[_ Old Earth _] A number reasons why I find Evolution impossible to believe!

[Asyncritus]

Hey Sparrow

The other "type" of qualified person would be a Scientist (biologist?) primarily in their focus but was also a Literalist regarding Scripture. And to me, the unity of the two separate disciplines combined seems more likely to produce result than the fun of taking pot-shots at each other especially regarding end result.

That is a pretty accurate description of me! You've found one!

 

[Barbarian]

This is again pure misunderstanding of the case you have to answer. I don't know how I can get this across to you.

We understand the MECHANICS of vision fairly well.

That is like saying I understand HOW a car engine works.

But the organism uses the mechanics to 'see'. As you should know, we don't see with our eyes. Yes, the eyes are instrumental in vision - but we do not see with them. The information collected by the organs of vision undergoes 4 processes:

1 The collection of the information (by the 'eyes' or whatever organ the organism uses)

2 The transmission of the info to the central processing unit (ie the brain in our case, simpler structures in the lower animals)

3 The interpretation of that information

4 The utilisation of that information by the organism.

Maybe there's a 5th step in there: the decision how to utilise the information.

Barbarian suggests:
So explain to us how a bacterium sees light, and effectively responds to it, without all that stuff.

Is that an answer to the question, or just another fudge?

It's your claim; I'm just seeing if you can support it or not.

Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong, too. For example, the plants you told me were using "instinct" to move toward the light, merely evolved auxins that allowed the plant to grow more rapidly on the dark side, thus turning it toward the light.

Evolution produced a change in behavior.

You have again shown that you are unable to answer the simple question: WHY does this happen?

I showed you why. Auxins in modern plants tend to be degraded by light. So the plant grows faster on the side away from the light. Which bends it toward the light. This is what you called "instinct." In fact, it's just chemistry.

Why do roots grow downwards, and shoots grow upwards?

Depends on the plant:
Plant Gravitropism. Unraveling the Ups and Downs of a Complex Process1
For a plant organ to guide its growth along a defined GSPA, it must perceive any change in its orientation within the gravity field. The corresponding physical information must be transduced into a physiological and/or biochemical signal, which must be transported to the response site where differential growth generates a curvature, allowing the growing tip to regain its orientation along the GSPA. As discussed in our previous Update (Chen et al., 1999), different cells are specialized to carry out these successive phases of gravitropism in monocots and dicots. For instance, in roots, gravity is perceived mainly by the columella cells of the root cap, whereas the differential growth response associated with gravistimulation occurs in the elongation zone (EZ; Figs. 1A and 2). In shoots, cells located in specialized tissues at the periphery of the vasculature, including the endodermis of hypocotyls (Fig. 1B), and the bundle sheath parenchyma in inflorescence stems and cereal pulvini perceive gravity and generate a signal that is transported laterally to the more peripheral tissues. There, the signal promotes the differential growth responsible for gravitropic curvature (Fig. 1B). On the other hand, in lower plants and algae exhibiting single-cell tip growth (i.e. rhizoids and protonemata), gravity perception and curvature response occur in the same cell (Fig. 1C). Hence, different species and organs adopt different molecular, cytological, and physiological strategies to guide their growth along specified GSPAs.
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/133/4/1677.full

Answer: because that is their natural milieu.

The truth is more interesting than "just so" stories like "because that is their natural milieu" or "because they were designed that way."

But as I've said time and again, evolution CANNOT answer the question WHY

As you see, we can explain the mechanics of nature, but as to why there is nature, we need to find something that transcends science. Christianity works for me.

As one writer said, something cannot evolve in the Cambrian because it may be of use in the Cretaceous.

Darwin, for example. It's not part of evolutionary theory. Exaption can't be for the future; it has to be fit for the present.

So the ruthlessly gnawing worm at root of evolution's massive problems, is the simple word WHY?

Why nature is, is not a problem for science. It just assumes it is.

Barbarian observes:
That's wrong, too. Every time we discover how some aspect of cognition or action works, it turns out to by the actions of neurons.

Japanese researchers at Nara Institute of Science and Technology and Kinki University implanted a tiny video camera into the brain of a mouse, and managed to record moments when the mouse made new memories. Researchers hope to use the system to understand the inner workings of the brain that lead to conditions like Parkinson’s.

You are getting yourself into an enormous pickle here, and you can't see it.

Sounds intriguing.

You are saying effectively that everything we do, say or think is ruled, created and effected by purely physico-chemical processes and structures.

No. What makes you think that? You see, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of a sufficiently complex nervous system. And the mystery is, God produced a universe in which everything runs by physical laws, but in our heads, there's this thing going on that is grounded in nature, but produces consciousness. And it isn't just us. We know, from experiments that apes have it, too. They have an awareness, a self-image, and they know others do, too.

The soul is not, of course, a mere epiphenomenon; it's given directly by God. But how this all works is beyond the reach of science, even if we can go into the head and watch thoughts as they go.

If you really want to get into this, start with Hoffstader's The Mind's I, and then do a lot of catching up in neurology.

Which is nothing short of amazing, coming from a professed believer in the God who offers mankind CHOICES.

There's a lot more, and it's more amazing than you can imagine. And it has the virtue of being true. Come and see. But you'll find your "just so" stories won't be there for you after that. A richer and deeper understanding of God and His creation will replace it.

Which neurons, do you suppose, do the choosing?

That's the good part. Neurons choose nothing. Nor do the atoms that make them. But our minds, which are grounded in neurons, do make choices.

And if it's neurons doing the choosing, then why are you held to be guilty for your iniquities and transgressions? You can raise a finger and point saying: 'They made me do it'! Blame them!

Surprise.

So where do you go from here, barbarian?

I can take you no farther. I can only open the door. If you want to know this, you can. But the comforting "just so" will be gone, if you do. If you honestly want to know more about His creation that is you, you'll have to be willing to give up that which is not true.

This is the final conflict between your religion and your scientific optimism.

The splendid truth is that there is no conflict between God and His creation. It is an illusion of fear to think so. As Genesis says, God did not create life ex nihilo as creationists have it. He used nature to make it. And it is grounded in nature. And yet, evolution produced us, with a consciousness and mind, to which He gives an immoral soul, and that makes us capable of fellowship with Him.

Why do you suppose nature wouldn't do what He intended? Do you suppose He couldn't make it do this? Granted, the way that our free will comes about in a deterministic universe, that's a bit of a mystery. But so is the fact that Christ is wholly man and wholly God. No one guaranteed we'd be able to understand everything.

He is the source of life - not dust, physics or chemistry. Abiogenesis, as Pasteur proved, and scripture says, is a total nonsense and a waste of time and resources.

Pasteur ruled out spontaneous generation, the idea that complex metazoans can arise from rotting organic matter. Nothing Pasteur did rules out what God tells us in Genesis. Life was brought forth by the Earth. As God intended.

You would do well to abandon support for it.

I have spent a lifetime believing in Him. I'm not inclined to change now. I'll take it as He gave it to us.

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Isn't it obvious what it means, barbarian?

Of course. God created us, as the other animals were created, brought forth by the Earth. But then He directly gives us an immortal soul, and that makes all the difference.

At death (another gigantic problem for evolution - from what did death evolve?)

Death is merely the end of those physical processes. The death God told Adam about in Genesis is a spiritual death, which is the only death a Christian should fear. Physical death is of no consequence to us.

Let God be God, and this will cease to bother you.

Where is now your abiogenesis?

In Genesis. Gen. 1:24.

 

[Asyncritus]

I really don't know how to continue this conversation barbarian.

Your total incomprehension of the difference between the simple words HOW and WHY makes me despair.

You trot off to Google scholar, cut and paste a huge slab of text from somebody or other, explaining HOW these things work. They're probably right. But...

Not a single word about WHY they happen.

You don't get the difference, do you? [Edited by Staff]

As you see, we can explain the mechanics of nature, but as to why there is nature, we need to find something that transcends science. Christianity works for me.

This is the best answer you've given so far. There IS something that transcends science - and science is NOT evolution, and evolution is NOT science. Don't make that mistake!

You are saying effectively that everything we do, say or think is ruled, created and effected by purely physico-chemical processes and structures.

No. What makes you think that? You see, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of a sufficiently complex nervous system.

And you're back in the hole again.

Consciousness, the sort we're discussing here, is not an epiphenomenon of the nervous system. What you have just said is only the old 'neurones firing' in another guise, and just as useless.

A nervous system consists of neurones and other structures - but they are all material, physico-chemical, if you like. So you're saying that we are material creatures alone.

But you know different - or at least you seem to do so.

If God gave life - as that passage I quoted shows extremely clearly - then why are you defending abiogenesis so vigorously? I note you had no comment to make on the words of scripture that I quoted, and which, I suppose, you agree with, if not believe.

So what do you understand by Ps 36.9?

I notice the fudge of Gen 1. 24.

It's difficult to believe that you can so deliberately and willingly make a total mess of such a simple passage of scripture

Gen 1.24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Same in 2.7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Is it not obvious that both passages are speaking of identical processes?

The breath of life is breathed into all the created creatures - there's no abiogenesis or evolution here. Here's the proof:

6.17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Note: they ALL have the breath of life in them. Man is no different to the beasts that perished.

21 ¶ And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Again, they all had the breath of life in them.

So despite the fact that 1.24 does not mention the breath of life being breathed into the creatures, it is obvious that He did so breathe.

If He did, then your evolutionary misinterpretation of 1.24 is up the Swanee: ifwe're going to be faithful to scripture. Are we?

So let me ask you again: how do you fit Ps 36.9 into your abiogenesis theorising? Just to remind you, it says:

36.9 For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.

 

[Barbarian]

I really don't know how to continue this conversation barbarian.

Your total incomprehension of the difference between the simple words HOW and WHY makes me despair.

The problem is that you've confused efficient and final causes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

You trot off to Google scholar, cut and paste a huge slab of text from somebody or other, explaining HOW these things work. They're probably right. But...

...the point is that you're wrong.

not a single word about WHY they happen.

Check out the link. It's worth knowing. Efficient causes are why things happen due to physical events. Final causes are why things happen according to a purpose. Science can do efficient causes, but not final causes. I suggest Trinitarian Christianity.

You don't get the difference, do you?

I gave you a link, explaining the difference. It's well worth your time.

Barbarian observes:
As you see, we can explain the mechanics of nature, but as to why there is nature, we need to find something that transcends science. Christianity works for me.

This is the best answer you've given so far.

It's an essential limitation of science. Science can show the "why" in terms of efficient causes, but not final causes.

There IS something that transcends science - and science is NOT evolution,

More precisely, evolution is science. You see, it depends on making inferences from evidence. Which is the way all science works.

You are saying effectively that everything we do, say or think is ruled, created and effected by purely physico-chemical processes and structures.

No. What makes you think that? You see, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of a sufficiently complex nervous system.

And you're back in the hole again.

Nope. You're just having trouble getting your mind around the notion that God isn't limited to nature, even if He's powerful enough to make it serve His purposes.

Consciousness, the sort we're discussing here, is not an epiphenomenon of the nervous system.

It comes down to evidence. Our being is not merely an epiphenomenon of the nervous system, but that is one of the things it is. At least so long as we live in the universe He made for us.

What you have just said is only the old 'neurones firing' in another guise, and just as useless.

Nope. I spent a lot of years studying systems, and complexity and the order inherent in chaotic systems, and I can only get a dim idea of the way it works. This looks like magic to you, because you don't have any idea how it works, but I can assure you there's no magic.

A nervous system consists of neurones and other structures - but they are all material, physico-chemical, if you like. So you're saying that we are material creatures alone.

No. As I reminded you, we also have a soul given directly to us by God.

But you know different - or at least you seem to do so.

Of course. I'm the one who told you, remember?

If God gave life - as that passage I quoted shows extremely clearly - then why are you defending abiogenesis so vigorously?

That's the way He says He did it. Who am I to argue? For that matter, who are you to argue?

I note you had no comment to make on the words of scripture that I quoted, and which, I suppose, you agree with, if not believe.

I'm just pointing out that Gen. 1:24 makes it very clear. He used the earth to bring forth living things.

So what do you understand by Ps 36.9?

It says he gives living things life. Your only issue is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

It's difficult to believe that you can so deliberately and willingly make a total mess of such a simple passage of scripture

I'm just taking it as it is. The reason it gives you such trouble, is you aren't willing to take it without revision. God makes it very clear that the YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo" is false. He made the earth and then the earth brought forth life as He intended:

Gen 1.24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

He reiterates this in the case of man. Man is also brought forth by the earth, according to the will of God:

Same in 2.7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

But God also gives man an immortal soul, and thus he is different from the other animals.

Is it not obvious that both passages are speaking of identical processes?

As I pointed out, they aren't. Man gets something the other animals don't. As far as God using the Earth to make living things, they are the same. We are animals, we have animal bodies, and we are subject to the same things animals are. But He also gives us something the others don't. So not identical.

The breath of life is breathed into all the created creatures

No other animal is called a "living soul." You see, God did something different with us. That breath of life wasn't the same as that for the other animals.

there's no abiogenesis or evolution here.

Abiogenesis is the idea that living things emerged from the earth.

6.17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Note: they ALL have the breath of life in them. Man is no different to the beasts that perished.

As you now realize, only man is called a "living soul." So when God gives man life, He gives man something else as well.

If you want to be faithful to scripture, you'll realize that God's word matters. Only man gets a "living soul."

So let me ask you again: how do you fit Ps 36.9 into your abiogenesis theorising?

As you see, it's entirely consistent with Gen. 1:24. The earth brings forth life, as God wills.

36.9 For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.

Jesus says it as well...

John 14:6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

John 8:12 Again therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying: I am the light of the world: he that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life.


The life He speaks of, is not mere physical life. It's eternal spiritual life in Him. Do you not believe He is God?

 

[Sparkey]

I note you had no comment to make on the words of scripture that I quoted, and which, I suppose, you agree with, if not believe.

I'm just pointing out that Gen. 1:24 makes it very clear. He used the earth to bring forth living things.

(emphasis mine)

So what do you understand by Ps 36.9?

It says he gives living things life. Your only issue is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

I also find Gen 1:24 and the observation you make about the 'erets (land) highly interesting and significant.
How do you treat Gen 1:20? Here, I'll fetch it for you:

20 And God said, Let the waters (mayim) bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

His blessing followed, found in Gen 1:22, which also suggests that birds came from waters (*maybe*). To my trained ear though I hear "Don't-Go-There" and "I-didn't-say-that". In that same context though, we hear of God creating "great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind" and seeing and pronouncing it good.

We find great emphasis placed on the words that some translators give as "bring forth" (as seen in KJV Gen 1:24, the part you've quoted) but other translators give a different rendition, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures (Gen 1:20 NKJV)

Yet others speak about the waters teeming with creatures there.

I like the attempt reconcile men's theory with God's Word but am not yet convinced (have you noticed me say that before? It's true) that any one person so far has provided a totally satisfactory answer.

Call me "still looking" or "still seeking". That's how I describe myself and also one of the reasons that I find men's theories difficult to swallow, and impossible to swallow in one gulp.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't see any contradiction here. Without water, there would be no life. The overwhelming evidence is that life began in the seas. Given that God indicates that water and earth and air all contributed to the origin of living things, it looks as though what science is learning is quite consistent with His word.

We aren't going to get a scientific phylogeny from the Bible, and we shouldn't expect one. That's not what it's for. We get a poetic description of nature producing life as God intended, and that's it.

 

[Barbarian]

The point here is that a lot of people, when they learn about biology, lose their faith, because they've been taught a re-interpretation of scripture that is not what God said. If you realize that YE creationism is a modern doctrine, and has never been accepted by a majority of Christians, then you aren't going to fall into that error.

 

[Asyncritus]

A nervous system consists of neurones and other structures - but they are all material, physico-chemical, if you like. So you're saying that we are material creatures alone.

No. As I reminded you, we also have a soul given directly to us by God.

It's time somebody disabused you of this notion.

From what you've said, you derive this from 'and man became a living soul' in Gen 2.7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.<05315>

Some simple points here, and I hope you can follow the logic.

Note: man BECAME a 'living soul.

He was not GIVEN a living soul, he BECAME one - and there's a world of difference between the two things.

Furthermore, all living things ARE living souls.

The fishes and birds:

Ge 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath <05315> life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

The water creatures:

Ge 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature <05315> that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The land animals:

Ge 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature <05315> after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

The whole lot:

Ge 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life <05315>, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

And lastly, man:

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul <05315>.


Those numbers in the brackets represent a Hebrew word, the same Hebrew word nephesh.

It's translated 'soul' in 2.7 'man became a living 'soul'.

It follows therefore that

1 All souls die

Referring to the Egyptians at the time of the exodus, the psalmist says:

Ps 78:50 He made a way to his anger; he spared not their soul <05315> from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence;

Note that their souls died, by the pestilence, or plague/ diseases that came upon them.

:
Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls <05315> are mine; as the soul <05315> of the father, so also the soul <05315> of the son is mine: the soul <05315> that sinneth, it shall die.
Eze 18:20 The soul <05315> that sinneth, it shall die.

This is, of course, the same as Paul's comment in Romans 6.23:

The wages of sin is death, but the GIFT of God is eternal life. Why is it a GIFT? Because mankind does not possess it innately. Only God has that:

1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

This is the reason why the RESURRECTION of Christ is such a vital element , the foundational element, of Christianity.

1 Cor 15.17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

Note the distinction between 'fallen asleep' meaning 'died', and 'perished', meaning forevermore.

If Christ has not been raised from the dead, then the grave is the end.

But:

IN Christ shall all be made alive.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

The word IN is vital to our understanding of the truth. How does one come to be IN Christ? By believing in His Name, and being BAPTISED (ie immersed fully - a symbolic death) into His death.

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

S I seriously suggest that you look into the scriptures very carefully about this subject, as it has rather large ramifications for you. Note that I said the scriptures, not the theologians and their ilk.

All the best in your researches.

Async

 

[Asyncritus]

Perhaps I might mention this point too, about John 3.16.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

There is a curious, and very important point about the word IN Him.

The greek word used there is eis which means 'into' not 'in', which would be ev.

The verse therefore reads: whosoever believeth INTO Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The translators could make no sense of this, and so used IN Him, instead of INTO Him.

Why the difference? Because the person who believes is baptised INTO Him, as I've shown in Romans 6 already which reads:

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into (eis) Jesus Christ were baptized into (eis) his death?

eis is the preposition used twice in v3.

 

[Barbarian]

Async writes:

nervous system consists of neurones and other structures - but they are all material, physico-chemical, if you like. So you're saying that we are material creatures alone.

Barbarian reminds:
No. As I reminded you, we also have a soul given directly to us by God.

It's time somebody disabused you of this notion.

It will be extremely difficult for you to "disabuse" me of my belief in God. Do you not believe Jesus is God? I asked you this before, and you ignored my question.

(God says that he gave man a living soul)
Gen 2.7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.<05315>

Note: man BECAME a 'living soul.

He was not GIVEN a living soul, he BECAME one - and there's a world of difference between the two things.

All that we have, we are given by God. Did you not know that?

Furthermore, all living things ARE living souls.

Well, let's take a look...

Ge 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath <05315> life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

No "living souls."

Ge 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature <05315> that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Hmm... none there, either. Let's move on...

Ge 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature <05315> after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And none there. So let's go a bit further...

Ge 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life <05315>, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Still no living souls. Not yet. But then...

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul <05315>.

There it is.

It's translated 'soul' in 2.7 'man became a living 'soul'.

So your argument is that scripture has it wrong? I don't think so. As you learned, "Yom" is used in several ways in the Bible, and so is "nepesh."

The key, of course, is that the word applies to immoral beings like angels and God, as well as to animals and plants. It is like the Koine Greek psyche, potentially meaning both.

To understand, one must realize the difference between the soul other organisms got from natural processes, and the soul man got directly from God.

Do you understand, now?

It follows therefore that

1 All souls die

Referring to the Egyptians at the time of the exodus, the psalmist says:

Ps 78:50 He made a way to his anger; he spared not their soul <05315> from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence;

Note that their souls died, by the pestilence, or plague/ diseases that came upon them.

Being a Christian, I have looked at that argument and found it wanting. God's direct and simple testimony in Genesis is more persuasive to me.

I seriously suggest that you look into the scriptures very carefully about this subject

You're trying to make it too complicated. He isn't difficult to understand. Indeed, the wiser you try to be about scripture, the harder it is for you to accept Him.

Matthew 18:3 And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

All the cleverness is in vain. Just accept Him and be His.

And I really would like to hear your idea of how long people thought the Earth was flat.