Creation vs. Evolution

[Tyrathca]

Then you will be able to show us the mechanism that converts sunlight into beneficial changes to a genome. :up:

Photosynthesis which which creates energy usable by biological metabolism which leads to reproduction.

All creationists believe God created two people, a bunch of animals, plants and all the other living things. He did not create "life" as He is alive and did not create Himself.

You have an interesting definition of life.

By the generally accepted loose criteria God would not approach being counted as alive.

 

[Hedshaker]

YECs always bail out when confronted with tough questions about their model. They prefer to keep their focus on the mysteries in science. And they will fabricate the foundations of those mysteries to suit their need.

Our friend says the Bible model is always consistent with science but refuses to explain how the theory of gravity caters for the Sun standing still, or a person walking on water...... :idunno:

 

[6days]

Our friend says the Bible model is always consistent with science but refuses to explain how the theory of gravity caters for the Sun standing still, or a person walking on water...... :idunno:

Science is about knowledge and truth. A supernatural creation or supernatural events can be consistent with science if they are true....which they are.
Its sort of like people who believe life comes from non-life. That is not consistent with science, unless it is true...which it isn't.

 

[6days]

Photosynthesis which which creates energy usable by biological metabolism which leads to reproduction.

Sounds like a pretty awesome design!

 

[6days]

. . . or so the story told by bronze age sheep/goat herders goes . . . with embellishment.

And that 'story' has remained relavant for thousands of years, remaining the greatest literature ever written...and remaining as the best selling Book last year!
Pretty awesome for a few goat herders!!

 

[alwight]

You are dishonest and claimed my position was that God "pre created as is".
How about you show where I said this?

If you'd try to answer some of my specific questions, such as did God create DNA information as it is now or did it have to evolve? then I might not have to keep guessing what it is you do think rather than you telling me what you don't. lain:

In the beginning God created

Did He create DNA as it is now? :sherlock:

 

[alwight]

Science is about knowledge and truth. A supernatural creation or supernatural events can be consistent with science if they are true....which they are.
Its sort of like people who believe life comes from non-life. That is not consistent with science, unless it is true...which it isn't.

How do you know it isn't consistent and true? Is there any science involved in your "thinking" or is "truth" simply dependant on whatever you want to believe?

 

[6days]

Did He create DNA as it is now?

In the beginning, God created.
He created birds. He created fish. He created animals. He created humans. God created the DNA code in each.
But, after sin entered our world, God put a curse on creation. "All creation groaneth". Things have changed. Things continue to change. So...the answer again to you is ...
You used dishonest strawman arguments.

 

[Stripe]

Yet ANOTHER of Stripe's red herrings.

If you cannot ans...

Oh, wait. You can't. :chuckle:

:mock: Silent Munter.

Photosynthesis which which creates energy usable by biological metabolism which leads to reproduction.

Great. The circle is complete. lain:
Evolutionist: Evolution!
Creationist: Second law!
Evolutionist: Evolution!

What is the mechanism by which sunlight creates beneficial changes to information in a genome? You cannot answer that question rationally by simply inferring that evolution works.

What is the mechanism by which sunlight creates books?

You have an interesting definition of life.

"I don't like this tiger. He reads minds."

By the generally accepted loose criteria God would not approach being counted as alive.

Wikipedia says fish turned into people as well. :idunno:

 

[alwight]

In the beginning, God created.
He created birds. He created fish. He created birds. He created humans. God created the DNA code in each.
But, after sin entered our world, God put a curse on creation. "All creation groaneth". Things have changed. Things continue to change. So...the answer again to you is ...
You used dishonest strawman arguments.

How specifically do you know any of this is true?
Apparently then it suits you to believe DNA has degenerated since the "fall", perhaps as a kind of evolution in reverse, but also when it suits you it somehow still manages to power your supposed mega-evolution notion?
:liberals:

 

[6days]

Its sort of like people who believe life comes from non-life. That is not consistent with science, unless it is true...which it isn't.

How do you know it isn't consistent and true? Is there any science involved in your "thinking" or is "truth" simply dependant on whatever you want to believe?

I know life does not come from non life, because life came from the Creator. See Genesis 1

And...I think spontaneous generation was proven wrong long ago.

 

[alwight]

I know life does not come from non life, because life came from the Creator. See Genesis 1

And...I think spontaneous generation was proven wrong long ago.

Believe away then but there is no science involved in your conclusions.
Btw you are quite right, the original abiogenesis has been disproven many years ago. But what your creationist sources don't bother to tell you is that spontaneous generation of fully formed creatures referred to the now well defunct idea that flies and worms would somehow spontaneously generate from decay, which of course has nothing to do with its modern usage.

 

[6days]

How specifically do you know any of this is true?
Apparently then it suits you to believe DNA has degenerated since the "fall", perhaps as a kind of evolution in reverse, but also when it suits you it somehow still manages to power your supposed mega-evolution notion?
:liberals:

How do I know its true?-- God's Word tells us about creation, and then the fall.
Evidence shows adaption happens sometimes within just a few generations. Would you like examples?

 

[Hedshaker]

Science is about knowledge and truth. A supernatural creation or supernatural events can be consistent with science if they are true....which they are.

You wish. As I say, the Biblical model is consistent with science except when it isn't.

Its sort of like people who believe life comes from non-life. That is not consistent with science, unless it is true...which it isn't.

Life getting poofed (or breathed) into existence by a magic sky spirit sounds a lot like life from non-life to me.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Partial quoting. Right after your (two) quoted passages, there is this resolution of the apparent paradox. (I reality, there are no paradoxes, only apparent ones.)

In 1982, American biochemist Albert Lehninger argued that the "order" produced within cells as they grow and divide is more than compensated for by the "disorder" they create in their surroundings in the course of growth and division. "Living organisms preserve their internal order by taking from their surroundings free energy, in the form of nutrients or sunlight, and returning to their surroundings an equal amount of energy as heat and entropy."​

So your Wikipedia presented a situation that naively looked like a paradox and then gave the solution.

Is there any reason why you left out the context of the passages which made it look like there was no resolution? Sneaky rhetorical trick, but not convincing.

I gave full quotes, you are critical of my summary.

I quote what I would call an "apparent answer" to what is a "real paradox".

This is just a start as we look at the evolution of cell evolution theory.

Cells don't just "apparently", wear out and die over time.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

How do I know its true?-- God's Word tells us about creation, and then the fall.

No science required then, sticking to blind faith is probably a lot easier.

Evidence shows adaption happens sometimes within just a few generations. Would you like examples?

No I'm aware of plenty, the Peppered Moth being a good example. Having the ability to adapt quickly is something built into it's gene-pool when there is a good reason to adapt. No doubt you would perhaps think God planned it all in advance and built-in such an ability into DNA at creation, right?

 

[Stuu]

Science is about knowledge and truth. A supernatural creation or supernatural events can be consistent with science if they are true....which they are.
Its sort of like people who believe life comes from non-life. That is not consistent with science, unless it is true...which it isn't.

In that first sentence you are specially pleading for your fantasy version of natural history because, in your mind at least it doesn't contradict "knowledge and truth". I guess that means you are prepared to respect any such story, even if it contradicts your religious predisposition.

But in the second sentence you are now criticising something you consider a fantasy, which actually isn't something that is inconsistent with the same set of "knowledge and truth".

I guess you will have to invent more of your fantasy story to cover this. Unless you don't care about hypocrisy.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Wikipedia says fish turned into people as well.

417 million years ago we shared a common ancestor with modern lungfish. That ancestor should reasonably be called a fish.

What's your problem with that?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Or, maybe we should just examine this for ourselves.

According to the chemist John Avery, from his recent 2003 book Information Theory and Evolution, we find a presentation in which the phenomenon of life, including its origin and evolution, as well as human cultural evolution, has its basis in the background of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and information theory. The (apparent) paradox between the second law of thermodynamics and the high degree of order and complexity produced by living systems, according to Avery, has its resolution "in the information content of the Gibbs free energy that enters the biosphere from outside sources." The process of natural selection responsible for such local increase in order may be mathematically derived directly from the expression of the second law equation for connected non-equilibrium open systems.

DNA and other macromolecules determine an organism's life cycle: birth, growth, maturity, decline, and death. Nutrition is necessary but not sufficient to account for growth in size as genetics is the governing factor. At some point, organisms normally decline and die even while remaining in environments that contain sufficient nutrients to sustain life. The controlling factor must be internal and not nutrients or sunlight acting as causal exogenous variables. Organisms inherit the ability to create unique and complex biological structures; it is unlikely for those capabilities to be reinvented or be taught each generation. Therefore DNA must be operative as the prime cause in this characteristic as well. Applying Boltzmann's perspective of the second law, the change of state from a more probable, less ordered and high entropy arrangement to one of less probability, more order, and lower entropy seen in biological ordering calls for a function like that known of DNA. DNA's apparent information processing function provides a resolution of the paradox posed by life and the entropy requirement of the second law.​

Clearly the origin and evolution of cells presents a "paradox", the problem of a theory that demands increased information and a process of cell activity that does not provide it.

--Dave

You've added the assertion of "increased information". What theory demands "increased information", and what exactly do you mean by that? When it comes to biological evolution, the environment is the most central 'information provider' in the form of fitness criteria. That 'information' comes to be represented in the genome through natural selection from the variation present in a population.

The origin of cells is a different question from the evolution of cells. The origin of cells is almost certainly a chemistry question, and there is no theory of cell origins although there is a great deal of speculation that is based in very good chemistry. The absence of examples of the first cells to study is no good invitation to insert a platitude about an imaginary friend.

Stuart

 

[DFT_Dave]

You've added the assertion of "increased information". What theory demands "increased information", and what exactly do you mean by that? When it comes to biological evolution, the environment is the most central 'information provider' in the form of fitness criteria. That 'information' comes to be represented in the genome through natural selection from the variation present in a population.

The origin of cells is a different question from the evolution of cells. The origin of cells is almost certainly a chemistry question, and there is no theory of cell origins although there is a great deal of speculation that is based in very good chemistry. The absence of examples of the first cells to study is no good invitation to insert a platitude about an imaginary friend.

Stuart

Oh no!! The information comes from the mutation that is adaptable to a change in environment. A mutation adds a new feature that also becomes an increase in information.

--Dave