Evolution The Other Religion 2013

[Barbarian]

While organisms do change through time, this quality of life is driven by a complex cellular machinery. To assume that the sophisticated systems within the cell could have arisen by pure chance requires a tremendous amount of faith in statistical improbability.

But to assume that evolutionary theory says that's what happened requires a tremendous amount of gulliblity. Anyone who thinks that's what evolutionary theory is about is not someone whom a wise person would take seriously.

Our world has many features that testify to the existence of an intelligent designer.

Some IDers think so. They say it might be a "space alien." Sorry, my God is the Creator, not some limited "designer." BTW, engineers are beginning to figure this out. They have take to copying evolutionary processes to solve problems that they can't solve by design. Genetic algorithms use Darwinian evolution to quickly arrive at optimal solutions that are difficult or impossible by design. Turns out, God had it right, after all.

God's handiwork is readily evident in nature, and therefore, it may indeed require less faith to believe in God than the possibility that complex structures could simply develop by themselves.

The issue is the refusal by creationists to believe that God is capable of creating a universe in which such things can happen. They are more comfortable with a smaller, less awesome god. Such as a "space alien."

Evolution is a theory of desperation for those that refuse to accept the obvious -- we were created for a purpose.

Another silly misconception. It's based on the idea that God isn't capable creating a world in which evolution produces new species. Many of the greatest biologists are and were, theists including Christians.

To believe in evolution requires faith because the origin of life and the production of new information through mutation has not been demonstrated under any conceivable circumstance.

More ignorance. Evolutionary theory is not about the origin of life. Darwin, for example, suggested that God just created the first living things. And every new mutation in a population increases information in it. Would you like to see the numbers for that?

Is evolution then a science or a religion?

Here's an easy way to test:
1. Ask a biologist why he accepts evolution.
2. If he says "Because I have faith in Darwin" it's a religion.
3. If he starts citing evidence, it's science.

Many have stated it is the latter.

Many have stated that God doesn't exist. For the same reason.

Evolution has unquestionably been spawned by atheistic philosophy

Since Darwin himself wrote, in the last sentence of The Origin of Species:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Your guy seems to be extraordinarily ignorant on this subject.

"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a nontheistic religion, a way of life."
American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.

As Karl Barth rightly said,
In Jesus Christ, true God and true man ... rests our hope for a real
humanity. Not by ourselves, but insofar as we are members of the Body of Christ--and thus only--as we are men according to God. In order to avoid the misfortune of mankind's being lost because it does not fulfill the meaning of its creation, in order to be man, in order to fulfill the true humanism, then we must believe in Jesus Christ. There is no humanism without the Gospel.(20)
http://www.hwhouse.com/images/House...aritan_Implications_for_Euthanasia_Debate.pdf

“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”Will Provine, No Free Will. Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. By Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) pS123.

In fact, the opposite is true. Creationism is a powerful atheist-maker:
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
Glenn Morton, ICR graduate, and former YE creationist.

“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi.

I don't find any record of that book. Can you give us a checkable link? It seems unlikely that a real scientist would not know that science isn't about "proof", or believe that evolution depends on belief rather than evidence. I smell a rat here.

"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980)

Again, no results searching for the actual article. Just a lot of creationist sites copying each other. Unless you can come up with a checkable link, this looks like another fraud. I'm pretty sure you didn't deliberately attempt to deceive anyone; it looks like one of the professional creationists made it up, and everyone else just accepted it on faith.

My previous question needs to be answered. If these guys have truth on their side, why are they relying on dishonesty?

 

[TheCurseoftheRodain]

To you Barbarian and to you Milk Drops: I said prove evolution is true; where's your proof of one organism spontaneously turning into another? Even slowly over time (which negates the necessary cog in the evolutionary theory of it saying that the change is necessary - it if isn't instantaneous, then the organism would die since the change was necessary - it couldn't take millions of years, or thousands, or tens or even weeks)? Show me one time. There aren't any. Evolution is a vain imagination thought up by the Devil to deceive millions of people.
It isn't Ken Hamm who used the word "YOM" in Genesis - it was God - He said 6 literal 24-hour solar days to create everything and that it all was GOOD (no death, no sickness, disease, suffering, etc - all those things go in with the Devil in the Lake of Fire at the end (because they all come from him)). So if you don't believe Him, this is all going to be a moo point (worth as much as a cow's opinion).
Opinions are worthless, you want to prove people wrong on evolution - use the Bible. Otherwise this conversation will be purely opinions.

Just using logic, It is foolish to pick up a piece of a bone and say you know what this creature was, or to pick up even a skull and presume the creature's capacities for anything. Unless you were there or have a living one, you have ZERO idea of what it could do or what it looked like, etc. Looking at skeletons (most of which are fabricated to fit with the scientist's imagination of what the creature MIGHT have looked like) and just arbitrarily stating that because 2 skeletons are similar they must be the same originating creature is foolish at best.
We have never seen a single instance, nor can one be demonstrated, where a living creature became another creature. Birds changing beaks or colorings in feathers is not evolution.
That's like saying if you observe mankind long enough you will see some of them laugh, or cry, or they develop a greater capacity for strength, muscle size, to stay underwater, to do hard labor, to climb mountain cliffs, to swim, to play sports, etc. Are we evolving? OR was all of that innate already and when the proper circumstance came along it caused a trigger for what was already there?
Just look at what happens when you try to breed any 2 animals that are "closely related" - their offspring are always sterile. If you can't even get past a single blockage to produce the same type of creature over again, how do you think anything could become something else?

 

[Barbarian]

To you Barbarian and to you Milk Drops: I said prove evolution is true; where's your proof of one organism spontaneously turning into another?

Evolution happens to populations, not to individuals. I keep pointing out that people who hate evolution, usually don't know what it actually is.

Even slowly over time (which negates the necessary cog in the evolutionary theory of it saying that the change is necessary - it if isn't instantaneous, then the organism would die since the change was necessary - it couldn't take millions of years, or thousands, or tens or even weeks)?

Few mutations are "necessary." They are either useful or harmful or (most of the time) neutral. But if they give an organism a bit of an advantage to live long enough to reproduce, then that mutation will tend to become more common in the next generation. Each generation accumulates the useful mutations and tends to lose the harmful ones.

Show me one time.

Sure. The CCR5-delta 32 mutation made a significant number of Europeans immune to bubonic plague, and it turns out the same mutation also offers significant resistance to smallpox and HIV. A large number of people of European ancestry carry at least one copy of the gene. It gave Europeans a significant advantage in their spread around the world.

There aren't any.

How many more would you like to learn about?

Evolution is a vain imagination thought up by the Devil to deceive millions of people.

See above. You've been deceived, on this, at least. Would you like to see some evidence for speciations?

It isn't Ken Hamm who used the word "YOM" in Genesis

Of course it wasn't. It was just Ken Hamm, who insisted that the word could only means "24-hour day." Which, as you know, is wrong.

- it was God - He said 6 literal 24-hour solar days to create everything

Nope. "literal 24-hour solar days" (without a sun in one case) is Hamm's addition to make it acceptable to him. It's not what God said.

Opinions are worthless

Evidence matters. And as you see, the evidence overwhelmingly shows evolution.

you want to prove people wrong on evolution

That requires evidence. Hamm's revision of the Bible won't cut it.

Just using logic, It is foolish to pick up a piece of a bone and say you know what this creature was

Anyone with even a small understanding of vertebrate anatomy can do that. For example, if I find a tiny bit of the parietal bone, and see one occipital condyle, I know it's a reptile. If it has no fenestrations, I know it's an anapsid reptile. C'mon.

or to pick up even a skull and presume the creature's capacities for anything.

That's wrong, too. If, for example, I find different kinds of teeth in the jaw, I know it's going to have a secondary palate, and will be a mammal or a reptile very close to the line that gave rise to mammals. And I'll know it was able to eat and breathe at the same time. If I see a saggital crest at the top of the skull, I'll know that it had a wide zygomatic arch, and had a very strong bite.

Unless you were there or have a living one, you have ZERO idea of what it could do or what it looked like, etc.

I can see all of this is a surprise for you. Form follows forces in bones, so it's particularly easy to know those things by looking at bones.

Looking at skeletons (most of which are fabricated to fit with the scientist's imagination of what the creature MIGHT have looked like)

That's just a story the professional creationists tell people. Reconstruction of Australopithecines, based on fragmentary finds, turn out to have been very accurate, when more complete skeletons were found.

and just arbitrarily stating that because 2 skeletons are similar they must be the same originating creature is foolish at best.

We can test that on living organisms. Turns out, it works.

We have never seen a single instance, nor can one be demonstrated, where a living creature became another creature.

If a creature suddenly turned into a different kind of creature, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble.

Birds changing beaks or colorings in feathers is not evolution.

Actually, it is. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Perhaps you're thinking of common descent. I can show you the evidence for that, if you'd like.

That's like saying if you observe mankind long enough you will see some of them laugh, or cry, or they develop a greater capacity for strength, muscle size, to stay underwater, to do hard labor, to climb mountain cliffs, to swim, to play sports, etc.

No. You've confused body response to stimulus, with genetic adaptation. Not the same thing.

Are we evolving?

Yep. For example, in a few thousand years, Tibetans have evolved a number of adaptations for high-altitude survival. Other humans don't have them.

OR was all of that innate already and when the proper circumstance came along it caused a trigger for what was already there?

Nope. Genetically different.

Just look at what happens when you try to breed any 2 animals that are "closely related" - their offspring are always sterile.

Nope. For example, bears, big cats, and birds will frequently cross and produce fertile hybrids in zoos even if they never do in the wild.

If you can't even get past a single blockage to produce the same type of creature over again, how do you think anything could become something else?

What makes you think speciation is caused by hybridization? It's apparently a fairly rare form of speciation in animals, although it's known to happen more often in plants.

 

[Milk-Drops]

To you Barbarian and to you Milk Drops: I said prove evolution is true

This is something that agitates me to no end. Science is not based on proofs. If you want demonstrations of how evolution is studied or examples of how mechanics work, I can explain that to you. I also get agitated because asking for some one to prove evolution is like asking for someone to prove trigonometry. It's not something that can be summed up easily in a small forum post, Darwin's Origin of Species is almost 1000 pages.; That is way beyond the character cap for posts on this forum. Also, Ihabe no idea where to star considering that you have used arguments that have nothing to do with what the theory of evolution actually says.

where's your proof of one organism spontaneously turning into another?

The theory of evolution does not say that at all.

Even slowly over time (which negates the necessary cog in the evolutionary theory of it saying that the change is necessary - it if isn't instantaneous, then the organism would die since the change was necessary - it couldn't take millions of years, or thousands, or tens or even weeks)? Show me one time. There aren't any. Evolution is a vain imagination thought up by the Devil to deceive millions of people.

The theory of evolution is a model that states that through genetic mutation and natural section, populations will weed out traits that work. As long as the organism survives it can pass on the genetic information to its offspring.

It isn't Ken Hamm who used the word "YOM" in Genesis - it was God - He said 6 literal 24-hour solar days to create everything and that it all was GOOD (no death, no sickness, disease, suffering, etc - all those things go in with the Devil in the Lake of Fire at the end (because they all come from him)). So if you don't believe Him, this is all going to be a moo point (worth as much as a cow's opinion).

I don't care about literal interpretations of the Bible. I don't accept the Bible as a Scientific text.

Opinions are worthless, you want to prove people wrong on evolution - use the Bible. Otherwise this conversation will be purely opinions.

The Bible doesn't prove evolution is wrong because it's not meant to. the Bible is first part a collection of Hebrew and other Jewish tribal oral tales. Next part rules, next part history, collection of psalms. Recordings of the accounts of Jesus, and the the writings of Paul and Jon. It's not a science text.

Just using logic, It is foolish to pick up a piece of a bone and say you know what this creature was, or to pick up even a skull and presume the creature's capacities for anything.

It's a good thing science doesn't do that then.

Unless you were there or have a living one, you have ZERO idea of what it could do or what it looked like, etc. Looking at skeletons (most of which are fabricated to fit with the scientist's imagination of what the creature MIGHT have looked like)

Flat out wrong. This is nothing but spewed ignorance. I've actually done work in labs with paleontology students. You have no idea what you are talking about.

and just arbitrarily stating that because 2 skeletons are similar they must be the same originating creature is foolish at best.

Once again this is not how science does this.

We have never seen a single instance, nor can one be demonstrated, where a living creature became another creature. Birds changing beaks or colorings in feathers is not evolution.

Yes it is, because that is exactly what Darwin stated when he created the basis for his theory.

That's like saying if you observe mankind long enough you will see some of them laugh, or cry, or they develop a greater capacity for strength, muscle size, to stay underwater, to do hard labor, to climb mountain cliffs, to swim, to play sports, etc. Are we evolving? OR was all of that innate already and when the proper circumstance came along it caused a trigger for what was already there?

Evolution is generational and through populations, not individuals.

Just look at what happens when you try to breed any 2 animals that are "closely related" - their offspring are always sterile. If you can't even get past a single blockage to produce the same type of creature over again, how do you think anything could become something else?

Because Evolution isn't hybridization and deals with populations not individuals.

May I ask what is your level of Biology education. The thoery of evolution is advanced biology and takes quite a few lectures to understand just the basic mechanics.

 

[TheCurseoftheRodain]

If you breed a lion and tiger the offspring is always sterile; which breedings have you seen that give rise to a fertile offspring of a new creature that then reproduces itself and gives rise to a whole new population?
You're very polite, for a Barbarian ;), but polite doesn't equal right. (Just like how many think that being angry = being right or being loud = being right).
The Tibetans have only what would come about from what was already there, there is no new genetic information. Ken Hamm's dog example is actually the same thing you're saying; split up populations of things all over the Earth and then check back in on them generations later and see the differences. They did not evolve, only their environments brought out the triggers for what was already pre-designed to occur when given the appropriate stimuli.
Ken Hamm's pointing out of the viruses that lost the ability to transmit information across cell walls (which was previously used by those putting their faith in evolution to try to prove evolution) is useful to know because it is true: there is not 1 experiment that can reproduced where it is proven that new genetic material that never existed before is passed on to a subsequent generation, but that rather, it is the opposite, that genetic information is only lost from generation to generation, never gained (why do we think that Adam and those not that long after him all lived to be about 800-900-some-odd years old?)
Plants making hybrids does not turn a plant into some other creature, it's still always a plant. Monkeys will only ever make more monkeys, you'll never get a human. Fish only make more fish. The fish might have more or less scales, more or less fins, larger teeth, smaller teeth, whatever, it will still only make more fish.

God, not Ken Hamm, said in Genesis that so long as the Earth remains there will be seedtime and harvesttime, and that all seeds reproduce more of themselves. They don't produce other things, only more of what you started with. That's the same whether it's fish seed, reptile seed, monkey seed or man seed, you always get what you started with; extra limbs, resistances to things, etc, still will never give rise to different species.

And therefore, evolution cannot exist for the Christian (beyond the fact that God already said in Genesis that (even if you want to ignore that God used the word "DAY" for how long it took Him to make stuff) EVERYTHING was GOOD before Adam. Death, sickness and disease all get thrown in the Lake of Fire with Satan and his demons, therefore they're NOT GOOD (also evidenced by the fact that they don't exist in Eden or Heaven and Jesus got rid of them everytime). So how can evolution, which is predicated on millions and billions of years of death, sickness and disease and suffering, exist, when God just said these things all are bad and God said everything before Adam was made was GOOD? THe Christian can't get around that one.

 

[turnorburn]

Which still leaves us with fact evolution is a religion you need faith to believe it because no missing link in any species whether it animal vegetable or mineral has ever been found.. then there's this..

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST, and must confess that until recently, I treated people who questioned evolution with polite dismissal. But there has recently emerged a major trend in biology that has been suppressed in the mainstream media: evolution is in trouble. More importantly, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion but is due to the fact that the ongoing growth of biological knowledge keeps producing facts that contradict rather than confirm evolution. These two books—Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box—describe this phenomenon.

The first surprising thing Denton points out is that there has always been a dissident faction of highly distinguished scientists, of impeccable credentials and no religious motivations, who have declined to concede that evolution has been proved. This is inconvenient for evolutionists who would like to dismiss their opponents as Bible-thumping hicks and claim that questioning evolution is tantamount to questioning the value or validity of science. He also points out biologists like Richard Owen, who were prepared to allow that evolution had taken place but thought that other causes were involved in bringing about the origin of species.

The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology." Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn�t. Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time. It is almost entirely devoid of forms that can plausibly be identified as intermediates between older and newer ones. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it is massively systematic across different species and time periods. Worse, this problem is getting worse, not better, as more fossils are discovered, as the new fossils just resemble those already found and don�t fill in the gaps. In Darwin's day, it was easy to claim that the fossils were there but had not been discovered. Problem is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well-catalogued fossils, from all continents and geologic eras, and we still haven't found these intermediate forms. As Denton puts it,

"Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin."

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html

tob

 

[TheCurseoftheRodain]

This is something that agitates me to no end. Science is not based on proofs. If you want demonstrations of how evolution is studied or examples of how mechanics work, I can explain that to you. I also get agitated because asking for some one to prove evolution is like asking for someone to prove trigonometry. It's not something that can be summed up easily in a small forum post, Darwin's Origin of Species is almost 1000 pages.; That is way beyond the character cap for posts on this forum. Also, Ihabe no idea where to star considering that you have used arguments that have nothing to do with what the theory of evolution actually says.

The theory of evolution does not say that at all.
The theory of evolution is a model that states that through genetic mutation and natural section, populations will weed out traits that work. As long as the organism survives it can pass on the genetic information to its offspring.
I don't care about literal interpretations of the Bible. I don't accept the Bible as a Scientific text.
The Bible doesn't prove evolution is wrong because it's not meant to. the Bible is first part a collection of Hebrew and other Jewish tribal oral tales. Next part rules, next part history, collection of psalms. Recordings of the accounts of Jesus, and the the writings of Paul and Jon. It's not a science text.

It's a good thing science doesn't do that then. Flat out wrong. This is nothing but spewed ignorance. I've actually done work in labs with paleontology students. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Once again this is not how science does this.
Yes it is, because that is exactly what Darwin stated when he created the basis for his theory.
Evolution is generational and through populations, not individuals.
Because Evolution isn't hybridization and deals with populations not individuals.

May I ask what is your level of Biology education. The thoery of evolution is advanced biology and takes quite a few lectures to understand just the basic mechanics.

My uncle is one of the top paleontologists of his time, I know the work.
My father is one of the top emergency room doctors of his time, I am quite familiar with biology. I also took high level biology at university and biochemisty and anthropology (all while still not knowing God at that time).
I am well researched in all these areas, friend. Do not mistake my distaste for vernacular most complex for ignorance (no one will understand what you're saying when you speak this way and it is unfruitful).
I used to consider myself an atheist and went around arguing with people that believed in God and Jesus to get them to realize their stupidity. I am not ashamed to say I have a brilliant intellect. I understand much, and all of it is from the Lord my God who gave it to me.
Populations are made up of individuals, though. It's like the businesses aren't individuals argument; businesses are made up of individuals, and their policies are dictated by individuals, nothing comes out of that business that does not have 100% of it's origin in individuals, and so on. Governments are run by individuals, not governments. Populations are not made up of populations, but individuals.

We could go on, but you will first have to address the 2 problems for evolution at the beginning:
#1 HOW do you get everything out of nothing?
#2 HOW (if you overcome #1 (which can't be accounted for)) do you get an organic molecule (specifically protein) from all inorganic materials? (Do you understand what is required to happen to just get an organic protein molecule from organic materials? It's like insisting you can wring blood from a stone - try every stone in Creation, you'll never get it).

The rest of this is pointless to discuss if you can't overcome those 2 things.

 

[Milk-Drops]

If you breed a lion and tiger the offspring is always sterile;

Not always, but as both me and Barbarian have already told you, hybridization is not evolution.

which breedings have you seen that give rise to a fertile offspring of a new creature that then reproduces itself and gives rise to a whole new population?

Natural selection, founder effect, sexual selection, convergent selection, etc.

The Tibetans have only what would come about from what was already there, there is no new genetic information.

There is new genetic information.

Ken Hamm's dog example is actually the same thing you're saying; split up populations of things all over the Earth and then check back in on them generations later and see the differences. They did not evolve, only their environments brought out the triggers

That is exactly what Darwin explained in his book the Origin of Species. Hamm likes to pick and choose parts of the theory to say is true and what is false. What he claims is true is no longer evolution in his eye. However, if you actually read the source material on evolution, you can easily see that Ham does actually accept all the major principles until it conflicts with his specific interpretation. He is not a scientist. He is an apologist.

for what was already pre-designed to occur when given the appropriate stimuli.

You could say that, but you also missed out on how DNA has replication functions that also cause such occurrences. Also Natural selection.

Ken Hamm's pointing out of the viruses that lost the ability to transmit information across cell walls (which was previously used by those putting their faith in evolution to try to prove evolution)

Ken Hamm didn't actually do the research on this, he or one of the many people who contribute to Answers in Genesis lifted this from a paper. Cell walls becoming resistant to Viruses is exactly what natural selection states would happen. Organisms with tougher cell walls will be better off against specific viruses making them more fit for their environment.

is useful to know because it is true: there is not 1 experiment that can reproduced where it is proven that new genetic material that never existed before is passed on to a subsequent generation,

This is word salad. Of course genetic information that doesn't exist can't be passed on. Mutations are documented. Every organisms that is born has hundreds if not thousands of mutations. This is basic genetics.

but that rather, it is the opposite, that genetic information is only lost from generation to generation, never gained (why do we think that Adam and those not that long after him all lived to be about 800-900-some-odd years old?)

I've been in labs where I've personally seen new information arise. Like I said, what is your biology education?

Plants making hybrids does not turn a plant into some other creature,

both me and Barbarian already explained to you several times that hybridization is not evolution. Why do you keep bringing it up?

it's still always a plant. Monkeys will only ever make more monkeys, you'll never get a human. Fish only make more fish. The fish might have more or less scales, more or less fins, larger teeth, smaller teeth, whatever, it will still only make more fish.

This is one Ken Hamm's most dishonest arguments. If you had taken a class on Genetics or Taxonomy/phylogeny you would understand how this arguments doesn't mean anything. Heck if you actually understand what the theory of Evolution actually says, and not what Ken Hamm says it is, you would understand that this argument is garbage.

The reason why you can't get dogs from fish or humans from cats, etc is because of taxonomy. Organisms are arranged into groups by genetics and homology. Groups are separated out based on these characteristics. The reason why Dogs only seem to create dogs is because of the genetic line they are in. To point something out Dogs belong to a larger group called Canidae. Canidae includes Bears, weasels, Dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes, wolverines, etc. Just like the word Dog, canidae only give birth to canidae. However, due to breeding isolation Bears, Wolves, foxes, Weasels, etc. diverged. However all groups share a very similar genetic blue print, and paleontologists have found the species that shows the divides. Paleontologists also think they found the divergent of Felidae, the group that includes big cats, hyenas, and smaller domesticated cats. So when Hamm says dogs only give birth to dogs, its only because we haven't drawn a line yet to separate out dog species yet. However, there are several species of dog can't interbreed due to genetic isolation. If these dogs would have been found in the wild, we would consider them a different species.

God, not Ken Hamm, said in Genesis that so long as the Earth remains there will be seedtime and harvesttime, and that all seeds reproduce more of themselves. They don't produce other things, only more of what you started with. That's the same whether it's fish seed, reptile seed, monkey seed or man seed, you always get what you started with; extra limbs, resistances to things, etc, still will never give rise to different species.

The problem here is that if you understood phylogeny, you would understand that there are around 5 to 6 major kingdoms for organisms. All animals belong to one kingdom. Plants belong to one kingdom, fungus belongs to its own kingdom. The other kingdoms are for various types of single celled, multicelled, and odd organisms that are hard to classify otherwise. All animals are variations of a single ancestry.

And therefore, evolution cannot exist for the Christian (beyond the fact that God already said in Genesis that (even if you want to ignore that God used the word "DAY" for how long it took Him to make stuff)

Unless you accept that all living organisms fall into kingdoms that work just like that. You are aware that the terms Fish, reptile, amphibian, tree, etc are human made terms right?

EVERYTHING was GOOD before Adam. Death, sickness and disease all get thrown in the Lake of Fire with Satan and his demons, therefore they're NOT GOOD (also evidenced by the fact that they don't exist in Eden or Heaven and Jesus got rid of them everytime). So how can evolution, which is predicated on millions and billions of years of death, sickness and disease and suffering, exist, when God just said these things all are bad and God said everything before Adam was made was GOOD? THe Christian can't get around that one.

Once a Christian understands that evolution doesn't dictate death and suffering and actually is just a side effect of natural cycles, they can see through the propaganda.

 

[Milk-Drops]

My uncle is one of the top paleontologists of his time, I know the work.
My father is one of the top emergency room doctors of his time, I am quite familiar with biology. I also took high level biology at university and biochemisty and anthropology (all while still not knowing God at that time).

I'm not calling you a liar, but do you have any names you want to give me. You are not first to claim they are related to top people in their fields. Who is your uncle? What papers is his name on? What research has he been a part of? If he is a top paleontologist, I should be able to google him and find out what his credentials are. Also, if you went to University and took biology classes, I don't understand how you can have such a distorted idea of what the theory of evolution is.

I am well researched in all these areas, friend.

Your demonstrations and examples say otherwise. They look like nothing but copy paste arguments from Answers in genesis that I see all the time and have been refuted by biologists numerous times, or could easily be addressed if someone picked up a current biology text.

Do not mistake my distaste for vernacular most complex for ignorance (no one will understand what you're saying when you speak this way and it is unfruitful).

Unless you are actually part of the field of study and the reason why you use such words is to demonstrate you understand what you are talking about and to be specific.

We could go on, but you will first have to address the 2 problems for evolution at the beginning:
#1 HOW do you get everything out of nothing?

That is not part of theory of evolution, both me and Barbarian have pointed out to you. Evoltuion has nothing to do with the creation of life, the universe, etc. Evoltion only deals with how living organisms adapt and change.

#2 HOW (if you overcome #1 (which can't be accounted for)) do you get an organic molecule (specifically protein) from all inorganic materials? (Do you understand what is required to happen to just get an organic protein molecule from organic materials? It's like insisting you can wring blood from a stone - try every stone in Creation, you'll never get it).

That has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. You just explained abiogenesis. There are chemists that can explain what abiogenesis is better then I can.

The rest of this is pointless to discuss if you can't overcome those 2 things.

It is pointless, because you are demonstrating that your understanding of the theory of Evolution is severely lacking. Evolution is not a catch all term for any scientific theory that disagrees Ken Hamm. The theory of Evolution is a specific theory that deals with Allele frequencies in populations.

If you want to learn more about the theory of Evolution, me and Barbarian can help you.

 

[Barbarian]

If you breed a lion and tiger the offspring is always sterile;

No. You can, for example, breed a lion/tiger cross with a tiger and get viable offspring.

which breedings have you seen that give rise to a fertile offspring of a new creature that then reproduces itself and gives rise to a whole new population?

Charpentier & al. (2012). "Genetic structure in a dynamic baboon hybrid zone corroborates behavioural observations in a hybrid population". Molecular ecology 21 (3): 715–731

Apparently, the hybrid anubis/yellow baboon males become reproductive earlier, and this seems to be the cause of the population of hybrids to expand.

You're very polite, for a Barbarian ;), but polite doesn't equal right. (Just like how many think that being angry = being right or being loud = being right).

I know the secret to appearing to always be right. Only talk about things you know.

The Tibetans have only what would come about from what was already there, there is no new genetic information.

No, that's wrong. The Tibetans have alleles not found in other people. Learn about it here:

"It took only a few hundred generations to change the allele frequency, which can only happen if a lot of people have died," said Rasmus Nielsen, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California at Berkeley. "In that sense, it must have had a strong effect on fitness."

The Tibetan example of human evolution beats the previous record holders in northern Europe, who evolved lactose tolerance to digest the milk sugar lactose over the course of about 7,500 years.

The CCR5-delta 32 mutation occurred in Europe after Europeans split off from other populations. It provides protection against bubonic plague, smallpox, and HIV. It is rare in nearby Asian populations, and is absent in Africans, American Indians, and East Asians.

Ken Hamm's dog example is actually the same thing you're saying

No. This particular mutation occurred in historical time, and we can see that it was not part of the original genome.

They did not evolve,

That's wrong, too. Remember, evolution is a change in allele frequency over time.

[quote]only their environments brought out the triggers for what was already pre-designed to occur when given the appropriate stimuli.[/QUOTE]

Not possible in this case. There are quite a number of documented mutations in humans. Would you like to learn about some of them?

there is not 1 experiment that can reproduced where it is proven that new genetic material that never existed before is passed on to a subsequent generation

I just showed you two. In one case(the Milano mutation, which protects against hardening of the arteries), we even know the name of the man in which the mutation occurred. There's really no point in denying the fact.

but that rather, it is the opposite, that genetic information is only lost from generation to generation, never gained

No. These recent mutations increase information in the populations in which they occur. Would you like me to show you a simple example that illustrates why?

Plants making hybrids does not turn a plant into some other creature, it's still always a plant.

Which is saying that a fish being the ancestor to humans means nothing since they are both still animals.

Monkeys will only ever make more monkeys, you'll never get a human. Fish only make more fish. The fish might have more or less scales, more or less fins, larger teeth, smaller teeth, whatever, it will still only make more fish.

Comes down to evidence. And the evidence is compelling. This is why most Christians who are familiar with biology accept evolution.

God, not Ken Hamm, said in Genesis that so long as the Earth remains there will be seedtime and harvesttime, and that all seeds reproduce more of themselves.

Maybe in Ken Hamm's Bible. As you see, he edits it to his liking.

They don't produce other things, only more of what you started with.

Show us this.

That's the same whether it's fish seed, reptile seed, monkey seed or man seed, you always get what you started with; extra limbs, resistances to things, etc, still will never give rise to different species.

We have a good number of identified speciations. Would you like to learn about those?

And therefore, evolution cannot exist for the Christian (beyond the fact that God already said in Genesis that (even if you want to ignore that God used the word "DAY" for how long it took Him to make stuff) EVERYTHING was GOOD before Adam.

You're assuming for God what "good" means. I certainly don't think death is a bad thing. After all, we will go on to a better place than this, when we die. The death that God says to fear is spiritual death. If you are a Christian, you should never fear death.

 

[turnorburn]

Barbarian said:

This is why most Christians who are familiar with biology accept evolution.

When you say most Christians what do you mean?

tob

 

[Barbarian]

Those who accept Jesus as God. If you want to draw the circle a bit tighter, trinitarians.

 

[TheCurseoftheRodain]

Barbarian, the term good, as used by God to define what all life was like before Adam (and including Adam as well) does actually mean literally no death, no sickness, no disease, and the reason is because you see none of that in the Garden of Eden, which was God's perfect will for all mankind forever. And then in Acts 3:21 you see God saying that He is restoring all things. To what? Back to the conditions of the Garden of Eden. In Heaven there is no death, no sickness, no disease, no suffering; all of those things go into the Lake of Fire to burn forever with the Devil. The Bible also calls Death an enemy. So if you think as a Christian that Death is good, you better check up on what God says about Death - 'cause He says it ain't good, and if it were, He'd have it for us in Heaven my brother.
This alone invalidates any claim of evolution for a Christian.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, the term good, as used by God to define what all life was like before Adam (and including Adam as well) does actually mean literally no death, no sickness, no disease,

I don't see that definition in any of the Bibles I have. Can you direct us to the translation that says so?

and the reason is because you see none of that in the Garden of Eden

Adam, being a heterotroph, could only live if something else died. He had to kill living things to eat.

which was God's perfect will for all mankind forever. And then in Acts 3:21 you see God saying that He is restoring all things. To what? Back to the conditions of the Garden of Eden. In Heaven there is no death, no sickness, no disease, no suffering; all of those things go into the Lake of Fire to burn forever with the Devil. The Bible also calls Death an enemy.

It wasn't an enemy then, and it isn't now, for a Christian. Death has no hold on us.

So if you think as a Christian that Death is good, you better check up on what God says about Death - 'cause He says it ain't good

If so, why does He intend for all of us to die? It seems that He thinks it's a good thing. We will all die physically, but that is, as I've pointed out,of no consequence. We will live on spiritually forever.

This alone invalidates any claim of evolution for a Christian.

I don't think so. The notion that God would assure something He considers bad, to happen to all of His people, seems more than a little preposterous.

 

[turnorburn]

Would you have any names to go with those scientists?

tob

 

[TheCurseoftheRodain]

Hi Barbarian,
Death is evil. Romans 5:12-15 says that through ADAM, not God, death entered into the world and came unto all men. I don't see how anyone can pin that one on God when God informed us that Adam is the one that caused death to come to all. Death being thrown into the Lake of Fire in Revelation proves how much God likes Death - it is evil and ends up with the Devil. Otherwise, if it were good, He'd keep it for us to enjoy in Heaven, and death would not have had to enter through Adam but would have already been there in the Garden before Adam ever showed up. You've got a serious continuity problem here to continue thinking that death is good by any stretch of the imagination. In the beginning, in the Garden of Eden, there was no death - Adam and Eve ate fruits and seeds (see what He gave them to eat in Genesis). Nothing had to die, nor did it die - it's all right there in the Scriptures. Adam and Eve were never supposed to die, they were to live forever, just as we will; our bodies were never meant to get old or wear out or die. If He thought death was good, then why does Psalm 103:5 say He renews our youth - why would He offer that to you if He wants you to die?

Looking at Romans 5 again, you see that God send Jesus to set us free from death - why is God setting us free from death if it's good? Again, this is an impasse for thinking that death is good - it would be like slapping God in the face for sending us Jesus to set us free from death. Death is not good, otherwise Jesus would not have set us free from it.
Additionally, the Scriptures say that Jesus already tasted death for us all who believe, which means we WON'T taste it. You won't know it when you leave this body here. You'll be walking along one moment and then the next moment you'll be in Heaven. Jesus has set you free from the curse of death my brother. Hallelujah!

 

[TheCurseoftheRodain]

For the definition you look at what God equates with good; look through the Scriptures, you'll find plenty of examples. One nice one is He said it was good for man to be with woman, married.

 

[TheCurseoftheRodain]

And Barbarian you said God does not call death an enemy, yet the Scriptures say in 1 Cor 15:26 "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." That's pretty clear. Someone would need a good theologian to help misunderstand that. It would seem the coffin is complete; the last nail is in - death - the prerequisite for evolution - has been annihilated for the Christian.

 

[Barbarian]

Would you have any names to go with those scientists?

A few who have written about the nature of science as it relates to God:
DR. RICHARD G. COLLING
Dr. Colling is a fundamentalist Christian and chair of Biology at a fundamentalist Christian college, and also author of Random Designer: Created From Chaos To Connect With Creator. According to Dr. Colling, "It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods" when they say evolutionary theory is "in crisis" and claim that there is widespread skepticism about it among scientists. "Such statements are blatantly untrue," he argues. "Evolution has stood the test of time and considerable scrutiny... What the designer designed is the random-design process," or Darwinian evolution, Colling says. "God devised these natural laws, and uses evolution to accomplish his goals." ["Teaching Evolution at Christian College" by Sharon Begley, The Wall Street Journal (December 31, 2004)]

DR. DENIS O. LAMOUREUX
Dr. Lamoureux is a biologist/evolutionist and Evangelical Christian.
He was involved in a written debate with Phillip E. Johnson, the lawyer and advocate of the "Intelligent Design hypothesis," which was published in book form as Darwinism Defeated? A debate between Phillip E. Johnson and Denis O. Lamoureux.

DR. KEITH B. MILLER
Dr. Miller is professor of geology at Kansas State Univ (not to be confused with Dr. Kenneth Miller, below) Dr. Keith Miller's website.
He edited, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003)

DR. DAVID N. LIVINGSTONE
Dr. Livingstone is the author of, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987)

DR. DAVID L. WILCOX
Dr. Wilcox has a Ph.D. in Population Genetics, and is Professor of Biology at Eastern College, St. David's, PA. He is the author of God and Evolution (Nov. 2004)

LARRY ARNHARDT
Larry Arnhart is a Christian and also Professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University. He is the author of Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature; and, Darwinian Conservatism (2005), whose blurb reads, "The Left has traditionally assumed that human nature is so malleable, so perfectible, that it can be shaped in almost any direction. Conservatives object, arguing that social order arises not from rational planning but from the spontaneous order of instincts and habits. Darwinian biology sustains conservative social thought by showing how the human capacity for spontaneous order arises from social instincts and a moral sense shaped by natural selection in human evolutionary history." Arnhardt has also debated I.D.ists at their conferences

DR. KENNETH MILLER
In a court case in Cob country, Georgia in which the school board lost their battle to insert "Evolution is only a theory" stickers inside a biology text, the "offending" book in question was written by a Christian, Dr. Kenneth Miller. How ironic. Besides having authored a widely used biology textbook, Miller is also the author of Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS
Dr. Francis Collins is Director of the Human Genome Project. Collins has stated: "I am unaware of any irreconcilable conflict between scientific knowledge about evolution and the idea of a creator God; why couldn't God have used the mechanism of evolution to create?...In my field, biology, because of the creationists the standard assumption is that anyone who has faith has gone soft in the head. When scientists like me admit they are believers, the reaction from colleagues is 'How did this guy get tenure?'" (Gregg Easterbrook, "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" Science, Vol. 277, No. 5328, Aug. 15 1997, p. 890-893)

DR. JOHN POLKINGHORNE
Dr. Polkinghorne is an ordained Anglican priest, former Cambridge professor of theoretical physics.
He is also the author of
1) Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity: Questions to Science and Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1994)
2) Science and Theology: An Introduction (London: SPCK, 1998)
3) The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001) A book of essays by assorted theistic evolutionists that explores the Biblical concept of kenosis (self-emptying) and the doctrine of creation in light of evolutionary thought.

DR. DONALD NIELD
Dr. Nield is Professor of Engineering Science at Auckland University, and author of God Created the Heavens and The Earth.

DR. GRAEME FINLAY
DR. Finlay is a Cell Biologist who lectures in General Pathology in the Department of Molecular Medicine and Pathology at Auckland University, and is the author of
1) A Seamless Web: Science and Faith; Evolving Creation
2) God's Books: Genetics and Genesis.

DR. DENIS EDWARDS
Dr. Edwards is the author of
1) The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology (New York: Paulist, 1999)
2) Jesus and the Cosmos (New York: Paulist, 1991)

DR. JOHN F. HAUGHT
Dr. Haught is the author of
1) Deeper Than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2003)
2) God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2000).

DR. STANLEY L. JAKI
Dr. Jaki is a Benedictine priest with doctorates in both theology and physics, and the author of
1) Cosmos and Creator (Scottish Academic Press, l979; Regnery Gateway, 1980), An analysis of the bearing of modern cosmological theories on the Christian dogma of the creation of the universe, followed by the history of that dogma, its philosophical presuppositions, and its relation to evolutionary theories of man
2) Genesis 1 Through the Ages (London: Thomas More Press, 1992) with illustrations. A history of the interpretations of Genesis 1 from biblical times to the present day, with an emphasis on the ever-present lures of concordism. Eight lectures delivered April 25- May 9, 1992, in New York on behalf of Wethersfield Institute
3) Bible and Science (Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1996) An analysis of the biblical world view and basic Biblical propositions
insofar as they relate to science and to its history.
http://etb-darwin.blogspot.com/2012/03/christian-evolutionist-resources.html#christian_evolutionists


WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 25 – Francisco J. Ayala, an evolutionary geneticist and molecular biologist who has vigorously opposed the entanglement of science and religion while also calling for mutual respect between the two, has won the 2010 Templeton Prize.

Ayala, 76, a naturalized American who moved from Spain to New York in 1961 for graduate study and soon became a leader in molecular evolution and genetics, has devoted more than 30 years to asserting that both science and faith are damaged when either invades the proper domain of the other.

Ayala, the Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, whose groundbreaking research into parasitic protozoa may lead to cures for malaria and other diseases, has equated efforts to block religious intrusions into science with “the survival of rationality in this country.” To that end, in 1981 he served as an expert witness in a pivotal U.S. federal court challenge that led to the overturning of an Arkansas law mandating the teaching of creationism alongside evolution. In 2001, George W. Bush awarded him the National Medal of Science.

Even as he has warned against religion’s intrusion into science, Ayala, a former Dominican priest, also champions faith as a unique and important window to understanding matters of purpose, values and the meaning of life.

This respect for the rightful, if separate, roles of science and faith has allowed Ayala to consider questions such as “Does scientific knowledge contradict religious belief?” and “Is morality derived from biological evolution?” that draw upon each discipline and may bring new insights that advance human endeavor.
http://www.templetonprize.org/ayalaprelease.html


How many more would you like to see?

 

[Barbarian]

And Barbarian you said God does not call death an enemy, yet the Scriptures say in 1 Cor 15:26 "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." That's pretty clear. Someone would need a good theologian to help misunderstand that.

For us, death is already vanquished. And you're still unable to explain how, if death is bad, God intends it for every one of His people, whom He loves. Until you can explain that adequately, your argument fails.

It would seem the coffin is complete; the last nail is in - death - the prerequisite for evolution - has been annihilated for the Christian.

Not for a Christian who knows that God loves us.