Is Theistic-Evolution an Oxymoron?

[Greg1234]

Great! And I'm still waiting on that explanation you owe for how the link you provided earlier relates to our discussion.

Exactly how often has the nested hierarchy been refuted.over the span of design? When there were bacteria only, there was a nested heiarchy where bacteria would be classified as the set of traits they were confined to. Don't arms and legs break the nested hierarchy?

Are you referring to the nested hierarchy of life? How was it refuted?

You and yours decided to use the conventional meaning of cars from the perspective of the designer to refute the nested hierarchy. From the perspective of the designer in creationism, there is man and then there is beast. Yet, beast was used to design man. The sane sharing of traits you attempted to use.

 

[Mallon]

Exactly how often has the nested hierarchy been refuted.over the span of design? When there were bacteria only, there was a nested heiarchy where bacteria would be classified as the set of traits they were confined to. Don't arms and legs break the nested hierarchy?

You're still not providing that explanation you promised. I'm starting to think you never will.

You and yours decided to use the conventional meaning of cars from the perspective of the designer to refute the nested hierarchy.

There never was a nested hierarchy of cars! There's no hierarchy to refute! Car parts and designs are completely interchangeable, meaning there's no objective way by which to classify them. The same thing is not true of life, which is indisputably patterned after a nested hierarchy, based on subsets morphological and genetic characters. To wit:

When a creationist can explain the nested hierarchical nature of life, I'm all ears. Yet even creationists like Dr. Todd Wood admit that it has yet to be done from that perspective. In the meantime, descent with modification is the only explanation for such a pattern and is the only explanation that predicts such a pattern. This is why macroevolution is more than just an assumption. It's an explanation for the pattern of life.

 

[Greg1234]

You're still not providing that explanation you promised. I'm starting to think you never will.

Please answer the question.

Car parts and designs are completely interchangeable, meaning there's no objective way by which to classify them.

Are you saying that the design process in cars is continuing but in life it has stopped (under the Darwinian assumption that the same elusive process that made microbe, man is still going on)?

The same thing is not true of life, which is indisputably patterned after a nested hierarchy, based on subsets morphological and genetic characters. To wit:

Are you saying that I cannot genetically engineer a mix of traits in an organism today?

 

[lucaspa]

Exactly how often has the nested hierarchy been refuted.over the span of design?

Never. Manufactured artifacts cannot be classed in a nested hierarchy.

Don't arms and legs break the nested hierarchy?

The 4 limbs of tetrapods confirm the nested hierarchy because we can (and do) classify tetrapods in nested hierarchies. Part of that classification is based on variations in the forelimbs and hindlimbs of the tetrapods.

You and yours decided to use the conventional meaning of cars from the perspective of the designer to refute the nested hierarchy. From the perspective of the designer in creationism, there is man and then there is beast. Yet, beast was used to design man. The sane sharing of traits you attempted to use.

Motor vehicles are manufactured artifacts. They cannot be classified in a nested hierarchy.

Now, you mention the "sane sharing of traits". In biological organisms, there are exceptions to the sane sharing of traits we would expect from a single designer/manufacturer. I will give just 2 examples:
1. Flying tetrapods. We have pterosaurs, birds, and bats. Let's look at the forelimbs -- the ones used for wings. If there were a single designer, we would expect the bones of the forelimbs used as wings to be the same. After all, get the optimum design, right? That's what an intelligent designer would do. But the wings are designed very differently. In a bird, the main bone supporting the wing is an extended humerus. In bats, the main bone supporting the wing is an extended finger bone: HowStuffWorks "Bat Wings" In pterosaurs the main wing bone is also a finger bone, but a different finger bone than in bats. Shared characteristics? Nope.

2. Sharks, ichthyosaurs, dolphins. All 3 share the same ecological niche: water predator. Two of them are air breathers. All have approximately the same general shape. But, if we were looking at a single intelligent designer we should see the same details. Sharks and ichthyosaurs both have vertical tailfins and both have the same swimming motion: basically the same as fish. But dolphins have horizontal tail fins and their swimming motion is a modified running motion. This refects their mammalian land animal ancestry. But it is not something that a single designer would do.

 

[lucaspa]

Indifference to God, is the opposite of God. Though the intensity of that indifference might vary, it begins with indifference.

Agnosticism is not indifference. It's simply a statement of knowledge. Agnosticism is "I don't know whether God exists or not."

Atheism is very often hostility toward God. But at it's basics atheism is denial of the existence of God.

There's a big difference between "indifference" and "can't comment".

Science cannot do away with God. Science is merely the study and documentation through testing of cause and effect. Wherever a cause and an effect is, science is. Naturalism is merely the unfalsifiable claim that all phenomena have a purely naturalistic cause. It attempts to intertwine itself with a method of falsification and through such breeding to produce the corrupted progeny you insist on calling "science" today.

I think all us theistic evolutionists agree that science does not do away with God. I disagree that your reasoning why science does not do away with God. It is due to how we do experiments and the Methodological Naturalism that results.

I also balk at "cannot". Altho science, due to Methodological Naturalism, cannot directly test for God, there are a few scientific theories out there that, if shown to be correct, would effectively falsify that God is Creator of the universe. If that is the case, IMO that would falsify God.

What we are saying is that there are some atheistic scientists who claim that science is philosophically naturalistic. We claim those scientists misrepresent science.

The god-of-gaps claim is equally absurd as it first assumes that the gap is to be filled by a naturalistic process.

God-of-the-gaps is placing God in the gaps of science. Yes, it is absurd. However, Christianity assumes that there is no gap and that there is a secondary cause (natural cause) to fill the gap. See my posts on page 8.

Naturally, in materialism, you are inclined to pit every discovery against metaphysics. The process whereby clouds formed is evidence against the existence of God,

But it should not be. This is the absurdity that the god-of-the-gaps of creationism brings about.

Darwinism fails to account for life because that's the way it is.

As you pointed out above, all theories have limits. Marine biology does not explain astronomy, as you pointed out. Relativity assumes the existence of spacetime. Chemistry assumes the existence of elements and molecules. Darwinism assumes the existence of life. It explains the diversity of life on the planet.

Chemistry explains abiogenesis. You get life from non-living chemicals by chemical reactions. Is this "evidence against God"? Should it be? Creationists seem to think so. You seem to think so because you hold that as a "key" that supposedly can't be gotten.

 

[Assyrian]

In that case, show me a human with six fingers.

Or a True Scotsman.

 

[lucaspa]

" It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbationof all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."

What Ratzinger is referring to here is is atheistic evolution. Pope John Paul II tried to separate the various philosophical attachments to evolution. Unfortunately, he said this as tho they were different scientific theories on evolution.

Now,the theory of evolution as it is commonly known is indeed materialist or naturalisitc,reductionist and neo-Darwinian. Its narrative cannot be interpreted so as to harmonize with the doctrines of creation and divine providence.

We have been showing you evidence that the scientific theory of evolution can harmonize with the doctrines of creation and divine providence.

What you call "commonly known" are misrepresentations of the theory by creationists and atheists. Both doing the misrepresentation for their own religious agenda.

T

he theory itself will not allow for nature to be dependent upon God's power,and it makes supernatural causation unnecessary anyway because it has natural "mechanisms" and processes doing God's work of creating and sustaining all organisms.

And here we go with natural = without supernatural again. Once again you are repeating the basic statement of faith of atheism. You have "supernatural causation" only when there are no natural mechanisms. That's unBiblical and against Christianity. This is why atheists love god-of-the-gaps. It falsely allows them to falsify God.

It attributes to mechanisms and processes alone the ability to produce and sustain organisms,whereas the doctrines of creation and divine providence,which are comfirmed by reason,hold that God creates and sustains them.

Did you look at my post in Origin of Species? Science can never say "mechanisms and processes alone". Darwin had God sustaining the mechanisms and processes of evolution. That's what the phrase "secondary causes" means.

I don't believe that all organisms have a common ancestor. There is no logical necessity in believing it

The idea is not based on "logical necessity", but on data.

The similarities in bone structure and genetics between different species do not say anything about common ancestry. "Descent" is about lineage through acts of reproduction.

Yes, the genetics say a lot about common ancestry. If we had separate creations, then the base sequences in the genes would be independent from other creations. However, phylogenetic analysis of the base sequences of the genes show that the sequences between very different taxa (such as corn, worms, mice, humans, flies, etc.) are interrelated thru historical connections. That can only happen by common ancestry.

Face it, God created by evolution. The evidence He left us in His Creation says so.

 

[lucaspa]

Explanations of what in particular?

Anything.

The biblical and doctrinal accounts of creation and divine providence use natural causes and include God. So are the biblical miracle stories.

But there are different creation stories and they contradict one another on a host of major points.

Also, the accounts of creation use miracle, not "natural causes", don't they? In Genesis 1 God speaks plants, animals, and humans into existence. One second they are not there, the next second they are. Isn't that a miracle? In Genesis 2 God forms animals and a human male from dirt. That's also a miracle, isn't it? We aren't told how God made the seeds of plants in Genesis 2, but it can hardly be by natural causes, can it?

We do get natural causes for Noah's Flood: God opens the storehouses of water in the sky and underground. The problem is that God's Creation tells us there was no world-wide Flood.

The doctrines of creation and divine providence are not just about God,they are also about natural things. God's activity in nature does not abolish natural causation.

Why can't evolution be the "natural causation" of the creation of species? Because some atheistic scientists say it cannot? You don't believe them when they say God doesn't exist. Why are you so quick to believe them when they say evolution excludes God?

Not necessarily,unless you deliberately don't mention God as a matter of principle,and where his power should be acknowledged.
By definition,methodological naturalism excludes God from working in nature.

No, Methodological Naturalism does not exclude God from working in nature. Go back to my description of MN from experimentation. Where is God "excluded"? It's just that we can not point to a plant and say "God is not in that one." The problem is that we can't exclude God. Since we can't exclude God, we cannot determine, as scientists, whether or not God is working in nature. We as scientists neither acknowledge nor deny God's power.

As people, we can do either, depending on our beliefs. I personally acknowledge God's power. Richard Dawkins denies it.

 

[lucaspa]

Of course God is present in natural phenomena.

But you continuously deny that God is present in evolution!

The theory of evolution is not just an explanation that uses natural causes,it is an explanation that does not allow for God to be working in nature,because it attributes to natural mechanisms and processes to produce all organisms.

So, if God is present in natural phenomenon, then God would be working in evolution! Sorry, but your own statements contradict.

Not only does it contradict Church doctrine,but it contradicts reason itself,because it attributes to natural mechanisms and processes the ability to do things they do not have the power to do.

Ah. Here we get to it. You are denying that natural processes can produce new species. Why? The data we get from God's Creation clearly shows that evolution has and does produce new species from existing ones.

As to "contradict Church doctrine", how do you think evolution does that? Christianity found it easy to accept evolution in the period 1860-1900. Most denominations today accept evolution as the way God creates the diversity of species. If evolution really contradicted Church doctrine, that would not be possible. I think you mean evolution contradicts Fundamentalism.

So tell us, if God can use gravity to keep the planets in orbit, why can't God use evolution to create the diversity of life on the planet?

I'm not the one who wants to limit God's activity in nature.

Sorry, but you do. You want to limit God's activity in nature to miracle.

 

[lucaspa]

First, so there is no doubt, I am a Christian that believes what the Bible says. I also believe that God created everything. He also created us with intelligence so we can be discerning.

Now let’s look at two major theories of biological evolution:

Microevolution happens every day: an uncontroversial , unequivocally proven through numerous scientific studies, naturally occurring biological phenomenon. It includes concepts such as mutation, recombination, natural selection, etc., within a single species, a group of organisms that interbreed with each other—that is, they all share a gene pool.

Macroevolution is somewhat more controversial: a purely theoretical extrapolation of microevolution that requires the introduction of new genetic information.

Macroevolution is not controversial. Microevolution is evolution within species. Macroevolution is generation of new species and higher taxa. Higher taxa are simply groups of species. It is explained by multiple speciation events thru time. Look at the diagram in Origin of Species (there is only one) and you see macroevolution: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1 pg 90

Did you know that some mutations are gene duplication, chromosome duplication, and transposition. All of these add increased amounts of DNA, which gives the basis for additional genetic information.

It was proposed as a mechanism responsible for large-scale patterns of evolution, which are distinct from micro-evolution, the generic and small-scale factors that contribute to gradual change within populations.

That is a creationist myth. Here's what evolutionists say:
"But we must ask, what exactly are these genera, families, orders, and so on? It was clear to Darwin, and it should be obvious to all today, that they are simply ever larger categories used to give names to ever larger clusters of related species. That's all these clusters, these higher taxa, really are: simply clusters of related species.
Thus, in priniciple the evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described -- primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection -- going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species -- i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life. Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. pgs 76-77.

God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in the following order:

That's only in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 has a different order:
One day: all the heavens and the earth.
Not specified in terms of days but this is the order:
Plants in the form of seeds
A Garden with growing plants
A single man
Birds and animals
A single woman.

BTW, that "man" on Day 6 is both men and women, both plural.

Can these two things, evolution and creation, work together?

First, you are putting a lot here that is not "evolution". Such as cosmology, astrophysics, geology, etc.

Second, no. But they are not supposed to. Genesis 1 tells theological truths, not actual history. God's Creation tells us the actual history.

As a Christian, I believe in creation (In the beginning God created…) with ongoing micro-evolution of the species.

Then, as a Christian, you are denying that God created. Why? Because you are not looking at God's Creation.

In the debate of creation vs. evolution many have a problem with the concept of the word “day”. Was “day” a literal 24 hours as we use it today or was it something else.

The authors of Genesis 1 wanted a 24 hour day. You can see that in Exodus 20:11 where the days of creation are used as (unnecessary) justification for the days of the week and the Sabbath. If the days are vast stretches of time, then that doesn't work.

We can not be definitive as to the length of a “day” because there is no way to discern it from the context.

You think "evening and morning" don't define the length?

In addition, one would expect that if God chose to create the world in a few days He would have indicated it was all created in a few days instead of one day as it says in Genesis 2:4, “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens”(KJV). This verse (2:4) indicates to me that the Genesis days are other than 12 or 24 hour periods of time.

It indicates that we have the begining of a separate creation story. That's just one of the contradictions between the 2 stories. Glad you found it.

Having said all of that, I would argue that after God created everything, over the years (6,000 years or 13,700,000,000 years) all living things have experienced some microevolution, under God’s direction, using ideas such as transformation, recombination, natural selection, and others.

Unfortunately for this idea, parts of the fossil record are fine enough so that we can follow a series of transitional individuals from species to species to new genera, families, orders, and even a new class. An example of Classes are birds and mammals. No creationist claims that getting a new class is "microevolution". So we have documentation of what you call "macroevolution".

 

[lucaspa]

Paul, just to let you know, this link doesn't work any more.

Thanks. Since Pappellis retired they have been removing his pages at SIU. I'll have to find it archived on the web. Bother.

 

[lucaspa]

Group Theory and Architecture, 1.

Apples and oranges. He discusses a fake hierarchy within cylinders. He simply uses the parts of a cylinder and calls it "nested". LOL!

But let him try to classify cathedrals in a nested hierarchy.

 

[lucaspa]

Here's a simple measure: All Cars have four wheels. Show me a Car without four wheels.

Bad news. That doesn't make a nested hierarchy.

But worse news: there is a 3 wheeled car: Three-wheeled car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Deaver]

Nested hierarchy of life is a convenient (no disrespect meant) way for those that do not support creation to explain away what they see all around us. One can choose to not believe “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”; or “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” That is their choice.

However, design is so obvious in life that those supporting or talking about evolution often do so as though it (evolution) is a person or an entity with human traits such as intelligence, creativity, and even tinkering. A Google search of the word nature or evolution and other terms found the following results: Evolution is “creative” 31,300,000 sites, “ingenious” 1,340,000 sites, “intelligent” 24,100,000 sites, a “designer” 11,900,000 sites, and “solves problems” 2,450,000 sites. I should acknowledge that many of these sites used these words in different contexts but, nonetheless, a large number of the articles cited did personify biological evolution.

The concepts in the Bible have been challenged for thousands of years. Yet as we discover more about science or archeology the results continue to support what the bible says. Show me any law of nature that allows complex, living, information-containing systems to develop from the random interactions of matter. Yet, that is what is required in order for life to have evolved in the universe. I believe it takes a greater leap of faith to believe in evolution from nothing than to accept the idea of a creator.

Creationists accept that life appeared on earth as a direct creative act of God. Without a creator, the origin of humans is a random, unplanned event of nature that serves no purpose other than to fill a niche in the ecological scheme. If that is the case, then, the human species is not any more valuable ecologically than any other species on the earth.

God created everything. Did He take seven days or 13 billion years? I don’t know; no one does! As I have stated, previously, I support the idea that God created every species (along time ago) and then we see ongoing evolution within the species.

 

[Mallon]

Nested hierarchy of life is a convenient (no disrespect meant) way for those that do not support creation to explain away what they see all around us.

Actually, it's not a simple convenience. It's an objective reality evident from God's own creation. It's a reality that all animals with fur have four legs, but not all animals with four legs have fur. It's a reality that all animals with four legs have vertebrae, but not all animals with vertebrae have four legs. It's a reality that all animals with vertebrae are triploblastic, but not all triploblasts have vertebrae. Etc, etc, etc. Why does this reality exist? Evolution offers an explanation: descent with modification. Creationism offers no such explanation.

 

[Deaver]

The following is copied, with permission, from www (dot) gotquestions (dot) org.

Question: "Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2?"

Answer:Genesis 1:1says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.

In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God made man. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man.

There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.” So, which is it? Did God create vegetation on the third day before He created man (Genesis 1), or after He created man (Genesis 2)? The Hebrew words for “vegetation” are different in the two passages. Genesis 1:11 uses a term that refers to vegetation in general. Genesis 2:5 uses a more specific term that refers to vegetation that requires agriculture, i.e., a person to tend it, a gardener. The passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation, and Genesis 2:5 speaks of God not causing “farmable” vegetation to grow until after He created man.

The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.

By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.

 

[lucaspa]

Nested hierarchy of life is a convenient (no disrespect meant) way for those that do not support creation to explain away what they see all around us.

Sorry, but history says this is wrong. Linneaus (a creationist) did the original nested hierarchial classification in 1735. That is 124 years before Darwin publised Origin of Species

Also, remember that everyone here is Christian. We all support creation. The question here is how did God create, not whetherGod created.

One can choose to not believe “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”;

Sorry, but we all believe that.

or “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” That is their choice.

What do you do with Genesis 2 where God doesn't say this, but instead forms a single man out of the dust?

However,

design is so obvious in life that those supporting or talking about evolution often do so as though it (evolution) is a person or an entity with human traits such as intelligence, creativity, and even tinkering.

Darwin's great discovery was natural selection. This is an unintelligent process that produces design. So yes, design in life is obvious. But life is designed by natural selection, not directly by God.

This is a good thing for God. You see, there are a lot of cruel and stupid designs in plants and animals. If we think that God directly designed all of them, then we must infer that God is sadistic, stupid, and suffering from Alzheimer's. This is unacceptable. Which is why Christians abandoned creationism in favor of evolution in the period 1860-1890. Evolution by natural selection rescued God from creationism.

The concepts in the Bible have been challenged for thousands of years.

So what are you really concerned about? The Bible? Or God? Which is more important to you: the Bible or God?

Show me any law of nature that allows complex, living, information-containing systems to develop from the random interactions of matter.

First, interactions of matter are not random. Chemical reactions are not random. Yet chemistry results in living information containing systems. God created life by chemistry. For instance:
"In more recent work, Fox and his colleagues have shown that basic proteinoids, rich in lysine residues, selectively associate with the homopolynucleotides poly C and poly U but not with poly A or poly G. On the other hand, arginine-rich proteinoids associate selectively with poly A and poly G. In this manner, the information in proteinoids can be used to select polynucleotides. Morever, it is striking that aminoacyl adenylates yield oligopeptides when incubated with proteinoid-polynucleotide complexes, which thus have some of the characteristics of ribosomes. Fox has suggested that proteinoids bearing this sort of primitive chemical information could have transferred it to a primitive nucleic acid; the specificity of interaction between certain proteinoids and polynucleotides suggests the beginning of the genetic code." A. Lehninger, Biochemistry, 1975, pp 1047-1048

Right there you have the generation of complex, specified information.

Creationists accept that life appeared on earth as a direct creative act of God. Without a creator, the origin of humans is a random, unplanned event of nature that serves no purpose other than to fill a niche in the ecological scheme.

The second statement is in error. God creating humans by evolution gives just as much purpose as God directly poofing humans into existence.

The problem is that "random, unplanned event of nature". That is not part of evolution. Evolution is not "random" nor can it tell us that humans were "unplanned".

Evolution is contingent, in that subsequent events derive from previous ones. But Christians have no problem believing that God can use the contingent events in human history as part of His plan, do they? So there is no more problem believing that God can use the contingent events of natural history as part of His plan.

God created everything.

We agree on that.

Did He take seven days or 13 billion years? I don’t know; no one does!

Yes, we do. We use the evidence God left us in His Creation to know that the universe is 13.4 billion years old. God tells us this.

As I have stated, previously, I support the idea that God created every species (along time ago) and then we see ongoing evolution within the species.

But the evidence contradicts this belief. So what do you do when God tells you differently? Do you stick to your belief because the Bible is so important to you, or do you listen to God?

 

[Deaver]

Actually, it's not a simple convenience. It's an objective reality evident from God's own creation. It's a reality that all animals with fur have four legs, but not all animals with four legs have fur. It's a reality that all animals with four legs have vertebrae, but not all animals with vertebrae have four legs. It's a reality that all animals with vertebrae are triploblastic, but not all triploblasts have vertebrae. Etc, etc, etc. Why does this reality exist? Evolution offers an explanation: descent with modification. Creationism offers no such explanation.

What you have stated are observations. Perhaps, it is that God created all animals with fur to have four legs, but He decided that not to all animals with four legs should have fur. Etc. etc .etc.

I want to avoid a dizzying spiral of a conversation, such as:

Me: ‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
You: ‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
Me: ‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
You: ‘No, it’s not obvious.’

And so on.

Here is the problem; we all have the same evidence – the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars – the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently: Because we start with different presuppositions – things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

I believe in the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know. On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), I have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables me to interpret the evidence of the present.

Those that support evolution, also, have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

I can only hope that as I continue to post comments showing my faith:

“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,” (1 Peter 3:15 NIV)

 

[lucaspa]

The following is copied, with permission, from www (dot) gotquestions (dot) org.

Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.

Sorry, but this doesn't work. Genesis 2:18-19
"And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof."

That "will make" blows away the argument that verse 19 is "had formed" and also blows away that this is the sixth day.
1. Birds are created on day 5 in Genesis 1.
2. All the animals are created before humans on day 6. And in Genesis 1 both men and women (both plural in the Hebrew) are created together. Now we have 1 man, then birds and animals, and then 1 woman.

The order contradicts.

In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God made man. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man.

This is the common attempt to reconcile, but a close reading of Genesis 1 and 2 shows this doesn't work. In Genesis 1 God speaks men and women into existence together. In Genesis 2 a single woman is made from the rib of a single man that was formed from the dust. This isn't "greater detail", it is completely different detail.

There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life.

Strawman. That isn't primary.

The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads,

You forgot Genesis 2:18. That means the "had formed" translation doesn't work. Genesis 2:18 uses the future tense.

This explanation simply assumes that we do not actually read the Bible. How sad.

 

[Mallon]

What you have stated are observations.

Right. Observations of reality. The question is how we explain those observations.

Perhaps, it is that God created all animals with fur to have four legs, but He decided that not to all animals with four legs should have fur. Etc. etc .etc.

Perhaps. But "God made it that way" isn't an explanation; it's cop-out. If you asked someone why the sky was blue and they said, "Because that's how God made it", would you really be satisfied with the answer? That's the answer you're offering.

Why a nested hierarchy? "God made it that way." My apologies if I don't find your argument satisfying.