[__ Science __ ] Some Thoughts On The Religion Of Evolution.

[Barbarian]

lol you are amusing. I agree that the origin of life is not a damnable subject as ive said this multiple times. But it is amusing that you say creationists are no less christian as if that was ever a worry

Some have thought so. Primarily, because they don't accept everything God says. But also because they do great damage to faith.

 

[Barbarian]

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUNG EARTH. I keep telling you this and you keep ignoring it just so you can tell me that I'm wrong when ive already said that I dont believe in that.

It's good that you don't accept that. But then, a literal reading of Genesis as history requires a world a few thousand years old. How do you resolve that contradiction?

 

[Moseme]

Nope. YE creation is a man-made doctrine, no older than the last century. That's why most of the world's Christians belong to denominations that accept that evolution is consistent with God's word.

You've confused macroevolution and microevolution. Here's the scientific definitions:

Macroevolution Definition​

Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above.

Macroevolution - Definition, Examples and Quiz | Biology Dictionary

Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above. Macroevolution can be used to describe the differences between two closely related but distinct species, such as the Asian Elephant and the African Elephant, which cannot mate due to the...

biologydictionary.net

As you have seen, he doesn't know what "evolution" means in science. It's not surprising; chemists don't learn that stuff. And because he doesn't think God is powerful enough to create a world that will produce life as He intended, he won't accept God's word that the earth brought forth living things. We all see that. And remember, evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

Darwin, for example, just assumed that God created the first living things:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On The Origin of Species, 1872


That's your revision of God's word. He never said that. Will you insert that into His word to make it fit your new doctrine?

also I am not revising God's word. He says many times "after their kind".

And humanity has been progressing without God ever since Adam rebelled. You know that just because a person says they believe in God does not mean that they have a relationship with God. The early americans said that they believed in God but also enslaved other humans and massacred them.

Lastly Paul simply did not believe in evolution. He looked at the evidence and decided that creationism was how life originated. You can't say that he didnt have enough information because he had at least just as much as Darwin. You cant say that he wasnt smart enough to have made an informed decision because he was one of the most learned men from a very intelligent nation. You obviously can't say that he didn't talk with God. Face it science doesn't support macro-evolution but you can argue if you want. But the bible definitely doesnt support macro-evolution and that you cannot argue about.

 

[Moseme]

It's good that you don't accept that. But then, a literal reading of Genesis as history requires a world a few thousand years old. How do you resolve that contradiction?

it requires that humanity is only a few thousand years old. But I believe in a gap theory and a world that existed before this world that was basically completely destroyed and rebuilt. This rebuilding is what we see in the 6 days of creation or recreation as I believe.

 

[Barbarian]

it requires that humanity is only a few thousand years old. But I believe in a gap theory and a world that existed before this world that was basically completely destroyed and rebuilt. This rebuilding is what we see in the 6 days of creation or recreation as I believe.

Comes down to evidence. And that's why the gap doctrine doesn't work.

 

[Barbarian]

also I am not revising God's word. He says many times "after their kind".

It only says He created them according to their kind, not that they reproduce according to their kind. That's a modern revision man put into scripture.

And humanity has been progressing without God ever since Adam rebelled.

The many, many Christian saints and martyrs since then, would probably disagree with you. So would I.

Lastly Paul simply did not believe in evolution.

Didn't believe in viruses or electrons either. For the same reason.

He looked at the evidence and decided that creationism was how life originated.

Nope. He made no comments at all about the mechanisms by which God creates species.

You can't say that he didnt have enough information because he had at least just as much as Darwin.

You're wrong about that. Darwin had the work of many scientists over many centuries that Paul did not.

You cant say that he wasnt smart enough to have made an informed decision

It's not a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of information.

Face it science doesn't support macro-evolution

Comes down to evidence. Even many creationists admit that the evidence supports macroevolution. Would you like me to show you, again?

But the bible definitely doesnt support macro-evolution.

Doesn't support plate tectonics, solid state electronics, evolution, or other natural phenomena. Perhaps that's not what God wanted you to know. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. Don't look for other messages therein. As Galileo noted, it tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

 

[GodsGrace]

Some IDers have a non-Darwinian idea of that, which is still consistent with a teleological view of creation, while being consistent with scientific discoveries. Michael Denton, a fellow of the Discovery Institute, writes in his forward to Nature's Destiny:

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

Denton is onto something here. There's nothing in this that is contrary to Darwinism. It is, at the bottom, a religious belief, which is very close to mine, except that Denton is unwilling to attribute it all the the God Who spoke to Abraham.

Of course God made the law of nature...the laws that are inherent in the universe.
I've always said that I'm not sure the first persons were Adam and Eve, although I do believe there were created first people.
But I believe God created them....or he improved a version previously created.
I find it difficult to believe that anything but an ID was able to spark life or CAUSE the BB.
If natural process could create life....it would still be a design by God, as you say.
I just have a difficult time believing a life form evolved by natural law.
I believe an IDer had to create it. Just like Genesis 1 states.

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering
I am afraid that you would be wasting your time with a conversation on this thread. My friend barbarian believes that Dr tour does not know anything because dr tour disagrees with his belief of macro-evolution. He says it is because understanding the basic building blocks needed to create and sustain life still does not qualify dr tour to be able to make any statements about evolution. However, if dr tour had happened to agree with the belief of macro-evolution then you best believe that barabarian would have found him more than qualified.

You see micro-evolution has been observed and verified. However, macro-evolution has not been observed or verified and as a theory it is ludicrous because it cannot even be tested. Macro-evolution cannot be replicated in an experiment and so even though there is no evidence for it what so ever, evolutionists persist in calling it true. To put it simply macro-evolution has just as much credibility as believing in the greek god Zeus because neither of them can ever be tested with science and they have the same amount of evidence supporting it.

Barbarian is confused about the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. He credits all of the observations that we have made about micro-evolution to macro-evolution and basically makes micro-evolution meaningless.

But do be careful he is a crafty man. He will switch up definitions on you and try many ways to make you think science supports his beliefs when in reality it doesn't. Let me show you an example. He brought up where the bible says the land brought forth life (plants) genesis 1:11 to make it seem as if life came from something unliving. But he doesnt mention that in a few verses down it also says that the waters also brought forth life in the form of sea creatures and birds genesis 1:20. Now why did he not include that part when it appears to also strengthen his case? Because the very next verse genesis 1:21 explains what it really means when it says God created all of the sea life and birds. So he is only giving you half the scripture to try and make it look like it's saying something that it not actually saying.

Bottom line I can sit here and tell you all of these other ways that my friend is wrong. But as he also said this topic is not essential to salvation amd I agree with him on that. You will learn nothing positive in this thread because it is just 2 senseless people wasting time arguing about a vain subject just because we like to argue.

I would also like to comment about when he said that according to some list somewhere only 0.3 percent of biologists disagree with evolution. Read this.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Matthew 7: 13, 14

The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact.
- Malcolm Muggeridge

Moseme....
Not to worry.
I've known Barbarian quite a few years now.
I've learned from him and enjoy having conversation with him.
He talks science in a way I can understand.
BTW,,,no conversation is a waste of time...I just wish I had more of it at this time in my life.

And, yes, I agree with your last sentence --- provided to us by M. Muggeridge

 

[Barbarian]

What Is the Gap Theory? (The Ruin and Reconstruction Theory?)

One of the most popular ways of understanding the creation account in Genesis is known as the Gap Theory or the ruin and reconstruction theory. Although there

www.blueletterbible.org

I just have a difficult time believing a life form evolved by natural law.

God is quite capable of making a world that would do it as He intended.

 

[Barbarian]

I've always said that I'm not sure the first persons were Adam and Eve, although I do believe there were created first people.

I had a professor once tell me that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans, but it was two other people who had the same names.

 

[GodsGrace]

What Is the Gap Theory? (The Ruin and Reconstruction Theory?)

One of the most popular ways of understanding the creation account in Genesis is known as the Gap Theory or the ruin and reconstruction theory. Although there

www.blueletterbible.org

God is quite capable of making a world that would do it as He intended.

This I can certainly agree with.

 

[GodsGrace]

What Is the Gap Theory? (The Ruin and Reconstruction Theory?)

One of the most popular ways of understanding the creation account in Genesis is known as the Gap Theory or the ruin and reconstruction theory. Although there

www.blueletterbible.org

God is quite capable of making a world that would do it as He intended.

I've read about the gap theory.
It just won't sink in.
But I'll give it another go.
The Cambrian explosion also interests me.
All of a sudden so many life forms appear.
Would this fit into the gap theory??

 

[Barbarian]

The Cambrian explosion also interests me.
All of a sudden so many life forms appear.
Would this fit into the gap theory??

The "explosion" within a few million years, seems to have coincided with the appearance of fully-enclosed exoskeletons. There were partial skeletons in the Precambrian, but the development of complete exoskeletons suddenly opened a huge number of niches, and there was a great radiation of organisms at that time. Most of the phyla we have today evolved in that time with few evolving before, and only a very few evolving after.

The fact that complex animals existed long before the Cambrian would seem to be a problem for the Gap theory. The Ediacaran fauna (we know they are animals, since traces of cholesterol have been found in those fossils) included jellyfish-like, worm-like, and trilobite-like types.

Spriggina

Spriggina floundersi is the oldest fossil organism to be described with a "head". The fossil was originally described as a polychaete worm (commonly referred to as bristle worms), where subjective...

www.ediacaran.org

 

[GodsGrace]

The "explosion" within a few million years, seems to have coincided with the appearance of fully-enclosed exoskeletons. There were partial skeletons in the Precambrian, but the development of complete exoskeletons suddenly opened a huge number of niches, and there was a great radiation of organisms at that time. Most of the phyla we have today evolved in that time with few evolving before, and only a very few evolving after.

The fact that complex animals existed long before the Cambrian would seem to be a problem for the Gap theory. The Ediacaran fauna (we know they are animals, since traces of cholesterol have been found in those fossils) included jellyfish-like, worm-like, and trilobite-like types.

Spriggina

Spriggina floundersi is the oldest fossil organism to be described with a "head". The fossil was originally described as a polychaete worm (commonly referred to as bristle worms), where subjective...

www.ediacaran.org

Thanks Barb.

 

[Barbarian]

You might be interested in the thoughts of Dr. Gerald Aardsma, whose "virtual history" concept allows for a creation about 7,000 years ago without denying any of the evidence.

Yes, I believe there was an "ice-age". Actually, there were several ice-ages. They were all in virtual history. The last one ended about 10,000 years ago. So it doesn't enter into real history, since Creation happened just over 7,000 years ago. Since my work is designed to defend the historical truth of the Bible against charges that what it reports as history is in fact fiction, I have not had much cause to talk about the ice-ages so far. (In my understanding of virtual history and the past, one can just accept what the scientists specializing in these fields are telling everyone is their best understanding/reconstruction of these past events. These reconstructions do not attack the historical integrity of the Bible in any way once one understands the concept of virtual history.)

Actually, I think there is enormous evidence of biological evolution (meaning extensive changes to flaura and fauna)---again, in virtual history. Note that the Bible does not say that biological evolution CAN NOT happen; it says that biological evolution DID NOT happen. That is, the Bible clearly teaches that we got here by CREATION, not by EVOLUTION. "In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth", not "In the beginning God EVOLVED the heavens and the earth." But none of this excludes the possibility of biological evolution in virtual history. In fact, the teaching in Romans 8:20, that the creation was subjected to futility at the time of the Fall, meshes rather well with evolution being the thing seen in the virtual history data, for the hallmark of evolution is not purpose, but random chance and meaninglessness.

The Grand Canyon should also be understood just as the standard scientists describe its formation. It too is a virtual history phenomenon.

Virtual history is not a hard idea. Just think about what it means to actually CREATE something. Creating a story is a helpful analogy. Take "The Hobbit" as an example of a created entity. Now step into the book with Bilbo on page one and begin to examine the world around you. Everything you see and examine around you has already, on page one, an extensive built-in virtual history. Bilbo is in his 50's as I recall. So he has a virtual history. His house has been dug back into the hill, implying someone did some digging. If you examine the tunnels you can no doubt find tool marks left by the workmen. His front door is made of wood, implying trees grown, sawn into planks, planed, and fastened together by craftsmen, all before the story begins. And on and on it goes...Bilbo's clothing with all those stitches, and the soil in his yard and garden with humus from long-dead leaves, ...

We are living in a CREATION. The creation we are living in is a story of God's making. It opens on page one 5176+/-26 B.C. (by my best reckoning so far). The story moves from Creation to Fall to Flood to Exodus to Birth of Christ to Crucifixion to Redemption to ultimate Restoration of all things. This story is our reality, but it is not ultimate reality. (God is ultimate reality---He transcends the story just as any author transcends their created story.) And like any story, it has, necessarily, a virtual history built in from page one onward.

The big take-home point is that evidence of virtual history---of even millions or billions of years of this or that process operating in the past---does not and cannot falsify the fact of creation in a created entity. So we can let the virtual history data about the Grand Canyon or the ice ages or whatever else speak for itself and say whatever it seems to say. We do not have to resort to foolishness (e.g., denying the validity of tree-ring calibrated radiocarbon dates) to try to wipe out every trace of any natural process prior to the biblical date of Creation. We understand virtual history to be part and parcel of any created thing, so evidences of such processes do not threaten our faith or falsify the Bible's claim that we got here by supernatural creation just over 7000 years ago.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/correspondence/virtual_history.php

 

[Moseme]

Comes down to evidence. And that's why the gap doctrine doesn't work.

Gap theory. Anyone who teaches a theory as doctrine is making a huge mistake even if it turns out that their theory was correct.

 

[Moseme]

It only says He created them according to their kind, not that they reproduce according to their kind. That's a modern revision man put into scripture.

The many, many Christian saints and martyrs since then, would probably disagree with you. So would I.

Didn't believe in viruses or electrons either. For the same reason.

Nope. He made no comments at all about the mechanisms by which God creates species.

You're wrong about that. Darwin had the work of many scientists over many centuries that Paul did not.

It's not a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of information.

Comes down to evidence. Even many creationists admit that the evidence supports macroevolution. Would you like me to show you, again?



Doesn't support plate tectonics, solid state electronics, evolution, or other natural phenomena. Perhaps that's not what God wanted you to know. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. Don't look for other messages therein. As Galileo noted, it tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

What do you think after mean? Do you think it means currently or that which comes next? How can you call it a revision when creation is what Paul believed. And you cannot honestly look at what Paul said about creation and not think that he was in favor of creationism. And you cannot keep trying to use him not believing in electrons as justification for him not believing in evolution. Firstly because we dont know what he believed regarding them and secondly the comparison breaks down because Paul never endorsed a theory contradictory to electrons. But in the case of evolution Paul did endorse a contradictory theory that of creation and not just any creation but a creation that was not based on chaos as evolution is.

But tell me what scientific break throughs in the field of biology occurred between Paul's time and Darwin's. What is this work that gave Darwin an edge over Paul?

Again I do not care what your young earth creation friends think. Argument from authority is faulty logic. Again I do not care what your young earth creation friends think. Argument from authority is faulty logic. I repeated it because you havent seemed to grasp that every other time I said it.

Lastly of course the bible doesnt support evolution but there are references that could be taken to mean plate tectonics if we were to assume that God knew what they were. For instance psalm 18:7 talks about not just the earth shaking but the foundations of the hills moving. Sounds like plate tectonics to me.

 

[Moseme]

Moseme....
Not to worry.
I've known Barbarian quite a few years now.
I've learned from him and enjoy having conversation with him.
He talks science in a way I can understand.
BTW,,,no conversation is a waste of time...I just wish I had more of it at this time in my life.

And, yes, I agree with your last sentence --- provided to us by M. Muggeridge

You are aware that his science is flawed by the opinions of people who do not believe in God right? I mean that is why I included that quote. It was to show that most of mainstream scientists refuse to accept what they dont agree with despite the overwhelming evidence. You said that you liked and agreed with dr tour. But you can't agree with dr tour if you agree with barbarian on the subject of evolution because they both have opposing theories.

 

[Moseme]

I've read about the gap theory.
It just won't sink in.
But I'll give it another go.
The Cambrian explosion also interests me.
All of a sudden so many life forms appear.
Would this fit into the gap theory??

The gap theory is simple
1. God created the world just as he wanted it.
2. Satan rebelled.
3. God judged the earth for its rebellion flooding it.
4. God recreated the world.

The 36 objections posed within that link are redundant and easily refuted. Though none of it really matters. You could believe that the earth is young, or that there is a gap, or that macro-evolution occurs. None of these theories bar you from having a relationship with God. Though this is a thread arguing about evolution so even though I'm cool with christians also believing in evolution, I'm going to argue about it. Lol

 

[Barbarian]

What do you think after mean?

Just what it says. He created them after their kind. The issue is that you don't approve of the way He does it.

How can you call it a revision when creation is what Paul believed.

No, it's what some modern men believe. Paul never said anything like that.

And you cannot keep trying to use him not believing in electrons as justification for him not believing in evolution.

Same thing. He didn't know about either of them. But that doesn't affect their reality.

But in the case of evolution Paul did endorse a contradictory theory

No. You're just trying to restrict the ways that God can create to ways that you like.

But tell me what scientific break throughs in the field of biology occurred between Paul's time and Darwin's. What is this work that gave Darwin an edge over Paul?

First, Darwin was interested in the issue, and Paul was not. That's a huge advantage. Then, a huge amount of anatomical and breeding data had been assembled by Darwin's time, that showed evolution. And the findings of Malthus and Adam Smith in economics showed how complex systems could appear with no one designing them. That's what the "hidden hand" of capitalism is. Darwin realized that economics was just one example, and showed that it applied to biology as well. This is why the Soviets banned Darwin; his theory was too close to capitalism to suit them. They thought that no system could form without a designer. It's a key concept in Marxism.

Argument from authority is faulty logic.

Probably a bad idea to bring up Dr. Tour, then.

Lastly of course the bible doesnt support evolution

Nor creationism as it exists today. Nor electrons or viruses. That's not what it's for. It's about God and man and our relationship. There are many, many things that are true that are not in the Bible.