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 and common genetics

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Pete Richert, Oct 27, 2005.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is interesting how the evolutionists really attempt to make the other posters sound dumb, by using their intellect (after sitting for hours and hours listening to professors that believe the same thing).

    The bottom line of similarities among animals and DNA is very simple. It is as I described earlier. I can determine the designer of an electronic circuit by the type of circuits he/she uses to accomplish the task. All this tells me is that the design came from the same designer.

    The evolutionist is only pointing out that God made perfect creations (that have obviously had the effect of sin on them--but, that is another story). A perfect animal, using a perfect genetic blue-print, with a perfect system to pump life-giving blood filled with nutrients and oxygen, or waste and CO2 to every living cell--all perfectly connected to brains that are the most complex computers we have ever seen, etc. etc.

    My point is: Why reinvent the wheel with every living creature. It only makes since that what we are seeing are creatures created by one Master Creator. simple...............and just plain old common horse-sense (as my grandfather would have said).
     
  2. Petrel

    Petrel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is absolutely no way to respond to a comment like this! [​IMG] I'll just say that I didn't learn anything about evolutionary theory from pro-evolutionists professors, as I went to a YE college. It's all self-taught. And I haven't been putting a lot of effort into making other people look dumb, although in some cases that may be a side effect of my responding to their argument.

    Don't make dumb arguments and you have nothing to be worried about. :D
     
  3. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "It is interesting how the evolutionists really attempt to make the other posters sound dumb, by using their intellect (after sitting for hours and hours listening to professors that believe the same thing)."

    Just where on this thread has anyone tried to make another poster feel dumb? As baseless a charge as most of those made by YEers.

    My obviously biased perspective on this thread is that some time has been taken by some posters to try and answer what appears to be a sincere question from someone who does not agree with their position. No one was criticized. The information was not dumbed down in some condescending way to kindergarden level. Nor was it given in an inappropriately high level of detail and technicality that your average adult would be at a loss to understand.

    And I have never sat for a single hour listening to a professor lecture on this. I made it through college as a wholehearted supporter of YE. It was when I began to read the material that the YE leaders put out themselves that I realized how wrong it really was. From there, it has become a self taught enterprise consisting basically of reading as much as possible from all sides.

    "The bottom line of similarities among animals and DNA is very simple. It is as I described earlier. I can determine the designer of an electronic circuit by the type of circuits he/she uses to accomplish the task. All this tells me is that the design came from the same designer."

    Then it is obvious that you failed to read the thread before commenting.

    A common designer fails to explain why there would be mutations that disable specific genes shared between the species.

    A common designer fails to explain why there would be numerous retroviral inserts shared between the species.

    A common designer fails to explain why functional genes would contain patterns of silent mutations that indicate common ancestry.

    A common designer fails to explain why the overall pattern of the genome bears all the traits that one would expect if it had arisen by evolution and few if any traits that one would expect if it was recently and perfectly designed.

    A common designer is one of those nice phrases that YEers throw out. It even sounds good at first. It seems perfectly reasonable to think that a designer would reuse parts. The problem is that it is completely unable to deal with the actual evidence. It sounds good when presented as a strawman. Most logical fallacies do sound good on the surface. That's why people use them when they have no real argument, they sound convincing for a debater who has no actual facts and logic to put into play. But fallacies also fall apart when examined.

    Of course, you have stated multiple times now that you have no problem with the idea that God could have created things to look like something else happened. If you wish to assert that the genes were just created to look like evolution happened, that is fine with me. I'll maintain my assertion that God is not the author of confusion and that therefore, in my opinion, it is outside of what we know about God for Him to fake data, but if you disagree I suppose you could present an argument that such trickery is within what you expect of God based on what is revealed to us in the Bible.

    But I will go on believing that I can accept that the things around me are as they seem and have not been changed to look like something happened which did not.
     
  4. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your first sentence makes my point EXACTLY. You make fun of me and laugh at my "supposed" lack of intelligence, which hasn't ascended to the level of the typical evolutionist. (We Christians are being left behind because we want to believe in a book that contains eye witness accounts of the creation by none other than the CREATOR HIMSELF.)

    That's certainly an easy way to "cop out". Just call my post a "dumb argument" and then you don't have to come up with a legitimate answer.

    This is exactly my point; evolutionists often resort to the "we're smart and you having evolved as much as we have, so don't even bother to discuss the subject with us because we'll throw reams and reams of data at you that proves.......uh, oh yeah...........evolution.

    It is still interesting that the evolutionist won't answer the questions in my other post. EXACTLY where does the Bible end its allegorical wild stories and begin to be historically accurate?

    You like to talk science--which is fine, but again, its based on the premise that the supernatural cannot be allowed. I base my argument on the Word of God that does allow for supernatural and Intelligent Design.

    Laugh all you want to, but why don't you answer a question about the Bible without resorting to which two DNA strands look like they may have started as another creature.
     
  5. Petrel

    Petrel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    Saying a person is dumb and saying a person makes baseless charges are two completely different things. :D I personally think it is more insulting for a person to say another is spiritually inferior because of his interpretation of a much-debated passage.

    It's hard to answer the question, "Where does the Bible start being historically correct?" because there is no point that it suddenly begins being "historically correct" and stays that way until the end. We can relate some of the Psalms to historical events, but the rest have no context. The Proverbs likewise don't have much history in them. Other books contain prophecy, some fulfilled and some unfulfilled. A lot of the poetry and prophecy contain figurative language.

    A more reasonable question would be "Where does Genesis begin to be a historical account?" This question has already been answered several times. Some think it is after the Flood account, some think it is after the Creation account. Some (myself included) think that the Creation account contains both figurative language and historical facts.
     
  6. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Your first sentence makes my point EXACTLY. You make fun of me and laugh at my 'supposed' lack of intelligence, which hasn't ascended to the level of the typical evolutionist."

    What?

    My first sentence asks just where anyone has been made to feel dumb! Please, comb through the thread and show where the explanations that have been given are insulting to anyone.

    "That's certainly an easy way to 'cop out'. Just call my post a 'dumb argument' and then you don't have to come up with a legitimate answer."

    The cop out is squarely on the side of the YEers so far in this thread. There have been multiple lines of evidence provided none of which have been addressed. Instead, you charge in here claiming that we are trying to make others feel dumb and that we are just regurgitating lectures from professors.

    "This is exactly my point; evolutionists often resort to the "we're smart and you having evolved as much as we have, so don't even bother to discuss the subject with us because we'll throw reams and reams of data at you that proves.......uh, oh yeah...........evolution."

    Where has anyone on this thread claimed to be smarter than anyone else? Please, prove your assertion if it is something more than a baseless personal attack.

    Now we will throw out reems of data. But that is because we have the data and we know it. Yeers will scream about there not being any data and that what little there is has beeter YE explanations. But getting them to back up their assertions is a whole different ballgame. They flee from real data and real debate because they are at a loss.

    "It is still interesting that the evolutionist won't answer the questions in my other post. EXACTLY where does the Bible end its allegorical wild stories and begin to be historically accurate?"

    Because they have been answered so many times before only to be asked again. Worse, the questions are phrased not so much in a Q&A type but instead are laced with baseless charges. Maybe if you would calm down and not enter into the questions with ridiculous charges like accusing us of not believing the crucifixtion you might get yet another round of answers to the same old tired questions.

    One poster, Mercury I think, has recently gone to posting lists of links to where similar questions have been recently answered when the assertion is made that such questions are never answered.

    "You like to talk science--which is fine, but again, its based on the premise that the supernatural cannot be allowed. I base my argument on the Word of God that does allow for supernatural and Intelligent Design."

    For about the fortieth time, science cannot deal with the supernatural. God cannot be put into a box and experimented upon.

    But if you wish to invoke supernatural action, feel free to do so. There are quite a few open topics on this thread. Pick a couple. Tell us what form you would expect the observations to take in these areas if there had been supernatural causes and why you think it would be as such. Tell us what would differentiate between natural and supernatural in our observations.

    If you only answer is that God could have supernaturally made things in such a way that evolution only appears to have happened...

    Well, I will accept your admission that the facts do support evolution and I will return to my previous assertion that I find it unlikely that God would have faked data in such a way and I will await your explanation of how such actually does fit with what is revealed to us about God.
     
  7. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice, concise, general answer. Thanks.

    A search should reveal that others, me included, have provided similar answers, often more detailed, in the past.
     
  8. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Talking about genetics...it has been claimed that Neandertal and 'modern' man are quite different. Now it looks like they lived at the same time and in the same place:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9143023

    Except for the dating, this corresponds to what we find in Job 24:4-10 or possibly Job 30:1-8
     
  9. Petrel

    Petrel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    How does being contemporaneous mean that they are not genetically distinct?

    I'll also note that many scientists have believed for years that humans and Neanderthals were contemporaneous and may have competed directly at times. However, I think interpreting Job as referring to Neanderthals is stretching it.
     
  10. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was not claimed that they were not ever living at the same time. It appears that modern humans have shared the planet with at least three other members of the genus Homo.

    This says nothing about the observed genetic differences.

    Ovchinnikov, I. V., Gotherstrom, A., Romanova, G. P., Kharitonov, V. M., Liden, K., GoodwinW. Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus. Nature 404, 490 (2000).

    The response also draws attention that there have yet to be alternate YE explanations for the type of evidence that has been presented on this thread. Whether it is observations of shared mutations and retroviral inserts, or whether it is the pattern of duplication and mutation that is observed leading to functional genes or whether it is things like the changes in a specific Alu insertion in anthropoid primates that can be traced through time leading to a new and useful gene through a combination of duplication, mutation and exon shuffling.

    Oh, those mysterious alternate explanations...
     
  11. Michael Hobbs

    Michael Hobbs New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wouldn't the DNA of the offprings of the "sons of God" be different than the "true" humans?

    Gen 6:4. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
     
  12. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,929
    Likes Received:
    132
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I'm not sure what a "true" human is but the DNA of any sexually reproducing organism is different from their parents.
     
  13. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,929
    Likes Received:
    132
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Neither the creation narrative in Genesis 1 nor the narrative in Genesis 2 were written as first person eye-witness accounts from God because God is discussed in the third person of those narratives.
     
  14. Michael Hobbs

    Michael Hobbs New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, let me try again.

    Wouldn't the DNA of an offspring from a non-human with a human, as described in Gen 6, be of such difference that today's "scientific" community at large would be convinced that the said offspring was some other species?
     
  15. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Michael, the 'sons of God' is defined in the Bible as believers. The 'daughters of men' are the women from unbelieving families. There was no non-human/human mating going on.

    And yes, all of Genesis is a series of eyewitness accounts. The fact that it is not in the first person has no bearing on that fact, as we know, for instance, that Luke was writing Acts but referred to himself in the third person. John, writing his gospel, also refers to himself in the third person. It is very common when putting down historical events NOT to use the first person!
     
  16. Michael Hobbs

    Michael Hobbs New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe ... if not for the "giants".
    And "sons of God" doesn't always mean "believers" as in Job 1:6 and 2:1
     
  17. Michael Hobbs

    Michael Hobbs New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2003
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    0
  18. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    you will find in Genesis 6 that the 'giants' were contemporaneous with the sons of God marrying the daughters of men, not products of those unions.

    Sons of God ALWAYS means believers -- some are angels and mostly meaning humans. However since the angels are not sexual beings, as per Jesus, they would not have mated with human beings.

    And, of course, there is a reason Enoch is not Scripture.... [​IMG]
     
  19. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Neither the creation narrative in Genesis 1 nor the narrative in Genesis 2 were written as first person eye-witness accounts from God because God is discussed in the third person of those narratives. </font>[/QUOTE]So, is the Bible inspired by God or not?
     
  20. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,929
    Likes Received:
    132
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Neither the creation narrative in Genesis 1 nor the narrative in Genesis 2 were written as first person eye-witness accounts from God because God is discussed in the third person of those narratives. </font>[/QUOTE]So, is the Bible inspired by God or not? </font>[/QUOTE]Most definitely. Most of the bible is not written as a first person accounts from God. There are parts of the bible where prophets speak on behalf of God or when God is recorded as speaking.
     
Loading...