Creation and Dinosaurs - Page 3

[Callimom]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

In macro evolution we are not talking about slight variations among the amino acids of chromosomes. Macro evolution involves adding or subtracting chromosomes and changing their basic functions in order to make a totally new species with different defining characteristics.

The two really cannot be lumped together as they involve entirely different biological processes.

The micro/macro evolution argument is a construct of creationists and not sound science. Evolution is generally considered one process by credible scientists.

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by kittywitty

Well, it depends if you take the bible telling you to sell your daughter into slavery literally, too.[/url]

I've never really known the laws of Leviticus to be taken allegorically so much as to be considered irrelevant in contemporary times, but that notwithstanding, I can well understand the use of parable -- it just strikes me as odd to use "x span of time" as an allegory for "y span of time" where that is not normal usage and where there are words to relay Y directly. Which is why I wonder if it is normal usage in the original language. And if it is, why it's not translated taking that into account.

I'm not going with textually impossible ... just, like I said, incongruous.

Originally Posted by magstphil

The difference is that "day" is used from the Creator's perspective in the case of the creation story.

From the creator's perspective, in relaying the account to an audience. I can say it's going to take me forever to finish reading a book, but if I'm talking to people for whom forever necessarily means, well, forever and forever only, it would be an odd choice of language.

[kcstar]

If you don't mind my opinion:

When I was Catholic, I was taught that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. The Catholics have no problem with the concept of God's day not being one of our days. Catholics have no problem with evolution occurring, it's just part of God's plan:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

If you are interested in resources that take a mythical view of evolution, here's one:
http://www.thegreatstory.org/

As with anything involving religion, your mileage will vary.

[Delicateflower]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

And to return to the two kinds of evolution, let me try to explain it this way.

Each species has a specified number of chromosomes that make up it's unique genome. Each of these chromosomes has its own functions and there are certain chromosomes within that genome that vary among a species to create the unique characteristics that differ within the species. For instance, two dogs can look quite different, but they have the same number of chromosomes that have the same jobs. Yet, within those chromosomes there are slight variations that lead the animals to look quite different. In order for that species to have micro-evolution, only minor variations are made within the chromosomes. No new chromosomes are added or taken away and each rung on the ladder so to speak still has its same purpose.

In macro evolution we are not talking about slight variations among the amino acids of chromosomes. Macro evolution involves adding or subtracting chromosomes and changing their basic functions in order to make a totally new species with different defining characteristics.

The two really cannot be lumped together as they involve entirely different biological processes.

Evie'smama, who told you that? I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but you've got it all muddled up. I'm sorry. Maybe you're just misremembering it?

To refresh your memory, what you call 'macroevolution' here is not creating new species. I would put everything I own and my reputation on the wager that people with down's syndrome, turner's syndrome and Kleinfelter's syndrome are exactly as human as I am. I am 100% certain of that fact. But they all have an extra or missing chromosome.

When you say variation in the amino acids of chromosomes you mean variation in the bases, right? Three bases code for an amino acid, lots of amino acids together make a protein. You've also forgotten that slight variations among the amino acids of chromosomes is 90% of the story when it comes to genetic change. Yes, methylation and extra-chromosomal DNA and RNA play a role, but mostly the differences between species are the result of changes in their DNA. Which is evolution.

[Smokering]

I haven't been particularly involved with creation science for awhile, but a few things I recall may relate to things on this thread:

I believe the usual Creationist position is that most of the animal on the ark were juveniles (possibly for size/food consumption reasons, and/or to maximise their reproductive lives after the flood), but not babies.

There's also a theory God caused some/all of the animals to enter a hibernation state during the flood, which would held logistically with the food issue

The Creation scientists I know are actually all for evolution occurring at a faster rate than evolutionists predict. This includes speciation, and is based on the idea that the original animals had a lot of potential for variety in their DNA - hence, vastly different species of dogs evolving from an original wolf-ish ancestor. The correct model for Creationism isn't a "lawn" as opposed to the evolutionary "tree"; it's an "orchard" by which several different ancestors evolved into the myriad kinds we see today. (Er, that description makes more sense with pictures!) I think the macro/microevolution distinction is a bit off, frankly, but I'm not sure what the proper terminology is for "I don't believe in molecules-to-man but I do believe in speciation and change over time", and I think a lot of people use "microevolution" to refer to the latter.

Why God would make a bunch of animals to have them die out is a scientifically irrelevnt question. He made the dodo, which also died out. There are also some who believe dinosaurs haven't entirely died out. This is partly a murky area based around cryptozoology and anthropological/literary accounts (incidentally, also believed by some non-creationists who believe remnant dinos may still be around, ie Nessie). Some YECs also believe that the dino/non-dino distinction is based on exctinctness rather than physical characteristics, so that some creatures like crocodiles would be labelled dinosaurs if they didn't happen to still exist.

I also remember reading a theory that dinosaurs keep growing until they die (again, like crocodiles? Certain types of fish? I forget). So the really big specimens may be aberrant, just incredibly old ones, with most sauropods and so on at a much more modest size.

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by Liquesce

From the creator's perspective, in relaying the account to an audience.

No that wasn't exactly what I meant.

What I am saying is "day" is relative in the creation story IMO because there is our day (24 hours) and then there is a day for the Creator. I won't even attempt to guess how long that is but in my mind it seems that a day to the Creator could mean something much much longer in our own perspective. The 7 days of creation is actually millions of years our time.

I am a bit scatter brained right now so I hope that made some sort of sense. Meaning how I ex[plained it not that you have to agree.

[jennica]

Originally Posted by magstphil

This brings up a question in my mind- is evolution out period? Do Creationists believe that evolution is a possibility ever? Sorry for my ignorance

They spend a whole lot of time trying to disprove it, laughing at it, or calling it "just a theory" to then turn around and embrace an extremely rapid form of it when it's convenient.

[jennica]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

You are comparing two different kinds of evolution here - micro and macro. Micro evolution can happen on an extremely rapid basis and there is no changing from one species to another. The theory of evolution cannot support this rapid of change because it is explaining evolving from one species into a completely new species.

You can't have it both ways. Either there were only "kinds" on the ark, which would mean that there were thousands of animals. Already far too high a number for only 8 people to care for. Or, every single species was represented, in pairs or sevens, and that would number the animals on the ark to hundreds of thousands - far more then could ever possibly even fit. Creationists don't claim that there was a wolf on the ark that also gave way to dogs, which can all interbreed and are the same species. They claim their was one proto-dog and upon landing that proto-dog pair rapidly evolved into all the different species of canines we have today. Same with the feline, and all the other animals. They evolved rapidly into separate and distinct species found in separate parts of the world that can not interbreed with each other. This means there was either an extremely rapid form of evolution after the ark landed, or, there were far too many animals then could ever even fit on the ark, and apparently dinosaurs were on there too, and don't forget the birds and the freshwater fish...

[jennica]

Originally Posted by Smokering

Why God would make a bunch of animals to have them die out is a scientifically irrelevnt question. He made the dodo, which also died out.

It wasn't a scientific question, I know scientifically why there were dinosaurs. I don't understand the theological perspective. There is no information in the bible about dinosaurs, or why they were created. There are single species that have died out, yes. But to create an entire class of animals just to have them all suddenly die out? Why? I think that they weren't mentioned in the bible because the writers of the bible didn't know they ever existed.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

And to return to the two kinds of evolution, let me try to explain it this way.

Each species has a specified number of chromosomes that make up it's unique genome. Each of these chromosomes has its own functions and there are certain chromosomes within that genome that vary among a species to create the unique characteristics that differ within the species. For instance, two dogs can look quite different, but they have the same number of chromosomes that have the same jobs. Yet, within those chromosomes there are slight variations that lead the animals to look quite different. In order for that species to have micro-evolution, only minor variations are made within the chromosomes. No new chromosomes are added or taken away and each rung on the ladder so to speak still has its same purpose.

In macro evolution we are not talking about slight variations among the amino acids of chromosomes. Macro evolution involves adding or subtracting chromosomes and changing their basic functions in order to make a totally new species with different defining characteristics.

The two really cannot be lumped together as they involve entirely different biological processes.

That is a remarkably inaccurate description of evolution. And shows a gross misunderstanding of DNA and chromosomes. I wonder if I can dig up a link that explains it better, I wouldn't want someone reading this to walk away with that understanding...

Lemme see here...

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Liquesce

I've never really known the laws of Leviticus to be taken allegorically so much as to be considered irrelevant in contemporary times, but that notwithstanding, I can well understand the use of parable -- it just strikes me as odd to use "x span of time" as an allegory for "y span of time" where that is not normal usage and where there are words to relay Y directly. Which is why I wonder if it is normal usage in the original language. And if it is, why it's not translated taking that into account.

I'm not going with textually impossible ... just, like I said, incongruous.



From the creator's perspective, in relaying the account to an audience. I can say it's going to take me forever to finish reading a book, but if I'm talking to people for whom forever necessarily means, well, forever and forever only, it would be an odd choice of language.

I think it's rather like when someone says "and they lived happily ever after." Or expressions that use a big number, which really means as much as a person could possibly want.

It seems pretty clear to me that it is not possible to talk about days as we know them, at least in the beginning of the creation story. From a human perspective, a day is one revolution of the Earth on it's axis. But all planets that revolve that way have a day, and it varies in length. And clearly none of those really apply to God, since he isn't on a planet anyway. In the very first part of the story, it doesn't seem like there is even a planet to revolve, so what could a day mean then?

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by jennica

It wasn't a scientific question, I know scientifically why there were dinosaurs. I don't understand the theological perspective. There is no information in the bible about dinosaurs, or why they were created. There are single species that have died out, yes. But to create an entire class of animals just to have them all suddenly die out? Why? I think that they weren't mentioned in the bible because the writers of the bible didn't know they ever existed.

Lots of things happen in the universe that seem to have nothing to do with humanity. There are planets far away we will never see, or orchids growing in the tops of mountain rain forests. Animals die out, or are born, time passes, the Roman Empire falls, Mother Teresa dies....

I'm not sure why people seem to think we are the whole point of all of this. God created things because they were good, not in relation to humans, but good in themselves. I am sure that is true of dinosaurs as well as dogs.

In fact, I would suggest that perhaps part of our purpose as humans is to see, appreciate, and attempt to understand all of these good things. To see them as real and good in themselves, as showing forth an aspect of being. We exist to bear witness for them, as much as they exist for us.

the Bible is clearly human-centric - well, no one else is reading it, so that shouldn't be a surprise. The roses don't need directions to be beautiful. That doesn't mean the Bible contains all truth, only the truth we need. There are surely other parts of the story we are meant to discover through examining creation itself, or by looking inward to our own soul, or talking to other people. And there are secret things which will remain obscure to us - God knows, but they are not part of the story we have been given.

[Peacemon]

Originally Posted by magstphil

Or both....
http://biologos.org/

Not sure how helpful that could be to you as I am not sure about your stand point but they have some great resources! HTH! :

Thank you for that site, it looks very interesting! I can't wait to read it more in depth.

[CrunchyChristianMama]

Before I answered to mama, I answered to Mrs. B...as a science teacher. So I'm quite certain that I am clear in my understanding. And yes, I was trained at a secular university.

That is a remarkably inaccurate description of evolution. And shows a gross misunderstanding of DNA and chromosomes. I wonder if I can dig up a link that explains it better, I wouldn't want someone reading this to walk away with that understanding...

I would be happy to read your link, but as I have been studying this particular subject matter for years both professionally and as a bit of a hobby, I am doubtful that one internet link is going to change my whole perception.

I would put everything I own and my reputation on the wager that people with down's syndrome, turner's syndrome and Kleinfelter's syndrome are exactly as human as I am. I am 100% certain of that fact. But they all have an extra or missing chromosome.

Yes, they have an extra chromosome, but they have an extra of one of the 23 distinctly human chromosomes. They aren't a new species because they haven't suddenly developed a 24th chromosome with it's own distinct characteristics. They have two of the same chromosome.

The micro/macro evolution argument is a construct of creationists and not sound science. Evolution is generally considered one process by credible scientists.

I have been taught the micro and macro science by both creation scientists and those vehemently opposed to creation science.

[jennica]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

I'm not sure why people seem to think we are the whole point of all of this. God created things because they were good, not in relation to humans, but good in themselves. I am sure that is true of dinosaurs as well as dogs.

I think people think this because it is the Christian perspective. God created the heavens and earth for man, and he created the animals to be dominated by man. Many of the animals, such as dogs, are used as an example of mans natural dominion over them and their obedience to man. This is the perspective of many people because that is what the bible tells them, and they believe the bible. When we throw dinosaurs into the mix, or the fact that there are millions of galaxies and billions of other planets out there, you know, to be enjoyed by the hubble telescope, or, no one, I agree that it kind of throws a wrench in the human centric Christian perspective. But, that is not my perspective, I am simply questioning the Christian or biblical point of view. Personally, I don't think man was ever meant to be the center of the universe. I think dinosaurs rose and fell independent of man. And I thinks dogs were bred by man to achieve a trainable variety.

[CrunchyChristianMama]

I think people think this because it is the Christian perspective. God created the heavens and earth for man, and he created the animals to be dominated by man. Many of the animals, such as dogs, are used as an example of mans natural dominion over them and their obedience to man. This is the perspective of many people because that is what the bible tells them, and they believe the bible. When we throw dinosaurs into the mix, or the fact that there are millions of galaxies and billions of other planets out there, you know, to be enjoyed by the hubble telescope, or, no one, I agree that it kind of throws a wrench in the human centric Christian perspective. But, that is not my perspective, I am simply questioning the Christian or biblical point of view. Personally, I don't think man was ever meant to be the center of the universe. I think dinosaurs rose and fell independent of man. And I thinks dogs were bred by man to achieve a trainable variety.

Actually, the Christian perspective (as I see it) is that all things were put here to bring glory to God and point us to Him.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:20

The purpose of the awesome greatness of our universe and incredible intricacies of the world around us is not for us to be domineering, but for us to fall at our knees before a God that is able to create such a thing.

[Delicateflower]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

Before I answered to mama, I answered to Mrs. B...as a science teacher. So I'm quite certain that I am clear in my understanding. And yes, I was trained at a secular university.

But you're not a chemistry or biology teacher, are you? Please, don't be embarrassed that you don't really get a field you haven't studied or been trained in, there's no shame at all in that. Just the other day I had to give up trying to read a legal contract because legalese befuddles me. But give me a biological lab protocol and I'm good to go, because I've studied it and been trained in it for years.

Perhaps if I explain it very simply you could go and do some reading of your own. Once I've explained the basics the things you read will make a lot more sense for you.

Our genetic material is called DNA. It's a scaffolding of sugars on which are stuck four different chemicals called bases. There are only four different kinds of DNA bases, called G, A, T, C for short. Together these components make a long strand. A strand of DNA is called a chromosome.

Sorry, I have to go and put my baby to bed now, but I'll come back and finish the explanation for you. It's such a fascinating subject, I'm sure you'll enjoy learning more about it.

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by orangebird

That is a remarkably inaccurate description of evolution. And shows a gross misunderstanding of DNA and chromosomes. I wonder if I can dig up a link that explains it better, I wouldn't want someone reading this to walk away with that understanding...

Lemme see here...

Ha! Where the heck have you been, woman? I admit this thread had me thinking of you and poof, there you are.

Originally Posted by [B

jennica[/B] http://www.mothering.com/discussions...s/viewpost.gif] It wasn't a scientific question, I know scientifically why there were dinosaurs. I don't understand the theological perspective. There is no information in the bible about dinosaurs, or why they were created. There are single species that have died out, yes. But to create an entire class of animals just to have them all suddenly die out? Why? I think that they weren't mentioned in the bible because the writers of the bible didn't know they ever existed.

I think it wasn't mentioned in the Bible because it's totally irrelevant to spiritual growth. It can be very likely they didn't know they existed either but again that in no way matters in the long run, IMO.

This is why I am left wondering why people are trying to find a way to fit it in there. What's the point? It's like making a mountain out of a mole hill. Really dinos are just not that big of a deal on a personal spiritual level.

My opinion.....
The Bible doesn't explain everything. It doesn't even come close. Scripture is the jumping off point and meant as nourishment to the soul to help it grow- but purely on a spiritual level. It isn't meant to be a history of the world as a whole. This is why in our homeschooling we don't do a scriptural based curriculum. Yes we study the scriptures but as a world history, science curric, etc it is extremely lacking- because that's not it's function.

The good Lord in His wisdom gave us brains and the ability to use them for a reason. Through that we have been able to accomplish so much. Why dismiss it? Is it out of a fear that to believe in science is to not believe in God? Last I checked Atheists don't hold the monopoly on science. If nothing else why not teach scripture as is and then add the many theories of the world presented as such- theories?

[Delicateflower]

Sorry, I'm back now.

So, I've described how DNA is made up of a string of bases, and that chromosomes are strands of DNA. To get from DNA to proteins, there's a couple of steps which I won't confuse you with now, but via these processes, triplets of bases signal for an amino acid to be included in the protein.

Amino acids are an important part of biology, but they're not part of DNA.

Does that make it clearer?

Yes, they have an extra chromosome, but they have an extra of one of the 23 distinctly human chromosomes. They aren't a new species because they haven't suddenly developed a 24th chromosome with it's own distinct characteristics. They have two of the same chromosome.

But chimpanzees share many of the same chromosomes as humans, and they aren't human.

I can see now that your confusion is based on a misunderstanding of what DNA and chromosomes are. I hope I've clarified it for you now. As you can see, a chromosome is just a large piece of DNA, there is no functional difference in the changes that occur from moving or changing small pieces of DNA or large ones.

I have been taught the micro and macro science by both creation scientists and those vehemently opposed to creation science.

But you haven't been taught it by any biologists. I highly recommend learning it from the people who understand and are expert in the subject.

[1littlebit]

i'm confused. now my understanding of evolution is very basic and the class i took on evolution was over 2 years agp so bare with me. i don't understand why evolution is not compatible with creationism.

i am having trouble trying to explain what i want to ask. i am going to try and give an (probably very choppy) example. lets say there are 5 different kinds of frogs all living in one area. with in each kind of frog they have traits that are more conducive to survival and traits that are less so. like if the females in on kind are attracted to a trait that only certain males have... those males would be more likely to be chosen by females and that trait would become more common right? and over time there would be more and more males with that trait and the males with out it would be much less likely to reproduce.... and eventually all the males would have that trait. or something like that? i just picked frogs randomly i know nothing about their mating habits ... im just trying to explain sorry.

or if there was a disease that killed some frogs but not others for w/e reason. the frogs that are most likely to live and have the most off spring would be the ones who were not susceptible to the disease. then more of their off spring would not be susceptible but the ones that were would die and after a few generations wouldn't all of the off spring be born with the immunity?

is this totally incorrect? or not what your talking about? if it is what your talking about and is correct why is it not compatible with creationism?