AFJ

Vegan, Forgive my lack of citation, but time is a factor today. The things I'm writing to you are easily verifiable online. If you look up the prolonged e.coli experiments--the last I looked--they had passed (if memory serves) over 20,000 generations. Over that time there has been change, but not a fitness increase in the species. One of the papers I read showed that, while the bacteria adapted to antibiotics, and different environments, there was a marked decrease in overall fitness. Specifically, one of the traits that developed was cell wall prolongation. This makes the bacteria more susceptible to poisoning or disease. There were also revertants. As you probably know, that means the bacteria reverted to wild type e.coli--or original phenotypes. So here we have the scientific method being used to observe a real process of "speed evolution." With the starting hypothesis that organisms will evolve (make a directional transition) into completely different kinds of species, the experiment to this point has shown that this doesn't happen. The only defense the believers have is an appeal that we need more time, or there's some process we have missed that we'll find in the future, or that there was another more variable ancestor in the past. All of these could philosophically be considered, but you said we need to discuss it scientifically---that requires scientific methodology as opposed to textbook propagation of circumstantial data, which is used to bolster a here to date unproven theory. Now lets talk about a completely different subject that is observational , and can be confirmed by the scientific method--speciation. Darwin observed long beaked and short beaked finches, and it has since been observed that this is according to climate. I don't remember all the details, but it depends on whether it is wet or day, as to the population shift. When the climate is one way there is only one type, but when a "normal" climate returns, the population reverts to both types. I think anyone can look at a bluejay and a cardinal and agree that they most likely had a common ancestor, because there are only superficial differences, but when you talk about an elephant and a flower, you're talking about an imagined ancestor. The scientific method can not verify this ancestor or even propose to us what kind of an organism this would be. Because when we can't even fix a beneficial trait into e.coli or change it's genotype/phenotype to show some kind of fixed and progressive transition, you expose the fact that "evolution" is a fable for the educated.

The data is undeniable--that many of our founding fathers were followers of Jesus Christ. They were also in a time of Jonathon Whitfield, John and Charles Wesley, and others--this was known as the great awakening. It was a time of great religious revival, and manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit. The universities then were more like seminaries, run by deeply devout Christians. At the same time, a secular movement called the Enlightenment was springing up, which later in the mid and late 1800's took over the universities. Of course, Darwin was the spring board for the university takeover. Once this happened, it was basically over for the creationist view in education. Now we have reaped the erosion of conviction toward God in this country. We sowed the removal of prayer in school, now we are reaping school shootings. We remove God from public, and have all the curses Deuteronomy gives us. Hatred and attack of other countries, sever prolonged national drought, and severe debt. Not to mention, massive H*mos*xual promotion and lust is a sign of the spiritual degradation of many (Romans 1), and the rejection of the God of the scriptures.

Since I'm on a computer that won't let me copy for some reason (any ideas? anti-virus?), I will tell you the sites where you can find. 1) A George Washington prayer; CBN.com "George Washington's Prayer Journal" No doubt a born again Christian. 2)John Adams quote: "Suppose a nation...should take the Bible as it's only law book...what a utopia, what a Paradise would this region be." About.com Christianity: Christian quotes from founding fathers 3)Thomas Jefferson:"...CAN THE LIBERTIES OF A NATION BE THOUGHT SECURE WHEN WE HAVE REMOVED THEIR ONLY FIRM BASIS, A CONVICTION IN THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE THAT THESE LIBERTIES ARE A GIFT OF GOD?...THAT THEY ARE NOT TO BE VIOLATED WITHOUT HIS WRATH. I TREMBLE FOR MY COUNTRY WHEN I REFLECT THAT GOD IS JUST...." 4)Thomas Jefferson: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of JESUS CHRIST." According to the quotes I have seen on the website I cited About.com George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Samuel Adams all make written confessions of their faith in Jesus Christ. Benjamin Franklin makes positive affirmation as to the historical "Jesus of Nazareth" and to the Christian system of morals. James Madison make reference on the judgment to come. And the president of Princeton, when he graduated, Rev. Jonathon Dickson, said the following: "CURSED BE ALL THAT LEARNING THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE CROSS OF CHRIST." Also those who acknowledged Christ, God, or the scriptures are James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, William Penn, and Roger Sherman, who was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. These things speak for themselves, and expose an anti-Christ spirit in America. Not THE anti-Christ, but the spirit of lawlessness that has been working in the world since the apostles time.

Is that what you've read? Are you saying that 14C found in fossils is irrelevant? Or are you saying creationists suspect the methodology of evolutionists? That's not the problem--it's ad hoc interpretations, and suggested scenarios used to fit the data into the geologic timescale. If you can ever get past the textbook diagrams, and find the ACTUAL evidence of evo scenarios, you'll find the evidence is not ubiquitous, but rather it's cherry picked, made into a scenario, chosen by the elite, and propagated in education and media--for a while anyway. Long enough to string us along. Creationist data can be very relevant as a challenge to the conclusions of evolution and geotime, as it many times EXPOSES the presuppositions REQUIRED in order to create evo ad hoc scenarios. But how many times have you seen TV programs (who are not subject to supposed church and state restrictions) that show how sedimentary layers can form quickly in a mud slurry? Or have you seen SEDIMENTARY layers (not metamorphic) that are bent, because they were wet when bent, as opposed to heated afterward? Or have you seen the experiments that show that there is way too much helium in rocks, and how the data matches creationist models? Or how many times have you seen research that shows how radiometric data seemingly contradicts the age of recent historical events? Have you ever seen data that presents alternate theories, with evidence, on the origin of coal? Or have you ever seen a creationist present the reasons why the hundreds of thousands of fossils with soft tissue impressions, and ichnofossils, found in China's limestone, are IMPOSSSIBLE under the standard model of geology? Or have seen a presentation on the implications of radiohaloes in biotite flakes? No, no, no, no, and no! Do you think if children had heard this all of their lives, as they have 24/7 for evolution and geotime, they might now question evolutionary finds a little more?

We need to keep this limited, or start another thread. But I'll give just one example and show an ignored fact, and an example of how worldview plays into conclusions. DNA--cited as an example of evolution. Homologous portions cited as evidence of common ancestry. 1)The biggest problem with DNA for evolution is it's origin. There are nine known enzymes required in the replication process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication#DNA_replication_proteins All of these are encoded on the DNA and must be expressed through the transcription/translation process. The ignored fact is you have a chicken or egg problem--which was first--the enzymes or the DNA? How did DNA replicate unless first transcribing and translating these enzymes? Unless you want to say that both somehow co-evolved in the supposed RNA world (for which their "remains" no evidence). But we have no proof of this ability--we only have self replicating RNA and lately the "spontaneous" en vitro processing of RNA molecules. This is like saying because we can make a wheel, we can travel at the speed of light. The ignored fact is you've got another problem--How do you translate these enzymes without a ribosome? You see, ribosomes are also encoded on the DNA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosomal_DNA So the template for the ribosome is on the DNA, but you have no ribosome to translate the first ribosome. Looks like we've hit an impass!! 2) As an example of worldview, or how your scientific presuppositions affect your conclusions, it very easy to see. In the following you will see how neither scientist saw the process of origin, but use their belief on origins as a starting assumption in reaching their conclusions. Both the evolutionist and the creationist have the same evidence, but different conclusions on the homologous portions of DNA. An evolutionist concludes common ancestry of ALL SPECIES is the reason. The creationist allows common ancestry but only within baraminic limits. That is within a "kind" of organism. But the creationist says the reason for the homologous sequencing is that each species uses similar proteins. Proteins are chemical, and have binding sites, so they have limits in the variations of their sequencing. So with the same data the evolutionist says common ancestry, because of his acceptance of evolution, which he did not see. But the creationist says common design, because of his acceptance of creative fiat, which he did not see. Neither saw the process of origin, but use their belief on origins as a starting assumption in reaching their conclusions. 3) In answer to the argument that creationists are using religion as part of their scientific presuppositions I would say this. "Religion" is a word that is perched and ready for semantically based arguments within our culture. First, "religion" is a very broad, general word that can be broken down into subset, so a shell game of definition can be used in arguments. Second, it's a word that plays on the prejudice of many people. Third, it's a word that was used as a legal argument for the allowance of the teaching of evolution and the expulsion of creationism in the classroom. One of the subsets is that "religion" is based on faith in certain documents--that they are historical. Do evolutionist hold their documents i.e. Origin of Species, as an accurate rendering on the actual history of the species? Yes, though they neither saw the origin of species, nor the history of the world. Second, could religious texts be historical? The answer is yes. Third, can history falsify science? Yes. An example is the findings of the RATE team finding pieces of a lava dome formed within documented history to be over a million years old, using radiometric dating (by using the same services that any geologist would use). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v10/n3/argon

If evolution is true, then I should not only have not only vestiges of my ancestors, but developing organs. Where are my "buds" if I am evolving into an angel for instance? Just saying. Yes death is spiritual death (separation from God), but it is also physical death. For that reason there will be a resurrection.

In my opinion, many people don't understand that the progressive plan of God laid in the Biblical texts was very LEGAL. That is, as God is just, and a lawgiver, He does and will operate according to His own attributes. God is just, so he must have a just means of carrying out his will. Now, the problem was sin and death in the beginning. The most important aspect of Genesis in reference to our understanding of the LEGAL means of the gospel is DEATH. Death was the penalty for sin. And from the beginning, God substituted the blood of animals for the life of man. But Hebrews in the New Testament teaches that it was not possible for the blood of goats and calves to remove sin permanently. Hence the plan of God led to Christ--the spotless Lamb, who gave his own sinless blood in payment for the sin of man. Evolution implies that death was not a result of sin, by teaching that death began as a NATURAL occurrence of life, long before the creation story. Even those theistic evolutionists who mix the Bible with evolution must come up with baseless stories about death, Adam's parents, the original act of sin, etc. All of those theories can not be defined as LEGAL, because they are not based on justice, nor do they attempt to exemplify justice. When you say death occurred as a natural result of the end of life, you remove the problem that God says we have. You make a mockery of God's justice by replacing it with a "moral story." You make the work of Christ meaningless, or at least block the understanding of the gravity of what He did for us. So overall, it removes the foundation of God's justice. And concerning science, when I consider the REBUTTAL of evolution by creationist scientists--and many are qualified working scientists in various disciplines, and science people--some of which I have gone to church with--like chemical engineers, science teachers, doctors, geologists, botanists, and veterinarians, I see that many are critiquing evolution, though they are not in a scientific journal--it shows me that evolution IS being critiqued on scientific merit. The claim that evolution is pure science is not agreed on, and the opposition does a good job of exposing it's flaws. And by "flaws," I don't mean "gaps" of knowledge. I mean the looked over facts, ignored research, continued false diagrams, and many assumptions found in scientific literature which are then used as precedents. So I really have no problem with seeing the naturalistic underpinnings which cause the evolutionists to reach their conclusions.

Man can't do away with the remnants of sin. Read Romans 6-8. Sin is in the flesh--that's why our spirit is redeemed i.e. we're made alive in Christ, but our bodies will still die. We'll receive an eternal spiritual body at the resurrection. Then all things will be perfect. Using your reasoning, if I have a cold, I must be punished. The Bible teaches the only cure for sin is accepting the sacrifice for sin--which Christ your Savior.

Then are you saying the TOE has no moral impact on a person's conscience? The TOE brings implications on our NATURE. Who we are, and our purpose on this earth. It is a confirmation to atheists that life originated by natural means. Therefore, the morals that we have are according to our own judgment. It is only individuals who decide. Evolution offers no morality, and in fact tells us we are biological happenstances. Therefore, if I kill, who will judge that to be wrong, especially if I have the power to do so. Or if I "guide" evolution (or I think to do so) by eugenics, who will tell me I am wrong, especially if I have the power to do so. If I am breeding humans, they are just more intelligent animals. At least that's what evolution IMPLIES! Christianity, on the other hand, explicitly states that man was created in the image of God, and therefore all human life is a SPECIAL life. There are penalties for taking that life, or abusing that life--which is given to us by God. There IS a moral code that IS to be obeyed. So how in the world would you get eugenics from that context if you are intellectually honest?

Hi Megan. Long time no see. You've made some good points as far as the TOE is concerned--but... lol. I bolded a portion in your post--it seems to me that natural disasters would fall under genetic drift, rather than the fitness/unfitness of prolonged continuous evolution. As I'm sure you know, genetic drift is based on random events that cause a diversion in the genetic line. A catastrophe can cause population bottlenecks, which changes the allele frequency in certain directions. I'd like to leave a link, but I have windows 8 on this comp--and have no idea how to copy a site's address. Do you know how? I think there's an issue of functional fitness in selective breeding that's not based exclusively on human opinion. For instance, I remember reading (since I don't how to link using windows 8) articles on the long term experiments done on e.coli, and their antibiotic resistance. One of the traits that developed (as a cost) is their cell walls thinned and elongated. This brought their fitness level down as a whole, because in a wild type environment, they would be more vulnerable. I understand your point about environment. But in the TOE worldview, at least while life has been on earth, the environment has been relatively similar--barring natural disasters and temperature. We have supposedly had a similar atmosphere, ocean, sun, elements, plants, bacteria, and animals. If this was not the case, then we would not find living fossils, or find extinct species that are very similar to current species. So, I think, though the environment is always a factor in fitness, there are overall negative fitness factors and overall positive fitness factors that help increase certain genotypes in the next generation. For instance, in humans--it's commonly known that athletically built people are generally more dominant physically--this helps them in in issue of competition. This is a guiding factor in reproduction. Smarter people are able to make more money, and compete better in acquiring resources. This is also a guiding factor. On the other hand, crippled, or retarded people would not be able to compete. Weaker, or less intelligent people are not going to acquire resources as well in a natural setting. It just so happens that our society helps the weak, so MORALITY does come into play in their reproduction. But in a more warlike, or natural setting, the stronger would tend to survive and acquire more resources from the environment. This would cause their allele frequencies to increase over the weaker. So in Hitler's case, he used eugenics to create a more fit race. One that would rule the world, because they were smarter and stronger. He failed to do so because he wasn't able to kill off the rest of the strong. Thank God for the MORALS that evolution knows nothing about.

Wouldn't a better word for "logically," have been "understandably?" And perhaps "motivation," rather than "personal value?" Hitler was motivated to have an Arian race, so he used selective breeding (evolution) in humans --eugenics. Many church leaders in the dark ages were motivated by power, so they formed the Inquisition to squelch dissenters. In both cases the people were motivated toward evil. There was no personal values there, except selfishness, and I don't think that qualifies as a personal value.

Adam, I think that any kind of reasoning remains in the realm of "the natural." I don't mean to divert, but reasoning in the realm of REVELATION requires a supernatural intervention. "No man can SEE the kingdom of God, unless he be born again." So then marmalade is wrong by ignorance of revelation. If there is no revelation, then God REMAINS an intellectual debate in the mind of natural man. But when the Spirit of God touches a heart, there is is an instrument--the spirit--which can decipher His presence and power. So really, the things of God are outside the realm of science--BUT NOT THE REALM OF TRUTH. That means that science can never find all truth. So then, if our origin is supernatural, science will make a wrong rendering on it, because it confined by it's own tenants to the natural world.

Think about what your saying. You would have to produce an entirely different ecology based on another chemical system, or several chemical systems. So would we expect a parallel chemical system in one animal--one that bases itself on silicon instead of carbon? Both of them have a valency of 4, but you should know why that wouldn't work. Both of them combine with oxygen, so why wouldn't that work? Well silicon and oxygen form silicate and crystallize into inanimate rock. Whereas carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen form all sorts of organic molecules, from proteins to lipids. Each biochemical system would be either poisonous, or of no good to the other. How would a silicon based animal eat a carbon based animal? How would the silicon based animal fair in our atmosphere, and what would it exhale? It's pure fantasy to think such things, because it is non-existent, and unobservable, which is not science. Therefore there is no other chemical system available to DISPROVE UCD. So these professors who imply that there could actually be another organic biochemistry, are tickling your ears. It's called mental manipulation by feeding you lies. SAD, SAD.

I've seen other debates where both sides are actually scientists. One is a creationist though, and one an evolutionist. When things like telephones are brought into the conversation, the first response is that telephones do not reproduce. I actually marvel at such a statement coming from an intelligent person. When you look at the utter micro-complexity of meiosis, and cell division, it is absolutely amazing that someone could believe it just happened from a long series of mutations. The spindle mechanism grabbing the dividing chromosomes, and getting it right at the right time is beyond anything anyone could imagine.

Megan, I hear you asking how all that sediment could cover the continents. Yes, your worldview is the difference--it is reality to you, so the same evidence could come up, and we will interpret it differently. If you don't believe in a supernatural God, then you are limited to a natural mind. There is no place for God's intervention or miracles. You will say, I have never seen one, so how can I believe. Two things, first you are standing on a miracle--the earth. And you believe this miracle started naturally. I know the belief that it started from an accumulation of asteroids, but there is no where in the asteroid belt where such a thing is occurring. I don't want to deviate from the thread, so I'll leave that first point with this. They tell us asteroids can come together and form a planet, but no way water can come up from the Earth. Okay. yours has no proof, nor any scientific example to show it is possible , But mine has corroborating written testimony, evidence of it's aftermath, and Almighty God at the helm. Two, the nature of a miracle is that it leaves empirical proof, without an empirical cause. That is the nature of faith, There are evidential results, but not NECESSARILY an evidential cause. For instance, when Christ healed, there was proof of the result, but no physical explanation. I have told you that I believe in miracles and have seen supernatural results. Many Christians, if they have served the Lord for any time at all, will be able to testify of the Lord's intervention, providence, protection, or outright work of healing, etc., If you do not allow the Lord to do this for you yourself, and show you that he is real, then you will never believe in the flood either. If you are wrong about the flood then you are wrong about the God who made you.