Evidence for macro-evolution

[partinobodycular]

Putting the earth before the sun, angiosperms before the sun, whales before land animals, was a master stroke of genius, if you ask me.

To be fair, I did in fact ask you.

So that's your God? One who would rather demonstrate His existence through ostentatious acts of divine power? Acts that will be completely dismissed as religious dogma by the very people that He's trying to impress? And impressive only to the faithful, who don't seem to need impressing, they'd believe no matter what order things were created in. If God had simply created things in the exact order that the evidence says they evolved, what other possible explanation could there be, except that the bible is in fact an accurate description of divine creation? Now that would've been impressive to all but the staunchest of skeptics.

So why do that? Why squander the chance to say to all of humanity... I am God... your creator?

 

[BCP1928]

Well, let's see: The challenge to the theory of evolution in this thread appears that the theory is wrong because it fails to take into account that God can act undetectably in the natural world. If that was true then other scientific theories would be wrong also.

Please don't ask me how that would actually work.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You are partially right because while creation as a whole was created ex nihilo as you say life was created ex materia and inside time. The current theory of abiogenesis is unsupported by anything like scientific evidence.

There is no "current theory of abiogenesis". There are many scientific studies of the processes hypothesized in the origin of life.

But once life began and man was formed from the dust of the earth the processes by which God guided the development of life were in part ex materia and in part ex nihilo. Micro-evolutionary theory has a legitimate subject matter in the change and diversity that can be seen in humanity.

None of this has any scientific meaning.

Man can be distinguished from the animals and plants because made in God's image.

Humans are animals. Ape, primate, mammal, vertebrates.

The act of creating Adam was in part a forming ex materia and in part a breathing of God's life into a creature designed for eternity that therefore transcends any space-time boundaries set by the final judgment.

Again, none of this has any scientific meaning.

Naturalistic science is only looking for stuff it can measure and detect as you say, 95 % of the universe is excluded by that definition and the supernatural realm also. You are merely affirming the limited scope of science here.

It was "naturalistic science" that found that 95% you speak of, specifically astronomy.

 

[BCP1928]

Humans are animals. Ape, primate, mammal, vertebrates.

What I never did understand is why (if one wants to believe that man is different from the other creatures in that he possesses an immortal soul) it makes any difference whether the human physical body was made from a handful of dust or from a precursor primate.

 

[AV1611VET]

To be fair, I did in fact ask you.

Yup.

So that's your God?

Yup.

He's yours too.

One who would rather demonstrate His existence through ostentatious acts of divine power?

Absolutely!

Isn't He wonderful!?

Acts that will be completely dismissed as religious dogma by the very people that He's trying to impress?

"Trying to impress"?

He will impress you one way or another.

As you're demonstrating.

And impressive only to the faithful, who don't seem to need impressing,

I'd say your actions demonstrate that you're impressed as well.

Negatively impressed, but impressed just the same.

... they'd believe no matter what order things were created in.

That's right.

If God had simply created things in the exact order that the evidence says they evolved, what other possible explanation could there be, except that the bible is in fact an accurate description of divine creation?

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

How would God creating the universe in the Big Bang order lead people to believe it was divine?

Now that would've been impressive to all but the staunchest of skeptics.

Uh-huh.

Not.

So why do that?

To demonstrate His superiority over nature.

Why squander the chance to say to all of humanity... I am God... your creator?

He has better ways than the Big Bang method to show us He is God.

Like ... you know ... an empty tomb.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I never did understand is why (if one wants to believe that man is different from the other creatures in that he possesses an immortal soul) it makes any difference whether the human physical body was made from a handful of dust or from a precursor primate.

For one thing, man wouldn't need a soul to distinguish the difference.

In other words, even if we didn't have souls, we would still be different from the animals by virtue of the fact that they aren't our cousins.

In still other words, we aren't related to them by birth.

This comic, from my Snowman Challenge thread, is funny:

POST 2

 

[BCP1928]

For one thing, man wouldn't need a soul to distinguish the difference.

In other words, even if we didn't have souls, we would still be different from the animals by virtue of the fact that they aren't our cousins.

In still other words, we aren't related to them by birth.

Your position seems to be that God would have been unable to give us immortal souls if our bodies had been formed from precursor primates.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your position seems to be that God would have been unable to give us immortal souls if our bodies had been formed from precursor primates.

Wow!

Where did that come from!?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just out of curiosity, BCP, what is your religion?

 

[Shemjaza]

The world as we can observe it is not the world that Cain and Abel inhabited because there was a massive supernatural event that pretty much wiped the place clean and fundamentally degraded its life supporting capacity. Uniformitarianism is your assumption here. The view that evidences we can observe now can be generalised from back through the millennia. It is an assumption held to by faith not one that can be evidentially justified.

That's an explanation... but it is inconsistent with the evidence. So you have to assume deliberate deceptive miracles.

I understand when you speak about a broader database than just one incident reveals. Models describe broad trends and collate major trends. The assumption that the standard outweighs the exception is the big one here. Miracles are rare and wonderful outliers, whatever your scientific discipline and filter set, not normal expectations. If one miracle occurs then the whole database is questionable. If one car behaves in a random way we cannot suggest that the database has a full mastery of the flows nor that is foolproof. The calculations here are probabilistic and shaped by the assumptions that are generally shown to be correct. But the margin of error always overthrows the certainty that can be ascribed to them and too much weight is given to the assumptions. The biggest assumption of all is the exclusion of the supernatural as a possible explanation for non-standard events. This was helpful in demythologising a lot of nonsence from centuries back but now it has gone too far.

The problem is that your supernatural overhaul of history and evidence quickly creates a whole list of weird deceptive ideas for the behavior of the miracles in the pre-scientifically studiable world.

We have the sedimentary record that doesn't just show evidence against the flood and recent creation... but it shows positive evidence for millions and millions of years of separate events.

Astronomy is even more problematic because that also shows evidence for events both before and after 6000 years ago with evidently the same laws of physics applying and yet none of the ancient events can have happened if the laws of physics and the universe itself only began to exist a couple of thousand years ago.

 

[BCP1928]

Just out of curiosity, BCP, what is your religion?

Private--I do not want to be seen as speaking for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Private--I do not want to be seen as speaking for it.

Okay.

 

[BCP1928]

Okay.

Thank you. I am not always as charitable as I should be when dealing with conservative Bible Christians. That's my problem and no one else need be blamed for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you. I am not always as charitable as I should be when dealing with conservative Bible Christians. That's my problem and no one else need be blamed for it.

You're welcome.

And that makes two of us.

I'm not the most cordial person to talk to at times.

 

[partinobodycular]

I'd say your actions demonstrate that you're impressed as well.

There's nothing about your God that's impressive. Do you really think that I'm that shallow, that I'd be impressed by a being that can wave His magic wand and create stuff, and then expect that creation to glorify and pledge allegiance to Him, under threat of eternal damnation? I don't find such ostentatiousness to be impressive, I find it to be pathetic.

Impressive are the beings that've had to struggle, and fight, and toil for generation upon generation, just to survive, and so what if in so doing they haven't always been faultless... hardships and injustice can and will test the best of us. Humanity isn't impressive for what we are... we're impressive for what we've overcome.

Fortunately for me, my God and your God aren't the same. My God simply is what He is. He doesn't seek to be venerated, or glorified, or held in high esteem. But you're free to believe in whatever God you want to, just don't expect me to be impressed.

 

[mindlight]

If you agree that speciation occurs then the argument is over. The "higher taxa" as you call them are arbitrary man-made categories into which the results of repeated speciation can be sorted.

There were not 20+ species of Sparrow on the Ark. Sparrows are still Sparrows.

 

[mindlight]

I didn't ask for a wiki definition of the term. I asked you what the "theory" states. What does it predict?

Or better yet, provide an example.

There are no examples of one genus evolving from another

 

[Hans Blaster]

There were not 20+ species of Sparrow on the Ark. Sparrows are still Sparrows.

And Sparrows are still Passerines, even though there are over 6000 species. And Passerines are still Birds despite 11,000+ species today. And all Birds are still Theropods (the only ones still extant). And all Theropods are still Dinosaurs. And all Dinosaurs are still Archosaurs, but Crocodillians are Archosaurs that are not Dinosaurs. And all Dinosaurs are still Reptiles. And all Reptiles are still Amniotes (and so are we). And all Amniotes are still Tetrapods. And all Tetrapods are still Chordates. And all Chordates are still Bilateria. And all Bilateria are still Animals. And all Animals are Eukaryotes (as are plants).

 

[BCP1928]

There are no examples of one genus evolving from another

Good thing, too--because if it ever happened it would destroy the theory of evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There are no examples of one genus evolving from another

Sure there are. A genus is not just a subdivision of a higher taxa, but sometimes it also represents a temporal phase in the development of a group of creatures. Genus Australopithecus was replaced by genus Homo about 2.5 million years ago.

Genera are human creations. Groupings of related species with a common ancestor.