PDA

View Full Version : The Evolution Conspiracy



KATA_LOUKAN
Nov 2nd 2008, 05:42 PM
Hello all,

First of all, let me say that this thread is not intended to be a incendiary attack on either creationism or evolution (and all their permutations). Furthermore, I would like to leave matters of science out of this equation (i.e. radiometric dating, flood geology, cosmology, etc) so we can stick with the philosophy of biology.

I have been doing much thinking recently, and I feel that the YEC/OEC/theistic evolution controversy is one of the most important issues in both theology and science, although the scientific and conservative religious establishments have already formed their opinions on the matter.

My question to those who believe in YEC is this. Given the nearly universal (>99%) acceptance of evolutionary theory by the scientific community, how is it that the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields have concluded so thoroughly that evolution is a fact? Such a large number would indicate (at least to me) that is must be a conspiracy.

Nearly 40% of scientists claim to be Christian, and yet, even though YEC would make our explanation of the world much less complicated, only a tiny fraction choose to believe it.

Even the great names in science who are Christian (Miller, Collins, and Colling come to mind) don't feel the need to believe in a literal account of Genesis. So why is the thought of evolution so discomforting to Christians of a literalist mindset?

Studyin'2Show
Nov 2nd 2008, 07:06 PM
I don't have a problem with the thought of evolution. Evolution, or change over time is not a problem from the YEC perspective. In fact, change over time is required for all the speciation since the ark. What I do not buy into is the random chance and all from nothing darwinian evolution. Understanding that truth does not come from majority opinion, the number of scientists that believe this or that does not affect my perception of truth. I do think the >99% assumption you make is high when considering all from nothing evolution. I think there is more dissention than that. When mentioning the more broad change over time evolution, I see no conflict with YEC. I hope I've answered your question effectively. ;)

God Bless!

Athanasius
Nov 2nd 2008, 07:18 PM
Kata, where are you getting your statistics from, if you don't mind me asking?

BroRog
Nov 2nd 2008, 07:52 PM
Hello all,

First of all, let me say that this thread is not intended to be a incendiary attack on either creationism or evolution (and all their permutations). Furthermore, I would like to leave matters of science out of this equation (i.e. radiometric dating, flood geology, cosmology, etc) so we can stick with the philosophy of biology.

I have been doing much thinking recently, and I feel that the YEC/OEC/theistic evolution controversy is one of the most important issues in both theology and science, although the scientific and conservative religious establishments have already formed their opinions on the matter.

My question to those who believe in YEC is this. Given the nearly universal (>99%) acceptance of evolutionary theory by the scientific community, how is it that the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields have concluded so thoroughly that evolution is a fact? Such a large number would indicate (at least to me) that is must be a conspiracy.

Nearly 40% of scientists claim to be Christian, and yet, even though YEC would make our explanation of the world much less complicated, only a tiny fraction choose to believe it.

Even the great names in science who are Christian (Miller, Collins, and Colling come to mind) don't feel the need to believe in a literal account of Genesis. So why is the thought of evolution so discomforting to Christians of a literalist mindset?

After watching the documentary "Expelled" last night, I will take all statements about scientific agreement with a very large grain of salt.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 3rd 2008, 01:10 AM
After watching the documentary "Expelled" last night, I will take all statements about scientific agreement with a very large grain of salt.I was just about to suggest that some of that "99%" might be simply trying to preserve their careers. And I saw "Expelled" in the theater, it was very powerful. I was stunned to learn of Baylor's involvement. As a former Southern Baptist, it was very disheartening.

GitRDunn
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:18 AM
After watching the documentary "Expelled" last night, I will take all statements about scientific agreement with a very large grain of salt.
What is that about?

Literalist-Luke
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:26 AM
"Expelled" is a documentary hosted by Ben Stein (of Ferris Bueller fame) that discusses the tendency in the science community to blackball anybody who publicly adopts an "intelligent design" stance regarding origins. If you don't preach evolution, the argument goes, you're unworthy of being a scientist. Ben Stein's documentary sets out to expose this and to demonstrate the hypocrisy of such practices.

GitRDunn
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:38 AM
"Expelled" is a documentary hosted by Ben Stein (of Ferris Bueller fame) that discusses the tendency in the science community to blackball anybody who publicly adopts an "intelligent design" stance regarding origins. If you don't preach evolution, the argument goes, you're unworthy of being a scientist. Ben Stein's documentary sets out to expose this and to demonstrate the hypocrisy of such practices.
Hmm, I might have to look into watching this because it sounds to me like I'm not going to agree with it all. I don't think it is as bad as it might be making it out to be. With a short time to present facts you can easily find enough testimonies/examples to support your side, but things are often less extreme than people want to make the out to be. I won't say anything about it for sure, though, because I haven't seen it and that wouldn't be fair to it.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:49 AM
Hmm, I might have to look into watching this because it sounds to me like I'm not going to agree with it all. I don't think it is as bad as it might be making it out to be. With a short time to present facts you can easily find enough testimonies/examples to support your side, but things are often less extreme than people want to make the out to be. I won't say anything about it for sure, though, because I haven't seen it and that wouldn't be fair to it.I should probably clarify that Stein is not opposing the teaching of evolution, he's only opposing the suppression of intelligent design theory. He's arguing that both ideas should both be allowed to be presented in the "marketplace of ideas" and fend for themselves.

GitRDunn
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:53 AM
I should probably clarify that Stein is not opposing the teaching of evolution, he's only opposing the suppression of intelligent design theory. He's arguing that both ideas should both be allowed to be presented in the "marketplace of ideas" and fend for themselves.
Ok, it seems I misinterpreted it at first somewhat, but as I said before, I won't say anything definite either way until I watch it (if I can find time to).

Luke34
Nov 3rd 2008, 05:53 AM
For those questioning the 99% figure: "Only" 95% of all scientists accept evolution, but about 99.85% of scientists who work in evolution-related fields (e.g. biology, geology) do so. Via TalkOrigins:


Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

BroRog
Nov 3rd 2008, 06:42 AM
For those questioning the 99% figure: "Only" 95% of all scientists accept evolution, but about 99.85% of scientists who work in evolution-related fields (e.g. biology, geology) do so. Via TalkOrigins:

You know, I remember that Sadam Hussain got at least 99% of the vote in the last election before we attacked his country. The other 1% were rounded up and never heard from again. When the voice of discent is gagged, the majority opinion will hover around 100% :(

Grant money is a powerful inducement to support the current paradigm.

Do you know where the term "ostricism" came from? Every year the citizens of Athens (I think) voted to expell one citizen from the city. Each citizen would write down the name of the person to be expelled on a piece of broken pottery known as the "ostrakon".

The founding fathers of the American Experiment attempted to mitigate this terrible aspect of majority rule when, for example, they gave each state two senetors no matter how big the state. As I understand it, the electoral college was also established to mitigate mob rule.

If the gatekeepers of knowledge suppress the truth, then we are losing both the truth and our liberty.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 3rd 2008, 11:36 AM
What is that about?Here are some of the trailers from the movie. http://www.expelledthemovie.com/videos.php

*Hope*
Nov 3rd 2008, 12:24 PM
It isn't a conspiracy. And it isn't about science. It's about philosophy. Once naturalism became widespread in America, people accepted the worldview first. After that, their "science", art, media and every other field became not only influenced by it...but driven by it.

GitRDunn
Nov 3rd 2008, 12:44 PM
You know, I remember that Sadam Hussain got at least 99% of the vote in the last election before we attacked his country. The other 1% were rounded up and never heard from again. When the voice of discent is gagged, the majority opinion will hover around 100% :(

Grant money is a powerful inducement to support the current paradigm.

Do you know where the term "ostricism" came from? Every year the citizens of Athens (I think) voted to expell one citizen from the city. Each citizen would write down the name of the person to be expelled on a piece of broken pottery known as the "ostrakon".

The founding fathers of the American Experiment attempted to mitigate this terrible aspect of majority rule when, for example, they gave each state two senetors no matter how big the state. As I understand it, the electoral college was also established to mitigate mob rule.

If the gatekeepers of knowledge suppress the truth, then we are losing both the truth and our liberty.
Perhaps, but looking at the issue from a science perspective, I actually think those numbers are probably about accurate for a couple reasons. First, basically 100% (don't hold me to this number, I am coming up with this on my own) on atheistic scientists are going to believe in evolution and as for Christian (can't say for sure about those of other religions) scientists, I believe many of them lean toward theistic (God) controlled evolution and I doubt there are too many who lied in the poll because it is a completely anonymous poll and no one would even know who voted what way, so there wouldn't be the intimidation factor.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 3rd 2008, 01:13 PM
Perhaps, but looking at the issue from a science perspective, I actually think those numbers are probably about accurate for a couple reasons. First, basically 100% (don't hold me to this number, I am coming up with this on my own) on atheistic scientists are going to believe in evolution and as for Christian (can't say for sure about those of other religions) scientists, I believe many of them lean toward theistic (God) controlled evolution and I doubt there are too many who lied in the poll because it is a completely anonymous poll and no one would even know who voted what way, so there wouldn't be the intimidation factor.That does not change the fact that truth is not governed by majority opinion. There are intelligent people on both sides of the issue. ;)

God Bless!

KATA_LOUKAN
Nov 3rd 2008, 02:08 PM
Kata, where are you getting your statistics from, if you don't mind me asking?


I was just about to suggest that some of that "99%" might be simply trying to preserve their careers.


For those questioning the 99% figure: "Only" 95% of all scientists accept evolution, but about 99.85% of scientists who work in evolution-related fields (e.g. biology, geology) do so. Via TalkOrigins:

Luke34, you beat me to it. The sources (Gallup polls, individual research, etc.) are non-biased and are a general indicator of the scientific opinion in America.

Let me underscore the importance of new research in science. If evolution was in crisis, there would be a scramble to be the scientist who overthrows the last 140 years of science makes a name for himself/herself akin to Albert Einstein.

If evolution were so debated, why is it that 40% of scientists who are Christians would accept it wholeheartedly?


If the gatekeepers of knowledge suppress the truth, then we are losing both the truth and our liberty.

Having been to universities in the states, I have questioned evolution repeatedly and have never been ostracized or shunned. As a matter of fact, most scientists are critical of aspects of evolution, although the scientists pushing the design argument are doing so because of personal religious convictions as opposed to hard facts.


It isn't a conspiracy. And it isn't about science. It's about philosophy. Once naturalism became widespread in America, people accepted the worldview first. After that, their "science", art, media and every other field became not only influenced by it...but driven by it.

Some of my professors (philosophers) know me to be a Christian, yet they don't persecute me for my beliefs. If evolution is as you say it is, then why haven't the philosophers declared war on everyone who is Christian?


There are intelligent people on both sides of the issue. ;)


But intelligent people as a whole seem to favor one side over the other. It is not right for this reason, but the fact that many people are embracing it leads me to conclude that the idea has some merit.

Since I am not a PhD holding scientist, I can only point the way of people who are.

For you personally Studyin2Show:

Would you say that your faith is what lead you to embrace YEC?

And secondly, I was browsing AiG, and I stumbled across an article about how evolutionists can be Christians. Duane Gish argues that


Yes, one can be a Christian and an evolutionist, but such a position is both scientifically and biblically untenable. The Lord Jesus took a literal view of Genesis. The theory of evolution is dishonouring to God as Creator, and its teaching leads to a disastrous secularizing of society.

By that logic, one can be a Christian and believe scientifically and biblically untenable positions, dishonor God, and scandalize society.

How do you, as a well educated YECer, view me and many other Christians who believe in theistic evolution? I view your comments as highly representative of the "other side" of this debate and would appreciate it if you would be brutally honest (you won't hurt my feelings) :D.

Thanks all!

Studyin'2Show
Nov 3rd 2008, 05:10 PM
For you personally Studyin2Show:

Would you say that your faith is what lead you to embrace YEC?Ironically, no. I didn't grow up saved like many others have. I was Catholic and total accepted darwinian evolution. Not religious at all, never read the scriptures. When I did come to Christ I began reading scripture like a starving man in the desert would eat and drink at an all you can eat buffet. My newfound faith never questioned evolution. I read the Bible through twice and never questioned evolution. I am fine with believer who believe in evolution. Because of my experience I absolutely know this is not a litmus test for being a Christian. ;)

What actually 'led' me to start investigating this was a lecture I attended where evidence was presented that indicated that darwinian evolution was not as solid as I had believed. I thought it was ridiculous and began studying anything I could to prove it but the more I looked the more unstable random selection appeared. I spent about 2 years digging and eventually began to question everything I had previously held as truth. Scripture merely solidified my beliefs.

God Bless!

Old Earther
Nov 3rd 2008, 05:18 PM
I was just about to suggest that some of that "99%" might be simply trying to preserve their careers. And I saw "Expelled" in the theater, it was very powerful. I was stunned to learn of Baylor's involvement. As a former Southern Baptist, it was very disheartening.

Luke, it would behoove you to look this over:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

Old Earther
Nov 3rd 2008, 05:21 PM
I don't have a problem with the thought of evolution. Evolution, or change over time is not a problem from the YEC perspective. In fact, change over time is required for all the speciation since the ark. What I do not buy into is the random chance and all from nothing darwinian evolution. Understanding that truth does not come from majority opinion, the number of scientists that believe this or that does not affect my perception of truth. I do think the >99% assumption you make is high when considering all from nothing evolution. I think there is more dissention than that. When mentioning the more broad change over time evolution, I see no conflict with YEC. I hope I've answered your question effectively


So you have no problem with biological evolution? Or are you muddying the waters by using an irrelevant meaning of the term "evolution"?

Literalist-Luke
Nov 3rd 2008, 05:52 PM
Luke, it would behoove you to look this over:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/I watched it, but I'm a "young earther", so I totally disagree with the premise anyway.

KATA_LOUKAN
Nov 3rd 2008, 06:26 PM
I watched it, but I'm a "young earther", so I totally disagree with the premise anyway.

The point of expelled wasn't to openly debate scientific theories in the classroom of universities - trust me, there is plenty of debate that goes on.

Expelled is more about the philosophy of evolutionists and the movie's (mis)treatment of them. Stein (and his producers) seem to believe that all evil comes from the evolutionary theory, just as his opponents believe that all evil comes from religion. The theory in and of itself is NOT evil, just like the Bible doesn't tell anyone to go out and murder people - weird individuals come to that conclusion themselves.

The fact that millions of evolutionists have led exemplary lives, and millions of creationists have led perfectly evil lives, should suggest that the issue is more complicated than either extreme camp would suggest.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 3rd 2008, 07:12 PM
So you have no problem with biological evolution? Or are you muddying the waters by using an irrelevant meaning of the term "evolution"?What? :confused Are you under the impression that there is some young earth conspiracy here? :hmm: Evolution means change over time. I have no problem with that. All from nothing, life from no life, abiogenesis sparked evolution, I don't buy into.

Kata, the movie 'Expelled' focused on the scientific community's lack of patience with scientists that question darwinian evolution. While doing this a small portion of the movie looked at the roots of the modern darwinian evolution movement which has its roots in eugenics which also led the topic through nazi Germany. In no way were the filmmakers implying that evolutionists are more or less evil than anyone else. ;)

God Bless!

Fighting Instinct
Nov 3rd 2008, 07:19 PM
Hello all,

First of all, let me say that this thread is not intended to be a incendiary attack on either creationism or evolution (and all their permutations). Furthermore, I would like to leave matters of science out of this equation (i.e. radiometric dating, flood geology, cosmology, etc) so we can stick with the philosophy of biology.

I have been doing much thinking recently, and I feel that the YEC/OEC/theistic evolution controversy is one of the most important issues in both theology and science, although the scientific and conservative religious establishments have already formed their opinions on the matter.

My question to those who believe in YEC is this. Given the nearly universal (>99%) acceptance of evolutionary theory by the scientific community, how is it that the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields have concluded so thoroughly that evolution is a fact? Such a large number would indicate (at least to me) that is must be a conspiracy.

Nearly 40% of scientists claim to be Christian, and yet, even though YEC would make our explanation of the world much less complicated, only a tiny fraction choose to believe it.

Even the great names in science who are Christian (Miller, Collins, and Colling come to mind) don't feel the need to believe in a literal account of Genesis. So why is the thought of evolution so discomforting to Christians of a literalist mindset?
The answer to the bolded part is that little word "claim". They claim to be Christians. If they really were, they would believe what the Bible said. There are too many people in this world that "claim" to be Christians. It really sickens me to think about it.:cry:

Old Earther
Nov 3rd 2008, 07:48 PM
What? :confused Are you under the impression that there is some young earth conspiracy here? :hmm:

Okay, that went over my head.


Evolution means change over time.

In an effort to get you to clarify, do you then have no problem with the idea of common descent?



I have no problem with that. All from nothing, life from no life, abiogenesis sparked evolution, I don't buy into.


Amen.

Old Earther
Nov 3rd 2008, 07:50 PM
I watched it, but I'm a "young earther", so I totally disagree with the premise anyway.


Did you check out the expelledexposed link?

Anyway, can you give me one scientific reason for believing the Earth to be young?

KATA_LOUKAN
Nov 3rd 2008, 08:31 PM
Kata, the movie 'Expelled' focused on the scientific community's lack of patience with scientists that question darwinian evolution.

Michael Behe questions evolution. Many others express criticism of parts of the theory. The cases presented in the movie are sensationalized (such as an unpaid research assistant being "fired" when his job was finished) are evidences of the dishonesty.


While doing this a small portion of the movie looked at the roots of the modern darwinian evolution movement which has its roots in eugenics

Darwin predates Nazism. What would suggest that the "modern" Darwinian movement (what is the modern Darwinian movement?) has its roots in eugenics? Even Herbert Spencer, well known among scientific circles for perverting Darwin's theory, came well before the Nazis. If anything, the Nazi eugenic movement was influenced by evolution, not the other way around.


In no way were the filmmakers implying that evolutionists are more or less evil than anyone else. ;)

True, although they implied that evolution was the biological theory that supported the evils of Nazism. By their logic, it is dangerous.

By this same logic, the Bible is dangerous because the papacy, witch hunters, Oliver Cromwell, imperialists, etc. have used it as the basis for their murders. This is absolute nonsense.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 3rd 2008, 08:54 PM
In an effort to get you to clarify, do you then have no problem with the idea of common descent?Yes, I have a problem with common descent. :) I thought I made that clear. All life from no life, I don't buy. Change over time, I have no problem with. ;)

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Nov 3rd 2008, 09:00 PM
Kata, Darwin has his roots in eugenics. Eugenics took a path through nazi Germany. It was relevant to the discussion. As I've said, the film was in no way implying that being an evolutionist means you are a racist or evil. Look, young ID scientists are not advised to keep quiet until after they get tenure for no reason. It's an issue for them whether you recognize it or not. :dunno:

God Bless!

crawfish
Nov 3rd 2008, 09:44 PM
Kata, Darwin has his roots in eugenics. Eugenics took a path through nazi Germany. It was relevant to the discussion. As I've said, the film was in no way implying that being an evolutionist means you are a racist or evil. Look, young ID scientists are not advised to keep quiet until after they get tenure for no reason. It's an issue for them whether you recognize it or not. :dunno:

God Bless!

I think you mean, "Eugenics has its roots in Darwin". The idea came out of Origin of Species, not the other way around. I guess it may have existed earlier in another form of selected breeding, with no scientific backing other than observation (animals have been subject to a form of "eugenics" for thousands of years).

Biological science shows that the entire argument is wrong today, anyway. How many generations of "selective breeding" would it take to completely remove undesired genetic traits? Dozens? And to attempt to do so would decrease genetic diversity, leading to an increased probability of defects and disease.

crawfish
Nov 3rd 2008, 09:56 PM
"Expelled" is a documentary hosted by Ben Stein (of Ferris Bueller fame) that discusses the tendency in the science community to blackball anybody who publicly adopts an "intelligent design" stance regarding origins. If you don't preach evolution, the argument goes, you're unworthy of being a scientist. Ben Stein's documentary sets out to expose this and to demonstrate the hypocrisy of such practices.

The truth is that the ID crowd simply do not want to follow the rules of the scientific method - that is, they want a level of respect accorded their scantly-evidenced hypotheses equal to that of more mature and well-supported theories.

Resistance to ID is more a resistance to putting untestable, religious ideas into science than being opposed to religion (or Christianity) itself. ID only really works as a "negative" science - looking to poke holes in current theory that it disagrees with, and does not produce forward-looking hypotheses. It offers almost nothing in the way of discovery (what has ID ever done to help us unlock secrets of the universe?), and its only utility is to support the faith of those who believe that God did not or could not have created other than what they believe. And that utility is even limited because, by setting itself up as a matter of faith, when it proves wrong it hurts the faith of the one who believes in it.

Old Earther
Nov 3rd 2008, 10:15 PM
Yes, I have a problem with common descent. :) I thought I made that clear. All life from no life, I don't buy. Change over time, I have no problem with.


You are confused. Life from nolife is abiogenesis, not common descent. Look up "common descent". Do you agree with this idea that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor?

GitRDunn
Nov 3rd 2008, 10:28 PM
The answer to the bolded part is that little word "claim". They claim to be Christians. If they really were, they would believe what the Bible said. There are too many people in this world that "claim" to be Christians. It really sickens me to think about it.:cry:
That's rather judgmental on your part. Many Christians do accept evolution (God controlled) and in no way does it contradict anything in the Bible and people can be Christians and still believe in evolution. The reason there are so many Christian scientists and most of them support evolution is because it doesn't contradict the Christian faith or the Bible in any way and science and facts support it.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 3rd 2008, 10:42 PM
I think you mean, "Eugenics has its roots in Darwin". The idea came out of Origin of Species, not the other way around. I guess it may have existed earlier in another form of selected breeding, with no scientific backing other than observation (animals have been subject to a form of "eugenics" for thousands of years).

Biological science shows that the entire argument is wrong today, anyway. How many generations of "selective breeding" would it take to completely remove undesired genetic traits? Dozens? And to attempt to do so would decrease genetic diversity, leading to an increased probability of defects and disease.Actually, I meant it exactly as I stated it. Take a look at the actual name of Darwin's 1859 masterwork: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Make no mistake, the idea of eugenics was in the mind of Charles Darwin long before his cousin Sir Francis Galton coined the term in 1883. ;)

God Bless!

KATA_LOUKAN
Nov 3rd 2008, 10:44 PM
Resistance to ID is more a resistance to putting untestable, religious ideas into science than being opposed to religion (or Christianity) itself. ID only really works as a "negative" science - looking to poke holes in current theory that it disagrees with, and does not produce forward-looking hypotheses. It offers almost nothing in the way of discovery (what has ID ever done to help us unlock secrets of the universe?), and its only utility is to support the faith of those who believe that God did not or could not have created other than what they believe. And that utility is even limited because, by setting itself up as a matter of faith, when it proves wrong it hurts the faith of the one who believes in it.Good point. There is a big movement in my part of the world to have Islamic sciences replace science in the schools. Imagine, two types of science, one for the Christians, and one for the Muslims! This is not in the true spirit of science at all.

The point of this discussion is that scientists are free to criticize evolution to their heart's desire, as long as they provide evidence.

BUT when somebody starts using holes in the evolutionary theory to suggest untestable hypotheses, then chaos ensues and everyone with a guess (including Scientologists) is on equal footing. I have NEVER had my Christianity disrespected any time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all Creation Science Institutions require that one be a professing Christian (or Muslim) to contribute or serve on boards?

Studyin'2Show
Nov 3rd 2008, 10:48 PM
You are confused. Life from nolife is abiogenesis, not common descent. Look up "common descent". Do you agree with this idea that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor?No, I am not confused. I know the definition of abiogenesis and common descent. You were asking a broad question concerning what I accept and what I do not accept. All life from no life pretty much sums up what I do not accept and includes BOTH abiogenesis AND common descent. ;) If you'd prefer I can say I do not buy all life from single celled life but either way what I said is a correct sumation of what I do not accept that is widely accepted in modern science.

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Nov 3rd 2008, 10:50 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all Creation Science Institutions require that one be a professing Christian (or Muslim) to contribute or serve on boards?Oops. If you replace that with ID then yes you are wrong. The Discovery Institute has fellows that are both agnostic and atheist. ;) As for creation science, the movie Expelled did not address creation science, only ID.

KATA_LOUKAN
Nov 3rd 2008, 10:52 PM
Make no mistake, the idea of eugenics was in the mind of Charles Darwin long before his cousin Sir Francis Galton coined the term in 1883. ;)Eugenics does not appear in the title.

"Races" is simply the archaic term for species, as Darwin was careful to note in his correspondence. He did not include aspects of humanity intentionally, because he knew it would evoke too much controversy.

(Note: Eugenics as a movement had its start in Plato, who suggested that the government control which people had the right to reproduce.)

Furthermore, the Nazis banned Darwin's work.


S2S: Point taken. Thank you for the info.

crawfish
Nov 3rd 2008, 11:12 PM
Actually, I meant it exactly as I stated it. Take a look at the actual name of Darwin's 1859 masterwork: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Make no mistake, the idea of eugenics was in the mind of Charles Darwin long before his cousin Sir Francis Galton coined the term in 1883. ;)

God Bless!

There is a difference between being favored by natural selection and trying to favor selection yourself. The former is observation while the latter is application.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 12:00 AM
No, I am not confused. I know the definition of abiogenesis and common descent.....

....All life from no life pretty much sums up what I do not accept and includes BOTH abiogenesis AND common descent.




Life from nonlife is a concept unrelated to common descent. Common descent deals only with life from life.



You were asking a broad question concerning what I accept and what I do not accept.

My question was not broad at all. I asked you if you have a problem with the notion of common descent.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 4th 2008, 01:39 AM
Did you check out the expelledexposed link?

Anyway, can you give me one scientific reason for believing the Earth to be young?Nope, but I don't care, because the author of the Bible created the physical laws that science attempts to explain, so I trust what He says over humans.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 4th 2008, 01:44 AM
The truth is that the ID crowd simply do not want to follow the rules of the scientific method - that is, they want a level of respect accorded their scantly-evidenced hypotheses equal to that of more mature and well-supported theories.

Resistance to ID is more a resistance to putting untestable, religious ideas into science than being opposed to religion (or Christianity) itself. ID only really works as a "negative" science - looking to poke holes in current theory that it disagrees with, and does not produce forward-looking hypotheses. It offers almost nothing in the way of discovery (what has ID ever done to help us unlock secrets of the universe?), and its only utility is to support the faith of those who believe that God did not or could not have created other than what they believe. And that utility is even limited because, by setting itself up as a matter of faith, when it proves wrong it hurts the faith of the one who believes in it.Well, there's an equal problem with evolution as well. Because evolution is equally ill-equipped to explain origins. Sure, sure, evolution will attempt to go further back in time, but even when we get all the way back to that "big bang" that started everything, the question still remains unanswered regarding where the material in that "big bang" originally came from. ID simply realizes the inherent inability of science to explain the ultimate origin, and simply jumps straight to the end conclusion without wasting any time in between. So the argument that ID fails to contribute as a reason for ignoring it doesn't hold water, because evolution merely takes longer to admit that we don't know where it all came from, short of a supernatural origin.

crawfish
Nov 4th 2008, 01:45 AM
No, I am not confused. I know the definition of abiogenesis and common descent. You were asking a broad question concerning what I accept and what I do not accept. All life from no life pretty much sums up what I do not accept and includes BOTH abiogenesis AND common descent. ;) If you'd prefer I can say I do not buy all life from single celled life but either way what I said is a correct sumation of what I do not accept that is widely accepted in modern science.

God Bless!

Common descent starts from the point at which there is life. Whether that life sprang from nonlife, was seeded from the stars or was created ex nihilo by some intelligent designer, the same rules still hold.

crawfish
Nov 4th 2008, 01:51 AM
Well, there's an equal problem with evolution as well. Because evolution is equally ill-equipped to explain origins. Sure, sure, evolution will attempt to go further back in time, but even when we get all the way back to that "big bang" that started everything, the question still remains unanswered regarding where the material in that "big bang" originally came from. ID simply realizes the inherent inability of science to explain the ultimate origin, and simply jumps straight to the end conclusion without wasting any time in between. So the argument that ID fails to contribute as a reason for ignoring it doesn't hold water, because evolution merely takes longer to admit that we don't know where it all came from, short of a supernatural origin.

Evolution doesn't have to explain origins. In fact, it doesn't attempt to.

What evolution does contribute is an explanation of what we are. Hypotheses and theories based off an understanding of common descent evolution have led to huge advancements in the fields of medicine, genetics, disease and the like. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Evolution may be theoretical, but it has led to many, many concrete discoveries.

ID does nothing of the sort. Inevitably, it will be pulled into the ever-dwindling gaps in our knowledge to describe what we don't know. I have little problem with that as a matter of faith (just be careful what exactly you put your faith in). I have a big problem with it being used as an equally scientific plausible explanation to things that have the support of evidence.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 02:33 AM
Nope, but I don't care...

You don't care about what? Hacing scientific evidence to back your belief in a young earth?



...the author of the Bible created the physical laws that science attempts to explain

Yes he did.



so I trust what He says over humans.


Me too.

Remember though that God gave us wonderful brains by which we can come to understand his creation.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 4th 2008, 12:59 PM
What evolution does contribute is an explanation of what we are. Hypotheses and theories based off an understanding of common descent evolution have led to huge advancements in the fields of medicine, genetics, disease and the like. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Evolution may be theoretical, but it has led to many, many concrete discoveries.

ID does nothing of the sort. Inevitably, it will be pulled into the ever-dwindling gaps in our knowledge to describe what we don't know. I have little problem with that as a matter of faith (just be careful what exactly you put your faith in). I have a big problem with it being used as an equally scientific plausible explanation to things that have the support of evidence.See, here's where I see it differently. Is it the descent that has led to the discoveries or is it the commonality? You see, what scientists have discovered is common ties that have helped advance the fields you've mentioned. You believe these commonalities come from common descent, I believe they have come from common design. You say ID has not done anything but I again see it differently. ID puts forth the hypothesis that each structure within an organism was designed for a purpose, whereas darwinian evolutionary theory says there are some structure that have no designed function but are merely leftover from evolutionary changes. This belief led scientists to conclude that an organ like the appendix really has no purpose in the human body. However, recent study has led many scientists to reclassify the appendix within the immune system and recognize that it does indeed have a function within the human body. It is my belief that future ID scientist will be led to make discoveries as the evolutionary 'iron curtain' falls within the scientific community. I pray that will be within this generation. No scientist should be made to fear for their position because of their position on darwinian evolution. I'm sure you'd agree.

God Bless!

crawfish
Nov 4th 2008, 02:23 PM
See, here's where I see it differently. Is it the descent that has led to the discoveries or is it the commonality? You see, what scientists have discovered is common ties that have helped advance the fields you've mentioned. You believe these commonalities come from common descent, I believe they have come from common design. You say ID has not done anything but I again see it differently. ID puts forth the hypothesis that each structure within an organism was designed for a purpose, whereas darwinian evolutionary theory says there are some structure that have no designed function but are merely leftover from evolutionary changes. This belief led scientists to conclude that an organ like the appendix really has no purpose in the human body. However, recent study has led many scientists to reclassify the appendix within the immune system and recognize that it does indeed have a function within the human body. It is my belief that future ID scientist will be led to make discoveries as the evolutionary 'iron curtain' falls within the scientific community. I pray that will be within this generation. No scientist should be made to fear for their position because of their position on darwinian evolution. I'm sure you'd agree.

God Bless!

The appendix served a more valuable purpose in earlier times, when we weren't so careful with our diet. That is why the rate of appendicitis is so much higher in more modern countries than in developing ones. In many cases, when an organ or attribute becomes invalid it often takes on some secondary function before going completely away (or evolving into something else entirely).

Scientists can believe what they want, but they must work in the system. Work from the evidence forward, NOT from the solution back. Evolution has more to fear politically from ID than ID does from evolution.

BroRog
Nov 4th 2008, 02:27 PM
Evolution doesn't have to explain origins. In fact, it doesn't attempt to.

Why did Darwin title his book "Origin of the Species"?

This is why I hate these discussions.

crawfish
Nov 4th 2008, 04:00 PM
Why did Darwin title his book "Origin of the Species"?

This is why I hate these discussions.

It's about the origin of the diversity of life on our planet, not the ultimate origin of life itself.

Old Earther
Nov 4th 2008, 04:34 PM
Why did Darwin title his book "Origin of the Species"?

This is why I hate these discussions.


Because Darwin was concerned with tracing species through common descent. Perhaps you hate these discussions because they require you to think and to use words with care?

Believer
Nov 4th 2008, 05:24 PM
I can just look to the second law of thermodynamics and know that the theory of evolution is flawed at best. If we are degrading over time we would be loosing genetic material not gaining it.

So, macro evolution refers to genetic changes. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics is correct then a monkey would have changed into some lesser sub species. Not "evolved" into something with more genetic material.:idea:

crawfish
Nov 4th 2008, 06:23 PM
I can just look to the second law of thermodynamics and know that the theory of evolution is flawed at best. If we are degrading over time we would be loosing genetic material not gaining it.

So, macro evolution refers to genetic changes. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics is correct then a monkey would have changed into some lesser sub species. Not "evolved" into something with more genetic material.:idea:

That's a big misunderstanding of entropy. A closed system will go from order to chaos over time...but the earth is far from being a closed system.

True, the overall entropy of the universe is increasing, but that is not true of each individual system. In other words, it's not at a consistent level everywhere.

KATA_LOUKAN
Nov 4th 2008, 06:24 PM
So, macro evolution refers to genetic changes.These have been observed in petri dishes, right in front of our eyes. Genetic material can be added.

I would suggest "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller if you are interested in reading about these examples.

Believer
Nov 4th 2008, 06:56 PM
These have been observed in petri dishes, right in front of our eyes. Genetic material can be added.

I would suggest "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller if you are interested in reading about these examples.

These where complete changes in the species? Or a dominant factor that was already in the species was left over. For example resistance to drugs we use. Some bacteria have that resistance in the first place. Apply the drug and all that is left to reproduce is that resistant bacteria. Is this a new species? I think not....

Last I read (not long ago) no new species was produced in a petri dish after generation after generations of observations. Please give me a link to something that I don't have to buy to prove your point.

crawfish
Nov 4th 2008, 07:05 PM
These where complete changes in the species? Or a dominant factor that was already in the species was left over. For example resistance to drugs we use. Some bacteria have that resistance in the first place. Apply the drug and all that is left to reproduce is that resistant bacteria. Is this a new species? I think not....

Last I read (not long ago) no new species was produced in a petri dish after generation after generations of observations. Please give me a link to something that I don't have to buy to prove your point.

Here is a recent example (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html).

Studyin'2Show
Nov 4th 2008, 07:05 PM
The appendix served a more valuable purpose in earlier times, when we weren't so careful with our diet. That is why the rate of appendicitis is so much higher in more modern countries than in developing ones. In many cases, when an organ or attribute becomes invalid it often takes on some secondary function before going completely away (or evolving into something else entirely).

Scientists can believe what they want, but they must work in the system. Work from the evidence forward, NOT from the solution back. Evolution has more to fear politically from ID than ID does from evolution.The purpose has not changed because some people watch what they eat while others don't. The function is still the same. Just as the function of the liver does not change because one man is a drunkard while another is a non-drinker. My point is simply that the belief that every part or structure in our bodies was designed with a specific purpose encourages 'science' to continue to seek function where none is apparent. There are still those who prefer to continue to believe the appendix is vestigial than to accept that it does indeed have purpose.

As for which has more to fear politically...what! :o Why should either fear the other, politically or otherwise? I think that's part of the problem. It's like I said in another thread,this does not need to be adversarial.

God Bless!

Lordistruth
Nov 4th 2008, 07:11 PM
To the OP:
About the random chance that everything was just right on this planet for life, I ask you this. Of the infinite amount of space and infinite amount of planets and solar systems out there, even the chance of 1 in a million could have happen, which it has with Earth.

Some may say that "Well what are the chances that our planet that has life was the one that had life on it"

I answer this way, we are only hear to question the chances because the situation was just right.

There could be billions of planets out there that are only missing 1 key element to produce life, but this is the one planet that has got them all right. At least that we know of ;)

KATA_LOUKAN
Nov 4th 2008, 07:19 PM
These where complete changes in the species?A species change is not a single mutation, although there have been instances of new species coming from older species.

I would suggest reading about HeLa cells, which were taken from a woman's tumor that became a new species, or so some biologists argue.

A specific instance would be Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).


There could be billions of planets out there that are only missing 1 key element to produce life, but this is the one planet that has got them all right. At least that we know of ;)Even the most dogmatic of atheists admit that the universe could have had an architect. I see God as the God who created the universe, but not the God of a literal 6 day creation and a global flood.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 4th 2008, 07:20 PM
Here is a recent example (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html).Evolution before our very eyes, huh? No. It is a very interesting experiment, one that both ID and creationist scientists are are interested in observing. The fact is that even Lenski has no idea what changed or where. The genome of the bacterium will be studied to address that. It is not that new genetic information has been confirmed, simply a new trait has been observed and HAS NOT been able to be reproduced. Thanks for posting the link! ;) Here's a different perspective of that article for any who are interested. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008 It's all about perspective. Science is awesome, ins't it? :D

God Bless!

crawfish
Nov 4th 2008, 07:21 PM
As for which has more to fear politically...what! :o Why should either fear the other, politically or otherwise? I think that's part of the problem. It's like I said in another thread,this does not need to be adversarial.

God Bless!

Attempting to discredit evolution by pointing out holes in it is one thing. Those can be points of contention, scientifically argued. As long as they work within the accepted rules of the scientific method, I doubt that they'll face many problems.

The anti-evolution lobby may not have much influence among institutions of higher learning, but they have a LOT of wealth and power and influence in the political arena.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 4th 2008, 07:25 PM
Attempting to discredit evolution by pointing out holes in it is one thing. Those can be points of contention, scientifically argued. As long as they work within the accepted rules of the scientific method, I doubt that they'll face many problems.

The anti-evolution lobby may not have much influence among institutions of higher learning, but they have a LOT of wealth and power and influence in the political arena.Why would there be a reason to fear? Pointing out holes in any theory should be welcomed. :)

crawfish
Nov 4th 2008, 07:30 PM
Evolution before our very eyes, huh? No. It is a very interesting experiment, one that both ID and creationist scientists are are interested in observing. The fact is that even Lenski has no idea what changed or where. The genome of the bacterium will be studied to address that. It is not that new genetic information has been confirmed, simply a new trait has been observed and HAS NOT been able to be reproduced. Thanks for posting the link! ;) Here's a different perspective of that article for any who are interested. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008 It's all about perspective. Science is awesome, ins't it? :D

God Bless!

Sorry, but that article doesn't address the science at all, and it refers back to the old "no new genetic information" canard which is a misrepresentation of the actual science behind evolution.

Whatever the causes, the reality is that the e-coli changed somehow into a new form that would be completely incompatible with the old form. The change is not really in question; it's the process that is.

KATA_LOUKAN
Nov 4th 2008, 07:31 PM
Last I read (not long ago) no new species was produced in a petri dish after generation after generations of observations. Please give me a link to something that I don't have to buy to prove your point.

Addition of genetic material has been observed in:


increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

Kenneth Miller devotes many pages to writing about these genetic additions, with specific examples. I am not a biologist, so he does a much better job of explaining it than I can.


Why would there be a reason to fear? Pointing out holes in any theory should be welcomed. :)

Hey S2S, have you ever read "Finding Darwin's God"? I'm curious.

crawfish
Nov 4th 2008, 07:32 PM
Why would there be a reason to fear? Pointing out holes in any theory should be welcomed. :)

The former is the way things should be. The latter is what rightfully causes many to fear.

Lordistruth
Nov 4th 2008, 07:41 PM
Aren't goosebumps proof of evolution? Something leftover from when we had more body hair, triggered by a fight or flight response to make our body hair stick up more, think like a cat.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 4th 2008, 08:15 PM
The former is the way things should be. The latter is what rightfully causes many to fear.You still haven't made it clear WHY there is any fear from being challenged. :confused That makes no sense to me. :dunno:

crawfish
Nov 4th 2008, 08:34 PM
You still haven't made it clear WHY there is any fear from being challenged. :confused That makes no sense to me. :dunno:

Being challenged by science is not the problem. I welcome that. What I and many others are afraid of are wealthy, politically powerful YEC/ID supporters who have the ability to put pressure on colleges and funding institutions (through political contacts and donations) to encourage them to move away from financial funding of science that supports evolution, or to divert it to ID projects of dubious nature. Such people are not happy to play by the given rules of science and risk hurting it through their desire to push non-scientific dogma. They

GitRDunn
Nov 4th 2008, 10:38 PM
The purpose has not changed because some people watch what they eat while others don't. The function is still the same. Just as the function of the liver does not change because one man is a drunkard while another is a non-drinker. My point is simply that the belief that every part or structure in our bodies was designed with a specific purpose encourages 'science' to continue to seek function where none is apparent. There are still those who prefer to continue to believe the appendix is vestigial than to accept that it does indeed have purpose.

The appendix appears to have had a function in the past, but is not of much use and doesn't have much purpose any more and that is why it can be taken out and it doesn't hurt you.

Lordistruth
Nov 4th 2008, 11:27 PM
The purpose has not changed because some people watch what they eat while others don't. The function is still the same. Just as the function of the liver does not change because one man is a drunkard while another is a non-drinker. My point is simply that the belief that every part or structure in our bodies was designed with a specific purpose encourages 'science' to continue to seek function where none is apparent. There are still those who prefer to continue to believe the appendix is vestigial than to accept that it does indeed have purpose


Again, what about goosebumps, or back hair?

BroRog
Nov 5th 2008, 01:15 AM
Because Darwin was concerned with tracing species through common descent. Perhaps you hate these discussions because they require you to think and to use words with care?

No I hate these discussion for two reasons. 1. They always progress like really bad reruns of Gilligan's Island. And 2. The discussion goes nowhere because people deny the obvious.

Those who do not ignore the obvious know the true definition of evolution is: God didn't do it.

And theistic evolution is just another way to deny the obvious, kiss the ring, and kneel at the feet of the ruler of this world.

crawfish
Nov 5th 2008, 01:42 AM
No I hate these discussion for two reasons. 1. They always progress like really bad reruns of Gilligan's Island. And 2. The discussion goes nowhere because people deny the obvious.

Those who do not ignore the obvious know the true definition of evolution is: God didn't do it.

And theistic evolution is just another way to deny the obvious, kiss the ring, and kneel at the feet of the ruler of this world.

I think it's anything but obvious. The more I study the bible, the more questions it raises and the more problems it causes with a literal interpretation. You can probably get by with taking most of Genesis literally with few problems...but the farther you go through, the more you see that a consistent literal reading is impossible. Theistic evolution, to me, is not about evolution; it is about reading the bible as it was meant to be read. It is being open to God's revelation, through both scripture and nature, rather than being closed-minded and thinking we already know it all. God has always been a master at foiling our expectations; we try and try to figure Him out but His plans are beyond our ability to fathom.

I would say that many people are anti-evolution for religious reasons purely because they don't want to comprehend the complexity of scripture or God Himself*. They certainly won't say so, but they feel uncomfortable to claims that God goes outside the limitations of their own imaginations.




*disclaimer: not all anti-evolutionists satisfy this description. Just wanted to make that clear. :)

Studyin'2Show
Nov 5th 2008, 12:30 PM
The appendix appears to have had a function in the past, but is not of much use and doesn't have much purpose any more and that is why it can be taken out and it doesn't hurt you.It does affect your immune system. Just because it's difficult to discern any problems doesn't mean there aren't any. And no, most of us were taught that it was completely vestigial. That was wrong. The point is that scientists must be allowed to pursue truth no matter where it leads. I have no problem with scientists believing in darwinian evolution. I do have a problem with them implying to young scientists that they wil be considered ignorant if they don't. If you don't believe that is happening take some time to look around at legitamate ID blogs and at evolution blogs. It's the the attitude that someone must be stupid if they don't toe the line on this issue, and that's just not true but it is VERY intimidating for those who are not yet strong enough in their position to make a stand.

God Bless!

Believer
Nov 5th 2008, 03:13 PM
The appendix appears to have had a function in the past, but is not of much use and doesn't have much purpose any more and that is why it can be taken out and it doesn't hurt you.

lol..you realize that the appendix is actually part of your immune system and has a purpose. That is a not so recent realization that is still used by most as a misnomer.

Believer
Nov 5th 2008, 03:21 PM
Here is a recent example (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html).

So I read this over and over and this is a great example of micro evolution but at the end of the day a bacteria changed to.......bacteria. Small changes, adaptation, none of which is a point of contention. This was not an example of bacteria jumping to a whole new species. Which would actually be some new conclusive data. SO all in all 41 thousand or more generations and what we have is a bacteria E.coli which adapted to its environment. Not exactly compelling evidence of macro evolution.

On the contrary since this experiment is suppose to example thousands of years of evolution it pretty much is a slap in the face to macro-evolution in my opinion.

Believer
Nov 5th 2008, 03:23 PM
By the way, a lot of you who support the theory of evolution are professing Christians?

I am confused, do you believe what the bible says? Just not that part? Or are you really not Christians? Serious question.

Athanasius
Nov 5th 2008, 03:27 PM
By the way, a lot of you who support the theory of evolution are professing Christians?

I am confused, do you believe what the bible says? Just not that part? Or are you really not Christians? Serious question.

They're really Christians and they would interpret the first 11 chapters of Genesis as being theologically significant, not historically significant, though historical (in fact they would argue that any other interpretation of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is "missing the point").

crawfish
Nov 5th 2008, 07:29 PM
So I read this over and over and this is a great example of micro evolution but at the end of the day a bacteria changed to.......bacteria. Small changes, adaptation, none of which is a point of contention. This was not an example of bacteria jumping to a whole new species. Which would actually be some new conclusive data. SO all in all 41 thousand or more generations and what we have is a bacteria E.coli which adapted to its environment. Not exactly compelling evidence of macro evolution.

What you have is a bacteria who changes its function in a fundamental way. This isn't a small change.


On the contrary since this experiment is suppose to example thousands of years of evolution it pretty much is a slap in the face to macro-evolution in my opinion.

Not really because of the incredibly short lifespan of the bacteria. Tens of thousands of generations were processed.




By the way, a lot of you who support the theory of evolution are professing Christians?

I am confused, do you believe what the bible says? Just not that part? Or are you really not Christians? Serious question.

Yes, we are professing Christians, and we are real Christians. We believe in God as the ultimate creator. We believe in His omnipotence and omniscience. We believe that Jesus was God on earth, who was born of a virgin, died on the cross and was raised on the third day. The vast majority of us are, to outside eyes, completely normal evangelical conservative Christians. We simply believe that some parts of the bible - Genesis 1-11 notably - are allegorical or metaphorical accounts and not a literal presentation of the way God created, and we do have much compelling support for this idea. In the end, to most of us, the truth or falsehood of evolution of an ancient earth/universe hardly matters because scripture's truth about creation deals with Spiritual matters and not physical matters.

Believer
Nov 5th 2008, 08:58 PM
What you have is a bacteria who changes its function in a fundamental way. This isn't a small change.

It changed to be more like other bacteria. One of the factors that set it apart was it inability to process the citrate. A lot of bacteria does process citrate. So in essence did it go backwards then? Even after this mutation in the Operon the end result was still bacteria.

So you are telling me that when they classify this bacteria it will look any different then:

Domain: Bacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria)
Phylum: Proteobacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteobacteria)
Class: Gamma Proteobacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteobacteria)
Order: Enterobacteriales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterobacteriaceae)
Family: Enterobacteriaceae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterobacteriaceae)
Genus: Escherichia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia)
Species: E. coli

Nope..it won't

Also it happened in one test group out of 12 after 32000 generations. Now..my first reaction is 1:12 and 32000+ generations, what was the contaminant? When they try to reproduce the phenomenon it can rarely be reproduced.

Who knows if this was already a form of bacteria that E.Coli has a propensity to mutate into. Consider this, not even half of all bacteria has even been classified. The bottom line is at the end of the day it's still bacteria.

Further research found that it also specialized to feed primarily on glucose. Keep in mind that the primary food it was provided was? You guessed it,glucose. Small changes based on environment? No one contest that adaptation won't happen.

At the end of the day it didn't turn into anything but more bacteria. Granted it wasn't exactly the same bacteria in started with (at least one control group that is).




Not really because of the incredibly short lifespan of the bacteria. Tens of thousands of generations were processed.

40000+ thousand based on his paper. He thinks the change appeared between 20000 and 32000 est.



Yes, we are professing Christians, and we are real Christians. We believe in God as the ultimate creator. We believe in His omnipotence and omniscience. We believe that Jesus was God on earth, who was born of a virgin, died on the cross and was raised on the third day. The vast majority of us are, to outside eyes, completely normal evangelical conservative Christians. We simply believe that some parts of the bible - Genesis 1-11 notably - are allegorical or metaphorical accounts and not a literal presentation of the way God created, and we do have much compelling support for this idea. In the end, to most of us, the truth or falsehood of evolution of an ancient earth/universe hardly matters because scripture's truth about creation deals with Spiritual matters and not physical matters.

Hmm, so you are telling me that you think parts of the bible namely genesis are just figurative description of evolution and the big bang? I assume you meant those theories since they are the alternative to Creationism. I don't get that from genesis personally.

Evolution isn't even suppose to attempt to describe how life began and is another misnomer commonly lumped into the equation. Yet commonly people use it in comparison to the beginning of time. Namely the scripture you mention that describes how life was brought about by the creator.

Help me understand please. So you think that man was created over a long period of time and evolutionary process that god intended? Then, did he then create woman or did he do it at the same time? Doesn't that already start to conflict with scripture. Plus, if I am to believe that scripture is the man written inspired word of god then am I truly a believer with a child like faith in my creator?

In the bible it's pretty clear when God is using a metaphor. It's never seemed to complex when read for what it is. God's inspired word...

GitRDunn
Nov 5th 2008, 11:13 PM
It does affect your immune system. Just because it's difficult to discern any problems doesn't mean there aren't any. And no, most of us were taught that it was completely vestigial. That was wrong. The point is that scientists must be allowed to pursue truth no matter where it leads. I have no problem with scientists believing in darwinian evolution. I do have a problem with them implying to young scientists that they wil be considered ignorant if they don't. If you don't believe that is happening take some time to look around at legitamate ID blogs and at evolution blogs. It's the the attitude that someone must be stupid if they don't toe the line on this issue, and that's just not true but it is VERY intimidating for those who are not yet strong enough in their position to make a stand.
God Bless!
Well looking at the information I have to say I come to a different conclusion, I don't believe ID believing scientists are as discriminated against as you say. As for the appendix, I realize it does affect the immune system, but it is a minimal effect, but that doesn't really matter anyway.


lol..you realize that the appendix is actually part of your immune system and has a purpose. That is a not so recent realization that is still used by most as a misnomer.
I realize that it's part of the immune system and has a purpose, but it is minimal and in today's society it is considered almost unneeded and perhaps even detrimental because the body doesn't need it and may attack it (thus causing appendicitis). You can read this (http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20071012/appendix-may-have-purpose) for more information on it. And this is still new research, until very recently it was thought to be useless, which it still may basically be.


So I read this over and over and this is a great example of micro evolution but at the end of the day a bacteria changed to.......bacteria. Small changes, adaptation, none of which is a point of contention. This was not an example of bacteria jumping to a whole new species. Which would actually be some new conclusive data. SO all in all 41 thousand or more generations and what we have is a bacteria E.coli which adapted to its environment. Not exactly compelling evidence of macro evolution.

On the contrary since this experiment is suppose to example thousands of years of evolution it pretty much is a slap in the face to macro-evolution in my opinion.
Even if bacteria changed, there is an entire Kingdom of bacteria, so it can easily be bacteria and still be a different species.


By the way, a lot of you who support the theory of evolution are professing Christians?

I am confused, do you believe what the bible says? Just not that part? Or are you really not Christians? Serious question.
I am 100% a professing Christian and I believe every single letter, word, phrase, etc. of the Bible and it has nothing to do with not believing in what the beginning of Genesis says at all, it is simple interpretation and I (although I am not 100% for the theistic evolution side, I believe that either is plausible and could have happened, but I lean more to the theistic evolution side of things) don't see why it has to be interpreted literally, there are many parts of the Bible that are metaphorical. I am 100% a Christian. I believe in God the Father, God the son, and God the Holy Ghost. I believe that Jesus Christ was (is) the Messiah and the son of God and that he died on the cross so that we could be forgiven of our sins and that he rose three days later and will come back one day. I believe in my eternal life that I will spend with God and Jesus in Heaven.

crawfish
Nov 6th 2008, 03:35 AM
Hmm, so you are telling me that you think parts of the bible namely genesis are just figurative description of evolution and the big bang? I assume you meant those theories since they are the alternative to Creationism. I don't get that from genesis personally.

No, I personally believe that Genesis was written with the understanding of the day. It doesn't describe a real system of creation at all; it simply puts forth a story that allegorically describes who God is, who we are and why we are here (to put it very simply). It represents a spiritual, NOT a physical, reality.


Evolution isn't even suppose to attempt to describe how life began and is another misnomer commonly lumped into the equation. Yet commonly people use it in comparison to the beginning of time. Namely the scripture you mention that describes how life was brought about by the creator.

Again, I'm not working evolution or big bang into the creation account. Like atoms or nuclear reactions or bacteria, it is not something addressed by the account.


Help me understand please. So you think that man was created over a long period of time and evolutionary process that god intended? Then, did he then create woman or did he do it at the same time? Doesn't that already start to conflict with scripture. Plus, if I am to believe that scripture is the man written inspired word of god then am I truly a believer with a child like faith in my creator?

This is going to take far more time to explain than I have now. I believe that the first part of Genesis is allegorical. Allegory attempts to explain truths using plain language and is similar to parable (the difference is, parable typically has one symbol while in allegory, everything is symbol). Thus, woman being created after man in the allegorical account doesn't imply that it was that way in reality; it is imparting a symbolic message of woman's place in creation and her connection to man. It all works out very well and presents no conflict with belief. Perhaps we can discuss it further at some other time.

I'm not sure I understand your last statement...I think you are saying that if you don't believe scripture is inspired then you can't have childlike faith? While I agree that childlike faith is good, the concept is taken too far at times. A YEC'er will criticize someone like me for not simply "taking it at face value", but then will study scripture in the attempt to figure out what it is saying scientifically about our world given recent discovery. A "child" would simply read it and not have to take it any farther. God gave us intelligence, curiosity and a desire to know the truth, and He gave us His word to help satisfy that. I think the entire argument misses the point on what Jesus considered a "child-like" faith.



In the bible it's pretty clear when God is using a metaphor. It's never seemed to complex when read for what it is. God's inspired word...

Oh, really? I can think of quite a few places in the bible where it's not so clear. Martin Luther criticized Copernicus for claiming the earth revolved around the sun, because "scriptures tell us Joshua stopped the sun in the sky, not the earth". We now know that he was mistaken in that criticism, and he was assuming something from scripture that was not intended by taking it too literally. Why is it so hard to accept that we still might make that same mistake today?

Anybody who thinks that the bible isn't complex probably hasn't read the Prophets lately, btw. And if you think the bible isn't complex, then you aren't giving God nearly enough credit for the incredible work that He produced. It's concept of grace is simple enough for a child to understand, yet it has the depth to keep the most learned scholar busy for a lifetime.

crawfish
Nov 6th 2008, 03:37 AM
So you are telling me that when they classify this bacteria it will look any different then:

Domain: Bacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria)
Phylum: Proteobacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteobacteria)
Class: Gamma Proteobacteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteobacteria)
Order: Enterobacteriales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterobacteriaceae)
Family: Enterobacteriaceae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterobacteriaceae)
Genus: Escherichia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia)
Species: E. coli

Nope..it won't


Actually, yes it will. One of the specific traits of E. coli is its inability to process citrate, so the new organism must be classified as a different species.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 6th 2008, 12:33 PM
Actually, yes it will. One of the specific traits of E. coli is its inability to process citrate, so the new organism must be classified as a different species.Actually, those who reject darwinian evolution do not deny speciation, so a change in species is not against ID or creationism.

Believer
Nov 6th 2008, 06:53 PM
Actually, yes it will. One of the specific traits of E. coli is its inability to process citrate, so the new organism must be classified as a different species.

you are right it will probably be a new species under the same genus. Again not a slap in the face to creationism. Possibly not even a new species at that. Point is micro evolution is not in contention here. A point that seems to be lost on this conversation.

If macro evolution was happening we would have a jump from a domain into a whole other such creature. Which didn't and doesn't happen.

Use turtles for example. Considered to be one of the best producers of viable fossil records. Why then have we never found a intermediate fossil for this creature who makes the "best" fossils? Logic concludes because none exists.

Human fossil records? Wait, pigs, and fakes come to mind real fast. Why? Because the examples of intermediate fossil records have proven to have either be false or falsified.

Now we have bacteria who has become more bacteria. Did it change from a rod shaped bacteria to a circular or cone, or even any other shape even? no.. Did it take on a characteristic uncommon to bacteria? No.. Just one that is uncommon to its particular species. The mutation occurred in one of the places which we would expect to see a pretty radical change. The most radical thing it did was decide to include a nutrient it was provided in its diet. AMAZING..not a joke or even being sarcastic. It is amazing. But, not even unexpected.

crawfish
Nov 6th 2008, 08:12 PM
Use turtles for example. Considered to be one of the best producers of viable fossil records. Why then have we never found a intermediate fossil for this creature who makes the "best" fossils? Logic concludes because none exists.

Hmm...I remember reading this (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14892-fossil-reveals-how-the-turtle-got-its-shell.html)just last month. And in any case, your logic is not really logical; absence of fossils doesn't imply absence of existence. It only implies that nothing has been found yet. If I've found a set of puzzle pieces that go together but have a few holes in the middle, logic dictates that those pieces exist.


Human fossil records? Wait, pigs, and fakes come to mind real fast. Why? Because the examples of intermediate fossil records have proven to have either be false or falsified.

A few definitely have been proven to be frauds. But most have not.


Now we have bacteria who has become more bacteria. Did it change from a rod shaped bacteria to a circular or cone, or even any other shape even? no.. Did it take on a characteristic uncommon to bacteria? No.. Just one that is uncommon to its particular species. The mutation occurred in one of the places which we would expect to see a pretty radical change. The most radical thing it did was decide to include a nutrient it was provided in its diet. AMAZING..not a joke or even being sarcastic. It is amazing. But, not even unexpected.

It is evidence, not proof. And I'm very glad that creationists are beginning to accept this kind of data - a few decades ago they would've said that it was impossible.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 6th 2008, 08:51 PM
Hmm...I remember reading this (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14892-fossil-reveals-how-the-turtle-got-its-shell.html)just last month. And in any case, your logic is not really logical; absence of fossils doesn't imply absence of existence. It only implies that nothing has been found yet. If I've found a set of puzzle pieces that go together but have a few holes in the middle, logic dictates that those pieces exist.

It is evidence, not proof. And I'm very glad that creationists are beginning to accept this kind of data - a few decades ago they would've said that it was impossible.Nor does the absence of fossils mean they simply have not been found. It could just as easily mean that there is nothing to find. ;) BTW, we are not missing a few pieces of the puzzle, but rather the whole puzzle. It's as if 5 random pieces have been found. One is saying they believe they are part of a 100 piece puzzle and another saying they are part of a 10,000 piece puzzle. Who is right? Either? Neither? :hmm:

As for creationists accepting data, there has been much confusion through terminology. A creationist even 100 years ago knew that a wild wolf could be bred through generations into a tame dog but the scientific terminology would have been lost on them. Once we all begin to discuss apples with apples and oranges with oranges you'll find that we aren't so far apart in our understanding of the data. It is our extrapolation of that data into a conclusion where we tending to differ greatly.

God Bless!

Believer
Nov 6th 2008, 09:02 PM
Hmm...I remember reading this (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14892-fossil-reveals-how-the-turtle-got-its-shell.html)just last month. And in any case, your logic is not really logical; absence of fossils doesn't imply absence of existence. It only implies that nothing has been found yet. If I've found a set of puzzle pieces that go together but have a few holes in the middle, logic dictates that those pieces exist.

"The gradual origin of the turtle shell with two hypothetical ancestors, from an animal with isolated lumps of armour, to one with a complete shell"
-Royal Society

Man come on..don't use someone's hypothetical explanation as gospel. This article is riddled with "I think" and "maybe's" and you want to reference it?

I don't agree that logic would dictate the existence, nor have we ever found the puzzle. To continue with your puzzle analogy we have found pieces of something that don't really match and have tried to force them together to suite the evolution agenda.



A few definitely have been proven to be frauds. But most have not.

I would be open to seeing sources. I have done a LOT of research on this topic and all the references I can find on either side have turned out to be something else or even frauds. Maybe you can point me in the right direction.




It is evidence, not proof. And I'm very glad that creationists are beginning to accept this kind of data - a few decades ago they would've said that it was impossible.

It's not evidence of Macro-Evolutions which is all that really counts. Trust me, I am pretty subjective when it comes to this and many other topics regarding science and theology. I go where the evidence takes me and in this case macro-evolution takes me no where.

crawfish
Nov 6th 2008, 09:55 PM
"The gradual origin of the turtle shell with two hypothetical ancestors, from an animal with isolated lumps of armour, to one with a complete shell"
-Royal Society

Man come on..don't use someone's hypothetical explanation as gospel. This article is riddled with "I think" and "maybe's" and you want to reference it?

I don't agree that logic would dictate the existence, nor have we ever found the puzzle. To continue with your puzzle analogy we have found pieces of something that don't really match and have tried to force them together to suite the evolution agenda.

Speculation is part of science. Religion is full of faith-based assurances - "I know", "I have faith", etc - but science is not so absolute. I think this misconception is primarily the media's fault - the article's title is far more certain than the scientist's comments would indicate.

However, this is one recent piece of information added to this puzzle. I'm sure the actual scientific article would be more illuminating. I don't think there is an "evolution agenda", there is simply an attempt to fit known data into the existing theory. If it can fit then it is considered support of the overall theory; if it does not, then the theory will need to be reworked (at least in part) or scrapped. If thousands of bits of evidence can be worked into the theory and no evidence falsifies it (and lack of evidence is not evidence, btw), then that is a pretty strong theory.


I would be open to seeing sources. I have done a LOT of research on this topic and all the references I can find on either side have turned out to be something else or even frauds. Maybe you can point me in the right direction.

I don't know what to tell you. A web search on the subject brings up a lot of information. There are quite a few transitional humanoids even if the whole tree has not been assembled.


It's not evidence of Macro-Evolutions which is all that really counts. Trust me, I am pretty subjective when it comes to this and many other topics regarding science and theology. I go where the evidence takes me and in this case macro-evolution takes me no where.

There is no macroevolution. There are only thousands - millions - of tiny microevolutionary steps. After so many, the end result can be unrecognizable from its source. I'm no scientist and I don't have all the answers - but what I see is that evolution is providing the best overall positive explanation of what we see, and ID is currently only successful in pointing out its flaws. Being a theistic evolutionist, to me, is staying open to discovery, wherever it leads; being a creationist or IDer is to close off massive branches of possibilities because they make us uncomfortable.

BroRog
Nov 7th 2008, 01:25 AM
Being a theistic evolutionist, to me, is staying open to discovery, wherever it leads; being a creationist or IDer is to close off massive branches of possibilities because they make us uncomfortable.

Either a man believes in God or he affirms evolution. There is no middle ground.

crawfish
Nov 7th 2008, 01:58 AM
Either a man believes in God or he affirms evolution. There is no middle ground.

I'm sorry, but that's a dangerous lie, which can only provoke contention among the church.

Lamplighter
Nov 7th 2008, 03:52 AM
There is no macroevolution. There are only thousands - millions - of tiny microevolutionary steps. After so many, the end result can be unrecognizable from its source.

The two are in no way compatible.

One deals with changes. The other deals with origins.

GitRDunn
Nov 7th 2008, 04:35 AM
Either a man believes in God or he affirms evolution. There is no middle ground.
How can this be? All it has to do with is how you interpret the beginning of Genesis and no where does it say how it is to be interpreted, whether literally or metaphorically. Evolution doesn't have to contradict the Bible, it can actually fit right in with God creating everything because God controlled it. The only debate is about the time, but why would God's days necessarily be the exact same length as a human day? He is living in eternity, so time doesn't mean the same thing to him as it does to us. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe creationism is necessarily wrong, I just believe that both are viable possibilities because God could have done either one, they are both equally miraculous, and neither one has to contradict the Bible.


The two are in no way compatible.

One deals with changes. The other deals with origins.
Actually, they both deal with evolutionary changes and one (macro) is just a combination of multiple of the other (micro).

micro-evolution: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations
macro-evolution: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes
No where is origin mentioned in the definition of either (definitions are from m-w.com).

crawfish
Nov 7th 2008, 01:36 PM
The two are in no way compatible.

One deals with changes. The other deals with origins.

One deals with the maker. One deals with His methods. There does not have to be a conflict.

BroRog
Nov 7th 2008, 02:00 PM
One deals with the maker. One deals with His methods. There does not have to be a conflict.

One says there is a God; One says there isn't.

BroRog
Nov 7th 2008, 02:24 PM
How can this be? All it has to do with is how you interpret the beginning of Genesis and no where does it say how it is to be interpreted, whether literally or metaphorically.

The first chapter of Genesis indicates that God spoke everything into existence. Moses presents the information, not chronologically, but teleologically and spatially. His purpose is not to give us a recipe for baking a universe, but to help us see that all of creation has a purpose, that an essential aspect of that purpose involves work and rest, and that his subsequent narrative will focus on mankind.

The Theory of Evolution was born out of a man's quest to make sense of the world as he saw it, but it soon was accepted by scientists, without any evidence because the Theory gave expression to their atheism and naturalism. Evolution is nothing more than a big piece of duct tape over the mouths of the curious on which he has written, "God didn't do it."


Evolution doesn't have to contradict the Bible, it can actually fit right in with God creating everything because God controlled it.Evolution, by definition, is not guided. It is the result of environmental forces acting on random mutations to eventually produce new somethings that are substantially different that the previous somethings.

God is unique in that, according to Genesis, God speaks things into existence that never existed before. Consequently, the concept of "guided evolution" not only redefines evolution as something entirely different, it reduces God down to a mere super being that must make stuff from other stuff. Guided evolution both denies the Theory of Evolution and God's existence at the same time.

BroRog
Nov 7th 2008, 02:29 PM
I'm sorry, but that's a dangerous lie, which can only provoke contention among the church.

The truth of a proposition does not depend on it's ability or inability to provoke contention. It does however, poke at the sleepy.

crawfish
Nov 7th 2008, 05:36 PM
One says there is a God; One says there isn't.

That's a huge lie being propogated on the faithful. One says there is a God; the other doesn't say anything either way.

crawfish
Nov 7th 2008, 05:55 PM
The first chapter of Genesis indicates that God spoke everything into existence. Moses presents the information, not chronologically, but teleologically and spatially. His purpose is not to give us a recipe for baking a universe, but to help us see that all of creation has a purpose, that an essential aspect of that purpose involves work and rest, and that his subsequent narrative will focus on mankind.

The first chapter of Genesis is a representation, not a detailed account. I'm not sure why you think any of the rest of what you wrote here is anything different that what I believe...it doesn't require a literal creation account to be true.



The Theory of Evolution was born out of a man's quest to make sense of the world as he saw it, but it soon was accepted by scientists, without any evidence because the Theory gave expression to their atheism and naturalism. Evolution is nothing more than a big piece of duct tape over the mouths of the curious on which he has written, "God didn't do it."
That's absolutely wrong. Some atheists have taken things to far, but they're out on a limb with no way to substantiate such claims. The theory itself is highly supported and consistent with what we know about nature, and completely compatible with our idea of God.


Evolution, by definition, is not guided. It is the result of environmental forces acting on random mutations to eventually produce new somethings that are substantially different that the previous somethings. "Random" has always been a bad word for how evolution works, because that implies unpredictability. In fact, it's somewhat predictable because it's based in changes in environmental conditions. Mutations become favored because they grant the organism an advantage in its environment.

It's like setting off a line of dominoes. The makers set up the dominoes (laws of nature) to fall in the way he plans; when he kicks off the first one, they have no choice but to fall in perfect order. This is not deism, as God is purposefully working in the world to produce us to have a personal relationship with him. It does not conflict with our ideas of the natural world, either - do you think God's supernatural hand causes each lightning bolt, each drop of rain, each change in the wind? No, God's natural law guides these things, and God is so intimate with that law that he knows when each bolt of lightning will strike, each drop of rain will fall and each time the wind will shift.

As a TE, I don't distinguish between God's natural law and God's supernatural hand that works in ways impossible by natural law. Each happens purely at God's will, and each is evident of God's glory.


God is unique in that, according to Genesis, God speaks things into existence that never existed before. Consequently, the concept of "guided evolution" not only redefines evolution as something entirely different, it reduces God down to a mere super being that must make stuff from other stuff. Guided evolution both denies the Theory of Evolution and God's existence at the same time.Even the most literal reader of Genesis will admit that it says that sometimes God creates ex nihilo and sometimes creates new things from existing matter. That is what I believe as well. We both agree with the supremacy and creator-ship of God, what we disagree on are the methods.

I don't believe in guided evolution. It didn't require God's supernatural hand, but then again it didn't have to to accomplish exactly what God wanted.

I hope this gives you a little better understanding of what exactly I do believe.

Believer
Nov 7th 2008, 08:28 PM
That's absolutely wrong. Some atheists have taken things to far, but they're out on a limb with no way to substantiate such claims. The theory itself is highly supported and consistent with what we know about nature, and completely compatible with our idea of God.


That is an interesting statement since the Theory of Evolution is commonly referred to as a naturalistic history of life on earth. Hmm, that title alone implies to me a deviation from a theist point of view but lets look further.

Now you say that the Theory is consistent with what we know about nature. Hmm, again where do we see simple lifeforms self-transform into more complex lifeforms? Now, before you run and use your bacteria example again remember, while the bacteria adapted to its environment from the theories point of view we should have seen it grow legs, get up, and walk out of the room. Now, granted that would have to have happened over what? 5 billion years? So why pretell even in mans short written history haven't we seen something that resembles evident?

Just from the time of christ until now, if man, animal, plant, all living lifeforms are evolving, why haven't we seen a change someplace? Environment? We hear all the time how the earth is always changing, tempreture, colder, hotter, more humid, less..just to use that as an example.

Now you meantioned fossil records hmm again..

Even evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford (http://www.conservapedia.com/Oxford), stated the following: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist (http://www.conservapedia.com/Punctuated_Equilibrium), uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation (http://www.conservapedia.com/Creationism)."

Furthermore in reference to mutation ect..

Pierre Grasse (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pierre_Grasse), who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following: "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."



"Random" has always been a bad word for how evolution works, because that implies unpredictability. In fact, it's somewhat predictable because it's based in changes in environmental conditions. Mutations become favored because they grant the organism an advantage in its environment.


I do agree that random may be a poor choice of words when describing what is precieved as evolution. But again, the key word is precieved. Mutation, as I have noted is not examples of Evolutions, especially in reference to the Theory in question.




Even the most literal reader of Genesis will admit that it says that sometimes God creates ex nihilo and sometimes creates new things from existing matter. That is what I believe as well. We both agree with the supremacy and creator-ship of God, what we disagree on are the methods.

Yes, god does create out of nothing and when he created man he created us from dust. That is an accurate statement. I don't know if we agree on the supremecy of god on the otherhand. I would suggest that your idology would suggest god to be lacking. Maybe even implying that he is not sufficient. Maybe that is my perception of what you are saying also.



I don't believe in guided evolution. It didn't require God's supernatural hand, but then again it didn't have to to accomplish exactly what God wanted.

umm? You are saying god isn't in control? He didn't know the outcome? I read this and get a mental picture of a man rolling the cosmic dice and wondering what the result will be. To me that is the worst representation of the god of the bible I have seen to date.

Believer
Nov 7th 2008, 08:41 PM
"No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science (http://www.conservapedia.com/Computer_science), we call it a "program." Another name for computer software (http://www.conservapedia.com/Computer_software) is an "algorithm (http://www.conservapedia.com/Algorithm)." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8[48] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution#cite_note-47)

I wanted to add this as an interesting thought.

crawfish
Nov 7th 2008, 09:35 PM
That is an interesting statement since the Theory of Evolution is commonly referred to as a naturalistic history of life on earth. Hmm, that title alone implies to me a deviation from a theist point of view but lets look further.

Some would regard evolution as not requiring God. All I believe is that it does not require God's supernatural assistance. God works through natural means as well.


Now you say that the Theory is consistent with what we know about nature. Hmm, again where do we see simple lifeforms self-transform into more complex lifeforms? Now, before you run and use your bacteria example again remember, while the bacteria adapted to its environment from the theories point of view we should have seen it grow legs, get up, and walk out of the room. Now, granted that would have to have happened over what? 5 billion years? So why pretell even in mans short written history haven't we seen something that resembles evident?


Man has been studying evolution for 200 years. That's a minuscule amount of time. Assuming (as evolutionists do) that any "macroevolution" is actually a large number of microevolutionary steps, then what exactly could we see in a lab in a short period of time?


Just from the time of christ until now, if man, animal, plant, all living lifeforms are evolving, why haven't we seen a change someplace? Environment? We hear all the time how the earth is always changing, tempreture, colder, hotter, more humid, less..just to use that as an example.

We have seen changes - ones that most YEC's accept. 2000 years is still a tiny amount of time on a universal scale.


Now you meantioned fossil records hmm again..

Even evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford (http://www.conservapedia.com/Oxford), stated the following: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist (http://www.conservapedia.com/Punctuated_Equilibrium), uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation (http://www.conservapedia.com/Creationism)."

Furthermore in reference to mutation ect..

Pierre Grasse (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pierre_Grasse), who served as Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated the following: "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."


I'll have to look up those quotes - and their context - when I have more time.


I do agree that random may be a poor choice of words when describing what is precieved as evolution. But again, the key word is precieved. Mutation, as I have noted is not examples of Evolutions, especially in reference to the Theory in question.

But mutation is an example of evolution. It is small changes that become wider in scale when they offer a competitive advantage in an environment. Mutations are usually neutral on an individual scale; they can become beneficial, however, given an environment.


Yes, god does create out of nothing and when he created man he created us from dust. That is an accurate statement. I don't know if we agree on the supremecy of god on the otherhand. I would suggest that your idology would suggest god to be lacking. Maybe even implying that he is not sufficient. Maybe that is my perception of what you are saying also.


My ideology suggests the same power, and gives the same credit, to God as yours does. I think you are still not seeing my point.


umm? You are saying god isn't in control? He didn't know the outcome? I read this and get a mental picture of a man rolling the cosmic dice and wondering what the result will be. To me that is the worst representation of the god of the bible I have seen to date.

That's actually the exact opposite of what I said. Like a man who sets up a row of dominoes, God set up natural laws so things will tumble in exactly the way He wants them to. What I'm suggesting is a God who designed a amazingly complex natural process and understands it so completely that He can set things in motion and be sure of the eventual outcome.

My key point is this: God works through natural ways (by the natural laws He implemented), and God works through supernatural ways (where he supersedes that natural law to accomplish His will). If God sets up something to occur via natural law, then He can count on that natural law to produce His results.

I hope that explains it better.

BroRog
Nov 7th 2008, 09:37 PM
The first chapter of Genesis is a representation, not a detailed account. I'm not sure why you think any of the rest of what you wrote here is anything different that what I believe...it doesn't require a literal creation account to be true.

I attempted to pick my words carefully. I think terms like "literal" are overused and used wrongly so much in our society, the word has almost lost all meaning.

My son has a World History book. The organizing principle of the book is not chronological but topical. For instance, one major chapter deals with Democracy, which traces it down through history beginning with its seminal origins in Greece down to the American and French Revolution. Even though the authors chose to arrange the facts by topic rather than date, it doesn't mean the facts are metaphorical or symbolic.

The same goes for the first chapter of Genesis. Just because Moses arranges the facts to high light the purposes of God for creation, doesn't mean the facts are metaphorical or symbolic.


That's absolutely wrong. Some atheists have taken things to far, but they're out on a limb with no way to substantiate such claims. The theory itself is highly supported and consistent with what we know about nature, and completely compatible with our idea of God.

You either misunderstood me or you don't know the history of the Theory of Evolution. Maybe you don't know this, many people don't, but scientists accepted the theory of Evolution before evidence was found to substantiate it. The idea that scientific theories are accepted based on the evidence is an urban myth.

Sometimes scientific theories gain acceptance based, not on compelling evidence, but on the elegance of the theory. One example comes from astronomy in which Ptolomy's version of the solar system with Kepler's addition of the epicycles, was in direct competition with Copernicus' view. Each man's theory fit the available data and was able to make predictions about the positions of planets, etc. Copernicus' view was chosen because it was more elegant.

The theory of Evolution was not initially accepted based on the evidence. It was accepted mainly based on the fact that it appealed to the popular philosophy of "naturalism", which affirmed (again without evidence) that everything could be explained in terms of natural causes.

Now, I understand the partly line is to say that the Theory is well supported by the evidence and that the Theory has been proven without question. But having discussed this at length with many people, I remain unconvinced. What people call "evidence" is always couched in speculative vocabulary.


"Random" has always been a bad word for how evolution works, because that implies unpredictability. In fact, it's somewhat predictable because it's based in changes in environmental conditions. Mutations become favored because they grant the organism an advantage in its environment.

Again, you're just repeating the partly line and defeating your own argument in the process. According to your earlier statements, God guided the evolutionary process, but here you are saying that it was "guided" by environmental changes. As I said earlier, you can't have it both ways. Either you affirm God as creator, or you affirm natural causes.


It's like setting off a line of dominoes. The makers set up the dominoes (laws of nature) to fall in the way he plans; when he kicks off the first one, they have no choice but to fall in perfect order.


Your theory of strict determinism does not square with the Bible or our common experience.


This is not deism, as God is purposefully working in the world to produce us to have a personal relationship with him. It does not conflict with our ideas of the natural world, either - do you think God's supernatural hand causes each lightning bolt, each drop of rain, each change in the wind?


Yes, I do. That is what my Lord Jesus tells me and I believe him. If he is your Lord, you will believe him too.


As a TE, I don't distinguish between God's natural law and God's supernatural hand that works in ways impossible by natural law. Each happens purely at God's will, and each is evident of God's glory.


Even the most literal reader of Genesis will admit that it says that sometimes God creates ex nihilo and sometimes creates new things from existing matter.


From your statements so far, you appear to give creation ex-nihilo short shrift. You place the creation ex-nihilo all the way back to setting up dominoes, whereas the Bible says that God spoke, not only bacterium, but birds, animals, and man into existence ex-nihilo. The ONLY example of God creating stuff from other stuff is when God made Woman from man, which is not normative, but unique.

crawfish
Nov 7th 2008, 10:29 PM
I attempted to pick my words carefully. I think terms like "literal" are overused and used wrongly so much in our society, the word has almost lost all meaning.

My son has a World History book. The organizing principle of the book is not chronological but topical. For instance, one major chapter deals with Democracy, which traces it down through history beginning with its seminal origins in Greece down to the American and French Revolution. Even though the authors chose to arrange the facts by topic rather than date, it doesn't mean the facts are metaphorical or symbolic.

The same goes for the first chapter of Genesis. Just because Moses arranges the facts to high light the purposes of God for creation, doesn't mean the facts are metaphorical or symbolic.

The fact that Moses could have rearranged the elements of creation for literary purposes is hardly a YEC opinion. If you believe that, you are quite novel. And, if they are out-of-order it does imply some level of symbolism, no matter what other elements are literally true or not. Isn't that the start of the slippery slope? :)

I do believe that "literal" is misused. But the question is always posed to we TE's that "if we stop taking it literally here then where do we stop?" That in itself demands a highly level of literalism on part of the asker.


You either misunderstood me or you don't know the history of the Theory of Evolution. Maybe you don't know this, many people don't, but scientists accepted the theory of Evolution before evidence was found to substantiate it. The idea that scientific theories are accepted based on the evidence is an urban myth.


I think you might no understand the mechanics behind the scientific method. Accepting a scientific theory is not an act of faith, it is an acceptance of how well the theory fits the existing data. Every theory is open to challenge as new evidence emerges or new techniques to test it are developed.

In fact, when science officially accepts a theory then it is put under far more scrutiny than it was before, as it is put to use and challenged by a larger number of scientists.


The theory of Evolution was not initially accepted based on the evidence. It was accepted mainly based on the fact that it appealed to the popular philosophy of "naturalism", which affirmed (again without evidence) that everything could be explained in terms of natural causes.

It should always be science's goal to explain things in terms of natural causes. There is little utility in assuming something is supernatural, as there is really no way to test for that.

Evolution was accepted because it explained the evidence well. True, some latched onto it because they felt it was an alternative to God, but that has always been beyond science. In any case, the efforts to test and falsify evolution have only strengthened the original theory, even in areas that could have utterly disproven it (DNA, for example).


Now, I understand the partly line is to say that the Theory is well supported by the evidence and that the Theory has been proven without question. But having discussed this at length with many people, I remain unconvinced. What people call "evidence" is always couched in speculative vocabulary.


Speculation is science. It is a way to guide experiments that lead to future discovery. Without speculation, science becomes glorified butterfly collecting.


Again, you're just repeating the partly line and defeating your own argument in the process. According to your earlier statements, God guided the evolutionary process, but here you are saying that it was "guided" by environmental changes. As I said earlier, you can't have it both ways. Either you affirm God as creator, or you affirm natural causes.

You're implying the wrong thing from my posts. I've tried to explain it further above. What you assume above is that God is not responsible for "environmental changes".

In fact, you seem to want to have it both ways yourself, wanting to give God credit for nature but claiming that a suggestion that something is natural is out of God's control. God is either in control of natural processes or He is not.


Your theory of strict determinism does not square with the Bible or our common experience.

How, exactly?



Yes, I do. That is what my Lord Jesus tells me and I believe him. If he is your Lord, you will believe him too.

So...you believe that each bolt of lightning requires God's supernatural hand to occur? That there is no natural order to nature, only God imposing a will outside of His natural law to make things happen?


From your statements so far, you appear to give creation ex-nihilo short shrift. You place the creation ex-nihilo all the way back to setting up dominoes, whereas the Bible says that God spoke, not only bacterium, but birds, animals, and man into existence ex-nihilo. The ONLY example of God creating stuff from other stuff is when God made Woman from man, which is not normative, but unique.

You are wrong even from the literalist point of view. God made man "from the dust of the ground" - not ex-nihilo. God told the land to produce vegetation, he didn't create it ex-nihilo. God told the land to produce the living creatures on it.

BroRog
Nov 8th 2008, 03:33 AM
The fact that Moses could have rearranged the elements of creation for literary purposes is hardly a YEC opinion. If you believe that, you are quite novel. And, if they are out-of-order it does imply some level of symbolism, no matter what other elements are literally true or not. Isn't that the start of the slippery slope? :)

Bible interpretation is dangerous business. :)

For me, the issue here is not whether the earth is young or old. The theory of Evolution concerns itself with biology, not geology, astronomy, or other sciences. Christians argue vehemently against Evolution because the theory is predicated on an existential, philosophical position, which denigrates man and declares "God is dead." The bullet hits the bone, so to speak.

To say my grandmother looks like a monkey is not funny anymore.


I do believe that "literal" is misused. But the question is always posed to we TE's that "if we stop taking it literally here then where do we stop?" That in itself demands a highly level of literalism on part of the asker.

I don't think things are that subtle or nuanced. Moses says that God created domains in the first three days, and populated those domains in the next three days. And he rested on the seventh day. This leaves a lot of room for various methods and unique events along the way. But the Theory of Evolution is the direct antithesis of God's act of creation. We aren't talking subtle nuances here. We are talking a direct refutation of the core idea that God made everything.


I think you might no understand the mechanics behind the scientific method. Accepting a scientific theory is not an act of faith, it is an acceptance of how well the theory fits the existing data. Every theory is open to challenge as new evidence emerges or new techniques to test it are developed.

My comments are not a misunderstanding or misapplication of the scientific method. My statements about the acceptance of Evolution Theory is a matter of historical fact, which isn't a matter of science but a matter of history. If you want to learn more about what I said, look in a history book. It's an historical fact that Darwin's Theory was accepted as THE model of how plants and animals came to be, well before any evidence was presented.


In fact, when science officially accepts a theory then it is put under far more scrutiny than it was before, as it is put to use and challenged by a larger number of scientists.


Not in the case of Evolution.


It should always be science's goal to explain things in terms of natural causes.


This is a matter of philosophy, not science. The idea that science must restrict itself to natural causes can not be falsified with the scientific method. It's merely the a-priori assumption of those who wish to suppress the truth about God's existence.


There is little utility in assuming something is supernatural, as there is really no way to test for that.


Everything that happens is supernatural in the sense that God is the ultimate cause of everything. What appears to be "supernatural" is merely the extraordinary or highly unusual.


Evolution was accepted because it explained the evidence well. True, some latched onto it because they felt it was an alternative to God, but that has always been beyond science. In any case, the efforts to test and falsify evolution have only strengthened the original theory, even in areas that could have utterly disproven it (DNA, for example).

No one has been able to falsify the theory of evolution. The theory is nothing more than a philosophical rationalization masquerading as a science. Kinda like Economic theory, Psychology, Sociology or Political science. Just like other tortured souls, scientists who want to make a living under the current paradigm will see what they "need" to see in the evidence to keep their jobs and their grants flowing.


Speculation is science. It is a way to guide experiments that lead to future discovery. Without speculation, science becomes glorified butterfly collecting.


I wasn't talking about speculation. I was talking about explanations couched in speculative language. It's one thing to speculate. It's another thing, once having found the answer, to explain the answer as if you are still unsure.


You're implying the wrong thing from my posts. I've tried to explain it further above. What you assume above is that God is not responsible for "environmental changes".


Quite the contrary, I already stated in earlier posts that God is responsible for everything that happens. I am in favor of "involution" in which God is involved in everything. Evolution, on the other hand, is the antithesis of "involution" in that Evolution is change over time by the process of natural selection, random mutation, or genetic drift.


In fact, you seem to want to have it both ways yourself, wanting to give God credit for nature but claiming that a suggestion that something is natural is out of God's control. God is either in control of natural processes or He is not.


Let's be clear what we mean by the term "natural" as it pertains to theological discussions. Naturalism is the philosophical view of the world that "all phenomena are covered by the laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value." (Dictionary.com) The strong emphasis is on the idea that teleological explanations have no value. In order for science to acknowledge that things have a purpose, i.e. a "telos", they have to acknowledge the existence of a rational mind behind these purposes.

The very idea that nature has no extrinsic value or purpose is in direct opposition to the Biblical worldview. The idea that everything can be explained in terms of mechanistic, natural causes, is also in direct opposition to the Biblical worldview.


How, exactly?


How does your "domino theory" square with freewill, man's responsibility, and miracles, for starters?


So...you believe that each bolt of lightning requires God's supernatural hand to occur? That there is no natural order to nature, only God imposing a will outside of His natural law to make things happen?


Your question mixes two views together. If I believed in natural law, I would classify a violation of the natural order as a miracle. But since I believe that God is the ultimate cause of everything, then the distinction between "natural" causes and "supernatural" causes are merely convenient contrivances to distinguish between the "ordinary" and the "extraordinary."

Now if a man wants to argue that the Nile flows down hill due to gravity, which is a force of nature, and the parting of the Red Sea is a supernatural act of God, given that view, the creative acts of Genesis are wholly other than supernatural, because at the time, there was no "natural". How can we say that the act of creation exceeded customary norms when before the creation there were no "norms"? Prior to a created order, we have no point of reference by which to draw a comparison between the natural and the supernatural. When it comes to an act of creation ex-nehilo the concept of "natural" verses "supernatural" is meaningless until after the fact.

Your idea of the falling dominos is tantamount to creatio ex materia, which is the direct opposite of creatio ex nihilo.


You are wrong even from the literalist point of view. God made man "from the dust of the ground" - not ex-nihilo. God told the land to produce vegetation, he didn't create it ex-nihilo. God told the land to produce the living creatures on it.

Where do you find evolutionary processes in creation from dust to man. Seems like one step to me.

maasive10
Nov 8th 2008, 04:29 AM
I have just read through all 7 pages of this thread - I must say that it saddens me - that as Christians we all can't believe in the same thing - We know that Satan works harder on Christians - trying to sway them his way - Well I think he must be very happy to see "us" so divided and I can't help but believe how much this saddens God - we are to be a united front - FAITH people - Just have FAITH!!!
God bless

crawfish
Nov 8th 2008, 07:13 PM
Bible interpretation is dangerous business. :)

For me, the issue here is not whether the earth is young or old. The theory of Evolution concerns itself with biology, not geology, astronomy, or other sciences. Christians argue vehemently against Evolution because the theory is predicated on an existential, philosophical position, which denigrates man and declares "God is dead." The bullet hits the bone, so to speak.

To say my grandmother looks like a monkey is not funny anymore.

Your grandmother was never a monkey.

I'm telling you - the theory of evolution says nothing of the sort. Millions of Christians and even a significant number of atheists will admit that. I've tried to explain my position, how they are not incompatible, so if you still don't see my point I'm not sure what else I can do. This is not about some atheist's belief about evolution, it is about ours. It has nothing to do with getting rid of God, and when approached completely logically and from a scientific point of view, cannot possibly do so. Any honest scientist will admit that.


I don't think things are that subtle or nuanced. Moses says that God created domains in the first three days, and populated those domains in the next three days. And he rested on the seventh day. This leaves a lot of room for various methods and unique events along the way. But the Theory of Evolution is the direct antithesis of God's act of creation. We aren't talking subtle nuances here. We are talking a direct refutation of the core idea that God made everything.

Again, please try to understand what I'm claiming. I've argued why it's not a direct refutation, at least give my ideas enough credence to argue them directly.



My comments are not a misunderstanding or misapplication of the scientific method. My statements about the acceptance of Evolution Theory is a matter of historical fact, which isn't a matter of science but a matter of history. If you want to learn more about what I said, look in a history book. It's an historical fact that Darwin's Theory was accepted as THE model of how plants and animals came to be, well before any evidence was presented.

Why do you assume I've never read a book on the subject, or don't know its history? I know quite a bit about its history, I've read a number of books and heard a number of lectures from prominent evolutionists, enough to know that I completely disagree with your claims.



Not in the case of Evolution.

Evolution has been put through MORE scrutiny than any other theory in the history of science. It has been fought from scientific, theological and political standpoints by people determined to undermine it. The fact that it has survived so long without many alterations to its overall structure is a testament to its strength.



This is a matter of philosophy, not science. The idea that science must restrict itself to natural causes can not be falsified with the scientific method. It's merely the a-priori assumption of those who wish to suppress the truth about God's existence.

Again, no it's not. Most of the most prominent evolutionists through history have been believers. Many of its key proponents and defenders (Ken Miller, Francis Collins, etc.) are strong believers. This would not be possible if it was diametrically opposed to the existence of God.


Everything that happens is supernatural in the sense that God is the ultimate cause of everything. What appears to be "supernatural" is merely the extraordinary or highly unusual.

"Natural" refers to those things that are consistent and repeatable. Whether God directly causes those consistent, repeatable behaviors is beside the point - they are laws that we can count on. We could not launch a probe to Jupiter or Pluto without being able to depend on the consistency of gravitational forces.

The supernatural are things that oppose the laws of physics. They are things you cannot duplicate and cannot be repeated. We cannot develop a means to count on them occurring. You could not repeat raising a man from the dead after three days in a lab, nor could you discover a natural method to part the Red sea.



No one has been able to falsify the theory of evolution. The theory is nothing more than a philosophical rationalization masquerading as a science. Kinda like Economic theory, Psychology, Sociology or Political science. Just like other tortured souls, scientists who want to make a living under the current paradigm will see what they "need" to see in the evidence to keep their jobs and their grants flowing.

Say what you will, the theory of evolution makes specific claims that can be falsified through many means. It is quite complicated and far-reaching; so much so that individual elements may be falsified without falsifying the overall theory. I think this is where some of the misunderstanding of evolution as a philosophy occurs.


I wasn't talking about speculation. I was talking about explanations couched in speculative language. It's one thing to speculate. It's another thing, once having found the answer, to explain the answer as if you are still unsure.

Again, no, it's not. It's a sign of honesty, knowing that you have a significant piece of evidence but wanting to test the hypothesis further before you say for sure. Understand, just like mathematicians won't accept that 1+1=2 without a proof, scientists also will not define the obvious as fact without providing a proof. "Acceptance" and "fact" are two different things.



Quite the contrary, I already stated in earlier posts that God is responsible for everything that happens. I am in favor of "involution" in which God is involved in everything. Evolution, on the other hand, is the antithesis of "involution" in that Evolution is change over time by the process of natural selection, random mutation, or genetic drift.

I also favor the opinion that God is in charge of everything. What is "random" to us is hardly random to God. Note that in science, "random" really means that we don't have enough data or knowledge to predict it yet. Chaos theory, for instance, states that millions of tiny factors determine every action; what seems random to us could be predicted if we had enough knowledge of those factors.


Let's be clear what we mean by the term "natural" as it pertains to theological discussions. Naturalism is the philosophical view of the world that "all phenomena are covered by the laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value." (Dictionary.com) The strong emphasis is on the idea that teleological explanations have no value. In order for science to acknowledge that things have a purpose, i.e. a "telos", they have to acknowledge the existence of a rational mind behind these purposes.

The very idea that nature has no extrinsic value or purpose is in direct opposition to the Biblical worldview. The idea that everything can be explained in terms of mechanistic, natural causes, is also in direct opposition to the Biblical worldview.

Natural <> Naturalism. For the record. Natural simply means the testable, predictable, consistent laws of the universe. Supernatural refers to events that break those laws. Without natural law, science is impossible. Math is impossible. Physics is impossible. Whether natural law is set up by God and He lets it govern the universe, or God is specifically causing each and every reaction to occur Himself directly in a consistent and predictable way doesn't really matter. There is a delineation set between the two in defining what we can study scientifically and what we cannot.

What can be predicted via "natural processes" is natural. What cannot, cannot. Science will determine which is which.



How does your "domino theory" square with freewill, man's responsibility, and miracles, for starters?

A domino master can put his finger on a single domino and stop the process in question; and then can choose to kick it off again. This is a miracle.

Free will is where the dominoes stopped falling. Once man fell from the natural order, we became able to define the future on our own. We have the ability to disrupt the natural order of the world around us; this is where God made us the stewards of creation.



Your question mixes two views together. If I believed in natural law, I would classify a violation of the natural order as a miracle. But since I believe that God is the ultimate cause of everything, then the distinction between "natural" causes and "supernatural" causes are merely convenient contrivances to distinguish between the "ordinary" and the "extraordinary."


Which are still two views. I doubt we differ too much here, except in the irrelevant issue of exactly how God exerts His will on the universe. I see scant difference between my view of "natural law" and your verson of "ordinary" outside of semantics.


Now if a man wants to argue that the Nile flows down hill due to gravity, which is a force of nature, and the parting of the Red Sea is a supernatural act of God, given that view, the creative acts of Genesis are wholly other than supernatural, because at the time, there was no "natural". How can we say that the act of creation exceeded customary norms when before the creation there were no "norms"? Prior to a created order, we have no point of reference by which to draw a comparison between the natural and the supernatural. When it comes to an act of creation ex-nehilo the concept of "natural" verses "supernatural" is meaningless until after the fact.

I would agree with this.


Your idea of the falling dominos is tantamount to creatio ex materia, which is the direct opposite of creatio ex nihilo.

Where do you find evolutionary processes in creation from dust to man. Seems like one step to me.

I do not believe that anything existed before creation - thus, ex nihilo was required to create all matter. The process following that was the creation of new things from that existing matter - man from dust, for instance. The wording of the account allows for this view.

For the record, "primordial ooze" might qualify as an alternate interpretation of the Hebrew word that got interpreted "dust". Perhaps the word "formed" is God's simplification of the process. :)

crawfish
Nov 8th 2008, 07:37 PM
I have just read through all 7 pages of this thread - I must say that it saddens me - that as Christians we all can't believe in the same thing - We know that Satan works harder on Christians - trying to sway them his way - Well I think he must be very happy to see "us" so divided and I can't help but believe how much this saddens God - we are to be a united front - FAITH people - Just have FAITH!!!
God bless

Understand that I regard every single Christian on this thread as my brother or sister in Christ. We may have all sorts of differences and no doubt, some of us are wrong about some things (since they contradict), but God's grace is great enough to surpass that. Fortunately, our salvation isn't dependent on perfect understanding. :)

maasive10
Nov 8th 2008, 11:09 PM
Fortunately, our salvation isn't dependent on perfect understanding. :)


Isn't that a blessing - and I mean that with all sincerity:) I agree that our salvation isn't dependant upon a certain understanding - but I wonder if it will come into play during the end times - I assume Satan will use all he can to discredit the Christians - and this division he will certainly use.

A serious question (I truly am curious and mean no offense)
For those who believe that the creation account of Genesis was an allegory - do you then believe that Peter and Paul (for example) also believed this??? and if they did - what was their premise - the concept of evolution wasn't even around? (correct me if I am wrong) or do you think they believed the Genesis account as literal and therefore were in error? I am truly puzzled by this - is this taking the account of Genesis a fairly new concept or has it been around since the New Testament - and if so why was it not spoken of??? Do you think these issues occurred in the churches of Corinth, Thyatira, Athens, Rome????

Cheers:)

crawfish
Nov 9th 2008, 12:12 AM
Isn't that a blessing - and I mean that with all sincerity:) I agree that our salvation isn't dependant upon a certain understanding - but I wonder if it will come into play during the end times - I assume Satan will use all he can to discredit the Christians - and this division he will certainly use.

If this was the only division, then I might think it worthwhile to concede. As it is, I believe that if we try to make something scientific based on our reading of scripture and we're wrong, we end up discrediting ourselves.


A serious question (I truly am curious and mean no offense)
For those who believe that the creation account of Genesis was an allegory - do you then believe that Peter and Paul (for example) also believed this??? and if they did - what was their premise - the concept of evolution wasn't even around? (correct me if I am wrong) or do you think they believed the Genesis account as literal and therefore were in error? I am truly puzzled by this - is this taking the account of Genesis a fairly new concept or has it been around since the New Testament - and if so why was it not spoken of??? Do you think these issues occurred in the churches of Corinth, Thyatira, Athens, Rome????

Cheers:)

I'm not sure what Peter and Paul believed about the account. I am fairly certain they didn't have any unnatural insight into the event, so the views they had would have been what was popular at the time. I do know that as early as Augustine some Christians were warning about reading science too literally into scripture.

Believer
Nov 11th 2008, 05:53 PM
For the record, "primordial ooze" might qualify as an alternate interpretation of the Hebrew word that got interpreted "dust". Perhaps the word "formed" is God's simplification of the process. :)

Just for the record-

The hebrew word could have never been confused with "primordial ooze". Actually the best representation of the hebrew word in reference to it's use would actually be a fine dust commonly used to make adobe.

Also, when you reference the word in the hebrew language then compare its use later in the bible it could also be translated to represent "offspring". So...yeah no primordial ooze sorry.

crawfish
Nov 11th 2008, 07:31 PM
Just for the record-

The hebrew word could have never been confused with "primordial ooze". Actually the best representation of the hebrew word in reference to it's use would actually be a fine dust commonly used to make adobe.

Also, when you reference the word in the hebrew language then compare its use later in the bible it could also be translated to represent "offspring". So...yeah no primordial ooze sorry.

It can be used as a generic term for the solid ground, or the land (as opposed to the sea).

I'm really not serious, though, I think the term is symbolic. Of course, you bring up an entirely new symbolic meaning I hadn't thought of - if dust could refer to multitudes of offspring, then perhaps it could also refer to the multitudes of ancestors as well. Thanks for the idea! ;)

Believer
Nov 11th 2008, 07:59 PM
It can be used as a generic term for the solid ground, or the land (as opposed to the sea).

I'm really not serious, though, I think the term is symbolic. Of course, you bring up an entirely new symbolic meaning I hadn't thought of - if dust could refer to multitudes of offspring, then perhaps it could also refer to the multitudes of ancestors as well. Thanks for the idea! ;)

Sadly if that gives you ideas on ways to undermine gods word then this is a lost conversation. No pun intended.

Secondly how you get the plurality of multitudes or ancestors from offspring singular..what you say give me the impression you are a seeker more then you are a believer. Remember, what comes out of your mouth shows whats truly in the heart...

Point being, the translation of the word never supported your original argument. As you have conceded that point, don't resort to the ridiculous by drawing some other wild conclusion.

crawfish
Nov 11th 2008, 09:41 PM
Sadly if that gives you ideas on ways to undermine gods word then this is a lost conversation. No pun intended.

Secondly how you get the plurality of multitudes or ancestors from offspring singular..what you say give me the impression you are a seeker more then you are a believer. Remember, what comes out of your mouth shows whats truly in the heart...

Point being, the translation of the word never supported your original argument. As you have conceded that point, don't resort to the ridiculous by drawing some other wild conclusion.

I haven't conceded the original point (the word works for a wide array of considerations of brown earth, including that with nascent life in it), but I was being silly with the dust comment. What's in my heart is love and joviality, with just a hint of orneriness. ;)

There is just too much evidence IMO to accept the Genesis account as literal fact. You can cast doubt on one area or another or a dozen, but when you break down the whole process enough to allow (scientifically) for YEC, it causes too much of a breakdown. The only real alternative is "creation with age", but that's a dissatisfying argument for me - and if God created the universe to appear as if it was much older and that it came through natural processes, then it is of great utility to us to understand those processes anyway.

Historically, when the church has faced a position where reality seemingly contradicts scripture, it has had to face this decision: is the scripture meant to portray a literal physical truth, or is it using some form of symbolism to represent a spiritual truth? Again and again, the church has found that the latter has been true, to the point that we now accept their symbolic nature as second nature. Certainly, the Genesis account is far more fundamental to our belief than those other challenges, but the same logic still applies. I, and many, many other conservative, orthodox Christians, have found that it can be read in such a fashion that is consistent with belief, compatible with science and keeps the core messages of scripture intact.

Genesis, to me, is a representation of creation, written in figurative language that would be meaningful to the generation in which it was first given. As such, it's not meaningful scientifically in its order, its time frame, or as a history of events. It is there to set the stage for man's place in existence.

I know you, and most here, won't agree with this, but I do believe it and feel that it presents a viable alternative to those who find they want to believe in Christ but cannot reconcile a YEC/OEC scientific outlook. It does not compromise God's place in creation, God's power and knowledge, Christ's life and sacrifice, or God's offer of grace whatsoever. Perhaps not too many accept it now, but I truly believe that as the science gets more and more difficult (and eventually impossible) to argue against, more people will accept this point of view. We TE's are kind of like pioneers, out in a dangerous land, preparing it for the eventual mass emigration to follow. :)

Believer
Nov 11th 2008, 10:16 PM
I haven't conceded the original point (the word works for a wide array of considerations of brown earth, including that with nascent life in it), but I was being silly with the dust comment. What's in my heart is love and joviality, with just a hint of orneriness. ;)

While the definition might include a variety of usages, in its usage the translation wouldn't warrant the use of all those definitions..but hey, nothing new for someone to twist a verse to suite them. Other religions who feign Christology have done it for years.



There is just too much evidence IMO to accept the Genesis account as literal fact. You can cast doubt on one area or another or a dozen, but when you break down the whole process enough to allow (scientifically) for YEC, it causes too much of a breakdown. The only real alternative is "creation with age", but that's a dissatisfying argument for me - and if God created the universe to appear as if it was much older and that it came through natural processes, then it is of great utility to us to understand those processes anyway.

What are you basing the age of the universe on? What are you basing the age of the earth on? Carbon dating? One of the other methods that I can afford you hundreds of ways they can be flawed, falsified, or just not actually work?

If you meant by futility that it's probably beyond our comprehension and we have to have faith, your are correct.



Historically, when the church has faced a position where reality seemingly contradicts scripture, it has had to face this decision: is the scripture meant to portray a literal physical truth, or is it using some form of symbolism to represent a spiritual truth? Again and again, the church has found that the latter has been true, to the point that we now accept their symbolic nature as second nature. Certainly, the Genesis account is far more fundamental to our belief than those other challenges, but the same logic still applies. I, and many, many other conservative, orthodox Christians, have found that it can be read in such a fashion that is consistent with belief, compatible with science and keeps the core messages of scripture intact.

What church do you refer to? Site your source please..



Genesis, to me, is a representation of creation, written in figurative language that would be meaningful to the generation in which it was first given. As such, it's not meaningful scientifically in its order, its time frame, or as a history of events. It is there to set the stage for man's place in existence.

I know you, and most here, won't agree with this, but I do believe it and feel that it presents a viable alternative to those who find they want to believe in Christ but cannot reconcile a YEC/OEC scientific outlook. It does not compromise God's place in creation, God's power and knowledge, Christ's life and sacrifice, or God's offer of grace whatsoever. Perhaps not too many accept it now, but I truly believe that as the science gets more and more difficult (and eventually impossible) to argue against, more people will accept this point of view.


Nothing you have stated has even been remotely difficult to argue. As a matter of fact, most of what you stated tends to be Evolutionist redirect that has little to no merit.

I would never imply that science isn't a powerful seeker of knowledge. I would however argue that when you use a religion like evolution under the guise of science we have gone to far.

You are right, the next step is to compromise even more, fall farther from god, and compromise until we deny him completely. That is where your belief leads you. You stand on a slippery slope my friend. I pray that in time you don't just become another brother who falls away.




We TE's are kind of like pioneers, out in a dangerous land, preparing it for the eventual mass emigration to follow. :)

And a sect is born.......

GitRDunn
Nov 11th 2008, 10:49 PM
What church do you refer to? Site your source please..

I think he is referring to occasions such as back when the church referenced a few scriptures and for many, many years claimed that the Earth was the center of the solar system and went so far as to imprison people (like Galileo) when they disagreed with this. We now know and Christians accepted long ago that the Earth isn't the center of the solar system, the sun is. Another example of this would be how Christians centuries ago used scripture as a base for their belief that the world was flat, so much so that people were scared to sail too far from land. However, we now know, and again, Christians have accepted, that the world is round, not flat.

crawfish
Nov 12th 2008, 02:51 AM
While the definition might include a variety of usages, in its usage the translation wouldn't warrant the use of all those definitions..but hey, nothing new for someone to twist a verse to suite them. Other religions who feign Christology have done it for years.

A matter of opinion. "Doesn't warrant the usage" is tantamount to "doesn't support my theology", which is the reverse of how translation is supposed to work.


What are you basing the age of the universe on? What are you basing the age of the earth on? Carbon dating? One of the other methods that I can afford you hundreds of ways they can be flawed, falsified, or just not actually work?

Unless you are a YEC, carbon dating cannot be used to date the age of the universe. It is only valid up to 50,000 years.

How many dating methods have to converge at a high level of consistence before they can be regarded as reliable? How many natural formations can be easily explained by the long passage of time? How massive is our universe and how consistently is it explained by the billions-year model? YEC offers alternatives, but they tend to be all over the map and, taken together, present an unreasonably complex alternative. Occam's Razor points to evolution and billions of years.



If you meant by futility that it's probably beyond our comprehension and we have to have faith, your are correct

I said "utility" and my point was that even if God created the universe to appear old, it is worthwhile for us to study the methods He appeared to use for creation, because they would represent a consistent natural law that helps us understand the universe in its current state.

As far as the point you're making, it's not a question of faith, but what do I put my faith in? A literal interpretation of scripture, or scripture itself?


What church do you refer to? Site your source please..

GRD is right...I'm referring to all Christ's followers as a whole. A generic term for all of us throughout history. I refer to misunderstandings such as geocentricism and flat earth.


Nothing you have stated has even been remotely difficult to argue. As a matter of fact, most of what you stated tends to be Evolutionist redirect that has little to no merit.

I'm not trying to convince you that evolution is true or you should change your mind. I'm trying to help you understand how someone can believe in evolution AND be an orthodox Christian; why the two aren't incompatible in our view.


I would never imply that science isn't a powerful seeker of knowledge. I would however argue that when you use a religion like evolution under the guise of science we have gone to far.

Just because some evolutionists treat evolution like a religion doesn't mean that it is, or that all of us do. If you can't admit that there is strong, compelling evidence towards evolutionary theory that could lead many to adopt it, then you're fooling yourself.


You are right, the next step is to compromise even more, fall farther from god, and compromise until we deny him completely. That is where your belief leads you. You stand on a slippery slope my friend. I pray that in time you don't just become another brother who falls away.


Compromise = open to new revelation. God didn't reveal a great deal in scripture - His goal has never been to make us scientists but to make us saved. When we let pride or stubborness hold us in old interpretations, we hurt His kingdom. His glory is revealed in nature as well as in scripture.

The slippery slope argument is false logic that ties us to the mistakes of the past. We must be cautious and only move ahead for the right reasons; but the simple argument that "one step leads to another" doesn't wash.

My faith has been tested by far worse than this and survived even stronger. I don't question because of a lack of faith; I question because I know in my heart my faith can survive it, and without questioning I won't be open to God's will in my life.


And a sect is born.......

Riiiiiiight. I'm a church-of-Christ guy now and probably until the day I die. We TE's are members of ALL denominations...and non-denominations. We are not a new religion. No TE I've ever spoken to regards this as a salvation issue, or anything worth splitting over - we mostly just exist quietly in our own congregations. The only frustration is the lack of understanding by those who can't deal with what we believe and make trouble for us.

Believer
Nov 12th 2008, 03:43 PM
I think he is referring to occasions such as back when the church referenced a few scriptures and for many, many years claimed that the Earth was the center of the solar system and went so far as to imprison people (like Galileo) when they disagreed with this. We now know and Christians accepted long ago that the Earth isn't the center of the solar system, the sun is. Another example of this would be how Christians centuries ago used scripture as a base for their belief that the world was flat, so much so that people were scared to sail too far from land. However, we now know, and again, Christians have accepted, that the world is round, not flat.

That is an interesting thought. Consider this, Claudius Ptolemaeus"Ptolemy" in his text written 150ad clearly states the world is spherical. Considering this was a common knowledge basic astronomy book used in the middle ages, it would be interesting to try and argue that the world was flat. Keep in mind even the Jesuits would have used this text during the time.

Next we look to the book of Job which also refers to the world as spherical. Interesting again right?

Now to Galileo, he was treated so bad that the Catholic church (one could argue that they departed from christian belief long ago) imprisoned him in the lap of luxury. Keep in mind looking closely at history the tribunal was commenced to keep him from continuing to challenge the church openly, and actually the pope of the time never even weighed in on his Heliocentric beliefs. Hmm... Challenged the church I say? Yes, his topics included the Heliocentric beliefs, among other things, but he was specifically asked to back off and didn't. While the Catholic church burned many a which, heritic, and anyone who they didn't like during the time, ol' Galileo was confined to house arrest. Yes, they really had it in for him..I emphasize the church in question. Idolitry, legalism, and lack of christo centric values still haunts this particular church.

On a interesting side note had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views (there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them)the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved. You see Galileo asserted the mobility of the earth to be correct, but also believed in the immobility of the sun. That second fact of course is false.

Now for the "people scared to sail" you must be referring to our most famous of scared sailors christopher columbus? When columbus debated sailing west it was actually over the size of the earth not the shape. common misnomer.

Studyin'2Show
Nov 12th 2008, 03:50 PM
Okay, I believe this thread is taking a turn for the worse, therefore I am shutting it down. If you want to rationally discuss this topic with other believers, start a new thread. If you don't want to be rational, please refrain from participating in this often volatile and emotional topic. If anyone has any questions or concerns regarding this moderator action, please start a thread in the Chat to the moderators (http://bibleforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=84) forum.

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Nov 12th 2008, 05:11 PM
Oops, I forgot to hit the 'Close' button. :blush: