A simple question

[depthdeception]

Accurate information isn’t even the issue, for me, before I even entertain accuracy, information must be plausible. You see the whole idea of someone telling me that man and all the animals on earth “evolved” out of some sort of primordial soup is just not plausible. There just isn’t anything other than theories and wild speculation that comes close to backing that up. So yes, I won’t devote the time required to fully understand something that isn’t either scriptural or plausible.

I have a question: Why is the idea of a supra-natural being creating everything instantaneously any more plausible than evolution? In all actuality, evolution is a more plausible suggestion because it does not depend--in the same way--upon an unverifiable belief in the supra-natural. This is, of course, unless your definition of plausibility is different from that which is normally accepted.

This “truth” or “knowledge” of which you speak that is called evolution is so anti-biblical to me that I can’t give it serious thought. Why should I, or for that matter any other Christian, spend large amounts of time learning a process that clearly goes against the Word of God and beyond that makes absolutely no sense. The thought of devoting the enormous amount of time required to fully understand all that there is to understand is IMO not time well spent.

You and I and all of us should give it serious consideration because it directly coincides with our observation and experience of the universe in which we live. Besides, the "contradiction" which you feel exists between evolution and the Scriptures is based upon a belief that the Genesis accounts are meant to be taken as a scientific explanation of what occurred before humanity was even created to observe it. If this is not a presupposition which determines one's interpretation, then the contradiction suddenly disappears and one is able to fully--and harmoniously--reconcile one's observation of the universe with the Scriptures.

So if you or any other evolutionist out there wants to show me how it is plausible for evolution to occur all you have to do is give an explanation that can in a logical and plausible way demonstrate how an animal can gain information within it’s genetic makeup to change itself into something it wasn’t before.

There is no explanation needed. Look around at the world in which we live. The truth of evolution is self-revealing, and one need only look closely to realize the truth.

Concerning the "genetic" issue, on what basis is the belief that genetic makeup cannot change itself based?

Example: Go from a fish to reptile or fish into a mammal etc. If you can do this the plausibility of evolution has merit. Until someone can do that I will continue to dismiss it as foolishness.

I'm sure glaudy's can point to some very helpful articles. I am away from my office right now, so I do not have the one's I would suggest handy.

It’s interesting that you state we owe our existence to a process. Could you please show me, biblically, how and where that can be reconciled?
Please show me biblically how you support our bodies being formed via a process over time.

The Scriptures are silent on this issue, just as they are silent on 99% of our understanding of our knowledge of the natural world. The Scriptures do not speak of gravity or general relativity, or quantum physics. However, this does not mean that such concepts and principles are anti-Scriptural.

I’d especially like you to help me understand how we humans evolved into what we are today without going from a simpler form to the complex form we presently are today.

My area is the philosophy of the issue. Glaudy's I'm sure can provide you with terrific information on this question.

 

[depthdeception]

Well, that was a resolved answer if I ever saw one. In other words, you have no idea what it is about. "most likely." "probably"

I do not see how saying "absolutely" or "for sure" would make my statement--or anyone else's--more resolved than not. Just arrogantly affirming a belief does not add to its veracity.

[/quote]
In case you're wondering. The poster asked why people die in that world.
[/quote]

And I answered the question by attempting to show that the question was misdirected. However, I did include a "positive" submission with my response (just for you, Genez!)

Now, mind telling us why men will die during the Millennium?

I don't believe there is a "Millenium." And even if there is, humans will die because that's what humans do.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Jesus is going to rule with an iron scepter. Evil will not be tolerated. That means false teachers for that matter. Like I said. It will be perfect environment for all but those who desire evil. Only perfect teaching!

Oh how I long for that day! No more debates, no more argueing, no more fighting. Jesus Christ ruleing with supreme truth and everybody knowing what that truth is. Now that is something to look forward to, AMEN?

Revelation 22:20, He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

 

[gluadys]

I apologize for high-jacking your response to genez, but the dialog intrigued me and since you didn’t respond to my last post I thought I might try again.

I take it you wrote this before you read post 371 where I belatedly answered your post. Just missed seeing it before.

Accurate information isn’t even the issue, for me, before I even entertain accuracy, information must be plausible.

But the only way to decide if the information is plausible is to examine the evidence. So you have your methodology backwards about. Examine the evidence first---then decide if it is plausible.

Why should I, or for that matter any other Christian, spend large amounts of time learning a process that clearly goes against the Word of God and beyond that makes absolutely no sense.

Can truth be against the Word of God? Never.
So again your methodology is backwards about.
The first issue to be resolved is this: is evolution true? does it happen?
If the answers to these questions are "Yes" (and they are), then they cannot be in opposition to the Word of God, because truth IS the Word of God.

Hence what you think is "clearly" the Word of God is not. It is a misinterpretation of the Word of God. The actual Word of God cannot go against the truth. So you need to be able to loosen yourself from your false interpretation and find the interpretation that does not go against the truth.

So if you or any other evolutionist out there wants to show me how it is plausible for evolution to occur all you have to do is give an explanation that can in a logical and plausible way demonstrate how an animal can gain information within it’s genetic makeup to change itself into something it wasn’t before. Example: Go from a fish to reptile or fish into a mammal etc. If you can do this the plausibility of evolution has merit. Until someone can do that I will continue to dismiss it as foolishness.

First, the genetic information business is a creationist red herring. Unless and until there is a consistent definition of information in terms of biology, it is a meaningless criterion.

The only thing that comes close to "information" in the genome are the base nucleotides of DNA. In terms of the base nucleotides what would be a demonstration of gaining genetic information?

A somewhat higher level of information is that of the coding triplets of mRNA and tRNA which determine the sequence of amino acids in peptides and the folding of peptides into proteins. In terms of these coding triplets, what would be a demonstration of gaining genetic information?

The expression of genes and protein products into variable traits is so complex any search for a gain in information is formidable. We see it now and again when there is a fairly direct line from mutation, to protein change to variation as in the nylon bug. But most of the time the effect, if any, of particular mutations is invisible and/or so heavily influenced by other factors as to be bewildering.

However, the broad lines of vertebrate evolution have been well-mapped and I am sure the path from fish to amphibian via the stem tetrapods has been pointed out to you before, as has the transition from reptile to mammal via the therapsids. In terms of fossil evidence, this is one of the best documented transitions in paleontology with very few gaps.

So I have to conclude that you have decided not to look at this evidence, or that you have somehow failed to make a connection from this evidence to natural selection, or that you do not understand paleontological evidence, or that you don't grasp cladistics, or that you are expecting evidence science does not claim to provide, or ....?

I would need to know why the evidence readily available at such sites as the Tree of Life Project is unsatisfactory to you.

It’s interesting that you state we owe our existence to a process.

Does the bible not say we were created? Does it not say that we and other creatures were formed from the earth? Does it not say vegetation, sea creatures, birds and animals were brought forth by the earth and the waters? Creation, formation, bringing forth are all processes. But the bible does not describe these processes in detail. Evolution is a scientific description of the process of creation as it applies to the formation of species.

Just for my own clarification if nothing else, you claim that apes are our ancestors? [/quotes]

Since we are apes, yes. We are human because our ancestors were human. We are apes because humans are apes so our ancestors were apes. We are primates because apes are primates so our ancestors were primates. We are mammals because primates are mammals, so our ancestors were mammals. We are amniotes because mammals are amniotes so our ancestors were amniotes. We are vertebrates because amniotes are vertebrates, so our ancestors were vertebrates. We are animals because vertebrates are animals, so our ancestors were animals. And we are eukaryotes because animals are eukaryotes, so our ancestors were eukaryotes.

The bible refers to this as reproducing after their kind. We are all that our ancestors ever were.

My understanding of evolution is just the bolded ones.

I’d especially like you to help me understand how we humans evolved into what we are today without going from a simpler form to the complex form we presently are today.

Thank you very much!

Oh there was complexification in our lineage for sure. But also sometimes simplification. My point was that many creationists mistakenly think that evolution must always be in the direction of more complexity. That is not the case. Where simplification is beneficial, natural selection will favour simplification. Evolution is not set in one direction only.

When evolution is equated only with more complexity, examples of evolution which do not involve increased complexity are overlooked or discounted. Or treated as "devolution" -- a word that has no meaning in nature, only in the strawman caricature which is promoted as "evolution" in creationist teachings.

 

[GenemZ]

I've seen it before. I don't know why you refer me to it. Do you know the wording of what they were signing?

Did you read the whole article? There are no missing links yet found.

I look for some indication that a person is curious and willing to learn. If someone tells me that I am mistaken about something, it piques my curiosity. I want to know what I have wrong, and what the correct information is

It apears more like, you want to see if what is offered as a correction appeals to you and your self image. Jesus said that the truth will not provide that. That we first must become nothing in ourselves if we are to know him. We must take up our cross and deny self (self image... self importance) in order to follow him. For what he is will smash the icons we worship in the natural. His thinking will force us to drop our personal preferences in perceiving the world as the world likes to. But, that's another story.

Most creationists, even when told many times that they do not understand evolution, do not show any curiosity. They are not interested in learning about evolution. They want to cling to their strawman version.

And, most creationists do the same thing when shown the GAP understanding in creation. Close minded men are to be found everywhere. God is able to even saved the close minded and stupid,,, as well as the brilliant,, and genius. But, what these souls do after salvation is not guaranteed. Many return to their old way of thinking as they try to apply Biblical truth. They seek what pleases them in their natural frame of reference, and find sound teaching distasteful.

2 Timothy 4:3 niv
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

Until now, you have followed this pattern of behaviour. But since you now speak of education, I'll go a little further with you.

Do you know how condenscending that sounds to my ears? To me, you are the one who knows nothing as she should concerning creation. But, there you sit telling me how secular reasoning has the truth, and not the Bible.

One of the errors many creationists make about evolution is that it is about origins in general. It is not. Evolution has no connection with the creation of heaven and earth.

You are posting to images in your mind. I never made that an issue. And, the very nature of what I have been telling you does not even bother with that issue. You sound like a person who grew up in a strict legalistic Christian home, and is now out to correct all believers , because you see all believers as being the same when you communicate with them. You assume to know what they think. You assume to know their points of ignorance. You just don't really know. Many of your posts make me sit back and wonder who it is you are talking to. Me? I do not think like that? But, you just move forward unhampered in your thinking... Sure of what you are dealing with. Sure that you know what it is I think about evolution. Sure that I have no idea how DNA appears to be great evidence in favor of evolution between species. Yet, you just know who you are dealing with. Don't you?

It does not even include the creation of life. Creatures have to be alive already in order to evolve.

Do you then see evolutionists who deny creation by God as being stupid?

Yet, God tells us enough about the process of how he created creatures to know that he created each creature after his own kind. He did not create a cow to become a horse later on. Cows may vary. But, dogs do not become horses. Many evolutionists who reject God's hand in creation see it that way. And, many of them are the ones supplying the data you refer to.

The theory of evolution deals solely with changes in species from one generation to another.

TOE = change. So what? Big deal! My parents had three children. Each one different than the other. Change! Not digital clones. That's all evolution is. If half my family is very hairy, and the other half thin skinned. And only half can survive a series of cold winters. What we have left over after centuries of terrible winters is only one variation that already existed. Yet, they are still human!

These changes lead to speciation and bio-diversity and they do indeed provide for the survival of those species able to adapt as the earth itself changes. So your statement is true. Evolution is a process God provided for survival.

And, those fossils we find are not our ancestors. God removed their ability to survive. He ended their time of purpose. He then began anew. Genesis One shows how this process was put into effect. Where we differ, is that you see past creations as being our forefathers. I see them as separate and distinct creations. This creation is unique onto itself. And, some evolutionary change has taken place since it began. What science can not figure out because of its own self limitations, is that what they find in the fossil record is not where we came from. It was another world. One that ended. That is where you and I differ. I have no problem with God having built into living creatures the ability to adapt to change. For, to me, that reveals God is all knowing and knew what was to come, and shows how he has provided for our every need. It is revealed in the creation itself!

It is not a process for bringing creation into being. It is a process, though, for bringing new and different species into being as the original species changes and adapts to new conditions. While evolution was not the process that brought life from non-life, it is the process to which all species alive today (including humans) owe their existance.

Tell that to the many secular humanists who say that is not so. They are still trying to prove the origin of life. Yet, these very same ones are the ones who are most devoted to reasearch in proving we all evolved from the Paleozoic era.

Where I stand is that the scientists are right about evolution. It is a fact and the theory which explains how evolution works is valid and well-supported by the evidence. I think I have been more than clear about that.

Yet, you deny this as the origin of man as we know him today.

Genesis 2:7
"The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

I believe you do so, because you have no idea that we are a seperate and unique creation from the prehistoric ones we find fossils from. Yes, creation evolves. But, it was not as evolutionary theory claims. What was done in Juarassic era, stays in Jurassic era. It did not survive its judgement by having some of its creatures evolve into the next age.

Just like we see in Genesis 1:2. The world was made empty. No life! God started afresh with a new creation. One that has the capacity to change and adapt to its surroundings that change. You wish to call that evolution? Fine. I see the chameleon as an example of the the evolutionary capacity God has inbuilt in all of us, as being put on overdrive to show how God has designed the ability to change in living creatures.


I may tan slowley when in a sunny part of the world. But, if I had never been exposed to so much sunshine? I may never had discovered this ability for my body to change. It was always there. God designed the ability to adapt into his creation. For he always knew my every need.

And yes, I do expect you to work, as I have worked, to discover what the theory of evolution really says --

Evolution is a reality! But not as it is now presented by TOE advocates!
There was no evolving from dinosaurs into lambs and cows. They were two separate creations. Each having their own abilities to evolve within the created world they were placed in by God. You see the genetic proof of the ability to evolve? And, you swallow the notion that man had to come originally from another creature that preceded him. That makes God's Word into a lie. God's Word should force you not to accept what secular evolutionists evangelize the world thinking with. Sure creatures evolve. But they do not leap from one Period to another! What we find in the strata is evidence that God had created other ages in the past. They ended, and were replaced by a new one. Within the confines of each given era, what was created had inborn in its DNA an ability to change as determined by the creator.

God may want to teach what happens when someone is not willing to change when confronted by reality demanding change. In certain creatures he limited their ability to adapt. These faced mass extinction. Just like all but eight died in Noah's flood.

God is teaching through what he creates. He used the prehistoric creation to teach the angels .. starting with very basic life (kindergarten) and all the way to post grad (which is where we now find ourselves).

instead of spouting half-baked nonsense about evolution--and to discover the evidence that supports it.

Evolution exists! But not in the scenerio we find TOE's spouting off today. Man did not find his origins in some prehistoric ape. That ape died when his creation was ended by God. God created man afresh when he began our age. This man has the ability to evolve as to survive the changes this period will bring. But, what ended in the last age has no bridge between what was destroyed, and what we now find ourselves living in. God did it. Not evolution. Evolution has limits. You seem to see no bounds to evolution. That a single cell creature can eventually end up being homo erectus. That is where God's Word says, "No, no!" That can not be right! Look at my Word!" Creation does evolve, but not in that manner!"

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Spiritualyalive]

GeneZ do you believe pre-adamites?

 

[Spiritualyalive]

Oh how I long for that day! No more debates, no more argueing, no more fighting. Jesus Christ ruleing with supreme truth and everybody knowing what that truth is. Now that is something to look forward to, AMEN?

Revelation 22:20, He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Yes, it will truely be great. No more lies to be told, the absolute truth availble to all. There will be no denying the Truth anymore because it goes against what we want to believe. Amen! There will be alot of sad people that day as well because the lies they believed will be exposed as illusions from the devil.

 

[vossler]

Sorry I missed this earlier. Just caught it while reviewing the thread.

Not a problem, I thought you might have been avoiding me.

No, I didn't. I finished with this:

Given that you were so thorough in gathering the other quotes, I wonder how you managed to miss these paragraphs. I don't know how you came to assume that I finished before writing them.

No I didn't miss them, it all was, to me, a bunch of hyperbole that I was expected to believe at face value. I'm sorry but I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support that. If such evidence does exist it somehow hasn't made into mainstream news.

Right. Are you prepared to say that any truth is not God's truth? Or that any truth can contradict God's truth?

First of all, nothing that contradicts God's Word can ever be considered truth. All other truth must therefore be held up to the ultimate source of truth, God Himself.

 

[gluadys]

Did you read the whole article? There are no missing links yet found.

The article said nothing about missing links. It is a press release from the Discovery Institute issued on the 80th anniversary of the Scopes Trial directing attention to the 400 scientists who have signed their Statement of Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

You have not answered my question. Have you read the statment these scientists signed?

Oh, and you haven't answered my other question either--about the orbit of the earth and sunrise. How are they related?

But, that's another story.

Do you know how condenscending that sounds to my ears? To me, you are the one who knows nothing as she should concerning creation. But, there you sit telling me how secular reasoning has the truth, and not the Bible.

genez, stop confusing yourself with the bible. It is unbecoming. I have never said the bible does not have the truth. I have said I question the truth of your beliefs.

You are posting to images in your mind. I never made that an issue.

Yes you did. You said evolution was not a process for bringing creation into being. And you said it in a context of debunking evolution. You said it as if you think that is what the theory of evolution claims to be about.

If you believe that the theory of evolution as understood by scientists claims to be about bringing creation into being, then your understanding of the theory of evolution is incorrect. The theory of evolution does not make that claim.

So you can't debunk evolution by raising that issue. It's a strawman issue based on a caricature of evolution, not on science.

You sound like a person who grew up in a strict legalistic Christian home,

speaking about addressing images in your mind ... this is about as far from a true image of me as you could possibly get. So is that image you mentioned earlier about the anal-retentive super-neat freak. (You didn't use those exact words, but that was the picture.)

You assume to know their points of ignorance.

I never assume to know their points of ignorance. That is usually obvious from what they post.

Do you then see evolutionists who deny creation by God as being stupid?

No, one does not have to have a low IQ to be without faith. But I would say they are without wisdom.

He did not create a cow to become a horse later on. Cows may vary. But, dogs do not become horses. Many evolutionists who reject God's hand in creation see it that way.

This is an example of what I said above about not needing to assume the points people are ignorant of because they make it obvious themselves by what they post.

No one knowledgeable about evolution sees it that way and it makes no difference whether or not they reject God. Neither a theist nor an atheist who has studied evolution sees it that way.

If a cow or a dog ever became a horse, the theory of evolution would collapse. According to the theory of evolution those are events which can never, never happen.

So if you thought you were talking about the theory of evolution or making a point against the theory of evolution, you were wrong. You were wrong because you are ignorant of what the theory of evolution really says. Apparently you think it visualizes cows or dogs becoming horses. It does not. In fact, it sees this as impossible in an evolutionary scenario.

And, many of them are the ones supplying the data you refer to.

Not that data.

TOE = change. So what? Big deal! My parents had three children. Each one different than the other. Change! Not digital clones. That's all evolution is. If half my family is very hairy, and the other half thin skinned. And only half can survive a series of cold winters. What we have left over after centuries of terrible winters is only one variation that already existed. Yet, they are still human!

Second case in point. You apparently think the theory of evolution says that evolving humans will one day not be human. It doesn't say that at all. It says the reverse: that the descendants of humans will always be human. They may be very different from humans today--but they will always be human. There may be more than one human species, but they will always be human. If they were not it would show that the theory of evolution is wrong.

So, if you thought the theory of evolution said that the descendants of humans could become something that is not human, it indicates you are ignorant of the theory of evolution.

And, those fossils we find are not our ancestors.

Another point of ignorance. No one has claimed they were. We can't tell from a fossil (unless it is obviously a juvenile) whether it had children or not. Even if it did have children, we still don't know if it has living descendants today.

What we can tell is whether they have the characteristics we would expect to find in an ancestor of that time period. The fossil was once a living member of a thriving species. And it is likely that the species was one of a group of similar species. If the fossil was not one of our ancestors, another member of the species could be. If that species was not one of our ancestors, a similar species could be.

The importance of the fossil is not to connect it to us genetically, because usually there is not sufficient DNA preserved to do that. But it does indicate the existence of a species and possibly a group of species among whom a plausible ancestor did exist.

God removed their ability to survive.

The fact that a species went extinct is no bar to its having living descendants today. And if not direct descendants, it could still have collateral descendants.

He ended their time of purpose. He then began anew. Genesis One shows how this process was put into effect.

No it doesn't. Genesis shows only one creation. Whether it was the 1st second or 20th makes no difference. It doesn't show any earlier creation, it only shows this creation.

Where we differ, is that you see past creations as being our forefathers.

No I don't because I don't see any past creations. As far as I can see the creation of life on earth some 3.8 billion years ago is one with the creation I see around me today. I don't see any place in the history of the earth where this creation was destroyed.

It is revealed in the creation itself!

So is the connection of our life with the life of all the species around us and preceding us.

Tell that to the many secular humanists who say that is not so. They are still trying to prove the origin of life.

Why should I talk to secular humanists about it? Humanism is a philosophy not a science. Philosophers use rational logic to prove their arguments. It is very easy to prove the origin of life this way.

Is it true there was once no life? Yes.
Is it true there is now life? Yes.
Conclusion? Between the time when there was no life and now when there is life, life must have had an origin. Therefore the origin of life is proved.

Now the scientist comes on stage. "But how" she asks "did life begin?"
"Don't ask us," say the philosophers. "We proved life originated, but we don't have the foggiest idea how."

The scientific investigation into how life originated is called abiogenesis. It is a very recent field of research and very active. But there are no firm answers yet to the scientists' question: How did life begin?

Yet, you deny this as the origin of man as we know him today.

I believe you do so, because you have no idea that we are a seperate and unique creation from the prehistoric ones we find fossils from.

I see no evidence of that. If you can show me evidence of a separation between the present and the past we find in the geologic column and in our DNA and the DNA of other species, I will entertain the idea.

What was done in Juarassic era, stays in Jurassic era. It did not survive its judgement by having some of its creatures evolve into the next age.

Birds

Just like we see in Genesis 1:2. The world was made empty. No life!

You are saying the world was made empty of life between the Jurassic and the Cretaceous? If you had said between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary I could at least consider this empty world to be an exaggeration of the K-T boundary. But what evidence is there of any such break between the Jurassic and the Cretaceous?

I think I have to conclude that your knowledge of geology is minimal.

Evolution is a reality! But not as it is now presented by TOE advocates! There was no evolving from dinosaurs into lambs and cows.

Now according to you TOE advocates claim that dinosaurs evolved into lambs and cows. genez---this is ignorance of evolution. That never happened and any one who suggests that is a claim of evolution is either ignorant or lying.

Do you see what I mean? I don't assume you are ignorant of evolution. I read what you write and it is obvious.

And, you swallow the notion that man had to come originally from another creature that preceded him.

I don't swallow a notion. I look at the evidence. I invite you to look at the evidence.

That makes God's Word into a lie.

Impossible. God's Word is never a lie. Are you claiming again to have infallible understanding of God's Word? Does it never occur to you that just maybe you are not interpreting God's Word aright?

What we find in the strata is evidence that God had created other ages in the past.

So show me this evidence.

They ended, and were replaced by a new one. [snip]He used the prehistoric creation to teach the angels .. starting with very basic life (kindergarten) and all the way to post grad (which is where we now find ourselves).

You assert a lot genez, far more than scripture does, but you don't back up what you say.

Evolution exists! But not in the scenerio we find TOE's spouting off today. Man did not find his origins in some prehistoric ape. That ape died when his creation was ended by God.

According to you, when that ape died, everything died----everything! Show me where in the geologic record this happened. Show me where all life on earth came to an end, and where it began again.

Evolution has limits. You seem to see no bounds to evolution.

Show me where the limits are. Show me the mechanism that sets bounds to evolution.

That a single cell creature can eventually end up being homo erectus. That is where God's Word says, "No, no!" That can not be right! Look at my Word!"

Sorry, but I do not find that text anywhere in scripture.

 

[vossler]

I have a question: Why is the idea of a supra-natural being creating everything instantaneously any more plausible than evolution? In all actuality, evolution is a more plausible suggestion because it does not depend--in the same way--upon an unverifiable belief in the supra-natural. This is, of course, unless your definition of plausibility is different from that which is normally accepted.

Ahhhh, there we have the crux of it, it is more plausible because God said it. That's all it takes for me.

You and I and all of us should give it serious consideration because it directly coincides with our observation and experience of the universe in which we live. Besides, the "contradiction" which you feel exists between evolution and the Scriptures is based upon a belief that the Genesis accounts are meant to be taken as a scientific explanation of what occurred before humanity was even created to observe it. If this is not a presupposition which determines one's interpretation, then the contradiction suddenly disappears and one is able to fully--and harmoniously--reconcile one's observation of the universe with the Scriptures.

It may coincide with your observations, although I would venture to say that you yourself haven't personally observed the process evolution. Especially considering it takes at least millions of years for the evidence to be observed.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said the Genesis account is a scientific explanation for what occurred. I haven't a clue, scientifically that is, as to what occurred.

There is no explanation needed. Look around at the world in which we live. The truth of evolution is self-revealing, and one need only look closely to realize the truth.

Interesting observation, for me it's quite the opposite. I look around and marvel at creation each and every day. What an incredible God we have the pleasure to serve. His creation is the most awesome in your face thing he ever did. For me to even begin to suggest that nature itself (even through God's devine guidance), through all sorts of processes formed the world we now live in would be to cheapen it. It would imply that God couldn't get it right to start with and just needed some extra time to get it all together. Nature is, for me, the strongest natural evidence against evolution.

Concerning the "genetic" issue, on what basis is the belief that genetic makeup cannot change itself based?

Well, since all the known accepted literature and the inner workings of the Holy Spirit confirm that it has little leg to stand on.

The Scriptures are silent on this issue, just as they are silent on 99% of our understanding of our knowledge of the natural world. The Scriptures do not speak of gravity or general relativity, or quantum physics. However, this does not mean that such concepts and principles are anti-Scriptural.

You say the scriptures are silent, I say they scream with sufficient information that is spiritually discerned.

 

[gluadys]

If such evidence does exist it somehow hasn't made into mainstream news.

Well, you had to have your head buried in the sand to miss the feathered dinosaurs. But, unfortunately a lot of science news does not make headlines in mainstream media. You have to look for it in magazines like Scientific American or ---if you want the primary sources--in scientific journals. Just because its not on CBS news tonight doesn't mean the evidence does not exist.

If you want to check it out go to PubMed and type in a few keywords. You will get plenty of articles describing the evidence

First of all, nothing that contradicts God's Word can ever be considered truth. All other truth must therefore be held up to the ultimate source of truth, God Himself.

But that is not the answer to my question. What I asked was this:

Are you prepared to say that any truth is not God's truth? Or that any truth can contradict God's truth?

I would appreciate an answer to the question I asked, not to a question you decided to replace it with.

 

[vossler]

But the only way to decide if the information is plausible is to examine the evidence. So you have your methodology backwards about. Examine the evidence first---then decide if it is plausible.

O.K. I'm sorry but I didn't make clear my complete methodology. First I do a cursory examination of the evidence and its accuracy, if it doesn't add up then I determine it's not plausible or worthy of an in-depth review.

Can truth be against the Word of God? Never.
So again your methodology is backwards about.
The first issue to be resolved is this: is evolution true? does it happen?
If the answers to these questions are "Yes" (and they are), then they cannot be in opposition to the Word of God, because truth IS the Word of God.

Hence what you think is "clearly" the Word of God is not. It is a misinterpretation of the Word of God. The actual Word of God cannot go against the truth. So you need to be able to loosen yourself from your false interpretation and find the interpretation that does not go against the truth.

Ahh here we go again with labeling evolution as truth. It is anything but that and so therefore it can and should be considered against the Word of God.

You may call it a misinterpretation of the Word of God, but I would submit that the vast majority of respected pastors would disagree. Since they are more learned about the Word of God and its meaning than either you or I, I think I'll go with their assessment. Especially since it corresponds with what the Holy Spirit has convicted me of.

First, the genetic information business is a creationist red herring. Unless and until there is a consistent definition of information in terms of biology, it is a meaningless criterion.

You make this sound as if it's an illegitimate objection. Genetic makeup and DNA are the very root of who we are and essential to any origin discussion.

The only thing that comes close to "information" in the genome are the base nucleotides of DNA. In terms of the base nucleotides what would be a demonstration of gaining genetic information?

A somewhat higher level of information is that of the coding triplets of mRNA and tRNA which determine the sequence of amino acids in peptides and the folding of peptides into proteins. In terms of these coding triplets, what would be a demonstration of gaining genetic information?

The expression of genes and protein products into variable traits is so complex any search for a gain in information is formidable. We see it now and again when there is a fairly direct line from mutation, to protein change to variation as in the nylon bug. But most of the time the effect, if any, of particular mutations is invisible and/or so heavily influenced by other factors as to be bewildering.

This is bewildering for the simple-minded man I am. I'm no scientist, biologist, geologist or any other gist. I couldn't begin to follow a scientific discussion concerning this topic. Thankfully this is a theology forum and even though I don't claim to have a great handle on that I do feel qualified or able to follow any discussion that is theologically based. If you keep it simple, very simple, I just might be able to digest some of your scientific explanations.

However, the broad lines of vertebrate evolution have been well-mapped and I am sure the path from fish to amphibian via the stem tetrapods has been pointed out to you before, as has the transition from reptile to mammal via the therapsids. In terms of fossil evidence, this is one of the best documented transitions in paleontology with very few gaps.

Great, show me.

So I have to conclude that you have decided not to look at this evidence, or that you have somehow failed to make a connection from this evidence to natural selection, or that you do not understand paleontological evidence, or that you don't grasp cladistics, or that you are expecting evidence science does not claim to provide, or ....?

I would need to know why the evidence readily available at such sites as the Tree of Life Project is unsatisfactory to you.

Well I went to the site and immediately click on the root of the tree and this is what I read:

"The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. We hope to provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues on this page soon."

I don't know about anyone else but even the parts I do understand don't sound very compelling. Anyways, if they haven't gotten this figured out yet I'm not too interested in what other "evidence" they have.

Does the bible not say we were created? Does it not say that we and other creatures were formed from the earth? Does it not say vegetation, sea creatures, birds and animals were brought forth by the earth and the waters? Creation, formation, bringing forth are all processes. But the bible does not describe these processes in detail. Evolution is a scientific description of the process of creation as it applies to the formation of species.

Yes it does say that we were formed from the earth. But I don't recall the part where it said we evolved from the earth.

Since we are apes, yes. We are human because our ancestors were human. We are apes because humans are apes so our ancestors were apes. We are primates because apes are primates so our ancestors were primates. We are mammals because primates are mammals, so our ancestors were mammals. We are amniotes because mammals are amniotes so our ancestors were amniotes. We are vertebrates because amniotes are vertebrates, so our ancestors were vertebrates. We are animals because vertebrates are animals, so our ancestors were animals. And we are eukaryotes because animals are eukaryotes, so our ancestors were eukaryotes.

O.K. that's somewhat clear, at least the part I wanted to know in that you believe apes are our ancestors.

Oh there was complexification in our lineage for sure. But also sometimes simplification. My point was that many creationists mistakenly think that evolution must always be in the direction of more complexity. That is not the case. Where simplification is beneficial, natural selection will favour simplification. Evolution is not set in one direction only.

When evolution is equated only with more complexity, examples of evolution which do not involve increased complexity are overlooked or discounted. Or treated as "devolution" -- a word that has no meaning in nature, only in the strawman caricature which is promoted as "evolution" in creationist teachings.

I won't speak for anyone else but I have no problem with terms like simplification (remember I'm a simple guy ) and even devolution because they do make sense to my simple mind. To me it just means having less genetic information.

 

[depthdeception]

Ahhhh, there we have the crux of it, it is more plausible because God said it. That's all it takes for me.

Then you admit, in fact, that you are using a different definition of "plausible."

It may coincide with your observations, although I would venture to say that you yourself haven't personally observed the process evolution. Especially considering it takes at least millions of years for the evidence to be observed.

This has nothing to do with my personal observations. I meant that in a scientifically methodological sense.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said the Genesis account is a scientific explanation for what occurred. I haven't a clue, scientifically that is, as to what occurred.

If you assert that the records in Genesis are an account of what happened, exactly as it happened, then this is exaclty what you are saying.

Interesting observation, for me it's quite the opposite. I look around and marvel at creation each and every day. What an incredible God we have the pleasure to serve. His creation is the most awesome in your face thing he ever did. For me to even begin to suggest that nature itself (even through God's devine guidance), through all sorts of processes formed the world we now live in would be to cheapen it. It would imply that God couldn't get it right to start with and just needed some extra time to get it all together. Nature is, for me, the strongest natural evidence against evolution.

Why would billions of years of evolution "cheapen" it? That is a purely subjective response. There is nothing inherently "good" or "bad" about one length of time compared to another--especially as God does not experience time in the same sense as we do.

Also, considering the anthropic principle--that is, the idea that it is the totality of the universe (not just our local corner) that allows for the existence of life on earth--that the universe took billions of years to evolve, and that we exist dependently upon that evolution, is, IMO, a bigger testament to God's creative involvement in the history of the universe than God simply snapping fingers and POOF!ing it all into existence. And yes, I realize that this is just as subjective as your assessment...

 

[vossler]

Well, you had to have your head buried in the sand to miss the feathered dinosaurs. But, unfortunately a lot of science news does not make headlines in mainstream media. You have to look for it in magazines like Scientific American or ---if you want the primary sources--in scientific journals. Just because its not on CBS news tonight doesn't mean the evidence does not exist.

If you want to check it out go to PubMed and type in a few keywords. You will get plenty of articles describing the evidence

I went the site and went to a few of the links. I must admit what I read was less than compelling when it comes to any sort of transitional forms. As much as we know about dinosaurs most scientists would probably agree what we do know is little compared to the whole. As such these finds will need far more conclusive evidence before one can support evolution where the word truth can be used in the same sentence.

But that is not the answer to my question. What I asked was this:

Are you prepared to say that any truth is not God's truth? Or that any truth can contradict God's truth?

I would appreciate an answer to the question I asked, not to a question you decided to replace it with.

I'm sorry for not answering your question satisfactorily. I wasn't trying to evade it but answered it to the best of my ability. After rereading it I truly can't say I know what the question is. Please elaborate/or simplify your question for an obviously challenged individual.

 

[vossler]

Then you admit, in fact, that you are using a different definition of "plausible."

Actually I should amend that definition to say that if God said it, it is so. No plausibility factor is needed.

If you assert that the records in Genesis are an account of what happened, exactly as it happened, then this is exaclty what you are saying.

Just because I believe that Genesis is an exact account of what happened doesn't make it scientific. It just makes it so!

Why would billions of years of evolution "cheapen" it? That is a purely subjective response. There is nothing inherently "good" or "bad" about one length of time compared to another--especially as God does not experience time in the same sense as we do.

I guess for me the idea that God needed lots of time to form his creation somehow makes Him look less omnipotent.

Also, considering the anthropic principle--that is, the idea that it is the totality of the universe (not just our local corner) that allows for the existence of life on earth--that the universe took billions of years to evolve, and that we exist dependently upon that evolution, is, IMO, a bigger testament to God's creative involvement in the history of the universe than God simply snapping fingers and POOF!ing it all into existence. And yes, I realize that this is just as subjective as your assessment...

This is one area where neither of us will say anything to help the other so it's best to leave it alone.

 

[depthdeception]

Actually I should amend that definition to say that if God said it, it is so. No plausibility factor is needed.

Good enough.

I guess for me the idea that God needed lots of time to form his creation somehow makes Him look less omnipotent.

What do you think the reasons for this are?

 

[vossler]

What do you think the reasons for this are?

Reading Genesis as a child I never considered the creation account to be anything other than the 6 literal days. Even after learning about evolution in school it just never made much sense to me. Then after becoming an adult this conviction grew even stronger into what it is today. So with that as a backdrop; when an evolutionist who also believes in the God of the Bible (which to me is an oxymoron) tells me that Genesis could mean billions of years it tells me that faith in God's Word was now secondary to man's knowledge. If we conform God's Word to man's knowledge we render God irrelevant. We've now become our own god. It says that man's fallible knowledge is held up higher than God's own Word. The idea that we as lowly human-beings begin to put God in our clearly defined box of paradigms is absolutely ridiculous. If what we believe doesn't fit the paradigm we just adjust God's Word to fit the paradigm instead of holding fast to His Word. It's no longer a matter of faith, but of pride. In effect, we put hand cuffs on God based on our own prideful knowledge. God is now made in our own image. May God help us!

 

[GenemZ]

GeneZ do you believe pre-adamites?

Jeremiah 4, speaks of a humanoid creation that existed and was wiped out.

23 I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.


24 I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.

25 I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.

26 I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the LORD, before his fierce anger."


They were humanoid, but not like Adam with the same soul type who was created in the image of God. They did not have the same soul as we do, or Jesus would have died for the sins of several worlds. I know it sounds strange. Prior creations appear to have been progressive, and the last one was an introduction to what was to come. Which was, "us!"

Professor Stan Ashby (Ancient languages, Harvard) taught on this topic. He taught at a Bible College after he retired, and I heard it on tape. He explained that other Hebrew words could have been used in that passage. Yet, this one translated "people," is only a generic term for man. For what that's worth, there was a humanoid creature in the last creation that was wiped out. In this creation mankind had never been wiped out. If it had, we would not be posting right now.


25 I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.




Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Reading Genesis as a child I never considered the creation account to be anything other than the 6 literal days. Even after learning about evolution in school it just never made much sense to me. Then after becoming an adult this conviction grew even stronger into what it is today. So with that as a backdrop; when an evolutionist who also believes in the God of the Bible (which to me is an oxymoron) tells me that Genesis could mean billions of years it tells me that faith in God's Word was now secondary to man's knowledge. If we conform God's Word to man's knowledge we render God irrelevant. We've now become our own god. It says that man's fallible knowledge is held up higher than God's own Word. The idea that we as lowly human-beings begin to put God in our clearly defined box of paradigms is absolutely ridiculous. If what we believe doesn't fit the paradigm we just adjust God's Word to fit the paradigm instead of holding fast to His Word. It's no longer a matter of faith, but of pride. In effect, we put hand cuffs on God based on our own prideful knowledge. God is now made in our own image. May God help us!

When the walls of Jericho were discovered, no one had any problem integrating this new information into their understanding of the OT. When archeologists find Greek books no one fights their casting new light on Greek words and the NT. Why should biological or geological information discovered as part of an exploration of God's world cause everyone to clam up and falsely say that Scriptural interpretation is distinct from all other knowledge and should not be influenced by man's knowledge?

Scriptural hermeneutics has changed and will continue to change as we learn more about both the universe and about Scripture itself, necessarily so. The secret of orthodoxy is to monitor and test the new knowledge not to attempt to isolate yourself from it.

but there really is no good way to address your posting for you seem absolutely sure that you are right and following God, and filtering out anything that conflicts with this. we can tell you that we hold Scripture as authoritative and well above scientific knowledge but you will just dismiss it as you do TE- it's just an oxymoron. we can explain that we pray for knowledge and insight of Scripture as you presumably do, but you dismiss what we believe God has told us as--oxymorons.

but the worst part is that you have no tools with which to judge science, only to absolutely dismiss it when you think it conflicts with your interpretation. it is this false notion of conflict that will in the long run drive investigators away from your communities when they understand that you can't see the truth that they discover. and into liberal unbelieving churches. the sad effect of orthodoxy's anti-intellectualism and isolation from modern culture.

as for me, i will try to serve God by engaging with culture, by trying to understand science, all the while having the authority, inspiration and unity of Scripture leading my way.


....

 

[GenemZ]

Oh how I long for that day! No more debates, no more argueing, no more fighting. Jesus Christ ruling with supreme truth and everybody knowing what that truth is. Now that is something to look forward to, AMEN?

And, the Lord wants to find faithful believers to be his helpmate in his rule. After all, why do you think we are called the Bride of Christ?

Revelation 2:26 niv
"To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations."

That is why its so important to have accurate understanding of the Word. For its by understanding and wisdom that we will overcome. Grace will supply the power and enablement. Knowledge and truth will be the light in darkness.

For all those out their who wish to tickle their own egos with what they think the word should mean, these will not be offered to reign with Christ. They never overcome. They are overcome by the world's way of thinking. For, they did not want to get to know Christ while here on earth. They only wanted to know the Christ as they created him in their own image.

Grace and peace, GeneZ