You're wrong about evolutionary theory. It doesn't say we evolved from bacteria. It says were evolved from other primates.
Take up your issue with Smithsonian, Scientific American, Richard Dawkins, et al. I'm just reporting what they are saying...
As you know, evolution is entirely consistent with God's word in Genesis, but the "life ex nihilo" claims of YE creationism are explicitly denied by God's word.
Please provide scriptural references where this is "explicitly" denied as you claim. Re-read Genesis 2:7 to see what the Bible
explicitly says. From the ESV:
"Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."
Explicitly stated, God formed the man of dust from the ground (not the beasts of the field). Dust of the ground <> beasts of the field. Even if it is your life's goal to critique YEC organizations like AiG, ICR, et al, and those who adhere to this model, AiG's animated video of man being created actually illustrates Adam being created from... the dust of the ground. So, I'm not sure where you are getting this notion that YEC's believe man just appeared like some kind of rabbit-out-of-the-hat magic trick. Can you please start providing sources; otherwise, your statements just come across as argumentative conjecture. Likewise, I prefer not to just go around making dogmatic statements and so you'll see me reference scripture and include online references (often multiple sources to show confirmation that this is not an isolated idea) to things I believe are true.
Also, I'd recommend staying away from what the Bible explicitly states in critique of YEC viewpoints and in support of OEC viewpoints because the Bible also explicitly states 'days' with 'evening and morning' in the 6 days of creation (you and I have discussed this before in other threads), and we both know this is largely not accepted as 6 days (144 hours) by OEC adherents. The Bible also explicitly gives the genealogy from Adam to Christ, again often disputed as being erroneous/incomplete/irrelevant by OEC adherents.
Yes. It just doesn't say that humans evolved from bacteria. They evolved from other primates.
Thank you for confirming. It is my understanding as well that evolutionary theory asserts our
most recent evolutionary step was from an ape-like creature as a common ancestor with modern apes. Where'd the supposed common ancestor for man/apes come from? Answer: Some earlier, simpler form. And that form? Something simpler still. Somewhere along the way here you're going to have to admit that science asserts that from first initial life (what I'm loosely calling 'bacteria', but also called LUCA) that it is by many evolutionary steps over billions of years that have led from LUCA to man. Or... you can say life was as complex as today, from the very beginning with only very subtle changes occurring between then and now (that the only evolution to arrive at you and me was from the ape-like creature which existed at the very beginning)... which certainly wouldn't require the billions of years evolution claims occurred to arrive at life as it is today. The Bible doesn't say that though does it, it says man was created in the beginning, Adam, day 6 (see Genesis 1:26-31).
Unfortunately, the link didn't include any of that. What step between other apes and humans does your guy think is missing?
As you know, there are many, many transitional forms between other apes and humans.
Did you not watch the video? Dr. Wood addresses the various supposed transitional forms and he utilizes over 400 physical characteristics examined between human skulls and those of the various "pithecus" skulls. There are clear gaps never bridged between those that fall under human and those that fall under non-human - no skull falls into the gap to serve as a transitional form where it has characteristics of both human and non-human. Dr. Wood also has a blog and e-mail if you'd like to argue with him further...
original link:
Exploring Ape-Man & Adam - Lecture by Dr. Todd Wood, Biologist
Blog / email link:
Todd's Blog
Close. It's "change in allele frequency in a population over time." Alleles are different versions of the same gene. It's not common to see genes come and go; more often alleles change
Genetic mutations are most commonly adverse or at best neutral (neutral if suppressed by dominant normal healthy genes) in their impact to living organisms/creatures. This points back to the creation/corruption model that YEC adherents accept. God created healthy cells/genes (and God said it was good) then as a result of sin, corruption entered and we see mutations, deformations, disease, and death. A presuppositional bias towards accepting evolution as true would look at something like random mutations and suggest that these accumulate, in a positive way (contrary to what is commonly observed otherwise), while working against and cancelling out all of the bad mutations (which also are accumulating as part of the curse of sin), produce something meaningful and functional in the DNA sequence, have other DNA read (and understand) this new code and know what to do with it, 'decide' to keep it, and finally, pass it along to subsequent generations.
Broadly, "evolution" means "change." So almost anything in nature would be evolution by that definition. Lets use it as biology uses it.
Agreed, I would add that implied by evolution is also that this "change" is generally beneficial and increasing in complexity. Again, no way to get from bacteria to man without beneficial and increasingly complex DNA.
Adaptation is evolution, but merely a certain kind of evolution.
Thank you for confirming adaptation is included under the umbrella of evolution.
We can check that by looking at populations of known descent. Turns out, DNA indicates common descent.
Again, I see this assertion as simply evidence of your presuppositional bias. "DNA indicates common descent". My bias sees DNA as a building block God used in creating all life, not that He created a a life form template (the alleged LUCA) and brought forth all life from that template through slow, gradual, random mutations many times over across billions of years.
Me too. The difference is, I'm not bothered by the way He did it.
Perhaps you and Job can educate us all how God laid down the foundations of the earth and brought forth life then. Turns out that while this view doesn't bother you and others here who adhere to the OEC view, it does bother many others besides YEC adherents:
Why America’s ‘nones’ left religion behind
10 facts about atheists
One of the major reasons cited why many today are leaving religion behind and the rise of atheism is pointing back to science. Why? Well, secular science asserts ideas that go against what the Bible teaches. But you say to the contrary, that science affirms the Bible. Well, apparently a growing number of people would disagree. This has already swept through Europe and we can see the state of what has happened to their churches that once thrived centuries ago... don't worry, it's coming here to the US as well and unlike evolution, it won't require billions of years before the Church here looks the same.
The evidence says otherwise. For example, vultures are all very similar. And yet, new world vultures and old world vultures are rather different in DNA. If you were right, they'd be very similar in DNA. It turns out that old world vultures are evolved from birds of prey, while the evidence indicates that new world vultures are most closely related to storks.
Evidence says nothing. I can't count how often this line is used. Like seeing a car with a flat tire off the side of the road and assuming it must only have run over a sharp object, when in reality it's just been very cold out and the tire has a slow leak because the rubber is cracked. How you and I interpret evidence is in support of our respective presuppositional world views. 'Similar'... 'dissimilar'... are also just subjective terms. A straightforward reading of the Bible paints no such picture of billions of years or evolution from bacteria. To believe it supports these ideas requires
first believing billions of years and evolution are absolutely true (not based upon evidence, but how you interpret the evidence), then reinterpreting what scripture means (contrary to what it says) to have the two line up. It is everyone's prerogative to do with scripture as they please. If you want to accept evolution and billions of years on the basis of what has been taught by man and make a life-long commitment to perform mental gymnastics of what God says when reading and interpreting the Bible then, please continue.
Separately, YEC's have no issue with life adapting to environments and developing similar characteristics suitable for that environment as is found with other species (I believe this idea is called 'convergent evolution' in secular science). AiG makes reference to old/new world vultures on their website:
An Initial Estimate of Avian Ark Kinds
You paint a very black-and-white picture of what YEC's accept/don't accept, yet it is in accordance with a plain understanding of God's word. I believe our world view and what we accept to be true has as much to do with how we philosophically view ourselves as anything else that contributes to our world view. I believe you and I were created in God's image and that God made man in His image in the beginning, as the Bible says. While I believe we are created beings, created creatures in fact, we are special and separate from all of His creation, as the Bible says. What science says is that man did not exist in the beginning (it was LUCA that existed in the beginning), we are not special, in fact we are just an evolved animal that looks and responds the way it does out of instinct and a rooted primeval drive to be the fittest. Is it no wonder then that we see people act and do some of the unconscionable things we hear about on the evening news, when after all they have been taught as children up through young adulthood, by science. If only they instead knew the plain, simple truth of the Bible and would believe...