Stunning victory of Creation

No Philip, you misunderstand and are obnoxiously pushing your own interpretation.

Only 3 voted for evolution; the rest voted for the working of the creative hand of God.

Recently you have been aggressively prodding and provoking others who disagree with you on this topic. What's wrong with you?

Rob

 

I'm with Phillip & the other 69

 

Philip,

I might just clarify the vancomycin thing. This is an example of microevolution. In cairo in 1961 a strain of Staph aureus emerged - it was resistant to methicillin. Either the germ existed previously or it was a product of mutation. Anyway it outcompeted other germs and formed colonies. Once it was able to become the predominant infecting agent in a person it could be transmitted. Now most (but not all since a new strain ahs arisen) MRSA in the hospitals is directly descended from the 1961 Cairo strain.

This IS microevolution - but I agree with you that this doesn't do much to bolster an macroevolutionist claims.

 

It is an example of a new pathway evolving in response to a change in the environment of the bacteria. YEers claim that such cannot happen, that no "new information" can ever come about. That claim that adaptation happens through loss. This clearly contradicts that claim. And since it does, they have to fall back on something else, namely pointing out that it is still bacteria. But, in the end, a major assertion of YE advocates is demonstrated to be wrong. New genes and new pathways ARE observed to evolve.

 

Genesis 1
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

...after his kind: and it was so.

And so it ever will be.
Obviously there are and can be variations within a species.

But a chihuahau is a dog as well as bull mastiff neither of which can cross the "kind" line and mate with and give birth to anything other than a dog.

HankD

 

Hank,
Hows the weather over there in Olympia?We've got about 11 inches of snow dumped on us over here in Spokane in the last two days.Winter has arrived.

 

Personally I'm sorry the other thread was closed . We were just starting to dialogue a little better.Phil you and Scott did an excellant job.

There are many questions that evolution leaves unanswered. I am still curious to know why stastistical probability is not a valid method of figuring out if something will happen.

I'm not at all surprized by the way the vote turned out.

 

"Personally I'm sorry the other thread was closed . We were just starting to dialogue a little better."

Bill

I hope that we can always keep our discussions civil and conversational. We have sharp differences on this issue but we have much more in common. I think we even have similar motivations. We each are convinced that we have the truth and that the position of the other side can bring harm to our larger beliefs. I realize that we are unlikely to change each other's minds but I hope we can at least converse in peace, understand each other a bit better, and eliminate some of the more ridiculous arguments from each side.

"There are many questions that evolution leaves unanswered. I am still curious to know why stastistical probability is not a valid method of figuring out if something will happen."

It is not that there is a problem with statistics, per se, but that they must be applied correctly. Let me give you an example. With four nucleobases, if I take a segment 150 bases long and try to calculate the odds of that particular segment coming together in one step you get a number that is about 2 times 10 to the 90th power. Pretty long odds. But the odds are made much, much better when you consider that (1) there would be many chains being formed in parallel, (2) that there are likely other chains that would perform an equivielnt task, and (3) that there is a selection process at work in developing the chain.

"Hows the weather over there in Olympia?We've got about 11 inches of snow dumped on us over here in Spokane in the last two days.Winter has arrived."

Ummmm, snow. It is nearly 60 here and sunny. Last weekend, though, did get about 2 feet or so dumped on me in Utah. We were hoping for that, however. You ever get out and ski?

Working my way up the thread...

"...after his kind: and it was so.

And so it ever will be. "

Yes, but evolution happens to populations, not individuals. So everything always IS reproducing after its own kind. I assume that like most other YEers, you allow for speciation? Even new genera, families, orders and so on come about through mere speciation.

"I have NEVER claimed that microevolution cannot occur."

But you are not the only young earther. For instance on the other thread Scott said "You accept by faith that there is a mechanism though unobserved and unrepeatable that accounts for the accumulation of genetic information." So some insist on a stricter version of change where there is never any "new information." The Vancomycin example demonstrates that new genes, new functions, and new pathways do happen and have been observed.

Glad to see that you do allow for new information. We agree on something in this topic. Now, what prevents such change from accumulating into new species? New genera? New families?

"But, you cannot prove that macroevolution has EVER occurred; it will always be a THEORY! "

Theory, yes. It takes too long to be observed even in a human lifetime. But it remains the best theory to explain what we see when we look at the creation.

Let me give an analogy. How would you explain to a child how a redwood forest forms when no human alive has ever seen even a single redwood tree grow to full maturity? Where those forests placed there recently and supernaturally just because no one has observed one grow?

You would explain what you CAN observe about the forest. How the trees reproduce. Measurements of growth rates. Count rings. Same thing with evolution. It takes too long to observe large changes. But we can see in the short term the processes at work. And we can look at various sources of information to see what has happened in the past. Is it possible that one day there will be an even better explanation that does away with evolution? Sure! But for now, it is the only theory we have that can so completely explain what we see.

 

We could always move down to the Science forum.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/forum/66.html?

There are already some germane threads going and I think it was hoped to keep discussions like this there instead of in the general forums. Some people can get upset over this. It might also keep the signal to noise ratio a bit lower. Especially if we take advantage of the existing threads to break into different topics instead of trying to carry forward many different discussions in one thread.

 

Wow!! You have discovered an amazing way to discern the facts and theories of nature, just have a poll.

If we knew about that brillant method we could avoid many problems to the world.

For example, How to solve "the jewish problem"? let's make a poll among Nazis.

Should we have slaves? A poll among plantation owners will do.

Should we free Jesus or Barabbas? Oh well... I think they already did that poll.

Luis

 

"Maybe I am wrong UTEOTW, but this sounds like you are arguing my point that a designer must be behind this..??"

That is a much more complex question than it seems. I'll try and be succinct. My opinion is that for the most part natural processes are able to account for the things we see. Whether you are talking about biology or astronomy ar geology or what. There is a big "but" however. For instance in biology, it seems to me that God must have been guiding the process that led to humans. Another example would be that in astronomy, while inflation seems to explain the grand design of the universe with astounding detail, somehow it got started. omething kicked it off. I think that Genesis 1 does quite a nice job of phrasing the beginning of inflation (the Big Bang) in a way understandable to the ancients.

"What are you beliefs in the miracles of Jesus? Do you feel they were real? Just curious."

Absolutely real. God is not limited in His power. He certainly could create the world in 6 days. It just seems strange to me that He would have done so and made it look like He used long periods and natural processes. I'll admit that maybe I just don't understand everything. In fact, I know that I don't. But I trust that God would not deceive us and if His creation shows common descent, then I accept that this was His means of creating. Just as I accept that He uses gravity to make the earth go about the sun and not angels pushing us along. Even though we don't yet know how gravity works, we don't have a good quantum theory of gravity, we have yet to find a graviton, we have yet to observe a gravitational wave.

"Yes, actually I do thank you guys for being so decent and sticking to the facts; much more decent that I have been and again I appologize for that and will try to stick strictly to the issues being discussed."

No complaints from me. I cannot remember you offending or bothering me. And some (not you) have done so in the past. I think it has mostly been a civil discussion. I don't remember any name calling or public doubts about someone's salvation. I wish we as Christians could always try to discuss contentious issues in such a manner.

 

Here we go again, that is a false choice.

Whose interpretation ? Yours?

This is quite offensive, I do not have any hidden agenda.

My brther I am more than willing to answer your questions, but they are totally outside this subject.

You read the bible accordingto its meaning, and you should take their literary form into consideration.

Blessings,

Lui

 

We had about an inch of wet snow here in the Puget Sound area which is now gone and the temperature is 42F with occasional peeks of sunshine. Pleasant but it's not Honolulu.

HankD