[_ Old Earth _] A Summary of This Year's Defeats of Evolution Theory

[pHghost]

No. You've asked, "there still has to be something, or Someone behind it, who put it in motion, no?" I've replied, "no." You're begging the question here, assuming the initial point (evolution and big bang) explicitly as entirely true while you argue it. I understand your position well enough, but can not agree that this is what the Word of God says or intends or even suggests. Adam was directly created by God.

I am assuming it to be true for the sake of the argument. Let me rephrase that, then, for peace of mind: IF the theory that is currently presented by science is true, I don't see how that excludes God as the Creator and originating force behind it.

As I mentioned in the post as well, I cannot claim that the theory is 100% correct, as nothing we know is: we are constantly moving onward in understanding the creation around us. But I see nothing in the theory that would endanger my belief in God and that would undermine Christianity. Scientists who outright deny the existence of God are as biased as Christians who deny anything revealed by science, so don't look to them as objective representatives of science -- they have a very specific agenda. Only an open approach and honest observation of the facts can lead us to a satisfactory end. I believe that God endowed us with free will, curiosity and intelligence for a purpose, and as it is written in Genesis, when he created man (as with everything else), he saw what he did was good.

Remember when we spoke initially about the virgin birth? You asked a question about allegory. You believe that the Word of God in Genesis is allegory. But consider His words: "The LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - (Gen 2:7) Now, consider your words: "What exactly [does this] point to as an allegory?"

The reason I asked that, and pardon me if I wasn't completely clear, it might have been lost in the tangle: I don't see why it necessarily needs to be an allegory. I consider the account of creation in Genesis as symbolic, not allegorical.

 

[Sparkey]

I am assuming it to be true for the sake of the argument. Let me rephrase that, then, for peace of mind: IF the theory that is currently presented by science is true, I don't see how that excludes God as the Creator and originating force behind it.

As I mentioned in the post as well, I cannot claim that the theory is 100% correct, as nothing we know is: we are constantly moving onward in understanding the creation around us. But I see nothing in the theory that would endanger my belief in God and that would undermine Christianity. Scientists who outright deny the existence of God are as biased as Christians who deny anything revealed by science, so don't look to them as objective representatives of science -- they have a very specific agenda. Only an open approach and honest observation of the facts can lead us to a satisfactory end. I believe that God endowed us with free will, curiosity and intelligence for a purpose, and as it is written in Genesis, when he created man (as with everything else), he saw what he did was good.


The reason I asked that, and pardon me if I wasn't completely clear, I might have been lost in the tangle: I don't see why it necessarily needs to be an allegory. I consider the account of creation in Genesis as symbolic, not allegorical.

It seems that you're looking for the right word, because if you change the word from allegory to symbolic, the question changes too: what is the object of the symbolism? You're correctly pointed to the fact that literary devices such as allegory, parables, metaphors, and similes are representations of something else, used to illuminate a truth. What truth (other than 'God directly created man,") do you see here?

Throughout most of the history of mankind there has been no need to invent "symbolism" as a substitute for reality when dealing with the Word of God. It wasn't until recently that the conflict was stirred and sides were taken. You've stated clearly, "IF the theory that is currently presented by science is true, I don't see how that excludes God as the Creator and originating force behind it." Following that statement with an affirmation of the "symbolic" nature of God's Word to resolve apparent conflict substantially admits that there is a difference between the two accounts.

Although I do understand your position, and further explanation isn't required, I would like to hear your attempt to reply to the question, "What do you think God's statement that He created Adam by a direct act symbolizes?"

By the way, even though I've acknowledged that Barbarian's theory that "Evolution is how God does it," that does not mean that I buy it. We are specifically told that God created various "kinds" and further told that He created "their seed" with them. But, let's hold off and discuss that later. One question at a time seems good. Symbolism first, okay? If you are still looking for a way to say it, just say, "It's poetry." I'm okay with people having different views. The "Age of the Earth" issue isn't a salvation matter but I do think the distinctions that are made in the bible are important.

 

[pHghost]

It seems that you're looking for the right word, because if you change the word from allegory to symbolic, the question changes too: what is the object of the symbolism? You're correctly pointed to the fact that literary devices such as allegory, parables, metaphors, and similes are representations of something else, used to illuminate a truth. What truth (other than 'God directly created man,") do you see here?

Do you need more than that? And can you judge it out of the context of God's creation itself and its study (science)?

Throughout most of the history of mankind there has been no need to invent "symbolism" as a substitute for reality when dealing with the Word of God. It wasn't until recently that the conflict was stirred and sides were taken. You've stated clearly, "IF the theory that is currently presented by science is true, I don't see how that excludes God as the Creator and originating force behind it." Following that statement with an affirmation of the "symbolic" nature of God's Word to resolve apparent conflict substantially admits that there is a difference between the two accounts.

It is not about trying to resolve an apparent conflict. As a matter of fact, your first sentence is misleading. It is not until the dawn of Protestantism and Puritanism that humanity started viewing the Word of God literally. And as a matter of fact, neither the Catholic or Orthodox Church ever saw it in such a way, staying deeply rooted in mysticism. The issue arose again, with the relatively recent revelations made by science, when it started to seem obvious that a literal interpretation of the Bible is not compatible with what science observes.

Yes, there is a conflict if you take the text of the Bible literally, but only then.

Although I do understand your position, and further explanation isn't required, I would like to hear your attempt to reply to the question, "What do you think God's statement that He created Adam by a direct act symbolizes?"

I don't think it symbolizes anything, it is a direct statement. I do not oppose the truth of God creating man by a direct act. But what does that direct act entail? And as to the method God used to do it, we are left only with having to trust Him, and that which the world he created reveals.

By the way, even though I've acknowledged that Barbarian's theory that "Evolution is how God does it," that does not mean that I buy it. We are specifically told that God created various "kinds" and further told that He created "their seed" with them. But, let's hold off and discuss that later. One question at a time seems good. Symbolism first, okay? If you are still looking for a way to say it, just say, "It's poetry." I'm okay with people having different views. The "Age of the Earth" issue isn't a salvation matter but I do think the distinctions that are made in the bible are important.

There definitely is poetry in it. Poetry, symbolism, meta-levels within the Bible, some of which we possibly do not even see. Apart form the Catholic and Orthodox Church, as mentioned before, Judaism itself is rife with symbolism and I think it is wrong to overlook it, especially when reading the Old Testament.

 

[Sparkey]

You've stated that the bible wasn't taken literally? Let's just see, shall we?

Jesus: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, - (Mat 19:4 KJV)

Note His words, "at the beginning".

and again: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." - (Mar 10:6 KJV)

God made them and Jesus didn't equivocate, nor did he explain it "symbolically".

Now we turn to Peter: 1 Peter 3:20
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


To quote another member, "Thats about as plain [and literal] as it gets."

 

[pHghost]

You've stated that the bible wasn't taken literally? Let's just see, shall we?

Quite a tantalizing opening, but I would like some examples, then, if this is your claim. If you go through the history and theology of the early Church, you will find no such literal interpretations.

Jesus: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, - (Mat 19:4 KJV)

Note His words, "at the beginning".

and again: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." - (Mar 10:6 KJV)

God made them and Jesus didn't equivocate, nor did he explain it "symbolically".

Now we turn to Peter: 1 Peter 3:20
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


To quote another member, "Thats about as plain [and literal] as it gets."

Yes, these quotes are as clear as they come, but none of them assume anything about evolution. God created them. Agreed. Male and female. Agreed, but that is something that holds true for animals as well. My trouble with these quotes you present is that in reality they comment on a whole different matter (the one of divorce), if you look at them in the context they are said; despite the fact that I agree with them, I feel they do not enlighten the matter at hand.

I believe God created man, directly, through a process he knows about best himself. I think the important separation is between body and soul, though. It is written in the Bible, as you have said, that God breathed his breath into man. I do not dispute that. Our God-given soul is not the result of evolution.

 

[Sparkey]

I should probably just bow out of the conversation because I can't seem to communicate the fact that I am not speaking about the theory of evolution at all. What started as my statement about biblical allegory remains my statement about biblical allegory.

If we were to look carefully at both what was told to us in Genesis and what Jesus interpreted it to mean, we might be able to make a case that what God did in the beginning symbolized marriage. Paul went further and explained a mystery when he spoke about what marriage itself symbolized - the union of the body of Christ (the church) and Jesus.

Clearly these doctrines (marriage and the body of Christ) are holy, that is, set apart and when we re-interpret the bible to accommodate science we need to do so from an informed doctrinally sound position. JasonCran (a moderator here) has often said that if the flood is considered to be local, the implication is undeniable - that what it fortells (the judgment by fire of the whole earth) may only be thought to be local as well. Other "types" or forshadows of current Christian practice are also rooted in biblical literacy. The flood and the parting of the Red Sea during the exodus forshadow baptism (immersion) in water. Many, many things we see forshadow Christ. The "Sign of Jonah" (Mt. 12:38-42, 16:1-4, Lk 11:29-32, cf. Mk 8:11-32) speaks be about the resurrection of the dead. The implications of this are seen where in 1Cor 15:13, Paul argues: "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised." We also see in 2Tim 2;18 the warning of some "who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some."

Although I do support these and other doctrines that were given through the Prophets, taught by Jesus and his disciples, I try not to get involved in dubious and doubtful arguments. Certain things are clear and the fact that God declared the end from the beginning is one of them. This is specifically true for the marriage feast of the Lamb of God as well as the judgment reserved by fire for the whole earth.

It is better in my sight to limit my comments and let others discuss evolution or age of earth theories because I want to be able to say, "These are not my word, but I speak the words that my Father in Heaven has given me," and remain in solid company when I say it.

 

[pHghost]

I should probably just bow out of the conversation because I can't seem to communicate the fact that I am not speaking about the theory of evolution at all. What started as my statement about biblical allegory remains my statement about biblical allegory.

Ah, OK, I kept relating it to evolution since that is what this thread is about. Perhaps a new thread discussing that specifically would be better suited.

If we were to look carefully at both what was told to us in Genesis and what Jesus interpreted it to mean, we might be able to make a case that what God did in the beginning symbolized marriage. Paul went further and explained a mystery when he spoke about what marriage itself symbolized - the union of the body of Christ (the church) and Jesus.

More than that, man created in the image of God actually symbolizes the Trinity (as does marriage).

Clearly these doctrines (marriage and the body of Christ) are holy, that is, set apart and when we re-interpret the bible to accommodate science we need to do so from an informed doctrinally sound position. JasonCran (a moderator here) has often said that if the flood is considered to be local, the implication is undeniable - that what it fortells (the judgment by fire of the whole earth) may only be thought to be local as well.

If I get what you have in mind correctly: the rest of the Bible being symbolic or not, I would be very wary of interpreting Revelation in anything even close to literal fashion.

I try not to get involved in dubious and doubtful arguments but certain things are clear and the fact that God declared the end from the beginning is one of them. This is specifically true for the marriage feast of the Lamb of God as well as the judgment reserved by fire for the whole earth.

Again, a lot of this is symbolic (not the fact that the End will come, but everything surrounding it).

 

[zeke]

Are you naturally obtuse or do you work at it?

Isn't that a personal attack? Be careful – I have been told by good authority that such attacks are not permitted in this forum.

That you continually fail to provide the requested clarifications strongly suggests that either you can't or else are afraid to do so because you understand the consequences. Please let us know which it is
.

But I have repeatedly told you what is acceptable – evidence based on a scientific method. You do understand this concept or do you need help? That clarified, let me ask you one more time - do you or do you not have even one best evidence from science to present? Your boast goes unsupported. `

Or do you mean that you simply intend to reject out of hand any argument that contradicts your pre-existing ideas by asserting that it constitutes one of these categories?'

Two words - *present science*. I have defined all that you are requesting – more than once and we all have “pre-existing ideas” - you included. Can you provide your one best evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor – just one (5th request). If you are not up to the challenge simply say you haven’t a clue and we will understand. Do you believe via faith alone?

 

[zeke]

Please enlighten me on what exactly is not acceptable for you within Darwinism and I'll try to shed some light on whether I consider that problematic or not and why.

Lol -how much time do you have? Maybe you can help our mutual friend present the evidence he cannot find to support the notion he cannot support - the Darwinian myth that man and chimp have a common ancestor. Can you help?

So far you have mainly presented quotes that claim this, as a statement, but with no explanation or proof why that would be so.

So show me where classical Darwinism accepts God. Take your time.

Why do you trust an atheist on this over a Christian?

Because the atheist is correct. Are you suggesting atheists are not trustworthy?

Of course he is going to say that, it is his agenda as an atheist.

Yes he does and his 'agenda' is being taught in our schools.

Yes, I feel that evolution doesn't go against the Bible. God comes into play at the very beginning, as the Omnipotent Creator of all things.

And then He goes on a long vacation? Can you be a little more specific? How did God create man in His image via naturalism?

As for Dawkins, the one video I saw of him led me to think he rather preaches atheism than Darwinism, actually.

Darwinism is atheism – naturalism without God.

 

[zeke]

I consider the account of creation in Genesis as symbolic, not allegorical.

And yet it remains historical narrative.

 

[lordkalvan]

Isn't that a personal attack? Be careful – I have been told by good authority that such attacks are not permitted in this forum.

Not a personal attack, but merely a comment on your studied avoidance of the questions asked.

But I have repeatedly told you what is acceptable – evidence based on a scientific method.You do understand this concept or do you need help?

I need help with understanding what you mean by this. Let me remind you, I also need clarification arising from this exchange, which you have simply ignored (yet again):

zeke: 'I have gone over this with you time and again.We are discussing biological evolution not Darwinian mythology. I am not concerned with your religious beliefs. The evidence required to support your assumptions and speculations is the kind that adheres to a scientific method. That requirement automatically excludes pseudoscience, mythology, bedtime stories and fallacious rhetoric.'

LK: 'This is just word salad. Please define your terms so we know what you mean. What do you understand by:

1. Biological evolution.
2. How does it differ from 'Darwinian mythology'?
3. How have you determined that Darwin's work amounts to 'mythology' at all?
4. What is evidence that adheres to a scientific method in your view? In other words, how are you defining evidence and what constitutes a scientific method in this instance?
5. What constitutes pseudoscience in this context and can you show how it is pseudoscience?
6. What constitutes mythology in this context and can you show how it is mythology?
7. What constitute bedtime stories in this context and can you show how they are bedtime stories?
8. What constitutes fallacious rhetoric in this context and can you show how it is fallacious rhetoric?

Or do you mean that you simply intend to reject out of hand any argument that contradicts your pre-existing ideas by asserting that it constitutes one of these categories?'

That clarified, let me ask you one more time - do you or do you not have even one best evidence from science to present? Your boast goes unsupported.

So far you have clarified nothing, despite being requested to more times than I can shake a stick at.

Two words - *present science*. I have defined all that you are requesting – more than once...

No, you haven't. If you have, please either link to the relevant posts or provide their numbers and I will eat humble pie.

...and we all have “pre-existing ideas” - you included.

Yes, but it's your pre-existing ideas about what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable evidence that you need to specify.

Can you provide your one best evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor – just one (5th request).

And may I take this opportunity to point out yet again that it ill behooves you to complain about others not responding to your demands when you have still failed to respond to the innumerable requests made of you to explain how and why homology and the nested hierarchy support common design as well as they do common ancestry. But, of course, you simply ignore your own failings to criticise those you perceive in others. Why is that?

If you are not up to the challenge simply say you haven't a clue and we will understand.

Heh-heh. Physician heal thyself.

Do you believe via faith alone?

Believe what?

 

[Free]

This thread is a hair away from being shut down. Cut the attacks, trolling and condescending posts or some will lose their Science Forum access as well.

 

[zeke]

Not a personal attack, but merely a comment on your studied avoidance of the questions asked.

It is a personal attack and I have answered your questions - you just don't like the answers presented.

I need help with understanding what you mean by this.

What part of scientific method do you not understand?

Yes, but it's your pre-existing ideas about what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable evidence that you need to specify.

What part of scientific method do you not understand?

 

[zeke]

And may I take this opportunity to point out yet again that it ill behooves you to complain about others not responding to your demands when you have still failed to respond to the innumerable requests made of you to explain how and why homology and the nested hierarchy support common design as well as they do common ancestry. But, of course, you simply ignore your own failings to criticise those you perceive in others. Why is that?

Let me re post it word for word...

But nested hierarchy (like homology) can accommodate common design as well as it can common ancestry - therefore, it is not evidence for or against either theory. Linnaeus understood nested hierarchy to be evidence for God's design in nature. Was he wrong?

It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern, and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan. Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution. Also, Darwin’s law of natural selection does not predict this pattern. He had to devise a special explanation—his principle of divergence—to fit this striking pattern into his overall theory. To be sure, evolution can accommodate this hierarchical pattern, but the pattern is not necessarily implied by evolution. (Hunter, 108.)...​

It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness It also may be, as Walter ReMine suggests, that nested hierarchy is an integral part of a message woven by the Creator into the patterns of biology. (See, e.g., ReMine, 367-368, 465-467.) The point is that the hierarchical nature of life can be accommodated by creation theory as readily as by evolution. Accordingly, “t is not evidence for or against either theory.†(Brand, 155.)

~Ashby Camp​

I ask you again - do you have the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor?

 

[zeke]

Believe what?

The notion that man and chimp have a common ancestor. Faith or science? Which is it? Give us your 'one best'...

 

[lordkalvan]

It is a personal attack and I have answered your questions - you just don't like the answers presented.

Then please link to or number the posts where this was done and I will apologise humbly.

What part of scientific method do you not understand?

The part where you fail to tell us what you understand by this term (and the parts where you have failed to clarify your terms concerning acceptable/unacceptable evidence.

What part of scientific method do you not understand?

See above, and the remainder of the post that you have simply ignored.

 

[lordkalvan]

This thread is a hair away from being shut down. Cut the attacks, trolling and condescending posts or some will lose their Science Forum access as well.

My apologies if I have overstepped the bounds. I will try to do better.

 

[zeke]

Then please link to or number the posts where this was done and I will apologise humbly.

My posts are available - you can do your own research. The questions have been answered more than once - you just do not like the answers.

The part where you fail to tell us what you understand by this term (and the parts where you have failed to clarify your terms concerning acceptable/unacceptable evidence.

One more time...

scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. ~ Merriam-Webster​

I ask you again - do you have the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? That would be 'yes I do' or 'no, I do not'. And your answer is...

 

[lordkalvan]

Let me re post it word for word...

But nested hierarchy (like homology) can accommodate common design as well as it can common ancestry - therefore, it is not evidence for or against either theory. Linnaeus understood nested hierarchy to be evidence for God's design in nature. Was he wrong?

It has been known since Aristotle that species tend to cluster in a hierarchical pattern, and in the eighteenth century Linnaeus saw it as a reflection of the Creator’s divine plan. Obviously this pattern does not force one to embrace evolution. Also, Darwin’s law of natural selection does not predict this pattern. He had to devise a special explanation—his principle of divergence—to fit this striking pattern into his overall theory. To be sure, evolution can accommodate this hierarchical pattern, but the pattern is not necessarily implied by evolution. (Hunter, 108.)...​

It may be that the nested hierarchy of living things simply is a reflection of divine orderliness It also may be, as Walter ReMine suggests, that nested hierarchy is an integral part of a message woven by the Creator into the patterns of biology. (See, e.g., ReMine, 367-368, 465-467.) The point is that the hierarchical nature of life can be accommodated by creation theory as readily as by evolution. Accordingly, “t is not evidence for or against either theory.” (Brand, 155.)

~Ashby Camp​

I ask you again - do you have the required evidence that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor?

I have to presume that the fault is mine in not stating what I am asking for clearly enough, but I would have thought it was pretty obvious that, when I ask you to show how and why homologies and the nested hierarchy support common design, I am not simply asking you to repeat the assertion and cite others also repeating it. This is just an argument from authority - and we don't even know on what basis these individuals are supposedly an authority anyway.

So when I ask you to explain how and why common design is supported by homologies and the nested hierarchy, you should reply 'Because <insert reasoned explanation here>' not '<repeat assertion and add doubtful authorities also repeating it>'.

By the way, who are Hunter, ReMine and Brand anyway, and why should I value their unsupported opinion any more than I value yours?

 

[lordkalvan]

The notion that man and chimp have a common ancestor. Faith or science? Which is it? Give us your 'one best'...

That would be evidence-based inferences.