[_ Old Earth _] Quotes about Evolution and Creation

[caseypayne1980]

Misguided antichrist thought process is absorbed in the science threads. You guys keep up the good work of promoting false teaching that go against God. Then turn around and say it follows the bible because 1 day = millions of years in your eye's.

 

[jwu]

Then turn around and say it follows the bible because 1 day = millions of years in your eye's.

"Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations...You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men." For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:1,3,4)

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt
not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die. " (Genesis 2:17)

Did Adam die on that day?
No.
So either this day isn't a literal day, or the Bible is wrong, plain and simple.
So there is at least one occurrence of "day" in Genesis which is not to be understood literally, and throughout the Bible there are many instances in which days symbolize larger periods of time.

 

[caseypayne1980]

"Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations...You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men." For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:1,3,4)

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt
not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die. " (Genesis 2:17)

Did Adam die on that day?
No.
So either this day isn't a literal day, or the Bible is wrong, plain and simple.
So there is at least one occurrence of "day" in Genesis which is not to be understood literally, and throughout the Bible there are many instances in which days symbolize larger periods of time.

Genesis 2:27 means way different then what your perception sees. Before that sin God was going to let Adam and Eve liver eternal lives and all there childeren(us.) Since they sinned and ate of the tree, "though shalt surely die." Meaning doomed to die, not dieing right then. Before that there was no such thing as a flesh like death. And it means that on "THAT" day that you sin that you shall surely be doomed to die some day.

Psalm 90:1,3,4 As far as this is concerned. Its called gap theory. But Jwu your living a double standard you accept million year evolution and 1,000 year = 1 day gap theory. Those do not equal. So I take it that you ride the fence. I'm not against Gap theory at all either as long as its kept at 1,000 years = 1 day.

 

[jwu]

Genesis 2:27 means way different then what your perception sees. Before that sin God was going to let Adam and Eve liver eternal lives and all there childeren(us.) Since they sinned and ate of the tree, "though shalt surely die." Meaning doomed to die, not dieing right then. Before that there was no such thing as a flesh like death. And it means that on "THAT" day that you sin that you shall surely be doomed to die some day.

Well, that's just not what's written there. "on that day thou shalt die" and "on that day you are doomed to die" are two semantically completely different things. I have no idea how one could get from one to the other; days not being literal days appears to me to be a way more likely explanation as days are frequently used in a non-literal way throughout the Bible.

As far as this is concerned. Its called gap theory.

Actually that would be day-age theory. Gap theory is something different. The two are related though.

But Jwu your living a double standard you accept million year evolution and 1,000 year = 1 day gap theory. Those do not equal. So I take it that you ride the fence. I'm not against Gap theory at all either as long as its kept at 1,000 years = 1 day.

So you insist on the 1000 years figure as literal but changing "on that day thou shalt surely die" into "on that day thou are doomed to die" is ok? Now that's a double standard!

Couldn't these thousand years just symbolize a large timespan? I.e. the meaning of the passage being that God doesn't care about time, and that these values were just chosen for an analogy because they sound catchy?

I'm not riding the fence by the way...i take Genesis as fully allegorical, a metaphor about the intellectual development of mankind.

 

[dancing queen]

From my Christian point of view, however it all happened, I'm glad Genesis doesn't tell as a scientist would like to read it.

Take the Big bang. When scientists talk about it, I don't understand, but when God tells me there was nothing and then I made a big bang and lots of stuff appeared - I can deal with it. No gravity, no atoms just God creating.

Let's be honest, IF he had decided to use evolution to create man do you think there would have been any point trying to explain that in Genesis? Especially as God has different priorities to us.

Genesis to me is God saying, I want you to know I made everything, even you, I designed you and love you, but that's all you need to know.

Maybe it gap theory, or 1 day = 1000 years, maybe they lived in Eden for ages before the 'apple incident', maybe God made all the process happen quicker for a while - maybe He'll tell us when we meet face to face (or maybe by then we won't care)

 

[Orion]

Evolution does occur on a micro level. The formation of new species of animal, via macro evolution, however, is completely unfounded and lies in the venue of speculation and guess work.

Just because extinct species have similar attributes to current species by no way means an evolutionary link. Especially when it comes to completely different species. The reason why we may see similar features amongst different species is because often it is the best way they work. Even similar DNA is easily explained by the fact that what HAS to work on this planet, would NEED to be given certain similarities in DNA and/or biological makeup.

A Creator would be smart to do just this. A Creator would be smart to give creatures the ability to adapt to changing surroundings. When man tries to understand what is beyond him, . . . we end up with theories mired in pure speculation at the very best.

:robot:

 

[jwu]

Even similar DNA is easily explained by the fact that what HAS to work on this planet, would NEED to be given certain similarities in DNA and/or biological makeup.

How about identical defects in genes, such as cytochrome C? There is no reason why this gene, which is defect in humans and other closely related primates, should have suffered the same defects in all these species.

Other evidence for shared ancestry are shared sequences of DNA which are clearly known not to originate from the species itself, but are the result of e.g. viral infections. There is no reason why these traces should be the way as they are - recapitulating the phylogenic tree - if common descent were false.

The formation of new species of animal, via macro evolution, however, is completely unfounded and lies in the venue of speculation and guess work.

Speciation and even the emergence of new genera has been directly observed.. But what would like to see here?

 

[Orion]

How about identical defects in genes, such as cytochrome C? There is no reason why this gene, which is defect in humans and other closely related primates, should have suffered the same defects in all these species.

Other evidence for shared ancestry are shared sequences of DNA which are clearly known not to originate from the species itself, but are the result of e.g. viral infections. There is no reason why these traces should be the way as they are - recapitulating the phylogenic tree - if common descent were false.

Where is the defect? Besides, because we share similar genes, DNA, . . . it stands to reason that an outside effect would cause similar instances in similar genes. There have been thousands of years of potential genetic drift to account for a lot of things happening to some species and not others. You said it yourself, your example of viral infections WOULD have similar effects on more than one specific species! This is hardly paramount.

Speciation and even the emergence of new genera has been directly observed.. But what would like to see here?

I know your attempt here. It is used all the time. Try to get a Christian to state what THEY believe a transitional species would look like. But whenever I have seen such a debate, the evolutionist's example of what they call a new genera is still a speculation on their part. They would be right in stating mutations of existing viruses as true, but anytime they give "evidence" of some new species emergence, . . . .I look at the "evidence" and . . . *cough* :roll:

 

[jwu]

Where is the defect?

This table shows the base pairs which are identical to the cytochrome C gene in humans in green and different ones as red.

Humans and chimps share the same defect at one specific base pair, i can look up the precise location if you're interested.

Besides, because we share similar genes, DNA, . . . it stands to reason that an outside effect would cause similar instances in similar genes.

No. Mutations are random as far as we know, and not even identical outer circumstances would replicate one specific mutation.

There have been thousands of years of potential genetic drift to account for a lot of things happening to some species and not others.

...and these things basically scream "common descent!" as species share many of these drift results in a way that precisely recapitulates the phylogenic tree. There is no reason whatsoever why that should be so in case of uncommon descent.

You said it yourself, your example of viral infections WOULD have similar effects on more than one specific species! This is hardly paramount.

Where did i say such a thing?
The viral infection sequences are found in the exact same location in the genome in the species which share it because of common descent, and show the same defect which resulted in the sequence being preserved in the genome (instead of killing the infected cell). There is no reason why this should happen multiple times in unrelated different species. Common descent is the single best explanation for this.
E.g. there are sequences which are shared by all primates. First off, a retroviral sequence getting preserved alone already is a relatively rare process. This would have to have happened in about a dozen species, and not only that, but the virus would have to infect the cell in the precisely same location, a 1 in 3 billion chance each. And then that infection would have to go wrong with the exact same cause in all of them...

And there isn't just one such sequence, but more than a dozen have been identified, all shared by varying groups of species in a way which fits with the phylogenic tree.

know your attempt here. It is used all the time. Try to get a Christian to state what THEY believe a transitional species would look like. But whenever I have seen such a debate, the evolutionist's example of what they call a new genera is still a speculation on their part. They would be right in stating mutations of existing viruses as true, but anytime they give "evidence" of some new species emergence, . . . .I look at the "evidence" and . . . *cough*

Actually i wasn't talking at all about transitionals, but i was curious about what a new species should look like according to you, what i would have to show you so that you're satisfied with it as an example of a new species.

Anyway, you imply that you've checjed out some instances of speciation and found them unconvincing. Do you have details on this? Which ones in particular?

 

[Orion]

I'm not a geneticist. However, because our knowledge of such things is still very new (in terms of human involvement on this planet), it is hard to say that anything can suggest that even this defect is evidence of common ancestory. Perhaps such "defects" serve/served/will serve a function. Because this defect is in another species is speculation that it proves common ancestory of humans and chimpanzees.

As far as which transitionals I wasn't convinced of, I don't recall them at the moment. One was supposed to be a transitional between amphibians and reptiles. When I looked at the fossil remains, I saw that it could have just of easily been it's own species that had similar charactiristics of both. But even then, there was no definitive evidence that this fossil even HAD both. It was speculation from those who found it.

Bottom line is, I'm not a geneticist. There may be some evidence that shows similarities, . . . but I hold to the posibility that we often see the answers when we may have only seen "the surface", which may be circumstantial. This is about all I have to say on this topic, I just wanted to share my thoughts, being that we often choose to accept things which may only be our limited human understanding.

Do I believe in a 6,000 year old earth? I can't say that I do. However, I think that we should spend the majority of our efforts on the future, and less of it on determining a past based much on speculation.

 

[jwu]

I'm not a geneticist. However, because our knowledge of such things is still very new (in terms of human involvement on this planet), it is hard to say that anything can suggest that even this defect is evidence of common ancestory. Perhaps such "defects" serve/served/will serve a function. Because this defect is in another species is speculation that it proves common ancestory of humans and chimpanzees.

Until another explanation has been found it is evidence of common descent - and exceptionally good evidence at that, as the theory of evolution actually predicts the precise locations where these sequences are found. Why can it do this if it is mistaken?

If these sequences contain a function now or will contain one in the future is of no consequence. One such sequence, HERV-K, is now used in embryonal development as it produces a protein coat if i recall correctly. Either way, it fulfills an important function now. That however doesn't change that it is clearly identified as a sequence of viral origin. It even was possible to recreate the actual virus which inserted the sequence from it.

When I looked at the fossil remains, I saw that it could have just of easily been it's own species that had similar charactiristics of both.

Umm...that can be said about any transitional, can't it? The point is that the theory of evolution precisely predicts where such fossils should be found.

But even then, there was no definitive evidence that this fossil even HAD both. It was speculation from those who found it.

I can't quite follow you there...if a skull shows an early form of a middle ear, then it's quite clear that the animal had a middle ear.

Bottom line is, I'm not a geneticist. There may be some evidence that shows similarities, . . . but I hold to the posibility that we often see the answers when we may have only seen "the surface", which may be circumstantial. This is about all I have to say on this topic, I just wanted to share my thoughts, being that we often choose to accept things which may only be our limited human understanding.

Ok, but should one then not accept the things which the evidence indicate as "provisionally correct"?

 

[Orion]

Ok, but should one then not accept the things which the evidence indicate as "provisionally correct"?

I don't know if we can label it (or most things) as "correct". Even provisionally. You can say that a more true statement would be, "best guess based upon scientific discovery". However, we just need to remain open to the fact that we aren't fully qualified (not advanced far enough) to really understand the evidences we find. Provisionally accepted theory. There may come a time when we find out that even this "defect" common to humans and chimpanzees is just a common effect of some other genetic markers. Who knows. But that goes with most of the area of our past. We have a much better understanding of things the closer they happen to our present time.

Just something for you to consider, . . . just another thought to remain open to.

 

[jwu]

Of course there may be future developments which falsify common descent. But until then it is way more than just a guess.

Right now there are two known ways how the ERV sequences can have come to be: Pure coincidence or common descent. The sequences being part of some "intelligent designer's" activities is effectively ruled out as they are clearly not part of the original genome but results of viral infections, they were acquired independently from the question where the first member of that species came from. Moreover, most of them do not serve any function, they are completely inactive (HERV-K being a notable exception).

The odds of these sequences being the result of coincidence are astronomically low - even if only the locations are considered and the specific shared type of defect in the sequences which saved the cell is ignored, then the odds are something like 1:10^312. In other words:
1:100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I wouldn't call that a guess ;)

Some creationists have calculated the probability of spontaneous generation (note that this has nothing to do with current ideas of abiogenesis, that calculation doesn't apply to them) as something like 1:10^250.

Compared to the above number, this means that spontaneous generation should happen 10^62 times before this particular ERV distibution comes by by chance.

 

[Orion]

I guess I'm not understanding the whole "viral infection" thing. And I'm not sure if the odds you suggest are entirely accurate and extraordinaryly huge in their posibility. If two species have very similar DNA/Genes, . . . . doesn't it stand to reason that at some point in the past, the same viral infection could have had similar effects on both species? :-? We're talking about a huge amount of time. I can see how this could have happened! However, I'm out of my element now, but can only continue to hold to my convictions that we don't have all the information to make life decisions on, unless you are holding to some level of faith that you ('you' is generic in this context) are right.

 

[jwu]

f two species have very similar DNA/Genes, . . . . doesn't it stand to reason that at some point in the past, the same viral infection could have had similar effects on both species?

Similar genetic makeup is a requirement for being eligible to infection, e.g. that is the reason why infections that affect fish don't affect humans, but humans and chimps can be infected by the same diseases.
That however isn't the end of the story, the relevant point here are the details of the infection.
A virus just inserts its own genome into that of a cell, somewhere into it. While there are places which are more susceptible than others, the location where the viral DNA is inserted is pretty much random.

In case of the shared ERV sequences e.g. chimps and humans not only would have to be infected by the same virus, but that virus infection would have to have happened in the exact same location of the genome, down to the base pair. The point is that it is more likely that humans and chimps inherited this bit of viral DNA fom a common ancestor than for them both to suffer the exact same infection.
Note that this is not an ordinary every-day infection - it had to affect a sex cell which later produced a sperm cell or ovary which resulted in a pregnancy, and something had to go wrong with that infection as it otherwise would have killed the cell, preventing it from producing sperm or ovaries.
Such a cell being infected, surviving the infection and later producing the one out of 100 million sperm cells which fertilizes the ovary already is a very very rare occurence.
Other species suffering the same event and even in the same out of 3 billion locations in the genome is extremely unlikely. And there isn't just one such sequence, but there are about a dozen which have been compared to the genomes of related primates. All fit the phylogenic tree regarding their distibution.
And even if they were likely to happen, there still would be no reason why the sequences should be distributed that way. That distribution alone already puts a 99.999% or so certainty on common descent, not even taking into account the low chance of identical infections occuring, which later results in the astronomical number which i mentioned in my last post.

This is the distribution of such sequences. E.g. the two arrows left of the middle indicate that after the speciation event that divided new world monkeys from the rest but before other speciation events three such insertions occured, all of them are shared by humans, chimps, gorillas, orang utans, gibbons and old world monkeys but not by new world monkeys.

I gave humans and old world monkeys for granted in my calculation, as if they wouldn't have this sequence, evolution wouldn't predict them being found in chimps, gorillas, orang utans and gibbons.
A chimp having that sequence in that location - if an infection and survival of the cell and pregancy are given as granted as i don't know their odds (i am being *very* generous to your position here), then the probability that this occurs in the right location for it to fit with the prediction of evolution is 1:3.000.000.000 as there are that many base pairs in the genome where the infection could have happened.
So the odds that chimps, gorillas, orang utans and gibbons (four species) all share this sequence without common descent are 1:3.000.000.000^4

And that's only the chance of that single sequence...in that timespan twoof them happened, making that 1:3.000.000.000^8

When one takes into account all the sequences on that diagram one arrives at a chance of 1:3.000.000.000^33, roughly 1:10^312.

Compare it to the "merely" 10^78 atoms that the whole universe consists of.

If every atom in our universe contained another universe of which in every atom another universe is found and then this whole thing once more, then you have roughly that number of atoms. It's really an insanely big number...

We're talking about a huge amount of time. I can see how this could have happened!

I'm glad you mention this, as it brings up another point (i know you're not a YEC, but i'll mention it for the others): As explained, the requirements for such a sequence becoming fixed in the genome are quite tough. If humans only had been on the earth for 6000 years, they wouldn't have accumulated the number of such sequences which they have in their genome.

However, I'm out of my element now, but can only continue to hold to my convictions that we don't have all the information to make life decisions on, unless you are holding to some level of faith that you ('you' is generic in this context) are right.

Well...it is not a life decision, is it?
If one believes in creation ex nihilo or theistic evolution is not a salvation issue.

 

[Orion]

Well...it is not a life decision, is it?
If one believes in creation ex nihilo or theistic evolution is not a salvation issue.

Whereas I can't comment on your paragraph on genetics, . . . . on this one point, there is truth to it. Salvation is not affected by this topic, and that is the best news there is.

I have my own ideas as to how life MAY have originated on this planet and am open to correction. But, I will continue to believe that God had a hand in it.

Blessings!

Orion

 

[jwu]

That position is compatible with theistic evolution, which is that God used evolution as His tool to create the current diversity of life. If the first cell formed by abiogenesis (perhaps with divine help) or was poofed into existence is a seperate question.

In some way theistic evolution is comparable to intelligent design - the only difference is that TEs believe that God either didn't need to meddle with the process of evolution once it was started ("front loaded evolution") or that He did so but did not leave fingerprints (while IDists believe that God's interference can be deduced from the genome). I find the former position to make more sense, as God apparently wants to be known by faith, not by hard evidence - leaving fingerprints would then equate to God making mistakes.

 

[Orion]

Yes.. . . . I'm not sure why God chose "faith" as the vehicle for our relationship with Him, . . . and I sometimes wonder how our world would be different if there was absolute concrete evidence. :-? I guess that sort of speculation will have to remain unanswered this side of Heaven.

As for Theistic Evolution/Intelligent Design, there COULD be some truth to them. Some of my theories on this topic may be somewhat "out there" to some. Others may find it sound. But I believe that both sides have merit, on some level.

 

[Barbarian]

Well, since I answered the challenge, and no creationist has stepped up, we can put that "evolutionists are afraid to debate" foolishness to bed.

If anyone ever finds one of the professional creationists who'd like to take me on here, be sure to let me know.

 

[Orion]

:-? The challenge to debate theories which are mear speculation,. . . .yes, even the items that scientists THINK are "true"? And how would we determine a winner in such a debate? :-?