The Gospel and Theistic Evolution

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Um...Santa Claus is a twisted version of St. Nicholas, who did exist...

Do you think that St. Nicholas did all that was attributed to him?

 

[Melethiel]

Do you think that St. Nicholas did all that was attributed to him?

Ah...now we're getting into the point I was making...when reading histories from the pre-modern age, it is often difficult or impossible to distinguish legend from fact.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Ah...now we're getting into the point I was making...when reading histories from the pre-modern age, it is often difficult or impossible to distinguish legend from fact.

I would prefer Job were legend and Ruth history and I would argue that there are at least some indications this is so, but I don't think we can make any strong claims either way.

 

[Buho]

Of course, in a pre-Fall perfect world, there would be no evolution... no adversity, no natural selection. One could argue then that evolution is a gift... even as God cursed the world, He left His creation with the means to ride it out until such time as that curse would eventually be lifted.

Speculation. If in the pre-fall world there was no evolution, then there had to have been insta-created creatures, including Adam and Eve, for a fall to have occured (dead molecules can't sin). If God created animals and humans, why are we still holding on to macroevolution? (BTW, you phrased it interestingly: yes, I agree that pre-fall, microevolution (as well as macroevolution) could not happen. The only "change over time" that can occur then are things like muscle toning, growing, and tanning.)

Well, this is simply not true. "Information" (a notoriously nebulous YEC buzzword) is added all the time. and ALL "beneficial" mutations are copy mistakes... in fact, ALL mutations are copy mistakes... that's the definition of mutation!

Now we're making progress. Mutations, as you said, are mistakes when copying one strand of DNA to another. But a "copy mistake" can include a skipped nucleotide, a duplicated nucleotide, or a misread nucleotide. "Copy" doesn't specifically mean duplicated. The flightless beetle in its history underwent a mutation that switched off the growth of wings, which was a beneficial mutation that allowed it to survive on a windy island. But its a loss of information. Misread nucleotides have been shown to be either neutral in effect or detrimental to the survival of the organism. Natural selection removes these. I have yet to run across a "flipped" nucleotide that benefited the organism.

Duplicated genes do often benefit the organism, for instance with increased antibiotic resistance, increased insecticide resistance and the like. However, repeating "very" in "a very good mutation" 20 times doesn't add information to the sentence, just the strength of the sentence. This is where specified complexity comes in. A snowflake is complex, but has little information (just a kernel, a pattern, and a number of times to repeat). Biology is highly specified. Evolutionists require a duplicated gene PLUS a misread nucleotide PLUS an advantage gotten from the prior two. This has never been observed.

A bacteria has less information than a chimp, no matter how you define "information." Evolutionists say the order is bacteria -> chimp. The impetus is on evolutionists to show how information can increase via natural processes. They have failed thus far.

Can we agree that "staying alive while other people are dropping dead" is a selective advantage?

Yes. In a world hypothetically plagued by malaria, the only survivors would be those that have sickle cell disease. However, read this description and maintain your confidence in Darwinian evolution as a Good Thing. It's described as a "disease" that "damages" the red blood cell membrane. "Lives are punctuated by periodic painful attacks" and "damage of internal organs such as stroke." "Lifespan is often shortened." But hey, they survived the malaria pandemic! That's natural selection all right. You might call this evolution of whatever kind, but it's not the right kind that evolutionists need for that increasing genetic diversity. In our hypothetical, suppose a small group of people on an island were not hit with malaria and malaria died out on the world. As soon as the island people intermingle with the sicke cell people, there is a competitive advantage to the island people that will, given Darwinian processes, eventually eliminate the sickle cell people.

A real-world example of this are the "super bacteria" in hospitals that are resistant to all antibiotics. Are they evolved? Depends on your definition, but it's not the kind of evolution Darwinists need. As soon as the bacteria exits the hospital into the real world with "normal" bacteria, the normal bacteria out-compete the super bacteria and are eliminated. Why? Because all observed cases of "beneficial" mutations in specific areas are a result of decreased performance in other areas. Ask the beetle to fly again. It will never "evolve" wings again (on its own). It lost that information.

It's a matter of perception, I suppose. It's not a matter of "alive" plus "pain" versus "dead." If you honestly believe "alive" plus "pain" is "better" than "alive" alone, then there's not much I can say.

Actually, we have seen creatures breach the species barrier... that is, change from one species to another.

I didn't say species couldn't. (Personally, I'd question the cladistics of the species there, but that's another matter.) My example was reptile -> bird. That is a change at the phyla level. The species changes you cite actually confirm creationists claims about the Bible, that it does not teach a fixity of species. For instance, creationists believe tigers and lions used to be one "liger" kind of animal, the liger having more genetic information than the tiger or lion separately. What scientists have done is taken a more robust organism and bred a new species that cannot breed with the original species.

Except there is no "upward," not the way you think.

Fine. I meant to say "increased."

We've observed it, admittedly in small steps, but we know that those small steps are cumulative. What would be required that has not already been seen and recorded?

No. We haven't. Every "small step" has been neutral or destructive. Thank God for natural selection to keep our population from devolving out of control!

What is required is evidence, and the impetus is on evolutionists to provide it.

The difference is that harmful mutations are not cumulative, because the individuals carrying them die off without reproducing. The beneficial ones live on and add up.

The "beneficial ones" are the ones that (1) did not experience a mutation that was harmful to survival (the majority case) or (2) experienced an information-degrading mutation that allowed for a particular selective advantage. Adding zeros or negative numbers won't get you a bigger number.

Regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I shouldn't have opened that can of worms. Also, your response didn't address the generalized theorem but the specific scientific theorem.

Using a standard scientific definition (emergence of a new species), macro-evolution is observed fact.

Well then. I guess macroevolution is a fact after all then! Unfortunately, all observed cases of this show that they don't help evolutionists get from a bacteria to a baboon. That's why creationists use a more precise definition -- to highlight the area of scientific debate rather than obfuscate it.

One thing that can happen as a result of such mixing is that the resultant offspring receives a recessive gene from both parents and, perhaps for the first time in the history of the species, expresses this characteristic. Would this not be new genetic information? If not, why not?

No. In both parents, the gene, a highly complex molecule consisting of thousands of atoms all folded into a precise shape, existed prior to the child. It's simply been activated. Scientists have found no plausible natural pathway -- grounded in evidence -- that can construct this recessive gene in the first place. Evolution can only happen in the mind when complex realities of genetics are conceptualized to "recessed gene + recessed gene = active gene, therefore new informaion!"

The other factor which can be re-assembled is the dna sequence of a gene, which in turn alters the sequence of amino acids that forms a protein. Now, when we re-arrange words in a language we get new sentences, which, I assume, constitute new linguistic information. Why would new genetic sequences not constitute new genetic information?

Not exactly. The analogy I've seen used is something like this:
MOM:
Eyes = green
Hair = brown

DAD:
Eyes = blue
Hair = blonde

KID:
Eyes = ?
Hair = ?

The recombination happen on the right side of the equation, where there exists "hair" and a color attribute needs to be assigned to it. The kid has the same quantity of information as either one of his parents. Not double, not some other amount. Admittedly, this is a weak example of the processes in the cell, but that's what we observe. An increase in information would look something like this:

KID:
Eyes = brown
Hair = blonde
Wings = white

complete with the full set of genes that produce all aspects of what we would call wings. A decrease in information would look something like this:

KID:
Hair = blonde

where the kid suffered a genetic combination that omitted the information nescessary for eye growth. For Kate: is this beneficial? Only in tanning salons and deep cave dwelling. But I do not call this the kind of genetic change that helps bacteria-to-baboon evolution.

What, exactly, is "macro-evolutionary" about changing skin covering from scales to feathers? Why could this not come about through a micro-evolutionary re-arrangement of existing genetic information?

Your first question focuses on the definitions, not the actual mechanisms needed for such a change. Perhaps you've caught me, and perhaps thats why creationists focus on the direction of change of information rather than the boundary between micro and macro. Scales to feathers, unless that information is already present in the genome, or feathers is a spectacular result of disabling a few things, requires new genetic information consisting of specially-folded genes, proteins, and DNA segments.

There's nothing per-se (to science's knowledge) stopping small information-adding changes from accumulating and resulting in feathers, unless further research finds an irreducibly complex system that cannot snap into place piecemeal. However, nobody has observed this piecemeal addition occuring, nobody has seen a new gene arise naturalistically, and there is no reason for natural selection to favor a partially-made gene (that takes energy to build and maintain) that does not function.

I mentioned irreducibly complex systems, which is a whooole other topic. The principle is sound, and when an irreducibly complex system is identified in nature, it is identified that the only possible evolution to produce this state is a prior (more complex) scaffolding, which only raises the difficulty for evolution to occur on that system -- but does not make it impossible, just highly improbable.

Well, kudos for not saying "they are still flies", though I think that is what you are implying. But, of course, that they are still flies is what evolutionists expect. It would falsify evolution if they became something that is not a fly.

How would it falsify evolution if they became something that is not a fly when evolutionists claim reptiles, after millions of years and millions of generations, are not reptiles but birds? Or are you hooked on me thinking of single organisms? No, what I was showing in the quote you commented on is that a population of flies are exposed to mutagens and alowed to breed. The next generation (a few weeks later) is repeated. After 100 years of breeding and intense mutational factors, through the long line of mutant ancestors, the offspring are not significantly different than their 100-year-old ancestors, nor the flies outside in nature. If bacteria-to-fly evolution were fact, we would have a radically different species, more evolved, with more complex features, and able to out-compete the normal fly in a more varied array of conditions. This has not happened. The same goes with bacteria, which can have a generation cycle of as little as 15 minutes. That's over a million generations in 50 years. One million human generations represents about 20 million years. According to evolutionistic theory, humans and chimps shared a common ancestor a "mere" seven million years ago. The expected rate of natural change does not match even the artificial rate of change in the lab. This alone should falsify evolution as a theory and is suggestive of another mechanism entirely (creation). For further evidence, check out the scientific "advancements" of Drosophila birchii, a pet fly of mine.

 

[Buho]

Second, while it is evident that life on earth has developed complexity, there is no evidence that this is a necessary consequence of evolution. Or to state it more simply: it is not the goal of evolution to develop complexity.

Correct (except I argue against "developed"). And I compliment you on your candid observation. Even though it is not the "goal of evoluion," evolutionists still posit the mechanism of evolution to explain (1) the complexity observed from (2) simple origins. In other words: evolutionists claim increasing complexity has occured. If that has not happened, then we must entertain the idea of an instant creation of God as found in Genesis 1 & 2, and if this is the case, then what use do we have of the bacteria-to-baboon idea of evolution? (I remind all that I affirm natural selection and a non-fixity of species, by whatever word you set that definition to.)

Before you can call me on a factual error, you need to demonstrate that you know what all the steps required for macro-evolution are. I expect you don't know them.

You are banking on the fact that not even evolutionists can agree on the steps needed for a novel feature to arise. I'll agree to that. For what it's worth, I've read Michael Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box" which critics have conceded the factual information of sub-cellular processes are precice and correct. The book outlines in painful detail for dozens of pages on end the molecular processes that take place for the smallest of parts of cellular machines. I understood about 75% of it. I'm not a microbiologist, though. I'm a computer scientist who can pick up new things fairly easily. (And no, that book isn't my only exposure to the topic.)

[First on dino feathers, then on reptile->mammal and jaws, finally on orchid & moth.]

Is there very convincing evidence of feathers on T.Rex? The actual fossils are dubious and inconclusive (I can't find the fossil with feathers). Also, the find came from the area of China where the Archaeoraptor came from (which raises my suspisions). Furthermore, if one believes this to be true, then it complicates the evolution with respect to Archaeopteryx. Finally, there's still the huge difficulty in determining how scales can evolve into feathers. No, it's not a rebuttal, but I note that the evidence for this is very shaky.

Has the jaw prediction been fulfilled with fossil evidence?

Morganucodontids (about four inches long to tail base) do indeed have a number of mammalian skeletal features, but they also have a fully-functional reptilian jaw joint (quadrate-articular) which distinguishes them from all living mammals. Evolutionists believe that over time the quadrate and articular bones of creatures such as morganucodontids worked their way into the middle ear to become the mammalian incus and malleus. There is, however, no fossil record of this transition. According to Carroll, “It is not yet certain when the malleus and incus became incorporated into the middle ear, but the grooves on the medial surface of the dentary that indicate their position of attachment in early Jurassic mammals are missing in Upper Jurassic genera.” (Carroll, 395.) Likewise, Kemp states, “The exact stage at which the therian ossicles evolved is unknown. Kuehneotherium, the earliest and most primitive therian, must have lacked them, for a groove to house the post-dentary bones is still present on the inner face of the dentary.” (Kemp, 293.) [Source: http://www.trueorigin.org/therapsd.asp]

The orchid & moth is nice story. But the prediction isn't drawn from microorganism-to-moth evolutionary theory. It fits in just as well with creation theory which includes adaption and natural selection of created kinds.

I think this is more a matter of not understanding scientific method than of contradiction in the outcomes.

See above for one example. A prediction that can be claimed by two contradictary hypotheses cannot be used to support one theory.

To date no fossil has been found out of place in either its morphology or its history.

That appears to be the case. If you look at the geologic evidence surrounding the fossils, you find that there are often contradictions that become debates. In the end, the fossil is placed into a certain date based on the framework a priori assumption that universal common ancestry is fact that creates the fewest conflicts. A spectacular example that jumps to mind are the Laetoli footprints "dated" 3.5ma despite the footprints looking exactly like modern human footprints. This is deemed "okay" because the footprints are associated with Australopithecus afarensis, but doing this causes problems with other fossil evidence on the ability of afarensis being able to walk upright. The "forced consistency" is one of the problems I have with evolutionary ideas tainting pure science. How many other fossils have evidence that point to dates other than where they've been "best fit" into the supposed tree of life yet now the original evidence is destroyed from time?

The order in which species came into being is quite different from Genesis. Genesis cannot be considered as giving a correct chronological order as it begins with the creation of terrestrial plants, followed by sea creatures, including whales (according to some translations). However most sea creatures, but not mammals like whales, came into existed before any terrestrial plant life. Genesis puts both marine mammals and birds prior to creeping things (presumably reptiles and insects) whereas both came after reptiles and insects. Whales even came after most other mammals.

I can easily say the order in which species came into being (going by Genesis) is quite different from paramecium-to-penguin evolution, and thus is falsified. All you did was highlight the arguing point between creationism and evolutionism. You are forgetting the Flood, which rearranged and obfuscated geologic history (Gen 6:7). The "order in which species came into being" is just the burial order from the Flood, starting with bottom-dwellers and moving on up. The "order" of species origination of which you speak -- how do you view the Cambrian explosion? This is quite contrary to evolutionary ideas. Some evolutionary scientists have narrowed the window for this proported explosion to 100 million years, 50, and some, 10 million years! If all of evolution's history happened in 24 hours, 10 million years would be 4 minutes! 4 minutes out of 24 hours for the evolution of nearly all today's phyla in all their complexity!

They erroneously assumed the c14 came from the atmosphere, though. The finding of c14 with diamonds has coincided with the finding of radio-active material in the same location, meaning the c14 could come from uranium or other radioactive decay, not from the atmosphere.

You raise an interesting rebuttal I haven't heard before. What radioactive elements might generate C14 isotopes? I did a little looking and found this:

Natural diamonds are probably much older than a few half lives of carbon 14 so I do not know what process(es) in nature would generate the isotope. [Source: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03211.htm]

I'll look into this further because I'm not satisfied with this answer, as the scientist sounds rather unknowledgable. But I've never heard anyone bring this up before.

That you don't know, don't understand or cannot accept the evidence that evolution is real.

No no no, we got a disjoin here. I believe the evidence is real, as you should have gotten from what I wrote. I believe the evidence points toward creation and away from single-cell-to-swimming-krill evolution. Theories aren't reality. I reject NDT theories as acurate representations of reality.

"In my mind, since macroevolution can't happen naturally (a reliably-established fact), TEs must believe God makes the impossible happen (work tiny miracles) at a molecular level at every generation of organisms for them to evolve into the creation he invisioned." Incorrect premises lead to incorrect conclusions. Macro-evolution (speciation) is an observed natural process.

Ok, replace that with paramecium-to-people evolution.

Given that ICR has a bias against reliable dating, my first question would be to ask what methods they are using to date the material. If they are using unreliable methods along with reliable methods, naturally they are going to get discrepancies. If, for example, they are using K-Ar or Ar-Ar tests on material that is young, they will not get a reliable date. They will get a date, but it won't be reliable.

Are they using isochronic methods? If not, why not?

I don't expect you to answer this. You are not a scientist and neither am I.

They used a wide variety of methods -- some "reliable", some "unreliable." What makes a dating method "unreliable?" Because it gives inconsistent internal results? No. Because the results consistently don't match expected dates? More likely. The rocks they dated ranged from the oldest basement rock to the newest lava flows (some of which have a precise historical date). Regarding the later, they explored possibilities why a lava flow from 1947 would date millions of years old. From a creation model, all lava flows fit into the "recent" category of the 1947 flows since a few thousand years is indistinguishable using most radiometric methods.

Basically, ICR needs to put their work out in public, including their methodology where other scientists can attempt to duplicate it. Maybe they already have and we will see some studies from other scientists soon. If the ICR work passes muster, they will have an impact on science. If not, current thinking stands.

Their work has undergone scientific peer review and is available completely to the public. I think I linked to the PDF earlier.

"But the world you see screams contradiction with God's word in regards to created kinds plus Adam created from dust." Not to me, it doesn't.

Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:7, Genesis 5:1-5, 1 Chronicles 1, Hosea 6:7, Luke 3:38, Acts 17:26, Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Corinthians 15:45, 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Jude 1:14, Hebrews 11:1-12.

Hebrews speaks of events in Genesis as fact, as does Paul in several of his books. Would the God we know allow scripture like this to be included if the author of Hebrews and Paul spoke of something they believed as fact yet were not really so? 2 Timothy 3:16 says no.

Reconcile those scriptures with evolution. I'm glad we're back on topic.

"Where in evolution is the theism?" Nowhere. Theism is a matter of faith, not science.

I rest my case, your honor.

Gluadys, faith and science are false dichotomies, not to mention scripture says nothing of separating faith in God from the rest of your life. We have faith that gravity is fact, even though we can't conclusively prove it. Removing God from creation while doing science is also a Bad Idea.

 

[Buho]

The problem here is working from a modern academic mindset on history as a bunch of facts. Have you ever read a historical writing from say, a medieval historian? You can't tell where the legends leave off and the facts begin. It doesn't make either any less true. To focus on whether Genesis is a factual replay of prehistory or not is to miss the forest for the trees.

What I get from Genesis is that man is fallen and sinful, God is supreme, and the prophecy of the coming Messiah. It really makes no difference to my faith whether Eve was really made from a rib or not.

I mentioned this to Kate: no archeological evidence has ever contradicted anything written in the Bible. That's one of the amazing things about God's written word! Based on this, I have confidence that other parts in the Bible that appear to be history are equally devoid of exaggeration and falsehoods. Also, I have an a priori belief that God does not speak fiction. The difference between the Bible and other medieval historians is that the writers of the Bible were guided by God.

If Adam and Eve were not real historical, living, breathing characters, then where exactly did sin come from? How is it that we have a sin nature? Why were we slaves to sin? Is it just of God that we were born into bondage of sin? If so, how? These questions are answered if one believes that there was an Adam who sinned against God, from which we are all decended.

The excerpt from Gen. 34, without context, could be either history or fiction.... It was typical of the time to tell history as story and to include a good bit of legendary material in the story.

Regarding the first, suppose I add one small piece of context: the quote is from the Bible. Does that eliminate one of your options? If not, where in the Bible can you identify fiction? Regarding the second, can you show me where in the Bible "a good bit of legendary material" is present? (I object to that statement, but I'll listen.) One of the key differences between the Bible and its contemporaries is its total lack of legendary material. One of the reasons the books in the Apocrypha were rejected from the Protestant cannon was because of legendary material.

Remember, however, that archeological confirmation is specific to what it confirms. Anything not explicity confirmed by archeology cannot rely on archeological confirmation of something else to support itself. For example, confirming the construction of the water tunnel under King Hezekiah (which has been done) does not confirm the construction of the tabernacle under Moses.

However, when archaeology confirms A and C, we can be confident that B is also true.

1. Is Job mentioned in any of the genealogies? I don't think so. (Understandably a critique of Ruth as ahistorical would run up against this. But even if Ruth the story was fiction would not prove that Ruth the person and ancestor of David did not exist.)
2. Did Jesus or Paul or Peter quote Job as if they thought he was a real person? Not as far as I know.
3. Are there any scientific proofs that Job existed? Not really, though we can't really disprove his existence either.
4. Does any science require that Job did not exist? Not really.

1. Doesn't help your case if Job isn't part of the royal lineage.
2. Good point. And your only one here.
3. Since this can be used for and against, it doesn't help.
4. Does any science require that job DID exist? Not really.

If I ask "what is the firmament (raqia) in Genesis 1?" I will get at least three different answers: ... Three different interpretations. According to your modernist ideas only one can be correct.

Or a fourth one that has not ben offered is correct. Are you saying that several of them can be correct simultaneously? To say so is to violate the law of contradiction. Raqia cannot be both a vapor canopy and outer space at the same time.

Remember what I said about phenomenological descriptions? How can you show that "the sun rises" is phenomenological but that "animals reproduce according to their kinds" is not?

Genesis 1:25 says "God made the wild animals according to their kinds...," not "God let wild animals come into their different kinds." It's a point creation of kinds.

+ + + + +

As far as I know it has not verified a single miracle.

I seem to recall archaeologists discovering Sodom & Gomorrah and finding it blasted and burned as described in Genesis 19:24. What you said has merrit, though: further study may reveal a volcanic cause or other natural cause, deemed the work of God only in highly coincidental and improbable nature of it happening right after the pronounced judgement of the cities.

The intact history of Egypt shows that it was never affected by Noah's flood, hence the flood could not have been global. At least not at the date usually assigned to it in a YEC scenario.

I haven't studied the correlation of Egyptian history and the mainstream date for the flood event. However, the standard flood model places Egypt at a few centuries after the flood.

Where do you look at what mainstream science has found? News articles? Creationist analyses? Primary literature? Popular science? Textbooks?

Aye, textbooks I'm borrowing from geologists and microbiologists, plus Wikipedia (proportedly a neutral site but I can argue against that), written and transcripted debates between creationists and evolutionists on technical matters, Institute for Creation Research, articles at Answers in Genesis, articles at TrueOrigin.org, articles at TalkOrigin.org, and scientific white papers (creation/evolution-neutral). I find that I learn a lot by reading the contrasting views and backtracking to solid science to fill in the gaps as they are encountered. I'm kind of a sponge that way. Just yesterday I subscribed to the IEEE Information Theory publication which I hope will help in my understanding of biological information.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Speculation. If in the pre-fall world there was no evolution, then there had to have been insta-created creatures, including Adam and Eve, for a fall to have occured (dead molecules can't sin). If God created animals and humans, why are we still holding on to macroevolution? (BTW, you phrased it interestingly: yes, I agree that pre-fall, microevolution (as well as macroevolution) could not happen. The only "change over time" that can occur then are things like muscle toning, growing, and tanning.)

If God created animals and Adam and Eve, what makes you think they were "human"... as least as we understand it?

Now we're making progress. Mutations, as you said, are mistakes when copying one strand of DNA to another. But a "copy mistake" can include a skipped nucleotide, a duplicated nucleotide, or a misread nucleotide. "Copy" doesn't specifically mean duplicated.

Precisely. An imperfection in the copying process of DNA is a mutation.

The flightless beetle in its history underwent a mutation that switched off the growth of wings, which was a beneficial mutation that allowed it to survive on a windy island. But its a loss of information. Misread nucleotides have been shown to be either neutral in effect or detrimental to the survival of the organism.

... so far.

Natural selection removes these.

Not the neutral ones... and remember the ever-changing environment... "neutral" can become "beneficial" at the drop of a hat.

I have yet to run across a "flipped" nucleotide that benefited the organism.

Keep looking, then. Biologists and geneticists haven't thrown in the towel yet.

Duplicated genes do often benefit the organism, for instance with increased antibiotic resistance, increased insecticide resistance and the like. However, repeating "very" in "a very good mutation" 20 times doesn't add information to the sentence, just the strength of the sentence.

Except that DNA is notthe same as English Grammar... besides, when one of those duplicated genes gets flipped, then you have new information.

This is where specified complexity comes in. A snowflake is complex, but has little information (just a kernel, a pattern, and a number of times to repeat). Biology is highly specified. Evolutionists require a duplicated gene PLUS a misread nucleotide PLUS an advantage gotten from the prior two. This has never been observed.

Considering how the science of Genetics is still relatively in its infancy, are you surprised?

A bacteria has less information than a chimp, no matter how you define "information." Evolutionists say the order is bacteria -> chimp. The impetus is on evolutionists to show how information can increase via natural processes. They have failed thus far.

How can they have failed when you yourself just illustrated the exact mechanism?

It can be done; you said so yourself. There's no reason at all to believe that this is impossible. Now genetic researchers know what to look for.... but finding a gene in DNA is needle-in-the-haystack to the nth degree.

Yes. In a world hypothetically plagued by malaria, the only survivors would be those that have sickle cell disease. However, read this description and maintain your confidence in Darwinian evolution as a Good Thing.

Large swaths of land in Central and South America are constantly plagued by Malaria... there's nothing hypothetical about it.

It's described as a "disease" that "damages" the red blood cell membrane. "Lives are punctuated by periodic painful attacks" and "damage of internal organs such as stroke." "Lifespan is often shortened." But hey, they survived the malaria pandemic! That's natural selection all right. You might call this evolution of whatever kind, but it's not the right kind that evolutionists need for that increasing genetic diversity.

Why not? They may be in pain, but they're not dead. Outside of a Malaria zone, it's a harmful mutation...But in the Malaria zone, "pain" is still preferable to "death."

In our hypothetical, suppose a small group of people on an island were not hit with malaria and malaria died out on the world. As soon as the island people intermingle with the sicke cell people, there is a competitive advantage to the island people that will, given Darwinian processes, eventually eliminate the sickle cell people.

Except that not everyone who has the gene has the disease. So long as there are carriers, there's always a chance of the occasional sickle-cell infant popping up in the odd generation.

A real-world example of this are the "super bacteria" in hospitals that are resistant to all antibiotics. Are they evolved? Depends on your definition, but it's not the kind of evolution Darwinists need.

Actually, the resistant bacteria are "evolved," in exactly the way Darwinists need... asare Virii. Why do you think people need new flu shots every year?

As soon as the bacteria exits the hospital into the real world with "normal" bacteria, the normal bacteria out-compete the super bacteria and are eliminated. Why? Because all observed cases of "beneficial" mutations in specific areas are a result of decreased performance in other areas.

Same as our real-world sickle-cell trait. It is ideally suited for a particular environment, but helpless in a different one.

In the same way, a penguin is ideally evolved for the Antartic... transfer that penguin to the jungles of Borneo, and it doesn't stand a chance.

Ask the beetle to fly again. It will never "evolve" wings again (on its own). It lost that information.

never you say?

It's a matter of perception, I suppose. It's not a matter of "alive" plus "pain" versus "dead." If you honestly believe "alive" plus "pain" is "better" than "alive" alone, then there's not much I can say.

Except "alive without pain" isn't an option here. Evolution is not an intelligent process which seeks the optimal solution... As an unintelligent algorythm, it often stops at inefficient, often jury-rigged designs.

Sickle-Cell works for protecting people from Malaria. It comes with some nasty side effects, but it gets the job done.

I didn't say species couldn't. (Personally, I'd question the cladistics of the species there, but that's another matter.) My example was reptile -> bird. That is a change at the phyla level. The species changes you cite actually confirm creationists claims about the Bible, that it does not teach a fixity of species. For instance, creationists believe tigers and lions used to be one "liger" kind of animal, the liger having more genetic information than the tiger or lion separately.

You're the first Creationist I've met to ever claim such a thing.

What scientists have done is taken a more robust organism and bred a new species that cannot breed with the original species.

Thus imitating conditions that exist in the wild, producing results exactly as predicted.

No. We haven't. Every "small step" has been neutral or destructive. Thank God for natural selection to keep our population from devolving out of control!

What is required is evidence, and the impetus is on evolutionists to provide it.

Which they have, in droves.

The "beneficial ones" are the ones that (1) did not experience a mutation that was harmful to survival (the majority case) or (2) experienced an information-degrading mutation that allowed for a particular selective advantage. Adding zeros or negative numbers won't get you a bigger number.

Except that once again, you've already outlined the exact mechanism for adding information to a species... and not provided any reason for it to be biologically or genetically impossible.

Regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I shouldn't have opened that can of worms. Also, your response didn't address the generalized theorem but the specific scientific theorem.

Nevertheless, you do not want to open up the 2LoT can of worms around here in any form.

 

[Numenor]

(BTW, you phrased it interestingly: yes, I agree that pre-fall, microevolution (as well as macroevolution) could not happen. The only "change over time" that can occur then are things like muscle toning, growing, and tanning.)

So pre-fall if Adam and Eve had any children they would have been clones?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I mentioned this to Kate: no archeological evidence has ever contradicted anything written in the Bible.

Dating the fall of Jericho causes serious problems. The common dates for the Exodus and from there the destruction of Jericho's walls do not fit with the dates at which Jericho was a major town with walls.

If Adam and Eve were not real historical, living, breathing characters, then where exactly did sin come from?

When we rose above the animals and started having true empathy, started understanding that we could cause harm... at that point we started being aware of right and wrong.

Many sins come from distorting good. Pride as a sin comes from overemphasizing the satisfaction of a job well done. Gluttony from enjoying the good food God has given us...

When we became prideful, started deciding we didn't have to show respect to the rest of creation, ignored the pain empathy let us know we were causing...

However, when archaeology confirms A and C, we can be confident that B is also true.

Archeology had confirmed Jerusalem, but the dating of how the North and South arose appear to be in conflict with the accounts of the Bible. There is also the matter of the sheer size of the Exodus.

I seem to recall archaeologists discovering Sodom & Gomorrah and finding it blasted and burned as described in Genesis 19:24. What you said has merrit, though: further study may reveal a volcanic cause or other natural cause, .

The whole time and area of Abraham and S&G are a bit murky and it is reasonable to assume that the towns which were built over subterrainium(sp?) collections of ... bitumem (sp!?) which were ignited (again my recollection via volcanic action) wiping out said towns are the origins of the story of S&G.

My recollection is that strictly speaking this didn't occur in the right spot or time to be a direct hit on the description in Genesis, but was certainly close enough for any reasonable person to make the connection.

Does that mean those towns were S&G? That Gen 19 occured as described, if in a somewhat different place and time? No, but it certainly raises the possibility.

And as I have said elsewhere, if God brings doom via giving a magma flow a nudge at the right time, or salvation via a strong wind that creates a walkway across the Red Sea (or creates a particular species via nudging evolution), who am I to complain?

 

[shernren]

A bacteria has less information than a chimp, no matter how you define "information." Evolutionists say the order is bacteria -> chimp. The impetus is on evolutionists to show how information can increase via natural processes. They have failed thus far.

Not true. I can define information content, for example, as "number of metabolic life functions performed per cell contributing to the overall success of the organism". This is a viable definition - for example, if I had a single-core supercomputer which was somehow capable of performing the job of a 200-core distributed computing ensemble, I think I would be justified to say that the programming of the single-core would be far better, and have far more information, than the programming of the 200-core distributed computer. In that case, bacteria actually have more information content than chimps.

Furthermore, with whatever definition of information you are using, you have to show that information cannot increase. For example, take this definition:

The longer the genome, the more information.

This naive definition obviously will not work. AFAIK there are ferns out there with 200 chromosomes - that's a whole lot more than humans; wheat has 42, although they are suspected hexaploid so it really doesn't count. Furthermore, according to that definition, mutations can increase information, since mutations can indeed make a genome longer.

So far I've introduced two viable definitions of information, one in which "less complex" organisms (however that is defined) have more information than "more complex" organisms, and one in which mutations increase information. I'm not claiming that these are good definitions. But they are better than no definition, which is precisely what I see from the creationist side. To prove that evolution is impossible using an information theoretic approach, the creationist side must:

1. define a relative information gauge function by which given any two genomes A and B, one can conclusively say that A > B. In addition the function has to be transitive (if A > B and B > C then there should be no way in which C > A) and must be computable independent of reproductive success, or else the argument degenerates tautologically into a "mutations do not improve fitness" argument, which is demonstrably false.

2. show that evolution requires informational increase as defined in 1. This is not as easy as it seems; for example in my definitions of information above evolution does not require increase in information (mutations can preserve the length of the genome and still amount to evolution).

3. show that mutations cannot increase information as defined in 1. Ie, given that A' is derived from A by random mutation, show that A' < A no matter what A is.

4. In particular, if I label A as B' and A' as B, since mutation can revert A' back to A and therefore B to B', I immediately have B' > B ( = A > A', something creationists have "proven"), showing immediately that mutations can increase information. Therefore creationists also need to demonstrate that mutations are irreversible (and that's a killer).

Evolution isn't traditionally defined in terms of information content (it's just creationist populist handwaving via jargon-ization), so the onus is not on evolutionists to validate an information theoretic approach. And if you're going to refer me to that AiG paper which mentions "apobetics" (jargon which sticks out like a sore thumb), it was originally published in an electronic engineering journal and therefore has little to no relevance in the discussion.

In a world hypothetically plagued by malaria, the only survivors would be those that have sickle cell disease.

This shows that you simply do not understand the issue at hand - there is a difference between sickle cell trait and sickle cell disease. Even a cursory Wiki search will tell you what those are, and I trust that you will at least look through the literature before commenting on things that (frankly speaking) you do not seem to understand. Furthermore, when you say this:

But hey, they survived the malaria pandemic! That's natural selection all right. You might call this evolution of whatever kind, but it's not the right kind that evolutionists need for that increasing genetic diversity.

I am confused because firstly you say that evolution needs information, and next you say that it needs diversity, and if you are going to equate one to the other (more diversity = more information) it is self-evident that mutation increases information. (The whole problem with creationism's piecewise attack on evolutionism is that you get inconsistencies like this. Each piece may cause evolution a little irritation on its own but the pieces simply do not fit together ... ) Furthermore, in your example (where sickle cell trait has a selective advantage) evolution is preserving diversity. If sickle cell trait is selected for then there are two main variants for the hemoglobin genes (HbA, IIRC, and HbS) while if it is bred out of the population then there is only one main variant (HbA). Evolution in the former scenario does not decrease diversity, it preserves it.

A real-world example of this are the "super bacteria" in hospitals that are resistant to all antibiotics. Are they evolved? Depends on your definition, but it's not the kind of evolution Darwinists need. As soon as the bacteria exits the hospital into the real world with "normal" bacteria, the normal bacteria out-compete the super bacteria and are eliminated. Why? Because all observed cases of "beneficial" mutations in specific areas are a result of decreased performance in other areas. Ask the beetle to fly again. It will never "evolve" wings again (on its own). It lost that information.

We've talked our butts off on this here: http://www.christianforums.com/t2540491-if-evolution-is-not-valid-science-somebody-should-tell-the-scientists.html&page=53

Be prepared, it runs on for pages and pages. BTW, the nylon bug is mentioned there too, the answer to this:

I have yet to run across a "flipped" nucleotide that benefited the organism.

Even Lee Spetner himself admits that the nylon bug represents an increase in information (whatever measurement he's using), so he has to quibble about whether it is random or not.

Or a fourth one that has not ben offered is correct. Are you saying that several of them can be correct simultaneously? To say so is to violate the law of contradiction. Raqia cannot be both a vapor canopy and outer space at the same time.

I am saying that since only one can be right, two others must be wrong, and out of those two at least one will be a YEC definition. And therefore YEC interpretations require outside science as much as TE interpretations. That was what I was showing. I think you understand this too, based on your replies to my "Myth" thread.

1. Doesn't help your case if Job isn't part of the royal lineage.
2. Good point. And your only one here.
3. Since this can be used for and against, it doesn't help.
4. Does any science require that job DID exist? Not really.

I was not listing why we should not believe that Job was not a historical figure. I was listing reasons why if Job was not a historical figure, it would not threaten the YEC paradigm. Why then would you feel threatened (to paraphrase a bit - let me know if I am wrong) if Job was not a historical person? It isn't Scriptural interpretation per se (what I was showing is that Scriptural interpretation can be consistent with an ahistorical Job, not that it has to be) but your underlying modernist assumptions that truth has to be historical in nature.

Genesis 1:25 says "God made the wild animals according to their kinds...," not "God let wild animals come into their different kinds." It's a point creation of kinds.

Jesus Himself says somewhere (Matt. 5:45, IIRC) that God makes the sun rise upon the wicked and the good (paraphrased). Why say that this is a phenomenological description? Why not say that this is a "point theistic direction of the motion of a moving sun across the sky over a motionless earth"? After all, this is exactly how the disciples would have understood it, too.

Because you don't believe in geocentrism or evolutionism. The only difference between your interpretation of Genesis 1:25 and my faux interpretation of Matthew 5:45 is science, not Scripture.

 

[gluadys]

Well then. I guess macroevolution is a fact after all then! Unfortunately, all observed cases of this show that they don't help evolutionists get from a bacteria to a baboon.

Sure it does. We know that species diverge into new species. What more is needed to demonstrate the possibility of common ancestry?

Furthermore, if you had studied a little more phylogeny, you would know that scientists do not place bacteria and baboons in the same clade, so no one is proposing that an ancient bacterial population is ancestral to a baboon. Baboons, like all complex species, are eukaryotes, not bacteria.

That's why creationists use a more precise definition

Precise? Like "kind"? Gimme a break!

No. In both parents, the gene, a highly complex molecule consisting of thousands of atoms all folded into a precise shape, existed prior to the child. It's simply been activated. Scientists have found no plausible natural pathway -- grounded in evidence -- that can construct this recessive gene in the first place.

Well, they are learning fast. They are creating artificial genes that never existed in nature. We can expect they will eventually learn how nature did it.

Not exactly. The analogy I've seen used is something like this:
MOM:
Eyes = green
Hair = brown

DAD:
Eyes = blue
Hair = blonde

KID:
Eyes = ?
Hair = ?

You have this analogy in the wrong place. It belongs with the independent assortment of chromosomes above.

Here I am speaking about the rearrangement of dna sequences.

An increase in information would look something like this:

KID:
Eyes = brown
Hair = blonde
Wings = white

complete with the full set of genes that produce all aspects of what we would call wings.

And such an event would falsify evolution. It can't happen that way.

Also, you have answered my question in exactly the way I asked you not to. You have not described what an increase in genetic information would look like. You have described a morphological consequence of the increase in information.

Forget about the consequence (wings) and show me what has taken place in the genome. How do you know this consequence must come about through an increase in information. Maybe that information was already there but suppressed and a mutation permitted it to be expressed. Creationist often explain evolution of resistance that way. Why not humans with wings?

Scales to feathers, unless that information is already present in the genome, or feathers is a spectacular result of disabling a few things, requires new genetic information consisting of specially-folded genes, proteins, and DNA segments.

I think you are labouring under a misapprehension of how genes relate to morphological characteristics. There are really no such things as genes for scales or genes for feathers. Genes code for proteins, and changes in genes alter the "recipe" for the protein. This may or may not have consequences for development.

The proteins used in scales and in feathers are quite similar--of the same family of proteins. So, it would not take a significant change in the structure of the protein (and therefore only a minor change in the genetic sequence) for feathers to be produced instead of scales.

There's nothing per-se (to science's knowledge) stopping small information-adding changes from accumulating and resulting in feathers,

So why treat it as an "impossible macro-evolutionary style" change?

However, nobody has observed this piecemeal addition occuring, nobody has seen a new gene arise naturalistically, and there is no reason for natural selection to favor a partially-made gene (that takes energy to build and maintain) that does not function.

Do you mean in fossils or in living creatures? In the latter case you are wrong. Such changes are being observed daily in biology labs studying genetics and evolution.

I mentioned irreducibly complex systems

A lot of people seem to think that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve. Even Behe recognizes that that is not the case. There are several ways irreducibly complex systems can evolve. He thought he had found some for which evolution was not an adequate explanation, but further study has shown all of them to be open to evolution.

The principle is sound, and when an irreducibly complex system is identified in nature, it is identified that the only possible evolution to produce this state is a prior (more complex) scaffolding, which only raises the difficulty for evolution to occur on that system

Its not a difficulty for evolution. It is only a difficulty for you because you are assuming that evolution always moves toward more complexity. In fact, evolution often moves in the direction of more simplicity. Especially when simpler is more efficient.

How would it falsify evolution if they became something that is not a fly when evolutionists claim reptiles, after millions of years and millions of generations, are not reptiles but birds?

Because something that is not a fly would remove the successors of the fruit fly out of the fly clade, and evolution does not permit that. Reptiles, mammals and birds are all in a single clade (amniotic vertebrates) So the evolution of birds from reptiles does not transgress any cladistic boundary. Birds are a new clade wholly contained within the clades Amniota, Diapsida, Dinosauria, Therapoda.... They have not become something their ancestors were not. They have become a new specialized form of what their ancestors were.

Or are you hooked on me thinking of single organisms? No, what I was showing in the quote you commented on is that a population of flies are exposed to mutagens and alowed to breed. The next generation (a few weeks later) is repeated. After 100 years of breeding and intense mutational factors, through the long line of mutant ancestors, the offspring are not significantly different than their 100-year-old ancestors, nor the flies outside in nature.

So? 1. Mutations alone do not produce evolution. Selection is required as well, and I expect that in most of these cases, selection acted against the mutations, conserving the original structure as far as possible. 2. You are still expecting the descendants of flies to evolve into something that is not a fly. Evolution does not permit that.

If bacteria-to-fly evolution were fact

It's not a fact. Flies, like baboons, are eukaryotes, not bacteria.

, we would have a radically different species, more evolved, with more complex features, and able to out-compete the normal fly in a more varied array of conditions. This has not happened.

And you have given no reason why it should. Your objection is based on the spurious notion that evolution is directional and that the direction is toward greater complexity and some sort of abstract model of perfection that will work across a broad range of ecological niches. Evolution is not directional in either of these senses.

The expected rate of natural change does not match even the artificial rate of change in the lab.

Perhaps you are confusing "expected" rate of natural change with "possible" rate of natural change. Evolution can occur with amazing rapidity, but the actual measured rates of evolution are much much slower than the top possible rate of evolution. This indicates that in most situations, natural selection conserves the status quo rather than integrating adaptations.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In both parents, the gene, a highly complex molecule consisting of thousands of atoms all folded into a precise shape, existed prior to the child.

no, the first time that the child's dna exists is at fertilization. There is a recombination event that makes the child a mosaic of both parents.

 

[gluadys]

In other words: evolutionists claim increasing complexity has occured.

But it has only occurred in some lineages, not all. And since early life was simple (relatively speaking) it would be difficult not to get complexity as species evolved. Complexity is always an option, just not a necessity.

(I remind all that I affirm natural selection and a non-fixity of species, by whatever word you set that definition to.)

Which shows how much creationism has evolved since Darwin's day.

You are banking on the fact that not even evolutionists can agree on the steps needed for a novel feature to arise.

Shifting goal posts. The question was about speciation (macro-evolution) not novel features.

The steps needed are:
1. mutation
2. variation
3. natural selection
4. fixation
5. isolation
repetition of steps 1-4 in isolation

This will, given time, inevitably produce speciation. The process has been observed in nature and induced in experimentation.

In general, steps 1-4 are also what is required for novel features to arise. I expect when you say evolutionists cannot agree on what is required, you are referring to debates on the specific mutations that occurred in the origin of a specific novel feature. Lots of room for debate and discussion there.

Is there very convincing evidence of feathers on T.Rex?

I don't think it has been demonstrated by a fossil find yet, but it would be pretty improbable that a dinosaur so closely related to other feathered dinosaurs would not also have feathers. So you might consider it a prediction of what we may find in the future.

The actual fossils are dubious and inconclusive (I can't find the fossil with feathers).

There is not just one. Several were found. Set Google to Images and key in "feathered dinosaurs" and you will get lots of pictures. Click on a picture and you will get the context.

Now, what are the grounds for saying the fossils are dubious and inconclusive. What paleontological study raises significant doubt about them? (You do know that Feduccia is a voice in the wilderness on this, right? Not that he is a bad scientist, but he hasn't swung others to his point of view yet.)

Also, the find came from the area of China where the Archaeoraptor came from (which raises my suspisions).

Archeoraptor lies outside of science. You do know that no scientist had the opportunity to examine the so-called fossil until after National Geographic had published its ill-fated story. Scientists quickly identified it as a hoax.

Of course, the hoax was possible only because there were also genuine finds of feathered dinosaurs. In fact, Archeoraptor was a combination of two genuine but partial fossils put together in such a way as to make it look like a full skeleton. A full skeleton is much more valuable than a partial one, and that was the motive for creating the hoax.

If anything the Archeoraptor story should allay your suspicions as it could not have succeeded if it were not modeled on genuine finds.

Furthermore, if one believes this to be true, then it complicates the evolution with respect to Archaeopteryx.

Not in the least. No one has sugggested that the China finds are ancestors of Archeopteryx. What the China finds show is that feathers are not unique to birds. It also means that the ancestors of these fossils could have had feathers too. So they and Archeopteryx could have a common ancestor. We really have no idea yet of when dinosaurs first grew feathers.

Finally, there's still the huge difficulty in determining how scales can evolve into feathers.

Already discussed.

No, it's not a rebuttal, but I note that the evidence for this is very shaky.

The evidence is fine. It is your presuppositions that are shaky, when they are not just incorrect.

Has the jaw prediction been fulfilled with fossil evidence?

Thoroughly. It is one of the best attested transformations in the fossil record.

http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-transitional.pdf

The orchid & moth is nice story. But the prediction isn't drawn from microorganism-to-moth evolutionary theory.

But it was based squarely on Darwin's theory of natural selection.

It fits in just as well with creation theory which includes adaption and natural selection of created kinds.

Not the creation theory that Darwin knew. Creationists of his generation held to fixity of species. Today's creationists have incorporated most of Darwin's theory into creationism. The only point outstanding is common descent.

A prediction that can be claimed by two contradictary hypotheses cannot be used to support one theory.

But we are not dealing here with contradictory hypotheses, since today's creationists reject the fixity of species arguments of Victorian creationists and agree with Darwin's hypothesis.

That appears to be the case. If you look at the geologic evidence surrounding the fossils, you find that there are often contradictions that become debates.

You are mistaking a debate about where a fossil find fits in the phylogeny with a non-existent debate about whether it fits. If a fossil genuinely contradicted the standard phylogeny, it couldn't be placed at all, and there would be no debate about where it is placed.

How many other fossils have evidence that point to dates other than where they've been "best fit" into the supposed tree of life yet now the original evidence is destroyed from time?

The fossils are the evidence. Also modern technique makes careful observations of the placement of the fossil in situ, other fossils found with it and so forth. There is plenty of opportunity to re-study the evidence and come to different conclusions if warranted.

I can easily say the order in which species came into being (going by Genesis) is quite different from paramecium-to-penguin evolution, and thus is falsified.

But you would not have the evidence to sustain this claim.

You are forgetting the Flood, which rearranged and obfuscated geologic history (Gen 6:7).

There is no evidence the flood was global, and no scriptural testimony to the rearrangement of geologic history by the flood in any case.

The "order in which species came into being" is just the burial order from the Flood, starting with bottom-dwellers and moving on up.

I won't get started on this right now, but there are thousands of details in the fossil record that are not consistent with this hypothesis. "bottom-dwellers" for example are found in every part of the geologic column.

And just try explaining the fossil record of plants on the basis of the flood. Sometimes I think that creationists think the theory of evolution only applies to animals.

The "order" of species origination of which you speak -- how do you view the Cambrian explosion? This is quite contrary to evolutionary ideas. Some evolutionary scientists have narrowed the window for this proported explosion to 100 million years, 50, and some, 10 million years! If all of evolution's history happened in 24 hours, 10 million years would be 4 minutes! 4 minutes out of 24 hours for the evolution of nearly all today's phyla in all their complexity!

First, not every animal phylum is found in the Cambrian. In fact nearly a third of animal phyla have no fossil record at all.

Second, what do you mean "all today's phyla in all their complexity"? Have you been assuming that all the species in each phyla are found in the Cambrian? That is most certainly not the case. Are you aware that there is not a single terrestrial animal or plant found in the Cambrian? i.e. no roses, no grasses, no trees, not even ferns or mosses. No terrestrial insects or spiders, no mammals, birds, reptiles or amphibians. For most if not all the Cambrian there were not even fish. Our phylum (Chordata) was represented by creatures like this amphioxus from the Burgess Shale, which doesn't even have a backbone.

You raise an interesting rebuttal I haven't heard before. What radioactive elements might generate C14 isotopes? I did a little looking and found this:

The principal suspect is uranium-thorium isotopes.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

I reject NDT theories as acurate representations of reality.

And accept a model that is less accurate.

They used a wide variety of methods -- some "reliable", some "unreliable." What makes a dating method "unreliable?" Because it gives inconsistent internal results? No. Because the results consistently don't match expected dates?

Ones that don't match known dates, are contradicted by methods known to be reliable, and/or cannot be successfully used to determine dates on a consistent basis.

More likely. The rocks they dated ranged from the oldest basement rock to the newest lava flows (some of which have a precise historical date). Regarding the later, they explored possibilities why a lava flow from 1947 would date millions of years old. From a creation model, all lava flows fit into the "recent" category of the 1947 flows since a few thousand years is indistinguishable using most radiometric methods.

Well, this is a good example of the problem. First c14 cannot be used on lava flows so it cannot be used to verify the 1947 date. Second, there is no radio-active element suitable for dating that has a short enough half-life to corroborate so recent a date. (The lack of naturally occurring radio-active elements with half-lives less than 80 million years is another bit of evidence in favour of an old universe.) The only other radiometric measures depend on elements with very long half-lives such as uranium-lead decay, potassium-argon or argon-argon decay, strontium-rubidium decay, etc. None of these are reliable for recent dates. Using them is like using an unmarked kilometre-long rod to measure the width of a hair. All you will get is some kind of date within the error bar. In fact, they are quite right to say that "a few thousand years is indistinguishable using most radiometric methods." Any attempt to measure such a recent lava flow radiometrically will provide a variety of inconsistent dates.

So why is ICR even trying to measure a 1947 lava flow radiometrically? Can't be done with the radiometric tools available to us.

Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:7, Genesis 5:1-5, 1 Chronicles 1, Hosea 6:7, Luke 3:38, Acts 17:26, Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Corinthians 15:45, 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Jude 1:14, Hebrews 11:1-12.

I realize you see problems here. I don't because I don't accept the premises for the interpretation of scripture that you insist on.

Hebrews speaks of events in Genesis as fact, as does Paul in several of his books.

How can you determine that?

Would the God we know allow scripture like this to be included if the author of Hebrews and Paul spoke of something they believed as fact yet were not really so?

We don't know that they believed it to be fact. We do know that the way they understood and used history was different from the attempts at objective "factual" history used today.

We have already noted that the internal evidence of a text does not distinguish a historical from a fictional narrative. The OT writers were quite capable of writing fiction under inspiration. And the NT writers were quite capable of referring to such stories for theological purposes under inspiration. The internal evidence of such references does not tell us what their beliefs in regard to the nature of the story are. Only the moral or theological point they are using it for.

That said, I grant you that the NT authors, and the OT authors, probably did believe Adam to be a historical person. But in a mystical way. Paul, especially, seems to refer frequently to Adam in a mystical sense, especially in contrast to Christ.

Reconcile those scriptures with evolution.

Most of them don't present any need for reconciliation. Gen. 1:27 for example says nothing inconsistent with evolution. Hosea 6:7 may be referring to the town called Adam, not a person. The Hebrew is apparently quite obscure. Most of the NT references are equally valid with either a historical or non-historical Adam. And given the nature of ancient genealogies, none of them require a historical Adam.

I should point out, in any case, that a historical Adam is not a problem for evolution in any case and many conservative TEs do consider Adam to be a historical individual.

Gluadys, faith and science are false dichotomies

Oh, I quite agree. That is one reason I opt for theistic evolution rather than YECism. I do not understand faith as requiring the denial of science.

not to mention scripture says nothing of separating faith in God from the rest of your life. We have faith that gravity is fact, even though we can't conclusively prove it. Removing God from creation while doing science is also a Bad Idea.

And that is why I am a Christian and not an atheist. Many professional scientists are also Christians and theistic evolutionists too. Suggesting that they or I are "removing God from creation" is, to say the least, insensitive.

However, we do not need faith that gravity is a fact. We have evidence that gravity is a fact. We can measure it and predict the consequences of gravity. What we don't quite know is what it is. But even without knowing the nature of gravity such that we can integrate our understanding of gravity with other fundamental forces such as electro-magnetism and the nuclear forces, we know it exists and what it does.

Because we haven't worked out the nature of gravity and how it does what it does, the theory of gravity is much less complete than the theory of evolution. Evolution has much more supportive evidence and its mechanisms are well understood. Mostly today, the research in evolution is not about whether it happens, or what the principal mechanisms are. It is about the relationships between the various mechanisms, the principal locus of evolution (gene, species), the relation of genetic to morphological evolution and the particulars of the history of specific lineages.

 

[shernren]

You are forgetting the Flood, which rearranged and obfuscated geologic history (Gen 6:7). The "order in which species came into being" is just the burial order from the Flood, starting with bottom-dwellers and moving on up.

Cute claims, don't match up with the real world. Something fishy about creationist claims on the fossil record is that while they are very happy to argue about animal remains, as far as I've seen they are very quiet about botanical fossils. Obviously plants can't run to higher ground during a flood. So why is it that we do not find (AFAIK) one single angiosperm - flowering plant - fossil during, say, the Cambrian? Did the flowering plants all get magically deposited and fossilized on higher ground? Why did this process miraculously spare the ferns? Does this mean that before the Flood, there wasn't a single low altitude at which flowering and non-flowering plants co-existed?

Remember, creationists often claim that the climate pre-Flood was superior to the climate post-Flood, and that the antediluvean world was lush and verdant. This makes it even more unlikely that a random process like hydrological sorting would miraculously rearrange all the flowering plants in the world and make sure that not even one was deposited in "Cambrian" strata, given the immense number of plants existent then.

I have yet to see a satisfactory creationist answer to this.

 

[gluadys]

Regarding the first, suppose I add one small piece of context: the quote is from the Bible. Does that eliminate one of your options?

No, it doesn't.

If not, where in the Bible can you identify fiction?

Nowhere with certainty. The narrative itself cannot tell us whether we are reading history, fiction or an amalgam of both.

However, some good candidates are the books of Job, Jonah and the first part of Daniel.

Regarding the second, can you show me where in the Bible "a good bit of legendary material" is present?

It's a shorter list to say where it is not. I would say the closest we get to straightforward history in the OT are the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Most everything else has at least as much legend as history.

I would say legend is rarer in the NT, but not altogether absent.

However, when archaeology confirms A and C, we can be confident that B is also true.

I don't think that necessarily follows. But first one has to identify A, C and B.

I seem to recall archaeologists discovering Sodom & Gomorrah and finding it blasted and burned as described in Genesis 19:24. What you said has merrit, though: further study may reveal a volcanic cause or other natural cause, deemed the work of God only in highly coincidental and improbable nature of it happening right after the pronounced judgement of the cities.

Intriguing. I expect some sort of natural cause would be found, but IMO that does not rule out miracle. However, science would only extend to verifying a natural cause. As you say, a believer could then infer a miracle from the coincidence of timing.

I haven't studied the correlation of Egyptian history and the mainstream date for the flood event. However, the standard flood model places Egypt at a few centuries after the flood.

The mainstream date for the flood event correlates with the 5th Dynasty of Egyptian history. The First Dynasty is several centuries before that. There is an unbroken archeological and written history right through the supposed flood period. This is true of several other ancient civilizations as well.

http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/history3-11.htm#5th

Aye, textbooks I'm borrowing from geologists and microbiologists, plus Wikipedia (proportedly a neutral site but I can argue against that), written and transcripted debates between creationists and evolutionists on technical matters, Institute for Creation Research, articles at Answers in Genesis, articles at TrueOrigin.org, articles at TalkOrigin.org, and scientific white papers (creation/evolution-neutral). I find that I learn a lot by reading the contrasting views and backtracking to solid science to fill in the gaps as they are encountered. I'm kind of a sponge that way. Just yesterday I subscribed to the IEEE Information Theory publication which I hope will help in my understanding of biological information.

OK. Then what I would suggest is to be less selective in your skepticism. Treat ICR with as much suspicion as Wikipedia. And be as open to information at talkorigins as at trueorigins.

For so far, your objections seem to be based more on creationist propaganda than actual scientific problems. And your assertions, when they are not simply wrong, are derived from pre-suppositions about scripture and about evolution that are not solid.

 

[Buho]

"Misread nucleotides have been shown to be either neutral in effect or detrimental to the survival of the organism." ...so far.
...
"Natural selection removes these [detimental mutations]." ...and remember the ever-changing environment... "neutral" can become "beneficial" at the drop of a hat.
...
"I have yet to run across a "flipped" nucleotide that benefitted the organism." Keep looking, then. Biologists and geneticists haven't thrown in the towel yet.
...
"This has never been observed." Considering how the science of Genetics is still relatively in its infancy, are you surprised?
...
"The impetus is on evolutionists to show how information can increase via natural processes. They have failed thus far." It can be done; you said so yourself. There's no reason at all to believe that this is impossible. Now genetic researchers know what to look for.... but finding a gene in DNA is needle-in-the-haystack to the nth degree.
...
"You might call [sickle cell] evolution of whatever kind, but it's not the right kind that evolutionists need for that increasing genetic diversity." Why not? They may be in pain, but they're not dead.
...
"A flightless beetle will never "evolve" wings again (on its own). It lost that information." never you say?

A lof of your post, Kate, is based on that incorrigible faith of yours. My case can be summarized as such: Suppose global science performs 1000 experiments per day across the world with regard to studying the mechanisms of microbe-to-man evolution. That's 250,000 experiments per year, and over 12 million experiments in 50 years. In other words, geneticists have done a lot of research on this topic. Microbe-to-man evolution does not appear to be happening.

Nobody seemed to look into the Drosophila Birchii fruit fly I mentioned in my last post. A short summary: a certain type of fruit fly species lives in the rain forest and has adapted to the wet climate very well. It has a cousin species which lives in drier climates. The rainforest is being destroyed, so conservationists are attempting to use "intense selective pressures" on D.Birchii in the laboratory in attempts to breed a fly that can handle drier climates better like its cousin. Their methods include drying out the air until 50% of the population dies, letting them breed, and repeating the process hundreds of times. Despite researchers' best efforts, they have failed to "evolve" a fly that has adapted to a drier climate. This is real data here.

Why have they failed? Here's what they say:

Differences in desiccation resistance among D. birchii populations suggest that there has been a past history of selection on this trait. Yet, low levels of genetic variation for desiccation resistance appear to be preventing any further increases in resistance in this rainforest species despite ample genetic variation in other traits and at neutral markers as evident from the microsatellite results. Our results show that genetic variation in neutral markers can provide an incomplete picture of the evolutionary potential of populations, consistent with the weak association between genetic diversity as measured by quantitative methods and that measured by molecular methods.

Here's the creationist's view: D.Birchii and its cousin were one species in the past and have since diversified via genetic variation and natural selection. Creationists call this microevolution. This process of diversification has D.Birchii to lose some kind of genetic information that is manifested in reduced dessication resistance -- a "beneficial" change when living in the rain forest. However, just as it's easy to burn a book and nearly-impossible to reconstruct the burned from the ashes, we find it's easy to lose genetic information and nearly impossible to reconstruct it again. This is exactly what we find with D.Birchii. What theory best fits the evidence? (Again, YECs affirm genetic variation, natural selection, and speciation.) D.Birchii is an example of a loss of information. This trend is ubiquitous in all genetic research, with very few exceptions, such as the solo nylon bug brought up.

YECs affirm that -- no matter how many generations are bred and observed -- traits do not have an infinite plasticity but definate constraints or ranges. Evolutionists require infinite ranges given enough time. Thus this is a contradiction between theories. Only one is right. Examples: no amount of controlled breeding will turn a weiner dog into a wolf-like creature; no amount of controlled breeding will result in a child with a 2-foot nose; no amount of controlled breeding of prokaryotic cells will result in a eukaryotic cell; no amount of controlled breeding will result in finches with 6" beaks who can reach seeds in deep cracks.

But this is the kind of evolution that evolutionists require. Start with finches that have 0.5" beaks. You will in a few generations breed finches with, say, 1.5" beaks. But then you will quickly hit a wall. There is a limit to genetic variation -- the observable kind that evolutionists call "evolution." Further beak growth requires mutations in areas that are not mutated often naturally (quite the opposite, those sections of the DNA are rigorously preserved). (Of course, I am speaking as if we know what mutations need to be made which I doubt have been identified yet.)

Belief that traits have infinite plasticity is all it takes to be an evolutionist. (No I'm not talking about one generation, but hundreds, thousands of generations, whatever it takes.) All evidence shows this not to be the case. At what point, Kate, do you switch from saying "so far" to "that's enough"?

+ + + + +

To all: I hope I made my case abundently clear. The far majority of responses to my two sections on evolution I think can be answered with the above.

+ + + + +

Thus imitating conditions that exist in the wild, producing results exactly as predicted.
...
"What is required is evidence." Which they have, in droves.

If genetic variation, natural selection, and speciation is all it takes to become an evolutionist, then sign me up! No, what I'm talking about here is the distinction between what creationists call microevolution and macroevolution. Again, lets get definitions straight:

Microevolution -- genetic variation, genetic recombination, adaption, natural selection (plus the other types of selection), possible speciation, two populations once united now unable to breed with each other....

Macroevolution -- microevolution that continues beyond what's observed, relying on the unproven (and discredited) assumption of infinite plasticity of traits. Possible outcomes may include more genetic and/or organism complexity, and creation of novel features. These things are not required unless one believes a priori to universal common ancestry of all species and the first life was a unicellular organism with a very short genetic sequence. I have called this definition (including the universal common ancestry part) bacteria-to-biped evolution. I've heard others call this "megaevolution."

Given these definitions, scientists are nowhere close to showing the viability of scum-to-seagull macroevolution. What you find is enticing possibilities, but cold, sober research is devoid. Actually, what scientists have been able to do is manufacture novel genes and proteins. If one looks into the research that went into that, one will be amazed at the complexity of work they did to make their protein. Here's a potential next step for macroevolution. We're at point A. How do we get to point B? The distance between the two using natural means is light years distant, showing only that adding intelligence to the equation changes "improbable" to "likely."

+ + + + +

Precise? Like "kind"? Gimme a break!

It's biblical. Anything more precise than that is speculation and prone to error. "Created" is also biblical. I object to evolutionists saying evolution is "change in time", point to a moth changing color, and then claiming proof for the mechanism for origin of all life. "Change in time" is not what we're arguing about here. See above.

And such an event would falsify evolution. It can't happen that way.

Why? Because the wing appearance is "too big" of a change? Suppose it was just one feather? A hint of a feather? Evolution makes no claim as to the size of change between generations.

Forget about the consequence (wings) and show me what has taken place in the genome. How do you know this consequence must come about through an increase in information. Maybe that information was already there but suppressed and a mutation permitted it to be expressed. Creationist often explain evolution of resistance that way. Why not humans with wings?

I am not skilled enough to enumerate and describe sub-cellular processes. You are right: often a hidden bit is selected for and used as a selective advantage. Bacterial resistance sometimes looks like variation in membrane thickness. A thicker membrane sometimes stops antibiotics. Sometimes thickness may be the result of an (accidentally) repeated instruction to build the membrane, thus thickening the membrane and also causing the gene sequence to be larger. Why not a human wing? The first thing that comes to mind is this: a modification in the hox area to make room for additional appendages would have to happen, if one exists for humans. Then, the proteins needed to manufacture feather-producing skin would be needed. The new proteins needed are probably in the hundreds if not thousands. The related genes required to build the proteins are probably in the thousands as well. ...Where are we going with this mental excercise?

So, it would not take a significant change in the structure of the protein (and therefore only a minor change in the genetic sequence) for feathers to be produced instead of scales.

Are you sure? Scientists are currently mystified as to how scales can be tweaked into feathers. This appears to be research close to what you want. The abstract doesn't seem to say much, though. This article seems to say it's a mystery as well. Not saying science won't figure it out. It's my belief, however, that when they do, it's going to turn out to be a very large gap of complexity. Beliefs, though, don't get much mileage in this thread.

So why treat it as an "impossible macro-evolutionary style" change?

Again, I think my opening remarks are sufficient. However, here's further answer: I didn't say impossible, but does a probability of 1:100000000000000000000 mean anything to you? By that probability I hope to illustrate the theoretical number of required steps and the chance of them being achieved naturally and the chance of each one of them being preserved despite no selective advantage for malfunctioning "growths" on the skin. Reminds me of sickle cell.

Evolution can occur with amazing rapidity

Aye, I agree genetic variation can occur with amazing rapidity. So how come intense selective pressures combined with mutagens do not produce more interesting creatures? Like a neo-fly with tiny under-wing missiles and sonar-mapping systems? Should the human race feel threatened that some scientists may be attempting to evolve a fly like this, flies who could potentially escape and take over the world?

And since early life was simple (relatively speaking) it would be difficult not to get complexity as species evolved. Complexity is always an option, just not a necessity.

Nice beliefs. And I agree what you say aligns with other evolutionists beliefs. It would be difficult NOT to get complexity? Evidence shows the opposite. I think what you said is the holy grail of evolutionists -- an a priori belief that complexity just NATURALLY happens! Again, evidence shows otherwise. Molecules don't just attach themselves into more complex shapes. Quite the opposite, delicately complex molecules tend to break down easy.

Here's an experiment: Take a gerbil and put it in a blender. Turn the blender on and mix the slurry until it's composition is even and smooth. What you now have is a PERFECT "primordial soup" jam-packed with proteins, DNA, pre-built cells.... Do you think if you left it alone for a while the molecules might naturally snap together into more complex shapes and life might assemble itself? This is what you are talking about and this is the absurdity creation scientists object to.

Which shows how much creationism has evolved since Darwin's day.

Genetic variation, natural selection, and adaption was originally proposed by a biblical creationist, before Darwin.

The steps needed are:
1. mutation
2. variation
3. natural selection
4. fixation
5. isolation
repetition of steps 1-4 in isolation

This will, given time, inevitably produce speciation.

I agree this recipe will get you speciation. But you forgot step 3.5: an act of God to make scum-to-scallion evolution work against observed mechanisms, mechanisms that appear to keep complexity from arising, novel features from forming, and variation from exceeding bounds.

Now, what are the grounds for saying the fossils are dubious and inconclusive.

One, the cited fossils come from the same area as Archaeoraptor, what's to say that the feathered fossils aren't man-made carvings? Caution is expressed by me. Two, I can't find feathers on T-Rex. Why are people then saying T-Rex had feathers? To me this is a prime case of deceit: conjecture flaunted as scientific fact.

 

[Buho]

If anything the Archeoraptor story should allay your suspicions as it could not have succeeded if it were not modeled on genuine finds.

Actually, the effect I see is the same effect when a blurry photograph is treated with such enthusiasm amongst UFO-believers.

The evidence is fine. It is your presuppositions that are shaky, when they are not just incorrect.

Pardon me, but I find my presuppositions to be more solid than yours. My presuppositions are: (1) biblical inerrancy, (2) when historic-sounding things in the bible are mentioned, I treat them as true, (3) probably some other biblical presuppositions but my mind is getting fried. I don't see how presuppositions based on the Bible, the Word of God, can be "shaky" unless that's a personal presupposition of yours.

There is no evidence the flood was global, and no scriptural testimony to the rearrangement of geologic history by the flood in any case.

The evidence for a global flood is the same evidence you use for a belief in evolution. Regarding scripture, for one, see the verse I provided. Regarding inconsistencies, I haven't studied the flood very much. However, I'm reminded of Hebrews 11 which treats all biblical characters mentioned (including Abel, Enoch and Noah) as real and historic as David. Again, why should I doubt the flood wasn't global when Gen 7:20 says the water covered ALL the mountains and Noah is a significant player in that very chapter? Why should I disbelieve?

Ulgh.

+ + + + +

Jesus Himself says somewhere (Matt. 5:45, IIRC) that God makes the sun rise upon the wicked and the good (paraphrased). Why say that this is a phenomenological description? Why not say that this is a "point theistic direction of the motion of a moving sun across the sky over a motionless earth"? After all, this is exactly how the disciples would have understood it, too. Because you don't believe in geocentrism or evolutionism.

The only difference between your interpretation of Genesis 1:25 and my faux interpretation of Matthew 5:45 is science, not Scripture.

Why say that this is a phenomenological description? Because, from my understanding, all scientific descriptions in the Bible are phenomenological (except possibly specific measurements). Your alternative description is also (more or less) a good phenomenological description.

(By the way, I got side-tracked and found a litteral translation: "So that you may be sons of your father who is in the heavens for his sun he causes to rise (anatello) on evil and good and sends rain on just and unjust.")

Bringing science into the Bible, we find that a geocentric cosmology aligns with Matthew 5:45 just as well as a galactiocentric cosmology. If we subscribe to the former, is it still phenomenological? Replace "sun" with "NASA satelite." I say yes, because -- with science -- I know that the NASA satelite doesn't "rise" but simply appears on the horizon whilst maintaining its altitude in its orbit.

This doesn't work with evolution and Genesis 1:25. Here's a litteral translation: "and-he-is-making (`asah) Elohim animal-of the-land to-species-of-her (miyn) and the-beast to-species-of-her (miyn) and all-of moving-animal-of the-ground to-species-of-him and-he-is-seeing Elohim that good." `asah means to fashion, accomplish or make, or to press or squeeze. The Strong definition of miyn is:

kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) ++++ Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind". [Source: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=04327&version=kjv]

In short: "God fashioned kinds of animals like a scultor fashions different pots." I'm no Hebrew scholar by any means, but I'm sure other phenomenological words could have been used instead of `asah, and I'm sure other phenomenological words could have been used instead of miyn. But the existance of these words in this verse most definately describes a process of which evolution looks nothing like. If you subscribe to universal common ancestry of all living organisms and species, a phenomenological description of the origin of life would look something like this: "God created the first animal, breathed life into it, and from the animal it multiplied." Actually, that sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the creation of man in Genesis 2: "God formed the (unary) man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breath of life, and the man became a living being. God said to him, "Be fruitful, increase in number, diversify, and fill the earth." The last bit I pulled from Genesis 1. I also added the word "diversify" which has no suggestion of existance in Genesis 1 or 2 but would be an appropriate phenomenological word for evolution.

In short: scripture is fairly explicit in describing things in ways that bacteria-to-biped evolution cannot be. Even if Genesis is metaphoric, teaching a "general" way of the origins of everything, Genesis would be misleading if bacteria-to-biped evolution were fact. There's no way it fits! God can't lie. Also keep in mind bacteria-to-biped has shaky evidence and has never observed. At this point, all signs point to another scientific paradigm!

+ + + + +

If God created animals and Adam and Eve, what makes you think they were "human"... as least as we understand it?

Huh? Are you serious? There's no reason scripturally to doubt Adam and Eve were anything BUT human! They spoke, tended livestock, lived in tents, played music, sang, and danced, to name a few things animals (including apes) don't do. Also, the same word used to describe Adam ('adam) is the same word for "man" used throughout the Old Testament, including Abraham, Moses, and David. This kind of sloppy reading of the Bible scares me!

So pre-fall if Adam and Eve had any children they would have been clones?

Upon further thought, I think my comment is silly. This is speculation on what would happen if Adam and Eve had kids before they ate of the tree of knowledge, before God changed the rules and added a curse to creation. Speculation here is difficult because we only know one way of life and there simply is no details in the Bible on this subject.

Dating the fall of Jericho causes serious problems. The common dates for the Exodus and from there the destruction of Jericho's walls do not fit with the dates at which Jericho was a major town with walls.

Possibly the dating methods are wrong? I mean, it's common practice to use historic dates to calibrate dating methods.

When we rose above the animals and started having true empathy, started understanding that we could cause harm... at that point we started being aware of right and wrong.

Many sins come from distorting good. Pride as a sin comes from overemphasizing the satisfaction of a job well done. Gluttony from enjoying the good food God has given us...

When we became prideful, started deciding we didn't have to show respect to the rest of creation, ignored the pain empathy let us know we were causing...

Robert, I'm trying to phrase this non-insultingly because I apprecite your cool, reasoned responses, but I have to raise a red flag on this. This is so far from right as east is from west. I guess I should commend you for bring this back on-topic.

(1) "Rose above the animals." No biblical basis for this at all.

(2) "becoming aware of right and wrong" contrasts with what the Bible says happened. Additionally, how exactly, evolutionisticly, naturalistically, does one explain the concept of "right" and "wrong?" Can a neurologist dig around in the brain and find it? Actually brain surgeons have recently begun to find evidence that suggests our conciousness lies outside of our body and is not the sum of our brain and spinal cord. If this is so, how does conciousness evolve?

The Bible gives some answers to this area. Throughout the Bible you find such concepts of the "heart," "spirit," "soul," "conciousness," and "sarx" (sinful flesh). Romans 2:15 describes gentiles, "since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness...." Paul essentially refutes what you just said. "Right" and "wrong" are part of God's general revelation of his divine character. This revelation is written upon our heart for all to see (Romans 1:18-20).

(3) The Bible doesn't describe pride as "overemphasizing the satisfaction of a job well done." No, the kind of pride you are referring to is always tied to a kind of self-worship. Regarding "a job well done," see Romans 7:18.

(4) Glutteny isn't really mentioned in the Bible. I think this is from Dante. Of course, gratification of the flesh is not what God wants: Romans 8:5.

(5) The Bible teaches that when Adam ate of the fruit, he would die. This presumes that if Adam did not eat of the fruit he would not die. In the future, God's kingdom is described as life. If there was death prior to Adam, what's the curse? Spritual death? If so, how did they achieve spiritual life beforehand via evolutionary means?

I could probably keep going.

Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:7, Genesis 5:1-5, 1 Chronicles 1, Hosea 6:7, Luke 3:38, Acts 17:26, Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Corinthians 15:45, 1 Timothy 2:13-14, Jude 1:14, Hebrews 11:1-12.

I realize you see problems here. I don't because I don't accept the premises for the interpretation of scripture that you insist on.

Tell me again I'm interpreting incorrectly that titanic list of scripture spanning the entire Bible. I advise you to reevaluate your hermeneutic.

"Hebrews speaks of events in Genesis as fact, as does Paul in several of his books." How can you determine that?

Um, because God doesn't lie and all scripture is God-breathed? And the corroberation between Hebrews and Paul? Why would both authors, hand-picked by God, be self-deluded? Ask yourself the questions you ask of me instead of thinking a snappy question covers all theological problems.

We don't know that they believed it to be fact.

We can build a VERY good case that this is true. For one, enumerate for me the reasons why you believe they believed Adam and Noah were fictional? You can't? Then why believe things that have no evidence to support? Therefore we must conclude they believed Adam and Noah to be historical human beings. Now then, you must entertain the questions: if Paul and the author of Hebrews -- men chosen by God, led by God, and filled with the Spirit -- believed Adam and Noah to be historical people, why did God allow them to write this way despite the "real" history of evolution? Think on this. The thoughts you entertain are so far from God's word.

The OT writers were quite capable of writing fiction under inspiration.

False. Incorrect. That's a lie. At least, that's what I say with my a priori belief that ALL of God's word is God-breathed, and that God cannot lie (that is reserved for Satan, his angels, and men wrapped in sinful flesh). However, I have strong evidence to show that my faith is not ill-placed. For instance, please point out where what is written in the Bible is clearly wrong. (Do not use Genesis 1-11.)

That said, I grant you that the NT authors, and the OT authors, probably did believe Adam to be a historical person. But in a mystical way. Paul, especially, seems to refer frequently to Adam in a mystical sense, especially in contrast to Christ.

Wiccans believe the God and Goddess are in the rocks -- in a mystical way. What's the difference between you and them? Additionally, how can you show me that the OT and NT authors all believed Adam was "historical in a mythical way?" I defy you to show me. Pardon me for getting passionate here, but you're blaspheming the Word of God, his Truth, his character, his being.

The internal evidence of such references does not tell us what their beliefs in regard to the nature of the story are. Only the moral or theological point they are using it for.

Again, this is FALSE. Again I cite Hebrews 11 (since I ran across it yesterday in my devotional). The author makes ZERO distinction between: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jepthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets! This same faith each one of these people exhibited in their lives is the same faith we exhibit in Jesus Christ, which connects their lives with your life and mine. Deny the historocity of Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc., and you deny the historocity of yourself, which is insanity.

Fictionalizing Genesis 1-11 (or, for that matter, the entire Bible), is to spit in Jesus's face (which, incidentally, won't be the first time).

Paul, especially, seems to refer frequently to Adam in a mystical sense, especially in contrast to Christ.

You keep providing me fodder, Gluadys! Re-read Romans 5. Please. And slowly.

Paul makes a parallel between Adam and Jesus:
Adam - real, one man, originally sinless, sold into sin, origin of death, first Adam...
Jesus - real, one man, eternally sinless, bought out of sin, origin of life, last Adam...

Deny Adam as a real person and you deny Jesus as a real person, which is what Satan would love and cheer you on for.

 

[Buho]

Most of them don't present any need for reconciliation. Gen. 1:27 for example says nothing inconsistent with evolution.

First of all, good call on the town called Adam. Your analysis is correct. Unfortunately, that's the best exegesis you've offered so far. See above for the problems with Genesis 1:25 and evolution. All signs point to "created kinds." This is not a phenomenological description of universal common ancestry whatsoever.

many conservative TEs do consider Adam to be a historical individual.

"Conservative TE" is an oxymoron, but at any rate, you do not share their beliefs. You insist on ignoring God's clear word and trusting man as your guide.

We have evidence that gravity is a fact

We have overwhelming evidence that gravity is probably fact. Our confidence level in it is probably greater than 99.999999%. But you exhibit faith by saying it is fact. Likewise, we can find evidence in the Bible that the Trinity is true, but we're only 99.999999% sure. The last fraction is bridged by faith. Likewise (is Kate listening?), Jesus's historocity can be shown with evidence to a 99% confidence level. The last 1% is faith. For Kate who didn't look at the evidence, she probably ranked her confidence at 10% and exhibited a commendable and God-awe-inspiring leap of faith to bridge the 90%.

"Where in the Bible can you identify fiction?" Nowhere with certainty. The narrative itself cannot tell us whether we are reading history, fiction or an amalgam of both.

However, some good candidates are the books of Job, Jonah and the first part of Daniel.

Then why do you accuse the Bible of fiction, treat it as fiction, and interpret it as fiction? You do this without any basis whatsoever! You are inconsistent with your beliefs. You scruitinize the creation model yet haphazardly interpret the Bible as you please.

And what in the world leads you to suspect the first part of Daniel?! You can read about those events in a world history textbook!

"Can you show me where in the Bible "a good bit of legendary material" is present?" It's a shorter list to say where it is not. I would say the closest we get to straightforward history in the OT are the books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Most everything else has at least as much legend as history.

I would say legend is rarer in the NT, but not altogether absent.

From what I can tell, this is complete fabrication by your beliefs. You're adding legend to the Bible and exhibit a faith in God's word similar to Kate (read: none). That then, makes me wonder what kind of Jesus you believe in. Have you made your own Jesus to be who you want him to be? Is he all-loving? Does he love you just the way you are? Does he say it's OK to sin?

Let's make the discussion easier: I'd like you to identify the legendary material in the New Testament for me. I believe none is present.

Regarding the first, suppose I add one small piece of context: the quote is from the Bible. Does that eliminate one of your options?

No, it doesn't.

I rest my case. See above.

The mainstream date for the flood event correlates with the 5th Dynasty of Egyptian history. The First Dynasty is several centuries before that. There is an unbroken archeological and written history right through the supposed flood period. This is true of several other ancient civilizations as well.

Two possiblilities (I'm not entertaining the third): One, the Bible mentions no date, so the error is probably the Biblical scholars who assembled the timeline based on the geneologies. Two, the archaeological dates are wrong, and it wouldn't surprise me if they were all uniformly off by a little bit.

For so far, your objections seem to be based more on creationist propaganda than actual scientific problems. And your assertions, when they are not simply wrong, are derived from pre-suppositions about scripture and about evolution that are not solid.

The objections I raise are found in scientific literature, just not so blatently so (otherwise they wouldn't have made it through peer-review). The objections I raise I have seen many anti-creationist rebuttals to. The ones I use are the ones that I feel were not rebutted well by anti-creationists, suggestive that the facts are true.

 

[Buho]

I'm quite tired of the evolution evidence. If you want more, visit C&E. Keep in mind that just because I'm ducking out does not logically flow that my case is weak.

I'm more interested in the Christian angle of the whole evolution thing, which is why I started participating in this thread, titled "THE GOSPEL AND THEISTIC EVOLUTION."

I keep trying to return to it but the TEs seem to dodge the subject. I keep saying the following:

1. Belief in evolution there is no exegetical support for.

2. Belief in a non-historic Adam is belief in non-historic Jesus, non-real sin, and non-real life after death. It is a logical outworking based on solid exegesis of the Bible. To believe in a non-historic Adam yet a historic-Jesus is nonsensical and illogical. Belief in a non-historic Adam is supreme suppression of the truth.

Those are the claims I present.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

1. Belief in evolution there is no exegetical support for.

quantum chromodynamics is wrong because the Bible doesn't talk about it.

genetics is a false science because we know you can put peeled branches and have the sheep and goats jump over them and that will make their offspring spotted.

most medical science is false science because we know that disease is caused by demons and that takes a "casting out spell", the only reason the churches don't do this more often is that they are afraid that their success will cause the evil medical establishment to arrest them on practicing medicine without a license.

we know that surgery is wrong, because deafness is healed by spit and dirt.

There is no exegetical support for lots of things we do, so what? the Scriptures are not exhaustive, something they say: if all the things Jesus did were written down it would fill many books.