The earth is the center of creation!

Bacteria will often develop a resistance to antibiotics, but it’s sad to say…it’s still Bacteria…

A method used by microbiology instructors among others to converse their students into believing in evolution. Gravity is observed on a daily basis. I believe it b/c I can test it as I speak…oops, I just dropped my a pen on the floor… Macro-Evolution on the other hand isn’t observed.

“The first step in evolution was the development of simple self-copying molecules consisting of carbon dioxide, water and other inorganic compounds. No one has proven that a simple self-copying molecule can self-generate a compound such as DNA in a lab or paper.”

“Scientists now know that generating life in a test tube is far more complex than anyone ever imagined in the pre-DNA revolution of ‘53, in fact, life contains far more information than anyone in the ‘80s believed possible.”

E.coli in a lab will produce a new generation every 20 minutes. In a controlled lab experiment, encouraging and forcing mutations, they have YET to anything other than E.COLI. The last I heard they were in the millions of generations.

Again “Evolution is as much a fact as gravity” is yet another atheist tactic.

We finally agree on something. but…

God was specific…”So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” “And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

Jesus in Mathew believed His Father as well…”Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female…” If my savior Jesus Christ believed it, so shall I..

(John 1:14) “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.” What truth is it?

God was very specific…God raised His son from the dead is no more specific than “He made them both male and female.”

It’s scientific impossible to raise someone from being dead for 3 days…but you don’t seem to have a problem believing it happened…imagine that, you seem to pick and choose.

There was a president, can’t recall his name, who cut up his Bible to reflect his beliefs…sounds farmiliar…

Every post you’ve posted hasn’t one time glorified God and His creation. How is repeating a verse from the Bible, bearing a false witness?

Society is becoming more spiritual, yet less Christian every day; there is a deceptive fixation on signs and wonders as proof of the truth, as well as the church’s willingness to imitate the world leaves churchgoers open to deception also.

 

That's not true at all. Christians don't believe what they do based on works of magic.</font>[/QUOTE] I didn't say magic though, did I? It is a very important distinction. God supercedes nature. He operates both inside and outside of natural time, space, and matter.

Not in the least! These are recorded as supernatural events. They are not recorded as tricks or illusions. If Christ's miracles were not genuine acts demonstrating sovereignty over nature then he was the fraud/deceiver that the Jews accused Him of being.

But more specifically, the resurrection is a central pillar of Christian salvation. Paul even said that if Christ was not resurrected from the dead then our hope is in vain. It is necessarily supernatural.

Men who are really dead, prepared by Jewish methods for burial, and lain in a tomb for 3 days, do not come back to life by natural processes.

I suspect you are talking about mechanics. But even if the mechanics could be explained in scientific terms, it would still be supernatural in nature since the laws of natural science have been over-ruled by a divine act of will.

Then why would you ascribe to Him the tactics of a modern slight of hand magician? If His miracles were just crafty (but fully natural) tricks then He was a fraud. One boy's lunch does not become enough to feed 5,000 by natural means. If He used another source for multiplying the food then He deceived those people. Water does not support a man in sandles. If He used a reef or some means of floating then He was guilty of a very cruel trick when He invited Peter to join Him. The wind and waves do not stop naturally because someone speaks. A meteorologist might very well be able to say what natural forces had to converge to produce the result... but those results being invoked by spoken words is nothing less than supernatural.

 

No it isn't... and such a claim is way out of bounds. Gravity can be mathematically proven. I know. I have worked through calculations for gravimetric acceleration and terminal velocity by weight.

I think you should take another look at your own opinions before making such a criticism. You just stated that "evolution" was fact. Unless you are narrowly talking about microevolution then you should refer to the scientific method- Does it ever allow for an unproven theory to be called a "fact"? Laws are facts. Theories are suppositions.

Of course, you continue in confusion over the difference between micro and macroevolution insisting that one necessarily results in the other when there is no proof that it ever does.

This is a strawman argument. I don't think any of us are arguing that Genesis is a science book. What we are arguing is that it records literal events that are consistent with scientific truth.

Is that a joke? When you write something in the form of a historical narrative, do you automatically presume to tell them that you are recording actual events? Or do you only make comment when your narrative is not intended to be taken literally?

 

First thing: Give me your definition of evolution.

What prevents microevolution from becoming macro?

I've had it with your propaganda and bigotry. I'm just going to spot on call you a liar when you, in fact, LIE. This isn't an "atheist" tactic, quit trying to compare atheism with evolution.

Odd, you seem to pick and choose as well, or at least your fumbled coverup of the explanation of plants demonstrates. I hesitate to ask about four legged insects, when Eve was created, the value of pie, etc.

That's not an answer. Why do you insist on lieing about my position and what I believe?

Nice diversion.

 

Show me a proof for the theory of gravity (not the law of gravity).

Oh my, you...you actually think that theories become laws? No offense, but I dealt with the last mistaken individual who believed that in this thread. I suggest you look into it, I *really* don't want to go over it again.

Tell me, and the scientists who study evolution, what this difference is. Where did you come up with this 'idea' about what macro and micro evolution are. Here:

Now it's your turn. Don't "assert" that there is a difference. Provide evidence of this difference, give me credible evidence that your idea of what macroevolution is, is the correct one.

No Scott, I don't believe *we* are.

Again Scott, this wasn't intended for you, it was intended for John. If Genesis was intended to be taken literally, and was in fact the *way* things played out, why isn't there evidence of this? Why does all the evidence point elsewhere?

 

Assuming the language is phenomenal is departing from assuming the language is literal. They are not the same. The reason we do it so easily today is because we know the literal is inaccurate and therefore we must. If we were in doubt as to the nature of the solar system, wouldn't we look to the literal wording for guidance? Should we? Historically, those who looked to the literal interpretation for guidance are remembered as the perscecutors of the scientists.

It is only your lack of doubt about the science of the solar system that makes your interpretation of Genesis so serene and confident.

In a similar manner, one can assume the "days" referred to in Genesis One are not literal "days". Once can even assume they don't literally need to follow one another, but may overlap, since they are indefinate periods anyway.

One could come up with a fancy word to describe this kind of interpretation, call it "expanded usage" method, perhaps.

Interpreting the Bible with this expanded usage method allows it to be perfectly consistent with reality after all.

Lets spread the word, merely allowing the expanded usage interpretation method takes care of all the difficulties!

 

Now, here we agree. If someone said to me "all the miracles can be scientifically explained", I'd say "you're probably right, but explaining HOW something happenned does does not explain why it happenned at that moment, in that manner, and at one person's beckoning".

A miracle that is scientifically explained is still a miracle nonetheless.

 

Now it's your turn. Don't "assert" that there is a difference. Provide evidence of this difference, give me credible evidence that your idea of what macroevolution is, is the correct one. </font>[/QUOTE] You just gave it. Neither of these courses require a descendent to have more genetic complexity than what it inherits from its ancestors.

I would doubt that felines and canines had a common ancestor. Assuming the model of "divergence", the ancestor would have possessed the genetic information required by both descending lines. This does not help the argument that more complex organisms evolved from simpler life forms at all. And that is the dividing point, microevolution recognizes speciation and specialization due to inherited genetic capabilities. Macroevolution makes the tremendous leap of faith to say at some point in the past some organism acquired a genetic capability by some means other than inheritance.

Again Scott, this wasn't intended for you, it was intended for John. If Genesis was intended to be taken literally, and was in fact the *way* things played out, why isn't there evidence of this? Why does all the evidence point elsewhere? </font>[/QUOTE]The simplest answer I can give you is that "It doesn't." Once again, you are binding the evidence by the paradigms of the interpreters. The evidence doesn't point anywhere. It simply lays there and gets interpretted by Gould or Hovind.

Lining up similar animals and claiming that one evolved into the other is no more valid than lining up rocks and saying that the largest ones evolved from the smallest ones.

In fact, that is a very good illustration of my contention above about macro versus microevolution. Big complex rocks with a variety of minerals split into smaller rocks with mineral compositions derived from the large rock and not necessarily shared with all the other smaller split-offs. This represents microevolution. We observe it. It is true and undeniable.

But we would never look at a big rock in the middle of a field and suppose that it was the culmination of a whole bunch of smaller rocks joining together... through the process of themselves splitting into even smaller rocks.

Macroevolution has no working mechanism. Descendents of animals whether their genes diverge or combine, do not become more complex genetically. If anything they become simpler.

 

Your words above provide a sufficient answer to every objection I have ever seen or heard against a literal 6 day creation.

You can scientifically define forces that would have to come together to make the world look just as it does in a day. They wouldn't occur according to the natural science we observe but they could none the less be described. Connecting this fact with an omnipotent, omniscient God leaves me with no objections to the Genesis account of creation.

 

How about mutation, or the miscopying of gene sequence. You've heard of people with down's syndrome right?

So you deny that there are mutations? You deny that, for example, radiation can alter genes?

 

I don't know of anyone wishing that they were
born retarded or that retardation is a biological
improvement. It is all on account of sin...

 

Who said anything about "improvement"? I'm starting with the basics here, I'm pointing out that chromosomes can be added to, can change. Improvement is not really an evolutionary concept. A species does not have to improve for evolution to occur. All that needs to happen is that those with the trait, whether beneficial or not, pass it on to their descendents. Once a population with those traits form (usually in an isolated environment) and those traits combine with other mutations or changes in allele frequency, then eventually (after enough-millions perhaps- mutations/changes) the original organism will be different enough to constitute a new species. It will no longer be able to interbreed with the original species (for a variety of reasons).

Again, I'd like to stress that I'm not talking about a hundred years time. I'm not talking about a thousand years time. I'm talking about millions of years. For example: It took a few million years for a ape-like ancestor to evolve into us. That's a small change, evolutionarily speaking. If you add time + changes in alleles, then how could anything other then a variety of species occur?

What am I missing here? why do you (creationists, not just you, in general) find it impossible for this to occur? I can accept if you think it's improbable, I mean we are talking about big numbers and some of you don't accept an old earth (which negates those big numbers). That's one thing; what I'm not clear on is how you can reject evolution based on the idea of evolution (taking the age of the earth completely out of it for a moment)?
Seriously; what is the difference between micro and macro evolution? I've been asking this for a while now and I'm not getting any clear responses.

Very basically: Microevolution is a change in alleles. Macroevolution is a whole lot of those changes occuring in an isolated portion of the species over a time period. There is no real mystery to it.

 

Because it is all based on imperfection. God's
not imperfect---why would HE bring about a
world through corruption. It is ONLY since sin
entered into the world that we have a short-circuit and incompatibilitiy and hate and disease
and killing and retardation and some people who
think they are so smart.

 

Are one of you YEC's going to acknowledge that it was scientific inquiry which lead to a non-literal understanding of the relationship between the earth and the sun as suggested by Scripture or not? Is it such a hard thing to admit?

Scripture uses the same language we do in this regard – we refer to it as how we see it. They did, too. The sun rises. The sun sets. So does the moon. The Zodiac goes round in a circle.

None of this is true from the point of view of space. All of it is true from the point of view of earth. So what is there to admit – that they referred to what they saw? Of course they did! We still do! And when we see something in outer space we still refer to it as we see it – especially when we don’t know any more than what we see. Does that make science wrong? No. Did that make the Bible wrong? No. The request to ‘admit’ here is a silly one and shows enormous ignorance and a desire simply to be combative. That’s not necessary – either one. It is hard to take seriously anyone bringing up points like that.

Now, about mutations and what they can do. Because genes work in concert to produce traits, the disruption, via a mutation, of a single gene can cause enormous problems with the organism. That is why mental retardation can be related to lax muscles and that sort of thing. When entire chromosomes get disrupted or duplicated, massive problems result: Down Syndrome, Edwards Syndrome (almost always lethal), etc. And we see, again, many symptoms, not just one.

For this reason, it is easy to point to mutations and show what tremendous effects they can have. But please note that these effects – as tremendous as they are – are NEGATIVE. They are harmful! This is why “A Christian” called Meatros on Down Syndrom (no ‘s’ on the Down, Meatros!). Who wants what such mutations can do? And, actually, Down Syndrome is the replication of an entire chromosome, not just a simple point mutation. Meatros is pulling a dozen red herrings at a time across the argument with questions such as “So you deny that there are mutations? You deny that, for example, radiation can alter genes?” No one is denying mutations or that radiation can cause them. What is being denied is the positive effects the mutations are supposed to have on the organism – even sometimes! Please recall your fish, Meatros.

Also, passing negative traits (increasing the genetic load) onto one’s offspring is not going to help evolution at all. That’s another red herring…

Meatros then referred to speciation in terms of these traits which are passed on. Again, Meatros, no one is arguing speciation. Nor does speciation take millions of years. It can happen in a couple of generations.

And, again, the difference between macro and micro evolution is the same as the difference between a swing and a rocket. Microevolution is simple variation which is part and parcel of the existing genetic package. The basic type remains. There seem to be real maximums of allowed change. An easy example is the dog. So many sizes, but the smallest remains about the size of a toy poodle – they just don’t shrink any more than that. The largest? Great Dane, St. Bernard, etc. – they just don’t get to be the size of an ox!

Evolution proposes that this limit to variation does not exist. But there is no evidence to indicate that variation can continue in a direction long enough to produce an entirely different type of organism. That presumption, that it can, is what allows the pictures of ‘transitionals.’ There is no evidence aside from that presupposition that transitionals were any kind of ‘in between’ species at all in the evolutionary scheme of things. We know they were living animals. That’s all we know about them, really. The idea of transitionals is a product of evolutionary thinking. So we see the pretty pictures all lined up as though someone really had seen these changes occur.

No one did. As a matter of fact, we cannot get any of these changes to occur now in anything and we cannot explain genetically how it could have happened. “Mutations” did it. No they didn’t! Mutations disturb, often violently, the natural working order of the organism. If that disturbance provides a help in a specific environment, then it is considered ‘beneficial.’ But two things should be noted here. First that ‘natural selection’ in that environment will wipe out all those without that disturbance, thus depriving the population of needed potential variation when the environment changes and, second, when that sub-population is put back with wild populations in normal environments, they lose. They can’t make it. This is most easily seen with bacteria which develop resistance to antibacterials, but it is just as true with regular old animals, too. Over and over again, the originals as we know them appear to be the most robust and most capable of both survival and variation.

What Meatros and other evolutionists are trying to talk people into is that a ‘whole lot of those changes occurring in an isolated portion of the species over a time period’ will produce the evolution which gradually changed a bacteria to a bear.

No dice. A whole lot of disturbances to the organism is only a whole lot of disturbances. And that is what mutations are.

Variations, on the other hand, are simply swings around the mean which are already coded into the genetics of a population.

I think, again, Meatros is mixing up variation with mutation. The two are not synonymous.

 

It's "A_Christian" Helen.

You've been given links to beneficial mutations, you just choose not to read them. How can I force you to read them? You don't like Talk Origins. Here's a better (then I can give) over-view of evolution. Here's an abstract that shed's light on a beneficial human mutation. Here's a journal article on some beneficial mutations (as well as other things). Here's an article about competing beneficial mutations, in asexual populations. This is a paper about beneficial mutations, about there effects (not specific examples). The Distribution of Fitness Effects Among Beneficial Mutations. Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations For an organism to adapt, it needs two processes: mutation and natural selection. Mutation is a random change in the organism's genetic structure. Most mutants are harmful and don't survive. Occasionally, however, a mutation brings a useful change. Natural selection is the process that amplifies the useful mutations. If the mutations are useful, they survive and multiply. an article on the ability of evolution to increase genetic information. Mutation and Genome Evolution Recent beneficial mutations are also known in humans, such as the famous apolipoprotein AI Milano mutation that confers lowered risk to cardiovascular disease in its carriers Benefical mutations are commonly observed No, these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation. The Nylon Bug It has been found that a human mutation designated CCR5-delta 32 confers immunity to AIDS if inherited from both parents. A RARE PROTEIN MUTATION OFFERS NEW HOPE FOR HEART DISEASE PATIENTS Multiple examples here.

Happy now?

 

Geocentrism far predates the Christian era, first of all:
http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Things/copernican_system.html

http://www.scivis.com/AC/hist/cosmology.html

What needs to be understood is that the concept of geocentrism had nothing to do with the Bible. However the Roman Catholic leaders of the Middle Ages, assuming the geocentric model to be true, assumed that is what the Bible was talking about, too.

However the Bible never says that. It only uses the phrases ‘sun rises’ etc., the same way we all do. There is NOTHING about the Bible, read in a straightforward way, which assumes egocentricity any more than listening to the news and weather reports on the TV in the evening does!

Another thing that needs to be understood is that it was the Roman Catholic church that was so heavily involved in the argument about geocentrism. It was primarily the Protestants, freed finally from the dictatorial pronouncements of Rome, who were able to look at both the evidence and the Bible with open eyes. The Bible does not contradict heliocentrism! It does not say anything about it! So to claim that one must divorce oneself from a literal reading of the Bible in order to acknowledge heliocentrism is to either be ignorant of the Bible or ignorant of history – or so brainwashed by some of the evolutionist/anti-Bible material on the net that nothing else is acceptable.

The following are two emails from two lists I am on. They are both from a year or so ago and I simply had them filed for future reference….like this!

================

Copernicus replaced the geocentric Ptolemaic system with the heliocentric system 90 years before the Catholics condemned Galileo. A Lutheran pastor named Andreas Osiander saw "The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres" through a Lutheran publisher's press in the year of Copernicus' death, 1543. Osiander probably wrote the anonymous preface that enabled Copernicus' book to escape for years the Index of prohibited books. Essentially the preface says, "Nobody is really saying that the Earth goes around the Sun. It is just easier to make the calculations of the positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets if one uses the theoretical fiction that the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun. Of course, the calculations fit the observations very nicely."

Luther created an atmosphere in which conventional interpretations of old texts could be challenged. That is the atmosphere in which science thrives. The southern fringe of Europe, i. e. Spain, France, and Italy, reacted with the Inquisition, which spread to Central and South America. Galileo had the extreme bad luck to be born in the south. His was the only bright scientific southern light in the development of modern science. In the north we may trace the development of celestial mechanics and modern physics through the Dane, Tycho Brae; the German Johannes Kepler; the Englishman Isaac Newton; and the postrevolutionary, post-Catholic Frenchman LaPlace.

================

The Copernican system was used at first because of its simpler calculations, not because anyone thought it was true. Few astronomers actually believed in heliocentrism until well after Galileo had presented a few devastating anomalies, approx 100 years later.

 

Meatros, E.coli have hot spots where they can mutate BACK AND FORTH. This is known. This is the way they were designed to vary. This is NOT what happens in terms of variation among animals.

Hot spots in bacteria mutate and back-mutate. They do not keep on mutating in one direction in order to achieve something new.

As far as the other website goes, I prefer up-to-date information, thank you. I have seen his site before and it is half-baked. He is highly selective and chooses only the nonsense to 'fight and win.'

I'd rather discuss actual science.