No trust in Creation...no trust in Genesis....no trust in Scriptures...

[Esanta]

Are you limiting the evidence to the material?

Both those Christians would agree there is more than material evidence.

Just because it can't be put under a microscope does not mean it does not exist.

Sometimes scientists make conclusions without microscopes.

 

[Elin]

It does lead to questions. Why? How? What for? When?

Speculating that light is straight is a hugely different thing from assuming that God made the universe in six 24 hour periods.

No more than assuming all reality is material, physically observable and measurable.

 

[Esanta]

And a slower evolutionary process would require an even larger number in "the group" over a larger amount of time resulting in even more fossils of which science has produced very few. And the "mutations" could be as easily explained by the medical community (as in a disease of a particular animal/man) than the evolutionary community - Again, we have all heard of the elephant man.

PS. The elephant man did not descend from elephants, he just had a disease.

This is so illogical I'm just going to post this picture of a banana.

 

[superdave5221]

Dyoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is the genetic 'code' of every life form on Earth. It is made up of the same four chemicals in ALL life, not just humans.

It might interest you to know that the DNA code is similar to our alphabet and forms a language. I would venture to say that anyone who actually thinks that languages are created through random processes may have very well evolved from an ape.

 

[Tintin]

Yet again another argument from ignorance is about to be refuted. The same old thing were YEC people say 'we don't know how they did this' or 'we don't know this' thus YOUNG EARTH.

Well, now we DO know how they built the pyramids. Putting water on the sand.

That's one viable theory but it hasn't been identified as the absolute solution.
Biblical creation has a rock, solid foundation as it draws on the Book of Answers. It doesn't mean we have all of the answers to the questions of science, history etc. but we have more than an excellent starting point based on God's Word of absolute truth.

 

[jag1977]

Dyoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is the genetic 'code' of every life form on Earth. It is made up of the same four chemicals in ALL life, not just humans.

How do you know? No DNA has been found out of the so called fossils from the dinosaurs.

 

[Timeline]

This is so illogical I'm just going to post this picture of a banana.
View attachment 82647

Translation: I don't know how to explain this, so I am going to avoid it!

 

[Bowman]

Equating biblical creation beliefs with flat-earth societies? How original, how clever! Blah.

Ok...we can use the group that still believes that man has never walked on the moon.

Interesting thing here, is that the same technology that put man on the moon in the first place, states that the Universe is billions of years old....and any sane person knows that we have put a man on the moon.

YEC is going the way of T-Rex...

 

[Bowman]

A better understanding of the Bible and science has in fact disproven a large portion of Old Earth Creationism as a fraud and in fact supports Young Earth Creation

What portion would that be?

The YEC straw-man part...?

 

[Esanta]

No more than assuming all reality is material, physically observable and measurable.

Scenario 1. I see things, I touch things, I breathe, I smell, I taste. Thus, those things are there and those things exist. I never said they were all that existed, but they do exist. These things I have decided to measure and learn from. Oh no, you all get angry when my measurements lead me to see that the world's older than 6000 years.

Yet, things unseen, unheard, un-smelt, un-tasted and untouched, sometimes fabricated, controversial, often unverifiable, generally esoteric to the YEC Chrsitian group; things that point to the Earth being 6000 years old. You expect the whole world to believe it as you say it against all evidence.

The first one of those is quite unassuming. The second one is astronomically presumptuous.

 

[jag1977]

Scenario 1. I see things, I touch things, I breathe, I smell, I taste. Thus, those things are there and those things exist. I never said they were all that existed, but they do exist. These things I have decided to measure and learn from. Oh no, you all get angry when my measurements lead me to see that the world's older than 6000 years.

Yet, things unseen, unheard, un-smelt, un-tasted and untouched, sometimes fabricated, controversial, often unverifiable, generally esoteric to the YEC Chrsitian group; things that point to the Earth being 6000 years old. You expect the whole world to believe it as you say it against all evidence.

The first one of those is quite unassuming. The second one is astronomically presumptuous.

The entire universe is unseen, untouched, unsmelt, and unheard except for your immediate surroundings. Talk about a caged animal.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Why do you assume that evolution has gotta have two genus mating?

It would be more accurate to see that species within genus are very similar to one another, thus species within that genus would have mutated and procreated together, which would be a slow evolutionary process. You don't really understand the specifics.

Well that's easy to answer. For one if a creature is of the same Kind then it has not trully evolved in the Darwinist sense of the term, it is merely mating within its own gene pool. For instance various dog breeds are all of the Dog Kind despite their morphological differences. Darwin came close to this in his theories, but Darwin's flaw was assuming the Earth was extremely old and that distinctly different Kinds morphed into totally new Kinds (ie: fish to dinosaurs).

Where Darwin was correct was the ideas of natural selection, though I might nuance this a bit since humans also have the ability to influence for good or ill the progeny of animals (artificial selection.) Also animals do not always mate with the strongest or most adapted mate, but rather, animals seem to naturally mate with any member of their Kind available to them.

The biggest modern error in thinking, even past Darwin's concepts, is the neo-evolutionist ideal that Mutation drives evolution. This is not true though as a species, even if suffering a mutation, is still of that species (ie: a human with sickle cell anemia is still a human.) Also mutations can be bred in or out of a species within the space of as a little as 1 generation. Also mutations can either be genetic or be caused by environmental influences (ie: developping lung cancer from living in an environment filled with asbestos.)

Also the morphing of species is not a slow process, it is actually very fast. One of the most exciting things about science this day and age I feel is the solid proof of how much Genetic Variance can exist within a single Kind and can alter and change within a short space of time (ie: skin color in humans can be bred in or out within the space of 1-3 generations.)

 

[Percepi]

Starting with first principles that are self evident is not "begging the question". To deny self evident first principles is to form an infinite regress in which nothing can be known. First principles are the basis for all the conclusions drawn in any area of knowledge, whether in science or philosophy.

By "drawn", you mean "assumed". So without assuming, you can't use your religion as evidence. With assuming, we can both come up with some sort of "point" of assumption. You're moving the goal posts and playing by different rules.

All you have to do is look in the beginning of any biology book and you will see that all non-naturalistic theories are rejected beforehand.

Because they aren't theories. They aren't even hypothesis.

It should be known as a fact that evolutionary scientists have rejected supernaturalism as a matter of fact.

Of course. Supernaturalism is counter intuitive to science. And I don't mean conveniently counter intuitive, I mean it is literally something that can not coincide with the scientific method. To say "science now accepts supernatual claims" is to change the very thing that makes science what it is.

But it stands to reason that those things that God has revealed to us directly, are in themselves self evident, and is therefore the best starting point for obtaining truth.

It's self evident that reality exists and that we can, to an extent, rely on our senses enough to make discoveries more accurate over time through a scientific means.

I can use the word "self evident" as well.

Slow down there is a little more going on there than just PAIRS. God commanded Noah to take pairs, the Lord commanded Noah to take spirits 7 clean and unclean also.

1. This doesn't make much of a difference when it comes to evolution.
2. This makes the story even more unlikely due to the mass numbers of animals.

And yet evolution itself claims that men came from apes. And apes are still here because they continued to mate with non-superior apes (paraphrase) and men are here because some of the apes mated with superior apes - and over time evolved into men "in groups". So where are the other stages?

Just search online for all the different skulls of human ancestors. Species evolve in groups over time. And those that split off either evolve separately or become extinct. This is visible in our fossil record. To suggest each other group must still be alive shows ignorance of what evolution is.

Also, we're still apes.

There should be multiple stages of said groups that survived.

You mean all the different species of great apes?

And even if they died for some reason there would be huge numbers of fossils.

Compared to the total number of living things on our planet, fossils are incredibly rare.

Not only from ape to man, but all of those 3 millions species and their intermediary counterparts.

For there to be 3 million different species, we would have to have had 3 million groups separate from their groups into different environments in which they couldn't commonly reproduce with one another. This is why you should study evolution instead of making up rules to what evolution requires because you clearly don't even understand what the theory of evolution actually is.

Yawn. All of these types of questions have been answered on biblical creation ministry websites.

They have been answered quite poorly. The only reason you don't see any flaws with their poorly constructed arguments is because you aren't looking at the construction of the arguments. You're only looking at how much they support your interpretation of the Bible because you automatically accept your interpretation of the Bible as fact - even when reality seems to contradicts those interpretations.

You just didn't bother looking. You present a straw-man to knock down.

I didn't bother looking at creationist sites because I've already seen them. They're horrible sources of information. I've never found them to be right about anything.

First of all, speciation is different to evolution.

Speciation is an aspect of evolution.

Secondly, speciation involves a loss of DNA information, never a gain in information.

Wrong.

Thirdly, kinds are very different to species, so your estimation of the number of animals is widely inaccurate. There would need to be little more than 8,000 kinds (16,000 individual creatures) + the sacrificial animals.

Creationists have literally zero criteria to define what a "kind" is. 16,000 creatures, evolving into the vast number of species we have today, is impossible within such a short amount of time. It doesn't depend what those 16,000 creatures are.

The ark was huge and the average size of any creature on board would've been smaller than a sheep, perhaps as big as a large rat. It's very doable.

And the proof?

You want to talk about gaps of knowledge? Let's talk about the ghost lineages of evolution. There's no evidence for evolutionary links, it's just clever storytelling on part of the scientists. It's all a farce. It's embarrassing that most of the world believes such things are true.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Because we have far too much evidence that you deny that proves otherwise.

Anyway, I'm off for the night.

 

[Esanta]

How do you know? No DNA has been found out of the so called fossils from the dinosaurs.

It's in everything. I mean everything. From bacteria to trees, to plants, to fruit, to insects, mice, rabbits, lizards. Any life-form you can think of. There is no life form that does not have DNA. Not one. Not the dinosaurs' ancestors, not reptiles of any kind, not humans, not bananas.

 

[Timeline]

Scenario 1. I see things, I touch things, I breathe, I smell, I taste. Thus, those things are there and those things exist. I never said they were all that existed, but they do exist. These things I have decided to measure and learn from. Oh no, you all get angry when my measurements lead me to see that the world's older than 6000 years.

Yet, things unseen, unheard, un-smelt, un-tasted and untouched, sometimes fabricated, controversial, often unverifiable, generally esoteric to the YEC Chrsitian group; things that point to the Earth being 6000 years old. You expect the whole world to believe it as you say it against all evidence.

The first one of those is quite unassuming. The second one is astronomically presumptuous.

I don't deny that the bible says that the earth was here before the six days of creation. But I don't know exactly what that entails. But evolution doesn't need any help from the bible to disprove it as a theory (uneducated guess).

 

[jdbear]

They are. Certain fish have half-way formed inner ear bones that started as extra gills. Human embryos have the same gill slits until they go behind the jaw and form the inner ear. And there are thousands of transitional fossils.

Thank you Esanta. A few questions on your assertions. What is the term scientists use to describe the half way formed inner ear bones in fish? What term is used for the gill slits in human embryos? Name one transitional fossil which shows evolution from one life form to another. Lastly, what is your reasoning why no intermediary life forms are living among us today?

 

[jag1977]

AND...........or should I say DNA...........

 

[Esanta]

Well that's easy to answer. For one if a creature is of the same Kind then it has not trully evolved in the Darwinist sense of the term, it is merely mating within its own gene pool. For instance various dog breeds are all of the Dog Kind despite their morphological differences. Darwin came close to this in his theories, but Darwin's flaw was assuming the Earth was extremely old and that distinctly different Kinds morphed into totally new Kinds (ie: fish to dinosaurs).

Where Darwin was correct was the ideas of natural selection, though I might nuance this a bit since humans also have the ability to influence for good or ill the progeny of animals (artificial selection.) Also animals do not always mate with the strongest or most adapted mate, but rather, animals seem to naturally mate with any member of their Kind available to them.

The biggest modern error in thinking, even past Darwin's concepts, is the neo-evolutionist ideal that Mutation drives evolution. This is not true though as a species, even if suffering a mutation, is still of that species (ie: a human with sickle cell anemia is still a human.) Also mutations can be bred in or out of a species within the space of as a little as 1 generation.

Also the morphing of species is not a slow process, it is actually very fast. One of the most exciting things about science this day and age I feel is the solid proof of how much Genetic Variance can exist within a single Kind and can alter and change within a short space of time (ie: skin color in humans can be bred in or out within the space of 1-3 generations.)

Your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory is obvious. Look, whether it has evolved as to the point to fulfil a semantic or not, if a species mutates even slightly, then mates, passes that mutation on, then the offspring mate, even within the same species, that mutation and procreation will lead to offspring with mutations. These offspring will mutate differently to non-mutated individuals of the species, and eventually, given enough time, there will be noticeable differences down the lineages.

Skin colour is a noticeable difference in human lineages.

Please get off answersingenesis because it's just false. Schoolboy errors.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory is obvious. Look, whether it has evolved as to the point to fulfil a semantic or not, if a species mutates even slightly, then mates, passes that mutation on, then the offspring mate, even within the same species, that mutation and procreation will lead to offspring with mutations. These offspring will mutate differently to non-mutated individuals of the species, and eventually, given enough time, there will be noticeable differences down the lineages.

Skin colour is a noticeable difference in human lineages.

Please get off answersingenesis because it's just false. Schoolboy errors.

I've never been to answersingenesis. This statement is based off of a review of scientific literature as well as my own scientific observations and experiments.

Skin color is a noticeable difference in human lineage and is not a mutation, it is a Genetic Variance. As I pointed out skin color is a great proof that your idea of evolution is actually a misunderstanding as skin color can be bred in or out of humans within a very short space of time.

As for mutations, not all mutations are passed on to the offspring. Mutations can be bred in or out of a species in as little as 1 generation. We can even observe this at the micro-level like for instance how bacteria can mutate drug-resistance within a single generation, and then if one changes their environment, the drug-resistant genes can be bred out of the bacteria while the bacteria still remains of the same Kind. Microbiology is a good example of how Darwinist evolution is impossible, but Genetic Variance and Mendellian Genetics are factual. To add, Mendellian Genetics is supported by the Bible and supports the Bible as well.

 

[Tintin]

All I'm hearing is the same bull. I'm bowing out. No point debating with non-Christians if they're not going to even consider the evidence on the other side.