# Yec?



## AC. (Mar 19, 2010)

Some questions for those who believe in Darwin's evolution either partially or in whole

It drives me nuts how smug evolutionists are, and how they discredit YEC's as crazy

here are some questions

-how did we acquire brains? (feeling, emotions, rational thought etc.)
-what started everything? (the first cause)
-how did the dinosaurs get here, how did they become extinct?
-where are all the transitional fossils and missing link, etc?

-I believe evolution is all hogwash, and I don't believe the world is millions of years old, why do we accept the theories of a few men like Darwin as fact and why should we believe studies set up to establish these preconcieved notions for many who are thoroughly anti-Christian?

What about theistic-evolutionists? They frustrate me even more so sometimes, any here? How do you justify your beliefs?


----------



## JennyG (Mar 20, 2010)

As someone said recently,
the fact of evolution is now beyond debate, and there are really only two minor problems with the grand evolutionary synthesis:
we don't know how Life got started, and we don't know how one species evolves into another


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Mar 20, 2010)

AC. said:


> Some questions for those who believe in Darwin's evolution either partially or in whole
> 
> It drives me nuts how smug evolutionists are, and how they discredit YEC's as crazy
> 
> ...


 
I think you're painting Old Earth Creationists and evolutionists with too broad a brush. I'm a OECer and believe evolutionary processes have happened and continue to happen (including the dreaded macro-evolution), but do not accept Darwinian Evolution wholesale. Where atheistic (ie, Darwinian) evolutionists fail scientifically is when they extrapolate observable evolution to explain all life as we know it based on those mechanisms. Evolutionists have answers for all of your questions, but few are scientifically or even rationally based. For example, they explain human emotion as evolutionary adaptation to enhance species survival (love is a mere adaption, they say, to form closer bonds and improve chances of mating, reducing killing, etc). The bottom line is that evolution occurs, but cannot explain life as we know it - only creation accounts for the biosphere as we know it today.

As to your question about theistic evolutionists, I consider myself a "pseudo" theistic evolutionist. I believe God created the cosmos _ex nihilo_, created man separately, and believe there was no human death before the Fall. On the other hand, I do believe it is abundantly clear that God has used and continues to use evolution to further the masterpiece that is His creation. Evolution of all varieties is observable - to deny it is to deny a physical reality. I believe that in all likelihood God created a broad spectrum of species of all types and that those foundational species then evolved (and continue to evolve) to what we have today. I think this jives perfectly with Scripture and science as we know it...


----------



## AC. (Mar 20, 2010)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> AC. said:
> 
> 
> > Some questions for those who believe in Darwin's evolution either partially or in whole
> ...



Bingo! Evolutionists CANNOT explain the most vital existential questions, so in my estimation it is deeply flawed! 




ColdSilverMoon said:


> As to your question about theistic evolutionists, I consider myself a "pseudo" theistic evolutionist. I believe God created the cosmos _ex nihilo_, created man separately, and believe there was no human death before the Fall. On the other hand, I do believe it is abundantly clear that God has used and continues to use evolution to further the masterpiece that is His creation. Evolution of all varieties is observable - to deny it is to deny a physical reality. I believe that in all likelihood God created a broad spectrum of species of all types and that those foundational species then evolved (and continue to evolve) to what we have today. I think this jives perfectly with Scripture and science as we know it...


 
ok, I can agree with the first part of your statement and I'm not challanging that....do you mind clarifying the 2nd part (specifically your 2nd to last sentence) becasue I'm not sure what you are saying there.

thanks!

AC

---------- Post added at 10:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 AM ----------




JennyG said:


> As someone said recently,
> the fact of evolution is now beyond debate, and there are really only two minor problems with the grand evolutionary synthesis:
> we don't know how Life got started, and we don't know how one species evolves into another



those 2 problems just blows the whole credibility of evolutionary origins out of the water In my humble opinion


----------



## Skyler (Mar 20, 2010)

JennyG said:


> As someone said recently,
> the fact of evolution is now beyond debate, and there are really only two minor problems with the grand evolutionary synthesis:
> we don't know how Life got started, and we don't know how one species evolves into another


 
I like that!

AC, I think what ColdSilverMoon is saying is that we do indeed see what is called "microevolution" or speciation within a kind--take German Shepherds, Chihuahuas, and Great Danes for example. All of those breeds are from an original dog "kind", but because of natural selection, certain genes have been suppressed to create different breeds(and, in a few cases, species). This is different from Darwinian evolution or "macroevolution" because the creatures' genetic makeup is actually becoming less, not more, complex.


----------



## au5t1n (Mar 20, 2010)

JennyG said:


> As someone said recently,
> the fact of evolution is now beyond debate, and there are really only two minor problems with the grand evolutionary synthesis:
> we don't know how Life got started, and we don't know how one species evolves into another


 
Jenny, do you have any idea where you saw this? I want to quote it on my Facebook, but I want to give proper credit.


----------



## JennyG (Mar 20, 2010)

austinww said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> > As someone said recently,
> ...


I read it on the net only a couple of days ago, but when I looked for it again to check the wording and give the attribution here, I couldn't find it....and I still can't!! (frustrating)
I know it was in a satirical piece which purported to be written by an atheist addressing other atheists, (using the same kind of "inverted logic" device as in the Screwtape Letters) and I arrived at it by following a link or links. I have a feeling I've seen something similar before, and it may be a regular feature of some I.D.- slanted production. There are three I fairly regularly look at (they're all Catholic bsed, but intelligent and often worth reading) are "Salvo" magazine, "Touchstone" ditto, and Denyse O'Leary's "Post-Darwinist" blog so any of those could have been my starting point.
If I can find it I'll certainly post it! But as it was, I more or less made up the wording myself, since I remembered only the gist. Maybe it's vague enough to use without crediting...?


----------



## AC. (Mar 20, 2010)

Skyler said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> > As someone said recently,
> ...




I think it obvious that's not what I'm challanging because it's observable - see my list of questions!

---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 PM ----------

Hey Jenny

Stupid me, I missed the satire all together...good one!

---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 PM ----------

What exactly is a theistic-evolutionist? what Christian origins to do they hold onto, any? or do simply believe God was behind the big bang......


----------



## au5t1n (Mar 20, 2010)

JennyG said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > JennyG said:
> ...


 
Thanks for looking. Don't worry about looking further, unless you just want to. Maybe you're right that it is vague enough to use without crediting.


----------



## MRC (Mar 20, 2010)

AC. said:


> Some questions for those who believe in Darwin's evolution either partially or in whole
> 
> It drives me nuts how smug evolutionists are, and how they discredit YEC's as crazy
> 
> ...



As a high school science teacher I have been forced to work through this issue in some detail. I certainly do not claim to have the whole answer, but I will share with you where I am at thus far.

At this point there are too many names and titles for the huge spread of positions one could subscribe to on this issue. At the end of the day I am convinced that the Scriptures are authoritative and without error as the writings of our Creator. I am also convinced that there is a lot of very good science that has occurred over the past few hundred years which shows us that the earth is billions of years old. Furthermore, there are many, many examples of how biology exhibits evolution so that species can adapt to life changing conditions in their environment (something that seems like an intelligent process if you ask me). Examples could include the moths in industrial Europe and certain bugs that evolve to blend in with the vegetation of their surroundings.

That's a bit of background to my position, now I will attempt to specifically answer your questions as best I can from my finite and fallen mind, _I think_:

a) We got out brains from God when He created man (Gen 1:26-27), and we have emotions and a conscience because He made us as His image-bearers.
b) The first cause from science would seem to be the 'big-bang', but this is just the leading theory among a couple of other possibilities. I think it is a good conclusion to the scientific data, and it certainly does not contradict the fact the God made everything with His Word (Gen 1:1). The easy answer is to claim God created the big bang. I don't see too much obvious support for this biblically, and it is not a "done deal" scientifically so the Christian scientist can easily think of the big bang as a possibility, knowing that God created the heavens and the earth.
c) The dinosaurs were on earth as they were part of God's creation. The leading theory of their extinction is a glaciation due to a meteor striking the earth. This is scientifically possible and certainly would not disagree with the creation account. It might remain a mystery in science forever, but they were definitely created by God (Gen 1:24-25).
d) I suspect the so-called "transition fossils" are a good example of reprobate man looking for any excuse to continue in rebellion to his God. Just like JennyG wrote, one of the great mystery's of Darwinian evolution is the missing links proving inter-species evolution. I think the answer is that inter-species (macro-evolution) is false, and points man back to see the fact that God specifically and purposefully created "living creatures _according to their kinds_-livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth _according to their kinds_" (Gen 1:24b, italics added). This is one example of why I think evolution does wonders for pointing us _towards_ God and why the young-earth position _can easily_ point us _away_ from "[God's] invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature", as those attributes and that divine nature is "clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, _in the things that have been made_." (Rom 1:20, italics added). Also notice that this verse ends by explaining that the reprobate are "without excuse" because God has revealed His existence and creation in the world.

I hope this helps you as you seek to know the Creator of the universe as He has revealed Himself. I am sure that what I wrote has error in it, and pray that it might have some truth so that you might be edified and God would get the glory!


----------



## Irish Presbyterian (Mar 20, 2010)

> [/COLOR]What exactly is a theistic-evolutionist? what Christian origins to do they hold onto, any? or do simply believe God was behind the big bang......


 
B.B Warfield would have been considered a Theistic evolutionist. Here are some of the limits of his position:

*	He rejected naturalistic evolution that made evolution alone responsible for the existence of the created order.
*	He could accept evolution as a method used by God to accomplish part of the work of bringing the world into existence.
*	He believed in the necessity of creation apart from any evolutionary process. That is God had to create the material from which the universe is made “ex nihilo” (out of nothing) by a special creative fiat. Evolution alone therefore cannot account for the existence of the world.
*	He allowed that this material, being once created by a divine act, could be reworked and fashioned into its present state by an evolutionary process.
*	He believed that any evolutionary process would have to be under the direct and active superintendence of divine providence and could not be some autonomous natural force.
*	He rejected any form of “theistic evolution” that limited God to working through natural processes in the formation of the world after the initial creative act to bring into being the materials of the universe.
*	Warfield believed in three separate kinds of divine activity that brought the world into its present form; creation, evolution, and mediate creation.
*	He defined creation as it had classically been understood, to bring into existence out of nothing something that had previously not existed in any form.
*	He defined evolution as a providentially guided process to reform existing materials within the limitation of the potential existing in the materials.
*	He defined mediate creation as a process that forms something by a combination of creation and process (i.e. evolution) working together. This concept is the lynch-pin of Warfield’s thought on this subject. Without this concept Warfield felt God was restricted to working through natural processes and supernatural divine intervention in the world is ruled out. This would eliminate miracles and further creative activity. This was unacceptable to Warfield.
*	An example of mediate creation in Warfield’s thought would be the creation of Adam. His body could have been created by a long evolutionary process as postulated by Darwin, et al. However, the creation of his spirit, by divine in-breathing, was a supernatural act of creation. He gives the formation of the God-man Jesus Christ as another example. And as a "creationist" rather than a "traducianist" he also saw the ongoing formation of human beings as acts of mediate creation.
*	Warfield believed that there was nothing in the first chapters of Genesis that could not be properly interpreted in a way consistent with the evolutionary development of the present world. The only caveat he allowed was that the creation of Eve (Out of Adam’s rib by a special act of God) was hard to reconcile with an evolutionary interpretation of man’s development. But he obviously did not consider this a serious enough objection to cause him to reconsider evolution as a viable interpretation of the Genesis creation account.


----------



## AC. (Mar 20, 2010)

Thanks for your insights Mike



MRC said:


> AC. said:
> 
> 
> > Some questions for those who believe in Darwin's evolution either partially or in whole
> ...




---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ----------

Very interesting Keith, thanks!



Irish Presbyterian said:


> > [/COLOR]What exactly is a theistic-evolutionist? what Christian origins to do they hold onto, any? or do simply believe God was behind the big bang......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Nate (Mar 20, 2010)

Skyler said:


> This is different from Darwinian evolution or "macroevolution" because the creatures' genetic makeup is actually becoming less, not more, complex.



I've heard this before and I have to admit I don't understand it. Could you explain what you mean by this?


----------



## AC. (Mar 20, 2010)

Just watched Ben Stein's 'No Intelligence Allowed' tonight.

I stayed away from it for a while because the exclusively pro-evolution crowd was slamming it so hard....however, this was a superb documentary that shed some very important light on the consequences that Darwin's evolution has had on science and many other areas of society.


----------



## JennyG (Mar 21, 2010)

ggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Last night I had a conversation with a theistic evolutionary, soi-disant Christian. He was happy to admit he has no knowledge of the science whatsoever - but still told me with impenetrable superiority (slight smile, slight pitying shake of the head) that really such fundamentalist rejection of the known fact of evolution (...just a few details we haven't discovered yet, such as how one species evolved into another, and how life originated)* is not for this day and age.
I thought of you, AC, and especially of your OP. All I could find to say in the end was trust me, within your lifetime Darwinism will be utterly down the tubes, so remember: _you heard it here first!_ 
He was not impressed. 


*this was the real, bona fide wording of that quote


----------



## JennyG (Mar 21, 2010)

> Warfield believed that there was nothing in the first chapters of Genesis that could not be properly interpreted in a way consistent with the evolutionary development of the present world. The only caveat he allowed was that the creation of Eve (Out of Adam’s rib by a special act of God) was hard to reconcile with an evolutionary interpretation of man’s development. But he obviously did not consider this a serious enough objection to cause him to reconsider evolution as a viable interpretation of the Genesis creation account.


Even such a magisterial thinker (and true believer) as Warfield was not able to shake free of the intellectual fashion of thought of his time.
That is a big, big caveat that he mentions only to decide he can live with it. 
My first tiny step towards throwing my whole trust onto the words of Genesis was on reading John Stott's (I think) "Christian evolutionary" account of the Creation of Adam and Eve ....eons-long process of primitive, and finally hominid evolution culminating in the appearance of one pair of genuine _homo sapiens_ individuals, into whom God breathed a soul, and who then fell into sin. I was thrilled at the time - it was so much closer to taking Scripture at its word than anything I had encountered before. 
But if you actually look at that scenario, it's so clearly motivated primarily by the need to placate the scientific thought-police that we should immediately smell a rat.
Besides, it's a logical- and commonsense- pig's breakfast. 
When and why did death _first_ enter the world, for a start? 
And what could our God, the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, have been playing at starting the cosmos off in that insanely hit-and-miss sort of way and then standing by for countless ages, giving a tweak here and a tweak there, but only when things looked like being totally derailed: 
and as Warfield noted, what about the Creation of Eve? 
That is completely incompatible with evolution of any sort.


----------



## AC. (Mar 21, 2010)

I hear ya Jenny.....

the thing I struggle with the most as somebody who leans towards YEC is Neanderthals. I would like some opinions on that one from my fellow Reformed-Christians. I can deal with the idea that the world is older, but I would have a hard time reconciling that Adam & Eve were not the first humans....so I think there has to be some reasonable explanation behind the concept of the Neanderthal


----------



## JennyG (Mar 21, 2010)

I think creation scientists consider they were simply homo sapiens - in fact I believe even evolutionists have had to come round to that admission.
It would mean they belonged to some time after the dispersal from Babel. If you go to the AiG or CMI websites, there will be plenty of info on this as well as every origins-related topic you can think of


----------



## au5t1n (Mar 21, 2010)

Genetically, the Neanderthals aren't any more different from modern Europeans than modern Europeans are from the Chinese. They are descended from Adam and Eve as are all other humans. Hope that helps.


----------



## AC. (Mar 22, 2010)

Here's a dvd I purchased and started watching today. Excellent/highly recommended!

4 Power Questions to Ask an Evolutionist - Answers Bookstore


----------



## MRC (Mar 23, 2010)

JennyG said:


> I think creation scientists consider they were simply homo sapiens - in fact I believe even evolutionists have had to come round to that admission.
> It would mean they belonged to some time after the dispersal from Babel. If you go to the AiG or CMI websites, there will be plenty of info on this as well as every origins-related topic you can think of



I have found the think-tank Reasons to Believe invaluable for a Christian understanding of all science-related issues.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 23, 2010)

NateLanning said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > This is different from Darwinian evolution or "macroevolution" because the creatures' genetic makeup is actually becoming less, not more, complex.
> ...


 
"Microevolution" is where genetic mutation results in "specialization" of the descendants and a loss of genetic diversity. For example, microbes developing a resistance to an antibiotic by losing the gene that the antibiotic targets to kill them.

In contrast, "macroevolution" requires the addition of information, thereby creating genetic diversity--enabling microbes to evolve to "higher organisms". This, to my knowledge, has yet to be observed naturally.

edit: My use of those terms may be different from the way others use them--I'm not sure.


----------



## Nate (Mar 23, 2010)

Sorry, I still don't understand -- antibiotics target gene products that are absolutely critical for microbial survival. Loss of these genes would likely phenocopy the addition of the antibiotic - ie., the mcirobe would die. Microbes generally become resistant to antibiotics by acquiring genes that metabolize the antibiotic in question, by increasing the rate at which they eject the antibiotic out of themselves, or by a couple of other mechanisms that don't require loss of genetic information. In fact, picking up an antibiotic-metabolizing gene is obviously considered "gaining information". Have you ever looked into the proposed gene or chromosomal duplication events as explanations for gain of function events in "macroevolution"? These events look like they may have taken place in most organisms. Gene and chromosomal multiplication have certialnly been observed in cancer (these events give cancer cells the ability to proliferate very rapidly and also tend to allow additional mutations to accumulate).


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 24, 2010)

Natural selection is just a sieve. it cannot create anything. 

It sieves through useful or less useful varieties that God already put in the original species which He created. That's why we have all the varieties of human beings we have descended from Noah and his wife. What did he look like when we consider how different the races of the world look? God put all the genes necessary into Noah to allow for black people of various kinds, yellow people, white people, Middle-Eastern people. But there are limits to variation because the gene pool is limited.

The only way to escape it is through mutation.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 24, 2010)

NateLanning said:


> Sorry, I still don't understand -- antibiotics target gene products that are absolutely critical for microbial survival. Loss of these genes would likely phenocopy the addition of the antibiotic - ie., the mcirobe would die. Microbes generally become resistant to antibiotics by acquiring genes that metabolize the antibiotic in question, by increasing the rate at which they eject the antibiotic out of themselves, or by a couple of other mechanisms that don't require loss of genetic information. In fact, picking up an antibiotic-metabolizing gene is obviously considered "gaining information". Have you ever looked into the proposed gene or chromosomal duplication events as explanations for gain of function events in "macroevolution"? These events look like they may have taken place in most organisms. Gene and chromosomal multiplication have certialnly been observed in cancer (these events give cancer cells the ability to proliferate very rapidly and also tend to allow additional mutations to accumulate).


 
It's been a long time since I looked into this, but isn't the mechanism of acquisition of genes in a virus or microbe basically that it's taken over intact in its pre-existent condition? In other words, instead of an existing genetic structure developing new information, that new information comes in from an outside source. So if you spliced a sheep and a pig you might get a woolly pig, but it wasn't because the porcine genetic code "grew", but because already existent information was added from outside.

There is a beautiful National Geographic video on Lake Tanganyika, where they state that the cichlids in there have evolved past the point of no return - many of them have specialized to the point that they can no longer return to the basic cichlid model still found in the river that feeds the lake. Another example could be a winged beetle in the Falkland Islands - some of the beetles no longer have wings, which AiG presented as a _loss_ of genetic information, but one that gave them an edge in surviving - they are much less prone to be swept off the land into the ocean by the wind if they don't have little sails attached to them.


----------



## Nate (Mar 24, 2010)

py3ak said:


> NateLanning said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I still don't understand -- antibiotics target gene products that are absolutely critical for microbial survival. Loss of these genes would likely phenocopy the addition of the antibiotic - ie., the mcirobe would die. Microbes generally become resistant to antibiotics by acquiring genes that metabolize the antibiotic in question, by increasing the rate at which they eject the antibiotic out of themselves, or by a couple of other mechanisms that don't require loss of genetic information. In fact, picking up an antibiotic-metabolizing gene is obviously considered "gaining information". Have you ever looked into the proposed gene or chromosomal duplication events as explanations for gain of function events in "macroevolution"? These events look like they may have taken place in most organisms. Gene and chromosomal multiplication have certialnly been observed in cancer (these events give cancer cells the ability to proliferate very rapidly and also tend to allow additional mutations to accumulate).
> ...


 
Yes, you are mostly correct. In the example that I gave, a microbe would gain genetic information through the addition of a gene that produces an antibiotic-metabolizing protein. This new gene would have been acquired from existing genetic material in another microbe. Still, this is an example of "gain of genetic info/complexity", not loss of the same. Skyler indicated that this has never been observed.

Other examples exist of cells obtaining new genetic information through duplication or multiplication of existing genetic material. Promoter regions of genes can become mutated - these don't affect the gene's coding sequence, but they sure can dramatically change the way a protein is expressed and have drastic consequences for a cell ("good" and "bad"). There is also the duplication/multiplication of genetic info that I alluded to earlier. If you've ever tried to clone with yeast or certain bacterial strains, you know that these events can throw a monkey wrench into your project.

The AiG example of non-functional beetles wings giving them a selective advantage is accurate. However, the article in AiG that this came from describing loss vs gain of genetic info is awful, as is much of their writing on this type of subject, in my opinion. Also, I'm steadfastly 6/24 YEC. I just can't stand organizations that use extremely poor science and unjustifiable comparisons to try to bolster their position. There's no way the scientists at AiG believe half the things they write.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 24, 2010)

NateLanning said:


> If you've ever tried to clone with yeast or certain bacterial strains, you know that these events can throw a monkey wrench into your project.



Cloning with yeast is practically my constant pursuit (read: I've never come within a lightyear of doing any such thing).

As I recall, the AiG article did mention the high potential for unexpressed genes to present the appearance of truly new developments; perhaps the more focussed point was that a mutation doesn't introduce brand new information, the way a programmer might add a completely unanticipated line of code. I'm not competent to comment on the science, but I'm thankful for your input.


----------

