Heresy within Christianity

[Paul Christensen]

Define example

if you can show me through observation that a small single celled amoeba has changed into a multi-celled sea creature, that would be an example of evolution. Or if in the laboratory a bacteria can be changed into an amoeba which involves a change between one type of organism into another type, then that would be another example.

But if an amoeba became a different form of amoeba it would remain an amoeba or is a certain multi-celled sea creature changed from being small to large, it would not involve a change in the kind of sea-creature, therefore would not prove evolution.

A particular breed of bird that remained the same except for a larger beak is just the same bird with a larger beak, not a different type of bird. I have noticed that New Zealand sparrows are different from English sparrows in their colouring, but both are still sparrows with genetic changes. But if I observed a sparrow changing into a canary, then I would believe it to be an evolutionary change. However, I know of interbreeding between sparrows and canaries, producing a new breed of bird called Yellowhammers, combining the characteristics of sparrows and canaries. But this is not evolution because it came as the result of one bird mating with another, therefore reproduction and not evolution.

Some evolutionists have said that the changes from the wild timber wolf to the domestic dog is the result of evolution, but this is incorrect, because the wolf and the domestic dog are the same kind of dog. The changes have come about through genetics and reproduction, not evolution.

So, I think I have clearly defined "example" for you. So, let's be having you!

 

[Paul Christensen]

It would be like teaching nuclear physics in Sunday school. Not what God cares about.

AIG lost a lot of credibility when they published a paper that altered the words of some astronomers to make it look as though they believed something that they did not. After a lot of criticism, much of it from other creationists, it was taken off the AIG website. But it remains a stain on their credibility as Christians.

(Edit: I discovered that not only has AIG removed the attempted deception, they now acknowledge that the creationist supernova remnant argument is faulty. So there that's to their credit.)

Neither YE creationism nor the phenomenon of evolution have anything to do with the Gospels.

Young evangelicals seem to be less and less inclined to graft YE creationism onto Christian doctrine. Which is encouraging. It may be too late, however.

Is that the one where they showed a picture of a star being formed and showed that it was just a computer simulation and not an actual observation through a telescope? AiG maintains that no one has ever observed, through a telescope, an actual star forming, although supernovas have been observed, especially through the Hubble telescope.

However, anyone can make a mistake, and if other creationists are saying that credibility is damaged then they might be the pot calling the kettle black!

Well, Genesis 1-3 has everything to do with the gospel of Christ. If it is not accurate literal narrative, the gospel would be meaningless, and Jesus coming and dying on the cross would be meaningless as well. All we would have would be a humanist religion involved in making us better people until we die and are no more, and what's the use of being a better person if we are just going to die and rot in the grave?

I think the antidote is for the church to teach their young members Biblical apologetics, so that they become no longer creationists or evolutionists, but just Bible-believing Christians who accept the authority of the Bible in what it literally says.

 

[Yehren]

Is that the one where they showed a picture of a star being formed and showed that it was just a computer simulation and not an actual observation through a telescope?

No. We have lots of images of stars forming. That's a very common thing going on. Supernovae often initiate that as the shock waves from the explosion causes nearby gas clouds to collapse. Our solar system was formed by such a shock wave. If it didn't, there wouldn't be any elements heavier than lithium, outside of the Sun.

AiG maintains that no one has ever observed, through a telescope, an actual star forming,

Scientists have observed in unprecedented detail the birth of a massive star within a dark cloud core about 10,000 light years from Earth.
The team used the new ALMA (Atacama Large Millimetre/submillimetre Array) telescope in Chile – the most powerful radio telescope in the world – to view the stellar womb which, at 500 times the mass of the Sun and many times more luminous, is the largest ever seen in our galaxy.
Astronomers witness birth of Milky Way’s most massive star

You Must See This Stunning Picture of New Stars Forming in Our Own Galaxy
You Must See This Stunning Picture of New Stars Forming in Our Own Galaxy

 

[Yehren]

f you can show me through observation that a small single celled amoeba has changed into a multi-celled sea creature, that would be an example of evolution.

Slime molds. Usually, they live as amoeba-like single cells. However when times get tough, they can come together, form a stalk and a special organ, and produce spores that drift off on air currents to possibly better environments.

It's right on the border between protists and metazoans.

Or if in the laboratory a bacteria can be changed into an amoeba which involves a change between one type of organism into another type, then that would be another example.

That would require endosymbiosis, the union of two or more organisms to form a single cellular organism. That's how you have mitochondria. Eukaryotes have organelles with their own, prokaryote DNA.

You might ask if anyone has ever seen this kind of evolution happen. Turns out, we have:

J Cell Physiol. 1976 Oct;89(2):337-44.
Endosymbiosis in amoebae: recently established endosymbionts have become required cytoplasmic components.
Jeon KW, Jeon MS.
Abstract
A strain of large, free-living amoeba that became dependent on bacterial endosymbionts which had infected the amoebae initially as intracellular parasites, was studied by micrurgy and electron microscopy. The results show that the infected host cells require the presence of live endosymbionts for their survival.Thus, the nucleus of an infected amoeba can form a viable cell with the cytoplasm of a noninfected amoeba only when live endosymbionts are present. The endosymbiotic bacteria are not digested by the host amoebae and are not themselves used as nutritional supplement. While the host amoebae are dependent specifically on the endosymbionts, the latter can live inside amoebae of different strains, indicating that their dependence on the host cells is not yet strain specific.

 

[Yehren]

Remember, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. So any such change is evolution, by definition.

Don't confuse consequences of evolution, like common descent, with evolution.

 

[Paul Christensen]

No. We have lots of images of stars forming. That's a very common thing going on. Supernovae often initiate that as the shock waves from the explosion causes nearby gas clouds to collapse. Our solar system was formed by such a shock wave. If it didn't, there wouldn't be any elements heavier than lithium, outside of the Sun.



Scientists have observed in unprecedented detail the birth of a massive star within a dark cloud core about 10,000 light years from Earth.
The team used the new ALMA (Atacama Large Millimetre/submillimetre Array) telescope in Chile – the most powerful radio telescope in the world – to view the stellar womb which, at 500 times the mass of the Sun and many times more luminous, is the largest ever seen in our galaxy.
Astronomers witness birth of Milky Way’s most massive star

You Must See This Stunning Picture of New Stars Forming in Our Own Galaxy
You Must See This Stunning Picture of New Stars Forming in Our Own Galaxy

What I can see are the results of supernovas, and this is what the second article mentions about the gaseous clouds being the result of supernovas. The first picture shows me an already existing star surrounded by gaseous clouds.

I can believe that evolutionists are interpreting, on the basis of their belief, what is they think is happening way out there in space. Because the images are being received by a radio telescope in the form of "radio" waves, these have to go through a computer to interpret them, so the pictures that we see are not actual pictures seen through a direct telescope such as the Hubble, but the computer interpretation of radio waves from that region of interstellar space.

So, it all depends on how evidence is interpreted, and creationists can interpret the same evidence according to their own foundation of belief and be just as convincing as evolutionists from their foundation of belief.

But if a scientist can actually observe through a telescope a region of space where there is absolutely nothing, and a star forming from that nothing, then the evolutionist theory could have some substance. But no one as yet has been able to observe anything like that.

Sorry, no cigar this time! :-)

 

[Paul Christensen]

Slime molds. Usually, they live as amoeba-like single cells. However when times get tough, they can come together, form a stalk and a special organ, and produce spores that drift off on air currents to possibly better environments.

It's right on the border between protists and metazoans.



That would require endosymbiosis, the union of two or more organisms to form a single cellular organism. That's how you have mitochondria. Eukaryotes have organelles with their own, prokaryote DNA.

You might ask if anyone has ever seen this kind of evolution happen. Turns out, we have:

J Cell Physiol. 1976 Oct;89(2):337-44.
Endosymbiosis in amoebae: recently established endosymbionts have become required cytoplasmic components.
Jeon KW, Jeon MS.
Abstract
A strain of large, free-living amoeba that became dependent on bacterial endosymbionts which had infected the amoebae initially as intracellular parasites, was studied by micrurgy and electron microscopy. The results show that the infected host cells require the presence of live endosymbionts for their survival.Thus, the nucleus of an infected amoeba can form a viable cell with the cytoplasm of a noninfected amoeba only when live endosymbionts are present. The endosymbiotic bacteria are not digested by the host amoebae and are not themselves used as nutritional supplement. While the host amoebae are dependent specifically on the endosymbionts, the latter can live inside amoebae of different strains, indicating that their dependence on the host cells is not yet strain specific.

Nope. Not evolution. The particular type of mould doesn't change into something else. And if there are bacteria living inside the host amoeba, the bacteria is still a bacteria and the amoeba is still an amoeba, so this there is no change in either just because one is living in the other.

Sorry, still no cigar!

 

[Grailhunter]

if you can show me through observation that a small single celled amoeba has changed into a multi-celled sea creature, that would be an example of evolution. Or if in the laboratory a bacteria can be changed into an amoeba which involves a change between one type of organism into another type, then that would be another example.

But if an amoeba became a different form of amoeba it would remain an amoeba or is a certain multi-celled sea creature changed from being small to large, it would not involve a change in the kind of sea-creature, therefore would not prove evolution.

A particular breed of bird that remained the same except for a larger beak is just the same bird with a larger beak, not a different type of bird. I have noticed that New Zealand sparrows are different from English sparrows in their colouring, but both are still sparrows with genetic changes. But if I observed a sparrow changing into a canary, then I would believe it to be an evolutionary change. However, I know of interbreeding between sparrows and canaries, producing a new breed of bird called Yellowhammers, combining the characteristics of sparrows and canaries. But this is not evolution because it came as the result of one bird mating with another, therefore reproduction and not evolution.

Some evolutionists have said that the changes from the wild timber wolf to the domestic dog is the result of evolution, but this is incorrect, because the wolf and the domestic dog are the same kind of dog. The changes have come about through genetics and reproduction, not evolution.

So, I think I have clearly defined "example" for you. So, let's be having you!

Are we talking about the science of evolution or creation. God created....and evolution was guided by God.
Third rock from the sun was a rock....after billions of years of living and dying it was covered with dirt....dirt, clay, and oil are all the biologics that have lived and died. Evolution of animals and man are well represented in millions of specimens. But it is more than one science.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Are we talking about the science of evolution or creation. God created....and evolution was guided by God.
Third rock from the sun was a rock....after billions of years of living and dying it was covered with dirt....dirt, clay, and oil are all the biologics that have lived and died. Evolution of animals and man are well represented in millions of specimens. But it is more than one science.

Doesn't answer my question. Something billions of years ago is in the region of belief and faith and not through the scientific method of direct observation and experimentation.

It has been shown the oil and fossil records resulted from a global cataclysmic flood and upheaval of the earth's crust that instantly covered all vegetation and land-based animals as well as fish and other sea creatures and thrust them up through the rising water, magma and mud so that layers of rock formations containing the fossilized sea life, fish, and animals in these layers of rock. These can be observed in the rock layers on the side of the Grand Canyon, and near the top of Mt Everest. Some of these fossils have fish half eating other fish, and animals with their prey still in their stomachs. Also they have found ancient whole mammoths quick frozen and suspended in ice with grass still in their mouths. These things could not have happened for millions of years.

Also, the Flood could not have been local, because if it was, the water would have just washed out into the Persian Gulf and not covered the highest mountains in the middle of continents, thousands of miles away from any ocean with what became fossilized sea life. And if it was local, humans and animals would have relocated to regions where the flood didn't reach.

This has been proved by scientific observation of the actual fossils which show exactly the same kind of fish, sea life, and animals that the evolutionists say existed millions of years ago. If that was the case, we wouldn't be seeing the exact kinds of fish, sea creatures and animals that we can see still alive today. So, observation which shows absolutely no change in these, shows that evolution has to be based on a system of belief than an actual science.

So my question still stands, and to date, no conclusive answer has been received.

 

[Grailhunter]

Doesn't answer my question. Something billions of years ago is in the region of belief and faith and not through the scientific method of direct observation and experimentation.

It has been shown the oil and fossil records resulted from a global cataclysmic flood and upheaval of the earth's crust that instantly covered all vegetation and land-based animals as well as fish and other sea creatures and thrust them up through the rising water, magma and mud so that layers of rock formations containing the fossilized sea life, fish, and animals in these layers of rock. These can be observed in the rock layers on the side of the Grand Canyon, and near the top of Mt Everest. Some of these fossils have fish half eating other fish, and animals with their prey still in their stomachs. Also they have found ancient whole mammoths quick frozen and suspended in ice with grass still in their mouths. These things could not have happened for millions of years.

Also, the Flood could not have been local, because if it was, the water would have just washed out into the Persian Gulf and not covered the highest mountains in the middle of continents, thousands of miles away from any ocean with what became fossilized sea life. And if it was local, humans and animals would have relocated to regions where the flood didn't reach.

This has been proved by scientific observation of the actual fossils which show exactly the same kind of fish, sea life, and animals that the evolutionists say existed millions of years ago. If that was the case, we wouldn't be seeing the exact kinds of fish, sea creatures and animals that we can see still alive today. So, observation which shows absolutely no change in these, shows that evolution has to be based on a system of belief than an actual science.

So my question still stands, and to date, no conclusive answer has been received.

As I said, I understand the arguments....It is all head in the sand stuff. Paleontology, paleoanthropology, genetics, geology, zooarchaeology, evolutionary biology geochronologistsbotany, and ecology.

All sciences of evolution. And again it does not matter what you and I believe. It matters what the youth and the millennials believe. You can argue all you want and object but that view of things will drive Christianity into its grave. You want to be responsible for that?

If you want to learn...go for it....the burden of labor is on the one that wants something.

 

[Paul Christensen]

As I said, I understand the arguments....It is all head in the sand stuff. Paleontology, paleoanthropology, genetics, geology, zooarchaeology, evolutionary biology geochronologistsbotany, and ecology.

All sciences of evolution. And again it does not matter what you and I believe. It matters what the youth and the millennials believe. You can argue all you want and object but that view of things will drive Christianity into its grave. You want to be responsible for that?

If you want to learn...go for it....the burden of labor is on the one that wants something.

All these disciplines of science have two areas: Operational science (how things work), historical science (how things happened), and origin science (what we believe might have happened).

LOL! reminds me of the three people in an event. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen, and those who wonder what the heck happened!" (Sorry, couldn't help it! ).

The first two areas of science are through observation and experimentation, and the third is through theory. It is interesting that all the science disciplines that you listed could fit into either 1 or 2, or both, and also 3, depending on how the evidence from these disciplines is interpreted.

Genetics shows how adaptation of different kinds of creatures to different environments takes place. We can explain natural selection by genetics by observing why some people have more melanin in their skins than others, for example, why are equatorial Africans are a much darker brown than Scottish people living in the Hebrides. It has all to do with the genetics of the original language groups who migrated there, where in Africa light skinned people died out through cancers because of the ultra violet rays of the sun while the darker ones with greater skin protection survived and continued breeding. And we have others all over the world with different shades of brown skin colour. Of course, with more frequent travel and migration in more modern times, the mix of the different skin shades of people is found all over the world.

Archaelogy, through observation can show that the places that the Bible mentions are still there when the ruins are discovered. Up until modern times no one believed that the Hittites mentioned in the Bible actually existed, but through archaelogical discovery artifacts were found, and how there is a whole Hittite museum.

Geology, through observation of fossil records in the Grand Canyon shows sea creatures and fossilised fish in the rock layers which gives evidence of a global flood, and also shows that the fossils were deposited there less than 6000 years ago. They have experimented and have reproduced the same type of rock formation, and have observed the same type of formation as the result of the 1980 Mt St Helen's volcano eruption in Washington State. So it took just 40 years to form the same rock types there, as the ones found in the Grand Canyon that were supposed to be millions of years old!

Ecology can be observed through changes in environments due to climate change, pollution, and deforestation. Also, observation that a major ecological change occurred less than 6000 years ago by the discovery of actual plant life in the Antarctic ice. As was said in a previous post, the plants were so fresh that planting eating animals were able to consume it. If that happened millions of years ago, it would not have been possible. Also, they found dinosaur bones, supposedly millions of years old with flexible tissue attached to them, something impossible if they were millions of years old.

So, when we apply observational scientific methods to the evidence, we see that there is a reasonable doubt about the theories that are promulgated by evolutionists, even when the same evidence is produced. So the difference is in the interpretation of the evidence - whether through direct observation, or through faith in a theory.

 

[Grailhunter]

Again and again....you are the instrument of destruction of Christianity...and you have obviously worked hard at it. What is your goal? You alienate the youth of the world with your weird science. None of the legitimate branches of science will endorse what you have presented. What your preaching is working...worldwide. Again take a survey of the average age of the people on this forum.

There are 30,000 variations to Christianity...they cannot even agree on that and then you try to promote Christianity as a fantasy. You think you are an apologist for God's word, but you are burying it.

 

[Yehren]

And if there are bacteria living inside the host amoeba, the bacteria is still a bacteria and the amoeba is still an amoeba, so this there is no change in either just because one is living in the other.

Sorry, that's wrong. Both the bacteria and the amoebae have evolved. Neither can now live without the other. Just like every cell in your body and the mitochondria in them. The mitochondria are endosymbiotic bacteria, which have their own bacterial DNA by which they reproduce. This is how eukaryotes evolved by endosymbiosis. Those amoebae just evolved another endosymbiont.

Remember what evolution is:"change in allele frequency in a population over time."

 

[Yehren]

Again and again....you are the instrument of destruction of Christianity...and you have obviously worked hard at it. What is your goal? You alienate the youth of the world with your weird science. None of the legitimate branches of science will endorse what you have presented. What your preaching is working...worldwide. Again take a survey of the average age of the people on this forum.

There are 30,000 variations to Christianity...they cannot even agree on that and then you try to promote Christianity as a fantasy. You think you are an apologist for God's word, but you are burying it.

I think he's sincere. It's true that YE creationism does much damage to Christianity, but it's not intentional. Still as St. Augustine wrote centuries ago:

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
St. Augustine of Hippo, De Genesi ad Litteram

 

[Yehren]

What I can see are the results of supernovas, and this is what the second article mentions about the gaseous clouds being the result of supernovas. The first picture shows me an already existing star surrounded by gaseous clouds.

I can believe that evolutionists are interpreting, on the basis of their belief, what is they think is happening way out there in space. Because the images are being received by a radio telescope in the form of "radio" waves, these have to go through a computer to interpret them, so the pictures that we see are not actual pictures seen through a direct telescope such as the Hubble, but the computer interpretation of radio waves from that region of interstellar space.

You can see the stars forming in these nebulae; as they condense and heat up, they begin to give off starlight. No point in denying what we're seeing here.

In fact, these images are obtained by taking in all wavelengths of light, including visible, infrared, microwaves, long waves, and so on. Since we can compare them to the same output of mature stars, it's very clear what we are seeing.

 

[Yehren]

Genetics shows how adaptation of different kinds of creatures to different environments takes place. We can explain natural selection by genetics by observing why some people have more melanin in their skins than others, for example, why are equatorial Africans are a much darker brown than Scottish people living in the Hebrides. It has all to do with the genetics of the original language groups who migrated there, where in Africa light skinned people died out through cancers because of the ultra violet rays of the sun while the darker ones with greater skin protection survived and continued breeding. And we have others all over the world with different shades of brown skin colour. Of course, with more frequent travel and migration in more modern times, the mix of the different skin shades of people is found all over the world.

That's what evolution is. Remember "change in allele frequencies in a population over time." You've accepted the reality of evolution; you just don't like the name.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Sorry, that's wrong. Both the bacteria and the amoebae have evolved. Neither can now live without the other. Just like every cell in your body and the mitochondria in them. The mitochondria are endosymbiotic bacteria, which have their own bacterial DNA by which they reproduce. This is how eukaryotes evolved by endosymbiosis. Those amoebae just evolved another endosymbiont.

Remember what evolution is:"change in allele frequency in a population over time."

If they did evolve, the bacteria would have changed into an amoeba, but as you are saying, the bacteria remains a bacteria and the amoeba remains a amoeba, even though they are symbiotically linked. They combined but no new organism type has emerged the symbiotic combination can happen quickly under observation, but evolution has to change the bacteria into an amoeba by chance over a very long period of time. You have not demonstrated evolution.

 

[Paul Christensen]

You can see the stars forming in these nebulae; as they condense and heat up, they begin to give off starlight. No point in denying what we're seeing here.

In fact, these images are obtained by taking in all wavelengths of light, including visible, infrared, microwaves, long waves, and so on. Since we can compare them to the same output of mature stars, it's very clear what we are seeing.

The heat and light are caused by supernova, and all I see in the first photo is an already formed star surrounded by gaseous clouds, that is what I see in the evidence. But then I'm biased toward Biblical creation because that is my foundation, and I know that your foundation won't change from the atheist view of evolution unless there is a work of the Holy Spirit in you. I am not forcing you to believe that; I am merely telling you to provide evidence that I have when we all come up to judgment one day, in case you try to tell God that you weren't clearly told that evolution is an atheistic lie which causes a person to deny the God of the Bible, who is the only one. I don't know who your god is but it ain't the God of the Bible.

 

[Paul Christensen]

That's what evolution is. Remember "change in allele frequencies in a population over time." You've accepted the reality of evolution; you just don't like the name.

The accepted definition of the evolution of the species according to Darwin, which evolutionist have never denied, is that one animal changes into a total different type of animal by chance over a very long period of time, and that all life started with a one-celled organism in the primeval soup. But they don't really know where the one-celled organism came from originally.

So, if you are saying that a particular type of bird developing a larger beak without changing into a completely different type of bird, then you are departing from Darwin's theory of the origin of the species to an adaptation of your own to try and explain away the fact that a bird that develops a larger beak without changing its type is not Darwinian evolution.

 

[Grailhunter]

The accepted definition of the evolution of the species according to Darwin, which evolutionist have never denied, is that one animal changes into a total different type of animal by chance over a very long period of time, and that all life started with a one-celled organism in the primeval soup. But they don't really know where the one-celled organism came from originally.

So, if you are saying that a particular type of bird developing a larger beak without changing into a completely different type of bird, then you are departing from Darwin's theory of the origin of the species to an adaptation of your own to try and explain away the fact that a bird that develops a larger beak without changing its type is not Darwinian evolution.

Do yourself a favor and do not mention Darwin again. Darwin is not your issue, the science of evolution and its various branches of science are what you have to deal with.