It is not a salvific issue, but it is the biblical, correct view. A compromise with Genesis can lead to compromises elsewhere.
Hi, I'm Mark, a YEC looking for a fellowship forum
- Thread starter Eggasai
- Start date
- Status
It is not a salvific issue, but it is the biblical, correct view. A compromise with Genesis can lead to compromises elsewhere.
Yes, I don't even need the Pope or Catholic Church. Wisdom and knowledge comes from the Bible, our authority for truth and practice. I have opinions and am not dogmatic about everything. We can make a case that faith in the true Christ is essential for eternal life. I cannot make a case that affirming YEC, theistic evolution, gap theory, etc. is a heaven/hell issue. Those who reject God are atheists. Those who reject His role as Creator are compromising truth to try to embrace secular science.
do you need to go to church?
We are saved by a person, not an organization (Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10; I Jn. 5:11-13).
Having said that, a Christ/Bible-centered church is vital for spiritual growth, serving, fellowship, corporate worship, instruction, mission, giving/receiving spiritual gifts, etc.
I Jn. tells us in principle that if we are vertically in relationship with God, then we should be in horizontal relationship with His people.
We do not need RC Church for sacraments, traditions, popes, etc. One can be saved apart from the RC Church, but one cannot be saved by trusting the Church, but not Christ Himself.
Relationship, not religion/ritual.
is going to church salvific?
No, the thief on the cross was saved without going to a stained glass building wearing his Sunday best.
Eggasai
New member
I'm new to Colorado Springs and into Creationism, I was looking for Creationist events and networks in the area. I found the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship with podcasts of Bob Enyart Real Science Fridays. It said if you wanted to comment to come here and I did.
Sounds like my kind of a crowd. I'm actually interested in digging into the minute recesses of molecular machinery. I'm searching for the adaptive evolutionary processes responsible for taking the limited number of living things on the Ark, into the world of their descendants in all their vast array.
Did you ever stop to think, creationists must be radical evolutionists?
Grace and peace,
Mark
The theory of evilution thrives on the 'gain of genetic information' from one generation to the next while the truth of Creation thrives on the 'loss of genetic information' from one generation to the next. The great variety we see in Creation today is due to a loss of information from the original felines and canines and primates and so on.
When you have some time you should read Does God Exist?
It's a debate we hosted here on TOL a few years back. Bob Enyart does a masterful job defending theism and creation to an atheist. It will blow your mind. :up:
Eggasai
New member
Evolution thrives because of the a priori (without prior) assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes and universal common descent. All of the evidence gets assembled around that central premise. Now as far as information, one of the quickest ways to lose information is a bottleneck, coming in at number two would be a mutation.
Endangered species, for instance, have a shrinking genome because of inbreeding and if their number fall below 100 they are considered doomed to extinction. Mutations on the other hand cause horrible disease and disorders, pick a chromosome, any chromosome and it will give you a list of diseases and disorders based on genetic mutations:
Human Genome Landmarks Poster: Chromosome Viewer
Here is an adaptation I'm talking about:
The small sequence divergence (4–7%) between notothenioid AFGP and trypsinogen genes indicates that the transformation of the proteinase gene into the novel ice-binding protein gene occurred quite recently, about 5–14 million years ago (mya), which is highly consistent with the estimated times of the freezing of the Antarctic Ocean at 10–14 mya, and of the main phyletic divergence of the AFGP-bearing notothenioid families at 7–15 mya. Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish
I am convinced that the freezing of the arctic regions occurred following the flood. That is why arctic wildlife holds an abiding interest for me, I want to know the genetic basis.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Eggasai
New member
I know that evolutionists, particularly the Talk Origins crowd have a deeply flawed homology argument based on them:
With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. (Genome Biol. 2006). They can be found in African great apes but not in humans. What is more the ERV virus is nearly extinct in the human genome with only a couple that actually work. The only thing that ERVs are proof of is the lengths evolutionists will go to to conflate and confuse the evidence. (Do Chimpanzees and Humans Share a Common Ancestor)
Now I don't know if you are arguing that ERVs have something to do with adaptations but ERVs make a terrible argument for common descent.
Grace and peace,
Mark
OK, cool. Feel free to jump into that thread. I don't have much of a clue on biology.
I'm trying to argue that maybe ERVs have a useful purpose which might explain some of the similarity that Alate_One insists on. But if she is wrong about the degree of similarity then perhaps there is no need.
Eggasai
New member
OK, cool. Feel free to jump into that thread. I don't have much of a clue on biology.
I'm trying to argue that maybe ERVs have a useful purpose which might explain some of the similarity that Alate_One insists on. But if she is wrong about the degree of similarity then perhaps there is no need.
It's unfortunate that YECs don't take more of an interest in the life sciences since genetics was born of this foundational phenomenon:
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Christians who believe the Bible and take Genesis literally strongly affirm limits beyond which one species cannot transform into another. Actually it's not at the species level, it's usually at the genus level. Notice the kingdom level is beyond imagination, there is a reason for that:
Just as the meaning of a sentence depends upon the specific arrangement of the letters in a sentence, so too does the function of a gene sequence depend upon the specific arrangement of the nucleotide bases in a gene. Thus, molecular biologists beginning with Crick equated information not only with complexity but also with “specificity,” where “specificity” or “specified” has meant “necessary to function” (Crick 1958:144, 153; Sarkar, 1996:191)...
...Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions. The genome size of a modern arthropod, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, is approximately 180 million base pairs (Gerhart & Kirschner 1997:121, Adams et al. 2000). Transitions from a single cell to colonies of cells to complex animals represent significant (and, in principle, measurable) increases in CSI.Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories Stephen C. Meyer
...Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions. The genome size of a modern arthropod, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, is approximately 180 million base pairs (Gerhart & Kirschner 1997:121, Adams et al. 2000). Transitions from a single cell to colonies of cells to complex animals represent significant (and, in principle, measurable) increases in CSI.Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories Stephen C. Meyer
Flipper
New member
O rite, and what mechanism has been identified that fixes the limit of change thus far and no further?
Eggasai
New member
The S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle:
In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. Mutations
Flipper
New member
...but not all. Germline mutations can (and do) get fixed in populations. If DNA had 100% fidelity in replication, you might have a point.
Eggasai
New member
You asked about the mechanism that fixed limits, I said, 'the S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle', it is only now you are demanding 100% fidelity in replication. I never said that living systems must remain static or that mutations did not slip through, I said that mutations are a failure of DNA repair. I answered the question and you moved the goal posts which is not my real problem with what you are saying. My problem is that you have not acknowledged the actual molecular mechanism here or suggested one that passes the normative bounds of genetic alleles.
Have a nice day
Mark
- Status