Evolution?

[TomUK]

Memo From God

Memo to: The members of the Kansas Board of Education

From: God

Re: Your decision to eliminate the teaching of evolution as science.

Thank you for your support. Much obliged.

Now, go forth and multiply. Beget many children. And yea, your children shall beget children. And their children shall beget children, and their children's children after them. And in time the genes that have made you such pinheads will be eliminated through natural selection. Because that is how it works.

Listen, I love all my creatures equally, and gave each his own special qualities to help him on Earth. The horse I gave great strength. The antelope I gave great grace and speed. The dung beetle I gave great stupidity, so he doesn't realize he is a dung beetle. Man I gave a brain.

Use it, okay?

I admit I am not perfect. I've made errors. (Armpit hair--what was I thinking?) But do you Kansans seriously believe that I droppedhalf-a-billion-year-old trilobite skeletons all over my great green Earth by mistake? What, I had a few lying around some previous creation in the Andromeda galaxy, and they fell through a hole in my pocket? You were supposed to find them. And once you found them, you were supposed to draw the appropriate, intelligent conclusions.

That's what I made you for: To think.

The folks who wrote the Bible were smart and good people. Mostly, they got it right. But there were glitches. Imprecisions. For one thing, they said that Adam and Eve begat Cain and Abel, and then Cain begat Enoch. How was that supposed to have happened? They left out Tiffany entirely! Well, they also were a little off on certain elements of timing and sequence. So what? You guys were supposed to figure it all out for yourselves, anyway. When you stumble over the truth, you are not supposed to pick yourself up, dust yourself off and proceed on as though nothing had happened. If you find a dinosaur's toe, you're not supposed to look for reasons to call it a croissant. You're not big, drooling idiots. For that, I made dogs. Why do you think there are no fossilized human toes dating from a hundred million years ago? Think about it.

It's okay if you think. In fact, I prefer it. That's why I like Charlie Darwin. He was always a thinker. Still is. He and I chat frequently. I know a lot of people figure that if man evolved from other organisms, it means I don't exist. I have to admit this is a reasonable assumption and a valid line of thought. I am in favor of thought. I encourage you to pursue this concept with an open mind, and see where it leads you. That's all I have to say right now, except that I'm really cheesed off at laugh tracks on sitcoms, and the NRA, and people who make simple declarative sentences sound like questions?

Oh, wait. There's one more thing.

Did you read in the newspapers yesterday how scientists in Australia dug up some rocks and found fossilized remains of life dating back further than ever before? Primitive, multicelled animals on Earth nearly 3 billion years ago, when the planet was nothing but roiling muck and ice and fire. And inside those cells was . . . DNA. Incredibly complex strands of chemicals, laced together in a scheme so sophisticated no one yet understands exactly how it works. I wonder who could have thought of something like that, back then.

Just something to gnaw on.




God bless those annoying people who send the same email to two dozen other people. :)

[karen freeinchristman]

Nice one! As someone with a science background, I think that this type of letter isn't too far fetched. I believe that God created life to evolve.

Luckily for us, this isn't a topic that any of the BCP's touch (AFAIK), so we are free to debate! :)

[Colabomb]

Evolution is completly viable. But don't criticize Young Earther's Either.
I used to be one (now I just don't care how God did it). And I know, there is convincing evidence in favor of YO.

[No Swansong]

I am not arguing for or against evolution in this post but I do have a question for those who are avowed evolutionists (is that a word LOL) Why? It seems to me that scripture indicates that human beings are the crown of creation. We were made specifically to worship our creator. There is no indication in scripture that any form of animal life was so created. So my question is why? Why would God use something like evolution to eventually get there? I realize that God is outside of time and thus it doesn't mean the same to Him as it does to us, but again why? Additionally if we did evolve then is the Garden of Eden narrative inaccurate? Did not the curse come because of Adam's sin as the scripture tells us? If not then why is all of creation damned when there may be many branches of humanity that are not descendent from Adam of Genesis?

[Simon_Templar]

first of all you have to be clear about what exactly you mean when you say "evolution" because often enough people are talking about different things when they use the word. In fact the "evolutionists" rely upon that confusion in part when they debate in order to claim a "scientific/intellectual" high ground.

1st there is the "biological law of evolution". Almost no one that I am aware of including young earth creationists disagree with this law. Simply put the law of evolution states that over time, the frequency of any given gene within a gene pool will change. I have never met anyone who disagreed with this.

2nd, there is the theory of origins which attempts to use the law of evolution to explain the origin of life and the diversity of life as a random chance process based on 'evolution'. This is what people disagree with.


Those in the camp of "evolution" often times rely upon the confusion between the law of evolution and the theory which uses that law to explain life to say that creationists are unreasonable, and unscientific while they of course are both reasonable and scientific.

The fact of the matter is that the theory (and I use the term theory in its broadest possible meaning) of origins which attempts to explain the origin and diversity of life through the process of evolution is no more scientific or reasonable than is creation.

Frankly the debate over teaching only evolution in schools is laughable to me because schools can't even teach evolution properly. Probably 90% of the people I have talked to on this topic over the years have come out of public schools with an extremely poor or out right wrong understanding of "evolution".

First a word about science. In our culture the term science or scientific carries a great deal of credability. It has become nearly synonymous with "fact" or "factual". There is one reason, and one reason only that science has gained this credability.. and that reason is because it is verifiable. It is provable. In a broad sense "science" is anything which is a quest for knowledge.. in this way history, archeology, sociology, are all called "science". Often times sciences such as chemistry, physics, and math are refered to as "hard sciences" because they maintain a specific standard of proof which other sciences do not. It is that standard of proof which is the foundation of all science's credability.

It is a huge detriment both to science itself, and to our society when people begin to misunderstand the nature of other "sciences" and to think that they carry the same standard of proof, and thus the same credability that sciences subject to the scientific method do.

The fact of the matter is that while history, sociology, archeology, even psychology, can be called sciences because they revolve around a quest for knowledge, they are all ultimately unprovable. Their ideas, laws, theories are all mutable and change from person to person and generation to generation depending entirely upon the world view through which they are filtered.

Because of the confusion on this issue the label "scientific" has become a gold standard to which everyone aspires if they wish their view to be accepted. The result has been the debasing and cheapening of the term itself. People just haven't fully realized it yet. (although that realization is beginning).

The scientific method requires certain things. First it requires that a natural phenomenon/process can be observed. Secondly it requires that the phenomenon/process can be controled, and lastly that it can be replicated repeatedly under controled conditions.

In the strictest terms NONE of these qualifications can be found in ANY idea of origins, wether it be creation or evolution based.

The requirement of observation of a process can be lessened and often is to observation of the results of a process/phenomenon. This is for the most part acceptable, but it still should require that the phenomenon be ongoing and the results be ongoing.

The argument could be made that the results of whatever gave rise to life and the diversity thereof can be observed. However, this again is in truth a false comparison. The kind of results science requires to study a given phenomenon are ongoing results. For example, we can study the motion and properties of electrons because electrons are continuously producing results we can see and study. Whatever gave rise to life and the diversity thereof, for all practical purposes appears to no longer be producing results. If it is producing results it is doing so in a manner which can not be observed.

Furthermore, the "hard sciences" are also commonly referred to as "natural sciences". There is a reason for this. Suprisingly enough it is because these sciences seek knowledge about the NATURAL world, and how the NATURAL world works.
It is presupposed in the very nature of science then that everything it studies is the result of NATURAL processes. This infact is THE single most foundational assumption of the sciences. One of the basic rules of logic is what you assume often determines what you conclude. Another way of stating this is that if you assume your conclusion to be true to begin with, you are nearly guarnteed to 'verify' your conclusion.

In other words, science necessarily assumes that life was begun and diversified by a natural process. It is then no suprise that 'science' concludes that it was not supernaturally created. For science to say that life was supernaturally created is the same as saying that it is beyond the realm of science to comment upon.

In conclusion, science, wether it is true or not and comletely regardless of evidence of fact is guarenteed to conclude that life was 'created' and diversified by natural processes without supernatural intervention. This is because science necessarily starts with that as its basic assumption.
Thus, IF in fact there is, or was or has ever been ANY supernatural involvement in the creation of life, or the advancement of life (even the term "advancement" is technically a misunderstanding of evolutionary process) then "science" is guarenteed to produce WRONG conclusions about it.

Creation "science" can be called science in the same way that history, or sociology can in that it seeks knowledge by observing evidence. It can not be considered science in the same way that math or chemistry or chemistry can because they involve a standard of proof which the other fields of study can not meet. The problem is that "Evolution" as a belief about the origin of life is no more scientific than creation. The idea that it is, is nothing more than religious propaganda. "science" has become one of the cheif dogmas of a group of religious philosophies known as humanism (variant forms include "secular", "cosmic", and "marxist")

These people rant on about the dangers of making science "religious" but they have already done exactly that. They are simply trying to protect their own 'ace in the hole'. The fact is that science has been what they have used to gain credability for their religion, and what they have used to beat down their enemies, specificly christianity. Science has become their religion.

In many ways its like how the Orthodox and the Catholics claim that they aren't denominations and that they are undivided... sure, we don't have denominations.. we just have greek orthodox, russian orthodox, lithuanian orthodox, and the fact that we won't worship together and won't talk to each other doesn't mean we're divided because we have a common theology. (when in reality the common theology just makes their division all the more sad and pathetic because they can't even get along despite the fact that they agree on almost everything. Their division is reduced essentially to racism. At least most of us are divided because we actually disagree about important things (how sad is that)).


/rant

[Ebor]

Evolution is completly viable. But don't criticize Young Earther's Either.
I used to be one (now I just don't care how God did it). And I know, there is convincing evidence in favor of YO.

May one ask for some links or references to evidence that supports a Young Earth, please? How "young" is the Earth supposed to be?

Ebor

[Ebor]

"Any deity worthy of a graven image can cobble up a working universecomplete with fake fossils in under a week - hey, if you're not omnipotent,there's no real point in being a god. But to start with a big ball ofelementary particles and end up with the duckbill platypus without constanttwiddling requires a degree of subtlety and the ability to Think ThingsThrough: exactly the qualities I'm looking for when I'm shopping for aSupreme Being." - Lee DeRaud



Ebor

[Simon_Templar]

"Any deity worthy of a graven image can cobble up a working universecomplete with fake fossils in under a week - hey, if you're not omnipotent,there's no real point in being a god. But to start with a big ball ofelementary particles and end up with the duckbill platypus without constanttwiddling requires a degree of subtlety and the ability to Think ThingsThrough: exactly the qualities I'm looking for when I'm shopping for aSupreme Being." - Lee DeRaud

Ebor

so..... you think it would be "clever" of God to create the world in such a way that the pinnacle of creation, the image of the creator himself can only be achieved by millions of years of death, blood, carnage and merciless slaughter?
It would be smarter for God to make a world in which the single most basic rule is that you must kill your enemies or die and be removed from existense and have the very existence of your kind removed from the world...
Since this process is based on the idea that only the "fit" survive and thus reproduce, and the end goal is to produce the image of God in mankind... the logical conclusion is that God established a system in which His Holy, and Inviolable Image would necessarily be placed upon whichever race was the most successful in murdering all other races.

Furthermore, the most basic value of this wonderfully clever method of creation is survival and "fitness" guarentees survivial, the logical converse is that unfitness must necessarily result in death, preferably before reproduction occurs. Thus the most basic moral value is nothing other than survival and death to the competition.

Gee... Hitler was right after all... who knew....

[higgs2]

I am not arguing for or against evolution in this post but I do have a question for those who are avowed evolutionists (is that a word LOL) Why? It seems to me that scripture indicates that human beings are the crown of creation. We were made specifically to worship our creator. There is no indication in scripture that any form of animal life was so created. So my question is why? Why would God use something like evolution to eventually get there? I realize that God is outside of time and thus it doesn't mean the same to Him as it does to us, but again why? Additionally if we did evolve then is the Garden of Eden narrative inaccurate? Did not the curse come because of Adam's sin as the scripture tells us? If not then why is all of creation damned when there may be many branches of humanity that are not descendent from Adam of Genesis?
adam and eve and the garden of eden are true but not factual. :)

[higgs2]

so..... you think it would be "clever" of God to create the world in such a way that the pinnacle of creation, the image of the creator himself can only be achieved by millions of years of death, blood, carnage and merciless slaughter?
It would be smarter for God to make a world in which the single most basic rule is that you must kill your enemies or die and be removed from existense and have the very existence of your kind removed from the world...
Since this process is based on the idea that only the "fit" survive and thus reproduce, and the end goal is to produce the image of God in mankind... the logical conclusion is that God established a system in which His Holy, and Inviolable Image would necessarily be placed upon whichever race was the most successful in murdering all other races.

Furthermore, the most basic value of this wonderfully clever method of creation is survival and "fitness" guarentees survivial, the logical converse is that unfitness must necessarily result in death, preferably before reproduction occurs. Thus the most basic moral value is nothing other than survival and death to the competition.

Gee... Hitler was right after all... who knew....
Sad that you would bring Hitler into this. That's a good example of why discussions turn into flame wars on this board. :)

[PaladinValer]

Great post, TomUK.

My biggest qualms with many YECs are threefold:

1. Psuedoscience/Cafeteria Science
2. Abusing Scripture
3. Anti-intellectualism

Evolution is a factual theory with evidence that is simply impossible to ignore and is equally so irrefutable. What an interesting way for God to create life from initial life...it shows how imaginative and intelligent He is.

[ContraMundum]

I'm a convinced Young Earth believer who thinks Evolution is a lot of hogwash.

But, I totally understand that there are other points of view. I always think that those organisations that promote scientific debate on origins are worth my time and consideration provided they are humble enough to admit when they are wrong.

For example, although AiG has an awful lot of scientists that are formerly evolutionists that now teach young earth six-day creationism they have made errors in the past and are willing to correct themselves. Likewise CSE and the other smaller groups. However, I'd like to see the larger scientific establishment at large do likewise.

I did find something out recently in my own little world. There is a very powerful, influential and slightly wealthy network of atheists that sponsor an awful lot of pro-evolution museum exhibits and media coverage. Hence, they attempt to stack public opinion against theism, which of course is their ultimate aim.

Now, I'm not trying to make some kind of baseless pontification about this- this has been my recent experience in my own little part of the world, so I'm not saying there is some kind of illuminati conspiracy to wipe out theism or something...just speaking of my own personal my observations lately.

[Simon_Templar]

Sad that you would bring Hitler into this. That's a good example of why discussions turn into flame wars on this board. :)

Well, I suppose one of my failings is that I have a tendancy to meet sarcasm with sarcasm.

The point, in any case, was that evolution is not philosophically, ethically, or morally neutral. It has a huge and profound impact in all of those areas. The fact that this has been masked, and for the most part ignored by tha majority of people is a huge problem that has, and very likely will produce very bad consequences.

I brought "Hitler into this" via sarcasm previously, but now let me do so seriously. The ideology of Nazism was ENTIRELY based on evolution. Whats more is that the ideology of the entire western world was shifting that way precisely because of the acceptence of evolution. Even in the US and England there were strong movements beginning, pushing the ideas of genetic cleansing (ie eugenics) and this was the direct result of accepting evolution as the explanation of life.

If it were not for the Hitler and the germans pushing ahead of everyone else and going to the furthest extent of the philosophy, virtually the same thing would have happened in England and the US but with more controled and easier to justify boundaries. Before the war began the Nazi's had many admirers in the rest of the western world precisely because their ideology was based on principles that had become accepted through evolution.

In today's world the cheapening of human life in western culture is due to the fact that evolution inherintly debases the value of human life. If you accept evolution as the method by which life came to be, then their ceases to be any reasonable distinction between human and animal life other than the ability to survive.


If God ordained evolution as his method of creation then he has also ordained kill or be killed as the moral order of the world. At that point you have two options. Believe that God changed this (and thus also believe that evolution has ceased to occur) or believe that the teaching of the new testament is wrong since it is clearly contradicted by the observable created world.
Paul says in romans that the invisible attributes of God are made manifest in creation... think for a moment what that really means if evolution is his method of creation.
The liberal among us tend to think that the OT God is depicted as too harsh.. imagine how much worse is a God whose attributes are accurately portrayed by the process of evolution. If this is the truth then the only reasonable conclusion can be that God does not care for the weak, only favors the strong, wishes for us to settle our problems by brute competition, and apparently the only real sin is not to reproduce, or to do something that hampers your species from reproducing en mass.

Further, if evolution is true the doctrine of the fall as presented in scripture is false. We are told in scripture that the whole world, the whole of creation was cursed through adam's fall and subjected to suffering and trial as a result. Yet according to evolution the suffering and trial began millions of years before Adam ever existed. Furthermore, Adam and Eve were the RESULT of the suffering and trial!
That, furthermore, means that the world as we see it today is the way God intended it to be from the very beginning. One of the central doctrines of christianity and scripture is that the problems of this world are due to the fall.. but according to evolutionary thought all the very things we see around us as evils and suffering are not only God ordained, but its the way he intended it to be, and made it long before man ever breathed his first breath.

So... if man ever did fall, it had no effect on him (since his ancestors had been murdering each other over resources and sex for millions of years before that), and it had no effect on the world since evolution tells us it hasn't changed (which is actually a central assumption to the evolutionary theory of origins) and infact the very things we thought were the result of the fall are the way God likes to do things.

How can you say violence is wrong when it is the natural order that God ordained?

How can you say that racism is wrong when the creator himself ordained that all races of creatures would compete for survival and that some races would be deemed more fit than others to survive, and that those deemed not fit should die.

What need is there of salvation if we are simply doing what every living organism has ever done since the moment God made them, and moreover, He intended them to do exactly as they are doing.

What kind of God would spend a billion years making a world full of life, making life that follows a set of instincts he gave them, doing exactly what he intended, even needed them to do, and then at the end of it all impose upon them a large set of rules totally opposite of everything he created and purposed for the billion years before that and then condemn anyone who isn't able to shake off the previous billion years of programming (oh and whats worse.. he didn't bother to change any of the rules about existence and survival of the fittest or any of that.. he just tells everyone that they need to do the opposite, despite the fact that he programmed them to do the reverse and has stacked the deck against them.

If this is the case then God, not man, is responsible for death, violence, war, carnage, lust, greed, everything.

[PaladinValer]

No, Nazism was based on Social Darwinism, not the biological theory of evolution.

Please do not equivocate the two.

[CSMR]

Supporting evolution is fine, but putting stupid comments into the mouth of God, even as a joke, is not OK in my book.

[ContraMundum]

No, Nazism was based on Social Darwinism, not the biological theory of evolution.

Please do not equivocate the two.

...and pray tell what Social Darwinism was based on?

ST is completely correct- evolutionary theory is the foundation stone of much of Nazism and indeed Marxism, but the source of evolution as "science" is Darwin (at least championed by him). The ultimate source is Satan of course.

(yeah, yeah, I know, you'll have some "answer" confounding the boundaries of social Darwinism with "scientific" Darwinism but really ST is on the money and I support his post. Don't waste your time PV.)

[Simon_Templar]

No, Nazism was based on Social Darwinism, not the biological theory of evolution.

Please do not equivocate the two.

See my comments in my first post about confusing the biological law of evolution with the use of evolution as a theory on the origin of life.

Social Darwinism by definition is the application of evolutionary thought to social theory. Specificly to human social theory. I would point out that in "science" today "social darwinism" is the accepted social model for every species except humans. Why is this?

More over, evolution is seen as foundational to the study of human psychology, and in some ways still even to sociology, and definetly anthropology (including cultural anthropology).

So why not social theory?

The answer is this. There is within humanity a repository of innate knowledge which we commonly refer to as conscience (which means with knowledge). Humans inherintly know that there is something special about humanity, and something special about human life. This belief is fundamentally in conflict with evolutionary thought.

In germany, a group of people inspired by a man named Nietzche combined two ideas... #1 the old christian morality of society needed to be rejected because it had already been disproven #2 Natural selection and survival of the fitest (darwinism).

They denied the ingrained knowledge and abandon it, and unfortunately managed to take control of an entire country which by that point had become spiritually bankrupt because of a number of preceeding social issues.

The rest of the western world was so shocked and their still predominantly christian morality so offended that the idea of social darwinism became anathema to civilized thought.
The foundations upon which it was built were not removed, however, and infact have been strengthened. The result is that as christian morality wanes, and our social memory gets shorter and shorter, social darwinism will very likely return in some form.

[Andy Broadley]

Hmmm...things must be little quiet round here at the moment.

Because everytime we get a quiet spell on any of the forums, this issue seems to get wheeled out again:D

It'll run for a while and all the usual arguements will be put forward by both sides. In the end it will either quietly slip away until the next time or it will turn nasty and get closed (until the next time)

In Britain we have something called the football pools. You have a list of 58 football matches and you try and pck 10 which will be draws. If you get 8 right, you win.

On the theological football pools, the Evolution v Creation match is a guarunteed score draw every week.

Personally speaking I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that God used eveolution as His means of creation.

So it took 14.5 billion of our puny little earth years.

To God that is less time it's taken me to type this.

Of course we are still scratching the surface.

Finite minds trying to understand an infinite mind?

Not a hope.

We are starting to have a reasonable idea of what God did. We may well never know HOW.

[higgs2]

Hmmm...things must be little quiet round here at the moment.

Because everytime we get a quiet spell on any of the forums, this issue seems to get wheeled out again:D

It'll run for a while and all the usual arguements will be put forward by both sides. In the end it will either quietly slip away until the next time or it will turn nasty and get closed (until the next time)

In Britain we have something called the football pools. You have a list of 58 football matches and you try and pck 10 which will be draws. If you get 8 right, you win.

On the theological football pools, the Evolution v Creation match is a guarunteed score draw every week.

Personally speaking I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that God used eveolution as His means of creation.

So it took 14.5 billion of our puny little earth years.

To God that is less time it's taken me to type this.

Of course we are still scratching the surface.

Finite minds trying to understand an infinite mind?

Not a hope.

We are starting to have a reasonable idea of what God did. We may well never know HOW.

Well, you do know that Harry Potter is completely compatible with the theory of evolution, right? And biblically sound, I'm sure ^_^

[Andy Broadley]

Well, you do know that Harry Potter is completely compatible with the theory of evolution, right? And biblically sound, I'm sure ^_^

Sorry higgs, it's VERY early on Sunday morning here, and I have been up since 4.20am:yawn:

You're gonna have to explain that to me.

I've been in a few dozen of theses Evolution/Creation debates, but I've never heard young Harry brought into it:D

[Colabomb]

Great post, TomUK.

My biggest qualms with many YECs are threefold:

1. Psuedoscience/Cafeteria Science


Many very intellegent People have come to accept the concept of YEC. They have done so through real questions.

For example. Why are there no intermediate forms? All we find are New Complete Species.

The Complexity of the Human Eyeball is so precise, that unless God made an exception and broke the rules of evolution for this case, it could not have happened.


2. Abusing Scripture


While I personally am not a YEC'er, I have to admit, their point of view has the most credence when it comes to Scripture. They read in the Scriptures that God did it in 7 Days, and they believe God did it in 7 Days. How is this "abusing" Scripture. In the worst possible senario, it is misunderstanding Scripture. But to call it abuse is absurd.


3. Anti-intellectualism


Many have come to belief in YEC through years of careful study and Analysis.

Evolution is a factual theory with evidence that is simply impossible to ignore and is equally so irrefutable. What an interesting way for God to create life from initial life...it shows how imaginative and intelligent He is.

Paladin, A few short decades ago, it was a scientific theory (supported Strongly) that women and "negroes" were inferior species of the human race.

Before that, it was believed that Human Health was determined by the balance of four humors.

Before that it was Scientific Theory that Gold could be made from Iron.

Paladin. Before you condemn all YEC'ers as Hick farmhands who can't tell his own foot from his head, get off your very tall soapbox and realize for a second that some very intelligent people, much older and wiser than you and I, have come to the conclusion that you are wrong.

Realize Paladin, that your degree is in History, not Biology. Realize that you are only twenty some years old and YOU DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING!

Paladin, I read much pride in many of your posts.

[No Swansong]

adam and eve and the garden of eden are true but not factual. :)

Do you care to elaborate as to how it can be true but not factual? Remember the doctrine of Sin as Paul writes depends on the fact that Sin entered through one man that being Adam. Jesus is even called the second Adam.

[Andy Broadley]

Do you care to elaborate as to how it can be true but not factual? Remember the doctrine of Sin as Paul writes depends on the fact that Sin entered through one man that being Adam. Jesus is even called the second Adam.
I still wanna know why HE got the blame when SHE took the apple....

[No Swansong]

Sad that you would bring Hitler into this. That's a good example of why discussions turn into flame wars on this board. :)

While I wouldn't mention Hitler he makes a good argument why would God set as His pattern survival of the fitest which depends upon predation to reach his goal?

[Andy Broadley]

While I wouldn't mention Hitler he makes a good argument why would God set as His pattern survival of the fitest which depends upon predation to reach his goal?

A point I replied to earlier.

We are starting to understand a little of WHAT God did.

We may never understand WHY.

[No Swansong]

I still wanna know why HE got the blame when SHE took the apple....

Good question I believe the answer lies somewhere in the "authority" issue.

[No Swansong]

A point I replied to earlier.

We are starting to understand a little of WHAT God did.

We may never understand WHY.

While I agree with you Andy that we may never know how God did most things this particular thing would seem to indicate a God who contradicts himself. If God did indeed use this method to create man why then change? Why be admonished to turn the other cheek, to be compassionate to widows and orphans,or to forgive those who injure us instead of being admonished to kill and take what you need from the weaker beings as would have been the pattern for hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of years?

Would this not indicate a God who is not mutable instead of immutable?

[Andy Broadley]

Good question I believe the answer lies somewhere in the "authority" issue.

Reminds me of being a child, and the oldest of two children.

Whatever happened I got the blame because...

"You're the oldest and you should know better"

[Andy Broadley]

While I agree with you Andy that we may never know how God did most things this particular thing would seem to indicate a God who contradicts himself. If God did indeed use this method to create man why then change? Why be admonished to turn the other cheek, to be compassionate to widows and orphans,or to forgive those who injure us instead of being admonished to kill and take what you need from the weaker beings as would have been the pattern for hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of years?

Would this not indicate a God who is not mutable instead of immutable?

I'm sorry but there is ample evidence of that going on in the Bible.

Just read the OT and see what the Isrealites did to the Caananites, on God's instructions.

[higgs2]

Sorry higgs, it's VERY early on Sunday morning here, and I have been up since 4.20am:yawn:

You're gonna have to explain that to me.

I've been in a few dozen of theses Evolution/Creation debates, but I've never heard young Harry brought into it:D
Sorry. I was being silly again. You said "Hmmm...things must be little quiet round here at the moment.

Because everytime we get a quiet spell on any of the forums, this issue seems to get wheeled out again"

Which is usually the same way the issue of young Harry ends up being a thread with a bazillion replies in it. So I thought I'd go ahead and bring up Harry and we could discuss both at once :D Just trying to be efficient.

[Andy Broadley]

Sorry. I was being silly again. You said "Hmmm...things must be little quiet round here at the moment.

Because everytime we get a quiet spell on any of the forums, this issue seems to get wheeled out again"

Which is usually the same way the issue of young Harry ends up being a thread with a bazillion replies in it. So I thought I'd go ahead and bring up Harry and we could discuss both at once :D Just trying to be efficient.


:D :D :D :D :D

Gotcha :thumbsup:

[higgs2]

Do you care to elaborate as to how it can be true but not factual? Remember the doctrine of Sin as Paul writes depends on the fact that Sin entered through one man that being Adam. Jesus is even called the second Adam.

It's one thing to discuss the doctrine of sin using genesis, but quite another to attempt to disprove the theory of evolution using scripture.

I have no trouble with parts of the bible being metaphorical rather than historical fact. I realize that not everyone shares this view, and that's fine too. But the bible is still not a science text.

I hope this doesn't sound insulting, it's not meant to be.

[higgs2]

I'm sorry but there is ample evidence of that going on in the Bible.

Just read the OT and see what the Isrealites did to the Caananites, on God's instructions.

*Exactly*.

[No Swansong]

I'm sorry but there is ample evidence of that going on in the Bible.

Just read the OT and see what the Isrealites did to the Caananites, on God's instructions.

Agreed, so your point is that God encourages violence? You believe that God uses violence not to protect his people from contamination (as tradition has upheld) but instead to promote the further evolution of his creation?

The point here, for me anyway, is that I don't particularly care how God created. But I still have not read an answer to how sin is imparted to all men through one man if that one man was not the only line of humanity. Again the doctrine of sin is built upon the clear scriptural direction that through one man sin entered the world. If Adam was not literal then Paul and the Holy Spirit who inspired him were wrong. An ideal I will not accept.

[No Swansong]

It's one thing to discuss the doctrine of sin using genesis, but quite another to attempt to disprove the theory of evolution using scripture.

I have no trouble with parts of the bible being metaphorical rather than historical fact. I realize that not everyone shares this view, and that's fine too. But the bible is still not a science text.

I hope this doesn't sound insulting, it's not meant to be.

I am not attempting to disprove evolution as I stated earlier I do not care how God created. The point is that if Adam did not exist and Sin did not enter the world through him, then the Holy Spirit was wrong when he inspired Paul to write that it did.

[Andy Broadley]

Agreed, so your point is that God encourages violence? You believe that God uses violence not to protect his people from contamination (as tradition has upheld) but instead to promote the further evolution of his creation?

The point here, for me anyway, is that I don't particularly care how God created. But I still have not read an answer to how sin is imparted to all men through one man if that one man was not the only line of humanity. Again the doctrine of sin is built upon the clear scriptural direction that through one man sin entered the world. If Adam was not literal then Paul and the Holy Spirit who inspired him were wrong. An ideal I will not accept.

My point is that God knew what He was doing and still does.

I, on the other hand, do not.

[ContraMundum]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Simon_Templar again."

[Colabomb]

It's one thing to discuss the doctrine of sin using genesis, but quite another to attempt to disprove the theory of evolution using scripture.

I have no trouble with parts of the bible being metaphorical rather than historical fact. I realize that not everyone shares this view, and that's fine too. But the bible is still not a science text.

I hope this doesn't sound insulting, it's not meant to be.
Parts of the Bible are indeed Metaphorical. And it is quite possible that the Genesis account, up to the creation of Adam, may be so.

But, to state that there was no Literal Adam, No Literal First human being, opens up a void in Christian Theology that has to be filled.

The Scriptures write that through Adam, Sin entered the World. And that Christ redeems us of the sin that we inherit from that Literal Adam.

If there was no literal Adam, how did man come to be sinful? If one man in the earliest history of mankind sinned, and his brothers did not, than only his bloodline would be effected.

[john23237]

To simply state that Adam sinned is not enough to answer the question raised. HOW did Adam sin? He ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which might be considered a way of saying that Adam came (evolved) to the point that he had the ability to understand the concept of good/evil. Animals cannot sin because they cannot understand that concept and it could be assumed that if Cro-magnon man's precursors lacked said understanding, they also were incapable of sin (think invincible ignorance). Thus, we may simply be being told here, in a poetic type fashion, that man had evolved to the point that he would understand good/evil and thus his actions could now be judged as sinful. It would not matter in this understanding whether there was one Adam or a baker's dozen, the meaning would be the same. How, by this understanding, was Our Lord the "second" Adam? Quite simply because the "first" Adam (or Adams) had AN understanding of good/evil, while the "secord' (Our Lord) brought the full understanding of good/evil.

[Colabomb]

To simply state that Adam sinned is not enough to answer the question raised. HOW did Adam sin? He ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which might be considered a way of saying that Adam came (evolved) to the point that he had the ability to understand the concept of good/evil. Animals cannot sin because they cannot understand that concept and it could be assumed that if Cro-magnon man's precursors lacked said understanding, they also were incapable of sin (think invincible ignorance). Thus, we may simply be being told here, in a poetic type fashion, that man had evolved to the point that he would understand good/evil and thus his actions could now be judged as sinful. It would not matter in this understanding whether there was one Adam or a baker's dozen, the meaning would be the same. How, by this understanding, was Our Lord the "second" Adam? Quite simply because the "first" Adam had AN understanding of good/evil, while the "secord' (Our Lord) brought the full understanding of good/evil.
The Scriptures Record God giving Man a Command that Man obeyed. To simply evolve, something out of man's control, is not sin or disobedience.

Are you contending that Man was sinful once man existed? God created us in a state of sin? How then are we responsible for the nature of sin?

[karen freeinchristman]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to john23237 again"...


You have put into words what I have thought regarding this whole subject.

[john23237]

Are you contending that Man was sinful once man existed? God created us in a state of sin? How then are we responsible for the nature of sin?

No, I am saying that the precursors of Cro-magnon man may not have be able to sin in God's eyes because they may have lacked the ability to reason to the degree to understand good/evil, but that SCRIPTURE seems to be suggesting that Adam/Adams had evolved to the point that they could understand the concept of good/evil and thus was/were capable of sin. To say that Adam/Adams were capable of sin is NOT to say he/they HAD to, only that he/they were able to. He/ they did not chose wisely. We often times do not either.

[PaladinValer]

Many very intellegent People have come to accept the concept of YEC. They have done so through real questions.

Please reread what I said:

"My biggest qualms with many YECs are threefold"

Note the bold.

For example. Why are there no intermediate forms? All we find are New Complete Species.

This is coming from a lack of understanding what evolution theorizes. It is a Straw Man statement.

The Complexity of the Human Eyeball is so precise, that unless God made an exception and broke the rules of evolution for this case, it could not have happened.

Another Straw Man. There is no "random chance" in this sense.

While I personally am not a YEC'er, I have to admit, their point of view has the most credence when it comes to Scripture. They read in the Scriptures that God did it in 7 Days, and they believe God did it in 7 Days.

Yom is a word with several definitions.

How is this "abusing" Scripture. In the worst possible senario, it is misunderstanding Scripture. But to call it abuse is absurd.

Scripture is authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. It isn't a science or history textbook.

Many have come to belief in YEC through years of careful study and Analysis.

Perhaps, but I question the math which 9 times out of 10 is poorly done.

Paladin, A few short decades ago, it was a scientific theory (supported Strongly) that women and "negroes" were inferior species of the human race.

You're confusing psuedoscience with science.

Before that, it was believed that Human Health was determined by the balance of four humors.

Again, fallacy of equivocation between psuedoscience and science.

Before that it was Scientific Theory that Gold could be made from Iron.

Sorry, but that isn't science...that is alchemy.

Paladin. Before you condemn all YEC'ers as Hick farmhands who can't tell his own foot from his head, get off your very tall soapbox and realize for a second that some very intelligent people, much older and wiser than you and I, have come to the conclusion that you are wrong.

I suggest reading where I said wany and get off your's, sir.

Realize Paladin, that your degree is in History, not Biology. Realize that you are only twenty some years old and YOU DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING!

If you ever ventured into the Origins Theology forum, you'd know how I view myself in terms of the whole debate. Why don't you do some real research on what I think of myself in this regard before assuming everything on one post? THAT'S unscholarly and it is also the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Paladin, I read much pride in many of your posts.

Pride? I'm not the one who read many as all.

[john23237]

The Complexity of the Human Eyeball is so precise, that unless God made an exception and broke the rules of evolution for this case, it could not have happened.


Yes, the human eye is complex, but no, it is not unique. In point of fact, the eye of a squid is almost identical to that of a human. This is commonly referred to as parallel evolution. (Biology101)

[Colabomb]

Please reread what I said:

"My biggest qualms with many YECs are threefold"

Note the bold.

Sorry I missed that. It does make some difference as to how I should have responded to you. Forgive me brother of this downfall.




This is coming from a lack of understanding what evolution theorizes. It is a Straw Man statement.


I understand the theory of Evolution.

Over times Mutations took place in species that changed them in some manner. If the change was positive and useful for the survival of the Species, those with the mutation survived to breed and thus the mutation became common place within the species and eventually an integral part of it.

If the mutation was not favorable for the survival of the Species, those with the mutation either did not survive due to a weakness the mutation created, or the mutation was benign and had no effect on the animal.

If the latter happened, the species eventually split into two species, one with the mutation, and one with not. As the two separate species evolved over time the species became more and more different.

My contention, is that it is unlikely for a fully developed wing to simply come through a single mutation.

It is not a strawman, but a logical complaint.



Another Straw Man. There is no "random chance" in this sense.

If one believes that God allowed evolution to pass uneffected without His hand involved, the human eyeball is unlikely. There are several parts to an eye that do not function without other parts.

I do conceed however, that if a TE happens to believe that God intervened in this circumstance that this would not disqualify TE on its own merit. But it defintely speaks volumes against AE.




Yom is a word with several definitions.


Understood. But it also could very well mean a literal 24 hour period.
Even though their arguement is not the only one that could be derived from Scripture, it is completely viable.


Scripture is authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. It isn't a science or history textbook.


Agreed. I would also like to point out that the concept of a literal Adam is Theological assumption in the Scriptures. Especially in the Epistles of Paul.


Perhaps, but I question the math which 9 times out of 10 is poorly done.


Neither you nor I are experts in Math.


You're confusing psuedoscience with science.


We know this to be psuedoscience because our better more advanced view of Science disqualifies it. My arguement is that what was science yesterday is pseudoscience today. What is Science today may be psuedoscience tomorrow.




Again, fallacy of equivocation between psuedoscience and science.


Again, the assumption that you are right.


Sorry, but that isn't science...that is alchemy.

When Alchemy was widespread, it was scence.



I suggest reading where I said wany and get off your's, sir.


Again, I do apologise for not noticing many. I have no argument to defend this.


If you ever ventured into the Origins Theology forum, you'd know how I view myself in terms of the whole debate. Why don't you do some real research on what I think of myself in this regard before assuming everything on one post? THAT'S unscholarly and it is also the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Admittedly I have not seen your Posts in OT. So I cannot speak for your opinion of yourself in general. I can however comment on what I see in this post.

If perhaps this post is not typical of your attitude, I am sorry for generalizing.



Pride? I'm not the one who read many as all.

This is not an issue of pride but of inattentiveness at worst.

But yes, I do struggle with Pride myself. And perhaps calling you prideful was only my own bullheadedness clashing with what I perceive to be yours. But it is also possible that we are both ramming heads metaphorically, and we should both look at this from a different angle.

[gtsecc]

If anyone is seriosuly interest, they will read this book:
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design
by Richard Dawkins (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Richard%20Dawkins&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank/103-7729036-4187023)

[Colabomb]

No, I am saying that the precursors of Cro-magnon man may not have be able to sin in God's eyes because they may have lacked the ability to reason to the degree to understand good/evil, but that SCRIPTURE seems to be suggesting that Adam/Adams had evolved to the point that they could understand the concept of good/evil and thus was/were capable of sin. To say that Adam/Adams were capable of sin is NOT to say he/they HAD to, only that he/they were able to. He/ they did not chose wisely. We often times do not either.
But Genesis records a command of God not to eat from the Tree in the first place. If the tree is symbolic of the knowledge of good and evil that man reached through reasoning, than it would be unavoidable for man to learn good/evil. Therefore it would not be possible for man not to "eat the fruit of the Tree".

In other words, for TE to be true, God would have either not given the command to not eat, in which case, man did not sin, or God set a trap for us that we could not avoid.

If man has no choice to not sin, man cannot sin.

[Inside Edge]

If God ordained evolution as his method of creation then he has also ordained kill or be killed as the moral order of the world.
I've thought about this all day, and still don't see how it makes sense. Morality can be wholly independant of the evolutionary process. The Bible drags on in many a passage about denying self, material instincts, etc etc. I see no sense in linking the two implicitly.
Do you care to elaborate as to how it can be true but not factual?
It's a pretty simple and well know anthropological/historical understanding. Many an ancient culture had volumes of stories, fables, oral traditions, and the like that they knew, implicitly, were not factually true. So much so, that if one was to actually challenge a story based on its facts, they would have thought you mad. It was a normal, deep cultural trait that many, many stories weren't, or didn't need to be factually true in order for their message or purpose to be true.
Now, I can't speak for the ancient Israelites on this matter, because my range of study never took me to their culture, in particular. But until I come across evidence that they were literalists, I will remain convinced that they were not (at least not purely).
Over times Mutations took place in species that changed them in some manner. If the change was positive and useful for the survival of the Species, those with the mutation survived to breed and thus the mutation became common place within the species and eventually an integral part of it...
I am no scientist, but that is a very, very simplistic, one-dimensional and watered down description of the evolutionary process. That is akin to some unexposed, non-Christian saying, "I know the story of Creation. Some big fairy-man decided he wanted loyal subjects and made the earth out of his magic energy beams. Then he made a human being from the dirt, yanked out a rib from him, and turned it into a woman. Then he told them to go 'do it' a lot, and to be merry, so long as they didn't eat from this one particular apple tree. Along came a talking snake and the woman, being somewhat of a moron, decided that a talking snake was more trustworthy than the magic guy who created everything with energy beams. So she ate it, and the man was even a bigger moron because he didn't even need a talking snake to impress him, just the woman. Bam, we're all sinners, thank you very much."
We know this to be psuedoscience because our better more advanced view of Science disqualifies it. My arguement is that what was science yesterday is pseudoscience today. What is Science today may be psuedoscience tomorrow.
Not a fair charge. What is called science nowadays has an entirely different approach. Alchemy, magic, psuedoscience - they all operated on assumptions, sometimes completely baseless ones. The one defining change in the study of things (which resulted in what we know as "science" today), is that something must be observed/observable and testable in order for it to be considered scientific.

[Colabomb]

I've thought about this all day, and still don't see how it makes sense. Morality can be wholly independant of the evolutionary process. The Bible drags on in many a passage about denying self, material instincts, etc etc. I see no sense in linking the two implicitly.

It's a pretty simple and well know anthropological/historical understanding. Many an ancient culture had volumes of stories, fables, oral traditions, and the like that they knew, implicitly, were not factually true. So much so, that if one was to actually challenge a story based on its facts, they would have thought you mad. It was a normal, deep cultural trait that many, many stories weren't, or didn't need to be factually true in order for their message or purpose to be true.
Now, I can't speak for the ancient Israelites on this matter, because my range of study never took me to their culture, in particular. But until I come across evidence that they were literalists, I will remain convinced that they were not (at least not purely).

I am no scientist, but that is a very, very simplistic, one-dimensional and watered down description of the evolutionary process. That is akin to some unexposed, non-Christian saying, "I know the story of Creation. Some big fairy-man decided he wanted loyal subjects and made the earth out of his magic energy beams. Then he made a human being from the dirt, yanked out a rib from him, and turned it into a woman. Then he told them to go 'do it' a lot, and to be merry, so long as they didn't eat from this one particular apple tree. Along came a talking snake and the woman, being somewhat of a moron, decided that a talking snake was more trustworthy than the magic guy who created everything with energy beams. So she ate it, and the man was even a bigger moron because he didn't even need a talking snake to impress him, just the woman. Bam, we're all sinners, thank you very much."

Not a fair charge. What is called science nowadays has an entirely different approach. Alchemy, magic, psuedoscience - they all operated on assumptions, sometimes completely baseless ones. The one defining change in the study of things (which resulted in what we know as "science" today), is that something must be observed/observable and testable in order for it to be considered scientific.

My quote may have been simplistic, but it was not mocking as the tone of your quote.

And please tell me how my paragraph was inaccurate?

[john23237]

But Genesis records a command of God not to eat from the Tree in the first place. If the tree is symbolic of the knowledge of good and evil that man reached through reasoning, than it would be unavoidable for man to learn good/evil. Therefore it would not be possible for man not to "eat the fruit of the Tree".

In other words, for TE to be true, God would have either not given the command to not eat, in which case, man did not sin, or God set a trap for us that we could not avoid.

If man has no choice to not sin, man cannot sin.

Well, you are correct in a sense. If one considers free will (rational thought) a "trap", then God created a "trap". One could say if God had halted evolution before man had the ability to reason, man could never have sinned (e.g. the pot and the potter argument, if the pot is flawed, it is the potter's fault). Then again, I could say that if God had never willed me to EXIST, I could never have sinned. If He had created me as a dog or cat I could not have sinned either. God trapped me! One could even argue that if God had never willed any of creation, there would never have been any possibality of sin, therefore, it is all God's fault! Somehow, I doubt God will buy any of these arguments, which is where, hopefully, Our Lord will come in.

[Colabomb]

Well, you are correct in a sense. If one considers free will (rational thought) a "trap", then God created a "trap". One could say if God had halted evolution before man had the ability to reason, man could never have sinned (e.g. the pot and the potter argument, if the pot is flawed, it is the potter's fault). Then again, I could say that if God had never willed me to EXIST, I could never have sinned. If He had created me as a dog or cat I could not have sinned either. God trapped me! One could even argue that if God had never willed any of creation, there would never have been any possibality of sin, therefore, it is all God's fault! Somehow, I doubt God will buy any of these arguments, which is where, hopefully, Our Lord will come in.
Do you believe that God Predestined Man to be Sinful?

(Not foresaw, Predestined)

[john23237]

Do you believe that God Predestined Man to be Sinful?

(Not foresaw, Predestined)

I believe God FORESAW that man would be sinful and had a solution before the first hydrogen atom was created. I believe the solution was always with Him and... never mind, you know the Creeds.

[Ebor]

Sad that you would bring Hitler into this. That's a good example of why discussions turn into flame wars on this board. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilcox-McCandlish_law_of_online_discourse_evolution
;)

Ebor

[No Swansong]

To simply state that Adam sinned is not enough to answer the question raised. HOW did Adam sin? He ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which might be considered a way of saying that Adam came (evolved) to the point that he had the ability to understand the concept of good/evil. Animals cannot sin because they cannot understand that concept and it could be assumed that if Cro-magnon man's precursors lacked said understanding, they also were incapable of sin (think invincible ignorance). Thus, we may simply be being told here, in a poetic type fashion, that man had evolved to the point that he would understand good/evil and thus his actions could now be judged as sinful. It would not matter in this understanding whether there was one Adam or a baker's dozen, the meaning would be the same. How, by this understanding, was Our Lord the "second" Adam? Quite simply because the "first" Adam (or Adams) had AN understanding of good/evil, while the "secord' (Our Lord) brought the full understanding of good/evil.


Respectfully John this doesn't address my question. Let me ask a little more clearly. Was Paul and thus the Holy Spirit wrong when he referred to a literal Adam? While some make take the writing in Genesis to be Metaphorical, Pauls certainly was not.

[PaladinValer]

Evolution doesn't discount a literal Adam and Eve, a literal Garden, etc.

[No Swansong]

Evolution doesn't discount a literal Adam and Eve, a literal Garden, etc.

I don't believe I ever asserted that it did. I will repeat once more I don't care how God created, but there must have been a literal Adam or Paul and the Holy Spirit were either wrong or lied. This I do reject.

[Simon_Templar]

I've thought about this all day, and still don't see how it makes sense. Morality can be wholly independant of the evolutionary process. The Bible drags on in many a passage about denying self, material instincts, etc etc. I see no sense in linking the two implicitly.

The thrust of your argument here is that morality is seperate from action. Morality is seperate from physical reality. The entire issue before is DID GOD USE EVOLUTION AS HIS METHOD OF CREATION. This question INHERINTLY and UNAVOIDABLY affects how we view God himself and if it affects God, it affects EVERYTHING. God is truth, morality is simply wether or not we adhere to God's character. Nothing more, nothing less. IF Evolution is within God's character then it absolutely affects moral issues.

Andy, this portion responds to your comments as well about the Old Testament. First of all your comparison is rife with misunderstandings and false on many levels. On one simple level what you have done is compare the fact that God judges wickedness to God being completely and totally arbitrary handing out death and violence for no reason at all.
The reason the Israelites were told to wipe out the tribes they encountered in Canaan was because those tribes had become so totally corrupt and evil that they were beyond help. To allow them to remain was corrupting the very land itself, not to mention the Israelites should they have lived among them. I'm sorry if you don't like that image of God, but he has not changed one single iota since then.

That is totaly, and completely different then a God who as an extension of his character ordains that the order of creation, the very foundation of existence itself will be killing and selfishness.God's will and actions are ALWAYS an extension of his character, that is part of what Holiness means.

Furthermore your implication that God has changed since the old testament is totally false and denies not only everything in scripture but everything the church has ever taught.



It's a pretty simple and well know anthropological/historical understanding. Many an ancient culture had volumes of stories, fables, oral traditions, and the like that they knew, implicitly, were not factually true. So much so, that if one was to actually challenge a story based on its facts, they would have thought you mad. It was a normal, deep cultural trait that many, many stories weren't, or didn't need to be factually true in order for their message or purpose to be true.
Now, I can't speak for the ancient Israelites on this matter, because my range of study never took me to their culture, in particular. But until I come across evidence that they were literalists, I will remain convinced that they were not (at least not purely).

First off, there were few people more literal than the ancient hebrews when it came to believing and obeying God's commandments. Your talking about a people who when God told them to use red cows in the sacrifice checked the cow from hoof to head and if one hair was found which was not red they were required to find a different cow.

Ironicly, it was the one instance I'm aware of in which the hebrews didn't take things literally that caused them to miss the coming of Christ. They had been given numerous prophecies about the messiah which described him as suffering and bearing sins, being beaten and despised... etc They also received many that described him as a glorious king... well they decided that the ones about suffering and sin and all that must not be literal... that worked out well...

Now on to the rest... the idea that something can be "true while not factual" is correct but in very specific terms. A fable, a story, can be used to illustrate an idea, or to communicate an idea. That, however, is not the problem here. What we are talking about is evidence. You see the New Testament, Jesus, Paul, Peter... they all used the very things we are talking about as EVIDENCE to prove their points.
It is a complete misrepresentation of what they are saying to construe it as fables designed to illustrate an idea. What they said was "What I am telling you is true, BECAUSE you know that this event is true". They were clearly using the events in question as evidence, not illustration.
Moreover, when they were challenged by people who called them liars and said that they were peddling tall tales, what did they say???

"WE HAVE NOT FOLLOWED CLEVERLY DEVISED [.... wait for it.....] FABLES".

you make a very good point that every culture on earth has a set of fables that they used to teach their cultural values and most of them have ended up at some point rejecting their ancestral values specificly because they realized that the fables were not lierally true and thus their validity and credability was lost.
One of the great differences between the gospel, and any other religion is exactly that the gospel is literally true as well as mythicly true. Paul when speaking of the gospel says that if Jesus Christ did not literally rise from the dead then christianity is a miserable fraud and we are the most miserable of people.
The same thing is true of the events in Genesis. Time is not the issue at all. I don't care if it took 6 days, or 6 billion years. The issue is if the events happened, and HOW they happened.

Andy said we may never fully understand the "why" when it comes to God.. maybe we will never completely grasp the depth of God, but the bible was written, the bible was given specificly so that we could understand the why that God wants us to understand. The genesis account is there for a reason, part of that reason is for us to understand the why of several issues.



Not a fair charge. What is called science nowadays has an entirely different approach. Alchemy, magic, psuedoscience - they all operated on assumptions, sometimes completely baseless ones. The one defining change in the study of things (which resulted in what we know as "science" today), is that something must be observed/observable and testable in order for it to be considered scientific.


and here we have the most niave and gullible statement of the day. Don't get me wrong... this statement is correct as to what the difference between science and alchemy is SUPPOSED to be. The fact is somewhat different however.

I would love for you to tell me how the origin and diversification of life is observable, or testable in any way. Keeping in mind of course, that although proving evolution possible is a big enough task, its not enough. What we are talking about here is not proving whats possible, but rather proving what happened.

[higgs2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilcox-McCandlish_law_of_online_discourse_evolution
;)

Ebor

:thumbsup:
:bow: :bow: :bow:
^_^

[higgs2]

The thrust of your argument here is that morality is seperate from action. Morality is seperate from physical reality. The entire issue before is DID GOD USE EVOLUTION AS HIS METHOD OF CREATION. This question INHERINTLY and UNAVOIDABLY affects how we view God himself and if it affects God, it affects EVERYTHING. God is truth, morality is simply wether or not we adhere to God's character. Nothing more, nothing less. IF Evolution is within God's character then it absolutely affects moral issues.

Andy, this portion responds to your comments as well about the Old Testament. First of all your comparison is rife with misunderstandings and false on many levels. On one simple level what you have done is compare the fact that God judges wickedness to God being completely and totally arbitrary handing out death and violence for no reason at all.
The reason the Israelites were told to wipe out the tribes they encountered in Canaan was because those tribes had become so totally corrupt and evil that they were beyond help. To allow them to remain was corrupting the very land itself, not to mention the Israelites should they have lived among them. I'm sorry if you don't like that image of God, but he has not changed one single iota since then.

That is totaly, and completely different then a God who as an extension of his character ordains that the order of creation, the very foundation of existence itself will be killing and selfishness.God's will and actions are ALWAYS an extension of his character, that is part of what Holiness means.

Furthermore your implication that God has changed since the old testament is totally false and denies not only everything in scripture but everything the church has ever taught.




First off, there were few people more literal than the ancient hebrews when it came to believing and obeying God's commandments. Your talking about a people who when God told them to use red cows in the sacrifice checked the cow from hoof to head and if one hair was found which was not red they were required to find a different cow.

Ironicly, it was the one instance I'm aware of in which the hebrews didn't take things literally that caused them to miss the coming of Christ. They had been given numerous prophecies about the messiah which described him as suffering and bearing sins, being beaten and despised... etc They also received many that described him as a glorious king... well they decided that the ones about suffering and sin and all that must not be literal... that worked out well...

Now on to the rest... the idea that something can be "true while not factual" is correct but in very specific terms. A fable, a story, can be used to illustrate an idea, or to communicate an idea. That, however, is not the problem here. What we are talking about is evidence. You see the New Testament, Jesus, Paul, Peter... they all used the very things we are talking about as EVIDENCE to prove their points.
It is a complete misrepresentation of what they are saying to construe it as fables designed to illustrate an idea. What they said was "What I am telling you is true, BECAUSE you know that this event is true". They were clearly using the events in question as evidence, not illustration.
Moreover, when they were challenged by people who called them liars and said that they were peddling tall tales, what did they say???

"WE HAVE NOT FOLLOWED CLEVERLY DEVISED [.... wait for it.....] FABLES".

you make a very good point that every culture on earth has a set of fables that they used to teach their cultural values and most of them have ended up at some point rejecting their ancestral values specificly because they realized that the fables were not lierally true and thus their validity and credability was lost.
One of the great differences between the gospel, and any other religion is exactly that the gospel is literally true as well as mythicly true. Paul when speaking of the gospel says that if Jesus Christ did not literally rise from the dead then christianity is a miserable fraud and we are the most miserable of people.
The same thing is true of the events in Genesis. Time is not the issue at all. I don't care if it took 6 days, or 6 billion years. The issue is if the events happened, and HOW they happened.

Andy said we may never fully understand the "why" when it comes to God.. maybe we will never completely grasp the depth of God, but the bible was written, the bible was given specificly so that we could understand the why that God wants us to understand. The genesis account is there for a reason, part of that reason is for us to understand the why of several issues.





and here we have the most niave and gullible statement of the day. Don't get me wrong... this statement is correct as to what the difference between science and alchemy is SUPPOSED to be. The fact is somewhat different however.

I would love for you to tell me how the origin and diversification of life is observable, or testable in any way. Keeping in mind of course, that although proving evolution possible is a big enough task, its not enough. What we are talking about here is not proving whats possible, but rather proving what happened.
It's a theory. So is gravity.

[No Swansong]

It's a theory. So is gravity.

I would argue that technically since it is not reproducable it is not a Theory but a hypothesis. I have known more than a few scientists who believe in evolution who agree by the way.

[ContraMundum]

Evolution doesn't discount a literal Adam and Eve, a literal Garden, etc.

Umm....well, it doesn't discount them but it isolates them from the rest of their story entirely. That's no different to saying there was a historical Jesus but everything we know about Him is incorrect.

According to Genesis, Adam and Eve were created perfect, and had no parents. The fall ushered in death upon the whole of creation.

To try to cram the evolutionary theory peg into the Bible-shaped hole is impossible. One cannot agree with scripture on every point and support the evolutionary theory as well- instead of the Bible doctrine of Adam and Eve, created in the image of God, without parents, who fell from God's grace and brought the curse upon the world, you have a history of death and killing, which leads up to two particular people being the first humans and then....well......what curse? The Earth is already cursed with death and killing. So, as the children of Adam and Eve what are we being saved from?

Like most people in the debate realise, evolution puts death before sin, the Bible puts sin before death.

So, you can't really be an evolutionist and believe in the literal Garden of Eden and a literal Adam and Eve.

[PaladinValer]

made out of clay: out of the earth humanity rose. That's true.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

[ContraMundum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilcox-McCandlish_law_of_online_discourse_evolution
;)

Ebor

I think one cannot cite Godwin's Law just because the issue of Nazism was brought up, especially when the subject is pertinent to the matter at hand.

Eg. it is not a far fetched idea or a new one that evolutionary theory influenced philosophy, and indeed vice versa. It is also common thought to see the married relationship between philosophy and political ideology. Evolutionary theory did in fact have a direct influence on Nazism, particularly in the rascism inherent to Nazism.

Here's just one little page that deals with the connection. http://www.trueorigin.org/holocaust.asp

[ContraMundum]

made out of clay: out of the earth humanity rose. That's true.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Must you always overstate your case and just add "you're wrong" to every reply that does not gel with your premises?

Substantiate why I'm "wrong", and show me where the Bible allows for Adam and Eve to have human (or Ape-like!) parents, and where the Bible allows for the concept of death (essential to the theory of evolution) to come before Adam's sin?

[PaladinValer]

The Bible isn't a science textbook. Its wrong in this regard, 100%.

I leave to science what is science and I leave to religion what is religion.

Let me ask you this: what is the religious importance of Genesis 1:1-2:4a? Give me a list, and I'll see if I disagree with any of them.

[Andy Broadley]

This is Andy Broadley reporting live from STR park, where the half time score is

Creation Wanderers 0 Evolution United 0

A fast paced first half to this game, but one where both defences were clearly on top.

For the Creation Wanderers, both Simon Templer and ContraMundum made weaving runs down field, but over elaboration eventually prevented them scoring, and good chances were wasted.

United fared little better, Paladin Valor being their star in the first half, but lacking support, he was unable to make the desicive strike that could have seperated the sides.

Colabomb for Wanderers, and higgs2 for United made valuable contributions, but at the half way stage of this game there we still await the opening score. Frankly, with two tightly packed defences and both teams more intent on defence rather than attack, this game has all the hallmarks of yet another no score draw.

Andy Broadley, for CF sports, at STR park.

[Simon_Templar]

I would argue that technically since it is not reproducable it is not a Theory but a hypothesis. I have known more than a few scientists who believe in evolution who agree by the way.

You are correct, the modus operandi of humanist religions is to cloak themselves in science because of the credability of the scientific method. Evolution is a classic example of this. The idea of evolution as a view on the origin of life is simply not scientific in the sense of the "scientific method" (which of course is the only reason "science has any verifiability and thus credability).

Another comment I wanted to make went back to one of the posts Colabomb made and the response to it. Colabomb raised the idea of "irreducible complexity" with the example of the human eye.
The principle of irreducible complexity is that if anything in the "chain of evolution" can be shown to not be functional in a simpler form it proves that it could not have evolved. The only way anything evolves is by the fact that it provides an advantage of some sort at a given point in time that allows it to succeed where others fail. If something provides no advantage in simple forms, it can not have evolved into a complex form.

Another relative of this argument is that complexity = design, which of course evolutionist simply deny out right without bothering to try and actually show that there is anything complex which was not designed.

but going back to the point of irreducible complexity. Creationists have been trying to prove irreducible complexity for years with various examples ranging from the human eye to the bombadeer beetle to giraffes.

While these are all good examples of complexity = design (which is actually a good argument), they are all flawed examples of irreducible complexity, or mostly so.

There is, however, and example of irreducible complexity. It is the lowely, single cell. The most basic building block of every life form, the supposed first creature in the chain of evolution. Evolution focuses its entire effort on trying to prove how it is possible to get from a single cell to man (which is hard enough to the point of impossability) but it is far harder to prove that it is possible for a single cell to be evolved. In fact if evolution were to occur, it would take far more time and effort to get the single cell, than it would to get from that cell to man.

In the most simple life forms that exist, the most simple life forms that have ever been observed, the inner workings are already so complex that it would tax the abilities of man to design it. More importantly, life in that single, "simple" organism could not exist in signifcantly simpler forms.

One of my hobbies is studying game design (and of course playing games ;) ). One of the new frontiers in game design is trying to program a game that can come up with its own content in response to what the user does. This is accomplished by the use of incredibly complex algorthyms and math that literally makes my mind hurt just to think about it. The first project used to demonstrate this was a game which allows you to evolve a creature, then a society etc etc... My point here is that I found it particularly ironic that it takes every bit of complex math, algorythms, detailed computer programming, etc etc basicly every bit of brain power we have to design something that even remotely mimics the process of evolution which... just happened by chance.

that brings me to another point.. Those of you espousing "theistic evolution" because you think it more "scientific". There are probably fewer theistic evolutionist scientists in the world than creation scientists. Moreover, the vast overwhelming ediface of evolutionary thought that you all refer to, disagrees with you pretty much as much as they disagree with us. The book that Gtsecc linked earlier is written by an evolutionist, about how the evidence for evolution disproves the involvement of God. Not just creation, but God's involvement at all.

You see, even if you believe in theistic evolution, you still have to believe that God was the designer, and the mover and the people your appealing to to prove your point, believe that the evidence (which they have argued) that you are using from them, disproves your point.

It should give you pause, at least, that your going around touting the beliefs of, and agreeing with people who pretty much think that your a brainwashed idiot.

[Inside Edge]

My quote may have been simplistic, but it was not mocking as the tone of your quote.
You're far too defensive. Yes, your comment was equally as mocking - to a scientist. You paraphrased only one aspect of the modern understanding of evolution, to the extent that even an layperson (scientifically speaking) recognized it.

Paul when speaking of the gospel says that if Jesus Christ did not literally rise from the dead then christianity is a miserable fraud and we are the most miserable of people.
The same thing is true of the events in Genesis.
Why? I don't see how the two are on the same plane. Genesis still need not be literal.

I would love for you to tell me how the origin and diversification of life is observable, or testable in any way. Keeping in mind of course, that although proving evolution possible is a big enough task, its not enough. What we are talking about here is not proving whats possible, but rather proving what happened.
Seeing as I am convinced there is more evidence and coherent argument on evolution as what has happened, in addition to being a positive theory on what is possible, we'll have to recognize an impasse. Unless, of course, you have the ability and knowledge to discredit the evidence and related scientific theories.

This is accomplished by the use of incredibly complex algorthyms and math that literally makes my mind hurt just to think about it. The first project used to demonstrate this was a game which allows you to evolve a creature, then a society etc etc... My point here is that I found it particularly ironic that it takes every bit of complex math, algorythms, detailed computer programming, etc etc basicly every bit of brain power we have to design something that even remotely mimics the process of evolution which... just happened by chance.

And finally, something that has some interest and weight to it. But I don't recall anything on evolution stating that origins happened by chance.

[Andy Broadley]

"A fast start to the second period. Great solo run by Simon Templer, well tackled by Inside edge before he could get a shot on goal."

[Wiffey]

One of the cool things about science is that it has shown, through tracking certain mutations in people's mitochondrial DNA (which is only passed down through the mother), that all humans descended from one woman in East Africa who they have nicknamed "Eve". Let me find a link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve


"Mitochondrial Eve is the name given by researchers to the woman who is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all living humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human). We know about Eve because of mitochondria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondria). Mitochondria are organelles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organelle) that are only passed from mother to offspring. Each mitochondrion contains mitochondrial DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA) (mtDNA), and the comparison of DNA sequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_sequence) from mtDNA reveals a phylogeny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny). Based on the molecular clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock) technique of correlating elapsed time with observed genetic drift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift), Eve is believed to have lived in a population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population) of humans about 150,000 years ago in Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa)."

[karen freeinchristman]

One of the cool things about science is that it has shown, through tracking certain mutations in people's mitochondrial DNA (which is only passed down through the mother), that all humans descended from one woman in East Africa who they have nicknamed "Eve".

Yeah, that is pretty cool. I had forgotten about that discovery.

You know, I do think that the evidence for 'micro'-evolution (evolution within a given species) is pretty well known and accepted.

But I have to agree that 'macro'-evolution (a species evolving into another species) isn't fully proven, and there are lots of holes. I have wondered why it is, for example, that only SOME apes would evolve into humans, and not ALL apes. One might argue that niches existed for both, and so there was no need for all of them to evolve into humans. But I also have a big problem with the lack of existence of transitional-phase (so-to-speak) species (missing links), of which there really should be many specimens available. If apes evolved into humans, it certainly wouldn't be a sudden thing.

[higgs2]

This is Andy Broadley reporting live from STR park, where the half time score is

Creation Wanderers 0 Evolution United 0

A fast paced first half to this game, but one where both defences were clearly on top.

For the Creation Wanderers, both Simon Templer and ContraMundum made weaving runs down field, but over elaboration eventually prevented them scoring, and good chances were wasted.

United fared little better, Paladin Valor being their star in the first half, but lacking support, he was unable to make the desicive strike that could have seperated the sides.

Colabomb for Wanderers, and higgs2 for United made valuable contributions, but at the half way stage of this game there we still await the opening score. Frankly, with two tightly packed defences and both teams more intent on defence rather than attack, this game has all the hallmarks of yet another no score draw.

Andy Broadley, for CF sports, at STR park.
Andy, I adore you :) :) :) :) :)

[Andy Broadley]

Yeah, that is pretty cool. I had forgotten about that discovery.

You know, I do think that the evidence for 'micro'-evolution (evolution within a given species) is pretty well known and accepted.

But I have to agree that 'macro'-evolution (a species evolving into another species) isn't fully proven, and there are lots of holes. I have wondered why it is, for example, that only SOME apes would evolve into humans, and not ALL apes. One might argue that niches existed for both, and so there was no need for all of them to evolve into humans. But I also have a big problem with the lack of existence of transitional-phase (so-to-speak) species (missing links), of which there really should be many specimens available. If apes evolved into humans, it certainly wouldn't be a sudden thing.

Missing link. Course we've got it.

Never SEEN the NFL?:D :D :D

[Andy Broadley]

Andy, I adore you :) :) :) :) :)


:blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: Aw, gee....shucks

[PaladinValer]

Gravity isn't a theory because it isn't reproducable?

Um, actually, I believe it is. Astronaughts train in low and no gravity rooms.

[No Swansong]

Gravity isn't a theory because it isn't reproducable?

Um, actually, I believe it is. Astronaughts train in low and no gravity rooms.

PV you know full well that I was refering to evolution not gravity.

[PaladinValer]

Evolution is reproducable.

Evolution is spurred by changes in the environment. Humanity has the ability to create artificial environments for experimentation.

Evolution is thus reproducable.

[Andy Broadley]

Flag on the play
Flag on the play

Offside. 5 yard penalty.

First down Creation.

(just to prove that I have watched a superbowl or two)

[gtsecc]

Like most people in the debate realise, evolution puts death before sin, the Bible puts sin before death.


That is a Romish idea.
It came from Jerome's (mis)translation's of Romans 5:12 into Latin.
The Eastern Church has the emphasis on death.

[karen freeinchristman]

Evolution is reproducable.

Evolution is spurred by changes in the environment. Humanity has the ability to create artificial environments for experimentation.

Evolution is thus reproducable.

In the laboratory, the only kind of evolution that can be reproduced is micro-evolution. They have not yet (to my knowledge) been able to reproduce the evolution of one species into another.

[gtsecc]

The issue is so complicated that I don't see the point in trying to sort it out here. As I said earlier, if people were sincerely interested in learning about it, they would read a book on the subject, such as somethign written by Richard Dawkins or Stephen Gould.

[karen freeinchristman]

The issue is so complicated that I don't see the point in trying to sort it out here. As I said earlier, if people were sincerely interested in learning about it, they would read a book on the subject, such as somethign written by Richard Dawkins or Stephen Gould.


:doh:
Yeah, but, we want to argue about it here with each other!

[AngCath]

Every time an issue like this comes up, I do the humble thing; I listen. I don't know about all of you, but I am not a trained scientist. In fact, other than astronomy and geology in college, I haven't taken a science class in years. My training was in history. So, with a topic like this, I defer to those who are trained in science. I don't take their word as Gospel and I have my own opinions, but I listen.
I think that a lot of our arguments, feuds, etc. could be avoided if we didn't make ourselves "experts" on every topic we have opinions on.

my two cents

[IowaLutheran]

Every time an issue like this comes up, I do the humble thing; I listen. I don't know about all of you, but I am not a trained scientist. In fact, other than astronomy and geology in college, I haven't taken a science class in years. My training was in history. So, with a topic like this, I defer to those who are trained in science. I don't take their word as Gospel and I have my own opinions, but I listen.
I think that a lot of our arguments, feuds, etc. could be avoided if we didn't make ourselves "experts" on every topic we have opinions on.

my two cents

Excellent post. My brother has a PhD in paleontology (study of fossils) and works as an independent contractor for various oil companies, examining samples dredged up from deep in the Earth so that they know where to drill for oil. The entire field of science related to oil and oil research is based on the fact that there are different ages of sediments and fossils. So, when he says the Earth is billions of years old, I have no reason to disbelieve him.

[ContraMundum]

That is a Romish idea.
It came from Jerome's (mis)translation's of Romans 5:12 into Latin.
The Eastern Church has the emphasis on death.

Um...I wasn't referring to Rom 5:12, was I?

Let me put it to you from Genesis. (and none of the Fathers knew Hebrew well, so we have a clean slate).

Genesis- there is no death until Adam falls. You're not allowed to eat animals and there is no murder. They fall and a curse comes upon all creation, and they need a saviour.

Evolution- a series of deaths with everything eating everything else and the demise of manifold species over a gazzilion years leads up to some point where we get humans.

Theistic evolution- a series of deaths with everything eating everything else and the demise of manifold species over a gazzilion years leads up to two people who fall and then nothing out of the ordinary happens to all of creation, which continues on as before.

I say again: The Bible states that death came after the fall. Evolution states that death came before the fall.

[Andy Broadley]

The issue is so complicated that I don't see the point in trying to sort it out here. As I said earlier, if people were sincerely interested in learning about it, they would read a book on the subject, such as somethign written by Richard Dawkins or Stephen Gould.

I agree, it is pointless, and always will be.

But, heck, it passed a quiet day or two:D

[gtsecc]

I say again: The Bible states that death came after the fall. Evolution states that death came before the fall.
Ok, We agree.

[ContraMundum]

The Bible isn't a science textbook. Its wrong in this regard, 100%.

Can I quote you on that?

I leave to science what is science and I leave to religion what is religion.

Allllllllll-righty then. :eek:

Let me ask you this: what is the religious importance of Genesis 1:1-2:4a? Give me a list, and I'll see if I disagree with any of them.

Can we extend it to the first three chapters of Genesis and get real about this?

[ContraMundum]

Ok, We agree.
..and I knew we would agree! :thumbsup:


As for the Romans 5 thing.....we have the Greek at hand ourselves now, we can check it out ourselves.

[Andy Broadley]

Can I quote you on that?



Allllllllll-righty then. :eek:



Can we extend it to the first three chapters of Genesis and get real about this?

Flag, flag, flag, flag

Sarcasm at the line of scrimmage

5 yards

1st down Evolution

[ContraMundum]

Flag, flag, flag, flag

Sarcasm at the line of scrimmage

5 yards

1st down Evolution

I've been playing rugby all this time.....darn.....

[SirTimothy]

I'm not a strict YECer. I don't necessarily believe it was 7, literal, 24 hour day periods. Why do I believe that? Because I don't believe God is bound by time.

People tend to think of time and work are linked. "It took 5 hours to do that!" means it took a lot of work and effort. Even if someone else could have done it in five minutes.

God isn't bound by that. It doesn't take him time to think about things, or in human terms, he takes both no time at all, and an infinitely long length of time to do things. Because time has no effect on God.

Thus, whether it was 7 nanoseconds, 7 million years, or 7 24-hour days, all that matters is that God created.

I don't believe in evolution. I believe both it, and most modern-day creation science to be such terrible logical science that I wish nothing to do with it. I'd prefer to believe the bible, which God inspired, rather than man's flawed logic.

[Andy Broadley]

I've been playing rugby all this time.....darn.....

It was supposed to be a mix of football and gridiron actually:D

[PaladinValer]

In the laboratory, the only kind of evolution that can be reproduced is micro-evolution. They have not yet (to my knowledge) been able to reproduce the evolution of one species into another.

"Microevolution?" No such thing.

Evolution is evolution. Science doesn't differentiate...the whole "micro" and "macro" is an invention of YECs.

SirTimothy, Logos means more than Word; it means Reason too. God is perfectly logical...just because we are unable to comprehend something doesn't mean it is illogical.

[ContraMundum]

"Microevolution?" No such thing.

Evolution is evolution. Science doesn't differentiate...the whole "micro" and "macro" is an invention of YECs.

So, according to this comment, YEC's are not capable of being scientists or contributing to the scientific community either?
Anyway, my kids had high school books that spoke about micro and macro evolution and they were not YEC science books.

Too bad so many of those so-called YEC's are actually qualified to be scientists, eh PV?

SirTimothy, Logos means more than Word; it means Reason too. God is perfectly logical...just because we are unable to comprehend something doesn't mean it is illogical.

God not merely logical. We use logic (at times) to understand God. God is above logic. Because we are created in His image, we have the capability of using logic, but that does not mean God fits within logic. It would classic sinful haughtiness to suggest otherwise.

I suggest you go and read some Wittgenstein or something to understand the shortcomings of logic and language. The use of sound logic in theology has created some genuine disaster areas. It gave us all kinds of weird carnal doctrines. It's even made some people think God used evolution.

[SirTimothy]

"Microevolution?" No such thing.

Evolution is evolution. Science doesn't differentiate...the whole "micro" and "macro" is an invention of YECs.

SirTimothy, Logos means more than Word; it means Reason too. God is perfectly logical...just because we are unable to comprehend something doesn't mean it is illogical.

SirTimothy, Logos means more than Word; it means Reason too. God is perfectly logical...just because we are unable to comprehend something doesn't mean it is illogical.


Uhmmm... and why do you think this doesn't also apply to evolution?

[EvAnglican]

Nothing to add to this thread, but I have enjoyed reading the posts (most of them, anyway :) ).

[Andy Broadley]

Nothing to add to this thread, but I have enjoyed reading the posts (most of them, anyway :) ).

It's about run it's course again I'd say.

Another day or so and it'll slip back into the dusty basement of STR until we are next short of something to talk about and it gets brought out and dusted down again.

[SirTimothy]

Evolution is evolution. Science doesn't differentiate...the whole "micro" and "macro" is an invention of YECs.

Well, Berkeley talks about microevolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVMicroevolution.shtml

[Naomi4Christ]

Isn't microevolution talking about adaptation and speciation? The 'evolved' creature would have a different niche to the parent creature.

[Andy Broadley]

Isn't microevolution talking about adaptation and speciation? The 'evolved' creature would have a different niche to the parent creature.

So, nothing at all to do with "cover loosely and cook on high power for 4 minutes":D

[Naomi4Christ]

Andy, I sense you are not taking this topic seriously :)

[Andy Broadley]

Andy, I sense you are not taking this topic seriously :)


Who, me??? :holy: :holy: :holy: :holy: :holy:

[Colabomb]

"Microevolution?" No such thing.

Evolution is evolution. Science doesn't differentiate...the whole "micro" and "macro" is an invention of YECs.

SirTimothy, Logos means more than Word; it means Reason too. God is perfectly logical...just because we are unable to comprehend something doesn't mean it is illogical.
Paladin, as I pointed out earlier, your degree is in History, not Biology.

[Andy Broadley]

What we need is someone with a degree in the history of biology:cool:

[Naomi4Christ]

Sounds like plenty of pub time with that degree...

[SirTimothy]

Theoretically microevolution is the opposite of macroevolution. Microevolution doesn't have anything to do with the species improving itself, quite the opposite, it says that species lose charicteristics that don't work. Like polar bears--all the colored bears couldn't survive, only the albino ones did, so they 'evolved' into white bears.

Timothy

[SirTimothy]

What we need is someone with a degree in the history of biology:cool:

:amen: :amen: :amen: :amen: :amen: :amen:

[Naomi4Christ]

Theoretically microevolution is the opposite of macroevolution. Microevolution doesn't have anything to do with the species improving itself, quite the opposite, it says that species lose charicteristics that don't work. Like polar bears--all the colored bears couldn't survive, only the albino ones did, so they 'evolved' into white bears.

Timothy

Polar bears is a case of adaptation, surely?

The 'survival of the less fit' main story is that of sickle cell anaemia sufferers being immune to malaria (I think).

I am a physical scientist, not a natural scientist, and am very unqualified to comment on any of these things. I am quite happy to say, "I don't know."

[Andy Broadley]

Polar bears is a case of adaptation, surely?

The 'survival of the less fit' main story is that of sickle cell anaemia sufferers being immune to malaria (I think).

I am a physical scientist, not a natural scientist, and am very unqualified to comment on any of these things. I am quite happy to say, "I don't know."

I always wondered why penguins didn't turn completely white.

Probably because the silly blighters wouldn't be able to find each other if they did.:D

[No Swansong]

"Microevolution?" No such thing.

Evolution is evolution. Science doesn't differentiate...the whole "micro" and "macro" is an invention of YECs.

SirTimothy, Logos means more than Word; it means Reason too. God is perfectly logical...just because we are unable to comprehend something doesn't mean it is illogical.

Sorry PV but you simply are incorrect about this. There is a large distinction between the two and I have three (secular) universities in the City in which I live that offer classes in both. They are distincly different even within the scientific community.

[Naomi4Christ]

I always wondered why penguins didn't turn completely white.

Probably because the silly blighters wouldn't be able to find each other if they did.:D

Yes, and penguins rely on one another for warmth. They wouldn't be able to survive (in their present state) without one another.

[SirTimothy]

Polar bears is a case of adaptation, surely?

Yes, but I believe every case of adaptation that we can see has either weakened the species (i.e. polar bears) or left it at the same strength. Nowhere have we seen evidence of species improving themselves.