Evolution/Creation Poll -- Please Vote!

"It only proves something if you are trying to PROVE the theory of evolution."

You do not understand how science works!

The theory of evolution seeks to explain what we observe! Not the other way around.

"Genetic testing does not prove ANYTHING except that the animals have a similar DNA structure."

But I generally try to use the types of genetic testing that fails to allow for your common designer argument. If talking about humans and apes, I will generally go straight for the shared mutations. Shared mistakes are hard to explain in a perfectly and recently designed creation. I then go for the shared retroviral inserts. Why would perfectly and recently created seperate creations share exact inserts of the same viral DNA into the same places? For the whales above I use transposons, long bits of nonsense DNA that get easily copied and scattered through the genome.

These are the things I use. It is much harder for you to convince me that an intelligent designer would build deliberately mistakes into the creation that happen to make it look like evolution happened. Further, these kinds of mistakes and other junk are what have accumulated through the eons of evolution.

You can take these things and build trees for each such stretch of DNA. You get the same pattern over and over and over when using different pieces. You get the same trees when you look at morphology. Why would God go through so much trouble to make it look like evolution happened (happens)? He is not the author of confusion!

 

No I spend so much time because I seek the truth.

My problem is not with those who base their beliefs solely on the interpretation of Genesis. I can agree to disagree with you over a matter of interpretation.

My beef is with those who insist that the actual evidence supports a young earth. In without a doubt does not. And I find that great harm can come from insisting that it does.

I think that the vast majority of people who come to a place such as this and make their young earth pitches are honest God fearing people. But, from my experience, I do not think the same of most of the YE leaders. I was once YE. I sought out YE material. I was appalled at what I found. In my humble opinion, much of what I read was not just wrong but was deliberate misrepresentation.

The examples are easy to give. Start here for some examples.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2929.html#000005

There are plenty of anecdotes about people who have been taught all there life that Christianity and evolution are incompatible who then lose their faith when they learn the truth. Many wonder if leaders lied to them about the facts surrounding the case, then what else were they lied to about. Other anecdotes abound about those who never come to Christ because of this.

My opinion is that YE causes harm and that is why I spend so much time on this topic.

 

Phillip,

Wow has this thread been active or what!

To answer your questions:

Yes I can conceive of an old earth without evolution. Yes I could conceive of animal evolution without human evolution.

Regarding the cellular machinery...

I have often looked at the human body and thought that there is just no way it just happened by chance. This was even MORE apparent after medical school!

Let me say that I do in fact separate the earth's age and the question of evolution. It seems, based on all we can glean so far, that the earth is pretty old.

Evolution WOULD explain alot of what we see but (I think) not ALL of it. And I just don't see how such advanced design could have occurred by chance. I do believe in microevolution - that definitely occurs. But I have a hard time with macroevolution accounting for all that we see.

I can hoestly say that I believe 100% in intelligent design and creation by divine will - but I'm not completely sure how it all happened! In truth I don't think the POINT of Genesis was "how it happened".

The main reason that, while being a conservative Christian, I do not feel compelled to see Genesis 1-11 as literal is that the account has alot of features of ancient near eastern epic writing. Stories about creation, flood, towers, and people all speaking in one language are all represented in the literature of several other ancient near eastern societies. These parts of the Bible bear the marks that suggest that they are theological, and not literal, in their significance. On this point Marcia and I disagree significantly. Furthermore I think that the NT and most of the OT are fundamentally different in scope. The point about "why believe the gospels if you don't believe Genesis" is irrelevant because the Gospels WERE intended to be factual accounts and Genesis 1-11 was likely not.

So that's my position in a nutshell.

 

Well is'nt it amusing,evolutionist take for granted thier intllectual supioriority looking down thier long noses at us poor ignorant young earth creation folks denying our ability to think at all.
Just so you know our opinion of your intellect is not so high.

 

I'll go one step beyond to say that at least Genesis ! shows evidence of being poetic.[/qb][/QUOTE]

Haven't you heard abot the rich man and Lazarus.? But beyond that you are comparing two very different literary genres

Luis

 

God does exist, and sciece by design doesn't deal with him or with spiritual realities.

No, what I am saying is that scien is materialist by nature, we deal with material stuff, with God's physical creation.

I believe in creation, I just question the YEC interpretation.

Funny I think that you are re-interpreting the bible to make it fit YEC claims,I do not want to make the bible fit any theories because by nature they are yentative and provisional, today we think evolution explains the known data better than any other theory, tomorrow this may change, so I cannot fit the bible to today's scientific knowledge, if I do that I will be missing the meaning, message and purpose of the Scriptures as the Living Word of God.

I love science, because it helps me to understand God's creation and to glorify him.

I'd rather have ham, Thank you.

So what is nature? Who is its creator?

Blessings,

Luis

 

". . . pretty sure of yourself considering that you do not even know me."

You are absolutely right that I do not know you. All I have to go on is what you say here.

Look, I am most definately not trying to insult you. You seem to have taken what I say personally. And Plain Old Bill always seems insulted.

You do seem to be a smart guy. But there are a lot of smart people, successful people in other areas of science or math or engineering or other technical areas, who are deluded by the YE leaders because of their ignorance of biology and paleontology and other related fields.

Ignorance of a field is not to be confused with ignorance in all fields or of general stupidity. There are planty of things of which I am ignorant. It is not an attack on anyone. It is not saying that anyone is smarter or more intellectual, POB's comments notwithstanding. It is simply how much do you know on this topic. And study after study shows that the more you know about evolution, the more likely you are to accept it. Most rejection comes out of ignorance of the topic.

Now I say that you do not seem to understand how science works based on my perception of how you seem to think that it works based on what you say. You do not seem to grasp the scientific method at work. You do not seem to grasp that the theory of evolution is seeking to explain the observations that we see. You mistakenly seem to think that ToE is a preconceived conspiracy to get rid of God and that everything is shoehorned in to fit. No, it explains the facts of the changes we see in history, of the observered diversity of life, and of many finer details of biology.

"This is true, if the assumption is made that no supernatural forces are allowed to be considered. Evolution is the only answer left, if there is no master designer."

First, this is a fallacy. False dilemma. There ARE other choices.

For one that you may find appealing you could look to Intelligent Design. Leading IDers may have a position which you could accept. Behe for example does not object to common descent and even accepts the descent of man from among the apes. But he thinks that the proposed mechanisms by which evolution operates are insufficient to account for observations. So God is constantly involved in the process but it is still evolutionary but with a supernatural component. Dembski also acknowledges that ID is fully compatible with common descent.

But I am sure you could come up with other hypothetical answers to origins if you brainstormed a little.

"What common designer argument? The one that I believe that God is the master designer behind everything in the universe including all life and therefore would not reinvent the wheel every time he came up with a good creation."

Exactly. If I want to talk about similarities in functional genes then you will rightfully bring out that type of argument. So I go, generally, with things that have nothing to do with design. I go for mistakes, for junk, for useless things. Things that would make our perfect God a mighty sloppy designer if He stuck all that in on purpose. Even a bit deceptive since the pattern of all this junk consistently points to not just evolution, but always to the same pattern of evolution.

"Another example of not accepting the Bible. Have you ever heard of "SIN"?"

Sorry, but this is a desparate plea. I would also think that it is the fallacy of special pleading.

Just how would sin cause all of the apes, including humans, to have the exact same viral DNA inserts in their genomes at exactly the same spots? A FEW PERCENT of your genome is made of such inserts, so we are not talking trivial amounts here.

How would sin give whales and even-toed ungulates (such as pigs, camels, deer and hippos) the same transposons in their DNA?

How would sin give rhinos and horses the same genetic markers?

And so on...

"No, but Satan sure is. I guess he is an allagory to, but do you realize that he is not only a master of deception, but master of this world. . . for the time being?"

Another case of special pleading. So now Satan has modified all the DNA and arranged all of the fossils to make it look like evolution happened?

And, BTW, Satan is real. You seem to labor under the misconception that because some of us do not take the creation as a literal 6-day creation that we think that it is false or untrue.

 

Dear UTEOTW,
Actually I am insulted generally by some evolutionists on the thread.Not so much by what you say but how you say it.Please read back through the thread and you will see what I mean if you look at the entries objectively at all.

We do have different views which is okay,I've said that all along. We have our different views because of different backgrounds,training and beliefs.I believe I've aked about 10 or 15 questions along this thread of which one has been answered. I can be persuaded but only if you can give serious answers to my questions.I do not need to be taught or indoctrinated by any who have been indoctrinated by a school of thought.

Just so you know I go to the Old earth sites as well as the Young earth sites to learn and understand the different views and schools of thought.I try to be fair.I will say I have'nt studied science in a a serious way in about 30 years(I'm 59 now).This has renewed my interst in science so I will go out and get some biology textbooks as well as textbooks on geology just so I will be better informed.The only reading I've done recently concerning YEC vs. OEC is creation science books and the sites YEC/OEC I've been to and I can say from the OEC sites I'm not getting good answers just a lot of accusations about how all YEC scientist are liars or how stupid and uneducated they are or how YEC is junk science.These accusations do not convince me of anything because of thier defensive and condescending attitude.

 

Bill

I hope to never come across as insulting or condescending. I much prefer a conversational approach to this. I hope I have also made it clear how I feel about those that disagree. My chief complaint is with those in leadership positions in YE circles. I think the people that show up here are honest and faithful people. I disagree with them but I still respect their views and respect them as people.

I hope to show that many of the things we see have their best explanations using an old earth approach. Too many things fit together just so for it to be coincidence.

I also want to stress that as a Christian, I allow for the supernatural. I honestly don't think much of what we see requires the supernatural, but it has its place. For example, I think that ToE can adequately explain all that we see in life without resorting to the supernatural, but there is more to it. Life had to get a start. It is not clear yet how that happened and it may have required God's help. I also think that man was an obvious desired outcome. This likely required some shaping of events through God's will for it to happen. So I don't completely exclude God's role. I just think that for much of what we see, to explain it as supernatural makes little sense. For example, why would God as an intelligent designer give whales disabled versions of genes for a sense of smell only useful to land animals.

Re: your questions... I also have not read this whole thread. I was gone for nearly a week sking in Utah so I just picked up on it when I got back. Why don't you repost a few of your questions and I will try and give a go at them for you. As I said, I much prefer conversation to confrontation. I do not really expect to change anyone's mind. I more hope to expunge the waeker arguments and at least leave you with stronger YE arguments to use elsewhere. Seperating some of the chaff out as it may be.

 

The evidence does not stand alone and support anything. This is what I have been trying to get you to acknowledge all along.

If I accepted evolution's premise that everything must have a natural cause then a literal understanding of Genesis is ridiculous and I must limit what I consider a valid prediction of the earth's age to those that allow time for natural processes to achieve the result we see now. But the limits posed by that premise cease to be binding once you accept any supernatural event recorded in the Bible as literal.

I hope that you and I both experience supernatural events every day. Hopefully, we both pray to a God that literally hears us and whose Spirit influences our lives and behavior. We see the physical results of these things- the naturalist would discount that prayer or God had anything to do with the outcome.

I think we both believe that both natural and supernatural processes were employed during creation. But to what degree? That's why I revert back to the scripture to provide the framework. Scripture determines what I am willing to consider... just like naturalistic presuppositions determine what an evolutionary academian is willing to consider.

It always, always goes back to one's philosophical bias.

 

Scott

Back to where we were. What form does the "genetically complex, highly adaptable" genome take? How does this work? What support can you yield? I gave you the only two options of which I can think. Accept one or give us another.

Now, what about for the horse and rhino. (We both agree that it appears that whales have a land dwelling ancestor. The evidence is incontrovertible. We differ on mechanism.) For these two creatures we have the same type of evidence. The basics will be that there are rich fossil records that lead from rhinos and horses back to the same common ancestor. Genetic testing confirms this relationship. Are rhinos and horses (and tapirs and zebras and donkeys) then the same "kind?" Do you accept this?

If not, then why not? There is the same type of support for this as for the whales. If you reject it, you must be specific in why. Else you are proving to me that you will accept some evidence and then turn around and arbitrarily and capriciously reject similar evidence.

"If I accepted evolution's premise that everything must have a natural cause then a literal understanding of Genesis is ridiculous and I must limit what I consider a valid prediction of the earth's age to those that allow time for natural processes to achieve the result we see now. But the limits posed by that premise cease to be binding once you accept any supernatural event recorded in the Bible as literal."

By the same token, you seem to accept that there is sufficient evidence that whales had a land dwelling ancestor. Are you open to ideas, such as Behe's that I mentioned above, from the ID movement that common descent may be a fact but that ToE's mechanism are not sufficient. That is that common descent may be true but that it required constant intervention by God?

"I think we both believe that both natural and supernatural processes were employed during creation. But to what degree?"

Good question and a point where we seem to disagree. Answering the above about Behe will help flesh that out. To me, it could all be explained supernaturally but it leaves God leaving a lot of things laying around indicating a history that did not happen. It just does not seem plausible that He would, for example, give man and the other apes all the same shared retroviral inserts in the same places.

 

Evolution as any science is methodically limitated, God as a cause is not the concern of the theory, it is neutral one way or the other.</font>[/QUOTE] That makes it unscientific since the assumption that nothing outside of nature has effected nature is not falsifiable.

That is true but irrelevant to this discussion.</font>[/QUOTE] Huh? God said that men should be able to recognize that a Creator was required for what we see in the natural world and you don't think that is relevant to this discussion? Evolution's intention is to explain the natural universe without recognizing a Creator.

That places evolution's premise in direct contradiction with Romans 1.

No, it does not deny that, simply is outside of its purposse and possibilities, to include the supernatural.</font>[/QUOTE] You contradicted yourself only using one period.

Would you want to propose a mason in the gaps to explain the existence of a rock wall?

"God in the gaps" is a complete red herring. It is no more unreasonable to presume that God did something than to presume that it occurred by chance... and in many instances significantly more reasonable.

Do you really want to propose the god of "chance" in the gaps?

Once again we revert right back to philosophical presuppositions.

 

There are certain processes that CANNOT occur swiftly unless GOD were to do them. For example, the Grand Canyon could NOT have been created by natural forces in just a few thousand years and have the pristine appearance it now has. You can prove this to yourself quite easily...just make a gentle slope of sand & allow a gently trickle of water to fall upon the top of it. You'll see the water makes little rivulets that slowly grow deeper if the water flow is maintained.Now, turn up the water volume significantly, and see what happens...the little rivulets are washed away, along with much of the sand. The water creates a BROAD PLAIN across the sand.

On the scale of the GC...If, before it existed, a large volume of water would NOT have cut a trench in the rock; it would've washed away everything movable, and if it flowed long enough, would've eroded the whole rock plateau down, and the material would have been deposited downstream. Instead, we see evidence that the rock has been slowly & gently dissolved; initially there had been a higher volume of water, but it still took a VERY LONG TIME for the water to have carved the GC to what it is now.

God has allowed us to both see His evidence and have the means to understand it. He did NOT place that evidence to deceive us.

 

I gave you an answer. 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.

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

Once again, if you can show where each of these species developed by deriving genetic characteristics from their parents all the way back to one from which all of the genetic information proceeded- I am on board with you. 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.

Every creative act made by man employs his/her characteristic, individual style. A painter uses a unique stroke. All of our handwritting is unique and reveals common strokes in various letters. Using a common construction design or material logically parallels proofs we have for a common creator. There are no real world comparisons to support evolutions mechanism for citing this as evidence of a single common ancestor.

Specifically, neither of us know what the starting population was nor what their genetic make up was whether it is as you believe (one simple, single-celled life form) or as I believe (a group of complex animals directly created by God). 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.

After thinking about it also, my framework provides a much better starting point if you wanted to cite mutation as a means of speciation. We don't see animals evolving into higher complexity but that does not preclude lateral moves on the same levels of compexity.

UT, What are you doing?

You accept by faith that there is a mechanism though unobserved and unrepeatable that accounts for the accumulation of genetic information. Yet you demand categorical proof that the loss of genetic information/variability could account for speciation or that logically this would mean that the ancestors were somehow more genetically variable.

I would propose that we are now genetically set to a great degree so that we have very limited adaptability when compared to our ancestors.

(Edited at poster's request to correct a typo.)

[ January 07, 2005, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]