Creationism: Right or Wrong?
- Thread starter Jim
- Start date
Arkanjel
New Member
Perhaps some answers for you Mr.Bill........and yes this is my reason for disbelief in macro-evolution....however I still have FAITH in my God.
Forensic conclusions are made, not by scientific-method "operation science", but by the reasoning of "origin science" which is based on theoretical deduction, indirect proofs, irreproducible singularities (i.e., one-time-only happenings), evidence from the unobserved past, and historical or hypothetical events beyond a reasonable doubt. In this respect, the study of origins (creation vs. evolution) and the determination of DNA lineages are amazingly similar in that the interpretation of the evidence is not open to empirical disproof.
Please also keep in mind that, according to a biblical worldview, it is not God that classifies man as a primate along with apes and monkeys. It is the evolutionary mindset that considers man to be a member of the mammalian order that also includes prosimians, tarsioids, and anthropoids. Nevertheless, it is commonly asserted now that man and the chimpanzee must be very closely related because they are said to share 96%-98.7% of their functional DNA which, in reality, is only the 1.3%-4% of the genome consisting of the genes that are actually known to be responsible for the coding of proteins. Be aware that the human haploid genome consists of some 3 billion nucleotide pairs of DNA! The fact that approximately 98% of the 1.3-to-4% of human DNA that is known corresponds to chimpanzee DNA really proves very little. Even a cloud, a watermelon, and a jellyfish are 98% similar since they are all 98% water!! It really is the 2% variation that truly makes all the difference!
The infinitely more significant fact that each specific kind of organism has its own individually-unique DNA molecular structure, not 100% identical to any other kind of organism, is academically dismissed when considering comparative anatomy, structural homologies, or molecular similarities. Indeed, the very design of DNA is orchestrated to prevent one genetic blueprint from becoming a clone of a different kind of hereditary program. It is hard to imagine a more solid evidence for special creation--and against a common ancestor--than the mere existence and function of DNA!
To the objective mind, similarities should indicate a common designer at least as much as they indicate a common ancestor. It would be logical that an Intelligent Designer would use the same efficient plan to code for proteins in all living organisms genetically engineered by Him. In fact, based on their comparable structure, one would predict blueprint similarity between humans and apes indicative of "common design in advance", not "common dice and chance".
The original 1987 study used mitochondrial tracer DNA (mtDNA), the chromosomes of which are passed unchanged from mother only to offspring, unlike nuclear DNA, which comes from both parents. The study involved 136 human women with widely-varying geographical and ethnic diversity. The analysis was said to point back to a single ancestral mtDNA molecule from a human female living in sub-Saharan Africa about 200,000 years ago. However, it has now been determined that both the entering order of data input and the interpreting of data output were prejudiced toward an African origin for "mitochondrial Eve" based on evolutionary presuppositions.
In conclusion, allow me to quote a paragraph from Marvin L. Lubenow's excellent book [a CEM resource] entitled, 'Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils' (1992, pp.71-72):
"The mtDNA study of African Eve, as well as other aspects of molecular genetics, is based on mutations in the DNA nucleotides. Perhaps we could be forgiven for asking the question, When an evolutionist looks at human DNA nucleotides, how does he know which ones are the result of mutations and which ones have remained unchanged? Obviously, to answer that question he must know what the original or ancient sequences were. Since only God is omniscient, how does the evolutionist get the information about those sequences that he believes existed millions of years ago? He uses as his guide the DNA of the chimpanzee [Marcia Barinaga, "Choosing a Human Family Tree," 'Science' 255 (7 February 1992): 687]. In other words, the studies that seek to prove that human DNA evolved from chimp DNA start with the assumption that chimp DNA represents the original condition (or close to it) from which human DNA diverged. That is circularity with a vengeance."
Something definitely to think about!
David V. Bassett, M.S.
CEM Staff Writer
=========================================================================================
SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:
(Karl Popper's definition of the scientific method )
1. OBSERVATION -steps of evolution have never been observed (Stebbins )
In the fossil recordwe view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.(Gould )
2. EXPERIMENTATION -The processes would exceed the lifetime of any
human experimenter (Dobzhansky )
3. REPRODUCTION impossible to reproduce in the laboratory. (Dobshansky )
4. FALSIFICATION -cannot be refuted thus outside empirical science. (Ehrlich )
RESEARCH PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:
1. ORIGINS -the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle )
2. DEVELOPMENT -to produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox )
3. STASIS -enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA (Barton )
4. GEOLOGIC COLUMN -out-of-place artifacts have been found in earth's sedimentary layers which disrupt the supposed evolutionary order (Corliss )
5. DESIGN -irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design (Denton, Behe ).
(DNA REPAIR: The genome is reproduced very faithfully and there are enzymes
which repair the DNA, where errors have been made or when the DNA is
damaged. - D.H.R. Barton, Professor of Chemistry, Texas A&M University,
Nobel Prize for Chemistry )
(CHANGE WITHIN GENETIC BOUNDARIES: Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution,
the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as
incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt )
(MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL: Any random change
in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things
are the most complex functioning systems in the universe.Science has now
quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an
animal's genome is relentlessly fatal.The genetic difference between human and
his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a
gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random
changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.
Geneticist Barney Maddox, 1992 )
In Christ,
Gabriel
Forensic conclusions are made, not by scientific-method "operation science", but by the reasoning of "origin science" which is based on theoretical deduction, indirect proofs, irreproducible singularities (i.e., one-time-only happenings), evidence from the unobserved past, and historical or hypothetical events beyond a reasonable doubt. In this respect, the study of origins (creation vs. evolution) and the determination of DNA lineages are amazingly similar in that the interpretation of the evidence is not open to empirical disproof.
Please also keep in mind that, according to a biblical worldview, it is not God that classifies man as a primate along with apes and monkeys. It is the evolutionary mindset that considers man to be a member of the mammalian order that also includes prosimians, tarsioids, and anthropoids. Nevertheless, it is commonly asserted now that man and the chimpanzee must be very closely related because they are said to share 96%-98.7% of their functional DNA which, in reality, is only the 1.3%-4% of the genome consisting of the genes that are actually known to be responsible for the coding of proteins. Be aware that the human haploid genome consists of some 3 billion nucleotide pairs of DNA! The fact that approximately 98% of the 1.3-to-4% of human DNA that is known corresponds to chimpanzee DNA really proves very little. Even a cloud, a watermelon, and a jellyfish are 98% similar since they are all 98% water!! It really is the 2% variation that truly makes all the difference!
The infinitely more significant fact that each specific kind of organism has its own individually-unique DNA molecular structure, not 100% identical to any other kind of organism, is academically dismissed when considering comparative anatomy, structural homologies, or molecular similarities. Indeed, the very design of DNA is orchestrated to prevent one genetic blueprint from becoming a clone of a different kind of hereditary program. It is hard to imagine a more solid evidence for special creation--and against a common ancestor--than the mere existence and function of DNA!
To the objective mind, similarities should indicate a common designer at least as much as they indicate a common ancestor. It would be logical that an Intelligent Designer would use the same efficient plan to code for proteins in all living organisms genetically engineered by Him. In fact, based on their comparable structure, one would predict blueprint similarity between humans and apes indicative of "common design in advance", not "common dice and chance".
The original 1987 study used mitochondrial tracer DNA (mtDNA), the chromosomes of which are passed unchanged from mother only to offspring, unlike nuclear DNA, which comes from both parents. The study involved 136 human women with widely-varying geographical and ethnic diversity. The analysis was said to point back to a single ancestral mtDNA molecule from a human female living in sub-Saharan Africa about 200,000 years ago. However, it has now been determined that both the entering order of data input and the interpreting of data output were prejudiced toward an African origin for "mitochondrial Eve" based on evolutionary presuppositions.
In conclusion, allow me to quote a paragraph from Marvin L. Lubenow's excellent book [a CEM resource] entitled, 'Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils' (1992, pp.71-72):
"The mtDNA study of African Eve, as well as other aspects of molecular genetics, is based on mutations in the DNA nucleotides. Perhaps we could be forgiven for asking the question, When an evolutionist looks at human DNA nucleotides, how does he know which ones are the result of mutations and which ones have remained unchanged? Obviously, to answer that question he must know what the original or ancient sequences were. Since only God is omniscient, how does the evolutionist get the information about those sequences that he believes existed millions of years ago? He uses as his guide the DNA of the chimpanzee [Marcia Barinaga, "Choosing a Human Family Tree," 'Science' 255 (7 February 1992): 687]. In other words, the studies that seek to prove that human DNA evolved from chimp DNA start with the assumption that chimp DNA represents the original condition (or close to it) from which human DNA diverged. That is circularity with a vengeance."
Something definitely to think about!
David V. Bassett, M.S.
CEM Staff Writer
=========================================================================================
SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:
(Karl Popper's definition of the scientific method )
1. OBSERVATION -steps of evolution have never been observed (Stebbins )
In the fossil recordwe view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.(Gould )
2. EXPERIMENTATION -The processes would exceed the lifetime of any
human experimenter (Dobzhansky )
3. REPRODUCTION impossible to reproduce in the laboratory. (Dobshansky )
4. FALSIFICATION -cannot be refuted thus outside empirical science. (Ehrlich )
RESEARCH PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:
1. ORIGINS -the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle )
2. DEVELOPMENT -to produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox )
3. STASIS -enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA (Barton )
4. GEOLOGIC COLUMN -out-of-place artifacts have been found in earth's sedimentary layers which disrupt the supposed evolutionary order (Corliss )
5. DESIGN -irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design (Denton, Behe ).
(DNA REPAIR: The genome is reproduced very faithfully and there are enzymes
which repair the DNA, where errors have been made or when the DNA is
damaged. - D.H.R. Barton, Professor of Chemistry, Texas A&M University,
Nobel Prize for Chemistry )
(CHANGE WITHIN GENETIC BOUNDARIES: Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution,
the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as
incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt )
(MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL: Any random change
in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things
are the most complex functioning systems in the universe.Science has now
quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an
animal's genome is relentlessly fatal.The genetic difference between human and
his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a
gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random
changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.
Geneticist Barney Maddox, 1992 )
In Christ,
Gabriel
PapaToad
Active Member
Arkanjel put to words it, much better than I could. But Bill, I grow weary of once again showing you I didbelieve in MACRO evolution because it if a false and Ilogical idea. It can not happen, if it could it wuld be a proven fact, not and idea or in theory.[b said:
You can like it all you want. There is no Proof! Now you can say the same about God, except I have apersonal relationship with Him.
Please This is a dead horse move on and if you can't, please exculde me
God Bless
PapaToad
Active Member
Just Prove it , thats all you have to do, come up with tangable proof
PapaToad
Active Member
Double sided sword, let me rephrase, if you hqve proof I will have to accept that you have some kind of proof. But if all you have is ideas well then we are two spereate thinkers and I wish you luck
You are proposing a bit of a double standard, no? I find it interesting that you demand proof, and yet you also scorn nonbelievers for doing so about your faith. Really all I was asking was for you to actually propose an arguement rather than making seemlingly blind declarations. But apparently Ark did that for you. Now I have some studying to do. ; )
PapaToad
Active Member
I don't want to argue about it Bill.
I shared what i bneeded to, let move on. Sorry for the double standard
And if you would have followed my post , you would have seen my reasons
And if you would have followed my post , you would have seen my reasons
Arkanjel
New Member
Glad I could send you back to the books! You are certainly keeping me in mine!
In Christ,
Gabriel
In Christ,
Gabriel
Thaddius
Member
[b said:
So Bill, your faith in Macro evolution is greater than your faith in a God, is that a correct statement? Even though neither one can be proven by science.....?
Cory
Oo, guilty as charged I am afraid. It is true that I place more faith in macro evolution than I do in god, despite the fact that neither has been proven my science. I lean toward the theory of macro evolution because it is based on a more logical way of thinking than is god. And I am a perty darn logical person, unfortunately.[b said:
Um, if you don't mind I'd like you to go pick a book for me and do some reading in it. It's a very fascinating book, and it explains many specifics about science and creationism much better than I can. Of course, it's from a very factual and logical perspective, and author, and a very well written work.[b said:
The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel is the book, and you can probably even find it at Walmart, or any bookstore at the mall. I think I remember paying sixteen dollars for it.
Is it anything like his Case for Christ, Bowser?
If this group's offer is anything like that of Kent Hovind's, it's no wonder that the reward hasn't been collected, as they (probably) don't have that money to give away, and make the criteria for proof and macro-evolution so unreasonable that it's impossible.
[b said:
If this group's offer is anything like that of Kent Hovind's, it's no wonder that the reward hasn't been collected, as they (probably) don't have that money to give away, and make the criteria for proof and macro-evolution so unreasonable that it's impossible.
Arkanjel
New Member
That reward is being offered by Kent Hovind. The criteria for meeting the requirement is only that which would be acceptable by the scientific community to otherwise prove that it is not a theory and is a fact. Please try not to make to many negative assumptions. Yes they do have the money to give away as it is a museum.
In Christ,
Gabriel
In Christ,
Gabriel
Gandhi
New Member
[b said:
No all museums don't have money to give away. Just look at The Anti-Saloon League Museum. They must make alot of money to give away.
But to me the big bang makes more sence than god.
Arkanjel
New Member
Sooooo where did the big bang come from?
Arkanjel
New Member
CAN it come from nothing?
Arkanjel
New Member
Thats a confusing statement "The end of the line of what comes from what." What exactly do you mean?
PapaToad
Active Member
I thin k what bill is saying if we can believe in a God he choses not to believe in. Be can believe that a big bang created him, and his propouse in life is just a random event of hapenstance.
is this correct?
is this correct?