No, I think it was allowed to happen after The Fall. Remember, if all was good before, what use entropy?
If God created...
- Thread starter User Name
- Start date
No, I think it was allowed to happen after The Fall. Remember, if all was good before, what use entropy?
Indeed! Eve reached up to pluck an apple in a world without entropy. How would that be possible?
Stuart
6days
New member
I understand why you want Christianity to be worse than atheism for atrocities Stuu. People who use either religion to justify atrocities is of course sin. But in any case, your answer is wrong and not supported by history. Militant atheism flying under the banner of communistic regimes has killed over 100 million people in the past 100 years. http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder
6days
New member
Stuu.... I understand why you don't want to admit the Nazi's used Darwinism to justify killing people they deemed unfit.
6days
New member
Very simple... Read Genesis.
We too sometimes know what is correct, but reject doing what we know a Holy God would want us to. Its called sin.
God provides a remedy for our sin... Read the Gospel of John
6days
New member
Yes Stuu... You are getting it. Sometimes those creatures such as us humans (All primates actually) are not able to rapidly adapt, so we suffer from the downhill processes of 'evolution' / entropy. Our genome continues to accumulate VSDM's which lead to increasing genetic problems to humans over time. This is totally consistent with God's Word... And not at all consistent with the fish to philosopher belief system. (So secular geneticists create various models trying to make the evidence fit evolutionary time lines,,, additive model, synergistic epistasis, multiplicative model)
I don't think you do understand. You believe that artificially selecting groups of people to be murdered is somehow the same as Darwinian adaptation by natural selection to fitness for survival and reproduction in the environment.
Whereas, I am refuting your claim because those two things are completely different. If any Nazi did attempt to relate the two, then it wouldn't have been a successful use of Darwin's theory, it would have been a misuse.
Stuart
No, you have that last part wrong. The word you are looking for is extinction. Evolution is the slow adaptation over time, and entropy is a thermodynamic term used to describe the dispersion of matter and energy in the universe as time proceeds, which is the reason anything happens at all, which is why I asked you if your god had invented entropy, because Eve would not have been able to reach up for the apple without increasing the entropy of the universe overall. So, did entropy exist before the fictional event you call 'the fall'? And if it didn't, then how was any of the serpent-based fictional narrative possible at all?
I don't think you have taken the effect of population into account.
Don't tell me... there are verses on the Nearly Neutral theory of molecular evolution in scripture. How unexpected.
Who believes that a fish became a philosopher?
Wow, those are big words. Do you know what any of them mean?
You know full well, of course, that any pseudoscience like Young Earth Creationism (for that is the one we are considering) will look for individual data points that fall well away from the trend then use those to support its claims, while ignoring the trend and ignoring all the trends of other branches of science that entirely disprove the claims also. Real scientists are trying to model all of the data, no matter how inconvenient it might be to their pet hypotheses. Models that fail the test of evidence die. Young earth creationism has failed so many evidence tests that it has been in the zombie category for decades now.
Stuart
6days
New member
That isn't what I believed..... It is what the Nazi's believed. They taught that humanity had transgressed the law natural selection. The Nazi's taught that humanity had supported inferior life forms (gypsies, hereditarily sick people, Jews and even people in ramshackle houses) and encouraged their propagation.
The Nazi's mirrored Darwin's statement "I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit.... The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."
Darwins statement encouraged others such as Thomas Huxley to say things such as "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man...."
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-modern-racism/
6days
New member
Entropy is introduced to creation in Genesis. Salvation is discussed in John.
6days
New member
Stuu said:
Ok.... Sure! Observational evolution is a process that leads to extinction. Geneticists are puzzled how it is that if evolutionary time frames are correct that we have not gone extinct. For example back in 1995, Kondrashov in Theoretical Biology wrote an article where part of the title is ' why have we not died 100 times over'.
Interesting that back in '95 Kondrashov had no idea how serious the dilema was, yet he still realized the data did not fit his millions of years beliefs. (He didn't realize / consider that the non coding DNA to be functional which makes his dilemna worse).
The problem for you is that adaptation and speciation can happen in just a few generations. Adaptation is possible because of pre-existing genetic info and mechanisms. And the process generally leads to a loss of fitness compared to parent populations. For example island and coral populations are very highly adapted to their environment but they are endangered and often unable to survive slight environmental change.Stuu said:
What evolutionists have to hope for is that if they add enough time, that 'evolution' goes in a uphill direction... the exact opposite of observational science.
Stuu said:
That is one definition. I think by the context I used the word, you likely realized it meant "Entropy is defined as a state of disorder or decline into disorder." (A good creation subjected to pain, suffering, death, weeds, mutations)
http://www.yourdictionary.com/entropy#v6PMKd5DBJ50WA2Z.03
Population doesn't help you when we have such a low reproductive rate and a very high mutation rate. Selection does not help you either, when 150+ new mutations are added to our genome with each successive generation.Stuu said:
You shouldn't be surprised those exact words are not in scripture Stuu. That terminology is very recent.Stuu said:
What I said, and is correct is that observational science is totally consistent with God's Word.
Stuu said:
Evolutionists believe that a frog (or similar) can evolve into a handsome prince if you give it enough mutations, and add "Once upon a time... long, long ago..."
Stuu said:
Yes... they are big words evolutionists use trying to rationalize evidence with their beliefs. I can try help you understand those words if you wish. (Basically though they are proposed models that contradict each other)
Haha.... Even though some evolutionists (geneticists) have created models to try make evidence fit their beliefs; they are still 'real scientists'. Are you familiar with the 'no true scientist' fallacy?Stuu said:
It is an exciting time for Christians and biblical creationists as science helps confirm the truth of God's Word.
Lon
Well-known member
Looking at all data without tunnel-vision often helps. I try and keep the broader perspective open lest I'm merely confirming bias of mine or another's.
You are too easily excited.
You are too seduced by un-provable "science"
Yeah, some creation eh, if over 99.9% of all species that ever existed have gone extinct. But there is no reason to think we aren't on the path to extinction ourselves. Even if our environment put no selection pressures on us we would still change significantly in the next million years, by generic drift alone.
By the way, what is observational evolution? Is that the kind of evolution we know is going on because we can see it, so it's too difficult to deny? As opposed to the evolution that we have to deny because of the demands of an invisible friend, and that we feel we can deny because history is what happened in the past, and it's kind of like sweeping inconvenient facts under a carpet, retrospectively.
Speciation happens in bacteria over tens of thousands of generations, just like in us. But tens of thousands of generations doesn't take very long with bacteria, perhaps less than a year, whereas it takes tens of thousands of years in humans.
Well your friends at the IRC or AiG might claim that, but has any of them ever written a paper with evidence that it is true? Has any of them done any actual original research that has any bearing on biological adaptation?
So are you trying to say the coral isn't able to adapt, or that the process of adaptation is making them unfit for the environment?
Why would there be pre-existing information that would then turn out to be useless?
No scientist says that evolution goes in any direction, except the direction of improved fitness to an ever-changing environment. You said it yourself, the coral is very well adapted. How is that possible if the environment keeps changing? Your claim seems to be that there is some pre-existing information that might help it adapt. Well, why does that information seem to be limited to small changes and not the more drastic changes being caused by humans? Why is the coral going extinct? Why can't the extra information help it now?
Population limits the likelihood that the frequency of a new mutation will increase. And that is a pretty good definition of evolution. It's not the increase in mutations, but the increase in the frequency of those mutations within the population. Indeed, why haven't we gone extinct 100 times over? Actually we nearly went extinct, about 70,000 years ago, but that was only once.
Stuart
It's good to read that you have high expectations of science, as you should. However there is no such thing as provable science. All science can do is disprove bad ideas. After you have tried many different ways of finding evidence against an idea, and it has survived your efforts at destruction, might you then promote it to the status of a theory. That means the idea is the best explanation we have for a particular phenomenon. Evolution by natural selection has not been disproved, despite what 6days and others might say to try to convince you.
Creationism is a set of really bad ideas, and pretty much all of them are already disproved by evidence. If you have a creationist idea you would like disproved, by all means add it to the list that 6days keeps coming up with. His are easy, because they are the classics that have been disproved some time ago. Intelligent Design, the new creationism of the 1990s, required a bit of new work to disprove. There hasn't been much new since. 6days's creationism is at least 30 years out of date now, and that is because IRC and AiG don't have much new to say. They need to get some new, young people who are prepared to lie for their god. With christianity dying at the rate it is, it's only going to get harder for them to find talented people with science knowledge willing to knowingly misrepresent others for a living.
Stuart
Did Hitler think that he was carrying out some Darwinian plan?
It's very hard to tell. When you read quotes like this: 'The State should consecrate [marriage] as an institution which is called upon to produce creatures made in the likeness of the Lord and not create monsters that are a mixture of man and ape' (Mein Kampf Vol.2 Ch.II) you start to see how he had already dehumanised certain groups of people in his own mind almost literally, the first step in rallying people to wage war against opposing soldiers; the first step in preparing to commit atrocities against other humans. Clearly he is not thinking of Darwinian natural selection here, because actually men are apes.
Was Hitler actually carrying out a Darwinian plan?
No, because Darwin's theory is an explanation for how the earth has come to be covered in a great diversity of life that is well adapted to each environment. It is not a political manifesto for how humans should conduct their affairs. You cannot implement Darwin's theory. You can implement Eugenics, and ideas of Social Darwinism (as I mentioned earlier), but you cannot claim inspiration from the facts of natural selection to carry out artificial selection. Hitler had no agenda that would improve the fitness of any species to survive and reproduce in its environment.
I don't expect any honesty from the IRC, and they haven't let us down with this exercise in quote-mining, from their quote mining department. Would you accept individual verses from scripture taken out of context? No, that's dishonest, right? Well, you should email IRC and tell them about it.
So, here is the quote with the dishonestly removed part put back:
"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."
-Darwin's letter to W. Graham
This is civilisation overcoming barbarity, not superior ethnic races overcoming inferior ethnic races.
Then, understand how counterproductive it would have been to Darwin's argument to distinguish between members of the same species in a prejudicial way: his argument is the opposite, that indeed all humans are of the same species. Whereas, Hitler was trying to paint some groups as not quite human, the Jews and Gypsies, for example who he identified as racially impure and defective and so forth.
Now read more from the Descent of Man:
“It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men; but I am about to enquire what is the value of the differences between them under a classificatory point of view,”
“Even some of the most strongly-marked races cannot be identified with that degree of unanimity which might have been expected from what has been written on the subject.”
“Independently of fertility, the characters presented by the offspring from a cross have been thought to indicate whether or not the parent-forms ought to be ranked as species or varieties; but after carefully studying the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that no general rules of this kind can be trusted.”
(Ch.7)
So, Hitler, take that!
Then we get mockery of the idea of distinct species of humans:
“But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke.* This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.”
(Ch.7)
If Darwin had really believed that there were superior races and inferior races in the sense of how deserving they were of the title of 'humanity', in the same way Hitler believed, then you would think that Darwin would not have minded slavery. However, on that topic he wrote much, including this:
"I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. It is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly toward him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; & considering the enormous healthy looking black population, it will be wonderful if at some future day it does not take place".
― Charles Darwin to Catherine Darwin (May 22 - July 14 1833)
Maybe if Hitler had actually read the books and letters of Darwin he might have been inspired not to inflict wholesale genocide.
Stuart