Actscelerate.com

NBF...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/26/13 6:35 pm**

Consider that if you found ONLY dimes in one layer...and only QUARTERS in a higher layer...you have to draw a conclusion about time, if not about evolution.

Even if dimes sank faster than quarters, it would not explains why they are in ONE layer, but not another.

Also, consider that if we found Frog v. 1.1, instead of literalists saying, "Hey, there's a transition," they would claim "adaptation," or "mutation," or "deformity," or a separate species altogether. Further, by the time you got to Frog v. 1.999, it might not even look or BE a frog anymore...which the literalists claim makes their point, but it doesn't.

Acts-celerater Posts: 651 **8/26/13 9:34 pm**

Here's an wiki article about the geological column.

http://creationwiki.org/Geological_column

I would venture that the column is what Aaron is referring to.

In my opinion, particularly interesting are the sections under "Problems" such as:
Out of place layers

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5657 **8/27/13 12:54 am**

When the Bible says that death entered the word through Adam's sin, I believe it. Don't you?

When it says the ground was cursed because of man's sin, and that the whole creation (including the animals) were made subject to death and depravity, I believe it. Don't you?

When it says that the worlds (i.e. the universe) were framed by the word of God, and that EVERYTHING that was made was made by and through Jesus, and for Jesus, I believe it. Don't you?

I cannot see how we can believe that, allowing that belief to fully engulf and enlighten our worldview, and at the same time make room for millions and billions of years of existence and/or evolution.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."

Poimen...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/27/13 4:18 am**

Poimen, you could use the same reasoning for general "adaptation." How can God be creator if animals are changing?

The notion of evolution need not at all be atheistic. It is simply an acknowledgement that while God is Creator of ALL things...SOME things He permitted to run their natural course (via evolution)...some things He may have specifically guided...and some things He created at one go.

The danger to me is to say, "No, if the Bible is true, then it happened as I interpret it to have happened." Why is that dangerous? Because when the evidence finally forces one to acknowledge that evolution took place to some degree, one is left thinking that Bible is not valid. BUT IT IS VALID! It's our interpretation that is off.

Re: NBF...

Acts-pert Poster Posts: 16646 **8/27/13 5:25 am**

Re: Poimen...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5657 **8/27/13 5:43 am**

Evolution requires death and depravity prior to the fall, and even the creation, of mankind. That is totally antithetical & completely incongruous with Scripture. Furthermore, the implications thereof undermine and contradict NT teaching concerning the nature and necessity of Christ's atonement.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."

Poimen...not so

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/27/13 7:03 am**

NBF...the problem

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/27/13 7:06 am**

The problem, NBF, is what sort of "transition" would you consider acceptable?

The evolutionist claims that the, say, HORSE we see now may have come (though he doesn't know either) from an aquatic animal. You are looking for something that looks like a cross between a fish and a horse, but evolution doesn't even go near that. It claims that minute and gradual change--with occasional great leaps--are what is behind evolution.

You are looking for an animal that is a cross between Point A and Point Z...while in reality, the transitions are so small that you would not acknowledge them.

Again, tell me exactly what fossil finding would persuade you that evolution actually took place.

Friendly Face Posts: 395 **8/27/13 7:15 am**

Poimen, well said. I completely agree with you!

Aaron, I think Theistic Evolution is a compromise that we do not need to make in order to remain Scripturally faithful AND Scientifically Informed. Darwin proposed a couple of ideas that would falsify his theory: the fossil record and the cell.

Darwin suggested we would be "tripping over" transitional fossils as we dug deeper into the earth. The reality is the fossil record has been an abject failure in demonstrating transitional species. This is not from Ken Hamm or some other creationist...the world's most renowned paleontologists say this!

Dr. Stephen Jay Gould (most noted paleontologist of 20th century/Harvard) – “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is INFERENCE, however reasonable, NOT EVIDENCE OF FOSSILS. (“Evolution’s Erratic Pace”, NH, vol. 86, 1977 p. 13)

Richard Dawkins admits this fact also! (The Blind Watchmaker, p.229-230))

Paleontology is actually the great ENEMY of evolution, it is an absolute embarrassment to evolution, because the fossil record shows continuity.

T.Neville George (Glasgow U./Paleontology) – “There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration…The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.”

Colin Patterson (British Musuem Natural History) Darwin’s Enigma, p. 100
“Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn’t give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one…When you haven’t got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence!”

D.S. Woodruff
“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.”

Darwin's second proposal that would falsify his theory was the cell. Microscopy in the 1800s had not developed to the point that it is at today. He assumed the cell was a "glob of gelatin". He stated that if it could be shown that life did not evolve through gradual, successive stages than his "entire theory would absolutely breakdown."

Here are some of my notes regarding the cell:

Dr. Michale Behe (microbiologist/Christian) 1993? – Darwin’s Black Box ; the unrefuted text in evolutionary theory today ; “I think if Darwin lived today he would not be a Darwinist any longer.”

Two reasons why he thought Darwin would abandon theory:
1. The cell is the most complex thing a human being has ever laid eyes on (the cell didn’t just “emerge”)
a. The cell is more like a highly-complex city with advanced factories for replication and an intricate transport systems – all directed by the information contained in the DNA code

Dr. Michael Denton – Evolution, A Theory In Crisis (agnostic) – “What we would see [in the cell] would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design.”

J.T. Bonner (Princeton Biologist) – “it seems easier to imagine a single cell evolving into complex animals and plants than it does to imagine a group of chemical substances evolving into a cell”
- Single cell  Human (improbable)
- Dead chemicals  single cell (impossible; exceeds level of improbability and is mathematically impossible

Boeing 747 = 4.5 million non-flying parts
Cell = billions of non-living parts
Have to “believe” that a cell just “emerged” --> faith statement!!!
2. Irreducible complexity (can’t be broken down to simpler parts) – All or Nothin

a. Within the cells are irreducibly complex parts
b. It either works or it doesn’t!
c. A complexity that cannot be reduced without the whole biological system dying/crashing (cannot have step by step incremental process!
d. Examples: blood clotting, cellular transport, eye/vision, DNA, et all

Darwin – “to suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

A couple of books to consider:

Michael Behe - Darwin's Black Box
Stephen Meyer - Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt

Re: NBF...the problem

Acts-pert Poster Posts: 16646 **8/27/13 7:25 am**

peterz3fo

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/27/13 7:27 am**

The argument is not Creation vs. DARWINISM. Science has shown that while Darwin had some points, there are flaws.

The argument is literalism vs. evolution (not necessarily the pure Darwinian type of evolution).

Understand that I absolutely believe God is the Creator--and that He CREATED. I also hold that even evolution must begin with God. There has to be a catalyst, etc. But that being said, I hold that there is BOTH creation...and evolution at work.

ALL of it, technically, is creation. But some of it was, it seems, permitted to evolve, etc. Other parts are divinely directed. And some parts spring from immediate creation (which I trust man does).

Friendly Face Posts: 236 **8/27/13 8:02 am**

Aaron Scott wrote:

Re: Terri Grant @ Travis Johnson

Acts-dicted Posts: 7821 **8/27/13 8:52 am**

Friendly Face Posts: 395 **8/27/13 9:00 am**

Aaron,

Thank you for helping me to better understand your position. And, to a degree, I am with you. However, we must get "definitional clarity" when using the term "evolution".

If we reduce the word to simply "change" then we should ALL be evolutions (micro). But, when we begin to suggest slow, gradual change through the mechanism of gene mutation creating new species, we are speaking of something entirely different -- namely, Darwinism (macro).

Acts-pert Poster Posts: 16646 **8/27/13 9:07 am**

Re: Terri Grant @ Travis Johnson

Acts-pert Poster Posts: 16646 **8/27/13 9:11 am**

Acts Mod Posts: 25305 **8/27/13 9:49 am**

Friendly Face Posts: 146 **8/27/13 3:03 pm**

NBF...

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 **8/28/13 4:35 am**

Some of the transistional fossils...are things that we declare are a separate species altogether.

For instance, if a frog turned into a dog, we might find a very large, hairy frog. But we would never say "Hey, here's a frog turning into a dog." No, we would say, "Hey, here's a new species of frog!"

In other words, we have PRE-DEFINED the terms in such a way that NOTHING would be acceptable as a "transitional fossil."

For instance, perhaps you'll tell me precisely the sort of transitional fossil you are looking for. For instance, if wolves evolved into dogs, then what fossil would serve to prove that for you?

Re: NBF...

Acts-pert Poster Posts: 16646 **8/28/13 6:26 am**