Scriptural support for degeneration theory?

[Bango Skank]

All(?) creationists advocate so called "Degeneration theory", but i was wondering what scriptural support for that there is actually. Here is the three common claims that creationists use to support it:

Claim: Degeneration is a result of fall of the man.
My rebuttal: The fall had to do with knowledge of good and evil, nothing about fysical change.

Claim: People used to live hundreds of years, but because of the degeneration this is no longer the case.
My rebuttal: God capped human life to be max of 120 years after the flood (which is broken btw) like it says in Genesis 6:3. So this is not a result of degeneration but a change that God made.

Claim: People and animals used to be vegetarians, but because of the fall and result of degeneration they began consumption of animal flesh.
My rebuttal: God said after the flood that humans can now eat flesh of the animals (Genesis 9:3). So this again is not a result of fall & degeneration, but a change that God made.

Also, there was one quote from Paul in NT which is used to support degeneration theory, but sadly i cannot remember it, but i remember it to be a bit vague.


On side note i found it curious that creationists speak of intelligent design and how perfectly thing X or Y is designed, but in same breath they say everything is faulty, limited and degenerating. In all they should welcome things like junk dna, but curiously they want to point out it's not junk. Why don't they use that as a evidence how laughable broken the whole system is?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Hopefully leroy or Rhed will respond to this thread. It would be nice to see either one of them would actually give us their Creation Model.

 

[Rhed]

All(?) creationists advocate so called "Degeneration theory", but i was wondering what scriptural support for that there is actually. Here is the three common claims that creationists use to support it:

Claim: Degeneration is a result of fall of the man.
My rebuttal: The fall had to do with knowledge of good and evil, nothing about fysical change.

Claim: People used to live hundreds of years, but because of the degeneration this is no longer the case.
My rebuttal: God capped human life to be max of 120 years after the flood (which is broken btw) like it says in Genesis 6:3. So this is not a result of degeneration but a change that God made.

Claim: People and animals used to be vegetarians, but because of the fall and result of degeneration they began consumption of animal flesh.
My rebuttal: God said after the flood that humans can now eat flesh of the animals (Genesis 9:3). So this again is not a result of fall & degeneration, but a change that God made.

Also, there was one quote from Paul in NT which is used to support degeneration theory, but sadly i cannot remember it, but i remember it to be a bit vague.


On side note i found it curious that creationists speak of intelligent design and how perfectly thing X or Y is designed, but in same breath they say everything is faulty, limited and degenerating. In all they should welcome things like junk dna, but curiously they want to point out it's not junk. Why don't they use that as a evidence how laughable broken the whole system is?

Hi Bango Skank,

Is the human body advancing or breaking down through the generations? When I receive mutations from my parents, I also have my own mutations. Then I pass those mutations to my kids. My kids now have my parents mutations, their mother's parents mutations, my mutations, their mother's mutations, and their own mutations. Then they will pass those mutations down to the next generations. Having cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, alzheimers, heart disease is everything but improvements or advancements. I would say evolution is going the other way; that is, degenerating.

Just because we are degenerating doesn't mean we were not designed. Like a brand new car works great, but then eventually breaks down. I won't say the car was not designed.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Oh look, Rhed had an opportunity to enlighten us on his Creation Model, yet went on to talk about irrelevant topics that have little to do with what Bango Skank asked.

Is the human body advancing or breaking down through the generations? When I receive mutations from my parents, I also have my own mutations. Then I pass those mutations to my kids. My kids now have my parents mutations, their mother's parents mutations, my mutations, their mother's mutations, and their own mutations. Then they will pass those mutations down to the next generations.

:facepalm:

Claim CB101. You should learn what mutations are before commenting on them.

Having cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, alzheimers, heart disease is everything but improvements or advancements.

Amazing how all those, for the most part, are diseases of old age, poor diet, or a combination of both. I have always been an optimistic person, thus seeing those rates going up, in the West, means that dying from flu, malaria, and starvation are way down. Rhed, do you honestly believe rates of those diseases going up are because of mutations?

I would say evolution is going the other way; that is, degenerating.

:lol:

Comments like this expose that you do not know the first thing about evolution.

Just because we are degenerating doesn't mean we were not designed. Like a brand new car works great, but then eventually breaks down. I won't say the car was not designed.

You have not shown that we are degenerating nor have you shown a way to distinguish between design and the appearance of design, thus your point is moot.

 

[Bango Skank]

Is the human body advancing or breaking down through the generations?"

I don't think advancing is the right word. I would say it adapts when there is pressure for it.

When I receive mutations from my parents, I also have my own mutations. Then I pass those mutations to my kids. My kids now have my parents mutations, their mother's parents mutations, my mutations, their mother's mutations, and their own mutations. Then they will pass those mutations down to the next generations. Having cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, alzheimers, heart disease is everything but improvements or advancements.

I don't know much about evolution, but i'd say those would normally be weed out by natural selection, but thanks to modern medicine...no longer the case. Also some of those are results of poor eating habits.

I would say evolution is going the other way; that is, degenerating.

My topic was about creationism, not evolution. Besides to my knowledge, evolution doesn't have any goals other than maybe pass the genes to next generation.

Just because we are degenerating doesn't mean we were not designed.

That is correct, but it does narrow down the options, such as Bible's God. God is defined to be perfect in every way, so it's creation should be perfect as well (and so do christians claim). It is not perfect, so i'd say this rules out this particular God.

I wish you'd actually address the question of my topic.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Natural Selection vs Intelligent Design!

 

[Bango Skank]

One evasive answer and then silence. How disappointing.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

One evasive answer and then silence. How disappointing.

Well, what else were you expecting? It is not like there is a "Creation Model" that the creationists can reference.

 

[Bango Skank]

One evasive answer and then silence. How disappointing.

Well, what else were you expecting? It is not like there is a "Creation Model" that the creationists can reference.

Well, they keep referring to "Creation science". I want to know the natural / supernatural mechanism for example how this thing which is called "God" made things into existence mere uttering some words.

Either they present their model or shut up forever.

 

[Rumraket]

This is a good question. What scriptural support is there for the claim that genomes will always detoriate "due to the fall" ?

None. There is none. It's just made up shit.

 

[Bango Skank]

I gave you creationists a several days to respond...but no, you chose to remain silent. Honestly, what is your excuse? Don't you guys believe what you are proclaiming?

Fucking cowards...

 

[thenexttodie]

All(?) creationists advocate so called "Degeneration theory", but i was wondering what scriptural support for that there is actually. Here is the three common claims that creationists use to support it:

Claim: Degeneration is a result of fall of the man.
My rebuttal: The fall had to do with knowledge of good and evil, nothing about fysical change.

Claim: People used to live hundreds of years, but because of the degeneration this is no longer the case.
My rebuttal: God capped human life to be max of 120 years after the flood (which is broken btw) like it says in Genesis 6:3. So this is not a result of degeneration but a change that God made.

Claim: People and animals used to be vegetarians, but because of the fall and result of degeneration they began consumption of animal flesh.
My rebuttal: God said after the flood that humans can now eat flesh of the animals (Genesis 9:3). So this again is not a result of fall & degeneration, but a change that God made.

Also, there was one quote from Paul in NT which is used to support degeneration theory, but sadly i cannot remember it, but i remember it to be a bit vague.

I am a Creationist and I would basically agree with you here. But I would like to point out that the fall of man did deprive us of 2 things people often overlook. Firstly being able to live in the Garden of Eden(presumably a perfectly fitted enviroment). Secondly, access to the tree of life which god said eating from would enable us to live forever.

Also it seems to me that the Earth's crust would not have contained radioactive elements before the flood.

I think the verse you are talking about is in Romans where I think paul states that the universe is wearing out like an old garment. Or something like that. I am thinking 26-13 but am probably way off.

On side note i found it curious that creationists speak of intelligent design and how perfectly thing X or Y is designed, but in same breath they say everything is faulty, limited and degenerating. In all they should welcome things like junk dna, but curiously they want to point out it's not junk. Why don't they use that as a evidence how laughable broken the whole system is?

I think "Junk DNA" is a bit of outdated argument evolutionists once used back in the 90's. Maybe one of the experts on this forum would like to talk about this.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Also it seems to me that the Earth's crust would not have contained radioactive elements before the flood.

Aha!

So the Garden of Eden existed prior to the formation of Earth 4.4 billion years ago.

Well, I guess you can proudly say you're an Old Earth Creationist.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I think "Junk DNA" is a bit of outdated argument evolutionists once used back in the 90's. Maybe one of the experts on this forum would like to talk about this.

Biological scientists never used 'Junk DNA' as an argument about anything unrelated to genetics.

Far from being 1990's, the term's still used today and still has exactly the same meaning: DNA that doesn't code for proteins.

It's Creationists who mistakenly believe, because they're ignorant of science and interested in it only so far as they can push their delusional fabrication, that Biology considers Junk DNA to serve no function, or have no purpose. That was basically always a Creationist misconception (read: bullshit).

Quite the contrary, functions were hypothesized right from the discovery of junk DNA in... I believe it was the early 1960's... that the instructions contained within those non-protein coding regions can perform other tasks, and even undergo selection. An example of which would be the production of non-coding RNA components, like ribosomal RNA, or other regulatory functions.

The actual mistake made by biologists in the 60's and 70's was to underestimate the frequency at which non-coding DNA undergoes transcription.

Of course, some stretches factually possess no function and can offer no benefit (nor hindrance) to survival, but there are indications that some non-functional stretches have undergone exaptation through random mutation and selection.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

All(?) creationists advocate so called "Degeneration theory", but i was wondering what scriptural support for that there is actually. Here is the three common claims that creationists use to support it:

Claim: Degeneration is a result of fall of the man.
My rebuttal: The fall had to do with knowledge of good and evil, nothing about fysical change.

Claim: People used to live hundreds of years, but because of the degeneration this is no longer the case.
My rebuttal: God capped human life to be max of 120 years after the flood (which is broken btw) like it says in Genesis 6:3. So this is not a result of degeneration but a change that God made.

Claim: People and animals used to be vegetarians, but because of the fall and result of degeneration they began consumption of animal flesh.
My rebuttal: God said after the flood that humans can now eat flesh of the animals (Genesis 9:3). So this again is not a result of fall & degeneration, but a change that God made.

Also, there was one quote from Paul in NT which is used to support degeneration theory, but sadly i cannot remember it, but i remember it to be a bit vague.


On side note i found it curious that creationists speak of intelligent design and how perfectly thing X or Y is designed, but in same breath they say everything is faulty, limited and degenerating. In all they should welcome things like junk dna, but curiously they want to point out it's not junk. Why don't they use that as a evidence how laughable broken the whole system is?

Hi Bango Skank,

Is the human body advancing or breaking down through the generations? When I receive mutations from my parents, I also have my own mutations. Then I pass those mutations to my kids. My kids now have my parents mutations, their mother's parents mutations, my mutations, their mother's mutations, and their own mutations. Then they will pass those mutations down to the next generations. Having cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, alzheimers, heart disease is everything but improvements or advancements. I would say evolution is going the other way; that is, degenerating.

Just because we are degenerating doesn't mean we were not designed. Like a brand new car works great, but then eventually breaks down. I won't say the car was not designed.

Are you sure that an increasingly sedentary lifestyle since the dawn of civilization has nothing to do with it? The multitude of jobs that don't require physical exertion? The fact that we could drive to a store before walking there, that we could order items with the internet instead of driving? The advancements in medicine and social welfare, which increase everyone's longevity? How do you jump to the conclusion that these health issues are tied to a deteriorating genome, for lack of better description?

 

[Sparhafoc]

And it took all of 30 seconds to find the relevant work...

http://www.gregorylab.org/papers/Comings1972.pdf

The observation that up to 25% of the genome of fetal mice is transcribed into rapidly labeled RNA, despite the fact that probably less than half this much of the genome serves a useful function, indicates that much of the junk DNA must be transcribed. It is thus not too surprising that much of this is rapidly broken down within the nucleus. There are several possible reasons why it is transcribed: (1) it may serve some unknown, obscure purpose; (2) it may play a role in gene regulation; or (3) the promoters which allow its transcription may remain sufficiently intact to allow RNA transcription long after the structural genes have become degenerate.

The question of whether all or only some of the different classes of repetitious DNA are transcribed is central to a number of theories concerning both gene regulation and the role of repetitious DNA in heterochromatin. For example, if satellite DNA is luxuriantly transcribed, this would be difficult to fit with its relationship to heterochromatin; if structural genes exist as single copies, then cytoplasmic messenger RNA should hybridize predominantly to nonrepetitious DNA; and if moderately repetitious DNA plays a role in gene regulation at the posttranscriptional level, then some of the cytoplasmic messenger RNA should hybridize to moderately repetitious DNA.

This is from Genomic Biologist, David Comings, in 1972 in the first paper to explicitly discuss junk DNA.

Creationists pervert everything they touch. They misunderstand science on ideological grounds, they generate false accounts on ideological grounds, then they continuously appeal to those false accounts thereby generating a false history on.... ideological grounds... and still do it decades after the fact.

You'd think it would take less effort just to fucking learn stuff in the first instance.

 

[Rumraket]

I think "Junk DNA" is a bit of outdated argument evolutionists once used back in the 90's. Maybe one of the experts on this forum would like to talk about this.

Biological scientists never used 'Junk DNA' as an argument about anything unrelated to genetics.

Far from being 1990's, the term's still used today and still has exactly the same meaning: DNA that doesn't code for proteins.

This is actually incorrect both what thenexttodie and you write in response. While your post makes it clear you do know some of the history, and the facts about gene-expression and transcription, I think you have still gotten it mixed up a bit about what junk-DNA was historically used to refer to.

The term junk-DNA is used today still yes, but it does NOT and never did refer to DNA that doesn't code for protein, it is used (and always was used) to refer to DNA that doesn't have a biological function.

There are pieces of junk-DNA that codes for protein, and functional non-coding DNA, and pieces of junk-DNA that codes for RNA molecules of all sorts.

But the term has a somewhat complicated history. There have historically been scientists who used the term to mean DNA that doesn't code for protein (I think there is ONE publication that argues this since the origin of the term), but there have also been scientists contemporaneously with them, who argued that there is junk-DNA that codes for protein, that lots of non-coding DNA is functional and not junk, and that the coding-potential of a stretch of DNA isn't what makes it junk.

That what makes junk be junk is if it is nonfunctional to the development, survival, and reproductive capacity of the organism, regardless of whether it happens to produce a protein (or RNA) or not.

Larry Moran over on sandwalk has this as his hobby horse and has been blogging about it now for basically a decade. One of his recent posts is basically a list of scientific papers going back to the 1970's arguing for why there is good reason to think our genome (and many other organisms) contain large amounts of junk-DNA.

But it has never been a mainstream scientific view that all non-coding DNA was junk-DNA.

Many currently publishing geneticists are actually very misinformed about the term, and the history of it, and are perpetuating the myth that it was once believed that non-coding DNA was all junk. This was simply never a mainstream view.

It's Creationists who mistakenly believe, because they're ignorant of science and interested in it only so far as they can push their delusional fabrication, that Biology considers Junk DNA to serve no function, or have no purpose. That was basically always a Creationist misconception (read: bullshit).

In so far as junk-DNA is believed to serve no function, creationists are correct on that point. The problem is you seem to be using the term incorrectly yourself as a substitute for non-coding DNA.

Now there are good reasons for you probably having this misconception, as the term is RAMPANT in the public press so much so, that even professional geneticists who should know better still get it wrong, and perpetuate the historical falsehood that scientists used to believe all non-coding DNA was nonfunctional junk.

Quite the contrary, functions were hypothesized right from the discovery of junk DNA in... I believe it was the early 1960's... that the instructions contained within those non-protein coding regions can perform other tasks, and even undergo selection. An example of which would be the production of non-coding RNA components, like ribosomal RNA, or other regulatory functions.

This is all correct if we change every instance of your use of the term junk-DNA to non-coding DNA.

In so far as you call non-coding DNA for junk-DNA, you are taking part in perpetuating the historical misconception that scientists once called and still call non-coding DNA junk. As far as I am aware, there has only ever been one historical paper that made this argument, but it was never a mainstream position and has been vehemently argued against even by the people who argue that there is a lot of junk-DNA.

Even if you correctly state that non-coding DNA was always, right from the very beginning, known to have many functional uses, it is simply incorrect to call it junk-DNA as there has just not been a historical precedent to do this.

Again the history is a bit complicated as a debate has of course been going on, but for the vast majority of cases, the term junk-DNA has been used to refer only to DNA that doesn't have a function (regardless of whether it coded for protein or not).

The actual mistake made by biologists in the 60's and 70's was to underestimate the frequency at which non-coding DNA undergoes transcription.
Of course, some stretches factually possess no function and can offer no benefit (nor hindrance) to survival, but there are indications that some non-functional stretches have undergone exaptation through random mutation and selection.

Absolutely correct.

 

[Rumraket]

Oh and the term has apparently been tracked all the way back to the early 1960's in publications there (as seen in the comments, perhaps as early as 1959):
http://judgestarling.tumblr.com/post/64504735261/the-origin-of-the-term-junk-dna-a-historical

 

[thenexttodie]

Also it seems to me that the Earth's crust would not have contained radioactive elements before the flood.

Aha!

So the Garden of Eden existed prior to the formation of Earth 4.4 billion years ago.

Well, I guess you can proudly say you're an Old Earth Creationist.

No. I am a young earth creationist.

Fluctuations in the Earths granite crust due to water escaping at high speeds from underneath the crust during the flood, caused enough voltage to produce the radioactive elements we find in the ground today. Granite is made up of much quartz. Quartz will produce voltage when force is applied to it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Also it seems to me that the Earth's crust would not have contained radioactive elements before the flood.

Aha!

So the Garden of Eden existed prior to the formation of Earth 4.4 billion years ago.

Well, I guess you can proudly say you're an Old Earth Creationist.

No. I am a young earth creationist.

Well then, your beliefs are internally inconsistent... but that's only to be expected when your beliefs hang on mythology and reject empirical facts.