Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection

Discussions on creation beliefs within Christianity, and topics related to creation.
pat34lee
Recognized Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:27 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Hilliard, Florida
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection

#16

Post by pat34lee » Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:24 pm

RickD wrote: Theophilus, please post the bible verse(s) that shows that the bible says life was created only a few thousand years ago. Please, back up your claim. I want to see where the bible actually says that, not where you read it out of scripture by assuming your young earth belief is true.
I would like to ask the same of anyone who believe in the gap theory or long-age days in Genesis 1.

Ivellious
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:48 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection

#17

Post by Ivellious » Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:29 pm

I would like to ask the same of anyone who believe in the gap theory or long-age days in Genesis 1.
I don't think that's the point. The point is, if you are arguing that the Bible explicitly states that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, you have to have some verse that explicitly says " The Earth was made only a few thousand years ago." You can't just take your interpretation of a verse and say that the Bible is explicitly backing up your point, because other interpretations can be just as valid. I think what Rick was pointing out is that the Bible never actually says that the Earth is young, and theopolis is using an interpretation, not a fact, to back up his argument.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection

#18

Post by neo-x » Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:37 am

Theo, as Ivel pointed out, your view of evolution is quite typical of what usually people hold and naturally wrong. You should look into correcting your views on evolution which you wrongly represent.

How does mutations pass along, how are they selected?

Let me give you an example...in peacocks, females tend to choose peacocks as mates with the largest tail spans. Now, imagine if you have a population of 100 peacocks, 50 males, 50 females, and in the 50 males you have 5 males whose tail spans relatively/marginally longer than the rest, the abnormal odd eggs. Now this is being favored by females his chance to reproduce is greater than the average male, over time the ratio of the peacocks with large tails increase, eventually where they will be producing the most, as more and more peacocks with large tails breed, the resulting offsprings will be carrying larger tails still. The mutations, survived and passed on by natural selection. This first of all is natural selection in action.

Second, what stops the tail of peacock to not grow to greater lengths, what stops it, does the peacock automatically knows where to stop or natural selection just knows where to stop? no. The answer is predators, tigers to be exact. The peacocks with larger tails tend to be more heavy and thus can't jump or run that fast, its easy for the predators to claw them, their large tails being a disadvantage here. So peacocks with larger tails than is needed to successfully evade a predator tend to be killed and their number never increase thus the mutation is kept in check again, as natural selection is acting out.

Another example, the seeds of apple are mildly poisonous. From an evolutionary point of view, this is not because the apple itself thought of introducing poison in its seeds. But there must be one or more than one random mutation where the seeds were mildly poisonous, abnormal apples so to speak. Consider a population of 10 trees of apple, one out of them having poison seeds due to a genetic mutation, abnormality. Animals come and go, eating the apples but as the seeds are not poisonous on nine trees, the animals may eat them too, destroying the seeds in some cases. But after one or two tries at eating the seeds of the poisonous apple, the animal will soon stop eating its seeds, it will adapt itself to only eat the fleshy bits, leaving the poisonous seed intact. Now this is a mutation which has survival benefit. Over time all apples carry poisonous seeds, because they all descended from the one mutated seed which kept on being dispersed and reproduced. The good seeds ratio of success diminishes as its seed gets eaten and destroyed most of the time compared to the poisonous seeds which is left each time, therefore it gets to reproduce more. The most optimal dispersion of the seed is the one with the poison. This is evolution and natural selection at work. This is how mutations are "chosen" by consequence and benefit/advantage.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

pat34lee
Recognized Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:27 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Hilliard, Florida
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection

#19

Post by pat34lee » Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:21 pm

Ivellious wrote:
I would like to ask the same of anyone who believe in the gap theory or long-age days in Genesis 1.
I don't think that's the point. The point is, if you are arguing that the Bible explicitly states that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, you have to have some verse that explicitly says " The Earth was made only a few thousand years ago." You can't just take your interpretation of a verse and say that the Bible is explicitly backing up your point, because other interpretations can be just as valid. I think what Rick was pointing out is that the Bible never actually says that the Earth is young, and theopolis is using an interpretation, not a fact, to back up his argument.
Let's see then, what the bible says about creation.

Genesis 1 gives a fairly straightforward account of the creation week.

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

What was the beginning? 6 days of creation with 7th day rest.

Timeline:
Adam to Noah's flood about 2000 years
flood to Jesus about 2000 years
Jesus to today about 2000 years
6000 years or 6 days
1000 year millennial reign coming soon, then a new heaven and new earth.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection

#20

Post by neo-x » Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:30 pm

I used to believe this but now find it hard to do it.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

Ivellious
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:48 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection

#21

Post by Ivellious » Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:30 pm

But all of that is just one interpretation. Again, where does the Bible say "And the Earth is 6,000 years old"? It doesn't, and you know it. Your "timelines" are not part of the Bible, they are an after-the-fact interpretation of the Bible made by someone named Ussher in the 1600s. Again, the Bible never says that it took 2,000 years to get from Adam to the flood, or 2,000 more to get from the flood to Jesus. And, if you look at archaeological (and just logical) evidence, that kind of timeline is so absurd it's almost comical.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection

#22

Post by neo-x » Sun Oct 06, 2013 12:37 pm

Ivellious wrote:But all of that is just one interpretation. Again, where does the Bible say "And the Earth is 6,000 years old"? It doesn't, and you know it. Your "timelines" are not part of the Bible, they are an after-the-fact interpretation of the Bible made by someone named Ussher in the 1600s. Again, the Bible never says that it took 2,000 years to get from Adam to the flood, or 2,000 more to get from the flood to Jesus. And, if you look at archaeological (and just logical) evidence, that kind of timeline is so absurd it's almost comical.
The timeline is quite a problem but back in the day when I was still yec, i was alright with it because like many others i believed that all dates were wrong on scientific papers.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection

#23

Post by Jac3510 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:09 pm

It's absurd to ask for a timeline, because the Bible was written over the course of fifteen hundred years. If Moses had written, "The earth is x thousand years old," he would have been wrong today since it would now be several thousand years older than when he first penned it. Beyond that, you guys are just being dishonest in your critique here, because while Moses doesn't give a date, he does give several parameters that make certain conclusions impossible. For instance, we can certainly allow for some gaps in Moses' genealogies--indeed, it seems we should--but you can't allow so many as to fit in tens or hundreds of thousands of years. And, of course, if Moses did intend to teach that animals were originally not carnivorous, then evolution is impossible. If he didintend to teach that human and animal death was a result of the Fall (or, for that matter, if Paul read it that way and intended his comments in Rom. 5 to be taken as such), then the whole 'millions of years' scheme necessarily goes out the window. Lastly, if Moses really intended to teach that the world was created in six literal days--which neo has conceded on many occasions is the case--then evolution cannot be squared with Scripture. All we can say on that account is either that evolution is wrong (which is the YEC position) or that the Bible is wrong (which is neo's position).

To write all this off as a matter of "interpretation" is disingenuous at best, because the TE view is just as much an "interpretation." And more, the question is whether or not the interpretation is correct. If we are right in how we read Moses, then the Bible simply cannot be made to support an earth billions of years old. This is a theological and hermeneutical question, NOT a scientific one.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

pat34lee
Recognized Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:27 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Hilliard, Florida
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection

#24

Post by pat34lee » Sun Oct 06, 2013 2:16 pm

Ivellious wrote:But all of that is just one interpretation. Again, where does the Bible say "And the Earth is 6,000 years old"? It doesn't, and you know it. Your "timelines" are not part of the Bible, they are an after-the-fact interpretation of the Bible made by someone named Ussher in the 1600s. Again, the Bible never says that it took 2,000 years to get from Adam to the flood, or 2,000 more to get from the flood to Jesus. And, if you look at archaeological (and just logical) evidence, that kind of timeline is so absurd it's almost comical.
The chronologies are there for the reading, just add the numbers. Archaeological evidence has never proven the bible wrong. In most cases, it confirms what the bible says, even if the archaeologists sometimes misinterpret the evidence. The following are just a few links to examine. If you look for "biblical archaeology" or anything similar, there are many sites that give archaeological proof of biblical times, places and people.

The grain bins that Joseph had built for the 7 year famine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV04chNHt9k

Moses and the missing Pharaoh:
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-decepti ... gypt_Moses

Top 10 biblical discoveries in archaeology:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/c ... chaeology/

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection

#25

Post by neo-x » Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:42 pm

Jac3510 wrote:It's absurd to ask for a timeline, because the Bible was written over the course of fifteen hundred years. If Moses had written, "The earth is x thousand years old," he would have been wrong today since it would now be several thousand years older than when he first penned it. Beyond that, you guys are just being dishonest in your critique here, because while Moses doesn't give a date, he does give several parameters that make certain conclusions impossible. For instance, we can certainly allow for some gaps in Moses' genealogies--indeed, it seems we should--but you can't allow so many as to fit in tens or hundreds of thousands of years. And, of course, if Moses did intend to teach that animals were originally not carnivorous, then evolution is impossible. If he didintend to teach that human and animal death was a result of the Fall (or, for that matter, if Paul read it that way and intended his comments in Rom. 5 to be taken as such), then the whole 'millions of years' scheme necessarily goes out the window. Lastly, if Moses really intended to teach that the world was created in six literal days--which neo has conceded on many occasions is the case--then evolution cannot be squared with Scripture. All we can say on that account is either that evolution is wrong (which is the YEC position) or that the Bible is wrong (which is neo's position).

To write all this off as a matter of "interpretation" is disingenuous at best, because the TE view is just as much an "interpretation." And more, the question is whether or not the interpretation is correct. If we are right in how we read Moses, then the Bible simply cannot be made to support an earth billions of years old. This is a theological and hermeneutical question, NOT a scientific one.
I agree, as I have in the past. There is really very little to no margin available within the bible between YEC and OEC if we are going to be strict about it. My own analysis given the context and content of scriptures is that its YEC, through and through. There is really no middle ground between YEC and evolution, its either one or the other. Evolution can't be squared with Genesis story, anyway you fit it. Evolution disapproves, Literal Adam and eve as first couple, original sin, death and the fall of man. It would be dishonest to say this reconciles with scriptures, it doesn't.

The only point I disagree with Jac is that unlike him, I don't think this is a matter of hermeneutics alone. Its a question of science. More importantly, its a question about whether what we know as true is really true if evidence suggests otherwise. For me that takes precedence, truth must take precedence.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4928
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 203 times
Been liked: 168 times

Re: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection

#26

Post by abelcainsbrother » Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:05 am

When it comes to evolution the evidence they use actually demonstrates that natural selection has no effect on life even when it is able to adapt and survive hostile environments.Take Bacteria it always remains bacteria even after it has adapted and survived a hostile environment.So where is natural selection?
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection

#27

Post by Audie » Sun Sep 28, 2014 7:41 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:When it comes to evolution the evidence they use actually demonstrates that natural selection has no effect on life even when it is able to adapt and survive hostile environments.Take Bacteria it always remains bacteria even after it has adapted and survived a hostile environment.So where is natural selection?

Bacteria are the most successful life form! Possibly some, some time developed into something else,
but there is always a job for bacteria.

Post Reply