Mutation, yes; evolution, no

[Mutation, yes; evolution, no by Dr. Gary Parker] "There are three limits to accepting mutations as a mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution. First, there are mathematical limits to the probability of evolution occurring. Mutations occur once in every 10 million duplications of DNA, so it is very likely that every cell in your body contains at least one mutation since you were born. The problem for evolution is that you need multiple, related mutations to cause a change in a structure...

Second, mutations are moving in the wrong direction to support the advancement of complexity required by evolution. Almost every mutation we know of has been identified based on the disease it causes. Mutations explain the decline seen in genetic systems since the Fall of mankind in Adam. The time, chance, and random mutations simply serve to tear things apart. Shortly after creation, there would have been few genetic mistakes present in the human population, and marrying a close relative would not have been a problem. Today, the likelihood of a shared mutation causing a disease is too great a risk to allow close marriages...The advantage of avoiding severe malaria symptoms by those with sickle-cell anemia is often given as evidence of beneficial mutations. The overall effect of the mutation is not beneficial to the human race, however, and will not lead to a more fit population.

Third, mutations can only act on genes that already exist. Natural selection cannot explain the origin of genes because there was no information for natural selection to act on. Mutation and natural selection simply produce variation within a kind—just as the biblical creation model suggests. No genetic mechanism can increase the amount of information that is needed to demonstrate evolution from particles to people. Mutations do not add information to an organism’s genome. Thousands of mutations would need to add information to change even “simple” cells into more complex cells. Even when genes mutate, they still pair up with similar alleles and are controlled by the same regulators. Mutations may affect the degree of a trait, but they do not cause new traits.

It is not the amount of time or the number of mutations, but the direction of change and the origin of information that are the biggest stumbling blocks for evolution. All of the evidence continues to point to the design and information originally provided by the Creator." Evolution Exposed, Second, Ed. Mutation, yes; evolution, no, Parker. Mutation, yes; evolution, no

Response to comment [from a Catholic]:  "[S]o what do you think of the big bang?"

Why not? God said "Let there be light (Ge 1:3)." It is something when God speaks.

"...[I]t is obvious that visible light is primarily meant, since it was set in contrast to darkness. At the same time, the presence of visible light waves necessarily involves the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Beyond the visible light waves are, on the one hand, ultraviolet light and all the other shortwave-length radiations and, on the other hand, infrared light and the other longwave phenomena.

In turn, setting the electromagnetic forces into operation in effect completed the energizing of the physical cosmos. All the types of force and energy which interact in the universe involve only electromagnetic, gravitational, and nuclear forces; and all of these had now been activated. Though no doubt oversimplified, this tremendous creative act of the Godhead might be summarized by saying that the nuclear forces maintaining the integrity of matter were activated by the Father when He created the elements of the space-mass-time continuum, the gravitational forces were activated by the Spirit when He brought form and motion to the initially static and formless matter, and the electromagnetic forces were activated by the Word when He called light into existence out of the darkness. Of course, God is One, and all three persons of the Godhead actually participated in all parts of the creation and continue to function in the maintenance of the universe so created.

All of this was accomplished on the first day of creation. The physical universe had been created and energized, and was ready for further shaping and furnishing in preparation for man, whose dominion it would be."
Morris, Henry M.: The Genesis Record : A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. Grand Rapids, MI : Baker Books, 1976, S. 56

As far as what the other side says? They are going to have to come up with something better than a singularity. Where do they get their mass?

P.S. They can't borrow from God. Love the order from chaos, too.

"[S]o you are ok with the big bang happening over a million years ago?"

No. I was being silly. I do not believe in theistic evolution. If people thought about that stance a bit more, they would realize that it is absurd.

How can a theistic evolutionist believe that God is good and loving if he called death, disease, and decay "good"? 2 Cor 4:17-18.

Some theistic evolutionists here call us fools--yet they have the "Greek" thinking.

"[I]n Acts 17, Paul was preaching to Greek philosophers. In their culture, they did not have any understanding of the God of creation as the Jews understood. They believed in many gods, and that the gods, like humans, had evolved. The Epicureans, for instance, believed man evolved from the dirt (in fact, they were the atheists of the age).

The Greeks had no understanding of sin or what was necessary to atone for sin. God’s Word to the Jews had no credibility in this evolution-based culture. Thus when Paul preached the same basic message Peter gave in Acts 2, the Greeks did not understand—it was “foolishness” to them.

As you read on in Acts 17, it’s fascinating to see what Paul tried to do in reaching the Greeks with the gospel. He talked to them about the “unknown God” (referred to on one of the Greek altars) and proceeded to define the true God of creation to them.

Paul also explained that all people were of “one blood” (from one man, Adam), thus laying the foundational history necessary to understand the meaning of the first man Adam’s sin and the need for salvation for all of us as Adam’s descendants. 3 He countered their evolutionary beliefs, thus challenging their entire way of thinking in a very foundational way.

Having done this, Paul then again preached the message of Christ and the Resurrection. Although some continued to sneer, others were interested to hear more (their hearts were opened) and some were converted to Christ.

Even though Paul didn’t see 3,000 people saved as Peter did, Paul was nonetheless very successful (from a human perspective, knowing it is God who opens people’s hearts to the truth, as 1 Corinthians 2:14 teaches).

Think about what he had to do: Paul had to first change “Greeks” into “Jews.”

In other words, he had to take pagan, evolutionist Greeks and change their whole way of thinking about life and the universe, and then get them to think like Jews concerning the true foundation of history recorded in Genesis.

No wonder only a few were converted at first. Such a change is a dramatic one. Imagine, for example, trying to change an Aborigine from my homeland into an American in regard to his whole way of thinking? Such a change would be extremely difficult, to say the least." Evolution in Ancient Times

"[N]ow I see you are being silly."

Right.  No big bang in my view and the theistic evolutionist has no basis to call God good (Ge 1:31).

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:  [Quote:  "...[M]utations are moving in the wrong direction to support the advancement of complexity required by evolution."]  "Why, because you say so?"

That was a quote from by Dr. Gary Parker.  He's either right or he's wrong:  "The overall effect of the mutation is not beneficial to the human race, however, and will not lead to a more fit population (Parker)."  This world is winding down, not getting better (the second law of Thermodynamics).  Rom. 1:20, 2 Pe 3:7, 2 Cor. 5:1.

"We have plenty of evidence human beings have been adapting to changes in culture, like agriculture. Peoples that have been exposed to agriculture for more generations tend to have more copies of amylase genes. Don't you think the ability to drink milk as an adult is pretty helpful?"

Sure, nutrition, access to food, etc.  Compare men today to men in the antediluvian world when people lived longer:

"The concept of an antediluvian water canopy over the earth has appeared in many writings, both ancient and modern. A number of writers have visualized it as a system of rings like those of the planet Saturn, composed possibly of ice particles orbiting the earth. Others have described it as an orbiting “shell” of ice or liquid water. Some have thought of it merely as dense banks of clouds surrounding the earth, possibly analogous to the cloud cover around the planet Venus (the latter, however, is now believed to be composed of carbon dioxide rather than water).
A vapor canopy seems more likely, however, both because of the inferred manner of its formation and because it would have to be transparent in order for the heavenly bodies to “give light upon the earth” and to “be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years” (Genesis 1:14, 15). Water vapor, even in vast amounts, is invisible, whereas clouds, fog, and so forth, are composed of minute droplets of liquid water and are therefore opaque.
Furthermore, a vapor canopy could be more easily maintained aloft and would serve much more effectively as a marvelous sustainer of vigorous life conditions on the earth. It can be shown that such a canopy would accomplish the following services, for example:
(1)     Since water vapor has the ability both to transmit incoming solar radiation and to retain and disperse much of the radiation reflected from the earth’s surface, it would serve as a global greenhouse, maintaining an essentially uniformly pleasant warm temperature all over the world.
(2)     With nearly uniform temperatures, great air-mass movements would be inhibited and windstorms would be unknown.
(3)     With no global air circulation, the hydrologic cycle of the present world could not be implemented and there could be no rain, except directly over the bodies of water from which it might have evaporated.
(4)     With no global air circulation, and therefore no turbulence or dust particles transported to the upper atmosphere, the water vapor in the canopy would have been stable and not precipitate itself.
(5)     The planet would have been maintained not only at uniform temperatures but also at comfortable uniform humidities by means of daily local evaporation and condensation (like dew, or ground fog) in each day-night cycle.
(6)     The combination of warm temperature and adequate moisture everywhere would be conducive later to extensive stands of lush vegetation all over the world, with no barren deserts or ice caps.
(7)     A vapor canopy would also be highly effective in filtering out ultraviolet radiations, cosmic rays, and other destructive energies from outer space. These are known to be the source of both somatic and genetic mutations, which decrease the viability of the individual and the species, respectively. Thus the canopy would contribute effectively to human and animal health and longevity.
(8)     Some have objected to the idea of a heavy vapor canopy because of the great increase in atmospheric pressure which it would cause at the earth’s surface. Rather than being a problem, however, this effect would contribute still further to health and longevity. Modern biomedical research is increasingly proving that such “hyperbaric” pressures are very effective in combating disease and in promoting good health generally. There should be no problem in organisms living under high external pressures, provided their internal pressures had time to adjust correspondingly.
(9)     Later, when needed, these upper waters would provide the reservoir from which God would send the great Flood, to save the godly remnant from the hopelessly corrupt population of that day (the content of water vapor in the present atmosphere, if all precipitated, would cover the earth only to a depth of about one inch).
Although the waters above the firmament were condensed and precipitated in the Flood, they will apparently be restored in the millennial earth and in the new earth which God will create. Psalm 148:4, 6 speaks of the “waters that be above the heavens” which, like the stars, will be established 'or ever and ever.'"
Morris, Henry M.: The Genesis Record : A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. Grand Rapids, MI : Baker Books, 1976, S. 59
"Probably, in that first generation, all marriages were brother-sister marriages. In that early time, there were no mutant genes in the genetic systems of any of these children, so that no genetic harm could have resulted from close marriages. Many, many generations later, during the time of Moses, such mutations had accumulated to the point where such unions were genetically dangerous, so that incest was thenceforth prohibited in the Mosaic laws.
The ancient quibble about “Cain’s wife” is thus seen to be quite trivial. Long before Cain died, there was a large population in the earth. By the time of the Deluge, 1,656 years after Creation by the Ussher chronology, even using the above conservative assumptions, the world population would have been at least seven billion people!
Not only did the population increase, but the technological and cultural level, at least of the Cainitic civilization, seems to have been very high. Metal tools and implements of all kinds were available to produce creature comforts, as well as musical instruments to stimulate the emotional and esthetic senses. Although these and other facets of civilization can be used for good purposes, they can easily become an end in themselves and can even be used as a means of further rebellion against God. The latter seems to have been their effect, and perhaps even their purpose, among the descendants of Cain."
Morris, Henry M.: The Genesis Record : A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. Grand Rapids, MI : Baker Books, 1976, S. 143

"All Henry Morris speculation. Henry Morris doesn't know that any of this happened."

Man in his fallible story knows?  And God in his account of history (Ge 1-11) doesn't know?  :rolleyes:  Evolution is speculation.  Creation is revelation.

"Henry Morris is not giving you Genesis 1-11 as it is.  He is speculating about the Bible..."

What you call speculation I call exegesis.  What hermeneutic do you use to study the Bible?

"Exegesis is using the text itself to interpret scripture."

How do you use the text itself to interpret:  Ge 1:27, Ge 9:29? Ex 20:11; 31:17?  Should these verses be spiritualized? 

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:  "[T]he universe is expanding..."

How would an expanding universe proof evolution?  If you believe in a singularity, where do you get the mass?

"The Bible indicates in several places that the universe has been “stretched out” or expanded. For example, Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God has stretched it out. He has expanded it (and is perhaps still expanding it).

This verse, too, must have seemed very strange when it was first written.

In fact, secular scientists once believed that the universe was eternal and unchanging. The idea of an expanding universe would have been considered nonsense to most scientists of the past. It must have been tempting for Christians to reject what the Bible teaches about the expansion of the universe. Perhaps some Christians tried to “reinterpret” Isaiah 40:22, and read it in an unnatural way so that they wouldn’t have to believe in an expanding universe.

When the world believes one thing, and the Bible teaches another, it is always tempting to think that God got the details wrong, but God is never wrong. Today, most astronomers acknowledge that the universe is indeed expanding."  Universe expansion

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:  "It's not a question of "spritiualizing" any verse. It's a question of understanding what the original writer meant..."

How do you understand what did the original writer meant in:  Ge 1:27, Ge 9:29? Ex 20:11; 31:17? 

Mutation, yes; evolution, no