How do you reconcile Evolution and Genesis?

Justatruthseeker said:

But, ummm, that is not even similar. If they denied it was round, the only other option would be flat, since that is the only other theory, whether they presented any evidence of it or not.

It is dissimilar because we deny evolution and the only other option presented is design. If only two options are available and one is disproved.....

Are you at this point suggesting a third we should look at????

Click to expand...

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. (D. Futuyama, Science on Trial)

mark kennedy said:

Thought this might interest you, do you know what they replaced the Piltdown hoax with?

The Scottish anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith had built his long and distinguished career on the Piltdown fossil. When it was exposed it sent Darwinians scrambling, Arthur Keith had always rejected the Taung Child (Raymond Dart’s discovery) a chimpanzee child. Rightfully so since it’s small even for a modern chimpanzee. Keith would eventually apologized to Dart and Louis Leakey would take his suggested name for the stone age ape man, Homo habilis, but there was a very real problem. The skull was too small to be considered a human ancestor, this impasse became known as the Cerebral Rubicon and Leakey’s solution was to simply ignore the cranial capacity.

"Sir Arthur Keith, one of the leading proponents of Piltdown Man, was particularly instrumental in shaping Louis's thinking. "Sir Arthur Keith was very much Louis's father in science" noted Frida. Brilliant, yet modest and unassuming, Keith was regarded at the time of Piltdown's discovery as England's most eminent anatomist and an authority on human ancestry...a one man court of appeal for physical anthropologists from around the world....and his opinion that assured Piltdown a place on every drawing of humankinds family tree." (Ancestral Passions, Virginia Morell)​

Ever notice that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? That’s because every time a gracial (smooth) skull, that is dug up in Asian or Africa they are automatically one of our ancestors.

Australopithecus afarensis: AL 288-1
Australopithecus africanus: Taung 1
Lucy a Chimpanzee
Taung Skull not Human-like 26 August 2014

These two are the only Hominid fossils I've seen that are really being passed of as transitional. They both have chimpanzee size brains, with all the features one would expect of a knuckle dragging, tree dwelling ape. What is far more important then finding something indicating a transitional fossil, which they have failed to do, is to understand what the basis of the three-fold of the human brain from that of apes.

This is the only transitional representing the evolution of our ancestors from 3 mya to 2 mya:



Notice the distinctive mohawk looking thing going down the middle of the skull, it is far more distinctive in gorillas and doesn't exist in chimpanzee and human skulls. Then 2 million years ago human cranial capacity doubles over night with no explanation how this happens. This is clearly a transitional but it is universally agreed this fossil is not in the human (hominid) line. It represents the gorilla chimpanzee split. Both of which have since speciated and humans across the globe are one species. In spite of facing every ecological challenge on earth we have no speciated once. Humans and chimpanzees diverge by over 120,000,000 base pairs yet humans with billions in our population, diverge by 1/10th of 1%.

This whole theory of natural history is contrived. Thought you might find some of that interesting.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Click to expand...

There are no chimpanzee ancestors, because they are too busy trying to pass of their ancestors as human ancestors, instead of the reality of them degenerating into chimps.

"Christine Berge reconstructed the australopithecine pelvis using both an ape and a human gluteul pattern to determine which was most efficient. She found that for
bipedal walking, the ape-like gluteul pattern was most effective for the australopithecine pelvis. This pattern also allowed the leg to move in all directions. She proposes that Lucy’s gluteul muscles ‘retained some ape-like traits’....

...While I agree that Lucy walked upright, and likely also had some tree climbing ability, this is not because australopithecines ‘retained’ them from evolution sort of like left-over evolutionary baggage. It is likely that australopithecines were created with a mosaic of ape-like and human traits, making them more adaptable to varying conditions such as open savannas or canopy forests....

...Do you see how starting with the wrong world view can bias the way you look at data? Berge would never reach the right conclusion because she started out looking in the wrong direction. Lucy didn’t retain ape gluteal muscles; she had them because she was an ape—albeit a bipedal one! These same kind of presuppositions are why australopithecines have not been seen as more complex (less degenerate) versions of chimpanzees. Nobody is looking for animals that are more complex than their living relatives in the fossil record (biblical view). They do find them, however, but not having the right framework in which to place them they interpret them as being imaginary stages between apes and man (evolutionary view)....

...The A. afarensis skeleton A.L. 288-1 (‘Lucy’) is geologically older (3.18 Ma) than that of the A. africanus skeleton Sts 14 (2.4–2.8 Ma.). Thus, if the age of each is
accurately established and evolution from apes to humans had occurred, we would expect that the later A. africanus specimens would be more human-like than A. afarensis. However, the opposite is true. A. africanus has a more apelike limb proportion than A. afarensis....

...Certain aspects of the A. africanus pelvis are also more chimp-like than A. afarensis. So rather than becoming more human (the evolution model) these (once originally more complex) apes are degenerating towards their current position (becoming more ape-like. I realize this sounds like a contradiction in terms for an ape to become more ape-like, but I mean this in the respect that they are degenerating into what we consider ape like (extant) qualities).)...

...Australopithecines/chimps have lost their ability to walk upright habitually and the fossil record documents this. Evolutionists have a preset framework of what they expect to find in the fossil record. As such, they are not looking for signs of complexity but of primitiveness, and because of this they misinterpret it (complexity) when they do find it."

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_2/j20_2_104-112.pdf

Justatruthseeker said:

But, ummm, that is not even similar. If they denied it was round, the only other option would be flat, since that is the only other theory, whether they presented any evidence of it or not.

It is dissimilar because we deny evolution and the only other option presented is design. If only two options are available and one is disproved.....

Are you at this point suggesting a third we should look at????

Click to expand...

It is certainly possible that another theory of not involving "design" might be proposed. In any case, "design" as a theory is vacuous. There is no proposed mechanism and no criteria of falsifiability. To say that the presently accepted theory of evolution is false, therefore "design," get's us nowhere. If you disprove the theory of evolution all you have is a disproved theory. Then what?

mark kennedy said:

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. (D. Futuyama, Science on Trial)

Click to expand...

But Biblical creationism and the currently accepted theory of evolution do not. There are other possibilities for both creation and evolution.

mark kennedy said:

I don't doubt it a a reality, that doesn't mean God didn't create life 6000 years ago and evolution start from there.

Click to expand...

It also doesn't mean that extra-dimensional aliens didn't create everything just 5 seconds ago or Last Thursday. The question is, why would you believe that, while all the evidence screams an origins of the universe 13.7 billion years ago, earth 4.6 billion years ago and life 3.8 billion years ago, followed by 3.8 billion years of evolution leading to the complexity and diversity of life that we observe today???

You just described Darwinism

Click to expand...

Are you now accusing thousands, even millions, of working scientists of making stuff up and/or falsifying data in a conspiracy the size of which is UNHEARED of in human history? Comprising of thousands, millions, of people around the globe and spanning a timeframe of some 200 years?

That's quite an accusation.

You better have some evidence to back that up.

All very dramatic and utterly pointless.

Click to expand...

Disagree.

Preventing people for falling in the traps of con-men while at the same time having them learn more about the world, is a rather noble cause if you ask me.

xianghua said:

so if about 99% of all geologists will say that the earth is flat we should believe them?

Click to expand...

Haaa, lookie here... @xianghua is once again trying to make a point using imaginary data.

The fact is that of geologists don't say that at all, nore have they ever. Not 1%, not 10% not 99%.

xianghua said:

so if about 99% of all geologists will say that the earth is flat we should believe them?

Click to expand...

No.
1. It is highly unlikely that 99% of geologists would ever say such a thing.
2. However, if they were to say such a thing it would be because overwhelming evidence had emerged that made it unreasonable to seriously consider alternatives.
3. In such an instance we should still not believe that the Earth is flat, but we should accept that a flat Earth then represented the best explanation for a wide range of observations. (In the same way that I neither believe, nor disbelieve in plate tectonics, but accept that plate tectonic theory provides immensely practical and convincing explanations for geological observations.)

Speedwell said:

It is certainly possible that another theory of not involving "design" might be proposed. In any case, "design" as a theory is vacuous. There is no proposed mechanism and no criteria of falsifiability. To say that the presently accepted theory of evolution is false, therefore "design," get's us nowhere. If you disprove the theory of evolution all you have is a disproved theory. Then what?

Click to expand...

There is evidence of design everywhere. So much so that in order to escape the logical conclusion Dawkin's had to propose Aliens designed humans..... but of course the aliens were not designed..... sigh.....

"University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne, in his book Why Evolution is True, wrote: “If anything is true about nature, it is that plants and animals seem intricately and almost perfectly designed for living their lives” (2009, p. 1, emp. added). He further stated, “Nature resembles a well-oiled machine, with every species an intricate cog or gear” (p. 1). On page three of the same book, he wrote: “The more one learns about plants and animals, the more one marvels at how well their designs fit their ways of life.” Atheist Michael Shermer, in his book Why Darwin Matters, stated: “The design inference comes naturally. The reason people think that a Designer created the world is because it looks designed” (2006, p. 65, ital. in orig.)."

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

But don't believe your lying eyes people.... Instead believe the lies that the design you see is just an illusion.....

"The irony of the situation is that each of these writers contends that such design is a product of naturalistic, mindless factors. But their telling statements underscore the obvious conclusion. If an Intelligent Designer really did create the world, what would it look like? Answer: Exactly like the one we have!"

it would appear designed, exactly as it appears to be......

The Bible speaks of people who see evidence that God created but still reject the designer/creator: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. (Romans 1:20-22)

Michel Behe reminds us: “…it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.” {Design for Living By Michael J. Behe Published: February 7, 2005, New York Times Op Ed.}

Justatruthseeker said:

There is evidence of design everywhere. So much so that in order to escape the logical conclusion Dawkin's had to propose Aliens designed humans..... but of course the aliens were not designed..... sigh.....

"University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne, in his book Why Evolution is True, wrote: “If anything is true about nature, it is that plants and animals seem intricately and almost perfectly designed for living their lives” (2009, p. 1, emp. added). He further stated, “Nature resembles a well-oiled machine, with every species an intricate cog or gear” (p. 1). On page three of the same book, he wrote: “The more one learns about plants and animals, the more one marvels at how well their designs fit their ways of life.” Atheist Michael Shermer, in his book Why Darwin Matters, stated: “The design inference comes naturally. The reason people think that a Designer created the world is because it looks designed” (2006, p. 65, ital. in orig.)."

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

But don't believe your lying eyes people.... Instead believe the lies that the design you see is just an illusion.....

"The irony of the situation is that each of these writers contends that such design is a product of naturalistic, mindless factors. But their telling statements underscore the obvious conclusion. If an Intelligent Designer really did create the world, what would it look like? Answer: Exactly like the one we have!"

it would appear designed, exactly as it appears to be......

The Bible speaks of people who see evidence that God created but still reject the designer/creator: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. (Romans 1:20-22)

Michel Behe reminds us: “…it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.” {Design for Living By Michael J. Behe Published: February 7, 2005, New York Times Op Ed.}

Click to expand...

Is that really all you've got? God is author of our being so we have to believe in ID? I stand on my point, which you have not addressed. I believe in God the father almighty. maker of all things both visible and invisible--and I believe that ID is a crock. As a theory it is vacuous, with no proposed mechanism and no criteria of falsifiablility. You're going to have to do better than that.

Ophiolite said:

2. However, if they were to say such a thing it would be because overwhelming evidence had emerged that made it unreasonable to seriously consider alternatives.

Click to expand...

so the evidence rule. not the consensus. right?

xianghua said:

so the evidence rule. not the consensus. right?

Click to expand...

It is not an either this or that situation. The consensus follows the evidence. They are intimately related. The consensus is a consensus of experts. It is the experts that find the evidence and seek to properly understand it. This is done through investigation and experiment and much debate anad argument, so that all plausible ideas are properly considered and tested. Eventually, based upon the available evidence a consensus emerges.

Silmarien said:

I have a couple concerns with this approach, Quid.

1) Is natural evil really an oxymoron? In the moral sense, yes, as morality cannot exist without rational beings. But things can be good and bad even without human rationality. To take things in an Aristotelian direction, a good tree is one which sinks its roots into the earth and receives abundant nutrients. A bad tree is one that can't manage this effectively.

Things can similarly be good and bad for living entities aside from humans. It is good for a lion to catch a meal. It is bad for an antelope to be that meal. Once we hit human rationality, these lower level valuations develop into full-fledged morality, but the concept exists previously. So why is it the case that the natural world results in processes that create both good and bad outcomes? Why does suffering exist? Referring to all of this as the Problem of Suffering might be more helpful than calling it the Problem of Evil, especially in the pre-human framework.

2) Is it appropriate in this case to say that natural evil is the result of anthropomorphism? You invoke Stoicism, but I think if anything that would hurt the case for Christianity proper, since Christianity provides an alternative to the pagan philosophies that said either (a) the world is all there is and cannot in and of itself be good or evil, or (b) because the Good is beyond the material, the material must be transcended. Christianity does something different--it says that the world is good. This may be an anthropomorphism, but it seems very clear to me that Christianity is saying quite explicitly, "Your human intuitions are correct. The world is good, but fallen. This is not what it is supposed to be. Any of it."

Click to expand...

I'm not going to answer for Quid, but it could just all be what you think it is, or maybe it's not. ...and that to me is one of the existential beauties of it.

I think my main concern is this:

Can we have much hope that the full Christian picture of morality, particularly in where it departs from pagan thought with its universalism and progressive take on history, is true? Or does the way that evolution unfolds imply that the natural order is the only real order (in more of an Aristotelian than atheistic sense), and Christianity just another empty form of utopianism? Though I've admittedly been in a Puddleglum mood recently myself.

Click to expand...

So, are you still in a Puddleglum mood about this? I mean, depending on just how much Tom Baker we want to bring into this apparently "fizzled" thread, might I move you to a more Dr. Who mood about it?

But seriously, where were we on this discussion? (Or did I miss out on some here-to-fore unseen resolution to all of this and everyone's shuffled off in the meantime?)

LOL, Philo.

You keep changing your avatar like that, and you're gonna have more avatars than I have challenge threads!

AV1611VET said:

LOL, Philo.

You keep changing your avatar like that, and you're gonna have more avatars than I have challenge threads!

Click to expand...

Don't ask me why, but I think I may finally settle on this one. It has (oh, how do I say this?) that certain something that I find to be so very meaningful. **sigh**

2PhiloVoid said:

Don't ask me why, but I think I may finally settle on this one. It has (oh, how do I say this?) that certain something that I find to be so very meaningful. **sigh**

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

So, are you still in a Puddleglum mood about this? I mean, depending on just how much Tom Baker we want to bring into this apparently "fizzled" thread, might I move you to a more Dr. Who mood about it?

Click to expand...

Romanaaaaaa.

2PhiloVoid said:

But seriously, where were we on this discussion? (Or did I miss out on some here-to-fore unseen resolution to all of this and everyone's shuffled off in the meantime?)

Click to expand...

No real resolution, no. My facade of neutrality snapped and I no longer had the heart to attack the Christian picture of goodness. In any case, I do think the free will defenses work, so I don't want to play devil's advocate for sport.

Silmarien said:

Romanaaaaaa.



No real resolution, no. My facade of neutrality snapped and I no longer had the heart to attack the Christian picture of goodness. In any case, I do think the free will defenses work, so I don't want to play devil's advocate for sport.

Click to expand...

It sounds like the Key to Time is still in safe keeping then... ... carry on (unless, of course, you think you're trapped in E-Space or there's a fourth reason for a 1st regeneration).

Justatruthseeker said:

But, ummm, that is not even similar. If they denied it was round, the only other option would be flat, since that is the only other theory, whether they presented any evidence of it or not.

Click to expand...

The theory that the Earth is flat is not the only alternative to the model of a spherical Earth. The Earth could form the interior of a hollow sphere, or it could be a tetrahedron, a cube, a hexahedron, an octahedron, etc. Alternatively, the Earth could be any one of a number of geometrical surfaces, such as a paraboloid or a hyperboloid, both of which are of infinite extent.

Speedwell said:

Is that really all you've got? God is author of our being so we have to believe in ID? I stand on my point, which you have not addressed. I believe in God the father almighty. maker of all things both visible and invisible--and I believe that ID is a crock. As a theory it is vacuous, with no proposed mechanism and no criteria of falsifiablility. You're going to have to do better than that.

Click to expand...

Then if you believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of all things..... then you believe an intelligence designed the world......

Now see, you are putting words into my mouth never spoken by me. I did not propose any theory, I said simply that the world was Intelligently Designed, unless you think God the maker of all things just did it haphazardly?

there is a difference between recognizing design, and man's pitiful mind being able to comprehend the complexity of HOW God did it.... We couldn't understand it if God wrote a 50,000 page science book explaining it all..... Our mind's are not that bright to understand the things of God. Even if some like to pretend they are smarter than He is.....