A Challenge for Anti-evolutionists

[lucaspa]

Deism amounts to nature acting on it's own accord, and if God simply set forth a Big Bang, then Christian Deism is the correct term.

Let me back Mallon here: this is not what we are saying. We are emphasizing that nature does not act on its own. Everything natural requires God to will it to happen.

Because what exactly is He maintaining?

Everything. If 2 hydrogen atoms react with an oxygen atom to form water, God is willing that to happen. When DNA polymerase is copying DNA, God is willing that to happen. When sperm enters ovum God is willing that. When you release a pencil and it falls to the floor, God is willing gravity to work. Do you get it now?

It seems that all it amounts to is that He set forth existence and that's about it.

Look at what you wrote. You just described creationism! God creates the world and then that's it. Right? What is God doing now in the universe according to creationism? NOTHING. Creation is finished, over. So now isn't "nature acting on it's own accord"?

Genesis explains how it was done, and nothing truly omits that idea except assumption based on observation.

If you have something "based on observation", that is a conclusion. And what are we observing? God's Creation! We are observing what God did. From that, we can see that a literal interpretation of "Genesis explains how it was done" is wrong. That conclusion that "Genesis explains how it was done" is wrong" is reinforced when we really look at Genesis 1-3 in detail. We see there are 2 ways of "how it was done" and they contradict. Therefore they can't be correct, from the text of Genesis.

Because we see how fast light travels, we can tell how long the universe has been around. Works perfectly for Deism, not for Christianity.

Why doesn't it work for Christianity? After all, after God created, creationism has "nature acting on it's own accord".

There is a direct rationale that omits scientific observation in lieu of Genesis. Why cling on to it? Is it fear?

Yes, why do you omit scientific observation and cling to Genesis? *staff edit*

 

[lucaspa]

Thats still faith. You can't possibly check every experiment from everyone else, just like they couldn't check every experiment that they built upon.

Now you are talking practicality. If I wanted to, had enough time, the equipment, and the training, I could. This is contrasted to Christian faith. You and I can't go to the shores of the Red Sea, lift up our arms, call upon God, and see the waters part, can we? We can't put our hands in the wounds of the risen Christ, can we? In principle, everything in science can be checked. In principle, we cannot check the things we have faith that God did, can we?

I understand in that specific experiment you reworked Urist's experiments, but what he did his experiments on still could have been based on the research of others.

Yes, and that work of others is part of the bundle of hypotheses I am testing. If the work of others had been wrong, then Urist's experiments would not have "worked". We end up testing larger and larger bundles.

In every experiment there are assumptions. A biological researcher at Duquesne University told me that. Without assumptions, there is no progress at all. Assumptions are faith.

The "assumptions" in this case are that the underlying hypotheses are true. But then we end up testing those underlying hypotheses as part of the bundle we are testing. So the "assumptions" turn out not to be faith after all, but something we confirm in the process of doing the experiment.

Let's look at another example: heliocentrism. Lots of observations of the position of planets in the night sky went into heliocentrism, observations of Tycho Brahe (who had tens of thousands of such observations) and others. It's also based on the theories of planetary motion by Kepler and Newtonian mechanics. NASA has been launching planetary probes for the last 50 years or more. Every one of them has the course plotted using the theory of heliocentrism. Now, if any of the background work I describe above is wrong, any part of it, then the probes would not arrive where and when NASA calculated they should arrive. So, when the probes do follow the courses and arrive at the planets where they are supposed to arrive at, all that work was tested again.

I'm saying that sooner or later there are assumptions made and those assumptions are faith.

Yes. I'm saying that the faith is not where you say it is. In any search for truth, we start with 2 basic assumptions:
1. I exist.
2. I am sane.

To do science we also have 5 assumptions about the universe:
1. It is rational
2. It is objective
3. It is contingent
4. It is accessible
5. It is unified.

However, what I am saying is that Christians and scientists share the assumptions. Science itself is not making any assumptions different than those Christians do. In fact, science got those 5 assumptions from Christianity as conclusions about the universe. The conclusions come from the faith that God exists, God created, and God has the characteristics we have faith that He does.

Remember, I am not the only scientist working. When we consider all the scientists working and all the fields in which they are doing research, yes, all the facts not only can be checked, but they are being checked.

 

[CTD]

The more common version posits a god who plans everything out in advance and then sparks the big bang. The resultant universe evolves and evolves and evolves on its own, while the god goes off to sleep or whatever. It only stops evolving when people are watching.

That is deism, not theistic evolution. And it is the common version of creationism. Creationism is often portrayed as God created the basic kinds and then these kinds evolved on their own. Can you see the deism there?

I don't care how many times you change the names, the teachings of ''theistic evolution'' are all contrary to scripture and blatantly so. That which was originally called 'deism' is far closer to truth. It featured an active, intelligent, caring version of God, and fell short of truth primarily by refusing to correctly identify Him.

No popular version of ''theistic evolution'' comes half so close to the truth, and it dare not, for it would be classified under ID if it did. God's hand is evident in creation not because we choose to imagine an unverifiable claim to be true, but because it's obvious to anyone who opens his eyes. There is, and can be, no excuse. Painting a picture to accommodate excuses is subversion of the gospel.

 

[lucaspa]

I don't care how many times you change the names, the teachings of ''theistic evolution'' are all contrary to scripture and blatantly so.

Moved the goalposts, didn't you? Instead of saying theistic evolution is deism, now you say it is contrary to scripture. And we are back to what really matters to you: scripture. Or, more exactly, your interpretation of scripture.

*staff edit*

Again I point out that Genesis 2 is contrary to Genesis 1 and blatantly so. Since scripture is contrary to scripture, why do you cling to the idea that "contrary to scripture" is a prime criteria?

I also again point out that scripture is not God's only book. *staff edit*

That which was originally called 'deism' is far closer to truth. It featured an active, intelligent, caring version of God, and fell short of truth primarily by refusing to correctly identify Him.

Nice of you to admit that deism is creationism. You say deism says what creationism says about creation: God created the universe and then stopped, with the universe running on its own now.

No popular version of ''theistic evolution'' comes half so close to the truth, and it dare not, for it would be classified under ID if it did.

This is a good thing. Because ID is very, very bad theology, which is why Christians abandoned it so quickly in favor of theistic evolution. ID has God be sadistic, stupid, and suffering from Alzheimer's. That is not acceptable.

God's hand is evident in creation not because we choose to imagine an unverifiable claim to be true, but because it's obvious to anyone who opens his eyes. There is, and can be, no excuse. Painting a picture to accommodate excuses is subversion of the gospel.

Paul was very short of specifics when he wrote that. So what do you think is the "verifiable" evidence that God's hand is evident in creation? And how do you decide it is God's hand?

 

[lucaspa]

And none are ever ''needed'' in the imaginary magical universe that is its own god.

Not true. Miracles are needed as God intervenes in human history. the movie Oh God got it correct when it noted that no one seems to believe it is God unless there is a miracle involved.

Also, wouldn't you say the miracle of the Resurrection is "needed"? How else can Jesus provide salvation?

It's really fairly boring. Aside from slapping 'christian' onto pantheism or neo-deism, what's been accomplished?

Well, you admitted in the post 2 above this one that creationism is deism. So thank you for refuting part of this statement; I don't have to now. As for pantheism, theistic evolution is not that, either. God is never "nature" in theistic evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

I already did point it out. If God performs miracles, there is no such thing as a ''god-of-the-gaps'' fallacy.

Mallon asked you to point out where theistic evolutionists said there is no need of miracles.

Actually, god-of-the-gaps requires miracles. It's just that it is improper to propose a miracle where god-of-the-gaps needs them. It contradicts scripture (which you find it all important to avoid) and it violates Christian theology that God is not a creature of the universe. Come to think of it, god-of-the-gaps is partial pantheism!

God-of-the-gaps is not so much a fallacy as bad theology. By requiring God to step in and directly join (by miracle) 2 regularly occurring members of the universe, gotg makes God part of the universe or "nature". Instead of having chemistry (nature) connect non-living chemicals and living organisms, for instance, gotg requires God to connect them.

It is not automatically wrong to suppose God might have actually DONE something, something more than lying around all inert or being ''nature''.

He's not being "inert". And He is certainly not "nature". He is creating! It's just that God is creating by the processes discovered by science and not creating by miracle. Do you think creating by the processes discovered by science is "being nature"? It's not. God is separate from nature but using nature to create. You're moniker talks of canvas and easels. Is an artist being the brush when he uses the brush to put paint on canvas to create a painting? Of course not! The artist and the brush are separate. The brush is a tool to accomplish a creative goal.

Similarly, evolution is a tool used by God to accomplish the goal of creating.

 

[CTD]

Again I point out that Genesis 2 is contrary to Genesis 1 and blatantly so.

All anyone ever needs to know about your religion, nicely packaged into one sentence. Oh, and again the original 'deism' was closer to truth.

So why do you think it is wise to ignore God?

Silly loaded question.

Nice of you to admit that deism is creationism.

Really?

You say deism says what creationism says about creation: God created the universe and then stopped, with the universe running on its own now.

I say what I say, and people can review if they have any problem recalling.

This is a good thing. Because ID is very, very bad theology, which is why Christians abandoned it so quickly in favor of theistic evolution.

I've never seen or heard of a Christian abandoning ID for ''theistic evolution'', quickly or otherwise.

ID has God be sadistic, stupid, and suffering from Alzheimer's. That is not acceptable.

Well, seeing how accurately you report on creationism, this assertion's hardly going to surprise anyone.

God's hand is evident in creation not because we choose to imagine an unverifiable claim to be true, but because it's obvious to anyone who opens his eyes. There is, and can be, no excuse. Painting a picture to accommodate excuses is subversion of the gospel.

Paul was very short of specifics when he wrote that.

*staff edit*

 

[lucaspa]

Ok. Lets do.

Premise#1: Non-constancy of Species.

This is a hypothesis/theory.

By implication, then, it means that human beings, the species, was another species in the past, and will be so too in the future, something which the evolution hypothesis predicts.

Evolution does not, with certainty, predict humans will transform to a new species. H. sapiens could go extinct. Also, of course, God could decide to close down the universe before H. sapiens transforms to another species.

What I understand of evolution is that human beings will become a new species in the future, and perhaps you can tell me what this species can possibly be (and it can be a falsibility test for evolution, albeit million of years into the future, if it is predicted and recorded now.)

Evolution is contingent on 2 things: the environment and available variations. We cannot know what changes will be in the environment nor what new variations will appear via mutation or sexual recombination. Therefore it is impossible to predict what the species will be.

We can, however, look at what is happening now in H. sapiens and see evolution at work.

Most speciation is allopatric: a population becomes geographically isolated and faces a different environment. That (relatively) small population evolves to a new species. The original species still exists, so now we have 2 species instead of one.

H. sapiens is facing disruptive selection. This is a form of natural selection that happens to populations spread over a large geographical area. Subpopulations face different environments and direction selection (what we think of when we say "natural selection") adapts those sub-populations to the different environments. That tends to generate new species. But gene flow between the subpopulations as individuals from the subpopulations interbreed tends to stop the split into separate species.

Directional selection is documented among H. sapiens in at least 3 cases:
1. Himalayan (Tibetan) mountains.
2. Andean mountains.
3. The !Kung in the Kalahari desert.

This paper -- 6: Hum Biol 2000 Feb;72(1):201-28, Tibetan and Andean patterns of adaptation to high-altitude hypoxia. Beall CM -- reviews the work on the first 2. Both populations are facing a hypoxic environment of high altitude. Both have evolved adapations, but different adaptations, to that environment. Those adaptations are genetic. A major allele for oxygen saturation was detected among the Tibetans that is not present is sea-level dwellers. Now, if those populations remain isolated, they would evolve into separate species. But modern roads, railroads, and airports make it easier for sea-level dwellers to meet and marry mountain dwellers and vice verse. So gene flow is also operating.

In the !Kung, gene flow is less and the !Kung have several alleles in several genes that are unique to them. When a !Kung marries outside the !Kung, the !Kung must go live with the spouse's people. So there is some gene flow out of the !Kung, but no gene flow into the !Kung. Have you ever seen the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy? In it a blond Englishwoman and a male !Kung meet. Each considers the other ugly and not a potential mate. That's well along in the process of reproductive isolation. A major form of reproductive isolation is for members of each population simply not consider members of the other populations as mates. They do not mate, and thus reproductive isolation and new species. So, if the Kalahari remains isolated from other humans and the !Kung retain their mating policy, we will see H. !Kung in several dozen generations.

Premise#2

: Man made in the image of God.

Now I know too, from non scientific sources - science not having the monopoly of truth, unless you disagree (which then renders everything below irrelevant) - that human beings were "made" in the "image of God".

Now there are a few questions immediately arising from this fact and what evolution hypothesize.

The problem is a misinterpretation of "image of God". That misunderstanding has plagued Judeo-Christianity for millenia. Let's go to the verse:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Notice we have 2 things there: "in our image", "after our likeness" and dominion, or power. It turns out those are the same thing. We have lost an important colloquialism over time. I once had a Biblical scholar explain to me that "in his image" had a definite meaning in that time. Because communication was so poor, an ambassador or representative of a merchant would be given power to negotiate binding treaties or contracts without referring back to the king or merchant. Such an ambassador would be said to be "in the image" or "in his likeness" of the king or merchant. So the phrase "in his image" in Genesis 1 doesn't really refer to either physical or spiritual appearance, but empowerment. God is telling humans that they are free to act on the environment. That what they do to the earth they do "in the image" of God, or with God's full backing.

Now, it's obvious that "image" or "likeness" cannot possibly refer to a physical likeness, because God is spirit and has no physical appearance.

namely that it was the process in which God created all the laws of physics (which is ultimately the basis for all nature processes) which allows organism to change either within itself or induce by its external environment, and to become more complex entities, at the expense of greater entropy elsewhere in the universe.

A note of caution. There is a common misunderstanding of evolution here. Evolution happens to populations over generations, not individual organisms. You and I die with the same alleles (forms of genes) we were born with. We don't change either "within ourself" or "by the external environment". Instead, if we are lucky enough to have alleles that provide traits that do well in that environment, we will leave more descendents than other individuals that were not so lucky. So the next generation will have a slightly greater proportion of those alleles than our generation. If this is continued over generations, the alleles will eventually be in everyone and the population will be different than our generation. Questions?

This interpretation is open to the possibility whether God, now and then, or even constantly tweak this innate mechanism, or even not at all, and that Nature runs as a perfect machine. Natural selection seems to say such tweaks are not necessary but does not preclude them either.

Natural selection cannot comment on whether they happen. There are at least 2 ways God can influence evolution and not be detectable by science.

Further, and secondly, it also implies that various species in the lineage of man, evolved over a long long period of time before a particular species, became the man which is in the "image of God". The question is then, when did this happen, or has it even happened yet, ie the present species is not yet the "image" that God intended, and man is still evolving to be the species that will be the image of God.

Humans really started getting power over the environment when they started making stone tools. That would be about H. habilis. But, as I said, the "problem" is meaningless. Humans have power, in contrast to the Babylonian religion Genesis 1 is refuting.

Now, if we take this to when God began making human souls in the course of evolution, Darwin addressed it. Basically he said it was a non-problem: we don't know and it doesn't matter:
"He who believes in the advancement of man from some low organised form, will naturally ask how does this bear on the belief in the immortality of the soul. The barbarous races of man, as Sir J. Lubbock has shewn, possess no clear belief of this kind; but arguments derived from the primeval beliefs of savages are, as we have just seen, of little or no avail. Few persons feel any anxiety from the impossibility of determining at what precise period in the development of the individual, from the first trace of a minute germinal vesicle, man becomes an immortal being; and there is no greater cause for anxiety because the period cannot possibly be determined in the gradually ascending organic scale." Literature.org - The Online Literature Library The Descent of Man

Premise#3

: Jesus Christ.

Of course if you do not believe in Jesus Christ, you need not read further, and, again, whatever I have to say can be dismissed outright.

You do remember this is Christians Only forum, right? And you have looked at my faith icon, right?

Jesus is God incarnate, rememember? So Jesus isn't about "in the image" even if we are talking the misinterpretation. God became human. Whatever the physical human form was, that is what God became.

I rather hold the view that man, at the latest, attained the perfection of the image of God when Christ was born, and Christ, the Son of Man, was of the same species as each and every single human being since then till now, for all the world, even as I am, ie homo sapiens.

Well, DUH, of course Jesus was H. sapiens. But that has nothing to do with any "perfection" of the image of God. Jesus was spiritually perfect. Physical "perfection" is not required. In fact, the gospels imply that Jesus was far from a perfect specimen. Most men lasted days under crucifixion. The reason the legionaries were breaking legs was because the crucified had to die that afternoon for the Jewish sabbath. But Jesus did not need his legs broken; he was already dead. The implication is that Jesus was very weak physically.

I have no problem with that. Moses was a stutterer and so bad that Aaron had to do his talking for him. So the spokesman of God was a rotten speaker! God picks unlikely representatives. Jesus was unlikely in several respects. Being a poor physical specimen would fit in the picture of how God works.

Secondly, if man do indeed evolve into another species - million and million of years onwards - are the redemption plan, and the purpose and will of God, originally intended for man, still applicable and valid for this new species?

Why not? Is God so exclusive that the redemption plan is only good for H. sapiens? Look at it this way: there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy and billions of galaxies. Among all those possible planets, you think ours is the only one to have life? As the movie Contactsaid: "That's a lot of wasted space." Would you think God has no redemptive plan for the sapient species that evolved on those worlds? That's not a very loving God, is it?

But what I know is that at the end of the world, in the new heaven and earth, God will be with men, eg The abode of God is with men [Rev 21:3].

I'm always very skeptical of taking anything in Revelations as "fact". All the ministers I have known refuse to do Bible study for Revelations. The comment is "we don't know what John of Patmos was really saying".

However the most critical and fatal objection to the evolving human species hypothesis is the question does perfection needs to be further evolved? For if perfection needs changing how can it still be perfection?

Since you are 1) misunderstanding "in his image" and 2) conflating physical perfection with spiritual perfection, this "fatal objection" simply disappears. Also remember that God is spirit. Judeo-Christianity is adamant that God has no physical form; it is one reason that statues or other idols are verboten. So humans cannot be "physically perfect" like God because God is not physical.

 

[CTD]

He's not being ''inert'''. And He is certainly not ''nature''. He is creating! It's just that God is creating by the processes discovered by science and not creating by miracle.

...And hence completely undetectable and indistinct from ''nature'', or something ... until you think of something else ... or just circle back around to an old previously-abandoned non-position.

Similarly, evolution is a tool used by God to accomplish the goal of creating.

Except when it's not. Sometimes. Perhaps. So long as nobody can ever know anything. Until this proves self-contradictory. And we play ring-around-the-rosey some more.

Notice the vital, unchanging dogma? Notice? Nobody must ever be able to detect any hint God might actually exist. That's one place the dancer will never tread: into compliance with that damning passage of scripture. Even the deist dares venture there, but the atheists' leash is too short to let the ''theistic evolutionist'' venture so far.

 

[lucaspa]

A poor attempt to confuse things. In order for ''god-of-the-gaps'' to be fallacious, atheism would have to be true; there would have to actually be no God.

gotg is fallacious as Christian theology. Judeo-Christian theology does not allow God to fill gaps. The accusation presupposes that God does exist.

Now, as it happens, gotg accepts the basic statement of faith of atheism as true. Read the following carefully:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

In order for an atheist to be an atheist, he must choose that "natural" means it operates on its own without God affecting it. After all, if the atheist chooses that "natural" requires "an intelligent agent", then the intelligent agent is God. And atheism says God does not exist.

gotg, by putting God in the gaps where there is supposedly no natural process, has the inevitable corollary that God is absent when there is a natural process. So gotg accepts the basic statement of faith of atheism as true.

But you have been stating that deism is "close to the truth" and only errs because it did not identify Yahweh as God. But deism has nature operating on its own! That is, what is natural does not require an intelligent agent "God".

I care that no Christian employs the reasoning,

I don't want Christians to employ gotg either. But you do. You insist God directly created the first life. And so now we have the question: why do you employ gotg?

Actual Reasoning of Christians:

God made everything and put man in charge

We do well to investigate

We know God is involved in running creation

We know God has set up rules and systems we call 'nature'

We trust scripture first, then fallible methods

The more we learn of God's creation, the more opportunities arise to glorify Him

And here we have the rejection of God's other book. Again. Notice "we trust scripture first". What you mean is you trust your interpretation of scripture. It's not just scripture. It's how you interpret scripture. So why are the methods used to study God's Creation fallible? Why aren't interpretations of scripture also fallible? What happens when what we learn of God's Creation contradicts an interpretation of scripture? Why do we throw out God's Creation and treat scripture as primary?

See? Who employs it? Nobody. Who employs the false accusation? Atheists! Simple to remember.

Sorry, but creationists employ gotg all the time. In fact, IDers say it is essential.

" Intelligent design can be offered, therefore, as a necessary or best causal explanation only when naturalistic processes seem incapable of producing the explanandum effect, and when intelligence is known to be capable of producing it and thought to be a more likely to have produced it." Stephen C. Meyer, The methodological equivalence of design and descent: can there be a scientific "theory of creation"? in The Creation Hypothesis, Scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer, 1994, pg 97

The bolded is another way of saying "gap"

1. God, conceived of as a personal, transcendent agent of great power and intelligence, has through direct, immediate, primary agency and indirect, mediate, secondary causation created and designed the world for a purpose and has directly acted through immediate, primary agency in the course of its development at various times, including prehistory (i.e., history prior to the arrival of human beings).
2. The commitment expressed in proposition #1 above can appropriately enter into the very fabric of the practice of science and the utilization of scientific methodology.
3. One way this commitment can appropriately enter into the practice of science is through various uses in scientific methodology of gaps in the natural world that are essential features of direct, immediate, primary divine agency properly understood. When God acts as a primary cause, a gap will be present in the natural world because the effect of his action is a result of his direct causal power and not the result of his guidance of natural processes alone." JP Moreland and M Reynolds, Introduction, in Three Views on Creation and Evolution edited by JP Moreland and M Reynolds, 1999, pg 19

Doesn't get any plainer than that. ID/creationism is based upon gotg.

 

[lucaspa]

...And hence completely undetectable and indistinct from ''nature'',

Undetectable, yes. But why is God undetectable here? Is it because He truly is undetectable, or is it because our "detecting apparatus" is incapable of detecting Him?

It's the second. Science is incapable of detecting God as He sustains the universe or works by "natural" processes. It's a limitation of science called "Methodological Naturalism". So God is distinct from nature, but science can't test for Him.

or something ... until you think of something else ... or just circle back around to an old previously-abandoned non-position. Except when it's not. Sometimes. Perhaps. So long as nobody can ever know anything. Until this proves self-contradictory. And we play ring-around-the-rosey some more.

Wow. That's a lot of Argument of Ridicule there.

Nobody must ever be able to detect any hint God might actually exist.

Sigh. One more time. It's not "must not", it's science cannot. Christians have more than hints that God actually exists. After all, we have personal experience of God, right? You do have an ongoing relationship with God and Christ, right? So we as individuals do detect more than "hints" that God exists. It's that science can't do so.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa: Similarly, evolution is a tool used by God to accomplish the goal of creating.

Except when it's not. Sometimes. Perhaps. So long as nobody can ever know anything. Until this proves self-contradictory. And we play ring-around-the-rosey some more.

When is evolution not a tool used by God to create? I say "never". Evolution is always a tool used by God to create.

 

[Mallon]

Notice the vital, unchanging dogma? Notice? Nobody must ever be able to detect any hint God might actually exist.

How could we ever detect God using science if we accept the biblical teaching that God is ever-present in the universe (Heb 1:3)? If God is ever-present, then there is no experiment that we could ever conduct to detect His presence because, methodologically, we could never exclude Him (i.e., no control experiment exists).

The only way you could objectively test for God's existence is if you believe the non-biblical, deist notion that God is only sometimes present in the world. That may be what you believe, but it isn't what evolutionary creationists believe.

 

[lucaspa]

Resurrection's not needed to call oneself a ''christian''. Where've you been?

Apparently you haven't looked at the "Community Rules". You can click on it at the bottom of the page.
"Do not post in the forums reserved for Christians only, unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is)."

Look at the Statement of Faith and scroll down to the Nicene Creed. It states the basic beliefs of Christianity. Most Christian churches have the congregation recite this during church service several times a year, at least:
"And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures."

Now, you say scripture is primary. Scriptures say Jesus "rose" from the dead. That's resurrection. So please explain to us how you can be Christian but not believe in the Resurrection.

Wrong again. Very consistent pattern here.

Denial but no evidence. You did say deism was close to the "truth", right? And truth to you is creationism, right? You said the only flaw in deism was not identifying Yahweh as God. But deism has God acting and then natural taking over without God. So yes, you are saying that creationism is deistic.

Really? How many versions do you intend to crank out?

You are cranking out versions of theistic evolution. I'm denying they are valid. I've only got one version. You have several.

What is ''nature'' going to be next?

What it always has been: secondary causes sustained by God.

What is your undetectable god going to be hiding next?

Who said He was undetectable? Not me. Mosed detected Him. I have detected Him. What I said was that science cannot directly test for God.

Last position I recall you retreating to featured all of nature's acts as synonymous with direct acts of your god.

Are you old enough to be having senior moments like this? I have always said "natural" happens only by the will of God. You seem to find that basic Christian position hard to understand. Maybe being non-denominational has prevented you hearing people teach theology.

Things are what they are observed to be.

Well, then, we observe that evolution happens and happened. So that must be how things are.

god never does anything that's not subject to equivocation and dismissal - never.

I said God did the Resurrection. You are the one that equivocated about that and dismissed it!

 

[lucaspa]

Based on enzymatic activity.

You can't compare enzymatic activity for one activity with that of another.

To you it is.


Governed by an adaptation feature programmed in DNA.

Greg, DNA is without punctuation. It uses triplets of bases to code for an amino acid, but there is nothing in the DNA to demarcate one triplet from another.

Thus, if you have the sequence ATTCGGGTTCCACCGA, that would be the amino acids: Ile - Arg- Val-Pro-Pro. Now, drop the second base (T) as a deletion mutation (what happened in the nylonase) and you now have ATCGGGTTCCACCGA, and those are the amino acids: Ile-Ala-Phe-His-Ala.

A very different sequence with different properties. The first has 2 right angle turns because of the Prolines. The second has a positive charge because of the histodine and no right angle turns.

That's not an "adaptation feature programmed in DNA". If the deletion had taken place in the third position, a completely different sequence of amino acids would have resulted. That cannot be "programmed". It's accidental. There is no feedback from the environment to the DNA to tell it to drop a base at a particular place. It's an error in copying unrelated to what is in the environment.

Also, consider this: if the genetic alteration is "programmed", why didn't it happen to every bacterium in the pond at approximately the same time? Instead, the mutation started in a single bacterium and the population of nylonase bacteria has increased according to the dividing time starting from a single bacterium.

That applies to the studies in Drosophila. If there is genetic programming to adapt to a different temperature or diet, why is there massive die-off in the first several generations? Why doesn't every fly get the same genetic alteration nearly simultaneosly?

01/07/30 - ICBP 2000

The importance of the organization of the various lac regulatory sites is that they permit the molecular computations that allow E. coli to discriminate glucose from lactose � that is, to control expression of the lactose metabolic proteins so that they are only synthesized once glucose is no longer available. The basic biochemical reactions and molecular interactions involved in this computation can be stated as logical propositions that can then be combined into partial computations (Table III). These partial computations illustrate the molecular logic allowing the cell to execute the following overall computation: "IF lactose present AND glucose not present AND cell can synthesize active LacZ and LacY, THEN transcribe lacZYA from lacP."
​

Apples and oranges. What this is describing is a feedback mechanism between different enzymes. It evolved. It is not a deletion mutation that changes an entire protein to something else.

Again,

A genetic investigation of speciation theory was carried out on the basis of critical multifactorial tests incorporating both the genetic system and the ecological regime (environment-dependent allozyme and behavioral genetic variation). It was found that stable environment-dependent sexual isolation has been established between cage populations of Drosophila melanogaster maintained under different environmental conditions for about 5 years, whereas the isolation of populations alone did not lead to ethological isolation. The highest isolation index detected was 0.388 ± 0.108. Postmating barriers were not associated with premating ones; yet, a tendency for the development of postmating isolation barriers was observed. The genetic differentiation among the populations studied, as measured by the allozyme frequency analysis of nine loci, proved to be low ($\overlin{I}$ = 0.982, D̄ = 0.018) and not associated with the sexual isolation observed. In general, the evolution of behavior of Drosophila melanogaster is strongly influenced by environmental conditions. Hence, it appears that the initial steps in the genetic process of speciation could be considered as the result of adaptation. However, one can not exclude the contribution of random events, which in combination with selection could speed up speciation processes.
​

Unfortunately, you have misread again. Evolution happens to populations. If you look at the entire paper, Kilias et al. were testing whether speciation happens by accidental reproductive isolation (speciation) and then natural selection diverged the populations morphologically and physiologically, or whether it is natural selection diverging the populations that causes the reproductive isolation (speciation). The paper found that it is the second. That is what this sentence states: "It was found that stable environment-dependent sexual isolation has been established between cage populations of Drosophila melanogaster maintained under different environmental conditions for about 5 years, whereas the isolation of populations alone did not lead to ethological isolation."

The sentence you bolded states that in different terms. Putting the populations into different environments causes natural selection to adapt to those environments, and this is turn causes changes in mate selection.

It does not mean that the environment caused the variations. Variations happen, but some variations do better in the particular environments.

Various fitness components (fecundity, fertility, viability, developmental time, sex ratio, oviposition rhythm) have been studied in three sibling species, D. melanogaster, D. simulans, D. mauritiana, and three interspecific hybrids Mame, Masi and Masi-2, fertile for both sexes. The hybrid Mame originated from one D. mauritiana female crossed to a D. melanogaster male; Masi and Masi-2 resulted from different D. mauritiana females crossed to D. simulans males. Each species and hybrid was found to exhibit characteristic values for each fitness component. In many cases the hybrids did not exhibit intermediate values, compared with their parental species. The contribution of each fitness component to the speciation process, and the polygenic theory of reproductive isolation are discussed. The conclusion is that even the early speciation steps are accompanied by the same kind of genetic changes that have been described for species isolated for long periods. (bold mine)/quote]

What you have here is the Abstract for this particular article. Let's start with the Introduction to see what Kilias et al are doing in this particular study:
"

The polygenic hypothesis states that species differences
result from the accumulation of many allelic
differences of small effect (DOBZHANS19K7Y0; KILIAS
et al. 1980; CHARLESWOeRt TaHl. 1982; COYNE19 85)
and not from a major effect of one or two loci. That
is, reproductive isolation is one step in a continuous
process of genetic adaptation. However, many of
the differences among species have been described
for species which have been isolated for long periods,​

so that some genetic differences may have accumulated

after speciation. Interspecific hybridization

may give an insight for understanding the speciation
mechanisms as it reveals genetic differences
which are developed in parallel with the reproductive​

​

isolation process." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1989.tb00788.x/pdf​

They are testing the polygenic hypothesis of speciation against rapid reproductive isolation followed by genetic changes. ​

So what are the "fitness components?
​

​

"We shall here describe additional properties,

related to fitness components, in an effort to reveal

the genetic differentiation since the establishment
of these species hybrids. The components studied
in this research are: fecundity, fertility, viability,​

developmental time, sex ratio, and oviposition​

rhythm, all of them being important multifactorial

parameters for the genetics of speciation"​

Now, some Results:
"It is worthwhile noting

that the interspecific hybrids did not exhibit intermediate

fecundity values; they were either lower
(Mame and Masi) or higher (Masi-2) than the​

values exhibited by their parental species."​

"The sex ratios among the progeny of conspecific

crosses of D. melanogaster, D. sirnulans and D.

mauritiana are within the normal range (Table 3). It
appears from the table, however, that there is a
deficiency of males in the progeny of all interspecific
hybrids Mame, Masi, and Masi-2. It is
obvious that hybrids are characteristic with regard
to this fitness component, as in the case of fecundity,​

fertility and viability."​

Let's get to some summaries and conclusions:
"This situation shows that the hybrids represent

discrete speciation steps, a fact which substantiates

their utilization for the study of the speciation​

process. ...The fact that Masi and Masi-2 exhibit absolute reproductive

isolation, despite that they have been

originated from the same parental species (and
strains), may prove very important in revealing the​

actual genetic changes that lead to speciation."​

So 2 of the hybrids are reproductively isolated from one another. Masi and Masi-2 cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring.​

"The fitness components (fecundity, fertility,

viability, developmental time, sex ratio, and oviposition

rhythm) examined in the present study, in
combination with the relative studies already referred
to (allozymic composition, mating properties,
survival after heat-shock, enzyme kinetic properties,
and morphology of male genital arches), sketch
the genetic structure of the hybrids 35 generations
after their establishment. Their genome tends to​

express new phenotypic patterns, a fact which supports the view that apart from premating isolation mechanisms revealed by testing their mating propensities, post-mating ones are also operating."​

"These observations indicate that even​

early speciation steps are accompanied by multifactorial​

genetic changes that have been described​

for species isolated for long periods."​

What this says is that the genetic changes are "gradual" from generation to generation, but that they happen early in the speciation process.​

You won't like the last sentence of the paper:
​

"The meaning of this graduality is

that the differentiation process within Masi-2 must

be multifactorial, as it is also supported above. A
gradual evolution based on population dynamics
implies that macroevolutionary (above species)
changes can be controlled by mechanisms responsible​

for microevolutionary (below the species) ones."​

Macroevolution is an extension of microevolution, not something completely different.​

Now, the paper is saying that there seem to be multiple genes at work affecting hybrid fecundity (or sterility), and these genes seem to be undergoing mutations during the speciation process. As it turns out, later work has found several genes responsible for hybrid sterility:
1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998.​

So, 9 years after this paper suggesting the existence of genes that control hybrid sterility (or fecundity), the actual genes have been found. As it happens, as the population is undergoing genetic morphological changes in the new environment, these genes are also changing, resulting in hybrid sterility -- and reproductive isolation.​

Yes. It turns out that there are hybrid fertility genes. Changing

And?​

 

[CTD]

Resurrection's not needed to call oneself a ''christian''. Where've you been?

Apparently you haven't looked at the "Community Rules". You can click on it at the bottom of the page.
"Do not post in the forums reserved for Christians only, unless you are truly a Nicene Creed, Trinitarian Christian (please see our Statement of Faith to know exactly what that is)."

Look at the Statement of Faith and scroll down to the Nicene Creed. It states the basic beliefs of Christianity. Most Christian churches have the congregation recite this during church service several times a year, at least:
"And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures."

What? Why go by what the rules appear to say? Can't we just re-interpret? If scripture is subject to any old whim interpretation, surely everything else is also. It's a kid's game. If things get really bad, just find someone to slop a few coats of paint onto and bury in mud, right? Or come back repeating their argument, and pretending they said the opposite. Then contradict yourself a few times and claim they don't understand what you've been saying.

I think there's more to reality, more to life than twisting words and claiming to believe they say the opposite.

 

[lucaspa]

Ah, the tactic of perpetually bearing false witness. So classy! You've repeated this accusation how many times now, in how many contexts? People can look such things up you know.

Sorry, but you didn't show it was false witness. I will help people look it up. Go to to Fallacies, look up the Argument from Ridicule, and compare it to what I quoted.

No comment required

Meaning you haven't got a refutation.

No. I took care not to imply my conclusion, and I was successful.

Then the paragraph was meaningless and we can ignore it. So why bother to write it if you didn't want to imply a conclusion?

You interpreted my words to mean the exact opposite of what you just got done claiming to know they imply. That's supposed to support the accusation? Either my words can be interpreted so or they cannot.

Oh, your words can be interpreted. I am simply giving the correct interpretation.

 

[CTD]

I said God did the Resurrection. You are the one that equivocated about that and dismissed it!

Have you ever represented anyone's position accurately? Surely you make mistakes.

 

[lucaspa]

You are indeed mixing God into Deism.Must I really provide the definition?

Deity is in deism. Yes, please provide the defintion. Let me start with Webster's
" a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe "

YEC is actually the complete opposite.

Once God finished creating, what does YEC have God do in nature?

 

[lucaspa]

Mallon:
I'm not arguing that ToE is true, though. I'm arguing that it isn't inherently atheistic, as you're saying. Evolution does not in any way exclude God.

So ''God-of-the-gaps'' would not then be fallacious? ( Even if someone were to adopt such reasoning.) Another straw man which cannot be defeated.

That's a complete non-sequitor. How did you get from "Evolution does not in any way exclude God" to "god-of-the-gaps would not then be fallacious"?

Here are the theological objections to gotg, by a Christian theologian:

"There are profound biblical objections to such a "God-of-the-gaps," as this understanding of God's relation to the universe has come to be called. By "gap" it is meant that no member or members of the universe can be found to account for regularly occurring phenoma in nature. God is inserted in the gaps which could be occupied by members of the universe. This is theologically improper because God, as creator of the universe, is not a member of the universe. God can never properly be used in scientific accounts, which are formulated in terms of the relations between members of the universe, because that would reduce God to the status of a creature. According to a Christian conception of God as creator of a universe that is rational through and through, there are no missing relations between the members of nature. If, in our study of nature, we run into what seems to be an instance of a connection missing between members of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation implies that we should keep looking for one. ...But, according to the doctrine of creation, we are never to postulate God as the *immediate* cause of any *regular* [emphases in original] occurrence in nature. In time, a "God of the gaps" was seen to be bad science as well as bad theology. Science now is programamatically committed to a view of nature in which there are no gaps between members of the universe."
Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, pp. 45-46.