evolution vs. Evolution

[gluadys]

Hey, you surprised me! I wasn't expecting that, and I like being surprised. Thanks for your thoughts.

This brings up an interesting subject. If Genesis is history, then events such as the flood and the dispersion should have parallels in other cultures, shouldn't they?

There are other flood stories all around the world. Some are clearly derived from the biblical story, and the biblical story may be derived from earlier ANE stories.

And some are clearly not related to the biblical story.

My feeling is that there could be an historical event of which the biblical story is a reminiscence. One suggestion is the aftermath of a geological event which suddenly raised the level of the Black Sea about 20,000 years ago. It was quite destructive of human settlements along the former shoreline and would have left a profound impression on survivors. It could be a source of an oral history which eventually resulted in such stories as those of Utnapishtim and Noah and perhaps others.

Flood stories not connected to the biblical account can be explained simply by the fact that people commonly settle near a source of water and floods are common in that scenario.

In those days it would be culturally appropriate to attribute such a disaster to the anger of the gods. or God.

I get hounded occasionally by atheists who claim our faith is false because ancient Judaism contains elements shared with other and sometimes older cultures.

That is quite a silly argument. Why would shared religious elements make any one religion false? I think it could only be used against an attitude that sees the Jewish or Christian faith as so unique as to have no relationship with other faiths at all. But that is extreme and easily shown to be false.

But what did Josephus consider it? In chapter 6 of Antiquities he goes to great effort to reconcile the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 with the histories of the existing nations around him. I think his intent is clear: he's making a case to non-Jews for the veracity of Genesis 10. Aside from that, in the preface he calls his work a history, comparing it to his earlier history of the Jewish-Roman war.

Oh, Josephus considered that he was writing history and using historical sources. But what he considers "history" and what a historian today would consider reliable history are horses of a different colour.

We have to remember that Josephus was one of the earliest to engage in a systematic accounting of events in a historical mode, so he was actually helping to invent parameters that had not been established yet. So he includes events in the national mythology of the Jewish people as if they were historical. It is a process of historicizing legend. I suppose that didn't happen to the same extent in other ANE cultures because they didn't survive into the age in which attempts to write documented history became prominent.

There is no real reason to treat many of the biblical stories as more historical that Homer's tales of Achilles and Ulysses. But when Christianity wiped out the old religions, those stories were labelled "false" and the equivalent biblical stories were labeled "true".

No real problem with that, but "false" was also associated with "myth" and "true" with "history". Those labels could have been switched. Or the rejected stories could have been called "false history" instead of "myth". Or again the accepted stories could have been called "true myth" instead of "history".

How would you show that the stories of the OT are "history" while those of the Mahabharata are not?

 

[Fascinated With God]

I don't see why the atheist domination bothers you. How many Christians have won Nobel Prizes? None, to my knowledge. How many are prominent in the scientific world? None. How many are great inventors or innovators?

Here are two lists of Christians that have made contributions to Science. The Wikapedia entry is endless and if you search on Nobel on the page you'll find Nobel winners from 1902 to 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God








.

 

[frogman2x]

No, it is scientific guesswork. That means researchers formulate hypotheses (guesses), make logical inferences (predictions) as to what can and cannot happen if the hypothesis is true, and then test those inferences with actual observation and, where possible, experiments.

All that says is that they can guess and predict but they can't prove.

Evolution denialists omit everything that comes after "guess" and assume scientists do as well.

No we don't we keep looking for a trace of proof and so far it has neve come.

That's still a work in progress. I'm sure they will let us know when they have figured it out more fully than they have now.

It has been in progress for over 100 years and even modern man with all of his scientific insturments and knowlegef of science cannot show how lie began. It is all in Genesis---God did it. Can I prove it? No, but I can prove more in Genesis that you can prove in all of what the ToE preaches.

At leat you admited science cannot prove how life started. That is a good first step.

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

With science. That is what the Genesis accounts are a figure of.

How can something thatg is figurataive reveal what is literal?

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

Contrary to prior opinion, human DNA encodes RNA 98% of the time and only 2% of DNA encodes proteins. So the obvious conclusion is that early life consisted of self-replicating RNA and that DNA only formed later. So there are some clear signs of how life developed from simple RNA nucleotides.

That even sounds scientific but it doe snot ansswere the quesstion. Take a step b ack and explain how DNA & RNA came into existence.

Both are so complex it seems unlikely they could have just popped into the univierse without some help.

k

 

[ViaCrucis]

How can something thatg is figurataive reveal what is literal?

kermit

Easily. Read Hosea, Hosea's relationship with Gomer is prophetically figurative for the literal relationship between God and Israel. Or read the Lord's parables, e.g. the Parable of the Talents speaks about the Final Judgment.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

That even sounds scientific but it doe snot ansswere the quesstion. Take a step b ack and explain how DNA & RNA came into existence.

Both are so complex it seems unlikely they could have just popped into the univierse without some help.

k

Nothing stops God being actively involved in the natural processes of the universe. The danger, however, is in having a god of the gaps--where God functions primarily to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. For example saying that something is really complex, so God did it makes God a god of the gaps, rather than the Creator who fills and sustains all things with His mighty word.

Human reproduction is pretty complicated, getting two cells to come together and fuse and bring forth a brand new human being is pretty incredible. It's a very natural process and can be explained using basic scientific principles; but that doesn't make God any less involved; and its complexity doesn't mean it can't be answered purely naturalistically.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[frogman2x]

Easily. Read Hosea, Hosea's relationship with Gomer is prophetically figurative for the literal relationship between God and Israel. Or read the Lord's parables, e.g. the Parable of the Talents speaks about the Final Judgment.

-CryptoLutheran

of course you are right and what I posted was againts my personl theoloy---figurative language helps us better understand the literal truth.

What I should have said is how does a figurative interpretation of Genesis help us understand a literal creation. Either God did it or He didn't, and the evolutionist have no clue about how the univierse or life came into being.

Thanks,

kermit

 

[frogman2x]

Nothing stops God being actively involved in the natural processes of the universe. The danger, however, is in having a god of the gaps--where God functions primarily to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. For example saying that something is really complex, so God did it makes God a god of the gaps, rather than the Creator who fills and sustains all things with His mighty word.

God does not fill the gaps. When he explains something, there are no gaps. Teh Bib le says God spoke the universe into being and then gives some of the detail. We can either accept it or not.

The more complex something is, the less likely it could have happenedby accident.

Human reproduction is pretty complicated, getting two cells to come together and fuse and bring forth a brand new human being is pretty incredible. It's a very natural process and can be explained using basic scientific principles; but that doesn't make God any less involved; and its complexity doesn't mean it can't be answered purely naturalistically.

]

Men can explain the natural birth function scientifically. They cannot explain the birth of the universe or the birth of the first living organism scientifically.

kermit

 

[kellhus]

and the evolutionist have no clue about how the univierse or life came into being.

Do you understand that neither the origins of life or the universe are part of evolution?

 

[Calminian]

Do you understand that neither the origins of life or the universe are part of evolution?

Well yes and no. The philosophy behind both is intertwined, and really inseparable. Yes, Darwin didn't attach cosmology and abiogenesis to his theory, but ultimately, they are built on the same premise. Natural mechanisms are looked at to explain the origin of things.

So technically, yes, but it's splitting hairs.

 

[kellhus]

Well yes and no. The philosophy behind both is intertwined, and really inseparable.

No, they are not the same thing. You might as well claim gravity and germ theory are part of evolution as well.

 

[Smidlee]

Dunbar has blown my mind. I'm as upset as Creationists that Biology is so dominated by atheists.

That is my belief at this point and I don't see how adding further statistics is relevant to this.

Why? The science is the same no matter who does it. You don't have to agree with their conclusions though. I like the atheist doing science as they give the best evidence against evolution.

 

[frogman2x]

Do you understand that neither the origins of life or the universe are part of evolution?

Yes it is called biogenesis, but it is part of the evoluton pie and if you can't tell what trhe firest life form was and how it originated, you cannot go any farther unless you have a very vivid imagination.

kermit

 

[gluadys]

Yes it is called biogenesis, but it is part of the evoluton pie and if you can't tell what trhe firest life form was and how it originated, you cannot go any farther unless you have a very vivid imagination.

kermit

Actually, science uses the opposite tactic. Start where we are, in the present, with the life that exists in the present, and the evidence that exists in the present, and work back toward the first life. Having done that, it is pretty easy to go forward again, because it is retracing the same trail.

 

[Calminian]

No, they are not the same thing. You might as well claim gravity and germ theory are part of evolution as well.

I had just agreed with you, that technically they are not. But surly you acknowledge these are related topics? If you're going to embrace complex life arose from simple life, surely the next question is how did simple life arise from non-life. In a discussion about origins in an origins forum surely you're not surprised they're linked in discussions?

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

I had just agreed with you, that technically they (abiogenesis and evolution - my add) are not. But surly you acknowledge these are related topics? If you're going to embrace complex life arose from simple life, surely the next question is how did simple life arise from non-life. In a discussion about origins in an origins forum surely you're not surprised they're linked in discussions?

Yes, they are related topics. I agree both that they aren't the same, and that they are related and it's common for the discussion of one to lead to discussion of the other.

kellhus may answer you, but here is my thought on this in case you are interested.

First, I think we agree that it's not relevant from a salvation standpoint. I think you can be saved whether you think life started according to these routes, or if it was an unnatural miracle, or even if you think the first life was brought to earth on a cosmic tortilla from beetle-juice.

It is, of course, an interesting historical question to some of us, just as it is interesting whether or not Cathage won the war against Persia, or whatever.

It's true that we don't know if it was a chemical route or a miracle, even though we do have a lot of evidence about the many possible chemical routes (here are some The Origin of Life). However, look at the progression here:

our understanding in the Year 1500:

Lightining - divine intervention?
disease - evil spirits? divine intervention?
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - divine intervention?
Age of the earth - ~6,00 years
origin of languages - divine intervention?
Origin of life - divine intervention?



our understanding in the Year 1800:

Lightining - Static electricity.
disease - evil spirits? divine intervention?
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - divine intervention? Lamarckian evolution?
Age of the earth - ~6,00 years? starting to look like at least millions of years.
origin of languages - divine intervention?
Origin of life - divine intervention?
etc.


our understanding in the Year 1900:

Lightining - Static electricity.
disease - Viruses and bacteria
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - divine intervention? Lamarckian evolution? Evolution by natural selection?
Age of the earth - ~at least millions of years.
origin of languages - change over time from early proto-language.
Origin of life - divine intervention?
etc.


our understanding in the Year 2000:

Lightining - Static electricity.
disease - Viruses and bacteria.
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - evolution by natural selection.
Age of the earth - 4.55 billion years.
origin of languages - change over time from early proto-language.
Origin of life - divine intervention? An RNA world? endosymbiosis? Micelles?
etc.

See how it goes? Hanging your faith on pockets of ignorance makes a continually shrinking "God of the Gaps". There is no need to do that - especially when realizing that God works through all things, all the time (see John 5:17) makes all these things the creative action of God anyway. To miss that is to fall for the atheist's line that God is banished from everything, when instead He is omnipresent.

The fact that there are multiple plausible routes to the first cell makes it pointless (and dangerous to one's faith) to require a miracle there. It's kind of like asking how I went from my house to the movie theater. There are several possible road routes I may have driven, or I may have rode my bike, or I may have been miraculously teleported there by God. With that question, don't we all guess the more normal routes before saying that God intervened by teleporting me to the movie theater - especially after seeing my warm car outside? Of course we do.

To be clear - I think the Christian position that "God intervened against his natural laws to make a miraculous first cell, which then evolved to give us the life we see today" is a plausible Christian position. I just don't think it's the best way to go, both for your faith and for bringing others to the faith. I think it is better to allow for the possibility of God using his natural laws to build the first cell, just as he did to knit you in your mother's womb, or to bring life to the forms we see today. That avoids any evidence denial, giving you a robust faith in a constantly active God.

Papias

 

[frogman2x]

Actually, science uses the opposite tactic. Start where we are, in the present, with the life that exists in the present, and the evidence that exists in the present, and work back toward the first life. Having done that, it is pretty easy to go forward again, because it is retracing the same trail.

Wonderful. What was the first life form and how did it originate?

Did it have all of the genes necessary to produce bones, eyes, arms, legs, etc?

Since you have moved forward, I must assume you must have gotten back to the beginning.

kermit

 

[gluadys]

Wonderful. What was the first life form and how did it originate?

We will know when we get all the way back. We haven't completed the last section of the trail yet. We have got all the way back to early cyanobacteria, of which we have fossils dating to 3.5 billion years ago. So we can retrace fairly well, not perfectly, from there back to the present.

As Papias says we have indications of what may have happened to produce the first cellular life. Ironically, today, the problem is not that we have no idea how life originated, but we have too many ideas and it will take time to sort out which is the most probable.

Did it have all of the genes necessary to produce bones, eyes, arms, legs, etc?

Of course not. But it did have the means to acquire new genes.

Since you have moved forward, I must assume you must have gotten back to the beginning.

Bad assumption. That is like saying 18th century European migrants to America who settled in what was then the frontier of Kentucky could not travel back to the eastern seaboard because they hadn't reached the Pacific coast yet.

 

[frogman2x]

We will know when we get all the way back. We haven't completed the last section of the trail yet. We have got all the way back to early cyanobacteria, of which we have fossils dating to 3.5 billion years ago. So we can retrace fairly well, not perfectly, from there back to the present.

You can't even verify that you hve 3.5 billion years to workd with. Eveyone knows you only have 3.45. If you cannot trace it perfectly, you ae only guesing. Also you do not have a complete baccteria fossil record. In fact if the fossil record proves anything it woudl be after its kine. If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be intermediates and in over 100 years yoo have exacxtdly 0.

<<As Papias says we have indications of what may have happened to produce the first cellular life. Ironically, today, the problem is not that we have no idea how life originated, but we have too many ideas and it will take time to sort out which is the most probable. <<

Did Papias tell us what these indications were? I doubt if you have many ideas about the origin of life that would not cause us all to roll on the floor laughing. However, why not post the best 3 guesses? You don't even have a good idea of how all the endless matter i n the universe originated so life could pop; out one day when th sun heated the primoral ooze to just the right temperature.

Of course not. But it did have the means to acquire new genes.

What means did it have to acquire the necessary genes. If you don't know what it was, you don't know what genes it did have. If you wante to go back to bacteia, what means did it hve to produce something other than more bacteria?

Bad assumption. That is like saying 18th century European migrants to America who settled in what was then the frontier of Kentucky could not travel back to the eastern seaboard because they hadn't reached the Pacific coast yet.

FAlse analogy. Biological facts do not work like the decisions the human mind can make and change. Biological truths always work the same way, unless there is a mutation.

kermit