The experts of evolution are not preachers or televangelists. The experts are biologists, and they are nearly unanimous in their support of TOE. Why do you suppose it is that whenever you see or hear somebody bashing evolutionary theory, there's always an evangelical behind it? I mean, if TOE is really as flawed as you say it is, then why is it that Christians can see the flaws but biologists can't?
That is an excellent question, CH. I have tried to explain this on Ray's list several times now but it somehow doesn't sink in.
I want to say first of all that the ToE is not the problem. I fully recognize now which parts Darwin got right and the ones he got wrong. Unfortunately, the part that is wrong is only assumed these days and imposed on the evidence. I uphold science as well. I believe that science, if done correctly, can bring us closer to the truth. And isn't that what we want? The truth. I do.
I believe one of the worst mistakes the church ever did was to be too quick to respond to the evidence as it was coming in and try to rule science. I never saw science as a jurisdiction until I started talking to this group. I believe that God ordained authority and it is important to allow those in authority to do their job. If the church had any input in science it should be the same input they have in government and that is to be salt and light to preserve these things from evil while at the same time not telling them how to do their job. Instead of self correcting, the church stood firm in the belief of a young earth and have brought great reproach on the church as a result. What I find so frustrating about that is that the real evidence fits a biblical model.
When we begin an ideology and base our truth on it, we have a tendency to make choices based on that ideology. I believe in God. I believe that God has personal expectations for each individual and expects his creation to uphold His righteous standard. I do not believe that God created us with sin nature software so that when the wheel rolled off with the initial two that somehow the sin nature software kicked in and man was destined to sin 24/7. Common sense, once again, tells us that this is not the case. People are actually given many advantages not to sin. Our conscience is one. Authority is another. Even for an out and out heathen, for example, a lie is unacceptable and called into question. What generally happens to people is that they are in a suffering situation and instead of having the ability to do what is right, they do what is wrong to get around the suffering. Jesus explained this to Peter when Peter would be faced with the temptation to deny Him in such a horrible situation. He said the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. IOW, you need something more to get over those hurdles. That is the transition that Jesus created in His blood so that we could have His Spirit to be led of Him.
I believe that there are eternal consequences to our actions and we will stand before God one day and give an account. Although I was told differently from various Christian teachers (including Ray) I find nothing in Scripture to support the idea that somehow real Christians are exempt from this judgment or that they cannot deceptively fall prey to the world and start sinning. Ray would argue that they are "false converts." I see many passages in Scripture that stand against this and lay the entire responsibility on the person who is choosing. Matthew 7 is crystal clear that there are people in that day that think they are saved and call Jesus Lord but continue to sin and wind up in hell's fire because they never departed from their sin and got to know Him.
What does this have to do with the ToE? Everything. If the ToE were simply microevolutionary changes that occur within species, there would be no problem. Everyone across the board can see this. But, the ToE, as it is told from the atheistic perspective that dominates the public school curriculum that leaves God out, explains the creation scenario as purely naturalistic needing no God. The truth of the matter is that science itself does not support this. This recent experiment with RNA is a classic example of the fact that intelligence is needed in creation. Instead of stepping back and admitting this fact, the atheists pick this information up and try to hold it in the face of Christians as an explanation for abiogenesis. Were it not for these intelligent men on RTB, I doubt anyone would have an argument because from the layman's perspective, that evidence is very compelling. It is only when you hear how many meticulous steps had to be taken that you realize just how sophisticated and elegant this experiment really was.
Now, if the naturalistic point of view is true, then the person can conclude that there are problems with the Bible. There is absolutely no question that if the naturalistic ToE is true than the Bible is completely false. I know God is real so I don't doubt the Bible. But for those who don't know God, if they follow that line of thinking, the next phase will lead them to sin or to reject God completely. Since they have no fear of God, many things in this life are excluded within their choices. They think they are going to leave this world one day and that's it. It's lights out. No lie they told. No lust they participated in will have any consequence. No cruel mean action they had against the innocent will matter. What a shocker they are in for when they wake up before God.
I wouldn't wish that on anyone, CH. I try daily to convince you of the truth. God has made Himself real to me in more ways than I can tell you. I had a miracle happen today. I'll have to wait to share the whole story with you.
Bottom line: I uphold science. I love science. I believe that science is discovering God's invisible attributes. I believe that the Bible is the one true Word of God and that Jesus is exactly who He said He is - the Son of God. I believe that through the power of God, man can be set free from sin.
Vera
Posts
12 comments:
Bottom line: I uphold science. I love science. I believe that science is discovering God's invisible attributes. I believe that the Bible is the one true Word of God and that Jesus is exactly who He said He is - the Son of God. I believe that through the power of God, man can be set free from sin.
~~~~~~~~~
Sadly, Vera--No, you don't uphold science. If you did, you wouldn't be getting your information from a creationist ministry. It would be like me insisting that I love history but insisting the Holocaust is a myth because I get all my historical information from revisionist, anti-semetic sources.
Common ancestry is an established fact, there is abundant evidence for it across a range of scientific disciplines--as has been patiently explained to you many times before. Science isn't what you say it is, or what some creationist ministry says it is. It's what scientists themselves say it is. And biologists are virtually unanimous in their support for TOE.
You call it a myth for one reason and one reason only--it offends your religious beliefs. Period. There are many scientific sources that could provide you with accurate information about evolution, but you insist on getting your information exclusively from some creationist ministry rather than from scientists themselves. You never cite the NCSE or National Academy of Sciences. You only cite RTB, and there's a reason for that. You're not trying to discover the truth about the natural world. You're trying to sell your religion.
CH
You've created a false dichotomy here. Somehow it seems that you can't get past the fact that science and God are in harmony. From your position, it's either God or science From the point of many Christians, it is the same thing. There can be no agreement. But you have to agree that IF there is a God and IF He is the Creator, then science must be in harmony with Him since science is simply the study of what He created. Since God commanded that we test everything, I'm going to say that He wouldn't cause us to test things only to discover that they are out of touch with reality on either end of the spectrum. That is all RTB does is prove this fact through the scientific evidence. It is the only organization that uses a model based on the Bible.
The nested hierarchy is not always proof that it happened naturally. Everyone sees that a little was added here and there. Nobody is questioning this. The place where we part company is if this could have happened naturally or was there a need for a Designer?
For one thing, there isn't enough time. Many of these radiation events occurred directly after a cataclysmic event such as the KT boundary. Secondly, the fossil record does not agree with the amount of gradualism necessary to perform the process that the ToE posits. Instead it is punctuated equilibrium where there are radiation events and then long periods of stasis followed by extinction. Thirdly, the ToE never takes into account how even incremental changes that effect respiration in a neonate can cause brain damage and/or death. I have never ever heard RTB make that point. That comes directly from my own background with neonates. Fourthly, there has never been an established connection between the hominids and homo sapien sapiens. Instead the evidence better fits the biblical model where the mtDNA points to one woman in East Africa and traces mankind as spreading out from that point as opposed to the hypothesis that suggests that hominid groups in Asia gave rise to Asians etc. Fifthly, extinction is the norm not creation. Sixthly, when man shows up, he immediately displays the image of God. Seventhly, repeated evolution is a huge problem in that the animals of the same kind are found oceans apart with a completely different set of circumstances. Steven suggests that a monkey crossed the water on a log. I don't think so.
And lastly, you are wrong. I subscribed to one of the science web sites that is respected in the scientific community and I try to read the pertinent information. I also watch some TV shows that are documentaries that try to promote the ToE. I also listened to Evolution 101 on iTunes. That was was the most profound. Dr. Zach came right out of the box trying to falsify creationism. He also devoted an entire podcast to homosexuality. So please do not tell me that there is not an agenda going on here. He tried to prove his points through microevolutionary changes in lizards and birds but not huge speciation that is imposed on the evidence.
You are right in a sense. I didn't come here because I was a skeptic. I came here because I cared about you. I have literally spent hours trying to persuade you to the truth. How do I know it's the truth? He set me free from sin. I have a clear conscience. If you died tonight, CH, you would go straight to hell. If I'm right (and I know I am right) that is what awaits you after death. I don't want that for you. I want you to be in heaven with me. :-)
Vera
PS. Part of the downfall of being a Christian is having to be loosely associated with folks like Joel Osteen. He does not preach the right message.
Let me tell you something, lady. You are an abomination to God. You are teaching an apostasy. ONCE YOU ARE SAVED YOU ARE ALWAYS SAVED and if you are telling people otherwise then you are spreading lies about Jesus Christ and in the name of Jesus Christ.
You need to get on your knees and examine just what it is and that you are doing. If you are truly saved then God will not send you to hell for what you are doing, but can better bet that he will punish for for spreading lies in the name of His Son.
Verandoug replied to Captain Howdy:
You've created a false dichotomy here. Somehow it seems that you can't get past the fact that science and God are in harmony. From your position, it's either God or science From the point of many Christians, it is the same thing. There can be no agreement. But you have to agree that IF there is a God and IF He is the Creator, then science must be in harmony with Him since science is simply the study of what He created. Since God commanded that we test everything, I'm going to say that He wouldn't cause us to test things only to discover that they are out of touch with reality on either end of the spectrum. That is all RTB does is prove this fact through the scientific evidence. It is the only organization that uses a model based on the Bible.
Captain Howdy did not, at least in the post to which you are replying, erect a dichotomy between "science" and "God," but rather a dichotomy between "science" and your particular religious views. You note that YECs reject many conclusions of science purely because of their own religious views (though surely Ken Ham or Jonathon Sarfati would insist, as much as you do, that science is in harmony with God and that they test things and find them in agreement with "a model based on the Bible." You and Hugh Ross accept more of modern science than does, say, Answers in Genesis, but then, Gerardus Bouw and his geocentric creationists accept less of modern science than Ken Ham does. The point is that every one of you draws a line based on theological dogma, not on examination of the world, and then declare that science cannot contradict your understanding of the really important points in Genesis.
The nested hierarchy is not always proof that it happened naturally. Everyone sees that a little was added here and there. Nobody is questioning this. The place where we part company is if this could have happened naturally or was there a need for a Designer?
I'm not quite sure what your point is here. The point of the nested hierarchy is that it is explicable by branching descent with incremental modification, and by nothing else. It does not directly address what causes the incremental modifications. Now, your position on common descent is rather wobbly: at times you seem to accept it, as long as the modifications involve miracles; at other times, you point out gaps in the fossil record as though looking for some reason to believe that you are not a modified monkey.
Your question about a Designer is ill-posed. On the one hand, you can't just throw up your hands every time there's an unanswered question about the history of life, and declare "it must be a miracle!" Puzzles in the history of life may not even require an unknown cause: perhaps known causes acting in unexpected ways will explain a matter. If there is an unknown cause, though, the mere fact that no known cause can account for a thing is no reason to suppose that the unknown cause is purposeful, or intelligent, much less supernatural, or has any of the distinctive attributes of God.
On the other hand, presumably God could act in ways that produce the same effects as purely natural causes (e.g. if Jesus turns water into wine, and it's recognized as wine, presumably it looked and tasted like the stuff that was made without miracles from naturally-grown grapes). And the Bible furthermore insists that God can indeed work through natural causes, from His authorship of the weather to His use of plagues, wars, famines, and wild predators as instruments of punishment. So while showing that something has no known natural explanation is not sufficient to establish a miracle, showing that it does it not, strictly speaking, enough to conclusively show that no miracle was involved.
For one thing, there isn't enough time. Many of these radiation events occurred directly after a cataclysmic event such as the KT boundary.
Right after the K-T boundary was the Paleocene epoch, a ten-million year period in which mammals were mostly small and generalized, not so very different from their Cretaceous predecessors. Many modern groups of plants, such as cactuses, appeared (although they may have existed in isolated regions in the late Cretaceous), but in general it was not until the Eocene that disparate large mammals appeared. Ten million years is a fair chunk of time for a radiation event, when one considers, on the one hand, the variety of dog breeds that have arisen within less than ten thousand years, or the number of new species of plants, and even a few animals, that have been produced within the last millennium or so.
Secondly, the fossil record does not agree with the amount of gradualism necessary to perform the process that the ToE posits. Instead it is punctuated equilibrium where there are radiation events and then long periods of stasis followed by extinction.
Gould and Eldredge proposed that punctuated equilibrium required new species to arise over hundreds or thousands of years, not instantaneously. Gould, in fact, observed fossils showing a gradual change from one species to another within the snail genus Cerion over thousands of years, and declared it to be support for his notion of punctuationalism. PE was invoked to explain how, in rich, fine-grained fossil sequences, one species was replaced by another very similar species without transitions between species (that is, without a fossil record of the sort of evolution that has actually been observed in the world today). Both of these paleontologists noted that transitionals between higher taxa are common.
Thirdly, the ToE never takes into account how even incremental changes that effect respiration in a neonate can cause brain damage and/or death. I have never ever heard RTB make that point. That comes directly from my own background with neonates.
I cannot say why RtB does not make that point, but possibly it is because it is irrelevant. That some mutations that affect respiration are lethal does not mean that all are, and that some mutations affect breathing does not mean that all do. Most individuals born (or hatched, spawned, seeded, whatnot) live and die without reproducing and passing on their genes. Those with deleterious mutations join this majority, and their bad mutations vanish from the world. The rest of the species continues on, free to become better adapted as a result of the rarer beneficial mutations. To the extent that your esperience in the NICU told you anything at all about mutations, it gave you a very biased look at them (obviously, you'd be unlikely to observe the effects of a beneficial mutation, had one occurred).
Fourthly, there has never been an established connection between the hominids and homo sapien sapiens.
Except, of course, for the shared pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses, and other DNA features that are shared between humans and other primates. Or, if by "hominids" you mean members of the tribe Hominini, there is the general pattern of increasing brain size, decreasing face size, shortening of arms relative to legs, etc. over time, and their increasing resemblance to modern humans in appearance. And, of course, there's the fact that the oldest hominin fossils show up in Africa, where scientists find [a] the greatest genetic diversity among modern humans, indicating that we've been there longer than we've been in other parts of the world, and [b] the two great ape genera that are most similar to us genetically and anatomically.
Instead the evidence better fits the biblical model where the mtDNA points to one woman in East Africa and traces mankind as spreading out from that point as opposed to the hypothesis that suggests that hominid groups in Asia gave rise to Asians etc.
What is your take on the Noah's Ark story? If the Ark landed (as is usually inferred) in Asia, and if it contained the ancestors of all modern humans, why does mtDNA evidence indicate that humans spread out from Africa?
I've pointed out in the past that, given the nature of mtDNA (it is passed on only from the mother, and since every daughter has only one mother but some mothers have more than one daughter), the mtDNA line must converge on one female, without meaning that this female is the only woman alive in her generation with descendants living today (just the only one connected to all living humans through an unbroken mother-to-daughter line of descent, rather than an occasional mother-son line). Mitochondrial DNA does not address the question of whether mtDNA Eve had ancestors of her own, and establishing that Asian populations of H. erectus contributed little if anything to modern Asian human genomes in no way contradicts the idea that H. erectus shared ancestors with us.
Fifthly, extinction is the norm not creation. Sixthly, when man shows up, he immediately displays the image of God. Seventhly, repeated evolution is a huge problem in that the animals of the same kind are found oceans apart with a completely different set of circumstances. Steven suggests that a monkey crossed the water on a log. I don't think so.
Are there any more or less direct observations of creation? There are observations of mutation, natural selection, and speciation, and, yes, there are observations of extinction, but the phenomenon upon which the "creation model" depends is so vaguely described that it's not clear what it would look like if scientists were looking at it, but certainly creationists don't seem to be able to point to examples of it going on. In any case there are periods in Earth history in which extinctions outnumber the production of new species, and the only species on Earth that is capable of noting extinctions or speciations unfortunately alters the environment enough to promote rapid extinctions.
The first anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens) in Europe and southwest Asia continued to use, for thousands of years, the Mousterian tool kit associated with Neanderthals before producing more advanced tools. Only a few ancient H. sapiens sites show signs of art (and the oldest art is just cross-hatching on a block of ochre). Moral judgement and philosophy are hard to discern from stone and bone tools and scratchings on rock, but the cultural and behavioral traits of modern humans do not at first seem much different from those of earlier hominines and more modern behaviors emerged gradually.
Your seventh point is rather vague: I recall earlier that you've raised the issue of similar frogs and similar ratites (in each case, derived from similar ancestors -- so we're dealing with parallel rather than convergent evolution -- due to similar alterations in developmental processes). As for monkeys, your personal incredulity is not much of a reason to suppose that a few organisms could raft across the Atlantic on tangles of fallen mangroves once in a million years or so. There is a difference between "unlikely" and "impossible;" your point seven basically amounts to saying how unlikely it is that any particular person wins the lottery, so how miraculous it must be that someone wins it almost every week. Given enough evolutionary lineages and time, some striking cases of convergent or parallel evolution will take place, even if the chances of it happening to any particular lineage is a million to one against.
Sarah Livingston replied to Vera:
Let me tell you something, lady. You are an abomination to God. You are teaching an apostasy. ONCE YOU ARE SAVED YOU ARE ALWAYS SAVED and if you are telling people otherwise then you are spreading lies about Jesus Christ and in the name of Jesus Christ.
I think you mean that Vera is teaching "heresy" rather than "apostasy." "Apostasy" is the act of rejecting Christ after accepting him (which you seem to think is impossible, which makes it odd that you'd accuse anyone of it); "heresy" is false teaching.
Did not Paul say of Dismas that he had been a loyal aid at one point, and then fallen away because he loved this present world? Did not Jesus speak, in the parable of the sower, of seed that took root but then withered away? I think that at least "once saved always saved" is not clearly and unequivocally taught in the New Testament; you are basically calling Vera a liar and a heretic because she does not read the Bible through the filter of John Calvin's views. You are, in effect, exalting human authority and human-invented doctrines to the status of scripture.
I suppose I have no grounds to complain about that, mind you. But I thought you should be aware of what you're doing.
You need to get on your knees and examine just what it is and that you are doing. If you are truly saved then God will not send you to hell for what you are doing, but can better bet that he will punish for for spreading lies in the name of His Son.
You display so very much confidence in your opinions, and so very little evidence or reasoning to support them.
Steven,
You can insult me all you like, I do not care. If you want to pick over my words, do that also. Nothing will deter me from preaching to someone who is spreading lies in the name of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Now here is something for you http://www.gotquestions.org/once-saved-always-saved.html.
I don't know how I keep missing these posts on my own list. I saw Steven's today but totally missed Sarah's from the 5th. Sorry bout that. I have been a little busy with homeschool and some other things our family has been doing. These notes also seem to come in amongst all the ones from Ray's board. If I don't respond in a timely time just throw me another email.
Actually, Steven here is a prime example of someone that was a Christian teacher who walked away from God. Now you could propose that he never knew God but from what I've seen of all that he was and knew, I don't think that is the case. People are free to choose. Becoming a Christian does not take that freewill choice away from a person.
The bottom line and the real problem is sin. Paul said in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 not to be deceived that the unrighteous would not inherit the kingdom. You know what that tells me? People can be deceived somehow that the unrighteous will inherit the kingdom. Then just in case you aren't sure what the unrighteous look like, Paul gives you yet another one of his lists of sins, which almost universally included sexual deviance and immorality, covetousness, idolatry and murder. Drunkards are included as well.
Matthew 7:21-23 stands starkly against a once saved; always saved position. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. These are folks that thought, for whatever reason, that they could sin and be saved.
See unless you are set free from sin, you're not getting in. 1 Peter 4:18 says, "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" When we are compared against the holiness of God, we become like Isaiah - undone or like the Apostle John - as dead.
Hebrews 10:26-31 is another one of the passages that speaks on sinning after knowing the truth. Note that doing so is like troddening under foot the Son of God and doing despite to the Spirit of Grace. It is obvious that this person is willfully sinning AFTER receiving the knowledge of the truth and guess what? There remains no longer a sacrifice for sin. If that isn't a scary thought, I don't know what is. I wish someone had told me that many moons ago because I have been a Christian (supposedly) for 36 years and the majority of time, I thought I could sin and be saved.
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge HIS people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Now John in 1 John tells us that we can confess our sins and be cleansed from all unrighteousness but then he goes on to say in 1 John 3 that Christians do not sin. See that is what the Spirit of Grace does in our lives. He transforms us on the inside so that we are no longer offending a Holy God by a power that the early church defined as charis or "grace." It is God's divine nature in us. Paul explained this in Romans 6, 7, and 8 by saying that he now had the power to overcome sin by being led of the Spirit and no longer the flesh.
As long as you have faith in the Spirit of God to do that work in you and you stay in His Word and recognize the fear of the Lord where it involves sin, I know that God does all those promises you quote in your article. It is God that is holding us up through His Spirit and power by grace through faith and this not of ourselves. The minute you think that sin is a no big deal thing and you give into temptation to lie, cheat, steal, lust, commit adultery, turn to homosexuality, get drunk, etc, you have walked away from the faith.
Paul made a distinction about this in 1 Cor. He said that if a brother was sinning like this, we were not even supposed to eat with them but that this admonition did not include the lost or we might as well leave this world. He turned the 1 Cor. 5 fornicator over to satan and judged him because he was a professing Christian that was sinning. The man repented and was restored.
Ray argues that someone like say Ray Boltz was never saved to begin with because he has been battling homosexuality for many years. I would argue that Ray Boltz did not have the fear of the Lord where it came to sin and so he didn't follow Jesus' profound instructions to cut off his hand or pluck out his eye if it caused him to sin. I recognize that Jesus was making a very extreme statement here but He was trying to explain just how imperative it was to get the sin out of your life and to do whatever it takes to get rid of it. When I personally took hold of the Word of God and took it into my heart and memorized it and meditated on it daily, the sin problems of my life seemed to vanish away. I know that was the power of God in my life.
I hope that helps explain my position on once saved; always saved.
Many blessings as you seek the Lord for truth,
Vera
@vera--
I asked you a simple, straightforward question:
"I mean, if TOE is really as flawed as you say it is, then why is it that Christians can see the flaws but biologists can't?"
Where did you answer this question?
You gave me a barrage of reasons why you don't accept TOE, you gave me a sermonette about how important it is to join your religion before I die, but you never answered my question.
If TOE is really as flawed as you say it is, then why is it that Christians can see the flaws but biologists can't?
Conservative Christians are telling the rest of us that the nation's biologists don't know what they're talking about concerning a matter that falls within their (the biologists') field of specialty--evolution. So--Who to believe?
Well, which side is more qualified to speak on the subject? Biologists are. The fact that this has been repeatedly pointed out to you, and you have disregarded it, raises serious questions about your credibility.
The fact is that you are denying the validity of a theory that is considered by the experts themselves to be the cornerstone of biology. The reason you are doing this appears to be because TOE conflicts with a literal reading of the Bible.
You had to choose between the findings of modern biology and your religion, and you chose your religion, relegating evolution to a mere "myth."
Of course, this raises a question: If your religion doesn't accord very well with what science has discovered about the natural world, then why should I take your religion seriously at all?
Or to put it another way: If you're this wrong about something this well established, then why should I listen to you even for a moment about things I can't verify, like the existence of the supernatural?
Biologist Kenneth Miller--a Christian--pointed out that creationism isn't just lousy science, it's lousy theology, too. Because creationism insists that Christianity and evolution can't both be true, that means that all you have to do to disprove Christianity is to prove evolution--something that was accomplished many years ago.
Steven,
You could talk the hind leg off a mule. Where do you get all this time????
To suggest that it is either science or religion and no other choice is to present a false dichotomy. I am not saying that RTB has every answer. So far, I like their model but I don't think they know everything. You would say the same where it concerns science. What I like about them is that they propose a model in which secular science and the Bible are in harmony just as you would anticipate.
I believe that science is simply the study of the natural world that God created. Some of the natural world is created with the means to evolve. No question. I don't know how many ways I can say that. But I do see that this evolution built into the system is an example of a design feature because it shows a logic. How can a naturalistic model predict that DNA would have the ability to adapt? Did DNA when it came together know that the conditions of the earth, the ecosystem or the habitat might change and therefore DNA somehow placed this logic in itself?
The point is that every one of you draws a line based on theological dogma, not on examination of the world, and then declare that science cannot contradict your understanding of the really important points in Genesis.
Let me make this crystal clear. Hopefully you will hear me this time. I fully and totally disagree with this practice of taking Scripture and trying to make my interpretation of the Bible fit the world of nature per a science that I invent to make it happen. I personally believe that this practice has led to many problems for the church.
Men like Augustine proposed that the universe was old and perhaps each epoch of creation was a thousand years. However, Augustine had no way to test his hypothesis. He only could speculate. I, too, have a speculation that Adam and Eve had children before their eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and that a great deal of time passed between the point of their creation and this moment. I believe there are some breadcrumbs that lead to this within the Bible but I have no way to test my hypothesis. In order to test it, I would need the skeletons of people that died many thousands of years ago and a means to test their longevity. Perhaps in the future something of this nature will be created to test a skeleton in that way. For now, all I have is a theory that I can propose. It means nothing. I can't build truth on my theory because I have no proof. Neither could Augustine. Many years later another man proposed that the Earth was very young. He was wrong. Now we can measure the light that is traveling from the stars and the half life of various elements and we know that the Earth is very old.
I believe that when Christians impose their understanding of the Bible on science, they force society to dismiss them from the classroom. I never saw that before these last few years that Christianity itself by doing this, forced the courts to dismiss them from our children's education.
Science had evolved into a jurisdiction. Before this last couple of centuries, science was a part of the church. This paradigm shift has led to the mess we're in where so many children are being brainwashed in a science that indoctrinates children with an understanding of our universe that leaves the hand of God out of the equation, when it is so apparent if you look closely that He is there. as I said, you don't even have to mention God to show this within science.
Right after the K-T boundary was the Paleocene epoch, a ten-million year period in which mammals were mostly small and generalized, not so very different from their Cretaceous predecessors. Many modern groups of plants, such as cactuses, appeared (although they may have existed in isolated regions in the late Cretaceous), but in general it was not until the Eocene that disparate large mammals appeared. Ten million years is a fair chunk of time for a radiation event, when one considers, on the one hand, the variety of dog breeds that have arisen within less than ten thousand years, or the number of new species of plants, and even a few animals, that have been produced within the last millennium or so.
I do believe that some of these animals appeared on the scene shortly after the KT boundary. The repopulation seemed to be flourishing by 10 million years, which is what would be anticipated. The earth was fairly decimated by the event that caused that boundary. We know that because no dinosaur survived - not even the ocean dwelling ones. When you consider that little factor and the fact that the Cambrian explosion did not require a cataclysmic event, ten million years is a fairly short amount of time. Remember it supposedly took 3 billion years for life to emerge the first go round.
Your question about a Designer is ill-posed. On the one hand, you can't just throw up your hands every time there's an unanswered question about the history of life, and declare "it must be a miracle!"
Perhaps but what I am trying to demonstrate is that the evidence points to the need for intervention by Someone logical and intelligent - an Engineer. If there is one point that RTB brings out consistently, it is that the timing of each of these changes seems to follow a logic where it comes to atmospheric changes, the luminosity of the sun and the eventual rise of mankind. RTB has also mentioned that we cannot say "God did it" every time there is a problem with the nature of this world. So they would agree with you. What they do that is different is show the way that these things fit the biblical model and the logical pattern that is displayed by these parts of our natural world.
Gould and Eldredge proposed that punctuated equilibrium required new species to arise over hundreds or thousands of years, not instantaneously. Gould, in fact, observed fossils showing a gradual change from one species to another within the snail genus Cerion over thousands of years, and declared it to be support for his notion of punctuationalism.
As I have said before, this is not an example of speciation but an example of microevolutionary changes. Even YEC has always held to this. Everyone does. I liked what UnclePT said the other day that Gould backtracked once he realized how his theory supported creationism. However, his observation was true. There is no gradualism in the fossil record where it concerns the rise of new species.
I'm not quite sure what your point is here. The point of the nested hierarchy is that it is explicable by branching descent with incremental modification, and by nothing else. It does not directly address what causes the incremental modifications. Now, your position on common descent is rather wobbly: at times you seem to accept it, as long as the modifications involve miracles; at other times, you point out gaps in the fossil record as though looking for some reason to believe that you are not a modified monkey.
When have I ever suggested that microevolutionary changes are "miracles?" I do believe that nature itself is miracle enough for proof. I do think life shows an adaptability built into the system of genetics. OTOH, where it involves huge leaps, not even the fossil record shows that kind of change in incremental bits.
Jesus' miracles always took the natural world and made it supernatural. The wine He created was not something other-worldly or bizarre like something out of a fairy tale. It was wine. He created eyes for the blind man, but they weren't other-worldly eyes - they were regular old eyes. I say that tongue-in-cheek though because an eye is such an incredible piece of engineering. I see the eye as a miracle in itself even before it is healed. These are examples of transcendent miracles yet they are still pieces of this natural world. They have to be for man to be able to observe them.
As we have already discussed, ERVs have a purpose to dismantle retroviruses when they attack the body. To suggest that an ERV is there because it is part of the nested hierarchy, imvho, is like saying that the alveoli in mammals (or any other body part that is similar) is written within the genome of mammals because it is part of a nested hierarchy. These pieces of continuity make it so that we live in symbiosis with each other.
Medical cures depend on our connection with this world. These new stem cell research projects only work because we share a similarity in genetics with our environment. This podcast Science Magazine's Breakthrough of the Year: Reprogramming Cells talks about how we wouldn't have discovered this cure were it not for this fact.
As to RTB and respiration in neonates, another podcast came out that discusses this in whales. So I shall have to take back my statement. Pregnant Fossil Shows How Early wWhales Evolved discusses how they discovered these supposed predecessors to whales that included a pregnant female. The baby was coming out head first indicating that it would breath from land and then how whales are born tail first so that they can come up for air after the birth. The transition apparently from land breather to ocean breathing blowhole occurred within only a few thousand years.
Yep, I'm not buying the monkey on the log idea. I find that as far fetched as anything you want to explain away about God Almighty's hand in creation. If it were a one time occurrence, that would be one thing but it happened too many times to be explained away by coincidence. Also, making such a journey and surviving to thrive in your perfect habitat seems just a tad bit incredulous.
There has been no connection proven between homo sapien sapiens and mankind. The level of intelligence displayed by homo sapien sapiens from the start shows the image of God not the use of crude tools but ones that are sophisticated. The art that is drawn is creative and purposeful. They discovered 40,000 year old flutes. Mankind also showed that he worshiped God. There is jewelry that is created not out of something leftover but that is purposely created out of articles that the hominids found useless. The homo sapien sapiens hunting skills far outweighed the hominids and there is evidence that homo sapien sapiens used needle and thread, wore shoes and migrated into areas that required more intelligent intervention such as heavier clothing and shoes. The hominids remained in one locale.
I do not have the information in front of me, so I'm going by my own recollection. agh! But....from the book Who was Adam? they discussed y-chromosomal DNA studies and how they differ from mtDNA studies. It appears as if the men had a later origin of sorts. This would fit the biblical model because Noah and his three sons were genetically linked where the four women involved were all from different lineages. mtDNA though would be traced back to Eve from the Out of Africa model. I was trying to find an article on RTB's web site. I know I have heard them discuss this before.
Enough for now. :-)
Vera,
I am not in the least little bit concerned with what your position is on once saved, always saved. Do you think Christ cares about your position? No, he does not. I am concerned with one thing and one thing only and that is that you are taking the Word of God and changing it into something it is not. You are LYING in the name of The Lord and Savior!
Please put away your arrogance and your worship of a doctrine and accept the Truth today. Get on your knees and pray that Jesus Christ will redeem you and those with you for turning souls away from Christ.
What you are teaching is salvation through works. You are teaching that Grace alone is not enough to save! You are teaching that also one must not sin and that is impossible, for were it possible no sacrifice would have needed to be made and Jesus Christ would have died in vain.
Consider your blindness and worship of a doctrine, consider your arrogance. Ask God to show you how to witness.
Vera, I'll try to be brief.
How can a naturalistic model predict that DNA would have the ability to adapt? Did DNA when it came together know that the conditions of the earth, the ecosystem or the habitat might change and therefore DNA somehow placed this logic in itself?
DNA's ability to adapt is a consequence of its ability to replicate itself, but not quite perfectly, and the fact that different variants have different abilities to survive and reproduce in different environments. "Ability to adapt" is, given the nature of the universe, basically identical with "ability to reproduce."
I do believe that some of these animals appeared on the scene shortly after the KT boundary. The repopulation seemed to be flourishing by 10 million years, which is what would be anticipated. The earth was fairly decimated by the event that caused that boundary. We know that because no dinosaur survived - not even the ocean dwelling ones. When you consider that little factor and the fact that the Cambrian explosion did not require a cataclysmic event, ten million years is a fairly short amount of time. Remember it supposedly took 3 billion years for life to emerge the first go round.
I think you mean it took three billion years for multicellular life to emerge the first go-round, which would be a relevant comparison only if the K-T bolide had wiped out everything bigger than a bacterium. The dinosaurs perished, as did the ammonites and giant marine reptiles (strictly speaking, the only ocean-dwelling dinosaurs are penguins), but many plants and smaller animals managed to survive.
If you look, instead, at the spread of many invasive species (from kudzu in the American south to rabbits in Australia), you will realize that it would not take very many centuries for even a few isolated holdouts of complex life to repopulate the Earth after the K-T boundary event. Geologically, life appears right after the event; it takes ten million years for mammals to get big and specialized.
As I have said before, this is not an example of speciation but an example of microevolutionary changes. Even YEC has always held to this. Everyone does. I liked what UnclePT said the other day that Gould backtracked once he realized how his theory supported creationism. However, his observation was true. There is no gradualism in the fossil record where it concerns the rise of new species.
As biologists use the term, Gould was describing an instance of speciation, which is by (biologists') definition, an instance of macroevolution. And it is important to realize that the sort of change that Gould was describing -- the change from one species to another, very similar species -- is exactly what he was referring to when he spoke of the lack of transitional fossils and "stasis." The very sort of evolution you admit happens is the sort that's poorly attested in the fossil record: higher levels of evolution are better attested.
Side note: YECs accept more evolution than do typical OECs. Ken Ham and AiG propose that lions and tigers and cheetahs and lynxes and house cats, etc. all "microevolved" within a few centuries after a single pair of ur-felids (Noah's sole representatives of the "cat kind") walked off the Ark. AiG has noted that, within the limits of poorly-defined "kinds," YECs believe that evolution can do more than evolutionists think it can!
As we have already discussed, ERVs have a purpose to dismantle retroviruses when they attack the body. To suggest that an ERV is there because it is part of the nested hierarchy, imvho, is like saying that the alveoli in mammals (or any other body part that is similar) is written within the genome of mammals because it is part of a nested hierarchy. These pieces of continuity make it so that we live in symbiosis with each other.
There is no evidence that ERVs serve to dismantle retroviruses. Certainly they do nothing to protect us against HIV, which is a retrovirus. And ERVs are not there "because it is part of the nested hierarchy;" they exists (as part of the nested hierarchy) because we inherited them, along with the genes among which they are embedded, from common ancestors with other species that have the same ERVs. Even if ERVs serve the function you suggest, the way they are distributed among other species, the fact that they occupy corresponding loci in human and other genomes, would support their inheritance from a common ancestor.
As to RTB and respiration in neonates, another podcast came out that discusses this in whales. So I shall have to take back my statement. Pregnant Fossil Shows How Early wWhales Evolved discusses how they discovered these supposed predecessors to whales that included a pregnant female. The baby was coming out head first indicating that it would breath from land and then how whales are born tail first so that they can come up for air after the birth. The transition apparently from land breather to ocean breathing blowhole occurred within only a few thousand years.
That would be a few million, not a few thousand; as I've pointed out, the blowhole is just a relocated nostril, and fossil skulls of various extinct whale species show how it moved from the front of the snout, back to the top of the skull, over a succession of several different species and genera.
Yep, I'm not buying the monkey on the log idea. I find that as far fetched as anything you want to explain away about God Almighty's hand in creation. If it were a one time occurrence, that would be one thing but it happened too many times to be explained away by coincidence. Also, making such a journey and surviving to thrive in your perfect habitat seems just a tad bit incredulous.
I reiterate my point about the lottery: the odds of any particular person winning are small; the odds that someone will win, over time, are large. How many African animals were swept into the Atlantic on rafts of fallen mangroves, over millions of years? How many perished unnoticed and without trace? How many of the few who made it to the South American shore promptly died without issue, or went extinct after a few starvling generations? The New World monkeys are the lucky descendants of one lottery winner out of thousands of lottery losers. It's the inevitable paradox of natural selection: there are more losers than winners, but the winners are much, much more visible.
There has been no connection proven between homo sapien sapiens and mankind. The level of intelligence displayed by homo sapien sapiens from the start shows the image of God not the use of crude tools but ones that are sophisticated. The art that is drawn is creative and purposeful. They discovered 40,000 year old flutes. Mankind also showed that he worshiped God. There is jewelry that is created not out of something leftover but that is purposely created out of articles that the hominids found useless. The homo sapien sapiens hunting skills far outweighed the hominids and there is evidence that homo sapien sapiens used needle and thread, wore shoes and migrated into areas that required more intelligent intervention such as heavier clothing and shoes. The hominids remained in one locale.
I'll assume you mean that there is no proven connection between H. sapiens sapiens and archaic Homo or Neanderthals: not that modern humans are unrelated to modern humans, but that mere resemblance or the difficulty of telling where pre-humans leave off and modern humans begin is not sufficient to establish that extinct hominine species are our relatives.
The earliest specimens of H. sapiens sapiens did indeed use the same tools (whether they were "crude" or "sophisticated" I'll leave for you to decide) as the Neanderthals. And the earliest speciments of H.s.s. were around a thousand centuries before 40,000 BC. And yes, they could sew (or at least later populations of H.s.s. could, and Neanderthals apparently could not. But Neanderthals are found over much of Europe and the Middle East, and H. erectus was spread all over eastern Asia. They clearly migrated over long distances, at least over centuries.
I do not have the information in front of me, so I'm going by my own recollection. agh! But....from the book Who was Adam? they discussed y-chromosomal DNA studies and how they differ from mtDNA studies. It appears as if the men had a later origin of sorts. This would fit the biblical model because Noah and his three sons were genetically linked where the four women involved were all from different lineages. mtDNA though would be traced back to Eve from the Out of Africa model. I was trying to find an article on RTB's web site. I know I have heard them discuss this before.
The last male-line ancestor of modern humans ("Y-chromosome Adam" in popular parlance) lived much more recently than mitochondrial Eve. This is presumably because men vary much more among themselves than do women in terms of mating success. Some men accumulate harems, perhaps of dozens of wives, while other men must perforce do without. So, as we go back in time, the Y-chromosome line converges on one male much faster than the mtDNA line converges on one female.
Steven
Your definition of "brief" and mine are two completely different things. Ay yi yi. I just want you to know that my heart stops every single time I see one of these posts. I have two others flagged in my inbox that I haven't even read yet.
I agree with most of what you say here so there is no need for rebuttal except where I disagree. This should save me a couple of minutes.... I hope.
"Ability to adapt" is, given the nature of the universe, basically identical with "ability to reproduce."
Don't you find that a bit remarkable under the atheistic model?
If you look, instead, at the spread of many invasive species (from kudzu in the American south to rabbits in Australia), you will realize that it would not take very many centuries for even a few isolated holdouts of complex life to repopulate the Earth after the K-T boundary event.
If we look at this from a biblical perspective of a God who is recreating life to head toward a goal of man created in His image, then it does show a sort of logic.
The very sort of evolution you admit happens is the sort that's poorly attested in the fossil record: higher levels of evolution are better attested.
How so? How have attested to something in the fossil record that doesn't exist? I am not following your line of thinking.
Side note: YECs accept more evolution than do typical OECs. Ken Ham and AiG propose that lions and tigers and cheetahs and lynxes and house cats, etc. all "microevolved" within a few centuries after a single pair of ur-felids (Noah's sole representatives of the "cat kind") walked off the Ark. AiG has noted that, within the limits of poorly-defined "kinds," YECs believe that evolution can do more than evolutionists think it can!
I know. I learned that through RTB a while back. I had no idea that they believed this. I think I remarked to you that this was the case a while back. I did for someone. But yes, they leave you in the dust in terms of an evolutionary scenario. But don't they attribute this to something supernatural? I would almost think they would have to. YEC is constantly falling back on the supernatural to explain things. One key line might be, "That's just the way God wanted to do it. He can do whatever He wants." God doesn't do whatever He wants if that is the case. He limited Himself here so that we could test His creation.
There is no evidence that ERVs serve to dismantle retroviruses.
They interfere with the virus's membrane, if I recall correctly. I didn't mean that they dismantle the RNA sequence. I see this organization as a sort of logic. I know you use it as proof for naturalistic evolution. I believe it is God reusing good designs. These organizations further support a Biblical creation model and oppose the atheistic naturalistic one.
That would be a few million, not a few thousand; as I've pointed out, the blowhole is just a relocated nostril, and fossil skulls of various extinct whale species show how it moved from the front of the snout, back to the top of the skull, over a succession of several different species and genera.
You have proof of this?
I reiterate my point about the lottery: the odds of any particular person winning are small; the odds that someone will win, over time, are large. How many African animals were swept into the Atlantic on rafts of fallen mangroves, over millions of years? How many perished unnoticed and without trace? How many of the few who made it to the South American shore promptly died without issue, or went extinct after a few starvling generations? The New World monkeys are the lucky descendants of one lottery winner out of thousands of lottery losers. It's the inevitable paradox of natural selection: there are more losers than winners, but the winners are much, much more visible.
Yea, that might be the case but how long did they have to travel? What did they eat along the way? Even if this was true, it would still require planned intervention.
I'll assume you mean that there is no proven connection between H. sapiens sapiens and archaic Homo or Neanderthals:
Yes, that must have been what I meant.
not that modern humans are unrelated to modern humans, but that mere resemblance or the difficulty of telling where pre-humans leave off and modern humans begin is not sufficient to establish that extinct hominine species are our relatives.
So far, there is no connection.
The earliest specimens of H. sapiens sapiens did indeed use the same tools (whether they were "crude" or "sophisticated" I'll leave for you to decide) as the Neanderthals. And the earliest speciments of H.s.s. were around a thousand centuries before 40,000 BC. And yes, they could sew (or at least later populations of H.s.s. could, and Neanderthals apparently could not. But Neanderthals are found over much of Europe and the Middle East, and H. erectus was spread all over eastern Asia. They clearly migrated over long distances, at least over centuries.
I just watched another documentary on early humans. They were very sophisticated. They were discussing the first people to come to North America. According to research, they had the ability to think the way we do but they simply didn't have the database we have.
The last male-line ancestor of modern humans ("Y-chromosome Adam" in popular parlance) lived much more recently than mitochondrial Eve. This is presumably because men vary much more among themselves than do women in terms of mating success. Some men accumulate harems, perhaps of dozens of wives, while other men must perforce do without. So, as we go back in time, the Y-chromosome line converges on one male much faster than the mtDNA line converges on one female.
All I'm saying is that this fits the Biblical model.
Can I ask you a question since you seem to have so much knowledge. Where do they get a date for 100,000 years for H.s.s (love the abbreviation)? Is it one thing or many?
Vera
Post a Comment