Young earth creationist needing info here...

[ServantJohn]

This must not have been a lab the published papers. The peer review and replication process is there to weed those out. If a result is reported, and someone else doing it fails to get the same results, after multiple tries, it attracts a lot of attention, and so frauds are sometimes found, like in the case of the Korean scientist a few years ago. One can fake their own labbook, but can't get the rest of the natural world to do so.

Actually, it was published to my knowledge. The work was describing the chemical maturation of a newly formed lake. Since the conditions are unlikely to be duplicated, her data is going to have to be assumed to be correct and the debate will center around her interpretations of it. I know first hand the data is seriously flawed. I was the fourth assistant working on this particular project and the two others that I talked to both agreed about the data.

It sounds like you are talking about "The Bell Curve". 'sounds like that was a case of extrapolating beyond the data, not that the data said what he claimed they said, in which case, science worked well to weed out his work...
I don't think so, if that's the case you are thinking of. I think Dr.Gould showed that he had ignored data and misrepresented what he didn't hide. Off topic though.

Hey! No speculating here LOL... That's the point though. We don't know how the study was conducted or what the data actually showed. I never heard anything showing that he ignored this or that, only that this issue had been covered by other studies and they were right no matter what he had to say.

But there is exactly the problem - the name "Christian Creation Scientist".

The name was only given to denote scientists who adhere to a creationist viewpoint. Whether they came to the viewpoint through sound scientific reasoning or pseudoscience is not being addressed.

 

[lucaspa]

Unfortunately, "kind" does not need to be defined for the level of conservation exposed through both long term and short term experiments to be acknowledged.

Actually, Greg, it does. You see, "species" is the Latin word for "kind". So when Linneaus made his classification scheme, his intent was to list "kinds". It's generally accepted that "kinds" cannot interbreed. That is, in fact, the result of "after its kind" in Genesis 1. The Biological Species Concept is based upon the same idea: different species of sexually reproducing organisms do not produce offspring with other species.

When biologists began reporting on the evolution of new species both in the lab and in the wild, creationists tried to change the definition of "kind". What is used these days is "baramin". Speciation is acknowledged, which is "kind" as depicted in Genesis. Instead, "baramin" is supposed to reside at some highter taxonomic level: genus, family, or order. However, somehow the species H. sapiens remains a baramin.

The reason I used "kind" in regard to phylogenetic analysis is that, no matter where you draw the distinction of "kind", phylogenetic analysis still shows that the DNA of "kinds" are interrelated by historical connections. Even if you say that "baramin" or "kinds" are plants and animals! But according to creationism, "kinds" have to be independent in their DNA sequences, because there are "limits" to adaptation and changes in DNA sequences. But phylogenetic analysis shows no barrier or independence.

As they are manifested in the scientific community, the results obtained fall well short of even the broadest definition of a kind, much less for anymore constriction which would come to the forefront and be imposed.

You have that backwards. If you take the constricted meaning implied in the Bible, then the results among living organisms confirm beyond any doubt that evolution of new species (kinds) happens. What's more, that evolution is due to natural selection. We have even now seen the evolution of new genera.

It's only when you take the broadest definition of "kind" that you can even hope to have any wriggle room about "limits". And phylogenetic analysis takes even that away.

The infinitude of Darwinian assertions first form around random mutations, a concept which continues to plagiarize the results obtained, advertising it's viability under the sponsorship of the Darwinian enterprise.

"Plagiarize"? That word makes no sense in this context, Greg.

Do you know what "random mutation" means? It means random with regard to the needs of the individual or the population. In a climate that is getting warmer, just as many deer with longer fur will be born as those with shorter fur. That's all it means in this context.

 

[lucaspa]

You really need to learn how to read. Do you judge a person's effort by their first few steps off of the starting line?

My apologies. I inferred that someone that was 1st or 2nd in his class, as you stated, would not come to an internet forum looking for help and claiming "I have seen no evidence ..." until you had done quite a bit more than "first few steps". But that doesn't appear to be the case.

So, let's start over. What you want to do is look for geology sites, preferably sites that end in ".edu". That will get you started on describing the first data that falsified a young earth and strongly supported an old earth. The basics you want to research are stratigraphy:
http://www.palaeos.com/Geochronology/stratigraphy.html

Geology in general: www.porites.geology.uiowa.edu/index.html

As I said, "unconformities" are a powerful set of data that cannot be explained by a young earth. There is no process that can work in under tens of millions of years to form unconformities.That includes a world-wide flood. Look at the Siccar Point sites that I posted. Look at the photos. That is original, hard data.

Varves. These are discussed in detail in Strahler's Science and Earth History.

When it comes to radiometric dating, there are a number of good sites to explain how it is done and the limitations:
1. radiocarbon WEB-info
2. HowStuffWorks "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"
3. Carbon Dating
4. http://www.christianforums.com/t7526965-5/#post56533975
5. Radiometric Dating
6. CaliforniaPrehistory.com -- California Radiocarbon Database
7. A Radiometric Dating Resource List
8. Potassium-Argon Dating K-Ar dating intro
8. 1 Nucleosynthesis and nuclear decay K-Ar pressure quote
9. Isochron Dating

However, one bit of hard data that I find most interesting is the distribution of radioactive isotopes in the earth's crust. This is from Kenneth Miller, who Pappias has already indicated is a devout Christian:

There are 64 nuclides that have half-lives in excess of 1,000 years. Of these, 47 have half-lives in the range 1,000 to 50 million years. Seven must be excluded from this analysis because they are being generated by interaction with cosmic rays or the decay of other nuclides. If the earth were new (within 10,000 years) then there should be significant amounts of all 40 nuclides in the earth's crust. If, on the other hand, the earth is billions of years old, then these 40 nuclides should have decayed, leaving no trace. We would then be able only to find nuclides with very long half-lives. So how many of the 40 short half-lived nuclides can we find in the crust? None. Zip. Of the 17 nuclides with half-lives greater than 50 million years, we can find detectable amounts of all 17. You may object to specific dating procedures, but this data indicates that the earth is well over 50 million years. In fact, for the half-life decay of nuclides with 50 million year half-lives to eliminate those nuclides, the earth has to be very old. Current estimates, from several sources, are about 4.5 billion years.

 

[lucaspa]

This must not have been a lab the published papers. The peer review and replication process is there to weed those out.

Papias, the peer-review process cannot detect many types of fraud. When you peer review a paper, you can check to see if graphs are duplicated, or if the data does not match the conclusions, but you can't see if someone is leaving out data points, or making up data. In the graduate course I teach we teach critical thinking and how to critically review -- as a peer reviewer -- a scientific paper. The final exam is to peer review a paper that has been in the literature but that my co-prof and I have "obfuscated". A couple of years ago I used the paper on human cloning from the Korean lab as the final exam. Precisely because I wanted the grad students to realize they weren't going to be able to detect the fraud as peer reviewers.

If a result is reported, and someone else doing it fails to get the same results, after multiple tries, it attracts a lot of attention, and so frauds are sometimes found, like in the case of the Korean scientist a few years ago. One can fake their own labbook, but can't get the rest of the natural world to do so.

Frauds are always found this way. As you said, you can't fake the physical universe.

In fact, all scientists already are looking for new dating methods, and especially are looking for ones that don't fit the expected results. There's a Nobel prize in it for them, and they know it.

Gould and colleagues used a new dating techniques on their paper describing the speciation of the land snail Cerion. GA Goodfriend and SJ Gould "Paleontolgy and Chronolgy of Two evolutionary Transitions by Hybridization in the Bahamian Land Snail Cerion", Science vol 274, pg Dec 13, 1996, pgs 1894-1897.

They found snail shells all mixed up on the beach. They used the amount of degradation of the amino acids in the proteins to sort them into a time sequence. When they did so they were able to have a sequence of transitional individuals linking the evolution of one species of Cerion to a new species.

 

[ServantJohn]

My apologies. I inferred that someone that was 1st or 2nd in his class, as you stated, would not come to an internet forum looking for help and claiming "I have seen no evidence ..." until you had done quite a bit more than "first few steps". But that doesn't appear to be the case.

Apology accepted. You inferred incorrectly. Before any serious endeavor that has obviously tripped up many others, I would think it wise to learn from those who have already walked the path. As part of my education, I was taught how to prepare for research. Before I go into the field, I create and analyze a map pack. If I am not familiar with that area, I may contract out to a specialist nearby. If it's wading through the muddy waters of environmental law, I am going to make sure that I have been brought up to speed by a reputable attorney. Coming to a place for advice where the subject is obviously debated at length seems logical to me.

 

[Greg1234]

Actually, Greg, it does. You see, "species" is the Latin word for "kind". So when Linneaus made his classification scheme, his intent was to list "kinds". It's generally accepted that "kinds" cannot interbreed. That is, in fact, the result of "after its kind" in Genesis 1. The Biological Species Concept is based upon the same idea: different species of sexually reproducing organisms do not produce offspring with other species.

When biologists began reporting on the evolution of new species both in the lab and in the wild, creationists tried to change the definition of "kind". What is used these days is "baramin". Speciation is acknowledged, which is "kind" as depicted in Genesis. Instead, "baramin" is supposed to reside at some highter taxonomic level: genus, family, or order. However, somehow the species H. sapiens remains a baramin.



The reason I used "kind" in regard to phylogenetic analysis is that, no matter where you draw the distinction of "kind", phylogenetic analysis still shows that the DNA of "kinds" are interrelated by historical connections. Even if you say that "baramin" or "kinds" are plants and animals! But according to creationism, "kinds" have to be independent in their DNA sequences, because there are "limits" to adaptation and changes in DNA sequences. But phylogenetic analysis shows no barrier or independence.



You have that backwards. If you take the constricted meaning implied in the Bible, then the results among living organisms confirm beyond any doubt that evolution of new species (kinds) happens. What's more, that evolution is due to natural selection. We have even now seen the evolution of new genera.

It's only when you take the broadest definition of "kind" that you can even hope to have any wriggle room about "limits". And phylogenetic analysis takes even that away.



"Plagiarize"? That word makes no sense in this context, Greg.

Do you know what "random mutation" means? It means random with regard to the needs of the individual or the population. In a climate that is getting warmer, just as many deer with longer fur will be born as those with shorter fur. That's all it means in this context.

Species may be the Latn word for "kind" but this is completely irrelevant as the creation of man came before Latin. Hence, any kind of appellation derived from "kind" does not change what a kind is, nor does "kind" automatically adopt the meaning of the word taken from it. If kind came from species, that is something completely different.

The broadest delineations on "kind" were given in Genesis 1 and again to a lesser degree, in 1st Corinthians 15:39. These are the planes of life and represent the most basic and most fundamental level of distinction. On that level alone, and that alone, Darwinism is challenged and the evidence is highly generous to creationism. The idea that "kind" is being universally pulled back is completely illusionary, and where this has been practiced, it may not even have been a legitimate action. The term "kind" detracts from the broadest definition of kind to the extent of creation within a kind itself. This aspect comes from testing and experimentation. As previously indicated, and now reasserted, the definition of "kind" is not the 3d goggles necessary to see the results being obtained from long term experimentation in the real world environment. These results, and the limits encountered, fall well well, well short. If the term "kind" is retained to describe the level of intelligent creative influence, then there has to be severe constrictions imposed by Creationists to keep up with the observations being made. Not the other way around. Experimental results are giving a clear and concise view on level of adaptation involved, and its limits. The only thing preventing it from being duly accredited for what it is, is the preconceptions of Darwinists. Most notably the idea that it should not show Creationism because you are convicted to the idea, that Creationism is wrong. Unfortunate.

As it relates to speciation, "after their kind" has not meant the same species. The term species may have come from kind, but not the other way around. And despite displaying "kind" in brackets next to species, this offers no recluse. Should the offspring of a lineage man experience variation resulting in the inability to reproduce with the rest of the population and hoping that others unrelated to them within the population experience the same kind of alteration at the same time, then they would still be reproducing after their kind as man. Producing man, and populating as man. Nothing has changed, or even close. But it is worth noting the potential for constriction on species has not been ruled out and if anything, may even be becoming increasingly appealing. The publications of speciation events either surf on an extremely loose definition of the term, or are not the result of the mechanism deployed to account for the emergence an indefinite level of adaptation. So disingenuous are the claims at some points, a courtship with fraudulence is not a far-fetched allegation. The results of adaptation only tell us that minor variations in the faculties defining the emergence of a new species will follow the same course of action. Speciation in a group of algae will not result in the genitalia of a horse or a sparrow though these are constituents most likely being influenced. They will hit the limits as experienced without any speciation, well inside of a kind along with the constrictions being assessed. Following their non-speciation partners. The definition of a "kind" need not be produced for this to be observed.

As for phylogenetics, these are speculative assertions based on events contrary to what is being gathered. You are ferociously adamant to plunge into the security of phylogenetic speculations, the cousin of comparative anatomy and close relative of nested hierarchy. They do not generate any kind of appeal as it relates to the evidence they are to be based on. They cannot take away results being attained and not even the most erudite assertions have the power to cast aside and overlook these findings. The same for random mutations.

 

[mark kennedy]

I am a young earth creationist due to upbringing and the lack of evidence to the contrary. Oh, I have seen tons of interpretations of evidence to the contrary but no raw data or hard evidence that debunks young earth creationism. And this is after graduating in the top 1 to 2% of my class so it's not like the concepts were too difficult for me to grasp.

That's great, congratulations. In my late 40s I'm about a year away from actually going to college. The cool part is, I can study anything I want and it won't affect my job prospects, I'm loving that part of it.

My biology professor used to be a presbyterian sunday school teacher or something but became an athiest. He taught against pseudoscience but didn't give any conclusive evidence to an earth older than 10k years. I asked him once how far back can dating methods be accepted as realiable. He answer 10k years, yet evolutionists are saying things are millions and billions of years old.

Ok, here's the scenario as I have come to understand it. The opening verse of Genesis 1 is the original creation, the special creation of life and the reformation of the surface of the earth don't start till the first day of creation. In the interim there could have been billions of years and even microscopic life emerging in the formless, water covered, unrelenting darkness but not likely. Time has nothing to do with creation and if you look at the fossil record you are looking at long periods of stasis punctuated by the sudden emergence of fully developed forms.

Either way, evolution instead of creation or adaptation following special creation, there are always problems with either way.

If evidence is given that shows that the earth really is billions of years old and that we all evolved from "pond scum", my faith would by no means faulter. I have seen too many miracles first hand to have something so minor cause my faith to crumble. It would, on the other hand, cause me to relook at my accepted interpretations of some Scripture. None of these would change my view of the nature and character of God though.

If Genesis loses it's historical character I see no reason to maintain a New Testament profession. Just like the first five books of the New Testament focus on redemptive history so do the first five book of Moses. I would need a pretty good reason to dismiss the historicity of Genesis but to maintain New Testament conviction. The Scriptures are the standard, their histories being true is essential, it's as simple as that.

Creationism is primarily a New Testament doctrine.

In short, I am honestly looking for information to either change my mind or have my mind settled on this issue. Thanks everyone!!!

I'll show you what settled it for me

LS4C Science

PS: If Adam was allegorical and not an actual Adam, how does that affect the view of original sin? This is just one of those things that will have to be modified. Thanks.

It destroys it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I think the problem with Creationist 'evidence' is that there simply is none. When debating evolutionists their main tactic is to try and poke holes in their theory - some of these points are valid but most are not.

It's not enough to say "Evolution is wrong, therefore creationism is right". If evolution was indeed proved wrong we would still have to prove Creationism is right - we would have to prove that everything from the begining of the universe to the dawn of man happened in six 24 hour periods.

They would also have to prove every other creation story in extistance wrong - one tribe in Africa believes the world was made out of ant feces. Certain south American tribes believe humans were created by fallen stars. If evolution is incorrect, YECs would have to debate these theories.

 

[lucaspa]

Coming to a place for advice where the subject is obviously debated at length seems logical to me.

I would disagree with this logic. "Debated" does not necessarily mean that you find experts. In your other examples, you went to people who were experts in the field. In this case, you should do the same. Which is where I am trying to point you: to geologists and others who make a profession of studying the earth and determining its age.

When I am trying to learn about a new subject, I never go to an internet debate board.

 

[lucaspa]

Species may be the Latn word for "kind" but this is completely irrelevant as the creation of man came before Latin.

This statement is irrelevant. What Linneaus was trying to do was catalog all the "kinds" that were created in Genesis. What you don't get is that "kind" is "species". Just like Yahweh is "God". Yahweh is the word used for God in Hebrew, "God" is the word used in English.

The broadest delineations on "kind" were given in Genesis 1 and again to a lesser degree, in 1st Corinthians 15:39. These are the planes of life and represent the most basic and most fundamental level of distinction. On that level alone, and that alone, Darwinism is challenged and the evidence is highly generous to creationism.

Notice you said "and that alone". Which means that this is the only level that you can challenge Darwinism or that you think the evidence is favorable to creationism. Which is what I said when I said "It's only when you take the broadest definition of "kind" that you can even hope to have any wriggle room about "limits". " Thanks for agreeing with me.

But this is negated by phylogenetic analysis. The flesh of beasts, fish, birds, and humans are all one flesh. They all come from a common ancestor and this is shown in their flesh: in the sequences of amino acids in their DNA. For instance, the BMP in humans, which causes bone formation, causes bone formation in rats, mice, and birds.

It's also negated in the fossil record. We have transitional species linking "beasts" (dinos) to birds, fish to beasts, and, in humans, transitional individuals linking many species such that there is a link from beasts to humans.

to see the results being obtained from long term experimentation in the real world environment. These results, and the limits encountered, fall well well, well short.

What "real world" experimentation are you referrring to? I am referring to real world experimentation with phylogenetic analysis.

It appears that you are putting "kind" at least at the level of "class" (since mammals, reptiles, fish, and birds are all classes in phyla Vertebrate). But you may be putting "kind" even broader, since I bet you regard all bacteria as a single "kind". Do you? How about all insects? Are they a single "kind"?

If the term "kind" is retained to describe the level of intelligent creative influence, then there has to be severe constrictions imposed by Creationists to keep up with the observations being made.

The problem I see here is that you are doing the opposite of imposing constrictions. Instead, you are are widening the concept of kind because of the observations being made. Instead of robins, hawks, eagles, and penguins being separate kinds, as implied in Genesis 1, you are stating that all birds are a single kind (going with 1 Corinth 15:39). Those aren't "severe constrictions", but rather few constrictions.

Experimental results are giving a clear and concise view on level of adaptation involved, and its limits.

Please cite these experimental results. Be specific and name particular papers. At the very least cite the source that told you this.

Most notably the idea that it should not show Creationism because you are convicted to the idea, that Creationism is wrong. Unfortunate.

Again, you have that backwards, You need to remember that creationism was the accepted scientific theory prior to about 1831. All scientists, including Darwin, were creationists. What convinced them that creationism was wrong was the data. That data hasn't gone away. If anything, there is more data, like the phylogenetic analysis that you keep ignoring , that keeps falsifying creationism.

As it relates to speciation, "after their kind" has not meant the same species. ... ... Should the offspring of a lineage man experience variation resulting in the inability to reproduce with the rest of the population and hoping that others unrelated to them within the population experience the same kind of alteration at the same time, then they would still be reproducing after their kind as man. Producing man, and populating as man. Nothing has changed, or even close.

Actually, Greg, it has changed. Because H. sapiens could not interbreed with H. ergastor. You can't ignore that. Yes, as the population goes from generation 1 to generation 1,000, the members of each generation can interbreed with each other. BUT, the members of generation 1,000 can no longer interbreed with generation 1 (if they were still around). This has been done experimentally by splitting a single population into 2 and having one population remain in the same environment but putting the second into a different environment. After 260 generations the population in the different environment could no longer interbreed with the population in the same environment: 5. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, vol90(3): 28-38, 1981 and 1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.

The publications of speciation events either surf on an extremely loose definition of the term, or are not the result of the mechanism deployed to account for the emergence an indefinite level of adaptation.

Neither of those are true. The definition of "species" used is very strict: no longer interbreeds. And the selection pressure is such to require the species to do something that species has never done before. So it means the aquiring of a new trait. Once it can be shown that a new trait can be acquired, there is no reason to suppose that a second new trait cannot be acquired in the new species to form a third species, then another new trait for a 4th species, and so on. And that is the "indefinite level of adaptation". Actually, what you want here is not "indefinite level of adaptation" but rather "indefinite divergence to form the diversity of life seen on the planet".

As for phylogenetics, these are speculative assertions based on events contrary to what is being gathered. You are ferociously adamant to plunge into the security of phylogenetic speculations, the cousin of comparative anatomy and close relative of nested hierarchy.

Again, you should look at what phylogenetic analysis is before you start trying to discredit it. Phylogenetic analysis is based on the sequence of bases in DNA. With new technology of automated DNA sequencers and supercomputers, now large data sets of of hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences, each of which has thousands of nucleotides, are now routinely being analyzed. These come from all types of organisms: corn, bacteria, fungi, fish, humans, mammals, birds, insects, worms, sequoias, etc. This makes phylogenetic analysis independent of anatomy or nested hierarchy (which also falsify creationism, BTW). DNA sequences are not anatomy nor are they necessarily going to be in a nested hierarchy.

Now, think for a bit. Kinds are independent creations, aren't they? Not related to any other organisms, right? Humans are not related to apes, or other mammals, or corn, or bacteria, right? That is what you think 1 Corinthians 15:39 says. "Separate flesh". Well, if that is the case, the DNA sequences must also be separate. Because it is the DNA sequences that determine what the "flesh" is.

So, after we get all these DNA sequences, what do we find? Do we find that DNA sequences from humans are independent of DNA sequences of other organisms? Do we find that DNA sequences from fish are independent of DNA sequences in birds? Or even that sequences in bacteria are independent from those in humans?

NO! " Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections." That "interrelated through their historical connections" is evolution. That God used evolution to create us is written in the very sequence of bases in our DNA.
DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997. Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants: macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use. Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997.

 

[lucaspa]

Ok, here's the scenario as I have come to understand it. The opening verse of Genesis 1 is the original creation, the special creation of life and the reformation of the surface of the earth don't start till the first day of creation. In the interim there could have been billions of years and even microscopic life emerging in the formless, water covered, unrelenting darkness but not likely.

So you are a Gap Theory adherent. Interesting. Many people have noted severe hermeneutical problems with Gap Theory. This is one: Fred's Bible Talk - Genesis 1:1-2 - Examination of the Gap Theory Interestingly, even creationists reject Gap Theory: The Genesis 'gap Theory': Its Credibility And Consequences: Compare Prices, View Price History and Read Reviews at NexTag

Time has nothing to do with creation and if you look at the fossil record you are looking at long periods of stasis punctuated by the sudden emergence of fully developed forms.

Not always, Mark. I have noted in other threads sequences of transitional individuals in fossil record giving the intermediate forms between species, including sequences that link species to species to new genera, family, order, and even class. Transitional fossils - Christian Forums

The reason we see stasis and punctuation in the fossil record is because most evolution is by allopatric speciation.

If Genesis loses it's historical character I see no reason to maintain a New Testament profession. Just like the first five books of the New Testament focus on redemptive history so do the first five book of Moses. I would need a pretty good reason to dismiss the historicity of Genesis but to maintain New Testament conviction. The Scriptures are the standard, their histories being true is essential, it's as simple as that.

First, we are not talking about all 5 books of Moses. We are talking about Genesis 1-8. ONLY. No one is denying the essential historicity of the Exodus.

The only thing essential in scripture is the theology being true. And the theology does not depend on how God created us. The theology is just as true that God created us by evolution than by poofing us into existence. What's more, scripture itself tells us that Genesis 1-3 is not history.

I'll show you what settled it for me

LS4C Science

That site has nothing to do with the age of the earth. It does talk about human evolution, but would you like to get into the flaws?

It destroys it.

Now, that is sad. To think that how God created us would destroy original sin! Actually, Mark, natural selection confirms the idea of original sin. I'll let you think a bit on how that can be true. As you do, think about what the "original" sin was in Genesis 3. It was placing the desires of Adam and Eve above what God wanted. IOW, selfishness.

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

John wrote

PS: If Adam was allegorical and not an actual Adam, how does that affect the view of original sin? This is just one of those things that will have to be modified. Thanks.

It destroys it.

​

The ironic thing here is that Mark is again ignoring the fact that the Historical Adam, the origin of Original Sin, and fully consistent with Christianity and evolution, was explained to Mark over and over. When John posted that part quoted above, I showed him that same description, from one of the threads were it was explained to Mark.

So here Mark is, denying something that has been explained to him, when that same description was posted on this very thread, being taked from a thread where it was previously explained to Mark!!

It's like a Seinfeld episode, it just keeps looping back on itself!

Papias

 

[lucaspa]

I think the problem with Creationist 'evidence' is that there simply is none. When debating evolutionists their main tactic is to try and poke holes in their theory - some of these points are valid but most are not.

It's best to avoid this trap. As Popper noted, there is evidence "for" any theory, if that is what you are looking for. Notice that Mark Kennedy came up with "evidence for" creationism in saying "the fossil record you are looking at long periods of stasis punctuated by the sudden emergence of fully developed forms". Now we have to argue whether that evidence is valid. What you are doing is using "evidence" to mean "valid evidence", but that leads you into an infinite loop of either stacking up competing piles of evidence or arguing what is "valid".

What Poppper noted was that the really telling evidence was evidence against a theory. True statements cannot have false consequences. Find false consequences and you have falsified the theory.

The reason creationists argue the way they do is because creationism is a falsified theory. So I recommend you familiarize yourself with the evidence that falsifies creationism and focus on that.

 

[Greg1234]

This statement is irrelevant. What Linneaus was trying to do was catalog all the "kinds" that were created in Genesis. What you don't get is that "kind" is "species". Just like Yahweh is "God". Yahweh is the word used for God in Hebrew, "God" is the word used in English.

What Linneaus was trying to do is completely irrelevant. Kinds came before Linneaus, not the other way around.

Notice you said "and that alone". Which means that this is the only level that you can challenge Darwinism or that you think the evidence is favorable to creationism. Which is what I said when I said "It's only when you take the broadest definition of "kind" that you can even hope to have any wriggle room about "limits". " Thanks for agreeing with me.

No it's not. I said on that level alone, Darwinism is challenged. On that level alone the heredity of man is confirmed. From that level we begin to constrict to comply with scientific evidence being uncovered. The apparent influence of creation is becoming more and more and more extensive, covering broader and broader horizons. Organisms do not continue to adapt indefinitely. In fact, all we are uncovering is the implementation of adaptation in the reproductive element of life. We see in various bodily constituents, from eating through muscle in extreme stages of starvation, to switching from aerobic to anaerobic respiration when the usage of oxygen molecules surpasses it's intake, to pupil dilation anin contraction. We know about adaptation.

Likewise, we discovered that this is not isolated to a lifespan, and future generations are taken into consideration in the form of adaptable genetic elements. Experimenting and learning about this mechanism has never yielded the kinds of changes promulgated by Darwinists. It is only because this is a form of adaptation which is primarily concerned with implementing these accommodations to the environment in future generations, that it becomes infinite. It was blown way out of proportion, and now studies which are revealing its true nature are subservient to the materialistic preconceptions it has to live up to. If all that had to be done for man to seek a materialistic cause for life was to discontinue adaptation, it is not a logical nor necessary venture.

But this is negated by phylogenetic analysis. The flesh of beasts, fish, birds, and humans are all one flesh. They all come from a common ancestor and this is shown in their flesh: in the sequences of amino acids in their DNA. For instance, the BMP in humans, which causes bone formation, causes bone formation in rats, mice, and birds.

It's also negated in the fossil record. We have transitional species linking "beasts" (dinos) to birds, fish to beasts, and, in humans, transitional individuals linking many species such that there is a link from beasts to humans.

The BMP in humans does not mean that man is a mouse.

What "real world" experimentation are you referrring to? I am referring to real world experimentation with phylogenetic analysis.

Keep analyzing the phylogenetics then. When you emerge...

It appears that you are putting "kind" at least at the level of "class" (since mammals, reptiles, fish, and birds are all classes in phyla Vertebrate). But you may be putting "kind" even broader, since I bet you regard all bacteria as a single "kind". Do you? How about all insects? Are they a single "kind"?

This is becoming even further constrained. As previously indicated, you brought up the term "kind", a necessary tactic to make it seem that it is the word "kind" which denounces evolution. A mark up from the created impression to make it seem like it is biblical texts which are contending 'overwhelming' evidence for adaptation. That it is on the basis of whether or not Adam is literal or allegorical, Creationists reject Darwinian doctrine. The term "kind" is a transcendent term relating to the planes of life manifested on earth. When you choose to trace life back to bacteria, go a step further transcending matter and it's frequency to the Creator. From that point, life is created and diverges long before it's shadow is made in the material. Adam did not descend from beasts. On that note, and that note alone, Darwinism is challenged. "Kinds" are created, and within a "kind", there is creation. The extent of that creation is partially determined based on the data gathered from experimentation regarding the capabilities with the extent of adaptive mechanisms. And according to what long term data is showing and is continuing to show, the expanse of creative influence was very, very, very generous. It is when man fully understands the program contained in the genetic code concerning adaptation, as well as or even better than, the bodily responses stimuli, we can accurately begin mapping the sheer expanse of creative influence. In light of developments, there is only constriction on the part of creationists.

The problem I see here is that you are doing the opposite of imposing constrictions. Instead, you are are widening the concept of kind because of the observations being made.

No, I said you are attempting to create the illusion that kind is being relegated. This is not the case.

Instead of robins, hawks, eagles, and penguins being separate kinds, as implied in Genesis 1, you are stating that all birds are a single kind (going with 1 Corinth 15:39). Those aren't "severe constrictions", but rather few constrictions.

This is not a theological argument. You seem intent on creating a science vs religion atmosphere. It can only mean that there are speculations which need the isolatef backdrop of scientific reputation to take root. Robins, hawks and eagles arevthe least of your worries.

Please cite these experimental results. Be specific and name particular papers. At the very least cite the source that told you this.

Pick a long term experiment. Lenski? Dobzhansky? Grant?

Again, you have that backwards, You need to remember that creationism was the accepted scientific theory prior to about 1831. All scientists, including Darwin, were creationists. What convinced them that creationism was wrong was the data. That data hasn't gone away.

Apparently it never came either. Creationism was never disproven. Darwin thought that adaptation was infinite. Data needs to be external to the mind.

If anything, there is more data, like the phylogenetic analysis that you keep ignoring , that keeps falsifying creationism.

You infer that something which is completely inconsequential to me as being ignored.

Actually, Greg, it has changed. Because H. sapiens could not interbreed with H. ergastor. You can't ignore that.
Yes, as the population goes from generation 1 to generation 1,000, the members of each generation can interbreed with each other. BUT, the members of generation 1,000 can no longer interbreed with generation 1 (if they were still around). This has been done experimentally by splitting a single population into 2 and having one population remain in the same environment but putting the second into a different environment. After 260 generations the population in the different environment could no longer interbreed with the population in the same environment: 5. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, vol90(3): 28-38, 1981 and 1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.

Irrelevant

Neither of those are true. The definition of "species" used is very strict: no longer interbreeds. And the selection pressure is such to require the species to do something that species has never done before. So it means the aquiring of a new trait. Once it can be shown that a new trait can be acquired, there is no reason to suppose that a second new trait cannot be acquired in the new species to form a third species, then another new trait for a 4th species, and so on. And that is the "indefinite level of adaptation". Actually, what you want here is not "indefinite level of adaptation" but rather "indefinite divergence to form the diversity of life seen on the planet".

I just warned you about that.

Again, you should look at what phylogenetic analysis is before you start trying to discredit it. Phylogenetic analysis is based on the sequence of bases in DNA. With new technology of automated DNA sequencers and supercomputers, now large data sets of of hundreds or thousands of DNA sequences, each of which has thousands of nucleotides, are now routinely being analyzed. These come from all types of organisms: corn, bacteria, fungi, fish, humans, mammals, birds, insects, worms, sequoias, etc. This makes phylogenetic analysis independent of anatomy or nested hierarchy (which also falsify creationism, BTW). DNA sequences are not anatomy nor are they necessarily going to be in a nested hierarchy.

So you're going to do it anyways. Be my guest.

Now, think for a bit.
Kinds are independent creations, aren't they? Not related to any other organisms, right? Humans are not related to apes, or other mammals, or corn, or bacteria, right? That is what you think 1 Corinthians 15:39 says. "Separate flesh". Well, if that is the case, the DNA sequences must also be separate. Because it is the DNA sequences that determine what the "flesh" is.

Just the type of reason why these things are not entertained. No, DNA does not determine what flesh is. Similarly, you cannot point to a chimpanzee and a man and say that they are the same.

[

So, after we get all these DNA sequences, what do we find? Do we find that DNA sequences from humans are independent of DNA sequences of other organisms? Do we find that DNA sequences from fish are independent of DNA sequences in birds? Or even that sequences in bacteria are independent from those in humans?

NO! " Units of study in biology (from genes through organisms to higher taxa) do not represent statistically independent observations, but rather are interrelated through their historical connections." That "interrelated through their historical connections" is evolution. That God used evolution to create us is written in the very sequence of bases in our DNA.
DM Hillis, Biology recapitulates phylogeny, Science (11 April) 276: 276-277, 1997. Primary articles are JX Becerra, Insects on plants: macroevolutionary chemical trends in host use. Science 276: 253-256, 1997; VA Pierce and DL Crawford, Phylogenetic analysis of glycolitic enzyme expression, Science 276: 256-259; and JP Huelsenbeck and B Rannala, Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227-233, 1997.

 

[Papias]

OK, to try to bring us back on topic:

In the OP, John wrote:

In short, I am honestly looking for information to either change my mind or have my mind settled on this issue. Thanks everyone!!!

So, a brief recap is in order. In post 18, I explained how an understanding of evolution supported a literal Adam as the source of original sin. Because John had earlier proposed the same thing, I'd guess that Adam is no longer a problem for John in accepting evolution. Is that right, John?

Then, also in post 18, I showed why it's clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that the dating methods are reliable. After some discussion, John appears to have agreed on this point. Is that right, John?

Then, in post #19, I gave links to 29+ evidences for evolution, and pointed out that even a small portion of this is enough to prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, others had posted similarly useful links, like biologos. Being that John appears to be honestly interested in learning why practically all scientists (including those who are Christians) support evolution, I'm sure John is reading these and learning. Perhaps it is good to give him time to do this. Is that right, John?

Lastly, John said he wanted to look at the original evidence, and Lucaspa pointed out that he can easily do so at any library, which has thousands of original journals with this evidence. Being that doing so was John's main question, I'm sure he's doing so. Is that right, John?

One more important point. John, there are literally hundreds of thousands of papers on original studies that support evolution. Even if you read several a day (too quick to acutally understand them), you'd still die thousands of years before you could read even a few percent of them. To learn about all of the evidence showing evolution from the primary sources is as practical as a quest to inspect each individual sand grain on earth.

You could, however, learn nearly all the evidence in one small field (say, the study of Chromosome #2 in Humans and other Apes). That's why humans specialize. It would take you 9 years of study to get your Ph. D., followed by about 20 years of study in your subject field. You could do that, and then come back to the table, and report on whether or not the evidence in your subfield shows evolution. People (of all faiths) have done this, in each and every field, and practically all of them have come back to the table and announced that their field showed evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you are that interested in the question, then I invite you to enroll at your local university and start this path.

I hope you can see why it is so harmful to both humanity and Christianity when a person announces that they disbelieve evolution, when they haven't even taken the time to do this. The level of hubris and pride in being ignorant is amazing. It's no doubt one of the main reasons why Christianity is being increasingly looked on with suspicion today.

John, good luck in your learning. We can answer questions here based on what you find, but please don't see that as a substitute for going out and learning what the experts have found over years of research.

In Christ-

Papias






​

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

What Poppper noted was that the really telling evidence was evidence against a theory. True statements cannot have false consequences. Find false consequences and you have falsified the theory.

The reason creationists argue the way they do is because creationism is a falsified theory. So I recommend you familiarize yourself with the evidence that falsifies creationism and focus on that.

Yes that was somewhat my point. Many Creationist arguments rely on lack of evidence for evolution rather than evidence for creationism.

Supporters of Intelligent Design for example often use the 'irreducable complexity' argument - certain organs (such as the eye) are much to complicated to have evolved, because if you removed one component the whole eye will fail. It only works when all the pieces are together. However we now know that this isn't the case. Eyes are still useful even if they are not as complex as our own. 1% of an eye in better than no eye at all.

 

[Greg1234]

I think the problem with Creationist 'evidence' is that there simply is none. When debating evolutionists their main tactic is to try and poke holes in their theory - some of these points are valid but most are not.

It's not enough to say "Evolution is wrong, therefore creationism is right". If evolution was indeed proved wrong we would still have to prove Creationism is right - we would have to prove that everything from the begining of the universe to the dawn of man happened in six 24 hour periods.

They would also have to prove every other creation story in extistance wrong - one tribe in Africa believes the world was made out of ant feces. Certain south American tribes believe humans were created by fallen stars. If evolution is incorrect, YECs would have to debate these theories.

You are forgetting that it is atheists, and "TE" to some degree, who discard biblical exegesis as the products of ignorant men. This claim is only accentuated by the Darwinian persuasion where the earliest humans were actual beastmen. In theism however, the bible is not discarded. Biblical texts are ultimately handed down by the earliest man which were highly intelligent and even more competent than today. The New Testament disturbs these teachings from the dormancy of time and what resurfaces is actually a reaffirmation of what was first taught. Only to a lesser degree.

We do not need to disprove evolution, to know that man was created. First and foremost the study of the laws in place, and regard for text already establishes Creation. What is actually happening now is finding the physical evidence for Creation. Darwinism stands as an alternate hypothesis, inconsistent with the laws in place and the heritage of man. The challenging of the Darwinian hypothesis is not to prove Creationism, it is to provide evidence for Creationism. In the process of wading through the physical evidence provided, coming up against Darwinian claims is inevitable. You cannot miss them. Such conspicuousness can hardly be ignored and to leave it unchallenged, is ultimately to concede. Special Creation and Darwinian evolution cannot coexist.

Adaptation is a potential source of change and emergence of life which conflicts with the outlines of special creation. Like any other source of emergence, (abiogenesis, Lamarckism etc), it immediately goes under the scalpel for examination. It is not only to disprove evolution. This is not the primary goal. What is actually taking place is the exposure of an alternate source of naturalistic genesis as a nonviable source which consequentially strengthens the case of special creation by providing evidence for the sterility of non intelligent natural forces. Likewise, the stronger Darwinian evolution gets, the weaker Creationism gets. It works hand in hand. The complexity of molecular machinery also plays dual role from a different perspective. It provides evidence for creationism by not only pronouncing the necessity of an intelligent influence, but also attacking the rationality and claims of purely naturalistic unintelligent forces as creators of life. The latter is also done through examining Darwinian claims through experimentation. But to imagine that Darwinism is the primary focus for these scientific ventures is to think too highly of yourself.

Darwinian encounters are secondary and necessary, but biblical texts have never been relegated and lay the foundation for what we discover. Do not confuse with materialism.

 

[ServantJohn]

.

 

[Sphinx777]

Nature of Science...







​

 

[hamashiachagape]

I am a young earth creationist due to upbringing and the lack of evidence to the contrary. Oh, I have seen tons of interpretations of evidence to the contrary but no raw data or hard evidence that debunks young earth creationism. And this is after graduating in the top 1 to 2% of my class so it's not like the concepts were too difficult for me to grasp.

My biology professor used to be a presbyterian sunday school teacher or something but became an athiest. He taught against pseudoscience but didn't give any conclusive evidence to an earth older than 10k years. I asked him once how far back can dating methods be accepted as realiable. He answer 10k years, yet evolutionists are saying things are millions and billions of years old.

If evidence is given that shows that the earth really is billions of years old and that we all evolved from "pond scum", my faith would by no means faulter. I have seen too many miracles first hand to have something so minor cause my faith to crumble. It would, on the other hand, cause me to relook at my accepted interpretations of some Scripture. None of these would change my view of the nature and character of God though.

In short, I am honestly looking for information to either change my mind or have my mind settled on this issue. Thanks everyone!!!

PS: If Adam was allegorical and not an actual Adam, how does that affect the view of original sin? This is just one of those things that will have to be modified. Thanks.

My story goes from accepting a Theistic Evolution origin, to discovering Intelligent Design via Lee Stroebel's book "The Case for a Creator" to studying William Dembski, Stephen Meyers, Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe's books, to studying alternative books from Richard Dawkins and after almost accepting Evolution, studying Jonathan Sarfati's works...including his books "Refuting Evolution 1, 2, Refuting Compromise and By Design. I studied Kurt Wise's works on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and this further convinced me that a Young Earth was a viable option. Russell Humphreys' model on the origins firmly put me over the edge on White Hole Cosmology and I have been a Young Earth advocate ever since, also encouraging a Science friend of mine to accept a Young Earth along the way. Some other good references can be found at www.creationontheweb.org