Evolution vs Creationism

[Molal]

The main reason I do not see evolution (macro) = cells -> apes -> man as compatible with the Bible is that this process, by definition, involves death. If all the tests survive how would there be any fitness evaluation?

Evolution requires death. And not just a small amount either, but billions ^ billions ^ billions ^ a few more billions of lives all sacrificed for the meaningless purpose of "progress". The God I see revealed in the bible doesn't seem to be as wasteful. Furthermore, He introduced death as a punishment in chapter 3 of Genesis not in Chapter 1.

Can you provide some biblical quotes that supports your assertion? I ask so that we can discuss the same thing.

 

[Molal]

Actually it can. The programs I wrote were written in such a way to be capable of enforcing "environmental pressure", random mutations, etc. I gave a simple mathematical example as it was easiest to work with.

Other work has been done with evolving "fish and shark" behaviour; "predator and prey", ants hunting for food, and many other much more complex "biological" problems.

That's wonderful, congratulations - I didn't know that.

 

[mont974x4]

For me (my opinion) by taking genesis literally one makes God out to be a liar. This is because His creation exhibits vast differences to the inspired word.

Again, for me, genesis was inspired to combat the numerous origin myths throughout the region. Genesis reduces the sun and moon to mere "lumps of rock" from gods. Genesis served a purpose. It says God made everything.

I'm sorry but that just make sense to me. If it happened any way different than what God tells us in Genesis then He would be a liar.

 

[mont974x4]

Yeah, but you could claim that for any part of the Bible. There are some thngs that are metaphors.

Not if I wanted to be honest. Of course, it depends on how you define literal. IMO, I approach Scripture this way (and would call it a literal approach)....if it is a historical account..treat it as such, if a parable then treat it as a parable, if a poem then treat it as a poem..and so on.


When looking at Genesis there is nothing to suggest it to be parable or metaphor or anything but an accurate historical account.

 

[BlueIceDragon]

Not if I wanted to be honest. Of course, it depends on how you define literal. IMO, I approach Scripture this way (and would call it a literal approach)....if it is a historical account..treat it as such, if a parable then treat it as a parable, if a poem then treat it as a poem..and so on.


When looking at Genesis there is nothing to suggest it to be parable or metaphor or anything but an accurate historical account.

I agree and so does Steph. The nature of the first 11 chapters of genesis make it consistent with historical narrative and therefore they should be interpreted as such.

I'm just going to grab those quotes.

 

[BlueIceDragon]

Can you provide some biblical quotes that supports your assertion? I ask so that we can discuss the same thing.

Sure!

I'll just grab the text from Biblegateway.com. My preferred version is the ESV (English Standard version).

Genesis 1:11-12
11And God said,(H) "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind.

The key point here is God creating something (herein plants and vegetation) which reproduce (which includes some 'evolution') but within kind solely. You don't have a pine tree producing seeds which grow into cacti.

A similar thing happens with the animals Genesis 1:24-25.

Death doesn't enter the picture until Chapter 3.

First, the warning of death in Chapter 2:15-17
The LORD God took the man(AK) and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil(AL) you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[l] of it you(AM) shall surely die."

Then the actual punishment in Chapter 3:17-19

17And to Adam he said,

"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
(BL) of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
(BM) cursed is the ground because of you;
(BN) in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
(BO) for you are dust,
and(BP) to dust you shall return."

Death is not a natural phenomenon. It is extremely unnatural and is a result of the devastation man brought upon the creation when he rejected God's instruction.

 

[Molal]

I'm sorry but that just make sense to me. If it happened any way different than what God tells us in Genesis then He would be a liar.

That's fine - we can agree to disagree.

 

[Molal]

Sure!

I'll just grab the text from Biblegateway.com. My preferred version is the ESV (English Standard version).

Genesis 1:11-12
11And God said,(H) "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind.

The key point here is God creating something (herein plants and vegetation) which reproduce (which includes some 'evolution') but within kind solely. You don't have a pine tree producing seeds which grow into cacti.

A similar thing happens with the animals Genesis 1:24-25.

Death doesn't enter the picture until Chapter 3.

First, the warning of death in Chapter 2:15-17
The LORD God took the man(AK) and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil(AL) you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[l] of it you(AM) shall surely die."

Then the actual punishment in Chapter 3:17-19

17And to Adam he said,

"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
(BL) of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
(BM) cursed is the ground because of you;
(BN) in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
(BO) for you are dust,
and(BP) to dust you shall return."

Death is not a natural phenomenon. It is extremely unnatural and is a result of the devastation man brought upon the creation when he rejected God's instruction.

Thank you very much!

I perceive God inspiring the discussion of the death of humans, not of the other creation items.

But again, it is my perception that genesis is allegorical in nature with multiple theological truths. The bible is not a book of science.

 

[Molal]

So, where is the problem with the theory of evolution?

This website (http://evolution.berkeley.edu) is a fantastic website describing the mechanisms of evolution.

Here is a link to the huge array of transitional fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

And I recommend performing a google search for endogenous retroviruses. Fascinating stuff.

 

[BlueIceDragon]

I agree that the Bible is not a book of science, but i would say that anything scientific it touches is true (whether or not it can be scientifically proven as true).

The Bible is primarily a book of history. History has a beginning. It will have an end. The world's history began when God created it. I believe futhermore, we can take Genesis 1-11 literally because of the historical style it was written in. It wasn't written as myth, ideas, a possible origin, it was written in the same style as the narration of Kings and Chronicles.

 

[Molal]

I agree that the Bible is not a book of science, but i would say that anything scientific it touches is true (whether or not it can be scientifically proven as true).

The Bible is primarily a book of history. History has a beginning. It will have an end. The world's history began when God created it. I believe futhermore, we can take Genesis 1-11 literally because of the historical style it was written in. It wasn't written as myth, ideas, a possible origin, it was written in the same style as the narration of Kings and Chronicles.

This website (http://www.itanakh.org/index.htm) provides lots of information concerning OT interpretation from a Jewish point of view, a point of view that we would all agree is of paramount importance since the OT is for Jewish people.

In particular, this area of the website (http://www.itanakh.org/texts/tanakh/torah/genesis/index.htm) provides a discussion on the Jewish interpretation of Genesis. Few of the articles discuss genesis as literal, but allegorical. They argue that Genesis was God inspired for a specific purpose, at a specific time.

Maybe some food for thought.

 

[BlueIceDragon]

The problem with the theory of evolution (and this is going to be a long post so please forgive me), is that it cannot be proven, it does not match the facts as completely as it *could*, and it leaves God out of the equation (a major problem for a Christian).

If evolution were true, there would be:
a) missing links
b) lots of missing links
c) significant differences in the species we observe today and those in the fossil record detailed as 'millions of years ago'
d) it defies belief - the statistical probability that this universe exists in all it's complexity might as well be zero. It is completely improbable. Evolution is the most improbable theory to generate this universe. At least the belief that God created it as is... implies a probability greater than zero.
e) Evolution requires death - a major problem for me particularly because of the 'waste' and the invalidation of God's punishment (you can't have temporal become eternal).
f) The assumption of millions of years to create fossils is impossible. There are fossils between layers of rocks that have supposedly different ages differring by millions of years. Fossils are created in seconds (otherwise fish swallowing other fish simply wouldn't be found). The eruption of Mt St Helens proved this (but has been conveniently ignored).
g) Time dating (of any kind) depends on the assumptions made about the state of being at the time of dating. Using exactly the same data, but different starting assumptions can result in ages ranging from a few hundred years to a few million years.
h) dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time... yet all evolutionary theory has this as impossible.
i) evolutionary theory cannot explain the formation of the 'perfect' galaxy for life nor the perfect distance of the earth from the sun, the existance of the moon, and all the other millions and billions of "little" things which add up to make life possible on earth. If any which one of them were missed.... life wouldn't exist.
j) evolution doesn't have a purpose. why evolve? what for? are we still evolving now? how come things are getting worse and not better? if things keep getting worse now, how can we conclude that things somehow got better to arrive at this point? Wouldn't it make more sense to think that we started at perfection and deteriorated?!

That's enough for now lol.

 

[BlueIceDragon]

This website (http://www.itanakh.org/index.htm) provides lots of information concerning OT interpretation from a Jewish point of view, a point of view that we would all agree is of paramount importance since the OT is for Jewish people.

In particular, this area of the website (http://www.itanakh.org/texts/tanakh/torah/genesis/index.htm) provides a discussion on the Jewish interpretation of Genesis. Few of the articles discuss genesis as literal, but allegorical. They argue that Genesis was God inspired for a specific purpose, at a specific time.

Maybe some food for thought.

Interesting, but that wasn't how the OT Jews saw it round Jesus' time. The issue of creation wasn't even under discussion. If they'd got it significantly wrong, I'm sure Jesus would have corrected them.

I note that all the quotes on the sites are almost all post 1900s. I would have hoped for earlier renditions since the Jewish people have been around for a lot longer than 200 years.

Jewish traditions have evolved with the teachings of their rabbis as much as other christian denominations which I won't mention. The truth they hold to does not match what was originally taught.

 

[Molal]

The problem with the theory of evolution (and this is going to be a long post so please forgive me), is that it cannot be proven, it does not match the facts as completely as it *could*, and it leaves God out of the equation (a major problem for a Christian).

In science proof (proven) does not exist. A scientific theory is a model/framework that best fits all the observed data and experimental data and provides predictions that, when tested empirically, are highly accurate. Since you are a statistician you can understand that as more data is collected in support of the theory of the evolution, the more accurate it becomes, since the error bar for predictions is greatly reduced.

The theory of evolution is more evidenced than the theory of gravity, atomic theory, germ theory. It is exceedingly detailed and highly accurate in it's predictions. It is used everyday to create vaccinations, new agricultural products and is used extensively within the software industry.

If evolution were true, there would be:
[a) missing links
b) lots of missing links

There are many missing links, missing data, etc. This is to be expected. In my opinion, this statement is like me asking you to provide a detailed geneology for you and your family for the past 500 years. When you couldn't supply it, I would exclaim that you were never born. This is clearly absurd.

c) significant differences in the species we observe today and those in the fossil record detailed as 'millions of years ago'

There are huge differences between fossils found 3.2 Gya ago compared to today. Indeed, fossisl from 500 Mya are vastly different than biological forms today.

d) it defies belief - the statistical probability that this universe exists in all it's complexity might as well be zero. It is completely improbable. Evolution is the most improbable theory to generate this universe. At least the belief that God created it as is... implies a probability greater than zero.

I am not a statistician; however, there are multiple websites, books and published scientific papers that detail why this argument is incorrect.

e) Evolution requires death - a major problem for me particularly because of the 'waste' and the invalidation of God's punishment (you can't have temporal become eternal).

I understand.

f) The assumption of millions of years to create fossils is impossible. There are fossils between layers of rocks that have supposedly different ages differring by millions of years. Fossils are created in seconds (otherwise fish swallowing other fish simply wouldn't be found). The eruption of Mt St Helens proved this (but has been conveniently ignored).

Organisms MUST be buried swiftly to be preserved. Fossils are a rarity in the rock record, not the norm. This was clearly understood prior to the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

g) Time dating (of any kind) depends on the assumptions made about the state of being at the time of dating. Using exactly the same data, but different starting assumptions can result in ages ranging from a few hundred years to a few million years.

True; however, the assumptions are so well known, that they can be accounted for experimentally and mathematically. Radiometric dating across twenty different methods are extremely accurate.

h) dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time... yet all evolutionary theory has this as impossible.

There is no evidence for this whatsoever.

i) evolutionary theory cannot explain the formation of the 'perfect' galaxy for life nor the perfect distance of the earth from the sun, the existance of the moon, and all the other millions and billions of "little" things which add up to make life possible on earth. If any which one of them were missed.... life wouldn't exist.

The theory of evolution is a theory of biological diversity and does not explain cosmology, astronomy, etc.

j) evolution doesn't have a purpose. why evolve? what for? are we still evolving now? how come things are getting worse and not better? if things keep getting worse now, how can we conclude that things somehow got better to arrive at this point? Wouldn't it make more sense to think that we started at perfection and deteriorated?!

Evolution enables biological organisms to exist within a given environment.

That's enough for now lol.

Thanks. I appreciate you willingness to discuss this.

I am a christian, I attend a conservative and quite fundamentalist church; however, I am also a theistic evolution(ist). I know that evolution is true,

 

[BlueIceDragon]

In science proof (proven) does not exist.

I'll mention that to the mathematicians. It would seem their proofs are not scientific....

A scientific theory is a model/framework that best fits all the observed data and experimental data and provides predictions that, when tested empirically, are highly accurate. Since you are a statistician you can understand that as more data is collected in support of the theory of the evolution, the more accurate it becomes, since the error bar for predictions is greatly reduced.

No, you are wrong here! I can create a model which has a perfect fit to ANY set of data however it will be completely useless for prediction. More data collected at the same points could also continue to 'match' my model, but it would still be complete rubbish.

There is NO proof whatsoever that ANY bacterium evolved into anything other than another bacterial organism. No matter how much prediction is done in this direction it never happens in reality. Therefore, the evolutionary model is never tested in this direction and can never been 'proven' that the assumption of across kind species jumps ever occur.

The theory of evolution is more evidenced than the theory of gravity, atomic theory, germ theory. It is exceedingly detailed and highly accurate in it's predictions. It is used everyday to create vaccinations, new agricultural products and is used extensively within the software industry.

Here you are mixing two forms of evolution, which I have been careful to distinguish from the start. The part of the model that 'works' is the within kind evolution - which NO creationist disagrees with but rather also advocates. For this component of the theory, there is plenty of proof - I am not disagreeing with you there.

There are many missing links, missing data, etc. This is to be expected. In my opinion, this statement is like me asking you to provide a detailed geneology for you and your family for the past 500 years. When you couldn't supply it, I would exclaim that you were never born. This is clearly absurd.

Name one fossil that is a transition between an ape and a human. Just one, that wasn't proven a) to be a hoax, and b) being sufficiently close to being either ape or human to be classified as a 'subspecies' rather than a link.

There are huge differences between fossils found 3.2 Gya ago compared to today. Indeed, fossisl from 500 Mya are vastly different than biological forms today.

See any sensible study of the Grand Canyon (it's been done to death) to see proof of my statement. Fossils exist 'between layers' where there is supposedly impossible.

I am not a statistician; however, there are multiple websites, books and published scientific papers that detail why this argument is incorrect.

You know... I have a hypothesis on the belief system of humans. The more improbable and event is to occur, the more convoluted a theory they will fabricate to produce that event in order to justify its improbability. Evolution to create life is so physically and spiritually absurd that, well, I for one do not have enough faith to believe it.

Fossils are a rarity in the rock record, not the norm. This was clearly understood prior to the eruption of Mt. St. Helens.

I see. That's why the evolutionists stopped looking for fossil links betwen apes and humans years ago?! It still doesn't explain the fossils between different "aged layers" (see any sensible study on the Grand canyon).

True; however, the assumptions are so well known, that they can be accounted for experimentally and mathematically. Radiometric dating across twenty different methods are extremely accurate.

Indeed. Which is why carbon dating techniques idenitifed a dog buried by a roadside in Britain as being buried at least 2oo years ago, when the farmer who buried it was still alive and in fact had buried it 1 year prior...

There is no evidence for this whatsoever.

I hate to break it to you, but there are dinosaur sightings right up to the 1800s. Also, dinosaur footprints and mans footprints are fossilised together in rock...

The theory of evolution is a theory of biological diversity and does not explain cosmology, astronomy, etc.

Explain biological diversity in what way? It only explains it within kinds - which I've happily accepted from the start. It does not explain the variety of kinds, their creation, or their existance.

Evolution enables biological organisms to exist within a given environment.

Uh huh...

I'm going to have to agree to disagree on this. I'm firmly confident that the theory of creation is a much better fit to the data than evolution. Evolution makes statements about origins yet supposedly when pressed on this, evolutionists always back away throwing the blame onto some other theory. This is ridiculously unfair as creation also makes claims about origins and we don't throw our origins onto some other theory.

 

[BlueIceDragon]

I am a christian, I attend a conservative and quite fundamentalist church; however, I am also a theistic evolution(ist). I know that evolution is true,

Please understand that in no way am I saying that you are not a christian nor am I seeking to undermine that. I'm tired though, and my previous post is, on second reading, quite sarcastic in places. I'm sorry if this causes offense, but I guess it shows I'm human too. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this.

I know that evolution, as I've described it above, cannot work.
plant -> animal -> human
did not happen in my framework.

I also fully know this from Genesis 1-11.

I suspect we'd agree more if we could sit down and work out our definitions of things with diagrams and the like. I don't think I'm communicating well through text. Pictures work a ton better for me.

 

[Molal]

I'll mention that to the mathematicians. It would seem their proofs are not scientific....

Proof exists only in mathematics and liquor. Not science. Mathematicians would agree.

No, you are wrong here! I can create a model which has a perfect fit to ANY set of data however it will be completely useless for prediction. More data collected at the same points could also continue to 'match' my model, but it would still be complete rubbish.

There is NO proof whatsoever that ANY bacterium evolved into anything other than another bacterial organism. No matter how much prediction is done in this direction it never happens in reality. Therefore, the evolutionary model is never tested in this direction and can never been 'proven' that the assumption of across kind species jumps ever occur.

There is plenty of fossil evidence to suggest that bacteria evolved into multicellular organisms. For instance, stromatalites.

Here you are mixing two forms of evolution, which I have been careful to distinguish from the start. The part of the model that 'works' is the within kind evolution - which NO creationist disagrees with but rather also advocates. For this component of the theory, there is plenty of proof - I am not disagreeing with you there.

Since no meaningful definition of kind is available, how are we to discuss it? Please define kind.

Name one fossil that is a transition between an ape and a human. Just one, that wasn't proven a) to be a hoax, and b) being sufficiently close to being either ape or human to be classified as a 'subspecies' rather than a link.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3
etc.,

See any sensible study of the Grand Canyon (it's been done to death) to see proof of my statement. Fossils exist 'between layers' where there is supposedly impossible.

Fossil organisms are found within sedimentary beds. Sole marks (non-biological fossils) are found on the bedding planes, and sometimes within sedimentary beds. So, what are these layers you are discussing? I would interpret your layers to be sedimentary bedding. Is this correct? If so, can you provide some evidence of a fossil organism existing between beds.

You know... I have a hypothesis on the belief system of humans. The more improbable and event is to occur, the more convoluted a theory they will fabricate to produce that event in order to justify its improbability. Evolution to create life is so physically and spiritually absurd that, well, I for one do not have enough faith to believe it.

Evolution to create life? Evolution is the diversity of life. Abiogenesis is the formation of life from none life. They are not the same.

I see. That's why the evolutionists stopped looking for fossil links betwen apes and humans years ago?! It still doesn't explain the fossils between different "aged layers" (see any sensible study on the Grand canyon).

See above for human transitional fossils and a discussion of what you mean by layers and aged layers.

Indeed. Which is why carbon dating techniques idenitifed a dog buried by a roadside in Britain as being buried at least 2oo years ago, when the farmer who buried it was still alive and in fact had buried it 1 year prior...

First, provide a citation to the study. Secondly, the limitations of carbon dating are well known. This is nothing new.

I hate to break it to you, but there are dinosaur sightings right up to the 1800s. Also, dinosaur footprints and mans footprints are fossilised together in rock...

There have never been any fossilise human footprints found in juxtaposition with dinosaur tracks. I believe you are referring to the Paluxy, Texas hoax. Also, dinosaur sightings in the 1800's? Please provide for references and citations.

Explain biological diversity in what way? It only explains it within kinds - which I've happily accepted from the start. It does not explain the variety of kinds, their creation, or their existance.

Please define kind.

[quot]Uh huh...[/quote]

I'm going to have to agree to disagree on this. I'm firmly confident that the theory of creation is a much better fit to the data than evolution. Evolution makes statements about origins yet supposedly when pressed on this, evolutionists always back away throwing the blame onto some other theory. This is ridiculously unfair as creation also makes claims about origins and we don't throw our origins onto some other theory.

The origin of life and the theory of evolution are not the same. Creation does not make any testable predictions and is not science. It is based upon a literal interpretation of the book of genesis and is diametrically opposed to the earth and universe that God created.

 

[Molal]

Please understand that in no way am I saying that you are not a christian nor am I seeking to undermine that. I'm tired though, and my previous post is, on second reading, quite sarcastic in places. I'm sorry if this causes offense, but I guess it shows I'm human too. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this.

I know that evolution, as I've described it above, cannot work.
plant -> animal -> human
did not happen in my framework.

I also fully know this from Genesis 1-11.

I suspect we'd agree more if we could sit down and work out our definitions of things with diagrams and the like. I don't think I'm communicating well through text. Pictures work a ton better for me.

Hey, I think you are doing a good job and I have the utmost respect for you.

I know we agree on alot more, than disagree on.

I enjoy debating, but if at any point you feel that I have crossed the line, then please tell me and I will back off. I am not here to impact your faith in anyway.

 

[Molal]

I noticed that sfs is lurking!! Sfs is a geneticist, can you provide any light on ERVs and their relationship to the ERVs found in ape DNA?

 

[BlueIceDragon]

it's nearly 10pm where I am and i'm still recovering from traveling to get to North Carolina from Australia so I'll call it a night for now.

I'd suggest reading (if you have the time):
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4884/113

The two books on evolution by Dr Jonathan Sarfati.

I'll dig up my other references when I have time.

As for definition of "kind", I'll define it as synonomous with the current definition of "family". Basically, all I'm saying is that it's several levels higher up the current species classification chain that species.