If evolution is not true, what was the process of creation?

dms1972 said:

Neo-darwinianism is a chance process (time + chance + the impersonal),

Click to expand...

No. Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance. If you learn nothing else about Darwinian theory, learn that.

I think the version of evolution theory that is the closest fit for me would be Punctuated Equilibrium, not Darwinianism or Neo-Darwinianism.

Click to expand...

Gould, who with Eldredge formulated Punctuated Equilibrium, called himself an orthodox Darwinian. Darwin actually discussed the issue in his book, pointing out that a well-fitted population in a constant environment would evolve very little, if at all.

The question of a creator is not a scientific concern; science can neither support nor deny such a thing.

Fortunately, scientists can.

The Barbarian said:

No. It gives only the vaguest sort of outline of what happened, but doesn't say anything at all about the processes by which it happened. Yes, the earth did bring forth living things, but Genesis doesn't say how that process worked. That's not what Genesis is about.

Click to expand...

So, you want the 91,876,465,864,321,523 page really-tiny-print poster-size page version of Genesis. . . .

It doesn't matter how many details I give you, if you really want to deny God, I won't be able to stop you.

The Barbarian said:

Genetically, anatomically, biochemically, we are apes.

Click to expand...

LOL, ROFL!!!!!

Boy, someone is chugging the evolutionary Kool-Aid. I'll see if you stop to take a breath occasionally.

Saying we're genetically the same as a an ape is like my saying you're the same composition as a cow pie. After all, you and the Cow Pie are both made of electrons, protons, and neutrons . . . We and the great apes are differing by at least forty million nucleotides. That is a vast Chasm of difference.

You may be hung like a Gorilla, but I'm not. And I expect many here are not anatomically the same as an ape.

We are not even remotely the same biochemically. Don't believe me? Go arm-wrestle a Gorilla. Tell me how that turns out.

It's pretty simple - You can believe there is a God and he created us, or you can believe an Ape was you great ancestor and you are nothing but a creature of chance. You can place your faith in God or you can place your faith in Apes.

Roman 1:22 says it best. It's your choice. God will allow you to turn your back on him.

dms1972 said:

If you believe evolution is false, what then do you think or believe was the process of creation? Fair enough if you disagree with darwinian evolution, but think some other sort of theistic evolution process was involved, but if you don't agree with any kind of evolutionary theory how then did birds, animals, fish, humans, come into existence. I am asking about how God created these? Can that be found out by science?

Click to expand...

GOD CREATED -
While below the scripture passage (Ezekiel) is a metaphor I think it demonstrates Gods invisible qualities that can't be measured or studied by man.

The hand of the Lord was on me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. 2He led me back and forth among them, and I saw a great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very dry. 3He asked me, “Son of man, can these bones live?”

I said, “Sovereign Lord, you alone know.”

4Then he said to me, “Prophesy to these bones and say to them, ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! 5This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: I will make breatha enter you, and you will come to life. 6I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the Lord.’ ”

7So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.

9Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Come, breath, from the four winds and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’ ” 10So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army.
These events are accepted by faith.
Jesus, the head of the body of christ=>
Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
If you are "reading" about the beginning you are reading Genesis.

Paul, a true Apostle of Jesus Christ=>
The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.

dms1972 said:

Ok Thanks, I agree with your last couple of sentences. As regards the [time + chance + the impersonal) well that's what some people say (eg. Francis Schaeffer).

Click to expand...

If so, too bad for him. Natural selection is the antithesis of chance.

So you say Darwin's theory doesn't say that. Could you say more about Darwin's discovery that it was not by chance. I presume you mean natural selection.

Click to expand...

Yep.

Yet mutations are random, they can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful to an organism, they are not thought to be directed as far as I understand things.

Click to expand...

They aren't. Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels for showing this; it's why Lamarckism lost out to Darwinism. So if mutations are random, how is it that fitness increases in a population over time?
It's not surprising. A random process, modified by a non-random process, is a non-random process.

To miss this is to argue that a top salesman was just lucky to find people ready to buy. He had the same random sampling of people as everyone else. But what happened after he met them wasn't random.

Mutations are random

Click to expand...

Yep. But what happens to individuals with those mutations is not random. And that's Darwin's great discovery.

Barbarian observes:
Genetically, anatomically, biochemically, we are apes.

Boy, someone is chugging the evolutionary Kool-Aid.

Click to expand...

It's just a fact. Genetically, chimpanzees and humans are more closely related than either are related to other apes. As Huxley pointed out in a debate, there is no structure in chimps that is not found in humans, and vice versa. We are so biochemically similar that we share many viruses and diseases.

Saying we're genetically the same as a an ape is like my saying you're the same composition as a cow pie.

Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. As you now realize, humans and chimps are more closely related to each other genetically than either is to any other ape. And we know this works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

After all, you and the Cow Pie are both made of electrons, protons, and neutrons . . .

Click to expand...

But only chimps share with us so many genes and characteristics. And that's what matters.

We and the great apes are differing by at least forty million nucleotides.

Click to expand...

Which means about 92% to 98% similarity to humans, depending on the species, and how you measure it.

That is a vast Chasm of different.

Click to expand...

Mid to high 90s seems like a pretty close fit.

You may be hung like a Gorilla, but I'm not.

Click to expand...

Well, that's good for you. Gorillas, when aroused, average about 1.5 inches. I never measured, but I'm pretty sure I do better than that.

And I expect many here are not anatomically the same as an ape.

Click to expand...

Biggest differences are the brain and face, reworking of the muscles of the hip, structure your knees, and lower back. And humans exhibit paedomorphic growth; we look like immature apes. This means that our brains continue growing long after other apes have ceased to increase brain size.

We are not even remotely the same biochemically.

Click to expand...

You've been misled about that. Cytochrome C, for example, differs among organisms in many ways. Human and chimp cytochrome C is identical. There's lots more to learn about this. Would you like me to show you?

Don't believe me? Go arm-wrestle a Gorilla. Tell me how that turns out.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's a genetic difference. In humans, the myostatin gene makes us less strong than other apes. Rarely, a mutation resets the gene and even heterozygous humans are remarkably strong. There is one known case of a human born with both copies of the gene reset, and this kid is unbelievably strong.

"This boy continued to develop normally but with greatly enhanced strength. In fact, at the age of 4½ this child could hold two 3 kg dumbbells with arms straight out to the sides!"
The Man of Steel, Myostatin, and Super Strength

It's pretty simple - You can believe there is a God and he created us,

Click to expand...

Christians who accept evolution believe God created us. The only difference is, you don't approve of the way He did it.

or you can believe an Ape was you great ancestor

Click to expand...

We didn't evolve from chimps. Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor, from which we both diverged.

and you are nothing but a creature of chance.

Click to expand...

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance. But if you truly believe in God, you will agree that God can use contingency in His creation as easily as He can use necessity.

You can place your faith in God or you can place your faith in the man-made doctrine of YE creationism.

Roman 1:22 says it best. It's your choice. Fortunately for you, God will not send you to Hell for not believing the way He created life's diversity. It's not a salvation issue.

Randy777 said:

These events are accepted by faith.
Jesus, the head of the body of christ=>
Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
If you are "reading" about the beginning you are reading Genesis.

Click to expand...

Hmmm.... let's see what God says...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

So God lists what was there in the beginning, and neither male nor female were there. Jesus is speaking from the creation of mankind, not the initial creation of the universe.

The Barbarian said:

Hmmm.... let's see what God says...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

So God lists what was there in the beginning, and neither male nor female were there. Jesus is speaking from the creation of mankind, not the initial creation of the universe.

Click to expand...

Jesus said haven't you "read" at the beginning. Thats is Genesis that shows Gods hand was in every aspect of creation. God created man first then women out of the rib of the man.

There is nothing in scripture that speaks of God creating in steps over a long period of time. So teaching such to the church is without scriptural support.

I usually try to stay away from endless timeline debates. I guess I should have in this case.

Randy777 said:

Jesus said haven't you "read" at the beginning.

Click to expand...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

So God lists what was there in the beginning, and neither male nor female were there. Jesus is speaking from the creation of mankind, not the initial creation of the universe.

Thats is Genesis that shows Gods hand was in every aspect of creation.

Click to expand...

Even YE creationists will admit that much. They just don't like the way He did it.

God created man first then women out of the rib of the man.

Click to expand...

Jesus said they were both there at the beginning. For a Christian, it's not hard to understand. There's no contradiction; the rib story is a parable, not a literal historical event.

There is nothing in scripture that denies God creating in steps over a long period of time. So teaching otherwise is without scriptural support.

I usually try to stay away from endless timeline debates. I guess I should have in this case.

Click to expand...

Reflect on what you've learned. Maybe it was an important step for you.[/quote]

The Barbarian said:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

So God lists what was there in the beginning, and neither male nor female were there. Jesus is speaking from the creation of mankind, not the initial creation of the universe.



Even YE creationists will admit that much. They just don't like the way He did it.



Jesus said they were both there at the beginning. For a Christian, it's not hard to understand. There's no contradiction; the rib story is a parable, not a literal historical event.

There is nothing in scripture that denies God creating in steps over a long period of time. So teaching otherwise is without scriptural support.



Reflect on what you've learned. Maybe it was an important step for you.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]
Genesis 2:23 -doesn't read like a parable to me
Jesus said the creator made them male and female in the beginning. The man was there first as I read.

Randy777 said:

Genesis 2:23 -doesn't read like a parable to me

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. A plain reading of the text shows that it is, since a literal reading would be incompatible with Jesus' words.

Jesus said the creator made them male and female in the beginning. The man was there first as I read.

Click to expand...

If you adjust the meaning of "beginning" a little. But if you do that, then any interpretation is equally valid.

MartyF said:

LOL, ROFL!!!!!

Boy, someone is chugging the evolutionary Kool-Aid. I'll see if you stop to take a breath occasionally.

Saying we're genetically the same as a an ape is like my saying you're the same composition as a cow pie. After all, you and the Cow Pie are both made of electrons, protons, and neutrons . . . We and the great apes are differing by at least forty million nucleotides. That is a vast Chasm of difference.

You may be hung like a Gorilla, but I'm not. And I expect many here are not anatomically the same as an ape.

We are not even remotely the same biochemically. Don't believe me? Go arm-wrestle a Gorilla. Tell me how that turns out.

It's pretty simple - You can believe there is a God and he created us, or you can believe an Ape was you great ancestor and you are nothing but a creature of chance. You can place your faith in God or you can place your faith in Apes.

Roman 1:22 says it best. It's your choice. God will allow you to turn your back on him.

Click to expand...

Hi brother, I agree and something I had come across that shed some light on the DNA similarities for me was that a mutation of something like .00001% can result in the potentially deadly disease of sickle-cell anemia. So when we read that we have ~95% in common with chimps, at first blush this sounds very striking and compelling... until we understand how a very very small difference can result in death and how delicately fine-tuned our DNA really is, then the gap between humans and chimps really becomes about as far as the east is from the west.

For me, it is as equally compelling to understand that DNA should be similar for common function from a common Designer... so where a bird has eyes, we should find there are some similarities in the bird DNA as with our own DNA where eyes are coded.

God bless you for your faith brother!

NobleMouse said:

Hi brother, I agree and something I had come across that shed some light on the DNA similarities for me was that a mutation of something like .00001% can result in the potentially deadly disease of sickle-cell anemia. So when we read that we have ~95% in common with chimps, at first blush this sounds very striking and compelling...

Click to expand...

Yes. In fact, we can make a family tree of the primates, showing how they are descended:


And we know it works, because we can check it with the DNA of organisms of known descent. Would you like to learn how that owerks.

For me, it is as equally compelling to understand that DNA should be similar for common function from a common Designer...

Click to expand...

I'm sure you don't mean to insult God, but it's blasphemous to accuse Him of being a mere "designer." Design is what limited creatures do. He is the Creator. And as you see, even down to within a species, DNA affinity shows common descent. One of the remarkable things is, the first "family tree" of living things was discovered by Linnaeus, who wasn't even thinking of evolution. Only after Darwin and the discovery of the function of DNA, did it become clear why the family tree existed.

so where a bird has eyes, we should find there are some similarities in the bird DNA as with our own DNA where eyes are coded.

Click to expand...

Since eyes predated mammals and even vertebrates, that's not surprising genes for eyes should be similar in all metazoans, since very primitive animals have them.

Homobox genes show that even invertebrates are distantly related to mammals. Would you like to learn more about that?

Now, finding genes for feathers in mammals, that would be a real problem for evolution. But of course, that's not what we see.

The Barbarian said:

Yes. In fact, we can make a family tree of the primates, showing how they are descended:

And we know it works, because we can check it with the DNA of organisms of known descent. Would you like to learn how that owerks.



I'm sure you don't mean to insult God, but it's blasphemous to accuse Him of being a mere "designer." Design is what limited creatures do. He is the Creator. And as you see, even down to within a species, DNA affinity shows common descent. One of the remarkable things is, the first "family tree" of living things was discovered by Linnaeus, who wasn't even thinking of evolution. Only after Darwin and the discovery of the function of DNA, did it become clear why the family tree existed.



Since eyes predated mammals and even vertebrates, that's not surprising genes for eyes should be similar in all metazoans, since very primitive animals have them.

Homobox genes show that even invertebrates are distantly related to mammals. Would you like to learn more about that?

Now, finding genes for feathers in mammals, that would be a real problem for evolution. But of course, that's not what we see.

Click to expand...

Pete and Repeat are on a bridge and Pete jumps off. Who is left? We can go round and round with this brother, but you continue to repeat the same things over and over and it's not on the basis of anything ever witnessed (general revelation) and it's not anything ever affirmed in scripture (special revelation), so why on earth would I like to hear more of something never seen and contradicts what the Bible does affirm? The Bible affirms that creation occurred over 6 days by God. You and others here in the faith may feel compelled to try reading between the lines and reinterpreting what Genesis states so that it means something different, and I do not fault you for that. Neither, likewise, can you fault me for believing what scripture says and for believing that it means what it says.

Also, I did not blaspheme God - just because I didn't reference Him as the creator of life does not mean I don't believe it, I just didn't write it in the post. Look, you are a 70-yr old guy and you likely worked in a field of science your entire career and I thank you for your work and life of service there, and it's fine that your committed to that view. I'm thankful for your faith in God and that you've placed your faith and trust in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior so that we can both share in the assured hope of heaven.

General revelation (what we observe) can reveal truth and where God's word (special revelation) is silent, I can accept the possibility that general revelation is absolutely true - example: cells and the existence of DNA, genes, etc.... Where I am skeptical is when special revelation positively affirms a truth (creation in six 6 days with God resting on the 7th day - see Exodus 20:11) and a concept that is found nowhere in scripture contradicts this truth - such as a progressive development of life over billions of years.

Best regards and good evening brother -

NobleMouse said:

Pete and Repeat are on a bridge and Pete jumps off. Who is left? We can go round and round with this brother, but you continue to repeat the same things over and over

Click to expand...

The truth doesn't change. I'm just reminding you of the facts.

and it's not on the basis of anything ever witnessed

Click to expand...

As you know, Darwinian evolution is directly observed to happen. Can't do better than that.

so why on earth would I like to hear more of something never seen and contradicts what the Bible does affirm?

Click to expand...

As you have seen, evolution is completely consistent with God's word.

The Bible affirms that creation occurred over 6 days by God.

Click to expand...

That's was never Christian orthodoxy. Most Christians accept that the "yom" (not days) were parables. YE beliefs are a modern reinterpretation of Genesis. The consensus before the 20th century was for an old Earth and the creation week as a parable.

I can't fault you for not accepting Genesis as it is, regarding your new doctrine. It's not a salvation issue, so if you don't approve of the way He created things, it won't cost you your soul.

Also, I did not blaspheme God

Click to expand...

You may not have intended to do so. But that's what demoting him to "designer" does.

[quote[Best regards and good evening brother -[/QUOTE]

And to you, too. May God bless and keep you.

The Barbarian said:

There is nothing in scripture that denies God creating in steps over a long period of time. So teaching otherwise is without scriptural support.

Click to expand...

As long as the Bible is interpreted in a specific way.

Resha Caner said:

As long as the Bible is interpreted in a specific way.

Click to expand...

That tends to proceed in both directions as the Genesis account is quite open to interpretation. I think much of the problem has to do with our ossified biases from our early instruction....

As St. Augustine observed, there is much in Genesis that is open to interpretation among Christians. He also noted that we should be willing to give up those personal interpretations when later knowledge shows them to be false.

Jamsie said:

That tends to proceed in both directions as the Genesis account is quite open to interpretation. I think much of the problem has to do with our ossified biases from our early instruction....

Click to expand...

Hmm. I guess I'm not so quick to dismiss thousands of years of Church tradition as mere ossification. It wasn't me who first received those words from God, and there were a lot of smart dudes back then.

The Barbarian said:

As St. Augustine observed, there is much in Genesis that is open to interpretation among Christians. He also noted that we should be willing to give up those personal interpretations when later knowledge shows them to be false.

Click to expand...

Aye, there's the rub. When statements contradict, how does one determine which is true?