Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So you are saying that errors in transcription of the genetic code over the last few thousand years have produced all the genetic variation within species?Crusadar said:It is only contradictory if you are looking at any organism as a complete and error free copy of its progenitor
stumpjumper said:I am wondering if Young Earth Creationists dismiss evolution on scientific grounds or solely because of a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Let's look briefly at the five main claims of evolution and all of these claims are disputed by YEC.
1.) The universe and the earth is very old.
2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.
3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.
4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.
5.) Life originated via natural processes.
Now I as a TE only really disagree with number five. But, lets say for instance that God used natural processes to start life. We would probably be able to uncover the process that God used and then it would be natural even though it was initiated by the supernatural.
All of the above claims are disputed by YEC's. Yet most of them are very well supported by our scientific understanding of the world. So, this is my question to Young Earth Creationists:
Do you dispute that these criteria are well supported by scientific inquiry?
or
Do you believe that, even though these may be well supported by scientific inquiry, the only way to truly accept the Bible is through a literal reading?
If you follow the latter then I would also ask whether or not you have ever read a theological view of evolution such as John Haught's God After Darwin or Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Also, have you ever looked at a good guideline for a historical/critical Biblical exegesis?
Lot's of questions I know but I am a curious chap
Edmond said:How do you rationalize the statement made by Jesus in Matt 19:4 that validates that ...'He who created them from the beginning, made them male amd female.."....? In view of this statement what also happens to the claims found in points 2-4 ? ....
------------------------------------
Edmond said:How do you rationalize the statement made by Jesus in Matt 19:4 that validates that ...'He who created them from the beginning, made them male amd female.."....? In view of this statement what also happens to the claims found in points 2-4 ? ....
------------------------------------
shernren said:Same question I'm asking you elsewhere: how does that quote "disprove" evolution?
shernren said:Goddidit, which is the closest thing to a scientific explanation creationism can (and should be able to, by principle) muster.
Here's a clean-cut debunking of the concept of "kinds":
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/kinds.htm
Here's an interesting question for creationists:
We have some kinds that are completely extinct, like the dinosaurs, but we have some kinds for which there are many surviving extant members, like the "dog kind". Is it possible, by DNA analysis, to determine the genome of the ancestral pair of the dog kind? I have a hunch (though not much more) that there would be too much information and too many traits to fit onto a single viable genome, since apparently mutations only delete information, meaning that the "primordial dog genome" must contain more information than the sum of all the genetic information in all dogs, wolves and foxes (or maybe just dogs and wolves, if you take the tribe Canini instead of the family Canidae) today.
FunkyBrother said:Jesus said beginning.
Not that can stand up to scientific scruteny. Unless you can point us to some in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.RenHoek said:1.) The universe and the earth is very old.
There is evidence to the contrary http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
"Evolution is not true because I don't want it to be."
2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.
I do buy micro-evolution, not macro. Humans get taller, new breeds of dogs are breed, and so forth. I did not come from a monkey.
We can be pretty certain that my Banksia tree didn't evolve from Adam & Eve, so that wouldn't be universal, would it?
3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.
I am in if we are talking of Adam and Eve.
Theory is as good as it gets in science. You might want to learn what a scientific theory actually is.
4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.
There is no proof, hence the theory status.
Mutations are not positive occurrences. They are natural disadvantages that would preclude them from being the fittest to survive.
Has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.5.) Life originated via natural processes.
No proof of this.
The problem with evolution is that it presupposes that evolution DID happen and attempts to fit the evidence to it.
No it doesn't. Someone lied to you.Evolution contridicts the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics.
RenHoek said:1.) The universe and the earth is very old.
There is evidence to the contrary http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.[/color]
I do buy micro-evolution, not macro. Humans get taller, new breeds of dogs are breed, and so forth. I did not come from a monkey.
3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.[/color]
I am in if we are talking of Adam and Eve.
4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life
There is no proof, hence the theory status. Mutations are not positive occurrences. They are natural disadvantages that would preclude them from being the fittest to survive.
5.) Life originated via natural processes.
No proof of this.
The problem with evolution is that it presupposes that evolution DID happen and attempts to fit the evidence to it.
When the same is done for Creation, it is far more plausible.
Evolution contridicts the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics.[/font][/color]
FunkyBrother said:Jesus said beginning.
Now as far as a 6-day Creation is concerned Adam and Eve were created in the beginning.
But if you start with secular religious ideas, going with the mocules to man idea of evolution, then man was not created in the beginning, but very late on. If you condensed the billions of years of evolutionary time span in to a 24-hour clock, with 0 hrs being the start of time and 24hrs where we are now, then man came into existence only a fraction of a second before midnight. According to the evolutionary time scale, man was not made from the beginning but almost at the end (where we are today).
Basically the big deal is that the billions of years suggestion is calling Jesus Christ a liar.
Man I really need to quit responding to you.ebia said:No evidence can be proven that far back. That is the point. It is how you INTERPRET the data that lends itself to one or the other.Not that can stand up to scientific scruteny. Unless you can point us to some in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
I do not believe evolution is true bases on the holes in the story. Thanks again for putting words in my mouth."Evolution is not true because I don't want it to be."
My bad Captian Semantics, I thought we were talking humans.We can be pretty certain that my Banksia tree didn't evolve from Adam & Eve, so that wouldn't be universal, would it?
WRONG! Ever hear of a LAW of science, like the 2nd law of thermodynamics that evolution goes against?Theory is as good as it gets in science. You might want to learn what a scientific theory actually is.
Wrong. And evolution is not about "survival of the fittest", but "survival of those with most reproductive success". You might want to move beyond a soundbite understanding.
I am not sure why you are so angery when somebody disagrees with you. I took classes on the subject, and I do not recall you being referenced as a scientific source. Point was, since there seems to be confusion one again, is that the one-time mutation would be breed out with the non mutant offspring. Where is 1 legit missing link?
Just answering the point one by one.Has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.
No it doesn't. In fact Darwin started from the presupposition of special creation. What you are describing is creationism. In fact, AiG admits to doing this.
Point is, they both do the same because there is no way of going back and proving it.
How then does a system of disorder come to more compex order? Things break down over time. Scientific law.No it doesn't. Someone lied to you.
Yes. You can either interpret it scientifically and end up with the ToR or you can say, as AiG openly do, "This is the conclusion I going to reach, and I am going to declare the evidence to point to that conclusion regardless.No evidence can be proven that far back. That is the point. It is how you INTERPRET the data that lends itself to one or the other.
I fail to see any alternative interpretation for what you said. "I did not come from a monkey" isn't much of an argument. Apart from also being technically clearly incorrect since you, your parents, your grandparents, etc, ARE monkeys.I do not believe evolution is true bases on the holes in the story. Thanks again for putting words in my mouth.
Common descent, in evolutionary terms, refers to All Life.My bad Captian Semantics, I thought we were talking humans.
Which is part of a theory. Theory - big concept. Law - small universal truth.WRONG! Ever hear of a LAW of science, like the 2nd law of thermodynamics that evolution goes against?
Science doesn't prove things. It looks at the evidence and comes to the conclusion that best explains it. AiG looks at the evidence and declares that it proves their preconcieved conclusion. One starts with the evidence, the other starts with the conclusion. Big difference.Point is, they both do the same because there is no way of going back and proving it.
I'm not angry.I am not sure why you are so angery when somebody disagrees with you.
So ask for your money back.I took classes on the subject,
Mutations do not always get breed out of the offspring.Point was, since there seems to be confusion one again, is that the one-time mutation would be breed out with the non mutant offspring. Where is 1 legit missing link?
Science isn't about proof, it's about deducing the best explanation for the evidence. AiG isn't about proof, it's about declaring the evidence to fit an explanation, predetermined before the evidence was examined.Point is, they both do the same because there is no way of going back and proving it.
That can and does happen when there is a net input of energy into the system. Now, if you walk outside between the hours of approximately 8am and 8pm depending where you are, and look up, you might just catch a glimpse of where that energy is coming from.How then does a system of disorder come to more compex order?
Yes. You can either interpret it scientifically and end up with the ToR or you can say, as AiG openly do, "This is the conclusion I going to reach, and I am going to declare the evidence to point to that conclusion regardless.
I fail to see any alternative interpretation for what you said. "I did not come from a monkey" isn't much of an argument. Apart from also being technically clearly incorrect since you, your parents, your grandparents, etc, ARE monkeys.
Which is part of a theory. Theory - big concept. Law - small universal truth.
Not Theory - uncertain. Law - certain.
And evolution does to go against the 2LoT, whoever told you that lied.
Science doesn't prove things. It looks at the evidence and comes to the conclusion that best explains it. AiG looks at the evidence and declares that it proves their preconcieved conclusion. One starts with the evidence, the other starts with the conclusion. Big difference.
Mutations do not always get breed out of the offspring.
That can and does happen when there is a net input of energy into the system. Now, if you walk outside between the hours of approximately 8am and 8pm depending where you are, and look up, you might just catch a glimpse of where that energy is coming from.
QuantumFlux said:The Earth is a closed sytem, yet somehow live is getting better and better? Oxygen formed itself and then all of the energy started erupting out of no where?
Some might tell you that the Sun makes the Earth an open system, receiving energy from the it. However, the only thing on the earth that can use the energy from the sun productively are plants.
Leave anything in the sun for long enough and it will be destroyed, including humans and animals.
The energy given by the sun does not provide positive energy accept in plants, which didnt exist for billions of years according to the evolutionary theory. So where did all of this energy come from the create?
Thus the evolutionary theory violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
I don't think that statement could be anymore wrong. Have you ever heard of the scientific method? The scientific method cannot be performed on the evolutionary theory. Despite trying and the wasting of billions of dollars, macroevolution has still yet to be observed.
Besides, the evolutionists do the same thing as AiG. They form conclusions based on preconceived answers.
Yeah, the sun is a destructive source of energy as explained earlier. It destroys houses, and skin and anything that is stuck under it accept for plants.
Photosynthesis is so complex that one cell of a plant is more complex than the city of New York.
In order for the Sun to be a constructive and not destructive force, photosynthesis would have had to been there in the beginning, but it wasnt,
infact it didn't show up for billions of years according to the evolutionary theory. 2nd law of thermodynamics says that the earth should have been slowly destroyed, with no chance of creating anything.
QuantumFlux said:But that is not what you do. You take the data and create fairy tales based on past fairy tales. And if the new fairy tale doesn't coincide with the old ones, you modify the old fairy tales to fit it.
You cant you genetic structure because houses with the similar structure doesn't mean that one was birthed from the other. We may merely have the same genetic structure because we have similar traits. The fossil record is severely lacking when it comes to macroevolution.
The Earth is a closed sytem,
Oxygen formed itself and then all of the energy started erupting out of no where?
Some might tell you that the Sun makes the Earth an open system, receiving energy from the it. However, the only thing on the earth that can use the energy from the sun productively are plants.
I don't think that statement could be anymore wrong. Have you ever heard of the scientific method? The scientific method cannot be performed on the evolutionary theory. Despite trying and the wasting of billions of dollars, macroevolution has still yet to be observed.
In order for the Sun to be a constructive and not destructive force, photosynthesis would have had to been there in the beginning, but it wasnt,
And animals, and people, and anything that reacts to ultraviolet radiation.
Also wrong. Speciation has been observed.
Prove it. Show us the evolutionist "statement of faith."
but some simplified or less efficient form of it was present...
Quote
The Earth is a closed sytem,
No, it is not.
Some oxygen formed through physical-chemical processes, but most oxygen in earth's atmosphere (over 95%) is formed by photosynthesis.
Scientific method is "performed" on evolutionary theory in hundreds of experiments and field studies every day. To see only a minute fraction of those studies go to PubMed and type "evolution" into the search engine. See how many results you get.
Macroevolution (aka speciation) has been directly observed in nature and in experiments. I can give you a list of 50 such observations, and this is just scratching the surface.
RenHoek said:1.) The universe and the earth is very old.
There is evidence to the contrary http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?