What makes a creationist a creationist?

[WingsOfEagles07]

We see populations change, you can call it micro-evolution or adaptation or whatever, life still changes over time. My question is how does that life change, by what mechanism does life diversify?

Prove this with, 'un-assumed' evidence. One question, In the same 'first' sentence you told on this thread, You say, "We see populations change, you can call it micro-evolution or adaptation or whatever, life still changes over time."

Note while trying to be rational here and using non assumed information, how can you prove that life changes over time, whenever time in this phase is referring to "millions of years?" Mutations cannot be a logical answer because 99.9% of all mutations are deleterious and this raises the question. How many mutations have been scientifically observed to increase information on the Genome without assuming any kind of data but is a scientific fact? And even if there have been an increase of information how could one say that we have evolved by the increased amount of information in the Genome whenever 99.9 of them are deleterious which means a mutation could occur that increases information but what if the mutation after that is deleterious? And what is the probability of our existence of that happening? So, how do "we" see populations change over the course of "time" which is referring to "millions" of years without assuming it?

 

[Darkness27]

Prove this with, 'un-assumed' evidence. One question, In the same 'first' sentence you told on this thread, You say, "We see populations change, you can call it micro-evolution or adaptation or whatever, life still changes over time."

Are you saying that life does not diversify? From the Ark how did two of every animal carry all the alleles we see today? It is physically not possible. I am asking creationists to answer the question on how life diversifies, to say that it doesn't is to be willfully ignorant of science in the past few hundred years. People knew that life changed from one animal to another before Darwin was born, it is how it diversifies is the real question.

Note while trying to be rational here and using non assumed information, how can you prove that life changes over time, whenever time in this phase is referring to "millions of years?"

Time is not referring to millions of years, but from one generation to the next. This is as little as a few days, to a few decades.

Mutations cannot be a logical answer because 99.9% of all mutations are deleterious and this raises the question.

So then how does life diversify? And as to the 99.9% of all mutations are bad, this is simply not true, most of the mutations are neutral, and they would have to be. The average human has over 100 mutations that neither parent had.

How many mutations have been scientifically observed to increase information on the Genome without assuming any kind of data but is a scientific fact?

What counts as information?

And even if there have been an increase of information how could one say that we have evolved by the increased amount of information in the Genome whenever 99.9 of them are deleterious which means a mutation could occur that increases information but what if the mutation after that is deleterious? And what is the probability of our existence of that happening? So, how do "we" see populations change over the course of "time" which is referring to "millions" of years without assuming it?

We don't have to assume it, we see it happening all the time through speciation. Even if you want to call speciation micro evolution, it is still changing/diversifying life. Again the question I propose to creationists is if evolution is not responsible for the diversity of life, by what mechanism does life diversify?

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Are you saying that life does not diversify? From the Ark how did two of every animal carry all the alleles we see today? It is physically not possible. I am asking creationists to answer the question on how life diversifies, to say that it doesn't is to be willfully ignorant of science in the past few hundred years. People knew that life changed from one animal to another before Darwin was born, it is how it diversifies is the real question.



Time is not referring to millions of years, but from one generation to the next. This is as little as a few days, to a few decades.



So then how does life diversify? And as to the 99.9% of all mutations are bad, this is simply not true, most of the mutations are neutral, and they would have to be. The average human has over 100 mutations that neither parent had.



What counts as information?



We don't have to assume it, we see it happening all the time through speciation. Even if you want to call speciation micro evolution, it is still changing/diversifying life. Again the question I propose to creationists is if evolution is not responsible for the diversity of life, by what mechanism does life diversify?

Life is not diversified brother. Never in our Generation of humans have I seen a diversified human. Because Black people are still "humans"...Chinese people are still "humans"....Mexicans people are still "humans"....

///////////Are you saying that life does not diversify? From the Ark how did two of every animal carry all the alleles we see today? It is physically not possible. I am asking creationists to answer the question on how life diversifies, to say that it doesn't is to be willfully ignorant of science in the past few hundred years. People knew that life changed from one animal to another before Darwin was born, it is how it diversifies is the real question.////////////

Life does not diversify. I can show you this. How did the two of every animal carry all the alleles we see today? (Note to self, this was many years ago.) It is physically not possible to CARRY ALL THE ALLELES. I mean, who wouldn't know that? You see there are two dogs that reproduce and have lets say four dogs, then those dogs reproduce four dogs each and this do this for thousands of years. Say from year 1 to year 1300 out of 3000 years. Say ALL the dogs in 1300 reproduced with one of the millions of dogs reproduced. That dog will have different information because the amount of dogs over time. the dog did not evolve. You are trying to say the poodle evolved from an ancestor like all dogs do (according to you.) But you take a Bulldog and compare it to a Rottweiler. Both have similar skeletal structures, but THEY ARE STILL DOGS! You see all the "Variety" in birds today? But guess what? They are still birds. They are not evolved species. Just as God said, each species reproduces after their own kind, not evolved over the course of billions of years.

I also am surprised you related to Darwin, because Darwin was a leading Atheist who willingly denied Christ and looked for a different way to explain life just because part of his family members died without Christ including his Daughter.(Evolution teaches that we came from nothing by "darwin" this Shows that GOD did not use evolution of course. Evolution shows us that we come from nothing and just go back to dirt as fertilizer. So God and Evolution do not mix. Atheistic Evolution + God = Theistic Evolution. Let me give you an analogy.

If you were in a car crash and you and your wife got out and your little girl who was 7 years old was trapped in the back seat. Unable to get out. And there was gasoline running down the street from the car and unknowingly a guy flips a cigarette into the gasoline and fire uproars to your car with your 7 year old daughter. Would you just say nothing because your daughter is going back to dirt as fertilizer..?? No you would not, Since you could not get her out of the fire, you would probably be yelling, "CALL ON JESUS, CALL ON JESUS?" Why? Because you do not want her to die and go to hell. You are scared and terrified for her because she has her "senses" of feel and she feels nothing but FIRE!! But you can logically say from scientific reasons, she got these "senses" from a set of random chance processes over the course of billions of years? Very nonsensical.

 

[lawtonfogle]

There are many ways to interpret scripture, and almost everyone interprets it a little differently. So my question is at what point would an interpretation no longer be considered creationist?

P.S. I consider myself a theistic evolutionist, and a creationist only in the broadest sense in that God created the Heavens and the Earth. If I have overstepped my boundaries I apologize in advanced and I will leave.

Edit:
A very moderate person could believe in special creation (abiogenesis is false), and that God made several distinct populations and guided them through evolution over billions of years while God still created us through supernatural means and we are not biologically connected to any other species. This person would adhere to special creation, accept evolution, yet put many of the same constraints on evolution as main-stream creationists do. So would this person be a liberal creationist or a conservative evolutionist?

Here is one... What if God at the very beginning created the Universe with really special rules (physics, chemistry, ect.) so that He was sure what would develop/evolve. Personally, that is more awesome than just making things as is.

A car which built itself >> a car which must be built by others.
Guy who designs a car which can build itself >> a guy who designs a car which must be built by others (or himself).

 

[lawtonfogle]

Life is not diversified brother. Never in our Generation of humans have I seen a diversified human. Because Black people are still "humans"...Chinese people are still "humans"....Mexicans people are still "humans"....

///////////Are you saying that life does not diversify? From the Ark how did two of every animal carry all the alleles we see today? It is physically not possible. I am asking creationists to answer the question on how life diversifies, to say that it doesn't is to be willfully ignorant of science in the past few hundred years. People knew that life changed from one animal to another before Darwin was born, it is how it diversifies is the real question.////////////

Life does not diversify. I can show you this. How did the two of every animal carry all the alleles we see today? (Note to self, this was many years ago.) It is physically not possible to CARRY ALL THE ALLELES. I mean, who wouldn't know that? You see there are two dogs that reproduce and have lets say four dogs, then those dogs reproduce four dogs each and this do this for thousands of years. Say from year 1 to year 1300 out of 3000 years. Say ALL the dogs in 1300 reproduced with one of the millions of dogs reproduced. That dog will have different information because the amount of dogs over time. the dog did not evolve. You are trying to say the poodle evolved from an ancestor like all dogs do (according to you.) But you take a Bulldog and compare it to a Rottweiler. Both have similar skeletal structures, but THEY ARE STILL DOGS! You see all the "Variety" in birds today? But guess what? They are still birds. They are not evolved species. Just as God said, each species reproduces after their own kind, not evolved over the course of billions of years.

I also am surprised you related to Darwin, because Darwin was a leading Atheist who willingly denied Christ and looked for a different way to explain life just because part of his family members died without Christ including his Daughter.(Evolution teaches that we came from nothing by "darwin" this Shows that GOD did not use evolution of course. Evolution shows us that we come from nothing and just go back to dirt as fertilizer. So God and Evolution do not mix. Atheistic Evolution + God = Theistic Evolution. Let me give you an analogy.

If you were in a car crash and you and your wife got out and your little girl who was 7 years old was trapped in the back seat. Unable to get out. And there was gasoline running down the street from the car and unknowingly a guy flips a cigarette into the gasoline and fire uproars to your car with your 7 year old daughter. Would you just say nothing because your daughter is going back to dirt as fertilizer..?? No you would not, Since you could not get her out of the fire, you would probably be yelling, "CALL ON JESUS, CALL ON JESUS?" Why? Because you do not want her to die and go to hell. You are scared and terrified for her because she has her "senses" of feel and she feels nothing but FIRE!! But you can logically say from scientific reasons, she got these "senses" from a set of random chance processes over the course of billions of years? Very nonsensical.

Three points. First you contradict yourself when you say that life does not diversify yet you then state that life diversifies.

Second, I wouldn't be standing around if daughter was in the car. I would be getting her out. I can already withstand fire more so than a normal human, with an adrenalin rush I would be able to go at it until my protein degraded due to heat (aka I died).

Third, God would not send a young child to hell. So what if scripture does not support my conclusion, I have a relationship with Christ, not with my Bible.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Three points. First you contradict yourself when you say that life does not diversify yet you then state that life diversifies.

Second, I wouldn't be standing around if daughter was in the car. I would be getting her out. I can already withstand fire more so than a normal human, with an adrenalin rush I would be able to go at it until my protein degraded due to heat (aka I died).

Third, God would not send a young child to hell. So what if scripture does not support my conclusion, I have a relationship with Christ, not with my Bible.

Response # 1 - No life does not diversify. Diversify = one animal to a "Different" animal. A poodle and a wiener dog have similar skeletal structures but guess what they are still DOGS! They are not "DIFFERENT" animals.

Response # 2 - That's a great attitude. =]

Response # 3 - Show this from the Bible that says that he will not send a young child to hell. Because it does not say this, Read Ecclesiastes 7:20, People including Young children send themselves to hell but rejecting Christ. God does not send anyone to hell my friend.

 

[Mick116]

Response # 1 - No life does not diversify. Diversify = one animal to a "Different" animal. A poodle and a wiener dog have similar skeletal structures but guess what they are still DOGS! They are not "DIFFERENT" animals.

You're thinking of speciation. There is, of course, genetic diversity within individual species, and within populations; the question is, how does this diversity arise and how is it maintained?

Response # 3 - Show this from the Bible that says that he will not send a young child to hell. Because it does not say this, Read Ecclesiastes 7:20, People including Young children send themselves to hell but rejecting Christ. God does not send anyone to hell my friend.

"Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God" - Jesus the Christ (RSV)

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

You're thinking of speciation. There is, of course, genetic diversity within individual species, and within populations; the question is, how does this diversity arise and how is it maintained?

"Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God" - Jesus the Christ (RSV)

No there is no diversity in genetics because if DOGS are still DOGS but have different DNA then they still must be DOGS because the genetic code still produced, DOGS!

What is the KJV Verse and what book and verse?

 

[SixStringPlank]

No there is no diversity in genetics because if DOGS are still DOGS ...

Just passing by again, but there seems to be a bit of confusion here. There are difference in the genomes between different breeds of dogs, and the differences also show up in differential responses to toxic chemicals. Also, different breeds of dogs are more susceptible to different diseases.

Further, going to even more minor differences among populations of organisms, different strains of rats show different sensitivity to the same chemical. (Something that the chemical companies take advantage of when testing new products).

Even further, every offspring of a set of parents will differ form the parents (assuming sexual reproduction). Each one of us has a number of genetic differences from either of our parents. To say there is no genetic variability among organisms of the same species or population is not accurate.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Just passing by again, but there seems to be a bit of confusion here. There are difference in the genomes between different breeds of dogs, and the differences also show up in differential responses to toxic chemicals. Also, different breeds of dogs are more susceptible to different diseases.

Further, going to even more minor differences among populations of organisms, different strains of rats show different sensitivity to the same chemical. (Something that the chemical companies take advantage of when testing new products).

Even further, every offspring of a set of parents will differ form the parents (assuming sexual reproduction). Each one of us has a number of genetic differences from either of our parents. To say there is no genetic variability among organisms of the same species or population is not accurate.

This does not prove anything, even if they have different Genomes, Dogs = Dogs. Dogs does not = Cats or Wolves, or Coyotes. Dogs = Dogs. Although different things are different within each dog, Dogs are still dogs, not different animals. I still surprised people choose "modern science" over God's infallible word.

 

[SixStringPlank]

This does not prove anything, even if they have different Genomes, Dogs = Dogs. Dogs does not = Cats or Wolves, or Coyotes. Dogs = Dogs. Although different things are different within each dog, Dogs are still dogs, not different animals. I still surprised people choose "modern science" over God's infallible word.

I'm not sure what you're attempting to say here. There is obviously (?!) a great deal of variety among different breeds of dogs. In fact, there is some research that indicates that the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) for some dogs is more similar to wolf mtDNA than to other dog mtDNA.

When we look at the relationships among extant organisms it can be very difficult to neatly divide them in species. This appears to be the case with wolves and dogs. Some biologists argue that they shouldn't be considered separate species, but rather that dogs are a subspecies of wolves.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

I'm not sure what you're attempting to say here. There is obviously (?!) a great deal of variety among different breeds of dogs. In fact, there is some research that indicates that the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) for some dogs is more similar to wolf mtDNA than to other dog mtDNA.

When we look at the relationships among extant organisms it can be very difficult to neatly divide them in species. This appears to be the case with wolves and dogs. Some biologists argue that they shouldn't be considered separate species, but rather that dogs are a subspecies of wolves.

You trust them why?

 

[Darkness27]

Life is not diversified brother. Never in our Generation of humans have I seen a diversified human. Because Black people are still "humans"...Chinese people are still "humans"....Mexicans people are still "humans"....

I am talking about the diversity with in a single species, or kind as creationists like to throw out that term. Yes, when I get married and have children they are still going to be humans, but they will have genes that are different from me or my wife. No matter how you look at it there is still variability among populations that change over time. How that variability with in species comes about is the question I'm asking.

Life does not diversify. I can show you this. How did the two of every animal carry all the alleles we see today? (Note to self, this was many years ago.) It is physically not possible to CARRY ALL THE ALLELES. I mean, who wouldn't know that? You see there are two dogs that reproduce and have lets say four dogs, then those dogs reproduce four dogs each and this do this for thousands of years. Say from year 1 to year 1300 out of 3000 years. Say ALL the dogs in 1300 reproduced with one of the millions of dogs reproduced. That dog will have different information because the amount of dogs over time. the dog did not evolve.

But the population of these dogs did. Even though they are still dogs they will have different genes than the original population, thus evolution took place on a very small scale. How this variability happened is the question.

You are trying to say the poodle evolved from an ancestor like all dogs do (according to you.) But you take a Bulldog and compare it to a Rottweiler. Both have similar skeletal structures, but THEY ARE STILL DOGS! You see all the "Variety" in birds today? But guess what? They are still birds. They are not evolved species. Just as God said, each species reproduces after their own kind, not evolved over the course of billions of years.

And evolution says that species produce their own species. It is like A can mate with its offspring B, and B can mate with its offspring C, but A and C can't mate. That is simplified but I think it gets the point across.

I also am surprised you related to Darwin

I only mentioned him to say that he didn't come up with the idea that organisms changed, only that he gave an explanation why they changed, which has since become the scientific consensus.

Evolution shows us that we come from nothing and just go back to dirt as fertilizer. So God and Evolution do not mix. Atheistic Evolution + God = Theistic Evolution. Let me give you an analogy.

Evolution does not support ex nihilo, the only people who do that are Christians themselves. Atheistic evolution + God = Theistic Evolution the same way atheistic gravity plus God equals theistic gravity. Or do you not accept modern gravity either?

If you were in a car crash and you and your wife got out and your little girl who was 7 years old was trapped in the back seat. Unable to get out. And there was gasoline running down the street from the car and unknowingly a guy flips a cigarette into the gasoline and fire uproars to your car with your 7 year old daughter. Would you just say nothing because your daughter is going back to dirt as fertilizer..?? No you would not, Since you could not get her out of the fire, you would probably be yelling, "CALL ON JESUS, CALL ON JESUS?" Why? Because you do not want her to die and go to hell. You are scared and terrified for her because she has her "senses" of feel and she feels nothing but FIRE!! But you can logically say from scientific reasons, she got these "senses" from a set of random chance processes over the course of billions of years? Very nonsensical.

Not sure what this analogy represents, but the Bible, and Jewish culture, clearly states that there is an age of accountability which you are not responsible for any sin you commit before then. So my 7 year old daughter will not go to hell if she dies. In Jewish culture the age of accountability is 13, this is also when they become an adult through that ceremony/celebration which I cannot spell correctly enough for spell checker. I'm actually surprised you are against the theology of the age of accountability, I first heard it from a creationist myself and since then many creationists I've talked to agree with it.

 

[SixStringPlank]

You trust them why?

That's a different question, eh? Anyway, I do have some knowledge of biology and science, albeit not much. Plus I have quite a few friends who are professional biologists. Are you saying I shouldn't trust my friends?

 

[marktheblake]

I am asking creationists to answer the question on how life diversifies, to say that it doesn't is to be willfully ignorant of science in the past few hundred years.

Short people, dark people, small eyes people, are not diversifications. The original humans had all these traits already.

Then put any small group in an isolated place and they will over time develop unique characteristics not seen elsewhere because of the narrow gene pool, eg Australian Aborogines, or the Norfolk Islanders as a modern example (descendants of the Bounty mutineers)

Dogs are a perfect example as the breeding of them is strictly controlled to maintain a pedigree, or create a new one.

 

[Darkness27]

Short people, dark people, small eyes people, are not diversifications. The original humans had all these traits already.

So Adam and Eve had all the traits we see today?

Then put any small group in an isolated place and they will over time develop unique characteristics not seen elsewhere because of the narrow gene pool, eg Australian Aborogines, or the Norfolk Islanders as a modern example (descendants of the Bounty mutineers)

Do you accept that mutations happen?

Dogs are a perfect example as the breeding of them is strictly controlled to maintain a pedigree, or create a new one.

Do mutations ever happen in dogs?

 

[marktheblake]

So Adam and Eve had all the traits we see today?

Only a fool would think that Adam and Eves kids were all the same height, weight, nose size, skin colour, eye shape and so on.

Do you accept that mutations happen?

The australian aborigines are not mutations.

 

[Darkness27]

Only a fool would think that Adam and Eves kids were all the same height, weight, nose size, skin colour, eye shape and so on.

True, but there are certain limits to how ones kids can look without extremely unnatural mutation rates. So did Adam's and Eve's kids (which means Adam and Eve had all these traits as well) had all the variations (with in the genome, not phenotype) we see today when it comes to skin tone, height, weight, metabolic rates, eye colors, hair colors ect. ect. ect. that we see today?

The australian aborigines are not mutations.

Well, no more than any other ethnic group I guess. But they have certain characteristics that are usually seen in more primitive cultures, like the size of teeth and brow ridges across the forehead and overall skeletal structure. So in a way we are more mutant than them I suppose. But you didn't answer the question, do you accept that mutations happen?

 

[marktheblake]

True, but there are certain limits to how ones kids can look without extremely unnatural mutation rates.

Unique characteristics of ethnic groups become apparent after they have become isolated. The narrower gene pool results in less variation.

But they have certain characteristics that are usually seen in more primitive cultures, like the size of teeth and brow ridges across the forehead and overall skeletal structure.

Aborigines have been very isolated perhaps more so than any other group, and according to MtDNA research indicates that they are the first branch from the earliest groups, and no other group has descended from them.

But you didn't answer the question, do you accept that mutations happen?

no, never seen a human mutate into another creature, except in the movies.

 

[Mick116]

You trust them why?

Why not?

The infallible word of God simply has nothing to say about wolves. Or genes. Or speciation. Or evolution, biology, cosmology, particle physics, gravity, automobiles, computers, galaxies, quarks, jet planes, the elemental table, calculus etc. etc.

I trust my doctor when he prescribes me some medication. I trust the engineers and the pilot when I board a plane. And I trust a biologist when he tells me that dogs evolved from wolves.