Why do people even want to put evolution in the equation?

[MittenMaven]

2) No transitional fossils. If evolution had taken place there should have been a great many transitional structures preserved in fossilised form recording the stages of development from one type of organism to another type.


For instance, invertebrates are supposed to have transformed into vertebrates, having passed through many intermediate stages. The fossil record does not document such transitions. Evidence does not support the theory of evolution

Actually there are multiple examples of transitional fossils. The transformation of the reptile ear with one bone into the mammal ear with three bones is seen in the fossil record and has many intermediate forms. Human evolution from proto humans is well filled with transitional forms from apes that walked upright to ourselves with larger brain cavities over time. There are multiple transitional forms. Tiktaalik is an excellent example of the evolution of fish into reptiles. It has the body of a fish but the head of a reptile and fins that are between fish and reptiles. A perfect intermediate form.

Anti evolutionary creationists always give the line of “no transitional forms” but that is just false. They are being either willfully ignorant or do not understand the science or refuse to research it. But the fact remains.

Why would God so design his creation with increasing complexity of organisms from simple to complex from sea to land to appear as if evolution has occurred. If the earth were 6000 years old all the animals would have just appeared in the fossil record at once. That doesn’t happen.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think there is a model that works better than theistic evolution that goes in accord with the theology, and that would be what I have heard referred to as an alterist model.

Basically the idea is that the process of being given garments of flesh after the fall is evolution. The point at which we took on a more animalistic mode of being and nature that reflected our distance from God. The creation deemed good and paradise are now utterly inaccessible to us, and everything that we see using science is post fall.

This model overcomes the issues of theistic evolution and young earth creationism. Because it maintains the fall and doesn't have the obvious issues that creationism has

I tend to let the theologians handle their theology. I'm not a pastor, or a religious scholar. In Christian terms, I'd just consider myself just a lay-Christian. Just an average non-scholar.

And I think I've grown accustomed to the fact that the body of Christ is and will continue to be, wrestling with this topic. And what people believe theologically, and even what I personally theologically believe, I think comes second to what I feel I've experienced. Whether our community has agreed on an acceptable theological viewpoint or not doesn't feel as important to me as what I believe based on what I've experienced.

To Theistic evolutionists, well to some of us at least, the theory of evolution really isn't much different than even things like the theory of gravity. And critiques of evolution don't like that comparison, but from our "evolutionist" perspective, it's fair.

So if we could imagine, theologians debating around us on the truth of the theory of gravity, some say it's true and that scripture backs it up, some say it's false and that it contradicts scripture, but at the end of the day, what these theologians conclude, whether they collectively think gravity true or false (scientifically or theologically), comes secondary to what we personally experience.

And once we conclude that what we experience is real or that evolution/gravity is real (at least we believe it is), then everything wraps around that. Then critics of evolution/gravity have to be wrong (at least scientifically). which doesn't necessarily make scripture align with evolution/gravity (critiques of the theory could still be theologically correct). And some evolutionists believe that scripture cannot align with evolution/gravity and they give up on God and go on to become atheists. But some of us still have faith in Christ and are willing to let God work through us to continue that investigation of if and how science can actually align with scripture.

I'll do some reading on the alterist model though, thanks.

 

[The Barbarian]

see post 52

Let's look at that...

1) No empirical proof exists that macro-evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) is occurring at present, or has ever happened in the past. No one, throughout recorded history, has ever seen it.

And in the next paragraph, you contradict yourself. BTW, it's not the only case; the first known speciation was in the early 1900s, a new species of primrose was observed to form a reproductively isolated population from a polyploidy event.

Evolutionist anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz stated in his 1999 book Sudden Origins . . . that with the exception of Dobzhan sky's claim about a new species of fruit fly (micro-evolution, not macro-evolution), the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

As you just learned:
The definition is pretty clear. Microevolution is a change in allele frequencies within a population that does not result in a new species. Macroevolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population that produces a new species.
http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/Genetics/Genetics-1935-20-4-377.pdf

As I said, even many creationist organizations admit the evolution of new species. They just avoid the "E-word."

Most of them redefined "macroevolution" to be "some kind of evolution that takes too long for any person to actually observe in a lifetime."

2) No transitional fossils. If evolution had taken place there should have been a great many transitional structures preserved in fossilised form recording the stages of development from one type of organism to another type.

Yes. The existence of a great many fossil transitionals would demonstrate evolution. Here's YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, on that issue:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

For instance, invertebrates are supposed to have transformed into vertebrates, having passed through many intermediate stages.

Well, let's take a look...

Vertebrates evolved from chordates. Vertebrates retain primitive chordate structures, although some might be highly modified.

Tunicate Larvae show basic chordate body plan. Compare to Pikaia,from the early Cambrian:

Pikaia, one of the earliest known chordates, has all the basic chordate features. But not any vertebrate features.

Amphioxus, a modern chordate retaining the primitive form:

Next are craniates:
In the simplest sense, craniates are chordates with well-defined heads, thus excluding members of the chordate subphyla Tunicata (tunicates) and Cephalochordata (lancelets), but including Myxini, which have cartilaginous skulls and tooth-like structures composed of keratin.
Craniate - Wikipedia

As in fossil chordates, the nerve chord is protected by a series of cartilagenous "neural arches." This is important.

Hagfish:

Notice a definite cranium, with a brain, but otherwise retaining many primitive chordate features. Still not a vertebrate; the notochord stiffens the body, but there are no bones.

Bone, from the examination of fossil chordates, seems to have been initially a way of storing calcium by calcifying cartilage. The ostracoderms had calcified skeletons and were thereby the first true vertebrates, with the cartilagenous neural arches ossifying by taking up calcium, and becoming bone.

The fossil record does not document such transitions.

And now, you know better, as Dr. Wise, your fellow YE creationist, admits. He specifically cites that transition from other deuterostomes. All of this is predicted by evolutionary theory and is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory"(Dr. Wise), but is completely incomprehensible in terms of creationism.

There's a lot more detail involved. For a good, readable discussion of vertebrate evolution, I recommend The Evolution of Vertebrate Design by Leonard Radinsky. It's detailed but not too technical for a non-biologist.

 

[The Barbarian]

The transformation of the reptile ear with one bone into the mammal ear with three bones is seen in the fossil record and has many intermediate forms.

Yes, this is an excellent example. We are fortunate to have a very large number of transitions between therapsid reptiles and mammals.

One sticking point creationists used to use, was "mammals have one lower jaw bone, and reptiles have two or more; how did the mammal eat while it was changing from one to the other?"

Now we have several examples of transitionals, such as Diarthognathus, which have both the reptilian and the mammalian jaw joint. Eventually as you say, the rear bone (which had always been used to conduct sound to the ear) became smaller, and was enclosed in the middle ear.

Details available if anyone wants to see.

 

[The Barbarian]

So if we could imagine, theologians debating around us on the truth of the theory of gravity, some say it's true and that scripture backs it up, some say it's false and that it contradicts scripture, but at the end of the day, what these theologians conclude, whether they collectively think gravity true or false (scientifically or theologically), comes secondary to what we personally experience.

Most creationists believe in microgravity. Things fall to the earth, the Moon goes around the Earth, and so on. But some of them deny macrogravity, and suppose the Earth doesn't move,and the Sun goes around the Earth. And they deny gravity for the galaxy, since no one has ever observed it to make a rotation around the galactic center. (WFTH-I)

 

[GenemZ]

I already showed you that the Hebrew does not use or show the word destroyed in Genesis 1:2 Look up any Lexicon you like, the words used mean formlessness, confusion, unreality and emptiness.

We must compare Scripture with Scripture when available to gain insight.

Jeremiah was in a fury of prophesy that was to be used to threaten the rebellious degenerated Jews, what they would be facing from God's judgment. To show how badly they were condemned Jeremiah quoted from what is found in Genesis 1:2. So! Its not mild and easy as many fail in seeing what is being stated in their generic English translations.


God also made sure that Jeremiah let those Jews know it would not be exactly as found in Genesis 1:2 in regards to their judgment's severity . Keep in mind. Same Hebrew words as found in Genesis 1:2!

“For my people are foolish;
they know me not;
they are stupid children;
they have no understanding.
They are ‘wise’—in doing evil!
But how to do good they know not.”
I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void;
and to the heavens, and they had no light. Jeremiah 4:22-23​

Its showing that Genesis 1:2 was an after effect! The Jews knowing Hebrew saw it as a severe and horrible Judgment coming upon them.


Yet, we read a few verses later that Jeremiah needed to add something. It was to tell the Jews that they will not be utterly destroyed (for that was how the earth was found in Genesis 1:2)

27 For thus says the Lord, “The whole land shall be a desolation;
though I will not destroy it completely."
​

That means that there was something fierce and destructive that had taken place before we see Genesis 1:2.

Now... it would seem quite sissy-like, if Jeremiah was simply warning rebellious the Jews of imminent destruction in a mild manner as some insist upon meaning concerning Genesis 1:2.

That is why we must compare Scripture with Scripture.

 

[Contenders Edge]

Why does this impossible process, with impossible odds, seem so rational to this new breed of Christians? It's growing, and it might be blasphemy. Aren't they calling God a liar?

This "new breed" of Christians isn't really new at all but has been with us least since the eighteenth century, but has become more prevalent over time; the prevalence of which reached its peak in the twentieth century but whose influence was diminished by the rise of the Young Earth Creationist movement.

The reason why evolution or any tenant thereof seems rational to many professing Christians is because they have placed too much confidence in the wisdom of man rather than the authority of scripture and to the point that they don't even think to question the claims of these so-called experts.

They have become so brainwashed by Darwinian thinking to the point that they will not even consider the YEC position or why YECs believe Genesis to be an actual account of history. One of the major deceptions that many within the Church have bought into is the Lyellian lie that the present is the key to the past; in other words, what we observe in the present tells us what happened in the past and as a result, we have been duped into thinking that that science can tell us about history.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Before Lyell and Darwin, science was simply a study of the present workings of the natural world. It was never used in any attempt to discredit the Bible or the Genesis account of creation, but today, it has been misconstrued by those hostile to the Christian faith, or even so much as any belief in a Creator, to make the Genesis account of our origins, and the entirety of scripture for that matter, out to be a lie in the minds of many.

And sadly, many within the Church have sought to harmonize with scripture a philosophy that is contrary to the teachings thereof and instead of providing answers and much sought after clarity, this has only raised more questions, generated more confusion, and has cast doubt, especially amongst the younger generations, upon the authority of scripture, its divine inspiration, and with it, the trustworthiness of the Gospel message itself.

And due to this attempt to reconcile two differing opinions, church leaders are unable to provide satisfying answers to vital questions pertaining to the faith which also include the origins of life.
They have no satisfying answers to questions regarding things like dinosaurs, the fossil record, why the earth is dated to be immensely older than what scripture itself indicates, or why a kind, loving, and merciful God would ever create a world filled with so much evil, death, suffering, and misery.

Scripture clearly states that the present state of the world is due to the sin of the first man Adam, and his wife, Eve, from whom all of mankind is descended for as it is written, the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23) and because all sin, all die (Rom. 5:12) for when sin entered into Adam, it then was passed down to all of humanity, but the effects of sin are not just limited to man, but have come to taint, corrupt, and afflict all of creation with a curse (Rom. 8:19-22)

Sin affects more than we comprehend and is the reason why we are born estranged and alienated from our Maker and are in danger of facing eternal damnation if we die in that state. It is only when we accept the account of Genesis as actual history do we begin to understand the consequences of Adam's disobedience and when we begin to have a proper understanding of the consequences of original sin, we then begin to have a better understanding of the redemptive plan through Christ beginning with the cleansing of our souls from sin when we turn to Him and away from our sins, calling upon Him for the forgiveness of sins and trusting in Him for our salvation alone.

Just as our souls are cleansed from sin upon placing our trust in Christ, so even our bodies, presently subjected to corruption and death, will one day be liberated from death and corruption (1 Cor. 15:51-55, 1 Thess. 4:13-18) and then the creation itself by being made anew (2 Pet. 3:10, Rev. 21-22) and devoid of all the evils that presently reside therein.

Anyone attempting to claim that God used evolution to form life or adheres and teaches any doctrine that has assigned millions or billions of years to the universe has claimed death to have existed before sin, thus undermining the purpose for which Christ came in the first place and thus, whether they realize this or not, make the God who inspired the scriptures out to be a liar and malign His character by attributing wasteful and faulty processes to Him who is without fault, perfect in all His ways, sees all things from beginning to end and every possible outcome, who is present everywhere and of unlimited power, wisdom, and knowledge.

It has troubled me very greatly when professors of the faith insist on holding to the Darwinian philosophy or any tenet associated therewith for it leads me to question as to whether they truly wish to abide in the truth of God's Word and submit to Him for the God that He is or if they are simply attempting to mold God according to an image that suits them and founded upon their own understanding.

 

[Job 33:6]

The reason why evolution or any tenant thereof seems rational to many professing Christians is because they have placed too much confidence in the wisdom of man rather than the authority of scripture and to the point that they don't even think to question the claims of these so-called experts.

I think this is partially true, as a theistic evolutionist, in the sense that I trust in what I see (my senses), more than I trust in any man's interpretation of scripture (including my own) that talks about what I see.

Because ultimately even the authority of scripture, has to first be experienced through my senses (I have to use my eyes to read scripture or my ears to be hear and to be taught it).

I trust in things like my direct first-hand observation of what I consider creation, to a greater extent than I trust in any second-hand human interpretation of any writing about creation (including my own interpretation of scripture).

And if that is a sin, then I am guilty.

 

[The Barbarian]

This "new breed" of Christians isn't really new at all but has been with us least since the eighteenth century,

Rather, the 4th century. St. Augustine of Hippo showed that the text itself ruled out the "days" of Genesis being literal days.

YE creationism is the result of men putting too much confidence in their own understanding, and adding new ideas to Genesis.

Anyone attempting to claim that God used evolution to form life

That would be rather foolish. No one with any sense supposes that evolutionary theory is about the way life began. Darwin himself supposed that God just created the first living things.

or adheres and teaches any doctrine that has assigned millions or billions of years to the universe has claimed death to have existed before sin, thus undermining the purpose for which Christ came in the first place

That's an error, too. God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam eats and lives on physically for many years. The death was a spiritual one, assuming that God is truthful.

If Jesus came to save us from a physical death, He failed. We will all die physically someday. That wasn't why He came and died for us.

Creationists, whether they realize this or not, appear to be making the God who inspired scripture out to be a liar.

Let God be God, and let Him decide what is wasteful or faulty, rather than depending on your own judgement to determine what is right in your eyes.

It seems that creationists are simply attempting to mold God according to an image that suits them and founded upon their man-made doctrines of creationism.

 

[loveofourlord]

You sir may rightly claim to be related to a monkey, I however am not.

No the stupid comment was the, "Only a theory." you know how dumb a comment like that and just makes you look foolish. You don't have to accept evolution, but least try to keep up with what evolution ACTUALLY says.

 

[The Barbarian]

"It's only a theory" and other odd misconceptions people have about science.
"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words

 

[GenemZ]

You sir may rightly claim to be related to a monkey, I however am not.

I resemble that remark!

 

[chilehed]

Why does this impossible process, with impossible odds, seem so rational to this new breed of Christians?

You mean besides that it's not impossible and it is rational?

It's growing, and it might be blasphemy.

This sounds like you have a very unusual idea of what blasphemy is.

Aren't they calling God a liar?

I haven't heard any of them call God a liar.

 

[GenemZ]

Why does this impossible process, with impossible odds, seem so rational to this new breed of Christians? It's growing, and it might be blasphemy. Aren't they calling God a liar?

Trev.... Not everyone believes what you may assume to be the truth.

What constitutes "evolution" to you? You assume that all see it the same way. The argument may be based upon a wrong way of thinking that another assumes means something else.

 

[coffee4u]

I think this video describes the most fundamental proof of evolution. It's the summation of phylogenetic trees derived from dozens of independent fields of science.

And I'd be happy to explain if anyone doesn't understand this the video.

Still showing the video showing the fraudulent drawings of human embryos, are you?
Not the lest big embarrassed to use well known lies to try and make a point? Even your evolutionary friends agree it is fraudulent.

 

[coffee4u]

We must compare Scripture with Scripture when available to gain insight.

Jeremiah was in a fury of prophesy that was to be used to threaten the rebellious degenerated Jews, what they would be facing from God's judgment. To show how badly they were condemned Jeremiah quoted from what is found in Genesis 1:2. So! Its not mild and easy as many fail in seeing what is being stated in their generic English translations.


God also made sure that Jeremiah let those Jews know it would not be exactly as found in Genesis 1:2 in regards to their judgment's severity . Keep in mind. Same Hebrew words as found in Genesis 1:2!

“For my people are foolish;
they know me not;
they are stupid children;
they have no understanding.
They are ‘wise’—in doing evil!
But how to do good they know not.”
I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void;
and to the heavens, and they had no light. Jeremiah 4:22-23​

Its showing that Genesis 1:2 was an after effect! The Jews knowing Hebrew saw it as a severe and horrible Judgment coming upon them.


Yet, we read a few verses later that Jeremiah needed to add something. It was to tell the Jews that they will not be utterly destroyed (for that was how the earth was found in Genesis 1:2)

27 For thus says the Lord, “The whole land shall be a desolation;
though I will not destroy it completely."
​

That means that there was something fierce and destructive that had taken place before we see Genesis 1:2.

Now... it would seem quite sissy-like, if Jeremiah was simply warning rebellious the Jews of imminent destruction in a mild manner as some insist upon meaning concerning Genesis 1:2.

That is why we must compare Scripture with Scripture.

I completely agree on comparing scripture to scripture. You need all the verses on a topic to gain a full picture of the meaning.
But you also can't ignore the Hebrew.

The word destroy is not in the Hebrew. Not in the Genesis nor in the Jeremiah passage. Anyone can look up a lexicon and see that.

If the word destory was in there I would take that seriously and look further, but it simply isn't.

 

[Job 33:6]

Still showing the video showing the fraudulent drawings of human embryos, are you?
Not the lest big embarrassed to use well known lies to try and make a point? Even your evolutionary friends agree it is fraudulent.

Still waiting for you to address the content of the video

 

[GenemZ]

I completely agree on comparing scripture to scripture. You need all the verses on a topic to gain a full picture of the meaning.
But you also can't ignore the Hebrew.

The word destroy is not in the Hebrew.

Of course the word "destroy" does not appear.

You are arguing like someone who was told his forest will be left in cinders... and... you argue back with? That the word "fire" does not appear in the threat.. therefore it can not mean being destroyed... ..... hello?

Christianity today is in deep trouble. And, we see the very reason why online all the time these days. Its not arguing with objectivity. But arguing using imposed invented requirements that divert to only serve to distract away from the real issue that one wishes to deny.

Now.. How can Genesis 1:2 be possibly used as a threat by Jeremiah against rebellious Jews? If your meek rendering were to be applied? It sounds silly.

You keep failing to keep in mind, Jeremiah was confronting degenerate Jews. Jews who had become deeply hardened by habitual perversions in sinning. Murder was one of their sins. They needed to be clobbered by God with harsh reality to get through if it were to be done. You? You approach them with politically correct politeness. Totally out of touch with what Jeremiah had to deal with.


Its showing that Genesis 1:2 was an after effect! The Jews knowing Hebrew saw it as a severe and horrible Judgment coming upon them.


After quoting Genesis 1:2, Jeremiah needed to add something. It was to tell the Jews that they would not be utterly destroyed (for that was how the earth was found in Genesis 1:2)

27 For thus says the Lord, “The whole land shall be a desolation;
though I will not destroy it completely."
​

Read that?

....though I will not destroy it completely."
​

Jeremiah was modifying the original intent of Genesis 1:2.

For the Jews implicitly understood what the real meaning of "tohu wabohu" found in Genesis 1:2 meant. It was not a gentle .."empty and void." It was not some dainty words the Spirit moving Jeremiah was using...

It definitely indicated destruction! If not? Jeremiah would not have had to qualify his using of Genesis 1:2 by adding...

...though I will not destroy it completely."

Ready to be honest with me?

 

[The Barbarian]

You don't have to accept evolution, but least try to keep up with what evolution ACTUALLY says.

This has been tried before; with disastrous results:

According to eyewitnesses, Wilberforce –“now strictly logical, now witheringly dismissive, always flamboyant” opened with a strong criticism of evolution that lasted half an hour. He criticized its evidence, its assumptions, and its moral implications. He also ended with a sarcastic jab, asking Huxley if he considered himself descended from an ape through his grandmother or grandfather.

According to Green, Huxley, then an undergraduate, retorted: “[A] man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling, it would be a MAN, a man of restless and versatile intellect, who, not content with an success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digressions, and skilled appeals to religious prejudice.” In short, Huxley preferred the disgrace of an ape to the ignorance of his opponent.

We cannot know the exact words of Huxley or Wilberforce, as many purported versions of both speeches exist. However, based on eyewitness testimony, it is almost undisputed that Wilberforce raised this point, and Huxley forcefully put it down. This rebuttal – or at least its fundamental idea – became famous and is now a useful tool for teaching evolution. For what does it matter if we descend from apes?
The Huxley Wilberforce Debate - Darwin Day

 

[loveofourlord]

You sir may rightly claim to be related to a monkey, I however am not.

well as the cliche goes, were still monkeys, wether you like it or not. I accept the reality of the situation, and rather glory god in truth then hang on to lies for fear of the truth. I've read and researched evolution, everything that I've seen points to it being real.