Creationism vs. Evolution

Doonsbury ftw.

 

Maybe they saw the light and came to their senses

 

Hey, it's tough being a witch these days.

 

John Ankerberg, President and founder of The Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, producer and host of the nationally televised John Ankerberg Show, holds numerous degrees including: Master of Arts in Church History and Philosophy of Christian Thought and a Master of Divinity degree from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (both with honors), Doctor of Ministry degree from Luther Rice Seminary. Ordained Baptist minister and former pastor.

In addition to being a well known Christian evangelist and producer of the John Ankerberg Show, he is the author and co-author of 65 books.

I point all this out simply to say that he's one of the many Christian authors, ministers and evangelists today who do NOT believe or teach the so called "Young Earth" six consecutive 24 hour earth measured time periods for creation. Here are but a few of the objections he raises to such nonsense.

The Seventh “Day” Is Thousands of Years Long

Everyone agrees that it has been at least thousands of years since the time of creation, yet the Bible declares that God rested on the seventh day after His six days of creation (Gen. 2:2-3). According to the book of Hebrews, God is still in His Sabbath rest from creation (4:3-5); hence, the seventh day has been at least six thousand years long, even on the shortest of all the chronologies of humankind.

Source: Article - Dr. Ankerberg's Comments On Creation

The Third “Day” Is Longer Than Twenty-Four Hours

On the third “day,” God not only created vegetation, but it grew to maturity. The text says that on the third day “the land produced vegetation; plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds” (Gen. 1:12, emphasis added). To grow from seeds to maturity and produce more seeds is a process that takes much longer than a day, a week, or even a month for most plants. There is no indication in the text that its growth was anything but natural; it is its origin that was supernatural.

Source: Article - Dr. Ankerberg's Comments On Creation

The Sixth “Day” Is Longer Than Twenty-Four Hours

It would also appear that the sixth “day” of creation was considerably longer than a solar day. Consider everything that happened during this one “day.”

First, God created all the many hundreds (or thousands) of land animals (Gen. 1:24-25).

Second, God “formed” man of the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7). This Hebrew word (yatsar) means “to mold” or “form,” which implies time. Yatsar is used specifically of the work of a potter (cf. Jer. 18:2f.).

Third, God said, “I will make a helper suitable for him” (Gen. 2:18, emphasis added). This indicates a time subsequent to the time of the announcement.

Fourth, Adam observed and named this whole multitude of animals (Gen. 2:19). As Robert Newman noted, “If every one of the approximately 15,000 living species of such animals (not to mention those now extinct) were brought to Adam to be named, it would have taken ten hours if he spent only two second on each.” This is hardly enough time for Adam to study each animal and determine an appropriate name for it. Assuming a minimum of only two minutes each, the process would have taken six hundred hours (or twenty-five days).

Fifth, Adam searched for a helpmate for himself, apparently among all the creatures God had made. “But for Adam no suitable helper was found” (implying a time of searching) (Gen. 2:20, emphasis added).

Sixth, God put Adam to sleep and operated on him, taking out one of his ribs and healing the flesh (Gen. 2:21). This too involved additional time.

Seventh, Eve was brought to Adam, who observed her, accepted her, and was joined to her (Gen. 2:22-25).

In conclusion, it seems highly unlikely that all of these events–especially the fourth one–were compressed within a twenty-four-hour period or, more precisely, within the approximately twelve hours of light each day afforded.

 

There's that many.....degrees.....in church stuff?

 

They have their own universities.

 

I'm confused. Does he have TB or did TB "evolve" into some other kind of life form like an elk or a bunny rabbit? There is plenty of room for adaptation in creation. An animal gets bigger or smaller depending on environment or local breeding stock. A bacteria develops resistance to a certain antibiotic. However, in the end the animal is still the same basic animal it was when it started. I.E. a goat is still a goat, a horse is still a horse, and TB is still TB, not an entirely new kind of life form. For something to truly "evolve" in the sense that evolution teaches, it makes some kind of transition from living in the sea and obtaining oxygen like a fish does to developing legs (even rudimentary ones) and lungs to obtain oxygen from the air. A funny cartoon for the uninformed, but nothing more.

 

Is a wolf still a dog? Is a Bonobo still a Chimpanzee? That is the basis of evolution, Speciation. Try divergent evolution while you are at it. Look it up.

 

You're not understanding evolution
evolution=minute changes which allow for more favorable survival conditions

over millions of years, this creates new species adapted for different environments. In smaller timespans you'd only see new favorable traits. It's not like a dove family turned into peacocks in the course of a decade

In terms of bacteria, one strain was mutated in it's fission to create a new strain which was resistant to a certain drug; this allowed it to live longer and pass it's newly inherited strength to it's next divisions etc


This does not make sense in the "God created everything as it is now" view because you can't accept only "part" of evolution...and not the rest

also

 

that's actually not the reason one goes to church.

but, for me...after service this morning...then a brunch...then watching 2 baseball games (Orioles/Yankees & Rays/WSox)...and a short afternoon nap...

...I'm having a cup of joe and a healthy snack, so I figured I'd check in and see what the heathens were up to.

...later this evening we are going to a private seating at a brand new Italian restaurant & wine bar, we (the development company I work for) just built, that opens officially tomorrow...

then it's early to bed and early rise for an offshore fishing trip in the am on a private yacht.

thanks for asking

 

where's the question in this post? \/\/\/

 

I do understand the stated method of evolution. It has never been demonstrated to have occurred. I.E. No one has actually observed a reptile turning into a bird or a fish into an amphibian. The evolutionary debate has swung back and forth between the "gradual change" school of thought and the thought that there are major changes every so often that propel evolution forward more quickly.

That being said, I know that immediately there will be the cries of "you don't understand, it takes so long for the changes to take place that it is impossible to observe in a lifetime". My earlier post from last night refutes that line of thought because for life to have begun in the way that it is theorized there would have had to been a massive evolutionary jump "overnight" as it were from non living organisms to the sudden development of the exact number and type of amino acids combined with all of the elements of RNA and DNA and all of them being removed from the environment that created them, being whisked away to a safe environment, for them to then align themselves (again magically) to form proteins, DNA and RNA to then form a single cell. Then this cell would have to develop photosynthesis (again magically) and begin reproducing. Even in this grossly oversimplified explanation it is beyond ridiculous to believe.

As for bacteria developing resistance, resistant bacteria thrives where the nonresistant strain is killed off. You still wind up with the same type of bacteria in the end. That is why antibiotic resistant TB is called antibiotic resistant TB and not "crazy evolved life form we cannot identify that gives you the same symptoms as TB".

Mutations are a reality in the animal world. At best these mutations are neutral, but most are detrimental to the animal. Albinism is not healthy for a snake or most any other creature due to it becoming more visible to predators. Cancer cells mutate and are surely not beneficial.

We are to believe, though, that just by chance, the elements necessary for life simply got together one day, and without any outside influence simply "decided" they would form life and begin a series of beneficial mutations over billions of years in a hostile environment that would result in all of the different forms of life from insect to invertebrate to mammal. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning ten times while picking the winning lottery numbers in every state at the same time.

 

inferred

 

you're making blatant assumptions and blanket statements that allow you to brush off any rebuttal...

Drug resistant bacteria may change into something completely new one day; the fact that they're now "drug resistant" shouldn't just be overlooked...It's a change.
That's like saying
"these new fish have a new fin that allows them to swim faster than their original predators...But let's ignore that because of course swimming fast is a good thing for small fish and it's still a fish"

Drug resistant TB is drug resistant TB. It's not the TB of centuries past. Same goes for new staph and VRE. Had we not entered into the fray with antibiotics, they would have stayed the same. Their adaption to hostile variable has changed them into "new" strains.

Mutations are a shot in the dark and are usually destructive rather than helpful.... but that's exactly the reason why evolution takes so much time. It's not like a fish is suddenly born with a lung, or a bird suddenly fires lazers from it's eyes, the gene mutations take hundreds/thousands of generations to manifest into what we see today

Observable science has seen many cases of the introduction of favorable traits

and you're saying a bird born with a slightly longer beak, which is better for nectar collection
is harder to believe than

someone writing a story about someone telling a story about a flood that covered the world and a 500 year old man building a boat with two of every animal in existence? Except animals that the author didn't know existed, like kangaroos
in a book that has been altered several times throughout history though it's very existence emphasises how unalterable it is?

 

just for you...a verse that stood out to me today:


But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God

2 Timothy 3
NIV

 

Genetics is proving divergent evolution through the scientific method every day. Every day we learn more and more. We are revising the taxonomy of species with new discoveries in evolutionary biology. There is still much to learn and changes to be made in the understanding of our natural world but we understand the principles and have tested and retested them.

Your understanding of genetic mutations is flawed. Cellular mutations do not always have a neutral, detrimental or negative impact. You are associating a mutation with a negative connotation when a mutation is neither a positive nor a negative. A mutation may affect the host in a positive or negative way but if it is negative they do not persist within the genetic pool. If it is positive it will persist allow the host to have a better chance at success by out competing the others within the niche it inhabits for the available resources. It will have a greater likelihood of reproducing and overtime more members with the mutation will occur within the population. Your fundamentals in ecology are lacking at best.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/plants_animals/evolution/


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130624152617.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-07/sfeb-teo062813.php
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130705101826.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130430131120.htm

 

What blanket statements and assumptions are you referring to? I was pointing out legitimate issues with a well known experiment conducted in an effort to explain the spontaneous generation of life. An experiment that, by the way, has been changed multiple times since it's original form because certain assumptions in the original experiment were shown to be extremely unlikely to be true (by scientific evidence).

Get back to me when that drug resistant bacteria does indeed change into something different "one day" - Actually proves my point, has not happened yet, but is assumed that it will happen. Besides, the reason that it did change is that it was acted on by an intelligence (man) introducing an outside influence (antibiotics). I did not overlook this. It is a new "strain"...of the same bacteria not a totally new bacteria.

Please enlighten us on what changes have been made to the Bible (in it's original languages - not some of the quack translations/versions). In reality, the earliest extant manuscripts of the Bible in the original languages have been shown to have very little change when compared to the most recent manuscripts. Most of these differences being spelling or grammar. At any rate, there would not have had to be fish, insects, many forms of aquatic fowl and a number of other animals on the Ark. And the aforesaid adaptation within a type of animal would explain the variations of animals in existence today.

And I have no problem with a bird with a longer beak having an advantage over other birds of the same species anymore than I have a problem stating that a human that has grown larger due to better nutrition has an advantage over someone who battled malnutrition. That is scientifically demonstrable and just plain common sense.

Do you agree that lifespans have increased since the time of the ancient Egyptians? At one point 30-35 years was quite an achievement. Today, some people live to be over 100. To an ancient Egyptian (or others living at various times throughout history) to live to 70 would seem impossible, 100 unbelievable.

One final thought in regards to the flood, why is it that almost every major culture across six continents from Australia to Wales has a story that involves a major flood with people and animals being saved on a boat? Even the Chinese symbol for a ship is eight mouths (people) in a vessel.

 

I'm on my phone painting a new office...I'll jump back in later haha

 

Didn't ask. And TMI.

Someone is paying attention.

rhetorical