Thursday, October 20, 2016

... 3 QQ on Evolution / Creation (Quora)

What actual evidence is there of evolution, when the Bible says God made Creation in six days and then rested?

Answer A
Claudio Delise,
I have read the bible (OT and NT) cover to cover 2 and 1/2 times and more.

Quick example off the top of my head are Tuberculosis, Gonorrhea, and guess what Syphyllis.

In my lifetime TB has changed (evolved) to not respond to medicines that used to work in a 6 months of treatment.

Gonorrhea has changed (evolved) to be resistant to common (simple) antibiotics.

But most interesting: Syphilis was first introduced to Europe probably by Christopher Columbus travels.

Initially it was a more impressive than small pox. So it became colloquially known as the Great Pox. Now it has evolved to be milder and more indolent disease.

See Knell, RJ (7 May 2004). "Syphilis in renaissance Europe: rapid evolution of an introduced sexually transmitted disease?" (PDF). Proceedings. Biological sciences / the Royal Society. 271 Suppl 4 (Suppl 4): S174–6. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0131. PMC 1810019free to read. PMID 15252975.

When syphilis first appeared in Europe in 1495, it was an acute and extremely unpleasant disease. After only a few years it was less severe than it once was, and it changed over the next 50 years into a milder, chronic disease. The severe early symptoms may have been the result of the disease being introduced into a new host population without any resistance mechanisms, but the change in virulence is most likely to have happened because of selection favouring milder strains of the pathogen. The symptoms of the virulent early disease were both debilitating and obvious to potential sexual partners of the infected, and strains that caused less obvious or painful symptoms would have enjoyed a higher transmission rate.

(bold face added by me.) Notice that there were no antibiotics available to “interfere” with God’s plan for the disease.

Edit 9/17/16 this is a followup to a dialogue in comments section.

There are several sites that elaborate on topics of evolution, if you are really interested. These sites include a detailed explanation of of the evolution of the eye (a favorite counter-argument used for years by Creationists against evolution). You can also look up “humans have 46 chromosomes while other Apes have 48”. In particular check out human chromosome number 2. You will find a detailed analysis with a timeline a) First a prediction that would potentially falsify the hypothesis of common descent, followed by 2) detailed study followed by 3) confirmation of hypothesis.

A classic case of hypothesis, analysis, verification. This allows an hypothesis to begin a journey to a Theory (capital T) if there are many more verifications and no falsifications. One unequivocal proven falsification would be sufficient to turn evolution on its head and lots of biologists changing careers.

Oh, I forgot.

Your comment statement “genomic errors are by and large destructive,” is partially correct. Look up a gene (name escapes me) that controls the mammalian jaw. In humans it is defective but not in other apes. Result: A chimp can and sometimes does bite your face off. A human even if crazy cannot do it because muscles too weak.

This genetic “defect” resulted in larger and larger skulls in humans and and increase in brain size. So now humans can do math chimps not so much.

When I was an engineer I had on my dest a sign “ DCMWFMMIMUA” (don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up already). Did you by chance find my sign? (gentle humor). If you did not you can do a lot of easy reading and make your own mind.

My comment
“What actual evidence is there of evolution, when the Bible says God made Creation in six days and then rested?”

I take it the word evolution in above is not contrasted with an absolute fixity of species, but rather with special creation of for instance, man, ape, donkey, sheep, bird, bacterium, fish, insect separate from any other in this list.

That is NOT evidenced by bacteria adapting and changing.

[Yeah, I know, should have read the answer through, not just blurted off my response to beginning.]

Answer B
Habib Fanny,
Political Animal, Goofball, Heathen, Physician, and all around Nerd.

I’m scratching my head, here.

Not really sure what the argument is.

You couldn’t possibly be saying that because people with no scientific knowledge wrote their legends of creation in a book a few thousand years ago, that should invalidate what we have learned since then.

Because, I’m not sure if you’d noticed but there are a lot of things the writers of the Bibles didn’t know about:

  • computers
  • avocados
  • the germ theory of disease
  • airplanes
  • chocolate
  • AIDS
  • MRIs
  • Gunpowder
  • spaghetti!!!

Do you really mean to insinuate that we should consult the Bible before deciding whether these things are real?

My comment
It is possible most authors of the Bible were not familiar with below list, but I'll comment on it one by one.

Actually, I think Hezekiel in the verse about "flying scroll" was shown sth about computer technology - some take this is robotics directed missiles, I might tend to think more of satellite communications (with deleting of accounts described as burning of house).

I also think St John on Patmos was shown about ASCII Code (and obviously the name or names of Antichrist and/or False Prophet in appropriate case and spacing) before writing verse 18 of chapter 13.

But suppose these hunches were wrong. Suppose all Bible book authors were ignorant of computers, which I don't think is the case, either way, there are NO Bible verses actually contradicting possibility of computers being made.

They are plants, right? Specifically fruit? Right? Well, if no Bible author (after Adam as part-of-book author and probably Noah too) ever knew of avocados, they knew of fruit and knew there were many kinds of them.

[part-of-book author - namely of certain parts of Genesis]

"the germ theory of disease"
I'd say that considering devils as guardian angels of bad bacteria functions rather well with considering them as guardian angels of flies. And Beelzebul is a title of the devil in the NT.

What specific Bible verse positively excludes them?

Extract of a certain plant, more specifically a fruit, see avocado, above.

Bible authors however did know bad manners draw after them punishment of God.

Don't know what they are.

I'd probaly agree only known explosive in pre-Flood and early post-Flood times was Uranium, see Mahabharata and confer it with the real context in Genesis 6 about wickedness.

Probably Tower of Babel was meant as a rocket (of which only the top reaches space), but they were going to use propulsion by exploding Uranium, and God mercifully averted this, while ensuing technology loss helped to continue averting it, until other rocket fuels had been studied and are adopted at Cape Canaveral.

Bible authors knew you could make both bread and beer with cereals, so being able to make spaghetti or other pasta should not come as a surprise.

By contrast,
Evolution over millions or billions of years are positively excluded by certain verses, about creation days having evenings and mornings, and earth being comparably old is positively excluded by the genealogies and other chronological stuff after Adam was created. See for instance Genesis V.

Two other QQ
My mother is teaching my younger brother creationism. He's a smart kid, and it hurts to hear him learn something so incorrect. What should I do?

He’s nine and learning Young Earth Creationism. My mother even has a timeline that goes from 4,000 BC to the modern era, wiping out most of ancient history and replacing it with the Old Testament mythology. Nobody deserves to learn something this bad.

My Answer
  • 1) Your mother believes creationism is true and has a right to teach it to children staying at home.
  • 2) If she doesn’t forbid it, you can of course offer him evolutionist stuff.

I don’t see any point in fretting over “a smart kid” becoming a creationist. Creationism is not exactly stupid.

Is jurassic world satanic propaganda?

(not read bef. answering)

Jurassic World | creationsciencestudy

Note: i know ist not, but this is a provocative question

My Answer
You mean the film?

I’d say it is more like stupid and ignorant propaganda, insofar as it portrays the Jurassic biotopes as having existed and gone partly extinct 145 million years ago.

“Satanic” I reserve for more depraved things.

No comments: