Evolution in Action: Lizard Moves from eggs to live birth!

Techne said:
You get all kinds of Christians. Traditionally though, Christians are theists.
Click to expand...

So we've established that Christian is a reasonably wide term, I still want to understand the difference between a regular creationist and a young earth creationist. Besides the age of the earth, do both groups share the same ideas like:

- Do they both believe in literal Adam & Eve?
- Do they both believe there was a great flood that flooded the entire earth (and the ark of course)?
- Is there any room for biological evolution?

If both agree on the same answers for the above questions then I don't see a huge issue in just referring to both as creationists. One group is just a little loonier than the other.
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
- Do they both believe in literal Adam & Eve?
- Do they both believe there was a great flood that flooded the entire earth (and the ark of course)?
- Is there any room for biological evolution?
Click to expand...

No, no and yes for the non-YEC varieties. Hence the need for the distinction.

That being said, the moment you toss literal Adam and Eve out the picture original sin is out the window too... naturally followed by any need for redemption. I don't quite know how that gets rationalised.
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
So we've established that Christian is a reasonably wide term, I still want to understand the difference between a regular creationist and a young earth creationist. Besides the age of the earth, do both groups share the same ideas like:

- Do they both believe in literal Adam & Eve?
- Do they both believe there was a great flood that flooded the entire earth (and the ark of course)?
- Is there any room for biological evolution?

If both agree on the same answers for the above questions then I don't see a huge issue in just referring to both as creationists. One group is just a little loonier than the other.
Click to expand...
1) Sure, why not. There had to be a first human after all.
2) Maybe not a global flood. Perhaps a regional flood that engulfed the entire "world" of those who wrote about it. It's more about the moral of the story in the end I would argue.
3) What is wrong with biological evolution? How is it even a problem for creation? Seems irrelevant.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
Apparently not. Genetic variation in modern-day humans is way too high. Evidence points to at least 10 000 people being the genetic source of humans as we are today.
Click to expand...
It depends on the definition of what it means to be "human". Still, no matter how you spin it, there was a "first human". I don't think this is controversial.
 
First human... is that like... which came first. The chicken or the egg? :D Neither it was a Grey Junglefowl :D With this first "human" concept... Was it neanderthal? Was it an earlier hominid? Lots of small changes over time :D
 
Last edited:
Techne said:
1) Sure, why not. There had to be a first human after all.
2) Maybe not a global flood. Perhaps a regional flood that engulfed the entire "world" of those who wrote about it. It's more about the moral of the story in the end I would argue.
3) What is wrong with biological evolution? How is it even a problem for creation? Seems irrelevant.
Click to expand...

1. As OD described above, this is just not scientifically possible. However this is not what I was asking so I'll just assume your answer is yes.

2. From what I understand you are saying that neither group necessarily believe there was a global flood, ark, etc. That would be a no.

3. Well, from my experience in talking with creationists they all seem to reject evolution off the bat. But you are saying that neither group should necessarily have any problem with it. That would be a yes.

So your definition of both groups are exactly the same (except for the age of the earth) . They believe two people were created from dust and seeded the entire human population. They don't believe there was a literal global flood. They don't have an issue with evolution.

Besides point 1, this doesn't sound like any creationist I've ever come across, old earth or YEC.

Is there then some other classification then that we can give this group of anti-science scripture literalists? They seem to classify themselves as creationists, this is why it doesn't make sense to me.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
Apparently not. Genetic variation in modern-day humans is way too high. Evidence points to at least 10 000 people being the genetic source of humans as we are today.
Click to expand...

There is nothing that says He did not create other humans?

In fact Cain(one of Adams sons) was to wear a mark so that the other humans knew what he did.

Genesis 4:13-16

13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear.[e] 14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” 15 Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him. 16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DrJohnZoidberg said:
1. As OD described above, this is just not scientifically possible. However this is not what I was asking so I'll just assume your answer is yes.
Click to expand...
I don't know why people think it is "scientifically impossible" for there to be a first human being. It seems to be logically and trivially true.
 
Last edited:
Techne said:
I don't know why people think it is "scientifically impossible" for there to be a first human being. It seems to be logically and trivially true.
Click to expand...

Researching The Human Genome

Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.

To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."
Click to expand...

Full article: http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve

I can't find a proper paper yet, will look around a bit more.
 
Techne said:
The first one does not mean only one. Reason for yourself. There was a period when no humans existed. At some point a first human being began to exist. How many human beings and how close in time other human beings began to exist is merely an exercise in academic precision.
Click to expand...

So many generations, many many small adaptations, population groups. To try a find a first human is really a futile effort. It's like trying to find the mythical missing link.
 
DrJohnZoidberg said:
So many generations, many many small adaptations, population groups. To try a find a first human is really a futile effort. It's like trying to find the mythical missing link.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure, of course that does not imply there was not a first human. That would be an argument from ignorance.
 
Techne said:
Yeah sure, of course that does not imply there was not a first human. That would be an argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...

No, it's not an argument from ignorance. What made this first human "human"?

Was it the first primate that had slightly less hair than his brothers? Was it the first primate to harness fire or was it some unique gene mutation?

I think this argument is far from being ignorant, yet rather one that asks questions without assuming something must be true.
 
AlphaJohn said:
Simple, there is tons of evidence for adaptations, yes but they still stay within the same species. Show me a new species from old maybe?

All this "micro evolution" is simple Epigenetics turning markers/sections on and off.
Click to expand...

All nonsense. Dont confuse dormant genes with an adaptation they are not the same thing, that line of thought shows you dont fully understand the concepts used here.

Epigenetics is an activation of certain genes via environmental stimulus. For example autoimmune diseases and certain chronic diseases. Those genes are already in place and they are NOT an adaptation or microevolution as you are implying. What it means is you have the genetic data to express a change, the easiest example of this is puberty. When you reach a certain age the environment changes and your testes become active pumping testosterone into your bloodstream, that fact has not been evolved or adapted in any way but rather activated via a stimulus.

An adaptation is something like skin tone. People with darker skin are usually found in sunlight intense areas. So can this adaptation be noted in the genetics ? yes. Was it activated ? no it was present from birth. Therefore its a change on a genetic level providing improved living for the environment. Thats the definition of evolution, therefore they are the same thing. Using a synonym so disprove a concept is retarded. Adaptation in the sense you refering to is for fully formed creatures, you have adapted in many ways to live. If a paled skined person lives in a sun intense area they will pigment to protect themselves, thats an adaptation in the sense you talking, THAT is not evolution but a cellular response to the environment and that shade will not be passed on to your children. Its like saying if a muscle freak on steroids has a baby that baby will be naturally strong, no the body has adapted itself to maintain itself i.e homeostasis.

Now there is no such thing as "micro/macro-evolution". Evolution is evolution. Life is life. You were created from a master cell, ONE CELL made the trillions of cells you are made up from that work in harmony to allow you to read this post. The next thing you must ask is, can a cell evolve ? yes it can in the form of bacterial resistance. The actual genome changed and you see formation of new organelles and enzymes in the succeeding generations. For example efflux ion channels that excrete the antibiotics and formation of enzymes like beta-lactamase that inhibit beta-lactam antibiotics, things not seen in the previous "parent".

Then the next thing you think is "why dont humans evolve then?" , thats because one evolution on a grand scale is epically slow. Secondly humans do not follow darwinian law. There is very little or no evolutionary pressure on humans. We are not hunted, we dont need to be super fast or strong to hunt and survive and modern medicine keeps us alive so our gene pool is not purged hence we will not evolve in physical appearance. Though evolution on a grand scale is apparent in complex life as this article shows. We are part of this world and life is DNA and our DNA is similar to all life on the planet. So what happens to one life form can be extrapolated to us and thats the basis of how animal testing on pharmaceuticals work. They dont torture bunnies because they mean people they use bunnies because that bunny is 98% identical to you on a fundamental level
 
Last edited:
AlphaJohn said:
No wonder you can not find Jesus in your heart, you try and ban Him every way you can.
Click to expand...

Yeah I cant find him in my heart because he got stabbed and died a long time ago and decomposed in some hole way before I was born. The only thing I find in my heart is blood.

Do you even know where that saying "in your heart" comes from? its from the retarded BS the people of the time thought as truth. They thought the brain was a useless organ and that emotion came from the heart. If you look at the egyptian religion, you where judged by the gods on the weight of your heart, and that should tell you how many facts where true at that time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X