1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Evolution/Creation Poll -- Please Vote!

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Phillip, Dec 27, 2004.

?
  1. 6 day Creation -- Genesis is literal

    77.1%
  2. Gap or Old Earth, but no death until sin occurred

    8.3%
  3. Old Earth with death before sin occurred

    11.5%
  4. Theistic Evolution -- animals evolved until God decided to put a soul in one.

    3.1%
  5. Evolution -- absolutely no need for any supernatural causes.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I gave you an answer."

    I must have missed it. All I remember is you claiming that the original kinds "consisted of genetically complex, highly adaptable forms of plants and animals." That is a very general assertion. I gave you the only two possibilities I can come up with. Rememebr?

    I want you to be specific and use one of these ideas or come up with your own. Then I would like something specific that you think supports this hypothesis.

    "To refute it, prove a mechanism by which the whale acquired new information that differentiated it from its land dwelling relatives... to the exclusion of every other option."

    This is called moving the goalposts. The evidence is quite strong, so you deny it and ask for more. You know full well that we have not sequenced the entire genome of all the cetaceans plus all of the artiodactyls. So we cannot possibly know specifically which genes make the difference and how they arose. We have observed the mechanisms behind evolution in general. But you should be careful what you wish for. I think it is a safe prediction that over the coming decades we will sequence the genome of most life on earth and then your question may have a very specific answer.

    "Agricultural pests are battled with pesticides. When there are survivors, they most often survive because they lack certain common genetic characteristics inherited by most of the population. Since they are immune to the effect of the poison, they are favored in that particular area though without the poison they might otherwise not have been favored. You have a permanent change in a population by subtraction, not addition."

    I happen to have made an antibiotic resistance post recently. Let me dig it up, it seems germane.

    YEers like to point out how resistance is usually through the loss of something. It gets more interesting, though, when you look into the details. You will see that for bacteria to lose the component that vancomycin attacks, that it had to invent a new pathway to detect the AB, remove the target, and replace it with something new.

    "I don't know. Although I reject genetic similarity as a conclusive factor."

    As in all else, it is just part of the story. There is a very rich fossil history involved. Just the horse sequence has something like SIXTY known genera in tracing back to Hyracotherium. We can do the same thing with rhinos. This lets us predict that they should also genetically test as the closest living relatives. And they do.

    "Use of mitochondrial DNA sequences to test the Ceratomorpha (Perissodactyla:Mammalia) hypothesis," C. Pitra and J. Veits, Journal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research, Volume 38 Issue 2 Page 65 - June 2000.

    And notice that what they used was not even DNA that determines the structure of the horse. They used mDNA.

    So what basis would you use to predict that these would test the closest? The fossil record? You are going down my road now then.

    "If you are simply looking at genetic maps then I would ask you to explain why humans are more similar to snakes than some mammals."

    I really need a citation if it is something other than

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2929/2.html#000021

    "BTW, have you considered that any explanation you propose including the accumulation of genetic information works under my framework? I reject that it has occurred since we don't see it but it would not undermine what I propose."

    It is why I asked what you thought of Behe. This accepts common descent but rejects the known evolutionary mechanisms as being sufficient. It leads to much heavier involvement by God.

    "You accept by faith that there is a mechanism though unobserved and unrepeatable that accounts for the accumulation of genetic information."

    Nope, the mechanisms are observed!
     
  2. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bill

    You asked so I will do my best.

    "Well it's obvious to me that the evolutionists here know exactly how the 1st few chapters of Genesis work. If they can answer these questions I will concede to them.
    When did life begin?
    "

    I dunno. The oldest evidence for life we can find is about 3.8 billion years old. There are not many rocks left over from so long ago though. Erosion and subduction, you know.

    "When did man & woman come upon the earth with a soul (month,day,& year please)?"

    I dunno. It could be as recent as the last ten thousand years, depending on how much of Genesis is literal. From archeological evidence I would guess more like 30,000 years or so. Basically when you start seeing evidence for abstract behavior such as art.

    "What is the birthdate of the existance of the universe?"

    13.7 billion years ago. That is now nailed down to within about 100,000 years by examination of the cosmic microwave background.

    "How long did it take(in years) for the DNA to form for each of the following:
    man
    "

    Well, about 4.6 billion years.

    "fur bearing animals"

    About 4.5 billion years.

    "fish"

    About 4.1 billion years

    "fowl"

    About 4.5 billion years.

    "insects?"

    About 4.2 billion years.

    "If it takes a designer to design a watch,aircraft,building or automobile, why does'nt it take a designer to make the universe and all known life?"

    I think most of us would agree that God DID have some involvement. We differ on degree.

    "Why would God use a system like evolution ?"

    He just often seems to use natural means to bring about His will. Let me ask a question. If you prayed to God for financial help, what would you expect? To wake up to a pile of cash on the kitchen table? No? You would expect God to provide a better job or an unexpected tax refund or something else along such lines. Is either more or less miraculous? Are both not God answering prayer and providing?

    "Now if I throw out everything else and just think on one or two things,the idea of evolution is beyond my ability to accept.My first question would be how did life begin? "

    I dunno. Could have been miraculous. All evidence has been destroyed. But there are some scenarios that seem quite viable. Making the building blocks does not seem to be that hard. Even RNA can be catalyzed by very common materials.

    "My second question would be considering there is human,fish,fowl,and other animal life,how does evolution get the DNA to line up for each species and each sex and then for them to meet and propogate in a random or accidental manner?"

    It did not have to. Evolution is something that happens to a population. There are no "hopeful monsters." The changes happen gradually and populations go on reproducing with other memebrs.

    "What do you suppose the odds are?I have read that there are 10 to the 80th power electrons in the known universe. I have also read that the probabilitiy of getting 1 DNA molcule to come up with the genetic make up for man is something like 10 to the 284rth power."

    There a mutliple flaws here. The first is that your calculation only works if you are trying to assemble it in one fell swoop. This is not what happened. Which gets to the next problem. Selection over time is a powerful force for preserving desiable genes. Next proble is that evolution happens in populations, so you have a massively parallel system trying many different possiblities which are then selected from. Another problem is that there is no reason to presuppose that a given sequence is the only one that will work. We even have examples of different organisms using different genes to accomplish the exact same thing.

    "Then when I think of all of the different species of live moving animals,you know birds,fish,mammals,insects,how do I come up with a number to figure the probabilitiy that they occurred in the same manner as the EVOLUTION of man.In my book that just don't compute. "

    It is because the method used to compute the odds is flawed.
     
  3. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's all of the I dunno's that bother me.In addition my next question would be even IF we suppose the evolutionary time line were correct when did MAN(man & woman) with a Soul actually begin.
    I am also sure you are aware of all of the questions about dating systems so I don't even want to get into that.

    I'm not a scientist or a scientific researcher so I don't know if stasticical probability would apply to this or not but it seems not to be such a bad idea to ask,"what are the chances of this happening" when asking questions related to science.
     
  4. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    The other problem we have is no eye witnessess or any records of any eye witnesses. It's like God said,"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?Job38:4a
     
  5. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    [qb]
    Haven't you heard abot the rich man and Lazarus.? But beyond that you are comparing two very different literary genres
    </font>[/QUOTE]I was waiting for someone to bring that up. Scholars are divided as to whether that is a parable or not. Most commentators that I've read do not think it is. It does not have the features of a parable, nor is it told as Jesus tells his parables.

    I do not think it is a parable, and that I why I am saying that no parable has a person named in it.
     
  6. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "It's all of the I dunno's that bother me."

    There weren't that many. ;)

    "In addition my next question would be even IF we suppose the evolutionary time line were correct when did MAN(man & woman) with a Soul actually begin."

    I did answer that one above. It was with a "dunno" but there was some exposition that followed.

    "I am also sure you are aware of all of the questions about dating systems so I don't even want to get into that."

    Actually I ma not aware of such problems. I have seen issues raised, but nothing that I would consider substantial. It usually amounts to misconceptions about dating. For instance, claiming that assumptions are made about constant decay rates. (Actually this assumption is not needed. Light has a finite speed so we can look at radioactive decay in space and see how it behaved in the past. Decay rates can also be predicted, I think, from first principles fairly well.)

    "I'm not a scientist or a scientific researcher so I don't know if stasticical probability would apply to this or not but it seems not to be such a bad idea to ask,"what are the chances of this happening" when asking questions related to science."

    But, while I am mentioning assumptions, you have to be careful about which ones you make. Above I mention some problems with the general kinds of probabilities that YEers try to calculate. Basically they ignore the processes and assume that everything had to come together complete in one shot and the first time. Just not how it works.

    "The other problem we have is no eye witnessess or any records of any eye witnesses. It's like God said,"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?Job38:4a "

    Good question. None of us were there. I just make the assumption that God would not deceive us. That allows us to look logically at the creation. If that is a bad assumption then we have bigger problems.

    I know we won't change each other's minds, Bill, but I do enjoy a more relaxed approach. [​IMG]

    Good night. [​IMG]
     
  7. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is turning into one of the most ridiculous threads I have ever seen. It is as bad, if not worse than the KJVonlyism we see in the Translations section.

    About Vancomycin. Let me explain this very simply and stay away from the intense biology. Many here seem to be attempting to use as big of words as possible and trying to top one another in their both terminology and what they think is knowledge. So that everybody will understand what we are talking about here is the bottom line.

    Ever since antibiotics were invented bacteria has developed resistance to those antibiotics. Antibiotics work in different fashions. The reason for an antibiotic is something that will attack a certain type of bacteria while leaving human cells alone. Some attack the cell wall, causing it to fail or not develop properly. Others prevent bacteria from dividing by having an effect on the internal enzyme process.

    The bottom line is that bacteria that is exposed to antibiotics over long periods of time sometimes become immune.

    A good example of this is MRSA, which is found in nursing homes and hospitals. MRSA simply means, Methycillian Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. It is a Staph germ that lives on the skin of people and is often found in healthcare facilities where constant exposure to antibiotics is used.

    Over the years it became resistant to one of the first high-powered new anti-biotics called Mythecillian. Besides a new antibiotic under test, the only real line of defense is a very expensive antibiotic known as Vancomycin. (With a "C".) Vancomycin is a very powerful antibiotic and will usually kill MRSA which can infect any part of the body, including the lungs causing a deadly form of pneumonia. The problem with Vancomycin is that it is normally given through IV. It is extremely hard on the walls of the vains and arteries (for main-lines). Another reason doctors dont like to use it is because it simply exposes the staph to more antibiotic. Already Japan has found Vancomycin resistant Staph and one strain was found in the United States, although it has not spread.

    Now, here is the big argument. Evolutionists point to this as survival of the fittest and evolution in action. They say that the bacteria that is already closest to becoming resistant due to certain chemical make up does not get killed and therefore multiplies forming more and more bacteria that are resistant, while the antibiotics kill off the non-resistant strain.

    Although this is partly true, it is a self-defeating argument because it is not arguing for a mutational change, only an artificial antibiotic killing a bacteria that is responsive.

    Either way, we have such a small microchange. I have seen nobody argue with microevolution. We see it in dogs (even though humans are the main cause and usually wind up with physically inferior creatures).

    The bottom line is that bacteria typically divide every 20 minutes. In just a few days millions and millions of bacteria can grow. This allows mutations to occur on a very rapid basis compared to that of land creatures such as rabbits.

    The funny part is that with millions of bacteria growing in the labs (many I have grown myself), I have YET to see one grow legs and climb out of the petri dish to get away from the antibiotic. In fact, I have yet to see ANY change to the bacteria with the exception that the ones left have more resistance to the antibiotic which imply means the weaker bacteria was killed. This by no means shows a natural development of evolution.

    I have YET to have an evolutionist explain how a human eye has developed (step-by-step) by evolution. You see, for evolution to work, every SINGLE step has to be functional. In the human eye, we have a lens that inverts and focuses the picture on a light sensor that transmits both black and white and color images to the brain via chemical/electrolysis. The lens not only focuses depending on distance, but the iris automatically adjusts the light range (dynamic range) over a range much greater than most cameras. How did this inverting iris controlled lens come about in single steps?

    How about a flying duck. Have you ever watched one? Every SINGLE feather has to be in just the right place and the feathers are SO specially made. The duck is like an airplane, only more complex. It consists of a main structural wing and then a balancing tail section. It only takes cutting about five feathers a few inches on one side of a wing to "clip" a duck and keep it from flying. This is how critical every single part of the structure is. How did this duck develop wings that were functional when the entire tail section is required before it can fly and balance. And no there is no known fossils of ducks coming from flying squirrels.

    The ear is the same way. Too many intricate pieces that will not work individually but work as a marvelously functional machine when all put together.

    Evolution does not and cannot create machines with sections that have no function.

    The bat, using ultra-sonic sonar to catch insects. Right, that is an accidental functional system. Give me a break. The bat sends out a signal at such a high rate that it can track and catch an insect that is flitting this way and that, by bouncing sound waves off of it and having ears directional enough to do real-time processing to locate the reflection.

    How many organs do we have in our bodies that would not work if broken down into steps or stages? Evolution has to take one improved step at a time or it is destroyed. That is the whole theory. Without an improvement in these devices, then the device would never make it through the development process.

    When an engineer designs a radio receiver, he designs an amplifier to first amplify the signal with low noise. He then does other things and "detects" the signl (takes the sound from it so it can be used.) This could NEVER happen accidently because designing an amplifier by itself has no function. So, the chief designer has a plan for the whole system (very much like that found in DNA). Is it THAT difficult to believe that God is the chief designer and IS NOT using natural means to design His creations? It cannot happen. Scott mentioned the mathematical numbers. You may laugh, but he is right. What are the probablities of a human mind, the most complex thing every built in the universe (that we are aware of) and place it in the heads of human beings. I know...trial and error. Sorry.

    Why would God even bother to say that He created something and behold, it was good. Why doesn't it tell the truth and say, God let something naturally occur and it was bad (and died) and good and bad (and died) and good, etc. etc. for billions upon billions of trials and errors until something turned out good.

    We either believe in God's Word or we don't. This is NOT a simple matter of translation and for those of you who say it is, it is obvious that your science is more of a god to you than believing in an all powerful God.

    Nobody, not one has explained if Jesus' micracles were true miracles? If they were, then why couldn't Genesis be a miracle?

    The Lord made the heavens and the Earth in six days says Jesus. Is He lying or are we not interpreting the English properly? If we don't believe what Jesus says there, then why do we believe what Jesus says when He claims to be the Son of the Father? We can't, it just might be a "genre" that we do not understand and misinterpret, much like Genesis.

    The argument of misinterpreting Genesis is the most ridiculous stretch of an attempt to get rid of that part of the Bible I have ever seen; all because it doesn't fit a secular world view.

    I'll make another guess. My guess is that most of you who believe in evolution, do not believe in a literal firey hell. What say you? Yes or No?
     
  8. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    UTEOTW,
    okay assuming thathat evolution is a long process and does'nt get it right the first time and takes many changes over a long period of time how long would it take to make 1x10 to the 284rth power.

    As to praying for money that is a valid question which you answered yourself.Now I have seen thepower of prayer work many many times.Money has never been at the top of my prayer list.

    Back to the first paragraph.Even assuming it happened once,would that DNA molocule be male or female and how long would it take for the other counter part molocule to develop,then assuming that happened what are the chances of those two particular people(or whatever) getting together to start the base population from which the human would develop.Then this needs to happen all over again for each of the species.They can each use the same space and time.How does the mind come to accept that this can happen without design? How can this happen randomly?

    Another person on this thread talks about the design of the human eye and how complex it is.Well the human eye is just a small part of the human body.We have a skeletal system,a circulatory system,a nerve system,a motor system,and a brain.We can see feel by touch and emotion.We can reason and use absract communications.We are designers,builders,artists,and philosophers.Where did all of this random ability come from.We grasp the concept of a higher being,where did that come from.Where did our ability to reason and think or plan or worship come from.These are not things I think could possibly come from an evolutionary process.
     
  9. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    How in the WORLD did you come up with any number like this based on cosmic microwave background radiation. Would you please explain this to me in detail?

    I submit that this is an impossibility and hypothetical at best (not even theoretical).
     
  10. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree Bill. The only reason I use the eye is that if you have evolution you MUST have a reason for EACH step. If there is an organ that requires two or more parts which accomplish a feat (such as focusing light, that the body was not even aware of to start with except from infrared radiant heating and a color/B&W detection system) both would have to develop at the same time. An impossibility.

    It has been shown that the flagella in certain bacterium have a system very similar to a motor with windings, brushes and ball-bearings. These three items could NOT have developed independently of each other, so how did they develop at all.

    My whole point was like the radio receiver designed by an engineer. It consists of four major parts, a front end amplifier, mixer, local-oscillator and detector. (Doesn't matter what these do.) Suffice it to say that a receiver will NOT function without all four. It takes a designer to plan each individual piece and design them to fit together. It wouldn't make sense for one item to evolve that doesn't do ANYTHING, then it just happens to turn out to be a lens that focuses light and has an iris to control the amount of light.

    They keep talking about things we do not use, how about the things we use that are too complex to have developed by a trial and error "step" method. That completely DESTROYS the theory of lack of overall design.

    Don't you think it is interesting that we have gone all the way from, theistic evolution (God may have done it that way) to people admitting they believe God let nature take its course without much interference? This is the DANGER of evolution.

    Not one of them has answered if they think Jesus' miracles were only allegory. If they were, why bother with the gospels. If they were real, then why not accept the miracle of Creation from the same entity that DID IT! [​IMG]
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This thread has run beyond the 20-page limit and must be closed. Sorry.
     
Loading...