cats as well.

If you take a human down to Antarctica, they always take them by boat, and force them to sit outside for at least 4 hours every day without heavy jackets etc, so they can adapt to the cold. They also take them by boat in return, or they will suffer dehydration, heat sickness, etc. We, humans, also have the ability to adapt quickly to our surroundings.

The only thing I can't figure is how domestic house cats got so small--maybe the others took primitive steroids.


I'm sorry if this has already been mentioned, but just wanted to get that out of my system.

 

[seebs]

Kookaburra: The "loss" of genetic material claim is a common one, but it's not actually *TRUE*. It's based on a handful of misunderstandings, many of which have to do with the difficulty of comprehending information theory in the first place.

 

[Kookaburra]

it is true, seebs. why don't you research it? And get your information from a wide variety of sources, because I'm very suspicious of links.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Kookaburra
I found that the variety of species of animals today is because of the loss of genetic material. ( I like science at our school, but they make you do waaay too manya assignments ).

What resources are you using? As a population geneticist, I can tell you that that is definately not true.

See, for example...the dog.

There are around 850 seperate species of dogs today, and that number is continually increasing about 2 or 3 every year.

There are about 10 species of wild dogs that are still 'pure' in the sense they have not inbred with any other types.

Where ever you are getting your information needs to have its facts checked. There are 14 genera and 34 species of canids. (Source).

If you take the 'origional' Coyote, Timber Wolf, African Wild Dog, Hyena's and Dingos, you have five breeds of wild dogs that have a more 'complete' or 'whole' genetic sequence than the more common domestic dogs today, because the latter have lost some of their genetic information, and thus have not 'evolved' but 'devolved' instead.

There is no such thing as "devolution."

I don't believe in evolution...I believe in 'adaptation'

Umm, adaptation is evolution.

If you take a human down to Antarctica, they always take them by boat, and force them to sit outside for at least 4 hours every day without heavy jackets etc, so they can adapt to the cold. They also take them by boat in return, or they will suffer dehydration, heat sickness, etc. We, humans, also have the ability to adapt quickly to our surroundings.

This is physical acclimation, not adaptation. Most organisms are adapted to be able to survive under different environmental conditions.

The only thing I can't figure is how domestic house cats got so small--maybe the others took primitive steroids.

So small compared to what? Their wild ancestors (North African wild cats) are virtually indistinguishable from them.

Felis silvestris lybica

"No new information" has been discussed before. Read this thread to see how faulty it is.

Here is something from an email I sent to a 15-yro creationist.

INFORMATION
Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. So in linking information theory to evolution, you must consider the information in the population, which you do not do. Biologically, information can refer to different things. Pseudogenes, contain information about evolutionary history but not information that can be selected for. In the context of this discussion, it would be better for us to consider the genetic information underlying traits, with an interest in adaptable traits. It is difficult to determine a way to measure the amount of this information, but one possibility is the size of the proteome. This is the number of unique proteins produced in the population and includes all loci and alleles. Whenever a mutation produces a novel allele, it adds information to the population. In other words, there is a new trait for selection to act upon. Here are two examples of the effects of information in a population.

Jeff knows something about Gina: "Gina is neat." Thus he has information about Gina. Before he leaves town, Jeff replicates this information by telling it to two people, Nick and Randy. Because neither of them pays attention, they don’t replicate the information exactly. Nick thinks "Gina is sweat," and Randy thinks "Gina is near." We can measure the about of information about Gina by the number of non-redundant attributes people ascribe to her. Here, the amount of information about Gina has doubled: from "neat" to "sweat and near." Clearly when we remember that it is the population that’s important to evolution, it is obvious how mutations can add information for selection to act upon.

Take this example retrieved from LocusLink [7], the only difference occurs in the 7th codon (6th amino acid because the first one, 'm,' gets cut off). The letters refer to amino acids [8].

Human Beta-hemoglobin (HBB)
  1 mvhltpeeks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
 61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh


HBB-S
  1 mvhltpveks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
 61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh


HBB-C
  1 mvhltpkeks avtalwgkvn vdevggealg rllvvypwtq rffesfgdls tpdavmgnpk
 61 vkahgkkvlg afsdglahld nlkgtfatls elhcdklhvd penfrllgnv lvcvlahhfg
121 keftppvqaa yqkvvagvan alahkyh

Each allele does not encode the same information since each one produces a distinctly different product. A single point mutation has enough effect on the information contained in the genome that it can determine whether an individual dies from malaria or not. In the presence of malaria, HBB-S is maintained because of heterozygote advantage. However, HBB-C also offers resistance to malaria, but the most fit genotype is the homozygote.[9] It is expected to become the most common allele in parts of Africa if the environment stays the same. These mutations have clearly added new information to the population. Selection then acts on this new information, changing the make up of the population. Thus, evolution happens.

It is important to realize that evolution occurs even if information is lost. It also occurs when information is gain or without any change in the amount of information at all. Thus no-new-information arguments do not actually address evolutionary theory. By focusing on individuals and not populations, no-new-information claims never even get close to disproving evolution. In fact, the actual claim, when applied to biology, is that the information capacity of an individual's genome cannot increase. However, this claim is false because there are known types of mutations that can increase the length of the genome and thus its capacity to hold information. Ernst Mayr discusses this origin of new genes in his latest book.

“Bacteria and even the oldest eukaryotes (protists) have a rather small genome. . . . This raises the question: By what process is a new gene produced? This occurs, most frequently, by the doubling of an existing gene and its insertion in the chromosome in tandem next to the parental gene. In due time the new gene may adopt a new function and the ancestral gene with its traditional function will then be referred to as the orthologous gene. It is through orthologous genes that the phylogeny of genes is traced. The derived gene, coexisting with the ancestral gene, is called paralogous. Evolutionary diversification is, to a large extent, effected by the production of paralogous genes. The doubling sometimes affects not merely a single gene, but a whole chromosome set or even an entire genome.” [10]

7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/LocusLink/
8. http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/AminoAcid/AA1n2.html
9. Modiano D. et al. (2001) Haemoglobin C protects against clinical plasmodium falciparum malaria. Nature: 414 pp 305-308
10. Mayr E. (2001) What Evolution Is. Basic Books.

 

[Chris H]

Speaking of Dogs...
Our Veteranarian is a Christian. He has no problem with the common ancestry of wolves, cats, dingoes, domestic dogs, etc.

When National Geographic ran it's article on Dog evolution he was able to give an awful lot of additional information that demonstrated evolution.

Again, it seems like people who work with the evidence every day aren't real hesitant to embrace evolution.

Chris

 

[Chris H]

Originally posted by Kookaburra
it is true, seebs. why don't you research it? And get your information from a wide variety of sources, because I'm very suspicious of links.

What's wrong with Talk Origins?

Chris

 

[Morat]

  Talk.origins does get it's information from a wide variety of sources. Generally referenced in those darn footnotes. And it's peer-reviewed, in a sense. The T.O. regulars put on their heavy boots and jump up and down on it, at least.

 

 

[Chris H]

It's actually a pretty good site. Kevin Herron is a friend of a friend and He's got an article in the archives there somehwere.

Chris

 

[platzapS]

ello, all. i'm a new user of christianforums and i am fascinated with the creation/evolution controversy. I believe in macro-evolution and that we evolved from one-celled life forms, but that God started it off. There's just so much evidence (fossil record, vestigial organs) that point to evolution. I believe that much of Genesis 1 is figurative.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Welcome platzapS.

BTW - has anyone looked at the poll results? Of the 47 total votes, 34 agree that evolution is correct and disagree only on the extent that a god was involved.

In mathematical terms, 72.3% of the poll respondents were evolutionists, theistic or otherwise.

Judging from the many of the posts on this forum, that's better than I thought. There must be a silent majority lurking out there.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I went with option 2. I certainly believe in microevoution in the sense that dogs create other types of dogs. Dogs don't end up though make lets say bears or 1 cell organisms after billions of years turning into humans.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Seebs you think genetic information can't be lost? That's how I understood your posts. If you think that I know many evolutionists and creationists that would certianly disagree with you.

 

[Morat]

  Information can be lost. But Natural Selection tends to insure that the information lost is "bad information".

  Mutations, of course, are constantly adding information.

 

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Project 86
Seebs you think genetic information can't be lost? That's how I understood your posts. If you think that I know many evolutionists and creationists that would certianly disagree with you.

No, I just don't think that information is *necessarily* lost.

Lemme give you an example. Imagine that I have two pieces of paper. One reads "My friend Scott lives within a mile of my house", and another reads "My friend Scott lives more than five miles from my house". I talk to him, find out he lives near my house, and throw away the second one.

Have I "lost information"? No. I have *MORE* information than I used to.

Information theory is a fairly complicated field. In general, mutation plus natural selection are expected to produce more "information". Selection favoring some things over others, and eventually perhaps eliminating the others, is not necessarily a loss of "information".

 

[Osanya]

I chose "other," but I'm a bit of a nitipck. I probably lie close to something like option 6, "God created the universe (@ 14-17 billion years ago) but not life. Life developed on our planet as set out in the theory of evolution."

I believe God created a lot of principles that exist in our universe. All those principles, when allowed to interact, will produce life - even intelligent life - but I don't think God was necissarially directly orchestrating evolution, or cosmology or the creation of the first cell, like option 5. I think life is inevitable, but God never forces God's self on anything. Even a bunch of molecules that formed the first cell. Make any sense?