New Page 0

"...The biblical perspective on change within living things doesn’t require that new information be added to the genome as pond-scum-to-people evolution does. In fact, we expect to see the opposite (loss of genetic information) due to the Curse in Genesis 3. Biblically, we would expect mutations to produce defects in the genome and would not expect mutations to be adding much, if any, new information.

Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires.

Mutations, when properly understood, are an excellent example of science confirming the Bible. When one sees the devastating effects of mutations, one can’t help but be reminded of the Curse in Genesis 3. The accumulation of mutations from generation to generation is due to man’s sin. But those who have placed their faith in Christ, our Creator, look forward to a new heaven and Earth where there will be no more pain, death or disease." Full text: Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "It seems at first that you were arguing that such mutations could never lead to a gain in information. Now it seems as though you're saying that there's a requirement for net gain of information vs loss. What is it? We need to be on the same page to discuss this lucidly."

It would seem "molecules to man" evolution is a weak theory. I trust the Bible's account of origins:

"Pond-scum-to-people evolution teaches that, over time, by natural causes, nonliving chemicals gave rise to a living cell. Then, this single-celled life-form gave rise to more advanced life-forms. In essence, over millions of years, increases in information caused by mutations plus natural selection developed all the life forms we see on Earth today.

For molecules-to-man evolution to happen, there needs to be a gain in new information within the organism’s genetic material. For instance, for a single-celled organism, such as an ameba, to evolve into something like a cow, new information (not random base pairs, but complex and ordered DNA) would need to develop over time that would code for ears, lungs, brain, legs, etc.

If an ameba were to make a change like this, the DNA would need to mutate new information. (Currently, an ameba has limited genetic information, such as the information for protoplasm.) This increase of new information would need to continue in order for a heart, kidneys, etc. to develop. If a DNA strand gets larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesn’t code for anything (e.g., it doesn’t contain information for working lungs, heart, etc.), then the amount of DNA added is useless and would be more of a hindrance than a help.

There have been a few arguable cases of information-gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don’t observe this in nature, but rather, we see the opposite—organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction! How can losses of information add up to a gain?

What does the Bible Teach?...

...From a biblical perspective, we know that Adam and Eve had perfect DNA because God declared all that He had made “very good” (Genesis 1:31). This goes for the original animal and plant kinds as well. They originally had perfect DNA strands with no mistakes or mutations.

However, when man sinned against God (Genesis 3), God cursed the ground and the animals, and He sentenced man to die (Genesis 2:17; 3:19). In essence, God withdrew some of His sustaining power and no longer completely upheld everything by His awesome power.

Since then, we would expect mutations to occur and DNA flaws to accumulate. The incredible amount of information that was originally in the DNA has been filtered out, and in many cases lost, due to mutations and natural selection.

At the time of Noah’s Flood, there was a genetic bottleneck where information was lost among many land animals and humans. The only genetic information that survived came from the representatives of the kinds of land-dwelling, air-breathing animals and humans that were on the Ark.

Over time, as people increased on the earth, God knew that mutations were rising within the human population and declared that people should no longer intermarry with close relatives (Leviticus 18). Why did He do this? Intermarriage with close relatives results in the possibility of similar genetic mutations appearing in a child due to inheriting a common mutation from both the father and mother. If both parents inherited the same mutated gene from a common ancestor (e.g., a grandparent), this would increase the possibility of both parents passing this mutated gene along to their child.

Marrying someone who is not a close relative reduces the chances that both would have the same mutated gene. If the segment of DNA from the mother had a mutation, it would be masked by the father’s unmutated gene. If the segment of DNA from the father had a mutation, it would be masked by the mother’s unmutated gene. If the genes from both parents were mutated, then the mutation would show in the child. Our all-knowing God obviously knew this would happen and gave the command in Leviticus not to marry close relations..." Full text: Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?

Response to comment [from a wiccan]: "No evil mustaches?"

To quote Jukia: "AiG lies and misrepresents. It is an evil group. There I said it. Evil, bad etc." [29 Oct 09, 08:58].

He/she believes that the numerous sources for young earth creation at Answers in Genesis are all lying and misrepresenting their findings. I do not.

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "I'm not going to read the Declaration of Independence every time I ask you what country you come from. You dig?"

You just now getting Happy Days on T.V. there? [England].

"It seems at first that you were arguing that such mutations could never lead to a gain in information. Now it seems as though you're saying that there's a requirement for net gain of information vs loss. What is it?"

Which mutation of those that I posted were you interested in discussing? Point mutations, Inversion mutations, Insertion mutations, Deletion mutations, Frame shift mutations.

"I am asking what your claims are--do none of those mutations add new information, or do they add new information, but in the incorrect proportion for evolution to proposer..."

Please clarify what mutation you are speaking of (Point mutations, Inversion mutations, Insertion mutations, Deletion mutations, Frame shift mutations). Young earth creationists claim that "molecules to man evolution" is impossible. I agree with them.

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Based on what."

Based on the evidence. I know you believe we have a blind faith. We do not. Someone said that "faith is not created by reasoning--but neither is it created without it."

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "...talking about all manner of mutations."

Here is some additional brief (and very boring) information on types of genetic mutations:

Types of genetic mutations:

The DNA strand contains instructions on how to make proteins. Every three “letters” code for a specific amino acid, such as TGC, ATC, GAT, TAG and CTC. Many amino acids together compose a protein. For simplicity’s sake, to illustrate concepts with the DNA strand, we will use examples in English. Here is a segment illustrating DNA in three-letter words:

The car was red. The red car had one key.
The key has one eye and one tip.

Point mutations

Point mutations are mutations where one letter changes on the DNA sequence. A point mutation in our example could cause “car” in the second sentence to be read “cat”:

The car was red. The red cat had one key.
The key has one eye and one tip.

With this point mutation, we lost the information for one word (car) as well as changed the meaning of the sentence. We did gain one word (cat), but we lost one word (car) and lost the meaning of one phrase. So the overall result was a loss of information.

But many times, point mutations won’t produce another word. Take for instance another point mutation, which changes “car” not to “cat” but to “caa”:

The car was red. The red caa had one key.
The key has one eye and one tip.

With this point mutation, we lost the information for one word (car) as well as the meaning. We did not gain any new words, and we lost one word and lost the meaning of one phrase. So again, the overall result of this point mutation was a loss of information, but even more so this time.

Point mutations can be very devastating. There is a children’s disease called Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS) or simply progeria. It was recently linked to a single point mutation. It is a mutation that causes children’s skin to age, their head to go bald at a very early age (pre-kindergarten), their bones to develop problems usually associated with the elderly and their body size to remain very short (about one-half to two-thirds of normal height). Their body parts, including organs, age rapidly, which usually causes death at the average age of 13 years.

Not all point mutations are as devastating, yet they still result in a loss of information. According to biophysicist Lee Spetner, “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.”

Inversion mutations

An inversion mutation is a strand of DNA in a particular segment that reverses itself. An inversion mutation would be like taking the second sentence of our example and spelling it backwards:

The car was red. Yek eno dah rac der eht.
The key has one eye and one tip.

With inversion mutations, we can lose quite a bit of information. We lost several words from, and the meaning of, the second sentence. These mutations can cause serious problems to the organism. The bleeding disorder hemophilia A is caused by an inversion in the Factor VIII (F8) gene.

Insertion mutations

An insertion mutation is a segment of DNA, whether a single base pair or an extensive length, that is inserted into the DNA strand.

For this example, let’s copy a word from the second sentence and insert it into the third sentence:

The car was red. The red car had one key.
Had the key has one eye and one tip.

This insertion really didn’t help anything. In fact, the insertion is detrimental to the third sentence in that it makes the third sentence meaningless. So this copied word in the third sentence destroyed the combined meanings of the eight words in the third sentence. Insertions generally result in a protein that loses function.

Deletion mutations

A deletion mutation is a segment of DNA, whether a single base pair or an extensive length, that is deleted from the strand. This will be an obvious loss.

In this instance, the second sentence will be deleted.

The car was red. The key has one eye and one tip.

The entire second sentence has been lost. Thus, we have lost its meaning as well as the words that were in the sentence. Some disorders from deletion mutations are facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD) and spinal muscular atrophy.

Frame shift mutations

There are two basic types of frame shift mutations: frame shift due to an insertion and frame shift due to a deletion. These mutations can be caused by an insertion or deletion of one or more letters not divisible by three, which causes an offset in the reading of the “letters” of the DNA.

If a mutation occurs where one or more letters are inserted, then the entire sentence can be off. If a t were inserted at the beginning of the second sentence, it would read like this:

The car was red. Tth ere dca rha don eke yth
eke yha son eey ean don eti p.

Four new words were produced (two of them twice): ere, don, eke, and son. These four words were not part of the original phrase. However, we lost 14 words. Not only did we lose these words, but we also lost the meaning behind the words. We lost 14 words while gaining only four new ones.

Therefore, even though the DNA strand became longer and produced four words via a single insertion, it lost fourteen other words. The overall effect was a loss of information.

A frame shift mutation can also occur by the deletion of one or more “letters.” If the first t in the second sentence is deleted, the letters shift to the left, and we get:

The car was red. Her edc arh ado nek eyt hek
eyh aso nee yea ndo net ip.

Five new words were produced: her, ado, nee, yea, and net. However, once again, we lost fourteen words. So again, the overall effect was a loss of information, and the DNA strand became smaller due to this mutation.

Frame shift mutations are usually detrimental to the organism by causing the resulting protein to be nonfunctional.

This is just the basics of mutations at a genetic level..." Full text: Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "You have to be able to see the evidence in order to ignore it."

I have seen the evidence on both sides (over 30 years of indoctrination of naturalistic evolution) and I find the evidence for young earth creation more compelling.

"You need to choose wisely what you choose to put your faith in. Especially in areas where that faith can be checked against reality."

I have made the wisest choice. I believe the Bible. Your faith is nothing new. Ancient Greek pagans believed as you:

"...[The apostle Paul] ...was speaking to the Greek philosophers—the Epicureans and the Stoics. What did they believe about life? Did they have a different understanding of life compared to the Jews? It is well documented that these Greek philosophers were evolutionary-based in their thinking. Let me explain.

Many people today have the wrong idea about evolution. They think Charles Darwin invented this theory. But this is simply not true. Darwin did popularize a particular view of evolution, but evolutionary ideas go way back in history.

The Epicureans taught that everything on the earth had evolved directly from the material of the earth itself. They didn’t see any purpose in nature. For them, sensuous pleasure was the chief good of existence. The Stoics were pantheistic in their beliefs. Pantheism is just another form of evolutionism. Thus, the general thinking of the Greek culture was evolutionary. At the same time, however, they practiced idolatry. They believed in gods, but even the gods themselves evolved from some primordial substance..." Full text: The Cross—foolishness!

McGee, J. V. (1997, c1981). Thru the Bible commentary. Based on the Thru the Bible radio program. (electronic ed.) (4:236). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Response to comment [from other]: "Aside from the fact that Genesis 1:1 makes no statement about resisting the truth..."

Of course it does.

"[T]his one verse refutes all of man’s false philosophies concerning the origin and meaning of the world:

(1) It refutes atheism, because the universe was created by God.

(2) It refutes pantheism, for God is transcendent to that which He created.

(3) It refutes polytheism, for one God created all things.

(4) It refutes materialism, for matter had a beginning.

(5) It refutes dualism, because God was alone when He created.

(6) It refutes humanism, because God, not man, is the ultimate reality.

(7) It refutes evolutionism, because God created all things.

Morris, H. M. (1976). The Genesis record : A scientific and devotional commentary on the book of beginnings. Includes indexes. (38). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

"...[D]id God set up the natural world to confuse us?"

No (Ac 17:27). The universe points to God. Did you know that over 90% of astronomers believe in God? Why?--they peer into the heavens (Ps 19:1). Why don't you get a telescope?

"Answers in Genesis may provide Biblical answers, fine, just do not expect it to provide answers based in real science."

Not for those determined to believe lies (Eze 13:19).

Response to comment [from a Mormon]: "Yet some Christians believe that the creation account is not literal history and some believe it is. It isn't a matter of appealing to the Bible. It is a matter of appealing to a particular interpretation of the Bible."

Some men prefer lies (Eze 13:19) and resist truth because their deeds are evil (Jn 3:19). There are not interpretations of the truth. There is one truth (Jn 14:6). The man and mind that rejects God will easily believe the lie of evolution.

Cults and 'isms know enough to lay their lies next to the truth so that they appear the same (Ga 5:9).

Response to comment [from a Mormon]: "Every dating mechanism points to something much older than 6,000 years."

You have no interest in the truth. But for others:

"...[T]he thought of creation occurring about 6,000 years ago is frequently mocked by non-Christians—and also by many Christians.

Even James Ussher (1581-1656), the famous and respected Archbishop of Ireland in the seventeenth century, is today greatly ridiculed for declaring that the world was created in 4004 BC.

However, this date was widely accepted until people began to believe in ideas such as billions of years of Earth history. In other words, they started trusting in the latest secular findings based on fallible dating methods, instead of the only absolutely reliable method—consulting the history book provided by the Eyewitness account (the infallible Word of God)..." Full text: The World: Born in 4004 BC? Usher and the Date of Creation

[Chosen to believe otherwise.] "No I haven't, I simply read a more recent and more relevant AiG paper."

I thought you were allergic to any truth revealed at Answers in Genesis.

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "If that article is correct, then how come e. coli have displayed previously unseen adaptations in a 20 year long trial?

I never saw you answering that."

Discover if e-coli really "evolves":

"It is clearly very difficult for E. coli to evolve this function. In fact, the mutation rate of the ancestral strain from Cit- to Cit+ is immeasurably low..." Full text: A Poke in the Eye? Lenski and the Adaptive Acrobatics of E. Coli

Response to comment [from a Mormon]: ["Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome [Ibid., 159–160]..." Full text: Is There Really a God? "absolutely false".

Let the reader decide who has more credibility. You sure work hard to undermine Christianity and the Bible. No surprise there (Eph. 4:14).

It takes more faith to believe in "molecules to man" evolution, than it does to believe God in the Bible. But, you are free to believe lies (Eze 13:19) if you prefer (Jn 3:19).

Response to comment [from other]: "The proper terminology...lost on the creationists...is different information."

Your explanation only rearranges what God gave in the first place. Nice try.

For those who wish to stop believing their own lies:

The Highly Efficient Genome

Evidence of New Genetic Information?

The End of Irreducible Complexity?

Response to comment [from other] "As I have observed previously, the second statement is an admission by an AIG researcher that mutations can add information to a genome and that these mutations can be positive..."

So, a quote out of context that you believe makes your point--you make my point. Your bias is apparent.

New information and changed information are two different things. "Molecules to man" evolution is impossible not matter what lengths you go to to try to explain this life without God so as not to be responsible to him.

Let the reader decide:

"Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome [Ibid., 159–160]..." Full text: Is There Really a God?

Response to comment [from an atheist]: [Being a Christian] "What evidence can you give? Beliefs are the easiest thing in the world to fake."

You are an atheist. Are you interested in the claims of the Bible?

Response to comment [from a Christian]: [Evidence of being a Christian?] "That's because you're apparently a nincompoop..."

That's what I thought. You really don't give a damn about Christians. You have no natural love for the brethren (1 Pe 1:22). In fact, you are first to interrogate them. You are not a believer but a make-believer.

"Don't confuse your personal interpretation with the word."

There is no personal interpretation of the word of God (2 Pe 1:20). A Christian knows this.

To understand the word of God, you need the spirit of God. Repent (Jer 5:3).

"I'm not obligated or inclined to defend my faith to you."

Exactly. You also feel no accountability toward other Christians (1 Pe 3:8, Lk 12:47, 48). You are a fraud.

I retract my retraction. A review:

Add PlastikBuddha (non-trinitarian) who states: "Is "1+1=2" the same kind of truth as "I had a burrito for lunch"? Is "the capitol of France is Paris" the same kind of truth as "entropy increases in closed systems"? Is "Circles aren't square" the same kind of truth as "Christ is the Son of God"?" 3 Oct 09, 11:20 PM

SD: [Do you believe in the doctrine of the trinity]

PB: "Yes...Show me where I said anything to that effect or retract your statement."

SD: I must have misunderstood: "Circles aren't square" the same kind of truth as "Christ is the Son of God"..."

[Satan Inc. ToL Heretic List] Updated 7 Nov 09: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2159262#post2159262

"So you got nothing, eh? What a surprise."

I think you are careful about what you say, but you do not fool me. You are no Christian. You are out to deceive.

I did not misunderstand "circles aren't square". You slipped once when you stated this. Circles aren't square anymore than Christ is the Son of God, you meant. We gave you the opportunity to explain your comment. You did but never really elaborated much. One month later you continue to mock true biblical Christians.

So tell us, what is it about Jesus that you hate? Why do you interrogate his real followers? We know you are a liberal who does not have a Christian worldview. I wish they had an honest "cultural Christian" option to choose from at TOL.

"I would suggest you stick to the subject instead of trying to challenge my faith."

Faith in what? It certainly is not in God's word. You've never revealed to TOL what your faith is in. Who would continue to listen to a deceiver?

"It just reveals the paucity of your 'argument'."

Of course this what you think of scripture. You are consistent in that much. You have been exposed to much light here at TOL no doubt.

You get it--you just won't repent (Jn 9:41). Mocking Christians and the word of God is a sport for you. Christians respond to the word of God. You do not (Eph 5:13).

"That isn't evidence for 6,000 year old earth, is it."

I would suggest you call yourself "other" not "Christian" so as not to continue to deceive others at TOL.

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Can we say the same things back to you..."

You could. But you would have to actually make a point for anyone to listen to you.

"You, alone, do not have the authority to decide the manner of his faith. God does."

And who or what would I need to discern?

A discerning spirit is necessary (1 Thess. 5:19–21). PB does not have a Christian worldview but claims to be a Christian. He/she believes that there are "personal interpretations" of the word of God (not biblical). He does not see the need to defend his/her faith to other believers (1 Pe 3:8, Lk 12:47, 48) I identify PB for who he is (1 John 2:18, 19). If I am wrong, PB may by all means correct my error. [7 Nov 09 8:46 a.m. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2184487#post2184487]

You, ShiftingOrthodoxy, will soon be on Satan, Inc. (ToL Heretic List) anyway. Didn't you volunteer your own name? Who are you to question a Christian about Christianity? http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2184617#post2184617

Response to comment [from other]: "I urge them to go...[link] ...make up their own minds on whether Serpentdove was actually able to understand what he read or not."

Ad hominem.

Again, cows and mice can change coat color. That is not "molecules to man" evolution. The text in context you reference reads:

"...An IAP is an endogenous retroviral-like element that can be copied from one place in the genome and inserted elsewhere via an RNA intermediate and reverse transcriptase. Each of theses four alleles has the IAP in a different location prior to the coding exons, and all insertions are in the antisense direction. Transcription originates from a cryptic promoter in the 5' long terminal repeat (LTR) of the IAP. Since this promoter is stronger than the normal ASIP promoter, it creates a dominant allele. The sixth allele (sienna yellow, A^sy) is also the result of an insertion, in this case of a novel sequence upstream from exon 2 (Argeson, Nelson, and Siracusa 1996; Michaud et al 1994).

Interestingly, not all animals carrying one or more of the above alleles exhibit the dominant yellow phenotype. The expression of the gene can be modified by epigenetic factors..." Full text: Genetics of Coat Color II The Agouti Signaling Protein (ASIP) Gene by Jean K. Lightner June 10, 2009

Response to comment [from a Mormon]: "[W]hy are you so anti-evolution when you just said that beliefs concerning origins is not an issue of salvation? If the above statement is true then why bother if someone believes evolution?"

It matters what we believe. If we fail to believe God in one area, it opens up the flood gates to fail to believe him in other areas of our life as well. We can believe him from the first verse of the Bible.

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "See, here's the thing. You have the arrogance to assume that he isn't a real follow of Jesus, unlike you. Way to be pompous."

This from one who come from a work-based faith but will not identify which one? Your name is soon to appear to Satan Inc TOL Heretic's list. You volunteered it remember?

Christians have discernment. Sometimes it takes a while to figure out who is who, but eventually all things become clear (Mt 13:30). I gave PB the benefit of the doubt on his/her "oopsy" but when you spend all of your time undermining the word of God, it becomes pretty evident who is a believer and who is a make-believer.

Response to comment [from other]: "...how does that change the fact that an insertion of code has changed the expression of the gene in a way that is fixed in the genome?"

Are you still going to be debating this genome problem of yours until the pit of hell opens up?

You are right when you say "change". "Change" is not "new"--just thought I'd add my two cents. Carry on...

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "What is new...?"

What is truth? (Jn 18:38).

As a reminder: "Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome [Ibid., 159–160]..." Full text: Is There Really a God?

God got it right when he said he created the world (Ge 1:1).

Response to comment [from other]: "The distance between my views and Christianity is fairly vast, because I'm not really convinced by the evidence available to support the argument that Jesus really was a supernatural person, or that the bible is more or less inspired than any other religious text. But I suppose that gap could be breached by some sort of personal revelation."

Jesus promises to provide understanding for any man who will repent of their sins and turn to him (Ac 17:27). It is a wicked generation that seeks a sign (Mt 16:4). I suppose it is because God has given men all the proof that they need: internally (Ro 2:15), externally (Ps 19:1) and the scriptures.

See:

Inspired Scripture

"I would never, ever consider becoming a YEC unless God personally told me otherwise (hint: a book is an intermediary)."

God did tell you in the scriptures. Once you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and once you repent of sins and receive the holy spirit, you will understand with ease.

I can tell you that apple pie is good and you can tell me it is not. If I've just tasted apple pie and it is good-- no one can tell me otherwise. Jesus says, taste and see that he is good (Ps 34:8).

"YEC requires too much of a suspension of reason and critical faculties..."

Not once you explore the facts. Our culture accepts evolution as the gospel truth when it is directly opposed to the Bible. Evolution is not truth. It is a lie. It is man's opinion.

"In my wanders through AIG I see they're still advocating that the marsupials migrated to Australia from the Middle East and their counter evidence for the evolutionary version for the events is that the fossil record for the evolution of the platypus is poor."

Look at a world map. Does it appear to you like the landmasses were once together? To me, it makes sense that animals migrated.

The platypus really keeps them guessing. How else can you explain an animal like this but that God created it? The mantis shrimp, too. There is no other creature like it in the world. And giraffes, the way they get blood to their brain. They could not have evolved. And on and on...

"It's a childish worldview that makes a mockery of the complexity and richness of nature and purports to wear the clothes of reason and inquiry when it actually stifles and distorts truth and evidence in favor of unreasoning myth."

Then become like a child and you will understand (Mt 19:14). It takes age for us to override our common sense and what we know to be true.

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Won't repent of what?"

Sin. A person who is indwelled with the spirit of the living God responds to the word of God. He does not seek to undermine it. That would be rather the spirit of antichrist (1 Jn 4:3).

"You have been asked to provide evidence for a specific claim-- a 6,000 year-old earth. Instead of doing so you are trying to call into question my faith."

I provided a starting point for those truly interested in the truth. However, since "Intelligent Design" and "Ardi" and now "Waskily Behemoths", you have sought to undermine the Bible at every turn. You can image that believers would figure that something is not right--the spirit of God would point to Jesus and the word of God. But you only point away from God and his word. I would warn anyone--buyer beware.

People are going one of two ways--toward God or away from him. Can you honestly say that you are headed in a direction that honors and glorifies God? Because all I've seen is opposition to his word (which is him [Jn 1:1]).

"If you can't provide any evidence then just admit that you accept this age of the earth on faith, without scientific evidence."

You discount me, you discount Answers in Genesis, fine. We can differ.

"As it is you appear to be dishonest."

If you believe that, fine. I would ask the reader to check everything I say by the word of God.

I am irrelevant. But the Bible is not.

"Mocking stupid people is a sport for me and pretty much everyone else here at TOL."

Fair enough. I do not claim to be brilliant (1 Cor 1:27).

"Welcome to the internet. Now explain what you think I have to repent of."

Sin. I don't know what that might be. But here is the question: are you beginning to believe your own lies? This is dangerous. If sin gets a foothold, it leads to death (Jas 1:15).

I am not saying that believing in young earth creation is a salvation issue. It isn't. That issue aside--doubting God in one area leads to doubt in another. And there are many people who believe they are Christians, when they are not.

I don't know what "other" means as you describe yourself. But you do not come from a biblical worldview.

[Responding to the word of God (Eph 5:13).] "You mean I don't respond in the way you think I should..."

Maybe. But I don't care about "me". I care about the authority of the word of God.

"Do you have any particular sin in mind?"

Whatever you thought of when you wrote that--that would be it.

"You aren't going to say that accepting theory of evolution is a sin, are you?"

You do not believe God's word. The Bible calls that sin (Ro 14:23).

"I am not undermining the word of God. If anyone here is doing that it is you, by trying to tie acceptance of God's redeeming Love to accepting an interpretation of Genesis that is not at odds with history and science. You are trying to throw the baby out with the bath water."

I stated clearly that acceptance of young earth creation is not a salvation issue.

"ToE does not undermine the Bible."

I do not believe you know God at all (Eph 5:13).

"Truth honors God, Serpentduh. Therefore there is no honor or glory for God in closing your eyes to truth-- even if you don't think this truth is one that honors or glorifies God to your satisfaction."

[Discount me, Discount Answers in Genesis, fine. We can differ.] "So now you're willing to call it a draw, eh? Is it that much trouble to actually produce just one piece of evidence?]

A draw? One in rebellion against the authority of the word of God? (De 9:7, Jos 1:18). You have plenty of evidence: Ps 19:1, Ro 2:15 and the scriptures.

"Christ stands as redeemer of man and Son of the Living God whether mankind was created as is 6,000 years ago or evolved over billions."

Christ is the redeemer of man.

I think you are dishonest, so please discuss the matter with someone else.

You said: ""Is "1+1=2" the same kind of truth as "I had a burrito for lunch"? Is "the capitol of France is Paris" the same kind of truth as "entropy increases in closed systems"? Is "Circles aren't square" the same kind of truth as "Christ is the Son of God"?" 3 Oct 09, 11:20 PM. Maybe I misunderstood, but it would not seem you are not a Christian at all.

Response to comment [from other]: "There are lots of creatures like the mantis shrimp."

No other creature in the world has its unique weapon. You seem determined to believe, not truth, but what you'd like truth to be. Facts don't matter so good luck with that.

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "Not faith in a literalist interpretation,"

When do you start believing the Bible?

"He is Christian if he believes in the works done through Christ, clothes himself in Christ and becomes Gods limbs in the world through the Holy Spirit."

If someone is a Christian, the spirit inside him responds to the truth. That is between PB and God.

In my opinion, this person is intellectually dishonest and has no interest in the truth. I don't mind the others. They do not claim to be what they are not. PB cannot get through a sentence without an ad hominem attack. There are Satanists at TOL who are more intellectually honest.

"Maybe you could explain how/when and why the mantis shrimp became such a ruthlessly effective predator?"

Ask him. If your theory is true, maybe he will be talking soon.

"...if I don't define what pakistani's are, any factual statement I make is of no use."

If I understand your analogy, information is within the DNA. I'm not a geneticist. You'd have to ask one that agrees with you.

Response to comment [from other]: "Just as I figured. No answers in Genesis."

I don't know if they have ever addressed the mantis shrimp. You would discount what Answers in Genesis said anyway.

I would suggest you discuss young earth creation with someone else. I would prefer to dialogue with someone willing to consider the opposing arguments. Nothing personal. There are many at TOL that agree with you.

Response to comment from PB: "Then stay out of it."

Well that is the point. You have wasted much time in a variety of threads--addressing not the claims--but attacking me or attacking Answers in Genesis. I am sure you would love for me to just go away and the whole creation argument too for that matter.

Was that your intention? Just waste time with ad hominem attacks? What is your preferred ratio? One claim to 40 ad hominem attacks? Enough.

Funny, you claim to be a Christian but do not give a damn what God says in the Bible. So, I'll avoid your threads and please avoid mine.

"How is PB intellectually dishonest? If anything is intellectually dishonest here it is creationist science who goes against well established science using non-scientific methods and draw false conclusions from data."

So if you believe that post one statement of disagreement not forty ad hominem attacks.

"And there are plenty of non-Christians on this board that are intellectually honest and in general far more intellectual than the many Christians on this forum."

"PB is a Christian as far as I know. He might not meet your fanatic requirements, but that is hardly a bad thing."

Only God and PB can answer that question. I don't buy it. I had hoped to bring up spiral galaxies but that isn't going to happen. There is not getting by this one mutation problem for the evolutionist (in my opinion, I'm sure you disagree).

"Define new information, without linking an article."

Well, it's helpful to have an article for further study if a person is interested, but whatever. I understand the genome to be what holds all hereditary information in an organism. This was addressed in context earlier.

"I see...so you complain about ad hom attacks, but yet use them yourself?"

I wish to discontinue dialogue with anyone who attempts to ad hominem attack 40 times to my one statement of fact, yes. There is no convincing such a person. Facts become irrelevant. I have an achieve for anyone interested. It's not just this person. There are many guilty of these tactics (plurium interrogationum/ad hominem). Just don't be surprised if in the future, I do not respond, that's all.

"And you claim to be interested in the truth, yet you know nothing about the science that backs it up?...You're very dishonest, Serpent. And a hypocrite."

Ad hominem. Who is the hypocrite?

More evidence for a young earth if there are any honest seekers of truth in the vicinity:

"The RATE project (a joint research initiative between the Institute for Creation Research, and the Creation Research Society) has carefully investigated the method of radioisotope dating: a method that allegedly shows rocks to be millions or billions of years old. Of course, the biblical text indicates a much more recent creation—a fact confirmed by RATE researcher and Hebrew scholar Dr. Steven Boyd. So it is exciting (but not surprising) that the RATE researchers have uncovered powerful evidence that supports a recent creation, and explains the radioisotope data within the biblical timescale..." Full text: RATE research reveals remarkable results—a fatal blow to billions of years

[Articles] "You don't read them anyway, Serpent..."

Your charge is foolish.

"Assume for the moment that we are all eager for you to provide us with the truth, the simplest thing to do then is to answer the question."

I've answered the question.

It's a lovely thought, but I cannot assume that you are eager for the truth. When you are given the truth, you call the men presenting it "an evil group. There I said it. [e]vil, bad etc." (your words not mine).

I would suggest that you continue dialogue with those who agree with you (Re 22:11).

"Why can't you give a short definition as you did with genome before?"

Why would I give a definition? You will dismiss any truthful conclusion. Remember, if it comes from me or from Answers in Genesis, it must of necessity be dismissed--do anything and at all costs--to avoid the truth of God's word.

God knows you could care less about him. I'm just a messenger, like a Western Union carrier. All this chit chat establishes the fact that you dismiss God and what he says in his word. Don't be surprised if this little dialogue comes up at your trial. You have a very definite appointment on your Daytimer. No postponing that one (Re 20:11).

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: "It's interesting that you are basically admitting avoiding making meaningful arguments."

...to people who I believe will avoid the truth at any cost, yes--that's correct.

"So if you'd like to quit hiding behind your prejudices about me, we can talk openly. If not, then bye bye."

I know your tactics. They are ugly. I named them at every turn.

I would ask the reader to reread this debate and decide if my conclusion is well founded--you (and a few others in this thread) are intellectually dishonest and have no intention of being persuaded by the truth. That is your right. But , I prefer to dialogue with people who love the truth. I find that when a person loves the real truth (not the imagined one [Ro 1:28]), it just so happens that he loves Jesus too (Jn 14:6).

"How long until SD isn't responding to anyone who doesn't agree with him? Anyone taking bets?"

Haven't you posted enough ad hominem attacks yet? Imagine discussing issues not people. Do you even know how? Only those who argue from a weak position need to adopt such tactics.

You make it clear by your methods and your motives that you are no Christian. This thread and others has been good for that at least.

Response to comment [from a "Christian"] "Show me one ad hom, hypocrite."

One? Well, there is one right there. But let the reader decide. Anyone interested could check out your tedious ad hominem debate style more thoroughly at any one of these threads:

Nessie Underwater Ally http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2130944#post2130944

Intelligent Design http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2158018#poststop

Ardi http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2157108#poststop

There are others. But I believe any reasonable person would come to that conclusion. I don't mind disagreement. But you have a long history of arguing in a ridiculous manner. People should just know who they are dealing with before giving you any more of their time.

"You have been unable to provide even one piece of evidence supporting your position..."

I would suggest to the reader, reread the thread and see if that is true. Information in genomes has been discussed in this thread. If you disagree that changes in information leads to "molecules to man" evolution, fine. You are free to come to that conclusion if you'd like. I would just say that that takes more faith than believing the Bible.

"...instead just posting and reposting the same links to AiG"

I post links to be helpful for the reader interested in truth and just in case they would like to look into it more. I can see you will not consider any link if it comes from Answers in Genesis. You will not give their claims serious consideration. You are just here to mock those who believe God's word.

"...with no commentary or any hint that you have read or understood either their material or the "problems" they are meant to address."

I understand what I excerpt for the reader's consideration. It's sort of foolish to argue over what I understand and what I don't understand. Why don't you start concentrating on issues not attacking the people who present them.

"Show me one example of a legitimate ad hom, SerpentDuh."

You make my point. Maybe you really are not aware of your apparent coping technique. Are you that opposed to the truth of scripture? You are so determined to believe and promote lies.

"Your inability to converse intelligently with people who disagree with you is pathetic."

I prefer dialogue with those who seek the truth. This is what Christians do (Jn 14:6). You're funny.

"I have told you exactly why I don't think AiG is credible or involved in actual science."

I know you have. Say it once and move on please. We all know that you reject everything from Answers in Genesis. We will never accuse you of being a supporter of theirs.

"I am determined to know the truth. That means looking unblinkingly at the actual evidence..."

Good. Then we both want the same thing.

"You seem to be interested only in that which supports your preconceived notions."

I have admitted my bias. I have a preconceived notion that the Bible is true. I am out to brainwash every last unbeliever into trusting God's word.

"I know, I'm hysterical: demanding things like "evidence" for things like "empirical claims"...It's a riot."

Well good. You said it, not me.

Response to comment [from other]: [[W]e...share about 50% of our DNA with bananas.] "Oddly enough I was just thinking that when I read your last crop of replies."

Always the insults but what has been factually inaccurate in what young earth creationists have claimed? "Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome [Ibid., 159–160]..." Full text: Is There Really a God? http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god#fnList_1_20

Response to comment [from an atheist]: "What do you mean by information?..."

You keep saying the same thing. You are going to have to re-read the thread. If you need additional help, I would suggest you contact a geneticist. I am not an expert in genetics.

What is factually inaccurate in the statement: "Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome [Ibid., 159–160]..." Full text: Is There Really a God?

You cannot get "molecules to man" evolution.

I hear crickets chirping...

"I found your definition."

That's nice. I have read your link. They do not even present the correct argument. Bottom line: Creationists do not argue against micro-evolution. They argue against macro-evolution. "Molecules to man" evolution is impossible.

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "Because AiG says so."

Where is Answers in Genesis factually inaccurate?

"Where it says "Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome," for starters."

You believe that information (aside from change) can be added to the genome?

Do you understand that the creationist does not argue micro-evolution but rather macro-evolution ("molecules to man")?

Do you believe that "molecules to man" evolution is possible?

"Where do you draw the line between change and new information?"

I am not an expert in genetics; again, you would have to ask a geneticist for additional information on that topic. The fact remains that changes (as seen in micro-evolution [e.g. coat color], etc.) can never lead to "molecules to man" evolution.

"...[T]he statement that no new information is added, just changed, is a complete false dichotomy."

No it is not. Change is not "new". Change is different but it is not additional information. "Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome [Ibid., 159–160]..." Full text: Is There Really a God?

"Creationists are not confined to the idea that all mutations must be accidents or happenstance occurrences. Research in an important pigment gene, the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) gene, suggests that some genetic changes in animals may be directed. One example involves repeated nucleotides in the DNA. Kingsley describes similar patterns as “very prone to copying errors during the process of DNA replication.” In the MC1R gene, these patterns appeared in a region prone to deletions, usually resulting in a black phenotype. Since similar patterns of rearrangement and mutations appear in very diverse animals and the changes in the gene produce interesting variety, it is easy to question whether these changes are really purely chance events acted on by selection. It has been suggested that these repeat patterns may actually format the genome for future potentially adaptive changes..." Full text: Are Some Mutations Directed?

"Another important point is that most mutations in DNA are not selectable even though they seem to be making a big deal out of one that is. In order for a mutation to be selected for or against, it must make some change in the organism at the phenotypic, whole-organism level. The change must be large enough to give the organism an increased or decreased fitness in its environment. Most mutations in the DNA are either silent (leading to no change at the phenotypic level), lethal (leading to death of the organism), or slightly deleterious (not altering phenotype sufficiently to be specifically detected by any selection process). It is unusual to find one mutation that leads directly to a selectable trait in a higher organism (although this does happen commonly in bacteria, as is seen in antibiotic-resistant bacteria).

The mutation, although beneficial to the beach mice, still leads to a loss of genetic information. The mutant Mc1r protein does not bind as well to MSH and thus, the mice have decreased melanin production leading to lighter fur color..." Full text: Evolution or Adaptation?

Both of those papers have semi-technical links as well.

Response to comment [from an agnostic]: [I find that when a person loves the real truth (not the imagined one [Ro 1:28]), it just so happens that he loves Jesus too (Jn 14:6).] "Ad hom, as you would say."

That is a truth claim. It is either true or it is false. I agree with God.