Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[Papias]

Anthony wrote:

The accumulated evidence for the theory of evolution do not logically or biologically add up to the primary claims of the theory
But there are logical and biological reasons to think that what the theory claims to have happened did not happen. In a court of law,the same evidence is sometimes used by both the prosecutors and the defense attourneys to support their cases,and the jury can judge for themselves if either interpretation is beyond reasonable doubt. There are certainly good reasons to doubt the theory of evolution.

.

The accumulated evidence for the theory of evolution establishes the primary claims of evolution beyond a reaonable doubt. Those who have studied the evidence (inlcuding thousands of Christians) are practically unanimous in their conclusion that it is proven far beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a "court case" was over decades ago in the court of science, just like for geocentrism. If you want a more recent case in a legal court, just go to the Dover decision - where again creationism was found to have no basis, and evolution supported by the evidence.

How would you know if a fossil represents a transitional species if you don't know of its reproductive connections with other species? The similarities between species do not say anything about whether there was common descent. To assume that there must have been common descent is to assume that similar species can only have come into existence from a common ancestor,which is not logical. There is no law of nature which would prevent similar organisms from coming into existence separately,and certainly God is not limited to creating only one ancestral organism and deriving all others from it.

OK, so you are saying that God planted clear transitional series, sorted by geologic layer, in a way that he knew would be obvious to anyone of gradual change, when he actually had created each separately, simply to deceive us? I personally don't see God as a liar.

For example:

​

I don't ignore the evidence,I analyze it.

OK, then you are familiar with the many lines of evidence from many different fields that His Holiness is referring to. So it will be easy for you to list just a tiny fraction of the types of evidence, right? I'm not asking you to agree with any of it, but just to show us that you have some clue as to the types of evidence that makes practically all scientists and the Pope see evolution as "virtually certian". Listing a dozen types of evidence should be easy. I'll put that on the list.

The theory is virtually certain to those who uncritically go along with its non sequiturs and false causal connections.

People such as.... the Pope?

And who was the leader of that commission? I thought you already agreed that as leader of the commission, of course he agreed with the commission's statement?

He agreed with the theological statements. He did not have to agree with the scientific account of origins to approve the document.
​

So you are saying that he worked on team and approved his own result, even though he disagreed with what was in there? So the Pope is a liar? It sounds like your last post called both the Pope and God liars.

Just like we don't have to agree with every opinion that is recorded in the Bible,like the opinion that there is no God,which is mentioned in one of the psalms.

Sure we do. So you are saying you don't agree with all of God's word? Do you intend to "correct" God when you see him? I stand by all of God's word.

As I mentioned earlier, if you want company in denying evolution, there are schismatic groups like the society of pope pius X, who have lots of members who deny evolution, the holocaust and so on.

There are many people in the Catholic Church,perhaps a majority,that would deny the theory of evolution.
​

There are many, though we'd need to see data to see if it is anywhere close to a majority. It seems clear that most of these people are ignorant of both the evidence and of the Popes support for theistic evolution.

​

I would remain in the Church even if I could not find like-minded people. I would argue against the theory of evolution just as I am doing now.

Why?

******************************
So, I see that a lot of direct questions from my last post have been ignored. Here's a list for Anthony:

O1. So do you follow doctor's orders, or do you just uncritically accept their prescriptions and the idea of their atheistic germ theory that there are these invisible things called "germs"?


O2. Why are you not denying Algebra, which also makes no mention of God? Perhaps because in those cases, you see that simply describing how something works, without reference to God, is theistically neutral, not atheistic? Since you can see that with gravity, plate tectonics, germs and algebra, they why can't you see that with evolution?


O3. Since you claimed to have analyzed the evidence, then listing a dozen types of evidence should be easy. Could you list a dozen for us (see above)?

O4. Please clarify what you mean by "endorse".
"Endorse" can be taken to mean "I establish this as the only acceptable view." Is that what you mean?

Or, "Endorse" can be taken to mean "This is what I see to be correct, though others may hold different views."

Which do you mean? Thanks.

Papias

 

[lucaspa]

How do you know it is factual? Do you just believe whatever the scientific community says,as if it always gives logical explanations?

Facts and logical explanations are 2 different things. Facts are repeated observations. The scientific community works only with observations that are the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. That means you and I. If we were to look at the lithographic fossils of Archeopteryx, we would see impressions of feathers. That is a fact.

This type of observation is called "intersubjective". Science deliberately restricts itself to these types of observations. My personal experience of God is not part of science because everyone does not have it.

In fact, every scientist has observations that he/she has never published because he/she did not see them again under the same circumstances. I can tell you about one of mine if you want.

Now, explanations in science do not have to be logical. They only have to fit the data. Some explanations defy parts of logic. For instance, in logic there is the Law of the Excluded Middle. An entity can be either A or B, but cannot be both A and B. Well, the explanation for observations of the behavior of photons is that photons are both particle and wave, violating the Law of the Excluded Middle. Too bad for the "law" of logic. In science, observations trump everything else.

The theory of evolution is not theistic evolution,and it does not become compatible with the doctrine of creation and providence just because people say "that's how God works".

The theory of evolution is agnostic. We add the "theistic" from evidence outside of science that God exists and God created.

The objection to evolution by anti-evolutionists is not that it is not compatible with the doctrine of creation and providence. The objection is that evolution contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 1-3! The doctrine of creation and providence is not a literal reading of Genesis 1-3.

Theistic evolution is compatible with the doctrine of creation and providence because, when tested against that doctrine, it was compatible. Saying "Evolution is how God works" is just a summary of the results of the testing.

I didn't say he disagrees with the document,I said his approval of it does not mean he agrees with the scientific account,that is,the theory of evolution.

A close reading reveals that Popes Pius, John Paul II, and Benedict agree with the scientific account. What they don't agree with is the extrapolation of the account beyond science to atheistic evolution. Surely that's not a big deal. No one here agrees with the extrapolation either.

 

[lucaspa]

In the book Creation and Evolution,he says,

"The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science."

Not quite an endorsement of the theory of evolution or of theistic evolution.​

​

It looks like it is out of context. Benedict is setting up the 2 extremes: creationism and "evolutionary theory that covers its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that raech beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science". That last is atheistic evolution. "reaching beyond the methodological possibilities" is atheism. Remember, methodological materialism limits science to agnosticism. Going beyond the methodological is a faith move. I am betting in the next sentences that Benedict argues that theistic evolution is the other choice. So please, why don't you quote us the next 5 sentences and let us see what Benedict said. Thank you.

He said that common descent might have happened,not that he sees no problem with the theory. It's true that it might have happened,insofar as God can do anything. But it cannot be demonstrated that it did happen,and so it is presumptuous to say that God made it happen.

Anthony, common descent can be demonstrated to have happened both by the fossil record and the makeup of living organisms. In living organisms, from the morphological and physiological features that compel organisms being classed in a nested hierarchy to the sequences of bases in DNA that show such sequences to be related by historical connections across any possible set of "kinds". In the fossil record by sequences of transitional individuals linking species to species to species to new genera, families, orders, and even classes. If descent with modification makes new classes, then there is no place for separately created kinds to hide.

 

[lucaspa]

This is not the kind of power that is necessary for the creation of organisms. An organism requires,practically by definition,the power to organize parts into a working,purposeful whole. It is not just a matter of chain reactions of elements. Natural causes are not so strange and wonderful so as to create organisms.

Yes, they are. Once again I will start by referring you here:
The Harbinger. My Scientific Discussions of Evolution for the Pope and His Scientists Then we can discuss in more detail.

But yes, first amino acids are created by chemistry by at least 3 different pathways in nature. Then the amino acids are polymerized to protein by at least 2 different pathways. In both those pathways, the proteins spontaneously, naturally organize themselves into living cells. Organisms. These organisms 1. metabolize, 2. grow, 3. respond to stimuli (they have action potentials like your nerve cells, and 4. reproduce.

This statement "natural causes are not so strange and wonderful as to create organisms" is god-of-the-gaps theology. You have a "gap" that supposedly "natural causes" cannot fill. It's unBiblical.

But naturalistic and mechanistic explanations are not adequate to explain what causes the processes of cells.

God-of-the-gaps again. Ever hear of biochemistry? That is the study of the "naturalistic and mechanistic" processes of cells. Physics, chemistry, and natural selection are the causes of the processes of cells.

Does that mean God does not exist? NO! It simply means that the god-of-the-gaps theology is flawed.

 

[lucaspa]

Evidence is whatever information and physical artifacts are presented to support a theory,even if the evidence does not necessarily lead to the claims of the theory. The accumulated evidence for the theory of evolution do not logically or biologically add up to the primary claims of the theory. But there are logical and biological reasons to think that what the theory claims to have happened did not happen. In a court of law,the same evidence is sometimes used by both the prosecutors and the defense attourneys to support their cases,and the jury can judge for themselves if either interpretation is beyond reasonable doubt. There are certainly good reasons to doubt the theory of evolution.

Science doesn't work the way you portrayed. In particular, the first sentence is wrong. Supporting evidence is a failed attempt to show the theory to be wrong.
"4. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it.
5. Confirming evidence should not count *except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory:* and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. "

The evidence must support logical deductions of consequences to be observed if the theory is true. It is not "whatever".

And yes, the evidence does add up to the major claims of the theory. I caution here that anti-evolutionists often make strawman claims, so we need a list of those claims you think are not not supported. And no, there are no biological reasons to think the claims of the theory of evolution did not happen. Again, we need to know what you think "there are logical and biological reasons to think that what the theory claims to have happened did not happen" are. Anti-evolutionists have a track record of putting out a lot of false information. So we need to see if the "reasons" are valid or bogus. So far, as scientists have fought out the theory of evolution (and scientists fight out every theory until they can't fight anymore), they have not found any biological reasons.

Let me give you a very recent example of scientists fighting over a theory. One of my colleagues here -- Stuart Newman -- has put out a new theory of how birds evolved to fly. Now, there is already a very well established theory out there by PO Brush on the evolution of flight. But Newman is arguing that the "real" reason birds evolved flight is a change in gene governing muscles, giving those species in the bird lineage stronger muscles.

However, notice that Newman is not arguing that bird flight did not evolve. Why not? Because he cannot. Obviously, if he could be arguing that, he would be.

How would you know if a fossil represents a transitional species if you don't know of its reproductive connections with other species?

Morphology. When there is a clear series of morphological changes in an ascending fossil bed, then we know there is transition between species. Past a certain point, the morphological changes make it impossible for 2 populations to interbreed. What fossils may do is underrepresent species, but the transitional series do show gradual morphological changes and splitting of populations. Papias gave you an example in shells. Here is another:
5. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.

Creationism doesn't allow such small changes in phenotype that accumulate over time. Only evolution does.

The similarities between species do not say anything about whether there was common descent.

Yes, they do. If you can use the similarities to build a nested hierarchy, that is one of the predicted observational consequences of common descent.

In the fossil record, the transtional individuals do. The example Papias gave and the examples I have given in this thread -- Transitional fossils - Christian Forums -- are all about transitional individuals that link species to species. Not similarity of species, but a fine enough fossil record to record individuals that are in-between species.

To assume that there must have been common descent is to assume that similar species can only have come into existence from a common ancestor,which is not logical. There is no law of nature which would prevent similar organisms from coming into existence separately,and certainly God is not limited to creating only one ancestral organism and deriving all others from it.

No, God is not limited to that. We are taking evidence from His Creation to figure out how God actually created from all the possible ways He could have created. However, common descent is not an "assumption", it is a conclusion. And remember, science started out thinking that God created species separately What you are missing (or refusing to see) is all the evidence that falsifies that theory of how God created.

The theory is virtually certain to those who uncritically go along with its non sequiturs and false causal connections.

Oh my. You think evolutionary biologists are "uncritical"? ROFL. Anthony, in 1800 all scientists were creationists. If scientists were as uncritical as you say, then creationism would still be the accepted scientific theory! Instead, scientists are critical. They were critical enough to look at the evidence and realize it showed special creation to be wrong.

The so-called "non sequiturs [sic] and false causal connections" are invalid criticisms leveled at evolution by people who won't give up a literal reading of Genesis 1-3. Talk about "assumptions". The starting assumption is that Genesis 1-3 is history and nothing can be allowed to challenge that assumption.

I would remain in the Church even if I could not find like-minded people. I would argue against the theory of evolution just as I am doing now.

So you would insist you are right and God is wrong. Interesting. That takes a lot more chutzpah than I have.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

There's one thing that amuses me about common descent, and it's the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, spent a half a billion years to become liveable, and then life began a half billion years after that.

Not only is it incredibly astronomical for life to even form, but it happened relatively soon., suspiciously soon.

Did God just go Deistic for a while and come back 3 billion years later? Pre-life hurts any and every idea of purpose, because animals are only instinctive, and alone they are vain.

 

[theFijian]

There's one thing that amuses me about common descent, and it's the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, spent a half a billion years to become liveable, and then life began a half billion years after that.

Not only is it incredibly astronomical for life to even form, but it happened relatively soon., suspiciously soon.

Did God just go Deistic for a while and come back 3 billion years later? Pre-life hurts any and every idea of purpose, because animals are only instinctive, and alone they are vain.

Wow you're still flogging your 'TE-is-deism' dead horse. Didn't you learn anything from the theological thrashing you received before? If you want to actually debate it rather than throwing out canards and running away then we can start again from the beginning.

 

[theFijian]

Did God just go Deistic for a while and come back 3 billion years later?

What this demonstrates is the misunderstanding that unless God is intervening miraculously in his Creation, then he is not involved in it in any way; this is your incorrect 'Te-is-deism' idea. God does not need to intervene miraculously to be involved in his Creation. As I have stated before I affirm and wholeheartedly believe the teaching of these verses from Colossians which teach the preeminence of Christ in and through all of Creation:

Col 1:16, 17 - For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

I recall your response to this was something along the lines of "you must be having a laugh". Thankfully Christians do not have to believe that God must be scientifically detectable or provable to be able to say that God is involved in Creation and is not a 'deistic' God.

Pre-life hurts any and every idea of purpose, because animals are only instinctive, and alone they are vain.

Just because you think this 'pre-life' has no 'purpose' doesn't mean that God has no purpose in it. Anyway, I thought animals could not be corrected? So what the purpose of God killing all those animals during the flood since they 'are only instinctive, and alone they are vain'.

 

[Assyrian]

Not sure how Papias is going to recognise your theological expertise when you refuse to discuss your theology with him.

 

[theFijian]

Not sure how Papias is going to recognise your theological expertise when you refuse to discuss your theology with him.

Standard tactic from this poster. We're supposed to recognise it cos he says he is smarter than everyone else here, isn't that good enough for you???

 

[lucaspa]

There's one thing that amuses me about common descent, and it's the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, spent a half a billion years to become liveable, and then life began a half billion years after that.

Common descent has nothing to do with the age of the earth. That's completely different evidence. Now, the way the earth formed, by repeated impacts of rocks up to small planets, is going to continuously make the surface molten and, thus, be inimical to life.

The oldest fossils we have are 3.8 billion years old. That's very soon after the earth cooled enough to permit life.

Not only is it incredibly astronomical for life to even form, but it happened relatively soon., suspiciously soon.

This is a creationist false witness, based on GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out. It turns out that it is extremely likely for life to form. The chemistry is not only very simple but very common. So the odds are close to 1.

Did God just go Deistic for a while and come back 3 billion years later? Pre-life hurts any and every idea of purpose, because animals are only instinctive, and alone they are vain.

Animals are post-life, not "pre-life".

Nor did God go deistic. You think God is absent while evolution is taking place? NO! God is always present as sustainer of the universe.

 

[lucaspa]

I am a creationist,because I believe in the doctrine of creation. Some things in Genesis should be taken literally,and others figuratively,and some may be taken literally,figuratively,and allegorically. But even the things that were not meant to be taken literally must be regarded as having actually happened.

The last sentence contradicts your earlier sentences. If Adam and Eve are allegorical, do you think there had to have been an actual Garden of Eden, an actual Tree of Knowledge, and a talking serpent to tempt Eve into eating the fruit? If you take things "figuratively and allegorically", then they did not actually happen. That's part of the meaning of "figurative" and "allegorical".

Anthony, please state for us, in full, what you think "doctrine of creation" is. We need this because theistic evolutionists also believe in a "doctrine of creation", but you don't call us "creationists".

Catholic doctrine does not allow for humans to have evolved from a previous species.

According to 3 Popes, yes it does. It does not allow for the evolution of a "soul", however.

Macro-evolution is not just any kind of speciation,it is development above the species level. But that can't happen because speciation only results in sub-species which tend to have less genetic variability than the group it branched from.

Microevolution results in sub-species. These can have more genetic variability. It's just different genetic variability than the other sub-species.

Speciation results in new species. That's what "speciation" means. Now, the only biological reality is "species". All those taxa "above the species level" are just groups of species.

Speciation causes division and tapering,not metamorphosis from one primary species (such as horse or ape) to another.

Horses and apes are not species! As you are using the terms, these are higher taxa -- Families. Horses, zebras, etc. are part of a Family of species. Apes, of course are a Family. (BTW, if ape is a "primary species", then by your reasoning, humans are just a sub species and not a special creation!)

Higher taxa result from multiple speciations spread over time. A single speciation results in a genus (2 or more species) and then more speciations will produce families (2 or more genera), orders, classes, etc. See the diagram in Origin of Species for how this happens.

The theory itself excludes God from working in nature,because it was developed from MN,which is the deliberate exclusion of the supernatural from scientific explanations

I have given you the correct relationship of MN and God several times. How many times are you going to repeat this false witness? You do remember that this is a sin, right?

MN is neutral about God. It does not "exclude" God; it says we are unable to test for God directly by experimentation. Thus, "God did not do it" is not a scientific statement. God can easily be working in nature by the exact way Christian theology says He is working: sustaining the universe. It's just that we are unable to detect this.

It does not leave room for God to be working in nature,because it has natural "mechanisms" and processes doing everything by themselves.

That is exactly what it does not say! This is what evolution and science cannot say.

Militant atheists like Dawkins would like science to say this. But it does not and cannot. Get that thru your head. You are committing false winess when you say the "processes doing everything by themselves".

 

[lucaspa]

I have no reason to believe that natural causes have the power to cause those phenomena.

This is the Argument from Personal Incredulity and is not valid.

The reasons are data.

There is no logical correspondence between the proposed natural causes and the phenomena. What is it about amino acids and proteins that would lead us to think they can organize themselves into cells?

Their chemical properties. Particularly, their hydrophobic (water hating) and hydrophobi (water loving) properties. I will need to get pretty deeply into biochemistry to explain this. I am reluctant, however, to go to the effort unless you will accept what I say. I do not want a repeat of the situation with MN, where I have explained that to you in detail and you simply keep repeating the wrong information and ideas time and time again. So I require reassurance from you that you are willing to listen and change your mind.

what power do they have and how does it compare with what happens in a cell?

Not "power", but capability. And it compares very well with what happens in a modern cell. For instance, cells formed abiotically react to stimuli. One of those reactions is an action potential exactly like the action potential in your nerve cells!

The necessary organizing power has to come from somewhere,and if there is no logical correspondence between the efficacy of natural things and what the phenomena seems to require,it is reasonable to assume that supernatural power is at work.

The organizing "power" is internal. It is inherent in the chemicals themselves.

But since anything worth calling order is caused by intelligence,

Not even the IDers say this. In fact, William Dembski's "explanatory filter" admits that order always comes without intelligence!

Let's take a crystal of sodium chloride (table salt). Are you really going to tell us God has to intervende and directly push the atoms of sodium and chlorine into their ordered positions in the crystal lattice?

and since orderly movement between the Earth,sun and moon is needed for life to be sustained on Earth,I think the order is sustained by God.

What do you mean by "sustained by God"? Do you mean God pushes the earth and moon into their present orbits? Do you mean that God keeps the earth and moon in their present orbits directly? That without God "pushing" on the earth and moon that they would not remain in their present orbits?

The meaning of the verse would probably be more clear to the Hebrews of the time Job was written. They had a particular cosmology.
It's poetical language,not precise language. It seems to mean that God clears the way for lightning somehow.

Well, wouldn't that fit with your idea above about God being required for "order"?

How do you decide that Job is poetical? It's not written as a poem, is it? Since Job is prose but you say "poetical", how do you decide that Genesis 1-3 is not poetical? Just on the text alone.

 

[lucaspa]

God’s creation does not contradict anything. It is scientists that make those contradictions based on a myopic interpretation of the evidence.

Sorry, but that won't fly. First, the scientists who found the evidende falsifying the Flood were all Christians. Most of them were ministers. They would not be "myopic" in denying scripture, would they?

Second, the new "interpretation" (hypothesis/theory) also gets tested against God's Creation. If it were wrong (like a world-wide flood was wrong), then we would find evidence in God's Creation that would tell us so.

So, in the end, it is God's Creation that contradicts ideas.

God encourages us to “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7), but scientists rely on sight alone, the very thing God said not to do.

Sigh. Once again you do false witness to scripture by taking it out of context. Start with verse 2:
"We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing. For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies. While we live in these earthly bodies, we groan and sigh, but it's not that we want to die and get rid of these bodies that clothe us. Rather, we want to put on our new bodies so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by life. God himself has prepared us for this, and as a guarantee he has given us his Holy Spirit. So we are always confident, even though we know that as long as we live in these bodies we are not at home with the Lord. For we live by believing and not by seeing. Yes, we are fully confident, and we would rather be away from these earthly bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord. "

So, from the context, it's obvious that this has nothing to do with how we view God's Creation. It's about believing 1) that we will get heavenly bodies and 2) when we do, we will be at home with the Lord.

Now, the ironic part here is that we see scripture. You would have us believe what we see there, not by faith but because it is there, but we are not to believe what we see from God in God's Creation!

So once again what we have is faith in the Bible, but not faith in God. Sorry, Doveman, I will not join you in worship of the Bible. You can't tempt me away from God by telling untruths about scripture.

The earth was immersed in water resulting in evidence scientists should not expect.

No, there is evidence that we should expect if the earth is immersed in water. In fact, creationist say this is so. They point to "bone boneyards" and say that is expected from being immersed in water. They point to the imprints of waves in the Coconino Sandstones and say that is what is expected if the earth was immersed in water.

The problem is that there is so much evidence that can't be there IF the earth were immersed in water.

three men were immersed in fire resulting in evidence scientists should not expect.

First, there also was evidence there of the effects of the fire: the deaths of the guards. Second, this was supposed to be a miracle that God would counter the fire. Are you saying that God countered the effects of the Flood? There is no scripture to say so, so where did you get this idea? Third, it's obvious from the text that this was a miracle. But Genesis 6-8 goes to pains to say that the Flood was not miraculous. Instead, it was "natural".

So such events are common. And I certainly don't intend to limit God's power to what scientists should expect.

Miracles are "common"? Since when?

The problem you are creating is that you are making a god that lies to us. There was a reason to protect the 3 Jews from the fire: to show the Jews that God had not abandoned them, even in their captivity. What's the reason to cover up the evidence of a worldwide Flood? In fact, what is the reason to make it so that it looks like a Flood never happened? There's no reason for God to do that, is there? As Rev Charles Kingsley wrote when this idea was first broached in 1857, not only is God lying, but it is a superfluous lie.

Why waste time building a giant ark to escape a local flood in the “Roman world” when you can just pack up and leave “Rome” just a Lot and his family packed up and left Sodom?

First, it is the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. You don't know the scriptures very well, do you?
Second, for the people of the time, the Tigris-Euphrates Valley was the whole world. Just as for Luke the Roman Empire was the "entire world" in Luke 2:1. Let me turn your question on yourself: in Luke 2:1 why waste time enrolling just the Romans when you are supposed to enroll the "entire world". Do you seriously think that Inuits, Zulus, and Sioux were enrolled in the census?
Third, who says anyone built a real ark or saved animals?

“The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become...The LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth...So the LORD said, ‘I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth.’” (Gen 6:5-7).

You are assuming the story is literal history. What if it is there for theology, not history? What if the theology has nothing to do the purported purpose of the story?

What we have here is the Hebrews stealing a very popular story for the Babylonian religion. In that story (found in the Epic of Gilgamesh), the gods decide to destroy humanity (which. Marduk decides to intervene and save Unt-napushtim and his family. He has them build a raft and save their domestic animals. As I say, the story is popular and is used as "proof" of the Babylonian gods. So the Hebrews simply take it away from them and now make it evidence for Yahweh. In the process they embellish the story a bit, from a raft to an ark, from domestic animals to all animals.

Remember, all the soldiers standing near the fire died. So, that means real fire leaving real effects behind.

Yep. As I said, evidence of a real fire. And that's what God wanted. But you say God not only covers up

Genesis 6-8 is talking miracle of protection of Noah’s family and the animals. The trees submerged under the water were also protected, including the soil from which they grew:

“When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.” (Gen 8:11).

The protection of Noah and his family was not a miracle! It was a plain ordinary, natural boat.

Now, you have a problem. Supposedly, all sedimentary rock was deposited by the Flood. Well, that sedimentary rock had to come from the then-soil. But now you say the soil was miraculously protected! So now the Flood can't be used to explain the fossil record, can it? You have a very recent flood that has nothing to do with evolution.

Of course, you now have other problems. Such as the archeological sites of Jericho, Egypt, and China. These show continuous human habitation with no interruption. That refutes a die-off of the entire world. Unless, of course, you have God miraculously alter the towns, etc. to look like they were inhabited. Once again you make a god that lies to us.

Actually, the soil is protected not by miracle but because the flood was very gentle. Just a gradual filling up of water that is not moving.

Just because no one asked for the earth to be protected does not mean God did not protect it.

The story doesn't involve miracle. It's obvious in other Biblical stories of miracles that a miracle is taking place. This one doesn't have that; you are reading miracle into it.

But if the global flood was a miracle

But it's not. Scripture doesn't set it up as a miracle. The source of the water is natural, Noah and his family are saved by natural means, and the soil is intact because the flood is so gentle it does not disturb the ground.

So your premise is invalid.

My point is that God was quite capable of protecting the earth form the flood just as He protected the three men from the fire,

He could have. God can do anything, include lie. Well, not quite anything; God cannot create a rock He cannot lift. It is just that God does not do some things.

which means that your scientific conclusion of no global flood is not necessarily correct. You are limiting God’s ability to a myopic scientific theory.

Yes, it is correct unless God lies. Now, if you want to make a god that lies in order to save creationism, that is a very poor move. Yes, you have creationism and flood geology, but the price is a god we cannot worship and is not the God depicted in the Bible. I won't pay that price. I'm wondering why you insist that we do.

What we are seeing is what God did. We aren't limiting God's ability, but rather figuring out what God actually did. God could also have let Shadrach, etc. die, right? God could have had the fire consume them. By saying that God committed a miracle, is that limiting God's ability? Of course not.

Now, remember, the global flood is supposed to have scooped up so much soil that it accounts for all the sedimentary rock with all those fossils. But you have a global flood where all that soil is protected. So there goes all the sedimentary rock. So now your proposed global flood can't combat evolution because now there is no way to explain all those layers of sedimentary rock and fossils except by an old earth and evolution. Unless you are going to propose another miracle and God put all those sedimentary rocks and fossils there. But again, now you don't have God, but the Prince of Lies.

It is scientists who say the evidence for a global flood is absent.

Sorry, but that is not what is said. What is claimed is that there is evidence that can't be there IF a global flood happened. Your idea doesn't account for that evidence. Even a gentle flood is going to collapse the volcanic cones in Auvergne, France. Your gentle, protective -of-the-soil flood is not going to make varves, or have salt deposits from evaporating seas deep underground. Or cause the 14+ fossilized forests in Yellowstone. Or .... and we can keep going on and on and on.

In order to get that, you are going to have to have a god that makes up false evidence. Positive evidence that indicates something other than what happened.

It's not the evidence that is absent that falsifies, it's the evidence that is present.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Common descent has nothing to do with the age of the earth. That's completely different evidence. Now, the way the earth formed, by repeated impacts of rocks up to small planets, is going to continuously make the surface molten and, thus, be inimical to life.

The oldest fossils we have are 3.8 billion years old. That's very soon after the earth cooled enough to permit life.

This is a creationist false witness, based on GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out. It turns out that it is extremely likely for life to form. The chemistry is not only very simple but very common. So the odds are close to 1.

Animals are post-life, not "pre-life".

Nor did God go deistic. You think God is absent while evolution is taking place? NO! God is always present as sustainer of the universe.

And how does the age of the Earth refute creationism? Because God made everything 'brand new' and not 'as is'? It's a classic example of material logic. If I made a rock appear from thin air, how old would it be?

And yet it is a practical impossibility even in a controlled, sophisticated lab. We simmer up a protein, allegedly, after all this time, and that is somehow supposed to propose that a complete organism eventually formed in an uncontrolled, chaotic world? And in such relatively short time, to boot.,
The math is extremely flawed. That is what happens when one only believes in one way, the godless way, and so even one in a quadrillion can be sketched as being more probable if you situate subjective reasoning in such a way.
It's like the standard model., it works so long as you can tweak the variables.

How is God in control of a universe that, according to the finishing equation of TE ideals, works by itself? Like dominoes falling, God would have no need to keep a guiding hand. As far as that goes, we are not really even 'alive' so to speak. We are simply just the natural coursing of the universe and our neurons in our brain are firing in lieu of cause and effect.

 

[lucaspa]

You keep seeing contradictions where there is none.

Genesis 1 is a general account of the creation events, including the creation of the human race in the form of the man, Adam.

Genesis 2 then focuses more specifically on the creation of the man, Adam.

You keep repeating the same thing without addressing the evidence I provide to the contrary.

Therefore, the man, Adam, in Genesis 2 can be referred to as singular in the sense that Genesis 2 is focusing on the creation of the one man, Adam.

That ignores that they are different words in Hebrew. One word for singular, a different word for plural. In Genesis 1, we don't have "the man", we have "men" in Hebrew.

While the same man, Adam, in Genesis 1 can be referred to as plural in the sense that in Genesis 1 the man, Adam, represents the entire human race who came out of his body.

You ignored the whole thing for "women", didn't you? Completely different words.

The literal Adam represents all human beings born with a human nature in the same way that the literal Christ represents all human beings born-again of the divine nature.

An allegorical Adam does this even better. That's what allegory is: representation for a group. But Christ does not represent all human beings born again. He can't. Why? Because Christ is God. Humans cannot be God.

The entire human race is made from dirt, including Adam.

Not according to Genesis 1. There they are spoken into existence, like everything else. Not made from dirt at all.

“Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!”
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” (Job 14:4, Ps 51:5). More false witness from scripture. Job 14:4 is part of Job complaining. He is saying God demanded that Job be pure and punishes him unfairly for not being pure.

Notice that Job doesn't think the dead can live again (verse 14):
"Can the dead live again? If so, this would give me hope through all my years of struggle, and I would eagerly await the release of death.

Psalm 51 is David confessing his guilt. He is taking poetic license, not to be taken literally. Remember, it is a poem.

The questions we can ask is why did God drown babies during the flood? Why did God burn babies in Sodom? Why did God slaughter babies in Canaan? Was it because those babies were innocent of sin, or was it because they were guilty of sin?
Paul is saying we sin just as Adam sinned and that not all sins are the same.

We sin because we have a sinful nature inherited from fallen Adam.

No, we sin because human beings sin. Adam simply represents us in that tendency. Remember, there is nothing in Genesis that says our tendency to sin is inherited. Paul ignored scripture there and made it up. We cannot be punished because Adam sinned, and therefore we inherit that sin. We are punished for our own sins.

Now, if you want an "inherited tendency to sin", evolution provides a mechanism that Genesis 3 does not.

Reading between the lines means don’t just read one scripture and ignore all the others, because reading the others help us to better understand the one.

Oh, the irony meter pegged again. Because you do this all the time. Especially when you take scripture out of context.

Theories are based on a fallible human interpretation of facts. Facts are observed then interpreted to form the theory.

Sorry, but that isn't how it works. Facts are used to test theories. How do we test theories? By trying to show them to be wrong. The theories we accept as (provisionally) true are ones that have survived repeated attempts to show them wrong. Theories we discard have been shown to be wrong by the facts. That's why you are trying to change the facts with your theory on a global flood: God puts out false facts.

If it is provisional then you are not sure if it is true.

Not exactly. It is strict honesty. By either inductive or deductive logic it is, strictly speaking, impossible to prove. However, by deductive logic is is possible to disprove. So, if you are interested in truth, it is truth that the earth is not young (disproved that the earth is young), there never was a global flood (disproved that), phlogiston is not involved in combustion, all other configurations of DNA other than double helix have been disproved, proteins are not the hereditary material, God did not specially create each individual species.

Each of those claims is truth. Why? Because we can absolutely disprove the positive statements.

You are using a fallible human interpretation of facts to deny scripture, including your denial of what the apostle Paul wrote in scripture.

And here is your concern about scripture again. What the facts do is disprove a particular interpretation of scripture.

I’m saying that your fallible human interpretation of facts has resulted in your reinterpreting scripture and at times ignoring the scripture all together. Your denial of what Paul wrote is proof of this.

Pot, meet kettle. Or, people in glass houses cannot throw stones. You do this. Every Christian does this. Even you use "your fallible human interpretation of facts" to reinterpret Luke 2:1. Christians used to interpret scripture such that the earth was flat. They did so to such an extent that in the 500s a book called Christian Topography was written by one of the church Fathers. It called for a flat earth. Yet you reinterpret, or ignore, those verses now.

At least I am being consistent in letting solid extrabiblical evidence assist in the interpretation of the Bible. Creationists are being hypocritical.

You are actually accusing Paul of writing scripture that contradicts scripture,

Which he did.

Friction can be observed as fact by rubbing two objects together.

No. What is observed is heat by rubbing 2 objects together. The interpretation of that fact (theory) is friction.

Round earth can be observed as fact by taking a trip on a space shuttle.

No, what we see is photograph in 2 dimensions of a circle. The interpretation of that is the theory that the earth is round. However, go back earlier. The earth was first known to be round by the observations of shadows on the ground. It was the interpretation of those facts that was round earth.

It's apparent that you don't understand what you are saying when you say "interpretation". You accept some interpretations, so you deceive yourself that these are facts instead of "fallible human interpretation".

When I said "provisionally" above, it's part of this. You have so accepted some interpretations that you mistake them for "facts". By saying "provisionally", I am not deceiving myself like you are.

Man descending from ape ancestor is not observed as fact, it is inferred. Therefore, it is not a fact.

Inferred like all the other examples you gave above are inferred. And with even more evidence.

The serpent is not an animal. It is a metaphorical description of the literal Satan who tempted the literal Eve in the literal garden.

Then how is it that the serpent loses his legs? That would be an animal. So would having descendents.

Satan is described metaphorically as a serpent because of his sly, deceitful, treacherous nature.

Look at what you said. So Satan is not a serpent.

If the laws of nature are modified so that natural phenomena behave differently, it is still natural phenomena behaving according to the laws of nature.

First, if they are "modified", then they aren't immutable like the word "law" means in science.
Second, you seem to be talking about permanent changes. If that is so, then the previous laws are not "laws" anymore. Instead we would have new laws.
Third, define what you mean by "natural", please. In particular, is God involved with or part of "natural"?

What legs? Genesis 3 doesn’t mention any legs.

" "Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all animals, domestic and wild. You will crawl on your belly, groveling in the dust as long as you live. " That's future tense. Up until then the serpent did not have to crawl on his belly, hence, legs.

You need to distinguish what is literal from what is metaphor.

The irony meter just pegged agaion.

Satan who tempted Eve in the garden is literal.

Can't be Satan.

Do you really think God is talking about literal snake descendants whose heads we must literally step on?

Yes, don't you? After all, the serpent is biting the heels of Eve's descendents.

The bruising of heel and head is metaphorical. It is referring to the physical death that Christ experienced at the hands of Satan who 'bruised Christ' heel'.

This is just you reading things into the text that aren't there. Also remember the word descendents.
"And I will cause hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring." Since when does Satan have children? Or are you going to duck this plain reading with "metaphorical".

You insist on a literal Adam and not allegorical, but stick in a "metaphorical Satan" that is a serpent?

This experience also resulted in the power of Satan being completely destroyed through the death of Christ who 'bruised Satan's head'.

LOL! Since when is "bruising" = "completely destroyed". Are you destroyed every time you are bruised? Get serious.

 

[lucaspa]

For me,sufficient causation means necessary power. So when scientific explanations for how cells originate and function portray amino acids and proteins as doing everything,the implication is that they have the necessary power. But if amino acids and proteins,and their chemical reactions,are considered in themselves,and compared with the purposeful activity of cells,there is no reason to believe that they have the potential to create cells.

Ah. You are having there be only 1 component of an answer. This is leading you to god-of-the-gaps theology. Notice you hav a gap between amino acids, proteins, and enyzmatic activity and the "purposeful activity of cells" You are throwing God into that gap.

Christian theology says there are 2 components of cause: natural and supernatural components.

In Judeo-Christian theology God sustains the universe and everything that happens within it. Let's take a simple example: burning hydrogen and oxygen to make water. The scientific explanation of causes tests what is necessary and sufficient as a natural cause to get water. We quickly find that the necessary and sufficient natural causes are:
1. Hydrogen
2. Oxygen
3. Spark (heat source).

Leave out any one of them and the reaction doesn't take place. So there we have the natural component of cause. Judeo-Christians believe that the reactionhappens only if God wills it to happen. For each and every molecule each and every time. God doesn't will it, and even if you have hydrogen, oxygen, and a spark, you won't get water.

What you, Anthony, are doing is trying to turn God into a creature of the universe. Even when there are thermal proteins and water present, you say that this is not sufficient, as natural causes, for the proteins to form living cells in the water. Instead, we must add another natural cause: God assemblying the proteins into a cell. In fact, I suspect you even have God manufacturing the specific proteins to be assembled into a cell. By "manufacturing", I mean putting each and every amino acid into the protein in a specific sequence. By your view, God is no longer sustaining the reactions, God is performing the reactions.

There are many Biblical and Christian problems with this god-of-the-gaps view. I already noted one of them: it makes God a creature of the universe instead of being outside it. The Bible makes it clear that God created a complete universe. You have an incomplete universe that God has to fill in. Finally, the corollary to your "sufficient causation" is that, if the natural causes are "sufficient causation", then God is absent and not involved. There are lots of problems with this, including that it is atheism.

 

[lucaspa]

Where did the world come from?
God.
When did he make it?
Billions of years ago.
The Bible says different.
Because it ain't a science textbook.
But it's God word.
You are taking it too literally.
What does it say about evolution?
That God made everything.

?

You are forgetting that God has two books. Why are you only listening to one?

It forces the idea that God put into existence the universe and cause and effect carried us to our current states, therefore implying that we are not vessels with souls but of everything else, therefore contradicting the entire idea of a personal god and by extension, the entire Bible.

That does not follow at all. "Souls" are not scientific and belief is that God creates souls directly. After all, don't you believe God created your soul even tho your body is the result of cause and effect from 1) your parents having sex and conceiving you and 2) embryological development from a single cell to the multibillion cell adult you?

The idea of a "personal God" is one that cares about you. That's the "personal". The idea is even better with the scenario of cause and effect because it means that present events have real consequences in the future. What happens in the past made the real present. Whatever we do in our lives in the present will have real consequences in the future.
Thanks to cause and effect. All this means that our lives have meaning. Without cause and effect, our lives and what we do in them do not have meaning.

The theological claims and messages of the Bible are either unaffected by evolution or helped by them.

It also allows for God to be malevolent, giving early humans no acknowledgement of Him while they die out and suffer through the generations.

According to Christianity, salvation is only by belief in Jesus Christ, therefore what happened to all those generations before Jesus? Here you are just projecting a problem of Christian theology onto evolution, not a problem evolution has.

I think it is more than a bit presumptuous to think that God did not communicate with humans all thru their history

Theistic evolution is an umbrella term,

How so? The range that a person can be a theistic evolutionist is much narrower than the range a person can be a creationist.

 

[lucaspa]

So what scientific theory of evolution is not mechanistic,godless,and materialistic?

The scientific theory of evolution. There's only one scientific theory of evolution. And it is agnostic, not "godless" and not "materialistic" as in philosophical materialism.

You have a false dichotomy here: either a theory says "God did it" or it says "God did not do it". For you, those are the only 2 choices.

However, neither of those statements are scientific. The valid third choice is: "I don't know whether God did it or not. All I can say is, if God did it, this is the way God did it."

Your version of theistic evolution consists of belief in the narrative and saying "...and God did it".

Not quite. It is saying "this is the way God did it."

But the theory does not allow God to be doing anything.

That's not true. The theory does not comment on what God does or does not do. It only says how God, if God is creating, is creating.

Now, on a practical level, there are at least 2 ways that God can be "doing anything" as in directing evolution and be indetectable by science.

 

[lucaspa]

Mankind forming from cause and effect and God coming to us.,
It sounds like a child who finds a shell in the sand.
How can one possibly consider this?

How can one not? After all, you formed from cause and effect and God came to you, didn't He?

You may as well take the evo hat off and just accept what the Bible says.

But that would be ignoring God and worshipping the Bible.

God intimately made man and Earth.

Yes. Evolution is just as intimate as special creatoin.

The universe is billions of years old. Many YEC's believe that. I do.

Sorry, but YEC stands for Young Earth Creationist. That means less than 20,000 years old. You would be an OEC -- old earth creationist.

However, you aren't really "acceptiong what the Bible says", are you? Aren't you having creation last more than 144 hours?

But the truth of the matter is that life has not been around for anymore then 12000 years.

So the universe was around for billions of years before God specially created man? What was God waiting for?