Theistic Evolution - My Personal Problem with it

[JonFromMinnesota]

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?

Most mutations are neutral. A beneficial mutation is a mutation that is beneficial in the context of an organisms environment.

If you want example of a beneficial mutation: Bacteria that eats nylon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

 

[essentialsaltes]

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

The evidence is part of the natural world, so I expect an explanation that relates to nature and what we know about nature. But I'm willing to listen if you have an explanation.

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

Yes indeed, though that's not what happened to E. coli, which does not use sexual reproduction.

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

Sure, but I'm capable of eating cassava when it's cooked, but when it's raw it's poisonous. A new trait is a new trait.

Anyway, I could have pointed to the nylon bug, or Apo-AI, or any number of other known beneficial mutations that show that KWCrazy's statement is horribly wrong.

 

[Hoghead1]

Spinner981, one of the basic problems with the Genesis account is that it contains two highly conflicting accounts of creation from two different time periods. That point is solidly backed by biblical scholarship. If you want, I can go into more detail about this. Hnece, many Christians find it most unrealistic to take Genesis literally or as any sort of accurate geophysical witness.

 

[Hoghead1]

It is important to recognize, Essentialsaltes, that there is more than one mode or picture of God as he or she is in his or her own nature in Christianity. Many people have trouble with evolution because they go on the classical model. This model stresses God's immutability. It is largely based on Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. The is, however, an alternative, a neo-classical model of God that has been proposed by Christian theologians. This model, because it attributers dynamic qualities to God, allows one to better see how God and evolution can be reconciled. If you want, I can go into more detail.

 

[Hoghead1]

Spinner981, I and many Christians view the Bible as complex, as a synthesis of both myth and fact. What one labels as myth or fact depends on the specific passage and also the interpreter's POV. It isn't always easy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It is important to recognize, Essentialsaltes, that there is more than one mode or picture...
...God and evolution can be reconciled. If you want, I can go into more detail.

No, I don't doubt you. But spinner is insisting on a literal reading of Genesis. I don't see how that can be reconciled with the facts known about the world.

 

[Hoghead1]

OK< I see, Essential. Well, a literal reading of Genesis won't reconcile with the facts. Actually, we are dealing here with two contradictory creation accounts, to start with.

 

[Hoghead1]

You are forgetting, KWCrazy, that many people do reject evolution because they do not understand it or have had very little scientific education. That is very obvious right here on this forum. I haven't seen one critic here yet of evolution that is not lost in a fog of misinformation about evolution, not one. I also think you should reflect on your education and whether or not it is adequate. Evolution is a very complex, difficult concept, as are all scientific concepts. It came from highly educated people and it, then, requires a v high degree of education to understand. I think it is lubricious the way critics of evolution here, who have a very limited education in science and work completely out of science, can think they are so much smarter and better informed than the mainstream scientists. The first thing I look at is a person's credentials. If they want me to take their criticisms seriously, then they better have some big, big credentials and big, big evidence. It is bad enough when the experts make serious mistakes. That are not all-knowing. However, that is a stem warning how much more trouble you could get into listening to unqualified amateurs.

 

[Hoghead1]

I can tell you , Spinner981, that the strongest evidence for an old earth is that the universe is very old. How do they know? One way is by calculating the distance the light is coming from and taking into account c. Therefore, creationist Barry Setterfield agued that c is not absolute, that it was as infinite at the beginning of creation and then slowed down. That way, he felt he could demonstrate a young universe. One problem is that the Bible says nothing about c. The other is that c has been measured more than enough times and proves to be one of the few constants in the universe. Setterfield attempted to [present evidence b [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] on the arguments that estimates of c, given by astronomers, down though the ages has gotten slower and slower. But that doesn't;'t work. Examine the literature and you will find that it speed grew as time moved on. Anyhow, the whole argument is irrational, as historically c was not measured by the accurate scientific instruments we have today.

 

[AV1611VET]

Spinner981, one of the basic problems with the Genesis account is that it contains two highly conflicting accounts of creation from two different time periods.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why should I feel obligated to follow every link or watch every video? Am I supposed to just do that until I stop believing what I believe, and am unable to be responded to until then? Do you only talk to others who believe in evolution, and just ignore people who don't, linking various websites telling them to 'get educated'?

You keep asking questions and then complain when people tell you how to learn. You need to learn so that you can understand what is right and what is wrong. Right now you have no clue an no reason to believe anything. Rather than claiming to be an expert I am suggesting that you go to actual experts in the fields you are interested so that you can learn from them.

The scientific method is a tool, and is not biased. The people who use the scientific method are biased, as all people are biased. The idea that just because somebody claims to use the scientific method, that therefore any conclusion they come to is unbiased and definitely true, is a bit naive.

Yes, the people that use it can be biased. Again that is why you need to learn for yourself. I did not claim that anything provided by it would be definitely true, but it would be much more reliable than guess work. And science cannot prove claims, but it can disprove claims. Part of the problem with the Noah's Ark story is that such a flood should have left massive evidence and we cannot find any evidence for that flood.

So if I am to go out and watch these videos and study these links, and come back still believing in creationism, then what? Do you have so much faith in naturalism that the theoretical idea of it being wrong is non-existent in your mind? So you refuse to discuss the subject with people who don't claim to believe the same exact thing?

Then there probably is something severely wrong with your reasoning abilities. And no, I do not have "faith" in naturalism. Faith is a weakness. I accept it is correct because it is strongly supported by evidence. When you look seriously at the claims of creationists you will find there is no reliable evidence for their claims.

Yes, that is a lot of people's 'reason' for it; said reason being "There is a lot of evidence for it." and nobody ever really goes into much more detail than that.

And again, you cannot understand the reasons with understanding some science first.


If I gave you video to watch I would be more than happy to help you with questions on the video. Does that sound reasonable?

 

[Hoghead1]

I figured you would say something like that, AV1611. I have send you a solid analysis of the contradictions in the Genesis text and you continually ignore it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I figured you would say something like that, AV1611. I have send you a solid analysis of the contradictions in the Genesis text and you continually ignore it.

Aren't you the one who was willing to make Genesis 2 past perfect, when I asked how many times Adam had been placed in the garden in that chapter?

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

But then wasn't willing to do that with the plants and animals?

No wonder I ignore it.

 

[Hoghead1]

Just as I thought, AV1611, you paid no attention to a detailed analysis I sent you. You either misread me or got me mixed up with someone else. My point is that you cannot translate Gen. 2 in the pluperfect, because Hebrew does not have a pluperfect tense. Therefore, you cannot read in the pluperfect as a way of referring 2 back to Gen. 1, thereby resolving some of the contradictions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just as I thought, AV1611, you paid no attention to a detailed analysis I sent you. You either misread me or got me mixed up with someone else. My point is that you cannot translate Gen. 2 in the pluperfect, because Hebrew does not have a pluperfect tense. Therefore, you cannot read in the pluperfect as a way of referring 2 back to Gen. 1, thereby resolving some of the contradictions.

That's what I meant ... pluperfect, not past perfect ... thanks for the correction.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not interested in what you can and can't do with the Hebrew language.

That's their problem.

What I'm submitting to you is the fact that Genesis 2 is what is called a "frame story."

It is a story nested into Genesis 1.

 

[SharkOfTheCovenant]

The answer is: Genesis was written before works in modern biology. It's not like all the trees were made at once and then all the animals etc. Look at the world around you, does it seem that simple? The Bible is many things but what it is not is a reference and guide to the intricacies of the plant and animal kingdoms. To be a detailed and thorough explanation of all natural systems was never the purpose of the bible. You want spiritual guidance? Open the bible. You want an explanation of why trees have fruit? Open a book on Botany.

 

[AV1611VET]

The answer is: Genesis was written before works in modern biology. It's not like all the trees were made at once and then all the animals etc. Look at the world around you, does it seem that simple? The Bible is many things but what it is not is a reference and guide to the intricacies of the plant and animal kingdoms. To be a detailed and thorough explanation of all natural systems was never the purpose of the bible. You want spiritual guidance? Open the bible. You want an explanation of why trees have fruit? Open a book on Botany.

Expecting the Bible to be a science book is like expecting Bill Gate's diary to be a computer manual.

 

[Hoghead1]

That's precisely the problem I have with your posts, AV1611. You are rarely interested in any serious study of teh matter at hand.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's precisely the problem I have with your posts, AV1611. You are rarely interested in any serious study of teh matter at hand.

And you guys are?

I have a feeling what you guys want me to "study" is how Yahweh poofed the universe into existence, according to the JEPD myth-writing team, who took the writings of ignorant, bronze age, desert nomads a little too seriously.

Aintgonnahappen.

 

[KWCrazy]

As I said in another post, I view the Genesis account as actually two highly contradictory accounts of creation.

Perhaps is you actually read it you would know that Genesis 2 begins with "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." Genesis 2 details the origins of man and refers to that which God had created in Genesis 1. Not a single thing was created in Genesis 2, and yet month after month, year after year the same people repeat the same lie that it's a creation account.