Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Evolution; God's Greatest Creation??????

Expand Messages
  • atfsoccer@aol.com
    In a message dated 5/31/02 7:45:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... I would have to object to the statement that macroevolution is an established and acceptable
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 5/31/02 7:45:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

      ashcraft@... writes:


      . Our argument is principally
      concerning the extent of evolution, and the universal denial of
      macroevolution by creationists is causings us to unwittingly reject an
      established and otherwise acceptable process.


      I would have to object to the statement that "macroevolution is an established and acceptable process.".   A statement such as this suggests that macroevoltution and microevoution is not established in the sense of having any empirical support or proof for its existence.  It has been a popular model over the past century to explain the observations in the biologic world around us.  

      If it is an "acceptable" process then we might argue that man is still in the "evolutionary mode".  That we are not yet perfect and are perhaps still evolving to a higher life form or species??

      How does the Christian harmonize this with Genesis that God created Man etc and it was good?

      Chris, perhaps we are arguing the same point of view.   I do see your point of the variation within a common "kind" from the Ark.  I can see a common "dog" with built in "genetic variability" being able to form the 200 plus varieties of "dog" today.  I am not certain that we can say there was a common "carnivore" that gave rise to bears, lions, tigers, wolves etc. Do you see my point?  I see a distinction between variation within God given genetic material and the spontaneous creation of "new" material and creatures by random genetic mutations.  I believe we are saying the same thing regarding this point aren't we?

      PS  I enjoyed the facts you shared on the numbers of species in existence.  I read somewhere that the Ark "football sized barge" as it was could have held about 30,000 animals.  

      respectfully    andrew
    • samson7x@nuwavenet.com
      If anything, I believe that since the fall we have been DE-evolving. Neandrethal man was a human with a larger brain capacity then modern people, and he was
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        If anything, I believe that since the fall we have been DE-evolving.  Neandrethal man was a human with a larger brain capacity then modern people, and he was much stronger.  Also there have been skeletons of giants found that were dated 4-6 thousand years old.  Some claims maybe hoaxes, but several are legitimate.  All indications show that man used to be larger, smarter, and stronger then what we are now.  Also there were some frozen North West Passage seekers that had genetic resistance to pinicillin.  Pinicillin had not been invented at that time.  There's lots of indication that all resistances and perfections were once part of our genetic code and it has degraded over time to the point that only certain people, animals, etc. show certain beneficial traits.  This is just my quick 2 cents.

        In Christ,
        JD
         
         

        atfsoccer@... wrote:

         In a message dated 5/31/02 7:45:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

        ashcraft@... writes:
         
         

        . Our argument is principally
        concerning the extent of evolution, and the universal denial of
        macroevolution by creationists is causings us to unwittingly reject an
        established and otherwise acceptable process.

        I would have to object to the statement that "macroevolution is an established and acceptable process.".   A statement such as this suggests that macroevoltution and microevoution is not established in the sense of having any empirical support or proof for its existence.  It has been a popular model over the past century to explain the observations in the biologic world around us.

        If it is an "acceptable" process then we might argue that man is still in the "evolutionary mode".  That we are not yet perfect and are perhaps still evolving to a higher life form or species??

        How does the Christian harmonize this with Genesis that God created Man etc and it was good?

        Chris, perhaps we are arguing the same point of view.   I do see your point of the variation within a common "kind" from the Ark.  I can see a common "dog" with built in "genetic variability" being able to form the 200 plus varieties of "dog" today.  I am not certain that we can say there was a common "carnivore" that gave rise to bears, lions, tigers, wolves etc. Do you see my point?  I see a distinction between variation within God given genetic material and the spontaneous creation of "new" material and creatures by random genetic mutations.  I believe we are saying the same thing regarding this point aren't we?

        PS  I enjoyed the facts you shared on the numbers of species in existence.  I read somewhere that the Ark "football sized barge" as it was could have held about 30,000 animals.

        respectfully    andrew

        CreationTalk Discussion Group
        Creation Science Resource
        http://nwcreation.net/

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        CreationTalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
         
         

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

      • Penn,Mark E
        ...and add to that the fact that some archeological ruins in South America were built with technology and know-how that we have yet to duplicate. Mark PS: the
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          ...and add to that the fact that some archeological ruins in South America were built with technology and know-how that we have yet to duplicate.
           
                                                                                                           Mark
           
          PS:  the reason the email came with a file attachment is that you used stationary yahoo doesn't recognize. Use blank stationary next time.
           
           
           
           
          1 Thess 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
           
          1 Corinthians 13:5 "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?"
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 10:31 AM
          Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Evolution; God's Greatest Creation??????

          If anything, I believe that since the fall we have been DE-evolving.  Neandrethal man was a human with a larger brain capacity then modern people, and he was much stronger.  Also there have been skeletons of giants found that were dated 4-6 thousand years old.  Some claims maybe hoaxes, but several are legitimate.  All indications show that man used to be larger, smarter, and stronger then what we are now.  Also there were some frozen North West Passage seekers that had genetic resistance to pinicillin.  Pinicillin had not been invented at that time.  There's lots of indication that all resistances and perfections were once part of our genetic code and it has degraded over time to the point that only certain people, animals, etc. show certain beneficial traits.  This is just my quick 2 cents.

          In Christ,
          JD
           
           

          atfsoccer@... wrote:

           In a message dated 5/31/02 7:45:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

          ashcraft@... writes:
           
           

          . Our argument is principally
          concerning the extent of evolution, and the universal denial of
          macroevolution by creationists is causings us to unwittingly reject an
          established and otherwise acceptable process.

          I would have to object to the statement that "macroevolution is an established and acceptable process.".   A statement such as this suggests that macroevoltution and microevoution is not established in the sense of having any empirical support or proof for its existence.  It has been a popular model over the past century to explain the observations in the biologic world around us.

          If it is an "acceptable" process then we might argue that man is still in the "evolutionary mode".  That we are not yet perfect and are perhaps still evolving to a higher life form or species??

          How does the Christian harmonize this with Genesis that God created Man etc and it was good?

          Chris, perhaps we are arguing the same point of view.   I do see your point of the variation within a common "kind" from the Ark.  I can see a common "dog" with built in "genetic variability" being able to form the 200 plus varieties of "dog" today.  I am not certain that we can say there was a common "carnivore" that gave rise to bears, lions, tigers, wolves etc. Do you see my point?  I see a distinction between variation within God given genetic material and the spontaneous creation of "new" material and creatures by random genetic mutations.  I believe we are saying the same thing regarding this point aren't we?

          PS  I enjoyed the facts you shared on the numbers of species in existence.  I read somewhere that the Ark "football sized barge" as it was could have held about 30,000 animals.

          respectfully    andrew

          CreationTalk Discussion Group
          Creation Science Resource
          http://nwcreation.net/

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          CreationTalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
           
           

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

        • atfsoccer@aol.com
          In a message dated 6/1/02 11:34:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... JD I think your observation ins interesting and accurate. It is also consistent with the
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 6/1/02 11:34:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, samson7x@... writes:


            If anything, I believe that since the fall we have been DE-evolving.  


            JD

            I think your observation ins interesting and accurate.  It is also consistent with the handful of universal laws which God has given us. Namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics which simply stated is "that everything in the universe is progressing toward a state of disorder and disarray".  

            Everything in nature is essentially decaying or "winding down" .  Your comment is most consistent with God the Creator and what is revealed to us in Genesis.  God made everything "good" and perfect.  Sin enters the picture with the fall of man and we see the fall out of this with  all creation "groaning for the day of redemption" .


            Thanks,   Andrew   MD
          • Chris Ashcraft
            ... If an organism is alive and reproducing, it is evolving. With each generation, genetic modifications are made, and they are not degradations of the genome.
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 2, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- atfsoccer@... wrote:
              > In a message dated 5/31/02 7:45:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
              > If it is an "acceptable" process then we might argue that man is still
              > in the "evolutionary mode". That we are not yet perfect and are
              > perhaps still evolving to a higher life form or species??

              If an organism is alive and reproducing, it is evolving. With each
              generation, genetic modifications are made, and they are not degradations
              of the genome. These reactions are performed by machinery which requires
              energy input, and was designed for that purpose.

              The creation is not de-evolving. You can not compare our world today
              against that following the flood as anything but an improvement. The
              recovery of our ecosystem was largely driven by evolution. Pairs of
              organisms like butterflies now exist as hundreds or event thousands of
              species, all with new unique specializations. The design to evolve into
              these countless varieties may have been one of God's greatest creations.

              Man is evolving also. Humans exist as many races today because these
              groups were speciated for a time (reproductively isolated) and evolved
              into several physically distinct forms due to regionally-specific natural
              selection. These speciation events were likely driven and solidified by
              divine intervention at the tower of Babel. Humans, like all organisms, can
              naturally speciate through migration and geographic isolation, but the
              language barriers God created certainly had a great affect.

              > I can see a common
              > "dog" with built in "genetic variability" being able to form the 200
              > plus varieties of "dog" today. I am not certain that we can say there
              > was a common "carnivore" that gave rise to bears, lions, tigers, wolves
              > etc. Do you see my point?

              Claiming to recognize the variability that has been recently demonstrated
              by intentional breeding is not a tremendous step toward admitting
              evolutionary potential. If you can not accept the occurrence of speciation
              you will not be able to also recognize where that variability has been at
              work in nature.

              We are just now really beginning to appreciate evolutionary possibilities.
              The variability expressed during breeding allows these organisms to adapt
              to specific circumstances in nature, and it is these specializations that
              are often mistakenly claimed as created features. The variations isolated
              by breeders could only develop in nature if speciation occurs. If
              reproductively isolated groups are not formed, the Biblical kinds can only
              exist naturally in one physical form. Selective pressure from all over the
              earth would mix together, and every kind would only exist as an
              unspecialized environmental generalist.

              The range demonstrated by breeders must be applied to organisms in nature
              across species barriers. All the dog breeds were all bred out of wolves
              and progeny. If you assume a strict species barrier, then wolves are only
              related to other wolves, and therefore none of the variability produced
              during breeding was ever expressed in nature. Speciation does occur, and
              much of the variability expressed during breeding is also evident in
              nature, but only through interspecies examination. The fox, the jackal,
              hyena, and coyote are all likely related to the wolf and domestic dogs;
              and there are almost certainly others.

              By artificially speciating (inbreeding) the domestic dogs, the breeders
              have produced countless varieties. A variation which surfaces through
              recombination is maintained by inbreeding or artificial selection. Without
              intentionally isolating and inbreeding specific traits, the dogs would
              also all look the same. Speciation produces the same effect in nature as
              inbreeding has in domestic animals. Speciation is a regular part of
              adaptation, and its purpose is to allow independent
              recombination/selection histories to remains pure and uncontaminated by
              selection from other regions.

              Organisms can only specialize to a habitat of niche if they speciate so
              their history of selection remains regionally specific. Speciation occurs
              and is a part of the design. Since their creation, the Biblical kinds have
              undergone macroevolution into many genera of related species, and we
              should be prepared to readily admit this quantity of change.

              =====
              Chris Ashcraft
              Creation Science Resource
              http://nwcreation.net

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
              http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
            • Frank Lyons
              Chris Ashcraft wrote: Since their creation, the Biblical kinds have undergone macroevolution into many genera of related species, and we should be prepared to
              Message 6 of 8 , Jun 2, 2002
              • 0 Attachment

                Chris Ashcraft wrote:
                Since their creation, the Biblical kinds have
                undergone macroevolution into many genera of related species, and we
                should be prepared to readily admit this quantity of change.

                My biggest problem with your whole post is the definitions.  Kinds, species, macroevolution???   I understand kinds as defined in Genesis.  But species I am not so sure about, since it is man made.  Variety within a kind does not fit what I understand to be macroevolution.  Yet I think you are proposing that because within one kind, we can manipulate either by natural selection or forced selection, varieties that can no longer breed with others of it's kind, we have macroevolution.  I have always understood macroevolution to be a jump from one kind to another kind.  Like from fish to amphibian to wolf to bird.  I guess that basic to this discussion is that it is common to use biblical terms with evolutionary science terms, and therefore we try to define apples with oranges if you know what I mean.  So as a creationist I prefer to use the young earth biblical terms of kinds, yet as a modern person in a scientific culture, I must deal with old earth terminology.  This is just very difficult to reconcile.

                Frank




                 

              • ad101867
                ...
                Message 7 of 8 , Jun 2, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In CreationTalk@y..., "Frank Lyons" <flyons@o...> wrote:
                  < My biggest problem with [Chris's] whole post is the definitions.
                  Kinds, species, macroevolution??? I understand kinds as defined in
                  Genesis. >

                  Actually, Frank, with all due respect that is an untrue statement.
                  You believe it to be true, so I have no doubt you're sincere--but it
                  *cannot* be true, for the simple reason that Genesis does *not*
                  actually give a definition of the term "kind." It is a term that
                  signifies categorization, and nothing more. It does *not* signify
                  *how broad* the categorization is.

                  If I understand Chris, he's arguing that the original "kinds" were
                  designed broadly enough to allow for a great variety of rapid
                  speciation--so much variety, in fact, that he feels comfortable using
                  the term "macroevolution." Regardless, the key point is that the
                  term "kind" in Genesis remains undefined, and thus we must be
                  somewhat open-minded when the evolutionist speaks of "change over
                  time."

                  < Variety within a kind does not fit what I understand to be
                  macroevolution. . . . I have always understood macroevolution to be a
                  jump from one kind to another kind. Like from fish to amphibian to
                  wolf to bird. >

                  Chris does not believe in evolution *to that extent*. I think his
                  concern is that we not have a hard-and-fast demarcation line, for the
                  simple reason that Genesis doesn't specify such a line. All Genesis
                  teaches us is that evolutionary change is limited (i.e., we didn't
                  all spring from a common ancestor) and rapid (indicated by the fact
                  that it's a young earth), which rapidity also indicates something
                  about *cause*.

                  I wouldn't worry so much about the term "macroevolution," though; if
                  I'm not mistaken, it's a term made up by creationists to
                  differentiate between *limited change*, as taught in Genesis, and
                  *unlimited change*, as taught by the Scientific Establishment.
                  Therefore if you're having a conversation with an evolutionist, I
                  wouldn't even bother using the term "macroevolution." Use terms
                  they'll understand; you'll make more headway.

                  < So as a creationist I prefer to use the young earth biblical terms
                  of kinds, yet as a modern person in a scientific culture, I must deal
                  with old earth terminology. >

                  I think there's a third and better alternative: speak in terms that
                  describe phenomena we actually know exists. I'm not saying that
                  the "biblical kinds" don't exist; I'm saying that our made-up
                  distinction known as "macroevolution" is just that: a made-up
                  distinction, without basis in either Scripture or science.

                  So if evolutionists define "evolution" as simply "change over time,"
                  as they tend to--then let's grant them that definition. Why?
                  Because it's a definition that actually describes what we know to be
                  true. There *is* change over time. The debate should centre around
                  (i) the *extent* of such change, (ii) the *cause* of such change
                  (i.e., mutations vs. built-in information), and (iii) the *time* it
                  takes for it to occur (c.10,000 years vs millions).

                  Andy
                • Frank Lyons
                  All points well taken, thanks. Frank ... From: ad101867 [mailto:andronicus@shaw.ca] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 12:23 AM To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jun 3, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    All points well taken, thanks. Frank

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: ad101867 [mailto:andronicus@...]
                    Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 12:23 AM
                    To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Evolution; God's Greatest Creation??????


                    --- In CreationTalk@y..., "Frank Lyons" <flyons@o...> wrote:
                    < My biggest problem with [Chris's] whole post is the definitions.
                    Kinds, species, macroevolution??? I understand kinds as defined in
                    Genesis. >

                    Actually, Frank, with all due respect that is an untrue statement.
                    You believe it to be true, so I have no doubt you're sincere--but it
                    *cannot* be true, for the simple reason that Genesis does *not*
                    actually give a definition of the term "kind." It is a term that
                    signifies categorization, and nothing more. It does *not* signify
                    *how broad* the categorization is.

                    If I understand Chris, he's arguing that the original "kinds" were
                    designed broadly enough to allow for a great variety of rapid
                    speciation--so much variety, in fact, that he feels comfortable using
                    the term "macroevolution." Regardless, the key point is that the
                    term "kind" in Genesis remains undefined, and thus we must be
                    somewhat open-minded when the evolutionist speaks of "change over
                    time."

                    < Variety within a kind does not fit what I understand to be
                    macroevolution. . . . I have always understood macroevolution to be a
                    jump from one kind to another kind. Like from fish to amphibian to
                    wolf to bird. >

                    Chris does not believe in evolution *to that extent*. I think his
                    concern is that we not have a hard-and-fast demarcation line, for the
                    simple reason that Genesis doesn't specify such a line. All Genesis
                    teaches us is that evolutionary change is limited (i.e., we didn't
                    all spring from a common ancestor) and rapid (indicated by the fact
                    that it's a young earth), which rapidity also indicates something
                    about *cause*.

                    I wouldn't worry so much about the term "macroevolution," though; if
                    I'm not mistaken, it's a term made up by creationists to
                    differentiate between *limited change*, as taught in Genesis, and
                    *unlimited change*, as taught by the Scientific Establishment.
                    Therefore if you're having a conversation with an evolutionist, I
                    wouldn't even bother using the term "macroevolution." Use terms
                    they'll understand; you'll make more headway.

                    < So as a creationist I prefer to use the young earth biblical terms
                    of kinds, yet as a modern person in a scientific culture, I must deal
                    with old earth terminology. >

                    I think there's a third and better alternative: speak in terms that
                    describe phenomena we actually know exists. I'm not saying that
                    the "biblical kinds" don't exist; I'm saying that our made-up
                    distinction known as "macroevolution" is just that: a made-up
                    distinction, without basis in either Scripture or science.

                    So if evolutionists define "evolution" as simply "change over time,"
                    as they tend to--then let's grant them that definition. Why?
                    Because it's a definition that actually describes what we know to be
                    true. There *is* change over time. The debate should centre around
                    (i) the *extent* of such change, (ii) the *cause* of such change
                    (i.e., mutations vs. built-in information), and (iii) the *time* it
                    takes for it to occur (c.10,000 years vs millions).

                    Andy



                    CreationTalk Discussion Group
                    Creation Science Resource
                    http://nwcreation.net/

                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    CreationTalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.