Distortiions due to evoltionists assumsions?

[lucaspa]

"19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[9] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." Romans 8

I'm not going to go through Cuozzo's book chapter by chapter. I will include this quote as the basis for the devolving theory.:

"Apparently the physical cause of the deterioration of man and nature is a consequence of man's rebellion and the curse by God producing the subsequent increase of disorder in the cosmos. (Gen. 3)"

That gives an ultimate cause, but doesn't really tell us anything about what "devolution" really is, does it? In terms of genes and information, for instance, what does "devolve" mean? Do we lose genetic information? If so what is that information that was lost? How do we recognize that it is no longer in the genome?

If "devolution" is the common procedure, then Cuozzo and perhaps some creationist molecular biologists -- like Jonathan Wells -- should have followed bacteria or flies and shown us how the flies continue to devolve.

Of course, Cuozzo's idea does conflict entirely with the theory of special creation, doesn't it? That species are created as they are and remain unchanged. For instance, Ark Guys so-called living fossils are now proof against creation, since they should be devolving, but Ark Guy maintains that they are "virtually unchanged".

BTW, since you choose to think Genesis is a fun fairy tale with a moral, what did God mean when he cursed the earth? Was the earth ever really perfect to begin with, seeing as none of this is to be taken literally?

1. I never said Genesis is "a fun fairy tail iwth a moral". I said it wasn't literal, but that is very different from your characterization. Have you read the 9th commandment lately? Do you think it is supposed to be obeyed?

2. The earth was never perfect according to Genesis anyway. Genesis 1 says only that creation was "good" or "very good". Never perfect. I'm surprised that a literalist could possibly come up with the idea that the earth was perfect.

3. You should read Genesis 3 more carefully. The earth was never cursed.
Genesis 3:17-19 "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, "

There's nothing here about animals being cursed or the earth as a whole. What is being cursed is Adam and that agriculture is going to be difficult. Adam will have a difficult time getting agricultural plants (herb) to grow. First Paul in Romans and now Cuozzo can't even do a literal interpretation of the Bible right!

Of course, we have the law of thermodynamics, which in a sense is just a more complicated veiw of Muphy's law. We are not getting better and better, we are decreasing. Everything now degenerates. [/quopte]

Incorrect. While the universe as a whole is increasing in entropy (which is not disorder), not everything is increasing entropy. If that were true, then you never would exist. After all, you as an adult are a lot more organized and complex than you were as a fertilized ovum. How can that be if what you say is true?

A few more scriptures:
"Nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." Gen 6:3

Ah, but you forgot to state the reason. Is it because of the Fall? NO! It's because the ben Elohim were lusting after and mating with human women! You know, Pudmuddle, it's one thing to misrepresent thermodynamics. What is really upsetting is when you claim the Bible is from God and then you misrepresent it! It's one thing to misrepsent science; it's another to misrepresent God.

Later on in David's time: Psalm 90 "As for the days of our life they contain seventy years, or if due to strenth, eighty years."

Of course, we are living longer now, due to modern medical technology. But old?

We may be living a lot soon longer thanks to evolution.

Another paragraph from Cuozzo's book:
" The oldest person in the world could have been Adam if he hadn't sinned. However, he was 930 years old when he died, just 39 years younger than Methuselah, who reached 969. Methuselah, therefore, has the record of having the oldest recorded life on earth. Beginning with Adam first, Jared was the sixth generation, and he reached 962, becoming the second oldest person to be recorded in history. Noah's life extended to 950 years, making him the third oldest person recorded. The remainder of the eary patriarchs ranged from 905 (Enosh) 912( Seth), 910 (Kenan) to a young 895 (Mahalel) and a younger still Lamech at 777."

If the second law kicked in at the Fall and started operating immediately, and we get

You know, it's real nice for Cuozzo to find evidence falsifying his own theory. Too bad he didn't recognize it for what it was. If, as you say "we are decreasing. Everything now degenerates." then that means that Adam should be the oldest, with Seth and Enosh the second oldest, since the degeneration hadn't progressed as far yet. So how could it be possible that Noah lived 180 years longer than his father Lamech? That doesn't sound like "degeneration" to me.

Now, taking these scriptures as literal truth, one has to wonder about how man was different from us. But the answer is likely not just in our bodies, but in the changed environment after the flood. The releases of radon gases from the earth, etc.

Or we are dealing with legends. BTW, what evidence do you have for the release of radon gasses?

Of course, if you want to read it as a fairy tale, anything goes, and the miracles in the New Testament can have no more basis than the ones in the OT. I believe that God reveals the truth in all of his word, not just the parts that are easiest to believe.

I also believe God reveals truth. I just don't think a literal interpretation of the Bible is the correct interpretation. Also, unlike you, I really believe that God created. Therefore God also reveals truth in His Creation. You, however, only listen to part of what God is telling you. You close your ears to anything in His Creation you don't want to hear and recite the mantra "his word, his word, his word" as though that will shut out the truth.

However, you don't believe "God revearls the truth in all his word". I don't see you arguing for the whole world being taxed as it literally says in Luke 2:1. I've brought this up before and you ignore it. Why don't you insist on a literal interpretation here?

Pudmuddle, the slippery slope argument about miracles doesn't hold. I have never argued against the miracle of the burning bush, the plagues of the Exodus, the collapse of the walls around Jericho, Daniel's survival in the lion's den, etc. Why don't I argue against them? Think about it for a bit. When you figure out why, then you will know why I can and do argue against Biblical literalism.

 

[pudmuddle]

One more quick point: Storys such as this begin to cast doubt on the idea of neanderthals and humans being separate species. Assuming of course, that we look at the evidence with the reasonable idea that all hominoids may have been "us".

"Analysis of the skeletal remains of a four-year-old child buried in a Portuguese rock-shelter 25,000 to 24,500 years ago has yielded startling evidence that early modern humans and Neandertals may have interbred. While the boy's prominent chin, tooth size, and pelvic measurements marked him as a Cro-Magnon, or fully modern human, his stocky body and short legs indicate Neandertal heritage, says Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis. Interbreeding could answer the vexed question of the fate of the Neandertals, the last of whom disappeared from the Iberian Peninsula 28,000 years ago.

Trinkaus was summoned to Portugal after archaeologists searching for rock art in the Lapedo Valley, 85 miles north of Lisbon, found the burial this past December. João Zilhão of the University of Lisbon, the excavation's director, described the skeleton's preservation as "miraculous"--only the skull and right arm were badly broken. The boy is the first Palaeolithic burial ever excavated on the Iberian Peninsula, and among the oldest modern humans ever scientifically excavated.

Trinkaus, who compared the boy's limb proportions with those of Neandertal skeletons, including some children, says that the body is the first definite evidence of a mixture between Neandertal and early humans. While full Neandertals are thought to have been extinct for 4,000 years before the boy was born, he appears to be a descendant of generations of Neandertal-Cro-Magnon hybrids. Neandertals belong to our species and contributed their genes to European ancestry, he says."--SPENCER P.M. HARRINGTON

 

[lucaspa]

One more quick point: Storys such as this begin to cast doubt on the idea of neanderthals and humans being separate species. Assuming of course, that we look at the evidence with the reasonable idea that all hominoids may have been "us".

If they were "us", why is there a hybrid? Or worse, why is there only one? We have over 200 neandertals and 200 sapiens fossils, but only one with possible mosaic features? Notice also that this 3,000 years after neandertals disappeared from Portugal. You still have the problem that the latest neandertal fossils are the most neandertal. If, as you say, neandertals were "us", why weren't their features getting closer to "us"?

This particular fossil has been studied by others and the conclusions you posted disputed:

" his stocky body and short legs indicate Neandertal heritage, says Erik Trinkaus, a paleoanthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis. Interbreeding could answer the vexed question of the fate of the Neandertals, the last of whom disappeared from the Iberian Peninsula 28,000 years ago."

Note that this quote does not support your hypothesis. It only, at most, supports occasional interbreeding between neandertals and sapiens.

While full Neandertals are thought to have been extinct for 4,000 years before the boy was born, he appears to be a descendant of generations of Neandertal-Cro-Magnon hybrids. Neandertals belong to our species and contributed their genes to European ancestry, he says."--SPENCER P.M. HARRINGTON

Again, the problem is that, if this is true, we should find really old genes in Europeans, going back the 300,000 years that neandertals have been around. We don't. The oldest genes in the human genome are about 100,000 years old. That data comes after this article. I posted that in an earlier post in this thread.

Finally, the neandertal features of the skeleton are in dispute:
6. Ian Tattersall*, and Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Commentary Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution PNAS 96, Issue 13, 7117-7119, June 22, 1999
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/13/7117

 

[pudmuddle]

For those who think there is no creationist support for the devolving of creation I've pulled some articles and snippets off of AIG:

"Are cats getting dumber?
UNIVERSITY of Tennessee researchers studying the Spanish wildcat, which appears to be almost identical to the one tamed by the early Egyptians, found that it had 50 per cent more brain cells (neurons) than the house cat, particularly those giving sharper vision in daylight.
Puzzled by this evidence suggesting that cats' brains have 'devolved', one of them has suggested that cats have 'shed' brain cells because of living in the 'stressful" proximity of humans.
In order to survive they needed to produce larger litters, so to nourish these effectively they shed brain cells which need a lot of nourishment, he proposed.

The Times Picayune (New Orleans),
January 17,1993 (p.A-18).

Items which are not 'needed' to the same extent for survival can be lost through degenerative mutations. Losses of 'hunting vision ' neurons would be of no survival consequence for house cats. Perhaps also those with genetically fewer neurons happened to be naturally 'tamer' and thus automatically selected for. This would lead to a genetically depleted subgroup compared with its 'wild' (and less specialized) ancestor, which in turn would have less genetic variability than the original 'cat kind' on Noah's Ark. Such downhill changes are not evolution. Creationists have long suggested Adam and Eve were more intelligent than today's people.




… and platypuses are devolving, too!

AUSTRALIAN palaeontologist Michael Archer has found another definite fossil platypus tooth in South America, making three in all. The teeth are almost identical to fossil platypus teeth found in Australia.

He says, ‘This should shatter our warm conviction that the platypus was uniquely Australian.’

Today’s platypuses, which have no teeth, are far inferior to earlier platypuses in other ways, too, Dr Archer notes. He is quoted as saying it has ‘changed from a highly robust animal with good sets of teeth’ into what is affectively ‘an extremely degenerate small mammal.’

The Weekend Australian, January 23–24,1993 (p.10).

The Sydney Morning Herald, January 21,1993 (p.5).

This is relevant to the problem raised by skeptics of the ‘frail, timid platypus’ migrating to southern Australia from Ararat. It also helps answer the common belief that Australia’s unique fauna must have evolved here, because their fossils are found nowhere else. Marsupial fossils have now been found on every continent.

Wings on birds that do not fly?

The emu's wings are not useless.

There are at least two possibilities as to why flightless birds such as ostriches and emus have wings:

1. The wings are indeed ‘useless’ and derived from birds that once could fly. This is possible in the creationist model. Loss of features is relatively easy by natural processes, whereas acquisition of new characters, requiring specific new DNA information, is impossible. Loss of wings most probably occurred in a beetle species that colonized a windy island. Again, this is loss of genetic information, so it is not evidence for microbe-to-man evolution, which requires masses of new genetic information

Legless lizards
It is quite likely that legless lizards could have arisen through loss of genetic information from an original created kind, and the structures are consistent with this. ‘Loss’ of a structure is of no comfort to evolutionists, as they have to find a mechanism for creating new structures, not losing them. Loss of information cannot explain how evolution ‘from ameba to man’ could occur. Genesis 3:14 suggests that snakes may have once had legs.24

Adaptation and natural selection are biological facts; ameba-to-man evolution is not. Natural selection can only work on the genetic information present in a population of organisms—it cannot create new information. For example, since no known reptiles have genes for feathers, no amount of selection will produce a feathered reptile. Mutations in genes can only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create new ones. If in a certain environment a lizard survives better with smaller legs, or no legs, then varieties with this trait will be selected for. This might more accurately be called devolution, not evolution."

 

[pudmuddle]

That gives an ultimate cause, but doesn't really tell us anything about what "devolution" really is, does it? In terms of genes and information, for instance, what does "devolve" mean? Do we lose genetic information? If so what is that information that was lost? How do we recognize that it is no longer in the genome?

If "devolution" is the common procedure, then Cuozzo and perhaps some creationist molecular biologists -- like Jonathan Wells -- should have followed bacteria or flies and shown us how the flies continue to devolve.

Of course, Cuozzo's idea does conflict entirely with the theory of special creation, doesn't it? That species are created as they are and remain unchanged. For instance, Ark Guys so-called living fossils are now proof against creation, since they should be devolving, but Ark Guy maintains that they are "virtually unchanged".

I don't see where it conflicts with special creation. Creationists agree that species adapt. Also, no one said that everything is devolving at the same pace.

1. I never said Genesis is "a fun fairy tail iwth a moral". I said it wasn't literal, but that is very different from your characterization. Have you read the 9th commandment lately? Do you think it is supposed to be obeyed?

I'm sorry if you don't like my wording, but you state repeatedly that Genesis is symbolic, that portains were even influenced by false religions of the day
Sure sounds like a fairy tale with a moral to me, but probably only because I take your words literally.
Not a very subtle way of calling me a liar, why not just say it? I believe we are also admonished to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, so I suggest we attempt to practice it.

2. The earth was never perfect according to Genesis anyway. Genesis 1 says only that creation was "good" or "very good". Never perfect. I'm surprised that a literalist could possibly come up with the idea that the earth was perfect.

God being perfect, judges something to be very good. While it's true that the earth was not as perfect as Him, to be judged very good, it must have been pretty close to perfect, as planets go.

3. You should read Genesis 3 more carefully. The earth was never cursed.
Genesis 3:17-19 "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, "

Hmm, how does any of this coincide with evolution? I think the scripture speaks for itself, things were hardly changing for the better.

There's nothing here about animals being cursed or the earth as a whole. What is being cursed is Adam and that agriculture is going to be difficult. Adam will have a difficult time getting agricultural plants (herb) to grow. First Paul in Romans and now Cuozzo can't even do a literal interpretation of the Bible right!"

"You are cursed more than all cattle
and more than every beast of the field..." Genesis 3:14

Does this not suggest that other creatures were also cursed?

: "cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; "
"Till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, And to dust you shall return." (3:19)
Here they are first informed of the process of aging and decay, that started with their sin. Notice there is nothing about man being formed from animal, but from dust. A little later we see the first animals being killed, again, the start of a new and harsher system on the earth.

Of course, we have the law of thermodynamics, which in a sense is just a more complicated veiw of Muphy's law. We are not getting better and better, we are decreasing. Everything now degenerates. [/quopte]

Incorrect. While the universe as a whole is increasing in entropy (which is not disorder), not everything is increasing entropy. If that were true, then you never would exist. After all, you as an adult are a lot more organized and complex than you were as a fertilized ovum. How can that be if what you say is true?

This is just silly. A downward trend does not somehow cancel God's promise that life will continue until the end, and people will grow to adults, grow old and die. We are degenerating as a whole. The universe is degenerating. Perhaps you are thinking too small? Yes, good things still happen, babys are born, and we have no clue when the end will be or how long it will take, but if we believe the Bible, we know it will come.

Ah, but you forgot to state the reason. Is it because of the Fall? NO! It's because the ben Elohim were lusting after and mating with human women! You know, Pudmuddle, it's one thing to misrepresent thermodynamics. What is really upsetting is when you claim the Bible is from God and then you misrepresent it! It's one thing to misrepsent science; it's another to misrepresent God.

And how does elohim fit into the evolution picture? Why is it part of the Bible?
How does the reason misrepresent the fact? Why do you lapse into hysterics because I interpret this verse to mean lifespans? Yes, it could also mean God was giving man 120 years until he would send the flood. Which changes nothing in regards to lifespans being reduced after the flood, when the "neandrathals" we are discussing in this theory would have been scattered over the earth.

We may be living a lot soon longer thanks to evolution..

Do tell.

You know, it's real nice for Cuozzo to find evidence falsifying his own theory. Too bad he didn't recognize it for what it was. If, as you say "we are decreasing. Everything now degenerates." then that means that Adam should be the oldest, with Seth and Enosh the second oldest, since the degeneration hadn't progressed as far yet. So how could it be possible that Noah lived 180 years longer than his father Lamech? That doesn't sound like "degeneration" to me.

Some people live longer than others due to any number of causes. Does nothing to change the overall picture.

I also believe God reveals truth. I just don't think a literal interpretation of the Bible is the correct interpretation. Also, unlike you, I really believe that God created. Therefore God also reveals truth in His Creation. You, however, only listen to part of what God is telling you. You close your ears to anything in His Creation you don't want to hear and recite the mantra "his word, his word, his word" as though that will shut out the truth.

So, God does not reveal literal truth? Uh, I really believe that God created also. I just believe his word supercedes man's interpretation of creation.

However, you don't believe "God revearls the truth in all his word". I don't see you arguing for the whole world being taxed as it literally says in Luke 2:1. I've brought this up before and you ignore it. Why don't you insist on a literal interpretation here?

Common sense. Can you tax someone who doesn't exist or someone who is not under government? I follow a common sense, literal interpretation.

 

[lucaspa]

I don't see where it conflicts with special creation. Creationists agree that species adapt. Also, no one said that everything is devolving at the same pace.

Ark Guy won't accept that not all populations have to evolve at the same pace, why should he accept that some don't devolve. Remember, Ark Guy's claim is that the species are "virtually unchanged". No change = no devolution. So the horseshoe crab is unaffected by the Fall? Why?

I'm sorry if you don't like my wording, but you state repeatedly that Genesis is symbolic, that portains were even influenced by false religions of the day

Misstatement of what I say. Again, I say that some parts of Genesis are symbolic, but that does not equal "a fun fairy tail iwth a moral". Nor do I say that Genesis 1 was "even influenced by false religions of the day". I have stated very clearly that the purpose of Genesis 1 was to destroy the Babylonian pantheon, therefore Genesis 1 is structured to destroy the Babylonian gods in sequence as they were presented in the Enuma Elish. That is very different from saying "influenced by false religions of the day"

Sure sounds like a fairy tale with a moral to me, but probably only because I take your words literally.

If you took my words literally, you wouldn't say that, because I never literally said that.

Not a very subtle way of calling me a liar, why not just say it? I believe we are also admonished to love our neighbor as we love ourselves, so I suggest we attempt to practice it.

Loving our neighbors does not mean we overlook flaws in them or in ourselves. It means we love them flaws and all. It also doesn't mean that the neighbors get to break the Commandments. It is loving to point out to you when you are breaking a Commandment because it is you who will suffer the consequences. I would like to spare you the consequences and give you a chance to correct and repent.

God being perfect, judges something to be very good. While it's true that the earth was not as perfect as Him, to be judged very good, it must have been pretty close to perfect, as planets go.

IOW, Creation is not perfect, but very good. So the idea that Creation was perfect is a man-made theology not supported Biblically.

3. You should read Genesis 3 more carefully. The earth was never cursed.
Genesis 3:17-19 "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, "

Hmm, how does any of this coincide with evolution? I think the scripture speaks for itself, things were hardly changing for the better.

This has nothing to do with evolution. We are talking about the man-made theory that the earth and everything on it was cursed by the Fall. A literal reading of the Bible shows that the whole earth was not cursed.

What is being tested is not evolution, but the man-made theory about the Fall and "devolution". For people who advocate literalism, they have come up with a theory that is not supported by a literal reading of the Bible. Ironic, isn't it?

"You are cursed more than all cattle
and more than every beast of the field..." Genesis 3:14

Does this not suggest that other creatures were also cursed?

Suggest, but the suggestion is that "more than" phrase. In Hebrew that is not a comparison but an absolute. A better translation is "you alone of all the animals must bear this curse" IOW, only the serpent is being cursed. Not all creatures.

: "cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; "
"Till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, And to dust you shall return." (3:19)
Here they are first informed of the process of aging and decay, that started with their sin. Notice there is nothing about man being formed from animal, but from dust. A little later we see the first animals being killed, again, the start of a new and harsher system on the earth.

They are informed of it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't going to happen. The time sequence is screwed up anyway, since Genesis 2:17 says Adam should have died in the moment of eating the fruit. There is nothing in Genesis 1 about man being formed from dust, either. Men and women, together, are spoken into existence.

It's not the start of a new and harsher system, because we were never told that there was any other system. Again, for a literalist you are taking remarkable liberties with the text. We have no idea that animals were not being killed before or that they wouldn't have died. Adam and Eve ate of the fruit so early that we are never told if there was any other system in place. You are assuming there was, but in other contexts (such as Cuozzo's about growth rates) we are told that we can't assume things. Why are you breaking your own rule?

This is just silly. A downward trend does not somehow cancel God's promise that life will continue until the end, and people will grow to adults, grow old and die.

We're not talking about God's promise, we are talking about your (and Cuozzo's) theory of devolution. That life got inexorably shorter due to the Fall and the degeneration as a result. Assume that theory is true. We would deduce that people further from the intial event would live shorter lives than people close to it, since the degeneration would have more time to progress. But that isn't what we see in the data you and Cuozzo are presenting. Instead, we see people farther from the degenerating event living longer than people close to it. Significantly longer.

We are degenerating as a whole. The universe is degenerating. Perhaps you are thinking too small? Yes, good things still happen, babys are born, and we have no clue when the end will be or how long it will take, but if we believe the Bible, we know it will come.

Ah, but babies being born and growing is contradictory to degeneration, isn't it? After all, you are much more complex now than as a fertilized ovum, right? So it is possible to defy degeneration. Now, if that can be done with babies, why can't it be done with evolution?

Even without the Bible, we know the end will come. The continued expansion of the universe leads to an inevitable heat death and maximum entropy.

However, you are making a different claim. You are claiming that there is a continual and steady degeneration until the end. But then you have data to contradict that and now are making ad hoc hypotheses to save the claim from falsification.

Ah, but you forgot to state the reason. Is it because of the Fall? NO! It's because the ben Elohim were lusting after and mating with human women! You know, Pudmuddle, it's one thing to misrepresent thermodynamics. What is really upsetting is when you claim the Bible is from God and then you misrepresent it! It's one thing to misrepsent science; it's another to misrepresent God.

And how does elohim fit into the evolution picture? Why is it part of the Bible?
How does the reason misrepresent the fact? Why do you lapse into hysterics because I interpret this verse to mean lifespans? Yes, it could also mean God was giving man 120 years until he would send the flood. Which changes nothing in regards to lifespans being reduced after the flood, when the "neandrathals" we are discussing in this theory would have been scattered over the earth.

We are not discussing evolution, but your theory of degeneration due to the Fall. The point here is that lifespans are not limited to 120 years because of anything humans have done. It's not part of the Fall. It's due to the actions of ben elohim and God's decision. You took the fact of 120 year lifespans and said they were due to the Fall. That misrepresents what the Bible says.

And where in the Bible does it say lifespans are reduced after the Flood? If God set lifespans at 120 years regardless of the consequences of the Fall, what is the mechanism for reduced lifespans after the Flood?

Again, the neandertals we are discussing had the most neandertal features just before their extinction. If you are going to argue that they became sapiens, why don't they start to get sapiens features?

Do tell.

Look it up on PubMed. Using Darwinian selection flies have evolved to have lifespans over 3 times their previous lifespans. That corresponds to over 230 years for humans. Where's the "devolution" in that?

Some people live longer than others due to any number of causes. Does nothing to change the overall picture.

Sure it does. Your theory and the Biblical data don't give any other causes. No one in the generations is said to have died from trauma or cancer or cardiac problems or any disease. It's all old age. You are proposing a steady degeneration due to the Fall. The data contradicts that.

Of course, modern data also contradict that as average lifespan is increasing.

I also believe God reveals truth. I just don't think a literal interpretation of the Bible is the correct interpretation. Also, unlike you, I really believe that God created. Therefore God also reveals truth in His Creation. You, however, only listen to part of what God is telling you. You close your ears to anything in His Creation you don't want to hear and recite the mantra "his word, his word, his word" as though that will shut out the truth.

So, God does not reveal literal truth?

Did I say that? How can you misrepresent what I said when the words are right in front of you? Let me be specific: I don't think a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8 is the correct interpretation. That better? I thought it was understood in context that we were discussing only that portion of the Bible dealing with the creation stories.

Uh, I really believe that God created also. I just believe his word supercedes man's interpretation of creation.

1. Why? Since "man's interpretation" is simply reading what God wrote in Creation.
2. "his word" is not the straight words of God. "his word" is your interpretation of the words in Genesis 1-8. So, why does some men's interpretation of Genesis 1-8 supercede what God wrote in Creation that everyone is reading?

Common sense. Can you tax someone who doesn't exist or someone who is not under government? I follow a common sense, literal interpretation.

But isn't God's wisdom different from man's wisdom? Yet you use your wisdom -- common sense -- to modify a literal interpretation. But you won't allow anyone else to use their wisdom and common sense to know that the earth simply can't be under 20,000 years old or that new species arise without special creation. Can you say in-con-sis-tent?

You also use extrabiblical knowledge to know that there were people outside of Caesar Augustus' empire, don't you? Did you get that information from Luke 2:1? No.

So once again, altho you insist on "his word" alone, you have admitted that you can use human wisdom and extrabiblical knowledge to modify "his word" So the question is: why won't you allow that in Genesis 1-8?

 

[pudmuddle]

If they were "us", why is there a hybrid? Or worse, why is there only one? We have over 200 neandertals and 200 sapiens fossils, but only one with possible mosaic features? Notice also that this 3,000 years after neandertals disappeared from Portugal. You still have the problem that the latest neandertal fossils are the most neandertal. If, as you say, neandertals were "us", why weren't their features getting closer to "us"?]

That is an awfully small sample for what, 25 billion years of evolution? Why don't we have several thousand of these fossils? Now, if we were only talking a few thousand years, in which man, not mindless humanoids, wandered and worked this earth, it makes a little more sense.

You're forgetting that I don't put much stock in the dating methods used. So, they say it was 3,000 years after neandrerthals left Portugal, but is this correct? The latest are the most neandertal-only if they are really the latest.

This particular fossil has been studied by others and the conclusions you posted disputed:

Just another example of evolutionists not agreeing on what really happened. I pulled the article from a site that supports evolution, after all. So, we pick and choose who we should believe....

Note that this quote does not support your hypothesis. It only, at most, supports occasional interbreeding between neandertals and sapiens.


Again, the problem is that, if this is true, we should find really old genes in Europeans, going back the 300,000 years that neandertals have been around. We don't. The oldest genes in the human genome are about 100,000 years old. That data comes after this article. I posted that in an earlier post in this thread.

Finally, the neandertal features of the skeleton are in dispute:
6. Ian Tattersall*, and Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Commentary Hominids and hybrids: the place of Neanderthals in human evolution PNAS 96, Issue 13, 7117-7119, June 22, 1999
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/13/7117

Yawn, I'm sure they'll find a way to fit the evidence into the most convenient scenerio.
Interbreeding, or a devolving "transistional"?

 

[pudmuddle]

Ark Guy won't accept that not all populations have to evolve at the same pace, why should he accept that some don't devolve. Remember, Ark Guy's claim is that the species are "virtually unchanged". No change = no devolution. So the horseshoe crab is unaffected by the Fall? Why?

I have no idea what form the horseshoe crab took when it was created, and I doubt you do eithor, but let's stick to discussing issues in this thread. Ark Guy is welcome to join in if he wishes.

Misstatement of what I say. Again, I say that some parts of Genesis are symbolic, but that does not equal "a fun fairy tail iwth a moral". Nor do I say that Genesis 1 was "even influenced by false religions of the day". I have stated very clearly that the purpose of Genesis 1 was to destroy the Babylonian pantheon, therefore Genesis 1 is structured to destroy the Babylonian gods in sequence as they were presented in the Enuma Elish. That is very different from saying "influenced by false religions of the day"?

If Genesis 1 was stuctured to destroy the Babylonian gods and it did so by making up a form of creation that didn't really happen, what would that make it?
Not only would it be false, it would have very little relevance to us, today. And it would have been more than influenced by false religions. It would be one.

A symbolic tale is a myth. A myth is a fairy tale, usually with a moral. A rose by any other name....

If you took my words literally, you wouldn't say that, because I never literally said that.

Sure you did. You just didn't use those words.

Loving our neighbors does not mean we overlook flaws in them or in ourselves. It means we love them flaws and all. It also doesn't mean that the neighbors get to break the Commandments. It is loving to point out to you when you are breaking a Commandment because it is you who will suffer the consequences. I would like to spare you the consequences and give you a chance to correct and repent.

No problem. I've already forgiven you. Thank you for pointing out a possible flaw, which I have plenty of, but I don't make a habit of lying. I do prefer to state things more bluntly than some folks prefer to hear them.

IOW, Creation is not perfect, but very good. So the idea that Creation was perfect is a man-made theology not supported Biblically.

Very good is waaay better then our current situation. This is really just word games as nothing can be perfect except God, that I know of. But, again, to the finite minds of the first man and woman creation must have seemed perfect.

This has nothing to do with evolution. We are talking about the man-made theory that the earth and everything on it was cursed by the Fall. A literal reading of the Bible shows that the whole earth was not cursed.

Nothing to do with evolution? Why can't we test it, as another man-made theory? I freely admit that creationism is a theory, because I see facts as only things that can be readily observed. I believe in creation as written on faith. Even in a symbolic reading, this and many other parts of Genesis should present problems for theistic evolution, unless they totally discount Genesis as having anything at all to say about how the earth and it's inhabitants came about. The fall is all about things becoming worse, while evolution preaches the exact opposite veiw.

What is being tested is not evolution, but the man-made theory about the Fall and "devolution". For people who advocate literalism, they have come up with a theory that is not supported by a literal reading of the Bible. Ironic, isn't it?

It is supported rather strongly.

Suggest, but the suggestion is that "more than" phrase. In Hebrew that is not a comparison but an absolute. A better translation is "you alone of all the animals must bear this curse" IOW, only the serpent is being cursed. Not all creatures.

Interesting, but hardly conclusive. I will look into some other interpretations. I beleive I was reading the new king jame.

They are informed of it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't going to happen. The time sequence is screwed up anyway, since Genesis 2:17 says Adam should have died in the moment of eating the fruit. There is nothing in Genesis 1 about man being formed from dust, either. Men and women, together, are spoken into existence.

To quote Nelson: "shall surely die: These emphatic words are made of two forms of the verb meaning " to die" The point is not that the guilty person would drop dead right then, but that it would certaintly happen--there is no escape. (Heb 9:27)
And we are reading in the second chapter, in which man is formed from the dust.

It's not the start of a new and harsher system, because we were never told that there was any other system. Again, for a literalist you are taking remarkable liberties with the text. We have no idea that animals were not being killed before or that they wouldn't have died. Adam and Eve ate of the fruit so early that we are never told if there was any other system in place. You are assuming there was, but in other contexts (such as Cuozzo's about growth rates) we are told that we can't assume things. Why are you breaking your own rule?

Again, a common sense reading of verses 1:29-31 causes you to believe there was no meat eating or killing prior to the fall. Don't you think God would have mentioned that the animals were also for food, not just the herbs?

Some things are assumed in any theory. You are taking Cuozzo's words out of context. Are growth rates uniform even in the different races that exist today?
Again, we have to read with common sense reasoning, when we get into the small details, which in no way makes a literal reading wrong. If for example, someone assumes that the whole earth was taxed, it takes nothing away from the happenings recorded.

We're not talking about God's promise, we are talking about your (and Cuozzo's) theory of devolution. That life got inexorably shorter due to the Fall and the degeneration as a result. Assume that theory is true. We would deduce that people further from the intial event would live shorter lives than people close to it, since the degeneration would have more time to progress. But that isn't what we see in the data you and Cuozzo are presenting. Instead, we see people farther from the degenerating event living longer than people close to it. Significantly longer. ?

We are talking about a general trend, that accerrated post flood. You are using that uniform thinking again.

Ah, but babies being born and growing is contradictory to degeneration, isn't it? After all, you are much more complex now than as a fertilized ovum, right? So it is possible to defy degeneration. Now, if that can be done with babies, why can't it be done with evolution?

God promised that people would continue to be born and grow and die until the end. He also said that things would wax worse and worse.

Even without the Bible, we know the end will come. The continued expansion of the universe leads to an inevitable heat death and maximum entropy.

However, you are making a different claim. You are claiming that there is a continual and steady degeneration until the end. But then you have data to contradict that and now are making ad hoc hypotheses to save the claim from falsification.


We are not discussing evolution, but your theory of degeneration due to the Fall. The point here is that lifespans are not limited to 120 years because of anything humans have done. It's not part of the Fall. It's due to the actions of ben elohim and God's decision. You took the fact of 120 year lifespans and said they were due to the Fall. That misrepresents what the Bible says?

When did I say that lifespans reducing to 120 were a result of the fall? And why is it suddenly not permissable to discuss evolution? Where does ben elohim fit into the evolution theory? Surely, they would have some effects on genetics, maybe do some DNA altering?

And where in the Bible does it say lifespans are reduced after the Flood? If God set lifespans at 120 years regardless of the consequences of the Fall, what is the mechanism for reduced lifespans after the Flood?

We've already discussed this. First, man's lifestyle after being scatter, second the changes in the earth's atmosphere and landscape.

Again, the neandertals we are discussing had the most neandertal features just before their extinction. If you are going to argue that they became sapiens, why don't they start to get sapiens features?

Not became sapiens, were sapiens.

Look it up on PubMed. Using Darwinian selection flies have evolved to have lifespans over 3 times their previous lifespans. That corresponds to over 230 years for humans. Where's the "devolution" in that?

What is PubMed?

Sure it does. Your theory and the Biblical data don't give any other causes. No one in the generations is said to have died from trauma or cancer or cardiac problems or any disease. It's all old age. You are proposing a steady degeneration due to the Fall. The data contradicts that.

Of course, modern data also contradict that as average lifespan is increasing.

Due to what? and is this worldwide or only in priveleged countrys?

Did I say that? How can you misrepresent what I said when the words are right in front of you? Let me be specific: I don't think a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8 is the correct interpretation. That better? I thought it was understood in context that we were discussing only that portion of the Bible dealing with the creation stories.


1. Why? Since "man's interpretation" is simply reading what God wrote in Creation.
2. "his word" is not the straight words of God. "his word" is your interpretation of the words in Genesis 1-8. So, why does some men's interpretation of Genesis 1-8 supercede what God wrote in Creation that everyone is reading?

Who is doing the interpretating? And even more important, God's word was written for us and He is capable of directing the writers and interpreters down through the ages. What is written in creation is not in words and as such is much more liable for false interpretation, especially by people who would like to deny God's existance.

But isn't God's wisdom different from man's wisdom? Yet you use your wisdom -- common sense -- to modify a literal interpretation. But you won't allow anyone else to use their wisdom and common sense to know that the earth simply can't be under 20,000 years old or that new species arise without special creation. Can you say in-con-sis-tent?

You also use extrabiblical knowledge to know that there were people outside of Caesar Augustus' empire, don't you? Did you get that information from Luke 2:1? No.

So once again, altho you insist on "his word" alone, you have admitted that you can use human wisdom and extrabiblical knowledge to modify "his word" So the question is: why won't you allow that in Genesis 1-8?

There's a big difference between an obvious interpretation of a sentence and totally rewriting the first and foundational 8 chapters of the Bible. Evolution does not fit the written script, and I see no reason to deny what is plainly meant.