The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,229
- 13,040
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have studied quantum physics quite heavily -- I have a PhD in particle physics. Quantum physics doesn't say what you think it says.
Here's part of what I quoted from him: "I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man." So yes, he was indeed talking about evolution, not merely science (although the distinction is moot since evolution is part of science). Whether he had a problem with Darwinian evolution or not I have no idea; why introduce specifically Darwinian evolution?
He's not arguing against evolution here; he's arguing against materialism. He doesn't believe that we are the product of an accident -- a belief that is quite consistent with evolution. Mind you, from what I've read of and by Lewis (which is a great deal), he was pretty skeptical about the truth of evolution, but I've never seen any suggestion that he thought evolution was per se inconsistent with Christianity.
In answer to your question about why I'm using the term Darwinian evolution, it's because that's what this thread is about--Darwin's concept of evolution.
Graham saying "whether it came by an evolutionary process..." is NOT saying that he believed that it did or that he had no problem with evolution
The fact is that Graham clearly stated that he believed that "God created man."
If he didn't have a problem with evolution, then he didn't understand Darwin's claim that man descended from apes.
At what point in this "evolutionary process" was man considered to reflect God's image?
Yes. And that's been observed. In fact, most creationist organizations like "Answers in Genesis" and the Institute for Creation Research, have openly admitted the fact. The ICR even endorsed a paper claiming that new species, genera, and families are produced by older species.
Turns out, you're wrong. There is no single bacterial flagellum. There are a number of types, some less complex than others. And the subunits are useful for other things, such as secretory apparatus. Would you like to learn about that?
You're arguing from irreducible complexity, but of course, irreducible complexity can evolve. Would you like to learn about that?
There's a nice case that I mentioned earlier. A new enzyme system evolved in bacteria by mutation and natural selection. But it also evolved a regulator, which only allows the enzyme to be produced if the substrate is present to be broken down.
So all three of these must be present for the system to work; if one is missing, it won't do anything. And yet it evolved.
That's easy to discuss. There are four points to his theory. If you disagree with it, which points do you dispute, and what's your evidence?
It merely says that he was open to either case. Neither of those were a problem for Christian theology, so he didn't have a need to establish one or the other.
He just didn't care how that creation happened; he was good with whatever God chose, including evolution.
You're assuming ignorance with no support for your assumption. Why would that be a problem? Breathing a soul into a particular individual is not in any way beyond God's ability, and it's consistent with Genesis.
Obviously, it's not a physical image. God is a spirit, and as Jesus says, a spirit has no body. The image is in our spirit and mind, not physical appearance.
I would be very interested to see proof that Answers in Genesis has said that "new species are produced by older species."
God created man and breathed His Spirit into man in order to make him a living being. So, man was created in the image of God. My question is at what point in the "process of evolution" did man receive God's Spirit?
That's a good question. And we don't know. Would it be horrible if the first two humans were H. erectus or H. heidelbergensis?
Why does it matter? But which of Darwn's points do you think are wrong? We're talking about Darwin's theory in this thread.
That's a good question. At one time, "Answers in Genesis" denied that this could happen. Later, when directly observed speciations were documented, there was a problem for them. The solution?
They decided that speciation was true, but that it wasn't really evolution after all:
"Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action."
Speciation
Problem solved. ;D
That's a good question. At one time, "Answers in Genesis" denied that this could happen. Later, when directly observed speciations were documented, there was a problem for them. The solution?
They decided that speciation was true, but that it wasn't really evolution after all:
"Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action."
Speciation
Problem solved. ;D
Obviously, this is an issue of semantics.
Although evolutionists imbue taxonomic classification with evolutionary implications—believing that the taxonomic groupings roughly depict common ancestry— taxonomy is really nothing more than a useful bookkeeping system to sort and group organisms according to their shared characteristics.
I would think that it's obvious which of Darwin's points I think is wrong.
Organisms within a created kind generally interbreed and produce only more organisms of their own kind
Created kinds correspond roughly to the family level of the current classification taxons but may vary from order to genus level.
No, it's an issue of AiG attempting to redefine a scientific term when the real one turned out to be a problem for them. Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. So evolution can occur within a species (sometimes called "microevolution") or it can produce new species, (sometimes called "macroevolution")
AiG tried to redefine their difficulty out of existence. Since "kinds" is a religious term, which is undefined in scripture, it offers AiG a lot of room to obfuscate.
But no one is fooled. It's a sad commentary on a group that claims to be Christian.
We can test that claim. When Linnaeus first noticed the nested hierarchy of taxa it looked just like a family tree. So when genes were discovered, evolutionary theory predicted that the genes of these organisms would turn out to be organized by their evolutionary history.
And when the genes (and later DNA) of these organisms were tested, that prediction was verified. It's an insurmountable problem for creationists, but it's a verification of evolutionary theory.
Komo..., I didn't say what's in the quote box in your last post. Is that a quote from the AIG article?
Why?So just for those of us who don't see, how about telling us which ones, and your evidence for your belief?
Classifying Life
"The created kinds roughly correspond to the current classification at the family level."
"Any organisms that can interbreed are considered part of the same kind"
They contradict themselves because sub families and genus, 99% of the time, if not 100% of the time, cannot produce fertile offspring. So a "Kind" could not possibly be "roughly...at the family level".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?