|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5903 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
First off, thank you for not insulting me along with providing a fault with my logic. I appreciate that. Sure. Anyway, why would I want to insult you right off the bat? This is our first exchange, so it would be a bit early for insults. Maybe later... Also, you haven't insulted me yet.
Second, when has a mutation ever been beneficial to an organism. Last I checked, environmentalists continue to close nuclear plants (such as Trojan in Washington) because the mutations are hurting fish in the area, not creating better, more apt to survive fish. Also, over 50 years of fruit fly breeding expiraments, even with added effort to increase mutation rates, they've never been able to change the fruit fly to something other than a fruit fly. It has always stayed as a fruit fly. These are probably good questions (although you've actually muddled two different issues). Unfortunately, the detailed answers required would be waaaaay off topic for this particular thread. If you're interested in learning a bit about this, why not use this bit to propose a new thread to discuss it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Biblical creationism claims that there was one form of life for every category of life (which might mean, say, genus, family, even species, but its hard to know; it wasn't clear, like everything the bible claims). This is ONE interpretation of Genesis one and two. The interpretation is fraught with problems in that it usually accepts "microevolution within kind" and rejects any notions of macroevolution. Mainstream British natural theologians, who were the scientific community prior to the rise of transmutation and Darwinism (1850-1879) accepted each species to be the separate special creation work of God. They summarily rejected transmutation of any kind and at any rate. I hold to the view of these British natural theologians. This is the view of Biblical creationism: species owe their existence to direct Divine power, as it is shown in Genesis, so the same is how species appear today and how they appeared down through the ages. The Fundamentalists of AiG, who accept microevolution, are now obligated to show how the nature that we see today developed itself since the Flood in 3140 BC. The ridiculous rates of speciation that are postulated are false on their face. No evolution of any kind can operate that fast. This is why we Paleyan designists or neo-British natural theologians say that God controls nature hands-on - microevolution is false. Divine power has reproduced nature since the Flood. We are comforted that Christian Fundamentalism & Atheist-evolutionism accept microevolution. Both extremes exemplify the utter falsity of microevolution and its impossibility. Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: That line of reasoning only holds true if there was a global flood about 4350 years ago (that is the most commonly accepted date that I can find). Science has found no evidence to support the idea of a global flood at that or any other time. It is you who is working from a false premise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
quote: Would that be a real mutation, or a 'mutation'? It seems to me that an anti-biotic resistant strain would be more like the survival of the fittest. Such as there are different people, some can't hear, some can't see, etc. some bacteria have a resistants to some phage, and therefore they'll live the next attack of that phage. I wouldn't call that a mutation any more than I'd call colorblindness a mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
quote: Yeah, I guess. Thanks for correcting me before I get this thread closed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, if the Flood did happen, and it happened by the hydro plate theory (my personal favorite), then there would be quite a bit of evidence for it. The Mid-Oceanic Ridge, the Grand Canyon, the Ice Age (and frozen mammoths in Siberia), the most recent mass extinction of animals, the sedimentary layers, etc. So no, there isn't no evidence for a flood. There are a few theories on the flood, and there are evidence for all (or at least most) of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Would that be a real mutation, or a 'mutation'? It seems to me that an anti-biotic resistant strain would be more like the survival of the fittest. Such as there are different people, some can't hear, some can't see, etc. some bacteria have a resistants to some phage, and therefore they'll live the next attack of that phage. I wouldn't call that a mutation any more than I'd call colorblindness a mutation. Then you don't knoww hat a mutation is. Words have very specific meanings. "Mutation" is one such word.
quote: The Biology definition is the relevant one. When a genetic antibiotic resistance is present in one generation and not in previous generations, for example, a mutation has occurred. Whether you would "call" it a mutation is irrelevant. When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
quote: Yes, but the genes didn't change to form that resistance. Somewhere, the gene was there, just not apparent (such as a blond guy and a black-haired girl have a black-haired kid. The kid has the blond gene, just not apparent). That wouldn't be a mutation, just a gene that showed itself for the better. Just a little off-topic, your signature.
quote:Most humans will suffer two deaths, the separation from life, which is temporary, and the separation from God, which is permanent. The penalty of sin is the separation from God, or eternal death (for without God, there is no life). If Jesus died the First Death (separation from life), then humans who believed in Him wouldn't die. Jesus died the second death for three days. He was separated from God for three days, when He didn't deserve it. Therefore, because He took the second death for us, we don't have to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
quote: Yes, but the genes didn't change to form that resistance. Somewhere, the gene was there, just not apparent (such as a blond guy and a black-haired girl have a black-haired kid. The kid has the blond gene, just not apparent). That wouldn't be a mutation, just a gene that showed itself for the better. False. We can directly observe the DNA of the ancestor population and the resistant population. A mutation typically takes the form of something as simple as a "mistake" in copying DNA from parent to child, and can result in a slight modification, duplication, or subtraction in one or more base pairs, which can cause all manner of different features to be expressed (especially when you stack them over mutliple generations). Mutations are very different from already-existing recessive genes that simply arent expressed, which is what you're talking about. Again, it seems you don't understand what a mutation is, or why we know that they exist. We've seen them, with direct observation. You have several mutations yourself, in fact.
Just a little off-topic, your signature.
quote: Most humans will suffer two deaths, the separation from life, which is temporary, and the separation from God, which is permanent. The penalty of sin is the separation from God, or eternal death (for without God, there is no life). If Jesus died the First Death (separation from life), then humans who believed in Him wouldn't die. Jesus died the second death for three days. He was separated from God for three days, when He didn't deserve it. Therefore, because He took the second death for us, we don't have to. It's more than a little off-topic, but at the risk of Admin's ire, I'll bite. If you know with absolute certainty that, after being tortured and executed, you will then spend three days in Hell, after which you will come back to life and then ascend directly to Heaven and be worshipped for thousands of years with literally unlimited power... That's not a sacrifice. That's an inconvenience, for which you receive an unlimited reward. Calling a sacrifice demeans any real heroes who have given up their lives, permanently and with no hope of an afterlife or other reward, to save or improve the lives of others. A sacrifice requires that you give something up. When you get it back after three days with interes, it wasn't a sacrifice. If you'd like to debate it further, start a new thread. I don't think we should compeltely derail this one over my signature line. When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
quote: I'm sorry, but I think it's a common misconception of Jesus' death and sacrifice. But please, if you'd want to argue about that, I'd be happy to start a new thread. Iesous Christos H Theos H Uios Sotos Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Wow. Where to begin?
Yes, but the genes didn't change to form that resistance. Yes. They did. What is the alternative?
Somewhere, the gene was there, just not apparent (such as a blond guy and a black-haired girl have a black-haired kid. The kid has the blond gene, just not apparent). This displays a profound ignorance of basic biology. High school level biology. Antibiotic resistance and hair color are inherited, true. But they operate in 2 entirely different ways. A black haired kid carries one dominant allele (let's call it B) and one recessive allele (let's call it b). Thus, his hair color is Bb. His dad was either BB or Bb and his mom was bb. Inheriting black hair was just luck. He had a 75% chance of black hair and a 25% chance of blond hair (if dad was Bb) and he had a 100% chance of black hair (if dad was BB). Antibiotic resistance is the result of a mutation. A change in the genetic code, thru insertion, deletion, etc.
Most humans will suffer two deaths, the separation from life, which is temporary, and the separation from God, which is permanent. The penalty of sin is the separation from God, or eternal death (for without God, there is no life). If Jesus died the First Death (separation from life), then humans who believed in Him wouldn't die. Jesus died the second death for three days. He was separated from God for three days, when He didn't deserve it. Therefore, because He took the second death for us, we don't have to. What does this have to do with evolution? Please try to stay on topic. Don't clutter up the thread with OT crap. Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheNaturalist Member (Idle past 5715 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
quote: Well, if the Flood did happen, and it happened by the hydro plate theory (my personal favorite), then there would be quite a bit of evidence for it. The Mid-Oceanic Ridge, the Grand Canyon, the Ice Age (and frozen mammoths in Siberia), the most recent mass extinction of animals, the sedimentary layers, etc. So no, there isn't no evidence for a flood. There are a few theories on the flood, and there are evidence for all (or at least most) of them. You see, you have to realize that if the phenomena that you are trying to describe opposes a rule or rules of reality, it cant be true. The "flood" would require that more total water existed on earth after the flood than before it, during the flood. This is because if the earth is to be suddenly "flooded with water", there would, of course, have to be much more water on earth after the flood. This would oppose the fact that water, in the solar system, will be formed by: 1. a biological process, 2. nuclear fusion or fission, 3. other chemical(abiological, but possibly organic) processes. 1. according to the flood, there wouldnt be any increase in water by any biological process during this time, since they would be destroyed during this time; and there would especially not be enough new water to produce worldwide flooding. 2. Of course, nuclear fusion or nuclear fission will likely produce no water, in the solar system, any more, until the sun collapses. 3. Several chemical processes for this might have been allowed to happen according to the "flood" story, but of course, not nearly enough water would be produced. There is yet another theory, that water was "trapped in the atmosphere" until the flood; but of course, this is ridiculous because since there is of course no water trapped in the atmosphere now, and the earth is not flooded, so the extra water couldnt have gone anywhere. Also, it is of course impossible for so much incredible amounts of water to be trapped in air, as it would condense and fall to earth at levels much lower than that supposed by the "flood" story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
first point: evolution is a true and ongoing observation, and a universe created works as designed by the designer.
second point: evolution does not prove the universe wasn't designed to operate that way by God. last point: the dog and man evolutionary timetables are probably wrong. proof: a study of foxes discovered that selecting and breeding by flight distance caused changes in color and attitude in a much much shorter time than originally thought. (wish i had a link to the study) a scientist had observed dogs at a garbage dump, and noticed some had greater flight distances than others. the initial start of the dog is believed to be the wolf. which is smarter and stronger than a dog. the fox study shows that apparently, if wolves had discovered human leftovers ina consistent place (such as a dump) that the wolves of greater flight distance would leave and not return, but the wolves of lesser flight distance would return. and that if the wolves with a lesser flight distance were to constantly breed could change quite drastically, quite quickly, to dog. by this observation it is apparent that dog is a lesser form of the wolf, because it chose to scavenge instead of hunt. wolves in the natural environment are smarter and stronger because they choose to hunt. final thoughts: not sure of fossil records, but i wonder if its possible that apes are a lesser form of man, and not man a greater form of the ape. evolution isnt one of my strong points, but i wish i had a link to the fox study. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheNaturalist Member (Idle past 5715 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
first point: evolution is a true and ongoing observation, and a universe created works as designed by the designer. Yes, I understand
second point: evolution does not prove the universe wasn't designed to operate that way by God. It makes it appear less likely....but yes, it does not disprove it.
last point: the dog and man evolutionary timetables are probably wrong. proof: a study of foxes discovered that selecting and breeding by flight distance caused changes in color and attitude in a much much shorter time than originally thought. (wish i had a link to the study) a scientist had observed dogs at a garbage dump, and noticed some had greater flight distances than others. the initial start of the dog is believed to be the wolf. which is smarter and stronger than a dog. the fox study shows that apparently, if wolves had discovered human leftovers ina consistent place (such as a dump) that the wolves of greater flight distance would leave and not return, but the wolves of lesser flight distance would return. and that if the wolves with a lesser flight distance were to constantly breed could change quite drastically, quite quickly, to dog. by this observation it is apparent that dog is a lesser form of the wolf, because it chose to scavenge instead of hunt. wolves in the natural environment are smarter and stronger because they choose to hunt. You are saying that it takes much less time(because of a dividing line or lines of selection) to evolve sometimes than thought, but there is no evidence to support that the timetables of dog or human evolution are wrong, based on archeological and paleantological evidence, and radioactive dating. Also, what does this have to do with any point here? How is it significant in any way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1624 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Also, what does this have to do with any point here? How is it significant in any way? its relevant by the topic initially posted, which "seemed" to point absolutely the timetables of dog or man evolution, which by the fox study show that the power of choice can either slow down or speed up evolutions of living things. it also explains my belief on the relevance of that choice as stated by those who believe in creation as opposed to "chance" existence. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024