|
|
|
|
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/25/2006 10:33:20 PM | "Well don't some claim we evolved through the apes?"
This is a comic book perception of a complex theory. Evolution states nothing of the kind. We share a common ancestor with apes, we are not evolved directly from apes.
"I don't listen to the the non believing people who want to have a reason other than God for this world. I am pretty stubborn that way."
Ah yes, this is what I call willful ignorance. You have already decided what to believe and learning is anathema. You have finished learning anything new, because it's all been answered. How arrogant and sad. Ignorant and proud of it; one of the more distasteful of all human behaviours. Not that you care, but Evolution and science in general does not contradict belief in God, only in a very narrow, literal, word-for-word interpretation of the Bible, which happens to be logically untenable, since the Bible offers different accounts of the same story in places. Even if divinely inspired, it is clearly at least partially metaphorical. There is nothing I detest more than someone who jams there fingers in their ears in the face of knowledge. | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/25/2006 10:37:58 PM | | Yes. What has me believing in God is the Big Bang Theory. Before the Bang, there could not have been nothing. Something had to exist beforehand, and I believe that God was the force that triggered the Big Bang. Something had to trigger it and get it started. yes, I believe in evolution and believe that God had a hand in the process. Science is the study of natural phenomena, that God has created. The Bible could not be taken literally because it was written in a pre-scientific era. But there are many good messages on how to live life in the Bible that are timeless. Science enhances my faith rather than diminishing it. | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/25/2006 10:39:07 PM | speaks of dinosaurs I believe. What animal do you know of that has a tail the size of a cedar tree.
This one can be dismissed out of etymological reference, Though I can't be sure, "the size of a ceder tree" is also not the correct quote, besides this one's been debunked already in other threads.
Science fits right in with Gods word...you just have to look for it.
At least you admit the charade...... most of the Creationists don't like to admit they have it backwards. | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/25/2006 10:48:40 PM |
No flack, it's just false logic, plain and simple. "begging the question" or "circular reasoning" .....when you throw the word science into a statement and cloak it in fallacy, ....it's dishonest and deceitful.
I think that its a lie to cloak your belief in God by ignoring the facts.
If God created everything, then he would be the father of science. To take the great work that he/she has done and make it look like a 'magic trick' and not give him the credit he/she is due is dishonest and deceitful.
Your reference to raising children is good. The biggest problem with following ideas like this is that the people having and raising the children are generally young and naive. I would really like to see more money and resources put into these areas of education. | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/25/2006 10:56:23 PM | | I don't believe I have it backwards. I am a loyal believer in God and his word. The bible is hard to understand sometimes, but what is in the bible is the world around us. This is the path I choose to follow. I try to listen to what God's word says to me...not man. Most people disagree with what I believe but I have to follow what I know at this time. I learn everyday and hopefully God will tell me when I stray. I think I am on the right path.....maybe not ....but I have to follow my heart and soul. God Bless | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/25/2006 11:15:23 PM | | Rose, I am not saying you are right or wrong about these earth ages. You stated that a person denies God and the creation by bringing evolution into it. The creation as told in Genesis cannot be taken literally. It took more than 7 days. Do you believe that God could have created it in 5 seconds? I really don't know but the fact that it was told and broken down by 7 steps tells me that God is organized and does things by a process, not with a wave of the wand. | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/25/2006 11:23:50 PM |
Evolution states nothing of the kind. We share a common ancestor with apes
Thank you Wonk, nicely said.
I don't want to go into the Darwin/ape thing because it would take too long. But I will say this, Darwin got labeled with this and in reality this was not his belief. | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/25/2006 11:37:37 PM |
but I have to follow my heart and soul.
Rose, I don't believe that it is important what your belief is on the hows and whys of the creation. That also is not the "Big Picture". I'm sure that if God thought it was important, he would have elaborated.
Be good to yourself and others and you will always have God. God Bless. | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 12:47:12 AM | How about taking the Law of entropy into account when we speak of Creation? entropy is the measurement of disorder and probability. (Disorder is more probable than order because if you throw sand in the air it will land in a random pile, and not a sandcastle. Its the law that systems tend to move from states of improbable order to a more probable disorder (but not chaos in this case) If entropy exists, how come there is some order in the universe? Because of negative entropy! a force counter to entropy which creates complexity or order. . Some biologists say evolution is a negative entropy force;BUT some deny this because they say theres no evidence that complexity of organisms have increased over time. Some "simple" organisms have a more complex genome than human beings. Negative entropy may be created by chaos!-non linear processes- diissipative structures where self-replicating structures (likeDNA), which are far from perfect can come into being. the central dogmatismof darwinism is , that unfit random mutations are left out through natural selection? DNA info doesnt flow one way, the human genome is starting to know itself! its characteristics and gene sequences. And its not even just organisms, it is the entire universe.. The whole universe is life! AND consciousness. THere we have the collective consciiousness, or universal mind! This self awareness becomes a self organizing system, with less entropy.
Whether it ever becomes totally self-aware? That depends! "The spirit is willing enough, but human nature is weak." (Matthew 26:41)
THeGnostic perspective is that knowledge of the universe leads to self-knowledge and becoming one with GOD, as JEsus was. "As above, so below." WE can come to know ourselves.self knowledge is the first step then it is self-liberation, universal liberation, joining GOD, the omega point, the ALL, THe one. (and homo sapiens arent the only ones in the universe involved in this process of consciousness). Know thyself, your true will, or entropic physical and spiritual death will be our demise, we're in this together. So can Christianity and Creationism be harmonious? yes! However Im a gnostic christian, and see Genesis as an allegory. (sorry for my long winded post!)
 | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 2:43:10 AM |
robin read 2nd Peter 3.5,6,7. It talks about the heavens and earth before this one. Job 40.15> speaks of dinosaurs I believe. What animal do you know of that has a tail the size of a cedar tree. Science fits right in with Gods word...you just have to look for it. Thats my opinion.
Ok, I'm curious so I'll look them up.
Passage 2 Peter 3:5-7:
5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
This is clearly referring to Noah's flood.
Passage Job 40:12-20:
12 look at every proud man and humble him, crush the wicked where they stand. 13 Bury them all in the dust together; shroud their faces in the grave. 14 Then I myself will admit to you that your own right hand can save you. 15 "Look at the behemoth, [a] which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. 16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! 17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. 18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. 19 He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword. 20 The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby.
This does sound a bit like it might be a Dinosaur, especially given the 'He ranks first among the works of God', but I would say that if that is the case it is at direct odds with the original creation story in Genesis. Though it commands someone to look at it, which implys that it is present to be looked upon. I am not certain what animal this would be referring to but for that I would study up on the translations to see what the words Behemoth, tail, and cedar meant in the original language and see if maybe there was something lost in translation.
Ahh here we go.
behemoth
or, the elephant, as some think. [Beh?m""wth,] is probably the same as the Egyptian{ Pehemou, Pehemout,} (from P, the article,{ ehe,} a bull and{ mout, water: the hippopotamus, or river horse. It is nearly as large as the elephant; its head is enormously large, its mouth very wide, the jaws extending upwards of two feet, armed with four cutting teeth, each twelve inches long; its hide is so tough and so thick as to resist the strokes of a sabre, and is thinly covered with hair of lightish colour; its legs are three feet long; though amphibious, its hoofs, which are quadrified, are unconnected; and its tail is naked, about a foot in length, but exceedingly thick and strong. It inhabits the rivers of Africa; feeds on grass and other vegetables; moves slowly and heavily; swims dexterously; sleeps in reedy places; has a tremendous voice between the lowing of the ox and the roar of the elephant; and when irritated, will attack boats and men with fury.
This makes much more sense. | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 9:45:55 AM | I belive that christianity is easily reconicleable with evolution.
I'm sure I will get many angry responses for this, but many christians belive that the Bible is a book of parables, as such the creaton story is just that, a story. They belive that the acount of evolution is prety close to the way things work, but that god is the giding force of evolution.
Evolution dose not deny god, it dose not even deny the Bible, it only denys a litteral translation of the Genesis acount of creation. Many christians beliveing that the acount is a parable, have no problem reconcilig the two.
Of course there are also christians who do not even belive in the old testament at all, they go only by the word of the new testement, so reconciling the two views is easy as the new testement dose not make any coment on creation.
Come to britain if you do notbelive a christian can belive in evolution, most here jave no problem with the two. | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:07:17 AM |
entropy is the measurement of disorder and probability. (Disorder is more probable than order because if you throw sand in the air it will land in a random pile, and not a sandcastle.
Sory to cath you on this, but you have made a clasical comon mistake in this statement. Entropy is a measure of Posobilities. It dose not actualy have anything to do with order, but has to do with the no of posible states something can be in at a certain energy level.
An atom at absolute zero for example, would have an entropy of zero, since there is only one posible state for it to be in. As you raise the temperature you rais the no: of posible states that atom can be in and so its entropy value increases.
This means that the entropy of a particle of sand thrown in the air is the same as the entropy of a particle of sand in a sandcastle, it could be in any position in the sndcastle as it could be in any poition in the pile of sand and so, with an equal no of posible positions there is an equal entropy rating.
This means that entropy dose not actualy relate to disorder and so in terms of biology, an extreamly complex organism can have a low entropy rating, provided there are only a set no: of posible combinations for that organism to ocour. | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 2:46:53 PM | Msg 14
Well don't some claim we evolved through the apes?
Actually ....no, this is a "strawman" fallacy .
Msg 26
"Well don't some claim we evolved through the apes?"
This is a comic book perception of a complex theory. Evolution states nothing of the kind. We share a common ancestor with apes, we are not evolved directly from apes.
I’m very interested in the answer to this.
So the “Ape-Man” link is a myth and false?
Then what are we directly evolved from? | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 3:21:32 PM | "So the “Ape-Man” link is a myth and false?"
That depends what you mean by link. If you are refering to the "missing link" idea, yes that is false. If you mean it in a vague sense then there is a link. We share a lot of common DNA- about 98% in fact. That is because we share a fairly recent (recent in geologic time) common ancestor.
"Then what are we directly evolved from?"
Even this is something of a misunderstanding. You are thinking of it in linear terms as if you could follow a lineage from single-celled organisms to humans accounting for all species along the way. Evolution doesn't work that way. Think of it more like a tree with endless branching at various nodes as you continue through time. Bear in mind that over 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct, and only a small percentage of those happened to die in conditions that allowed for their remains to be fossilized, so there are many species in history that have left no paleontological evidence, but their existence can be inferred. Let me give you an analogy to better understand how we can fill in gaps with some confidence. Imagine a 2000 piece puzzle of the Mona Lisa. After putting it together it turns out that only 30% of the pieces were actually in the box, but, after assembling them it is blatantly clear that what you have is a picture of the Mona Lisa. Now there is an avant-garde painting by Marcel Duchamp which is a faithful reproduction of the original Mona Lisa, only it has a beard and mustache. Now you happen to find some of the missing pieces under the couch, and when you place them in the puzzle, it becomes clear that a detail that you assumed (no beard and mustache) was actually in error, but the overall picture is still Mona Lisa. As our knowledge of genetics increases, or as we uncover previously unknown paleontological evidence, we are continually able to fill in missing pieces, and, although, details may change, the over all portrait of Evolution remains. Every missing piece provided, from various disciplines, fits like a puzzle piece. So much remains to be uncovered in genetics that, undoubtedly, more puzzle pieces will keep turning up, and we may actually be able eventually to genetically triangulate pieces that are missing paleontologically. As of now, our direct ancestor most closely related to us and chimpanzees, is inconclusive. We do know, though, from evidence, that the majority of branches of the primate line are now extinct, and later, the same is true of the hominid line.
Following is a reprint from another post of mine. Rather than restate everything, I'm just pasting it here. Some of the issues are relevant, but not all, so bear with me but it should help to further clear this up:
Actually, this brings up two very important points, (and this is simply a tangent and not a direct response to your conjecture; I'll come back around to that) which I shall call the fallacy of Essentialism and the fallacy of dichotomies. Essentialism is the Platonic notion that everything we experience represents some ideal form of that thing that exists "out there." This is the fallacy that many fall into when they don't understand how speciation can occur. Our brains like to form borders. By nature, we separate things into autonomous objects, and we even tend to do this when considering abstract distinctions. Taxonomic classification is one of these instances, and it is important to remember that this classification is largely arbitrary. Kingdoms, classes, phyla only exist because we decided to classify organisms that were morphologically dissimilar. Nature has no such classifications. To understand this consider the idea of the species ring. This is a phenomenon which has been observed in various biospecies (meaning species that are still extant as opposed to paleospecies.) Let's say a species of bird is quite similar to a bird in a neighboring habitat, but different enough that obviously some genetic isolation has occurred, but the two are genetically similar enough that they can still interbreed. In another habitat over, there is yet another somewhat isolated deme of birds and they are similar enough to their neighbors to interbreed. If we continue to track demes of birds, when we get significantly far enough away, and take a member of a distant deme, it is dissimilar enough that it can not interbreed with the first species, but can with it's neighbor. Where does speciation occur? This is an observed phenomenon in many different species from birds to salamanders. Now if we take that geographical gradual change and apply it historically, bearing in mind that over 99% of all species are extinct, it is easy to see how we are left with the illusion of very distinct organisms. But again, in reality, they are only distinct because of the missing intermediaries. If every intermediary species that ever lived were still extant, we would see a dense soup of life; the similarities would be obvious, and taxonomic classification would be impossible. Now on to the fallacy of dichotomy, which is similar. Our brains love to split things in two. It is likely the first cognitive function to ever evolve and is a fundamental feature of our brains. A very primitive form of life would greatly benefit from the ability to separate night from day, up from down, cold from hot etc. As brains became more specialized and complex, they began to process the richer complexity of life, but every brain is not constructed anew. If you dissect the human brain, it falls into three main structures (more classification) the R-complex, which is nearly identical to a reptilian brain, the limbic system, which is nearly identical to all mammalian brains, and the neocortex, which is only hyper-developed in primates and especially in humans. Our more complex reasoning is built on top of earlier forms, not distinct from them. Think of the technological evolution of the computer as an analogy. All the wonderfully diverse and complicated tasks your computer can do are built over the original DOS core. Some programmers have said we should throw DOS out all together and start over, because we are simply building around flaws. Unfortunately we don't have the same avenue open to us with our brains. Dichotomous reasoning is fundamental to our brains, so it is important to always be vigilant of our tendency to fall into it. That's not to say it's not useful. Essentially formal bivalent logic is a very useful tool, but it's not necessarily representative of the rich, multivariate complexity of reality, which takes higher brain functions to appreciate. | |
|
| |
AxyL
|
Joined: 12/1/2005
Msg: 41 | |
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 3:32:33 PM | When you say evolutionist do you mean believe in Darwin's theory which has not been proved.
OR
Perhaps you mean to believe that as we grow we can evolve as people in our thinking and become better, kinder, more loving, caring, etc... | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 3:38:18 PM | When you say evolutionist do you mean believe in Darwin's theory which has not been proved.
When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it?
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution. | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 3:39:59 PM | "When you say evolutionist do you mean believe in Darwin's theory which has not been proved."
When you say "proved" are you refering to the epistemic truth-value of absolute truth, coming from an approach of bivalent logic, meaning A is either true or false and the principle of the excluded middle applies, or are you using it in terms of scientific methodology which is about the accuracy of scientific models based upon empirical evidence and logical coherence? Because according to the former, NOTHING can be proved as absolute truth. According to the latter, Evolution (modern Evolutionary theory, bringing up Darwin's century and a half old text is a straw man fallacy. Scientific theories are collaborative and continually refined.) is true. The evidence is overwhelming.
edit- Late beat me to the punch. LOL | |
|
AxyL
|
Joined: 12/1/2005
Msg: 44 | |
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 4:16:51 PM | This is something I took from a website about the Bombardier Beetle and decided to include it here in its entirety the website can be found at this link for those that would like to research this further there are many other biological examples like the Giraffe and the Woodpecker but lets stay with this one for now.
http://www.aboundingjoy.com/beetle-fs.html
"The bombardier beetle is a small insect that is armed with a shockingly impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this spirited little beetle blasts irritating and odious gases, which are at 212 degrees F. out from two tail pipes right into the unfortunate face of the would be aggressor.
"Dr. Wermann Schildknecht, a German chemist, studied the bombardier beetle to find out how he accomplishes this impressive chemical feat. He learned that the beetle makes his explosive by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, this clever little beetle adds another type of chemical known as an inhibitor. The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store the chemicals indefinitely.
"Whenever our beetle friend is approached by a predator, such as a frog, he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes, and at precisely the right moment he adds another chemical (an antiinhibitor). This knocks out the inhibitor, and a violent explosion occurs right in the face of the poor attacker.
"Could such a marvelous and complex mechanism have evolved piecemeal over millions of years? The evolutionist is forced to respond with a somewhat sheepish "yes," but a brief consideration of this opinion will reveal its preposterous nature.
"According to evolutionary "thinking" there must have been thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually. we are assured, they arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the other hand. if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such an arrangement would never arise apart from intelligent foresight and planning. Nevertheless, let us assume that our little beetle friend somehow managed to simultaneously develop the two chemicals along with the all important inhibitor. The resultant solution would offer no benefit at all to the beetle, for it would just sit there as a harmless concoction. To be of any value to the beetle, the antiinhibitor must he added to the solution. So, once again, for thousands of generations we are supposed to believe that these poor beetles mixed and stored these chemicals for no particular reason or advantage until finally, the anti inhibitor was perfected. Now he is really getting somewhere! With the antiinhibitor developed he can now blow himself to pieces, frustrating the efforts of the hungry predator who wants to eat him. Ah yes. he still needs to evolve the two combustion tubes, and a precision communications and timing network to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the explosion. So, here we go again; for thousands of generations these carefree little beetles went around celebrating the 4th of July by blowing themselves to pieces until finally they mastered their new found powers.
"But what would be the motivation for such disastrous, trial and error, piecemeal evolution? Everything in evolution is supposed to make perfect sense and have a logical purpose, or else it would never develop. But such a process does not make any sense at all, and to propose that the entire defense system evolved all at once is astronomically improbable, if not impossible. Yet, nature abounds with countless such examples of perfect coordination. Thus, we can only conclude that the surprising little bombardier beetle is a strong witness for special creation, for there is no other rational explanation for such a wonder."
(Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, pp. 78-79, Baker Book House, 1983)
(After receiving a couple of emails from evolutionists charging "inaccuracies" in Scott Huse's book, I have decided to include the following extended quote from Dr. Duane Gish's book, "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics," Institution for Creation Research, 1993, pp. 101-104. Dr. Gish is responding to similar charges leveled against him when he used the Bombardier Beetle as an illustration in a public debate at San Diego State University.)
"Another charge hurled against me is that I continued to repeat an error in my description of the remarkable defense mechanism of the bombardier beetle, even after I had become aware of the error. I described this complex mechanism in my book on dinosaurs for children, Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards, and used it first publicly in a debate that Dr. Henry Morris and I had with Professors Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites at San Diego State University on April 26, 1977.
"The bombardier beetle has a remarkable defense mechanism and, after describing this incredible mechanism, I challenged Awbrey and Thwaites to explain how an ordinary beetle, through a series of random, accidental mutations, acted upon by natural selection, could gradually change into a bombardier beetle. Neither at that time nor since have Awbrey and Thwaites been able to explain how this could have taken place. Awbrey and Thwaites subsequently, however, did utilize the common evolutionist ploy of ignoring the challenge and grasping for a flaw, even minor, in the creationist's argument.
"When a bombardier beetle (Brachinus) is threatened by a predator or an offensive invader of any kind, at the appropriate point of approach the bombardier beetle swings his tail end around in just the right direction (he never misses) and hot, noxious gases, heated to 212ºF (the boiling point of water), are explosively released from twin combustion tubes right into the face of his enemy. This is, of course, sufficient to discourage any further notion of an attack on the bombardier beetle. Research has revealed the fact that this beetle has a double set of apparatus. In twin storage chambers, he stores an aqueous solution of two chemicalsl0% hydroquinone (a reducing agent used in photographic developing fluids) and 23% hydrogen peroxide (a powerful oxidizing agent). Remarkably, these chemical agents do not react, the solution remaining as crystal clear as pure water. Apparently the bombardier beetle adds an inhibitor which prevents the chemicals from reacting. If these chemicals are mixed in the laboratory, the solution soon becomes discolored, as the hydrogen peroxide oxidizes the hydroquinones to quinones (in the bombardier beetle a mixture of hydroquinone and methylhydroquinone is used).
"When the bombardier beetle is ready to fire his defensive spray, he squirts a charge of the chemical solution into each of the combustion tubes. There an enzyme, catalase, catalyzes the extremely rapid decomposition of hydrogen peroxide into oxygen and water, and another enzyme, peroxidase, catalyzes the oxidation of the hydroquinones to quinonesnoxious, irritating chemicals. The chemical reaction generates sufficient heat to raise the temperature of the mixture to 212ºF, and the excess oxygen produced provides the high pressure, and valves in the ends of the combustion tubes are opened at the appropriate time.
"My original source of information (and the only source available to me early on) was a little pamphlet, "Darwin and the Beetles," published in the early sixties by Dr. Robert E. Kofahl, then president of Highland College and now science consultant to the Creation Science Research Center, San Diego. In his reading of the article by Schildknecht and Holoubek, Kofahl apparently mistranslated the German word for "unstable" to read "explosive." Kofahl in his pamphlet thus reported that a mixture of 10% hydroquinones and 23% hydrogen peroxide was explosive. Following Kofahl, as I told the story of the bombardier beetle in lectures, in the debate at San Diego State University, and in the book, Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards, I said that ordinarily a mixture of these chemicals at those concentrations was explosive. Awbrey and Thwaites, anxious to find a way out of the dilemma posed by the bombardier beetle, diligently searched for any possible slip in my story. As soon as they discovered that the mixture was not explosive, they made no attempt whatever to explain how the bombardier beetle could have evolved, but trumpeted loudly, everywhere, this minor slip in the story. Other evolutionists eagerly grabbed onto the story, and it found its way even into Nature, the prestigious British science journal.
"As soon as I learned of this little hitch in the story of the bombardier beetle, I modified the story I related in my lectures. I had to wait until the publisher was ready to publish a revised edition of Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards, however, to correct the story there. In the meantime, the first edition was continuing to be sold. That apparently was the source of the charge that I had continued to tell the original story even after the problem had been called to my attention.
"Dr. Kofahl, in an article entitled "The Bombardier Beetle Shoots Back," which he published in the evolutionist journal Creation/Evolution, in response to the critical article by Weber, accepted the responsibility for the slip in the story. He further argued powerfully that Weber's attempt to explain the evolution of the bombardier beetle from an ordinary beetle was exceedingly weak and seriously flawed. In spite of this explanation, published in 1981 in the major anticreationist journal, evolutionists have continued to bring up the story, implying that I have persisted in using a flawed case, even after having been made aware of the problem. As recently as my debate with Grover Krantz at Washington State University on March 3, 1987, an evolutionist professor from the University of Idaho brought up this subject during the question/answer period. It is long past time that this old tired story should be laid to rest.
"Even if the mixture of hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide is not explosive, a mixture of these two chemicals in the presence of the two enzymes in a confined space is explosive. The beetle, on his way to becoming a bombardier beetle, would have to be smart enough to carefully store the chemicals in a storage chamber apart from the enzymes but in the presence of an inhibitor to prevent them from reacting prematurely with one another. He also would have to be smart enough to know which enzymes he needs to catalyze the chemical reactions involved, and he would have to be smart enough to secrete them into the combustion chamber. The combustion chamber itself must be very special, able to resist the corrosive effect of the hot, irritating chemicals and strong enough to contain the high pressure without rupturing. The combustion chamber must also be equipped with a highly efficient valve, and the appropriate muscles must exist to manipulate the combustion tube and point it in the right direction. Of course, all of this incredibly complex apparatus would be totally useless without a precisely designed and perfectly functional communication system to squirt the charge of chemicals into the combustion tube, secrete the enzymes into the combustion tube, activate the valve at the appropriate moment, and send the correct signals to all of the muscles involved, in order to point the combustion tube in the right direction. Evolutionists would have us believe that all of the hundreds, and most likely thousands, of genes required to direct the construction and operation of all of this arose through a series of copying errors. Furthermore, these complex genetic changes had to occur in just the right order, so that at every stage of development the beetle was not only able to survive but also was actually superior to the preceding stage. Creation scientists reject this notion as more than scientifically untenable; it is simply preposterous, a fairy tale! But once again, evolutionists have resorted to an ad hominem attack on a creation scientist in order to obscure their failure to explain fatal flaws in evolutionary theory."
(Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, pp. 101-104, Dr. Duane Gish, Institute for Creation Research, 1993)
For More information on this fascinating little creature, see the article at Answers in Genesis:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/beetle.asp
So when you ask; "Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?"
No but as species yes but that would be limited as well... | |
|
AxyL
|
Joined: 12/1/2005
Msg: 45 | |
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 5:26:57 PM | Any of these points makes it possible for complexity, even irreducible complexity, to evolve gradually. Many people will still have trouble imagining how complexity could arise gradually. However, complexity in other forms arises in nature all the time; clouds, cave formations, and frost crystals are just a few examples. Most important, nature is not constrained by any person's lack of imagination."
I will quote Dr. Kent Hovind here and what he has to say on imagination he has debated this topic over 90 times all over the world, you find this quote and further information at this website;
http://www.drdino.com/index.php
"Conclusion
These are questions that some can imagine answers to, but such answers remain just that . . . imagination. An Englishman by the name of William Paley wrote nearly two centuries ago in his book, titled Natural Theology, that design requires a Master Designer. If someone found a pocket watch, he said, lying on the ground, he would reach the conclusion that it had been designed by a watchmaker. The order and design of the natural world, Paley reasoned, also points to the existence of an omnipotent Creator Designer.
As always, we don't make the conclusion, but leave the conclusion up to you."
I think that imagination is good for storytelling and inventing excuses or making art but it not a good tool in science especially when an answer is not forthcoming. | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 5:46:36 PM | My question is asking can a reptile(human, etc) turn into a bird through interbreeding?
This is actualy not as simpe to answer as it first apears.
Firstly, If the question is asking if a modern day species, such as a lizard or a human could evolve into a bird, my answer would be, No. A reptile or any other speces could not evolve into a Bird. They could evolve into a species like Birds, given the right circumstances and envirmont and no of generations and all other kinds of things. But they would not be Birds, they would be a species like Birds, but totaly distinct as they would not have the same ancestors as birds. It is important to understand that part of what defines a species is its ancestrey. So you could have two almost identical looking animals, but have very difrent speices. This is not as crazy as it sounds, we now know that not all bats have the same anestory. Bats all apear to be very similar at first look, but it is now known that the species found in the northern hemisphere, are destinkt from those in the southern hemisphere. Our Pipistrels are mot likely related to Rodents, where as the Long-nosed Bat and the Fruit Bat are more likley realted to Primates like Lemurs.
However, if the question you are asking is, DID a species like Lizards evolve into Birds, then that answer is yes. Birds evolved from Therapods, one of the Speices of Dinosouarids, which in turn evolved from Lizards. Lizards have evloved into Birds, but they could not do so again, even if they were to evlove into a species identicle to Birds they still would not be birds as they do not share the same ancestery. | |
|
AxyL
|
Joined: 12/1/2005
Msg: 47 | |
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 5:49:18 PM |
My question is asking can a reptile(human, etc) turn into a bird through interbreeding?
Apparently and according to some, if we just use our imaginations anything is possible even turning into a bird. | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 6:23:16 PM |
We are directly evolved from Proto-Humans, such as Australopithicus. Science can not tell us which Proto-Human species we are derived from, only which we are most likley derived from.
We are the only members of our genus, Homo, on the planet; and we are interfertile world-wide.
So are you saying that there must have been a number of proto-human species at one time, even though we are now alone? Why are they Proto-Humans? Couldn’t they have been fully human?
I remember the story of Ota Benga, a pygmy who was put on display in a zoo as an example of an evolutionarily inferior race a subhuman or Proto-Human.
Evolution is just like a famly tree, begining with one a single anticedant, and ending in hundrends of familys. And just like any family tree, it can only be traced back so far before the evidence for predecesors is not there.
Yes we are looking at humans within a family tree. Although I have looked back as far as I can, but I can’t find a bird or non-human in my family tree. I can only conclude that the bird (evidence for predecesors) was never there.
However, if the question you are asking is, DID a species like Lizards evolve into Birds, then that answer is yes. Birds evolved from Therapods, one of the Speices of Dinosouarids, which in turn evolved from Lizards. Lizards have evloved into Birds, but they could not do so again, even if they were to evlove into a species identicle to Birds they still would not be birds as they do not share the same ancestery.
This is where I have great difficulty in believing this. You say I did happen, yet all these creatures are extinct to be able to observe this happening. So it is inferred that it happened. But at the same time you say No it can’t happen today for us to observe this. Has evolution just stopped? | |
|
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 6:29:54 PM | Dr. Kent Hovind ?
One of the most debunked of the pseudo-scientists.
Can a Christian also embrace the science of evolution?
Why not?
Many do, ........then there are the kind who eschew logic, like Hovind.
Citing this guy does little for anybody's cred.
| |
|
AxyL
|
Joined: 12/1/2005
Msg: 50 | |
| Can a Christian also be an Evolutionist?
Posted: 1/26/2006 6:57:53 PM |
Now were he to say, you are walking along and find a prefectly shaped Iron Pyretes Cube and reasond that this cube was to perfectly formed to have not been desighned, then his analogy would have been corect, because he would be comparing a natural system to a natural system.
OK well lets look at it this way then;
You can make a sandwich but who made you, and who made them, etc...
Could it get anymore natural then that?
Dr. Kent Hovind ?
One of the most debunked of the pseudo-scientists.
Do you have evidence of him being discredited that you would tag him with pseudo tag? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
