Does Charles Darwin approve of “Answers in Genesis”?

[2 Chr. 34:19]

You've been lied to about that. Scientists hypothesized that if a certain human chromosome (which is precisely like two ape chromosomes joined together) was the result of a fusion, they should find remains of telomers at the site where the would have joined. And when they looked the remains of the stop codes were there.



Actually, it's observed in labs to happen:
Karyotype engineering by chromosome fusion leads to reproductive isolation in yeast | Nature

Happens in nature, too...
Chromosome fusion polymorphisms in the grasshopper, Dichroplus fuscus (Orthoptera: Acrididae: Melanoplinae): Insights on meiotic effects

You were lied to, again.



Ya think? Do you understand what these things are?



By definition, they are changes.



The vast majority do pretty much nothing. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts them out. There's quite a list of favorable mutations. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Check out the big brains on brad...no thanks

 

[2 Chr. 34:19]

Nope. Photographs.

And theyre all facing west!

Will be praying for you tonight

 

[Stan B]

It is all taught as fact and it is a lie. Mutations cannot change, they degrade.

That is simply the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Everything in the universe is descending from a higher order to a lower order.

I seem to recall that for every two positive mutations, there are 1,448 negative mutations. Let's face it, cancer which kills half the population is merely the result of negative mutations. The older we get, starting around 70 years of age, the more chance of negative genetic mutations.

 

[Timtofly]

AIG is notorious for inventing ideas for other people. While they have come around to conceding much of Darwin's findings such as:

Speciation (but they say that's not "real evolution")
Common Descent (but only enough to account for obvious cases, and they insist that's not "real evolution")
Natural Selection (but they say that's not "real evolution")
Favorable Mutations (but they say that's not enough for "real evolution")

The basic points of Darwin's theory are:

1. More are born than can live
2. Every individual is slightly different than every other in the population
3. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of living long enough to reproduce
4. The useful differences tend to accumulate over time, and the harmful ones tend to disappear, and this accounts for new species.

All have been repeatedly verified by observation.

The only observed accumulation is that of ignorance. Ignorance is the one attribute that remains, in all observed evolution.

 

[Yehren]

The vast majority do pretty much nothing. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. Natural selection sorts them out. There's quite a list of favorable mutations. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Check out the big brains on brad...no thanks

Sometimes ignorance really is bliss. This time, maybe not.

That is simply the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Everything in the universe is descending from a higher order to a lower order.

That's not what the 2nd law says. An increase in order can be an increase in entropy. Would you like to see how?

I seem to recall that for every two positive mutations, there are 1,448 negative mutations.

If that were true, evolution would go a lot faster than it's observed to go.

Let's face it, cancer which kills half the population is merely the result of negative mutations.

Half of us die of cancer? (Quick check) Not even close:
List of causes of death by rate - Wikipedia

The older we get, starting around 70 years of age, the more chance of negative genetic mutations.

Somatic mutations are different than genetic mutations. The mutations that cause cancer aren't passed on, normally. But we all have about a hundred mutations that neither parent had in their bodies.

Now let's take a look at that. Suppose a population of 1,000,000 people. That means something like 100,000,000 mutations per generation.
Using your number, that means about 69,000 useful mutations in a generation. Now, most harmful mutation don't kill you before you can reproduce, and some favorable mutations are lost because the person doesn't reproduce, or just bad luck. So let's say 10,000 of them get passed on, meaning each generation adds 10,000 useful new mutations per generation. Assuming a generation in 25 years, there would be 400,000 useful new mutations in 1000 years. Seems like a lot. I'm guessing the real rate is somewhat lower, given observed adaptations in nature.

 

[Yehren]

The only observed accumulation is that of ignorance.

I think that's unfair to AIG. They clearly are making an attempt to fit the facts into their beliefs, and in some cases, have clearly modified their beliefs about things like natural selection, speciation, and common descent.

 

[Yehren]

And theyre all facing west!

Yeah, in order to photograph them, they have to be removed from the animal and placed under a dissecting scope. Thought you knew.

Will be praying for you tonight

I can always use prayer. I'll be praying for you, too. As I said, you're probably O.K. anyway; God doesn't care if you accept evolution or not. Even if you don't, He's not going to judge you by that.

Howevever, if you make an idol of creationism and demand that others must believe your man-made doctrine to be saved, that might be another issue. Don't let that remove you from Him.

 

[Timtofly]

I think that's unfair to AIG. They clearly are making an attempt to fit the facts into their beliefs, and in some cases, have clearly modified their beliefs about things like natural selection, speciation, and common descent.

The truth is not fair to any human. It is not supposed to be. The point is to trust God’s Word. Lean not on your own human understanding. Where does it fit that human understanding trumps God’s Word? How does proving human understanding to be correct, change the fact we can only trust? Being willfully ignorant is not the blessing of science. Being willfully ignorant is placing one's trust in science. Knowing how nature works is one thing, and a blessed thing. It will never change the Truth of Genesis. Science has to stay in the knowledge that God works in a time frame that God established. To say Satan has not deceived the field of science is to remain in ignorance, and underestimates Satan. Science was birthed in philosophy first, philosophy did not spring out of science.

 

[2 Chr. 34:19]

Yeah, in order to photograph them, they have to be removed from the animal and placed under a dissecting scope. Thought you knew.



I can always use prayer. I'll be praying for you, too. As I said, you're probably O.K. anyway; God doesn't care if you accept evolution or not. Even if you don't, He's not going to judge you by that.

Howevever, if you make an idol of creationism and demand that others must believe your man-made doctrine to be saved, that might be another issue. Don't let that remove you from Him.

Ignorance is bliss...the more I learn, the less I know

 

[Yehren]

Ignorance is bliss...the more I learn, the less I know

The more I know, the more I know I don't know. But sooner or later, almost everything I ever learned, came in handy.

 

[farouk]

Ignorance is bliss...the more I learn, the less I know

LOL...

 

[Yehren]

The truth is not fair to any human. It is not supposed to be. The point is to trust God’s Word. Lean not on your own human understanding. Where does it fit that human understanding trumps God’s Word?

I notice everyone depends on their own understanding of what God's word says.

How does proving human understanding to be correct, change the fact we can only trust?

That's not a fact. It's a faulty assumption. God gave you the ability to reason; He expects you to use it.

Being willfully ignorant is not the blessing of science.

The function of science is only to know. Turns out that engineering can use that knowledge to let us do better in this world He gave us.

Being willfully ignorant is placing one's trust in science.

Being willfully ignorant is ignoring what we have learned through (among other things) science.

Knowing how nature works is one thing, and a blessed thing. It will never change the Truth of Genesis.

How could they? He gave both of them to us. They agree, because they are both His creations.

Science has to stay in the knowledge that God works in a time frame that God established.

No. It can only comprehend nature. The supernatural is out of the reach of science.

To say Satan has deceived the field of science is stupendously ignorant and serves Satan's purposes.

Science was birthed in philosophy first,

No. Science was birthed in human experience. It merely codifies what humans can do to understand what is around them. It's inductive, looking at the game and inferring rules. Philosophy declares the rules and tells us what the game should be like. This is why science has made such progress, and philosophers still can't come to agreement on the fundamentals of the world.

philosophy did not spring out of science.

You got that right.

 

[farouk]

God gave you the ability to reason; He expects you to use it.

Indeed; not everyone is right, though. "Thy word is truth" (John 17.17).

 

[2 Chr. 34:19]

The more I know, the more I know I don't know. But sooner or later, almost everything I ever learned, came in handy.

May I ask, do you believe that Jesus died and rose again on the third day?

 

[2 Chr. 34:19]

Perhaps creationists agree with Martin Luther that God would not mind a "good strong lie" for a good cause. Not all of them, of course. Some like Kurt Wise, Harold Coffin, and Todd Wood, admit the evidence supports evolution and an ancient Earth.




Luther might have been an occasional liar and an anti-Semite, but you'll never convince me that he was an atheist. Sorry.

I’m not a big fan of Luther. P.s. what’s the story behind your avatar?

 

[2 Chr. 34:19]

God doesn't care if you accept evolution or not.

Luke 16:31

 

[marksman]

Answers in Genesis is an organization founded and led by Ken Ham that is dedicated to proving that the Bible’s account of creation recorded in Genesis is true and can be supported scientifically. It has aroused a great deal of controversy. It is strongly supported by many Bible believers. It is disliked by unbelievers who accept the popular idea that life evolved over millions of years and even by some Christians who also accept this belief. (For a long time I was in this group. I was a Christian but I also believed that the theory of evolution had been scientifically proven. If I had known of Answers in Genesis I would probably have believed that what it was teaching was false. In the last few years I have come to realized that in fact there is no evidence supporting evolution.)

Recently a thought occurred to me. What is Charles Darwin’s opinion of Answers in Genesis? Darwin died in 1882, but his soul still exists. How have his views changed since his death?

In his early life Darwin believed in God and even majored in theology in college. Later he lost his faith and became an agnostic. There are accounts that claim he was converted to Christianity before he died but there seems to be no evidence that any of those accounts are true. But it is possible that he was converted before his death and simply didn’t have a chance to tell anyone about it. If this is the case then he is in heaven now. He realizes that he was wrong in what he wrote and that his writings have misled many people. If so, he approves of Answers in Genesis and its efforts to refute his errors and lead people to a knowledge of the truth.

It is also possible that Darwin persisted in his unbelief and is now in Hades waiting for the final judgment when he will be condemned to the Lake of Fire. He realizes the error of his teaching and how harmful it is to others. Jesus once reported the words of a man who was in Hades.

And he said, “Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.”
Luke 16:27,28 ESV

This shows that those in Hades are still concerned about the state of the living and don’t want them to share their suffering. If this is so, then Darwin surely supports Answers in Genesis.

We won’t know whether or not Darwin is saved until we get to heaven and find out whether he is there, but is seems likely that whether he is saved of lost he approves of the work of creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis.

One thing that evolutionists are quiet about and that is Darwin said you cannot prove evolution from his findings in the Galapagos Islands.

 

[Yehren]

God doesn't care if you accept evolution or not.

Luke 16:31

You're safe. Neither Moses nor any of the prophets took a stand on the way God created the diversity of living things.

 

[Yehren]

One thing that evolutionists are quiet about and that is Darwin said you cannot prove evolution from his findings in the Galapagos Islands.

Evolution is observed daily. Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology. What do you think it means?

I think you're confusing evolution with a consequence of evolution, like common descent. However, even honest creationists admit that there is lots of evidence for common descent. Would you like to see that?

 

[marksman]

Evolution is observed daily. Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology. What do you think it means?

I think you're confusing evolution with a consequence of evolution, like common descent. However, even honest creationists admit that there is lots of evidence for common descent. Would you like to see that?

Please do tell me what things are evolving every day. You know that things that evolutionists claim are millions of years old.