The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

[2LifeGuy]

Genesis 7:13
"On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark."



What's the difference? (Honest question, no sarcasm intended.)

On the Noah question, I would answer similar to Cain and his wife question.

On what the difference between magic and God is... I think most people define magic like the genie granting wishes, whereas God grants life, and life that He created. I know it's a leap to see the two as different, but they are really polar opposites. Also when I think of magic I think of something used either for selfish means or maybe for entertainment. God, on the other hand, used his power to lay his life down in pain on our behalf. (Sorry to be so preachy!)

 

[Katana]

It's funny that we had thread discussing evolution that turned to debunking Genesis. We then started a thread debunking Genesis that has turned to discussing evolution.

And I suspect that just as many minds will be changed during the course of this one.

 

[2LifeGuy]

Is this what you are saying?:

1. I don't understand it

2. Science has yet to explain it

3. Therefore, God (or intelligent designer) must have created it.

More like... Wow, there's an airplane... don't know exactly how it works, but I DO know it didn't build itself.

Look at an arrowhead vs. a regular rock. It's obvious which is desinged, even though you don't know how to make an arrowhead. No amount of time or chance could make each perfect chip to create its cutting edge. BUT I would not say you were wrong if you observed that some science was used to chipping the arrowhead.

 

[Freethinker]

My point is that evolution does not explain how chemical reactions can form themselves spontaneously into the types of "miniature factories" that we observe in microscopic systems. We can explain, scientifically, how chemical reactions work, but not how these systems (with all interrelating components in place) were created--surely not step-by-step.

It doesn't explain that because it doesn't happen. Just because a complex process is required for life in a species as it exists now doesn't mean that that process sprang into existence all at once.

If some complex reaction or biological process happens internally in a particular species, it makes sense that those members of the species that have some peculiar mutation that allows them to take advantage of that process may see an increased likelihood of survival if environmental pressures push that way. As such pressures increase, the population may consist only of members who have said mutation.

The process itself may be random and serve no benefit to non-mutated members of the species. The mutation is random. The environmental pressure may be random. The fact that the best adapted (those with the mutation) survive is not random.

I agree with others. Your stance is :"I don't understand how this could happen, so it must be magic."

 

[2LifeGuy]

Then explain my cancer.

First, I HATE that you have cancer. My sister was diagnosed, and it is a major life-curve. In the beginning it says that God looked on all that he made, and that it was very good. Something happened to change that. Probably like you, I wish we lived in a perfect world, but we don't.

 

[Ducky]

More like... Wow, there's an airplane... don't know exactly how it works, but I DO know it didn't build itself.

Look at an arrowhead vs. a regular rock. It's obvious which is desinged, even though you don't know how to make an arrowhead. No amount of time or chance could make each perfect chip to create its cutting edge. BUT I would not say you were wrong if you observed that some science was used to chipping the arrowhead.

What about Bananas?

 

[Ducky]

First, I HATE that you have cancer. My sister was diagnosed, and it is a major life-curve. In the beginning it says that God looked on all that he made, and that it was very good. Something happened to change that. Probably like you, I wish we lived in a perfect world, but we don't.

Then your intelligent designer is either uncaring, sadistic or incompetent. Which is it?

 

[cyborg]

My point is that evolution does not explain how chemical reactions can form themselves spontaneously into the types of "miniature factories" that we observe in microscopic systems.

And you are satisfied with the answer, "god did it, let's all go home now"?

We can explain, scientifically, how chemical reactions work, but not how these systems (with all interrelating components in place) were created--surely not step-by-step.

That is why the work on abiogenesis continues.

Take away one component, and the whole thing breaks down.

Um, no it doesn't. Tolerance applies to other machines as well.

A designer, can make an airplane fly. We could never gain an understanding of how the plane was created by studying its individual parts.

Your analogies fail to acknowledge the unique nature of the biological mechanisms.

Creationist analogies always do. These things are not the same. That is why they do not behave the same.

 

[2LifeGuy]

Naturally, there are going to be more neutral and negative mutations than positive ones, as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics. However, the neutral and negative mutations do not drive evolution. Only the more rare positive ones do.

If you give a population millions of years to mutate, there are going to be some significant positive mutations in that time period. There will be many more negative ones, but these will not show up in the gene pool.

So far, NO positive mutations which benefit a creature with NEW information has ever been observed. That is why they never show a picture of a positive mutation in text books...only negative ones.

Obviously there are observable changes in animals...in breeding programs for example...but selective breeding is making use of features that are already contained in the gene pool.

I bet there is a scientist who will challenge this, but I'm just saying after some research, I have never seen evidence for a true positive mutation.

 

[Ducky]

So far, NO positive mutations which benefit a creature with NEW information has ever been observed. That is why they never show a picture of a positive mutation in text books...only negative ones.

Obviously there are observable changes in animals...in breeding programs for example...but selective breeding is making use of features that are already contained in the gene pool.

I bet there is a scientist who will challenge this, but I'm just saying after some research, I have never seen evidence for a true positive mutation.

what research? Where did you research?

 

[cyborg]

So far, NO positive mutations which benefit a creature with NEW information has ever been observed.

Oh dear, is it going to go down the information route because that argument is just plain silly.

I bet there is a scientist who will challenge this, but I'm just saying after some research, I have never seen evidence for a true positive mutation.

Bacteria seem to be doing pretty well mutating in a positive way to antibiotic agents that have never existed previously.

 

[2LifeGuy]

More poignantly: Explain why an intelligent designer would design a system that does not allow for positive mutation?

(But yes, wherever he/she read that is an interesting question too. I'd bet a creationist text.)

I believe God really is perfect and all knowing. That being true, he got created animals and life right the first time...

He did anticipate the need for variation and change within kinds of animals, because each animal has genetic information that it passes on to offspring that helps them adapt to climate and environment or whatever. This, I think, most Bible believing people and evolution beleivers have in common. Both believe that at least WITHIN a species there is a built in adaptability.

The conflict between evolution and creation is that evolution teaches that one kind of animal will actually change into a completely different kind...that new genetic information will be created.

 

[cyborg]

The conflict between evolution and creation is that evolution teaches that one kind of animal will actually change into a completely different kind...that new genetic information will be created.

Oh dear. We're not going to get the, "macroevolution is true when a dog gives birth to a cat," nonsense are we?

 

[Ducky]

I believe God really is perfect and all knowing. That being true, he got created animals and life right the first time...

And cancer? Sadistic, incompetent, or uncaring. Which is it?

He did anticipate the need for variation and change within kinds of animals, because each animal has genetic information that it passes on to offspring that helps them adapt to climate and environment or whatever. This, I think, most Bible believing people and evolution beleivers have in common. Both believe that at least WITHIN a species there is a built in adaptability.

Rhetoric.

The conflict between evolution and creation is that evolution teaches that one kind of animal will actually change into a completely different kind...that new genetic information will be created.

Where is that taught? Can you please provide a source for that quotation of yours?

 

[2LifeGuy]

Yes, you very easily can understand how a plane is created by studying individual parts.

But the overall message I see here from you is "I don't understand it. God did it."

Well I disagree. If you analyze the parts of a plane, nothing about that analysis will tell you how the iron or aluminum were screwed together, or who did the fabrication work. You can say, I think these parts just came together, or you can say I think these parts had a designer or manufacturer. The individual parts themselves will not give you the answer...well I think they will...

I don't understand how my TV works, BUT by its nature it was obviously designed. This is a true understanding of the truth.

 

[cyborg]

You can say, I think these parts just came together, or you can say I think these parts had a designer or manufacturer. The individual parts themselves will not give you the answer...well I think they will...

How odd it is to me that this argument would persist when evolution gives the answers and was borne out of the search for answers - not idle speculation about gods and which one did everything.

You can lead a man to knowledge but you cannot make him drink it would seem.

 

[2LifeGuy]

And cancer? Sadistic, incompetent, or uncaring. Which is it?



Rhetoric.



Where is that taught? Can you please provide a source for that quotation of yours?

I made a generic statement that evolution is one kind of animal changing into another. Apes to people for example. I don't really think a source is needed.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

You can lead a man to knowledge but you cannot make him drink it would seem.

I think the expression you're looking for is "You can drag a dead horse to water and beat the everloving st out of it".

 

[Ducky]

Well I disagree. If you analyze the parts of a plane, nothing about that analysis will tell you how the iron or aluminum were screwed together, or who did the fabrication work. You can say, I think these parts just came together, or you can say I think these parts had a designer or manufacturer. The individual parts themselves will not give you the answer...well I think they will...

I don't understand how my TV works, BUT by its nature it was obviously designed. This is a true understanding of the truth.

And if you spent any time learning how planes ant TV works, you might know how they work.

If you spent any time reading anything other than creationist literature on evolution you might understand you are very very wrong.

But yes, if you have the screw, and the pieces of iron and aluminum you can certainly discern how it goes together.

 

[Ducky]

I made a generic statement that evolution is one kind of animal changing into another. Apes to people for example. I don't really think a source is needed.

Answer the first question. Sadistic, uncaring or incompetent?

Also, you are greatly misrepresenting evolutionary science. I would like to know where you got these ideas from.


(ps. Apes didn't turn into people. They have a common ancestor.)