Hyperevolution in the aftermath of the Flood

[shernren]

The simple question is:

By what mechanism was biodiversity restored to nearly its current condition from merely a pair each of every land-dwelling genus within 2,000 years?

 

[Soldat_fur_Christ]

The simple question is:

By what mechanism was biodiversity restored to nearly its current condition from merely a pair each of every land-dwelling genus within 2,000 years?

God

 

[random_guy]

God

That was easy. Next question?

 

[Willtor]

God

In light of this view, why was it necessary for Noah to build the ark? Couldn't he have built something big enough for him, his family, some food, and an amoeba (as the subject for hyper-evolution)? Also, birds to test for dryness? Certainly not millions of pairs of animals.

I don't really want to be too glib, though. Soldat_fur_Christ, what do you think are the theological implications of your view? What is the relationship between God and nature, as you understand it?

 

[Soldat_fur_Christ]

In light of this view, why was it necessary for Noah to build the ark? Couldn't he have built something big enough for him, his family, some food, and an amoeba (as the subject for hyper-evolution)? Also, birds to test for dryness? Certainly not millions of pairs of animals.

I don't really want to be too glib, though. Soldat_fur_Christ, what do you think are the theological implications of your view? What is the relationship between God and nature, as you understand it?

Your assuming macroevolution by your statement. Sure we have variation among people, dogs, cats, etc. God obviously created all the original animals, Adam and Eve with the genes we see expressed today.

So with 2 of every kind (Not 2 of every genus species), we would have 2 elephants, 2 dogs, 2 cats, etc. With that they all had the genes (sorry, I'm sick right now, and have been through Biology class, was it phenotypes?) needed to create the diversity we see now. Obviously we wouldn't need 2 labrador retrievers, 2 great danes, 2 chiuaua's, etc. They had their 'common ancestor' if you would like to call it that. And with the carnivores, I'm sure they were locked up. But going back to the beginning, we knew that they ate vegetation. (Granted if Tyranousaurus Rex's were still alive by the flood) We know the book of Job talks about a Dinosaur. Plus isn't it possible that the animals brought to Noah couldn't have been baby animals also? The Bible doesn't mention it, but it takes a while for animals to grow to a big size, and a baby dinosaur takes a while to grow. So therefore baby animals would have taken less room.

Now you guys are assuming that God left the animals on their own to become what we have now. Wouldn't it be feasible that God used his powers to help them too? It makes sense to me that way. With his help they became what we have now. He told Noah that he had reign over the animals and could use them for food, but not until he said so.... This shows that God was waiting for the population to come back up.

But talking about this... why aren't you guys believing the Bible? We know it was from divine revelation. Why would God lie to Moses whom wrote the first 5 books? Why would God have told Moses that he created the animals and humans on the 6th day, when it was millions of years of evolution instead (by your reasoning)

God was also setting up our time schedule, we can clearly see that in Genesis. Where else do you think we got the 7 day week?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

why aren't you guys believing the Bible? We know it was from divine revelation. Why would God lie to Moses

this is actually the crucial YECist argument. obviously from the science presented here and elsewhere the issue is not the science.

the problem is that the YECist is unable to differentiate his/her interpretation of what Scripture says from the actual words of Scripture. So conflating a particular hermeneutic with the very words that it naturally seems like this is the only right way to read Scripture.

the cure for this is to spend tomorrow reading the best of the flat earth essays online where they go on and on about how the Bible teaches a flat stationary earth.

and then the next day read the geocentrics who loudly proclaim that YECist have fallen half way down the slippery slope to unbelief because they have accepted copericanism which is directly against the word of God. for it is obvious that the earth can not move. the whole universe can revolve around the earth, but it can not move, because God said so.

then read some of M.Noll or G.Marsden on the rise of the literal, common sense hermeneutic in the US in the early 19thC, it's roots and it's ties to philosophic and theological trends.

I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, i believe that it is infallible and authoritative in my life and in the life of the Church, i think Moses wrote a great deal of the Pentatech. but i'd rather let the Scriptures speak then to tell them what i think they ought to mean, given modern common sense and all that. I separate my fallible often wrong ideas about Scripture from the Words themselves and what God thinks they mean.


....

 

[Proselyte]

Your assuming macroevolution by your statement. Sure we have variation among people, dogs, cats, etc. God obviously created all the original animals, Adam and Eve with the genes we see expressed today.

So with 2 of every kind (Not 2 of every genus species), we would have 2 elephants, 2 dogs, 2 cats, etc. With that they all had the genes (sorry, I'm sick right now, and have been through Biology class, was it phenotypes?) needed to create the diversity we see now. Obviously we wouldn't need 2 labrador retrievers, 2 great danes, 2 chiuaua's, etc. They had their 'common ancestor' if you would like to call it that. And with the carnivores, I'm sure they were locked up. But going back to the beginning, we knew that they ate vegetation. (Granted if Tyranousaurus Rex's were still alive by the flood) We know the book of Job talks about a Dinosaur. Plus isn't it possible that the animals brought to Noah couldn't have been baby animals also? The Bible doesn't mention it, but it takes a while for animals to grow to a big size, and a baby dinosaur takes a while to grow. So therefore baby animals would have taken less room.

Now you guys are assuming that God left the animals on their own to become what we have now. Wouldn't it be feasible that God used his powers to help them too? It makes sense to me that way. With his help they became what we have now. He told Noah that he had reign over the animals and could use them for food, but not until he said so.... This shows that God was waiting for the population to come back up.

But talking about this... why aren't you guys believing the Bible? We know it was from divine revelation. Why would God lie to Moses whom wrote the first 5 books? Why would God have told Moses that he created the animals and humans on the 6th day, when it was millions of years of evolution instead (by your reasoning)

God was also setting up our time schedule, we can clearly see that in Genesis. Where else do you think we got the 7 day week?

Great post! Some people get so caught up in trying to prove every little thing. God himself created existence, so why wouldn't he use powers to assist Noah in the Flood event.

 

[Mallon]

Great post! Some people get so caught up in trying to prove every little thing. God himself created existence, so why wouldn't he use powers to assist Noah in the Flood event.

It's the creationists who are trying to use science to prove the Bible. If their arguments fall short, or skimp out on the details, then only they are to blame for forcing bad science onto the Bible.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Great post! Some people get so caught up in trying to prove every little thing. God himself created existence, so why wouldn't he use powers to assist Noah in the Flood event.

I think of this as the YECist preference for the miraculous. it isn't enough that God created everything, that He watches over everything with Providence and care, but that He has to supernaturally manipulate it at frequent intervals to be sure He is still boss and can do so.

It seems to be tied to the dispensationalist and charasmatic and premill origins of much of the YECist community. who in their doctrine of the church minimize the normal means of grace to concentrate on the extraordinary, like tent revival meetings rather than the careful long term preaching of the word.

The preference for the spashy, for the colorful, for the emotional and revivalistic. the preference for the miraculous.

the miracles in sCripture are always tied to words that describe and give them significance.

go read H.Van Till's "fully gifted creation" for a Christian explanation of the opposition position.

 

[Proselyte]

Science is a great tool, and has led to much understanding, but it also has its shares of holes and manipulation to further agendas. Some theories take faith, as one has faith in God.
I haven't earned the right to post links yet, but a recent enjoyeable theory was the "freezing of the Sea of Galilee" to explain Jesus "supposedly" walking on water. That's an idea thrown out there with "possible" scientific backing, but the skeptics digest it in a minute rather than accept the idea of the miracle of Jesus actually walking on water. You see where this is going right?
As Christians, we have to have faith and know that we can't prove everything, and that's ok. YEC, Evolutionists...as Christians at least we have some things in common. Atheist evolutionists...well maybe they will draw nearer to Jesus in their time here.

 

[Dannager]

Science is a great tool, and has led to much understanding, but it also has its shares of holes and manipulation to further agendas. Some theories take faith, as one has faith in God.

Scientific theories never take faith. They take evidence which must either be accepted or refuted. A favorite tactic of YECs is to make it appear as though scientific theories (specifically evolution and the age of the earth) require a sort of spiritual faith, placing them on the same level with religion. This is not the case.

It's also worth noting that the only alarms the YECs raise with regards to scientific theories requiring faith are the two that directly contradict a literal reading of scripture (the age of the earth and how man came to be).

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Scientific theories never take faith. They take evidence which must either be accepted or refuted.

i don't think this is quite right.

for example, my personal favorite philosophy of science presupposition in order to do science is the desacralization of the physical world.

what it means is that it is a moral good it investigate the natural world. Not just that the universe is accessible to such studies, (that decartes demon does not exist) but that it is of value and worthwhile.

when the universe was inhabited by demons, they made it difficult for scientific thinking to get a foothold. traditionalists would literally look at proto-scientists and tell them to stop fiddling with the knobs, doing such things would bring disaster upon them all.

as the universe, (and numbers btw) were systematically emptied of their spirits, of their mystical content under the influence of Christianization of European society, the result was that people were not afraid to look behind the trees, to look underneath the ground.

but this really is a position of faith, is it really a good thing to investigate the physical world? it is a question of choice, as atom bombs, man made viruses, ak47's and m16's and landmines, all would give us pause to wonder.

 

[dad]

Your assuming macroevolution by your statement. Sure we have variation among people, dogs, cats, etc. God obviously created all the original animals, Adam and Eve with the genes we see expressed today.

So with 2 of every kind (Not 2 of every genus species), we would have 2 elephants, 2 dogs, 2 cats, etc. With that they all had the genes (sorry, I'm sick right now, and have been through Biology class, was it phenotypes?) needed to create the diversity we see now. Obviously we wouldn't need 2 labrador retrievers, 2 great danes, 2 chiuaua's, etc. They had their 'common ancestor' if you would like to call it that. And with the carnivores, I'm sure they were locked up. But going back to the beginning, we knew that they ate vegetation. (Granted if Tyranousaurus Rex's were still alive by the flood) We know the book of Job talks about a Dinosaur. Plus isn't it possible that the animals brought to Noah couldn't have been baby animals also? The Bible doesn't mention it, but it takes a while for animals to grow to a big size, and a baby dinosaur takes a while to grow. So therefore baby animals would have taken less room.

Now you guys are assuming that God left the animals on their own to become what we have now. Wouldn't it be feasible that God used his powers to help them too? It makes sense to me that way. With his help they became what we have now. He told Noah that he had reign over the animals and could use them for food, but not until he said so.... This shows that God was waiting for the population to come back up.

But talking about this... why aren't you guys believing the Bible? We know it was from divine revelation. Why would God lie to Moses whom wrote the first 5 books? Why would God have told Moses that he created the animals and humans on the 6th day, when it was millions of years of evolution instead (by your reasoning)

God was also setting up our time schedule, we can clearly see that in Genesis. Where else do you think we got the 7 day week?

I am not afraid of hyperevolution, I actually believe in it.
If we look to the future we see some of this. How could animals no longer eat each other but grass? Even the present meat eaters? Some adapting, a lot, is needed. Big changes. But we have the new heavens coming, and this universe passing away to explain how everything will be able to be very different.
We see just as big changes in the past, like human lifespans, etc. I say the past also must have been like the future will be, different. That leaves us here in the temporary, soon to pass away physical universe where things are as they are. Simple answer they were not like this then, and they will not be like it in the future.
No present decay, or light, or evolving rates can be even relative to anything but the present, and last several thousand years. No science says it will be or was. That is fact.

 

[shernren]

I think of this as the YECist preference for the miraculous.

I think there's a paradox at the heart of the YECist position between this "preference for the miraculous", as you call it, and the common-man scientism inherent in their interpretive mental framework. We can see this coming to the fore in their Gen1 interpretations:

God did 6 days' worth of megamiracles
and we can prove that it all happened 6000 years ago with science!

The paradox / oxymoron of scientifically studying miracles. How does one do that? How do you prove a miracle scientifically while dodging the implication that miracles make scientific study unreliable? It's like transferring concentrated acid with a metal spoon: the contents destroy the container.

That's something like what is happening on the now-massive "If evolution is not valid science ... " thread between me and nolidad on the global flood issue.

He says it's a global flood because local waters can't stay 22.5 feet above mountains.
I say the global flood interpretation invokes an immense arsenal of miracles (hyperevolution being one crucial one), so why can't I use my own? What makes his scientific argument valid and mine not?
He says Scripture supports his scientific argument. Big fight over Psalm 104.
I'm going to say that he's entering the text with a global flood agenda whereas reading the text with a local universal flood gives equal self-consistency.

Miracles can be invoked in support of their position but miracles can't be invoked against their position. According to them their miracles are validated by their interpretation of Scripture. But this is a tautology! Their interpretation of Scripture is correct because miracles can wash away any science against it, and their miracles are acceptable because their miracles are necessary for their interpretation of Scripture. Endless circle of self-proof. Furthermore, their miracles validate their interpretations which are themselves inspired by modern scientism.

Science validating miracles, and then miracles validating science. What an utter, complete mess. I suspect that the key to this puzzle lies in the dichotomy between acceptable, understood science, and unacceptable, un-understood science which I've been looking at. But I can't quite seem to get it. Their thought position has more twists than a stricken snake (Malay proverb: bagai ular dipalu).

 

[dad]

I think there's a paradox at the heart of the YECist position between this "preference for the miraculous", as you call it, and the common-man scientism inherent in their interpretive mental framework. We can see this coming to the fore in their Gen1 interpretations:

God did 6 days' worth of megamiracles
and we can prove that it all happened 6000 years ago with science!

The paradox / oxymoron of scientifically studying miracles. How does one do that? How do you prove a miracle scientifically while dodging the implication that miracles make scientific study unreliable? It's like transferring concentrated acid with a metal spoon: the contents destroy the container.

That's something like what is happening on the now-massive "If evolution is not valid science ... " thread between me and nolidad on the global flood issue.

He says it's a global flood because local waters can't stay 22.5 feet above mountains.
I say the global flood interpretation invokes an immense arsenal of miracles (hyperevolution being one crucial one), so why can't I use my own? What makes his scientific argument valid and mine not?
He says Scripture supports his scientific argument. Big fight over Psalm 104.
I'm going to say that he's entering the text with a global flood agenda whereas reading the text with a local universal flood gives equal self-consistency.

Miracles can be invoked in support of their position but miracles can't be invoked against their position. According to them their miracles are validated by their interpretation of Scripture. But this is a tautology! Their interpretation of Scripture is correct because miracles can wash away any science against it, and their miracles are acceptable because their miracles are necessary for their interpretation of Scripture. Endless circle of self-proof. Furthermore, their miracles validate their interpretations which are themselves inspired by modern scientism.

Science validating miracles, and then miracles validating science. What an utter, complete mess. I suspect that the key to this puzzle lies in the dichotomy between acceptable, understood science, and unacceptable, un-understood science which I've been looking at. But I can't quite seem to get it. Their thought position has more twists than a stricken snake (Malay proverb: bagai ular dipalu).

If you depart science, and claim miracles, that is all you are doing. I claim the past was different and the differences were then natural, not miraculous. I also claim science, as far as it goes, which is only up till things came to be in their present state.
This leaves me with science, and a different natural past that fits real evidence. This leaves you claiming some miracles, if I get you right that you dream up, and are not even so much as related to the bible!

 

[jereth]

By what mechanism was biodiversity restored .... ?

Shernren, my friend, methinks you are wasting your time by asking such a question.

Plausibility is clearly not a concern for YECists.

 

[The Lady Kate]

If you depart science, and claim miracles, that is all you are doing. I claim the past was different and the differences were then natural, not miraculous.

If so, then there should be some sort of scientific evidence for such a change...

I also claim science, as far as it goes, which is only up till things came to be in their present state.

And when was this?

This leaves me with science, and a different natural past that fits real evidence. This leaves you claiming some miracles, if I get you right that you dream up, and are not even so much as related to the bible!

But where did this "different nature" come from? And how is it, in a practical sense, any different than claiming a hatful of megamiracleas?

 

[Proselyte]

Scientific theories never take faith. They take evidence which must either be accepted or refuted. A favorite tactic of YECs is to make it appear as though scientific theories (specifically evolution and the age of the earth) require a sort of spiritual faith, placing them on the same level with religion. This is not the case.

It's also worth noting that the only alarms the YECs raise with regards to scientific theories requiring faith are the two that directly contradict a literal reading of scripture (the age of the earth and how man came to be).

Well, so many of these theories that don't pan out, or become "modified" to readjust scientific models are accepted as absolute truth until such time, with no credence given to an explanation with divine origins.
If those who rely on the scripture for the bulk of our foundation hopped around as much, we'd be labelled as wishy washy. I don't have a problem with the theories themselves. I take issue with blind devotion to such theories in the absence of absolute proof that your belief system requires, while excluding any possible explanation of scriptural backing.

 

[dad]

If so, then there should be some sort of scientific evidence for such a change...

If we look at the future, when the new heavens come, what evidence of change will there be? Things will last forever, no longer be in decay, the spirittual and physical will be together. God, a spirit, for example living right there with us. Our bodies, like that of Jesus both spiritual and physical then. If we remember, He could be touched if He wanted to, He ate, and was physical. He still has the wounds for example. Yet, He passed through wallls, appeared and disappeared out of sight, rose up to the sky, etc., and was now immortal. He was also spiritual.
If we imagine a whole world, or universe the same, merged matter, we can see it is simply totally different in a lot of ways, yet the same in many ways.
If such a world also existed in the far past, and the spiritual part was seperated temporarily, leaving us in a physical only state, what evidence of the change should we see?
I suggest that light would be different, also, therefore also plant growth rates. Also, matter would now be in a state of decay. These things we see!! Then we see other changes in matter, like how physical only matter takes a long time to cool. But in creation week, for example, there was a massive planetary movement, where the dry land got seperated from the waters. This means heat. Yet the same day plants were created! It cooled fast then. If the continents moved apart in the days of Peleg, as some Christians theorize, that too would have produced tremendous heat. If the flood waters came up from the subteranean, and down from the heavens, that too, would have produced a lot of heat, if all we were dealing with was physics. If it did come down, that is evidence of a change, as it could not happen in the present. We could go on, but that is the idea.

The change was not a physical universe, we are the change, in this temporary, one day to pass away, physical only universe. The evidence we need is not available from physical science, because they assume it was always the same, though can not prove it, of course, cause it was not the same.

And when was this?

My best opinion on the date from what I read in the bible, was about 4400 years ago. Or about a century after the flood.

But where did this "different nature" come from? And how is it, in a practical sense, any different than claiming a hatful of megamiracleas?

The different nature was the CREATED STATE of the universe. The normal, eternal state will be here again, when the new heavens the bible speaks of appear, and these old heavens (physical only) pass away. We will, again, have no decay. We will, again, have another kind of light. The bible examples this in the New Jerusalem, which is lit with light from God. Spiritual light.

 

[The Lady Kate]

If we look at the future, when the new heavens come, what evidence of change will there be?

We're discussing the past. How do you know the past was so radically different?

Things will last forever, no longer be in decay, the spirittual and physical will be together. God, a spirit, for example living right there with us. Our bodies, like that of Jesus both spiritual and physical then. If we remember, He could be touched if He wanted to, He ate, and was physical. He still has the wounds for example. Yet, He passed through wallls, appeared and disappeared out of sight, rose up to the sky, etc., and was now immortal. He was also spiritual.

That's a wonderful thing to look forward to... now, back to my question, if you please...

If we imagine a whole world, or universe the same, merged matter, we can see it is simply totally different in a lot of ways, yet the same in many ways.

Well, there's the magic word... imagine. I thought you had some sort of scientific basis for your theories on the past.

If such a world also existed in the far past, and the spiritual part was seperated temporarily, leaving us in a physical only state, what evidence of the change should we see?

It's your idea... you tell us.

I suggest that light would be different, also, therefore also plant growth rates. Also, matter would now be in a state of decay. These things we see!! Then we see other changes in matter, like how physical only matter takes a long time to cool. But in creation week, for example, there was a massive planetary movement, where the dry land got seperated from the waters. This means heat. Yet the same day plants were created! It cooled fast then. If the continents moved apart in the days of Peleg, as some Christians theorize, that too would have produced tremendous heat. If the flood waters came up from the subteranean, and down from the heavens, that too, would have produced a lot of heat, if all we were dealing with was physics. If it did come down, that is evidence of a change, as it could not happen in the present. We could go on, but that is the idea.

In other words... a whole trunk full of megamiracles which serve no purpose except to "prove" YEC... precisely as shenren described.

The change was not a physical universe, we are the change, in this temporary, one day to pass away, physical only universe. The evidence we need is not available from physical science, because they assume it was always the same, though can not prove it, of course, cause it was not the same.

And now the burden is on you to prove that it was not the same... I had assumed that you were working with something here...

My best opinion on the date from what I read in the bible, was about 4400 years ago. Or about a century after the flood.

And how many miracles have you engineered thus far to confirm this?

The different nature was the CREATED STATE of the universe. The normal, eternal state will be here again, when the new heavens the bible speaks of appear, and these old heavens (physical only) pass away. We will, again, have no decay. We will, again, have another kind of light. The bible examples this in the New Jerusalem, which is lit with light from God. Spiritual light.

All well and nice, of course... but you departed from any kind of scientific discussion early on in the post.

Interesting theology, though.