ARCHIVE: Best evidence for young earth supernatural creation.

[macguy]

Creationst: This couldn't have happened with evolution.
Evolutionist replies: It could. Here's one scenario. Your assertion is refuted.
Creationist: But you don't know how it happened specifically!

I actually thought of how one could answer my question and am impressed at how close I got to it. Perhaps it's because I used to be a theistic evolutionist myself. Merely providing a scenario is not even close to providing evidence that such a scenario is existent in the first place. You may open a certain possibility for further research but it is not necessarily refuted. At least in my example, it was in accordance with the data, and MANY have indeed suffered from starvation and lack of nutrition in the past. That is a fact, and my question was more specifically trying to point out whether there is any evidence that the trait which was lost had any non-detrimental effect during a certain time. Natural selection then has the ability to loose a trait that can have beneficial effects even it wasn't necessarily needed at the time? Were our ancestors who possessed this trait, all in one location? If so, what other animals lived there because I am sure if this place was full of Vitamin-C plants, there would be other animals there as well. After all, it is the fight for survival according to Darwin. What I am getting to is, why were only a few animals be selected while the rest still had such an ability? Is it just chance that made us loose this trait?

If so, that is not a scientific explanation. You must work with the data, and not on speculation. This proves the point that science is not objective. Science works with observations, rather than what we perceive. However, we play a very active part which is what the process observation requires. We don't have observations but we make observations and doing so requires to work how to set up the experiment. A observer is always with a particular problem or interest to solve so this proceeds the observation. As Karl Popper explains:


"Science never starts from scratch;it can never be described as free from assumptions; for at every instant it presupposes a horizon of expectations - yesterday's horizon of expectations, as it were."


Someone such as yourself, would want to find evidence for their hypothesis so they set up the experiments and takes into consideration a variety of variables such as the time and geographic location. You don't prove anything without evidence but at least my question gave justification for questioning that evolution could account for it. It wasn't meant to disprove evolution by the way, because I don't have the full data either. At least in my case, I am working with what the evidence shows. For example, I could say that my computer lost the ability to fully save files due to a bug arising from another application which made this permanent. This spread to all the computers that had the application. It could still work because the computer user just had to save it three times. One could restore the whole computer of course but let's just assume that it couldn't be done just as it cannot be done in the natural world. Here I have already mentioned the cause (vaguely), but let us say for the sake of argument that every computer had this application although obviously, not all of them suffered from it. You could provide a scenario that the computers received this bug because the person had used the application quite a bit and if it was lost, having to save three times would be annoying to some but there wouldn't be a detrimental effect of suffering from not being able to save files at all.

In this situation, your scenario would be plausible but it just simply doesn't fit with what the real cause is. In order to confirm what your scenario is the case, the burden of proof is on you to do so. Imaginative stories, although nice to read and plausible, it never equals proof. First look at the evidence and then give the scenario in order to refute the question. It doesn't work the other way around by merely saying that animals could have had a large supply of Vitamin-C then the claim is refuted. That's like saying that evolution could not occur because creationism could have occurred. I think you would agree, or at least most do agree that creationism is a possibility. Regardless, it is not supported by evidence according to your standards thus evolution is the best. The same applies to your answer of my question.

The creationists erringly concludes that his initial assertion was left unchallenged. He also forgets that the burden is on him to prove that initial assertion.

In this, I have not made an assertion but posed a question for the evolutionist. There is difference between saying that there might be a irreducibly complex system with that there is a vestigial cellulose metabolism system which is backed up with evidence as we know without a doubt that this is the case. It is also the case that many have suffered from starvation and malnutrition in the past. Quite frankly, you have a whole in your cup where as mine at least doesn't and holds some water. If you agree, then we may gracefully move on to the specific problems with your scenario. I would very much hope for that but all too often this hope is nothing more than a day-dream.

 

[The Barbarian]

That is a fact, and my question was more specifically trying to point out whether there is any evidence that the trait which was lost had any non-detrimental effect during a certain time.

Sure. We can see it in animal breeders, who breed traits out of animals frequently. And we usually see no harm thereby.

Natural selection then has the ability to loose a trait that can have beneficial effects even it wasn't necessarily needed at the time?

Rather, natural selection can work only on traits that have a selective value. Say if apes had access to an excess of vitamin C in their diet, on a consistent basis, then a mutation damaging the gene for vitamin C would not in any way reduce the likelihood of an ape living long enough to reproduce, and so natural selection couldn't even "see" that mutation. (unless there was a significant metabolic cost to making vitamin C, which might be the case; if so, then it could see the mutation, and would preferntially remove those who could make the vitamin)

Were our ancestors who possessed this trait, all in one location? If so, what other animals lived there because I am sure if this place was full of Vitamin-C plants, there would be other animals there as well.

Apes were basically fruit-eaters, and the ancestors of the apes had this mutation, because all species, including our own, have it. Other animals, such as Guinea pigs, have a damaged gene for vitamin C. But (of course) the damage is different in them than it is in primates. Different mutation.

After all, it is the fight for survival according to Darwin. What I am getting to is, why were only a few animals be selected while the rest still had such an ability? Is it just chance that made us loose this trait?

Random mutation, plus natural selection, if there was a metabolic benefit. Otherwise, it could just be like eyes in cave animals, unnecessary, so the mutations damaging their function were not selected against, and eventually they were no longer functional.

If so, that is not a scientific explanation. You must work with the data, and not on speculation.

The evidence for this is very clear.

This proves the point that science is not objective.

Scientists occasionally aren't. But this one is a pretty good example of the way evolution works.

 

[macguy]

Sure. We can see it in animal breeders, who breed traits out of animals frequently. And we usually see no harm thereby.

Alright, but I am not disagreeing with the notion that if there was plenty of vitamin C it probably wasn't detrimental. What is being doubted here is whether these species lived in the same area, because if our ancestors were spread across, it would be curious thing as to why we completely lost it. How many species was there? What time did this take place and geographic location? An estimation will do just fine, as it will be always better than just saying that this happened.

It's interesting that Mighty_Duck seemed to move off of the topic of vestigial cellulose system and then try to make the impression that only some of these systems lost it. I never said anything about Vitamin C anyways!! Unlike the Vitamin C argument, all of the animals besides cows, horses, sheep and termites cannot digest cellulose. This is a carbohydrate and is the most abundant compound in nature. The other animals can utilize cellulose are able to retain it long enough for microorganisms to accomplish the digestive process. Termites are able to digest cellulose because they have the help of protozoa that's in their guts. Herbivores, lack the enzymes to efficiently digest the major components of plants such as cellulose and lignin. It's funny because these evolutionists then think this is evidence against a designer. One evolutions says that the creation theory

asserts that intelligent designers did this, and made all organisms out of the basic substances so that the food chain would work, only did they make plants out of cellulose and lignin, and then forget to endow the herbivores with enzymes to digest those materials? (Sonleitner, 1991)

There is a really simple answer to this but my point is to use this as an argument to question evolution. According to an evolutionist,

it is easy to give natural selection credit for countless incredible adaptations but this makes it more surprising that the process has failed to endow animals with many seemingly acessible capacities. For example, no multicellular animals is known to have the ability to digest the most abundant organic substance, cellulose. The necessary enzyme, cellulase, cannot be difficult to manufacture. Bacteria, fungi, and protoza have it but it does not fit in the metazoan genome. (Wesson, 1991)

This fact clashes with the abundant convergence in nature's pattern. Why is convergence so abundant elsewhere yet then it is prohibited here? This shows that evolution has no coherent structure for understanding nature. It is as if I walked into the door called "Evolutionary Theory" and wished to know more about it but the room was filled with theorists as far as the eye can see. Many of them are shouting while they contradict the other theories. To the evolutionist, all this means is that "Evolution is a fact! All they are debating now is on how it was done" but then a visitor comes in and says "I see the evolutionary theory explains everything, therefore it explains nothing". One major reason why I do not accept evolution because it is a smorgasbord. It should be noted that I don't necessarily go with the creationist theory but I adopt the Biotic message instead.

(unless there was a significant metabolic cost to making vitamin C, which might be the case; if so, then it could see the mutation, and would preferntially remove those who could make the vitamin)

The cost we have for not being able to synthesize is what exactly? It would be beneficial in some cases and in other situations it isn't? Unless you can back this up, this is more speculation. Vitamin-C also has the job of producing the protein known as collagen which provides the connective tissue for the bone and cartilage. If Vitamin-C was to experience a shortage or mutation which degraded this process, a disease would appear and most likely lead to death. How about winter? In most cases from the past, there has been a big shortage. Also take into consideration that you folks, like us creationists believe that there was an ice age! The timing is of key importance and again, there is no evidence as you claim but just speculation. How do you know that in the time it was selected away, that the environment would support this? Are you merely assuming it because we have the pseudogene? More specifically, there is purported to be 4 ice ages.

1) The earliest hypothesized ice age, called the Huronian, was around 2.7 to 2.3 billion years ago during the early Proterozoic Eon.
2) The earliest well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last 1 billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which permanent ice covered the entire globe
3) A minor ice age, the Andean-Saharan, occurred from 460 to 430 million years ago, during the Late Ordovician and the Silurian period... There were extensive polar ice caps at intervals from 350 to 260 million years ago, during the Carboniferous and early Permian Periods, associated with the Karoo Ice Age.
4) The present ice age began 40 million years ago with the growth of an ice sheet in Antarctica.

This is not to say that they all died, but many did and lack of vitamin-c is inevitable. I wouldn't say this is really a problem compared to what comes next.

Apes were basically fruit-eaters, and the ancestors of the apes had this mutation, because all species, including our own, have it. Other animals, such as Guinea pigs, have a damaged gene for vitamin C. But (of course) the damage is different in them than it is in primates. Different mutation.

Just to clarify, I didn't say apes but any ancestor of ours that lost this trait would qualify. Last time I said apes, evolutionists jumped to correct me that we didn't evolve from apes. Ah, yes the guinea pigs a perfect example for refuting the evolutionary explanation of the so-called "shard mistakes". Simply put, it is impossible for the GOLU pseudogene that is present in both guinea pigs and humans to be of the same ancestral lineage. Also worth noting is that pseudogenes is an argument against ID and supposedly in support of evolution.

Scientists occasionally aren't. But this one is a pretty good example of the way evolution works.

They never were in the first place. To be named as the objective scientist is a false depiction of what they really do. Unless you want to say that they're honest, which I am freely open to but it is not the same as being objective (Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices). One person may have a naturalistic world-view yet still be honest but at the same time he's making assumptions. There is no such thing as objectivity with humans. Just out of curiosity, you are probably an atheist or agnostic correct? You're stance hasn't been made clear except for the fact that you believe in evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Sure. We can see it in animal breeders, who breed traits out of animals frequently. And we usually see no harm thereby.

Alright, but I am not disagreeing with the notion that if there was plenty of vitamin C it probably wasn't detrimental. What is being doubted here is whether these species lived in the same area, because if our ancestors were spread across, it would be curious thing as to why we completely lost it.

Happened very early in primate evolution. And primates were confined to one continent for a long time, before the breakup of Pangea. So all primates (AFAIK) are without that gene. The basal primate seems to have suffered this mutation.

But maybe not:

Med Hypotheses. 1992 Aug;38(4):292-5. Links
Vitamin C--the primate fertility factor?Millar J.
Department of Physiology, Queen Mary & Westfield College, London.

The loss of the ability of primates and man to synthesise ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is usually seen as an evolutionary accident, with no benefit to the species. This paper argues that the loss of this biosynthetic ability has allowed vitamin C to act as a 'fertility factor' in primate societies. It is argued that the requirement for vitamin C increases with age, and so in times of food shortages the older members of society suffer higher mortality than the younger. This reduces the median age of the population towards the younger and most fertile members, and so enables the population to regrow rapidly when food resources are restored.

If this is true, and testing shows that it is, then higher mortality for those past breeding age would be very useful from an evolutionary standpoint.

How many species was there? What time did this take place and geographic location?

Just a few, only one of which seems to have survived to produce today's primates. Late Paleocene. Old World, most likely Africa.

I never said anything about Vitamin C anyways!! Unlike the Vitamin C argument, all of the animals besides cows, horses, sheep and termites cannot digest cellulose. This is a carbohydrate and is the most abundant compound in nature. The other animals can utilize cellulose are able to retain it long enough for microorganisms to accomplish the digestive process. Termites are able to digest cellulose because they have the help of protozoa that's in their guts. Herbivores, lack the enzymes to efficiently digest the major components of plants such as cellulose and lignin. It's funny because these evolutionists then think this is evidence against a designer.

Not if he was an incompetent designer:

"Oh, Me! I forgot to give termites the ability to digest cellulose. And they are supposed to eat wood. I don't want to go back and program another enzyme. I know!" I'll make bacteria that can eat wood, and then I'll put them in the guts of termites, and it will be almost as good as giving termites the enzyme!"

Sure, a designer, but not the God I know.

All they are debating now is on how it was done" but then a visitor comes in and says "I see the evolutionary theory explains everything, therefore it explains nothing".

But he would be wrong. There are many things it doesn't explain. But the reason that scientists overwhelmingly accept it, is that it can explain the evidence. Even more important, it has made predictions that were later verified.

One major reason why I do not accept evolution because it is a smorgasbord.

Hmm... I've spent a lifetime in biology, and I don't see any sign of that. Maybe you should enlarge on that one.

Barbarian observes:
(unless there was a significant metabolic cost to making vitamin C, which might be the case; if so, then it could see the mutation, and would preferntially remove those who could make the vitamin)

The cost we have for not being able to synthesize is what exactly?

Nothing at all, if we can get it in plentiful supply in our diet. But there is a cost to making it. And now, it appears that there might be a reproductive bonus for not making it.

It would be beneficial in some cases and in other situations it isn't?

Right. So primates didn't do very well in open plains (no fruit) until some of them got the hang of getting meat.

Unless you can back this up, this is more speculation.

A good deal of evidence, as you see, supports this. Moreover, we have the molecular evidence. Primates have a gene, but it's damaged. In the same way for all. Which means that it happened before the radiation of primates.

Vitamin-C also has the job of producing the protein known as collagen which provides the connective tissue for the bone and cartilage. If Vitamin-C was to experience a shortage or mutation which degraded this process, a disease would appear and most likely lead to death.

Scurvy.

How about winter?

Not good for primates. They never got too far from the tropics until humans. Japanese macaques are the exception, and they get abundant fruit, but suffer in winter.

In most cases from the past, there has been a big shortage. Also take into consideration that you folks, like us creationists believe that there was an ice age!

Fortunately for most primates, it didn't get to the tropics.

1) The earliest hypothesized ice age, called the Huronian, was around 2.7 to 2.3 billion years ago during the early Proterozoic Eon.
2) The earliest well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last 1 billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which permanent ice covered the entire globe
3) A minor ice age, the Andean-Saharan, occurred from 460 to 430 million years ago, during the Late Ordovician and the Silurian period... There were extensive polar ice caps at intervals from 350 to 260 million years ago, during the Carboniferous and early Permian Periods, associated with the Karoo Ice Age.
4) The present ice age began 40 million years ago with the growth of an ice sheet in Antarctica.

Notice that primates appeared and diversified between the third and the fourth. This again, is consistent with the hypothesis.

This is not to say that they all died, but many did and lack of vitamin-c is inevitable. I wouldn't say this is really a problem compared to what comes next.

Nope. See above.

Barbarian observes:
Apes were basically fruit-eaters, and the ancestors of the apes had this mutation, because all species, including our own, have it. Other animals, such as Guinea pigs, have a damaged gene for vitamin C. But (of course) the damage is different in them than it is in primates. Different mutation.

Just to clarify, I didn't say apes but any ancestor of ours that lost this trait would qualify. Last time I said apes, evolutionists jumped to correct me that we didn't evolve from apes. Ah, yes the guinea pigs a perfect example for refuting the evolutionary explanation of the so-called "shard mistakes". Simply put, it is impossible for the GOLU pseudogene that is present in both guinea pigs and humans to be of the same ancestral lineage.

Sure is, or at least is highly improbable. But:

We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene [LGO] in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999). And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes) (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999).
http://exmypar.wordpress.com/2007/02/18/why-we-think-that-humans-and-chimps-have-a-common-ancestor/

So it's just more evidence for evolution, as you were told.

Also worth noting is that pseudogenes is an argument against ID and supposedly in support of evolution.

Yep.

Barbarian on "objective":
Scientists occasionally aren't. But this one is a pretty good example of the way evolution works.

They never were in the first place. To be named as the objective scientist is a false depiction of what they really do. Unless you want to say that they're honest, which I am freely open to but it is not the same as being objective (Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices).

No. Being objective is to be aware of one's own emotions and prejudices. As Feynmann said: "Be very careful not to fool yourself. And you're the easiest one for you to fool." This is why all the controls and peer review and reproducibility is
necessary.

One person may have a naturalistic world-view yet still be honest but at the same time he's making assumptions. There is no such thing as objectivity with humans. Just out of curiosity, you are probably an atheist or agnostic correct?

Nope. Orthodox Christian. We differ from creationists, in that we approve of the way God did it.

You're stance hasn't been made clear except for the fact that you believe in evolution.

That's wrong too. I believe in God. Evolution has to provide evidence. And it has.

 

[The Barbarian]

Darn, and it was just getting interesting

 

[macguy]

Darn, and it was just getting interesting

Hehe, I forgot that I wrote something in this thread. There's so many threads already in regards to creationism so rather than looking at every thread, I just look at the ones that someone responded to recently.

[edit] I might as well address your argument in regards to vestigial organs from before since the argument is very similar to what we are discussing anyways.

 

[bob b]

Hehe, I forgot that I wrote something in this thread. There's so many threads already in regards to creationism so rather than looking at every thread, I just look at the ones that someone responded to recently.

Yes, if one goes away for a day or two interesting threads are so far down in the stack it's hard to find them.

With regard to this thread a lot of the disagreement is over terms that some like and some hate.

For instance, I believe that evolution is false, but changes do occur, and they can and sometimes do occur much more rapidly than currently envisioned by most people. In other words, the changes are happening for reasons that have little to do with "random mutations plus natural selection".

That is why I try to avoid the term "evolution", which stands for the currently popular modern myth of how life got the way it is today.

 

[mighty_duck]

Hi Macguy,

I missed this post as well.

Here's what I said the creationist MO was:

Creationst: This couldn't have happened with evolution.
Evolutionist replies: It could. Here's one scenario. Your assertion is refuted.
Creationist: But you don't know how it happened specifically!

Here's what transpired in the last couple of posts:

MacGuy: Why would natural selection, cause a diminish in [skull shape and thickness]?
MD : Gives a possible scenario
MacGuy: ..my question was more specifically trying to point out whether there is any evidence that the trait which was lost had any non-detrimental effect during a certain time.

Your initial question seemed to me to be a form of IC - how could natural selection account for losing a trait which might be beneficial.
Your second question is quite different - how did it actually happen?

The answer to the first is any speculation I find that fits evolution and answers your question. This makes it no longer IC. It does not challenge the theory of evolution in any way. That doesn't change the fact that the answer is speculation - there is no evidence that it actually happened this way.

The answer to the second is "I don't know". It is a question to be answered by scientists (I'm guessing they already have an answer. I'll look it up when I have more time). Notice that the second question does not challenge the theory in any way, it just points to a place that hasn't been explained yet.

If you want to make the claim that it CAN'T be explained by evolution, then the burden is on you.
If your only claim is that it HASN'T been explained as of yet, then you may be correct. I fail to see how that helps your case...

 

[bob b]

The way things are shaping up with the latest experiments, etc. it would appear that nonrandom DNA changes are behind the morphological changes that have caused people to mistakenly believe in NeoDarwinism type evolution.

What this means is that significant changes can take place very rapidly in response to the environment (adaptation) compared to the now obsolete slow change concept. So it is not farfetched to believe that the relatively few animals saved on the Ark could have repopulated the ancient world rapidly and ended up with the tremendous diversity we see in the natural world today.

So the nonrandom mutation discovery is one good evidence for the young earth supernatural creation story.

Once again the reports of the death of God have been greatly exaggerated (variation on original point made by Mark Twain).

 

[macguy]

Creationst: This couldn't have happened with evolution.
Evolutionist replies: It could. Here's one scenario. Your assertion is refuted.
Creationist: But you don't know how it happened specifically!

Yet this hasn't been done with the flagellum so no scenario has been provided. For example, if we take the mousetrap, it is known that this is an example of a irreducibly complex system. Therefore, we already have provided the proof so the burden of proof is passed on you to demonstrate that it is not so. Like most, you argue that we don't know and it could be figured out. How do you know that it will be solved in the first place? What if it really is IC? Sure, be my guest and try to provide a scenario of the flagellum's evolution, but you won't find anything if it is really irreducibly complex. Understand though that irreducibly complex systems CAN exist, and that's what ID is attempting to demonstrate. Would something that is established to be IC evolvable? Can the mousetrap evolve or work without one of it's parts? As the evolutionists argues that they don't specifically, then why should we know 100% until we

Your initial question seemed to me to be a form of IC - how could natural selection account for losing a trait which might be beneficial.

It is not a form of IC which claims that there cannot be a step-by-step process because all the parts are necessary.. What I am questioning is whether natural selection is a true explanation for evolution when there is contradictions. You demonstrated a nice straw-man by pointing to the Vitamin-C argument which now I have to discuss when it wasn't my claim in the first place. If Vitamin-C was a good argument then I would've used it. How then, can evolution be refuted? The reductionist approach is also an argument from ignorance in that it assumes no irreducibly complex systems exist. Let's say that we had an irreducibly complex paradigm, assuming that every system can't be reduced but just saying so doesn't prove anything. The reductionist is doing the same by just assuming that everything can be reduced. I don't see why there couldn't be both reducible systems and irreducible systems.

The answer to the second is "I don't know". It is a question to be answered by scientists (I'm guessing they already have an answer. I'll look it up when I have more time). Notice that the second question does not challenge the theory in any way, it just points to a place that hasn't been explained yet.

Repeating my statement before.

I never said anything about Vitamin C anyways!! Unlike the Vitamin C argument, all of the animals besides cows, horses, sheep and termites cannot digest cellulose. This is a carbohydrate and is the most abundant compound in nature. The other animals can utilize cellulose are able to retain it long enough for microorganisms to accomplish the digestive process. Termites are able to digest cellulose because they have the help of protozoa that's in their guts. Herbivores, lack the enzymes to efficiently digest the major components of plants such as cellulose and lignin. It's funny because these evolutionists then think this is evidence against a designer. One evolutions says that the creation theory

asserts that intelligent designers did this, and made all organisms out of the basic substances so that the food chain would work, only did they make plants out of cellulose and lignin, and then forget to endow the herbivores with enzymes to digest those materials? (Sonleitner, 1991)

There is a really simple answer to this but my point is to use this as an argument to question evolution. According to an evolutionist,

it is easy to give natural selection credit for countless incredible adaptations but this makes it more surprising that the process has failed to endow animals with many seemingly acessible capacities. For example, no multicellular animals is known to have the ability to digest the most abundant organic substance, cellulose. The necessary enzyme, cellulase, cannot be difficult to manufacture. Bacteria, fungi, and protoza have it but it does not fit in the metazoan genome. (Wesson, 1991)

This fact clashes with the abundant convergence in nature's pattern. Why is convergence so abundant elsewhere yet then it is prohibited here? This shows that evolution has no coherent structure for understanding nature. It is as if I walked into the door called "Evolutionary Theory" and wished to know more about it but the room was filled with theorists as far as the eye can see. Many of them are shouting while they contradict the other theories. To the evolutionist, all this means is that "Evolution is a fact! All they are debating now is on how it was done" but then a visitor comes in and says "I see the evolutionary theory explains everything, therefore it explains nothing". One major reason why I do not accept evolution because it is a smorgasbord. It should be noted that I don't necessarily go with the creationist theory but I adopt the Biotic message instead.

The key is that the fact contradicts evolutionary scenarios where convergence is used as evidence for it, but then we find evidence against convergence! It's not that there cannot be an explanation, but according the Neo-Darwnism version of evolution, there is inconsistencies here. As you can see, this is way different than saying it cannot be explained by gradual process. It is just to say that evolution will have to update their theory. I find it doubtful for you to find an explanation without contradicting convergence which is often used against ID. Now then, we have something which contradicts evolution but it's used against a designer too! I guess both theories may be inadequate to them? That's convenient.

 

[P8ntrDan]

Um, no it doesn't. Many means many- more than a few. I don't know the numbers, but a lot the Christians I know accept evolution.

You need to meet some more Christians then...

 

[P8ntrDan]

Darwin was not a Catholic.

Darwin was a protestant.

Darwin was no more racist than Issac Newton was. Newton's science insight was not rendered incorrect by his beliefs in the superiority of certain races. So why should Darwin's be?

Racism is inherent in any society that believes in an inherited nobility. They believe that some people are born better than others. England in such a country, therefore English people are racists.

Newton's theory wasn't influenced by Racism was it? It was related to physics, not the orgin of species.

 

[P8ntrDan]

At the time of the crusades there was no Protestant church. Please learn some history.

Protestant doesn't mean a flip to me. Please try to understand... The Crusades were done in the name of Christianity, and done so incorrectly.

 

[noguru]

You need to meet some more Christians then...

Let's follow your logic here. If he meets more Christians that don't accept evolution, does this mean that he would no longer have met many Christians that do accept evolution?

 

[noguru]

Protestant doesn't mean a flip to me. Please try to understand... The Crusades were done in the name of Christianity, and done so incorrectly.

Right but for you to try and make a distinction between Catholics and Christians during the Crusades is an excersize in futility.

 

[noguru]

Newton's theory wasn't influenced by Racism was it? It was related to physics, not the orgin of species.

Maybe he was trying to figure out why nubian people generally sank lower in water than caucasians. :doh:

The point is the purpose of research is not relevant when it comes to the truth of the research. Darwin might have been trying to figure out why his perception led to the conclusion that Europeans had the technological advantage over sub-Saharan Africans at the time. Granted this was not always the case. But it might have been a valid question in his mind. At any rate, the path that Darwin started us on led to the conclusion that Africans are the mother race. It did a 180 in regard to race relations.

 

[baloney]

Genesis itself can support evolution. Gen 1:24 "Let the Earth bring forth living creatures."

God said let the earth produce living creatures. He did not say let there be lions etc.

 

[Benjamin]

Right but for you to try and make a distinction between Catholics and Christians during the Crusades is an excersize in futility.

False, the crusaders didn't even own Bibles personally- how in the world were they to know what Christ said?

For any of them to be saved would have been a miracle.

 

[Benjamin]

There is no evidence of species ever attaining additional genetic information from one generation to the next, they can mutate all day, but without adding info to their dna; particle to human evolution is rediculously absurd.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You need to meet some more Christians then...

Why?