Evolution or descent with modification?

[inquiring mind]

What is a "complete progressive transformation" supposed to mean?

I think macroevolution (or the concept of universal descent from a common ancestor) answers your question.

 

[Ophiolite]

How does my comment reject the Word of God? We know nothing of His methods and use of time-frames. You will never find enough written in the rocks and inscribed in our DNA to say "it definitely happened this way or He did it like this."

We find more than enough in the rocks and in DNA to say "it certainly appears as if it happened this way and it is certainly the most probable way that it did happen".

You have chosen to ignore that evidence. I know you have ignored it because the evidence is so overwhelming that, if you had studied it, you would be forced to agree with me.

I do not have a problem with anyone who says "I am aware of the evidence, but my faith and personal experience of God and confidence in the literal truth of Scripture lead me to reject it." That is a faith based position I fully respect, even though I doubt its utility.

I do have a problem with someone who pretends the evidence is inadequate, or insufficient, or even - as some say - non-existent. Those people are either deceiving themselves, or knowlingly attempting to deceive others. That I do not respect, though I fear its utility.

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe you're addressing the many non-believing proponents of macroevolution. As for me, disregarding God's Word everytime an evolutionist tells me 'this or that' couldn't have happened, or this is how He did it according to our reasoning, is not a betrayal of the Great Commission and a disgrace to the Christian faith.

Oh, God's Word. So once again you are not really talking about the existence of God or our salvation in Christ, but about your own interpretation of Scripture. You are not preaching the Gospel of Christ, as He commanded us to do, but instead you are preaching the literal inerrancy of Genesis.

 

[pitabread]

I think macroevolution (or the concept of universal descent from a common ancestor) answers your question.

No, that doesn't answer the question because we likely have very different understanding of it.

I'm asking what you think "complete progressive transformation" means. You used this phrase after all.

 

[inquiring mind]

I do have a problem with someone who pretends the evidence is inadequate, or insufficient, or even - as some say - non-existent. Those people are either deceiving themselves, or knowlingly attempting to deceive others. That I do not respect, though I fear its utility.

Simply put, I think it is your interpretation of the evidence that is inadequate.

 

[Ophiolite]

Simply put, I think it is your interpretation of the evidence that is inadequate.

It is my interpretation. It just happens to coincide, on all major points, with the interpretation of tens of thousands of epxerts, many of them Christians, who have devoted their lives to testing, validating and enhancing that interpretation. How much time have you devoted to studying the evidence?

 

[inquiring mind]

No, that doesn't answer the question because we likely have very different understanding of it.

I'm asking what you think "complete progressive transformation" means. You used this phrase after all.

I don't think species (your term) gradually appear from ‘nothing’ (I'd think that would make for "complete progressive transformation" if you don't believe in creation), but rather all at once and basically fully formed. For all the biological push, there's just not much real support in the fossil record for such a steady transformation. Please try to explain your reasoning without pretending to understand God's building blocks and how life could be breathed into molecular cells.

 

[inquiring mind]

It is my interpretation. It just happens to coincide, on all major points, with the interpretation of tens of thousands of epxerts, many of them Christians, who have devoted their lives to testing, validating and enhancing that interpretation. How much time have you devoted to studying the evidence?

And there are many who disagree... there you go questioning my knowledge again.

 

[Ophiolite]

And there are many who disagree... there you go questioning my knowledge again.

1. The number who disagree is a tiny fraction of those who agree. This does not mean the majority is correct, but it does require the minority offer much more than handwaving and empty assertions if they wish to be taken seriously.

2. Questioning your knowledge? Of course I am questioning your knowledge! Your interpretation of the massive volumes of evidence and the scientific consensus require that your knowledge be questioned.
I have zero problem having my knowledge questioned. Why would I? The question is, why would you?
Nevertheless, it was nice - if failed - attempt to deflect attention from the question? So . . .

3. How much time have you devoted to studying the evidence?

Edit: I've been reflecting more on "questioning of knowledge". The more I think on it, the more I realise it appears to reveal something significant about your approach to science. I and any other person with pretensions of scientific thinking not only expect to have their knowledge questioned, they welcome it and would be disappointed - in many cases - if it were not. Yet you seem to resent it! That tells me much more about your attitude on the matter than you might have intended to reveal. Nevertheless, question 3 still stands. Will you demonstrate that the opinion I am forming of you is flawed and provide an answer? I hope so.

 

[inquiring mind]

Oh, God's Word. So once again you are not really talking about the existence of God or our salvation in Christ, but about your own interpretation of Scripture. You are not preaching the Gospel of Christ, as He commanded us to do, but instead you are preaching the literal inerrancy of Genesis.

No, God’s Word is but one of many ways He communicates with us. I don’t think God communicates through words only, but through feelings and other means as well, scientific study and thought included. The key for us is to make sure it’s God’s message we’re getting (myself included). You don’t really believe Jesus doubted Genesis, do you?

 

[inquiring mind]

1. The number who disagree is a tiny fraction of those who agree. This does mean the majority is correct, but it does require the minority offer much more than handwaving and empty assertions if they wish to be taken seriously.

It takes belief in macroevolution... right?

2. Questioning your knowledge? Of course I am questioning your knowledge! Your interpretation of the massive volumes of evidence and the scientific consensus require that your knowledge be questioned.
I have zero problem having my knowledge questioned. Why would I? The question is, why would you?
Nevertheless, it was nice - if failed - attempt to deflect attention from the question? So . . .

I don't know, you seem much too defensive for me to believe that.

3. How much time have you devoted to studying the evidence?

Well, if your knowledge can be included... quite a bit.

Edit: I've been reflecting more on "questioning of knowledge". The more I think on it, the more I realise it appears to reveal something significant about your approach to science. I and any other person with pretensions of scientific thinking not only expect to have their knowledge questioned, they welcome it and would be disappointed - in many cases - if it were not. Yet you seem to resent it! That tells me much more about your attitude on the matter than you might have intended to reveal.

Sounds like therapy... do I have to pay for the answer?

 

[Speedwell]

No, God’s Word is but one of many ways He communicates with us. I don’t think God communicates through words only, but through feelings and other means as well, scientific study and thought included. The key for us is to make sure it’s God’s message we’re getting (myself included). You don’t really believe Jesus doubted Genesis, do you?

I have no reason to think He doubted it, quite the reverse, in fact. However, He did not give us His opinion about its literary genre. I think that for Jesus, as for most Christians, the Scriptures were authoritative because they are the word of God, not because they fit someone's preconceived notion of what kind of literary form they must be.

 

[Speedwell]

It takes belief in macroevolution... right?

It takes an understanding of how macroevolution is said to work, not belief in it.

 

[Ophiolite]

It takes belief in macroevolution... right?=

No belief is required. It does take acceptance that macroevolution occurs. That acceptance is based upon a sufficient study of the evidence mentioned in previous posts.

I don't know, you seem much too defensive for me to believe that.

That comes dangerously close to you calling me a liar? I notice you have avoided the sensible test by enquiring as to the extent of my knowledge, or by putting it to the test through a series of specific questions. Instead you resort to offensive generalities and implicit insults.

Well, if your knowledge can be included... quite a bit.

Seriously! Are you trying to be provocative and rude, or does it just come naturally? Either declare that you have no intention of stating how much study of evolutionary theory you have made, or provide some proper details.

Sounds like therapy... do I have to pay for the answer?

Sarcasm is another avoidance mechanism. The question remains: what is the extent of your knowledge of evolutionary theory and how did you acquire it?

 

[inquiring mind]

No belief is required. It does take acceptance that macroevolution occurs. That acceptance is based upon a sufficient study of the evidence mentioned in previous posts.

All the study in the world won't make you accept something if you don't believe it. In fact, I'd venture to bet that the majority of people who accept macroevolution have actually studied it very little; they just believe what they are told.

That comes dangerously close to you calling me a liar?

Any closer than you were to calling me a liar in post #22?

Seriously! Are you trying to be provocative and rude, or does it just come naturally? Either declare that you have no intention of stating how much study of evolutionary theory you have made, or provide some proper details.

I have no intentions of stating how much study of evolutionary theory I have.

Sarcasm is another avoidance mechanism. The question remains: what is the extent of your knowledge of evolutionary theory and how did you acquire it?

Again, I have no intentions of stating how much study of evolutionary theory I have. That's like me continually asking you to declare the extent and sources of your knowledge regarding Creationism.

 

[Speedwell]

Again, I have no intentions of stating how much study of evolutionary theory I have. That's like me continually asking you to declare the extent and sources of your knowledge regarding Creationism.

Which we would gladly provide.

 

[inquiring mind]

Which we would gladly provide.

Maybe so, but I'd prefer not to ask that as a challenge to your comments.

 

[pitabread]

I don't think species (your term) gradually appear from ‘nothing’ (I'd think that would make for "complete progressive transformation" if you don't believe in creation), but rather all at once and basically fully formed.

What do you mean by 'nothing' in this context? Evolution doesn't work from nothing, it builds on what came before it. Even if you wind back all the way to the origin of life, the first life would have still been built on organic precursors.

So I'm still not sure what you mean by "complete progressive transformation" in the context of biological evolution. Could you give an example of what you are talking about, even if it is just hypothetical?

Also FWIW, species is not "my term". I'm not sure what you are trying to imply with that comment.

 

[pitabread]

All the study in the world won't make you accept something if you don't believe it. In fact, I'd venture to bet that the majority of people who accept macroevolution have actually studied it very little; they just believe what they are told.

What about biologists? I would think they've studied more than most. And there's near-universal consent on the subject of common ancestry.

 

[inquiring mind]

Even if you wind back all the way to the origin of life, the first life would have still been built on organic precursors.

By 'origin of life' do you mean when God breathed consciousness and a soul as we know it into organic precursors forming a man and making him a living being?

So I'm still not sure what you mean by "complete progressive transformation" in the context of biological evolution.

By progressive transformation I meant the steady transformation from a common ancestor (in the context of biological evolution) from wherever you think the beginning was. By complete I simply meant from the beginning up to this point. I don't understand your questioning here; surely you understood that. But, evidently you don't think there was a starting point at all. Is that correct?

Also FWIW, species is not "my term". I'm not sure what you are trying to imply with that comment.

Maybe you would be more satisfied using the term 'Kind.'

What about biologists?

What about them? What does that have to do with my comment referring to the majority of people?