[_ Old Earth _] The fallacy of evolution

[Solo]

Only God himself can bring an unbeliever around.

Prov 16:18-19 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.

43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:43-47


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 1:1-14

 

[Solo]

I was blinded to the truth just as you are, until I was 28 years old and understood that I was on a path of destruction and that I did not know God almighty.

I was never blinded to the truth like you are, even during my 20-odd year stint as a Christian.

Of course, I'm being facetious with that comment. What I'm trying to demonstrate here, Solo, is that accusing someone that they are "blinded to the truth" is completely unproductive. Particularly when both sides are doing it. It's akin to saying "I'm right, you're wrong" without following it up with any reasoning.

Given that this is a debate (about evolution, incidentally), one would expect the participants to provide reasoning for the position they are defending. That is, reasoning beyond your usual "Pray to God and he will enlighten you as He has done me." There are many Christians whose beliefs about evolution are in opposition to yours. That doesn't make them automatically wrong, or less spiritually mature than yourself. To claim that this is so is the height of arrogance. They could as easily claim that you don't share their enlightened view of evolution because you aren't spiritually mature.

A debate, which is what this is, requires all participants to have the humility to admit they might be wrong, or else it is an exercise in futility, and you might as well not be posting at all.

We are all wrong when we exercise within our own finite understanding. Only by siding with God's Word will we be correct. Proverbs 3:5-6 tells us Trust in God and lean not unto our own understanding, but acknowledge him, and he will direct our paths. I have trusted him as I acknowledge him in his creation, and I am confident in my God given understanding of truth.

Those that lean unto their own understanding and have failed to acknowledge God are described in the passage below:

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. 16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Jude 1:14-25

 

[protos]

I was blinded to the truth just as you are, until I was 28 years old and understood that I was on a path of destruction and that I did not know God almighty.

I was never blinded to the truth like you are, even during my 20-odd year stint as a Christian.

Of course, I'm being facetious with that comment. What I'm trying to demonstrate here, Solo, is that accusing someone that they are "blinded to the truth" is completely unproductive. Particularly when both sides are doing it. It's akin to saying "I'm right, you're wrong" without following it up with any reasoning.

Given that this is a debate (about evolution, incidentally), one would expect the participants to provide reasoning for the position they are defending. That is, reasoning beyond your usual "Pray to God and he will enlighten you as He has done me." There are many Christians whose beliefs about evolution are in opposition to yours. That doesn't make them automatically wrong, or less spiritually mature than yourself. To claim that this is so is the height of arrogance. They could as easily claim that you don't share their enlightened view of evolution because you aren't spiritually mature.

A debate, which is what this is, requires all participants to have the humility to admit they might be wrong, or else it is an exercise in futility, and you might as well not be posting at all.

I used to be an evolutionists and I gave it up for the following obvious and self testable logical reason:

1)No natural genetic mutations give rise to new information, they can only screw up the genome just like typos in a computer(90-95% are detrimental and 5-10% are neutral).

2)They still have fossils of turtles from 240 million years ago just proving the above. (and other animals).
3)Abiogenesis is impossible.

 

[cubedbee]

1)No natural genetic mutations give rise to new information, they can only screw up the genome just like typos in a computer(90-95% are detrimental and 5-10% are neutral).

This is demonstratably false. Bacteria are constantly mutating, becoming resistant to poisons and drugs which were deadly to their ancestors. The typos are certainly not neutral, as they allow the bacteria to survive something which would otherwise kill it, and it's obvious to a casual observer that new information is arising from mutations.

2)They still have fossils of turtles from 240 million years ago just proving the above. (and other animals).

How exactly do fossilized turtles prove beneficial genetic mutations can't happen? Guess what--I have a clay pot holding flowers on my desk--and archeologists have found similar clay pots from thousands of years before Christ lived. Is this evidence that civilization can't advance?

3)Abiogenesis is impossible.

Well, life is here, so it happened. Whether you believe God did it or some other mechanism did, it is possible because it did happen.

 

[Heidi]

1)No natural genetic mutations give rise to new information, they can only screw up the genome just like typos in a computer(90-95% are detrimental and 5-10% are neutral).

This is demonstratably false. Bacteria are constantly mutating, becoming resistant to poisons and drugs which were deadly to their ancestors. The typos are certainly not neutral, as they allow the bacteria to survive something which would otherwise kill it, and it's obvious to a casual observer that new information is arising from mutations.

2)They still have fossils of turtles from 240 million years ago just proving the above. (and other animals).

How exactly do fossilized turtles prove beneficial genetic mutations can't happen? Guess what--I have a clay pot holding flowers on my desk--and archeologists have found similar clay pots from thousands of years before Christ lived. Is this evidence that civilization can't advance?

[quote:b04f5]
3)Abiogenesis is impossible.

Well, life is here, so it happened. Whether you believe God did it or some other mechanism did, it is possible because it did happen.[/quote:b04f5]

So if bacterial cells are changing into healthy ones, then why not simply leave them alone and let them mutate into healthy cells? :o

You simply don't understand that a cell can only do what it's programmed to do and neither do evolutionists understand that. If the nucleus is bacterial, then so will the whole cell be bacterial and any changes it makes will come from its nucleus. So the "mutation" theory is a blatant falsehood. It's simply trying to fit a square peg into a round hole so they can say they know better than God what the truth is. But all this will do is make them look foolish which is evidenced by their incessant false statements and contradictions.

 

[cubedbee]

So if bacterial cells are changing into healthy ones, then why not simply leave them alone and let them mutate into healthy cells? :o

Heidi, I didn't say this, and by the way you ask it, I don't even think you know what a bacteria is. A bacteria is an single celled organism that live everywhere--the particular bacteria that cause diseases live all over us and in us. A beneficial mutation to a bacteria is one that helps it more effectively live--which means that helps it more effectively attack our bodies and use our resources. So that means are harmful to humans (but beneficial to the bacteria in which they are occuring) If we left the bacteria alone, they would be more and more effective at making us sick and at not dying when we give them our drugs, and more and more people would die and get sick. That's a bad thing--which is why new medicine is constantly being develop to combat evolving bacteria.

You simply don't understand that a cell can only do what it's programmed to do and neither do evolutionists understand that. If the nucleus is bacterial, then so will the whole cell be bacterial and any changes it makes will come from its nucleus. So the "mutation" theory is a blatant falsehood. It's simply trying to fit a square peg into a round hole so they can say they know better than God what the truth is. But all this will do is make them look foolish which is evidenced by their incessant false statements and contradictions.

Heidi, please, I've asked you this several times, please go educate yourself instead of just putting scientific words together in ways that don't make sense. You clearly don't know what a nucleus or a bacteria is. Please leave the semi-technical scientific discussions to people who have a basic understanding of biology. Take your own advice Heidi: "all this will do is make them look foolish which is evidenced by their incessant false statements and contradictions"

 

[WillyGilligan]

So if bacterial cells are changing into healthy ones, then why not simply leave them alone and let them mutate into healthy cells?

Cupedbee didn't say that bacterial cells are changing into healthy ones, they were addressing the idea that no mutations are beneficial, which protos put forth. In bacteria and other things with short life spans we can see the general trends of natural selection, where they adapt to the environment in which they are living. Humans introduced large-scale antibiotic use, which serves as an incentive or selection pressure causing those bacteria that are susceptible to die off and leave the more bacteria resistant organisms (often due to mutations) to breed. Unless that pressure favors bacterial strains with characteristics of 'healthy cells'*, they're not going to change in that direction.

*Healthy cells is an odd term in the first place. Bacterial cells are in themselves quite healthy, in that they are thriving and not in immediate danger of dying. What you mean is that they are not healthul for us, which is also not accurate for all bacteria. The ones living in your digestive system, for example are quite healthful for you. But regarding 'pathogenic' bacteria, like the ones that make us sick, they're still bacteria, but mutation is occassionaly good for them. Which is cupedbee's point.

 

[bibleberean]

Good information for Christians on the fallacy of evolution.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... origin.asp

Survey
Chemical soup is not your ancestor
The elusive origin of life
Fish in the bathtub
Life from life…or not?
Life’s Origin: The bankruptcy of ‘chemical evolution’ (Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Sydney Supercamp 2001, 1 hour, 8 minutes)
Loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life
(Semi-Technical)
The Origin of Life: A Critique of Current Scientific Models(Technical, PDF file)
Will scientists create new life formsâ€â€and what would it prove?

 

[cubedbee]

Good information for Christians on the fallacy of a young Earth.

http://www.oldearth.org/articles.htm

 

[Heidi]

So if bacterial cells are changing into healthy ones, then why not simply leave them alone and let them mutate into healthy cells?

Cupedbee didn't say that bacterial cells are changing into healthy ones, they were addressing the idea that no mutations are beneficial, which protos put forth. In bacteria and other things with short life spans we can see the general trends of natural selection, where they adapt to the environment in which they are living. Humans introduced large-scale antibiotic use, which serves as an incentive or selection pressure causing those bacteria that are susceptible to die off and leave the more bacteria resistant organisms (often due to mutations) to breed. Unless that pressure favors bacterial strains with characteristics of 'healthy cells'*, they're not going to change in that direction.

*Healthy cells is an odd term in the first place. Bacterial cells are in themselves quite healthy, in that they are thriving and not in immediate danger of dying. What you mean is that they are not healthul for us, which is also not accurate for all bacteria. The ones living in your digestive system, for example are quite healthful for you. But regarding 'pathogenic' bacteria, like the ones that make us sick, they're still bacteria, but mutation is occassionaly good for them. Which is cupedbee's point.

So why don't the genes of humans select the gene of an animal that has wings? :o Sorry, but the reason we don't have wings has zero to do with whether or not the weather is hot or cold or people who don't like living on land. It has to do with whom we are capable of mating. This natural selection again, all comes from the imagination which it why evolution is a theory and not based on facts.

 

[bibleberean]

Science that gives credibility to "A Young Earth"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

Survey:
The earth: how old does it look?
A Young Earth: it's not the issue!
Evidence for a Young World
How old is the earth?
The god of an old earth
Astronomy
What do comets tell us about the age of the solar system?
Comets and the Age of the Solar System (Technical)
Kuiper Belt objects and the short-period comets ‘dilemma’ (for evolutionists)
More problems for the ‘Oort comet cloud’?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

Lots of answers and scientific ammunition to help Christians refute the skeptics.

 

[protos]

1)No natural genetic mutations give rise to new information, they can only screw up the genome just like typos in a computer(90-95% are detrimental and 5-10% are neutral).

This is demonstratably false. Bacteria are constantly mutating, becoming resistant to poisons and drugs which were deadly to their ancestors. The typos are certainly not neutral, as they allow the bacteria to survive something which would otherwise kill it, and it's obvious to a casual observer that new information is arising from mutations.

No it is not false. Large experiments trillionfold faster mutations than those that occur in nature showed only detrimental and neutral mutations. The bacteria thing is genes which control a component and limit its production to counteract the penicilin. When genetic mutations destroy that gene, it starts to overproduce the enzyme which counteracts the penicillin. It's not gaining information, please read up on the subject before you start making opposite claims.

[quote:3bcd8]2)They still have fossils of turtles from 240 million years ago just proving the above. (and other animals).

How exactly do fossilized turtles prove beneficial genetic mutations can't happen? Guess what--I have a clay pot holding flowers on my desk--and archeologists have found similar clay pots from thousands of years before Christ lived. Is this evidence that civilization can't advance?

[/quote:3bcd8]
Civilizations advance because of an increase in knowledge not an increase in genetic information.

[

3)Abiogenesis is impossible.

Well, life is here, so it happened. Whether you believe God did it or some other mechanism did, it is possible because it did happen.

The Miller experiment was also favorable to "life production" as it contained higher concentrations of oxygen than the supposed primordial Earth did according to evolutionists.

Genetic mutations occur when one of the pair bases in a replicating DNA is the wrong one and no bond is formed. This happens quite frequently along the single strands that try to recombine into the double helix after they have divided, but a corrector comes and corrects most of them. However some mistakes still remain: about 1 in a billion and from the 15.6 trillion kilobases that's not a whole lot but over the years it builds up. This affirms to the fact that order can only go to disorder and vice versa is not possible. Every generation there are about 100 mistakes which build up in the genome which affirms to an Adam and Eve with perfect genomes.

Since any little mistake can cause disfunction in any part of the body, sometimes even one gene can cause disfunction in both the eye and reproductive system as in the fruitfly, but since we have two sets of every gene, the mistakes don't count, and the closer you are related to the person, the more chance that those mistakes will be the same and thus the reason why family members' kids have all sorts of detrimental deformities.

 

[cubedbee]

Civilizations advance because of an increase in knowledge not an increase in genetic information.

I understand the mechanisms are different, but the analogy is valid. Regardless of the mechanism, you cannot conclude that civilization doesn't advance because you can find certain artificats of civilization which remain unchanged over long periods of time. You're only looking at partial information. If you look at all artififacts of civilization, you can clearly see the advancement.

Likewise, regardless of the mechanism, you can't conclude that living creatures don't evolve just because you can find certain animals that remain unchanged over long periods of time. If you look at all living creatures, not just turtles, you can clearly see much change over time.

 

[bibleberean]

What we don't see is dogs turning into cats or any evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

You don't see folds of the skin turning into feathers etc.

I find evolution very hard to swallow and the Genesis account of creation very easy to believe.

There is no way that Eve was not a literal person and that all mankind sprang from the original pair unless the bible is a complete farce.

Which it is not. :D

 

[peace4all]

What we don't see is dogs turning into cats or any evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

You don't see folds of the skin turning into feathers etc.

I find evolution very hard to swallow and the Genesis account of creation very easy to believe.

There is no way that Eve was not a literal person and that all mankind sprang from the original pair unless the bible is a complete farce.

Which it is not. :D

evolution never says anything about dog's turning into cats, or folds of skin turning into feathers.

Do have a question for you though. If god made adam and eve, and we are all offspring of them, then why are their black people, asians? why do people have diffrent skull shapes? why is it that asians are more likely to be shorter, and africans more likely to be tall?

if goats needed to still use their horns as often as they did in the wild, do you think this goat here, may have been able to adapt better, and spread hsi traits on?

there are thousands of other pictures that can show evidence like this.

 

[cubedbee]

What we don't see is dogs turning into cats

No, we don't. If you did see that, you would have disproved evolution, so you should start looking.

or any evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

No, actually we see quite a bit of evidence that this happened. We can't prove it through direct observation, but the evidence is nonetheless there.

You don't see folds of the skin turning into feathers etc.

We don’t see it because it takes millions of human lifetimes for this to occur and so we haven’t been watching long enough. However, we do see much evidence that this indeed happened in the past.

I find evolution very hard to swallow and the Genesis account of creation very easy to believe.

I find them both very easy to believe.

There is no way that Eve was not a literal person and that all mankind sprang from the original pair unless the bible is a complete farce.

Which it is not. :D

And there is no way that Eve being a literal person is at odds with evolution. The Bible is not a farce and evolution is true. The conflict is in your mind between God's Word and God's Creation does not exist.

 

[WillyGilligan]

Heidi, I'm really not sure where the idea that natural selection itself is in question comes from, but the basic idea is easily evidenced by dog and horse breeders. When you keep mating animals who are healthy and strong together, you get healthy strong animals. When you allow them to breed randomly, you're less likely to get traits as strong as you do selectively. Through selective breeding, mankind has even created specifically 'designed' breeds of dogs like terriers and dalmations. (The troubles of inbreeding are also readily apparent through this process, as the search for specific traits also tends to reinforce other traits, like hip displasia.) In the natural world, without man's intervention, you see things like short grass thriving where grazing animals have been eating the taller grasses, or Darwin's famous moth example. So when you say that natural selection is imaginary, it sounds like you may be confused on the subject. I'll assume that you mispoke, and are talking about macroevolution.

The question that you're asking is whether speciation can occur from natural selection. I can't personally answer that. It's not as impossible as you think it is, though.

As for why our genes don't select wings, I don't know. But I can say that our desire to fly has nothing to do with it. The gene is not a sentient thing that has a goal. It doesn't see that other animals have wings and that we should have them too (not to mention that it will take more than just wings before a person can fly unassisted). You take the genetic foundation that we have now and build from that. As cupedbee has been trying to explain, evolution would be disproven if we suddenly sprouted wings.

 

[protos]

I understand the mechanisms are different, but the analogy is valid. Regardless of the mechanism, you cannot conclude that civilization doesn't advance because you can find certain artificats of civilization which remain unchanged over long periods of time. You're only looking at partial information. If you look at all artififacts of civilization, you can clearly see the advancement.

Likewise, regardless of the mechanism, you can't conclude that living creatures don't evolve just because you can find certain animals that remain unchanged over long periods of time. If you look at all living creatures, not just turtles, you can clearly see much change over time.

No the analogy is not the same. If such philosophical, vague analogies were to be accepted as science then Eistein would have never been able to publish his equations on relativity. Let me explain to you why civilizations progress and that it has absolutely no significance in the theory of evolution. The products made by people, some accidents others applications from theories (gps, etc.) are the product of "standing on the shoulders of giants"("Great discoveries are made by standing on the shoulders of giants"-Galileo). Of course a single person can't discover everything at once because there's always something to learn. However not only is this increase in knowledge a CONSCIOUS PRODUCT which EVOLUTION ISN'T, but civilizations all the way down from Neanderthals have had advanced cultures. For example, they had flutes which had specified distances to produce different tones.

I suggest you start using objective evidence for support of evolution as opposed to homebaked flaky analogies which can't be tested in the lab (neither can evolution).

 

[protos]

Heidi, I'm really not sure where the idea that natural selection itself is in question comes from, but the basic idea is easily evidenced by dog and horse breeders. When you keep mating animals who are healthy and strong together, you get healthy strong animals. When you allow them to breed randomly, you're less likely to get traits as strong as you do selectively. Through selective breeding, mankind has even created specifically 'designed' breeds of dogs like terriers and dalmations. (The troubles of inbreeding are also readily apparent through this process, as the search for specific traits also tends to reinforce other traits, like hip displasia.) In the natural world, without man's intervention, you see things like short grass thriving where grazing animals have been eating the taller grasses, or Darwin's famous moth example. So when you say that natural selection is imaginary, it sounds like you may be confused on the subject. I'll assume that you mispoke, and are talking about macroevolution.

The question that you're asking is whether speciation can occur from natural selection. I can't personally answer that. It's not as impossible as you think it is, though.

As for why our genes don't select wings, I don't know. But I can say that our desire to fly has nothing to do with it. The gene is not a sentient thing that has a goal. It doesn't see that other animals have wings and that we should have them too (not to mention that it will take more than just wings before a person can fly unassisted). You take the genetic foundation that we have now and build from that. As cupedbee has been trying to explain, evolution would be disproven if we suddenly sprouted wings.

Yes, natural selection is fact and it's accepted by creationists. However most people make the mistake of assuming that, "a bunch of micro makes macro" which is invalid because of genetics. Just as all dogs descended from one dog, and how all the races came from Adam and Eve. However in order to get macroevolution you need an increase of information in the genome which natural selection does not do. That's where mutations come in, but mutations always result in the loss of information (like unscrambling a puzzle) not gaining.

 

[bibleberean]

Folds of skin became feathers and dinosaurs became birds after millions of years. And I am expected to believe this?

How in the world could a process like that take place? :o

Were "Big Birds" ancestors T Rex? :