Martin, if you indeed are a true searcher for the truth, you will not read just one book such as the one by Meyers (which I myself have read) and conclude it gives the correct message by itself. In fact, you should seek out books written by numerous other evangelicals with different views, including Francis Collins - the founder of Biologos, which support different evolutionary views. Then, as a critical thinker, you can decide which position provides the best arguments. Limiting yourself to books which support your presuppositions is intellectual dishonest. Claims that blog contributors here just want answers that are easy to accept underestimates the substantial intellectual depth represented. Many have advanced degrees (for what its worth, I have 4 STEM degrees) and are well-read, deep thinkers.
As a more specific answer, Meyersâs claim that information added to DNA somehow proves that evolution is not true is highly questionable. Entropy can decrease locally as long as it increases in the overall closed system - which happens to be the entire universe in this case. Since increased information, as in DNA, is associated with a local decrease in entropy in the chromosomes, it is not violating any thermodynamic laws. Furthermore, note that except for absolute fundamentalists, such as AIG, CRS and ICR, everyone agrees on common descent - that all creatures descended from the original first life. The main difference is primarily in the importance of natural selection as the sole source of change. Reasonable proposed alternatives include epigenetics, convergence (Morris), structuralism (Denton) and Neo-Lamarckism.
As to the Flood, Gen. 6-9 must be read in view of the fact that it was written to Iron Age Israelites. The primeval history, Gen. 1-11, shows in 3 different places what their primitive view of the world included - basically, northeast Africa, southwest Asia, and southeast Europe. Furthermore, scholar Paul Seely wrote several landmark papers in the 1990âs which clearly showed that virtually all pre-scientific peoples view the world as consisting of a flat, circular disk of land (the earth) surrounded by a concentric ring of the water (the ocean), with both covered by a transparent, solid dome (the heavens). Thus, viewing the Flood as covering the entire spherical planet as it is known to be today is totally inconsistent with the worldview of ancient peoples, including the Israelites.
The second law of thermodynamics happens here on earth as well as everywhere in the universe, please do not doubt that fact.That is why we get old and our bodies wear out we die.That then = 2nd law of thermodynamics. the second law as well as the first was supposed to be âuniversalâ. how ever evolutionist will say WAIT that law does NOT work or apply on earth for âthis or that reasonâ{they always will make exceptions to the rules and they must do so to make evolution work.} however I find that it does certainly work on earth and all flesh would die out because of it, if it were not for ONE THING{the ability to reproduce anew} reproduction is what keeps the second law at bay on this earth and NOT ânatural selectionâ. Natural selection is not true! What is true is survival of the fittest, that is true. it has never been shown that something of a lower life form could over time turn into something of a higher life form Butter flyâs from caterpillars and frogs from tad poles can only because all the genetic DNA is there in it to start with from the beginning.Not because anything evolved however.
evolution through genetic mutations or for things to get better over time will not work on a planet that is constantly decaying and getting worse over time. Genetic mutations make diseases like sickle cell anemia, it does NOT make things get better. that is a big flaw with evolution that evolutionist will not admit,but it is the truth however. some mutations are harmless but most make things worse and make diseases as i have stated above.
I hear mostly emotion in your discussion ⌠rather than a calm recital of the facts:
All life is a cloud of specks floating in a sea of change, responding to each new crashing wave.
Our primate ancestors happily lived in trees. Then the ecology of our homeland started to change ⌠where jungles dried out and hundreds of miles of open savanna began to spread out and around ⌠making life in trees pretty crowded.
The tribes of primates that learned how to make a living down on the ground began to carve out a brand new life style ⌠leaving the tree dwellers behind in their original mode of living.
These early hominids started spending more of their time erect ⌠to better see threats and foods.
Is this a violation of the laws of decay? I donât think so. You canât even make a coherent discussion of how people adapting to changes over hundreds of years fits in with âdecayâ. Are you refuting the laws of decay? Or the ability of living things to resist the laws of decay?
I said Jesus was not omniscient. Itâs fairly clear that Jesus was reliant on the Holy Spirit in his ministry, and not inherently holding Platonic characteristics of deity (I say Platonic because when we attempt to âdefine Godâ and his attributes we prefer Platonic ideals to Godâs self-revelation in the Bible). Ironically (or not), this is the same position we can hold as âChristâs Bodyâ on earth, giving strong credence to Jesusâ claim that âgreater things shall you doâ; certainly it makes that possible. I have a hard time imagining us âdoing the things that Jesus didâ if it requires omniscience, omnipotence, etc.
Now, consider that Iâve read Jeremiah 17:9. Would it be fair to say that âI know whatâs in the hearts of menâ?
The point of a common ancestor population is that over millions of years, very often the ancestral population, sent in different directions by the swirling waves of ecological change, no longer exists in that appearance.
Here is a snapshot of what an OLD population was like - - (though this particular species is not in our own family tree).
Martin - It appears that you prefer to misread any response such as mine which respectfully takes a different view than yours. Unfortunately, it is clear to all that you have never taken a college science course or a course in logic or rhetorical thinking. Instead, you apparently think writing words with all capital letters somehow increases the strength of your arguments and rants. May I respectfully suggest you look up what the Dunning-Kruger effect is as you are a classic example. Peace be with you.
That all makes good sense to me. I like a literary analysis better anyway. But if people are going to get all hung up on the translation of an English word, I am happy to direct them to people who remind them that the Hebrews had no notion of the âwhole earthâ as the âwhole Earth.â
I doubt that man ever lived in trees! I have always known monkeyâs lived in trees! i have watched the Disney jungle book cartoon and king Louie sang a song!LOL:laughing:
I have been called unmentionable names by evolutionist who could not convince me of evolution,horrible, horrible names. How ever does that derail me, upset me or cause me to cry? I just pretend I am on the star ship Enterprise put up my defense shields and fire phasers right back at them full power.
