How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[Hoghead1]

Sorry, the Barbarian, but that dos not qualify you to call yourself a scientist, not in my book. You maybe worked as an engineer, but that is not science. Studying biology for half a century does not make you a scientist. The kind of person I consider a scientist and authority here would be someone with an earned doctorate in a scientific field, plus a history of solid research publications in peer-reviewed journals. And, in the case of criticisms of evolution, I want to see these research projects supporting the assumptions of creation science, which I have yet to find. I enjoy talking to everyone here; but when it comes to really listening and taking a material seriously , I go for the fully qualified expert.
You asked me what I have got. I have an M.S.in a major scientific filed from a Big Tern university. I also have an earned doctorate in theology form a conjoint program between a major university and a PCUSA seminary.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Wen it comes to the Bible, TKL Valentine, there is a whole literary science devoted to studying the different literary styles.

Indeed --there are several literary sciences devoted to studying different literary styles in any genre, from any work.

\Why does the Bible need its own?

I doubt, however, Patlee34 is using any of this material.

I'd bet my blessings on it -- but I'd like to hear his answer to confirm it.

The Pentateuch has a very bumpy literary style, indicating more than one author.

Indeed -- multiple authors from multiple sources, most likely spanning multiple time periods.

This is not at all apparent in English, as the translation tends to wash out key differences. However, some can be somewhat noticed. For example, Gen, 1 and Gen. 2 appear to have been written by two different authors at two different times, with Gen. 2 much earlier. Gen. 1 is very sing-songy, like a chant, something for a worship service. Gen. 2 is narrative, and its chronology sharply contradicts that of gen. 1.

Quite so -- Gen. 1 has all the hallmarks of oral tradition; most likely liturgical.

How do you know if something was written by one or two authors or earlier and later or anything of the like? This is based on differences in spelling, punctuation, word usage, phrasing, content, and a number of other factors.

Originality (or lack thereof) is another key factor. Gen 1. shares so much in common with the Babylonian Enuma Elish that it would take some deep-seated denial to not believe that one was copies (or at the very least, heavily influenced) by the other.

So which came first? Archaeological evidence puts the Babylonian story first by a good three centuries. n

For example, a text with inconsistent spelling would be taken to have been written earlier than a text with standardized spelling and punctuation. To an English speaker reading the Genesis in English, it may well look like Gen. and Gen. 2 come from exactly the same period.

Never realizing that they wer simply translated in exactly the same period.

Now, that is because the translation came that way. if you could see this and other texts in Hebrew, there would be flaringly major differences. Reading Gen. 1 and 2 would be analogous to someone reading a paragraph in modern English, followed by a paragraph ins sixteenth-century English.

And because of that, we know that Genesis (to say nothing of the Pentateuch, let alone the Bible as a whole) is a literary hodgepodge that's been Frankensteined together roughly -- and in many spots, poorly -- from difference sources and different time periods.

So when someone like pat34lee claims flatly that Genesis 1 is written in the historical style rather than an allegorical one -- you know, with the historically accurate descriptions of naked people in God's own garden with magic trees and talking animals -- I offer them an opportunity to explain their statement. It's just good form.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm not sure what you mean by God planning ahead, Patlee34. Do you mean cold GOd, before the foundations of the world were ever laid, have predetermined the entire course of events, right down to the smallest detail? If so, my answer is no. God presides over beings who have some degree of free will. Therefore, God cannot decide or make our decisions for us as to what is to happen. The future is open-ended, indeterminate both for God and for ourselves. It world simply be ridiculous for God to sit down and try and plan it all out ahead. There are too many unknowns. If, for example, God thought way ahead and decided he wanted Shakespeare to write plays, there is no way ahead o time this could be quarantined. Shakespeare's plays will occur only if Shakespeare decides to write them, and Shakespeare will write them only if no one decides and successfully attempts to knock him of, etc., etc. Hence, the distant future is too "iffy" for God to bother planning for. God knows ahead of time that he or she will always work to maximize beauty, but that's it. Everythign else is up fro grabs. God is the great risk taker.

So God has no idea what the future will hold?

You do realize that one of the biggest claims to Jesus' divinity is that he fulfilled the Jews' Messianic prophecies...

Let me say that word again:

prophecies.

Are you seeing the flaw in your theology?

 

[The Barbarian]

It may not resonate with your concept of God. But who says your concept is correct?

The Bible.

I gave you a solid case why it is irrational to assume God knows the future as definite ahead of time.

So He was just joshing the prophets, um?

Again, God is all-knowing and that means God knows everything as it is, in full detail, and the, in turn, means God knows the future as it is in it own nature, and that means as open-ended indeterminate, a realm of possibilities, nothing definite.

Sounds like you're having a problem reconciling God's omniscience with free will. It's not a problem if you think it through. If you know the sun will rise tomorrow, it doesn't mean you put it there. That's the start of your journey, if you have the courage to take it. Good luck.

Scripture does in fact speak of the future as iffy for God, as in the case of Sodom

You don't think God knows what's in men's hearts? Seriously? Do you not see that this wasn't God waiting to see what Lot found, but rather God driving home the point for Lot that the people of Sodom had been completely turned to evil?

and also Jer. 18, where God warn and then sits to see what happened, before taking action. If he know the future ahead of time, he wouldn't have had to wait around to see what happened, before he decided his next course of action.

Nothing in Jeremiah 18 says God didn't know. Being just, He warned them. What they did was up to them, but He already knew what it would be.

 

[Loudmouth]

I understand that creation-believing scientists fully accept that there is a massive amount of genetic variation pre-programmed into our genes by God,

There is absolutely no data supporting this assertion. We see new variation emerge from mutations, not pre-existing DNA sequences.

For example, in one of the earliest experiments done in bacterial genetics, they looked at the emergence of bacteriophage resistance. They started with a single bacterium. You will also remember that bacteria have just one copy of their genome. They are not diploid like we are. The single bacterium they started with was not resistant to bacteriophage. From that single bacterium, they grew trillion and trillions of direct descendants from that original bacterium. After those populations were grown, they were exposed to bacteriophage (little viruses that kill and lyse bacteria). What they found was that one out of about every 200 million bacterium were resistant. Here is another interesting part. What they found is that the number of bacteriophage resistant mutations differed by quite a bit between different populations of those direct descendants, populations that had gone for many generations separate from each other.

So why did the number of resistant mutations differ by so much? The answer is simple. The number of mutants depends the generation in which the mutation occurred. If it happened in an early generation, then there would be lots of resistant mutatants. If it happened in a later generation, then there would just be a few resistant mutatants.

More importantly, if this was simply an adaptation of pre-existing genetic variation then the number of mutants should be similar between different populations, but they weren't.

This experiment was done by Luria and Delbruck, and it is referred to as the fluctuation test. It demonstrated the randomness of mutations before we even were able to sequence DNA. Since then, we have discovered the mutations that confer bacteriophage resistance, and they occur in the tonB gene, in case you want to look it up.

 

[The Barbarian]

Luria and Delbruck (who independently discovered this) shared a Noble prize for demonstrating that adaptive mutations do not arise in response to need. Rather, they appear at random times, and if they happen to be useful, they are retained and increase in a population.

 

[pat34lee]

What is your evidence, that Genesis is credible history?

A hundred or so years back, there was some question, as many of the places
mentioned in Genesis were unknown. Most have since been found, and no
archeological find has disproven anything in Genesis.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

A hundred or so years back, there was some question, as many of the places mentioned in Genesis were unknown. Most have since been found

New York exists, therefore Spider Man is real.

and no archeological find has disproven anything in Genesis.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

[Loudmouth]

A hundred or so years back, there was some question, as many of the places
mentioned in Genesis were unknown. Most have since been found, and no
archeological find has disproven anything in Genesis.

Geologic evidence has disproven a young Earth and a recent global flood. Evidence in biology has disproven separate creation of species.

 

[Hoghead1]

OK, but where is the Garden of Eden, Patlee34? Also where exactly did Noah land?

 

[TLK Valentine]

A hundred or so years back, there was some question, as many of the places
mentioned in Genesis were unknown. Most have since been found, and no
archeological find has disproven anything in Genesis.

Meanwhile, there is a place called Kansas, it has been known to get hit with tornadoes, and an EF5 twister can and has uprooted even solidly built houses and sent them flying (the last recorded EF5 in Kansas was back in 2007). Nothing has ever disproven that at one point, a girl named Dorothy Gale was caught in one such tornado and sent "over the rainbow" (allowing for a little poetic license) so The Wizard of Oz must be credible history as well.

 

[pat34lee]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Actually, the person who calls a book or its author a liar is under the burden of proving it,
otherwise that is slander.

 

[pat34lee]

Meanwhile, there is a place called Kansas, it has been known to get hit with tornadoes, and an EF5 twister can and has uprooted even solidly built houses and sent them flying (the last recorded EF5 in Kansas was back in 2007). Nothing has ever disproven that at one point, a girl named Dorothy Gale was caught in one such tornado and sent "over the rainbow" (allowing for a little poetic license) so The Wizard of Oz must be credible history as well.

If you have a pertinent argument, please make it.

 

[pat34lee]

Geologic evidence has disproven a young Earth and a recent global flood. Evidence in biology has disproven separate creation of species.

No, it hasn't. Evolutionists have looked for anything that seems to back
their beliefs. They do not have facts. They have theories.

 

[AV1611VET]

... so The Wizard of Oz must be credible history as well.

May as well.

We've had to put up with evolution history for years.

 

[HitchSlap]

May as well.

We've had to put up with evolution history for years.

Well, according to AV Logic, if it's written down, it must be true.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Actually, the person who calls a book or its author a liar is under the burden of proving it

Wrong. I am saying I do not believe the claims being made. You own the burden of proof. You have failed to meet this burden.

There is a small teapot orbiting the moon too small to be detected by telescopes. If you call me a liar, then prove this teapot doesn't exist.

otherwise that is slander.

You don't know the definition of slander. I am not damaging anyone's reputation. I am asking for evidence for their claims. Your religion is not immune to criticism.

They do not have facts. They have theories.

You don't know what a theory is in the scientific context. This is a PRATT argument.

Here is the definition, in case you haven't seen it before.

A scientific theory is a WELL-SUBSTANTIATED EXPLANATION of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly TESTED and CONFIRMED through observation and experimentation.

Now that you know the definition, you can stop using that egregious argument.

 

[Hoghead1]

I disagree, Patlee34. Evolution is probably one of the best supported scientific "theories" that there is. Iput theories in quotes, as many are of the mistaken notion that if they feel it isn't supported, then it is termed a theory. Incorrect. A theory simply means two or more interconnected assumptions. Anyhow, the interesting thing about evolution is that it developed out of attempts to prove teh Bible. Scientists first went looking for proofs of the Flood, for example, but when they examined the hard data, it didn't pan out. Hence, evolution was born.

 

[Hoghead1]

The problem that you have here, TKL Valentine, is that Christ did not fulfill teh Jewish expectation of a Messiah,m which is why he was rejected. Along with this, go a host of problems about how to understand prophesy. Is it God stating definitely that such-and-such will happen? Is it God stating it as a definite possible future, a warning, so that you can avoid this happening? Is it God stating something as conditional? After all, God say Israel will be my people. Israel failed to keep it's part of teh bargain, and then God changes the covenant. That is basic Bible. Are all biblical prophecies fulfilled? It seems that Paul and his followers did look forward to an immanent end of teh world, which did not happen. Is teh Book of Revelation truly talking about a future event, or something that was supposed to happen at the time, something symbolically dealing directly with the Roman Empire? How and when was the prophecy made? Before the creation of teh world? At a time when certain events did seem likely on teh horizon, given current circumstances? How do we know any of these prophecies were ever made? Maybe later writers simply made them up to lend credence to their belief system.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem that you have here, TKL Valentine, is that Christ did not fulfill teh Jewish expectation of a Messiah,m which is why he was rejected.

They wanted Jesus to be the {Psalm 72/Isaiah 11} Messiah.

But when Jesus presented His credentials as the {Psalm 22/Isaiah 53} Messiah, they rejected Him.

What they didn't realize is that there would be a period of time from the Suffering Savior to the Militant Messiah known as the "Church Age" or the "Dispensation of Grace."

Something even the angels didn't understand.

1 Peter 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

But while the angels desired to look into it, the ruling Jews didn't.

The result was Jesus' crucifixion.