Board requests progress reports from LSU administration

LSU Board release: Reaffirmation of November actions upholding the Adventist Church’s doctrine of creation.
Board requests administration provide progress reports identifying specific actions taken.

LSUboardaction

Please follow and like us:
37

379 thoughts on “Board requests progress reports from LSU administration

  1. Paul ironically had one of the least blind faiths in the Bible. He saw Jesus with his own eyes on the way to Damascus. The ironic part is how he was then struck with physical blindness.

    View Comment
  2. @Stephen Vicaro:

    The Bible does not support a “blind faith.” The following quotes view blind faith negatively.

    “In the parables which Christ had spoken, it was His purpose both to warn the rulers and to instruct the people who were willing to be taught. But there was need to speak yet more plainly. Through their reverence for tradition and their BLIND FAITH in a corrupt priesthood, the people were enslaved. These chains Christ must break. The character of the priests, rulers, and Pharisees must be more fully exposed.” Desire of Ages 612-613.

    “Rome had misrepresented the character of God, and perverted his requirements, and now men rejected both the Bible and its Author. She had required a BLIND FAITH in her dogmas, under the pretended sanction of the Scriptures.” Great Controversy, page 282.

    Indeed. “Blind faith” — “not good” 😉

    Christ said to the woman at the well “you worship you know NOT what” in John 4.

    @Geanna Dane:

    The “blind faith” that Ellen White described was based solely on the word of MISINFORMED men. If Paul and others truly converted many Gentiles, how was there faith any diffrent other than being based on word of INFORMED men? Did the converts have anything to read (“evidence”) before their conversion? I dont think so. They simply listened and believed and their “blind faith” just happened to be in the right place. Lucky them!

    A couple of questions.

    1. How is this thread turned to the subject of “blind faith”??? what is bringing it up? If we were all devoted to “blind faith” how is that helping something related to this subject?? what is the connection?

    2. As for the NT believers — Acts 17:11 comes to mind
    “They studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul – WERE so”

    In Romans 1 Paul says that godles pagans with no access to the Bible at all are “without excuse” for the “invisible attributes of God are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE” – demonstrating an argument for intelligent design made available to atheists and barbarians (Paul’s word not mine) that Theistic evolutionists opperating within our own SDA institutions are trying hard to ignore.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  3. @BobRyan: Hi Bob, I can’t agree more! People who do not want to see intelligent design won’t see it. It takes humility. Romans 1 is attacked on several fronts and those who refuse to read it as it reads have an inadequate view of the majesty of God: see Rom 1:22,23 “Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” (ESV)
    The popular view today is to go by what man imagines: he/she tries to put God in a box and define Him. A little humility would not go astray but put one on the right path which is what God says! For those interested have a look at verses 25 and 26. Clearly, theistic evolutionists are serving the creature rather than the Creator. They are so caught up in their fantasies that it is impossible for them to see what nature indicates. And so very vocal minorities who want to try and say that God does not mean what He says arise. They do not want to distinguish between the natural and the unnatural: there are none so blind as…….

    View Comment
  4. Two wee responses:

    1. “How is this thread turned to the subject of “blind faith”??? what is bringing it up? If we were all devoted to “blind faith” how is that helping something related to this subject?? what is the connection?”

    Read upstream. It wasn’t my idea.

    2. “Bacteria will never mutate into anything other than a bacteria. A legless lizard will never be the snake that it resembles at first glance. A trout will never evolve into anything other than a more specialized trout.”

    How can you know this? Where did the dinosaurs come from – they evolved, did thay not? And to say that a legless lizrd evolved in 4000 years is one thing, but who other than God can knonw what would happen after 400,000,000 years? What makes you say that some change can happen, but then it suddenly stops and no more change at all can happen? I think its a bit arogant (and quit silly) to say that we know this.

    I dont mean to be disrespectful but I think we tend to state things as fact when we dont know them to fact. If we have seen the results of minor evolution over 4000 years (no more then 6000 years) I think we have no right to make conclusions about what mite happen over a peroid of time that is 1 MILLION TIMES longer. Its like saying the Grand Canyon will look the same at 1/1,000,000,000 of time as it will after 999,999,999/1,000,000,000 of time. Think about it – I dont think that we would recognize the Grand Canyon at th later point in time.

    View Comment
  5. You know, a one-million-fold change from what we believe has happened in the passed is no small thing. Coming up with an analogy for change between 4,000 units (years) and 4,000,000 units (years), Ive done some math to see how this change might relate to human development from infancy to elderly. One millionth of 60 years should be 31.5 minutes (60 x 365 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes / 1,000,000). Working the other direction, 4,000 x 31.5 minutes = 87.5 days. (I’m just a college chick so maybe you should check my math,)

    So if we took a look at an 87.5-day old baby boy and reexamined it 31.5 minutes later, we would see VERY LITTLE change. But if we checked the infant again at a period of time 1,000,000 times later, we’d see a 60 year old man who looked DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT. Unless of course the physiological functioning changed such that gradual aging stopped all together.

    You know I think we need some humility here, boys. I dont think we should be so quick to say what might or mihgt not happen over time.

    View Comment
  6. Good points all – Bob.

    God’s argument in Romans 1 goes beyond “intelligent design” admittedly – which means that those who pretened not to notice any intelligence at all – when they view a Rembrant, or a Picasso or DNA or the Krebs cycle or the inner working of a single celled organism… are “pretending” not to notice at a level BELOW what God says that atheists and barbarians are “without excuse” for ignoring.

    Speaking of the Krebs cycle animation – enjoy

    http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072507470/student_view0/chapter25/animation__how_the_krebs_cycle_works__quiz_1_.html

    Speaking of the single cell animation – enjoy this animation regarding Protein Synth.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSasTS-n_gM&feature=related

    Picasso’s work can be duplicated – the examples given above – cannot.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  7. For those readers who want to explore a more complete picture for ATP production (beyond the facinating Krebs cycle example) we move on to the electron transport chain’s role in producing ATP based on Citric Acid cycle products — and so the following animation may be of interest.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idy2XAlZIVA&feature=related

    Thus when we talk about God being an “intelligent designer” we really are referring to intelligence far beyond mankind.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  8. @Geanna Dane:

    So if we took a look at an 87.5-day old baby boy and reexamined it 31.5 minutes later, we would see VERY LITTLE change. But if we checked the infant again at a period of time 1,000,000 times later, we’d see a 60 year old man who looked DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT. Unless of course the physiological functioning changed such that gradual aging stopped all together.

    You know I think we need some humility here, boys. I dont think we should be so quick to say what might or mihgt not happen over time.

    In your example we have an organism building up for about a 20 year period of time – followed by that same organism decaying for about 40 years of time and at every stage entropy being preserved – and at no point does the human “become some other organism”.

    So if we apply that to the human race – we would expect that today’s version of the human race is “significantly decayed” from its origin of production – and we would expect that “more time in decay” would continue to weaken the entire human race until (like the 60 year old going to 100 years) it simply ceased to exist.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  9. Geanna Dane: How can you know this? Where did the dinosaurs come from – they evolved, did thay not? And to say that a legless lizrd evolved in 4000 years is one thing, but who other than God can knonw what would happen after 400,000,000 years?

    Hi Geanna.

    Please don’t call yourself a “silly college chick.” Your opinion is just as valuable as those of us who are a little older. I have respect for a person who is applying her time and energy to learning. And in some ways you have an advantage because you are engaging your mind in challenging thoughts regularly.

    However, I have a quote for you. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. . .” According to the Bible record, before that first week the earth was unsuitable for life. There was no light, no atmosphere, etc. The belief that dinosaurs evolved on earth before the creation is unscriptural. Also, it says that the Bible’s “God of love” set in place a savage, cruel, death ridden world. This is a major assault on the character of God.

    Romans 5:17 states that the sin of Adam brought death into the world. It was not God’s plan or choice. But God has made all of His creatures with free choice. But read on and you find that Christ’s death brought life to all. God did not cause death, but He has taken responsibility for it, to solve the problem.

    Dinosaurs obviously existed. We have irrefutable evidence. But they were destroyed by the flood, just like all the rest of the earth. Modern interpretations of the evidence probably report different opions of these creatures than what the reality was. The Bible states that the lion will eat grass in the new earth. I have a feeling that all creatures will be vegetarians also. There will be no death in the new earth. The crocodile will not threaten us, or will any dinosaurs either. Maybe in God’s wisdom He knew that we could not compete with these large creatures in our degraded, weakened state after the flood. So they were not allowed to survive. I don’t claim to have all the answers.

    I do know that a gorilla has powerful muscles and huge fangs. If all we had were his bones and teeth we would assume that he was a predator/carnivore. But in fact, gorillas are complete vegetarians. I’m only bringing this up to state the point that interpreting data can be both subjective and objective.

    And by the way, water is an extremely powerful force. The Grand Canyon was formed in a very short amount of time by a worldwide, catastrophic flood, probably within a couple of hundred years. Take this from someone who lived in Katrina’s destruction zone: when there is a massive amount of water moving through an area, nothing can stop it. Check out Art Chadwick’s research on paleo-currents at Southwestern Adventist University in Texas.

    View Comment
  10. Stephen,

    Thank you for the kindness words. I agree with everything you write including the dinosaurs coming about after creation, but that just gives them 2,000 years to evolve. Contrary to Bobs predictions about human decline (which I dont agree with) that was some extraordinarily fast evolution without so called “decay” or “degeneration”. Were talking numerous changes in morphology, physiology an behavior to accommodate new ecologies and the evolution of many new species including some that don’t fit in well with what we think of as basic kinds.

    Human aging is one thing depending on complext interactions between DNA and horomnes and various cytokines but lineage change over time is something very diffrent and depends on very different processes (I’m sure Bob recognizes this). My point is that we cannot extrapolat much beyond our current data. One learns this in a basic statistics class (regression specifically). Thus a naive alien who had nothing available other than an infant would be in for quit a surprise if they formed their opinion about chanage on earth based only on 31.5 minutes of observing the infant and then returned to check up on the human almost 60 yearts later. I think our sweeping conclusions about what can and cannot happen with basic evolution are to often overstated.

    I am familiar with Chadwicks wonderful research. The whale research with the Loma Linda and Geoscience people is great but i am a bit skeptical about the evidence for paleo-currents. It seem so speculative to me. According to Google Scholar he has not published his work in a peer reviewd journal and the most detailed descripton of his work cited only a couple of papers which hardly seems fitting for data collected from thousands or millions of locations in the world. So I think that there is much to flesh out. I hope he succeeds.

    View Comment
  11. This quote is interesting:

    “In Romans 1 Paul says that godles pagans with no access to the Bible at all are “without excuse” for the “invisible attributes of God are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE” – demonstrating an argument for intelligent design made available to atheists and barbarians (Paul’s word not mine) that Theistic evolutionists opperating within our own SDA institutions are trying hard to ignore.”

    I totally believe that God’s invisible qualities can be seen in nature (just watch Planet Earth!!! LOL), but we need to be careful how far we carry this out. When I was young I watched my pet fishes and frogs die and it was upsetting. I watched my high school teacher feed mice to snakes and it was upsetting. In General Biology I learned about baby sharks that eat there brothers and sisters before being born. About male lions that kill babies so that they can make more of their own. About bazarre parasites that suck the life out of other animals.

    So if we take literatlly that Gods qualities are “CLEARLY SEEN”, then maybe we should be a bit gentle in criticizing those who conclude like Richard Dawkins that God is either cruel and vicious with a sick sense of humor or is a sick joke altogher. Many of the qualities we see in nature do NOT paint God in flattering light. We creationists are the ones trying hard to ignore this and not the thestic evolutionists as has been suggetsed.

    I think some of you men take this “evidence” thing too far as a basis for faith. What is more helpful is to have a selective filter that better interrprets evidence. Am I wrong?

    View Comment
  12. @Geanna Dane:

    So if we take literatlly that Gods qualities are “CLEARLY SEEN”, then maybe we should be a bit gentle in criticizing those who conclude like Richard Dawkins that God is either cruel and vicious with a sick sense of humor or is a sick joke altogher. Many of the qualities we see in nature do NOT paint God in flattering light. We creationists are the ones trying hard to ignore this and not the thestic evolutionists as has been suggetsed.

    God is the one making the claim that the atheists/pagans/barbarians are “without excuse” based on the “invisible attributes of God being clearly seen in the things that have been made” in Romans 1 — not me..

    I am just “reporting the news” – not making it.

    Thus when our esteemed LSU evolutionists operating from inside the SDA institution – pretend to be so confused as to not be able to discern what God Himself claims is readily available to atheists and pagans – we have a comparator available for all to use in coming to their conclusions.

    As for life spans of 900+ years that decay down to 80+ years being sign of the human organism “decaying over time” – I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

    ( I believe there is also a simlar decay metric for the size of the average preflood human vs the average human today).

    In any case – observing the degree to which that shows decay over time such that “more time” will only bring us to extinction, is being left as a simple exercise for the reader.

    To each his own.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  13. @Geanna Dane:

    Thank you for the kindness words. I agree with everything you write including the dinosaurs coming about after creation, but that just gives them 2,000 years to evolve.

    To evolve “from what”??

    Measuring evolution would require a start and end point over time.

    What did you use as your start point?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmkj5gq1cQU

    Here is an example of a 100 year experiment that produced “Belgian Blues” weighing over 1 ton. (see 30seconds in the video clip at 1:30 to 2:00)

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  14. Bob, I appreciate the decay between Adam and Moses, but I personally would’nt describe the remarkable diversity and advances in humans since Moses as decay. Throughot the world and in virtually every concievable habitat humans have succeeded remarkably well, in many cases showing genuine adaptations to climates and other ecologial features. I think God gave us a remarkable ability to persevere in a sinfull planet. If we become extinct it will almost surely be because of our success in modifying the planet (with the intent of improvement, or too defend against others) rather than decay. Fortunately we have a promise that we can live forever.

    I wouldnt equate a Belgian Blue with a tyrannosaurus or brontosaurus but I admit I really dont know what the starting point would be for the dinos. I still think there was a lot of change in ca 2000 yers.

    View Comment
  15. I’m aware of you book David but have’nt found time to read (and haven’t bought it). Where do you think the dinosaurs came from, sir?

    View Comment
  16. @Geanna Dane:

    Bob, I appreciate the decay between Adam and Moses, but I personally would’nt describe the remarkable diversity and advances in humans since Moses as decay. Throughot the world and in virtually every concievable habitat humans have succeeded remarkably well, in many cases showing genuine adaptations to climates and other ecologial features. I think God gave us a remarkable ability to persevere in a sinfull planet. If we become extinct it will almost surely be because of our success in modifying the planet (with the intent of improvement, or too defend against others) rather than decay. Fortunately we have a promise that we can live forever.

    Preflood man lived to be over 900 years and was reportedly larger than we are today.

    Moses lived to 120 years.

    Israel sufferred no diseases at all for 40 years in the wilderness – and we have very little on the percent of “cancer” in Moses’ generation as compared to what we have today.

    Choosing to develop the skill of reading and writing is not a sign of the organism in decay (except to the extent that memory was more closely aligned with total recall in ages before writing).

    One of the reasons that we are advised not to eat meat today – and yet we have Israel required to eat meat during the Passover and we have Christ serving up a fish breakfast for the disciples – 2000 years ago, is that we are told the entire living biosphere is advancing in decay.

    Romans 8 also makes that same point about the living systems on earth.

    The increase in pathogens alone is sufficient to make the point beyond reasonable doubt.

    Leaving mankind alone to suffer “further decay” for 10,000 more year is more than enough to do him in.

    I wouldnt equate a Belgian Blue with a tyrannosaurus or brontosaurus but I admit I really dont know what the starting point would be for the dinos. I still think there was a lot of change in ca 2000 yers.

    The 100 year specific breeding for Belgian Blues resulting in bulls having massive overgrowth of muscle and weighing over 2500 lbs is the kind of “% change” you would expect if the intent was to produce a hostile and dangerous variation in some more mild species of dinosaur that ends up looking like a T-Rex after a few 100 years of selective breeding. Only you start with a dinosaur of some type to develop a T-Rex instead of starting with a domesticated bovine of some type. (obviously)

    Given the fact that the scientists themselves were living for more than 900 years, and were known for their dedication to violence – it is a reasonable scenario.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  17. “The 100 year specific breeding for Belgian Blues resulting in bulls having massive overgrowth of muscle and weighing over 2500 lbs is the kind of “% change” you would expect if the intent was to produce a hostile and dangerous variation in some more mild species of dinosaur that ends up looking like a T-Rex after a few 100 years of selective breeding. Only you start with a dinosaur of some type to develop a T-Rex instead of starting with a domesticated bovine of some type. (obviously)”

    Granted that is a lot of change in just 100 years. (obviously) Now multply that change by 1 million (for 100 million years) and tell me what yu got. Does it still look like a cow? LOL. Or did it bgin to look more like more a mammoth? Or did it magically stop after say 2000 years because, you know it cant evolve into anything other than a cow?

    So here’s the question I can’t answer: does evolution happen much faster than we are told to beleve by evolutionists or much slower? If it happens much faster then that might explain why there is so much diversity in just 2000 years after the flood (you hav to admit there is amazing diversity especially in Australia and the new world that are far remved from Mt. Areat. It also explain’s how quickly the dinosaurs evolved before the flood. BUt if evolution happens more slowly then it would be even more unlikely to have everything evolve even in many millions of years.

    View Comment
  18. Geanna Dean and others may be interested in the interview with David Read about his book on Dinosaurs, two reviews of the book from two very different perspectives, and a long series of comments about the book–all on the Adventist Today web site. The best way of access these materials is probably to Google “Dinosaurs–an Adventist View”

    View Comment
  19. Geanna:

    Most creationist modeling posits a period of rapid diversification and speciation after the Flood. Most of this I would not attribute to “evolution,” if that word means the modern Neo-Darwinian synthesis, i.e., natural selection acting upon mutations, which are DNA replication errors. I would suggest that, during this time, favorable genetic characteristics spread rapidly by horizontal genetic transfer, rather than just through lineal descendants. There are certainly other genetic mechanisms that we do not currently understand.

    There’s obviously much that is not understood about how life has evolved, and this applies to both models, creationism and Darwinism. Creationists have generally believed that genetic potential, the potential for adaptive genetic change, was greater in times past than it is today. As Bob Ryan has pointed out, the clock seems to be running down. I would suggest that some mechanisms of genetic change that helped plant and animal populations rapidly adapt to the new post-flood ecological niches are simply inoperable today. They operated in the past, but no longer work.

    The fossil data present a mystery to both Darwnists and creationists, but Darwinists are committed to interpeting the data without reference to the supernatural or divine intervention, whereas creationists are committed to interpreting the data according to the outline of history presented in the inspired writings.

    View Comment
  20. The evolution of the dinosaur is very much affected by the “starting point”. Thus if we have a non-violent, vegetarian, non-aggressive set of Dinosaurs before the fall of man – that are adapted over time to the loss of certain food sources and possibly even manipulated by science during that 1500 year period of time, then we might expect that they could have developed more violent variations over time (along with lions and other species that adapted during that same time period of time).

    But for Ellen White to attribute the violence in the dinosaurs to some plan on Satan’s part – would at the very least suggest the idea that sinful man – may have devoted his misguided science to the work of creating destrutive variations in dinosaur populations.

    Not that any of this changes anything regarding the problem at LSU –

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  21. Some thoughts-

    “Most creationist modeling posits a period of rapid diversification and speciation after the Flood. Most of this I would not attribute to “evolution,” if that word means the modern Neo-Darwinian synthesis, i.e., natural selection acting upon mutations, which are DNA replication errors.” (Dr. Read)

    I thought speciation was not just “evolution” but “macroevolution.” I dont think the Bible says this cant happen so I peronally don’t have a problem with it.

    “I would suggest that, during this time, favorable genetic characteristics spread rapidly by horizontal genetic transfer, rather than just through lineal descendants.” (Dr. Read)

    This sounds like “faith” to me. We really don’t know what happenned 4000 years ago.

    “Creationists have generally believed that genetic potential, the potential for adaptive genetic change, was greater in times past than it is today. As Bob Ryan has pointed out, the clock seems to be running down. I would suggest that some mechanisms of genetic change that helped plant and animal populations rapidly adapt to the new post-flood ecological niches are simply inoperable today. They operated in the past, but no longer work.” (Dr. Read)

    Ditto about “faith” and what little we know.

    “But for Ellen White to attribute the violence in the dinosaurs to some plan on Satan’s part – would at the very least suggest the idea that sinful man – may have devoted his misguided science to the work of creating destrutive variations in dinosaur populations.” (Mr. Ryan)

    Interesting but why would Satan need any helf from humans when he has legions of angels? And how would sinful woman benefit from viscous dinosaurs?

    Is’nt it ok to say we just dont have the answers? I dont mean to sound mean- I just think we should be humble. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions fellas. Maybe Ill feel different after sleeping on this. Ta-ta! Oh ya I guess I’ll find the Adventist Today website- thank you Mr. Taylor!

    View Comment
  22. BobRyan
    The evolution of the dinosaur is very much affected by the “starting point”. Thus if we have a non-violent, vegetarian, non-aggressive set of Dinosaurs before the fall of man – that are adapted over time to the loss of certain food sources and possibly even manipulated by science during that 1500 year period of time, then we might expect that they could have developed more violent variations over time (along with lions and other species that adapted during that same time period of time).

    “But for Ellen White to attribute the violence in the dinosaurs to some plan on Satan’s part – would at the very least suggest the idea that sinful man – may have devoted his misguided science to the work of creating destrutive variations in dinosaur populations.”

    @Geanna Dane:

    Interesting but why would Satan need any helf from humans when he has legions of angels?

    1. Turns out – Satan “Can” destroy every man woman and child on earth if allowed to. It all gets back to “rules of engagement” – and the limits God places on him under their articles of war.

    2. As for speciation taking place within a static genome (i.e. a fixed set of coding genes) – that too is a given.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  23. “When bacteria mutate, they do so in order to adapt to their evironment. The ones that survive the pretator (antibiotics) will then multiply and become specialized to survive in that situation. But when the predator (antibiotics) is not present any longer, and the mutated bacteria is placed back in an environment with it’s original parent strain, the original parent strain soon overpowers the specialized, weaker mutated strain until there are none left except the original parent strain. In the same way, of you place those legless lizards outside of the environment they adapted to, an environment where being legless would be a hindrance and an obstacle, they would be unable to survive. Blind trout have no adaptable advantage outside of the caves they dwell in.” (Stephen Vicaro)

    This statement reinforces the obious fact that organisms change with their environment regardless of its nature. Of course when the environment changes bak to its “original” state the animals also change back to their previous state because thats what works best. By becoming adapted to their environment through evolution they are NOT becoming weaker. I’m sorry but this does not in any way match the claim that they are becoming weker:

    “The changes in species that we are able to observe have always resulted in a more specialized version of the original, which makes them more vulnerable to changes in their environment. Hence, they become weaker, not stronger.” (Stephen Vicaro)

    If degeneration was anything substantial than life would have come to a halt long time ago. Surely God made life capable of changing to a sinful world. The Bible doesnt suggest in the remotest that humans or other life forms will collapse on their own. Clearly the world will end at God’s hand. At Adventist Today I learned that David Read is a lawyer. Very impressive book I’m sure. I dont know who Stephen Vicaro and Bob Ryan are but I dont think they are scientists. Is their a biologist lurking here?

    View Comment
  24. “Most creationist modeling posits a period of rapid diversification and speciation after the Flood. Most of this I would not attribute to “evolution,” if that word means the modern Neo-Darwinian synthesis, i.e., natural selection acting upon mutations, which are DNA replication errors. I would suggest that, during this time, favorable genetic characteristics spread rapidly by horizontal genetic transfer, rather than just through lineal descendants. There are certainly other genetic mechanisms that we do not currently understand.” (David Read)

    Evolution is change. It doesn’t matter weather change happens by natural selection, genetic drift, cultural drift, epigenetics (horizontal genetic transfer), or other genetics mechanisms that we do not currentlyl understand- its still evolution. Why do we have to work so hard to call it anything but “evolution”? This makes no sense to me. Its like we have to hide this “dirty” word and couch evrything in other terms when in reality every honest church member aknowleges that change happens. The Bible makes clear that change happens (the serpetn on its belly eating dust, the woman in childbirth, the flocks of livestock Jacob attended, the harmless snakes and wolfs in Eden restored vs today).

    We see change happening today in real time. HIV viruses change continully to survive (not denerate), bacteria become resistant to antibiotics to survive (not degenerate), insects become resistant to insecticide to survive (not degenerate). Evolution for these orgnaisms is a GOOD thing (tho BAD for us). Even humans have evolved good changes- most obvious at environmental extremes (eg cold weather and high altitude physiology) and where disease is rampant (eg sickle cell anemia protects against malaria in Africa).

    View Comment
  25. Geanna Dane: This statement reinforces the obious fact that organisms change with their environment regardless of its nature. Of course when the environment changes bak to its “original” state the animals also change back to their previous state because thats what works best. By becoming adapted to their environment through evolution they are NOT becoming weaker. I’m sorry but this does not in any way match the claim that they are becoming weker:

    Hi Geanna.

    Think about it. The legless lizard has lost its DNA for legs. If placed in an environment where legs would be a survival necessity, those lizards cannot gain the DNA for legs. In one generation that species of lizard would then become extinct. Animals become so specialized that they lose their ability to adapt (that is atheist evolutionary theory, not just creationism).

    Frogs are not going to develop wings, because they do not have the DNA for it in the first place. WE MUST HAVE DNA FOR A TRAIT IN ORDER TO POSSESS THAT TRAIT. That is a simple rule of genetics. A human will not have blue eyes if his parents do not have the DNA for blues to give him, even if it is recessive. Trout go blind in caves, they lose the ability to see. Once the gene pool loses the DNA for sight, it is lost forever unless in is reintroduced by a sighted trout.

    The Flightless Cormorant of the Galapagos Islands lost its ability to fly because flight was not beneficial in its environment. If placed back in an environment were flight would be necessary for survival, where there were predators for instance, it would soon become extinct. It is specialized to the point of weakness.

    When fruit flies develop a second pair of wings, it is a fluke that takes place in meiosis, much like trisomy 21 (Down’s Syndrome). When the chromosomes break off unevenly during cell division. It’s not a positive mutation, it’s negative. Those four-winged flies can’t fly.

    There is nothing programmed within a species that enables it to “generate” genetic traits that it never had before. That concept is not based on science. It is based on philosophy, which is what Darwin was, a philosopher. He was not a scientist.

    We can philosophy anything we want, that does not mean that it will happen.

    The reason that we have so many species in the fossil record is because they adapted (became specialized) until they could not adapt any longer, and then the went extinct. It does not take very long. The fossil record is remarkably voic of transitional species. In gradschool I did a paper on “punctuated equillibrium.” This idea was advanced by the late Stephen Jay Gould, a professor at Harvard University. He says that species change rapidly, catalyzed by environmental changes, and then have long periods of stasis. He was an evolutionist and an atheist. But he did not accept gradual change in species. Look it up.

    View Comment
  26. Geanna Dane: Even humans have evolved good changes- most obvious at environmental extremes (eg cold weather and high altitude physiology) and where disease is rampant (eg sickle cell anemia protects against malaria in Africa).

    Geanna.

    I would disagree. I would say that humans, early in earth history, were all resistent to disease and climate extremes. Over time we have become weaker, unable to fight off pathogens. All humans, at one time, could tolerate extremes in cold and heat. But as we migrated (after the tower of Babel) and settled in areas where those extreme tolerations were not necessary, many races of humans lost their ability to withstand the cold and heat.

    You are still operating under the assumptions of a biased evolutionary theory. Granted, I am biased also, in the other direction. But creationism is actually more consistent across the different scientific and philosophic fields. Evolution is controdictory across different fields.

    View Comment
  27. Stephen,

    Thank you for your kind and patient reply. I have thought about it.

    Some animals adapt and others do not. There many examples “evolutionary traps” and you have sighted classic ones., Evolutionary traps occur when a species becomes highly specialized (many remain more generalized) and the environment rapidly changes- you must be a biologist after all so you probably know this. Of course animals go extinct and are replaced by others.

    To follow your premise to its logical conclusion one species after another wuld find itself in this predicament resulting in overll reduction in in biodiversity. But have we seen a trend toward reduction in biodvierity? In recent years due to humans yes, but since the flood? COnsider the hundreds of marsupials in Australis, hundreds of hummingbirds in the new world, the thousnads of endemic (found nowhere else) plants and animals on islands around the world. Where did they all come from after the flood, from Mt. Ararat? If evolving detrimental traits is a limiting factor for evolution (I dont buy that it is) then how have we ended up with such incredibly diversity today? The number of new species evolving clarly must have exceeded those caught in evolutionary traps. And there, sir, is your dilemma.

    By the way Stephen Jay Gould believed in both gradualism and more rapid change.

    View Comment
  28. There is nothing programmed within a species that enables it to “generate” genetic traits that it never had before. That concept is not based on science. It is based on philosophy, which is what Darwin was, a philosopher. He was not a scientist.” (Stephen Vicaro)

    Not based on science? Why do fangs, spines, and venom glands come to mind? these systems have evolved independently in hundreds or thousands of diffrent animal groups, most for no purpose other than defense. These ar complex systems! Maybe God created more programming for genes than appreciated by us.

    View Comment
  29. “I would disagree. I would say that humans, early in earth history, were all resistent to disease and climate extremes. Over time we have become weaker, unable to fight off pathogens. All humans, at one time, could tolerate extremes in cold and heat.” (Stephen Vicaro)

    With all due respect this is not science. Its philosophy. And it requires faith in the absence of any evidence.

    View Comment
  30. Geanna Dane: With all due respect this is not science. Its philosophy. And it requires faith in the absence of any evidence.

    To the contrary Geanna, this philosophy is based on genetic evidence. By the way, all conclusions in the field of evolution are interpreted somewhat on assumptions and faith, since we did not see the evolving take place. And, I never claimed that my beliefs were based on anything other than faith, reinforced by evidence, which is exactly what evolutionists do when they make the assumption that there is no designer. They limit themselves and their possibilities for discovery.

    The genetic evidence which I speak of is that science has never observed the addition of a single chromosome producing a new trait in any organism that was not already present in an ancestor of that organism. We can commonly observe the loss of genes, but never the addition of them. But no matter how much a coyote needs wings to survive, it will never adapt to its environment through evolution if wings are its only way to escape extinction. It’s DNA cannot reprogram itself.

    My assumption is based on this scientific evidence. The genetics of every human being on the planet can be found in Noah’s and his wife’s DNA: every color, size, shape, etc. The different races have adapted (become specialized) to thrive in their environments. They have lost those traits that were unnecessary or unbeneficial to survive were they were. This is more plausable that the belief that they “constructed” new DNA out of thin air. The later assumes that our DNA can somehow interpret its environment and then adapt itself. You see, it takes more faith to believe this way.

    The reason that we have such variety in species is because every creature is different. Change in species does happen rapidly. But not to something more than what the original was, only more specialized. Hence, the variety of marsupials in Australia.

    By the way, I know you are looking for credibility, but might I remind you that Jesus had no formal education. He was homeschooled. And, He believed in creation and the flood. Just thought that I would through that in.

    View Comment
  31. @Geanna Dane:

    Geanna: you are correct that the creationist model posits a good deal of rapid evolutionary change shortly after the Flood. If I resist calling it “evolution” it is because that term evokes the Darwinist model of common ancestry and evolutionary change over 500+ million years, which of course the creationist model rejects. But both models clearly have a great deal of evolutionary change in them. They differ over rate and mechanism.

    Adventist scientist Leonard Brand acknowledges that the creationist model includes micro-evolution and even macro-evolution, and he has coined the term “mega-evolution” to describe the mainstream idea of common descent of all creatures over hundreds of millions of years. Creationists believe that entire genera or even families of animals diversified from a single created “kind” or baramin (a term coined by Adventist scientist Frank Lewis Marsh). There is a creationist discipline called baraminology that tries to determine which animals descended from an original created pair, and Harvard Ph.D. paleontologist Kurt Wise has done work in this field.

    Also, I don’t think the current scientific thinking on the mechanism of evolutionary change–natural selection acting upon genetic mutations, i.e., DNA replication errors–is adequate to explain the change I believe happened since the Flood. I agree with you that some of the post-Flood evolutionary change has been exquisitely adaptive, but Stephen Vicaro is right that genetic mutation typically leads to the loss or garbling of genetic information; mutation does not add genetic information. I discuss this for several pages in my book, mentioning bacteria/anti-biotics, insects/insectides, and sickle cell anemia. For an in-depth discussion of this topic, I recommend Lee Spetner’s “Not by Chance.” But, in a nutshell, these types of mutations are degenerative changes that happen to have a very positive side effect.

    For example, Mycin-type antibiotics work when the mycin attaches to a matching site on the ribosome of a bacterium and prevents the bacterium from assembling necessary amino acids. As a result, the bacterium makes the wrong proteins and cannot grow, divide, or propagate. If the bacterium has a mutation that alters the site where the mycin would normally bind, the drug can no longer interfere with protein production, and the bacterium has become resistant to mycin. But the mutations that make bacteria resistant to mycin degrade their ribosomes, making them less specific and slower in translating RNA codons into protein. Similarly, the insecticide DDT works when a molecule of DDT binds to a matching site on the membrane of an insect’s nerve cells, preventing the nerve cells from functioning properly. Eventually, when enough of the insect’s nerve cells have DDT molecules bound to them, its nervous system breaks down and it dies. A mutation that changes the site of the nerve cell at which the DDT molecule would normally bind prevents it from binding and renders the insect resistant to DDT. But the resistant insects are less active and slower to respond to stimuli than are nonresistant insects. Their resistance to insecticide is bought at the price of a more sluggish nervous system. Finally, the point mutation-induced sickle cell allele, if inherited from one parent, does convey a very significant survival advantage in the presence of the malaria parasite (Plasmodium), but if inherited from both parents leads to sickle cell anemia, a potentially fatal disease.

    So even these types of “beneficial” mutations aren’t really beneficial. They are degenerative, just like all other mutations. This is why I have to insist that there are, or in the past have been, other genetic mechanisms that have driven the “evolutionary” change that creationists acknowledge must have taken place, even in a short-chronology creationist model.

    View Comment
  32. “The genetic evidence which I speak of is that science has never observed the addition of a single chromosome producing a new trait in any organism that was not already present in an ancestor of that organism. We can commonly observe the loss of genes, but never the addition of them.”

    Are you serious? Have you ever heard of Downs Syndrome? Mmm…I just polished off a Jonagold apple. It was delicious with all those extra chromosomes that arose spontaneously from its ancestor. Some 30-80% of plant species are polyploid, with multiple sets of chromosomes. When they arise, which happens all the time, they dont have just new traits, they’re often enttirely new species. There are also polploid animals swimming and crawling all over the place. Some of them are infertile and can no longer produce offsprig by conventional sex, so guess what, they evolved a new trait- parthenogenetic reproduction,

    “The genetics of every human being on the planet can be found in Noah’s and his wife’s DNA: every color, size, shape, etc.”

    I’d bet the genetics of every living organism on the planet on the can be found in Noah’s and his wife’s DNA. You and I both know that base pairs and sequences can readily rearange (by single-base substitutions, insertions, deletions, duplications, translocations) and there is also horizontal change which our book author thoughtfully mentioned. So whose to say that the sequence for a human cytochrome B can’t become rearranged to a form the sequence for frog cytochrome B. Whose to say that the sequences for human toe formation can’t become rearranged to form webbed toes like a duck? Whose to say that the genes regulating limb formation in a coyote could not eventually recombine over a long period of time to form wings?

    I think your forgetting that “science” has been around for only a very short period of time to “observe” anything.

    By the way I too believe in creation and the flood. I just think we make way to many assumptions about what evolution cannot do and we are quick to dismis evidence when we think it doesnt match the Bible record, which happens to say absolutely nothing about chromosomes or ANY limits to change.

    View Comment
  33. David, you offered great examples of what you interpret to be “degenerative” mutations. But of course they enhance survival for that particular environment and therefore they ARE beneficial. You are applyingh the terms “degenerative” and “beneficial” outside of the context in which they ocur, presumably because you believe something in the Bible says that truly beneficial changes cannot happen (tho you also concede that as much MUST have happened immediately after the flood).

    Of course there are trade offs in efficiency when mutations occur. By why stop the train there? You appeart to assume for examle that a DDT resistant strain of insects cannot have a mutation that improves the efficiency of their nervous system. Of course such a mutation could arise. So if they were resistant AND functioned well then what would you have then?

    “Adventist scientist Leonard Brand acknowledges that the creationist model includes micro-evolution and even macro-evolution”

    He’s either an honest Adventist scholar or works with a very different creationst model than most Adventists I’ve met.

    View Comment
  34. Geanna Dane: By the way Stephen Jay Gould believed in both gradualism and more rapid change.

    Hi again Geanna.

    Just a quick, friendly correction: Stephen Jay Gould was taught gradualism as the only acceptable answer for the origins question (just like the students at LSU). He of course promoted it in his own research and writings as others have done who thought there was no other option. Early on he believed in gradualism. But through the years as he advanced in his field the evidence caused him to be a strong critic of it (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, 2002). Hence, the punctuated equillibrium philosophy, which I only partly agree with.

    View Comment
  35. @Geanna Dane:
    Geanna: There are at least two contexts for the discussion of “beneficial” mutations. The first is whether the mutation can help a given organism to survive in a given ecological niche, or in the presence of some potentially fatal agent. The answer to that question, in the context of mutating resistance to anti-biotics or insecticide, or even the sickle cell allele in the presense of Plasmodium falciparum, is obviously “yes.” Nobody denies that.

    The second context is whether the accumulation of “beneficial” mutations could lead, over the course of >500 million years, from a single-celled organism to all of the plants and animals we see around us today. The mutations necessary to accomplish that would have to be not merely beneficial, but add new biological information and new, apparently designed biological mechanisms. The “beneficial” mutations that convey survivability in the presence of anti-biotics, insecticides, and Plasmodium do not seem to be of that character. The evidence for “beneficial” mutations in this second sense of the term simply isn’t convincing or compelling.

    And it isn’t anything in the Bible that leads me to this conclusion. A biblical worldview does place definite constraints on what I will believe. I believe the Bible to be teaching that God created the original kinds of plants and animals sometime in the past 6,000 to 10,000 years, so I do reject the Darwinian hypothesis of common ancestry and evolution over the course of >500 million years. But even creationist models posit a good deal of evolutionary change, including beneficial adaptation; the Bible doesn’t rule out evolutionary change. I’m just not convinced that natural selection of DNA copying errors are the causative mechanism of that change.

    Leonard Brand’s creationist model isn’t much different from most others I’m aware of. The idea of the rapid post-Flood diversification and speciation has been a fixture of creationist thought for over 80 years. In a letter to Harold Clark praising him for his 1929 book, “Back to Creationism,” George McCready Price wrote, “If the Seventh-day Adventist people will all get behind these two ideas, Flood geology and plenty of species-making since the Flood, . . . I believe it would not be long before the scientific world would sit up and take notice.” Leonard Brand has written (1997), “According to the theory presented here, much of our current taxonomic diversity has been the result of limited evolutionary change after a worldwide catastrophe. The original groups of plants and animals have diversified into multitudes of species as they adapted to fill specific niches in the changed conditions after the catastrophe.” And Kurt Wise has written (2002), “In perhaps as few as three centuries, scores of new species arose within most mammal baramins, and thousands of species arose within many of the insect and plant baramins.”

    So there’s really nothing new about the idea that many different species have arisen from the orignally created kinds of animals. It’s just that creationists are all convinced that natural selection acting on genetic mutation is the engine for this evolutionary change.

    View Comment
  36. Sorry, the last line should read, “. . . creationists are NOT all convinced that natural selection acting upon genetic mutation is the engine for this evolutionary change.”

    I somehow lost the edit option before I was able to make that change.

    View Comment
  37. David (if I may call you that),

    I really appreciate your taking the time to write your response. I know that I can be a pill. I especially appreciated the frank admission that rapid speciation- properlly called macroevolution- must have taken place after the flood. Most Adventists are so fearful of the word “evolution” that they are unwillling to tolerate,, this. And “macroevolution” is an extemely naugty word. I’m sure your well aware of this, and it must take some courage on your part to point this out at such a conservative and hypercritical website. At the same time you are writing this, others here are stating that evolution is antibiblical and antiGod. though they are probably talking about a broader meaning of evolution (very few Adventists understand anything at all about this word).

    THe concern I still have is that regardless of the mechanisms involved we so often seek to have things both ways: evolution happens to slowly for life to have evolved over billions of years, AND evolution happens FAR FAR FAR faster than any evolutionists concede so as to account for rapid diversifcation after the flood. We cant have it both ways of course. The solution you and a few others seems to suggest is that change happens very rapidly when it needs to- like after the flood- but then it hits a “magic wall” and simply canot go any further. I remain skeptical that a “magic wall” exists and I think we should give more respect toward those who are not willing to make the assumption that there are well defined partitions within which evolution can occur but not cross.

    I hope I’m expressing things clear enough. I don’t mean to offend anybody. And I know my writing is not the most polished. By the way, I attended several Adventist colleges but currently am not at one. My Adventist background tho has served me very well for the most part. I like evolutionry biology classes and I feel like I can make a clear dstinction between evidence and my faith.

    View Comment
  38. We can see one example how degrading changes in the fall of this planet (degraded today from its peaceful harmless sinless origin with all Genomes present in Eden) – the case of the serpent that God “changed” instantly – “rather than over 100’s of 1000’s of years of time responding to environmental pressure).

    But the serpent has not been able to “advance back” to its former state in all of this time. And certainly it is obvious that it was deprived of it’s natural food source – once it was limited to the ground – no feet and no hands. Add to that – the fact that fruit was almost non-existent immediately after the flood and we have two (or 4) very unhappy serpents coming off the ark.

    None of that works in any evolutionary timeline known to mankind or generally accepted today by evolutionists.

    It would be a mistake to mix-and-meld just to land upon an even more objectionable solution than we have between Evolutionists and creationists today.

    Particularly when such a half-and-half quiltwork is neither testable or reproducible.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  39. I’m not sure – are you agreeing or disagreeing with David Read? He is suggesting extremely rapid and positive evolutionary changes for a short period after the Flood, and only then a return to (normal?) degradation as the only genetic change.

    View Comment
  40. Call the changes in species what you will — microevolution, macroevolution, megaevolution — it still remains true that all creatures remain within their “kinds,” as the word is used in verses such as Genesis 1:21,24,25 etc. A creature from the canine ‘kind’ (dog, wolf, fox, etc.) has never morphed into anything resembling a giraffe or a blue whale, and never will.

    View Comment
  41. @Geanna Dane:

    Geanna: It is unfortunate that the creationist model isn’t well understood, even in Adventist circles. It is a little disheartening that you or Bravus could imagine that a period of rapid post-Flood speciation, which has been part of Creationist thinking for at least 80 years, is some kind of startling new admission on my part.

    But, as John Howard correctly points out, it is diversification within the basic kinds of animals, not one kind of animal evolving into a fundamentally dissimilar type of animal. In other words, the “magic walls” were established at creation, when God created each plant and animal “after its kind.” And I don’t think the walls are really magic. Rather, when God created the kinds, they had a great deal of genetic potential, and over time this genetic potential has been realized and has played out. To use John Howard’s example, it may be that the “dog kind” diversified into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and domestic dogs, meaning that many species might have evolved within the dog “kind” or baramin. And this process has been at work in hundreds, probably thousands, of other baramin or “kinds.”

    I think it is a temptation of both sides of this controversy to create and then tear down straw men, rather than really try to understand their opponent’s model. But honest misunderstanding of the creationist model is far more likely, because the mainstream scientific model is ubiquitous, whereas you have to go search for the creationist model to know what it is. So there are alot of Darwinists who have no idea what creationists believe. If both sides fully understood the other side’s model, everyone would see that our real differences are almost solely philosophical and religious.

    View Comment
  42. It seems true that the Bible says nothing direct about chromosomes, new species, genetic mutation and so forth. However, can it not be said that after the Flood nature was interfered with by the results of sin?
    If God were responsible for natural selection and development, He would be responsible for the suffering of mankind and animals that goes together with this theory: mankind deforms and kills mankind and animals eat and kill each other. The fittest survive. Isn’t a God who needs evolution a person who lacks in power: not much wiser and no more powerful than we are? Is a God who uses experimentation and suffering to develop nature, hence, not knowing where things are going, worthy of worship? Is God Love or is He not?

    View Comment
  43. Ut-oh I fear I’ve opened a can of worms. But I’m not ready to put them back in yet.

    Bob Ryah brought up the snake. This caught my interest because, “on thy belly shalt thou go,” it would have grat difficulty reinhabitating the world from Mt. Ararat. Besides I really think snakes are cool. I did some Googling and learned a few facts (mostly from Wikipedia).

    THere are something close to 3000 species in the world of which maybe 600 are venomous. Venom has apparently evolved multiple times in this group, including within the actractaspidids, colubrids, elapids, and viperids (these are venomous families). One elapid group the sea snakes has about 60 species,, and occurs only in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Apparently only one species has crossed the Pacific to the New World, so it must be difficult out on the sea. They have many fascinating adaptations different from all other snakes. I can’t see this as “degeneration”.

    Perhaps the group that interests many the most, is the rattlesnakes. Loma Linda University has some interesting research on them and their venom, as sometimes feature on television. There are about 30 species, and all are confined to the New World. How did they get here from Mt. Ararat (I dont think they swam)? And how did they get their rattles that serve only one purpose- defensive warming (and new structures can never evolve?)? And there is one island where “degeneration” has happened and rattles fall do off with each shed. They also have unique, intricately designed facial pits to detect heat frmo their warm-blooded prey and these function a lot like actual eyes (again new structures can never evolve? and the eye is often held up as one example that is too complex to evolve!) One website mentioned they originated in Mexico. Mexico? Now how can that be? (Of course the Bible has no say on this.)

    Herpetologists say the earliest snake was about 130 million years ago (I don’t know how accurate this information is). The earliest viper was maybe 10 million years ago and the earliest rattlesnake was more than a million years ago (I could’nt find precise times). So while evolutionists believe 30+ rattlesake species evolved in more than 1 million years (roughly one new species every 33,000 years), we insist that all of it happened in a MERE 4000 years,, unless some came off the ark (but there are none in the Old World). So who are the true evolutionists- us or them? Think about it! Obviously WE believe more fervently in evolution- at extraordinarily fast rates- than any so called evolutionist. Static genome? Lets get real!

    This raises another obvious question. If the rattle itself and facial pits and so many other unique adaptations can evolve in just 4,000 years ago how much more change could accumulate in 1 million years? Whose to say they could not evolve legs again or eventually transition into a differrent kind? WE DONT KNOW BECAUSE NOONE HAS BEEN AROUND 1 MILLION YEARS TO TELL US (except for God who has not told us anything).

    My point: lets have some humility and wait until until we get to heaven before declaring we have all the answers,, or even a good understanding of change.

    View Comment
  44. @Geanna Dane:

    Geanna: There’s alot about origins that everyone is unsure about. People who are familiar with the data are not in danger of believing that they have all of the answers. As to humility, I think creationists are generally more humble than Darwinists, if only because we acknowledge that we believe what we believe by faith, whereas Darwinists typically insist their speculations and “just so” stories are scientific fact, when they are only stories. Since you mention venomous snakes, I find the whole idea that snake venom and its corresponding delivery system evolved in a stepwise fashion, through spontaneous DNA copying errors, to be quite a stretch. This advanced bioweapon system gives every appearance of having been designed, although perhaps by an evil genius. And, like the (much smaller) biological mechanisms described by Michael Behe in “Darwin’s Black Box,” all of its several components would have to be simultaneously in existence for the weapon to come “online” and convey any survival advantage to the snake. Yet Darwinian science posits that this remarkable design evolved by random DNA copying errors multiple times, since the lines of venomous snakes, most notably the Viperidae, Elapidae, and Atractaspididae, evolved independently of each other. (Also, two completely different types of venoms, neurotoxins and hemotoxins, are supposed to have evolved.)

    There is certainly a need for humility, and to acknowledge that we don’t know much about origins. But one thing I am certain of is that Darwinism and Seventh-day Adventism are incompatible worldviews. They don’t go together. Adventism is essentially founded upon the idea that God created the world in six literal days, and rested on the seventh day, just a few thousand years ago. At some point you’re going to have to make a choice between the Darwinian model and the creationist model. It is a faith choice. The data don’t interpret themselves, and are too numerous to ever sort out in a hundred lifetimes. So we ultimately make a faith choice whether we will interpret the data through the lens of Biblical creationism or naturalistic science.

    View Comment
  45. Geanna Dane: Why do fangs, spines, and venom glands come to mind? these systems have evolved independently in hundreds or thousands of diffrent animal groups, most for no purpose other than defense. These ar complex systems! Maybe God created more programming for genes than appreciated by us.

    Geanna.

    You have introduced excellent questions. I agree with you that God may have “created more prgramming for genes than appreciated by us.” I want to remind you that my answers are speculation based on current knowledge (which is exactly what predominant evolutionary theory is). I do not have a problem with short-term evolution after the flood. I have a problem with the “millions of years” scenario, and the absense of a designer.

    Let’s look at snakes for example. You are making the assumption that fangs and venom evolved independently of one another. I would assume (philosophy granted) that venom was present in the original snake, and early on all snake subspecies had venom, but that it had a different purpose. For instance, the rattlesnakes venom is not only used in catching its prey, but as a digestion aid. Upon the entrance of sin it became necessary for snakes to adapt to their new environment. The snake began to use venom as a weapon, in the same way that canines began to use their teeth as weapons, and cats their claws. Many snakes have lost the mechanisms necessary to produce venom. Why would a snake have genes for long fangs before death entered the world? I can’t be certain. I know that tallness is not determined by one gene. It is determined by a complex combination of different genes. Maybe in the beginning that is how fang length was determined. It is probably much more complex than what we can currently observe. It is easier for me to believe that all snake had venom and some lost it, than for me to believe that no snakes had it and some independently constructed new DNA for it. For instance, cobra venom and coral snake venom are nearly identical, and yet they live on opposite parts of the world. What is the likelyhood of that happening independently?

    View Comment
  46. @Geanna Dane:

    THere are something close to 3000 species in the world of which maybe 600 are venomous. Venom has apparently evolved multiple times in this group, including within the actractaspidids, colubrids, elapids, and viperids (these are venomous families). One elapid group the sea snakes has about 60 species,, and occurs only in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Apparently only one species has crossed the Pacific to the New World, so it must be difficult out on the sea. They have many fascinating adaptations different from all other snakes. I can’t see this as “degeneration”.

    Observing variation within a genome and then claiming that one cannot see degeneration from the flying serpent in Eden – is kind of like saying “I see many varieties of Canine today due to the breeding efforts of man – I can’t see that as degeneration”.

    It misses the point entirely.

    degeneration in a single genome is represented by lower life spans, increased disease etc.

    In the case of the snake we have a genome that was initially designed for flight – how in the world it does not “evolve back up to the level of it’s starting point” is hard to explain for an evolutionist.

    Perhaps the group that interests many the most, is the rattlesnakes. Loma Linda University has some interesting research on them and their venom, as sometimes feature on television. There are about 30 species, and all are confined to the New World. How did they get here from Mt. Ararat (I dont think they swam)?

    Several options.

    1. In the days of Peleg “the earth was divided”.
    2. Land bridges began to sink as continental drift slowed
    3. Both of the above.

    Herpetologists say the earliest snake was about 130 million years ago (I don’t know how accurate this information is). The earliest viper was maybe 10 million years ago and the earliest rattlesnake was more than a million years ago (I could’nt find precise times).

    Hard to be a creationist as you have claimed here – with all genomes created in 6 literal days and the Bible as an accurate historic record – and not know that the 130 million year figure above is at least “a little” innaccurate.

    So while evolutionists believe 30+ rattlesake species evolved in more than 1 million years (roughly one new species every 33,000 years), we insist that all of it happened in a MERE 4000 years,, unless some came off the ark (but there are none in the Old World). So who are the true evolutionists- us or them? Think about it!

    Evolutionists are “dead in the water” if you limit them to “Snake — makes more SNAKES”.

    Eolutionists need “birds came from reptiles” for thier story telling to fly.

    The LSU biologists are not in the spotlight for arguing “hey evolution has brought us a bunch of different kinds of snakes – from the parent snakes that came from the Ark”. Assuming one pair (or pair of pairs) for each truly unique genome.

    If you limit evolutionism to “finch beaks may vary over time as well as the colors of the feathers but that is pretty much the limit” there is no LSU evolutionist, nor atheist evolutionist that is going to argue that you have given them “birds came from reptiles”.

    Obviously WE believe more fervently in evolution- at extraordinarily fast rates- than any so called evolutionist. Static genome? Lets get real!

    1. Obviously dog variations happen in much less time than 4000 years – and so again “obviously” we are not going call such variation within a genome an example of “new coding genes being added to the canine family”.

    2. The argument you keep making requires equivocation between variation within a static genome – vs actually creating new genomes (hint: “birds came from reptiles”) with new coding genes is the “difference” that you miss.

    This “birds came from reptiles” storytelling would fair much better IF the argument were to show how serpents who lost their flight ability – regained what they already had to start with – over time.

    Failing to do even that – evolutionism never gets off the dime.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  47. Geanna Dane: Are you serious? Have you ever heard of Downs Syndrome? Mmm…I just polished off a Jonagold apple. It was delicious with all those extra chromosomes that arose spontaneously from its ancestor. Some 30-80% of plant species are polyploid, with multiple sets of chromosomes. When they arise, which happens all the time, they dont have just new traits, they’re often enttirely new species. There are also polploid animals swimming and crawling all over the place. Some of them are infertile and can no longer produce offsprig by conventional sex, so guess what, they evolved a new trait- parthenogenetic reproduction,

    Well of course I am serious. Downs Syndrome is not caused by a new gene. It’s a flute that takes place during meiosis when an uneven cell division takes place. In meiosis, each of the two gametes produced is suppose to get one chromosome from the original pair. In downs syndrome one gamete gets no “chromosome 21” and the other gets two. During reproduction when the sperm and egg combine, the offspring ends up with three “chromosome 21” in stead of the two that would be normal (one from each parent). Hence the name “Trisome 21” or down’s syndrome. I don’t think that downs syndrome is a survival advantage, do you?

    I don’t have any problem with the development of asexual reproduction in some species. But that does not mean that they did not originally possess the genetics to do so. I do have a problem with the idea that a species can “create” its own new programing where the elements were not already present. All changes are produced by the loss of a trait, with the acception of minor variations of the same trait. The loss of one gene may cause another, already present to surface. For instance, blue eyes are recessive and are only revealed in the absence of brown eyes. Tallness is recessive, and is revealed in the absence of short genes.

    Also, when I say that something is not based science I mean that in the strictest sense. Science is something that can be measured with consistency and can be repeated by others. For instance, when a “scientist” finds a primate jawbone fossile with no teeth, and speculates that “because the canine pits are small this must mean that his teeth were not sufficient to hunt with, so this primate must have had to hunt with a weapon, which means that he must have walked upright.” That is the kind of garbage that proponants of “ape-man” theory have called science. That is not science. I know you understand that. Science is something we can prove. Neither atheistic evolution or creationism can be “proved.” Either one must be accepted based on a prefered world view. Faith is always necessary.

    View Comment
  48. “This “birds came from reptiles” storytelling would fair much better IF the argument were to show how serpents who lost their flight ability – regained what they already had to start with – over time.” (Bob Rian)

    Um, some snakes have pelvic girdles with vestigial limbs. Boas and pythons. Looks like they are on their way to regaining something after all. (Of course I never said anything about “birds came from reptiles”)

    Off to class…

    View Comment
  49. I like the direction of this discussion–it’s polite and respectful without the hubris too often present in other discussions. I suspect the issues of microevolution and macroevolution are part of the reason SDA biology professors prefer to keep a lot profile. Nearly all that I know readily accept the evidence for microevolution, including the evolution of myriad new species, genera and perhaps even families–within a “kind” or “baramin.” But those who support the Biblical view of origins draw a nebulous line at macroevolution, the evolution of novel complex structures such as forelimbs to wings, a three-chambered heart to a four-chambered heart, a two-way flow of air in the lungs to a one-way flow of air (as in birds).

    Unfortunately many SDAs conclude that anyone who believes in evolution of ANY form is a heretic. So a SDA biology professor who publicly proclaims belief that new species evolve risks the wrath of SDA members, and when they keep quiet–as most have during this controversy–they pique the suspicions of SDA members. Get the dilemma?

    View Comment
  50. @Eddie:

    Unfortunately many SDAs conclude that anyone who believes in evolution of ANY form is a heretic. So a SDA biology professor who publicly proclaims belief that new species evolve risks the wrath of SDA members, and when they keep quiet–as most have during this controversy–they pique the suspicions of SDA members. Get the dilemma?

    Let us imagine for a half-second that someone in the LSU biology department were aruing for all known Genomes created in a 7 literal day – creation week less than 10,000 years ago – however they also taught speciation via variation within genomes such that you have “many canine” members not just one and they proposed that such variation occurred since the time of Noah.

    But nothing like “millions of years” of anything.

    And nothing like “birds came from reptiles.

    That scenario does not describe LSU’s Bradley, or Fritz Guy, or their guest lectures from Erv Taylor or the other LSU biology lectures highlighted on this web site.

    So given that LSU evolutionism is “the real deal” the real “birds came from reptiles” the real “Dawkins would love this story” atheist form of the doctrine on origins. It would appear that any discussion of how much leeway a literal-7-day week, young life creationist is allowed (regarding new species and when and how fast) is another topic entirely.

    It totally misses the issue to be addressed at LSU.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  51. @Geanna Dane:

    Um, some snakes have pelvic girdles with vestigial limbs. Boas and pythons. Looks like they are on their way to regaining something after all. (Of course I never said anything about “birds came from reptiles”)

    And as I said – if those boas do sprout wings and start soaring with the eagles – we will certainly have an evolutionist’s dreams come true.

    My point is that given that this is where the serpents START in the garden of Eden — it is a testimony to the failure of eovolutionism over 6,000 years that the serpents have not yet “Evolved” high enough to get them back to the ability they had to START with.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  52. @Eddie:
    Eddie: I disagree with you that Adventists are quick to jump on perceived unorthodoxy in the Adventist professoriate. Clearly, the opposite must be true, or the situation at LaSierra could not have remained unaddressed for so long a time. Most Adventists assume that other Adventists are familiar with the teaching on a six-day creation in the relatively recent past, and with the numerous statements from Ellen White on this topic. And they assume that anyone wanting to call himself an “Adventist” must be more or less in agreement with the Adventist doctrinal structure. I think there is a general assumption of good faith, and the people who want to bring Darwinism into Adventism have relied upon that assumption of good faith for a long time.

    I also disagree that Adventists are so naive about an aspect of the creationist model that has been part of that model for 80 years. Conservative Adventists generally understand much about the creationist model, including rapid post-Flood speciation. I think the shoe is on the other foot: it is the liberals who want to adopt Darwinism, especially the younger ones (<40), who often don't understand the best creationist thinking. I think this is because it is not being consistently taught in Adventist high schools and colleges, which is sad.

    And, again, this aspect of creationism is so well established. In Whitcomb & Morris, "The Genesis Flood" (1961), pp. 66-67, they discuss the "amazing potentialities for diversification which the Creator has placed within the Genesis kinds. These 'kinds' have never evolved or merged into each other by crossing over the divinely established lines of demarcation; but they have been diversified into so many varieties and sub-varieties . . . that even the greatest taxonomists have been staggered at the task of enumerating and classifying them." They then quote the Adventist scientist Frank Lewis Marsh and reproduce one of his diagrams on intra-baraminic diversification. I've already quoted Kurt Wise and Leonard Brand on this issue. I am at a loss to cite any prominent creationist who does NOT believe in a rapid post-Flood diversification, and I'm not sure that there has been one in the past 100 years.

    View Comment
  53. “And as I said – if those boas do sprout wings and start soaring with the eagles – we will certainly have an evolutionist’s dreams come true.

    My point is that given that this is where the serpents START in the garden of Eden — it is a testimony to the failure of eovolutionism over 6,000 years that the serpents have not yet “Evolved” high enough to get them back to the ability they had to START with.” (Bub Ryan)

    With all due respect I’d say yhou completely misunderstand evolution, Bob. No so called evolutionist would say that a snake could “evolve” wings in 6,000 years. Only creationists mak these kinds of statements, and they are strawman argments. Evolutionsts would never believe that 30 species of rattlesnakes can evolve in 6000 yeards. Only creationists have this kind of faith. Could snakes evolve wings in 6,000,000 years? You dont know and none of us do.

    I appreciate David Reads amazing honesty on this issue. I attended Adventist schools most my life (tho I’m not enrolled at one now) and I had alot of misinformation all the way up into college. I did have several Adventist professors describe pr some of the problems that creationists cant explain but NONE of them indicated any belief in total evolutionary theory or even theisitic evolution. Maybe those are taught at LSU (I hope not), but I didnt learn those things. When I went to a public university of course I was overwhlemed by evolutionary theory, but the refreshing honesty of Adventist biologists had made me better prepared to deal with these issus. But of course they are quiet. All of us know that any mention of the “E” word is enough to get us sensored if not fired.

    So here is my conclusion on the great Adventist deception (David Read’s explanations not withstanding):

    THEM (“EVOLUTIONISTS”) – 30 rattlesnakes evolved in about 5 million years (according to another reference I found)
    US (“CREATIONISTS”) – 30 rattlesnakes evolved in at most 6,000 years

    THat’s almost 1000 times difference! We believe evolution happens 1000 more rapidly than they do (this number is just illustrative and not precise). And we call THEM “evolutionists”? Why is that? Again we have far more extreme views about evolution and it is totally hush-hush in the church. You will NEVER read any of this from Goldstein, Pitman,, Asserchik, or other who make such a huge deal about “evolution” being this evil, illogical, stupid notion advanced by unthinking idiots. If we were honest about labels it should be more like this:

    THEM: “ABIOGENETIC GRADUAL-EVOLUTIONISTS”
    US: “CREATIONIST EXTREME-EVOLUTIONISTS”

    And if we were honest our young people- my friends!!- would be better prepared in the the “real world” when they are forcefully shown some ot the serious flaws in creationism. As it is they believe (ut-oh, they have faith!) in all the misinformation fed to them throughout their education by the church, and them minute they learn somthing wrong they throw it all out the window. How very, very, sad.

    View Comment
  54. Sorry if I am beating this to death but here is another problem. How did all these rattlesnakes get from Mt. Ararat to everywhere they occur today? Did the cross the Bering land brige (cold)? Did they swim across the ocean(like sea snakes)?

    I checked Google Maps Ditance Calculator (amazing!) and came up with the following figures:

    Southern British Columbia (north extent of Pacific Coast range) to northern Venezuala (south extent of Pacific Coast range) = approximately 6,700 miles. That’s a long way for a snakes to crawl in 4,000 years! THey also had to crawl eastward to New England and Florida and Brazil. And if they didnt already have a rattle, venom glands/ducts/fangs, facial pit, they had to evolve them as they went along and diversify into something like 30 species while learning how to live in mountains, swamps, deserts and grasslands, and learning how to capture, and eat different kinds of prey and learning how to avoidd different kinds of predators.

    I’ll just chalk this up to a mystery because I dont think we’l have a answer so long as we remain on this planet.

    View Comment
  55. David, I wish it were so simple! I could actually name (but won’t) a couple of SDA biology profs with PhD degrees–one teaching in a SDA college and the other in a non-SDA college–who firmly believe that no new species has ever evolved. Not one new species, they say, only varieties within the rank of species. When I point out that 380 of 1450 species of fruit flies are found in the Hawaiian Islands and nowhere else (did they all fly there from Mt. Ararat?), or that two species can differ by as little as a single gene if it happens to code for a reproductive isolating mechanism, they merely shrug and say they’re just new varieties, not species.

    I’ve been told that more than one SDA biology prof with conservative views of origins was chagrined to learn from an administrator or pastor that students complained when microevolutionary topics such as directional selection, disruptive selection, allopatric speciation, polyploidy, etc., were discussed in the classroom.

    It may be obvious to you and me that new species “evolve” (pardon my French), but I’m quite certain a lot of SDA members still cannot accept that. Of course I like to point out that despite decades of experiments with mutagens, nobody has ever produced a bacterium with a novel structure such as a membrane-bound organelle or non-circular chromosome, or taken a fruit fly and produced a non-Drosophila fly. I’m personally skeptical of the capability of natural selection to generate new complicated structures, but I’m overwhelmed by the evidence for microevolution.

    View Comment
  56. Geanna, when the ark struck a floating sequoia tree, the rattlesnake cage fell overboard and cracked open when it hit the tree. The snakes slithered out of the cage and onto the tree, which drifted for several weeks until it got snagged on an outcrop of the drying Sierra Nevada Mountains. Shortly afterward a thunderbird captured a rattlesnake to present it as a nuptial gift to a prospective mate, but after flying as far as Venezuela while vainly searching for a prospect, it finally gave up and dropped the snake. Alas, the thunderbird became extinct, but the sequoias still thrive in the Sierra Nevadas and rattlesnakes rattled their way through gullies throughout the wild, wild west and under the palmettos south of da border. Does that answer your question?

    View Comment
  57. @Geanna Dane:

    Geanna: It has been fun dialoging with you, even though your tone is so inconsistant–ranging from playful to serious to ornery–that I’m never quite sure exactly what your position is, where you are coming from or what is important to you.

    It sounds like you had some very good Adventist teachers who were candid with you about creationism’s strengths and weaknesses, and whose honesty prepared you for the Darwinism you encountered in a public university. On the other hand, you also got some “misinformation”; I’d be curious to know what that was.

    On the issue of species, everyone should be aware that there are multiple definitions of species, depending upon the needs and specifications of multiple scientific disciplines. Lay people tend to think of a species as a group capable of interbreeding, but most “species” are much narrower groupings. For example, the mulitple species of Galapagos Finches can all interbreed; they are more like what most people would think of as “varieties.” I wonder how many of the 30 species of rattlesnake can interbreed (although I don’t want to be the guy who does that research). Also the concept of species does not correlate to the creationist “kind”; there will typically be many different species that have diversified from each created kind.

    Pitman, et al, can speak for themselves, but I don’t think anyone is saying that evolution is stupid or illogical. It is the best that we can come up with while rejecting inspired history. Obviously, the Darwinian model of earth history is far better elucidated than the creationist model, because many more qualified scientists have work on its various aspects than have worked on a creationist model. But if we have faith in inpsired history, we will believe that God created the basic kinds of animals in the fairly recent past; they did not evolve by accident over the course of >500 million years.

    You seem to be particularly troubled by the challenges that biogeography poses for a short chronology. These are significant, but not insurmountable. Darwinian theory tends to lubricate all of its problems–including the lack of a plausible evolutionary mechanism–with buckets of deep time, and creationists obviously do not have that luxury. Perhaps when we discover the true mechanism of evolution, we will see that it doesn’t need the massive amounts of time called for in the hunt-peck mechanism of selection acting upon genetic mutations.

    If you’re interested in this area, that’s great! If you are interested in the evolution of rattlesnakes, (1) make a good faith effort to learn the best creationist thinking on the topic, and (2) if you’re not happy with it, come up with a better explanation within the constraints (time and otherwise) of inspired history. Talk to the leaders among the creationist scientists. They’re good people. It is a small, almost intimate community, and they’re always looking for bright scientists willing to work within the constraints of inspired history. I’ll tell you an interesting personal anecdote. When I finished the manuscript of my dinosaur book, I sent it in a 3-ring binder to Kurt Wise, the guy who has a Ph.D. from Harvard, and whose advisor was Stephen Jay Gould. I didn’t know him, had never met him before, and he’s not an Adventist. I was just some guy, a lawyer, not even a scientist, pestering him to read my manuscript. But he took the time to read the entire manuscript and send it back to me, marked up with a red pen. And then he corresponded with me by email. He didn’t have to do any of that, but he did. I think you’ll find that doing science within the confines of the creationist model is just as much fun, if not more so, as doing mainstream science.

    View Comment
  58. I love Eddie’s floating sequoia hypothesis! And David you are very kind (my mother always says Im complicated). Thank you guys. And John may you take comfort in your view while the world moves on.

    View Comment
  59. Geanna, I take comfort in the truth while the world goes on being deceived by the master deceiver (Rev 12:9). Any “theory” (and Darwinian evolution doesn’t even satisfy the classic definition of that word) that rests on odds so astronomical as to approach zero holds no water whatsoever. Belief in such an absurdity is both illogical and yes, stupid.

    As Sir Fred Hoyle, the British astronomer and mathematician, said, “[t]he likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 nought’s after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”

    Even Julian Huxley, the man who defended Darwin as vociferously as anyone who ever lived, wrote that natural selection “generates results of a more than astronomical improbability…” Yet he believed it happens anyway. And this is logical, or smart? Only in a bizarro world. (Unfortunately, we live in just that.)

    View Comment
  60. The question of how the koalas got from Mt Ararat to Australia and what they ate on the way (since they only eat eucalyptus leaves found only here) has also been asked…

    View Comment
  61. @John Howard:

    John: Until someone comes up with a plausible theory of abiogenesis, there is no way to calculate the odds of it happening. As of now, the “odds” of life coming from non-life are zero, zip, nil, nada. There is no real reason to believe that it could ever happen. Even Richard Dawkins has admitted that science doesn’t even have a generally agreed upon “just so” story of abiogenesis.

    But on the larger question of long odds, the reason why Darwinists are not intimidated by this type of mathematical calculation is that, regardless of the odds, life is here, we are here, a world full of plants and animals exists. The universe of acceptable explanations as to how we all got here absolutely excludes anything supernatural. It follows from the fact that we are here, and supernatural explanations are excluded a priori, ab initio, that we got here by natural causes, by abiogenesis followed by Darwinian evolution. The odds of this happening are neither here nor there, because it obviously happened.

    Now, if it were permissible to posit a Creator God, that would be a much more likely explanation, but it isn’t permissible, so, again, the odds aren’t really relevant. Obviously, this is merely a function of philosophy, but there is no point in minimizing the incredible appeal of the philosophy, nor underestimating the hold it has over the mainstream scientific enterprise.

    View Comment
  62. @Bravus:

    Bravus: It is easy to make sport of the problems that the Australian fauna cause for creationist biogeography, but the story of the marsupials would cause Darwinists some embarrassment (if only they were capable of embarrassment).

    The Darwinian take is that placental mammals and marsupials evolved separately, in widely separated environments, from the tiny shrew-like mammal forerunners of 65 million years ago. And yet both of these separate lines of mammals, evolving by means of natural selection acting on DNA copying errors, evolved almost identical sets of animals. There are (or were) marsupial dogs, cats, lions, wolves, flying squirrels, jerboas, etc., all differing in only the smaller details from their (supposedly) unrelated placental mammal versions. Darwinists just laugh this off as “convergent evolution.” But convergent evolution on this scale, and to this level of almost exact facsimile, makes a mockery of the whole concept convergent evolution. Remarking on the similarity between the Tasmanian wolf and the placental wolf, Arthur Koestler observed, “One might as well say, with the wisdom of hindsight, that there is only one way of making a wolf, which is to make it look like a wolf.” This sounds more like Platonism than Darwinism.

    The existence of near identical evolutionary outcomes after long ages of development in isolated environments would seem to indicate that the rabbit has been put in the hat. The outcome of evolution was pre-determined; evolution is anything but the random, “it didn’t have to be this way, mankind didn’t have to evolve” process that Stephen Jay Gould ruminates on in “Wonderful Life.”

    View Comment
  63. @Bravus:
    I think he answered the question. When it comes to Australian Fauna, the evolutionary dilemma is far greater than the Creationist one. A simple migratory problem versus a mind-boggling convergent developmental fairy tale.

    View Comment
  64. Hmm. Still not really an answer. No clear, simple, plausible mechanism by which koalas in particular got to Australia. There are plenty of other puzzles, but it’d be a nice challenge to at least address this one seriously.

    In fairness, I’ll put some work into looking into the issue of the marsupials. The first point I’d make is that the ‘equivalent’ animals are really not all that equivalent: the fact that Europeans named the thylacine after the wolf because that was the familiar thing that it most resembled doesn’t mean it is actually much like a wolf at all, and indeed it is not. There are no parallels for kangaroos and wallabies elsewhere, for koalas, for most of the possums, and so on. There *are* marsupial cats and mice and echidnas are somewhat like hedgehogs in appearance, though utterly different in biology, including the fact that they lay eggs.

    Will be back with more – and looking forward to a real Ark-to-Australia account from a creationist perspective…

    View Comment
  65. Here’s a creationist account: http://www.nwcreation.net/marsupials.html But it turns out to be an evolutionary account, appealing to convergent evolution, but adding ‘intelligent design’ to the mix.

    Actually, I’m not sure how a creation+flood account fares much better than evolution in explaining why Australia was almost exclusively populated with marsupial species not found anywhere else in the world until Western settlement just a couple of hundred years ago. Feel free to branch out from the koalas and offer a plausible explanation for that, since you’ve been so free with your scorn for the evolutionary explanations.

    Anyway, still reading and searching…

    View Comment
  66. Here’s an academic paper on some recent genetic analysis of marsupial evolution: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v10570rn463u8108/

    And a little info on the thylacine. http://australianmuseum.net.au/The-Thylacine As I said, perspectives on ‘convergent evolution’ tend to over-play the similarities and downplay the differences between the marsupial species and their placental ‘equivalents’. There are always going to be some similarities between creatures adapted for a similar role – in this case top predator. See for example the similarities between lions and tigers in terms of shape, skeleton, musculature and teeth and claws. But there are also large and important differences. Anyone seeing the almost insectile narrowness of the jaws of a thylacine, the way its hind quarters extend beyond its hind legs, and its overall physiognomy would never mistake it for a wolf or any other kind of dog. There is film of the last pair in a zoo, and watching them is quite uncanny – they are so like dogs and yet so alien to ‘dogness’. (Makes me wonder whether Plato would have seen the image of the Ideal Dog in the thylacine… ;-))

    View Comment
  67. Here is another example, guys, for convergent evollution. I learned this in General Biology and the information is easily found online (some is quoted directly).

    The Sidewinder inhabits North American desserts. The Horned Desert Viper lives in African and Middle East desserts. These unrelated species evolved independently in similar deserts on different continents and had to solve the same problems in order to survive. Each species arrived at the same solution. They share the same characteristics of size, shape, color, and the presence of “horns”- raised supraocular scales or spines over their eyes. They use the same form of locomotion, sidewinding, and conceal themselves from predators by shuffling or “swimming” below the sand’s surface by rocking their body back and forth.

    Google pictures of these snakes and you will see they look essential identical except that the Sidewinder has a rattle (for defense) and facial pits (highly specialized eyes to see body warmth of warm blooded pray) which the Horned Viper never evolved. Their behaviors are remarkly similar.

    So now did God create these two virtually identical animals to live in hostile dessert extremes each with highly sophistitcated venom glands,, ducts, venom and fangs to kill for a living? Or did they evolve on there own independently? And if they existed before the flood then how did each one get to their dessert from Mt. Ararat?

    I dont think that Darwinists laugh at all at “convergent evolution.” If 30 rattlesnake species can evolve after the flood in just 4000 years as they occupied new habitats and evolved extraoridarily unique traits and reproductive isolation from each other,, why would creationists have problem with convergent evolution? We believe evolution has a thousand times more potential (speed) thann evollutionists. I don’t get this.

    View Comment
  68. I think it was Bob Ryan who stated that humans are degenerating and eventually will become extinct. I respectullly disagree. Consider the recent history of global or near-global pandemics:

    430 BC: Plague of Athens (>25% kill)
    165 – 180: Antonine Plague, perhaps smallpox (killed up to 5 million)
    251 – 266: Plague of Cyprian, probably smallpox again (5,000/day killed in Rome)
    541: the Plague of Justinian (bubonic plague) (up to 50% kill)
    1300s: the Black Death (75 million killed)
    1501 – 1587: typhus
    1732 – 1733: influenza
    1775 – 1776: influenza
    1816 – 1826: cholera
    1829 – 1851: cholera
    1847 – 1848: influenza
    1852 – 1860: cholera
    1855 – 1950s: bubonic plague: Third Pandemic
    1857 – 1859: influenza
    1863 – 1875: cholera
    1889 – 1892: influenza
    1899 – 1923: cholera
    1918 – 1920: influenza (Spanish flu) (more people were hospitalized in World War I from this epidemic than wounds. Estimates of the dead range from 20 to 100 million worldwide)
    1957 – 1958: influenza: Asian flu
    1968 – 1969: influenza: Hong Kong flu
    1960s: cholera called El Tor
    1980s – present: HIV

    Never did 100% of those struck by these diseases die. Some people had innate resistance to diseaase (praise God!) and past it on to us and, well others were less fortunate.. Populations never before exposed to these diseases were especially vulnerable. Consider this (from Wikipedia):

    “Smallpox devastated the native population of Australia, killing around 50% of Indigenous Australians in the early years of British colonisation. It also killed many New Zealand Māori. As late as 1848–49, as many as 40,000 out of 150,000 Hawaiians are estimated to have died of measles, whooping cough and influenza. Introduced diseases, notably smallpox, nearly wiped out the native population of Easter Island. In 1875, measles killed over 40,000 Fijians, approximately one-third of the population. The disease devastated the Andamanese population. Ainu population decreased drastically in the 19th century, due in large part to infectious diseases brought by Japanese settlers pouring into Hokkaido.”

    View Comment
  69. Here is another description from online:

    “Diseases brought by European settlers to the New World destroyed native populations. Many of the diseases, including smallpox, bubonic plague and cholera, once ravaged Europe, but Europeans eventually developed immunities to them. No such advantage existed among American Indians, who rapidly succumbed to the new viruses. Some of the diseases were spread by sharing blankets infected with microorganisms and disease-bearing fleas. ”

    Actually some of the blanket-sharing by Europeans with native Americans was deliberat- one of the first forms f so called biological warfare.

    So is the human race today more susceptible to diseaases than that of yesteryear? C’mon now! You are reading this today only cuz you had ancestors with the right combination of genese to survive these illnesses. The biggest problem is when new diseases or new versions emerge (we can thank evolution for the later).

    Fortunately God designed our genome and immune systems in particular to evolve over time to escape these horrific diseases. Thank God for evolution!

    View Comment
  70. If God brought various species from all over the pre-flood Earth onto the ark, then why is there a problem with God directing them to a new home in the post-flood Earth?

    View Comment
  71. Timothy your suggestion would help with the biogeography problem but it would’nt help explain the evolution of vary complex structures like gland/duct/fangs/venom and facial pits (also pythons independently evolved labial pits along their lips that detect heat) in such a quick time,

    It also begs a few other questions: like why redistribute animals with, say, the help of angels when a simple word from God (like on the 5th day) could have just recreated them where he wanted them? And if the wort from God was sufficient to recreate all the drowned life forms theen why flood all of the earth and kill everything with the breath of life in it (outside of the ark) in the first place?

    what if the flood didnt cover ALL of the earth? Maybe that would be the simplest explaination for the many, many biogeography problems.

    View Comment
  72. Of course the Flood covered all the earth —

    Gen 7:19: And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
    Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
    Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
    Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
    Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

    Your speculations are becoming a bit silly, Geanna.

    View Comment
  73. I’m happy to believe that John Howard is right. Lets forget the speculation and get down to facts.

    1. Only a tiny fraction of the diversity we see today came off the ark 4,000 years ago, and tens of thousands of new plant and animal species have evolved all over the earth since,, especially in the new world and on islands.

    2. That being the case there is no way around it. Evolutionists are stupid not cuz they believe it happens but cuz they VASTLY UNDERRESTIMATE how fast it happens. I guess all of us here are extreme evolutionists like David Read conceited.

    Obviously some of you better educated creationists need to rewrite the general biology and the evolutinary biology textbooks. Maybe John Howard can get things started?

    View Comment
  74. (in response to John Howard)

    In Daniel 2, Daniel is speaking to the king of Babylon, and says:

    37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

    38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.

    “Wheresoever the children of men dwell…” – that sounds a lot like ‘the whole earth’ to me. There are Aboriginal paintings in Australia older than the Babylonian empire, so there were definitely ‘children of men’ dwelling here as Daniel was speaking. What there are not, anywhere in Australia, are Babylonian ruins and relics. The king of Babylon’s worldwide empire actually spanned a fairly small part of the whole globe, around the Mediterranean.

    Remember, the same inspiration process was operating in Daniel as in Genesis. If the ‘whole earth’ covered by the Babylonian empire was actually a large but local area, why not the ‘whole earth’ covered by the Flood?

    View Comment
  75. @Bravus: I’m surprised you’ve asked such a question. Any cursory read of Genesis 6-9 reveals unmistakeable language indicating that the whole earth was literally flooded.

    Here are the facts as stated in Genesis:

    1. God told Noah he would destroy all flesh along with the earth. Gen. 6:13
    2. God told Noah that every living substance He had made would be destroyed from off the face of the earth. Gen. 7:4
    3. All the high hills under the whole sky were covered by water. Gen. 7:19
    4. All flesh that moved on the earth, every living substance was destroyed. Gen. 7:23
    5. God promises that the earth will never be destroyed by a flood again. Gen. 9:11

    Given these details, I don’t think there can be any question that God was intending to communicate that a literal universal flood happened. Besides, if indeed the flood was not universal, how were all flesh destroyed and every mountain top covered? And what about his promise never to destroy the earth with a flood? Did he lie? Many local floods have destroyed regions of the earth.

    Why did God bother having Noah build an ark for 120 years? In a 120 years Noah and his family could have easily reached safety if God was sending a local flood. God could have also directed all the animals that would have been on the ark to safety also.

    For all intents and purposes Babylon was the only world power at that time. Granted not every person on earth might have heard of him but that’s irrelevant to the fact that he indeed did rule the world. Something else you’ve done is put words into the text that are not there.

    “wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all.”

    Notice the text says wherever people dwell God has given into Nebuchadnezzar’s hand. When God, through a vision, tells the king of the then known world power that He has given him rulership over every place people dwell, it’s difficult to argue otherwise.

    But this is irrelevant to Genesis. It’s crystal clear the flood is universal.

    View Comment
  76. I wasn’t even really seriously suggesting that the Flood wasn’t global. I found the lack of respect in calling Geanna’s post ‘silly’, rather than having the integrity to go to the Word as you did, offensive. What I laid out was clear, rational and logical…but not something I want to seriously pursue.

    I am kinda still waiting for some serious creationist responses on the marsupials, though: ones that don’t invoke magical mystery teleportation by God after the Flood that was somehow left out of the account that is otherwise so careful about detail.

    View Comment
  77. @Bravus:

    Bravus: I’m not saying that the astonishing “convergent evolution” of the marsupials answers the creationist biogeography problem. I’m merely pointing out that there are problems with both models, and that problems in the Darwinian model do not cause the Darwinists to abandon their model. They don’t say, “It’s crazy to posit that a primal marsupial evolved into a whole bunch of marsupials that are almost identical to un-related placental mammals, which evolved completely separately, so I’m going to become a creationist.” To the contrary, almost without exception these astonishingly unlikely scenarios are passed over without comment in the Darwinist scientific literature. And yet, you seem to think that by pointing out unsolved problems in the creationist model, we’re going to abandon it and become Darwinists. Do you understand how nuts that is? You shouldn’t be surprised when creationists have just as much backbone as Darwinists. Each side has its model, and isn’t going to abandon it just because the other side doesn’t like it.

    View Comment
  78. I think you may have come in to the discussion later, David, so might not have read some of my earlier statements on why I’m here. I’m absolutely, 100% not here to proselytise for evolution, Darwinian or otherwise. I am not at all trying to get creationists to become Darwinists. I do not have a firm position on origins myself, and in other venues I argue just as strenuously against evolutionists.

    I am a scientist and science educator, and my purpose here is to seek truth, honesty and integrity. I challenge sloppy thing and ridicule, and arguments based on straw men or personal incredulity. I respect people who are willing to base their perspectives on science *and* on Scripture, and who are modest enough to accept that there is still intellectual work to be done.

    The koala question was not meant as a ‘gotcha’, and my continued prompts in relation to it are not taunting: I’m genuinely interested. It’s a fascinating question to me, and I fully acknowledge that there is a lot to explain from either a creationist or evolutionist perspective.

    What I have done is actually put in the work to bring an explanation for an evolutionary perspective and put it up here for discussion. It’s completely acceptable for people to reject that explanation, though it would be nice if they had stronger grounds than personal incredulity for doing so.

    What I’m seeking is for a creationist, rather than dodging, slurring, attacking or otherwise avoiding the issue, to simply lay out a plausible creationist explanation for the fauna of the country I live in. One that doesn’t involve ad hoc assumptions completely outside *both* the Bible record and science. If we can simply make up any ad hoc explanation we wish, then why not say they were ferried here on the back of Leviathan and be done with it? We need evidence: Biblical, scientific or ideally both.

    View Comment
  79. @Bravus:
    Bravus,
    Since you,’do not have a firm position on origins myself.’ I would encourage you to use your time more productively than to,’put in the work to bring an explanation for an evolutionary perspective.’ If as you state,’my purpose here is to seek truth.'(instead of just continuously trying to argue the evolutionist argument so as to get the Creationist’s goat) – then I encourage you to seek for said truth in the primary source of truth – the Biblical revelation given to the human race by the Creator God.
    Searching for truth in nature, through scientific inquiry, or your own philosophical musings, must be subordinate to the authority of Scripture. If not, your search will be in vain. Through faith and confidence in God’s testimony found within ‘Holy Writ’ you will not only find the truth, but the truth will set you free. If you have confidence in Scripture, you will have a firm position on origins (not that you will have all the answers). Of course there are some questions we will never be able to answer this side of heaven. Does that mean we throw the Bible out with the unanswered bathwater? Of course not. Are we tempted to come up with ad hoc explanations. Sure.
    If you really want ad hoc explanations out of whole cloth – just go to the Darwinists:
    “appeared,” “emerged,” “arose,” “gave rise to,” “burst onto the scene,” “evolved itself,” “derived,” “was on the way to becoming,” “radiated into,” “modified itself,” “became a miracle of evolution,” “was making the transition to,” “manufactured itself,” “evolution’s way of dealing with,” “derived emergent properties,” or “was lucky.”
    Honestly, I prefer the ‘ferried on the back of Leviathan’ explanation, to these.

    If you don’t already have a firm position on Scripture then I encourage you to focus your search for truth there – rather than doing the work of more cleverly explaining macro-evolution (a proposition which is thoroughly antithetical to Jesus Christ, who is the Creator).

    View Comment
  80. @Bravus:

    Bravus says:
    October 10, 2009 Jonathan: Guess we’ll have to wait and see.

    Bob Pickle: I have responded to BobRyan’s spamming of 3SG90-91 before, by simply and unabashedly saying “Ellen White was wrong on that point”. Traditional Adventist belief does not hold that EGW was inerrant: she made mistakes and it is my belief that this is one of them.

    This is a clear indication of a “choke point” in the seventh-eon-darwintist’s argument and it also outs the truth about Bravus’ insistence that either he is neutral or a kind of creationist when it comes to the creation vs evolution debate.

    @Bravus:

    Bravus says:
    March 7, 2010 I think you may have come in to the discussion later, David, so might not have read some of my earlier statements on why I’m here. I’m absolutely, 100% not here to proselytise for evolution, Darwinian or otherwise. I am not at all trying to get creationists to become Darwinists. I do not have a firm position on origins myself, and in other venues I argue just as strenuously against evolutionists.

    I am a scientist and science educator, and my purpose here is to seek truth, honesty and integrity. I challenge sloppy thing and ridicule, and arguments based on straw men or personal incredulity. I respect people who are willing to base their perspectives on science *and* on Scripture, and who are modest enough to accept that there is still intellectual work to be done.

    1. The first post above by Bravus is a “choke point” for the claims made in his second post because the “answer” for the Seventh-Eon evolutionist is to be clueless about the mechanism of prophecy. To completely ignore the Bible teaching on what prophecy even is – in 2Peter 1:21. To argue that instead of the bible doctrine on inspiration – the evolutionist must claim that inspiration is really just guesswork!! (or perhaps “best guesswork”).

    Their downsizing of the bible doctrine on inspiration is applied not only to post NT examples like Ellen White but also apparently to Moses who is merely trying to describe evolution but uses creation terms. This means that even a 19th century author who says “I was SHOWN” as in the case that Bravus tries to discredit below – must be discredited if what they are shown is not favorable to evolutionism.

    3SG 90-91
    I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. … The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days.
    {3SG 90.1}
    http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll/egw-comp/section00000.htm/book05137.htm/chapter05149.htm

    The idea of the Seventh-Eon evolutionist is to claim that God’s OWN system of inspiration is “nothing more than guesswork” once you read the result of it – in the writing of one who has the gift of prophecy. And thus – they try to place THEIR OWN guesswork about “origins” up against the supposed guesswork of an inspired auther that is SHOWN something by God Himself!

    2. It is a “choke point” because as you can see – my references to 3SG 90-91 often go unchallenged and un-responded to — because to respond to it means to expose the “well then Ellen White is dead wrong” solution above that Bravus will sometimes actually post.

    3. Bravus’ claims to supposed neutrality are debunked by his adamant positions – because a truly neutral argument would be limited to “I DON’t KNOW if Ellen White was right or wrong in 3SG 90-91 – I am still looking into the matter”.

    There is no way a neutral argument is of the form “She was dead wrong” and “I don’t care if she claims God showed her this or not”. Though I am sure that to a dedicated Theistic Evolutionist that probably appears “neutral”.

    4. The nature of the “choke point” in an argument is that the only response is “don’t answer and then complain that it keeps coming up”. Thus Bravus’ dismissive “spamming” attempt at hand-waiving. Because they know that “to answer” means to expose the true heart of the matter as Bravus has done above. And that removes a lot of the smoke-and-mirror tactics that the evolutionists have been using to try and get around this point.

    This is just “stating the obvious” for the unbiased objective reader — but it is worth noting.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  81. @Geanna Dane:

    2. That being the case there is no way around it. Evolutionists are stupid not cuz they believe it happens but cuz they VASTLY UNDERRESTIMATE how fast it happens. I guess all of us here are extreme evolutionists like David Read conceited.

    Again you ignore the “inconvenient detail” that “getting more finches from finches” has never been a problem for either evolutionists or creationists.

    The problem that evolutionist face is trying to “get birds from reptiles”.

    Sorry to have to bring this back into focus again – but your argument seems to continually drift away from the salient point of real difference the discussion.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  82. Bravus, your explanations are far more articulate than mine. I appreciate the fact that you also want a better understanding of how the things we observe in nature can still match up with the biblical record.

    Victor, with all do respect I dont think you recognise what “macroevolution” is. It certainly includes the evolution of new species and the creationist model HAS TO incorporate massive evolution since the flood and undoubtedly before as well. I dont say this to preach. Its just the logical conclusion that so many of my Adventists friends simply can’t grasp or dont want to admit.

    Personally I think our church has been so determined to sweep “evolution” under the carpet that, with few exceptions like David Read and Lenard Brand and some early pioneers we have not been forthcoming about some of the bigger problems in the creationist model.

    View Comment
  83. @Geanna Dane:

    I think it was Bob Ryan who stated that humans are degenerating and eventually will become extinct. I respectullly disagree. Consider the recent history of global or near-global pandemics:

    430 BC: Plague of Athens (>25% kill)
    165 – 180: Antonine Plague, perhaps smallpox (killed up to 5 million)

    Again – pointing to pandemics we do not see preflood or in the days of Moses as if “plagued by pandemics is a good thing” is totally missing the point.

    Your argument would require that weaponized contagens “are the way to go” if we want “even better evolution” in the future because just THINK of how well off we might be with the handfull of humans that survive THAT!!

    I can’t believe that you are going down that rabbit trail in your argument.

    If you want to observse own the human organism is decaying – spend some time interviewing Hospice health professionals.

    It is not a pretty sight.

    Compare that to the way that Moses and Aaron die at 120.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  84. Bob Said:
    “And as I said – if those boas do sprout wings and start soaring with the eagles – we will certainly have an evolutionist’s dreams come true.

    My point is that given that this is where the serpents START in the garden of Eden — it is a testimony to the failure of eovolutionism over 6,000 years that the serpents have not yet “Evolved” high enough to get them back to the ability they had to START with.”

    @Geanna Dane:

    With all due respect I’d say yhou completely misunderstand evolution, Bob. No so called evolutionist would say that a snake could “evolve” wings in 6,000 years. Only creationists mak these kinds of statements, and they are strawman argments.

    Hint: you need to follow the argument to answer the point.

    1. You claim to be a creationist – at least at some level.

    2. The creaetionist argument from Eden is that serpents at one time – could fly.

    3. MIXING evolutionism in with that (like the good theistic evolutionist that some here appear to be) would mean that the STARTing genetic make up of the serpent PROVIDES for flight! Thus an evolotionary sequence that DOES NOT enable the organism to gain even the ability of its STARTING condition is actually an argument AGAINST the THEISTIC evolutionist argument that has some notion of what the Bible describes as the condition for serpents BEFORE the flood and BEFORE the fall of mankind.

    Hint: you are continually proposing an AFTER the flood scenario starting with the FEW species we would have on Noah’s boat. Presumably you do that out of some kind of understanding of the Bible and the subject of the flood. IN that case – we simply extend those same capabilities of reading back to Genesis 3 – and start our SCENARIO for snakes there instead of imaginging that the Bible started in Genesis 8.

    This key aspect of the Christian Theistic scenario is not as difficult to see as you would pretend.

    Of course (by contrast) we all admit that we would not expect atheist evolutionists to have that Genesis 8 OR the Genesis 3 point as a STARTing condition. For them – we have “mud, gas, amonia seas and rocks” as THE START.

    Evolutionsts would never believe that 30 species of rattlesnakes can evolve in 6000 yeards.

    You are welcome to show that evolutionists cannnot get “snake variations coming from snakes” over 4000 years of time.

    Where is the SCIENCE – the lab experiment that demonstrates their argument in that regard??

    You seem to repeatedly “assume’ the salient point of your argument, rather than proving it.

    Could snakes evolve wings in 6,000,000 years? You dont know and none of us do.

    Here again – you are not following the details of the argument – so your logic is at “best” – illusive.

    Both evolutionists ANd creationists AGREE that snakes have been around for AT LEAST 6,000 years.

    BOTH agree that in that time – we do not see flying serpents.

    But mixing in “evolutionism” with the Genesis 3 start for flying serpents would mean that evolutionism was “capped” so that it could not even RETURN to the genetic ability it had to START with – in over 6,000 years of time!

    Thus not only did we not get BIRDS from reptiles – we did not get REPTILES from REPTILES that had the SAME ability they had to start with!

    Wow! A more thorough debunking of the arugment for evolutionism within a Christian Theistic context could hardly be imagined!

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  85. @David Read:

    Even Richard Dawkins has admitted that science doesn’t even have a generally agreed upon “just so” story of abiogenesis.

    But on the larger question of long odds, the reason why Darwinists are not intimidated by this type of mathematical calculation is that, regardless of the odds, life is here, we are here, a world full of plants and animals exists. The universe of acceptable explanations as to how we all got here absolutely excludes anything supernatural. It follows from the fact that we are here, and supernatural explanations are excluded a priori, ab initio, that we got here by natural causes, by abiogenesis followed by Darwinian evolution. The odds of this happening are neither here nor there, because it obviously happened.

    Now, if it were permissible to posit a Creator God, that would be a much more likely explanation, but it isn’t permissible, so, again, the odds aren’t really relevant.

    1. “Just so” stories by evolutionists are indeed myriad as you point out. Abiogenesis being chief among them. And of course abiogenesis is easily debunked in lab experiement after lab experiment.

    thus a good example where “actual science” is on record debunking evolutionist junk-science every day.

    2. But your ending point is actually the key that was glaringly obvious to people like Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and P.Z Meyers. (To the great embarrassment of seventh-eon darwinist that are still objective enough to be aware of the case).

    The atheist montra “There is not god” is the real starting point. THUS when you look at life around you – the ONLY solution is “natural causes” and evolutionism is then accepted by them as some kind of “revealed truth” (just as Collin Patterson freely admitted).

    And “thus” the opposition to Intelligent Design EVEN by so-called Seventh-day evolutionists. In taking that position they unwittingly expose the unique atheist basis for their “belief” in evolutionism.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  86. @Bravus:

    In Daniel 2, Daniel is speaking to the king of Babylon, and says:

    37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

    38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.

    The king of Babylon’s worldwide empire actually spanned a fairly small part of the whole globe, around the Mediterranean.

    Remember, the same inspiration process was operating in Daniel as in Genesis. If the ‘whole earth’ covered by the Babylonian empire was actually a large but local area, why not the ‘whole earth’ covered by the Flood?

    I am always amazed at what passes for exegesis among our evolutionist friends.

    1. Same author same book – same context. Is always a good start.
    2. Same author — other books – is next.
    3. Different author – same subject is next.

    By contrast – eisegesis (as you point out in your post above) can be done much more easily by simply limiting your methods entirely to different author entirely different subject – and some of the same words.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  87. @Bravus:

    The question of how the koalas got from Mt Ararat to Australia and what they ate on the way (since they only eat eucalyptus leaves found only here) has also been asked…

    Have you noticed that evolutionists seem to be married to the “tell me a story” idea?

    Please make up a Creation-compatible story that is more believable to me than oh say “abiogenesis” or “spontaneous generation” dubbed “punctuated equilibrium” – and then based on “comparing story with story” let us decide whether or not to believe the Bible.

    The alternative to that would be – “just stick with science”.

    Do you see it happening in the lab? — then it “happens”.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  88. Bravus: Actually, I’m not sure how a creation+flood account fares much better than evolution in explaining why Australia was almost exclusively populated with marsupial species not found anywhere else in the world until Western settlement just a couple of hundred years ago. Feel free to branch out from the koalas and offer a plausible explanation for that

    They go there somehow, which means there is some rationale explanation. Here’s one example of colonization on an island after it was destroyed by a volcano.

    Six months after the eruption of a volcano on the island of Surtsey off the coast of Iceland in 1963, the island had been colonized by a few bacteria, molds, insects, and birds. Within about a year of the eruption of a volcano on the island of Krakatoa in the tropical Pacific in 1883, a few grass species, insects, and vertebrates had taken hold. On both Surtsey and Krakatoa, only a few decades had elapsed before hundreds of species reached the islands. Not all species are able to take hold and become permanently established, but eventually the island communities stabilize into a dynamic equilibrium.1

    How did some of the vertebrates get there? According the abstract of Geo Journal, natural rafts and human agency were explanations for the new vertebrae on the island.

    Of the 17 recorded non-volant vertebrates, 6 species are assessed as having dispersed by swimming, 4 by means of natural rafts and 7 most likely through human agency (on boats). Human-assisted dispersal is seen to be of increasing importance with the increasing number of tourist visits and this may prove to be significant in determining the nature and rate of future colonization by vertebrates.2

    Rattle snakes on logs? Why not? It sounds crazy to me, but I suppose it’s possible. So here are some rationale explanations of how animals could have been transported to Australia:

    1. Natural rafts
    2. Human agency
    3. Land bridges (Assuming sea levels were lower post-flood due to the ice-age. There is the Bering Straits between Asia and the Americas.)

    Now as far as why Australia was almost exclusively populated with marsupial species not found anywhere else in the world, here’s my explanation.

    Marsupial fossils are found in other parts of the world. The Virginia Opossum and the Yapok are both marsupials not living in Australia. Species do go extinct once in a while, so it’s no surprise to see that there are marsupial species that are exclusive to Australia.

    I don’t see the spread of animals from the ark to the rest of the world as problem. I can speculate how it might of happened, but ultimately not knowing does nothing to lessen the reality of a global flood. God directed the animals to the ark, I wouldn’t doubt it if he directed their dispersion. This particular issue isn’t a problem either for evolutionists. The reality is that theses animals are there, so there must have been some way for them to get there. It would be nice to know how, but not knowing doesn’t necessarily change our scientific world view.

    My question to for Christian evolutionists is what is THE evidence that has convinced you for long ages for life over millions and millions of years. What sold you?

    At the heart of this issue is that the Seventh-day Adventist Church presupposes the Bible account is true. I like what Paul F. Taylor said in his article about this very subject:

    …we have seen that scientific models can be developed to explain the post-Flood migration of animals. These models correspond to observed data and are consistent with the Bible’s account. It is notable that opponents of biblical creationism use similar models in their evolutionary explanations of animal migrations. While a model may eventually be superseded, it is important to note that such biblically consistent models exist. In any event, we have confidence in the scriptural account, finding it to be accurate and authoritative.3

    1. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/129392/community-ecology/70601/Biogeographic-aspects-of-diversity
    2. http://www.springerlink.com/content/hh5l421r481h82l5/
    3. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/how-did-animals-spread#fnMark_1_1_1

    View Comment
  89. “The problem that evolutionist face is trying to “get birds from reptiles”.” (Bob Ryan)

    The problem is that you require it to happen in 6000 years and only God (and you) know with certainty that it can’t happen in 600 million years. In reality you believe that evolution occurs so rapidly that you unwittingly moved the goalposts a whole lot closer for the evolutionary senario.

    “Your argument would require that weaponized contagens “are the way to go” if we want “even better evolution” in the future because just THINK of how well off we might be with the handfull of humans that survive THAT!! I can’t believe that you are going down that rabbit trail in your argument.” (Bob Lyan)

    I was’nt. I didnt attach any value to what state of evolution is “better”. That’s your stupid and mean spirited characterization. You are totally out of line to assume what my values are.

    “You are welcome to show that evolutionists cannnot get “snake variations coming from snakes” over 4000 years of time. Where is the SCIENCE – the lab experiment that demonstrates their argument in that regard?? You seem to repeatedly “assume’ the salient point of your argument, rather than proving it.” (Bob Ryan)

    Gob’s ploy is both disingenious and unfair. He asks me to “prove” that 30 species of rattlesnakes cant evolve over 4000 years, but offers no proof that they CAN evolve over 4000 years. His flawed logic is illusive to the unbiased objecter observer.

    I am not going to respond to other critisims by Bob. He can belittle all he wants (me, Bravus, David Read) but hereafter I’m not going to dignify his arrogant jugements by a response. I think this discussion would become less heated if we all just ignore the guy.

    Look people, I’m just asking honest quetions that a college student would like answers to and am offering real facts to show why it can be difficult to belief that faith and science are always cognruent. I dont understand why we have to have an awswer for every question. I think the Bible says verty little about much of this.

    View Comment
  90. @Geanna Dane:

    2. That being the case there is no way around it. Evolutionists are stupid not cuz they believe it happens but cuz they VASTLY UNDERRESTIMATE how fast it happens. I guess all of us here are extreme evolutionists like David Read conceited.

    Bob replied:

    Again you ignore the “inconvenient detail” that “getting more finches from finches” has never been a problem for either evolutionists or creationists.

    The problem that evolutionist face is trying to “get birds from reptiles”.

    Sorry to have to bring this back into focus again – but your argument seems to continually drift away from the salient point of real difference the discussion.

    @Geanna Dane:

    The problem is that you require it to happen in 6000 years

    Not so – in fact if I were to argue “sure you can get birds to come from reptiles millions of years time (100’s of millions even) but not in 6,000 years” I would BE an evolutionist by definition.

    and only God (and you) know with certainty that it can’t happen in 600 million years.

    If that is slight of hand for 3SG 90-91 and Exodus 20:8-11 then – ‘objection noted’.

    In reality you believe that evolution occurs so rapidly that you unwittingly moved the goalposts a whole lot closer for the evolutionary senario.

    Not So.

    We (Bible believing Creationists) say that all life came about in 6 literal days — it is illogical to then argue “that is very very fast evolution you believe in”. I am not claiming evolution produced birds from reptiles at all. Not in 6 days not in 6,000 years – not ever.

    I am not arguing that snakes ever produce anything but snakes. Birds produce nothing but birds.

    With that as an “end result” you do not have “birds came from reptiles”.

    The point remains.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  91. By Geanna Dane:

    I think it was Bob Ryan who stated that humans are degenerating and eventually will become extinct. I respectullly disagree. Consider the recent history of global or near-global pandemics:

    430 BC: Plague of Athens (>25% kill)
    165 – 180: Antonine Plague, perhaps smallpox (killed up to 5 million)
    251 – 266: Plague of Cyprian, probably smallpox again (5,000/day killed in Rome)
    541: the Plague of Justinian (bubonic plague) (up to 50% kill)
    1300s: the Black Death (75 million killed)
    1501 – 1587: typhus
    1732 – 1733: influenza
    1775 – 1776: influenza
    1816 – 1826: cholera
    1829 – 1851: cholera
    1847 – 1848: influenza

    1918 – 1920: influenza (Spanish flu) (more people were hospitalized in World War I from this epidemic than wounds. Estimates of the dead range from 20 to 100 million worldwide)
    1957 – 1958: influenza: Asian flu
    1968 – 1969: influenza: Hong Kong flu
    1960s: cholera called El Tor
    1980s – present: HIV

    Never did 100% of those struck by these diseases die. Some people had innate resistance to diseaase (praise God!) and past it on to us and, well others were less fortunate.. ..

    Your argument would require that weaponized contagens “are the way to go” if we want “even better evolution” in the future because just THINK of how well off we might be with the handfull of humans that survive THAT!! I can’t believe that you are going down that rabbit trail in your argument.

    @Geanna Dane:

    I was’nt. I didnt attach any value to what state of evolution is “better”. That’s your stupid and mean … (obligatory ad hominem rant deleted here)

    It remains “as an exercise for the reader” to see if your argument above was presented as an argument against the evidence for a decaying human organism over time.

    I am fine with that.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  92. @Geanna Dane:

    Is your name really Geanna Dane?

    The reason I ask is because we occasionally check the authenticity of commenters since we require real names and email addresses. We occasionally allow monikers when the real identity is easily associated with the user, such as Bravus.

    However, there are some small discrepancies with your name, email address, and IP address you’re using. I have personally emailed you to verify that the email address you have provided is authentic.

    The reason it has come into question is because it has come to our attention that your email address has been attached to a questionable MySpace account that references the male sexual anatomy. The email address was also attached to a Flickr account with the picture of young black male with his shirt off.

    Currently this email address is no longer associated with those accounts.

    Thank you.

    View Comment
  93. Shane, I like the floating logs idea but we have to go back to this:

    Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
    Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
    Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground…

    So if we are going to be consistent and take every word here literally, then EVERYTHING today descended from the animals that came off the ark on Mt. Ararat. We have not tother choice. We’ve barely touched on the problems this poses for just 4000 years.

    As I’ve mentioned none of us can explain how rattlesnakes found the time to crawl all the way to the distant pionts of the New world and evolve into 30 species. None of us can answer how sidewinder rattlesnakes and horned vipers got from the ark to deserts on two different continents and despite having differnet ancestors they evolved to look identical (apart from the rattle and facial pits on the sidewinder).

    None of us can explain how 400 species of plethodontid salamanders and 100 species of leptodactylid frogs ended up in the New Worl with none in the Old World. As amphibians they could not have survived salt water or swam across the ocean. Most or all had to have evolved in the New World from ancestrs that left the ark.

    Okay, those animals have difficulty hopping and crawling but sure if you can fly you can get off one continent and on to antoher. Yet none of us us can answer how how 300 species of trochilids (hummingbirds), 500 species of tyranids (flycatchers), and 300 species of funariids (ovenbirds, woodcreepers) all flew to or evolved in the New World without any remaining in the Old World.

    We have’nt gotten into mammals (Australia has big issues) or fishes. How did all those freshwater fishes end up on the ark and then end up back in the New World? I dont have time right now to look up how many species might have evolved in the New World.

    And then there are island species. Amphibians- how many species occur only in the Caribeean islands and no where else? How could they get there? Okay- found that, unbeleivable numbers! 6,550 species of plants found no where else, 41 mammals, 163 birds, 469 reptiles, 170 amphibians, 65 freshwater fishes. Whew! How did the freshwater amphibians and fishes get there from the ark? If they did’nt they sure evolved incredibly fast! How did the plants get there without also traveling (seeds in wind, on water?) without traveling somewhere else?

    These are questions we biology majors in college have to deal with. The evolutionists have it easy: they say all this evolved over many millions of years. We have it tough: we have to say this evolved over a wee 4,000 years. Obviouisly we need a creationsit model that can answer these questions if we are going to believe that the majority of evidence favors creation like so many say.

    View Comment
  94. General response to the dozen or so posts in this thread while I’ve been sleeping.

    If there were only two possible positions on origins, then affirming that one of them is wrong would be affirming that the other is right. That’s not the case, though, there are literally dozens of nuances of possible position, but I can think of at least 6 mainstream possibilities:

    1. Recent creationism (with variants depending on which god/s did it)
    2. Ancient creationism (ditto)
    3. Theistic evolutionism (ditto)
    4. Deism
    5. Atheistic evolutionism
    6. Panspermia of one kind or another

    The fact that I affirm that I believe Ellen White was wrong to use the ‘I was shown’ formulation to give Divine imprimatur to Bishop Ussher’s fatally flawed chronology effectively rules me out of the recent creationist camp, but does *not* then place me firmly in either of the evolutionist camps or any other firm position on origins.

    6000 years never appears anywhere in the Bible as the age of the earth or life. Recent Turkish archaeological finds of a quite sophisticated small city 11,500 years old are just the newest of the thousands of pieces of evidence that contradict 6000 years as the age of… much of anything.

    This is the problem with Victor’s otherwise laudable suggestion to go first to the Bible. Actually, two problems:

    1. The creationists here and everywhere else where they speak go outside the Bible, and then require adherence to those extraBiblical tenets as an article of faith.
    2. The plain evidence of the world around us clearly shows that life on earth is much more than 6000 years old. To start disbelieving in the world is to move into delusion.

    The problems are very difficult – and perhaps more so for someone who works in science and has to actually process the scientific evidence rather than be able to ignore it. The open-minded, open-hearted search needs to go on, and finding a synthesis is, IMO, a saner response than sweeping away all inconvenient evidence.

    View Comment

Comments are closed.