This is a little weird, but if Evolution is true,, shouldn't it be evolving simultaneously?

Jamdoc said:

"With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Men are limited on how far we can crossbreed and reproduce what is called microevolution, evolution within a species.
God does not have those limits. God would be able to full on transition into macroevolution without limitation.

Click to expand...

I dare say He could and might well do, certainly many components are used across kinds of animals, and certainly there is the phenomenon called that is called "convergent evolution" which might seemingly demand this sort of intelligent intervention. But all of this would not be macro evolution, rather it would be design development where the manufacturer of life is developing creation as an artist develops a painting. He may well know the outcome He is looking for but enjoys the journey as much as the destination.

Let me ask you this, why is it that God either has to create things through magic completely separate from science, or it has to be spontaneous natural process with no beginning or intelligent design?
God didn't poof the bible into existence, He gave men revelation and they wrote it.
Why can't the God who designed all natural laws who designed the genetic code, utilize natural processes (that would probably not happen on their own spontaneously) that He designed himself, to get the results He desires?

Click to expand...

I don't believe that it is like this. But I do believe that one way or another the truth about the nature of Creation is revealed in the first chapters of Genesis.

God could have created the perfect world free of sin if He'd wanted. This creation was "very good" but it was not perfect. Instead He let it fall to sin, so that He could save it and remake it perfect in the end. Because while this is not the best world, maybe to God, this is the best way to the best world.
Remember. Men did not create any scientific laws. We only discover and observe them.
God created them. God is the ultimate scientist. He knows everything. Natural laws that we don't have any idea about. God not only knows them, He made them in the first place.

Click to expand...

Agreed!

Have you ever been to a graduate level biology seminar? If you don't have an undergraduate level degree in a biological science, you can't even begin to grasp what they're discussing. The language is complete gibberish to you. When it comes to disseminating that information to the general public they have to step it down to a level we can understand, which ends up making what they're talking about seem overly simplistic and may even border on "magic" to us.

Click to expand...

On the other hand:
“You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”

― Albert Einstein

Now think ancient men. ancient, primitive, fallible, ignorant men, and God trying to explain creation to us. Do you think He'd give us the technical jargon that we have no hopes of understanding? Do you think He'd give us a step by step recipe for how He created an entire universe? How He created us? His degree in every science makes Einstein look like an ignorant moron. Anything He said would be gibberish to us. So He stepped it down to our level that we could understand it. HOW He did it becomes inconsequential. What's important to know is that He did it, and that he told us He did it, why He did it, and He told us in ways we could understand. If a child asks their father "why is the sky blue" he doesn't tell us about dust and Rayleigh scattering and light wavelengths being interpreted by our brains to have different perceived colors. He gives a simpler explanation. When we children ask our Father how or why, He gives us a simpler explanation we can understand, only the important stuff we need to know. The rest we'll discover as we learn, and we'll only know the full truth when we're really ready to step up past the undergraduate degree of life.

Click to expand...

These same men had an understanding of things that gave us Pi to an astounding accuracy well before the men credited with its discovery were even born The Value of Pi: Hidden Codes in the Bible: – Chuck Missler – Koinonia House , these men also gave us a length of the lunar month that has only been exceeded in accuracy in the modern satellite age The Biblical Lunar Calendar, and these men have passed down an account of creation that, quite uniquely in ancient creation accounts, shows us an order of events that tallies very well with the observational evidence Age of the Universe

I really don't think the ancients were as dense as we make them out to be, rather they were told to record things in the manner they were for the same reason that Yeshua spoke in parables, so that the arrogant and impure among us, who lack understanding would fail to see the story for what it is: A true account of the Creation of the Heavens and the Earth.

Brightmoon said:

. Here! View attachment 265674
Enjoy

Click to expand...

classic 8th grade science

Jamdoc said:

Not necessarily. There are many laws in nature and they only back up God, they do not detract from God. Who made the rules in the first place?
Genetic code is real, and is the cause of heredity, but who designed the code?

Click to expand...

I meant to imply theistic evolution (I could have been more explicit). However, if atheistic evolution is true then the creation account would be a myth.

Anguspure said:

I dare say He could and might well do, certainly many components are used across kinds of animals, and certainly there is the phenomenon called that is called "convergent evolution" which might seemingly demand this sort of intelligent intervention. But all of this would not be macro evolution, rather it would be design development where the manufacturer of life is developing creation as an artist develops a painting. He may well know the outcome He is looking for but enjoys the journey as much as the destination.

I don't believe that it is like this. But I do believe that one way or another the truth about the nature of Creation is revealed in the first chapters of Genesis.

Click to expand...

It is, but Genesis is not meant to be the literal "how to make a universe in 7 days" cookbook. When it describes God making Adam from dirt, it doesn't have to be scooping up a handful of dirt and poofing it into a man. We're all made of the same elements that comprise the crust of the Earth. That even agrees with every naturalist evolutionist that doesn't even believe in God, the Carl Sagan "we're all made of star stuff". Yeah Genesis and natural science agree, we're made of dirt. Just Young Earth literal Genesis creationists and athiest scientists disagree on the process that made dirt into a human being. One poofs it into existence, the other has it spontaneously start a process that over billions of years becomes a man.
I believe in theistic evolution, and I don't think that detracts from God's glory in the slightest, for the same reason that God didn't create a perfect Earth at the very start but allowed a long sad but glorious story with the best ending play out, for the same reason that God didn't poof the bible into existence already written in every language that is, was, and will ever be into the hands of every person the day they're born. He can, but His plan has involved something else. The further you go into the inner workings of life, the more evident that intelligent design is involved. Science discovers God if you don't let it turn you away from Him.

On the other hand:
“You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”

― Albert Einstein

Click to expand...

Albert Einstein was smart, but not infallible, there's some element of truth to what he said but when it comes to upper levels of very technical subjects you need a level of education on the subject just to even begin to learn the subject. They could probably explain it to us but it'd take months or even years to go through it and they have an hour seminar. God could easily explain to us how he did things step by step, the problem is we'd have died by the time we understood it.

These same men had an understanding of things that gave us Pi to an astounding accuracy well before the men credited with its discovery were even born The Value of Pi: Hidden Codes in the Bible: – Chuck Missler – Koinonia House , these men also gave us a length of the lunar month that has only been exceeded in accuracy in the modern satellite age The Biblical Lunar Calendar, and these men have passed down an account of creation that, quite uniquely in ancient creation accounts, shows us an order of events that tallies very well with the observational evidence Age of the Universe

I really don't think the ancients were as dense as we make them out to be, rather they were told to record things in the manner they were for the same reason that Yeshua spoke in parables, so that the arrogant and impure among us, who lack understanding would fail to see the story for what it is: A true account of the Creation of the Heavens and the Earth.

Click to expand...

We're observing light that took longer than 6000 years to reach us.

Jamdoc said:

God can do the same thing without physically doing anything and to a scale where it not only creates new "breeds" or "strains" of a species but entirely new species, because not only can God bring breeding pairs together with the traits he wants, but he can also reshape the very environment to create a niche for them to survive in, and geographically isolate them to speed up the creation of a new species. It's all planned out.

Click to expand...

I always find these theories that have God added to them when they do not need it somewhat peculiar. It is like saying with the God`s blessing and scuba gear I can dive to the bottom of the lake. Try that with just God`s blessing and it does not work out. Try that with just the scuba gear and it will work out. So which is the vital component here ?

Jamdoc said:

Science discovers God if you don't let it turn you away from Him.

Click to expand...

Can't argue with that! Creation itself tells us about YHWH.

Albert Einstein was smart, but not infallible, there's some element of truth to what he said but when it comes to upper levels of very technical subjects you need a level of education on the subject just to even begin to learn the subject. They could probably explain it to us but it'd take months or even years to go through it and they have an hour seminar. God could easily explain to us how he did things step by step, the problem is we'd have died by the time we understood it.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't dream of thinking that I had anything more than a cursory understanding of cosmology, wouldn't have a clue what I am reading in the scholarly publications put forward at the higher levels, and yet Stephen Hawkings, for example, made the field accessible and understandable in the books that he wrote.
God could have explained things but instead He has given us the resources and the intelligence to work it out for ourselves. But also the intention of the written work is, as you have already observed, not to be a scientific technical manual, rather the works are primarily an explanation of our relationship to Him for the purpose of our salvation from death.

We're observing light that took longer than 6000 years to reach us.

Click to expand...

Did you read the article written by Dr. Gerald Schroeder ? It addresses this observation: Age of the Universe

Jonathan Walkerin said:

I always find these theories that have God added to them when they do not need it somewhat peculiar. It is like saying with the God`s blessing and scuba gear I can dive to the bottom of the lake. Try that with just God`s blessing and it does not work out. Try that with just the scuba gear and it will work out. So which is the vital component here ?

Click to expand...

Good design.

Jonathan Walkerin said:

I always find these theories that have God added to them when they do not need it somewhat peculiar. It is like saying with the God`s blessing and scuba gear I can dive to the bottom of the lake. Try that with just God`s blessing and it does not work out. Try that with just the scuba gear and it will work out. So which is the vital component here ?

Click to expand...

"when they do not need it"
God is needed though, macroevolution cannot be demonstrated the way we can demonstrate microevolution. Microevolution that we can do over generations creating breeds or strains within the same species is to a point a "proof of concept" that yes, the Genetic code does work and we can select for desirable genetics. We cannot however, create a new species in that way, the time tables become geologic in scale, and the ultimate source of genetic diversity, becomes a problem. Random mutations by errors in transcription and translation of DNA do happen, radiation damage does happen, yes, but you need them to happen in germ line cells, they need to not be deleterious, and if they are junk alleles that don't code for a protein, IE your recessive genes like blue eyes that do not code for a functional melanin protein, you need 2 copies of them, so the SAME mutation has to happen in multiple people.
We're stacking infinitesimally small chances on infinitesimally small chances, and eventually the odds reach the same odds as the odds you can empirically prove God's existence.
At that point you think about what you believe in, and just have faith.
I believe in God, but I understand how genetics works and have background in genetics and molecular biology, so I understand that evolution is just molecular biology applied. Theistic evolution feels right where poofing things into existence and leaving evidence just to "trick us" feels wrong, and random infinitesimal chances coincidentally happening enough times for it to happen on its own without a Creator or Intelligent Design also feels wrong. It reconciles evidence on all sides, and does not have contradictions.

Anguspure said:

Can't argue with that! Creation itself tells us about YHWH.


I wouldn't dream of thinking that I had anything more than a cursory understanding of cosmology, wouldn't have a clue what I am reading in the scholarly publications put forward at the higher levels, and yet Stephen Hawkings, for example, made the field accessible and understandable in the books that he wrote.
God could have explained things but instead He has given us the resources and the intelligence to work it out for ourselves. But also the intention of the written work is, as you have already observed, not to be a scientific technical manual, rather the works are primarily an explanation of our relationship to Him for the purpose of our salvation from death.

Click to expand...

What you get from Hawking's books gives you a layman understanding of cosmology, similar to the way God gave ancient men a layman's explanation of creation, without the specifics. When some people read Genesis they read that God basically picked up some dirt, breathed on it, and it became Adam. When I read Genesis, I see it as meaning that God made all life, including Adam, from the same elements that compose the earth. Even Athiests know there is more to the origins of life than just some organic compounds in a primordial soup. There's always a "spark" that gets the reactions needed to start, that "breath of life" as the bible puts it. They see God's handiwork, but don't recognize it as God doing it. In a non theistic evolutionary view, why is all life highly conserved genetically if we did not come from the same origin, how come there's not random occurrences of life having sprung up in multiple locations on the planet independently of each other and why are we not having new life spontaneously forming from organic chemicals in the sea today? Why was it a one time thing and then never again? We never just randomly come across a new bacteria that is wildly different from anything we've ever encountered before that just sprang up out of nowhere and has radically different genetic code than what we've seen before the way we would if life can just spontaneously arise in the right conditions.

Speaking of Genesis telling us a little about creation but not really a technical manual of the exact hows... ever notice how Eve was not poofed into existence but the bible describes God putting Adam under anesthesia, OPERATING on him, and using a body part from him as a source of DNA and stem cells (from the bone marrow in the rib) to create Eve? When you have some knowledge of science things like that stand out to me, it just makes SENSE after some education as to why God would take a rib if he could create a person just from a handful of dirt. It's just much faster to find a source of stem cells and create a person from that than to restart an entire new chain of organisms from raw elements a second time. It just clicks for me. you learn about pluripotent stem cells and revelation! "THAT'S WHY THE RIB!"

Genesis 2:21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Click to expand...

To me, that sounds like how God would describe anesthesia and surgery to an ancient person so they'd be able to understand the basic concept even if they didn't fully get it.

Did you read the article written by Dr. Gerald Schroeder ? It addresses this observation: Age of the Universe

Click to expand...

Not yet, but I'll give it a read.

Jamdoc said:

I believe in God, but I understand how genetics works and have background in genetics and molecular biology, so I understand that evolution is just molecular biology applied. Theistic evolution feels right where poofing things into existence and leaving evidence just to "trick us" feels wrong, and random infinitesimal chances coincidentally happening enough times for it to happen on its own without a Creator or Intelligent Design also feels wrong.

Click to expand...

You remind me of Kurt Wise

Kurt Wise - Wikipedia

TLDR version

Later, as a sophomore in high school, he took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and cut out every verse which could not be interpreted literally if scientific determinations on the age of the earth and evolution were true. He pursued this task with a flashlight under the covers of his bed for several months; at the end, he had removed so much material that "with the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two."[8] Wise decided to reject evolution instead of Biblical literalism, deciding:

...that the rejection of evolution does not necessarily involve the rejection of all of science. In fact, I have come to learn that science owes its very existence and rationale to the claims of Scripture. On the other hand, I have also learned that evolution is not the only claim of modern science which must be rejected if Scripture is assumed to be true.[8]

Biologist and popular atheist author Richard Dawkins called Wise a truly honest creationist because he is willing to accept creationism even if he admitted "all the evidence in the universe" was against it.[9] Dawkins, referring to Wise's testimony, criticized what he perceived as intellectual dishonesty:

Kurt Wise doesn't need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless... We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism's most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.[9]

Jonathan Walkerin said:

You remind me of Kurt Wise

Kurt Wise - Wikipedia

TLDR version

Later, as a sophomore in high school, he took a newly purchased Bible and a pair of scissors and cut out every verse which could not be interpreted literally if scientific determinations on the age of the earth and evolution were true. He pursued this task with a flashlight under the covers of his bed for several months; at the end, he had removed so much material that "with the cover of the Bible taken off, I attempted to physically lift the Bible from the bed between two fingers. Yet, try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two."[8] Wise decided to reject evolution instead of Biblical literalism, deciding:

...that the rejection of evolution does not necessarily involve the rejection of all of science. In fact, I have come to learn that science owes its very existence and rationale to the claims of Scripture. On the other hand, I have also learned that evolution is not the only claim of modern science which must be rejected if Scripture is assumed to be true.[8]

Biologist and popular atheist author Richard Dawkins called Wise a truly honest creationist because he is willing to accept creationism even if he admitted "all the evidence in the universe" was against it.[9] Dawkins, referring to Wise's testimony, criticized what he perceived as intellectual dishonesty:

Kurt Wise doesn't need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless... We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism's most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.[9]

Click to expand...

My point is I don't take the exact phrasing of things like Genesis to be intended to be a step by step, word for word cookbook on how the universe was created. As I have pointed out, what God revealed was like a father telling a child an answer to a question that would be too complex for the child to understand... a simplier explanation that they could understand that at least gives them the really important parts that could be understood.
as I pointed out to someone else, Genesis saying God created Adam from dirt (from the earth) doesn't necessarily mean he just scooped up some dirt and breathed on it and it became a man. But what I gather from the verse on the creation of Adam is that man is created from the same elements as the Earth. There's nothing in our physical bodies that does not come from Earth.

Jamdoc said:

There's nothing in our physical bodies that does not come from Earth.

Click to expand...

Right, almost like we evolved here.....

miggles said:

i often wonder what adam and eve looked like. did they look like neatderthals?

Click to expand...

Neanderthals are a human subspecies native to Northern Europe. Adam and Eve likely came from the Mesopotamian region, I doubt they had Neanderthal blood. In fact it could be argues that humans have de-evolved due to their interbreeding with other human subspecies.

Jonathan Walkerin said:

Right, almost like we evolved here.....

Click to expand...

You state that you're catholic, I'm confused, are you arguing for theistic evolution which I am on the same point of view, or atheist?

Jamdoc said:

Not necessarily, depends on if those monstrosities were capable of surviving long enough to breed and pass down their genes. That's what drives the entire process. Breeding. A theistic evolutionary point of view of it is God steers the breeding. Think about it. Man can take plants, dogs, or whatever other species, and chooses traits he likes and then intensely breeds organisms with those desired traits until the genes responsible for those traits do what geneticists call "moving to fixation" IE they get to where 100% of the surviving population has them. In Russia they selectively bred silver foxes for tameness and within 50 years they had made Domesticated foxes that barked like domesticated dogs and loved people God can do the same thing without physically doing anything and to a scale where it not only creates new "breeds" or "strains" of a species but entirely new species, because not only can God bring breeding pairs together with the traits he wants, but he can also reshape the very environment to create a niche for them to survive in, and geographically isolate them to speed up the creation of a new species. It's all planned out.

Click to expand...

It still seems ludicrous that "evolution" would not look like the Star Wars set if true.

Dave L said:

It still seems ludicrous that "evolution" would not look like the Star Wars set if true.

Click to expand...

Frankly I think even the Star Wars set thinking is exceedingly optimistic for a mechanism that has never created anything new.

Jamdoc said:

Speaking of Genesis telling us a little about creation but not really a technical manual of the exact hows... ever notice how Eve was not poofed into existence but the bible describes God putting Adam under anesthesia, OPERATING on him, and using a body part from him as a source of DNA and stem cells (from the bone marrow in the rib) to create Eve? When you have some knowledge of science things like that stand out to me, it just makes SENSE after some education as to why God would take a rib if he could create a person just from a handful of dirt. It's just much faster to find a source of stem cells and create a person from that than to restart an entire new chain of organisms from raw elements a second time. It just clicks for me. you learn about pluripotent stem cells and revelation! "THAT'S WHY THE RIB!"


To me, that sounds like how God would describe anesthesia and surgery to an ancient person so they'd be able to understand the basic concept even if they didn't fully get it.

Click to expand...

You may be right about this, I am reminded of Clarke's first law: Any sufficiently advance technology is indistinguishable from magic.

But it is interesting that on the days of creation God spoke things into existence. Prior to the consideration of physics at a subatomic level, who would have thought this was really possible? (except perhaps the writer of Hebrews who wrote: By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible), and yet now it is a hypothesis of string theory that matter is a vibration on loops of energy. What Every Layperson Should Know About String Theory

I really don't think "poofed into existence" quite describes what might be happening here but it might appear to be so to those of us unable to appraise what is happening adequately.

DamianWarS said:

I meant to imply theistic evolution (I could have been more explicit). However, if atheistic evolution is true then the creation account would be a myth.

Click to expand...

science doesn’t use beliefs . Supernatural causation isn’t testable so all science is “ atheistic “ as you call it. Some of us who accept evolution also accept deities. ( not everyone who’s a believer is a Christian ) . What you’re describing as “atheist science” is philosophical naturalism not science.

Dave L said:

It still seems ludicrous that "evolution" would not look like the Star Wars set if true.

Click to expand...

We do have some funky creatures out there like spiders, crabs, snakes, etc. We just don't see them as weird because they're "normal" we already know about them, you look at star wars aliens and think "weird" because they're not something you've accepted as part of the real world and are used to. That's all.
One of my arguments for theistic evolution is that there are some creatures that have survived despite all common sense saying there's no way they should be surviving, like sloths. They're too slow to escape predation, you'd think they'd all be wiped out. How did something so slow find an ecological niche where they survive? Through God is how. Yet through DNA you can trace back how closely related they are to other animals and you can find families they belong to (or "kinds" as the bible terms it). Nature in this fallen world is cruel, and God is kind.

Anguspure said:

You may be right about this, I am reminded of Clarke's first law: Any sufficiently advance technology is indistinguishable from magic.

But it is interesting that on the days of creation God spoke things into existence. Prior to the consideration of physics at a subatomic level, who would have thought this was really possible? (except perhaps the writer of Hebrews who wrote: By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible), and yet now it is a hypothesis of string theory that matter is a vibration on loops of energy. What Every Layperson Should Know About String Theory

I really don't think "poofed into existence" quite describes what might be happening here but it might appear to be so to those of us unable to appraise what is happening adequately.

Click to expand...

See, and you may not like this answer but it was also part of the article linked on the age of the universe and it supposes the first 5 days of creation aren't the same 24 hour periods that we perceive in our time, I see the first few chapters of Genesis as explanations for children in a way they understand, and really the semantics and time are just not important for us to know. A day, a billion years? All the same to someone who exists independent of time and lives forever.
There is 3 ways you can go about looking at the dilemma.
1. Literal Genesis, young earth creation, 6 24 hour periods, poofing things into existence, which presents problems where you find evidence contrary that you have to just pretend doesn't exist or think that it was created to deceive us, but creating evidence specifically to deceive (and I don't think God gave Satan the power to create) would be lying, and God cannot lie. So God creating light coming from stars billions of light years away reaching us now to deceive us into disbelieving in him? No no no. God does not deceive, trick, or lie. It also differs from the fact that God used men over many many generations to write the bible rather than just speaking it into existence. It's his Word, the most important thing, and he trusts the hands of men to write it down to pass on? Two things slow processes (the second being the creation of the new heaven and earth), everything else instantaneously?
2. Genesis is parable/not meant to be a literal step by step explanation, it's simplified for children just to get us to the more important stuff. This allows everything we discover about God's creation to hold true to our own observations, while still giving the universe an ultimate causation, and God doing things through slower processes is consistent in how the bible was made, is consistent for why didn't he just speak a perfect creation into being, and why God is revealed through nature, because he is a natural God that does things through natural laws. He could do things instantly, but some things he certainly hasn't done instantly, which leads me to believe that instant isn't his plan.
3. Genesis isn't real and you don't believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at all. Obviously the worst way to go. The first two are just differing interpretations of the Word and having different opinions on the semantics of it, but we both believe the most important things, that God is the root of all creation, that he created us, that we failed him, and that he loves us anyway and offers us a route to salvation. The third.. there's no faith at all there, or it's faith in a lie. You'd either believe the Universe has no cause, that it just spontaneously happened for no reason, or you believe in some other religion like an eastern religion or paganism or whatever

Brightmoon said:

science doesn’t use beliefs . Supernatural causation isn’t testable so all science is “ atheistic “ as you call it. Some of us who accept evolution also accept deities. ( not everyone who’s a believer is a Christian ) . What you’re describing as “atheist science” is philosophical naturalism not science.

Click to expand...

I was contrasting theistic evolution. I'm not sure what you mean by "believer" but I'm more familiar with it in relation to Christ.