Evolution of the human eye

[Estrid]

We can’t prove God nor evolution but we can present evidence.

The thing about the "sudden" rise of civilization within
what some consider " biblical" time frame is cited
often enough as being proof, or completing
evidence, for God.

Actual evidence for god(s) is just whatever strikes the
fancy.

Scientific evidence requires more rigor.

 

[renniks]

Well! That certainly settles the free will question!

No it doesn't. God can do both. Just because he's holding together every particle of matter, doesn't mean and he doesn't allow Free Will within certain boundaries. If God is telling the story, he still allows us to write at least some of our own script.

 

[renniks]

Indeed.

Adam's near descendants were doing just that.

Genesis 4:22a And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron:

QV also:

I've been involved in experimental archeology enough to know that they were anything but stupid. You try tanning a hide with brains and smoke, or flaking an obsidian point sharper than any steel. Now imagine you lived to be 800 years old and how much knowledge you could gain in that time.
I suspect a lot of things had to be re-learned after the flood. Ancient books like Job don't picture mankind as ignorant cavemen, but as knowledgeable farmers and philosophers.

 

[AV1611VET]

The thing about the "sudden" rise of civilization within what some consider " biblical" time frame is cited often enough as being proof, or completing evidence, for God.

It should.

As God told Noah and his sons:

Genesis 9:7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

Scientific evidence requires more rigor.

Yup.

Acts 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've been involved in experimental archeology enough to know that they were anything but stupid.

But ... but they was hoamskooled, wasn't they!?

 

[Frank Robert]

You make the assumption that God isn't consistently involved in every particle of matter. That's how you reach the odd conclusion that he has to fiddle. You see it as natural processes. If God is holding it all together, there's really no such thing.

You have it backwards. The creationist model that God is involved in every particle of matter is a description of fiddling. Think about the evolutionists perspective of random mutations that naturally selected vs the creationist perspective that God is responsible for both the mutations and the selections. It even goes deeper than that in macro-evolution where creationist dismiss any natural causes.

So maybe you don't like the word fiddle but how does "God holding it all together" explain the evolutionary changes.

 

[Frank Robert]

I've been involved in experimental archeology enough to know that they were anything but stupid.

See:
The Argument from Incredulity

 

[Estrid]

You have it backwards. The creationist model that God is involved in every particle of matter is a description of fiddling. Think about the evolutionists perspective of random mutations that naturally selected vs the creationist perspective that God is responsible for both the mutations and the selections. It even goes deeper than that in macro-evolution where creationist dismiss any natural causes.

So maybe you don't like the word fiddle but how does "God holding it all together" explain the evolutionary changes.

Maybe "tinker" as in keeping an antique car running
would make more mellifluous music to a creationist ear.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe "tinker" as in keeping an antique car running
would make more mellifluous music to a creationist ear.

 

[renniks]

But ... but they was hoamskooled, wasn't they!?

Lol, some of the brightest "kids" I know were homeschooled. So, that's probably an advantage. The old way of learning a trade beside your father has a lot of merit, IMO.

 

[renniks]

You have it backwards. The creationist model that God is involved in every particle of matter is a description of fiddling. Think about the evolutionists perspective of random mutations that naturally selected vs the creationist perspective that God is responsible for both the mutations and the selections. It even goes deeper than that in macro-evolution where creationist dismiss any natural causes.

So maybe you don't like the word fiddle but how does "God holding it all together" explain the evolutionary changes.

So you have a clock winder god if you have any god involved at all. I would think non-beneficial forms of mutations are due to the existence of sin in the world. And beneficial changes that are already in the DNA code but just need to be switched on are God's design at work. I'm not claiming to know exactly how God does everything, but if you are a Christain, you have to believe he holds it all together because that's directly from scripture.

 

[Speedwell]

So you have a clock winder god if you have any god involved at all.

No. You have a God who can act causally in ways other than the natural causes which science studies.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lol, some of the brightest "kids" I know were homeschooled. So, that's probably an advantage. The old way of learning a trade beside your father has a lot of merit, IMO.

Reminds of this:

 

[renniks]

No. You have a God who can act causally in ways other than the natural causes which science studies.

I was talking about the god who supposedly started evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

I was talking about the god who supposedly started evolution.

That "clockwinder" God is certainly one of the theoretical possibilities, but I don't know of very many non-creationist Christians who actually believe in such a being.

 

[renniks]

That "clockwinder" God is certainly one of the theoretical possibilities, but I don't know of very many non-creationist Christians who actually believe in such a being.

Then why use the term "natural processes?"

If God is guiding Evolution it's no longer a totally natural process.

 

[Speedwell]

Then why use the term "natural processes?"

If God is guiding Evolution it's no longer a totally natural process.

OK, if you want to think of it that way, but divine involvement is an unfasifiable proposition and thus inaccessible to science. Let me put it this way: Nothing that science has discovered or in principle could discover can disprove the existence of God or his authorship of our being. Or this: the science of a non-creationist Christian is exactly the same as the science of an agnostic or an atheist.

 

[Frank Robert]

So you have a clock winder god if you have any god involved at all.

Many Christians, including many Christian scientists believe that God created the laws of nature so everything in nature (good or bad) is natural.

I would think non-beneficial forms of mutations are due to the existence of sin in the world.

Isn't that interference or fiddling, or intruding and doesn't God have his own remedy for sin in eternal life?

And beneficial changes that are already in the DNA code but just need to be switched on are God's design at work.

There is no scientific evidence for front loading DNA.

I'm not claiming to know exactly how God does everything, but if you are a Christain, you have to believe he holds it all together because that's directly from scripture.

That is what exactly what many Christians believe minus the extra creationist baggage.

 

[renniks]

That is what exactly what many Christians believe but minus a lot of extra creationist baggage.

I don't see how you can believe that and not be a creationist in some sense.

 

[Frank Robert]

I don't see how you can believe that and not be a creationist in some sense.

Easy. One can believe in a creator God w/o believing in a literal reading of genesis.