I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Idolater]

Sigh, you don't seem to be getting what I'm saying. I think exodus is not necessarily referring to a literal event, not that the Exodus text itself is metaphorical. It's making a plain statement about how to count the weeks. But it doesn't HAVE to be referring to a 100% literal historical event to make sense.

I know. We have two mutually exclusive propositions, the universe is older than 13 billion years, and the universe is not older than 13 billion years. If the universe is older than 13 billion years, then of course Exodus 20:11 must not be literal, or, must not be referring to a literal event. Either one. I agree. If.

Much like our modern reference to sunset and sunrise. We know the sun isn't literally setting or rising, but we often refer to that symbolic phrase in other contexts. Six days is a way of making the creation story simple and easy to remember for an oral culture. It's not a science textbook or a detailed news report. Mind you my church is going through the book of Genesis currently and just said exactly that from the pulpit. And no it's not a liberal church that rejects miracles or the resurrection.

Well that's good. But it's still not proof that the universe is older than 13 billion years, it's just a possibility that you've floated, which I grant, that it is possible. My position is that it's possible God made the universe in six days too.

How do you know that those memories aren't fabricated then if you think the universe was created with the appearance of age.

What does one thing have to do with the other? How do you know your own memories of what you yourself were doing just earlier today weren't "fabricated?" Why can't you answer me?

This is just a form of extreme skepticism, answered by Descartes, like I already said. Linguistic analysis is another way to 'skin this cat.' It's not compelling. Your memory and my memory from a few hours ago are as real as two twos is four.

Did Adam and eve have belly buttons and were they able to speak after creation? Fabricated memories then.

idk what you mean. 'Looks like they could speak rather immediately after they were made. 'Text says nothing about presence or absence of navels.

If there were navels, then that would be like evidence science says shows that the universe is older than Scripture says it is.

Once you go down this particular road there's no guardrails.

That's what you think. There's actually a wide and safe road here. Your "guardrails" obstruct its view.

If creation was actually over six days but the universe looks and acts like it's 13 billion years old, why would six days be anything more than symbolic in that case anyway?

If you mean by this, something like that there's basically no practical difference today, between it being made in six days, and it maturing over billions of years, then I agree completely wrt natural science.

Science acts based on the evidence available so, if what you're proposing were true it wouldn't matter as far as science is concerned.

That's what I said. (Supra, "Science provides useful predictions regardless of which of our directly opposing propositions is fictional, and which is the fact.")

 

[Stripe]

I keep posting it.

You don't need evidence. You've already reached your conclusion without it.

 

[chair]

Raw milk has naturally occurring lactase in it.

No. It doesn't.
https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-...isconceptions-and-danger-raw-milk-consumption

 

[Yorzhik]

Rejecting biological evolution is rejecting science.

Rejecting common descent by random mutation and natural selection is rejecting science?

There are a lot of distinguished scientists that reject common descent by random mutation and natural selection. Are you sure you want to tar them all this way? It's a pretty serious accusation. And please note that Yale's Gelernter is very reasoned in his rejection of Darwinian Evolution... are you sure you want to spit on him like this?

And one more thing. You never answered the question of what percentage, a rough range is fine, of how much of human DNA is useful. Now that you've had some time, certainly a biology teacher can give us an answer to that question. My guess is that you will either not answer, or you will weasel the discussion about what "useful" means. In the spirit of the latter, give us word you prefer and define what you mean by it if you like.

 

[Right Divider]

Eh no. He asserted there were no beneficial mutations. I gave him some examples.

I was not replying to your post, but the comment still stands.

You think that these trivial mutations can turn a single-celled creature into a man. That is complete foolishness.

There are, as you have implied, a huge number of steps from a single celled creature to complex life on earth. I can certainly walk you through them, many of them still have modern parallels. But I'm sure you're not actually interested in that.

It's hilariously funny when people say things like that. No, you cannot. You are the typical bluff and bluster type.

 

[Gary K]

No. It doesn't.
https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-...isconceptions-and-danger-raw-milk-consumption

You are partially correct. I was thinking lactase was a part of it but confused it with lipase as I was doing this all from memory. The fact of the matter though is that all the enzymes naturally occurring in milk are either greatly reduced or completely destroyed depending on the pasteurization process. That is not a good thing. Life requires enzymes and our modern diet has had the naturally occurring enzymes in food destroyed. It has a large negative effect on our health.

Those studies by the fda and cdc have been refuted by other researchers. Personally, I grew up on raw milk. I drank it until after I graduated from high school. I went back to it 3 or 4 years ago when our area was inundated with smoke from forest fires. I needed at least 10-12 antihistamine tabs a day. I was taking a couple of antihistamines every couple of hours and I still had breathing problems. When I started drinking raw milk again in the midst of smoke so thick it was impossible to see a mile my allergies disappeared. I haven't taken them since. You can point to every study you want that says raw milk has no effect on allergies, but my own experience tells me differently as the only change I made at the time was moving from pasteurized milk to raw milk. I also never had any allergies while growing up during which time we drank raw milk.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Lactase persistence is the mutation.

Lactose intolerance is the mutation and it is not beneficial for mammals.
You do know how to identify a mammal, don't you?

mammal a warm-blooded vertebrate animal of a class that is distinguished by the possession of hair or fur, the secretion of milk by females for the nourishment of the young, and (typically) the birth of live young.

​

 

[genuineoriginal]

My point wasn't that people would necessarily doubt any of those things, it's just if the universe's appearance is perfectly false, there's not really a good way to know that. And even if we knew it for sure, it wouldn't be useful to us scientifically. Because science studies the evidence that's left behind and if all the evidence is false, either science breaks down entirely or you just have to go with the evidence you have.

God did not leave a bunch of false evidence around.
The evidence points to the truth of the Biblical global flood account.

Evolutionary scientists begin with rejecting that account and attempting to make the evidence fit their preconceptions.
That is not science.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You are partially correct. I was thinking lactase was a part of it but confused it with lipase as I was doing this all from memory. The fact of the matter though is that all the enzymes naturally occurring in milk are either greatly reduced or completely destroyed depending on the pasteurization process. That is not a good thing. Life requires enzymes and our modern diet has had the naturally occurring enzymes in food destroyed. It has a large negative effect on our health.

Those studies by the fda and cdc have been refuted by other researchers. Personally, I grew up on raw milk. I drank it until after I graduated from high school. I went back to it 3 or 4 years ago when our area was inundated with smoke from forest fires. I needed at least 10-12 antihistamine tabs a day. I was taking a couple of antihistamines every couple of hours and I still had breathing problems. When I started drinking raw milk again in the midst of smoke so thick it was impossible to see a mile my allergies disappeared. I haven't taken them since. You can point to every study you want that says raw milk has no effect on allergies, but my own experience tells me differently as the only change I made at the time was moving from pasteurized milk to raw milk. I also never had any allergies while growing up during which time we drank raw milk.

THE SAFETY OF RAW MILK One reason raw milk is so much easier to digest compared to pasteurized milk is due to the presence of lactase, the enzyme that breaks down milk sugar and which many humans are unable to produce. The experts I have spoken with deny the presence of lactase in raw milk; however, it is the friendly bacteria in raw milk that facilitate the creation of lactase in the intestine where it is needed. That is why lactose-intolerant people can drink raw milk without a problem.​

 

[Alate_One]

God did not leave a bunch of false evidence around.
The evidence points to the truth of the Biblical global flood account.

Uhh, no.
There's a ridiculous amount of evidence against it. One I've already brought up, the fact that species moved across the world cause havoc in a new ecosystem. Why? Because they've been evolving separately for millions of years. If they had been mixed up a few thousand years ago they A. wouldn't cause many problems when moved again and B. species would be distributed more randomly across the world. Plants with tiny distributions wouldn't exist (plants weren't taken on the ark) etc. And that's just the biological problems.

Evolutionary scientists begin with rejecting that account and attempting to make the evidence fit their preconceptions.
That is not science.

Hello, pot meet kettle. Why is it YECs seem hardwired to project their own failings on others? Evolution came about from examining the evidence. Two different people came to the same conclusion using totally different sets of evidence.

That's not trying to shoehorn evidence, trying super hard to make the evidence fit is the realm of the YEC.

 

[Alate_One]

Lactose intolerance is the mutation and it is not beneficial for mammals.
You do know how to identify a mammal, don't you?

Obviously . All mammals can drink milk when they are young. That's the point of being mammals. As ADULTS is a different matter. Lactose tolerance is about retaining lactase production as adults. That trait is a mutation specific to humans, and only some humans.

 

[Alate_One]

It's hilariously funny when people say things like that. No, you cannot. You are the typical bluff and bluster type.

Not blustering.

Step one we begin with a eukaryotic cell. Such cells begin to stick together in colonies. There are a handful of cell surface proteins that can do this.

Living example:

Choanoflagellate

Step 2. Some of the stuck together cells begin to specialize - this is the beginning of an organism rather than a collection of cells.

Living example: Sponges

 

[Alate_One]

Rejecting common descent by random mutation and natural selection is rejecting science?

There are a lot of distinguished scientists that reject common descent by random mutation and natural selection.

There are a lot of distinguished historians that reject the holocaust. Do you really want this as your argument?

Are you sure you want to tar them all this way? It's a pretty serious accusation. And please note that Yale's Gelernter is very reasoned in his rejection of Darwinian Evolution... are you sure you want to spit on him like this?

He's a computer scientist, which isn't even a biologist, geologist or anything else much related. Regardless, he's rejecting well established science in the field of biology. I don't go around rejecting the theories of other fields . . . well except for the multiverse as it can't be properly tested via the rules of science.

And one more thing. You never answered the question of what percentage, a rough range is fine, of how much of human DNA is useful. Now that you've had some time, certainly a biology teacher can give us an answer to that question. My guess is that you will either not answer, or you will weasel the discussion about what "useful" means. In the spirit of the latter, give us word you prefer and define what you mean by it if you like.

The proper answer is, we don't know. Pieces of DNA that appear to be "junk" can spring back to life or fragments of them may become useful. See the evolution of human salivary amylase due to the insertion of a viral sequence in the control region of the gene. LINES and SINES are probably mostly useless, but once in a while they turn up to be useful, but mostly not. So probably somewhere around 33% useless based on this particular pie chart.

 

[Gary K]

THE SAFETY OF RAW MILK One reason raw milk is so much easier to digest compared to pasteurized milk is due to the presence of lactase, the enzyme that breaks down milk sugar and which many humans are unable to produce. The experts I have spoken with deny the presence of lactase in raw milk; however, it is the friendly bacteria in raw milk that facilitate the creation of lactase in the intestine where it is needed. That is why lactose-intolerant people can drink raw milk without a problem.​

I've read that and understand it. But, I also had confused lactase with lipase as I wrote what I did from memory and it had been quite a while since I did my reading on the subject. That's why I said chair was partially correct. I did screw up on the lipase/lactase part of it.

Bacteria get a bad rap and everyone wants to kill them, but there are good bacteria too. Fermented foods contain a lot of helpful bacteria. Foods like sauerkraut, kefir, yogurt, and the array of Asian fermented foods do a lot of positive things for our bodies. Sauerkraut, the sauerkraut made without pasteurization, and eaten raw, is incredibly healthy.

My diabetes had really messed with my digestive track and I had almost constant diarrhea until I started drinking kefir. I drank kefir for a month or two on a daily basis and it healed my intestines to where I can go weeks without it now and still not have any symptoms. If I do I drink one bottle of kefir and I'm right back to normal. The best kefir is that made from raw milk. It can be made from pasteurized milk too as the kefir starter is nothing more than large colonies of bacteria that feed on the naturally occurring sugars in milk.

The truth about the pasteurized vs raw milk issue is so obvious it's hard for me to understand how people can miss the truth of it. Lactose intolerant people can drink kefir, eat yogurt, villi(a Finnish variant of yogurt), raw milk etc... without any issues. In doing so they are consuming milk without any symptoms. They cannot drink pasteurized milk without symptoms. The difference between pasteurized milk and the rest? All the beneficial bacteria that pasteurization kills. The human body was just never designed to use milk without the normally occurring bacteria alive and well within it. It's just one more instance of government regulation harming us through the foods we eat that comply with regulations. Government is not our friend.

 

[Stripe]

The fact that species moved across the world cause havoc in a new ecosystem. Why? Because they've been evolving separately for millions of years.

There was no flood, because evolution.

Plants with tiny distributions wouldn't exist.

Because... :idunno:

 

[Alate_One]

There was no flood, because evolution.

There's no evidence for a flood because a global flood would have mixed all of the species together. Instead there's a pattern of fossil ancestors in the same place as their living descendants and similar but non-identical species living on separate continents. Your beloved hydroplate "theory" posits a giant continent with everything living together. How we got to specific groups of plants and animals living on different continents and islands isn't explained by any YEC ideas. Or why bringing them back together suddenly causes such problems. If all species were living on one continent just a few thousand years ago, they should all get along fine!

Because... :idunno:

Because they'd be underwater and being underwater kills plants, especially saltwater. Plants with a broader distribution might be a bit more likely to survive. But a literal year long global flood would kill probably a majority of plant species that are apparent today.

Why do distant tiny islands have far more unique species than the mainland? If the islands were all connected just a few thousand years ago, and if only God creates new species directly and only during the creation week, how can such unique organisms exist?

Tree cabbage found only on Robinson Crusoe island.

 

[Alate_One]

It's hilariously funny when people say things like that. No, you cannot. You are the typical bluff and bluster type.

Step 3. As cells become more specialized, eventually they develop simple tissues and shape into hollow tubes to form a gut.

Living Examples: Cniderians and placozoa

Step 4. Cells and tissues continue to specialized, organisms become larger and start to require simple organ systems. Primitive hearts, gills, excretory systems appear.

Living examples: The various worm phyla: flatworms, nematodes, annelids. Annelids (earthworms) are the most complex of these.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Step 3. As cells become more specialized, eventually they develop simple tissues and shape into hollow tubes to form a gut.

Living Examples: Cniderians and placozoa

Step 4. Cells and tissues continue to specialized, organisms become larger and start to require simple organ systems. Primitive hearts, gills, excretory systems appear.

Living examples: The various worm phyla: flatworms, nematodes, annelids. Annelids (earthworms) are the most complex of these.

Let's assume your position is true, for a moment.

How do you explain trochlea formation?

Could you roughly describe how this came to be?

 

[Right Divider]

Not blustering.

Step one we begin with a eukaryotic cell. Such cells begin to stick together in colonies. There are a handful of cell surface proteins that can do this.

Living example:

Choanoflagellate

Step 2. Some of the stuck together cells begin to specialize - this is the beginning of an organism rather than a collection of cells.

Living example: Sponges

More hand waving and pounding the podium. Funny stuff.

When they "begin to specialize", do they go to a trade school or how does that work?

 

[Right Divider]

Step 3. As cells become more specialized, eventually they develop simple tissues and shape into hollow tubes to form a gut.

Living Examples: Cniderians and placozoa

Step 4. Cells and tissues continue to specialized, organisms become larger and start to require simple organ systems. Primitive hearts, gills, excretory systems appear.

Living examples: The various worm phyla: flatworms, nematodes, annelids. Annelids (earthworms) are the most complex of these.

More fairy stories based on making the dream come true as opposed to actual evidence.

Like I said, bluff and bluster.