A simple question

[gluadys]

When did science come out and say common descent is fact, not theory?

I didn't say common descent. I said evolution. Common descent is a sub-theory of the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a fact. We know this from observation.

The theory of evolution is a theory which attempts to explain how evolution happens. It is a comprehensive set of ideas which are explanatory and predictive of observed evidence.

The theory of evolution includes a number of sub-theories. For example, one of its sub-theories is that natural selection is a significant cause of evolutionary changes.

Note that this theory is not about the evolutionary changes themselves. We can see them and know that they occur. It is about the mechanism that regulates these changes and causes species to change. This is what is meant by the theory being explanatory.

However, we need more than a hypothetical explanation of how evolution happens. Scientists want to know whether natural selection really happens and if it really produces evolutionary change. To answer that question they make predictions along the line of:
Assuming that natural selection really does change species, then in case A we should observe X. And they set up an experiment in which to test whether X is really observed in case A.

This is not the easiest thing to do, but there have been enough such experiments done in both lab conditions and in the field to verify that natural selection is not just a hypothetical mechanism (as it was for Darwin), but a real observable process.

So much for mechanism. The other part of the study of evolution is to determine as far as possible the actual history of evolution. This is even more difficult to test for than natural selection. But one can still use the same process.

We know evolution happens in the present.
We have every reason to assume that it also happened in the past.
We know speciation happens and that the species of the present had ancestors in the past.
We have every reason to assume that recent ancestors had more distant ancestors and that they had more distant ancestors.
We can therefore infer that when all ancestors are traced back through more and more remote ancestors we will find they all converge on one common ancestor.

This is a logical inference and as a logical inference it is entirely hypothetical, not fact.

However, the purpose of a hypothesis is to generate predictions of observations which must exist if the hypothesis is true. This whole train of thought gives us many predictions of things that must be fact if the hypothesis is true.

And research has shown that many of these predictions are fact. e.g. the close genetic resemblance of humans to other apes, especially the chimpanzees; the possibility that some dinosaurs had feathers; the successful prediction that we would eventually see the fossil record extended into the Pre-Cambrian (in fact we now have fossils 7 times older than the earliest Cambrian fossils) and the successful predictions of fossils that bridged the higher taxa such as fish/amphibian and reptile/mammal. IOW what we expect to see in nature if all life has a common ancestor is what we actually DO SEE in nature. This is even more true of the more recently discovered genetic evidence. From the study of DNA sequences in a variety of species, it is more certain than ever that all life shares commonalities that transcend species. Furthermore, the pattern in which these commonalities are shared are not the same as the patterns found in manufactured objects, but patterns which are found in genealogies. IOW it appears that the mechanism of sharing common DNA is reproduction, not design.

So at this point, common ancestry is no longer just a logical inference. It is a concept well-supported by the evidence of nature. In fact some of the evidence in nature (e.g ERVs) simply has no other possible reason for existing than common ancestry.

The fact of evolution makes common ancestry logical. The accumulated evidence which supports common ancestry or which can be explained only by common ancestry means this is not just logical. It is the testimony of created nature. And created nature is given to us by God.

So if you are truly interested in listening to the Word of God, it is foolish not to consider the high probabilty of common ancestry.

 

[vossler]

Let’s see if I can bring a bit of clarity on just what you gluadys have said concerning the issue of evolution without attacking you in any way. First I'd like to define the key terms truth and evolution so that there is no misunderstanding concerning their meanings. These definitions were straight from dictionary.com.

Truth: Conformity to fact or actuality.

Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.


Usage of terms:

Some random quotes from glaudys on Evolution:

the cow has an ancestor from long long ago and that ancestor has other descendants which are not cows. The other descendants from the same ancestor include sheep, goats, deer, elk, moose, antelope, dolphins and whales. That is evolution.

The whale and the cow are more closely related to each other than either is to a mouse. It's analogous to you being more closely related to your sibling than either of you is to your cousin.

Eyes originated independently in several different lineages. All the others are features of vertebrates and did begin in a common ancestor with these traits. To outward appearance that ancestor was a worm.

…all the first animals were carnivores. They lived in the ocean before herbs or other vegetation grew on land. So all herbivores are descendants of carnivores.

The heart developed slowly as a swelling in the primitive circulatory system, starting as a single valve pump and showing gradations to a two-chamber and three-chamber organ before appearing as a four-chamber organ in mammals, birds and (possibly) some dinosaurs.

God took a natural substance and shaped it through a time-consuming process. He did not pull us out of a hat or snap his fingers to make us appear in an instant. Rather he designed a process that would allow us to emerge from the earth.

Evolution is not man-derived. Evolution is creation-derived. It is a fact of nature. It is as much a fact of nature as that water runs downhill.

Evolution is observable and observed. It is one of the best established facts of biology.

Then you finish with this:

We know evolution happens in the present.

We have every reason to assume that it also happened in the past.
We know speciation happens and that the species of the present had ancestors in the past.
We have every reason to assume that recent ancestors had more distant ancestors and that they had more distant ancestors.
We can therefore infer that when all ancestors are traced back through more and more remote ancestors we will find they all converge on one common ancestor.

This is a logical inference and as a logical inference it is entirely hypothetical, not fact.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I think it would be safe to say that the quotes above are, in your opinion, “truth.” If so, I think it could also be safe to say that all truth is on the same level, i.e. truth doesn't come in different degrees. Truth is truth, there isn't something that is 95% truth. So, by stating that evolution is truth you have, by inference, put it on the same level as the truths found in the bible. Quite interesting!


Also, can you explain how in the last quote of yours the words assume and infer are used quite liberally, you even go so far to say “hypothetical, not fact”? If evolution is truth how is it that it requires so many assumptions?

 

[Critias]

I didn't say common descent. I said evolution. Common descent is a sub-theory of the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a fact. We know this from observation.

The theory of evolution is a theory which attempts to explain how evolution happens. It is a comprehensive set of ideas which are explanatory and predictive of observed evidence.

The theory of evolution includes a number of sub-theories. For example, one of its sub-theories is that natural selection is a significant cause of evolutionary changes.

Note that this theory is not about the evolutionary changes themselves. We can see them and know that they occur. It is about the mechanism that regulates these changes and causes species to change. This is what is meant by the theory being explanatory.

However, we need more than a hypothetical explanation of how evolution happens. Scientists want to know whether natural selection really happens and if it really produces evolutionary change. To answer that question they make predictions along the line of:
Assuming that natural selection really does change species, then in case A we should observe X. And they set up an experiment in which to test whether X is really observed in case A.

This is not the easiest thing to do, but there have been enough such experiments done in both lab conditions and in the field to verify that natural selection is not just a hypothetical mechanism (as it was for Darwin), but a real observable process.

So much for mechanism. The other part of the study of evolution is to determine as far as possible the actual history of evolution. This is even more difficult to test for than natural selection. But one can still use the same process.

We know evolution happens in the present.
We have every reason to assume that it also happened in the past.
We know speciation happens and that the species of the present had ancestors in the past.
We have every reason to assume that recent ancestors had more distant ancestors and that they had more distant ancestors.
We can therefore infer that when all ancestors are traced back through more and more remote ancestors we will find they all converge on one common ancestor.

This is a logical inference and as a logical inference it is entirely hypothetical, not fact.

However, the purpose of a hypothesis is to generate predictions of observations which must exist if the hypothesis is true. This whole train of thought gives us many predictions of things that must be fact if the hypothesis is true.

And research has shown that many of these predictions are fact. e.g. the close genetic resemblance of humans to other apes, especially the chimpanzees; the possibility that some dinosaurs had feathers; the successful prediction that we would eventually see the fossil record extended into the Pre-Cambrian (in fact we now have fossils 7 times older than the earliest Cambrian fossils) and the successful predictions of fossils that bridged the higher taxa such as fish/amphibian and reptile/mammal. IOW what we expect to see in nature if all life has a common ancestor is what we actually DO SEE in nature. This is even more true of the more recently discovered genetic evidence. From the study of DNA sequences in a variety of species, it is more certain than ever that all life shares commonalities that transcend species. Furthermore, the pattern in which these commonalities are shared are not the same as the patterns found in manufactured objects, but patterns which are found in genealogies. IOW it appears that the mechanism of sharing common DNA is reproduction, not design.

So at this point, common ancestry is no longer just a logical inference. It is a concept well-supported by the evidence of nature. In fact some of the evidence in nature (e.g ERVs) simply has no other possible reason for existing than common ancestry.

The fact of evolution makes common ancestry logical. The accumulated evidence which supports common ancestry or which can be explained only by common ancestry means this is not just logical. It is the testimony of created nature. And created nature is given to us by God.

So if you are truly interested in listening to the Word of God, it is foolish not to consider the high probabilty of common ancestry.

All I have to say in response is:

1 Timothy 1:3-5
"As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."

 

[depthdeception]

All I have to say in response is:

1 Timothy 1:3-5
"As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."

Is this supposed to be an answer to glaudys post??? It doesn't even apply to the topic!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

All I have to say in response is:

1 Timothy 1:3-5
"As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."

i'm curious what are these myths and endless geneologies?
for it appears to me that only the YECists refer to these when discussing things here.


----

 

[Critias]

Is this supposed to be an answer to glaudys post??? It doesn't even apply to the topic!

Yes, that is my answer. The verse has implications for this thread and this forum.

 

[Critias]

i'm curious what are these myths and endless geneologies?
for it appears to me that only the YECists refer to these when discussing things here.


----

I am convinced you know what myths and endless geneologies are.

So, what is it you want to know that you don't understand about this?

 

[depthdeception]

Yes, that is my answer. The verse has implications for this thread and this forum.

Explain.

 

[GenemZ]

Just what do you think the rotation of the earth around the sun has to do with sunrise and sunset?

Try reading the context of the posts that led to that, please. The answer should be apparent.

Have a nice Day, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

Try reading the context of the posts that led to that, please. The answer should be apparent.

Have a nice Day, GeneZ

I have. I want to know your answer.

 

[gluadys]

All I have to say in response is:

1 Timothy 1:3-5
"As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith."

As I said earlier, the onus is on the poster of bible verses to explain the rationale for posting them.

If that is all you have to say, then you have said nothing for I haven't the foggiest idea how you relate this text to my post. It is totally off the wall and means nothing unless you show what you mean by it.

 

[GenemZ]

No, evolution is truth. My opinion on the matter is irrelevant, as is yours.

Evolution is truth. Yes.

Yet, the real question is, was evolution the means that got us to where we are today from what we find in the fossil records, of say, the Jurassic period? Evolution is not an issue of debate, here. At least not with me. My issue is that God did not take a creature from a lower level and evolve it up into becoming homo sapien. Most likely men who lived 9000 years ago are not quite the same as men living today and have evolved. But, men living 9000 years ago had not evolved from another primate. That's the issue at hand.


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.

27 This is what the LORD says:
"The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely.

Jeremiah 4:23-27 niv


Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Critias]

Explain.

Do you seriously not see an implication here?

Some/many TE assertions:

• Genesis = myth
• Common descent = endless geneologies

Creationists assertions:

• Creation (six days as written in Genesis) = God's work
• God's work = known by faith

 

[Critias]

As I said earlier, the onus is on the poster of bible verses to explain the rationale for posting them.

If that is all you have to say, then you have said nothing for I haven't the foggiest idea how you relate this text to my post. It is totally off the wall and means nothing unless you show what you mean by it.

The onus is on the author when the reader is unable to rightly divide the word.

I am sorry to hear that Paul's words mean nothing to you.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Do you seriously not see an implication here?

Some/many TE assertions:

• Genesis = myth
• Common descent = endless geneologies

Creationists assertions:

• Creation (six days as written in Genesis) = God's work
• God's work = known by faith

no. all i saw was the YECist dating of the earth via geneologies.
it is a real stretch to see any correlation between human geneologies which to the Hebrews were necessary to prove their right to be a member of the community or to be a priest with common descent, a real long stretch.

that is precisely why it is necessary to explain what is meant by a quotation of Scripture. people are not going to see the same things.
....

 

[GenemZ]

Matthew 8:29
"What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"
Mark 3:11
"Whenever the evil spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God.""

Luke 4:41
"Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ."


There is a difference in believing Jesus is the Son of God and believing in Jesus, the Son of God.

One can not apply that to man who is born spiritually dead. Man can not see the spiritual. Demons can. Man can not believe that Jesus is the Christ unless they first believe. At best, men can believe that Christians call Jesus the Christ, but he can not believe Jesus is the Christ unless he first believes!

I was brought up a Jew. I had no training in Christian doctrines. I was aware of a man named Jesus dying on the Cross for our sins. That's all I was conscious of. When in college someone handed me a tract. He did not speak to me about what salvation will bring. It was the four spiritual laws. I thought Jesus was a wonedrful man who loved God, and was willing to die on the Cross for our sins out of love for the Father. I did not even know Jesus was Deity. Guess what? I began to have dreams and visions. I saw the Bible College I attended before it existed. Ten years earlier!

Years later when I finally got into the Word, all I had to be shown was John 1:1, and the reality of Jesus being Deity was immediately accepted. But, when I was first saved I had no idea who Jesus really was. I only knew what he had done on my behalf. God saved me just the same.

He also showed what I was called for. Yet, I had no idea who it was calling me, nor could I be sure what the gift was for. What you see in my posts is what I was called for. When I first got saved I would not understand what I now write about.

I should have made this point clearer. It is my fault for not doing so.

Demons recognize the Son of God. Sure. They knew him before they fell! But they do not believe in him.

But the passage you quoted about how they shudder? It only mentions that they believe there is one God. It does not say they believe that Jesus is the Son of God. That is what got me motivated to write the correction for that passage.

Notice the verse above says believe in the Lord Jesus. It is not the simple belief of who He is, although that is part of it. It is following the Lord Jesus that truly matters.

They do not believe in the Lord Jesus. They recognize him for what he is because they had a unique relationship with him, for they knew him while they were yet unfallen. Just as Adam knew the Lord right after he fell. But, We are born alienated from God. Man can not know Jesus is the Christ unless he first believe!

1 John 5:1 niv
"Everyone who believes thatJesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well."

Exodus 20:11
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

From what you are saying it seems you are arguing against this verse.

Two different words in the Hebrew. In Genesis 1:1, God "created" the Heavens and Earth. God created it out from "nothing." (BARA)

In Exodus 20:11, he "made" (ASAH) it to be what we see today.

Make believe that the earth is an old car. This old car was already created long ago.

In Exodus 20:11, what God did was take what the earth was, and made it into what we see today. Its like when a car customizer takes an old 1932 Ford and makes it into a hot rod. What he "asah" (made it to be) was from what was already "bara" created in the past. Two different Hebrew words with distinctly different meanings appear in each passage!

2 Timothy 2:15 niv
"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."

Thank you. And may God's Grace and Peace be with you as well.

Said the hand to the foot.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

And most Christians think Benny Hinn and Joel Osteen are the greatest thing since sliced bread... Most Christians are not critical thinkers in regard to theology, for they have been bred them to be mindless sheep that "swallow--hook, line and sinker" the Christian religious propoganda of extreme, reactionary segments of the Christian community in America that cares more for asserting its own autonomy and control than actually seeking the truth.

Most? They both preach opposing messages in many ways.

Besides, you forget that Jesus said that only a few will find it. The way that leads to the life more abundantly! The "mainstream" (broad and wide) will not want what is truly needed. Get over it. It is truth. Jesus did not intend us to stand around and throw rocks at what he said will be.

Its time to stop thinking too highly of yourself by putting others down. And, stop wasting your time trying to correct them by only finding fault. Find truth! Let things that are to be, be as they are to be.

The only one you can change is yourself by allowing yourself to be changed by grace and truth. Not by fault finding in others.

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."

Philippians 3:18
"For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their emotions, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things."

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Now you are making assumptions again about what God would do. What you mean is God would have told us in the bible. Did it ever occur to you that God would consider that unnecessary since He had already told us about evolution in His created nature?

Evolution is a process God provided for survival. It was not one for bringing creation into being.

Some complex creatures are photosenstive throughout their whole skin. All that is required for an eye to begin to form is that some cells specialize in photosensitivity. Once that happens, some sort of eye will develop no matter whether a species thinks it needs one or not.

You said, are. Present tense. Why do they survive? Yet failed to evolve?

You are showing the typical short-sightedness of creationist in that for all practical purposes you never include unicellular organisms as part of the web of life, and seldom consider fungi, plants, or basal animals such as worms or even most invertebrates. Your questions are really about only a small fraction of living things and you assume they have no predecessors in which the complexities first developed bit by bit.

But why are they still with us, and thriving? Why did life evolve from them? Yet, they are still extant? And, we have many extinct complex creatures buried under our feet? Makes no sense to evolve if they are thriving, as is. Did they revert backwards when the stresses of survival lessened?

The heart developed slowly as a swelling in the primitive circulatory system, starting as a single valve pump and showing gradations to a two-chamber and three-chamber organ before appearing as a four-chamber organ in mammals, birds and (possibly) some dinosaurs.

Ahhh! Yes! The single valve heart! Yes!

And, may I ask?

What happened before that single valve mysteriously appeared on the scene? Where those hearts cut out and used as finger exercise balls by angels? Or, perhaps? Were used as tennis balls by angels?

See, you have it backwards about. Tympanic nerves can exist and function without external ears.

The point was, and is. One can not hear without a tympanic nerve.

Matthew 13:15 niv
"For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' "

Tell me? Is becoming born again in Christ? Evolution?

2 Corinthians 5:17 niv
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! "

The Greek indicates that when we believe in Christ that we become something that never was before. "A new thing." In essence, believers in Christ become a new spiritual species. Evolution, perhaps?


Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

Evolution is truth. Yes.

And since it is truth, the truth of scripture must agree with it.

At least not with me. My issue is that God did not take a creature from a lower level and evolve it up into becoming homo sapien.

In the first place, there is no higher or lower in evolution. Evolution is about change, not progression.

Most likely men who lived 9000 years ago are not quite the same as men living today and have evolved. But, men living 9000 years ago had not evolved from another primate. That's the issue at hand.

Yes, that is the issue at hand. Humans 9000 years ago had parents, and their parents had parents, and those parents had parents, and there is a tiny bit of evolution in each generation, so when you get back about 200,000 years there is a distinct difference between the human species of 200,000 years ago and the human species of 9,000 years ago. And there is still a greater difference between that human species and those of 500,000, 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 years ago. And by the time you go back along the line of ancestry to about 3,000,000 years ago you are looking at species that show a blend of arboreal apes and erect-walking humanoids.

The evidence all points to the biological evolution of humans from a common ancestor we share with chimps, and that evidence is never going to go away. If you are not going to explain it by evolution, then you either have to find another scientific explanation or retreat to a fantasy land in which the evidence magically disappears.

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

When? Where is the evidence that this occurred?

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

Earthquakes have happened many times in the history of the earth. They leave evidence.

25 I looked, and there were no people;

From the time people have existed on earth at all, there have been people on earth. While there is evidence that from time to time the population was reduced to small numbers there is also evidence that there was never a time within human history in which there were no people anywhere on earth.

Therefore you are misreading the passage. It does not have a global reference.

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.

27 This is what the LORD says:
"The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely.

ditto. The land is erets Yisrael. It is not the planet earth. Jeremiah is lamenting the desolation of the land after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchanezzer and the exportation of its citizens to Babylon.

Furthermore, he is doing so poetically, so it is wise not to place too heavy a reliance on this being a literal description.

 

[gluadys]

Do you seriously not see an implication here?

Some/many TE assertions:

• Genesis = myth
• Common descent = endless geneologies

Creationists assertions:

• Creation (six days as written in Genesis) = God's work
• God's work = known by faith

But your creationist assertions are also TE assertions.