Archived - Ask the Expert: Dr. Carl Werner

Dr. Carl Werner received his undergraduate degree in biology, with distinction, at the University of Missouri, graduating summa c** laude. He received his doctoral degree in medicine at the age of 23. He is the author of Evolution: The Grand Experiment and executive producer of Evolution: The Grand Experiment video series. Most recently the book was updated to include brand new research on the topic of “walking whales”, which evolutionist often use as evidence for their theory. Discover first hand interviews with the scientists who discovered the skeletons linked to this topic, and hear them confess their lack of actual skeletal evidence. Click here to view full press release.

Below are the questions and answers submitted while Dr. Carl Werner was the featured expert on CreationConversations.com

Comment by Carl Werner on May 27, 2014 at 11:01am

Good morning CC! This is the beginning of my ATE forum session (Ask The Expert) I suggest that we talk about the biggest news for the creation/evolution communities in the last 10 years. Specifically, the best fossil proof for evolution, "walking whales", has been overturned. (This evidence has been cracking on the surface for about 15 years now but finally it has finally collapsed this year.)

This new information first came to light April 7, 2014 in a press release on my website (link below). I sent this press release to 50 national news organizations but no one picked it up yet.

Basically it was revealed that the fossils of walking whales in museums had been faked up. Also it was revealed that the scientists added whale body parts to land animals to create walking whale drawings. Finally it was revealed that the "whale ears" on these animals were in fact land animal ears. This information was revealed by the two scientists who made the discoveries of these three most important walking whales in television interviews. These interviews can be seen in the press release below. Three land mammals were changed into three walking whales by these changes.

A few resources to get you up to speed on what happened this spring are listed below. Eachresource takes about 3 minutes to read. The videos of course are the best:

1) An outside summary article by Dr. Don Batten: http://creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

2) The original press release with the videos: http://thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html

3) A supplement to the new book release: http://thegrandexperiment.com/pakicetus/index.html

4) NLPG's press release by Katie Gumm. (Click on the "Click here" button at the top of this page in my bio section.

As you may recall, the first edition of Evolution: The Grand Experiment (and associated video) revealed that Dr. Gingerich had added a whale's tail to a land animal called Rodhocetus. Now, the third edition (2014) of the same book reveals startling revelations from scientist who discovered Ambulocetus: The blow h*** he placed on the skull was not real and the whale ear bone was not a whale ear bone.

If you have the resources I would recommend you get a copy of the third edition to see the photographs of the ear bones of Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. For years these were touted as being whale ear bones. But, as you can see in the photographs of the hardbound book, these were not whale tympanic ear bones. In fact, they do not even look like a whale tympanic ear bone.

When you are buying the book make sure you are buying the third edition. Three sources that definitely are selling the third edition is NLPG.com, Amazon.com (buy directly from Amazon as some of the retailers have the first edtion) or http://thegrandexperiment.com/book-series.html. You can also place phone orders through NLPG 1-800-999-3777 my website: 1-800-771-2147. The new edition is a bit pricy but that is because it weighs so much, 3.2 pounds and has over 300 pages and 790 color photographs.

Tell me what you think!

Comment by Ron Smorynski on May 27, 2014 at 1:55pm

To all, I highly recommend both his books. Well formatted, tons of pictures. I used in my Creation vs Evolution homeschool and church school teaching. First... they helped me solidify my NOT FAITH but proof and logic that the Bible's creation account is incredibly accurate because of the evidence we discover today that those who wrote the book would have never known, studied, understood, learned or taught way back then. Thanks for what you are doing Carl Werner. I plan on buying extra copies for our church school library for its growing student body so they can explore and take off their backs, the burden of misdirection and deception by evolution evidence... that is not evidence.

Learning about Pasteur was really cool, and to compare what he did for mankind, believing in Creation vs what Darwin did for mankind... pretty stark comparison. I want to ask, suggest, and somewhat concerned as well, if the Pasteur vs Darwin comparison could be a great topic. Because... I have read I believe in wikipedia or somewhere, a sort of discrediting of Pasteur's faith... you teach about his focus to disprove a-biogenesis... is there solid proof in his work for a Creation mentality?

Comment by Doug Lindauer on May 27, 2014 at 2:00pm

Thanks Dr. Warner for making yourself available. I haven't really looked at the "walking whales" issue so I don't have a question there (yet) but I do have something that's a hot issue for me at the moment. In talking with a biologist PhD candidate a couple of days ago, she brought up the issue of "we share 99% of our DNA with primates." I think that claim is bogus as I believe those touting the statistics omit regions that don't line up from one chromosome to another but I could be wrong. Do you have any comment on this issue?

Comment by Carl Werner on May 27, 2014 at 2:16pm

Ron,

Thank you for your comments about our books. I have to admit I am a doubting Thomas. My wife says I am close to being cynical; I am slow to believe authorities who espouse ideas on pharmaceuticals, diets, origins, and self help. The reason I am so skeptical is that I have been burned too many times by ideas put forth from all of these experts.

For me, I am seeking truth. This process of gaining the facts has a price but I do want to know what the truth is. Unfortunately I have learned that the natural history museums and the textbooks on evolution, geology, human evolution have left out the most important facts. Uggh.

I have spent my time collecting facts about origins. It is easy to analyze origins (Universe, life, phyla groups, geology) once the facts are collected and laid out in front of you...Evolution simply does not match the expected data and it is not even close. Most have not seen the data in my book series. The books series simply lays out the facts. The conclusions are left up to the reader but are pretty evident.

Comment by Carl Werner on May 27, 2014 at 2:29pm

Dear Doug,

You said, "In talking with a biologist PhD candidate a couple of days ago, she brought up the issue of "we share 99% of our DNA with primates." I think that claim is bogus as I believe those touting the statistics omit regions that don't line up from one chromosome to another but I could be wrong. Do you have any comment on this issue?"

Doug, this idea is fallacious. The graduate student implied that humans must be closely related to apes and that we evolved from apes since our DNA is "nearly the same". This is odd because we are not nearly the same. Look at the differences. For example, the most sophisticated tool an ape can manufacturer is a twig to retrieve termites out of a termite mound. The most sophisticated tool a human can manufacturer is an aircraft carrier with an F-18 jet with an attached surface to air missile. The same goes for language (a grunt of terror from an ape fleeing vs. War and Peace), etc.

Here is the real answer and the full facts of what she left out: 99% of the total DNA is similar. There are 3.5 billion letters of DNA in each human cell. That means we differ from apes 1% of 3.5 billion letters or 35 million letters of DNA. That sounds like a huge difference and seems to match the difference in tools and language etc. It does not imply that we evolved from each other.

The problem worsens when you look at the "99% number" so often quoted. That number was manufactured by limited techniques and as technology has improved the percent similarity has fallen steadily to 98, 97, 95, 94% etc. For each 1 percent there is an additional 35 million letter differences. So, tell your friend that apes and humans only differ 175 million letters and you are not impressed that this is evidence that we are related.

Comment by Cheri A Fields on May 27, 2014 at 3:05pm

Welcome, Dr. Carl! I heard you on Real Science Radio the other day. What amazing evidence God has helped you collect.

Thanks for the direct links, I look forward to sharing them. I like the look of your website: calm, yet exciting.

Oh, yes, your book The Grand Experiment has been sitting on my shelf waiting for my kids to get old enough to understand it. The time is getting near, finally. :D

Comment by Phil Owens on May 27, 2014 at 3:22pm

Good Afternoon Dr. Werner,

In addition to the information regarding the whale´s blowhole ect found in the third edition, can we also find information online from secular sources? Unfortunately, when debating evolutionists, their knee-jerk reaction is to reject anything that can not be verified on their side. I guess I´m guilty of the same thing. The first thing I do is to go to creationist websites to get their take..

My second question is regarding the number of morphological changes needed to go from a land-dwelling mammal to a fully aquatic mammal. I´ve seen David Berlinski make this argument on youtube, but I have not been able to verify the number which he says should be in the upper thousands.

The whole idea of at least two land mammals, male and female taking to the water and going through the same evolutionary pathways such that their reproductive systems would be compatible to produce offspring seems so incredibly bizarre and farfetched, I can´t believe evolutionists get away with passing the whole idea onto the public. Is my thinking wrong here? Maybe an evolutionist would find my reasoning based on a lack of knoweledge. I don´t know. What are your thoughts on this?

Comment by Tony Watkins on May 27, 2014 at 6:33pm
Dr. Werner,
I appreciate the time given to those of us how long to draw closer to the Truth about GOD and HIS Creation !!! Two things that I would like to comment on and ask for Your thoughts!! I find that the deeper I dig into the acedemic side of Bible Study the more frustrated and confused I get ...... Between translations and "experts" and cultures and changes in languages over time the only sense that I can make of Scriptures is to read it in prayer for the guidance of the Spirit and in Faith that GOD DESIRES that kind of personal relationship that causes HiM through HIS Spirit to be a personal tuter to me and to all who seek HIM in Faith !!! Second my study of Genesis leads me to believe that we were created far differently physically than the condition that we now find ourselves in !!! The changes that took place at the fall making us mortal and weak and seperated from GODS Kingdom and again at the time of the Flood have caused us to "deevolve" from a far superior and diverse being to to end result of the specimens that we now are ......... And thinking that this same "deevolution" has occured in all animal life causing them to move from diverse DNA supercreatures to the individual species incapable of further radical important change ???.
Comment by Steven Weir on May 27, 2014 at 6:56pm

Hello Dr. Werner

I don't have a question related to whales with legs, but I know it's silly to think that whale could become anything other than a whale after any number of generations have passed. I just wanted to say thank you for being true!

As an addition to the ape question below, aren't pigs more genetically similar to humans than apes? Because they can use some organs from pigs to replace defunct human ones.

Comment by Douglas Roy on May 27, 2014 at 8:21pm

Dear Dr. Werner,

It comes as no surprise to me that supposed evidence supporting "walking whales" was fudged and made up. I am doubtful of many supposed findings of people who support Darwinian Evolution or the modern versions of the same lie. What is clear evidence of Creation and the fall of man is this very willingness to lie and deceive others to prove an anti-god theory. It is also proof of the scriptures that says man is a sinner with an evil nature.

Comment by Floyd on May 28, 2014 at 2:01pm

Hello Dr. Werner


It seems to me finding numerous errors in evolution is useful, but not enough to overturn evolution because evolutionists will always invent rescuing devices such as ‘punctuated equilibrium’, then assume it as a fact. Evolutionist’s approach is to hide the tree of truth within a continual forest of trees of lies and fakery (walking whales", missing links, false transitions, etc.).


I was wondering if any creationists have publications proposing models of ways in which God through His Word may have formed life from the materials that God created ex nihilo on day 1. Such as the ordering of evidences as theorems for creation along the lines of “In the Beginning was Information” by Dr Werner Gitt. Any models showing the practical mechanisms paralleled with scripture will give an alternative approach that will undermine Darwinian, Neo-Darwinian or any other ‘winian’ evolution and reinforce the truth of God’s Word in practice.


The principle being step 1 Don’t answer, answer (Do not accept your opponents standard) Proverbs 26:4. And Step 2 Now, Answer (show the folly of your opponents standard then, provide an answer based on biblical standards) Proverbs 26:5


The model scenarios based on biblical standards might be thoughts outlining the following:


Day 1: Spacetime, light, Information, Basic materials
 (matter, atoms, molecules, amino acids) --- ex nihilo
Day 2-4: Universal laws, Natural laws, organisation of matter as a necessary medium for life, geology, cosmos, etc.
Day 5-6: formation of DNA, introduction of information in DNA, the cell, gnome, breath of life, life coming from life, phyla groups, human nature, conscious, etc.


The fall: introduction of diseases, catastrophes, changes in human nature, mutations, natural selection, etc.

Worldwide flood: geology, specification, variation, etc.

But in more ordered detail. Is this a publication you may consider in the future?

Comment by Phil Owens on May 28, 2014 at 2:30pm

Hi Floyd,

It seems that you are looking for naturalistic causations to explain the supernatural. Therefore it would seem that the problem would be with the existience of the supernatural, i.e God.

I too, see this same argument from evolutionists with respect to the age of the Earth, Noah´s Ark, etc.

In my view, it is totally illogical to reason that a supernatural being would be limited to naturalistic causes and even worse, man´s current knowledge of naturalistic causes.

I think that is why ID theorist limit their arguments to specified complexity and information which exclude natural causation.

I´d be interested to read what Dr. Werner says on this myself. I think it´s a very important point that you make.

Does anyone know does he have a set time for response?

Comment by Floyd on May 28, 2014 at 4:52pm

Phil Owens,


to clarify, what I’m saying is that ex niliho is a totally supernatural cause. God forming life from existing material is a supernatural cause, which some parts may be quantified through quantifiable measures which might be modelled based on history revealed within scriptures. For God formed man of the dust (i.e. physical material) Genesis 2:7. Then when God breathing life into the physically formed body producing life it was a totally supernatural cause Genesis 2:7.

So I’m asking Dr. Werner if there are thoughts within the creationist community where a framework can be built concerning the quantifiable measures and be solidly defended within the biblical framework. Natural laws are part of the creation of God, which means God isn't limited by natural laws, just because He may have used them.

Comment by Carl Werner on May 29, 2014 at 9:34am

Dear Cheri,

You wrote: "I heard you on Real Science Radio the other day. What amazing evidence God has helped you collect." First of all I want to say that I love the work of the radio host of Real Science Radio Bob Enyart. He is doing a wonderful job with his radio program. He has focused on some very important issues like dinosaur soft tissues, whale evolution etc.

Check out his web page on faked fossil whales based on this new information in our book (3rd edition Evolution: The Grand Experiment just released): http://kgov.com/whale-fossils-faked

Here is the radio interview I gave on this topic: http://kgov.s3.amazonaws.com/bel/2014/20140505-BEL089.mp3

You also said "I like the look of your website: calm, yet exciting." Our website is becoming more and more unusual looking because everyone else is going to the cookie cutter websites with boxes. These newer websites are easier to modify day to day and are hard to resist using. Our website is laid out by an graphic artist (Adriana Naylor) and then executed by a technical guru (Amanda Tang). Together they make a great team. The soothing calm look is a tribute to Adriana's years of graphic experiences. I will pass your compliments on to them!

Can't wait for your kids to get old enough to read Evolution: The Grand Experiment. Maybe let them have a shot at it at age 10 or so. Some families with younger children read the first chapters out loud and discuss as a family. It is a good teaching moment. The younger kids get a kick out of the "mice from dirty underwear story" from one of the "greatest scientists" of the 17th century!

Thanks for your encouragement! Please keep Deb and me and our project in your prayers!

Comment by Carl Werner on May 29, 2014 at 10:04am

Dear Phil,

You wrote, "In addition to the information regarding the whale´s blowhole ect found in the third edition, can we also find information online from secular sources? Unfortunately, when debating evolutionists, their knee-jerk reaction is to reject anything that can not be verified on their side. I guess I´m guilty of the same thing.?"

Phil, the best thing we all can do is to verify and question the information presented to us, always being skeptical of what we are told. This would apply to both pro-evolution and anti-evolution scientists and members of the public at large. Swallowing stories without checking things out in detail is dangerous stuff. Unfortunately, it takes decades, centuries, even millennia to check things out. It also takes lots of money, and access to fossils and scientists, and luck. Who has the time to check out each story we are told?

I am now 54 years old. It turns out that many scientific stories that I was told earlier in my life were simply wrong. These stories came from evolution scientists, pharmaceutical salesmen, basic scientists, science writers, documentaries etc. Scientific ideas have to stand the test of time to be valid. Many times it takes hundreds or thousands of years to overturn scientific ideas. For example it took 2000+ years to overturn the principle of spontaneous generation which was believed by the majority of scientists. Also, it took 2000+ years to overturn the law of acquired characters (law of use and disuse that Darwin used in his books) also believed by the majority of scientists. I guess science is not so accurate "in the now". We will find out if science is accurate about any particular story "in the future", possibly long after we die. It takes a long time for science to get it right.

Now, for the whale story. I presumed that if the whale evolution story (Sinonyx, Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, Rodhocetus) was ever overturned (as it now has been), that the scientists would say "we never said that" or "our museums never implied that" etc. That is why we documented in our book (Evolution: The Grand Experiment 3rd edition), press release (http://thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html ) and video what each scientist espoused using video interviews, and what each museum displayed using photographs. Phil, the easiest demonstration of all of this new information would be to assemble short videos from video (Evolution The Grand Experiment), YouTube site (www.youtube.com/user/EvolutionVsCreation), press release (http://thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html) and let the evolution scientists see what the evolution scientists actually said. Then show them what the truth turned out to be. Let me warn you though, the most ardent supporter will never be convinced. It is, after all, a world view thing.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on May 29, 2014 at 10:23am

Dear Tony,

You wrote, "The changes that took place at the fall making us mortal and weak and seperated from GODS Kingdom and again at the time of the Flood have caused us to "deevolve" from a far superior and diverse being to to end result of the specimens that we now are."

Scientifically Tony, let me describe what you are saying. You assume that God created mankind without disease and with a perfect copy of DNA. That being said, when man was first created then, he was physically perfect. Over time that perfection could become imperfect because of genetic diseases introduced over time from mutations. For example, a one letter DNA change in the 3.5 billion letters of DNA in each person can cause sickle cell anemia which would then be passed on to all subsequent generations. This principle applies to thousands of genetic diseases. Also, diseases such as high cholesterol or other common maladies that are not considered "genetic diseases" could also be the result of a single letter mutation in the DNA and be passed onto all subsequent generations. Also, if groups of humans became separated from each other and isolated based on language, religion, skin color, geography and then only bred with close relatives this can introduce even faster genetic disease degeneration since recessive genetic disorders are unmasked by this interbreeding with closely related people. (An analogy would be breeding golden retrievers with only golden retrievers and yielding dogs with hip dysplasia.) Over time, humans would then live shorter and shorter periods of time because of the accumulation of all of these genetic mistakes.

If you are right Tony, you are proposing a radical idea: Humans are not evolving but devolving. Looking at the brilliance of the builders of the Pyramids, you might be right!

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on May 29, 2014 at 10:33am

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your encouragement! It means a lot.

You also wrote, "Aren't pigs more genetically similar to humans than apes? Because they can use some organs from pigs to replace defunct human ones." This is actually not true and let me explain why.

I believe you are referring to "porcine (pig) heart valves" which are sometimes used in humans to replace a diseased human heart valve. (Pig valves are better than metal valve replacement in the sense you don't have to take blood thinners if you get a pig valve.) The heart valve has a low immune signature so the human body does not react to it but this is an unusual exception. You could not give a human a pig heart, a pig kidney, a pig cornea etc. The body would reject this rapidly.

Pigs are less similar to humans as compared to apes and humans but (as I said in an earlier post) apes are different from humans by about 140 million letters of DNA. So both animals are not "closely related" to humans.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on May 29, 2014 at 10:46am

Dear Doug,

You wrote, "What is clear evidence of Creation and the fall of man is this very willingness to lie and deceive others to prove an anti-god theory. It is also proof of the scriptures that says man is a sinner with an evil nature."

First of all let me say, I love the tuxedo and bow tie in the picture on your post!

Second, it sounds like you are implying that the evolution vs creation debate has a spiritual side. You might also be suggesting that to convince someone scientifically it will take more than scientific facts. Here is my response.

When I was a young teenager in the science realm I liked evolution as it all made sense and fit in with my life at the time. I wanted to believe it. Fortunately for me, I learned that I was wrong. A friend gently challenged my world view using just four questions. I would suggest that we all use these same four questions when we talk to others. (See Living Fossils, Chapter 1, The Challenge That Would Change My Life.

Thanks for your comments!

Comment by Carl Werner on May 29, 2014 at 10:53am

Dear Floyd,

I perceive that you have a high intellect. You know that being a deep thinker that can be a blessing and a curse. I read your post about applying scientific principles to the miraculous creation event and found it fresh and interesting. The one thing about creation is that it would not have to follow scientific principles. Miracles such as creation would be outside of scientific laws and would, in fact contradict them. For example creation would violate the natural law of the first law of thermodynamics. Creation is, after all, by definition, a miracle.

Carl

Comment by Phil Owens on May 29, 2014 at 10:57am

Dr. Werner,

Thanks for your response. Just a couple of follow up questions and comments With respect to the whale´s blowhole, I always thought that it was an outlandish claim. I mean how could evolutionist possibly claim that they had physical evidence of the migration of the blowhole to the top of head ? Obviously, that migration only existed in their heads.

Secondly, again I was wondering are you aware of a quantitative number for the number of morphological changes that it would take to go from a land mammal to a fully aquatic whale? Have you seen this in the literature anywhere?

Third, regarding, vestigial organs, I once saw a debate between PZ Meyers and Dr. Bergman in which after Bergman stated that no organs are vestigial, PZ responded that vestigial doesn´t necessarily mean the organ has no use but that it doesn´t have the use it once had.

Can you comment on that?

Comment by Carl Werner on May 29, 2014 at 11:01am

Dear Phil and Floyd,

Now I am convinced that you are both deep thinkers seeing your banter back and forth on the topic of natural laws and creation. :)

BTW, I check in every 24 hours (or so) to check the page. I apologize that my answers are not in real time. I would rather that all of us be at Denny's having this discussion over coffee.

Keep on thinking out of the box. That is what Newton and Copernicus did!

Carl

Comment by Cheri A Fields on May 29, 2014 at 11:55am

Just one question, Dr. Carl:

Do you like sarcasm/irony? :-)

Comment by Carl Werner on May 29, 2014 at 1:16pm

Dear Cheri,

You wrote, "Just one question, Dr. Carl: Do you like sarcasm/irony? :-)"

I lover irony!

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on May 29, 2014 at 1:21pm

Dear Phil,

You wrote, "With respect to the whale´s blowhole, I always thought that it was an outlandish claim. I mean how could evolutionist possibly claim that they had physical evidence of the migration of the blowhole to the top of head ? Obviously, that migration only existed in their heads." The partially evolved/migrated blowhole of Pakicetus was made up by Dr. Gingerich using a small chunk of the BACK of the skull. The partially evolved/migrated blowhole of Ambulocetus was made up with a fossil that did not have that part of the fossil by Dr. Thewissen. (See press release video of this: http://thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html ) The paritally evolved blowhole of Rodhocetus is conjecture since the rest of the tip is missing on the skull. (You could recreate this same scenario in a human by taking a human skull, breaking off the nasal bone and say the nose was migrating towards the forehead.)

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on May 29, 2014 at 1:30pm

Dear Phil,

You wrote, "I was wondering are you aware of a quantitative number for the number of morphological changes that it would take to go from a land mammal to a fully aquatic whale? Have you seen this in the literature anywhere?"


I have not seen that number in the literature but it is an extraordinarily interesting question. Here are just a few changes:

1) Skinny land animal tail has to change into a fluke and the tail needs to be the sole propulsion mechanism.

2) Back legs need to disappear.

3) Front legs need to turn into flippers.

4) Neck has to disappear (shrinking of neck vertebrae)

5) Drinking freshwater changes into saltwater only

6) Hearing with ears to hearing with jaw

7) Holding breath for a few minutes vs long periods of time.

8) Nose at tip to nose on top

9) Big ears to no ears

10) Eyes on top of skull to eyes behind (at the end of ) upper teeth line

11) Diving from 5 feet deep to extreme depths.

12) Creation of echolocation for the toothed whales.

13) Changing of teeth into baleen for the baleen whales

This is just the big stuff. All of this was supposed to happen by accidental mutations in the DNA in the reproductive cells. WOW. A bit over the top.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on May 29, 2014 at 1:39pm

Phil, you wrote,

"Third, regarding, vestigial organs, I once saw a debate between PZ Meyers and Dr. Bergman in which after Bergman stated that no organs are vestigial, PZ responded that vestigial doesn´t necessarily mean the organ has no use but that it doesn´t have the use it once had. Can you comment on that?"

A false theory cannot be falsified. You see originally we were taught that vestigial organs had no function and were left overs from our evolutionary past. When antievolution scientists pointed out that vestigial organs such as tonsils, appendix, coccyx, pineal gland did have important functions, then the story changed to what PZ says above in your question. A false theory cannot be falsified. Once you disprove it, it changes to a modified false theory and once you disprove that it changes and changes... No one gives up a false theory

Carl.

Comment by Doug Lindauer on May 29, 2014 at 1:42pm

@Phil and Dr.Carl,

I've always thought that the strongest indictment against evolution was the number of inter-related changes there would have to be at the molecular (DNA etc) level to achieve just ONE morphological change.

Evolutionists have criticized creationists for lacking imagination, i.e. the imagination required to see how these changes can happen. There has to be a VAST number of DNA changes to achieve a new functional limb or organ. Apparently evolutionists must exercise an awful LOT of imagination. I think the term for that is fiction. They seem to routinely confuse fiction with science.

Comment by Carl Werner on May 29, 2014 at 1:46pm

Doug,

I agree when you wrote, "I've always thought that the strongest indictment against evolution was the number of inter-related changes there would have to be at the molecular (DNA etc) level to achieve just ONE morphological change.

Evolutionists have criticized creationists for lacking imagination, i.e. the imagination required to see how these changes can happen. There has to be a VAST number of DNA changes to achieve a new functional limb or organ. Apparently evolutionists must exercise an awful LOT of imagination. I think the term for that is fiction. They seem to routinely confuse fiction with science."

The odds of just one piece of DNA assembling in correct order to make just one single new protein is astronomical. This odds calculation is pretty straight forward and is laid out in Chapter 4 of Evolution: The Grand Experiment.

Comment by Floyd on May 30, 2014 at 4:27am

As a follow up to Doug Lindauer’s statement, I find it amazing that within our “lacking imagination” we have to imagine the “VAST number of DNA changes to achieve a new functional limb or organ” were done solely by mutations (i.e. duplication, insertion) with no help whatsoever from their God ‘natural selection’, because natural selection only works when the organs and limbs exist. That is nothing to control constant erasure!


Mutations working alone within the cell to produce a coded information system, translation of that information, bio-machines to act on that translated information, messages, social-coordination of the bio-machines, amongst other things is quite frankly impossible.


I suspect most of us realize we are not dealing with empirical science and amazingly neither are we dealing with historical science. We are dealing with sin and rebellion to God in the form of


- manipulating evidence and
- withholding data
- concealment of unfavorable research data
- selective reporting
- the abuse of public trust


What seems clear is that a false belief, but positive expectation within the evolutionist’s minds, has as much an effect on them as a true belief.

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on May 30, 2014 at 10:13am

Carl, just a couple of points about the below statement made in your answer to Floyd.

The one thing about creation is that it would not have to follow scientific principles. Miracles such as creation would be outside of scientific laws and would, in fact contradict them. For example creation would violate the natural law of the first law of thermodynamics. Creation is, after all, by definition, a miracle.”

This is not a position that I am arguing but I have to ask, why would God create a universe complete with its attendant physical laws and then completely ignore them? I seems to me that the whole of creation followed the physical laws He created. He made a super-dense particle of matter to exist in a condition of no space or time, He used the laws that were then created to to form our universe. He then took our planet and formed it from the matter that already existed, and made the plants and trees 'spring forth' from the ground (not waved His powerful hand and they suddenly existed). He then formed man 'from the dust of the ground', in other words He formed us from the elements that already existed, then breathed life into His creations.

If we are to have any hope of convincing main-stream science of our seriousness in the matter of creation science or to get creation science accepted we really do need to keep away from the miraculous or 'God of the gaps' explanations. This only confirms that creationism is a faith and not science, sure, it is an integral part of our faith, but not everyone believes.

I just wondered how you would view this in the face of the evidence we have from the physical world. By the way, thank you for being involved in this question and answer session.



Comment by Carl Werner on May 30, 2014 at 12:06pm

Dear Floyd,

Your comments are spot on. I would like to also add one more point. For a land mammal to become a whale, stepping into the water or swimming in the ocean or drinking saltwater would not change the DNA in the reproductive cells and therefor would not change the next generation. The DNA of the reproductive cells (sperm in men, eggs in women) are in a "lock box" and are not influenced by the other cells of the body (somatic cells) such as the leg cells, mouth cells, hair follicle cells. The body cells (somatic) do not influence and are not connected to the DNA in the reproductive cells (gamete). So no matter what activity an animal does it will not change the next generation because the DNA that is passed to the next generation is not changed. THAT is PROBLEMATIC for the theory of evolution but few understand this.

Carl Werner

Comment by Tony Watkins on May 30, 2014 at 12:20pm
EXACTLY !!!!!! The evolutionary process as it is described is IMPOSSIBLE !!!!! But this all involves genetics and DNA which we are only in the very infancy of beginning to understand so how could we possibly begin to describe evolution as anything but a speculative theory ???? There IS a TRUTH !!!! There IS a way that this actually all happened but for the moment we are like a couple of toddlers arguing over whether the light stays on in the refrigerator !!!! We know enough to explore the possibilities but certainly not enough to fight over it !!!! Myself I believe that a being .... GOD ...... Who is able to effect our lives and has done so for generations ........ Is ( among all the other things HE is ) the greatest scientist that ever lived !!!! HE was never a Magician but has always been an Intelligent and Caring and Compassionate and Loving BEING .... I AM !!!!!!!!! Like children who grow up to finally realize how often right our parents were WE will be IN AWE of the WISDOM of our FATHER !!!!!! :-)
Comment by Carl Werner on May 30, 2014 at 12:30pm

Dear Dr. Blake,

Thank you for your comments. You wrote, "I seems to me that the whole of creation followed the physical laws He created. He made a super-dense particle of matter to exist in a condition of no space or time...He used the laws that were then created to to form our universe."

This is not how I imagine creation and natural laws as far as timing goes. Let me explain.

Right now, we have physical laws that operate in our universe such as laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics, laws of chemistry, laws of biochemistry. All inanimate things in nature follow these natural laws without exception.

The creation of the universe from nothing was an event that involved a supernatural power creating matter and energy and all things that we still see today. Before the universe and matter existed, there was no universe, no matter, no energy. Now though we do have a universe, matter (atoms) and energy.

The first law of thermodynamics (a natural law) states that matter and energy do not form from nothingness. This natural law would say the universe could not form naturally from nothingness since the matter we see could not form from nothingness. In other words to get the universe to form an external metaphysical force would have to create matter, which of course would be a violation of natural laws of thermodynamics. (BTW, this is serious problem for any explanation how the universe formed. How could any cosmologist account for the formation of matter to create the universe since this is not possible?)

According to the biblical account of creation, God created the universe (matter and energy) and all stars, plants, animals and the natural laws of our universe in less than one week. This creation act could not have followed the natural law of the first law of thermodynamics. It was, after all, a miracle.

Hope this helps. BTW, physics is not my area of expertise!

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on May 30, 2014 at 12:31pm
Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on May 30, 2014 at 4:12pm
The first law of thermodynamics (a natural law) states that matter and energy do not form from nothingness. This natural law would say the universe could not form naturally from nothingness since the matter we see could not form from nothingness. In other words to get the universe to form an external metaphysical force would have to create matter, which of course would be a violation of natural laws of thermodynamics. (BTW, this is serious problem for any explanation how the universe formed. How could any cosmologist account for the formation of matter to create the universe since this is not possible?)

Thank you for your answer Carl and I do agree with you, the initial introduction of matter into a true void (no space nor time) was a miracle, a miracle that demonstrates the immense power of God that almost instantaneously formed the universe. However, once the physical universe was formed, everything within it seems then to be under the affect of the physical laws. The Bible tells us that nothing is miraculously brought into being from nothing from the creation of the universe onward, God uses, or manipulates, the existing elements.

Can this not be also seen in genetics (not my subject), we know that life was a combination of certain chemical elements, amino-acids that are not life bearing, which seem to have pre-existed, for instance. Would not our God have brought all these elements together (dust of the ground) in the correct order and the right quantities, prior to breathing life into them. We can combine all of these elements today under laboratory conditions, but still we cannot create even simple life. Is this not a demonstration of God's power to us? Do you thing Carl, that man will ever create some sort of life, after all we have all the components?

Comment by Cheri A Fields on May 30, 2014 at 7:04pm

What great videos! They cut to the point and aren't long. I only share movies under 10 minutes and the shorter, the better.

I'd share them now, but not too many are online Friday night!

Comment by Phil Owens on May 30, 2014 at 7:39pm

Hello Dr Vermer,

I understand that the RLN and the SLN complement each other and therefore are evidence as good desgin.

Also, that the elongation of the RLN has much to do with embryological development.

What would happen is the RLN ennervated the larynx directly as evolution advocates claim that it should?

Comment by Carl Werner on May 30, 2014 at 10:23pm

I am tied up until Sunday evening (sorry). At that time I am anxious to give Phil my take (as a physician) on the fallacious argument put forth by supporters of evolution that the body is designed poorly, specifically the nerve that supplies the voice box. Also, take up with Dr. Blake's point on the beginning. Until then, I have one more spectacular video.

Comment by Carl Werner on May 30, 2014 at 10:25pm
Comment by Douglas Roy on May 31, 2014 at 4:49am

Dear Carl,

Thanks for your response! When speaking to the average person regarding evolution I employ logic and reason and the truth of the gospel as possible. When discussing supposed scientists who lie and make things up to support their evolution theory, I have no such gentleness. Such things are crimes against God and man and should be treated as criminal acts. Such people should be barred from associations with credible scientists and blacklisted, but instead, they are promoted in many Universities and various jobs. The wickedness within such people is the same as the false prophet: they are attempting to deceive men to believe an antigod and antichrist viewpoint. This science is "junk" and falsely called science, in the words of Paul the apostle.

To me it is a shame that Creation scientist spend so much time attempting to refute men whose supposed science is utterly false in the first place. Evolution has been sufficiently refuted and rejected by science and evidence. This is not a battle of reason. This is a spiritual battle. Satan loves to waste people's lives and destroy them on useless endeavors. The truth about most evolutionists is that they have rejected God and are in deep sin against God. Unbelief is a damnable sin, not a scientific viewpoint.God's word makes it clear that those who choose this way are "damned" or "condemned already." They are not simply misinformed. Unfortunately, there are few theologians among scientists or men grounded in the Word of God to understand how the gospel is the answer to evolution, not science. Evolution is a heresy, not a science viewpoint. There is no true science in evolution. Linking the ability of living things to adapt and change only gives credibility to evolutionists where none is deserved. This is the same technique of all false prophets who link the birth and the cross of Christ and his resurrection with their otherwise heretical beliefs. One falsehood linked to the gospel makes it a perverted gospel, according the the apostles and Christ. So it is with evolutionists. All their so called science is corrupted by their heretical, antichrist beliefs.

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 1, 2014 at 2:55am

I have another point I'd like you to comment on Dr. Werner, if you could. I had another conversation with a friend who said that he could believe in evolution because we can see things change. He was referring to adaptive changes. My reply was that yes we do see changes, but there are limits to the changes and the limits are defined by the genetic diversity in the genome. All the speciation that occurs is just an example of a created kind having a lot of diversity programmed into it at creation. Things can't "evolve" into different kinds, even though at the moment, we can't precisely define what the created kinds were.

So my question is about that. I know that this idea must be true. I know there had to have been great diversity in the original kinds and that no "kind" can speciate into another kind. But do you know of any genetic research aimed in that direction? Do we have any current science to back up my assertion?

Comment by Tony Watkins on June 1, 2014 at 5:58am
Doug,
I believe we are on the same track !!! That possible diversity in both man and animals that existed in the beginning of creation has now shaken down into specializations from which further large scale change is no longer possible !!! That would explain many things that the Biblical record seems to point to !!! The ability of what we would now call incest to populate without a huge number of adverse genetic problems ...... The seemed explosion of animal species present now since the flood and the lack of continued radical species dissemination in recent times ........ The sudden shortness of life since the flood ( wondering if there has been any study on length of life through the ages ??? ) the amazing thing is that science will admit that all of existing human life probably has a common ancestor but the process of evolution would seem to be perfecting life as it went along and not starting out perfect and then degrading ??? I'm sure that human beings would be disappointed to know that we have degraded from the beings that were created thousands of years ago but I'm afraid thats the case ........ And in the end it is not nearly so important in what form we spend THIS life as it is that we be redeemed into the life that GOD intended for us from the very conception of creation !!!! :-)
Comment by Carl Werner on June 1, 2014 at 6:38am

Dr. Blake,

You wrote, "the initial introduction of matter into a true void (no space nor time) was a miracle, a miracle that demonstrates the immense power of God that almost instantaneously formed the universe. However, once the physical universe was formed, everything within it seems then to be under the affect of the physical laws."

I agree.

You also wrote, "We can combine all of these elements today under laboratory conditions, but still we cannot create even simple life. Is this not a demonstration of God's power to us? Do you thing Carl, that man will ever create some sort of life, after all we have all the components?"

Man will NEVER be able to create life from the chemical elements. You can take any or all of the elements, (Carbon, Oxygen, Carbon, etc.) and mix them in a beaker in a laboratory and apply any conditions you want and you will NEVER, EVER come up with DNA, or RNA, or PROTEINS, or a FUNCTIONAL CELL MEMBRANE. All of these four components are necessary for life today, and all living things (plants, animals, bacteria, etc.) have DNA, RNA, PROTEINS, and a FUNCTIONAL CELL MEMBRANE yet they do not form. If the necessary components of life do not form naturally, how could life ever begin?

That my friend is a serious problem for naturalism.

I covered this in detail in chapters 17, 18, 19 in Evolution, The Grand Experiment in a simplified form, with pictures.

Dr. Carl Werner

Comment by Carl Werner on June 1, 2014 at 6:51am

Dear Phil,

You asked, "What would happen is the RLN innervated the larynx directly as evolution advocates claim that it should?"


If this did happen, then evolution scientists would have less to talk about! It is amazing that they have resorted to talking about the "path of a nerve" instead of talking about the fossil record for the origin of the phyla groups (there is none), the evidence for life forming naturally (zip), the evidence that the environment can change the DNA of the reproductive cells (nada), etc.

So that Cheri does not tease me about being sarcastic I will get to the point. :) If the RLN (Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve) innervated the larynx directly as evolution scientists wish, you would not be protected from permanent loss of voice in the case of a neck injury (the recurrent laryngeal nerve supplies the lower vocal cords and runs a path deep in the chest, more protected from neck trauma. Also, if the RLN (Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve) innervated the larynx directly you would not be "notified" (with the partial loss of voice) that you had a problem in your mediastinum such as a thoracic aneurysm or a tumor. I guess the design team on the evolution side is not so swift after all.

Carl Werner

Comment by Carl Werner on June 1, 2014 at 7:00am

Doug,

You wrote, "When discussing supposed scientists who lie and make things up to support their evolution theory, I have no such gentleness. Such people should be barred from associations with credible scientists and blacklisted, but instead, they are promoted in many Universities and various jobs."

In my upcoming book, Human Evolution, (2015) I share several examples of promotions after scientific blunders, or at least keeping their important high level jobs. One scientist (who made an ape man using a carnivore leg bone) had a crater on the moon named after him 50 years later. Another who created an apeman from a pig tooth remained as President of The American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Oh, and Dr. Gingerich still has his job too.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 1, 2014 at 7:04am

For your pleasure, a scientist who added a blowhole to a land animal:


Comment by Carl Werner on June 1, 2014 at 7:13am

Doug,

You wrote, "I know there had to have been great diversity in the original kinds and that no "kind" can speciate into another kind. But do you know of any genetic research aimed in that direction? Do we have any current science to back up my assertion?"

Two quick sound bites. You can take two mutts and breed them and produce small dogs, large dogs, dogs with tall ears, dogs with floppy ears but they are all dogs. No change in species.

Second, ask your friend how an animal can adapt and then pass this onto the next generation? Anything that an animal does in life, (learning, exercising, jumping, not using a body part) does NOT change the DNA in the reproductive cells. How then can an animal change.

Take a look at this video. Most people did not know that Darwin's theory used Lamarkianism and that this was disproved shortly after he died.

Dr. Carl Werner

Comment by Carl Werner on June 1, 2014 at 7:21am

Tony,

From our conversations this week on Ask The Expert I had a personal knowledge breakthrough. I will not go through all the posts (below) that we had back and forth to explain how I was driven to this but here it is. As I drove yesterday it occurred to me:

1) The theory of evolution suggests that if a pair of animals is isolated then evolution (good changes) accelerates.

2) The truth is, if one pair of animals is isolated, then an animal pair becomes diseased (bad change) because recessive traits come out in greater numbers.

Thank you for the banter. This is a great moment.

Dr. Carl Werner

Comment by Carl Werner on June 1, 2014 at 7:24am

Don't Forget to Check Out this Press Release:

http://thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html

Museum Models of Walking Whales
Don’t Match Fossils
Says Filmmaker Dr. Carl Werner

Widespread Problem Found at Top Museums

“Walking Whales”—
The Best Fossil Proof of Evolution, Overturned

Museums full of skulls, skeletons
and reconstructions that are false.

Skullduggery and False Skeletons at Top Museums

Brief Summary: Two scientists supplied the top museums in the world (AMNH, Carnegie, Smithsonian, NHM London, National Museum of Nature and Science, Tokyo, Melbourne Museum, Canadian Museum of Nature, Paris Natural History Museum, Naturalis Museum, Netherlands, Museo Storia Naturale di Pisa and many more) with “fossils” of walking whales, but it has now been revealed in television interviews that these “fossils” were made up. In exclusive interviews with these two scientists, they admitted (on camera) they attached whale body parts (flukes, blowholes, or fins) to land animals and supplied these altered fossils and diagrams to museums.

Because of the serious nature of this story and the institutions involved, a detailed press release documenting the interviews, the fossils and how the alterations were made has been included below.

- See more at: http://thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html#sthash.G6eddRG5....

Comment by Tony Watkins on June 1, 2014 at 7:30am
:-) I LOVE it when GOD does that !!!!! I depend on it !!! I Trust in it !!!!!! :-)
Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 1, 2014 at 10:17am

Dr Werner, let me ask about epigenetics. For those who aren't familiar with it (and I don't claim to be an expert) epigenetics is an area of study into the effects that environmental forces have on DNA. These forces don't change any individual "letters" in DNA chromosomes but do cause changes in which genes get expressed or suppressed. And these influences can apparently be passed on to children. It's not that these forces create mutations, but they can affect offspring. In some ways it seems to be a legitimate, although very mild, form of Lamarckianism.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 1, 2014 at 10:40am

Hi Doug,

Hve you read this article ? I thought of it when I read one of your post.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/steppingstones.html

Comment by Carl Werner on June 1, 2014 at 11:06am

Doug,

Epigenetics do not change DNA letters. Change of DNA letters in the offspring is what is necessary for evolution. This is a side subject and is rather involved in turing DNA on and off to produce a particular gene.

Carl

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on June 1, 2014 at 11:08am

I have heard a lot about the ability of DNA to repair itself, and I have watched several video presentations on the subject. It seems to me the it is rather like a computer programme that compares the working software copy with the original checksum record, when an error is made the maintenance program identifies the error and then copies in the 'patch' to repair the sequence.

Obviously, this makes evolutionary changes difficult, if not impossible. When I have introduced this into talks, evolutionists have venomously denied that this repair system even exists. I wonder if you have some more information on this subject, and any decent video or reference material that I can access.?

Comment by Carl Werner on June 1, 2014 at 11:14am

Doug,

The article points that you refer to correctly out that a single letter change in DNA is relatively easy. (For example if you irradiate a fruit fly in the lab or a human population in a nuclear bomb you get point changes in the DNA that are usually bad, sometimes inconsequential but never producing a new useful gene.)

To get an idea how difficult this is, to produce a new gene, put all the letters of a scrabble board into a paper bag. Pull out one piece at a time, write the letter down in order of removal from the bag and put the letter bag in the bag. Repeat. If you can produce one sentence that makes any sense (100 letters long) you just randomly mutated a new gene. Congratulations you deserve a Nobel Prize. Problem is, it will never happen. Try it.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 1, 2014 at 11:58am

Dr Werner,

Thanks for the informaiton on RLN. That´s a major argument that I get all the time from evolution advocates.

I have two videos on youtube on this topic which gets a lot of feedback. I will add your response to the annotations on the video.

I´m assuming that the fact the SLN does ennervate the larynx directly would not be affected by neck injury. Is this correct?

A point that I often mention regarding this topic is that according to embryologist Professor Erich Blechschmidt,

"

The human body begins as a sphere called a blastocyst and gradually becomes more elongated as it develops. Some structures, such as the carotid duct, are simply obliterated during development, and some are eliminated and replaced. Other structures, including the recurrent laryngeal nerve, move downward as development proceeds. The movement occurs because the neck's formation and the body's elongation during fetal development force the heart to descend from the cervical (neck) location down into the thoracic (chest) cavity

As a result, various arteries and other structures must be elongated as organs are moved in a way that allows them to remain functional throughout this entire developmental phase. The right RLN is carried downward because it is looped under the arch that develops into the right subclavian artery, and thus moves down with it as development proceeds

Comment by Phil Owens on June 1, 2014 at 12:10pm

Dr. Wermer,

Currently, I am debating someone on youtube regarding the geological column which he believes is one of the best evidence for evolution. I pointed out that living fossils, reworked fossils, as well as polystrate fossils discredit the geological column. He´s claiming that living fossils in no way discredits the geological column and is challenging me to find an example of modern animals in the precambrian or an example of a horse in the same strata as dinosaurs.

My thoughts on this so far are that Precambrian rock are found in very limited places and therefore one cannot conclude that modern animals which live all over did not exist. This may be an incorrect assumption on my part. I´m not sure. I do recall you mentioning in an interview that modern animals have been found with dinosaurs. Is this information documented in secular scientific literature or are scientists reluctant to reveal such information in the literature ?

Comment by Floyd on June 1, 2014 at 4:03pm

Dr Blake,

You said: “…evolutionists have venomously denied that this repair system even exists. I wonder if you have some more information on this subject, and any decent video or reference material that I can access.?

I don’t want to gazump Dr Werner’s reply to you and I’m sure he will answer your question. But the link below should augument Dr Werner's answer to your question.

“…Now researchers at the University of Michigan Medical School have shown that RNA polymerase II also constantly scans the cell’s DNA for damage. When certain types of damage in DNA halt the action of RNA polymerase II, a stress signal is generated that alerts a key tumor-suppressor protein called p53.
The activities of p53, a master protein that responds to DNA damage by marshaling hundreds of genes to repair or eliminate damaged cells, have been the subject of thousands of studies.”


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uomh-eac090507.php


The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Michigan and the Department of Radiation Biology.


Citation: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, July 31, 2007, vol. 104, no. 31, 12778–12783

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 1, 2014 at 7:35pm

Phil, you asked if I had read this article: http://www.detectingdesign.com/steppingstones.html

Had not but just did. I can't say that I like the article except for his final conclusion. Maybe he was just being magnanimous to the evolutionists but I still think he made some serious errors along the way. He attributed anti bacterial resistance to evolution. Georgia Purdom has a lot to say about that and I've read and watched a lot of her papers and lectures. The upshot of it is (in my layman's understanding) that anti-bacterial resistance is achieved by two different methods. One is a loss of information due to a mutation. The anti-bacterial agent stimulates over-production of an enzyme which is harmful to the bacteria. A mutation causes the bacteria to lose the ability to produce the enzyme. Now, even though it's debilitated to a small extant, the anti-bacterial agent fails to kill it. The other method of anti-bacterial resistance is that the resistive form of that bacteria already exists in the genome. Consequently that form predominates because the others die off.

The other thing I much objected to in the paper was the statement that natural selection ignored neutral mutations, eliminated damaging ones, and favored beneficial ones. In the most pertinent sense of this idea, it's completely and UTTERLY false!! First off, the assumption that any mutation is "neutral" is arrogant beyond the ability of words to convey! It exhibits the overweening hubris of the (quasi) intellectual community. We barely understand the basics of the genetic code and totally lack understanding of VAST areas of its working. The recent study in epigenetics, and the less recent idea of "junk DNA" underscores the infantile state of our understanding. So to categorize any mutation as "neutral" simply demonstrates the foolishness and shortsightedness of the one making the statement.

But moving on to further error, the statement that natural selection detects and eliminates damaging mutations is beyond laughable. It's pathetically ignorant. The fact is that most point mutations (the ones that escape repair by mechanisms in the cell) cause only a slight impact on the organism. These impacts are vastly over shadowed by environmental factors. In other words they are too small to be acted upon by natural selection. This is all brought out by John Sanford, inventor of the gene gun, in his book about genetic entropy. As a result of all this, damaging mutations inexorably accumulate in EVERY genome. As far as beneficial, non-damaging mutations ... they don't exist, despite the spurious claims from evolutionists. I'll trust Georgia Purdom when she says that she's investigated every such claim that's come across her desk and they all wind up being wrong.

So I like Sean Pitman's ending conclusion but, although I'm a little out of my place to suggest it (since I don't have a doctorate and he says he's an MD), it seems to me that he needs to educate himself more and rewrite his paper.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 2, 2014 at 1:06am

Hi Doug,

When he talks about evolution, he´s referring to microevolution. I don´t know of any creationists that deny small scale changes. Notice that the examples he gives such as bacteria, stay bacteria.

The fact that most mutations are neutral is also supported in Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries

"The evolutionist’s ‘gene duplication idea’ is that an existing gene may be doubled, and one copy does its normal work while the other copy is redundant and non-expressed. Therefore, it is free to mutate free of selection pressure (to get rid of it). However, such ‘neutral’ mutations are powerless to produce new genuine information"

- Creation Ministries

" These are accidental mistakes as the genetic information (the coded set of instructions on the DNA which is the ‘recipe’ or ‘blue-print’ specifying the construction and operation of any creature) is copied from one generation to the next. Naturally, such scrambling of information will tend to either be harmful,1 or at best neutral.2"

- Creation Ministries

"

In short,

  1. Evolutionary theory requires some mutations to go ‘uphill’—to add information.
  2. The mutations which we observe are generally neutral (they don’t change the information, or the ‘meaning’ in the code) or else they are informationally downhill—defects which lose/corrupt information.
  3. The rare ‘beneficial’ mutations to which evolutionists cling, all appear to be like this wingless beetle—downhill changes, losses of information which, though they may give a survival advantage, are headed in precisely the wrong direction for evolution."

- Creation Ministries

"It is true that the majority of mutations fall into the categories of either nearly neutral or harmful. Silent (neutral) mutations alter the DNA sequence but do not alter the amino acids encoded by the DNA sequence. This is due to built-in redundancy in the code (also referred to as degeneracy)."

- Answers in Genesis (Georgia Purdom)

  • Neutral - mutation where there is no effect (also known as a silent mutation). A neutral mutation either results in a codon that is translated into the same amino acid during gene expression, or the substituted amino acid has no effect on protein function. The following table shows several codons that are each translated into the same amino acid. In each case, the 3rd nucleotide in the codon would be a neutral mutation if changed.

- Creation Wiki

Comment by Carl Werner on June 2, 2014 at 8:24am

Dr. Blake,

You wrote, "When I have introduced this into talks, evolutionists have venomously denied that this repair system even exists. I wonder if you have some more information on this subject, and any decent video or reference material that I can access.?"

I don't have any information for you on that topic. Try Gary Carter with CMI or Gloria Purdom with AIG.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 2, 2014 at 8:33am

Phil,

You wrote, "I´m assuming that the fact the SLN does ennervate the larynx directly would not be affected by neck injury. Is this correct?"

Just the opposite. If you took a stab wound to the neck, just above the larynx, your SLN could be cut but your RLN would remain intact and you could still speak (not completely normal but hoarse but still able to speak). Two different pathways, (redundancy) is a beautiful safety mechanism built into the body. If the redundancy occurred but followed the exact same pathway it would not provide a back up. This redundancy is apparent in the blood supply at the bottom of the heart (right and left coronary arteries supply this vulnerable area of the heart called the apex). If one coronary artery is blocked, the other can fill in. The same with the brain, the right and left carotid arteries feed into the circle of willis. If one carotid artery is slowly and completely blocked the other can supply the brain without a stroke (my neighbor). The same with the eye pathways. The right brain (occiput) sends nerves to both eyes. If the left brain has a stroke you can still see out of both eyes. It is a marvelous system. Redundancy though has to follow a different route to be effective.

Carl Werner

Comment by Carl Werner on June 2, 2014 at 8:52am

Dear Phil and EVERYONE,

You wrote, "He´s challenging me to find an example of modern animals in the precambrian"

He is correct to challenge you. If the fossil layers were laid down by a flood after a creation, you would think that there would be modern animals in all of the rock layers. There are but your blogger friend, Bill Nye and most of the world is not aware of this. There are modern animals in every layer as can be seen in my 2021 book Geology.

For a precambrian example, look at this: http://thegrandexperiment.com/Ediacaran.pdf

For a mesozoic example have him read my book or video.

BTW, he is choosing which layers to call the bottom layers. If you actually look a the real bottom layers, the sedimentary layers that contact the granite below, these are not labeled Precambrian necessarily. For example, at Florissant Fossil beds in Colorado, you can see the lowest sedimentary layer laying next to the granite and it is full of bees, moths, flowers.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 2, 2014 at 8:55am

Phil and EVERYONE,

Here is a quick video for a challenge to the geological column:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WlxqsUO42Ek?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Comment by Carl Werner on June 2, 2014 at 8:55am
Comment by Carl Werner on June 2, 2014 at 8:57am

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/qjmHOnRS9QA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Comment by Carl Werner on June 2, 2014 at 8:57am
Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 2, 2014 at 11:08am

Phil,

Ok, point taken about neutral mutations. Everyone, including creation scientists, use that term. John Sanford actually used it too. And of course you grabbed Georgia Purdom's quote about it. I would guess that we use that term because secular science uses it and it therefore has a meaning for everyone. However ... to actually believe there are truly neutral mutations IS that hubris of which I was speaking. Saying a mutation is neutral is tantamount to saying it has no deleterious effect. And I'm saying that that would be outrageously false. It's just that we don't know, YET, how bad it could be. Any objective geneticist should agree with that statement.

The geneticists could obviously say that this is how they define "neutral mutation". All they mean is that the mutation doesn't change which proteins get encoded. So they're living within their stated definition. I suppose that seems fair on the surface. Hey! That's how we communicate, right? We define terms and live within those definitions. The trouble is the word "neutral" has connotations that are commonly understood by everyone and "neutral" conveys the idea of being neither good nor bad. I could go on and on but someone would accuse me of making a mountain out of a mole hill. So I'll leave it at that.

I know that creationists allow the use of the term micro-evolution to refer to speciation and macro-evolution to refer to Darwinian and molecules to man evolution. I just objected to his paper because he made no such distinction there. He just called bacterial adaptation "evolution." As he said, "evolution in action" thereby giving credence to Darwin et. al. So maybe I'm nit picking there. Regardless, I still didn't like it. So shoot me! :)

But like I said, I did like his final conclusion even though several things he said rattled my cage, so to speak. I'm glad you gave me the link.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 2, 2014 at 12:54pm

Hi Doug,

Yeah, you have to be familiar with his writings to know what he means by evolution. As Steven Meyer points out, there are several definitions to the term "evolution.

The main thing I pulled is why mutations tend to work for small scale changes but not for large scale changes (macroevolution)

This is the part that I found most informative:

- The more genetic letters that are required to achieve a particular function, and the higher the level of the specificity of their arrangement, the more junk there is compared to the relatively few beneficial sequences at such a level of complexity.

- For example, a simple BLAST 4 database search of known proteins will show that the shortest working lactase enzyme found in a living organism seems to require well over 400 amino acids at minimum with at least a fair degree of specificity. Some estimates suggest that the total number of beneficial sequences at the 400-amino-acid level of specified complexity totals less than 10100 sequence

Since there are no recognizable "steppingstones" close by, all that nature has left, to find new beneficial sequences, is a blind random walk through enormous piles of junk sequences.

This prediction is reflected in real life by an exponential decline in the ability of mindless evolutionary processes to evolve anything beyond the lowest levels of functional complexity.

Moving up a level of complexity, there are far fewer examples of single protein enzymes evolving where a few hundred amino acids at minimum are required to work together at the same time (and many types of bacteria cannot evolve even at this level). However, there are absolutely no examples in the scientific literature of any function requiring more than a thousand or so amino acids working at the same time (as in the simplest bacterial motility system) ever evolving - period.

The beneficial "steppingstones" are just too far apart due to all the junk that separates the few beneficial islands of function from every other island in the vast universe of junk sequences at such levels of informational complexity. The average time needed to randomly sort through enough junk sequences to find any other beneficial function at such a level of complexity quickly works its way into trillions upon trillions of years - even for an enormous population of bacteria (all the bacteria on Earth: ~1e30) with a high mutation rate (one mutation per 100,000 base pairs per individual every 20 minutes). (Link)

At this point the mindless processes of evolution simply become untenable as any sort of viable explanation for the high levels of diverse complexity that we see within all living things. The only process left that is known to give rise to functional systems at comparable levels of complexity involves human intelligence or beyond. No lesser intelligence, and certainly no other known mindless processes, have ever come close to producing something like the informational complexity found in the simplest bacterial motility system

Comment by Cheri A Fields on June 2, 2014 at 5:09pm

Love the videos, thanks!

They reminded me of one living fossil I'd really like to know more about:

A couple months ago a guy informed me we can tell how old a rock layer is by checking the index fossils. Period. End of discussion. The only thing was, he left that comment on my article about the nautilus!

Do you know if the fossil record for the nautilus stops "millions of years ago" like it does for the Coelacanth? I thought the whole thing was rather funny, but couldn't find anyone who knows if they've found fossilized nautili all the way to the top or not. :-D

Comment by Carl Werner on June 3, 2014 at 9:19am

I thought you might want to see this video about the Nautilus. It does not answer your question directly but does give insight into what evolution scientists are doing. Nautilus starts on about 11 minute mark.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/noljXQOW9qA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Comment by Carl Werner on June 3, 2014 at 9:19am

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/noljXQOW9qA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Comment by Carl Werner on June 3, 2014 at 9:19am

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/noljXQOW9qA?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Comment by Carl Werner on June 3, 2014 at 9:20am
Comment by Cheri A Fields on June 4, 2014 at 4:28pm

Fascinating! I'd seen all the different "species" for nautilus fossils and assumed a number of variations had gone extinct. It didn't occur to me at least one was a match for the living ones.

The rest of the video is awesome. I know what I want for my birthday! (We try not to just give our kids science stuff for presents so they never resent it.)

Comment by Carl Werner on June 4, 2014 at 5:00pm

Cheri,

We went to the Great Barrier Reef and filmed live animals there. We then went to the museums (Carnegie, Smithsonian, Jura Museum etc.) and showed that the fossils found next to dinosaurs on display at the museums look like the creatures we saw in the ocean and in the Australian rain forest, and in our back yard, and at our local botanical garden. Not to be sarcastic, but... isn't that amazing!

BTW found your website and posts! Good job.

Dr. Carl

Comment by Cheri A Fields on June 5, 2014 at 4:53pm

Thanks, I appreciate it.

I think I'll post about your findings tomorrow. Usually, when I get stumped on what to cover next, it's because God's about to show me something I didn't know yet-- and I've been stumped the past two days!

Comment by Carl Werner on June 5, 2014 at 9:33pm

Thanks Cheri!

Carl Werner

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 6, 2014 at 12:59pm

Dr. Werner:

While variation in animal kinds as to habits and minor distinctions of genetically coded traits is clearly evident since the Flood, what mechanisms can account for the vast diversity of the individual kinds, given that all of the current species within a kind are descended from a single pair.

Is "natural selection" a valid cause? canines born with thicker fur survive better in a cold environment, while those with thinner fur tend to be weeded out. This is not to suggest that those variations are CAUSED by the environment. . . . No, they are produced by genetics. And then their subsequent survival is based on greater or lesser suitability to a particular environment.

What mechanisms do you see as responsible for variation since the flood?

Comment by Carl Werner on June 6, 2014 at 1:46pm

Dear Jim,

You wrote, "what mechanisms can account for the vast diversity of the individual kinds, given that all of the current species within a kind are descended from a single pair."

Biologically that is an easy answer. Imagine two mutt dogs at the beginning of dogs. In their DNA there are segments of contiguous letters of DNA called genes (a segment of DNA that produces a single protein). For example their might be a short hair gene on one chromosome. On entirely different chromosome there might be a long ear gene. Again there might be a brown hair color gene on yet a different chromosome.

The original pair of mutts look like mutts but their are actually rich, genetically speaking. They have recessive and dominant genes in their chromosomes but you cannot see the effects of the recessive genes because of the dominant genes overpowering the influence of the recessive genes. Simply by choosing which offspring to breed (isolating a single pair of offspring in the litter, each time, over hundreds of future breedings with the 3rd, 4th, 5th generation,and only the offspring) you are selecting for one of these traits in the genes, either recessive or dominant. For example if you select two offspring with both a recessive gene and a dominant gene for the same trait and mate them, in the next generation you get a new looking dog in the few offspring that, by chance, only received the recessive genes (the dominant gene is lost for this dog now). Recessive genes cannot be seen unless an offspring only recessive genes for that trait.

This is actually incredible easy concept but it is difficult to explain it without a chalkboard. Any genetics book will be quite clear explaining this. Hope this helps.

Carl

Comment by Douglas Roy on June 6, 2014 at 2:22pm

How important is it to know and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ when it comes to being a scientist? Can you use the gospel to refute the unbelievers? Isn't Evolutionary Theory base on anti-Creator heresies, rather than true science? When supposed scientists are willing to lie on their reports, this is a moral issue relating to the sinful state of men. What better way to deal with it than the gospel?

Comment by Carl Werner on June 6, 2014 at 5:08pm

Dear Doug,

I have struggled to conclude what is the most effective way for me to communicate with others the information that I learned since I began dealing with origins.  There are dozens of avenues for me to do this.  I believe the effectiveness of the approach is listener dependent.  Some approaches are effective on one set of listening ears and other approaches work on a different set of listening ears.  I sometimes think that my factual presentation of biochemistry, physics, the fossil record might not be as convincing as a charismatic speaker that gets up and speaks directly about and addresses the intuitive end to this whole discussion.  My approach is different and honest and mimics what was effective for me at age 19. 

For me, I had to hear that science (physics) did not work for the natural origins of the universe through the big bang, that science (biochemistry) did not work for the natural origins of DNA, proteins, RNA, cell membranes to create the first form of life, and that scientific (evolutionary paleontologic) predictions about what the fossil record should show did not match what it did show.  Once I heard this, I was (as Ross Perot once said in a presidential debate) "all ears."

I would encourage you to follow your approach as it is probably overall, more effective than mine.  I am a left brainer, just the facts, and a doubting Thomas all rolled into one body.  I own the approach I use and it is different.  It is scientifically honest and mimics the experience of changing my mind.  Once I heard the four questions about naturalism, I had no choice but to abandon evolution and naturalism and begin considering other possibilities.

:) Carl Werner (Lefty)

Comment by Floyd on June 6, 2014 at 6:37pm

Following up on your discussion with Doug, Dr Werner --- I suspect most people do not start off from the position that the supernatural or God exists, as a reality in their lives, but start off trying to prove God exists before going into the gospel. So, discussing evolution becomes about proof and we easily fall into fallacious equivocation by using the falsity of evolution as proof for God. We shouldn’t be proving God because our presupposition is that God exists and evolutionists should understand this because their presupposition for evolution is that God doesn’t exist! For as soon as we try to prove the existence of God, through evidences, we are actually starting from the premise that maybe God doesn't exist.

Where the dismantling of evolution is useful is for a further justification for our faith. It shows that we are being consistent in our faith when we say “we know God”, because Christ has revealed Himself to us in scriptures. In the defence of our faith, God is our starting point, but we don't use God to prove God, nor falsifying evolution to prove God. We are just showing our worldview is consistent and valid.

We are on a mission to follow the truth in order for us to find God. Without absolute truth the foundation of reason, which is logic, becomes meaningless. Every other justification for truth incorporates relativism which inevitably uses circular reasoning.

The question from Jim about “the vast diversity of the individual kinds”, is quite instructive because there is a recent article on creation.com “Meiotic recombination—designed for inducing genomic change”. Sexual reproduction is the main source of variation, but evolutionary theory deludes us into thinking that unguided mutations are the main source because the presupposition is that God doesn’t exist. But our presupposition that God exists should not delude us and we should see that God designed meiosis in a way that naturally tends to increase diversity.

What are your thoughts on meiosis Dr Werner?

Comment by Phil Owens on June 6, 2014 at 6:43pm

Hi. Dr. Werner

I just came across a post in which the poster was trying to show that mitochondrial eve has nothing to do with the biblical eve. This is part of his post.

"The idea that a "Mitochondrial Eve", a woman (though perhaps not a H*** sapiens) from whom all people inherit their mitochondrial DNA, must have existed was obvious once evolution was accepted and mitochondrial DNA was discovered.

One misconception surrounding mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her, she must have been the only woman alive at the time.[8][33] However, nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today, but at some point in the past each of their lines of descent did not produce a female, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent."

Unless I´m not understanding, it strikes me as odd that there could be a mitochondrial eve and  yet there be other females living at the same time ? 

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 6, 2014 at 7:18pm
Comment by Carl Werner on Monday

Phil and EVERYONE,

Here is a quick video for a challenge to the geological column:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/WlxqsUO42Ek?rel=0%22%20frameborder=%2...

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on June 7, 2014 at 5:12am

Floyd posted:

Following up on your discussion with Doug, Dr Werner --- I suspect most people do not start off from the position that the supernatural or God exists, as a reality in their lives, but start off trying to prove God exists before going into the gospel. So, discussing evolution becomes about proof and we easily fall into fallacious equivocation by using the falsity of evolution as proof for God. We shouldn’t be proving God because our presupposition is that God exists and evolutionists should understand this because their presupposition for evolution is that God doesn’t exist! For as soon as we try to prove the existence of God, through evidences, we are actually starting from the premise that maybe God doesn't exist.   . . . “

I would totally agree with your post Floyd, the belief in God is the foundation of everything we believe, and of our world view.  If we cannot convince others of the existence of God we will get nowhere, our job here is to create the conditions whereby the Spirit may work, and here we often fail.  We so often get so wound up in the attack of, and dismembering of evolution, that we forget the very basic fact of what we believe.  We are so often being accused of approaching the subject from a negative view, when there is so much evidence in the Bible itself that clearly shows that the inspiration for the Bible had a supernatural basis, and so proves a supernatural basis, God.  I am interested to heal how Dr. Werner views this.

Comment by Tony Watkins on June 7, 2014 at 6:19am
Dr. Blake,
A most excellent response !!!!! The Truth is that GOD has no need of being " proved " by us !!!! Our mission therefore is two fold !!!! #1 To gain understanding of that Wisdom that was received prematurely at the fall by every seeking closer ties with GOD and that Kingdom that HE Created for us to live with HIM in !! And #2 To Love others enough to draw them in as well !!! We have an obligation ( and a most exciting and Blessed obligation it is ) to study and seek out the Truth in all of it's ( HIS ) awesome facets and to share that Truth in the way that someone shares a plentiful meal ...... You offer as graciously and lovingly as you are able and rejoice at that accepted while leaving that which is declined perpetually available !!! When you know and share the Truth it becomes as a fountain to your soul ...... And when it is thrown back in your face it becomes an admonition to do it better !!!! If we are to spend the entirety of eternity studying GODS Creation would we ever run out of anything to do ...... Or ever find anything better ???? :-)
Comment by Carl Werner on June 7, 2014 at 8:19am

Phil,

I do not consider myself an expert on Mitochondrial Eve so I will pass on this one.  My only caution is that the  conclusions a scientist makes is not necessarily based on the data he used.  You have to look at the exact data they used, and see what presuppositions they used to get to their conclusions. Usually there is an extraordinary leap of faith between data and conclusions.

Carl

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 7, 2014 at 10:33am

I'll pass along a small tidbit on Eve.  Robert Carter of CMI has a DVD "Mitochondrial Eve and the Three Daughters of Noah."  He mentions, almost as an aside, that based on studies of the human genome, you can deduce about 99% of Eve's DNA.    The DVD was from 2008 but it's still worth adding to one's library.  The purpose of the DVD was to show that modern genetics confirms three main events of Genesis: Creation, the Flood, and Babel.  He also talks about Y Chromosomal Adam and the implications of Eve being formed from Adam.  He asks and answers the question of "was Eve a clone of Adam?"

Comment by Phil Owens on June 7, 2014 at 12:58pm

Thanks Doug, I watched a couple of his videos.  Although he addressed a lot of important points, I didn´t hear him mention what is the logic that evolutioinists have as to what was before mitochondrial Eve. Now I did hear someone from Creation Ministries state that evolutionists believe that all of the other females died out. But he didn´t state how or why. 

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 7, 2014 at 2:02pm

Phil,

I suppose, like most other evolutionary assumptions, there is no basis for the assumption that all other non-Eve females died out other than "evolution is true therefore this MUST be what happened." 

I think the salient point is that what we DO actually know (i.e. from real science) supports the Biblical account with no "just so" assumptions and contradicts what an evolutionist would predict.  In Carter's words, modern genetics is very friendly to Young Earth creationists.

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on June 7, 2014 at 2:45pm

Logically, if mitochondrial DNA can be traced back to one individual, or thirty individuals that died out, this must be proof that there was nothing before mitochondrial Eve, and therefore the act of creation is supported by the mitochondrial genome, evolutionary or not. 

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on June 7, 2014 at 3:14pm

Just for information

Comment by Phil Owens on June 7, 2014 at 5:17pm

Doug,

Yeah, I remembering him saying something about evidence of a young genome.  I´m going to have rewatch it. I lean more towards a Young Earth also but I never try and argue the point when speaking with evolutionists. Even though most evolution advocates couldn´t complete two sentences as to why they think the Earth is old, if you say that it isn´t, they don´t want to hear anything else you have to say. It´s like saying the Earth is flat.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 7, 2014 at 6:10pm

Dr. Blake,

That´s a good assertion. I would like to know the evolutionist´s response to it.

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 7, 2014 at 9:24pm

Derek,

Ok call me stupid but I'm not sure I follow the logic.  If they trace the mtDNA back to one individual it would seem to me that this just means that all living people came from one line.  From an evolutionist's perspective, there could have been other people, other tribes or groups which were wiped out and Mitochondrial Eve's descendants were the lucky ones to survive.  I can even see some ardent evolutionists looking around for the asteroid that wiped out the losers.  Perhaps "Eve" and her family happened to be exploring a cave at the time!

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 7, 2014 at 11:42pm

Dr. Werner I have read your books several as well as followed some of your interviews etc.  MY own research on the fossil record makes me think there is some kind of fixity to DNA and body plans?  What  I mean by that, is the only history we have in the fossil record that is observable is the same body plan shows up abruptly and continues until the animal either dies, or in many cases is still living and can be observed today (living Fossils)

Certainly the discussion below on variation is poignant because hybridization can indeed change body plans by new information being introduced into the procreation process.  One reason why we have so many dogs, designer lizards, and other such crosses.  This is due to variation in the genome and new information often via hybridization.  Having said this:

Is there any known male and female animal species or kinds (of the same)  that your aware of that has bred and produced whole new body plans or new kinds or species, I am not implying hybridization here.  I am saying for instance hypothetically----two african elephants producing offspring that are completely new species or Kinds, as well as Mammoths, and other elephantine species from one original pair of the same kind pair? I am unaware of any genetic mechanism that could be responsible for speciation and new diversity via two of the same kinds mating and its offspring producing new body plans and new species or kinds.  I understand variation in body plans via hybridization, and new body plans can be produced by hybridization, but this process is rare in nature, and is not a mechanism for speciation.  DNA as Inferred above seems to imply a fixity to it, and it is only through the procreative genes that a new body plan can come about, but every fossil record shows no line of descendancy that implies such changes?  A T-Rex is a T-rex, a Mammoth is a mammoth.  These animals have one line of history only and every single fossil record I have studied shows a fixity to its design and no changes from one body plan to a new one? So man has tampered with crossing many types of animals and new information has changed body plans.  But two of the same "cannot" reproduce and cause new species but certainly variation is observable and real..but this is due to hybridization or mutation.  Your thoughts?

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on June 8, 2014 at 8:35am

Simply this Doug, if evolution were true Eve's Mitochondrial DNA would not have stopped at Eve, but would have shown other genetic material or mDNA code.  Even with the genetic bottleneck of the flood, where all four females would have needed to carry Eve's mDNA, it is illogical that only one strain would have survived.

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 8, 2014 at 12:34pm

How can we assume, Dr. Werner, that there is a fixity of "body plans" (whatever that means) when within the canine kind we presently have 26-38 distinct species with various body plans and habits, as well as diverse psychological makeups and social habits. But all of these are obviously examples of a LACK OF FIXITY. These variations are not hybrids. If different animals within this family - Canidae were to mate and interbreed, then their offspring would be "hybrids." But the question remains unanswered for some - how did the variations within each of the biblical kinds arise after the Flood - and it does seems that you have provided a simple and clear answer:

Biologically that is an easy answer. . . . DNA . . . genes (a segment of DNA that produces a single protein). . . .  gene on one chromosome. . . .   entirely different chromosome . . . yet a different chromosome. . . actually rich, genetically speaking. . . . recessive and dominant genes in their chromosomes . . . ; dominant genes overpowering the influence . . . . the isolating a single pair of offspring . . . . selecting for one of these traits in the genes, either recessive or dominant.

This is actually incredible easy concept but it is difficult to explain it without a chalkboard.  Any genetics book will be quite clear explaining this.

It seems to me that you are saying, as a scientist, and as an expert here at Creation Conversations, that the vast panoply of variations within a kind will EASILY arise from a single pair that came off the ark, and the diversity can be accounted for by simple genetics.

But isn't that evolution?

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 8, 2014 at 2:54pm

Still have no clue what you're talking about Derek.  Her mtDNA would have stopped?  What does that mean?

Comment by Phil Owens on June 8, 2014 at 8:49pm

Doug, I think Derek was responding to my question as to why mitochondrial DNA would be traced back to only one woman if there were other women living at the time. I have yet to hear an explanation from an evolutionist as to how they know there were other women living at the time of mitochondrial eve. And as Derek points out, why would there only be the mitochondrial DNA of one woman. I looked at some of the their videos on youtube but all they do is assert it and move on. The only thing that they seem to have evidence for is mitochondrial eve. Everything else is assumption.

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 8, 2014 at 10:38pm

Phil, got that.  Still don't understand his reasoning but that's all right.  The ultimate thought here is that even secularists realize there was an Eve, even though they try to explain her away.  

Comment by Cheri A Fields on June 9, 2014 at 12:50pm

Phil, you are on to something. How often do we hear about first cells, common ancestors, developing features... all without a shred of evidence, just assumptions. The problem is, they state things so confidently and hide their reasoning so well few people realize what's going on.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 9, 2014 at 3:03pm

Exactly their "mountain of evidence" keeps moving every time you try and challenge them on a particular topic. 

I often ask them to provide the scientific "peer reviewed" name of the mythological common ancestor between man and chimp. Every now and then someone will admit that they don´t know yet, but they see no problem passing it off as fact in the meantime.

Comment by Carl Werner on June 9, 2014 at 3:41pm

Lou, 

You wrote, "Is the only history we have in the fossil record that is observable is the same body plan shows up abruptly and continues until the animal either dies, or in many cases is still living and can be observed today (living Fossils)"

Lou that would be my take on it. In other words, Trilobites suddenly appear and then later suddenly get wiped out by a extinction event.  Same with extinct animals such as pterosaurs, dinosaurs, corals, sponges, worms.

Now an evolution supporter would disagree and suggest this animal later evolved into this other animal but in general they do not have the connecting fossils to make their case. 

At the Smithsonian there is an exhibit about 1000 fossils from the Cambrian layer in the Burgess Shale, Canada.  This is one of the "lowest layers" (according to their scheme of dating) yet it has modern appearing sponges that look similar to what we see in the Caribbean Sea.  Same with the South African Museum in Adelaide. They have about 1000 fossils on display from the Ediacara layer (the supposed lowest layer containing multicellular animals) but the sea pens look like dead ringers what you see today in the ocean today.  Both of these sites have extinct fossil animals too but extinction does not mean evolution occurred.  It just means that an animal went extinct.  Unfortunately, people confuse extinction with evolution which is not true.

Carl 

Comment by Carl Werner on June 9, 2014 at 3:47pm

Lou, 

I would have to agree with your observation and statements: "Is there any known male and female animal species or kinds (of the same)  that your aware of that has bred and produced whole new body plans or new kinds or species, I am not implying hybridization here.  I am saying for instance hypothetically----two african elephants producing offspring that are completely new species or Kinds, as well as Mammoths, and other elephantine species from one original pair of the same kind pair? I am unaware of any genetic mechanism that could be responsible for speciation and new diversity via two of the same kinds mating and its offspring producing new body plans and new species or kinds.  I understand variation in body plans via hybridization, and new body plans can be produced by hybridization, but this process is rare in nature, and is not a mechanism for speciation.  DNA as Inferred above seems to imply a fixity to it, and it is only through the procreative genes that a new body plan can come about, but every fossil record shows no line of descendancy that implies such changes?  A T-Rex is a T-rex, a Mammoth is a mammoth.  These animals have one line of history only and every single fossil record I have studied shows a fixity to its design and no changes from one body plan to a new one? So man has tampered with crossing many types of animals and new information has changed body plans.  Buttwo of the same "cannot" reproduce and cause new species but certainly variation is observable and real..but this is due to hybridization or mutation.  Your thoughts?"

Here are the rules: When mice mate and you look at the offspring they are mice.  Same with cats. Same with dogs.  Same with cows.  When you breed you may get a variation of a mouse, a cat, a cow or a dog and scientists may want to name the variants as different species but these are not new NOVEL body plans. When I say novel meaning completely new body designs. A cow does not breed and produce a cow with gills. A cat does not breed and produce a cat with a fluke.  A mouse does not reproduce and yield an animal with wings.  Body plans are fixed. Oh, and that is a problem for the theory of evolution.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 9, 2014 at 4:34pm

Jim,

You wrote, "It seems to me that you are saying, as a scientist, and as an expert here at Creation Conversations, that the vast panoply of variations within a kind will EASILY arise from a single pair that came off the ark, and the diversity can be accounted for by simple genetics.  But isn't that evolution?"

Excellent question. Take a look at my answer below to Lou.  There is, in any any given animal, only one body plan (or in the case of animals that display metamorphosis two body plans in their DNA but these animals are unusual).  Take for example cows.  For the sake of discussion say that there are 300 traits in the DNA that when expressed you can see: Long horns, short horns, no horns, twisted horns, big horns, thin horns, long tail, short tail, different ear sizes, color variations, body sizes.  There are no traits in cows for other things like flippers, or wings.  So there is a limit how much variation there is in an animal type.  Without having the ability to see these animals reproduce you can only guess what is possible.

The best way to get an aswer is start breeding a variety.  See how wild you can breed it.  There are limits so you can't breed a 8,000 pound cow, or a cow with 37 feet long horns or a cow with purple and white stripes.  These genes simply do not exist in the cow kind.  

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 9, 2014 at 4:38pm

Cheri,

I liked your comments when you said: "How often do we hear about first cells, common ancestors, developing features... all without a shred of evidence, just assumptions. The problem is, they state things so confidently and hide their reasoning so well few people realize what's going on."

Yes it takes a lot of time to get to the bottom of just one of their ideas and understand their assumptions.

In my upcoming book on Human Evolution you can see this clearly over time. The confident declarations that a fossil represents an ape man and then 35 or 65 or 100 years later it turns out to be something else.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 9, 2014 at 4:42pm

Phil,

I would not want to be an evolution scientist and have to face off with you in a debate. I like that you set the topic and make them react instead of vice versa.  I always want to talk about my top 12 points: Origin of matter, origin of DNA, origin of proteins, origin of RNA, origin of cell membranes, fossil patterns, vertical trees, etc. These are the big points, not some minutia that keeps changing every time you open the newspaper or journals.  

You wrote, "their 'mountain of evidence' keeps moving every time you try and challenge them on a particular topic. 

I often ask them to provide the scientific "peer reviewed" name of the mythological common ancestor between man and chimp. Every now and then someone will admit that they don´t know yet, but they see no problem passing it off as fact in the meantime."

BRILLIANT!

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 9, 2014 at 4:50pm

Now it is MY turn to set the topic for you, the participants of this CC forum! :)

I would love to get everyone up to speed on whale evolution.  As you know, this evidence has been offered as the best fossil proof of evolution for the last 13 years but went down this April.  You can see the story on: http://creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud  (BTW, this article received over 600 "likes".)

I have a FREE fun resource for you to read and add to this information.  It is a 10 page PDF on this topic but only addresses one point, the external whale ear anatomy of whales and land animals.  Take a look. It is a lot of fun and takes an entire 5 minutes to page through the fantastic color photographs:

http://thegrandexperiment.com/pakicetus/index.html

Enjoy!

Carl Werner

Comment by Cheri A Fields on June 9, 2014 at 6:38pm

*Hey, Phil, you got your own place on the web I can send people to?*

Not stealing from Phil, he's brilliant (and can have all the debates), but it's become clear there are no common ancestors to more than just him. I did a series sending people to the Tree of Life Project hunting them down. They don't ever suggest an animal is the direct ancestor of any other. All they have is a graph with a line connecting them. But the nodes are empty or the name of a group.

I'm excited but annoyed by this new whale info. Now I've got to rewrite that whole mini section of my book manuscript! Thanks for the PDF. It'll save me who knows how much time. I'll try to read it after the kids get to sleep tonight. :-)

Love the clarity on the limits of variation. You'd think it'd be obvious, but it's not to many.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 9, 2014 at 9:53pm

Dr. Werner,

Yeah, I find those points dealing with origin very interesting myself. Dr. Paul Nelson talks a lot about that issue. I have some of his videos on my Youtube channel.  (http://www.youtube.com/user/owensphil)

The problem with most youtube Darwinian advocates though is they don´t like talk about origin. They avoid it like the plague. Yet they want to talk about magic when referring to the Creationists´starting point. Evolution according to them has nothing to do with evolution. In other words it just hits the ground running.Somehow, someway, poof, all of a sudden we have an irreducibly complex living cell or living organisms  with ready-to-go compatible reproductive systems.   

Comment by Cheri A Fields on June 9, 2014 at 9:53pm

"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination in the audience" don't you know...

Well done. I should see if my kids are interested in learning about the ear now.

BTW what about baleen whales? I don't suppose it matters to the evolutionary case, but when you say 'toothed whales are like this', it makes me want to know about the other set as well.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 9, 2014 at 10:18pm

Hi Cheri. My youtube channel is http://www.youtube.com/user/owensphil

I do my best to refrain from name calling when debating on there. But sometimes the clueless arrogant Darwinian talibans can really get under a person´s skin. It´s something I´m  really trying to work on.

I don´t have a science background so there is a lot that I am clueless on. But the majority of Darwinian disciples that I run into are just plain clueless on the basic stuff. Which is perfectly OK unless they come off as arrogant and demeaning. 

Right now, I´m discussing ERVs with one who referred to Meyer´s and Sternberg´s take on ERVs being functional as total nonsense and irrelevant  Why? Chances are he hasn´t thought that far ahead yet. But we´ll see. Since my background isn´t in science I  keep a folder of every topic I´ve ever researched while debating

It be great if I could retain the information, but I can´t (lol).  

 

Comment by Douglas Roy on June 10, 2014 at 12:31am

Dear Dr. Werner and all,

You are at a decided disadvantage when debating with liars and haters of good who have no compulsion to tell the truth or to "play fairly." I've seen the same thing as others when debating evolutionist. Everything can change for them in a moment and it is if nothing happened. When all their supposed evidence is trounced and denounced, they are unmoved. Why? Because they do not love the truth, nor are they inclined a wit to accept anything but a lie that supports their anti God position. There are those, however, who have bought into the evolutionary nonsense because they are deceived into thinking the aforementioned scientists are like themselves, looking for truth.  I would suggest to all that they seek for discernment on who are the latter and who are the former. The gospel truth does not change because you are in the realm of science. The truth is that God is the author of all true science and all knowledge and wisdom. This is His field of expertise, not the evolutionists. He also understands the nature of men, which does not change from generation to generation. Only those that have been truly born from above understand this.

The gospel must be used in the realm of science if you hope to defeat the evolutionist heresy. It has been 150 years since Darwin introduced his heretical theories to the world, with the help of Satan. It was purposely brought to the science realm to deceive the masses. Scientists are not known for their strength in theology for the most part, so it was a perfect way to plant this great deception. Theologians lacked confidence in their Creator to enter this field, but what they really lacked was the true knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ, in my opinion. The gospel is for all men in every area of life. "Man shall not live by bread alone (the material things) but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." The gospel is the living bread and men of God have been rare in the past 150 years. We are in a famine for the word of God at this moment. In thinking we know so much we are deceived. Our entire country lies in extreme spiritual darkness and on the brink of destruction by the overwhelming forces of darkness: deception in govt, deception in science, deception in societal affairs, and the greatest deception in the church or religion.

What many believe to be Christianity is merely a false representation of the same. So many who think they know Christ, hardly know Him at all and they certainly don't know His gospel as the apostles did. That is why there is such weakness and division spread through the church. The power of God is almost unknown and few have ever experienced it. Healings are rare. Miracles even rarer. Why? Such things only follow the preaching of the true gospel, and thus, few are being saved, too...very few. The churches have become the habitation of demons, even as the Jewish synagogues were called by the Lord the "synagogues of Satan." Heresies and divisions abound. Many churches teach evolution or the day age heresies. Christians cannot seem to defeat the evolutionists because they do not have the power of God or the wisdom of God. We are too proud to seek it and we think we already have it when we don't. I'm speaking to myself, too.

Could it be that we are so much on the defensive and constantly maligned because we don't really believe or know the Bible ourselves?

Comment by Phil Owens on June 10, 2014 at 7:13am

Dr. Werner and all interested,

I thought it might be interesting to look at an actual post from an evolutionist. I think it would be great activity for all of us who debate evolutionists on a regular basis. Anyways, here´s one of my posts form an evolutionist that I received this morning :

 I explained specifically how there are NO wholly functional ERVs—only functional components, with the remainder deleted or mutated into non-functionality.

This means that they can not be part of any 'original design' because ANY functional components ARE necessarily post-insertion exaptations, and the fact that they are necessarily insertion 

ERVs provide powerful evidence for common ancestry; the issue of functionality is irrelevant.

ERVs support common ancestry in 3 main ways:

 1) the sharing of ERVs in identical loci among organisms of varying degrees of taxonomic separation, and the nested hierarchies that these shared ERVs are arranged in

 2) the examination of shared mutagenic discrepancies between shared ERVs, so as to infer relative sequence of insertion

 and

3) the nested hierarchies of shared mutations among given ERVs in identical loci. 

Please learn some serious biology.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 10, 2014 at 7:20am

This is from his previous post 

"

There is no question that some ERVs have functions in organisms, but there are NO wholly functional ERVs—only functional components, with the remainder deleted or mutated into non-functionality.

BUT it's a moot point, because we know that ERVs are insertions:

The hallmark of an insertion is a displacement of chromosomal DNA, and the hallmark of insertion by integrase is the presents of target site duplication, due to the way it attacks the 5' and 3' phosphodiester bonds with an offset of a few base pairs. Since full-length ERVs are accompanied by target site duplications and DNA displacement, they are necessarily endogenized/fixed proviral insertions.

So ANY functional components ARE necessarily post-insertion exaptations, and the fact that they are necessarily insertion means that they can not be part of any 'original design.'

 

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 10, 2014 at 7:30am

Phil, I assume an intelligent cause ands intelligent information, as well as intelligent design, this for me personally implies most assuredly a creator. Now I understand the comment about learn some serious biology, but I take issue with the whole subject of a Universal Common Ancestor (UCB) and especially an ancestor for species contain din the fossil record.

Here is what we know that "is" observable Phil.  THe fossil record shows up abruptly and fully formed, Every single animals I have studied (mostly lizards) have not changed on iota since their inception based on the observable fossil record.  I see no changes.  Now certain morphological characteristics in lizards are often inferred to be a result of some common ancestor, However no change has taken place even considering what we call "Living Fossils" of which there are hundreds of thousands?  Phil a T-rex is a T-rex and its body design and biologic fitness did not change one iota while it existed and until it went extinct.  What of Mammoths, Gila Monsters, Tuatara and any other fossils you want to inculcate.  I understand the inference but actual living evidence cannot be interpreted to include a common ancestor for say all lizards, this is Darwinian teaching and expectation and is contained in paper after paper, but when challenged to produce a pathway, descendancy or some other variation with such transitional want a be's, they are silent because there is none! Nuclear DNA is much more in line with observable fact and mtDNA can be "tweaked" to almost get any result.  As you said, evolutionists do not want to discuss origins, but epigenetics I believe will make evolution in the next 10 years disappear or they will ahve to change their definitions which they already have at least 5 times....  Your thoughts?  Dr. Werner's thoughts?

Comment by Phil Owens on June 10, 2014 at 7:33am

Notice in that in my debator´s post, he neglected to address the identification  mythological common ancestor of man and chimp. So it´s so of like a murder case with no dead body and no witnesses to the crime. Such a case in the real word would never even make it to trail.

I am realy interested in everyone´s feed back in addition to Dr. Werner. Therefore I will hold off responding to my debator in the meantime.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 10, 2014 at 7:46am

Lou, I wish I could be as optimistic as you as far as evolution disappearing in the next 10 years or even in my life time. I don´t think it ever will for the simple fact that largely rest on dogma. I fear that it may be a sign of the times and things will only get worse for Christians. But deep down, I hope you´re right.

Comment by Cheri A Fields on June 10, 2014 at 10:09am

The gospel must be used in the realm of science if you hope to defeat the evolutionist heresy. @Douglas Roy

Yes. I don't like arguments at all, but can't ignore people who bring "scientific" questions to me. I pray for ways to get to the root of the matter quickly and show them how differently they see the world than God wants us to. I also post verses on every article and try to put one up on social media every day. It works. The few who pester me usually disappear pronto. I pray for the few who've stuck around long enough for me to register their names.

It also shows us why it's so important to reach people before they'd rather rot than acknowledge their Creator!

Comment by Douglas Roy on June 10, 2014 at 11:58am

As my pastor pointed out to me, Cheri, we don't preach or teach the gospel in a vacuum. We tell it to people who come with various backgrounds and different motivations. We must learn to discern people with the Holy Spirit's guidance or we will be ineffective. Some just want to argue and prove they are right. Some don't know what to think, and some are blatantly against God. There are a few who are looking for the truth and can't find it. It is the Holy Spirit that witnesses to the truth in the hearts and minds of people. This includes all areas of life, from science to politics. What we can be sure of, though, is the the Lord wants every person to hear the gospel, but this does not just mean the story of Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Many have heard that part, but they have not heard how they are fallen sinners, whose mind and hearts are corrupted by sin. Nor have they heard that God wants to give them a new life, a new spirit and soul, if they will seek Him and turn from their evil ways. How many have heard that so called scientists fudge their data and fossils to fit their evolutionary viewpoint? How many are aware of the deceit involved in the discussion of evolution because it is a heresy, not just a "scientific viewpoint."

Men can not come to understand truth about the creation if they reject their Creator, the Lord Jesus. Facts alone will not convince many people. This is a spiritual battle. If facts and truth were the answer to defeating evolution, it was defeated in the 1800's. Go figure.

Comment by Douglas Roy on June 10, 2014 at 12:01pm

What is the difference between facts and truth?

Comment by Cheri A Fields on June 10, 2014 at 12:03pm

Yes. I often pray I'll have a chance to lead someone to Jesus through my ministry. I just don't have the time or energy to waste on those who don't want the truth. It's never fun realizing they are condemning themselves.

Let's hope our work at exposing the lack of scientific support for their false worldview gives the Holy Spirit material to work with in drawing them to Himself.

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 10, 2014 at 1:03pm

 

Some misinformed individuals continue to labor under the misconception that there exists a continuous "fossil record,"  of all current animals varieties that can be traced back to the original creation.

Where is there such a record any where on the earth? There is no such record of local varieties of lizards. The Lizards of Texas for example do not exist in the geological strata down to the Precambrian layers, or to bedrock. It is simply a myth, and yet is repeated as if it were a matter of fact for the purposes of swaying this community. Why is the myth repeated by the skeptics and Old Earth advocates? It is to advance their relentless agenda of lies and falsehoods. And, even though we  ourselves are not lying, why then do we aid and abet by repeating those lies? It is the same as the recent lies of the Sec-Sci world about the whales.

That fossil record does not exist. And neither does a consistent "geological column" occur any where on the planet that is contiguous (preceding or following in time) vertically.

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 10, 2014 at 1:56pm

Phil,

Since you invited people to stick in their 2 cents, so to speak, I'll throw in mine.  Whoever this guy is ... well it really doesn't matter.  Maybe he's a biologist, maybe just a good copy and paster.  Whatever.

This is the problem, or the trap, in talking to evolutionists.  Everyone who has ever discoursed with skeptics has probably had this experience: something is thrown up to you which you've NEVER heard before.  It's the same regardless of whether you're talking the Bible or science.  There is no end to the number or wacky doofus things people have convinced themselves to believe.  And you usually can debunk these ideas with sufficient study and thought.  But it takes time and you can't do it on the spur of the moment.  PLUS, none of us are experts in everything, regardless of whether we're talking about nuances of Greek and Hebrew or the merits of one manuscript or another in discussing the Bible, or in details of ERV's or other microbiological and genetic phenomena.

If you allow yourself to get into that, you'll quickly run up against the limits of your knowledge.  In order to debate this particular know-it-all, you'd have to specialize in both ERV's and biochemistry.  And if you read that post, it's clear the guy is following the idea of: "if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bull." This loud mouth obviously has NO interest whatsoever in actually communicating anything intelligent.  I mean what moron would use terms like "phosphodiester bonds", "integrase", "5' and 3' ", and "endogenized/fixed proviral" in a post!!!!!  ANYONE with any brains would not use those terms except in a dialogue with another scientist who he knows would understand them.  To do otherwise (as he has done) shows he's just attempting to baffle with ...  I imagine he just copied and pasted that paragraph and others and may not really have any idea what they mean.  I could be wrong.  That's just what it looks like to me.

So what's the answer?  For my money, there's no reason to leave the basics in the first place.  In the last lengthy discussion I had with an internet know-it-all, I started and stayed with genetic entropy.  Genetic entropy proves, irrefutably, that Darwinian evolution cannot happen.  I read the book, watched Sanford's DVD's and I can converse intelligently about.  So if you have actual proof which is both logical and observable and fits with all the proven laws of nature then all this mishmash of ERV's, junk DNA, and on and on, yadda yadda yadda, is just so much circumstantial evidence.  And circumstantial evidence is all subjective and gets thrown out the window, regardless of how "overwhelming" it might be, when you have hard proof to the contrary.  So if it were me, I'd throw that back in his face and not let him get away from it.

Comment by Carl Werner on June 10, 2014 at 2:47pm

Cheri,

You wrote, "it's become clear there are no common ancestors to more than just him. I did a series sending people to the Tree of Life Project hunting them down. They don't ever suggest an animal is the direct ancestor of any other. All they have is a graph with a line connecting them. But the nodes are empty or the name of a group."

That is a FANTASTIC approach.  I suggest everyone use this in debates.  It is live and on line and clear.

Our first book simply clarified these lines on the evolution charts. Specialist after specialist admitted there was nothing on these lines. YIKES. This is a bad time to believe in evolution.

Carl

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on June 10, 2014 at 2:50pm

Comment by Douglas Roy

What is the difference between facts and truth?

Doug, facts are incontrovertible, set in stone; truth is variable.  What is the truth to you is fiction to someone else, it depends on one's belief system.  We believe that the truth is that God created the universe and everything in it as a miraculous act.  An evolutionist believes that the truth is that the universe occurred by some unguided accident that followed natural reactions, billions of years ago.  Both see what they believe as as truth.  It also applies to every belief people hold, religious or secular.

Comment by Carl Werner on June 10, 2014 at 2:53pm

Phil, 

You wrote, "The problem with most youtube Darwinian advocates though is they don´t like talk about origin. They avoid it like the plague. Yet they want to talk about magic when referring to the Creationists´starting point. Evolution according to them has nothing to do with evolution. In other words it just hits the ground running.Somehow, someway, poof, all of a sudden we have an irreducibly complex living cell or living organisms  with ready-to-go compatible reproductive systems."   

I agree, and don't forget about the origin of the seven major animal phyla: Vertebrates, corals, sponges, arthropods, molluscs, segmented worms and echinoderms.  Wooooooosh they just show up.  Now lets talk about AFTER the phyla appear and we can really get excited about presumed evolution.

BTW, my second book, Living Fossils will help everyone understand the PHYLA, Family, Genus, Family grouping and terminology.  That is not the intention of the book but is a side benefit.  Knowing the PHYLA groups is an essential piece of information that we should have at the tips of our tongues.  The more you know, the worse evolution looks.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 10, 2014 at 2:56pm

Cheri,

You wrote, "I don't suppose it matters to the evolutionary case, but when you say 'toothed whales are like this', it makes me want to know about the other set as well."


I chose to focus on toothed whales because the "oldest whales" had teeth and supposedly came from a land animal with teeth. The baleen filter whales then are a "side branch" of evolution that supposedly came afterwards.  For simplicity, I focused on the subject at hand for the "major transition from land" that is the best proof for evolution using fossils. See video above.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 10, 2014 at 2:58pm

Here is one of the two top experts on whale evolution. Amazing. 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/b1PU2ut8n8g?list=UUdfCFwZ5e6vEp_oybWtk9tQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Comment by Carl Werner on June 10, 2014 at 2:58pm
Comment by Carl Werner on June 10, 2014 at 3:05pm

Phil,

You wrote to Cheri, "I don´t have a science background so there is a lot that I am clueless on. But the majority of Darwinian disciples that I run into are just plain clueless on the basic stuff. "

I think I should point out to you that Charles Darwin did not have a science degree either. He attempted but dropped out of medical school.  He did get an undergraduate degree in religion.  Oh yea, he also belonged to a club in London to get these initials after his name in his books: "F.R.S."

See how smart you really are compared to Darwin or the whale experts or dinosaur experts: http://thegrandexperiment.com/physicians-and-origins.html

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 10, 2014 at 3:09pm

Doug,

You remind me of one of those once in a lifetime evangelists who rise to prominence with a clear message.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 10, 2014 at 3:13pm

Phil,

Genomic endogenous retrovirus is out of my area of expertise.  
I suggest Dr. Carter CMI or Dr. Purdom as possible resources.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 10, 2014 at 3:23pm

Doug and All,

Doug you wrote, "If facts and truth were the answer to defeating evolution, it was defeated in the 1800's. Go figure."

Most people are not aware that Darwin's theory was defeated in the 1889. It was replaced with "neo-darwinian evolution" once scientists realized his mechanism using Larmarkianism was wrong. You see, Darwin wrote extensively as a Lamarkian scientist and extensively used these now disproved concepts in his two books. Most evolution students are not aware of this. Most evolution students falsely believe Lamarks ideas were in Lamarks time and not Darwinian.

Here is the video of what I am talking about.

To search this, go to darwin's books and search for "use and disuse", the other name for Lamarkianism.

Carl

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on June 10, 2014 at 3:29pm

I have seen several mentions during the course of this thread of the Cambrian Explosion and irreducibly complexity, but as far as I know, no one has mentioned the one fossil that has evolutionists scratching their heads in dismay. The fossil that I refer to is the Trilobite, a creature that appears suddenly in the lower Cambrian layers. The name 'Trilobite' means 'three lobed" and is derived from the fact these animals had bodies featuring three longitudinal lobes, not lateral (head, body, tail) as is often thought, as in many insects of today.  The Trilobite 'kind' have a huge variation in size and feature, many were just three or four inches long, others were a couple of feet long. Some has eyes and others seem to have been sightless. However it is the sighted Trilobites that I wish to draw to everyone's attention. The Trilobite are one of the most advanced and complex eyes of any creature that has ever lived, which is why the creature is such a headache for evolution.

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on June 10, 2014 at 3:30pm

Continued from below

The Trilobite eye just did not have enough time to evolve to its sophisticated level, no transitional forms of the creature or the eye have ever been found, despite the countless fossils found. The eye consists of pure calcite (optically transparent calcium carbonate) which has a precisely aligned optical axis to eliminate any double image that would have formed (Armstrong 1973; DeYoung 2002), it is also a “doublet” of two lenses affixed together in order to eliminate spherical aberrations, commonly found in ground glass lenses (Armstrong 1976)!

Of late more work has been carried out on trilobite eyes, and has shown them to be infinitely more complex. Ordovician trilobites such as Pricyclopyge binodosa and Jujuyaspis keideli are have been found to have had a “large visual field” (Acenolaza et al. 2001, p 349) with “close to 360-degree vision” and “could see anteriorly, laterally, dorsally, and even downwards and backwards,” from one position (McCormick and Fortey 1998, p 236).  Some Trilobites have also been found to have developed a system similar to modern day bifocal lenses, with a “conspicuous central bulge, the cause of bifocality, which is a unique optical feature in the animal kingdom,” (Gal et al. 2000, p 846). This bulge is an addition to the top calcite lens.

The Trilobite eye really is a case of irreducibly complexity to challenge even the most die-hard evolutionist, and can really only be explained by accepting a Creator-God that designed this creature just as it first appears in the fossil record. Keep on scratching your head Mr. Evolution, you may scratch your way through to find a few brain cells one day.

Comment by Carl Werner on June 10, 2014 at 3:35pm

Phil,

Doug is right. All of these nuance issues (ring species, Australopithecines, ERVs, etc. have simple answers that take years to investigate.  That is is why I keep drawing people back to the basics of the fossil record, and origin of matter and origin of first life. Simply answering "that is not my area of expertise" moves the discussion back onto the big topics that we can all agree are the most important:  No one knows where matter came from, no one knows how DNA (or any genetic like material) formed before life, how proteins formed before life. No one has the fossil record to demonstrate how each of the 7 major animal phyla "evolved" from bacteria.  Now THAT is a BIG problem.  :)

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 10, 2014 at 3:50pm

Derek and all,

I would like to point out the value in each person on this blog specializing in one area as Dr. Blake has on trilobite eyes.  You know, an industry advances once specialization occurs among the workers. Each person gets better and better focusing on just one small job.  In creation or evolution each person should consider focusing on one topic and is not responsible for everything.  

I am thankful not only for Dr. Blake's post about those trilobite eyes, reflecting he has focused on one area. Mike Oard a retired meteorologist has specialized in the ice age and has done an excellent job. ICR's Rate project is a form of specialization. The dinosaur soft tissue guys are doing a fantastic job. The bloggers (Phil) are doing their special job communicating as their specialty.  How about the speakers who go around giving talks? (If I had to give talks I could never write a book.) Someday, one of you will be ERF experts. HA

In closing, here are a couple of facts about trilobites from our recently released 3rd edition of Evolution: The Grand Experiment.  17,000 different species of trilobites have been collected by museums. Hundreds of thousands of trilobites have been collected.  All of this reflects a great fossil record yet there is no bona fide ancestors of trilobites.  Amazing we still believe in evolution.

Carl

Comment by Douglas Roy on June 10, 2014 at 7:45pm

Dr. Blake, in answer to my question, "What is the difference between facts and truth?" stated: Doug, facts are incontrovertible, set in stone; truth is variable.  What is the truth to you is fiction to someone else, it depends on one's belief system.  We believe that the truth is that God created the universe and everything in it as a miraculous act.  An evolutionist believes that the truth is that the universe occurred by some unguided accident that followed natural reactions, billions of years ago.  Both see what they believe as as truth.  It also applies to every belief people hold, religious or secular.

"truth is variable"  say's, Derek. Let's look at the Merriam-Webster definition:  the truth - the real facts about something : the things that are true. Then let's look at what the gospel writers and Jesus say about truth,

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14 (KJV)

"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
John 1:17 (KJV)

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John 4:24 (KJV)

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
John 8:32 (KJV)

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
John 14:6 (KJV)

Then we have what is written by the Psalmist about truth:

"Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day." Psalms 25:5 (KJV)

"For the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth." Psalms 33:4 (KJV)

" For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations." Psalms 100:5

"The entirety of Your word is truth" Psalms 119:160 (NKJV)

God has a much different idea of truth. Just because someone believes evolution is true, does not make it fact or truth." The heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked," said the Lord, so men believe lies all the time. On the other hand, if we believe the truth of the gospel and obey the truth, we come to know Him who is faithful and true. This is a revelation of God to the heart of an individual and it coincides with the word of God, which is truth. As we learn more about Jesus, we find he is the Creator of all things:

"The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."  John 1:2-3 (KJV)

We learn that he never lies, but always tells the truth and his word is truth, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." John 17:17 (KJV)

So to those who know the Lord Jesus, there is no doubt of what the truth is regarding Creation and the origin of all things, It is Jesus. Many seek for evidence that contradicts the evolutionists of the day, but evidence or facts, do not outweigh the truth. Any supposed evidence that is contrary to the truth in God's Word is false science and should be rejected outright.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 10, 2014 at 9:07pm

Doug and Dr. Werner,  You made a lot of good points. Actually, I love it when I get posts like the one I recieved from the debator. I see it as a challenge.  The beauty of debating online is that you can look up any words and concepts that might be unfamiliar to you.

However, I disagree, that we as creationists should limit our knoweldge to one or a few areas when debating regardless of how powerful our arguments may be. ERVs and Chromosome 2 fusion are two of the strongest cases that evolution advocates feel that can be made for evolution and common decent. Imagine going to a debate in which both creationists and evolutionist talk past each other, wanting to confine themselves to their own talking points. Even worse, imagine a public debate in which the evolutionist was familiar with his and the creationist´s arguments but the creationists was only familiar with his own. Who do you think would win the debate?

No, we can´t be an expert in all areas but in the meantime, we can keep adding to our knowledge base. Chances are he´s not an expert either. And if he is, he still has nothing to go on but assumptions. That´s will always be the evolutionist´s achilles heel.

Actually, the debator´s argument isn´t that strong. He makes several empty assertions that he won´t be able to back up when pressed. For example he says that there are no ERVs that are totally functional. This is just false. Besides with papers coming in all the time on ERVS, such a claim would be premature. Thanks again, for your insight regarding the matter. 

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 11, 2014 at 12:22am

Phil,

I hear what you're saying about not limiting yourself to one area but I have to reiterate my main point.  And that is that anything in the realm of "adding weight" to an evolutionists argument is like circumstantial evidence.  If you have to "add weight" then that means you know that you're just trying to build a case.  One doesn't have to build a case if you have irrefutable evidence such as multiple eyewitness testimonies from reliable sources.  In this case, like I said before, all the circumstantial evidence in the world becomes so much foo foo.

So ... why waste time debating circumstantial evidence?  It's all irrelevant!  I think it's a trap because if you let yourself be dragged into minutiae in an area where you lack a PhD's level of knowledge, he might make you look like a fool.  And there's no reason to risk that.  Of course, if you are able to demolish his argument then it's quite scriptural to do so and in that case I'm not saying to hold back.  "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceits."

What I'm trying to say is the other half of that verse: "Don't answer a fool according to his folly lest you be like him yourself."  So if one is not an expert in an area, my advice is don't play on his turf.  Don't play his game.  That's why I don't let them get past genetic entropy.

And for those who may not be familiar with John Sanford's seminal work in this area, I can summarize it in a couple of sentences.  Mutations for the most part are copying errors in DNA.  These are like individual typos in a printed book.  Evolution depends on "good" mutations to improve things and natural selection to weed out "bad" mutations.  The trouble is that most of these tiny bad mutations are too small to be weeded out by natural selection.  Environmental factors are far more significant on whether an individual animal or plant survives.  As a result the bad mutations inexorably build up over time throughout a species.  On top of that, the number of beneficial mutations is vanishingly small to begin with.  So EVERY species is de-evolving.  Evolution does happen: in the wrong direction.  The evolutionist tries to say that if you have enough copying errors, even “Peter Rabbit” can become “War and Peace.”  What they fail to recognize is that long before Peter Rabbit can “evolve” into Natasha Rostov, the publisher is going to throw away that copy because it’s become unintelligible trash!

Once you realize the truth of that statement, you should also realize you don't need a PhD to debate an evolutionist.  He's lost already (no spiritual pun intended!)  But bringing up the spiritual side is another point to consider.  Personally, I don't think we should ever engage in a discussion without the clear purpose of seeing people turn from sin to Christ.  I'm a guilty party in that regard and I have to constantly remind myself to stay focused.  For myself, I have to resist the temptation to get away from the basics or else I tend to lose sight of what I'm there for.  If you are able to do that successfully then go for it.  I think Dr. Werner made a very good observation in that regard and that’s that we all have different strengths and can bring different weapons into play.   For me, I have to stick to my game plan.  But you did ask for people’s comments and opinions.  :)

Comment by Floyd on June 11, 2014 at 3:58am

I think, what Dr Werner meant, is to identify the point where the whole argument is built and falsify it. If you falsify the source, you effectively falsify all arguments above the source, thus you don’t need to be an expert on all the things above the source. The trouble is evolutionists shift the source into “sources”. So, the Origin of Life such as the origin of DNA is a different source than natural selection aided by mutations producing more DNA genetic information over millions of years. So if you demolish the natural selection and mutations link, you effectively destroy ERV, chromosome fusion, common ancestor, etc. The natural selection and mutations link is destroyed by the workings within the cell, because natural selection only works after the organism exist. That is, before the genotype appears natural selection isn’t responsible for its existence. Evolutionists are then left with solely unguided mutations. So all the complex processing within the cell that produces the folding of proteins into complex 3d shapes then ultimately the genotype are dependent on unguided mutations with no natural selection as a filtering mechanism. Which means nothing stops mutations continually over-writing and destroying! Imaging a software language with no “while loops”, “exits”, “end”, etc.! This makes any extrapolation above it invalid and unjustified.

Same can be said for inflation within the big bang theory. Single out inflation and you solve the star-light problem whether the big bang is destroyed by it or not, because light within inflation was travelling faster than its current rate today! Thus the simple calculation atheists always use is really calculating the period of inflation using the current speed of light constant. Which means 6,000 can be after the inflation that was on day 4 when sun, moon and stars were created. I’m not stating inflation is right, I’m just using it as an illustration.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 11, 2014 at 8:32am

 Doug, Yes, I did ask for everyone´s opinon and I appreciate everyone´s different point of view. It makes for an interesting discussion. I actually agree with what you´re saying in large part. I would never attempt to debate in person on any topic that I´m not too familiar with. Online, that´s a different story. I can take my time, research and confer with experts. I have  even had the opportunity to correspond via email with  Michael Behe, Jerry Bergman, and Casey Luskin on certain topics.

Genetic entropy is a very strong argument. I am only vaguely familiar with it. Have you ever heard the counter argument to it? Would you be able to successfully defend it against an evolutionist with a Ph.D  in that subject area? The fact is whatever area we choose, as laypersons, we´re going to always run up against someone who is perhaps more familiar with the topic. 

This site is fantastic. The information that Dr. Werner has  has provided thus far been extremely helpful. The topics of whale evolution, the fossil record, and the larygneal nerve come up all the time on my youtube channel.  As many times as I have discussed and debated these topics, I wasn´t aware of many of the points that Dr. Werner provided. That´s what I meant about wanting to add to our knowledge base.    

I get what you´re saying though. You don´t want to spread yourself too thin. There are lots of discussions on my youtube channel that I stay clear of for that very same reason. My point was again, ERVs and Chromosome 2 fusion are two of the evolutionists´s strongest arguments for evolution. Therefore it might be a good idea to familiarize ourselves with those topics. I´m sure evolutionists are trying to familiarize themselves with our strongest arguments.  But to each his own.  

Comment by Phil Owens on June 11, 2014 at 8:49am

Very good points Loyd.  I agree.  Also, arguments for and against the big bang is a facinating topic. 

If legislation were passed to teach the criiticism of  Darwin´s theory in school in all states, would you suggest not countering their main arguments or would you suggest just sticking to the base? Do you think students would naturally pick up on the idea that there  would be no need to challenge the upcoming topics in the course ? 

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 11, 2014 at 8:57am

Carl how do you view the fossil record?  While I am sure that layers of fossils can have modern birds and other mixed fossils with marine life,  we do have a fossil record.  I see this record what ever ones view is of the time factors or placement as "evidences" for Gods creation, because the fossil record shows up abruptly and fully formed this in itself seems to comply with our creation narrative.  Uniformatarian have layer after layer with certain fossils in the strata.  That actually is true is it not?  There are certain fossils found in certain strata and it most often is consistent.  Sort of marker type fossils that employ certain strata when found ( I am not implying age just what the observable evidences are).  Could you expand or even correct me as to your view on this, there is a lot of argumentation about the fossil record, I write about what is observable in the fossil record, but one thing I cannot seem to get around is the fossil record is creation evidences and consistent with our creation narrative.. So some here place "all" fossils at the flood.  I don't see that, some imply fossils for mega fauna after the flood during the ice age.  Also fossils vary and all are not created the same and all do not come about by the same process so I am not sure we could apply one issue for all fossils.  Your thoughts!!!

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on June 11, 2014 at 9:00am

Phil, it is more often that the evolutionist and the creationist are looking at the same evidence, but the one has a different interpretation of the evidence to the other.  The 'Big-Bang' theory for instance, is as good a case as any, we see the same universe and we can see how the universe works, however if we change the time-frame, it is just as good theory for creation as anything else, even though the BB eliminates God.  In eliminating God the evolutionist has made a bed of nails to lie on, as none can explain how that Super-dense particle of matter came into existence within a condition of void (no time, no space, and so no matter).  However, we know the answer.



Comment by Phil Owens on June 11, 2014 at 9:23am

Check out this short video in which a creationist student dares to challenge an evolutionist in public. All feedback welcomed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DydQrCPNFU

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 11, 2014 at 1:41pm

Phil, absolutely true that in an online discussion you have the time to research a response, however, looking at the text you posted illustrates the difficulty.  I could spend a month TRYING to research what he was talking about and what significance it posed.  I probably wouldn't have much luck.

I also have been fortunate, from time to time, to get responses from qualified creationist scientists but you can't rely on that unless the person is a close friend.  This kind of gets into the realm I was talking about.  There are too many possible questions.  Creationists who have PhD's would be totally inundated with requests from us, the rank and file, if they tried to respond to every question we asked them.  They can't be expected to educate us one by one for free.  This is a good reason to invest in, for example, Dr Werner's book and DVD series.  Experts like him have invested a lot of time and effort in doing their research and this is their way to educate us.  For many of them, it's their bread and butter.  At any rate, we can't and shouldn't expect them to help us out of the innumerable challenges that are posed to us. 

And as for genetic entropy, YES!  I absolutely would be able to defend it against an honest PhD both in an online debate or a live one.  I stress "honest" here because a dishonest one could make knowingly false claims in a live debate and rely on the weight of his reputation to sway people.  And they (atheists/skeptics/evolutionists) have done that many many times. The thing with genetic entropy is that once you realize what Sanford is saying, the light kind of turns on in your head.  You realize that one shouldn't even NEED his extensive research to see that it not only IS true, but that it MUST be true.  "Elementary, my dear Watson," to quote Arthur Conan Doyle.  I've been on Dawkins' website and read posts on genetic entropy and it quickly becomes clear that the posters don't have a clue as to what Sanford was talking about.  They asked "challenging" questions about things which are totally covered by Sanford.  They acted as if there was no answer to their question, thereby implying that Sanford is completely wrong.  And this is what you would face with them.  All you have to do is become familiar with what Sanford wrote and you can easily show them wrong.  If you allow them to ignore the fundamentals then they can go off into infinite minutiae and you'll just be researching one thing after another.  Great for self education but I have too many other things.  I'd rather go fly my R/C airplanes and manage my club website, flyjcrc.com! 

Comment by Carl Werner on June 11, 2014 at 2:33pm

Hey Lou,

Here are some basics of the fossil record.

All layers of fossils from Pre-Ediacaran to Pliocene have modern appearing animals or plant or bacteria in them.

All of these same layers have extinct animals in them.

All of these same layers have salt water creatures in them.

Any layer of the geologic column can be the top layer (surface collecting of dinosaurs or trilobites).

Any layer of the geologic column can be the lowest layer (lying next to the granite non-sedimentary layers).

All layers are nearly flat meaning no erosional channels to speak of.

Some layers have vertical fossils going up through them, fossils extending through 40 feet of sediment through 5 layers.

All of the layers I am talking about are sedimentary rock layers.  There are other collections of fossils/or animals now laid down in sedimentary conditions and these would be the La Brea Tar Pits, and in caves and frozen tundra.

With these facts you could come up with all kinds of explanations:  Evolution is True, Creation/Flood is True, Creation/Flood is true but top layers came later. 

I think the simplest explanation for these characters is a world wide cataclysmic deep water tsunami based salt water (marine) flood and extinction event with periodic regressions of the water as can be seen before a tsunami.  Others see the same facts as the other two possibilities.

Carl

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 11, 2014 at 2:35pm

Many interesting discussions have arisen out of the Ask the Expert Session with Dr. Carl. However, soon it will be closed, and you will have a hard time accessing this Thread.

Some of these discussions ought to be transferred to the main public forum if we wish to continue them.

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 11, 2014 at 2:43pm

The vast majority of mainstream creationists agree:

Fossils are by no means a record of life forms progressing from creation until now.

But neither are fossils a record of life forms remaining the same from creation until now.

Yet certainly the fossils are good evidence that life forms have remained essentially the same in basic form over the passing of time.

But to view the fossils as a record of life since the beginning of creation is to share and adapt the view of the secularists who represent the fossils as a continuous record of cycles of life since the beginning of time.

We cannot look at any fossil record that represents continues cycles of life from creation to the present. Such an effort belies utter ignorance about how fossils are formed.

Some misinformed individuals continue to labor under the misconception that there exists a continuous "fossil record," of all current animals varieties that can be traced back to the original creation.

Where is there such a record any where on the earth? There is no such record of local varieties of lizards. The Lizards of Texas for example do not exist in the geological strata down to the Precambrian layers, or to bedrock. It is simply a myth, and yet is repeated as if it were a matter of fact for the purposes of swaying this community. Why is the myth repeated by the skeptics and Old Earth advocates? It is to advance their relentless agenda of lies and falsehoods. And, even though we ourselves are not lying, why then do we aid and abet by repeating those lies? It is the same as the recent lies of the Sec-Sci world about the whales.

We can argue around and around about whether life forms have adapted, or assumed some minor variations from creation until the present, but one thing is sure -The fossils, which were all formed in unusual catastropich events will never tell the tale of the passing of generations of living things.

That fossil record (of continual life cycles from creation to the present) does not exist. And neither does a consistent "geological column" occur any where on the planet that is contiguous (preceding or following in time) vertically.

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 11, 2014 at 2:52pm

Carl I appreciate your answer, will look at what you've said more closely, however there is one thing I would like to tidy up if I can ask..  Do you see the fossil record as evidences of Gods original creation?  IN other words all the species we find extinct or living fossils are all part of Gods adorning the earth with flora and fauna.

Don't want to lead you on with the question, so what is in my mind and understanding is that what we see in the biologic world did not get re-created later...  It seems to me the fixity of Species incur my thinking to lead towards GOds original creation covered all creation from then on wether or not something is extinct.  I cannot come up with a mechanism that explains animals showing up any time in history after the original creation as a new species or for that matter a repeat species...all that existed, all that we see today all of it came from original DNA, Gods digital information contained in DNA and indeed the evidences of His work in front of our eyes.  I can not leave the animal kingdom up to some self-determination within its own abilities As implied by some creationists) as I don't think this was part of the creation mechanism nor the actual narrative....I do thank you for considered input...

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 11, 2014 at 4:50pm

All living things, all biological life points to the Creator. All of the fossils point to the Creator. But the Fossils are not a record of what things looked like in "God's original creation." The fossils are largely a record of what things looked like at the time of the Flood (with a small proportion of post-flood fossils from scattered local events since the Flood).

Obviously Carnivores in their present form are not the same as the original creation, as I am sure Dr. Werner would agree. And then all of the new habitats and environments that have begun to exist since the Flood have been now filled with the same creatures that existed in DIFFERENT habitats of the pre-Flood world. But those same creatures from the original creation were formed by God with DNA and genes that are capable of producing different traits, as Dr. Werner so ably explained previously. Animals of the same kind (but with different variations) now fill the NEW eco-niches which did not exist in the world before the Flood.

There are no creationists anywhere, and certainly NOT IN THIS FORUM who believe in any sense that the animal kingdom is left up to some sort of self-determination within its own abilities. No creationists anywhere believe that.

And no creationists anywhere believe that there is any sense in which the biologic (sic) world "got re-created later." Creationists believe that all things were created within the ONE CREATION WEEK. Yet we can still say that the flower that blossomed today is something that God created. We can say that our little grandbabies were created by God, even though they were not actually created in the creation week, except in the genetic potential of Adam and Eve.

Just because someone is unable to "come up with a mechanism" that is suitable to his thinking does not change the fact observable in the natural world, that animals were designed by God to reproduce and multiply after their kinds. All the variations of the cat kind that have ever lived have arisen from those that were created in the creation week, and then subsequent to the Flood, all variations of the cat kind (40+ species) extant today arose from the genetics within the SINGLE PAIR (Two Animals) that came off the Ark.

This is what the Bible declares. Whether a mechanism is found to be suitable to one who does not accept this biblical truth does not alter the fact that it is the truth of the Bible.

Also, there are none here at Creation Conversations, or within the mainstream of Creationism who place ALL FOSSILS AT THE FLOOD. That is a strawman argument. However all creationists are in fundamental agreement that fossils are very very rare from events hundreds of years prior to the Flood. There simply were no major fossil-forming events before that event of the Flood is a combination of things which had "not been seen as yet" in Noah's day.

Creationists also acknowledge that many fossils have been formed since the Flood, but it is quite simply a widely and unanimously recognized reality amongst all creationists that the VAST PREPONDERANCE of all fossils in the earth today were in fact formed by the Flood, and by early post-flood residual catastrophic events. This is not some odd idea shared by only a few renegade creation extremists. It is what we all recognize.

And when we say "all fossils are formed" by catastrophic events, that is the reality of the natural world - when by fossil we mean preserved remains of living things from antiquity. The exceptions are so rare that they could be listed in a single article.

This understanding of fossils is not some minor side issue. It is core and central to the biblical model of creationism.

Comment by Allen J Dunckley on June 11, 2014 at 5:00pm

Well stated argument on the fossils and YECreationists.  I see fossils two ways: Normal and catastrophic.  Normal is exemplified by what One would have if they dug up "Fido" after about 10 to 15 years from being  buried in the back yard.  The Catastrophic are what we see in the fossil record; since those take an unusual "event" on a calamitous scale to capture the whole animal in the pose and completeness in which we see it in the sedimentary rock layer.  This level of event is quite rare; with the flood being the most contributory.  

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 11, 2014 at 5:11pm

Allen, Mt. Saint Helens produced the same from Pyroclastic flows, we see this in some of our sites in the midwest and volcanic ash.  Catastrophe yes.  We have fossils on caves in bogs and many other places.  Different fossils are indeed different and causation could be any number of things...including the flood.

Comment by Allen J Dunckley on June 11, 2014 at 5:19pm

Did Mt. St. Hellens fossilize any animals?  Just curious.  

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on June 11, 2014 at 5:44pm

Allen, there are basically two kinds of fossil, casts and mineral transfer.  Casts are where the creature or plant is covered by the surrounding material, sand, soil, clay, etc. which eventually hardens and the genetic material of the creature rots away, creating a cavity that is then filled by non-biological material.  That material also hardens and when found the differential material parts leaving a cast of the original creature.

With mineral transfer the creature, tree, plant or other life-form, is also buried, but buried in material with a high mineral content, such as volcanic ash, pyroclast, calcite, etc.  Gradually over time the cellular structure breaks down and is replaced by the surrounding minerals.  This leaves a very detailed fossil where the cells, cardiac tracts, pulmonary system, tree rings, organs, and so on, can be seen.  This is the normal process with dinosaur bones, these fossilise (absorb minerals) from the outside toward the centre, and in fact helps to preserve some soft material, like bone marrow traces.  This is how DNA has been retrieved from dinosaur bones, and is evidence of the youth of these fossils.  Most petrified forests have been preserved in this way and wood absorbs minerals much faster than dinosaur bones.  Sadly Fido's remains buried in the back yard for fifteen years would unlikely produce a fossil, unless your particular back yard has high mineral levels with dry subsoils.  However we do not need a catastrophe to create fossils, just the right conditions.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 11, 2014 at 8:21pm

Doug, I hope I can count on you should I ever come across a post on genetic entropy. (lol) Yeah, I heard Sanford speak on the topic on youtube. it seemed pretty straight foward. But I would like to see  the response to it from the evolutonist´s side. I suppose I could just  Google it  

I responded at length to the post on ERV´s this morning. It wasn´t as difficult as it appeared.  In fact there was an article on the topic  Evolutioni News and Views that responded to it. The article referenced the same article that the debator did. Those unfamiliar words were from the article itself.  Sean Pitman also had a great piece on it. 

Here´s a short youtube video on the topic. called "Debunking ERVs" 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Right, we can´t innundate creation and ID specialist with our questions. That´s pretty much common sense.

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 11, 2014 at 9:01pm

Phil,

could you post that link again.  I think part of it is missing

Comment by Phil Owens on June 11, 2014 at 9:58pm
Comment by Phil Owens on June 12, 2014 at 12:28am

Dr. Werner, Are you familiar with the protein APOBEC3 and its function? Is it found in all humans?

Comment by Phil Owens on June 12, 2014 at 12:34am

Doug, does genetic entropy have anything to do with the fact that humans don´t have PTERV -1 ?

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 12, 2014 at 1:33am

Phil,

Don't have a clue.  Had never heard of PtERV1 until you mentioned it just now.  It would seem, since no trace of it has been found in the human genome, that it was never there to begin with.  If so it would not have been the victim of multiple, destructive mutations.  Even so, genetic entropy just says that genomes can only go downhill.  I'm not sure it would be used to comment on something as specific as that.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 12, 2014 at 7:00am

Doug,

Well, supposedly not having PtERV1 makes humans more susceptible than monkeys  apes to HIV. Wouldn´t that have to do with genetic etropy ? I´m assuming that that wouldn´t have been a problem for the original human genome.

Comment by Carl Werner on June 12, 2014 at 11:34am

Phil,

The apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme catalytic polypeptide 3 (APOBEC3) proteins are out of my area of expertise. Sorry.

Carl

 and its function? APOBEC3Is it found in all humans?

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 12, 2014 at 11:57am

Phil,

Interesting mental exercise you've posed.  Is susceptibility to HIV due to loss of some genetic ability or is it that the HIV is some direct result of the Fall and Man was never designed to deal with it in the first place?  For that matter, are viruses themselves a result of the Fall?  Or did viruses have some good purpose originally which has since gone awry?

I don't know if there's any way to answer those questions.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 12, 2014 at 1:57pm

Doug,

I´m still researching the topic.  Answersin genesis had the following to say. They tie it in with genetic entropy:

In his book Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Dr. John Sanford pointed out the degeneration of genomes and predicted the extinction of the human race (Sanford 2008). So the apparent degeneration of ERV elements in vertebrate genomes is real. All known HERVs show varying degrees of deletions and substitutions. Oftentimes, the original viral genes are mutated beyond recognition (Cordonnier, Casella, and Heidmann 1995). Analysis of non-synonymous and synonymous mutations showed that HERV elements have been subjected to purifying selection (Belshaw et al. 2004). Selection may be on the level of the virus, for the propagation of the fittest virus, or on the level of the host, for the preservation of the fittest host. For those ERVs whose genes are only partially preserved, such as ERVWE1, selection seems to be based on their benefit to the host. Homologous recombination between degraded ERV genes and nascent cDNA of replication-competent retroviruses may have slowed down the degeneration of ERVs. Since selection on replicating viruses is more affordable, simultaneous existence of exogenous retroviruses provides a means to preserve ERV genes.

 

Comment by Phil Owens on June 13, 2014 at 6:39am

An interesting post I received this morning in response to the fact that evolutionists cannot identify the common ancestor between man and chimp. All feeback welcomed.

Rather than a prototype chimp as commonly believed, our common forefather was an ape unlike any that exists today. We don't need to have a fossil of the common ancestor or identity EXACTLY what organism it was to know that it actually existed. 

Let me give you an example. We know that bullets are fired from guns and that they can cause massive tissue damage. Suppose we have a body with a large gun-shot wound and I show it to you and you say that "No it wasn't caused by a bullet because you can't tell me what caliber it was ! "

I hope you see how ridiculous this is. 

We  have the genome clearly showing where all the branching happens and we have DNA.  We can trace those branches all the way back to a common ancestor (the bullet).  We have the injured person (us), we have the bullet h*** (the genes), and we have the trajectory (the mechanism), we just don't have the first ancestor (the bullet). It does not mean the ancestor (bullet) did not exist. Your argument shows a severe misunderstanding of evolution. 

Your model of intelligent design also has to account for the fact that humans are more similar to chimps/bonobos than to gorillas and all three are about the same genetic distance from orangutans. This sequence data correlates with the fossil record over a period of about 10-15 million years. This matches exactly what we would predict if evolution took place.

Comment by Floyd on June 13, 2014 at 9:21am

Firstly, evolutionists should be consistent with the analogies they give as examples. A bullet was designed and the gun was designed and also the mechanism to fire the gun was designed! His analogy should be a random unguided event caused the tissue damage. He has committed the fallacy of false analogy. Evolutionists borrow from design principles yet at the same time deny design, making the logical law of non-contradiction meaningless. Hence their interpretation of facts are based on a faulty worldview.

Even if we allow him his example a simple use of logic destroys his argument. The arguer is implying:


First premise: Gun predicts massive tissue damage.
Second premise: We observe massive tissue damage,
Consequent: therefore, gunshot is the true cause.


There are many other reasons that massive tissue damage can be caused. This is really the fallacy of affirming the consequent – an argument where the second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise.

But the real issue is evaded because the issue is not the damage of the tissue, the issue is how did the tissue get there? A tissue issue.


Then he then fallaciously “equivocates” to the “common forefather”. We have observed a bullet, a gun and massive tissue damage. Similarly we have observed DNA, us, genes, the mechanism, but we have never observed evolution of the common ancestor (which fallaciously is equivocated to a bullet that we have observed) which should proliferate within the fossil records.


So, the arguer commits the fallacies of --- affirming the consequent --- equivocation --- Fallacy of false analogy --- and finally fallaciously begs the question i.e. assuming what he is attempting to prove.

He claims the common ancestor is scientific fact, so we should be able to repeatedly observe these ape-like creatures’ fossils in there different transition forms. There are none.


The arguer should show the mechanism of solely unguided mutations working in the cell without any help from natural selection producing genetic codes, enzymes, proteins, transcription/translation mechanisms ultimately leading to the phenotype. With no help from natural selection until the phenotype exists. Evolutionist’s whole premise collapses just as their logic and unrealistic analogies.

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 13, 2014 at 9:31am

Ask "an" expert!  Floyd what a great response!!!  Good words!  

Comment by Phil Owens on June 13, 2014 at 10:35am

I agree, that added insight is exactly what I was hoping for.  It´s clear that he is comparing knowns with unknowns. What are the chances that he can provide information on the cranial capacity, the degree of bipedality,, number of chromosomes, etc of the common ancestror ?.  If I´m not mistaken, scientists still haven´t fully finished sequencing the chimpanzee genome.  Yet he claims we know about the genome of the mythological common ancestor?  I think his time line is arbitary as well. Although, I absolutely hate Wiki when it comes to the topic of creation/ID vs evolution, I found that they had this to say regarding the timeline:

"Complex speciation and incomplete lineage sorting of genetic sequences seem to also have happened in the split between our lineage and that of the gorilla, indicating "messy" speciation is the rule rather than exception in large-bodied primates.[6][7] Such a scenario would explain why divergence age between the H*** and Pan has varied with the chosen method and why a single point has been so far hard to track down "

I´m still researching our alleged relatedness to chimps/bonobos, gorillas vs orangutans.  i remember reading somewhere, that humans where supposedly closer to gorillas in some respects or closer to orangutans in others.

I also found this in my archived notes which I thought was interesting regarding the animals which we are more closely related to depending on what you´re comparing.

Blood Serum  - Chimpanzee (If the right antiserum is used)

Milk Chemistry  - Donkey

Cholesterol -  Garter Snake

Foot Structure – Glacial Bear

Tear Enzyme -  Chicken

Brain Hormone -  Cockroach

Comment by Cheri A Fields on June 13, 2014 at 12:10pm

That is a great list of things to recognize about the fossil record, Dr. Werner. I almost objected to your. "All layers are nearly flat meaning no erosional channels to speak of." Many layers show a lot of warping, which is great evidence for quick changes in the lay of the land, but I realized the point you're making.

There aren't widespread signs of slow and uniform erosion through the layers one would expect if it really took millions of years to form them.

Min if I copy these to a post and credit you (with links) for this list?

Comment by Phil Owens on June 13, 2014 at 3:38pm

Any help on this one ?

"In light of you comment "mixture of left and right-handed amino acids, which is detrimental to life"; kindly explain how bacteria manage to live with both L and D amino acids as constituents of pepitdoglycan?"

Comment by Phil Owens on June 13, 2014 at 4:43pm
Comment by Carl Werner on June 13, 2014 at 9:37pm

Cheri,

You are welcome to post that.  Warping and duning is evident in these pancaked stacked un-eroded layers but there should be river channels cutting through these layers if they were laid down over millions of years.  These V-shaped river channels should be evident in any rock cut and the V-shaped channels should be evident starting in the middle layers, not just starting at the top layer and cutting down.  As you drive down the highway look for V-shaped channels cutting through 4 or 5 layers. There are none except when the V shape channel starts from the top layer. All you see is flay (sometimes warped) pancake stacked layers but then un-eroded layers below except if the erosion starts from the top.  (This is easier to show you with a chalkboard.)

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 13, 2014 at 9:52pm

Phil,

Off the top of my head, here is the answer.  Nearly all animals use just left handed amino acids when they assemble proteins.  These left handed amino acids are assembled into proteins by connecting them into a linear chain that folds during assembly.  

There are a few exceptions to this rule.  For example, the poisonous cone shell in Australia has some right handed amino acids. There are some other rare examples of animals using a right handed (D) amino acid besides this one but they are very rare.

Also, amino acids after they are part of into the protein chain can change from left to right handed but they have to start with just left handed amino acids during formation to be functional. Animal proteins when built from amino acids require left handed amino acids during assembly of the protein to be functional.  So the mixture of left and right amino acids supplied inside a cell will make the proteins formed nonfunctional and hurt the cell/animal.

I would confirm this information with another source before using as this is not my area of expertise and is done from memory.

Carl 

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 13, 2014 at 10:25pm

Carl I am thinking you might of lost my question below, I am going to repost it because it is important that this is discussed.  Cheers!

Carl I would like to tidy up if I can ask..  Do you see the fossil record as evidences of Gods original creation?  In other words all the species we find extinct or living fossils are all part of Gods adorning the earth with flora and fauna in the beginning

It seems to me the fixity of species incur my thinking to lead towards Gods original creation covered all creation from then on wether or not something is extinct.  I cannot come up with a mechanism that explains animals showing up any time in history after the original creation as a new species outside of hybridization and or variation which does not change to new species or body plans. ...all that existed, all that we see today all of it came from original DNA, Gods digital information contained in DNA and indeed the evidences of His work in front of our eyes.  I can not leave the animal kingdom up to some self-determination within its own abilities as implied by some as I don't think this was part of the creation mechanism nor the actual narrative....I do thank you for considered input...

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 14, 2014 at 12:34am

Lou,

Hope you don't mind if I join the discussion on this point. I understand that a species is the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.  Species is a human term, not a Biblical one.  The Bible doesn't use the term species, it only uses "kind".   Species and kind can't conceivably be the same thing if for no other reason than there are too many land animal and bird species to have fit on the Ark.  But there is room if the Biblical "kind" is something akin to the Family level of things.  There must be a fixity of "kind" but there can't be a fixity of species.  Also I believe speciation has been observed to occur naturally.  What won't happen is that a new kind can come into existence.

Comment by Floyd on June 14, 2014 at 3:56am

“Kindly explain how bacteria manage to live with both L and D amino acids as constituents of pepitdoglycan?”

Carl Werner stated “Animal proteins when built from amino acids require left handed amino acids during assembly of the protein to be functional.


Phil, Dr. Werner is correct. But, if I may, I would like to expand this from the perspective of logical fallacies. The issue is not can L and D amino acids live with each other, but the issue is can they mix with each other at the crucial stages of life and why?


All proteins are built from the ubiquitous set of the 20 amino acids encoded directly by the genetic code. Without proteins there is no life structure and the synthesis of proteins are done during the translation stage.

“L-amino acids represent all of the amino acids found in proteins during translation in the ribosome.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid

There are no mixing of L and D amino acids when proteins are created in the translation process i.e. during the Protein (peptide) synthesis.


“D-amino acids are found in some proteins produced by enzyme posttranslational modifications after translation and translocation to the endoplasmic reticulum, as in exotic sea-dwelling organisms such as cone snails. They are also abundant components of the peptidoglycan cell walls of bacteria.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid

The Fallacies


He starts with the fallacy of irrelevance --- proving a point, but not the point at issue i.e. it is not “can they” but “when can they and why”. He then fallaciously equivocated the issues --- shifted from one issue to another i.e. from “when they cannot” to “when they can”. He then surrounds the fallacies by a “complex question” fallacy --- attempting to persuade you by asking a loaded question i.e. opposing structures can exist but are engineered that way through separate processes (e.g. posttranslational modifications after translation and translocation)



Comment by Phil Owens on June 14, 2014 at 7:30am

Thanks Dr. Werner and Floyd. I wasn´t even sure how to go about researching that question. I´ve been bogged down researching ERVs ever since I brought it up.( lol)

Comment by Phil Owens on June 14, 2014 at 7:54am

Doug, this might not have been your point but the Bible does use the word species although not in Hebrew. IThis point comes in handy when I find evolutionists scoffing at the word "kind" because it doesn´t sound as scientific as "species".

Genesis 1:21:

“creavitque Deus cete grandia et omnem animam viventem atque motabilem quam produxerant aquae in species suas et omne volatile secundum genus suum et vidit Deus quod esset bonum” 

Species is also found in Genesis 1:24, (25) as well. The Latin basically meant the biblical “kind.” In fact, this word carried over into English and other languages that have some Latin influence. It means a “kind, form, or sort.” Another word that was commonly used for a kind in the Latin Vulgate was genus. This is evident in Genesis 1:1112, and 21. In both cases, these two words were used for the Hebrew word min or kind. For example, there is a dog kind, cat kind, and so on.1

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/fixity-of...

Comment by Carl Werner on June 14, 2014 at 6:54pm

Lou and Doug,

Species from my perspective is best defined as two animals that can breed and produce fertile offspring.  The definition can mixed up when people split animals of the same species into different species names and give false categories. For example, in the past, Darwin and the gang split living human beings into more than 16 species based on race. On page 23 of my book Living Fossils you will see the names that humans were divided into based on race, which is of course wrong since all humans can reproduce and produce fertile offspring. There is only one species.

Now dealing with fossils it is even more difficult. Could animal A be the same species as animal B based on looking at the fossils? That is hard to figure out. For example, if you look at skull fossils of dogs each one looks radically from some of the others and appear to be in different genus groups but in reality they are the same species.  (See these dog skulls on page 20-22 of Living Fossils.) So when a scientist says this or that animal is the same or different species or genus based on just skulls or fossils it is really hard to verify.  Maybe they are the same kind, or the same species, maybe they are not. Can't be sure if they are dead and fossilized and extinct.

Imagine if you found two cows skulls but had never seen a cow before because cows were theoretically extinct.  One cow has no horns and another has huge horns, yet they could be simply a male and female of the same species.

In the same way, it is difficult to know if any to fossils could actually be the same species and reproduce (Kinds) just by looking  at the fossils. To get a definitive answer you would need to see them living and test reproduction.

I don't believe that all lizard types came from just one pair of lizards because there is a great variety in the lizards but without testing reproduction it is just a guess. Unless one tests reproduction of lizard types that are living you cannot straighten out which ones are kinds (or really the same species) and which are not.  

It is  conjecture to say exactly which animals could evolve from a single pair. I know dogs could. I believe cows could.  I bet horses, zebras could (same genus), but it will take testing of all living types in a group to know which could and which could not.  And of course, you will never get the full answer because you cannot test fossils for reproduction.

The answer may lie between the two groups of scientists, the splitters and the lumpers.  Maybe all of the lizards could come from 25 different lizard types. Maybe 50. I doubt 1.

Confused? It is difficult to be definitive without testing and observation.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 14, 2014 at 7:00pm

Dear Floyd,

You must come clean and tell us how you became so comfortable with the rules of logic. Frankly, I wish I had your skill set and wonder out loud how you perfected using the rules of logic?  Did you simply read a book on logic or was it a single college course or is your degree in this area?  I am soooo impressed at your ease in deciphering arguements simply from the logic standpoint.  So tell us how you became proficient in logic. I am jealous. I bet the others on this forum are too! :)

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 14, 2014 at 7:06pm

Phil,

I know you balked at the idea that everyone has to become an expert in one small are to pitch in and help and I would like to point out something. 1) You are an expert in that you are blogging and have become so proficient in taking on tough arguments. 2) You have become a semi-expert in the hard questions that have been posed to you, yes even retorviruses.  3) You are an expert in public speaking because you have developed an answer for many common questions.  

Some of us have the luxury of not learning everything but focusing on small areas but that makes us experts in that area but not an expert in the area you are dealing in, public speaking.  

Some day, your files of answers to hard questions will have an answer on a vast array of topics on evolution and then, the debate will end!  Keep on truckin'   :)

Carl

Comment by Phil Owens on June 14, 2014 at 7:08pm

Dr. Vwrmer, with regards to recognizing fossils as a basis for transitionals, the evolutionists must have been confronted with your assertions before. What is their response ? Do they say they have something else more verifiable to go by?

Comment by Carl Werner on June 14, 2014 at 7:10pm

Phil, 

Interesting Latin bible verse. I will have to think about this.  That verse was originally written in ?Hebrew but then this is the Latin translation and has the words species and genus in the verse?

Where do you get soooo much information?

Carl

Comment by Phil Owens on June 14, 2014 at 8:41pm

Dr. Werner.  I think you misunderstood me. I wasn´t balking at the idea of people being experts in only one area. What I was saying is that people should be willing to continue to learn about other areas particularly the hottest topics in the evolution vs. creation debate. If that´s their thing of course.

Yeah, the word "species" was in the Bible long before it became popular in modern science. 

I read that particular article in answers in genesis. My favorite sites for getting information are creation ministries, Evolution News and Views, Creation Wiki and Creation Headlines. I have a big, fat, file folder labeled evolution on every topic that I´ve ever looked up. It´s a huge time saver. 

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 14, 2014 at 9:03pm

PHIL said:

Doug, this might not have been your point but the Bible does use the word species although not in Hebrew. IThis point comes in handy when I find evolutionists scoffing at the word "kind" because it doesn´t sound as scientific as "species".

Nah, Phil, the word species does not occur in the Bible, neither in the New Testament, nor in the Old Testament. And the meaning of any word in either testament is NOT EQUAL to the term of modern taxonomy - species. We do not determine the meaning and sense of any Hebrew word in the Bible on the basis of what will be more appealing to skeptics and evolutionists.

Based on the usage of the word MiYN the clearest sense of the word in the vocabulary of modern taxonomy is the class genera or family. And any uncertainty about the meaning does not come from biblical usage, but from inconsistencies in the manner in which taxonomic classifications are assigned in that field of study.

The biblical word MiYN always refers to any group of various forms of animals that are capable of reproducing together. There is no requirement of similar "body plans" for two animals to be of the same KIND. The only requirement is that the various forms and diverse creatures would be capable of reproducing together. Within Taxonomy, the largest categories capable of reproducing together are genera and families, quite simple and quite clear. There is no uncertainty or obscurity about the meaning and usage of the Hebrew word MiYN, which is consistently translated as KIND in the KJV. In other translations there is inconsistency and arbitrariness.

True Hebrew Scholars will take the time to look up every single occurrence (31 x in 18 verses). The meaning is clear.

Comment by Douglas Roy on June 14, 2014 at 10:37pm

You cannot win a spiritual warfare by carnal means. Many of you think creationism vs evolutionism is a carnal dispute. You are gravely mistaken. You will not win using intellectual or scientific means only. It is impossible. You dispute with many materialists and think you must limit yourselves to materialists arguments, but you are missing the target. Are you not believers in a supernatural God who created the world in six days by supernatural means? Did not Christ come to earth in a supernatural way, born of a virgin? Did he enter his ministry content only with the nature of God within him? He did not. He was empowered with the Holy Ghost, without measure. He told us his words were spirit and they were life. The born again experience he said was essential for any man to enter the kingdom of God is a supernatural work of the Spirit of God. Christ did mighty signs and wonders, impossible and completely outside the material realm. The gospel message of repentance and faith in God was not based on mental or emotional means, but a spiritual work by the grace of God. Christ died and rose again in three days by the mighty power of God, far outside the material realm, supernaturally. Yet, somehow, this fight between belief in God and unbelief in God many deem as carnal. You that think so have been deceived and I think you need to go back to studying the scriptures and lay aside your science books for awhile. The gospel has the answers and the truth you seek and the power to transform the unbelieving hearts, not science.

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 15, 2014 at 12:29am

Carl and Phil

Well Carl, Phil reads a lot of the information in AIG.  Kudos to you on that Phil. 

But I would take GREAT issue with Phil's statement that the Bible used the term "species" because no modern translation that I know of would translate the Hebrew "min" as the modern English word "species".  Just because the Vulgate used the word "species" in the Latin doesn't qualify.  But it is interesting to know that the English word comes from the Latin.  So in amplification of Lou's question about fixity of species, Bodie Hodge pointed out in the article you referenced that "species" no longer means what it used to mean.  Evolutionists use that to discredit creationists when creationists use "fixity of species" to refer to the Biblical kinds because if you use the modern definition, species can change into other species.  That was my only point.  But I know that we don't want to get into a "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin" discussion so l will drop the point about whether the Bible uses "species".

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 15, 2014 at 12:47am

Well Douglas, here's the deal, at least for me.  I know it's important to have answers and as Ken Ham has often pointed out when you tell young people that all they need is to repent and believe in Jesus ... well for salvation that is certainly true.  But there's the matter of growth in faith and this is what is being attacked in the schools, on TV, in books, etc. 

Take my wife for example.  When she was in high school and a teacher mentioned the millions of years, she asked how that could be since the Bible said everything was created in six days.  The teacher said something like "well a lot of people believe the days were millions of years."  This was not contradicted in her church or in Sunday School and for many years it weakened her faith and led to a general question of whether you could trust the Bible.

THIS is why it's worth the time to study and be able to answer the scientific questions.  Not only that of course but as an engineer (and science junkie) the idea of teaching a blatant absurdity like evolution offends my sensibilities to NO small amount.  But it is important for our young people to know there are answers and that requires some effort and study on our part.

One last thing.  I have heard many testimonies from people who were once atheists or non believers, that God USED the scientific challenges from knowledgeable Christians to eventually turn them to Christ.  I believe I've heard both John Sanford and Robert Carter from CMI make similar statements.

Why is it that you think that God can't use any means he chooses to break down their strong holds?

Comment by Phil Owens on June 15, 2014 at 2:06am

Hi Jim and Doug. Doug thanks for the Kudos !!

Nah, Phil, the word species does not occur in the Bible, neither in the New Testament, nor in the Old Testament

Here are those verses again Jim.

Genesis

[21] Creavitque Deus cete grandia, et omnem animam viventem atque motabilem, quam produxerant aquae in species suas, et omne volatile secundum genus suum. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum.

[24] Dixit quoque Deus: Producat terra animam viventem in genere suo, jumenta, et reptilia, et bestias terrae secundum species suas. Factumque est ita

http://www.drbo.org/lvb/chapter/01001.htm

 

So I guess whether we like it or not the word "species" does in fact appear in the Latin translation of the Bible,.

,written between the 2nd - 4th centruy A.D, and we can´t wish it away by simply saying it´s not there. Instead of ignorning it, we should maybe ask ourselves, why is it there and what does it mean? 

Now granted meanings of words change as time progress. But even in modern times the term "specieces" is not that clear.

"Disagreements and confusion happen over just what the best criteria are for identifying new species. In 1942, Ernst Mayrwrote that, because biologists have different ways of identifying species, they actually have different species concepts.[5]Mayr listed five different species concepts, and since then many more have been added.[6][7][8] The question of which species concept is best has occupied many printed pages and many hours of discussion.[9]"

- Wiki "Species Problem"

Comment by Phil Owens on June 15, 2014 at 2:13am

Hi Doug

You stated:

"But I would take GREAT issue with Phil's statement that the Bible used the term "species" because no modern translation that I know of would translate the Hebrew "min" as the modern English word "species". "

 4327. min 
Strong's Concordance
min: kind, species
Original Word: מִין
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: min
Phonetic Spelling: (meen)
Short Definition: kind
Comment by Floyd on June 15, 2014 at 3:05am

Doug, all members on this forum are aware that it’s the Holy Spirit that converts the heart. We are using all the tools God gave us for unbelievers to start listening to the Holy Spirit. If by enlightening others who are confused about millions of years, or natural selection, or the Big Bang, etc. it will question their presupposition that there is no God, then we should not hide this knowledge from them but make them aware of it.

Dr Werner, it seems to me that logic is one of the foundations of reasoning. When the evolutionist or atheist reason they have to use logic. Certain elements of logic is “absolute”/“objective” (such as the law of non-contradiction) or else the argument becomes arbitrary or meaningless. Atheists rely heavily on the worldview of evolution. Absolutes are the complete opposite to evolution. Since neither the evolutionist nor atheist can account for or justify logic within their worldview the Christian is at a distinct advantage because we can through the bible. When they use the bible has contradictions argument the easy response is they can’t use their contradictory worldview to determine what the bible states (as well as showing how consistent the bible is). So, for me, it’s easy to get from the issue by using the foundations of logic to Christ, because to deny Christ atheists have to deny logic and that it’s absolute because then before their eyes they prove how contradictory their worldview is!  

I tend to use a list of all the fallacies evolutionists constantly use such as reification, equivocation, begging the question, complex question, bifurcation, ad hominem, strawman. Appeal to authority, etc. Then I filter every statement through a series of the main logical fallacies to make sure not only the objector is sticking to the issue but also myself. Once you go through the list most of the time there is a fallacy and you can re-focus on the issue. It’s only then that you can properly research the topic in-depth to identify which part of observational science has been compromised. This means you research the right areas and you have a ready-made response without too much thinking.

Ultimately your response will always lead to Christ while you drag the objector through the debate you know that they have no answers to unless they open their hearts to the Holy Spirit.

A good tip is to read as many real-world examples of evolutionist’s fallacies and two books that have many examples are The Ultimate Proof of Creation by Dr Jason Lisle and Discerning Truth by Dr Jason Lisle.

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 15, 2014 at 8:06am

Like to chime in on species...

And those that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him. And the LORD shut him in.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

This may run counter to some of your ideas, but for the sake of conversation, I see species and kinds have an absolute relationship period that cannot be denied!  Take Tom Hannigans (Creation biologist) recent work on amphibians pasted here somewhere on this forum, all of the amphibians were called out by their taxonomic name.   Now the issue is whether kind and species at the family level are the same or not many do take that view.  But I would further say that the issue is also taxonomy.  And Carl and others have pointed out that living fossils have been identified to be the exact same animal but Taxonomists have relegated a new description based on their Darwinian assumptions.  But counter to that because I do study lizard and have studied them for over 40 years, I would just say that our taxonomic systematic while certainly flawed when the bible is used as a basis for comparison because animals are much more simple in the bible...But there are certain animals that "are" called out specifically and have a name in the bible.   

My point is that the systematics that are in existence now probably need some investigation and tweaking from a Christian point of view.  Certainly Christianity has done this over and over in history.  While it is interesting that Christians seem to imply they know what "KInd" is and will argue every scripture about Kind...  When push comes to shove they have no further drill down to explain the nuances that all animal people over thousands of years have seen and studied.  So now let me ask you..above are some pics of lizards.  THey are all sand lizards they all have similar designs shovel like heads, fringe toes, bars under the tail and even markings that are different because of their variations but in similar locations and there are others with bars and others with spots.  BUt the similarities while they are observable, one looks at these animals in their own habitat and they are designed uniquely for that specific habitat.  THeir body plan is, their protective colorations, etc.

So here is my view, in the bible as today someone sees a lizard and they say hey there is a lizard.  In the middle America a collared lizard is called a "mountain boomer" by locals so they have given its a local designation and they all know what a "mountain boomer" is.  I see this as a direct carry over because we are all human, with respect to the biblical animals.....the same?

So my point is if man and indeed man has, began studying the fauna and flora of our world, they ran up against nuance differences in similar looking animals.  Yes there is a Darwinian basis for this in modern times, but Linus and others just wanted to worship God and define the nuances. They are not only observable they are a fact no matter what system or description you use.   

Please go up to pics of lizards and further discussion 

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 15, 2014 at 8:23am

So my point is this what is wrong with studying lizards and observing what herpetology knows to be true about that.  That mankind has taken what GOd gave us and has explored it and continues to do so.  My issues are more with taxonomy than definitions.  I think we are arguing this to the inth degree, we apparently as generalists see kinds in some favorable light while our Christian biologists all of us use species often to designate a specific animal.  Go to AIG and the huge amount of articles on certain animals all ahve taxonomic names.  There is nothing wrong with this, we as Christians all recognize Kinds and so does AIG.   

What I am saying is the species or nuance designations between similar animals or kinds if you will needs the drill down, because even the natural history, eco-niches, habits etc are different even among similar animals.  Now for some of you calling a lizard a lizard is just fine.  For others you know that name "mountain boomer" and you may have memories of those animals maybe when you were young and saw some of these.  

BUt mankind has went further with his studies and realized that a mountain boomer has other similar relational lizards that have enough nuance differences that they can't be the same animal.  NOw this is where variation comes in.  Its not enough to say that that is a lizard that looks different but is the same type.  

These are two sand lizards of a different type, one similar design but uniquely not the same...There is nothing wrong in a Christian finding out these nuances through study and something has to be used beyond kind for a definition and a local understood name is not enough either....so if someone denies Kinds in biblical, but if someone like Tom Haningan or Carl Werner uses a designation from taxonomy there is nothing wrong with that.  The investigation by Christian biologists and the argument needs to be in the area of taxonomy and not species designation. "species" whether anyone on this forum likes it or not is a clear reference to the observable in nature.  There may be problems with it, and it may need to be tweaked by Christians, and that I would like to be a part of... but it defines what we know is true.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 15, 2014 at 9:08am

Dr. Werner, Floyd or Anyone else, Any thoughts on this one as I do a little research to respond to the evolutonist´s post on the mixing of right and left hand amino acids.

" Look up protein secondary structure.So how does changing L to D amino acids alter the structure? Does it mater? Data to prove it? You can't say it may not work until you do the experiment. Otherwise you don't know you are guessing.

I´m not really sure where he´s going with this or what it has to do with the detrimental effects of mixing right and left hand amino acids during protein synthesis. Maybe someone else does.

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 15, 2014 at 9:19am

Carl Could you answer this question, you lumped me in with Doug, and none of you response answered this question for me, if you would:

Carl I would like to tidy up if I can ask..  Do you see the fossil record as evidences of Gods original creation? In other words all the species we find extinct or "living fossils" are all part of Gods adorning the earth with flora and fauna in the beginning narrative of Genesis?

It seems to me the fixity of design and DNA information incur my thinking to lead towards Gods original creation covered all the earth and from then on wether or not something is extinct.  I cannot come up with a mechanism that explains animals showing up any time in history after the original creation as a new species outside of hybridization and or variation which does not change to new species or body plan. ...

Carl for instance there are 21 different known variations of color in the California King Snake, we both know variation takes place, however they are all California King Sakes and no new body plan has ensued.

So I imply that all that existed in the past and is now extinct, all that we see today living, all of it came from original DNA, Gods digital information contained in DNA and indeed the evidences of His work in front of our eyes is indeed "evidence" a non-guided mechanism could or would not be responsible.  

I do not accept the teaching or theory as expressed by some on this site that leaves the animal kingdom up to some self-determination within its own genetic abilities through adaptation as implied,  I don't think there is any evidences this was part of the creation mechanism nor the actual narrative....  Your thoughts.

Comment by Floyd on June 15, 2014 at 12:09pm

Evolutionist: " Look up protein secondary structure.So how does changing L to D amino acids alter the structure? Does it mater? Data to prove it? You can't say it may not work until you do the experiment. Otherwise you don't know you are guessing”

Again the evolutionist evade the issue using fallacious arguments. He is ignoring the issue and then attempts to use design to prove “accidents”. The issue is the production of amino acids and chirality.

“The problem is that all conceived ways of producing amino acids “accidentally” (i.e., as was thought to have happened on the primordial earth) yield both left- and right-handed amino acids simultaneously. Not only does this not explain the exclusivity of left-handed amino acids in life, but also, when the two forms interact directly, the result is toxic to life.”
https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/problems-for-accidental...

Fallacy of irrelevance --- proving a point but not the point at issue. Proteins, the structure of life, already exist. The question is why proteins exist if evolutionary theory says it happened by accidents. When trying to produce amino acids yields both left- and right-handed amino acids simultaneously. Remember

“L-amino acids represent all of the amino acids found in proteins during translation in the ribosome.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid.

Yet the evolutionist is quite happy to use pre-existing proteins to prove their point! It’s a fallacious appeal to ignorance -- arguing that his claim of protein structure is probably true simply because it has never been proved false. It’s fallacious equivocation --- shifting from accidents to design by using design in a laboratory as experiments to prove his accidental unknown, when he should be proving his unknown by an unguided accident using primordial conditions on earth.

Your response to him should be “Are you sure of the conditions? Were you there? You don't know you are guessing.”

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 15, 2014 at 5:37pm

No one at this site, no regular or visitor has ever espoused or advocated this theory:

I do not accept the teaching or theory as expressed by some on this site that leaves the animal kingdom up to some self-determination within its own genetic abilities through adaptation as implied,  I don't think there is any evidences this was part of the creation mechanism nor the actual narrative....

This is what is known as a "Straw Man" fallacy. It is representing something as the belief of "the other side,"  which is not at all the belief or position that anyone in the discussion has ever maintained.

I would love to see a single pasted quote in which anyone, visitor, newbie, veteran, or seventh-grader has ever maintained that any creature of God is left to "self-determination" as to opting for new body plans.

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 15, 2014 at 5:50pm

We never tweak the meaning of the Bible on the basis of some new theory of science.

One Visitor to our site (who disagrees with our Statement of Faith) said:

My point is that the systematics that are in existence now probably need some investigation and tweaking from a Christian point of view. 

However IF he means that the systematics of sec-sci needs adjusting then creationists would whole-heartedly say AMEN to that idea! The taxonomic system needs major readjustment if we are intent on somehow making it fit better with the Bible.

But the Bible puts Locusts, Bats, and Sparrows in the same category.

The Biblical classification system is different. And the meaning of the word "KIND" is quite definite in Scripture. We should never try to make biblical words fit within in the modern system. However, it is not at all inappropriate to try to determine which term or terms of the modern system is most closely parallel to our biblical language. And ALL MAINSTREAM CREATIONISTS are in agreement that the biblical "KIND" does have a relationship to the modern system of taxonomy in the categories of genera and families.

The Bible means what it means. It means the same thing now as what it meant when it was originally written. When Aaron and Miriam, the brother and sister of Moses were reading Genesis 1 -- 6, those words meant the same thing that they mean today. And the word "KIND" was by no means equal or parallel to the modern extreme excessive specification and delineation of the term "species" as it has been currently abused by taxonomists and paleontologists looking for fame in identifying a new species after themselves.

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 15, 2014 at 5:58pm

Again, NOT ONE PERSON in this forum has ever said we should not pay attention to differences between species. No one here has ever advocated that we should not use the term species. Some one who thinks such a silly thing is laboring under considerable misunderstanding.

No one will ever be able to provide a single pasted quote of anyone ever making a post at creation conversations in which the position was maintained that "we should not use the term species."

But all creationists in the mainstream are in entire and unanimous agreement that the modern usage in taxonomy of the term species is NOT EQUAL to the biblical term "KIND."

Nor has any poster here (except maybe a fellow named Robert who also believes there were no whales until after the Flood) has ever suggested that all lizards are the same biblical KIND. Never happened. But there are many particular species of lizards with distinct but subtle differences which are the same biblical KIND. We identify them as being the same kind due to the biblical standard of capability of producing offspring together.

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 15, 2014 at 6:10pm

Phil, you do understand, do you not, that someone's translation is not necessarily correct? And so, the fact remains, the word species does not occur in the Hebrew/Chaldaean or Greek of the Bible. And the fact remains that is certainly incorrect to understand the Hebrew word Miyn as "species" in the sense currently in use by modern taxonomy.

Strongs is not properly just a "dictionary." It is also a  concordance in which ALL ALTERNATIVE Translations are listed, right or wrong. The dictionary in the back is also a lexical listing of various choices of translations. The ultimate means of determining a  meaning is to OBSERVE HOW IT IS USED in the sacred text. And KIND (Miyn) is clearly defined by usage as any group of animals capable of reproducing viable offspring together. It has nothing to do with physical features, or appearance, or body-plan, or social habits, or dietary preferences, or psychological tendencies, or habitat choice. Kind is distinguished always and only by the capacity of various animals to produce offspring together.

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 15, 2014 at 7:30pm

 Jim it is my hope that I will get a qualified answer from the "expert".  

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 15, 2014 at 8:06pm

What I inferred after your very fine comments is this:

AIG is supportive of species and our biologists all of them when referring to specific animals use a taxonomic nomenclature to differentiate one from another. Especially when speaking  of similar animals.

At the family level Jim, as some put species there, I have implied that there needs to be a further drill down.

I totally believe the kinds that the bible uses but it also infers specific types of animals and the drill down is needed to differentiate different kinds.

But all creationists in the mainstream are in entire and unanimous agreement that the modern usage in taxonomy of the term species is NOT EQUAL to the biblical term "KIND."

This is right and that's why science does not use kind, that' why Christian biologists don't use kind for any animal at or below the family level, because it is not enough to describe the diversity. Since creation mankind has studied the creation and diversity and found it necessary to have a further drill down.  

The two sand lizard pics I posted show similar design, they are sand lizards would we just call these tow different looking kinds a sand lizard Kind and let that be sufficient for Christian biologist and science?  

JIm your mistaken that this is some attack on the bible it is not. The issue is taxonomy for me .  

JIm you said: It has nothing to do with physical features, or appearance, or body-plan, or social habits, or dietary preferences, or psychological tendencies, or habitat choice.

My point Jim is that it has everything todo with defining our diversity, morphology, Symbiotic relationships, Body plan to eco-niche. 

KInd IMHO will not be enough to describe our diversity.  Having over 40 years of biologic observation and study, I can tell you that you cannot call a family the iguana kind and then disregard the total differences in the animals.  Some who are in the same families have completely different natural history.

We have 7 different species of elephants - would you call an african, an asian, a Indian, a whatever elephant an elephant kind and be satisfied with that nomenclature for all 4?   The biblical narrative and how it is used os very clear, but you seem to disregard a drill down because it isn't Biblical?  There is nothing wrong with the drill down, this is not an attack on the bible, good Christian men in history used and contributed to the drill down because like me they understand the need to have it.  So I know good works by Christians with respect to trying to define kinds, but it is so difficult without a drill down there is no real bassi for kinds without a drill down.  Some Christians do want to use kinds.  That fine, if it can work for them.  But when it comes to the biology and complexity of Gods creation. No one categorization of all animal kinds is enough.  

Brother Jim a flat tailed horned lizard and a Desert horned lizard "can" breed with one another,  THey are both horned lizards.  But they are completely different kinds of horned lizards, just like my sand lizards.  THey have different habits, and they are not the same morphologically.  YOu can criticize anyone for having a drill down view, but I tell you that just because they can breed does not finish the whole description Jim.  There is more to it.  So I can have respect for your biblical view of the word...but I ask you to consider what is actually involved. 

Comment by Carl Werner on June 15, 2014 at 9:07pm

Floyd,

I still want to pick your brain and ask HOW did you get so good on using the rules of logic?  A book, a college class or a degree?

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 15, 2014 at 9:26pm

Each person has there own gift.  It is best that we recognize that we have a special gift but others should not be expected to think or emulate us.  For example, should one person who specializes in visiting people at nursing homes criticize others for not doing this? Or the one who person who helps orphans in Central America criticize others who do not do this? How about the sound person at the church who keeps the audio levels just right? Or the speaker who helps at a youth rally at great personal cost? Or the person who helps with a mass mailing? Each of these people is vital to a cause. We should have great care not to project our gifts onto others.  Rather we are all parts of a big jigsaw puzzle. When we assemble the puzzle, we make a beautiful picture.  When we disassembled the pieces we do not make up the whole.  It is best to respect others and marvel.  

I marvel when I get (occasionally) get invited to speak at a multi speaker conference and listen to the OTHER speakers and see just how smart they are. WOW.  I had this opportunity last year at a CMI conference in Asheville.  At times I think how smart the others are, how much they know, but know in fact I am one of the pieces of the puzzle.

Take care to love your compatriots. One day you will depend on them.

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 15, 2014 at 10:20pm

Carl,  Not to put words into his mouth but I'm guessing that Floyd read and studied Jason Lisle's book the Ultimate Proof of Creation.  Jason studied logic as well as physics and he's the only one I've heard who identified that the expression "begs the question" does not mean that a question begs to be asked!  :) 

So how about it Floyd?  Is my guess correct?

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 15, 2014 at 10:21pm

Oh by the way, kudos to Floyd for putting those rules into practice.  Shucks, I can't remember half of them, much less correctly apply them!

Comment by Phil Owens on June 15, 2014 at 10:48pm

Jim, I was merely pointing out that the word "species" does appear in the Latin translation of the Bible. It stands to reason that the Latin word wouldn´t appear in the Hebrew or Greek versions. I´m sure the word "min" doesn´t appear in the Latin translation or the English word "kind" doesn´t appear in English in the Hebrew version.

I believe you missed my question. Can you state unequivocally that the Latin word "species" did not have a similar meaning to the word "kind" ? I´m pretty sure you can´t given that we don´t even have a clear definition of species today. Again just google "species problem"

With respect to the translation of  Latin word "species" Answers in Genesis" has this to say. You can take it up further with them if you like.

"The Latin basically meant the biblical “kind.” In fact, this word carried over into English and other languages that have some Latin influence. It means a “kind, form, or sort.” Another word that was commonly used for a kind in the Latin Vulgate was genus. This is evident in Genesis 1:1112, and 21. In both cases, these two words were used for the Hebrew word min or kind. For example, there is a dog kind, cat kind, and so on"

It made sense that Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish Christian, began using Latin terms for his new classification system. It was logical to use these common terms, which were a part of the commercial language throughout Europe (much in the way that English, for example, is a seen as a universal language in the world today for communication and so on). Linnaeus even wrote his large treatise, Systema Natvrae, and other findings, in Latin in the mid to late 1700s.

Early commentators recognized that species originally meant the biblical kinds, as even John Calvin, prominent reformer in the 1500s, stated in his notes on Genesis 1:24:

“I say, moreover, it is sufficient for the purpose of signifying the same thing, (1) that Moses declares animals were created ‘according to their species:’ for this distribution carried with it something stable. It may even hence be inferred, that the offspring of animals was included. For to what purpose do distinct species exist, unless that individuals, by their several kinds, may be multiplied?”

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/fixity-of...

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 16, 2014 at 12:06am

But Phil, the Biblical "kind" is not synonymous with the use of "species" today.  The whole point is that in "today speak" species can and HAVE diversified into other species.  The fact that some people have slightly different definitions of "species" misses the point that the generally accepted definition of species is being able to mate and produce fertile offspring.  If we confuse that definition with the Biblical "kinds" then we'll run into trouble.

And why are we talking about Latin meanings?  The Bible wasn't written in Latin.  But to avoid pointless further discussion I will grant that you're right.  Jerome translated the Hebrew "min" (or "miyn") into the Latin word "species" 1600 years ago when he created the Latin version of the Bible called the Vulgate.

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 16, 2014 at 12:46am

One comment to Lou: I am not discussing anything with you directly. I am talking ONLY about your ideas and your views. I will not be carrying on conversation with you here publicly until you begin to have the courtesy to address me in private.

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 16, 2014 at 12:57am

Well said Doug. AiG in speaking of the use of the word "species" is making exactly that point. Species does not mean TODAY what it meant 1600 years ago. And species in its current usage referring to all sort of unique critters that have slight variation of coloration or habits, or scale pattern as particular and distinct species - while all the variations are clearly capable of interbreeding is NOT equal to the sense of the Hebrew word "miyn."

And yes, Phil, The Latin word species as intended by Jerome may very well have contained the same sense as the writers intended. But the fact remains, continued use of the word "species" as a translation for miyn lends itself to more of the confusion promoted by some visitors to our site. Because "species" has taken on an excessively refined sense in the sec-sci world, it should never ever be equated with the biblical word miyn (KJV "kind").

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 16, 2014 at 1:01am

And yes, IN THE BIBLE the defining characteristic of what is a "KIND" (miyn) is that all animals within the group are capable of reproducing together - and even some that are no longer capable of reproducing with others of the same miyn are different variations within that kind. Different variations within a kind are now called species.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 16, 2014 at 7:29am

Doug, aaah ok  If that´s what we´ve been talking about this whole time then yes, I agree on THOSE pointS. Kind is not synomous with today´s lose definition of species, species have diversified into other species and the Bible wasn´t writen in Latin or English.

I´m sure you would also agree that although a Chihuahua and a Great Dane belong to the same species, they would not likely choose to reproduce.

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 16, 2014 at 8:50am

Doug, Phil, Jim...a point I am trying to make with respect to defining diversity, is that kind does not drill down far enough?  I have read three articles form AIG on kind, these were recommended to me by Jim back in 2003, and there is no conflict with taking biblical kinds further via a drill down.  This was easily seen by those over the centuries and I gave you all an example of two lizards with a pic of both.  I am not, nor am arguing, what the bible says about KIND...  

I am saying that Kind is not defined enough with respect to defining the complexities of nature, that’s al!!.  Also the article in AIG by Dr. Purdome and Bode Hodge is about variation and other such nuances but does not address realistically why species or a further drill down is needed.  I don't see how you can not see the need for this unless your just not very informed about diversity. Now again and I say again, variation does take place and is part of nature.  Is there a reason from any of you why their is a need to supplant Kinds as Christian answer to science instead of a further drill down as found in taxonomic definitions?

Are you all silent on the many, many articles written by Christian biologists on AIG published accounts and in all of these a species designation is used, I posted for instance Tom Hannigan's very good works on Amphibians.  There are discussions about fish, and fossils and often the taxonomic designation is used.  

My point to all of you is the Taxonomy is a big issue and that is where Christians should be actively involved. So again I ask, if mankind Christian (Linnus) and others have actually contributed to the current systematics, this is not biblical per se, but like math and physics and chemistry they are not either but we need their information.  Jesus said that mankind would do greater things than he.  Well I am not sure what He meant since his death on the cross and His creation effort is beyond the scope of science even now and will be forever.  But why is this an issue for for you all?  What have you read or what have you taken in that makes you think this IS ANTI-BIBLE?  Whether or not your biblical understanding of Kind which Christians should relish, Christians including Dr. Purdome on the iguanas and anoles and other articles all are using the designations from taxonomy.  

It's only evil if an evil system is using it for evil. Or is it evil just on its own merits?  It is clear to me that there needs input and work from Christians with the kind in mind, but also that article on species and kinds (AIG) has lots of mistakes and inferences in it that really bother me, and actually lead readers into one view lacking information on the other?  These are purely examples are that of hybridization, which does change body plans (of coarse it does) but this is not a mechanism for all diversity.  Of coarse man’s tampering has created many new species/kinds through Hybridization over thousands of years.  Many of these hybrid animals would have never existed in nature because their distribution zones would have never crossed.

So now and most humbly let me ask you all a question:

 Examples shows us this...these same body plans exist every time they are dug up, and all living fossils have the same body plan, Carl Werner has most assuredly shown this in his works.   What or how is the bible discredited. 

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 16, 2014 at 9:15am

But Phil, the Biblical "kind" is not synonymous with the use of "species" today. 

Lou Said:

Correct.  That doesn't mean that species is any less or more necessary in defining diversity, for Christians.

Doug said:

The whole point is that in "today speak" species can and HAVE diversified into other species. 

Lou Said:

Where hybridization has taken place there is variation and new diversity, but in nature this rarely happens, and the need for a drill down to specify the nuance differences have been seen by those who study animals for thousands of years.

Doug Said:

The fact that some people have slightly different definitions of "species" misses the point that the generally accepted definition of species is being able to mate and produce fertile offspring.  If we confuse that definition with the Biblical "kinds" then we'll run into trouble. 

Lou Said:

Part of the problem is the taxonomic sytematics that may need tweaking (by Christians), but that does not relegate the need for a drill down, such as the lizards I posted below as an example.  KInds as a biblical definition  does not drill down far enough from the family level.

Doug:  Where hybridization has taken place...you name the animal, a new body plan has ensued and therefore a new type of diversity, like a liger, Beefalo, or others.  with rarity in nature, most of these are caused by mans tampering.  Also you must look at the millions of species that have not ben hybridized or did this in nature, the body plans that exist have not changed one iota either in the fossil record extinct or those living fossils that are a live today....this is a fact.  Hybridization and variation takes place in the animal kingdom, but variation does not change a body plan to a new species or kind, but hybridization does. The dog examples on AIG are just that, hybridization by mans tampering.  Do not be mislead by that article, because in nature most all of those would not exist.  In nature the only way body plans can be changed is by new information through procreation.  Look across the african Savannah and the animals that live there have not changed one iota since their inception, and they breed and breed male to female.  They have not changed.  Inferences by some of the articles in AIG are not correct representations of the full story.   Small snippets are honed in on to infer certain ideas.  Outside of HYbridization, there is no mechanism that exists that we know of that is responsible for body plan changes, in all cases new information is required and that is a fact.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 16, 2014 at 9:30am

Lou, I agree that "kind" is not drilled down enough so to speak. I believe that the online Christian sites, use the word "kind" at the level of families. From there on, everyone uses the words "genus" and "species". 

I only take issue with evolutionists who scoff and the concept of "kinds" and their allegation that Creationists can´t seem to agree on one definition, ignoring the fact there is no consensus  for the word "species"

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 16, 2014 at 9:47am

Phil good words we are in total agreement and about kinds as well.  I would like to see Christian biologists invest some of the time in Taxonomic endeavors and get some new ideas with respect to kinds involve din the mix.

Again the tool is not evil, but in evil hands or ungodly hands then it is used in very disconcerting ways...but none the less the drill down is needed.

Comment by Floyd on June 16, 2014 at 10:06am

Carl, Doug:


I have not gone on any college course or training in logic or philosophy specifically, but my qualifications and profession is in computing i.e. software development and logic and applying logic is essential in this field. Also, as a freelancer in the computer field you have to think direct and to the point or else the job won’t be done in time and you won’t get paid.


Over the years debating on the internet has forced me to learn logic after continually debating individuals, not necessarily evolutionists or atheists, who commit the same mistakes repeatedly and who make outrageous statements like


“…must believe in evolution if our country is to remain tomorrow’s leader in technology” i.e. Nyeism (Bill Nye).


Hmmmm, I’m in technology, so all the successful projects, applications, utilities, games, etc. that I have done must have been wrong and probably atheist managers knew this but paid me anyway? Sorry but these people are either irrational or “intellectually insane” (which vehement God deniers seem to become) and the quickest way to deal with them is through logic.


I have read most of Dr Lisle’s work and researched his mentors, but the most important contribution has been the Holy Spirit.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 16, 2014 at 11:16am

Lou, isn´t that what Christian biologists do in the field of barimology?

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 16, 2014 at 11:16am

Floyd, well said.  Kudos.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 16, 2014 at 11:17am

Sorry,  Lous, I meant to say baraminology

Comment by Phil Owens on June 16, 2014 at 11:21am

For those interested there are list of fallacies that you can refer to online, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 16, 2014 at 12:05pm

The point is that all of the various species currently in existence today are not the same ones as existed a mere 100 years ago. And the dozens of variations that have lived since the flood all arose from a  single pair of a particular kind. All of the species were not present on the Ark. All of the species we not part of the original from of the creation in the very good world.

ALL CREATIONISTS recognize this truth. There is no way possible to be conciliatory toward the sec-sci views, or to force them into the biblical model.

Comment by Mary White on June 16, 2014 at 1:50pm

An interesting paragraph from icr today:

    " In another paper, mathematician Dr. Basener calculated that natural selection cannot generate new information because all evolutionary advance stops once a trait becomes optimized to its environment. So, both mathematically and in real-life biology, selection leads to a stabilized un-evolving organism."  www.icr.org/article/8192/

     One old criticism of a young creation is that Egyptian paintings from 4000 years ago show similar animals to today, so (for example) how could a camel kind pair diverge and stabilize to llamas and the different camels in a short period of time.  Perhaps Basner's paper helps address this?

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 16, 2014 at 2:20pm

JIm I hope you will take this respectfully, it is not meant to be deleterious in any way.  You said you would have no exchange with me.  That's fine.  Now I would like to point out that you can not make these glaring generalizations and include all creationist in your comments.  It is not feasible nor can this be the antithesis answer for diversity.

You said (in bold):

The point is that all of the various species currently in existence today are not the same ones as existed a mere 100 years ago.

Lou's response:

Where is your evidences?  What of the lion, the wildebeest, the crocodile, the various monitor lizards the land iguanas studied by Darwin at the Galapagos, the chuckwalla the Indians used for a food source in the Mojave desert.  These lizards and these animals are still the same animals?   

You said:

And the dozens of variations that have lived since the flood all arose from a  single pair of a particular kind.

Lou said:

If your talking about dogs, horse, or other man bred animals you would be right if your infer hybridization, if your talking about certain monkeys and certain lizards who have hybridized in nature you would be right.  In all cases the variations of you are using  that word in the sense of a new body plan could only be produced by procreation.  If your talking about collard lizards or king snakes that have all kinds of variation in colors and patterns that could be right as long as your not referring to new body plans, because variation outside of hybridization cannot make a new body plan their still collared lizards, fish, anoles, Iguanas etc.

All of the species were not present on the Ark. All of the species we not part of the original from of the creation in the very good world.

Lou said:

Jim I agree with this. But for different reasons. We can inculcate what the bible said was on it.  Best I can do. 

JIm said:

ALL CREATIONISTS recognize this truth. There is no way possible to be conciliatory toward the sec-sci views, or to force them into the biblical model.

Lou Said:

Why would you inset I am "forcing" others.  Obvious Christians from all walks of life use science JIm.  What I am doing is trying to tell the truth of what does exist, what is observable, why drill down is necessary, and it is totally compatible with all aspects of the YE view.  It is not nor does it follow the inferences of variation if that's what you mean.  Again I shall repeat this once more.  All the dogs, HOrses, Bears and deer and other animals used as examples of Variation are products of Hybridization if they have new body plans or are anew species.  THey have no power fo self-determination what so ever.  The Savannahs have not changed since man has recorded their existence.     

NOw I asked you to give examples of these animals.  I want to know how these examples as you see them changed their body plans by themselves due to breeding with the same kind mate.  The only results I see from the same union of any animal male and female is the same offspring.  This is indeed biblical JIm.  I don't understand your view but I am willing to be open to it if you can provide some kind of evidences outside of Hybridization?

Lets be clear here--hybridization is "not" what the AIG articles are inferring.  Hybridization is largely a result of mans tampering.  Hybridization rarely ever happens in nature--but it does from time to time.  

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 16, 2014 at 2:27pm

Dear Mary thank your for excellent post. This also again makes my point....I shall read this, and also post this on the ID site on Facebook as well.

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 16, 2014 at 3:37pm

Let's see ...

fingernails screeching down a blackboard

ummm

uneven wheel on the Wal Mart shopping cart, loudly going thump thump thump as you push it through the aisles

that sore on your arm that itches like crazy but you know you shouldn't scratch it

let's see, what else ... I don't know.  That about sums it up I suppose.

Following Momma's admonition, I shall exercise the better part of valor.

Comment by Doug Lindauer on June 16, 2014 at 7:15pm

Well I do have a question for Carl. 

Dr Werner, you have these video quotes from the person who admitted that he essentially falsified his walking whale fossil.  But what has been the upshot of this?  There must have been some professed indignation such as "he took my comments out of context!!!"  or "he tricked me into saying that" or something else like that.

Surely there has to have been some reaction by him or others in the evolution community?

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 16, 2014 at 8:08pm

Someone said: You said you would have no exchange with me.

NO, I did not say this. Never.

Someone said: you can not make these glaring generalizations and include all creationist in your comments.

NO, I never made a glaring generalizations. I have made statements of fact about what creationists in the mainstream believe. I can and I will always endeavor to honestly represent what is the general consensus of creationist belief. That is the main thing that I post here at Creation Conversations. I believe in the viewpoint of the Creation Conversations forum, and it is very well-stated in our "statement of faith," which essentially agreew with ALL OF THE STATEMENTS OF FAITH found in the "About Us" section of all mainstream creationist organizations. Creationists are not in a disarray about the essential fundamental truths of origins about which ALL MAINSTREAM CREATIONISTS AGREE.

Someone said, "Where is your evidences?"

The poster is asking for evidence that many of the species living today did not even exist 100 years ago. And I suppose next I will be asked to provide evidence that there are tides. The fact remains that the dozens of variations that have lived since the flood all arose from a  single pair of a particular kind. And no when we creationists say this, we are not talking about dogs. But we are talking about the larger category that includes dogs: canines. Or we would refer to the cat family, which includes domesticated cats and other larger wild cats, all of which are capable of interbreeding. All of these variations within those "KINDS" did not arise by hybridization. Hybridization requires two parent varieties that are not the same species which produce offspring. These two distinct parent individuals are of the same kind, but they arose since the Flood, as unique variations that derived from the parent kind-pair that came of the ark. We are not talking about hybridization.

Hybridization has nothing to do with the rise of dozens of varieties from a SINGLE PAIR. Hybridization relates to distinct varieties within a kind producing offspring that exhibit a unique new mix of new traits derived from either one or both parents.

Someone asked: "Why would you inset [insist?] I am "forcing" others.

No one ever said ANYONE was "forcing others." I was discussing forcing an unnatural interpretation upon Scripture to constrain the sense of the text to fit with some "fact of science."

Someone said: "Obvious Christians from all walks of life use science, Jim."

No one has ever said we should not use science. Where would anyone ever get that idea?

Someone said: "What I am doing is trying to tell the truth of what does exist, what is observable, . . "

So standing for what the Bible states is not the truth? What is written in the Bible is not what does exist? And then I guess we are supposed to accept that whatever someone tells us existed at the beginning of creation - not on the basis of Scripture, but on the basis of some fictional "fossil record."

Someone has said: All the dogs, Horses, Bears and deer and other animals used as examples of Variation are products of Hybridization if they have new body plans or are anew species.

This is untrue. The variations of Ursidae are not hybrids. All of the bears on the earth today are descendents of the TWO bears that came off the Ark. This is the consensus view of all mainstream creationists, and it is what is expressly stated in Scripture.

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 16, 2014 at 8:32pm

Someone has said: They have no power of self-determination what so ever.  The Savannahs have not changed since man has recorded their existence.

And no creationist has ever maintained that animals have the power of self-determination. And it is false to say that "savannas have not changed since man has recorded their existence. Just not true. The world's savannas have undergone tremendous change within the span of recorded history. The land of the Bible was once LUSH and VERDANT, and it now barren and rocky in that nicer region chosen by Lot when he parted company with Abraham. 

Someone has said: Now I asked you to give examples of these animals.  I want to know how these examples as you see them changed their body plans by themselves due to breeding with the same kind mate.  The only results I see from the same union of any animal male and female is the same offspring.  This is indeed biblical JIm.  I don't understand your view but I am willing to be open to it if you can provide some kind of evidences outside of Hybridization?

These examples have been provided dozens of times. And there is no clear definition of what is meant by body plan. But the changes of body plan are quite significant within HUMAN KIND, and within Ursidae, and within Felines (Wild and domestic), and within Canidae. These changes are not hybridizations, but are examples of change through DNA and genetics as aptly explained by the current seated Expert here, Carl Werner:

Dear Jim,

You wrote, "what mechanisms can account for the vast diversity of the individual kinds, given that all of the current species within a kind are descended from a single pair."

Biologically that is an easy answer. Imagine two mutt dogs at the beginning of dogs. [Then] . . . DNA . . .  genes . . . . on one chromosome. . . . different chromosome . . . hair color gene . . . chromosome. . . . mutts look like mutts . . . actually rich, genetically speaking. . . recessive and dominant genes in their chromosomes . . . isolating a single pair of offspring . . . , over hundreds of future breedings . . .  only recessive genes for that trait.  

This is actually incredible easy concept but it is difficult to explain it without a chalkboard.  Any genetics book will be quite clear explaining this. Hope this helps.

Genetics and DNA do indeed account for the rise of new variations within a kind - derived from a single pair that came of the Ark.

Someone said, "Lets be clear here--hybridization is "not" what the AIG articles are inferring."

Aside from misuse of the word "infer," what else is "clear" in this statement. Variation within a kind arising from a single kind-pair off the Ark is not hybridization, so why would anyone keep digressing to this distraction. Hybridization requires two variations of a single Kind in order to produce a new variation. How did the two variations that are the parents of the hybrid originate? And who is discussing AiG articles? What articles?

Comment by Carl Werner on June 16, 2014 at 9:11pm

Floyd, Doug, Phil, and all,

The reason Floyd's approach is so intriguing to me is that it is a short, simple set of rules that once learned can quickly analyze any argument and point out the fallacies rather rapidly. It probably takes less time to master Floyd's and Phil's short list of logical fallacies that to master evolution, cosmology, abiogenesis and geology.  Therefore it seems a good use of time to learn these.  I am inspired by your approach Floyd and will begin to work on learning these simple debate "tricks".

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 16, 2014 at 9:17pm

Well I do have a question for Carl. 

Doug, you wrote, "Dr Werner, you have these video quotes from the person who admitted that he essentially falsified his walking whale fossil.  But what has been the upshot of this?  There must have been some professed indignation such as "he took my comments out of context!!!"  or "he tricked me into saying that" or something else like that. Surely there has to have been some reaction by him or others in the evolution community?"

Doug I sent this press release (http://thegrandexperiment.com/whale-evolution.html)  to 50 news organizations and no one reported it. Not a single bite from the press. I am guessing everyone hopes these interviews are quickly forgotten and fade away. The information shows that essentially, every whale evolution display at the natural history musuems is false because of false blow holes on Ambulocetus and false information about the ears of Pakicetus.  

It will be an interesting time this fall on college campuses when students begin to challenge their professors on all of this information.  

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on June 16, 2014 at 9:18pm

A friend told me this line and I think it is helpful.

"If someone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other."

Comment by Cheri A Fields on June 16, 2014 at 9:29pm

Oh, yeah, logic is the second key after the Holy Spirit's power.

Someone had spotted this reality on Google Plus, I just added, "yes, it seems to work like garlic."

If only they would come to the Light instead of fleeing!

Comment by Phil Owens on June 16, 2014 at 10:04pm

Dr. Werner, you may have already stated this and I missed it. Have you sought to show the movie The Grand Experiment at college campuses around the country? I´m sure Christian groups would welcome your lecture.

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 16, 2014 at 10:38pm

Dr. Werner,

Are you aware of any mechanism within the confines of "variation" in genes that would be responsible for a new body plan/new species/or new design outside of hybridization of two similar kinds,  procreation of two of the same kind (male and female African Elephant)?  Variation can produce long hair short hair, designer geckos of different colors, variation in nature of lizard colors, King snakes etc. and many other observable variations but the species status is still the same with respect to its kind, specie, or type.  Your thoughts?

Comment by Phil Owens on June 16, 2014 at 11:06pm

Is there a fallacy for using the natural to explain the supernatural ? Evolutionists  and atheists often use this lack in logic  when discussing  Noah´s Ark, a young Earth, talking snakes,  the Virgin birth etc. 

Comment by Jim Brenneman on June 16, 2014 at 11:17pm

As certainly as it is a problem to try to explain the supernatural on the basis of the natural, there is also a problem with introducing unnecessary supernatural elements to explain phenomena that are entirely natural.

Comment by Lou Hamby on June 16, 2014 at 11:24pm

Since John says the whole universe is held together by the creator, nomenclature, understanding or defining what one is saying is most important.  The "natural" is part of the Creation whole and employs "evidence" by its own existence?  I see know fallacy. There should be no schism between the natural and the supernatural, because its source is the same? Our creator/designer of all. Evolutionists start with the a wrong assumption and premise..that is an unguided mechanism is responsible.  There lies the fallacy.  In house discussion between Christians should employ respect for both the supernatural and the natural, all of Gods creation and purpose. 

Comment by Phil Owens on June 17, 2014 at 12:56am
Although indirectly. Every thing points back to the supernatural. Many pnenomena would not be possible if it weren´t for the fine tuning of the universe. But I´m referring to the specific examples such as the ones I mentioned.
Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on June 17, 2014 at 6:10am

Comment by Phil Owens

Is there a fallacy for using the natural to explain the supernatural ? Evolutionists  and atheists often use this lack in logic  when discussing  Noah´s Ark, a young Earth, talking snakes,  the Virgin birth etc.

Phil, there is very little in the creation account that cannot be explained by existing physics, after that is the initial creation of matter into the true void conditions that most probably existed.  This was the real miracle, once matter was created God seems to have used natural processes to continue His good creation.  Of course this beins so our main argument id the time-line/scale within which everything happened.  For instance, just as the Genesis account tells us, the universe came into existence almost instantaneously and expanded at initially many times the speed of light as we accept it today.  The second miracle was not the forming of living bodies, which were formed from the matter (dust of the ground) already created, but God breathing life into inert materials.  Of course there is divine intervention throughout the creation, like the forming of amino acids, proteins and the DNA strand, not to mention their combining into the five micron cell.  However all these were FORMED not created, but the breath of life came only from God.

Comment by Phil Owens on June 17, 2014 at 7:17am

Dr. Blake, when I say the supernatural, I´m referring to God. Physics, the fine tunning of the universe all comes from God

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on Tuesday

Exactly what I mean as well Phil.

Comment by Jim Brenneman on Tuesday

Animals migrate thousands of miles annually, using various natural navigation devices. Cats lost on vacation often find their way back home, even after several years! Salmon return to the same stream in which they were deposited as eggs. Monarch butterflies travel for the first time over 1000 miles to the same wintering tree that their now dead parents had found a safe home.

All of these are accomplished by "natural means." However, the fact that these thing occur naturally is a result of the creative activity of our supernatural Savior. Yet it would be dangerous for us to begin imagining that angels put all of these creatures in spiritual baskets and carried the to their migration points.

Noah built an ark that was seaworthy (Gen. 6:14; Heb. 11:7), that had the optimal proportional dimensions to best stay afloat and crossways to the waves, that was sealed with a readily available coating substance. Noah built the Ark, probably with human fellow-workers utilizing normal building skills. Angels did not come and build it. He built it out of a naturally occurring wood, manipulated into suitable timbers and planks by normal tools and employing intelligent labor-reducing techniques.

But the fact that Noah did this, and the fact that he knew what to do, and that the task was accomplished on time was all a result of the supernatural guidance of the only wise God, our Savior (Gen. 6:22; 7:5).

We do not want to begin introducing superfluous miraculous elements, while at the same time we do not want to miss or ignore the fact of divine guidance, intervention, and providence (Gen. 7:16; 8:1; Phil. 2:13).

In all that we do, let us ever bear in mind the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives:

for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. Philippians 2:13

Comment by Jim Brenneman on Tuesday

Someone has said: "nomenclature, understanding or defining what one is saying is most important."

That being said: what is meant by "variation or change in 'body plans'?"

And comparatively how much difference is there between the body plans of the average NBA athlete, and an Inuit, and an Australian Aboriginal, and a Patagonia, and a Masai warrior and a Maori warrior and a Golden State Warrior, and a dwarf human, and a giant human and a Scandinavian? What degree of difference in form, features, habits exists between these samples? What sort of comparison can be made relative to the differences within HUMAN KIND (one kind with vast diversity) and the differences say within the URSIDAE KIND?

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on Tuesday

Jim, an excellent post, I would also note that when the Earth was in its proto state, the Spirit was hovering over the waters.  Someone noted here recently that it is God that holds this universe together, not the Higs Boson particle, although if the particle actually exists, it will be yet another creation of our God.  That task is doubtless one of the responsibilities of of the Holy Spirit.  I believe that is the way things work, naturally with guidance, why would the Creator construct the physical laws of this universe and then ignore them?  Sure He intervenes, as in answers to prayer etc. but essentially God created a self sustaining ecosystem.

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on Tuesday

Comment by Jim Brenneman

Someone has said: "nomenclature, understanding or defining what one is saying is most important."

That being said: what is meant by "variation or change in 'body plans'?"

And comparatively how much difference is there between the body plans of the average NBA athlete, and an Inuit, and an Australian Aboriginal, and a Patagonia, and a Masai warrior and a Maori warrior and a Golden State Warrior, and a dwarf human, and a giant human and a Scandinavian? What degree of difference in form, features, habits exists between these samples? What sort of comparison can be made relative to the differences within HUMAN KIND (one kind with vast diversity) and the differences say within the URSIDAE KIND?

We all agree that every dog (Canis lupis familiaris) is of the same 'kind' and all originated from the original pair that came off of the Ark, so that the gene pool of that pair held the potential for every dog that has since existed, hybrid by man or not.  Now when it comes to body plan, how much change do yoy want?  The difference between a Great Dane and a Dachshund, a Newfoundland and a Chihuahua, a Pekingese and an Afghan Hound.  Each one has the same skeletal components, as do many animals, stretching even to the basic human construction, but they have a wide range of body plans.

Comment by Carl Werner on Wednesday

Phil,  You wrote, "Dr. Werner, you may have already stated this and I missed it. Have you sought to show the movie The Grand Experiment at college campuses around the country? I´m sure Christian groups would welcome your lecture."  I have spoken on 4 or 5 campuses and always enjoy the experience. Of course, the evolution believing professors and graduate students don't welcome me with flowers but they don't have many comebacks to the logic of the presentation.  BTW, feel free to show our shows at your local university.

Thanks for the encouragement.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on Wednesday

Lou, I agree with your statement, "The "natural" is part of the Creation whole and employs "evidence" by its own existence?  I see know fallacy. There should be no schism between the natural and the supernatural, because its source is the same? Our creator/designer of all. Evolutionists start with the a wrong assumption and premise..that is an unguided mechanism is responsible.  There lies the fallacy.  In house discussion between Christians should employ respect for both the supernatural and the natural, all of Gods creation and purpose."

Comment by Carl Werner on Wednesday

Jim,

This is a valid point too when you wrote, "We do not want to begin introducing superfluous miraculous elements, while at the same time we do not want to miss or ignore the fact of divine guidance, intervention, and providence (Gen. 7:16; 8:1; Phil. 2:13)."

Carl

Comment by Phil Owens on Wednesday

I live in Colombia, S.A but when I move back to the states I will try and make a point to get your materials.

Comment by Carl Werner on Wednesday

Lou, 

The problem is that kinds, species and genus are difficult terms since each observer would group (lump) different animals into each term, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly.  I remember when "ring species" was a hot proof of evolution (which turned out to be not true).  It turns out that three different gull species in the arctic circle, part of the so called ring species group, could breed with each other, with a gull of a different species name. They should have been given the same species name in the first place since they could reproduce and produce fertile offspring.  Same with Darwin's black and white humans which Darwin thought were different species.  Its a quagmire to sort this out other than testing for reproduction between two different species or different genus groups. Some have been falsely "split" by scientists assigning a different genus name or species name to the same animal. If you want to see examples of the same animal assigned to different genus names look through the examples in my book Living Fossils.

Carl

Comment by Lou Hamby on Wednesday

Dr. Werner, recognize it is a quagmire....:0)  I also stated down previously the "real" problem is also resting with taxonomic nomenclature.  Kind at one level Species at the other level, but none the less I see the need for a drill down especially in my field of lizards.  I purposely posted two pictures of sand lizards that do not beed with one another, they are both sand lizards but have unique nuance morphological characteristics.  Thus if applied sand lizard to all of them this would not at all recognize these differences, which Herpetologists have defined and observed back in times past...  Yet one can see that they are part of a specific design type..

Comment by Phil Owens on Wednesday

Dr. Werner, I´ve had the ring species argument thrown at me a few times. I wasn´t aware that it turned out to be false. My understanding was that it was just another example of microevolution. Could you provide a reference ?

Comment by Jim Brenneman on Wednesday

The meaning of the biblical word MiYN is not a quagmire. Sorting out the current sec-sci taxonomic system is a quagmire, and that is the real problem as my friend has indicated.

Biblically, and group of animals capable of reproducing together is the same MiYN, or BaRaMiYN. Any two animals capable of producing offspring are the same kind, and that offspring is also the same kind. Now if that offspring is not capable of reproducing with its cousins, it is STILL the same baramiyn. Reproductive preferences also are NOT the determining factor - rather it is the capacity for reproduction. Though a Chihuahua and a Irish Wolfhound might have difficulty reproducing, and though their body plans are worlds apart, they are still of the same baramiyn.

As Dr. Werner indicated, Kind (baramiyn) is in the final analysis determined by reproductive capability.

Comment by Dr. Derek P. Blake on Wednesday

The classic illustration of this is of course the mule, that cannot be mated within its specie or with a donkey or a horse, however it remains part of the genus Equus. The genus also includes the zebra, the small Shetland pony, the giant Shire and in the past has included horses that varied from the size of a large dog to that of giraffe (not including the neck of course).

Comment by Jim Brenneman on Wednesday

Sand lizards are likely the same kind, even if they do not interbreed. Nuance differences do not make them two different kinds.

Just as certainly minor disagreements between Christians who are creationists do not make them into different "kinds." We are all in the same family, born of God.

Nevertheless kind always means exactly what it means, regardless of the quagmire of sec-sci's confused taxonomic system.

Just because two varieties of a particular lizard kind prefer not to mate does not mean that are not able to produce viable offspring.

Comment by Carl Werner on Thursday

Phil, 

I was afraid you were going to ask for a reference on Ring Species but I did find my notes from several years ago.  I put my "rough draft" power point on ring species on my website and you can look through it.  http://thegrandexperiment.com/ring species carl werner.pptx

Basically it shows the different birds in the ring and shows how the last bird cannot breed with the first but then their is a reference from someone showing breeding between the first and last one (fuscus and argentatus). Simply amazing that this BS gets into science circles.

Take a look.

Carl

Comment by Phil Owens on Thursday

Dr. Werner, thanks but that link doesn´t work. Could you repost it?

Comment by Floyd on Thursday

Phil said:
Is there a fallacy for using the natural to explain the supernatural ? Evolutionists and atheists often use this lack in logic when discussing Noah´s Ark, a young Earth, talking snakes, the Virgin birth etc.

Well the fallacy is “affirming the consequence” or “begging the question” --- assuming what he is trying to prove i.e. assuming naturalism is the cause of everything. Evolutionist’s worldview is a bottom up view i.e. matter and energy (ME) ---> mind/intelligence. So the evolutionist’s worldview presupposes the natural explains the supernatural. The fallacy is entrenched in the worldview of the evolutionist.

The biblical worldview is a top down view mind/intelligence/God ---> matter and energy. The biblical worldview presupposes the supernatural explains the natural.


As you may notice evolutionist can say the biblical worldview suffers from the same fallacy. Also both worldviews involve circular reasoning. Circular reasoning isn't necessarily invalid. Circular reasoning is valid if it’s not arbitrary and can be justified. And this is the key to the problem, that is, which worldview is arbitrary and which is not?

Christians rely on biblical principles which justifies the reality that we experience. For example, life creates life; intelligence creates coded information; induction --- fire burnt my hand, if I do the same tomorrow the same thing should happen. So when we look at variations within living organisms we model it on ‘kinds’ as revealed within the bible.


Evolutionists relies on arbitrary principles which contradicts the realities that we experience. For example, accidents create life; mutations acting solely within the cell creates coded information; the universe and natural laws are based on random unguided accidents so logically an accident might affect nature and tomorrow we may not burn our hands. So evolutionists look at variations within living organisms and model it on ‘accidents’.


The evolutionist takes for granted naturalism, but naturalism is the very claim at issue.

Comment by Carl Werner on Friday

Phil,

Here is the link.  On my I phone it just opens up but on my MAC it just downloads to the download folder automatically. Does it work with this link?

http://thegrandexperiment.com/ring-species-carl-werner.pptx

Carl

Comment by Phil Owens on Friday

yes, thanks

Comment by Carl Werner on Friday

Floyd,

Your last post is deep but intriguing.  I find it true that both arguments have built in assumptions.  The evolutionist assumes life formed naturally because life is here even though he cannot explain the steps. Same with matter. Same with DNA. Same with proteins. Same with 7 major phyla.  

Floyd, I perceive you are a left-brainer since I understand your arguments and they appeal to me.

Some suggest that we should live by faith and not fool around with the details of creation vs evolution but I remember reading something (I think it was written in Greek originally) about casting down vain imaginations and speculations.

Floyd you are a necessary piece to this puzzle.

Carl

Comment by Carl Werner on Friday

Phil, 

The PP on ring species takes a bit of explaining but I think you can figure out my points by reading on another site what ring species are and how they work and then see the article I quote that demolishes the gull ring species.  Hope you like the photos (not mine).

Carl

Comment by Floyd on Friday

Carl,


Looking from a “top down view” or biblical view we can properly understand the reality of the cell and information in the cell and why it’s so complete right from the start. If we look at it from a “bottom up view” we should question evolutionists as to why there aren’t fossilized transitional cells? Should not cells follow the same lines as the imagined evolutionary fossil records of bones? Even if evolutionists dismiss the origin of life cell from the unguided mutation + natural selection + reproduction line of thinking, they should still show us trillions of semi-formed cells. For example, with translation or transcription processes missing or at the protein (peptide) synthesis stage trillions of failed processes which includes both L and D-amino acids. Cells are small enough for catastrophe to fossilize trillions of natural forming replicated chemicals constantly forming to optimize cells. After all, evolutionary stories have dinosaurs living 65 million years ago and cells are found in dinosaurs bones. Where are these "accidental" transitional cells? Do they exist?

Evolutionists are constantly fallaciously equivocating accidents to naturalism, accidents to mutations, accidents to design when the real issue is accidents.

Comment by Jim Brenneman on Friday

Congratulations to Dr. Carl for maintaining the post at "Ask the Expert" for so long. It would sure be nice if we could continue to access these excellent comments, and this entire thread after the conclusion of his tenure in this chair.

It would also be so cool if he started a BLOG here, with weekly or monthly updates of new exposes, like the one on the whale deception.

Comment by Doug Lindauer on Friday

Floyd,

ok, not to nit pick here but I have a couple of questions.  First, can we reasonably expect an evolutionist to show a fossil of a cell, especially where the fossil would show the detail of how the protein was made?  I'm an electrical engineer and database system developer, not a paleontologist or micro-biologist so I can't claim any in-depth knowledge here.  Still though, I would find it incredible to find cellular details preserved in rocks for billions of years.  Come to think of it, if it were so common to have made billions or trillions of them a long time ago, then shouldn't we be able to observe it happening today?

The other thing I wanted to ask is in what sense are evolutionists equivocating?  My understanding of equivocation is to intentionally use the same word twice but in a different sense in order to mislead.  I don't understand what you're getting at with the last sentence.

Comment by Floyd on Friday

Doug,


I hesitate to reply here because it’s ask the expert page and in no way am I stating that I am an expert of the calibre as Dr Werner. But I’ll respond briefly hoping this topic might continue on the member’s forum.


Doug said: "First, can we reasonably expect an evolutionist to show a fossil of a cell, especially where the fossil would show the detail of how the protein was made?"


The simple answer is yes, it is reasonable to expect it, because evolutionists say that evolution is a scientific fact? If evolution is a scientific fact then we should be able to observe fossilized cells. It amazes me that we constantly allow evolutionists to get away with these blatant contradictions! Soft tissue, red blood cells and DNA are found in fossils dated by evolutionists in millions of years, yet we know scientifically DNA can’t last thousands of years (see http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue ). The contradiction here is that we allow evolutionists to say dinosaurs are millions of years old while at the same time science is revealing that DNA, soft tissue found in dinosaurs reveals a more recent past i.e. thousands of years.

Doug said: "I'm an electrical engineer and database system developer, not a paleontologist or micro-biologist so I can't claim any in-depth knowledge here. Still though, I would find it incredible to find cellular details preserved in rocks for billions of years."


Incredibly we find dinosaur soft tissue in fossil bones found in rocks dating 65 million years, so I can’t understand why we should find it incredible that cellular details can’t be preserved in rocks for billions of years!? We know as creationists that science reveals DNA can’t be preserved for millions of years. The issue is evolutionists seems to think it can. We have to illustrate how absurd their thinking is by challenging them from the perspective of their worldview. So fossilized of cells is a perfectly acceptable question based on the evolutionist’s worldview. They can’t have it both ways by saying it can be, then aligning with science when science reveals it can’t be! Remember we are dealing with contradictions and fallacies here not necessarily science!

Doug said: "I don't understand what you're getting at with the last sentence."


Another phrase for equivocation is bait-and-switch. When evolutionists say “Evolution is fact” the assumption is “evolution is change” which everyone agrees change is fact, but what evolutionists really mean is the hidden or suppressed “molecules-to-man”. So too we see it in, naturalism, mutations, design because evolutionists really mean accidents. Mutations are not necessarily always random--- some mutations could be viewed as designed variation just as random variables in a computer game are designed. We have allowed evolutionists to suppress the “switch” and now all evolutionists do is the constant “baiting” from the suppressed “switch”. Many people are convinced by bad arguments. Fallacies and contradictions proliferate in bad arguments. If we don’t expose these contradictions and fallacies we will lose the next generation because they will perceive that creationists have lost the argument.

Comment by Carl Werner on Saturday

Floyd,

In my first book, Evolution: The Grand Experiment I show that 

1) Museums have collected 1 billion fossils (documented with quotes and fossil numbers at many museums)

2) These fossils include fossil bacteria (soft), animal embryos (soft), crocodile feces (soft), cat tail heads (soft) flowers and pedals (soft), jellyfish (soft), sea pens (soft) yet there are no bonafide transitions (uncontested in the evolution community) from a bacteria to each of the 7 major phyla groups (corals, sponges, echinoderms, vertebrates, mollusks, segmented worms, and arthropods).  That is a problem of unprecedented proportions and why so many would like us to talk about retroviruses, ring species and other esoteric topics.  All conversations should come back to the fossil record.

3) Add to the fossil problem the theoretical problems of starting the first single cell bacteria like organisms with DNA, RNA, functional cell membranes with embedded proteins, and proteins, none of which form spontaneously because of the law of mass action.  (Also in Evolution: the Grand Experiment) That is another major problem and all conversations should come back to that point.

Cheers.

PS I am away this weekend so I this will be my last night. I am working hard on book 3!

Carl Werner

Comment by Carl Werner on Saturday

Thank you Mr. Brennan!  The conversation was much more lively with your input.  

Jim, I have something very special for you and the rest of the community. It will be a surprise. A present from Debbie and I.  In our human evolution book, due out in 9 months??, you will have something so special you will gasp at every chapter. Get ready for the next card to be played.

(Since Debbie and I don't take any money from our work, I am not trying to sell a book. Rather I hope to make all things look different in a year from now!)  :)

Carl Werner

PS I am away this weekend so I this will be my last night. I am working hard on book 3!

Comment by Carl Werner on Saturday

Doug and Floyd,

In my post below I answered this. From chemicals to the first bacteria there would be no fossil record but on paper this cannot happen because of the problem of the law of mass action.

Form the first cell to each of the phyla groups, this is where we should demand to see the fossils. Take us through the fossil record for the first bacteria to the first sea pen  (coral) shows up in the lowest multicellular level, the Edicaran. (There is no missing link fossils.)  Take us through the fossil record for the first bacteria to the first sponge in the Cambrian (There is no fossils of these missing links.)  How about the first bacteria to the first segmented worm in the Cambrian? The first shell fish.  Floyd is right, this is enormous problem for anyone willing to think.

Carl

PS I am away this weekend so I this will be my last night. I am working hard on book 3!

Comment by Carl Werner on Saturday

TO ALL,

I am away this weekend so this will be my last post.  

Thanks for taking me in to your homes, giving me new ideas (two excellent ideas)  and jumping in on the discussion.  

The internet is funny because sometimes when we type words they come out sounding sharp on the other end when in fact they are not intended to be that way.  If anyone got bruised in this discussion section I have one admonition: Forget it!  I doubt anyone meant to be sharp so let it be like water on a duck's back.  It just sounds sharp on in internet but is never meant to be.

Remember, that Debbie and I are depending on each other and on you to do your part in this great, epic, science battle that will be a historical footnote shortly.  (**The theory of evolution and all of the natural theories for the origin of the universe and cellular life were disproved in the late 20th and early 21st century.)  It will take all particpants using all angles to finish this off including bloggers on retroviruses (Phil), logic experts (Floyd), those who point us back on track (Doug L #1 EE), those who point us to spiritual matters (Doug #2), lizard experts (Lou), kinds experts (Jim) and everyone else that is working hard on this topic.

Now, for another topic.  Get ready for our next installment in the series, our book and video on human evolution.  You may ask what possibly can I say that has not been said already about human evolution?  Well, Debbie and I have been photographing and filming and researching for years and I think we will so many unexpected surprises for you with the next installment.  I am afraid that you Doug R #2 (bowtie) will go crazy when you read this next book!  :)

Carl and Debbie Werner

Comment by Doug Lindauer on Saturday

I don't know Floyd, you think it's reasonable to expect cellular chemistry details in a fossil supposed to be billions of years old?  I wouldn't.  And all the examples of single celled organisms that I've seen are hazy formations in rock that are assumed to have been made by colonies of bacteria.  I don't think we can expose evolutionists' fallacies by trying to make that kind of connection.  Soft tissue in 65 million year old dinosaurs is a real killer all by itself.  But to try to say we should be able to see chemistry details in fossilized bacteria billions of years old because of soft tissue in dinosaurs just doesn't cut it for me.  You can make that argument if you want, but I wouldn't.  I think I would look ridiculous.  If it makes sense to you, then ok.  But it really doesn't make sense to me.

I still totally don't understand the sentence: "Evolutionists are constantly fallaciously equivocating accidents to naturalism, accidents to mutations, accidents to design when the real issue is accidents."

Comment by Doug Lindauer on Saturday

Dr. Werner,  thanks much for your time, your good work, your patience, and your excellent diplomacy!  :)

I'll look forward to seeing your next book.  Fair winds and following seas! (that's kind of a sailor's way, ex-Navy, of saying "God be with you".)

Comment by Floyd on Saturday

Dr Werner, I’ll get your book Evolution: the Grand Experiment.


Doug, as Dr Werner has stated below “Form the first cell to each of the phyla groups, this is where we should demand to see the fossils”. Obviously this means the first cell has gone through transitional steps.


Also, Doug I’ll pose a series of questions. Why is “Soft tissue in 65 million year old dinosaurs is a real killer all by itself.”? Before did you think it unreasonable to expect soft tissue in a 65 million year dinosaur? Was your line of thinking “I can accept fossilized bones but not soft tissue or DNA”?


The mistake we make is to think that we are dealing with evolutionists in the realms of reasonable thinking. Evolutionists can’t be thinking reasonable if they still think dinosaurs are 65 million years old! Cellular chemistry details such as DNA in a 65 million dinosaur is a contradiction. We are not going to convince evolutionists through science or reason, because the contradiction should be plain to see. Logic is the foundation of reasoning and one of the laws of logic is the law of non-contradiction.


Doug you say that you are an electrical engineer and database system developer. If I came to you as a client and insisted that you develop a data warehouse or cube database by introducing errors within the operating system would you think it’s silly to make the connection by saying “can you give me an example of errors that I can base my development on”? The connection to cells are there, it’s just that the connection is in their contradictions.


We are forced to ask questions of the evolutionary worldview that will eventually lead to absurdity to show how absurd their worldview is.


The sentence you don’t understand is a bait-and-switch/equivocation with hidden/suppressed premises. Just as the statement “evolution is a fact” is used to deceive because we have to ask the question what type of evolution. We are deceived by evolutionists when they say the design we plainly see in nature isn’t design. Are we supposed to accept this or should we ask the question what type of naturalism, design, mutations, etc?

Comment by Doug Lindauer yesterday

No Floyd, you missed my points entirely.  So in the interest of diplomacy l'll just drop it.

Comment by Jim Brenneman yesterday

Shortly, this thread will become unavailable for added comments, and perhaps even for reading. I would suggest that anyone who is interested in continuing any of these excellent topics should copy and paste to start a new discussion topic in the main forum.

Comment by Floyd yesterday

Doug, it’s best you create a new discussion thread in the main forum, as Jim’s suggested, to state exactly what you mean in no uncertain terms, because as far as I’m concerned your questions has been answered many times.


Fallacious arguments cut both ways so if my arguments are fallacious or contradictory in anyway then it’s best if you expose them. I wouldn't like to think I’m right if I’m not?

Comment by Lou Hamby yesterday

Doug, please repost a very clear and concise explanation, so we can all chime in. Or at a minimum learn. I thought Floyd's response was pretty good, but if you say he missed the mark, I made no comment though out the whole exchange, but I would like to actually understand what it is your saying.  Thanks!!

Comment by Doug Lindauer yesterday

I'll resist that temptation, thank you.

Comment by Phil Owens yesterday

How often does this site provide experts for Q/A ?  I really enjoyed this.

Comment by Phil Owens yesterday

Epic debate on  Old Earth vs. Young Earth by two Creation scientists.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu75q7do_Xc

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2018

What's new @ CC for 2018? 

Creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2019   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service