You are not logged in.
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>In a Q&A session held at Andrews University Seminary Chapel August 15, 2009, Elder Jan Paulsen was reportedly given an anonymous question from an AU faculty member that said: I am someone who believes in God and creation, but not in a literal six-day creation. Should I resign from my teaching position in an Adventist University? <BR> <BR>According to Jennifer Birney, an AU employee and student, Jan Paulsen immediately responded, “Yes.” This follows Paulsen’s June appeal “to all engaged by our church in the ministries of administration, preaching, teaching, and writing to articulate and reflect our stand as a community on Creation.” <BR> <BR>The Q&A was called “Let’s Talk About Adventist Education” and was part of a three-day event called Fall Fellowship, which occurs annually at Andrews. <BR> <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.educatetruth.com/articles/jan-paulsen-says-yes-they-should-resign/comment-page-1/" target=_top>http://www.educatetruth.com/articles/jan-paulsen-s ays-yes-they-should-resign/comment-page-1/</a>
Offline
Another voice on the Evolutionary front, Doug Bachelor: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>... <BR> <BR>In the Beginning <BR> <BR>Honest science and logic show that our incredibly marvelous and complex world could never have evolved by accident. It happened as Jesus says it did, and it’s crucial that we believe it. <BR> <BR>Sadly, many churches and Christian universities are compromising on this issue. “Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth” (Isaiah 65:17). If your pastor or professor suggests God used evolutionary processes to produce the earth, ask them if this means the saved will have to wait a few billion years while God creates the new heavens and the new earth. Then ask if our new resurrected bodies will have to evolve from a single cell again. <BR> <BR>“Create in me a clean heart, O God” (Psalm 51:10). Which is harder: to speak a galaxy into existence or to change a human heart? Salvation relies upon God’s miraculous, instant creative power. When you toss aside the six-day Creation account, you do more than clear a pathway to immorality — you remove the hope of salvation! <BR> <BR>Ultimately, something very simple but very important lies at the heart of someone who rejects biblical creation. If “in the beginning, God created” is true, then God is the supreme authority and, as His creation, we are subject to Him. Fallen human nature doesn’t like that arrangement. <BR> <BR>Do you believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days? If so, praise the Lord! Then you can also believe that He will give you a new heart through a similar miracle of creation. (See Ezekiel 36:26; 2 Corinthians 5:17.) Could we have a better hope than that? <BR> <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.educatetruth.com/articles/the-bible-and-evolution-by-pastor-doug-batchelor/" target=_top>http://www.educatetruth.com/articles/the-bible-and -evolution-by-pastor-doug-batchelor/</a>
Offline
<a href="http://news.adventist.org/statements/an-appeal.html" target=_top>http://news.adventist.org/statements/an-appeal.htm l</a> <BR> <BR>An excerpt from Jan Paulsen's appeal concerning the teaching of evolution at La Sierra: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>... <BR> <BR>To those who teach at our colleges and universities, let me say that you have a demanding, often difficult, but sacred assignment. It is a ministry you hold in trust. It is understood that to care for your ministry responsibly you have to take your students on many a journey of findings into various disciplines of study. They need to know what they will meet in their profession and in life. As part of that exercise you will also expose them to the elements and concepts of evolution. That is understood. <BR> <BR>As your pastor, however, I appeal to you that when you take your students out on the journey, you bring them safely back home before the day is over. And their home must always be in the world of faith. You owe it to the students, you owe it to God, you owe it to their parents, you owe it to the church, and you owe it to yourself as a believer to safely guide them through difficult moments on their journey. <BR> <BR>...<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">Honest science and logic show that our incredibly marvelous and complex world could never have evolved by accident. It happened as Jesus says it did, and it’s crucial that we believe it.</font></b> <BR> <BR>And if Doug Bachelor said it, he is a qualified scientist and always right!! Prefaced by "honest" infers that anything different is dishonest! <BR> <BR>Psst: Wanna buy ocean front property in Nebraska?
Offline
Psst, Elaine of Fresno, is no better a source to judge what is being said by Bachelor. Right and ask him if you doubt or do your own probe. <BR> <BR>MacroEvolution has never been proven. To teach it as fact is unscientific, and wishful thinking mainly gathered by extrapolation, speculation and faulty dating mechanisms. Chance and Evolution, need mega time to develop. Those faulty dating tools help with that.
Offline
Do you mean "right" or "write"? <BR> <BR>I have no interest in speaking or writing to Bachelor. You furnished a statement from him, and I asked what were his scientific qualification to speak of a field where he has no authority. He can speak of the Bible, but when he gets into science, he's way over his head. 'Course, like most evangelists, they know everything about every subject and the poor gullible listeners often believe it.
Offline
Bob...here is what the best educated minds have to say about how we know the earth and the universe are far older than what we were taught. <BR> <BR>"mega time".... and the proof of it all... <BR> <BR><a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/contents.html" target=_top>http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/contents.html</a> <BR> <BR>are all the scientists and their data wrong? <BR> <BR>how is it that you say their conclusions are faulty..and their methods based on speculation? <BR> <BR>just because some ancient stories told around the campfire got written down...skipping generations . compressing time...and mising the rest of the earths history...by scientifically ignorant goat herders?
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Offline
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>Foley, Minnesota – March 31, 2009 – It is widely thought that creationists base their beliefs on the Bible alone rather than on scientific evidence. However, the results of a recent survey taken by one of the oldest creationism organizations in the U.S. revealed that the primary reason creationists reject evolution is scientific in nature. <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>Creation Moments, a creationist group that teaches a young earth, today released the results of its survey revealing that creationists base their beliefs primarily on scientific evidences. When asked to provide the one or two top reasons why they do not believe in evolution, only 12% of the respondents said their only reason for rejecting evolution was because it contradicts the Bible. In contrast, 47% exclusively cited scientific reasons. The remaining 41% provided both scientific and biblical reasons why they rejected evolution. The survey from Creation Moments revealed that 88% of their constituents cited scientific reasons for their non-belief in evolution. <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>“We are not surprised that such a large percentage of creationists base their rejection of evolution on scientific criteria,” said Ian Taylor, host of the Creation Moments radio broadcast. “The academic establishment and the scientific community try to paint creationists as country bumpkins and Bible-thumpers who are ignorant of science. The results of this survey prove that nothing could be further from the truth.” <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>While respondents could answer the open-ended question in any way they liked, these are the reasons given most frequently: (1) the lack of transitional fossils, (2) the absence of living intermediate species, (3) the complexity of DNA, (4) mutations are almost always harmful, (5) the sudden appearance of all basic life forms in the fossil record, (6) evolution contradicts the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, (7) the irreducible complexity of living things, and (8) the fine-tuning of the universe calls for a designer. <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>As these reasons make clear, creationists – though not part of the Intelligent Design movement – are being strongly influenced by ID’s scientific arguments. <BR> <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.fossils.me/creationists-base-beliefs-primarily-on-science" target=_top>http://www.fossils.me/creationists-base-beliefs-pr imarily-on-science</a>
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">While respondents could answer the open-ended question in any way they liked, these are the reasons given most frequently: (1) the lack of transitional fossils, (2) the absence of living intermediate species, (3) the complexity of DNA, (4) mutations are almost always harmful, (5) the sudden appearance of all basic life forms in the fossil record, (6) evolution contradicts the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, (7) the irreducible complexity of living things, and (8) the fine-tuning of the universe calls for a designer. </font></b> <BR> <BR>It is one thing to have scientific doubt re: Macro-evolution; it is quite another to propose an alternative scientific theory that encompasses all the various aspects of "change" or "micro-evolution". <BR> <BR>I have not noticed Creationists proposing a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. <BR> <BR>Scientists use the theory of evolution because it helps them organize their understanding of the world. What do Creationists offer as an alternative. <BR> <BR>From the Creation of the world to now, how do living things develop and change? Why are Darwin's Finches different from one another? How long did it take for them to become different? Creationists believe that there are basic kinds of things which do not develop into other things. What is the mechanism which prevents this? Etc. Etc. Etc. <BR> <BR><img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/7/1896.jpg" alt=""> <BR> <BR>I found the picture above at a Nova site. Here is the presentation:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>Evolution happens through natural selection. (continued) <BR> <BR>Suitably, one of the most striking examples of natural selection in action concerns the very Galapagos finches that Darwin made famous. Since 1973, biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant, working on the tiny island of Daphne Major in the Galapagos, have studied a species of finch called Geospiza fortis (upper right in illustration, which appeared in Darwin's 1839 book about his five-year journey aboard the Beagle). After a drought in 1977 devastated plants bearing small seeds, more than 1,000 of the 1,200 G. fortis finches on the island died. The Grants discovered that larger G. fortis, which could break open larger seeds than smaller G. fortis could, survived better. The survivors mated in 1978, and, on average, their offspring had beaks 4 percent larger than those of the previous generation. Following another drought in 2003, G. fortis with smaller beaks survived better, in part because of stiff competition for bigger seeds after a larger finch species, G. magnirostris, settled the island. Between 2003 and 2005, the Grants found, G. fortis beaks shrank by 5 percent. <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/pred-03.html" target=_top>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/pred-03.html</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Do Creationists believe in this way for things to change? Don't they use the term "adaptation"? How does adaptation work? Is natural selection a sound scientific concept? <BR><font color="ffffff"><font size="-2">.</font></font>
Offline
It is microevolution but as change happens, by mutation, fitness for macroevolution weakens, that is the flaw in common ancestry, mutation causes weakness not fitness. I have no trouble referring to it as microevolution or adaption. Mendel's Accountant shows how the mutations mount up to a weakened condition in the species and will not be able to go to MACROEVOLUTION. This is also referred to variation within a species. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by Bob_2 on September 24, 2009)
Offline
If I might get back to Elder Paulsen's answer. <BR> <BR>I find it astonishing that he would, without even taking the time to talk to the teacher, fire him. He is the church world leader and he is that arbitrary? <BR> <BR>There is no room in his world, his church, for an inquiring mind. <BR> <BR>I'm shocked!!
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">I'm shocked!!</font></b> <BR> <BR>If he really did respond so quickly, it was probably to show decisiveness. His counsel to the science professors, quoted earlier, shows a better sensitivity. It would be interesting to see how Paulsen relates to Wisbey and Bradley. <BR><font color="ffffff"><font size="-2">.</font></font>
Offline
The question was about the individual, whether he should resign, not if Paulsen would fire him, right??? To thy own self be true!!
Offline
<b><font color="0000ff">mutation causes weakness not fitness.</font> </b> <BR> <BR>Please explain: how does that conform to the changes we see over time of the "survival of the fittest"? Aren't weak traits eventually eliminated and the changes through mutation allow the more fit to live and pass on their genes?
Offline
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information. Instead, mutations will produce degradation of the information in the genome. This is the opposite of the predictions of the neoDarwinian origins model. Such genome degradation is counteracted by natural selection that helps maintain the status quo. Degradation results for many reasons, two of which are reviewed here. 1) there is a tendency for mutations to produce a highly disproportionate number of certain nucleotide bases such as thymine and 2) many mutations occur in only a relatively few places within the gene called “hot spots,” and rarely occur in others, known as “cold spots.” An intensive review of the literature fails to reveal a single clear example of a beneficial information-gaining mutation. Conversely, thousands of deleterious mutations exist, supporting the hypothesis that very few mutations are beneficial. These findings support the creation origins model. <BR> <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp" target=_top>http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp</a> <BR> <BR>Also: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>Biologically reasonable Mendel's Accountant input parameters produce output consistent with (a) the biblical account of recent creation, (b) rapid local adaptation followed by stabilization of changes in an organism’s visible features, (c) a spike in genetic variation followed by continuously declining diversity, (d) rapid genetic degeneration tapering into a more gradual but continuous genetic decline, and (e) many extinction events. <BR> <BR>This program is freely available for personal use and can be downloaded from the web at <a href="http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net" target=_top>http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net</a>. When biologically realistic parameters are selected, Mendel's Accountant shows consistently that genetic deterioration is an inevitable outcome of the processes of mutation and natural selection. The primary reason is that most deleterious mutations are too subtle to be detected and eliminated by natural selection and therefore accumulate steadily generation after generation and inexorably degrade fitness. <BR> <BR>Mendel's Accountant provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the "fatal flaws" inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified--with a degree of certainty that should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person. <BR> <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.icr.org/article/fatal-flaws-darwinian-theory/" target=_top>http://www.icr.org/article/fatal-flaws-darwinian-t heory/</a>
Offline
Here is another article: <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>How could new genetic information arise? <BR>There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it. <BR> <BR>To show that all life evolved from a single cell, which itself came from some type of chemical soup, there would have had to be massive genetic information gains. <BR> <BR>But evolutionists have failed to show how this gain of new information occurred. Where did the information come from for the first bristles, stomachs, spines, intestines, complex blood circulation systems, intricate mouthpieces to strain special foods out of the water, and so on, when these were supposedly not present in the ancestral species? <BR> <BR>The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection. <BR> <BR>But mutations and natural selection do not show gain in information, just rearrangement or loss of what is already there — therefore there may be beneficial mutations without an increase in genetic information. <BR> <BR>Mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. (See our article on TNR, the Totally Naked Rooster.) And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths decrease and dark moths proliferate, but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them. <BR> <BR>For more information on macroevolution, see the CreationWiki articles Macroevolution and Macroevolution has never been observed. <BR> <BR><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR><a href="http://www.creationtips.com/evoluwrong.html" target=_top>http://www.creationtips.com/evoluwrong.html</a>
Offline
Mutations may be either beneficial or harmful and even can quickly become either in the context of their environment. The environment greatly affects the organism's ability to survive, and even a small change can be harmful to some organisms. <BR> <BR>The panda's "thumb" is actually an enlarged bone of the wrist. In the panda's environment, bamboo is the main food source. It is difficult to handle and break the hard stalks, so an enlarged wrist bone helps to grasp the bamboo. In another environment where the food source is not plants, an extra 'finger' would hae little benefit. The <b>mutated</b> hands of pandas have been beneficial because of their environment. <BR> <BR>The kokapo is a strange flightless parrot that lives in the brush on the mountains of New Zealand. Before man reached its shores, the island was almost mammal-free, with no ground predators of birds. As a result, the many ground dwelling birds lost the ability to fly, because there was need. Their wings are small and useless. When man did come they brought mammals, such as cats and weasels. The kokapo was easy prey for them, and is now nearly extinct. This happened to several other birds, including the kiwi. These birds inability to fly quickly caught up to them when the environment changed, showing how their mutation of bad wings was harmful in a different environment. <BR> <BR>The penguin has a similar situation, living in the waters of Antarctica and surrounding places. They have evolved into flightless birds that are cumbersome and ineffective on land, but are masters of the water. In Antarctica, the sea is the best place to get food, so that is where the penguin has hunted. It has gradually lost its ability to fly, attained huge amounts of insulating blubber and gained mutated legs that are great for swimming and terrible for walking. In another environment, it would be very vulneraable and helpless. <BR> <BR>The naked mole rat is an unusual mammal that has very little hair and is blind. It lives in underground tunnels in East Africa. Deep underground, being 'naked' and blind make no difference to this small rodent. If it is taken out of its subterranean home, though, it becomes helpless. The rat's mutaions are a huge liability in an environment other than the one it is accustomed to. <BR> <BR>These animals show that their mutations which were beneficial can easily become harmful if it is placed in a different environment. They are only a few examples from a world where mutations abound and environments govern life. <BR> <BR><a href="http://naturenriche.tripod.com/mutation.html" target=_top>http://naturenriche.tripod.com/mutation.html</a> <BR> <BR>One might consider the extremely dark skin found in those native to the deep southern hemisphere, and the very light skin and blue eyes in the most northern hemispheres. If humans evolved from one ancestor, does that not reflect gradual mutations beneficial to the environment? <BR> <BR>Whether harmful or beneficial, adapting to the environment is key.
Offline
Microevolution is all about variation within species (kinds) but not progressing to another kind - MacroEvolution. You have to have it for common ancestry and the reason for 3.5 billion years. BTW, your hyperlink is out of commission, try again,eh? <BR> <BR>(Message edited by Bob_2 on September 25, 2009)
Offline
Is your contention that mutation is synomyous with macroevolution? I was not addressing the latter, but the former.
Offline
Bob, something more than either your or my hyperlink is out of commission.
Offline
Elaine, macroevolution is dependent on mutations and natural selection. Mendel's Accountant shows the fitness for Macroevolution. Microevolution is a fact, undisputed by creationist and scientists. Macroevolution has not been demonstrated. Common ancestry does away with the hope of salvation. Cousins with apes is not the creation/salvation story. <BR> <BR>Now your hope, your story. Or just this life, then death and dust, eh?
Offline
If <b><font color="0000ff">macroevolution has not been demonstrated </font></b> and yet mutations are so evident, how do you explain the contradictions in the statement: macroevolution=mutation; macroevolution is not demonstrated. 'Splain.
Offline
If <b><font color="0000ff">macroevolution has not been demonstrated </font></b> and yet mutations are so evident, how do you explain the contradictions in the statement: macroevolution=mutation; macroevolution is not demonstrated. 'Splain.
Offline
I am NOT contending that there is macroevolution. <BR>Microevolution is demonstrated in the mutations seen by Darwin and Mendel, and thousands of demonstrations. <BR> <BR>Macroevolution means complete change from one organism to another; microevolution is the change we constantly see by mutations. They are either beneficial or harmful, as illustrated in my previous post: Human skin coloring has mutated over the years to accomodate to climate and sun. For penguins, if they were put into a totally different environment they would soon be eliminated; however, in their most northern climate, they have adapted to being poor flyers but excellent swimmers. <BR> <BR>Now, if you can explain the platypus.
Offline
On another thread, I explain that common DNA does not prove evolution from one creature to another, take the chimp at 95% similar to humans, but no proof of macroevolution, no transitional forms.
Offline