Theistic Evolution - My Personal Problem with it

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

But the problem is the possibility of miracles and the supernatural. Many people don't believe in it, and believe evidence points to pure naturalism.

Just curious, but what do you consider the single most convincing argument for an old earth?

The possibility of miracles may be a problem for some people, but I disagree with those people.

I find the most obvious evidence for an old Earth is tectonic plate slip rates in comparison to radiometric dates of sea floor rocks. That's just my favorite though, there is tons of course.

 

[spinner981]

The possibility of miracles may be a problem for some people, but I disagree with those people.

I find the most obvious evidence for an old Earth is tectonic plate slip rates in comparison to radiometric dates of sea floor rocks. That's just my favorite though, there is tons of course.

So in the end it does boil down to a difference in faith?

Do you have a link to any good reading material concerning the tectonic plate slip rate in comparison to radiometric dates of sea floor rocks? Seems oddly specific.

 

[Gene2memE]

Depends on how much of the theory of evolution you are talking about.

Please don't tell me you buy into the "micro evolution occurs, but macro evolution doesn't/there's no evidence for macro evolutionist" creationist argument.

The theory of evolution is not a an a la carte buffet, where you get to accept some sections and reject others. At least for the fundamentals, some of the fine detail is open to adjustment.

It's a package deal I'm afraid. Not only do you get a 4.54 billion year earth, but along with it you also get a 13.7 billion year universe. And, you also get biological diversity via evolution due to natural selection. All of this for the low, low price of studying the evidence and understanding it.

Maintaining a belief that is directly contravened by the evidence is not a rational position.

An earlier post you made was right, in that while the scientific method may be objective, scientists themselves are not.

However, the evidence tying together geology, cosmology, evolution, palentology and the like has been arrived at by a consilience of the evidence. Multiple, independent lines of investigation from unrelated fields of study all converge together to produce the understanding of the world as we understand it.

That sort of evidence is objective. It is independent of any individual, group of individual or even group of groups.
It's tested and verified tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of times. Every single day.

You're welcome to your personal beliefs. However, if you argue against an evidentially supported understanding of reality, don't be surprised if there is some push-back.

 

[Super Hotdog Salesman]

So in the end it does boil down to a difference in faith?

Do you have a link to any good reading material concerning the tectonic plate slip rate in comparison to radiometric dates of sea floor rocks? Seems oddly specific.

Yup, it's a difference in faith. I have faith in Christ, and many other people don't. It's a pretty orthodox concept in Christianity.

Re: Geology. The Natural Historian has a pretty good intro article to the concept. My example is specific because examples are specific. I like this example because it's clear and easy to understand without needing to take a class in Geology (but you should also take a class in Geology if you have the time because it's cool). http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2014...t-earth-gps-data-confirms-radiometric-dating/

 

[spinner981]

Please don't tell me you buy into the "micro evolution occurs, but macro evolution doesn't/there's no evidence for macro evolutionist" creationist argument.

The theory of evolution is not a an a la carte buffet, where you get to accept some sections and reject others. At least for the fundamentals, some of the fine detail is open to adjustment.

It's a package deal I'm afraid. Not only do you get a 4.54 billion year earth, but along with it you also get a 13.7 billion year universe. And, you also get biological diversity via evolution due to natural selection. All of this for the low, low price of studying the evidence and understanding it.

Maintaining a belief that is directly contravened by the evidence is not a rational position.

An earlier post you made was right, in that while the scientific method may be objective, scientists themselves are not.

However, the evidence tying together geology, cosmology, evolution, palentology and the like has been arrived at by a consilience of the evidence. Multiple, independent lines of investigation from unrelated fields of study all converge together to produce the understanding of the world as we understand it.

That sort of evidence is objective. It is independent of any individual, group of individual or even group of groups.
It's tested and verified tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of times. Every single day.

You're welcome to your personal beliefs. However, if you argue against an evidentially supported understanding of reality, don't be surprised if there is some push-back.

Am I not allowed to accept natural selection without also accepting variation via unguided mutation? Are the two a necessity for the existence of the other? I'm not necessarily saying that the latter is physically impossible, just that I don't believe that's how it happened.

I don't buy into the idea that I must accept this entire massive chunk of scientific theories or else not accept any of it at all, and I don't buy into the idea that since some portions of this massive chunk are verified tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of times every single day, that therefore all portions of this massive chunk are just as equally verified.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes, but the amount of time between the appearance of fruit trees and the appearance of fish is one day according to Genesis. Probably not long enough to form a geological strata.

And yet, they are found in different strata! Strata that formed! How curious!

As I said, I don't think the Bible addresses stratigraphy. But the physical evidence is there, and there must be some explanation. Why are fruit trees and fish, fruit bats and ferns, found in the strata in which they are found, and not found where they are not? There is order and correlation between the different strata, and the fossil life that is found within them.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Am I not allowed to accept natural selection without also accepting variation via unguided mutation? Are the two a necessity for the existence of the other?

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. By saying you accept one but not the other is like saying it's possible for you to walk to the end of your driveway but it's impossible for you to walk 20 miles to work.

Random genetic mutation and non random selection are the mechanisms for evolution.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So in the end it does boil down to a difference in faith?

Do you have a link to any good reading material concerning the tectonic plate slip rate in comparison to radiometric dates of sea floor rocks? Seems oddly specific.

Just to pull one chart from Super Hotdog Salesman's link, the evidence about the Hawaiian Islands and the other seamounts of that chain is very compelling. These volcanos form as the plate slides over a 'hot spot' of upwelling magma. As the plate moves, older volcanoes become dormant and move away from the hotspot, where a newer volcano forms. We expect the volcanos furthest from the hotspot to be the oldest, and the Hawaiian Islands to be the youngest. And the agreement with the experimental data is lovely.

 

[spinner981]

And yet, they are found in different strata! Strata that formed! How curious!

As I said, I don't think the Bible addresses stratigraphy. But the physical evidence is there, and there must be some explanation. Why are fruit trees and fish, fruit bats and ferns, found in the strata in which they are found, and not found where they are not? There is order and correlation between the different strata, and the fossil life that is found within them.

You were originally claiming that we should expect to see the trees in earlier strata. That's all I was responding to.

Concerning strata, what kind of explanations would you accept?

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. By saying you accept one but not the other is like saying it's possible for you to walk to the end of your driveway but it's impossible for you to walk 20 miles to work.

Random genetic mutation and non random selection are the mechanisms for evolution.

Isn't variation possible by the combining of genetic traits from two parents though? As well as genetic mutations that result in reduced complexity and function within an organism? Even if both are counted as macro and micro, neither one can account for an increase in complexity.

Like I said, I'm not saying that macro isn't possible, just that I don't believe it is what happened. Also, is there anywhere I can look to learn about the probability of completely new function being introduced to an organism by the process of mutation?

 

[spinner981]

You were originally claiming that we should expect to see the trees in earlier strata. That's all I was responding to.

Concerning strata, what kind of explanations would you accept?



Isn't variation possible by the combining of genetic traits from two parents though? As well as genetic mutations that result in reduced complexity and function within an organism? Even if both are counted as macro and micro, neither one can account for an increase in complexity necessary for a single ancestor to evolve into many, more complex organisms.

Like I said, I'm not saying that macro isn't possible, just that I don't believe it is what happened. Also, is there anywhere I can look to learn about the probability of completely new function being introduced to an organism by the process of mutation?

 

[Gene2memE]

Am I not allowed to accept natural selection without also accepting variation via unguided mutation? Are the two a necessity for the existence of the other?

Natural selection requires random variation via unguided mutation. It's the mechanism by which it occurs, and therefore a fundamental, necessary part of it.

So, no, you cannot accept natural selection without it. The two are not necessary for the existence of each other, but variation via random mutation is a pre-requisite for natural selection.

It's like asking if you're not allowed to accept internal combustion in engines without also accepting that combustion of fuel occurs.

I don't buy into the idea that I must accept this entire massive chunk of scientific theories or else not accept any of it at all, and I don't buy into the idea that since some portions of this massive chunk are verified tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of times every single day, that therefore all portions of this massive chunk are just as equally verified.

You don't get to pick and choose what is or isn't supported by evidence.

Theories, in scientific language, are an explanation of a part of the natural world that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed through evidence. It's the end point of development of an idea via the scientific method.

The time to believe something is when it is reasonably supported by the evidence.

If you want to believe things that are consistent with reality, you don't get to pick and choose.

 

[KWCrazy]

You have barely read anything from me, but you are assuming that I have zero education in science because I believe the Bible is true? Is that what you're saying?

That's what they always say; as if the only way you can not believe in evolution is to not understand it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Concerning strata, what kind of explanations would you accept?

It would have to explain why fossils of certain types are found in particular strata and not in others, and in the particular order they are. For instance, ammonites are found way beneath the first conifers, which are found beneath the first land and sea dinosaurs, which are found beneath the first birds and fruit trees, which are found beneath the first humans.

 

[KWCrazy]

The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. By saying you accept one but not the other is like saying it's possible for you to walk to the end of your driveway but it's impossible for you to walk 20 miles to work.

You see this argument a lot but there isn't a shred of truth to it. Micro-evolution, or adaptation, is a readily observed process whereby desirable traits are accentuated and deleterious traits are extinguished. It is by its nature a conservative process because while some traits may be accentuated there is no method by which new traits can be acquired and encoded into the reproductive system. Benevolent mutations have never been shown to advance a species are are far to rare to be the driving force behind increasing complexity. To claim that evolution is merely repeated adaptation is to claim that addition is merely added subtraction. By that logic, the more I spend the more I should have in my checking account. My banker is not on board with this theory. To put the above analogy in perspective, if your neighbor lives one driveway to the south and your employer is 20 miles to the north, by repeatedly walking south you will no doubt arrive at work on time.

 

[essentialsaltes]

there is no method by which new traits can be acquired and encoded into the reproductive system.

Wrong.

 

[spinner981]

Natural selection requires random variation via unguided mutation. It's the mechanism by which it occurs, and therefore a fundamental, necessary part of it.

So, no, you cannot accept natural selection without it. The two are not necessary for the existence of each other, but variation via random mutation is a pre-requisite for natural selection.

It's like asking if you're not allowed to accept internal combustion in engines without also accepting that combustion of fuel occurs.

All that is necessary for natural selection to take place is change, and change can occur that isn't the result of unguided genetic mutation.

You don't get to pick and choose what is or isn't supported by evidence.

Theories, in scientific language, are an explanation of a part of the natural world that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed through evidence. It's the end point of development of an idea via the scientific method.

The time to believe something is when it is reasonably supported by the evidence.

If you want to believe things that are consistent with reality, you don't get to pick and choose.

Are you saying there is no difference between majority accepted scientific theory and reality?

It would have to explain why fossils of certain types are found in particular strata and not in others, and in the particular order they are. For instance, ammonites are found way beneath the first conifers, which are found beneath the first land and sea dinosaurs, which are found beneath the first birds and fruit trees, which are found beneath the first humans.

No, I mean what kind of explanations for these observations would you accept? Ones that align with evolution/naturalism? Any others?

Wrong.

Correct. New traits can be acquired via breeding of two differing organisms capable of reproduction, can't they? Such as canine hybrids.

Also, wasn't e-coli already capable of digesting citrate in low oxygen environments?

 

[Hoghead1]

The reason I believe in theistic evolution, SubductionZone, is that the concept of God, depending on your model, fulfills needs not met by atheistic evolution or by the classical picture of God as he is in his own nature. I could go into more detail here. However, for now, I will just say that many assume there is only one model of God or picture of God as he is in his own nature. That is not true. There are two models in contemporary Christian thought. The classical model, which came largely from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture, has been rejected in many circles in favor of a more dynamic model, which allows one to reconcile God with evolution.

Regarding Scripture, I vie it as a combination of divine inspiration and human thought. The Bible was written by males living in a prescientific culture and subject to the limitations imposed by that culture. I do not consider inerrant and believe that God did not intend it to be an accurate geophysical witness in the first place. I view the Genesis account as actually consisting of two contradictory accounts from different time periods. The reason they are side by side in the Bible is that the Biblical authors couldn't make up their mind which tradition was correct and so put them both in.

 

[Gene2memE]

All that is necessary for natural selection to take place is change, and change can occur that isn't the result of unguided genetic mutation.

Propose a mechanism then.

Divine intervention is not a mechanism, by the way.

Are you saying there is no difference between majority accepted scientific theory and reality?

I'm saying that rejecting a repeatedly confirmed explanation of the natural world and replacing it with one that is unsupported by such evidence means that you are accepting non-rational beliefs that don't correlate with the real world.

 

[KWCrazy]

Correct. New traits can be acquired via breeding of two differing organisms capable of reproduction, can't they? Such a dog hybrids.

That depends on the traits. You can breed species of dogs, but try mating a dog with a bird to get a feathered, flying dogs and see what happens. Evolution requires that dogs and birds share an ancestor. It also requires a rejection of much of the Bible. It requires a rejection of the Fourth Commandment as stated in Exodus 20:11 by the Lord Himself and inscribed on a stone tablet by the finger of God. It requires a rejection of Adam and Eve; of the fall of man and the concept of original sin. It rejects the intrinsic knowledge of good and evil and denies that death is a consequence to man's sin. The Bible states that through Adam's sin death was introduced to the world, but for evolution to be true that statement must also be false because billions of life forms had to die before Adam could be born to parents who were almost Adam. Beyond that, it requires that Jesus be a liar because Jesus taught that the Scriptures were true and suitable for teaching. Genesis is the foundation of the Bible; referenced more that any other book.

Evolution is a lie.
The Scriptures are true.
Theistic evolution has support from neither science nor the Scriptures. It attempts to blend the truth with a lie, which of course results in a lie.

 

[Hoghead1]

Spinner981, many persons how accept theistic evolution, such as myself, do not think that the Genesis account of creation is an accurate geophysical witness. And I don't think God ever intended it to be. As I said in another post, I view the Genesis account as actually two highly contradictory accounts of creation.