For me, it's either theistic evolution or nothing.

[loveofourlord]

Lets pick on this one.....the age of the earth...or say their dating techniques that determined to false age was rocked when soft dinosaur tissue (as well as other animal tissue) was found preserved with the fossils. The question of how the tissue survived for 65+ MY's has the Old Earthers baffled. Scientist have also found C14 in diamonds (shown not to be contamination) which should have decayed completly away a long time ago if the diamonds are as old as some claim them to be.

The better answer, especially for those that trust the bible and scientific evidence is about 6,000 years.

creationist do like their out of date information for some reason.

Scientist, "Hmmmm this tissue seems to have some life to it still lets investigate it." after applying acids and treating it for days/weeks they get something resembling soft tissue, then work to find out why, and surprise surprise they do, and learn something.

Creationists, "It's soft tissue evolution is false!!!!." ignoring all subsequent information or facts that show them wrong or what really happned. I still see creationists claim we don't have full skeletons of animals we since have gotten, keep your informtion up to date.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

YHWH'S WORD NEVER CHANGES.

creationist do like their out of date information for some reason.

 

[loveofourlord]

YHWH'S WORD NEVER CHANGES.

No, but our understanding of those words does, unless you want to claim to be perfect and know everything he meant.

 

[-57]

creationist do like their out of date information for some reason.

Scientist, "Hmmmm this tissue seems to have some life to it still lets investigate it." after applying acids and treating it for days/weeks they get something resembling soft tissue, then work to find out why, and surprise surprise they do, and learn something.

Creationists, "It's soft tissue evolution is false!!!!." ignoring all subsequent information or facts that show them wrong or what really happned. I still see creationists claim we don't have full skeletons of animals we since have gotten, keep your informtion up to date.

My information is very much up to date.
I think maybe you should get up to date. What I mean by that is you said...."after applying acids and treating it for days/weeks they get something resembling soft tissue"....the acid and treatments you speak removes the calcium and phosphate leaving behind just the tissue. Not something that resembles tissue but the actual tissue.

 

[-57]

No, but our understanding of those words does, unless you want to claim to be perfect and know everything he meant.

What you are saying is that we should interpret the bible through "modern science"....through Old Earth evolutionary rose colored glasses.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Do you believe HIS WORD is TRUTH?

No, but our understanding of those words does, unless you want to claim to be perfect and know everything he meant.

 

[loveofourlord]

What you are saying is that we should interpret the bible through "modern science"....through Old Earth evolutionary rose colored glasses.

I think we shouldn't be so arrogant to think that science is wrong because our understanding of the bible says otherwise, humans are falible and it's quiet possible and likly we've gotten alot wrong.

 

[loveofourlord]

My information is very much up to date.
I think maybe you should get up to date. What I mean by that is you said...."after applying acids and treating it for days/weeks they get something resembling soft tissue"....the acid and treatments you speak removes the calcium and phosphate leaving behind just the tissue. Not something that resembles tissue but the actual tissue.

sorry came out wrong, what I meant is, there was alot of treatment to get it to look like tissue, also it's been discovered that the iron in dinosaur blood helps preserve the tissues longer then thought, My point is, this isn't something no one can figure out!!, it's that we thought something wasn't possible, it was shown to be possible and even how. yet creationists will still such as yourself act like, "Scientists baffled can't explain it." well they already did.

 

[-57]

sorry came out wrong, what I meant is, there was alot of treatment to get it to look like tissue, also it's been discovered that the iron in dinosaur blood helps preserve the tissues longer then thought, My point is, this isn't something no one can figure out!!, it's that we thought something wasn't possible, it was shown to be possible and even how. yet creationists will still such as yourself act like, "Scientists baffled can't explain it." well they already did.

The iron method is used as a means reply to the question....but the problem is the test was only done for 2 years...which is far short of 65+ MY's....and scientific conclusion can't be drawn from that test. The iron also has other problems which I might re-research and post later. The iDINO.... Investigation of Dinosaur Intact Natural Osteo-tissue research points it out.
The better answer is....the earth isn't as old as you think it is.

 

[-57]

I think we shouldn't be so arrogant to think that science is wrong because our understanding of the bible says otherwise, humans are falible and it's quiet possible and likly we've gotten alot wrong.

I'm sure we have a lot wrong. But, that's no reason to take a Theo-Evo approach when interpretating scripture. The Theo-Evo approach does a lot of damage to the bible.

 

[Papias]

The big difference in the pregnancy example and the evolution of something from say a simple life form into a more complex one which is sort of similar to gestation to full term is that all the codes for that life form (the baby) come from the parents and they give all the instructions for every detail that the baby will end up with. That would be like saying that evolution (natural selection and random mutations) is guided by instructions to a predetermined end result.

No, that's not the point. In both cases, well understood, blind, chemical, mechanical processes are giving us the final result. Even if the DNA is present at the start in the case of pregnancy, one could say there is no "God" in the DNA, and no "God" in the subsequent chemistry, so God is absent from the whole process - so God didn't make us, but our parent's DNA and plain mechanistic chemistry is what made each of us.

But you and I know that's not the case - that God directs it all.

The same is true of evolution - even though the process is well understood and shown to be correct beyond a reasonable doubt - just as we understand the chemical, mechanical processes of pregnancy.

It that help clarify the point? No difference - both can be seen as excluding God, or both can be seen as being directed by God. For both, Atheists would say God has nothing to do with it, and for both, we say He does have a lot to do with it.

There are many unanswered questions such as, at what point did God intervene and create ? Any point is a contradiction of evolution and allows for a supernatural creation.

No, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm saying. God directed the entire process, just as He does a pregnancy. There is no point where He supernaturally "intervened", - He was present at all points.

This idea of excluding God unless God is magically poofing something into existence is what the Atheist does. We don't have to see it that way.

I totally agree and the bible event tells us to read and test things and check them out to find the answers and not to take things on face value.

Yep.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[loveofourlord]

I'm sure we have a lot wrong. But, that's no reason to take a Theo-Evo approach when interpretating scripture. The Theo-Evo approach does a lot of damage to the bible.

so instead lets take a creationist method of fingers in the ear ignoring science, and causing people to reject god and the bible when creationist beliefs cotnradicti the blindingly obvious truth that science shows?

 

[-57]

so instead lets take a creationist method of fingers in the ear ignoring science, and causing people to reject god and the bible when creationist beliefs cotnradicti the blindingly obvious truth that science shows?

I would rather present the truth rather than presenting the pollution the Theo-Evos introduce into scripture.

Then again, your faith says "Christian".....and you seem to be ignoring science. You do know modern science says if someone dies they don't come back to life on day 3.

 

[loveofourlord]

I would rather present the truth rather than presenting the pollution the Theo-Evos introduce into scripture.

Then again, your faith says "Christian".....and you seem to be ignoring science. You do know modern science says if someone dies they don't come back to life on day 3.

yeah, because that would require a miracle by god, but all the evidence points to evolution being true, but keep it up I'm sure god will have no problems if evolution is true and creationists turn many Christians away from the facts. Keep living in your dream world where some how all the facts that point at evolution are false. I find it quiet sad, when creationists attack strawman then have no clue what the facts are on evolution.

 

[stevevw]

No, that's not the point. In both cases, well understood, blind, chemical, mechanical processes are giving us the final result. Even if the DNA is present at the start in the case of pregnancy, one could say there is no "God" in the DNA, and no "God" in the subsequent chemistry, so God is absent from the whole process - so God didn't make us, but our parent's DNA and plain mechanistic chemistry is what made each of us.

The point is pregnancy is not a blind process. We know the exact steeps and can predict it in every detail. In fact through DNA we can even know the health, sex and many other things ahead of time. Its not as if pregnancy is a process where a small fraction of the potential baby exists and the rest has to mutate and be selected bit by bit without preexisting codes to form a baby.

Evolution is suppose to have no preexisting instructions to move forward, it creates those along the way by trial and error. we cannot know what random feature a mutation may pop up. Then according to evolution its a case of selection accepting or rejecting that feature depending on the benefit for survival. So in some ways if you say that theistic evolution is the same as the world view that many have and that God is the author then God is also the creator of the many creatures and features that are not selected to eventually evolve what is beneficial for survival.

But you and I know that's not the case - that God directs it all.

yes so in that sense what appears to be unguided as with Dawkins version of evolution is really guided in Gods creation. Its all part of the creation process that has purpose, direction and design.

The same is true of evolution - even though the process is well understood and shown to be correct beyond a reasonable doubt - just as we understand the chemical, mechanical processes of pregnancy.

I don't think evolution is fully understood. They are adding and changing to it as time goes by. It use to be thought that evolution was natural selection but now we know there are other fundamental forces which are non adaptive. Non adaptive in that they have inbuilt processes that are designed to help life survive without having to appeal to a unguided process.

It that help clarify the point? No difference - both can be seen as excluding God, or both can be seen as being directed by God. For both, Atheists would say God has nothing to do with it, and for both, we say He does have a lot to do with it.

I don't think a world view of evolution would include evolution being directed by God. Maybe theistic evolution can accommodate unguided processes. But in the bigger picture of things what may be an unguided process may be a small piece of a larger guided process.

No, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm saying. God directed the entire process, just as He does a pregnancy. There is no point where He supernaturally "intervened", - He was present at all points.

That's fair enough but there must have been a point where He supernaturally begun the process.

This idea of excluding God unless God is magically poofing something into existence is what the Atheist does. We don't have to see it that way.

Then how did the process begin. This is something I find hard to understand. At some point there had to be a beginning where there was a certain level of life even if it was small and simple. But even simple life has a lot to it that needs to come from somewhere. Pregnancy has a beginning where the sperm meets the egg and fertilizes it. But the first point of how life began such as the first bacteria doesn't have this unless it can poof into existence.

 

[Papias]

Then how did the process begin. This is something I find hard to understand. At some point there had to be a beginning where there was a certain level of life even if it was small and simple.

Even though it's not the point (because, as I mentioned, one could posit God poofing the first bacteria into existence), it's not hard to understand.

The simplest life would have to have been a replicating molecule in a container (like a cell). The container is pretty easy - vesicles of phospholipid bilayers form easily with shaking if the material is present (and it forms naturally). The replicating molecule is harder, but it doesn't have to be DNA. RNA is half the DNA molecule, and it appears to have originated first - both because it's simpler and because it can catalyze the needed reactions. To get to RNA, molecular fragments need to be strung together - many of which have been formed naturally in the lab. These early molecules need not be that complex, as all they need to do is to be able to make copies of themselves. Once they can do that, then those best at making copies make more copies than the ones that don't make as good a copy, and you have "natural selection" going on without there yet being life. This gives more life like molecules until you can call it life.

Their has been a lot of very interesting findings, and though the whole process isn't nailed down, it's quite plausible. In fact, it's a lot more plausible than how well people understood things like lightning and disease just 200 years ago.

There have been so many discoveries that here's a whole class on it:
Origins of Life

I don't think evolution is fully understood. They are adding and changing to it as time goes by.

Well, nothing is ever "fully understood", depending on how you define that. Evolution is very well understood, to the point that it is often used to correctly predict the future and is understood beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why practically all scientists (including thousands of scientists who are Christian) accept it as fact. We have more and better support for common descent than we do for the fact that the Civil War happened.

Non adaptive in that they have inbuilt processes that are designed to help life survive without having to appeal to a unguided process.

?? Really? That sounds like hogwash. Can you cite a source that supports that?

The point is pregnancy is not a blind process. We know the exact steeps and can predict it in every detail. In fact through DNA we can even know the health, sex and many other things ahead of time.

But that's exactly the point. Pregnancy can be explained fully through chemistry. So some might say there is no room for God. In fact, if one is to suggest that God is involved with one or the other, then putting God in evolution is easier in that view, than pregnancy, because pregnancy is a little better understood.

My point is that because something is understood is not a reason to exclude God. If it were, we'd have to exclude God from making each of us during pregnancy.

Yet, creationists object to evolution because they say that an understood process excludes God. It doesn't - unless one also wants to exclude God from pregnancy, and from every other aspect of our world as we learn more.

Papias

 

[stevevw]

Another aspect of evolution that I wonder about is the social implications. During the 60s and even up until the 80s and some say even today social Darwinism was a prominent theory. Many believed that indigenous people for example were not as evolved and therefore they were treated as inferior people. This still happens in many ways and I wonder if the basis for many prejudices and stereotyping doesn't still stem from these theories. Some say Hitlers motivations stem from a evolutionary ideal that some people were more superior to others and there is some support for a form of nationalism is creeping back into society and politics with the recent problems of ethnic conflicts.

Evolution theory claims to have the answer to why humans have to get along because there is more benefit in cooperating then to take from others and be in conflict. But I wonder sometimes because of all the hate and conflict we see. maybe when it comes down to survival and there is not enough for everyone that people will look after themselves first. I think this is the other aspect of a world view of evolution that is not considered when talking about theistic evolution that we can also be promoting social Darwinism which is in conflict with Christs teachings.

 

[loveofourlord]

Another aspect of evolution that I wonder about is the social implications. During the 60s and even up until the 80s and some say even today social Darwinism was a prominent theory. Many believed that indigenous people for example were not as evolved and therefore they were treated as inferior people. This still happens in many ways and I wonder if the basis for many prejudices and stereotyping doesn't still stem from these theories. Some say Hitlers motivations stem from a evolutionary ideal that some people were more superior to others and there is some support for a form of nationalism is creeping back into society and politics with the recent problems of ethnic conflicts.

Evolution theory claims to have the answer to why humans have to get along because there is more benefit in cooperating then to take from others and be in conflict. But I wonder sometimes because of all the hate and conflict we see. maybe when it comes down to survival and there is not enough for everyone that people will look after themselves first. I think this is the other aspect of a world view of evolution that is not considered when talking about theistic evolution that we can also be promoting social Darwinism which is in conflict with Christs teachings.

because it's irelevent, the bible was used to start wars, the holocaust, inquisitions, conquering of the new lands, and so on, does that make it wrong? Evolution isn't presriptive, it's descriptive, and a fact. Hearing about evolution could turn people into homicidal rapists, but wouldn't change it being true, and funny how many of the countries with the highest acceptence of evolution seem to be betteroff.

 

[stevevw]

Even though it's not the point (because, as I mentioned, one could posit God poofing the first bacteria into existence), it's not hard to understand.

The simplest life would have to have been a replicating molecule in a container (like a cell). The container is pretty easy - vesicles of phospholipid bilayers form easily with shaking if the material is present (and it forms naturally). The replicating molecule is harder, but it doesn't have to be DNA. RNA is half the DNA molecule, and it appears to have originated first - both because it's simpler and because it can catalyze the needed reactions. To get to RNA, molecular fragments need to be strung together - many of which have been formed naturally in the lab. These early molecules need not be that complex, as all they need to do is to be able to make copies of themselves. Once they can do that, then those best at making copies make more copies than the ones that don't make as good a copy, and you have "natural selection" going on without there yet being life. This gives more life like molecules until you can call it life.

Their has been a lot of very interesting findings, and though the whole process isn't nailed down, it's quite plausible. In fact, it's a lot more plausible than how well people understood things like lightning and disease just 200 years ago.

There have been so many discoveries that here's a whole class on it:
Origins of Life

The trouble is when you make claims that natural processes for the prerequisites of life have been theorized and even created in tests you are taking God out of the equation. This is the problem I find with trying to fit God and evolution into the same process. Where does God start and end and self creating natural processes take over. If you say that there is support for some of the pre-life processes happening naturally then God could not have created life at the point of the bacteria. That means He must have created the pre-life components and then they must have naturally formed to create life. But if that happened its hardly creating life and the natural process should really take the credit. If these natural processes don’t have any purpose or direction and just form through blind chance selection and mutations, then it doesn’t need God according to evolution.

When it comes to the science of evolution the inclination is to try and explain how things happened naturally. So, if you are saying that God created simple life or replicating molecule or RNA molecules people will try to explain how these also happened naturally. If people can explain other processes in the chain of events that happened naturally then why take a certain part of that process and say God needed to create that particular part. That’s why I am saying that God must have also created some codes as well to direct things and it’s not a totally self-creating natural process.

You would be better off saying that God just created everything in the beginning at the big bang and didn’t need to have a separate intervention for life. That way God may have started the whole thing off and then let the natural processes take their course for everything after that. It seems silly that a natural self creating processes can create the many elements for life and then inject God into it for the sake of fitting God into evolution. If self creating natural processes can create simple life bacteria then they can create the prelife elements for that bacteria. If it can create the prelife elements than it can create simple life bacteria. Why even use God unless there is something besides the natural process.

That’s why I find it hard to understand this. At least with creation they claim a supernatural process and oppose self-creating naturalistic processes. In that way they are saying that God intervened and created life in all its complexity including mechanisms that allow life to change which have been interpreted as natural processes.

Well, nothing is ever "fully understood", depending on how you define that. Evolution is very well understood, to the point that it is often used to correctly predict the future and is understood beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why practically all scientists (including thousands of scientists who are Christian) accept it as fact. We have more and better support for common descent than we do for the fact that the Civil War happened.

I think most people support evolution but there are different variations of evolution. As you may have heard there is micro and macro evolution and many of the supports who also believe in God may only support the micro level of evolution. Even those who may support the macro level there is also some variation within this such as there being several interpretations of what a species is.

These are human interpretations of observations that can have different end results that may support Darwin’s evolution or limited evolution. So when people say evolution is well supported it is not clarified as to what extent and I don’t think the macro level of evolution is that well supported. IE bacteria tests only show micro evolution and macro evolution has never been observed or scientifically verified.

?? Really? That sounds like hogwash. Can you cite a source that supports that?

I am surprised you haven’t heard of these things before. Many biologists attributed just about everything in evolution to natural selection and have overstated its power from the creation of early simple life to the formation of the universe. There are several other mechanisms that help life to change besides natural selection. As mentioned these non-adaptive mechanisms have varying influences which may allow creatures to follow set paths rather than just trying to randomly find the fittest or beneficial features from a multitude of possible lines of evolution.

Life works in conjunction with the environment and can transfer genetic material which allows creates to fit in to environments better. Early life was the result of non-adaptive forces rather than selection and in fact selection may prevent more complex life from developing. One paper talks about how life may have had complexity at today’s levels and that complexity is switch off in some creatures and can be switched on when needed.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution
Universal genome in the origin of metazoa: thoughts about evolution. - PubMed - NCBI

But that's exactly the point. Pregnancy can be explained fully through chemistry. So some might say there is no room for God. In fact, if one is to suggest that God is involved with one or the other, then putting God in evolution is easier in that view, than pregnancy, because pregnancy is a little better understood.

My point is that because something is understood is not a reason to exclude God. If it were, we'd have to exclude God from making each of us during pregnancy.

Its more than chemicals, it’s about how those chemicals work together and that pregnancy is just one part of a bigger picture that needs to all be in place to happen. When you isolate something, you are not seeing in its entirety. System theory shows that everything is connected and there are systems within systems and each can be affected by the other and depends on the other components in that system.

So, pregnancy is a process within what humans do and needs a human and its reproductive system to all be working and in place. In that sense, it begins to take on a much bigger picture than just chemicals. Pregnancy doesn’t happen in isolation.Sometimes people and not just believers in God can take an explanation and turn that into the answer as well which tells them how something came about. There are many explanations in evolution and in describing the universe in which people begin to believe that these explanation or knowledge about how something works is also the answer as to how it came about.

Yet, creationists object to evolution because they say that an understood process excludes God. It doesn't - unless one also wants to exclude God from pregnancy, and from every other aspect of our world as we learn more. Papias

That may be one extreme view of things. Just like a believer in God may think that some who support evolution make out that it’s an all-powerful creative process that can account for everything without the need for any divine intervention.

 

[stevevw]

because it's irelevent, the bible was used to start wars, the holocaust, inquisitions, conquering of the new lands, and so on, does that make it wrong? Evolution isn't presriptive, it's descriptive, and a fact. Hearing about evolution could turn people into homicidal rapists, but wouldn't change it being true, and funny how many of the countries with the highest acceptence of evolution seem to be betteroff.

The people who killed in the name of the bible were contradicting a written book from God. People have become aware that they misinterpreted the word of God and justified wrong motives in the name of God so this can be corrected and controlled. Other religions who do wrong in the name of God may be doing the same but as a Christian we would say that this is not the true word of God and therefore man made and its inevitable that it will lead to no good. In that sens its not religion but any ideal that is used by humans to justify a particular way to act like politics.

Evolution is suppose to be a process for how life adapts and is a biological influence rather than a moral one that will dictate life whether we believe it or not. I am just pondering the question that if it is a matter of survival of the fittest then even though some say that we are better off getting along to survive that may have been the view at that time.If things change and it comes down to a situation where there was not enough food or resources would it mean that some will be willing to kill others to ensure that they have a better chance of survival. Is this not happening now in some ways. Is this not the social aspect of evolution. Maybe it is a case of having a balance in life by including God as this will also bring in the divine nature which is willing to sacrifice self for others.