[_ Old Earth _] Darwinism

[Barbarian]

Okay, okay. Show me a valid transitional creature (The 'missing link') and I'll believe your statement.

Sounds reasonable. What would you suppose a transtional between man and other apes would be like?

Then we'll see if they exist.

 

[xsearnold]

Earth Age

Sorry, a correction to my earlier post. Earth's age is more likely between 4 and 5 billion years, not ~15. This estimate is for the age of the universe.

 

[Barbarian]

Having recently joined this forum, I note with interest much of the discussion. Barabarian, it would be helpful to understand how you define "Evolution" and on what basis you make the claim that "most Christians believe in evolution."

The largest denominations in Christendom have no problem with evolution. Creationism is pretty much limited to the US, and they are a minority, even here.

I disagree with your interpretation of Genesis. You cannot, on the one hand, use the text "let the earth bring forth..." to subscribe "natural process" to the "evolution" of all living things and justify the evolution of man from apes.

It certainly says that living things came about by natural processes. Notice that God also says that man came from the earth like any other animal. But then He breathed the breath of life into him, and that made the difference.

Genesis specifically states that God said, "Let us make man in our image..." The words are not the same and the meaning is not the same.

The "image" here is in man's mind and spirit. As God says, man is like the other animals as far as his body goes. He's from dust and will return to dust. But we survive that.

Genesis supports the special creation of man, not evolution from apes.

There are some who agree with you, but they aren't in the majority. I will admit that there are Christians of great learning, wisdom, and love of God on both sides of the question. Fortunately, it's not something that affects your salvation.

I can understand your usage of "evolution" in application of the other forms of life (vegetation, non-human creatures), but I don't think this necessarily provides proof of an evolutionary view.

"Proof" isn't something you can get in science. But the evidence is overwhelming.

I was once an adamant "young-earth" creationist. I still believe in creation (perhaps not in the Aquinas mode), but now am convinced in an old earth of ~15 billion years. I came to this belief through researching the writings of Dr. Hugh Ross. I highly recommend his web-site, http://www.reasons.org. Dr. Ross is an astronomer who came to faith, being raised with no faith background, by studying the Cosmos and the major works of most religions. He reasoned that the revelation of God in nature would be consistent with His revelation in the "scriptures" of the one true religion. Typically, Dr. Ross was able to discard the primary works of most religions within a week, due to the internal inconsistencies, as well as the inconsistency with the evidence from his knowledge of astronomy. However, when he read the Bible, 18 months of study convinced him that, not only were there no inconsistencies (internally or with nature), but Christianity was the truth, leading him to faith in Christ.

Coming to Christ, even for the wrong reasons, is a good thing. However, I don't find his science very compelling, in most cases.

Good to have an OE creationist on hand, though.

 

[Pearly Gator]

Okay, okay. Show me a valid transitional creature (The 'missing link') and I'll believe your statement.

Sounds reasonable. What would you suppose a transtional between man and other apes would be like?

Then we'll see if they exist.

Thanks, Barbarian.

Well, I guess I'm asking for a macro-evolutionary link. You know, fish to reptile, amphibian to mammal. That sort of thing. To clarify, I do believe in micro-evolution. It's the macro stuff that I do not see.

 

[xsearnold]

Reply to Barbarian

The largest denominations in Christendom have no problem with evolution. Creationism is pretty much limited to the US, and they are a minority, even here.

Again, these are your opinions without reference to the specific sources by which you make such a claim. No matter, "most Christians believe..." is not necessarily a testament to unswerving truth. I confess I haven't researched all "the largest denominations", but what I have seen typical is that the doctrinal statements of many denominations do not take a firm stance on a single origin-of-life belief to the exclusion of all others. They seem to leave this up to the individual believer, as long as there is an acknowledgement of the Triune God.

It certainly says that living things came about by natural processes. Notice that God also says that man came from the earth like any other animal. But then He breathed the breath of life into him, and that made the difference.

Much of this depends on how you define "natural processes." These words could be applied to the natural process of procreation, and do not necessarily imply what you seem to be calling "evolution."

The "image" here is in man's mind and spirit. As God says, man is like the other animals as far as his body goes. He's from dust and will return to dust. But we survive that.

You seem to be saying that the Bible says that the other animals were formed from dust, but this is not what Genesis says.

There are some who agree with you, but they aren't in the majority. I will admit that there are Christians of great learning, wisdom, and love of God on both sides of the question. Fortunately, it's not something that affects your salvation.

Again, I'm not sure that being in the majority is an indicator of possessing truth. But, like you, I'm thankful that salvation does not depend on one's espousal or denial of an origin-of-life theory. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say it's not something that affects salvation (though I understand what you mean). Much of evolutionary thought today (maybe not when Darwin started this mess) is used to steer many away from a belief in God (thus affecting salvation). I believe many secular humanists co-opt Darwinian evolution to serve their purposes in denying God's existence (at least that has been my experience).

Coming to Christ, even for the wrong reasons, is a good thing. However, I don't find his science very compelling, in most cases.

I'm not sure there can be a "wrong reason" for coming to Christ. I guess what I appreciate most about "his science" is that it is understandable for laymen such as myself and that he attempts to reconcile prevailing scientific evidence with Biblical interpretation. He also does a good job replying to the various young-earth arguments that I've heard over the years.

BTW, I am still interested in how you are defining "evolution" and whether you are holding to a purely materialistic (life from non-life) view, or are you using the term to mean that all life originated from God, but new species evolved from other species within the same genus (after their own kind?) or what.

 

[willow the wip]

xsearnold I agree with you

one thing to point out is that adam was formed from the dust or dert from the ground and out of adams rib came eve.

 

[evanman]

In Genesis we are told that God formed man out of Dirt--not out of another life form!

That mankind was created as Male AND Female! Whereas the (so-called) simplest life forms that every other life form is suppose to have evolved out of has no gendre whatsoever!

The very fact of the process of procreation should teach us something--why and how did things evolve sexual organs?--From what were they developed and how?

My thinking is that they didn't evolve, they were made that way!

 

[Barbarian]

In Genesis we are told that God formed man out of Dirt--not out of another life form!

You can push an allegory too far. We say that man is created from the dust, but in fact, none of us come from there directly. We are descended from a long line of others, who were brought forth from the dust as God tells us in Genesis.

That mankind was created as Male AND Female!

Had to, it seems. All primates are that way.

Whereas the (so-called) simplest life forms that every other life form is suppose to have evolved out of has no gendre whatsoever!

They do, however, have a primitive form of sexual reproduction. The line between gendered and genderless organisms is very blurry.

The very fact of the process of procreation should teach us something--why and how did things evolve sexual organs?--From what were they developed and how?

In bacteria, they are called pilli. Sex is very ancient. Far more ancient than humans.

My thinking is that they didn't evolve, they were made that way!

The evidence, however, tells us something else.

 

[willow the wip]

one thing to point out is that adam was formed from the dust or dert from the ground and out of adams rib came eve.

The Bible says we came from the Earth and we will return that way simple as.

you eather accept it or reject it the fact remains we came from the dert of the ground.

I dont care about weather we were formed out of bacteria that is a theory the bible is clear on creation who am i to add or take anything out of the bible.

The word of God has the final authority.

Gen 2:7

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Job 34:15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.

Psa 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we [are] dust.

Psa 104:29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.



In the opening chapters of Genesis we are told that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and that He formed the man from the dust of the earth. In Genesis 12 we read that God called Abram to leave his country and people to go to a land that God would show him. The initiative to start these processes rests with God alone, He had no need to create the universe or mankind nor call Abram. There is a further parallel between the creation of mankind and the calling of Abram; Adam was formed from pre-existing material, Abram was called out of pre-existing peoples. God chose some "dirt", probably no different from the rest of the dirt on the earth, and out of that material formed Adam, breathing life into him. Similarly God chose one man out of the many people alive at the time, with no evidence that there weren't other people who would have faithfully followed Him, and as Abram came into relationship with God he found the real life that can only be found in relationship with Him.

 

[Barbarian]

The Bible says we came from the Earth and we will return that way simple as.

you eather accept it or reject it the fact remains we came from the dert of the ground.

As the other animals did. But it's no shame to have evolved from other animals. What counts is what God gave us that made us different from the others.

I dont care about weather we were formed out of bacteria that is a theory

I suspect you don't know what a "theory" means in science.

the bible is clear on creation who am i to add or take anything out of the bible.

If you believe in special creation, then you have added to Scripture.

 

[willow the wip]

Gen 2:7

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Job 34:15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.

Psa 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we [are] dust.

Psa 104:29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.

I have not added to scripture i acept this we are formed from the dust.

and when we die we return that way I will not except any explanation i only acept.

Gen 2:7

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

simple as.

we were made not evolved i dont know about other animals but i will only accept Gods explanation that is good enough for any one I am single minded in that this is why i will only except creation.

If God says he created the world Thats good enough for me.

 

[Barbarian]

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Job 34:15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.

Psa 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we [are] dust.

Psa 104:29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.

I have not added to scripture i acept this we are formed from the dust.

You have added in asserting that this means that man was molded individually by God out of dust, rather than coming from the earth as God tells us all living things did. This is changing the meaning of Genesis.

and when we die we return that way I will not except any explanation i only acept.

Gen 2:7

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Yes. Here God is telling you that man is an animal, like all others, except for His gift to us, an immortal soul, and a mind capable of fellowship with Him.

we were made not evolved i dont know about other animals but i will only accept Gods explanation that is good enough for any one I am single minded in that this is why i will only except creation.

Evolution is God's creation. That's how He did it.

If God says he created the world Thats good enough for me.

Me too. But I also accept the way He did it.

 

[willow the wip]

Man never came from any animal we came from the dust and thats were we will return.

 

[willow the wip]

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

 

[Garret]

Barbarian responds in the following manner:

[quote:280ca]There's no reason to marry evolution to creation, because evolution is false.

It is directly observed. Even most creationists now admit that new species evolve.
[/quote:280ca]

Nice bait and switch. Obviously all that is ever directly observed is microevolution. And you are correct, no creationist (or IDist, like myself) disputes microevolution. From one species of finch to another is interesting, but not impressive. There is still a long way to go between that and getting an actual bird by means of mutation/natural selection. Just because you are convinced about common descent does not mean I, or any one else, must have the same conviction (or stunning credulity, to be more accurate).

I think your posts are all bluff and bluster really. You have factual errors and bald assertions coming out the wazoo. No matter. I'm merely posting to let you know that there is at least one person that (sometimes) reads these forums who sees through all the bombastic assertions you make.

Regards,

Garret

 

[Barbarian]

There's no reason to marry evolution to creation, because evolution is false.

It is directly observed. Even most creationists now admit that new species evolve.

Nice bait and switch. Obviously all that is ever directly observed is microevolution.

There's a couple of major errors there. First, "evolution" is "a change in allele frequency over time". Second, "microevolution" is "evolution within a species", while "macroevolution" is "evolution that produces new species."

And you are correct, no creationist (or IDist, like myself) disputes microevolution. From one species of finch to another is interesting, but not impressive.

That's all it takes.

There is still a long way to go between that and getting an actual bird by means of mutation/natural selection.

There's a long way to go between walking ten feet and walking fifty miles, but I can tell you from experience, it's the same thing. It just takes longer.

Just because you are convinced about common descent does not mean I, or any one else, must have the same conviction (or stunning credulity, to be more accurate).

Depends on how you feel about evidence. If you're swayed by evidence, you accept evolution. If you're not, then you probably won't accept it.

I think your posts are all bluff and bluster really. You have factual errors and bald assertions coming out the wazoo.

Well, we certainly can talk about them. Tell us about them.

No matter. I'm merely posting to let you know that there is at least one person that (sometimes) reads these forums who sees through all the bombastic assertions you make.

Too bad. You could have actually stood up for what you believe. That would probably get you more respect from everyone.

 

[Veritas]

Interesting thread. I do have an inquiry for you Barbarian.

Quote:
and when we die we return that way I will not except any explanation i only acept.

Gen 2:7

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
End Quote:

Yes. Here God is telling you that man is an animal, like all others, except for His gift to us, an immortal soul, and a mind capable of fellowship with Him.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you believe that the "breath of life" is the soul. I dont think it is. Humans and animals alike have the breath of life in them. The same words are used earlier in Genesis in chapter 1 verse 30 "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food. And it was so". I believe what sets us apart is the fact we are "made in the image of God".

Gen 2:7 does imply however, that, at least physically, we have an affinity with animals.

My inquiry:
If you belive that the breath of life IS our soul. How would you interpret Gen 1:30?
If the breath of life is not the soul, does this cause problems with your interpretation of Genesis?

 

[Barbarian]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you believe that the "breath of life" is the soul.

Ours confers on us a soul. God gave "the breath of life" to all living things, but only man got it directly from Him. And in that, we obtained an immortal soul.

I dont think it is.

I don't either. It was that individual act in which he conferred upon us an immortal soul.

Humans and animals alike have the breath of life in them.

Actually, all living things do.

The same words are used earlier in Genesis in chapter 1 verse 30 "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food. And it was so". I believe what sets us apart is the fact we are "made in the image of God".

What do you think "the image of God" means?

Gen 2:7 does imply however, that, at least physically, we have an affinity with animals.

Yep. We are animals. Evolved from other animals. But that's not what makes us in the image of God.

My inquiry:
If you belive that the breath of life IS our soul. How would you interpret Gen 1:30?

It's not the soul. It's just that God intervened in nature to give it to us.

If the breath of life is not the soul, does this cause problems with your interpretation of Genesis?

Not that I can see.

 

[Veritas]

What do you think "the image of God" means?

Well, this really does get to the meat of it doesnt it? But I think exploring the meaning of the "image of God" will help explain the mystery of the soul.

I think being created in the image of God means we had the same characteristics as Him, such as righteousness and holiness (mentioned in Eph 4:24), also knowledge (mentioned in Col 3:10).

Of course we fell short. Which is where Christ came in. He is the image of God that we were originally created as; and He is into which redeemed mankind will be transformed (described in 2 Cor 4:12-18 )

Christ is called "image of God" in 2 Cor 4:4 and Col 1:15. He is both the incarnate Son and the Second Person of the Trinity. I see a certain harmony between the duality of Christ who is the eternal Son of God, who became God-man, and that of our own body and soul. Hopefully Ive referred to enough scipture to support my claims.

Anyways, claiming that the act in which God directly breathed life into us created our soul is interesting. I'm not sure if that can actually be proven, but I see no problem with believing that. Is there any additional scripture that supports this? Also, from what I saw of your posts, I dont really have much of a contention with you. I too believe evolution is a sound theory. But as I have said in another thread. "Science" will never find "truth", so, Im always skeptical of what "science" says. I've always interpreted the story of Genesis in "what I thought" was a traditional method. That the earth was created in seven days and that man was created seperate. But you do have some interesting arguements. What were the other inconsistencies that arise when you read the creation story literally?

 

[Garret]

Barbarian,

Evolution defined as a change in alleles over time can apply to both macro and microevolution. It seems to me just plain silly to say otherwise. So here we have this big, vague, (almost useless) definition for evolution which encompasses a good deal (not everything of course)-- and so ambiguity creeps in like a thief in the night.

This ambiguity is the origins of the bait and switch tactic. You start talking about microevolution (i.e. by saying evolution is directly observed) and then imply evolution in the macroevolutionary sense (which is at dispute) is therefore confirmed. Which is of course nonsense. I agree with you that the defintion for microevolution agreed upon by Darwinists refers to subspecies level evolution. Since there is no real difference in processes between micro and macroevolution the terms are essentially redundant when used in a Darwinistic context. Clearly I mean something else then, when I am referring to small-scale evolution. I much prefer the Creationist usage of the term microveolution in this case. I prefer the creationist meaning for the term, because I believe your analogy:

There's a long way to go between walking ten feet and walking fifty miles, but I can tell you from experience, it's the same thing. It just takes longer.[\quote]

is horribly flawed. You assume, with no good reason, that the fitness peaks occur along nice smooth gradations. There is no compelling reason for this to be true. Especially considering the fact that any number of biological structures that exist are irreducibly complex (Please oh please do not refer me to Kenneth Miller. He pulls the same WRONG line every time. I have already read his essays.) I think there is very good cause to believe the curves involve a good deal of flat space, alot of verticals and alot of drop offs due to irreducibly complex structures. Another fundamental problem is that of inventiveness. Evolution only works to maximize an existing hyperspace of probabilities. For example, in Dawkins biomorphs program evolution can produce amazing variation withing the hyperspace of, say, branching length or depth. However it will not evolve a gene for color. There is a very good paper on this problem at:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_top ... 00003.html
Let me know if you cannot get into it. (I'm a member of ISCID, but I don't know if its a members only thing to get into the Archive.)

Regardless of what we call it, I see evolution below these types of roadblocks as fully observable, and fully proved. Macroevolution will involve the totality of changes between eukaryotes and say, birds. I do not think that the kind of evolution we have observed does any credit to explaining how eukaryotes could gradually evolve into birds, or even prokaryotes. It does no good to disparage my supposed incredulity. I'm of the opinion that my incredulity is well deserved based on the evidence. Under any other circumstance my incredulity would be considered healthy skepticism. In physics this kind of incredulity is allowed all the time. For the past 10 years one of my professors has been searching for cracks in the standard model. Right now he is doing so with the Belle experiment in Japan. The standard model has been proven time and time again, and yet there he is, searching for the cracks in the standard model. Why? Skepticism (and maybe boredom). Not incredulity, which is merely a red herring. Which leads me to one of the bluffs you continuously make on these forums. You insist that there is no religious dogmatism surrounding Darwinism, which is perfectly absurd. I have never seen a more religiously vehement group of nonreligous people as Darwinists (you should have read an editiorial in Physics Today on the textbook controversy in Texas. If they could have spit nails at the Discovery Institute I've no doubt they would.)

At any rate, I can simply return the compliment, for I find your credulity to be equally damaging to your arguments. It is really easy to believe something when you are that credulous. This brings me to your point about evidence. I think it is more fair to say "It depends on how you feel about the evidence for evolution." Because yes, it certainly does. You paint an unfair (and untrue) picture of the situation by implying that the evidence is simply nothing but evidence for evolution. If that were the case not be swayed by the evidence would, by default, mean you are simply stupid or irrational. Let us be honest, those are not exactly good initial terms for starting a debate. If you're right, I've already lost. People can have legitimate problems with the theory of evolution based solely on the empirical evidence. To imply otherwise is the kind of bluster I am talking about.

Regards,

Garret

P.S. Unfortunately my forrays into these discussions always prove more costly time-wise than I would like. So you will have the divine pleasure of the last word .