Posted on 03/27/2013 11:15:00 AM PDT by EveningStar
A California creationist is offering a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can prove in front of a judge that science contradicts the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.
Dr Joseph Mastropaolo, who says he has set up the contest, the Literal Genesis Trial ...
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Science and Creationism are not mutually exclusive.
I am a creationist and an ardent study of science.
And I’m in very good company.
As you acknowledged, science has the fundamental problem of their predisposition to materialism.
What I have witnessed has been this steady move away from materialism and toward the “matrix” if you will.
There are a lot of very smart people that are working in the fields of physics and biology that know materialism is dead. It is and has been very useful, however the limitations of this materialist presumption have limited their work.
What is the difference between mutation and adaptation? Are they similar or exclusive?
I am a Creationist. I doubt most of your premises, but would seek an understanding of your viewpoint. It will not change my FAITH!
heh- excellent.
You could. But only if you believe that a)Scripture wasn’t inspired by God and b) Jesus wasn’t who He claimed to be.
In which case subscribing to the theory of evolution isn’t a surprise.
Living things adapt to their environment through differential expression of genes. Laying out in the sun causes expression of melanin - you get a tan.
Mutations can change the genes themselves.
Thus in the case of the bacteria - formerly its DNA specified proteins that would work optimally at ‘normal’ temperatures - under heat stress it would express error prone DNA polymerase causing mutations every time it underwent division. The population that survived the heat stress would have mutations that would change its DNA to specify proteins that worked optimally at very hot temperatures.
Some would call that adaptation, and it is, but it is adaptation (or evolution) through natural selection of genetic variation.
In this case error prone DNA polymerase increases the amount of genetic variation in the population under stress.
So much for the "Blind Watchmaker"
Not only is he blind, but now "HE KNOWS" he is a Watchmaker.
The word "Try" does not exist in evolutionary theory.
There is death.
The one's that survive, are the ones that are left and are fit enough to survive.
To suggest that a species undergoes the number of changes necessary among their population, that doesn't kill them in the meantime, in order to survive environmental changes and do this again and again, generation after generation, defies all mathematical probabilities.
So why is there a gene in bacteria for error prone DNA polymerase that is expressed during stress?
Again we see just how useless creationism is in explaining and predicting reality.
How does anti-bacterial resistance grow within a bacterial population?
What explains differences between human populations? Why do equatorial people have variations that get rid of heat while northern populations have variations that conserve heat, and how did this come about?
How did ever species that currently exist fit on a boat of known dimensions?
How did almost all marsupials end up in Australia?
Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation has answers. Creationism is useless.
Judy
But, in physics, you cannot get something from nothing...
In addition, the alleged "links" seem to be missing from reality between the beings in the evolutionary processes and today's beings. Some say Cro Magnum man" and yet, that he is nothing like we have today.
A dog was once a wolf, or was he just another type of dog?
A housecat was once a big sabretooth tiger type or just a malnourished cat?
Tracking your bacterial DNA only shows adaptations. I cannot see any evolutionary progress. It is still a bacteria! Evolution says it is "mutating" into something entirely different.
Amoeba split to form a new pair of organisms. Men have different sexual organs from women, and have an entirely different process for reproduction.
One of my Bible school performed an exercise one day. He took an old pocket watch and placed it into a cloth bag. He then took a hammer and broke it into parts. Next, he shook the bag and spoke of some things, while continuing to shake it.
Then, he poured out the parts onto his desk, while saying "the chance of this watch coming back together is less than a single MUTATION within the alleged evolutionary chain"...
I agree with him! When it is cold outside, I ADAPT and put on my coat!
I'm in the steamy Philippines now, and I am ADAPTING by sitting in my air-conditioned rooms! When I go to town, I wear shorts, short-sleeved cotton shirts, and wear a hat!
beating the watch was a foolish irrelevant exercise meant to influence his foolish flock to accept his nonsense
If you do not believe his six day creation, you do not believe, so do not call yourself a believer.
You prove my point.
The speed of light is not in question (nor id it firmly proven in science).
The expansion of the creation described in Genesis is a perfect explanation of the state of all things visible. Expanding space also expands time, thus the 6000 years since the creation from our perspective is perfectly in agreement with immense distances and temporal differences.
This is all well described in “Starlight and Time” by the physicist D.R. Humphreys.
“But only if you believe that a)Scripture wasn’t inspired by God and b) Jesus wasn’t who He claimed to be.”
I don’t see why either premise is necessary. Even if scripture is the Word of God and Jesus is the son of God/God, Genesis was written before Jesus was made flesh, and therefore he could have heard about the creation timeliness the same way you and I did. That is, either by reading the Torah or listening to someone who had.
>> Then, he poured out the parts onto his desk, while saying “the chance of this watch coming back together is less than a single MUTATION within the alleged evolutionary chain” <<
I think you meant greater?
It was done in 6 days, regardless of how many verses.
Ex nihilo nihil fit? Maybe.
I always wonder, then, where God came from. What was He made out of? Himself. You can say He just Is and leave it at that. But that’s kinda cheating. Why couldn’t I say the physical universe just is? Because you, and I for that matter, still wonder why the heck it exists. God isn’t so much an answer as a deferral.
How life came into being from nonliving matter also has nothing to do with the theory of evolution through natural selection; other than to make evolution possible.
Similarly gravity doesn’t have to explain HOW matter came into being to accurately describe and predict how matter, once it is in existence, will experience universal gravitational attraction.
Apparently you define “adaptation” as any number of things up to and including natural selection of genetic variation leading to strains with different features (antibiotic resistance, heat or cold resistance, etc) - and “evolution” as the creation of a wolf/bird idiotic monstrosity.
No wonder you say you don’t believe in evolution!
So how did most marsupials end up in Australia? How did all species descend from those “kinds” that could fit on a boat of known dimensions? How did useful human variations come about? How does antibiotic resistance develop among bacterial populations?
Evolution (or adaptation if you prefer) through natural selection of genetic variation has answers.
Creationism, as usual, is useless.
But the Bible HAS explicit references to “giants” ....
And Neanderthals were co-habiting the ancient Mideast with our Cro-Mag ancestors. 8<)
Besides, the Bible DOES get AEVERY step of evolution exactly right - the time intervals are a small part of the whole story - but EVERY step from the Big Bang through stellar formation and the clearing of the skies with plant growth through evolution and geology and continental drift is very clearly written down.
6000 years before “science” finally got it right. 8<)
:-) Uh, no. They actually acknowledge their work isn’t unique, except that it is accessible and written in language accessible to the layman’
Their work is respectful of the text and gives glory to God, asking the question about what Yahweh, through Moses, was trying to communicate to the original audience. They gently suggest that it may not have been a scientific breakdown of creation....other theological concerns were taking precedence.
They make a case worth considering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.