6000 Years vs. Millions of Years

[The Lorax]

I see. The fact that scientists agree that one simple repeatable signal from space is a SURE SIGN OF INTELLIGENT LIFE is not worth comparing to the incredibly massive coded information in DNA as a sure sign of intelligence. Gotcha...

I've never heard that point made before. Interesting. When you hear Intelligent Design you never think aliens, but I guess technically SETI is researching extraterrestrial ID. But for what it's worth, I don't think a simple repeating radio signal would convince me of extraterrestrial life. Stars belch out all kinds of stuff, so I think the signal would have to be both complex and repeating to be indicative of any kind of intelligence.

[kari21]

I see. The fact that scientists agree that one simple repeatable signal from space is a SURE SIGN OF INTELLIGENT LIFE is not worth comparing to the incredibly massive coded information in DNA as a sure sign of intelligence. Gotcha...

I've never heard that point made before. Interesting. When you hear Intelligent Design you never think aliens, but I guess technically SETI is researching extraterrestrial ID. But for what it's worth, I don't think a simple repeating radio signal would convince me of extraterrestrial life. Stars belch out all kinds of stuff, so I think the signal would have to be both complex and repeating to be indicative of any kind of intelligence.

It's all noise. That's why if they do hear a repeating patterned signal, they will know that it came from an intelligent source.

[kari21]

Check your facts.

I wasn't wrong. I said Einstein dropped out of high school, and I was correct. From a bio:

"In 1894, when Einstein was fifteen, his father's business failed, and the Einstein family moved to Italy, first to Milan and then, after a few months, to Pavia. During this time, Albert wrote his first scientific work, "The Investigation of the State of Aether in Magnetic Fields." Albert had been left behind in Munich to finish high school, but in the spring of 1895, he withdrew to join his family in Pavia, convincing the school to let him go by using a doctor's note.

Rather than completing high school, Albert decided to apply directly to the ETH Zurich, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland. Without a school certificate, he was required to take an entrance examination, which he failed, although he got exceptional marks in mathematics and physics."

He eventually completed it. But my off the cuff comment that he was a drop out, was true.

The DNA code is actually very simple. 4 letters in groups of 3 to code each amino acid to make proteins. Elegant but simple. The hard part was finding out where in the cell the code was hidden.

Jukia, you really need to stop making claims like that. You are embarrassing yourself.

Not only must there be the code itself present, but the mechanism for translation and copying as well.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M. (Victoria University of Wellington, NZ) writes:

"Those four types of DNA bases, A,C,G and T, or

[kari21]

I could not care any less about Sarfati. He has been skewered by real working biologists.

His Ph.D, B.Sc., et all and education came from an accredited secular college like any other scientist out there.

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/

Another atheist tactic is to attack the messenger, not the message. Refute what he wrote with more than it's "actually very simple."

I am interested in this statement however. Is this from Sarfati or from you? If from you, what do you mean by it, please explain it.

The production of even the simplest cell is beyond the reach of undirected chemical reactions.

It's self-explanatory, Jukia....and actually very simple.

[Jorge S]

It's fascinating to hear your take on my psychology, Jorge. I can't speak for others in my position, but you are wrong about my motivations as a Christian committed to the life sciences (including evolution). It would be theologically easier for me to believe in 6-day Creation and a 10,000 year old Earth, but I simply can't, given my experiences in the classroom, the lab, the field, and, well, life. Sorry. I suppose you must think I'm in denial or under durress or something. Nope. Like most Christians on this planet, I accept evolution because it makes sense. It amazes me that anyone can believe this planet is under 10,000 years old, but to each his own.

Try instead to commit to the Word and you might see things differently. There have been overcomers. I -for starters- was an atheist instructed as a Marxist in a communist country where prophesing a religion was a political 'sin' at that time. Then Jesus changed everything about my previous worldview and I had no problems believing Genesis literally.

Evolution is so wrong -both biblically and scientifically- that it doesn't take much to see its inconsistencies, fallacies, assumptions, unjustifiable extrapolations and leaps of naturalistic faith. Others may need it but you don't because you know Jesus. Allow Him to finish His work in you. Surely you thank Him for many things in your life, including your scholastic achievements. Don't turn these against Him and His Word. By the same token, don't be afraid to forfeit the many years commited to teaching evolution. God is a restorer. Re-dedicate your labour to His Glory under the direct leadership of His Word and you'll be blessed.

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

Happy Journey into Biblical Creationism!

[The Lorax]

Evolution is so wrong -both biblically and scientifically- that it doesn't take much to see its inconsistencies, fallacies, assumptions, unjustifiable extrapolations and leaps of naturalistic faith.

Then you're clearly seeing the world through different eyes than mine.

Just a tip: if you're trying to convince someone to change their position, you don't tell them their position is glaringly wrong, even if that's exactly what you think. You tell them what you THINK is wrong with it, and WHY you think it's wrong. Then, even if you fail to convince them, you can at least have an adult discussion about your disagreements.

I've studied evo as it pertains to biology for years, at a greater depth and in greater detail than you probably have, unless you are also a biologist. Even though you've implied my studies have been a complete waste of time, I am not offended, because to be offended would require that I take your evaluation of evolution seriously. But it would be a mistake to simply place my faith in your word, which may or may not be qualified.

You probably have good intentions, Jorge, but your approach needs work--unless you are trying to alienate souls, not convert them.

[Jorge S]

Evolution is so wrong -both biblically and scientifically- that it doesn't take much to see its inconsistencies, fallacies, assumptions, unjustifiable extrapolations and leaps of naturalistic faith.

Then you're clearly seeing the world through different eyes than mine.

Just a tip: if you're trying to convince someone to change their position, you don't tell them their position is glaringly wrong, even if that's exactly what you think. You tell them what you THINK is wrong with it, and WHY you think it's wrong. Then, even if you fail to convince them, you can at least have an adult discussion about your disagreements.

I've studied evo as it pertains to biology for years, at a greater depth and in greater detail than you probably have, unless you are also a biologist. Even though you've implied my studies have been a complete waste of time, I am not offended, because to be offended would require that I take your evaluation of evolution seriously. But it would be a mistake to simply place my faith in your word, which may or may not be qualified.

You probably have good intentions, Jorge, but your approach needs work--unless you are trying to alienate souls, not convert them.

Lorax, I enjoyed your reply for what it plainly said and for what it didn't. Let me clarify some personal matters:

1- I didn't attack you personally. My message was a little more straightforward banking on the facts that your Christian status and scientific background could give me the licence to avoid pointless euphemisms.

2- Your years of studies on evolution were not a waste of time. I rather implied that they equipped you in a unique way to counteract misrepresentations of the Word and Work of God on issues of Creation. I had in mind the example of Paul - a rabbinic student who became one of the most prominent Christian figures after he allowed Jesus to use him. [by the way, I didn't take offense either at your 'alienation' of Bible literalists as stated in your post (appeal to majority, appeal to authority, ridicule.)]

3- I'm not a Biologist and I don't need to be one in order to discern philosophical fallacies in Biology.

4- It is not my word what matters but His Bible, which I believe literally where literalism is implied by context, use of language and reiteration -like in Genesis. Bible interpretation does not primarily require secular specialists but Spirit-led believers.

If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against

principalities, against powers, against the world's rulers, of the darkness of

this age, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

[The Lorax]

I am interested in what you perceive to be "philosophical" fallacies in evolution. Please share.

Also, I am wary of anyone who says they know enough about evolution to spot alleged fallacies therein. Most of the "fallacies" people claim to see in evolution are only fallacies in their understanding of evolution. In short, "I don't understand this, so it must not make sense."

I've started debating with several people on this forum only to find they didn't even understand the basics of evo (like the fact it is driven by natural selection). And the amazing thing is that it doesn't stop them. They will sooner attack a theory than pick up a book and learn what they're actually attacking. It's embarrassing, and unfortunately this sort of willful ignorance appears fundamental to the young Earth movement.

So forgive me for being cynical. Experience has conditioned me to be skeptical of anyone who claims what you do. Now, if you have any specific problems with evolution, I won't mind addressing them.

[Guest IACWC_77]

I am interested in what you perceive to be "philosophical" fallacies in evolution. Please share.

Also, I am wary of anyone who says they know enough about evolution to spot alleged fallacies therein. Most of the "fallacies" people claim to see in evolution are only fallacies in their understanding of evolution. In short, "I don't understand this, so it must not make sense."

I've started debating with several people on this forum only to find they didn't even understand the basics of evo (like the fact it is driven by natural selection). And the amazing thing is that it doesn't stop them. They will sooner attack a theory than pick up a book and learn what they're actually attacking. It's embarrassing, and unfortunately this sort of willful ignorance appears fundamental to the young Earth movement.

So forgive me for being cynical. Experience has conditioned me to be skeptical of anyone who claims what you do. Now, if you have any specific problems with evolution, I won't mind addressing them.

Hi Lorax,

I can't help but respond to this seeing that for some time I held to the view of evolution. I do have background in biology, chemistry and anatomy. My first argument is from Michael Behe's examples. Before you decide to discredit me based on Behe, please here me out. Any honest person has to admit that there is an amount of complexity that is virtually unexplainable by evolution. Even Francis Crick resorted to his theory of life on other planets coming here to plant life on earth.

Looking at the example Behe give of the mouse trap, we see that there are certain things that require a certain amount of parts in order to work. Some try and discount this example as being faulty because you can replace parts of the mouse trap, and it will still work. In one example trying to refute the position, someone said that you could remove the base and use the floor. Any thinking person knows that the floor is still a base, and x number of parts are still needed to make the trap work. And if you have 4/5 of a mouse trap, you don't catch 4/5 as many mice, you catch zero. We all knoww that the mouse trap is nothing compared to the human DNA strand. We know that DNA makes (and is made of) proteins necessary for the DNA to even to be operable. But the proteins would not exist without the DNA. We need DNA to live, but DNA needs life, which evolved first. I could go on with the which came first argument, but I assume that you are intelligent enough to get my point (by no means an insult).

Most evolutionist argue that the fact that the light from the stars hundreds of millions of light years away prove the old age of the earth. But studies by Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman (et al.) show that the speed of light has been slowing down since the beginning of time.

Then you have the entropy laws, which make evolution rather difficult. Biology is the only field of science that refuses the entropy laws (laws, not theories).

For the sake of trying to be brief, these are some of the major fallicies of evolution.

[The Lorax]

IACWC_77, your post is a thoughtful one and I hope to address all your points. Welcome to Worthy, by the way. Hope you stick around.

Looking at the example Behe give of the mouse trap, we see that there are certain things that require a certain amount of parts in order to work. Some try and discount this example as being faulty because you can replace parts of the mouse trap, and it will still work. In one example trying to refute the position, someone said that you could remove the base and use the floor. Any thinking person knows that the floor is still a base, and x number of parts are still needed to make the trap work. And if you have 4/5 of a mouse trap, you don't catch 4/5 as many mice, you catch zero. We all knoww that the mouse trap is nothing compared to the human DNA strand. We know that DNA makes (and is made of) proteins necessary for the DNA to even to be operable. But the proteins would not exist without the DNA. We need DNA to live, but DNA needs life, which evolved first. I could go on with the which came first argument, but I assume that you are intelligent enough to get my point (by no means an insult).

For anyone who may be reading this and does not already know, the mousetrap is intended to be an example of irreducible complexity and, by extension, proof of intelligent design. But John MacDonald at the University of Delaware posed a challenge to Behe's example, offering a series of successive "evolutionary" events that could lead up to the optimal mousetrap with which we are familiar. Of course, the early forms are less effective mousetraps than their successors, but that is exactly the point. Through a series of small changes, the mousetrap becomes progressively more effective. Behe was concerned enough by this rebuttal to write a formal response, "A Mousetrap Defended."

Anyway, Behe's idea of irreducibility makes a number of unjustified assumptions. For instance, it assumes that a feature always served the same purpose throughout its evolutionary history. This is not the case: as function depends on form, the functions of organs and organelles often change as a result of evolutionary changes in form. While the antecedent of a feature may be unable to perform the function of its derivative, it may have been effective in a completely different way. Behe also assumes "irreducibly complex" structures had no sort of evolutionary "scaffolding," that is, no support structure existed that was lost later in evolution. However, we know many organs and organelles that formed from a matrix that is later reduced or lost altogether. Only if this matrix is ignored will the structure appear irreducibly complex. Indeed, Behe does ignore such considerations.

Most evolutionist argue that the fact that the light from the stars hundreds of millions of light years away prove the old age of the earth. But studies by Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman (et al.) show that the speed of light has been slowing down since the beginning of time.

I'm not an astronomer, so I can't comment on that. But in order for an old Earth to be refuted, radioactive decay and sedimentary deposition must have slowed down too. There is no cause for that assumption, though. (Likewise, I know of no reason to believe the speed of light has been slowing down with time.)

Then you have the entropy laws, which make evolution rather difficult. Biology is the only field of science that refuses the entropy laws (laws, not theories).

Not at all. Entropy laws challenge evolution no more than they challenge your ability to raise your hand above your head. Both represent local increases in order coupled with net increases in entropy.

I should point out that entropy arguments against evolution tend to conflate order with complexity, which is not the same. (Order is a thermodynamic concept; complexity is not.) If that's your confusion, then forget the hand example and think instead of development, as in, the growth of a zygote into a baby into an adult. That's an increase in complexity as well as order, no? Yet countless babies are born every day, and every day they grow larger, more orderly, and more complex. Clearly, then, the development of a simple organism to a complex one is not a violation of entropy laws. Likewise for the evolution of simple to complex organisms in the grand scheme. Both are afforded by net increases in entropy. That said, I am always amazed that some creationists still (A) cling to their misunderstanding of thermodynamics and (B) don't recognize its asinine implications (eg, that nothing can ever be built or grow). Even Answers in Genesis has begun discouraging this line of argument, if you can call it that.

It seemed like you omitted some perceived problems with evolution for the sake of brevity, IACWC_77. Well pile 'em on!