If Evolution

[6days]

No you fool. We've been talking about neutral mutations.

Greg, rather than respond with anger, try logic and reason. (And, try reading replies to yourself a little slower). Yes we were talking about neutral mutations and that is exactly what I said in the post you replied to. "you were trying to prove that there was such a thing as a neutral mutation."

It doesn't matter if a fin is gained or lost.

it might matter to Barbarian? After all he was the one embarassed, trying to defend your claim that mutations had given the shark an extra fin.

I'll post the quote and link here again to prove you a liar:
"The research team is also examining the effects of radiation on other animals and plants both on the atoll and in the surrounding seas. Palumbi said nurse sharks with only one dorsal fin, instead of two, have been spotted, possible evidence of mutations caused by radiation exposure."

Yes..... remember you are discussing , or trying to prove that neutral mutations exist. I think the teacher who used that as an example for you, wasn't qualified. Where is there anything in that article about neutral Mutations?


If a mutation causes a shark to lose a fin it is certainly NOT a neutral mutation, even if it could be determined that there is no apparent adverse effect.

 

[Derf]

As you've noticed, I can't always reply too quickly. Thanks for your patience, Jose.

Not at all. The Barbarian simply noted that evolution doesn't always have to produce increased complexity. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.


How about we let Barbarian speak for himself?


Can you quote from the article where it says that?

Read your quote from it. They were expecting a certain result because of the environment. The experimenters were trying to reproduce a previous result already seen. Reproducibility of a particular result is not a normal feature of a random process, unless someone programmed that particular response, OR unless the number of responses are limited to what will happen by chance in a short amount of time.

If the former, it answers your next question. If the latter, it hardly qualifies for something that is of much use in discussions about evolution between species or higher categories.

Really? You directly observe God creating organisms with pre-programmed abilities? Where? And how?

But that wasn't what I said. I said:

Adaptability is a design trait that exhibits foresight on the part of the designer.

And it is something we observe regularly--anytime an object designed to be adaptable adapts. Like an umbrella adapts between an open and a closed position. Are you saying we can't assume that such was designed that way?

It's just something I thought would be logical. If someone believes God created organisms with the ability to adapt, it shouldn't be that difficult to also believe God created molecules with the ability to self-organize. After all, we observe both. But I guess if you disagree and believe that self-organization of molecules didn't come from God, that's fine too.

Why is it relevant? I assume because you think that one came from the other, thus you seem glad to join in on the conversation about the origin of life, despite your assertion that:

It's called "moving the goalposts" and it's a very common tactic among creationists. You started off by challenging whether we'd observed organisms increasing in complexity, but once that challenge was met you quickly pivoted to "you still don't know how the first life began".

If creationists want to stop arguing against evolution and start believing that God created life with the ability to evolve, I'm good with that.

I don't think there are very many creationists that disagree with the idea that God created life with the ability to "change frequency of alleles in a population", within limits.

That makes no sense at all.

Read it again. It makes perfect sense to say that an organism that loses complexity had to have that complexity before it lost it. And the organism that it came from also had to have that complexity, if the method of evolving is primarily one of loss of complexity. I know you are challenging that view, but if that is the modus operandi of the types of evolution we normally observe, it can't be extrapolated to say that gains in complexity are also normal--which is a regular tactic of evolutionists.

That's basically theistic evolution, which I have no problem with.

I'm glad to hear that. It means that you agree that the most complex organism was the first one created, and everything else has been downhill from there.

Now, shall we talk about the first organism created?

 

[Jose Fly]

As you've noticed, I can't always reply too quickly. Thanks for your patience, Jose.

I'm in no hurry.

Read your quote from it. They were expecting a certain result because of the environment. The experimenters were trying to reproduce a previous result already seen. Reproducibility of a particular result is not a normal feature of a random process, unless someone programmed that particular response, OR unless the number of responses are limited to what will happen by chance in a short amount of time.

It seems you've misunderstood the experiment. The researchers were not trying to reproduce an earlier experiment. Instead, they noted that previous experimental research only explored the evolution of specific components of multicellularity and/or the specific conditions that lead to it. Here's how they put it...

"However, previous work has not systematically examined the de novo evolution of cellular clusters and their subsequent multicellular evolution. Here we use experimental evolution to directly explore the evolution of early multicellularity, focusing on the mode of cluster formation (postdivision adhesion vs. aggregation), the shift from single-cell to cluster-level selection, and the evolution of among-cell division of labor."

So no, this was not merely replication of previous work.

If the latter, it hardly qualifies for something that is of much use in discussions about evolution between species or higher categories.

Seriously? The evolutionary transition from single-celled organisms to multicelluar ones isn't "of much use" and doesn't involve "higher categories"?

What exactly do you think is a "higher category"?

But that wasn't what I said. I said: And it is something we observe regularly--anytime an object designed to be adaptable adapts. Like an umbrella adapts between an open and a closed position. Are you saying we can't assume that such was designed that way?

Oh, I thought we were discussing living organisms. Apparently you were talking about things people make.

Why is it relevant? I assume because you think that one came from the other, thus you seem glad to join in on the conversation about the origin of life, despite your assertion

Um, you were the one who brought up the origin of the first life.

I don't think there are very many creationists that disagree with the idea that God created life with the ability to "change frequency of alleles in a population", within limits.

Within limits? What limits? And why would God create life with the ability to evolve, but then limit that ability?

It makes perfect sense to say that an organism that loses complexity had to have that complexity before it lost it. And the organism that it came from also had to have that complexity, if the method of evolving is primarily one of loss of complexity.

Well there's your fundamental error. You're assuming that "the method of evolving is primarily one of loss of complexity". That's simply wrong.

I'm glad to hear that. It means that you agree that the most complex organism was the first one created, and everything else has been downhill from there.

Um......no....not sure where you got that from. From my understanding, theistic evolution basically accepts the scientific understanding of the history of life on earth (universal common ancestry from simple single-celled organisms ~4 billion years ago), but just adds a layer of "God guided/set up the process".

Now, shall we talk about the first organism created?

What about it?

 

[Greg Jennings]

If a mutation causes a shark to lose a fin it is certainly NOT a neutral mutation, even if it could be determined that there is no apparent adverse effect.

Thank you for finally answering.

There is no effect, and therefore the mutation is neutral. Glad we can agree there.

That's what I learned from schooling. I have no clue what you and Barbarian are going on about. Im afraid I only pay attention to my own conversations here, with rare exception. I'm talking with you about the existence of neutral mutations. And I have shown you one in real time.

If you disagree that a fin loss without positive or adverse effect on the animal IS NOT neutral, then you're wrong.

 

[Stripe]

That stuff is in the Bible.

Then you'll be able to show the verses.

That is the interpretation approach called “it’s literal or it’s a lie.&#8221

Nope.

It might be figurative. You just have to tell us what it means and give good reason for your implied assertion that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.

The cartoon description you have is not in the Bible, therefore it is no good reason.

Don’t stick with that. It makes Christians look like idiots and it turns people away from the gospel.

Good. :up:

 

[2003cobra]

You must have a headache when the weather reporter tells you the sun will rise in the East at 7AM. Do you always have discernment problems?

If you choose not to see your error, then you will continue in your error.

So, state clearly, did Jesus, at the Last Supper, give the Apostles cups of blood and pieces of His flesh, or was that a symbolic statement?

If you declare those words to be figurative, then your declaration that we should accept the Lord’s word “as it is” is hypocrisy.

Pretending otherwise will not change the facts or erase your hypocrisy.

 

[2003cobra]

Then you'll be able to show the verses.

Nope.

It might be figurative. You just have to tell us what it means and give good reason for your implied assertion that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.

The cartoon description you have is not in the Bible, therefore it is no good reason.



Good. :up:

I have given good reason from the Bible why the six days don’t mean what they say. The second creation story, which starts in Genesis 2.4b, gives a different order and method of creation. But you deny what the text says.

As for the firmament, from the KJV:
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day...And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

A firmament with waters above and below.

And the sun, moon, and stars were set in the firmament, like jewels are set on a crown.

It is right there in the Bible. It is not literal.

 

[Stripe]

I have given good reason from the Bible why the six days don’t mean what they say.

Not really. If it was good reason, we might be convinced.

Pointing out contradictions in the Bible doesn't lead to the idea that it is figurative; it leads to the idea that it is wrong.

And you don't give any reason for the figurative approach. What does it all mean if it doesn't mean what it plainly says?

As for the firmament, from the KJV:
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters.

Where were the waters?

 

[The Barbarian]

Not really. If it was good reason, we might be convinced.

Pointing out contradictions in the Bible doesn't lead to the idea that it is figurative; it leads to the idea that it is wrong.

No, Stipe, it indicates that you are wrong. These things are contradictions only if you impose your modern revisions on scripture.

And you don't give any reason for the figurative approach. What does it all mean if it doesn't mean what it plainly says?

Where were the waters?

According to you, the waters were above a big metal dome over the earth, with windows in it, from which the water could fall.

Do you see why Christians don't see stuff like that as literal? If you accepted what it plainly says, you'd realize that a much of Genesis is figurative.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, Stipe, it indicates that you are wrong. These things are contradictions only if you impose your modern revisions on scripture.



According to you, the waters were above a big metal dome over the earth, with windows in it, from which the water could fall.

Do you see why Christians don't see stuff like that as literal? If you accepted what it plainly says, you'd realize that a much of Genesis is figurative.

Still waiting for what the supposedly figurative language of Genesis is supposed to mean.

If everything in the creation week is figurative, then what does each figurative object mean or represent?

 

[Stripe]

No, Stipe, it indicates that you are wrong.

Behold! Blablabarian hath spoken!

These things are contradictions only if you impose your modern revisions on scripture.

The Bible says "six days." You say billions of years.

According to you, the waters were above a big metal dome over the earth, with windows in it, from which the water could fall.

Nope. Try again. Where does the Bible say the waters were?

Do you see why Christians don't see stuff like that as literal?

Because it's historical narrative.

If you accepted what it plainly says, you'd realize that a much of Genesis is figurative.

But you won't tell us what the figurative stuff means. You just declare it so and tear the heart and soul out of the text.

Man up. If it doesn't mean what it plainly says, what does it mean?

 

[The Barbarian]

Still waiting for what the supposedly figurative language of Genesis is supposed to mean.

The original two people given immortal souls by God, disobeyed Him and so lost their innocence and became separated from Him.

If everything in the creation week is figurative,

You think there can't be a parable about real things and people? How so?

then what does each figurative object mean or represent?

What things would you like to talk about?

 

[JudgeRightly]

The original two people given immortal souls by God, disobeyed Him and so lost their innocence and became separated from Him.

Which is exactly what the Bible says happened, quite literally.

But you say that's just a figure of speech, so what does that figure of speech, that "the original two people given immortal souls by God, disobeyed Him and so lost their innocence and became separated from Him"?

You think there can't be a parable about real things and people? How so?

Where's the parable?

What things would you like to talk about?

Let's start with Genesis 1:1. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

If that is a figure of speech, then what does that figure of speech mean?

 

[The Barbarian]

Behold! Blablabarian hath spoken!

The Bible says "six days." You say billions of years.

Barbarian observes:
According to you, the waters were above a big metal dome over the earth, with windows in it, from which the water could fall.

Nope.

Young Earth Creationists have interpreted the "waters above the firmament" as a theoretical "water canopy" which once surrounded the Earth but no longer exists. They cite this as their source for the waters of Noah's flood. This is incorrect, and a concept that does not exactly hold water (pun intended) when closely examined within the literal framework of the Genesis narrative. The reason is because of what is said in this passage:

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
(Genesis 1:14-16 KJV)

This verse says that the Sun, Moon, and Stars are "in" the firmament. Therefore, applying the rules of grammar and logic, those waters that are "above the firmament" must be above the Sun, Moon and Stars. That means these waters are above the visible cosmos. For some this is a hard pill to swallow, but that is exactly what the Bible is saying.
http://www.kjvbible.org/firmament.html

Gen. 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Try again. Where does the Bible say the waters were?

Above the earth. Held back by a solid firmament that had gates in it for water to fall from.

But you won't tell us what the figurative stuff means.

I'm not the only one who's shown you, Stipe. For example, the "Yom" which you reinterpret to be literal days, were known by Christians over a thousand years before Darwin, to be categories of creation. You've just declared it to be literal and so tear the heart and soul out of the text.

The text quite plainly tells you that it's not literal.

 

[The Barbarian]

Which is exactly what the Bible says happened, quite literally.

As you know, much of Genesis is not literal. That doesn't mean all of it is figurative.

But you say that's just a figure of speech, so what does that figure of speech, that "the original two people given immortal souls by God, disobeyed Him and so lost their innocence and became separated from Him"?

Why does God give us parables? You seem to be arguing that if He uses figurative verses, they must be false. How can you reconcile that with faith in God?

Let's start with Genesis 1:1. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

If that is a figure of speech, then what does that figure of speech mean?

The only difficulty you have with that is you don't like the way He did it. What else bothers you?

 

[JudgeRightly]

QUOTE=Stripe;5188066]Behold! Blablabarian hath spoken!

The Bible says "six days." You say billions of years.

Barbarian observes:
According to you, the waters were above a big metal dome over the earth, with windows in it, from which the water could fall.

Young Earth Creationists have interpreted the "waters above the firmament" as a theoretical "water canopy" which once surrounded the Earth but no longer exists. They cite this as their source for the waters of Noah's flood. This is incorrect, and a concept that does not exactly hold water (pun intended) when closely examined within the literal framework of the Genesis narrative.

And guess what, SURPRISE SURPRISE! Science is showing that that position is INCOMPATIBLE WITH REALITY.

There is a new theory on the block, it's called the Hydroplate theory, which states that the "firmament of the heavens" (or more accurately, the expanse (raqia can be translated as both) of the heavens) is NOT the same as the "firmament," which is referring not to the sky, but to the crust of the earth.

Maybe you should do some investigating into the Hydroplate theory.

The reason is because of what is said in this passage:

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
(Genesis 1:14-16 KJV)

This verse says that the Sun, Moon, and Stars are "in" the firmament. Therefore, applying the rules of grammar and logic, those waters that are "above the firmament" must be above the Sun, Moon and Stars. That means these waters are above the visible cosmos. For some this is a hard pill to swallow, but that is exactly what the Bible is saying.

http://www.kjvbible.org/firmament.html

Gen. 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Interestingly enough, I don't hold to the canopy theory, I hold to the Hydroplate theory, until it can be invalidated (in part or fully), or even more so as it's predictions are confirmed.

The Hydroplate theory fits with what is said in those two passages.

Above the earth. Held back by a solid firmament that had gates in it for water to fall from.

"Fountains of the great deep" means "above the earth?"

Pretty sure "deep" has the connotation of depth, down, below, etc., which is something that the Hydroplate theory takes advantage of.

I'm not the only one who's shown you, Stripe.

As someone who has been paying attention to this thread for a while, I haven't seen anyone yet explain what the supposedly figurative language in Genesis is supposed to mean. "Anti-literalists" (yourself and Jose included) have only said "It must be figurative or it's contradictory!" but never gave any details.

If you have, could you please give me some post numbers where you have explained what those supposed figures of speech are supposed to mean?

For example, the "Yom" which you reinterpret to be literal days, were known by Christians over a thousand years before Darwin, to be categories of creation.

The meaning of Yom is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS understood by the CONTEXT it is used in. Sometimes it can mean literal days, and other times it can mean part of a day, and even other times, it can mean a large number of days.

Yet EACH TIME it is clearly understood BY THE CONTEXT IT IS IN.

You've just declared it to be literal and so tear the heart and soul out of the text.

The word "YOM" is a literal word that can be used figuratively to describe larger or smaller periods of time than 24 hours. How this is determined is ALWAYS BY CONTEXT.

When you rip verses out of context, it's very easy to change the meaning of any word or phrase to whatever you want it to mean.

The text quite plainly tells you that it's not literal.

The CONTEXT plainly says "in six days," "the evening and the morning were the first/second/third/fourth/fifth/sixth/seventh day."

OTHER CONTEXTS can and do have different meanings. But the way "yom" is used in Genesis 1 And Exodus 20:11 is to describe a literal 7 24-hour day week.

 

[JudgeRightly]

As you know, much of Genesis is not literal. That doesn't mean all of it is figurative.

I'm not denying that there are figures of speech used in Genesis.

My issue is that you seem to be saying that it's mostly figurative, with very little in the way of literal events.

So let's see if we can determine which parts of Genesis are figurative and which parts are literal, starting with Genesis 1. Perhaps you could respond to my final question in my post you quoted in the response I'm replying to.

Why does God give us parables?

What do parables have to do with saying that Genesis is mostly figurative language?

Parables are simple stories used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson.
Figures of speech are words or phrases used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect.

Or are you now saying that most of Genesis is written in parable?

You seem to be arguing that if He uses figurative verses, they must be false.

Nope. I'm arguing that attempting to interpret something as a figure of speech (or parable) when it's not is bad exegesis, and can really mess up your theology. Figures of speech have meaning. When you say something is a figure of speech, then it should have some kind of meaning behind it.

How can you reconcile that with faith in God?

[Since this question depended on the previous statement being true, I hope you don't mind if I ignore it since it's not true.]

The only difficulty you have with that is you don't like the way He did it.

What makes you think I'm having difficulty with how God says He did it (in 6 literal 24 hour days)?

So if God didn't create the heavens, the earth, the seas, and all that is within them in six (6) literal 24-hour days, How did He create it?

I actually like the way he describes the process in Genesis 1 and 2. It's very informative.

What else bothers you?

Aside from the fact that you didn't actually answer my question?

Could we agree, if someone asks a question, to at least be courteous enough to answer the question, even if it's with "I don't know"?

 

[6days]

Behold! Blablabarian hath spoken!

I wonder if he thinks he is a self made man...and that is the 'creator' he worships.

 

[Stripe]

Where does the Bible say the waters were?

Above the earth.

Nope.

One would think you'd learn after being so embarrassed over the same question in the past.

Genesis 1:1-‬2
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
​

There's the water on the Earth. But Blablabarian says it was flying in the sky. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

I wonder if he thinks he is a self made man...and that is the 'creator' he worships.

He's definitely not in this for what the Bible says.