[_ Old Earth _] Evolution and Christianity

[Barbarian]

I think it's possible for both to be true, but evolution doesn't explain the origin of life.

It's not supposed to. The origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Even Darwin merely suggested that God created the first organisms. At the time, scientists didn't see how it could have happened otherwise.

Evolution as the explanation of the origin of life and the christian faith can't both be true though.

Evolution is consistent with many different possible origins of life, including "God just poofed them out of nothing." But God is not silent on this. He says the earth brought forth living things, which is what scientists have begun to suspect, also. Genesis is consistent with both evolution and many forms of creationism. It is only inconsistent with YE creationism.

 

[Barbarian]

Regarding the "evolution is false because some electrical engineers don't like it" idea, there's a way to check how reliable those lists are as an index of scientific opinion.

Project Steve has a list of people with doctorates in biology, whose first name is "Steve" or some variant of it, who accept modern evolutionary theory. Presently, there's about um... 1200 if them on the list.

Go through your list, and find the steves with doctorates in biology or a related field.

Last time I compared lists like this, we found that about three of them per thousand doubted evolutionary theory. Which is about what you'd expect, given the evidence.

 

[lordkalvan]

...Wherever the Bible refers to earthquakes. More to the point here are a number of verses where plate tectonics can be seen as being alludded to:

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

There is a Hebrew word for "broken up." That word is baga and it is used in other Old Testament passages to refer to the geologic phenomena of faulting. To wit:

Zec 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Num 16:31 ¶ And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground clave asunder that [was] under them:...

If you understand that any biblical reference - vague or otherwise - to actual or imagined shaking or movement of the ground can be co-opted as evidence that the writers of the bible understood and described the geology underlying plate tectonics, you have a fairly arbitrary definition of what constitutes 'evidence'. You are aware that large parts of the Middle East are seismically active?

Elsewhere you declared that relatedness could not be regarded as 'proof' of evolution, but it could, however, be regarded as 'evidence' of common design. Again this shows a rather arbitrary and self-serving choice of terms. If relatedness is evidence (but not proof) of common design, it is quite clearly also evidence (although perhaps not proof - science is mostly concerned with the weight of evidence that supports or falsifies a hypothesis) of evolution.

 

[lordkalvan]

Regarding the "evolution is false because some electrical engineers don't like it" idea, there's a way to check how reliable those lists are as an index of scientific opinion.

Project Steve has a list of people with doctorates in biology, whose first name is "Steve" or some variant of it, who accept modern evolutionary theory. Presently, there's about um... 1200 if them on the list.

Go through your list, and find the steves with doctorates in biology or a related field.

Last time I compared lists like this, we found that about three of them per thousand doubted evolutionary theory. Which is about what you'd expect, given the evidence.

And let's not forget The Clergy Letter Project (12,093 signatures as of 26 October 2009):

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm

What's in a statistic?

 

[RND]

If you understand that any biblical reference - vague or otherwise - to actual or imagined shaking or movement of the ground can be co-opted as evidence that the writers of the bible understood and described the geology underlying plate tectonics, you have a fairly arbitrary definition of what constitutes 'evidence'.

How so? How is a specific description in Bible prophecy tantamount to an arbitrary thought?

You are aware that large parts of the Middle East are seismically active?

I'm aware that the whole earth is seismically active. What does that have to do with this specific discussion.

Job 9:5 Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his anger. Job 9:6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

Elsewhere you declared that relatedness could not be regarded as 'proof' of evolution, but it could, however, be regarded as 'evidence' of common design.

That's right.

Again this shows a rather arbitrary and self-serving choice of terms.

Again, how do you figure?

If relatedness is evidence (but not proof) of common design, it is quite clearly also evidence (although perhaps not proof - science is mostly concerned with the weight of evidence that supports or falsifies a hypothesis) of evolution.

And? Frankly, this statement seems more to agree with my statement as opposed to offering anything substantial against my point.

An 1860's horse-drawn wagon and a 2010 Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren Roadster obviously are related in a very small way because they share a 'common design.' They both have wheels, seats, they are convertable tops and they have "horse power! The fact that they share some attributes is not evidence that the same person designed them both. Would you concur? Life however is considerably different.

A man and a zebra seem to share little in common at first glance and yet in examining both it is easy to see that both have more in common than the wagon and Mercedes Benz do! Thus it is easy to see that the man/zebra have a greater chance of sharing a common designer than the wagon/Mercedes do! Would you concur?

 

[lordkalvan]

How so? How is a specific description in Bible prophecy tantamount to an arbitrary thought?

References to earthquakes - which can be experienced and described by anyone without understanding their causes - cannot be considered as demonstrating a knowledge of plate tectonics.

I'm aware that the whole earth is seismically active.

The whole Earth is not seismically active in the sense that it does not suffer everywhere from significant earthquakes.

What does that have to do with this specific discussion.

The Bible was written by authors living in the Middle East; significant parts of the Middle East are seismically active. I would expect individuals who experienced earthquakes to be capable of describing them more or less dramatically. Geysers feature in Icelandic sagas because the individuals who wrote the sagas experienced them; this does not mean that they understood the geology underlying them, nor that any reference in an Icelandic saga to a geyser can be considered tantamount to the writer having such an understanding.

[quote:2189gegn]Elsewhere you declared that relatedness could not be regarded as 'proof' of evolution, but it could, however, be regarded as 'evidence' of common design.

That's right.

Again this shows a rather arbitrary and self-serving choice of terms.

Again, how do you figure?

If relatedness is evidence (but not proof) of common design, it is quite clearly also evidence (although perhaps not proof - science is mostly concerned with the weight of evidence that supports or falsifies a hypothesis) of evolution.

And? Frankly, this statement seems more to agree with my statement as opposed to offering anything substantial against my point. [/quote:2189gegn]
And relatedness is at least as much evidence of evolution as it is of common design; it is proof of neither. You denied the proof, but admitted the evidence. Your argument is not consistent.

An 1860's horse-drawn wagon and a 2010 Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren Roadster obviously are related in a very small way because they share a 'common design.' They both have wheels, seats, they are convertable tops and they have "horse power! The fact that they share some attributes is not evidence that the same person designed them both. Would you concur?

Indeed.

Life however is considerably different.

Indeed, again. Manufactured vehicles cannot reproduce themselves with inherited variation.

A man and a zebra seem to share little in common at first glance and yet in examining both it is easy to see that both have more in common than the wagon and Mercedes Benz do!

Depends on your reference points, but generally speaking, yes.

Thus it is easy to see that the man/zebra have a greater chance of sharing a common designer than the wagon/Mercedes do! Would you concur?

And, equally, they share a much greater chance of being related by evolutionary development - i.e. by descent with modification from a shared ancestral species - than do a wagon and Mercedes. My point was that shared traits amongst species cannot be dismissed as not providing evidence of evolution, but advocated as evidence of common design. The c common features can be advanced in support of both ideas; to discover which is more plausible, a more profound argument has to be developed.

 

[RND]

References to earthquakes - which can be experienced and described by anyone without understanding their causes - cannot be considered as demonstrating a knowledge of plate tectonics.

Those quotes do much more than that.

The whole Earth is not seismically active in the sense that it does not suffer everywhere from significant earthquakes.

There are hundreds of thousands of earthquakes that occur daily that are not felt. You equate "feeling" and earthquake to proof of plate tectonics - which isn't true.

The Bible was written by authors living in the Middle East; significant parts of the Middle East are seismically active. I would expect individuals who experienced earthquakes to be capable of describing them more or less dramatically. Geysers feature in Icelandic sagas because the individuals who wrote the sagas experienced them; this does not mean that they understood the geology underlying them, nor that any reference in an Icelandic saga to a geyser can be considered tantamount to the writer having such an understanding.

You make an interesting point that has nothing to do with our conversation.

Indeed.

Exactly! You are now on your way to understanding God.

Indeed, again. Manufactured vehicles cannot reproduce themselves with inherited variation.

And? The point made is that because they have similarities does not equate to having a common designer. Life, animal life, does.

Depends on your reference points, but generally speaking, yes.

There are literally hundreds of points that man shares with zebras.

And, equally, they share a much greater chance of being related by evolutionary development - i.e. by descent with modification from a shared ancestral species - than do a wagon and Mercedes.

That would be the equivalent of saying that the wagon and Mercedes Benz made themselves.

My point was that shared traits amongst species cannot be dismissed as not providing evidence of evolution, but advocated as evidence of common design.

Then you would be advocating that things just "happened." It takes more faith in that than it takes to believe in things being created by a common designer!

The c common features can be advanced in support of both ideas;

One sides believes things "just happened." The other believes things had a common designer. Your position is filled with more fantasy than mine!

to discover which is more plausible, a more profound argument has to be developed.

Which is why we have faith and the word of God.

 

[lordkalvan]

Those quotes do much more than that.

They certainly do not describe the geology of plate tectonics. They describe earthquakes in dramatic ways.

There are hundreds of thousands of earthquakes that occur daily that are not felt. You equate "feeling" and earthquake to proof of plate tectonics - which isn't true.

No, I equate biblical descriptions of earth movements to earthquakes that could and would have been experienced in the Middle East. I have not suggested that describing earthquakes is evidence that the writers of the descriptions were referring to the geology of plate tectonics; this is your argument, as far as I understand.

You make an interesting point that has nothing to do with our conversation.

I think it has everything to do with our conversation. If you think it doesn't, you need to tell me how it doesn't.

Exactly! You are now on your way to understanding God.

I must have missed that bus.

And? The point made is that because they have similarities does not equate to having a common designer. Life, animal life, does.

Assertion is not evidence. Shared traits are at least as persuasive evidence of descent from a shared ancestor as they are of 'manufacture' by a 'designer'.

There are literally hundreds of points that man shares with zebras.

So?

That would be the equivalent of saying that the wagon and Mercedes Benz made themselves.

No, it wouldn't. The vehicle analogy is yours, not mine. I have nowhere suggested that vehicles replicate themselves. I have said that replication with variation is evidence of evolution, something that the vehicle analogy does not model at all.

Then you would be advocating that things just "happened."

No, I would be advocating that shared traits amongst species cannot be dismissed as not providing evidence of evolution, but advocated as evidence of common design.

It takes more faith in that than it takes to believe in things being created by a common designer!

No, it just requires a reasoned evaluation of the evidence. Shared traits are only one aspect of the evidential framework that supports evolutionary theory.

One sides believes things "just happened."

One side believes that the evidence supports the theory of evolution, i.e. of descent with modification.

The other believes things had a common designer.

A belief which has precious little evidential support.

Your position is filled with more fantasy than mine!

I don't think so.

Which is why we have faith and the word of God.

Which scarcely constitute an evidence-based explanation of anything.

 

[RND]

They certainly do not describe the geology of plate tectonics. They describe earthquakes in dramatic ways.

They allude to, thousands of years before science ever contemplated it, the movement of the earth. That is a direct alluding to "plate tectonics." The fact of the matter is that the theorist behind an elongated period of time of plate tectonics have as little evidence and proof to support their view as the Bible alludes to or theorist's that view a large scale continental break-up and plate tectonic activity on a monumental scale.

No, I equate biblical descriptions of earth movements to earthquakes that could and would have been experienced in the Middle East. I have not suggested that describing earthquakes is evidence that the writers of the descriptions were referring to the geology of plate tectonics; this is your argument, as far as I understand.

You suggested that because of the feeling of earthquakes prompted the writers of the Bible to write about earthquakes. The suggestion is that had they not felt them they wouldn't have written about them. Such an idea holds no water.

I think it has everything to do with our conversation. If you think it doesn't, you need to tell me how it doesn't.

See above.

I must have missed that bus.

Evidently.

Assertion is not evidence. Shared traits are at least as persuasive evidence of descent from a shared ancestor as they are of 'manufacture' by a 'designer'.

And again, that leaves to you to believe things "just happened" as opposed to things being created.

[quote:1clb99tw]There are literally hundreds of points that man shares with zebras.

So?[/quote:1clb99tw] Again, it shows the evidence of a common designer.

No, it wouldn't. The vehicle analogy is yours, not mine. I have nowhere suggested that vehicles replicate themselves. I have said that replication with variation is evidence of evolution, something that the vehicle analogy does not model at all.

The point being is that the "evolution" of the vehicle involves many designers working with the same basic principles. Animal life is considerably more complex than the basic workings of either a wagon or a Mercedes Benz. Your belief that complex life "just happened" when even simple things require a common design and designer is fanciful at best.

No, I would be advocating that shared traits amongst species cannot be dismissed as not providing evidence of evolution, but advocated as evidence of common design.

'Common design' by a common designer.

No, it just requires a reasoned evaluation of the evidence. Shared traits are only one aspect of the evidential framework that supports evolutionary theory.

So again, you believe things "just happened."

One side believes that the evidence supports the theory of evolution, i.e. of descent with modification.

Just happened.

A belief which has precious little evidential support.

The 'evidence' that you believe exists to support your view is a view that suggests things 'just happened.'

I don't think so.

Of course not! You have an agenda.

Which scarcely constitute an evidence-based explanation of anything.

Oh, you mean like life from the primordial ooze! "Just happened."

 

[Barbarian]

And? The point made is that because they have similarities does not equate to having a common designer. Life, animal life, does.

It would be consistent with a common creator, but not a designer. No designer would try to make a set of gills into a wing or a quadruped into a biped. As designers do when they need an entirely new system, the "designer" would scrap the old and begin anew.

But creation doesn't do that. God uses nature to advance His creation, and nature is required to make do with modifying what went on before. This is what gives us evidence of the way His creation works. All the evidence shows common descent of all living things. No evidence of design anywhere.

Which if you are a Christian, should be cause for happiness. The man who invented ID says the designer might be a "space alien." Good enough for a designer, but not good enough for a Creator. Your error seems to be in thinking that God is not powerful enough to make it all happen through the agency of nature.

And, of course, your error in supposing evolution is about the origin of life. You might want to spend a little time learning what it's really about, if you want to be effective in refuting it.

 

[lordkalvan]

They certainly do not describe the geology of plate tectonics. They describe earthquakes in dramatic ways.

They allude to, thousands of years before science ever contemplated it, the movement of the earth.

Yes, they describe earthquakes. They do not 'allude to' plate tectonics any more than the Icelandic sagas 'allude to' plate tectonics: a description of an observed effect of a phenomenon is not the same as a description of the cause of that phenomenon or even a subtle reference to an understanding of the existence of that phenomenon. Perhaps you would also argue that biblical references to the Sun, Moon and stars ‘allude to’ the modern cosmological understanding of stellar formation, main sequence stars, nebulae, comet-formation and so forth?

That is a direct alluding to "plate tectonics."

That you choose to interpret it so does not make it so.

The fact of the matter is that the theorist behind an elongated period of time of plate tectonics have as little evidence and proof to support their view as the Bible alludes to or theorist's that view a large scale continental break-up and plate tectonic activity on a monumental scale.

I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Plate tectonics is an observed, measured phenomenon.

You suggested that because of the feeling of earthquakes prompted the writers of the Bible to write about earthquakes.

That would be the experience of suffering the effects of an earthquake.

The suggestion is that had they not felt them they wouldn't have written about them. Such an idea holds no water.

You need to explain why the ‘idea holds no water’. Glaciers are not mentioned in the Bible; I would suspect this might be because the writers of the Bible had never seen them.

[quote:1uqhjegy]I think it has everything to do with our conversation. If you think it doesn't, you need to tell me how it doesn't.

See above.[/quote:1uqhjegy]
I fail to understand how what you have previously written in any way invalidates the suggestion that references in the Icelandic Sagas to geysers and their effects no more equates to an allusion to plate tectonics than do references to earthquakes in the Bible.

And again, that leaves to you to believe things "just happened" as opposed to things being created.

Regardless of your personal incredulity and apparent misunderstanding of evolutionary theory – ‘things’ did not “just happen†- you have not shown how shared traits are no less evidence of evolution and descent from a common ancestor than they are of what you call common design.

Again, it shows the evidence of a common designer.

It also provide evidences of evolution. You have not shown that it does not.

The point being is that the "evolution" of the vehicle involves many designers working with the same basic principles. Animal life is considerably more complex than the basic workings of either a wagon or a Mercedes Benz. Your belief that complex life "just happened" when even simple things require a common design and designer is fanciful at best.

I do not believe that ‘complex life “just happenedâ€â€™ and evolutionary theory as such says nothing about abiogenesis. Do snowflakes require a common design and designer? Each is quite complex and virtually unique. I do not imagine that you are suggesting that a designer individually designs each snowflake. Amino acids can form by chemical reactions unrelated to life and yet amino acids are the building blocks of life. Are you suggesting that amino acids can only form by the intervention of a designer?

'Common design' by a common designer.

How is it that shared traits provide evidence of a ‘common designer’, but fail to provide evidence of evolution? I do not understand what standards of interpretation you are applying and why you apply them.

So again, you believe things "just happened."

What I believe about the origins of life is not relevant to why you believe shared traits provide evidence of a common designer, but fail to provide evidence of evolution.

Just happened.

This reiteration of an unsupported assertion does not explain why you believe that shared traits provide evidence of a common designer, but do not provide evidence of evolution.

The 'evidence' that you believe exists to support your view is a view that suggests things 'just happened.'

The evidence exists; at least some of it is the same evidence that you claim supports the idea of a common designer. So it is not a question of the existence of evidence, but how that evidence is interpreted and what additional evidence supports one interpretation over another.

Of course not! You have an agenda.

Well, I would be pleased to discuss your arguments for supposing that your understanding contains more of substance and less of imaginative fancies than mine.

Oh, you mean like life from the primordial ooze! "Just happened."

This repetitive and ill-informed jibe does nothing to explain why you believe that shared traits provide evidence of a common designer, but fail to provide evidence of evolution.

 

[Crying Rock]

Regarding the "evolution is false because some electrical engineers don't like it" idea, there's a way to check how reliable those lists are as an index of scientific opinion.

Project Steve has a list of people with doctorates in biology, whose first name is "Steve" or some variant of it, who accept modern evolutionary theory. Presently, there's about um... 1200 if them on the list.

Go through your list, and find the steves with doctorates in biology or a related field.

Last time I compared lists like this, we found that about three of them per thousand doubted evolutionary theory. Which is about what you'd expect, given the evidence.

LOL! Cherry pickin'?

 

[Crying Rock]

but fail to provide evidence of evolution.

That's your responsibility.

 

[lordkalvan]

but fail to provide evidence of evolution.

That's your responsibility.

Nested hierarchy of species.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Regarding the "evolution is false because some electrical engineers don't like it" idea, there's a way to check how reliable those lists are as an index of scientific opinion.

Project Steve has a list of people with doctorates in biology, whose first name is "Steve" or some variant of it, who accept modern evolutionary theory. Presently, there's about um... 1200 if them on the list.

Go through your list, and find the steves with doctorates in biology or a related field.

Last time I compared lists like this, we found that about three of them per thousand doubted evolutionary theory. Which is about what you'd expect, given the evidence.

LOL! Cherry pickin'?

It's a pretty good sample. About 1% of Americans are named "Steve." So how many Steves do you have?

If they had chosen "John", the results would be the same. "Cherry picking" is finding as many creationists you can present as scientists as possible, and pretending they constitute a good sample.

 

[Crying Rock]

but fail to provide evidence of evolution.

That's your responsibility.

Nested hierarchy of species.

Explain the hypothesis.

 

[Crying Rock]

Lol! So your argument is that a lot of guys named Steve accept macro-evolution, therefore macro-evolution is true.

http://www.namenda.com/sections/20/prov ... 00CBA8495B

 

[lordkalvan]

Nested hierarchy of species.

Explain the hypothesis.

This is as good an explanation as any I could provide:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... _hierarchy

 

[RND]

Whether one is talking creationism or evolution both belief systems require one thing and that one thing is something both belief systems have in common.....faith.

Faith is simply belief.

The evolutionist has to have faith that something, in this case life, both animal and plant life, came from essentially nothing. That life just happened. The creationist on the other hand has to have faith that something was created, the handiwork of a creator. Things made by Him for the benefit of all, whether He is believed in or not.

Oh the simple mind of men, to believe that the meal they enjoy is there by the simple benevolence of others or by happenstance! How wonderful is our God that feeds, clothes and shelters the very minds that are used to deny Him?! Who among us can say that what they eat, what they wear, and what they live in is a result of their own best efforts?

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, by Ellen G. White

 

[lordkalvan]

Whether one is talking creationism or evolution both belief systems require one thing and that one thing is something both belief systems have in common.....faith.

Faith is simply belief.

The evolutionist has to have faith that something, in this case life, both animal and plant life, came from essentially nothing.....

You are setting up something of a strawman. The theory of evolution as such says nothing about beginnings. There is ample evidence that supports evolution; the arguments around evolutionary theory tend to focus more on mechanisms rather than whether or not the theory is soundly based. Many Christians believe in the creative force of God, but see evolution as an expression of that creative force.