[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[Barbarian]

God's Word never changes. But evolutionary beliefs change EVERY SO OFTEN.

Gravitational "beliefs" (actually science doesn't work in "beliefs") change EVERY SO OFTEN. Science is like that. It probably seems like cheating to creationists who are stuck with their revisions of Genesis pretty much forever, while scientists refine and improve their understanding of gravity and evolution.

What did the majority of Christians believe that Genesis was in the 1700s-1800s?? Hint: li. ter. al.!

Nope. Spurgeon, the great Baptist evangelist, in the 1800s, admitted millions of years of Earth's history. St. Augustine, about 1500 years ago, pointed out that the days of Genesis could not be literal 24-hour days.

 

[Barbarian]

You have as much logic as a FlatEarther, an ET alien believer, tin foil hat person. Hey, that's what i think of when you say "Creation RevIsiOn!1!1!"

Getting upset and calling names isn't going to make you more credible. Try to avoid that.

My beliefs actually have a base,

My opinions are based in evidence and in God's word. Yours are based on man's revision of His word.

 

[Barbarian]

You seemed like a challenging debate opponent.

Knowing what one is talking about, is a huge advantage, yes.

If you were more familiar with scripture and with the evidence, you'd be a lot more challenging yourself.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Yahweh's Revelation of Creation was taught properly to Adam and Chavah's children , grand-children, great-grand-children, great great grand-children.... for many generations thus.
Yahweh's Revelation of Creation was still taught properly to a few on earth over the last few hundred years.
Yahweh's Revelation of Creation in all that time never changed one iota.

The enemy's fairy tale of evilution was taught in thousands of schools over the last generation or few generations perhaps.
In college, in high school, in grade school, worst of all in Sunday School at times.

The enemy's fairy tale(s) of evilution always changed frequently. It was always proven wrong, and changed to try to become "acceptable", but only succeeded in deceiving the deceived more.

That sounds more along the lines of you just not understanding what biology teaches. The theory of Evolution is not an attempt to replace God. It's just the accumulation of data, facts, and observations that makes up an explanation of population mechanics and diversification. The theory changes because it's based around evidence and not dogmatic faith. Science is not a top down explanation of how everything works. It's an accumulation of knowledge and applied mechanics. Nothing more.

 

[follower]

That sounds more along the lines of you just not understanding what biology teaches.

As YHVH Says Clearly in His Word,

If someone wants to put their trust and continue to trust in "ANYTHING" (including what biology teaches)
fine.
Let them do that - I (Yahweh) will not take away their free will (yet) .

Let every one choose what they want to put their trust in.

And then, on Judgment Day, they can call on what they chose to believe in to help them escape Judgment.

 

[Milk-Drops]

As YHVH Says Clearly in His Word,

If someone wants to put their trust and continue to trust in "ANYTHING" (including what biology teaches)
fine.
Let them do that - I (Yahweh) will not take away their free will (yet) .

Let every one choose what they want to put their trust in.

And then, on Judgment Day, they can call on what they chose to believe in to help them escape Judgment.

So you didn't read what I posted. This is like saying we go to Hell for understanding math.

 

[Barbarian]

If someone wants to put their trust and continue to trust in "ANYTHING" (including what biology teaches)
fine.
Let them do that - I (Yahweh) will not take away their free will (yet) .

That's the issue. One does not "believe in" science. If it works, you use it. If it doesn't, you discard it. Creationism is based on faith in men's revision of His word. So it requires faith.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Nope. Lots of people have defective eyes, but they still are useful. Did you really not know this? More to the point, we see all sorts of transitional eyes, from simple light-sensitive dark spots to the complex vertebrate and mollusc eyes. In molluscs, all the stages of evolution for eyes still exist in living species. Here are a few of them...

Not only are transitional stages possible; they actually exist. And each benefits the organisms with them. You've unknowingly mentioned one of the most powerful evidences for evolution.

Was the the amount of info in the DNA in the study measured?
Also, this is a GRAPHIC, not a real-time photo.
Artwork is not too great at being upwards-bioevo evidence. Only works on the less logical.

 

[KV-44-v1]

phylogenetics?

 

[Barbarian]

Was the the amount of info in the DNA in the study measured?

How would you go about measuring information in an entire genome? Show your math.

Also, this is a GRAPHIC, not a real-time photo.

So you think all those scientists are lying? C'mon.

Artwork is not too great at being upwards-bioevo evidence.

Give us a testable definition of "upwards-bioevo evidence."

I don't think "they are lying, all of those scientists are lying!" is an adequate excuse.

Visual pigment spots on a chiton.

Pigmented spot in a cup. This is a useful adaptation, since it more accurately shows the direction of the light.

Nautilus eye. Pigmented area behind a "pinhole." This one can focus an image. Which is a useful adaptation.

Conch eyes. Lens, but no iris. Better image.

Octopus eye, with retina, lens, and iris. As efficient as vertebrate eyes. Actually, a bit better. Would you like to learn why?

So there you are. All of those transitional forms still exist in living organisms. Each stage is useful to the organism that has it.

 

[KV-44-v1]

He's smarter than you seem to think, for example.

No. He's smarter than YOU seem to think.
You can't get past the fact that your worldview IMPLIES that God is a cobbler. Until you get past this hurdle, this implication will forever haunt your compromising with athiestic ideas.

Creationists do not have this problem - for the simple reasons that Creationism exists BECAUSE OF EXEGESIS.

That interpretation admits the fact of evolution. YE creationists are a minority among Bible-believing Christians. Keep in mind, YE creationists (most of them, anyway) truly believe their new interpretation of Genesis; they aren't scoffing at scripture.

Theories aren't facts. Upwards bioevo is a theory in BOTH senses of the word. (pseudo)"Scientific" AND speculation.

Christians think that God created the world and the world brought forth living things as He created it to do.

Instant and one time. You have yet to give any Biblical evidence it was slow cobbling.
How fast did the world bring forth plants after God told it to?? Hint: read the Bible.

You won't accept His word on this, and instead rely on fallible men to tell you that they know better than God. God is much wiser and more powerful than YE creationists would like Him to be.

I already addressed this bit.

God said it. I believe it. You should, too.

Take your advice.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Barbarian
Oh, and here's comments on the 'cecal valve evolution':

" Latent -- that was the word I was looking for. If the lizards were "genetically identical to the source population", then the cecil valves must have been a latent trait. However, it seems that cecil valves are a rare phenomenon amongst lizards. As such, the question remains of how such a trait could persist with such a history of being latent? Latent traits should be subject to mushification due to random mutations unchecked by natural selection.BFASTApril 18, 200804:54 PMPDT

This is a very intriguing study. Let me point to the following statement in the study,

Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.

This would indicate that only Natural Selection, not random mutation, is being tested here. It also shows that Natural Selection is capable of producing significant micro-evolution. However, the bit about the cecil valves I find highly intriguing. It is clear that the original lizzard has an unimplemented trait for cecil valve development floating around in its genes. When only 1% of scaled reptiles produce this phenomenon, one has to ask why the DNA to code for the feature didn't degrade to mush in the original lizzard. How can unimplemented DNA (that which codes the cecil valve) maintain its integrity? I do not see how this DNA can be preserved by the only known DNA preservative -- natural selection.BFASTApril 18, 200802:29 PMPDT

If the genes were dormant they would still be present in the parent population. In any case, how would this fact be at odds with the modern evolutionary synthesis. As far as Lamarkism, certainly the researchers involved didn't imply remotely anything like that. As far as I can tell differential reproductive rates based on those who had favorable characteristics to begin with was the driving force, here, correct? There was no misconception by the researchers that all those mutations happened after the lizards came to the island. They would have already been present essentially as "Junk DNA" correct? - encodings for features that were of no particular use in their previous habitat. From article: Examination of the lizard’s digestive tracts revealed something even more surprising. Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste. “These structures actually occur in less than 1 percent of all known species of scaled reptiles,” says Irschick. “Our data shows that evolution of novel structures can occur on extremely short time scales. Cecal valve evolution probably went hand-in-hand with a novel association between the lizards on Pod Mrcaru and microorganisms called nematodes that break down cellulose, which were found in their hindguts. So a very small percentage had an encoding for some purposeless flap in their gut to begin with, and in the new environs that trait came to characterize the entire population as a result of differential reproduction. Sorry for thinking out loud - I don't see what the controversy is, or where Lamarkism in any form could be involved.JUNKYARDTORNADOApril 18, 200810:47 AMPDT"


That cecal valve thing was probably your best shot. But a little bit of research provides the perfect defense.
Good observation will ALWAYS confirm the Bible. Not secularist's guesses as to how life morphed over time.

 

[KV-44-v1]

How would you go about measuring information in an entire genome? Show your math.

We can just see the DNA, like under a microscope or something. I've seen PHOTOS of chromosones in cells. And we can splice genes.

So you think all those scientists are lying? C'mon.

Not necessarily lying. Even a scientist can be simply wrong.

Give us a testable definition of "upwards-bioevo evidence."

Emergence of Brand New DNA that has a causal relationship with a new feature. It shouldn't come from somewhere else, like a virus.
I.e., genetic entropy should be violated.

I don't think "they are lying, all of those scientists are lying!" is an adequate excuse.

It's not even my argument.

Visual pigment spots on a chiton.

Pigmented spot in a cup. This is a useful adaptation, since it more accurately shows the direction of the light.

Nautilus eye. Pigmented area behind a "pinhole." This one can focus an image. Which is a useful adaptation.

Conch eyes. Lens, but no iris. Better image.

Octopus eye, with retina, lens, and iris. As efficient as vertebrate eyes. Actually, a bit better. Would you like to learn why?

So there you are. All of those transitional forms still exist in living organisms. Each stage is useful to the organism that has it.

Uh, they are all different animals. Belonging to different KINDS. They aren't even in the same genus!

Aliger gigas
VS
Octopus Vulgaris.

CONCH:

Kingdom	Animalia
Phylum	Mollusca
Class	Gastropoda
Order	Mesogastropoda
Family	Strombidae (“True Conches”), Melongenidae, Fasciolariidae, Turbinellidae, Charoniidae
Genus	Strombus, Aliger, Laevistrombus, others
Species	Various

OCTOPUS:

• Kingdom: Animalia
• Phylum: Mollusca
• Class: Cephalopoda
• Order: Octopoda
• Family: Octopodidae
• Genus: Octopus

No Darwin. Only God's CREATED KINDS.
The best you response you will have to the Created Kinds is "imaginary!!1!!", I'm sure. You seem predictable at this point tbh. But as you can see, it is not imaginary. It's a conclusion based on 1. GOD'S CLEAR, NON-CONFUSING WORD. 2. Literally Taxonomy.

 

[KV-44-v1]

That's the issue. One does not "believe in" science. If it works, you use it. If it doesn't, you discard it. Creationism is based on faith in men's revision of His word. So it requires faith.

You have given no Bible verses to back your contraCreation evolution beliefs. Therefore you are the reviser.
Verses from Genesis 1:

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
6Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. 11Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

20Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.



There is NO MENTION of evolution!!
If God's Creation was a matter of "science" (upwards bioevo), why did God include His account of creation in His Word?? Seems kinda unneeded if humans can just discover that on their own. After all, quarks, atoms, etc. arent in the Bible.
But unlike evalooshun, they don't contradict Biblical teaching.

Humans could NEVER discover God's CREATIONIST GENESIS ACCOUNT on their own. God put it there so that we could know.

 

[Barbarian]

You have given no Bible verses to back your contraCreation evolution beliefs.

"Contracreation evolution" is an oxymoron. Evolution is God's creation of new forms. You might as well say "contracreation electromagnetic beliefs."

And of course, no one can find bible verses to show electromagnetic theory. Be content with what God actually is telling you, and stop trying to add things.

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.

Notice that nature does exactly what God created it to do. It brought forth life and then produced all the different organisms. Creationists will admit that much, but they will not accept the way He did it. And that's what's keeping you from a deeper understanding of His word.

There is NO MENTION of evolution!!

Or of DNA. There are lots of things that are true, that aren't in scripture.

Of course, gravity and protons don't contradict your new revisions of scripture. So you don't talk about them not being there. Why not just set your pride aside, and accept it God's way?

 

[Barbarian]

So there you are. All of those transitional forms still exist in living organisms. Each stage is useful to the organism that has it.

Uh, they are all different animals.

Yes. They evolved the sort of eye that fit their particular needs. Each class of mollusks evolved that basic spot differently. As you now realize.

Belonging to different KINDS.

They are all of the mollusc kind. As you see, different classes of molluscs evolved more and more complex eyes. Each stage in the evolution of mollusc eyes is useful to the mollusc that has it. And each step was a simple change to make it more efficient.

You've made my point for me.

 

[Barbarian]

You can't get past the fact that your worldview IMPLIES that God is a cobbler.

Seems to me that a God Who could create nature to bring forth all creatures as he intended is much smarter and more powerful than some little godling who has to make each thing separately by itself in order to make it all happen. As you now see, God is much greater than creationists would like Him to be.

Creationists have this problem - for the simple reasons that Creationism exists because of eisegesis.

Theories aren't facts.

Theories are based on facts. A hypothesis can't become a theory until is its predictions are repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Thought you knew.

Upwards bioevo is a theory in BOTH senses of the word.

Nope. You were lied to about that. "Upward" is not part of evolutionary theory.
Why not just accept it God's way?

 

[Barbarian]

How would you go about measuring information in an entire genome? Show your math.

We can just see the DNA, like under a microscope or something.

You don't have a clue as to how genetic information is determined do you? Just admit it.

I'll make it easier. Which has more genetic information, an earthworm or a bee? Show your math. Remember "information" is a mathematical concept. If you can't calculate it, you're just spinning fairy tales. So show us.

I suspect someone told you that "information" would help you fight science. Would you like me to show you how genetic information is determined?

 

[Barbarian]

" Latent -- that was the word I was looking for. If the lizards were "genetically identical to the source population",

Apparently, they tested mDNA, not the genome. Mitochondrial DNA is the genome found in mitochondria, which are modified bacteria (the DNA is circular as bacterial DNA always is). It doesn't change much, so it's useful for tracking descent.

No organism is genetically identical to another organism unless it's cloned directly. Even "identical twins" are not genetically identical (because of mutations after the zygote splits). You misunderstood the article.

And it wasn't a latent feature; cecal valves are unknown in this group of lizards. Until now.

When only 1% of scaled reptiles produce this phenomenon, one has to ask why the DNA to code for the feature didn't degrade to mush in the original lizzard.

It would. As it did in wall lizards, if it every existed before. This adapation is not the same as found in some other lizards. There are lots of ways this can happen. We see it in mammals in some animals that graze. But different genes.

Another study looked at the mutations that were found in urban Anole lizards, but not in the original populations. Turns out, they were adaptive, and the lizards had evolved to the different environment.

Finally, we wanted to know if the same genetic changes underlie the parallel morphological changes that we observed. Using a couple of different approaches, we found that the same genomic targets of selection underlie urban-associated morphological divergence across populations. In other words, adaptive divergence in urban lizards is occurring via repeated selection on the same genetic regions independently across the three cities we looked at.

Parallel Urban Adaptation from Phenotype to Genotype in Anolis Lizards

Anoles are models for studying evolution in the wild. Not only do anoles have a history of repeatedly diversifying to specialize in the same types of microhabitats in the same ways across the Great…

www.anoleannals.org

Happens in humans, too...
Life at high altitudes forced ancient Tibetans to undergo the fastest evolution ever seen in humans, according to a new study.

The most rapid genetic change showed up in the EPAS1 gene, which helps regulate the body's response to a low-oxygen environment. One version, called an allele, of the EPAS1 gene changed in frequency from showing up in 9 percent of the Han Chinese to 87 percent of Tibetans.

Such genetic changes suggest Tibetan ancestors split off from the Han Chinese population about 2,750 years ago, researchers say. But only those most evolutionarily suited for life at high altitudes survived when they moved to the Tibetan Plateau.

Tibetans Underwent Fastest Evolution Seen in Humans

In a relative blink of the eye, ancient Tibetans evolved to thrive in low-oxygen conditions of the Plateau.

www.livescience.com

Using a comparative genomic study, we show that natural selection on genetic variants in the PDE10A gene have increased spleen size in the Bajau, providing them with a larger reservoir of oxygenated red blood cells. We also find evidence of strong selection specific to the Bajau on BDKRB2, a gene affecting the human diving reflex. Thus, the
Bajau, and possibly other diving populations, provide a new opportunity to study human adaptation to hypoxia tolerance.

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(18)30386-6.pdf

 

[Barbarian]

Give us a testable definition of "upwards-bioevo evidence."

Emergence of Brand New DNA that has a causal relationship with a new feature. It shouldn't come from somewhere else, like a virus.

But around 8,000 years ago in what's now Turkey — just when humans were starting to milk newly domesticated cows, goats and sheep — mutations near the gene that produces the lactase enzyme started becoming more frequent. And around the same time, adult lactose tolerance developed. The mutation responsible for that may be between 2,000 and 20,000 years old; estimates vary.

But in order for that new trait to have persisted over many generations, something unique must have given milk drinkers an evolutionary edge.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/12/27/168144785/an-evolutionary-whodunit-how-did-humans-develop-lactose-tolerance

Only a minority of humans can drink fresh milk without adverse effects. The mutations for lactase persistance allow humans to use milk in adulthood:
The genetic basis for population variation in lactase production as a dominant trait is well-described, although not yet complete, with cis-element mutations responsible for LP identified in the transcriptional enhancer MCM6 [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Although LP has been known for almost a century, it was not until 2002 that the first LP mutation was discovered [69]. Such a delayed discovery was probably caused by the location of the LP alleles, which map 14 kb upstream of the LCT gene and not within, or immediately upstream, of it. Among identified variants, the −13910:C>T (rs4988235) [69] has almost reached fixation in some parts of Europe, while others such as −13907:C>G (rs41525747), −13915:T>G (rs41380347), −14009:T>G (rs869051967), and −14010:G>C (rs145946881) are found at variable frequencies in the Middle East and Africa [10,12,14]. Besides being highlighted as the most widespread and strongly associated LP variants, these five SNPs have been reported as functional markers according to a vast range, of both in vitro transfection assays, and in vivo studies [10,12,13,16,39,65,66,70,71,72,73,74].

In addition to these five genetic markers, up till now, eighteen new SNPs mapping the MCM6 have also been associated with LP in specific populations, thereby making a total of twenty-three known SNPs that currently underlie the genetic etiology of LP (Table 1). Interestingly, these variants seem to have arisen during the same time period, but independently in different human populations, and this is the reason why LP has become a textbook example of convergent regulatory evolution, and gene-culture co-evolution. In the presented Table 1, we display the known identifiers for mentioned variants as well as any evidence of functional control on LCT expression according to the literature. Analysis of an 80 kb haplotype covering the region of LCT and the upstream MCM6 enhancer has further confirmed a tight association of these LP variants with particular haplotypes [10,12,14], and shows that haplotype diversity also differs between populations, with the least diversity observed in Northern Europeans [9].

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/12/27/168144785/an-evolutionary-whodunit-how-did-humans-develop-lactose-tolerance

Happens in bacteria, too.

Evolution of a regulated operon in the laboratory.​

Genetics 1 July 1982
The evolution of new metabolic functions is being studied in the laboratory using the EBG system of E. coli as a model system. It is demonstrated that the evolution of lactose utilization by lacZ deletion strains requires a series of structural and regulatory gene mutations. Two structural gene mutations act to increase the activity of ebg enzyme toward lactose, and to permit ebg enzyme to convert lactose into allolactose, and inducer of the lac operon. A regulatory mutation increases the sensitivity of the ebg repressor of lactose, and permits sufficient ebg enzyme activity for growth. The resulting fully evolved ebg operon regulates its own expression, and also regulates the synthesis of the lactose permease.

You should realize that evolution never makes something out of nothing. It always modifies something present. The closest thing to "Brand New DNA" is when non-coding DNA is mutated and forms a new functional gene. Turns out, that's the source of many new genes. The other source is gene duplication and mutation. Would you like to learn how those processes work?