-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Need a little more help on this topic
- Thread starter Jenny30
- Start date
K
Khasilooluv
Guest
I must say, I do not know everything about evolution, nor do I claim too, thats not my major, but you can't say that the study of Macro/Microevolution does not exist. We are not all making this up.
Can I ask why the study of evolution can not be split into categories? I'm curious.
Can I ask why the study of evolution can not be split into categories? I'm curious.
Upvote
0
asiyreh
God is salvation
In order to provide a good argument, one should usually insure three simple conditions or rules of logic are met. Typically people from a scientific background will adopt this methodology when attempting to make a valid argument.
Now as I say there are usually 3 conditions as to what makes a good argument.
First of all the argument must be logically valid. What we mean by this is that the conclusion must follow from the premises according to the rules of logic. The argument should therefore attempt to avoid any logical fallacies.
Secondly an argument will contain true premises. What I mean by “premises” here in the various steps from which the conclusion is inferred.
Third the premises of the argument must be more plausible than their negations.
Scientific arguments usually contain various philosophical ideas. Such as: - inference to the best possible expiation, Explanatory power and scope, Occam’s razor etc.
Now I’m trying to find a way to describe our good sister’s attempt at an argument here but I’m unfortunately failing to imagine some type of suitable label. Possibly some type of argument from authority, with herself as the authority. This is generally not considered “good form.”
For the moment I’m happy I’ve described a suitable basic description of the mainstream Christian worldview. Perhaps our sister may wish to attempt to reformulate her arguments and we could have a pleasant discussion.
I not sure I wish to waste my time building strawmen to knock down, as it very hard to pin down these wily creatures we call the theistic evolutionists, or whatever it is they’re choosing to call themselves these days.
Typically the theistic evolutionist will simply appeal to whatever it is natural science says and imagine some type of desist God somewhere in the whole equation. Though they don’t exactly seem sure whereabouts he is in the whole thing.
Confused you seem to be hinting at some type of Darwinian gradualism here in your brief statement. Perhaps you could expand on that a little. As you’ll know Khas, many biologists will adopt this little by little approach in order to eventually achieve the various species we find in the modern world.
Most palaeontologists on the other hand such as the late Stephen Jay Gould will adopt an evolutionary theory called punctuated equilibrium as it best describes the evidence they uncover. Not these gradual steps but Massive jumps in the specie groups apparently triggered by some type of natural disasters.
So over the next few days then; lets discuss the issues and evidences and see if we can't come to some type of conclusion.
I won't be using the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they serve as a popular label but I’m instead going to adopt the terms variation and speciation as I think these more accurately describe the argument I will attempt to posit.
Until such time as our sister meets these requirements lets just assume I've basically described the majority Christian world view and will answer any other questions from Khas in the normal fashion
Now as I say there are usually 3 conditions as to what makes a good argument.
First of all the argument must be logically valid. What we mean by this is that the conclusion must follow from the premises according to the rules of logic. The argument should therefore attempt to avoid any logical fallacies.
Secondly an argument will contain true premises. What I mean by “premises” here in the various steps from which the conclusion is inferred.
Third the premises of the argument must be more plausible than their negations.
Scientific arguments usually contain various philosophical ideas. Such as: - inference to the best possible expiation, Explanatory power and scope, Occam’s razor etc.
Now I’m trying to find a way to describe our good sister’s attempt at an argument here but I’m unfortunately failing to imagine some type of suitable label. Possibly some type of argument from authority, with herself as the authority. This is generally not considered “good form.”
For the moment I’m happy I’ve described a suitable basic description of the mainstream Christian worldview. Perhaps our sister may wish to attempt to reformulate her arguments and we could have a pleasant discussion.
I not sure I wish to waste my time building strawmen to knock down, as it very hard to pin down these wily creatures we call the theistic evolutionists, or whatever it is they’re choosing to call themselves these days.
Typically the theistic evolutionist will simply appeal to whatever it is natural science says and imagine some type of desist God somewhere in the whole equation. Though they don’t exactly seem sure whereabouts he is in the whole thing.
Confused you seem to be hinting at some type of Darwinian gradualism here in your brief statement. Perhaps you could expand on that a little. As you’ll know Khas, many biologists will adopt this little by little approach in order to eventually achieve the various species we find in the modern world.
Most palaeontologists on the other hand such as the late Stephen Jay Gould will adopt an evolutionary theory called punctuated equilibrium as it best describes the evidence they uncover. Not these gradual steps but Massive jumps in the specie groups apparently triggered by some type of natural disasters.
So over the next few days then; lets discuss the issues and evidences and see if we can't come to some type of conclusion.
I won't be using the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they serve as a popular label but I’m instead going to adopt the terms variation and speciation as I think these more accurately describe the argument I will attempt to posit.
Until such time as our sister meets these requirements lets just assume I've basically described the majority Christian world view and will answer any other questions from Khas in the normal fashion
Last edited:
Upvote
0
asiyreh
God is salvation
Natural Scientists will usually go crazy when you try to blur the boundaries of various theories. A good example is abiogenesis and biological evolution.
Of course the goal posts can always be changed with "evolution," which incidentally make it non falsifiable. Theories must be falsifiable to be considered true scientific hypothesis.
Here's seven categories, and you dare not blur the boundaries or you might have some guy in a lab coat attempt to assassinate you with a pen.
Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.
Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.
Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two.
Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements.
Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter (a rock).
Macro-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life.
Micro-Evolution. The development of variations within the same kind of life.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
K
Khasilooluv
Guest
Can I say thank you Asiyreh for your post! I'm glad you have chosen a much kinder approach in your answers. I am BY NO MEANS a biologist whatsoever. I just couldn't understand why our sister refuses to believe that the theory of evolution is a complex one and one filled with many categories (as you have listed), not just one big category with the title sticker 'Evolution'.
However this is not a subject matter I can debate in as I have very little knowledge on the subject. I will be following however!
Xx.
However this is not a subject matter I can debate in as I have very little knowledge on the subject. I will be following however!
Xx.
Upvote
0
REPHAIAHPEDAHEL
Newbie
Genesis 1:26-27 NLT
Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground." [27] So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground." [27] So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Upvote
0
No, your statement is correct. Only, what described just now is MICRO evolution, our adaptation within the same species. Macro is where the popularized version of evolution stands. That through millions of years all species have come from another species before it. For which there is no observation and fact for.
ChristianLife08
Upvote
0
I am well aware of the concept of evolution, and it is NOT incompatible with Christian faith as I and other Christians who are scientists or who have properly studied science can attest to
Upvote
0
There is no such thing as macro and micro evolution - evolution is evolution.
I might add that evolution does not conflict with Christian faith as many Christians will atest to
Webster's defines them as:
Definition of MACROEVOLUTION
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)
— mac·ro·evo·lu·tion·ary \-shə-ˌner-ē\ adjective
First Known Use of MACROEVOLUTION - 1939
Definition of MICROEVOLUTION
: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level
— mi·cro·evo·lu·tion·ary \-shə-ˌner-ē\ adjective
First Known Use of MICROEVOLUTION - 1911
Upvote
0
They are not different processes, small changes over small lengths of time become a bigger change over a longer length of time.
The terms may well be used, or should I say misused to meet the needs of particular groups - does not mean it is right. Many terms in different walks of life are misused to meet a particular agenda of a particular group.
Upvote
0
asiyreh
God is salvation
I find the idea of speciation highly improbably. Natural selection “selects" from the options available to it. Maybe you could argue you'll get small amounts of viable external mutation from such events as retroviral infection.
The vast majority of these events result in junk and/ or are actively negative.
Any arguably positive effects that results from these events, are vastly outweighed by what's already been mentioned, and others various factors connected with genetic entropy.
The odds of one kind gaining enough variable information, by random processes; to cross even one barrier, are minuscule at best, which is to vastly understate the said possibilities. The genome even actively protects itself to prevent this occurring. If speciation were a credible option, we should expect a mechanism to aid this process should have evolved within the genome and not the opposite.
Unless God is directly behind every stage of the mutation process this idea is frankly ridiculous. And the idea that God should be active in every stage of this long chain of events, seems to me an unnecessary and unparsimonious extravagance; to quote the words of everyone’s favourite atheist.
Here’s a fun vid for you guys to enjoy only 5 mins.
Funny guy don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but funny.
TubeChop - Complete Creation, 2nd Ed., Part 11 with Wazooloo (05:45)
Worth the watch, wait for the end
The vast majority of these events result in junk and/ or are actively negative.
Any arguably positive effects that results from these events, are vastly outweighed by what's already been mentioned, and others various factors connected with genetic entropy.
The odds of one kind gaining enough variable information, by random processes; to cross even one barrier, are minuscule at best, which is to vastly understate the said possibilities. The genome even actively protects itself to prevent this occurring. If speciation were a credible option, we should expect a mechanism to aid this process should have evolved within the genome and not the opposite.
Unless God is directly behind every stage of the mutation process this idea is frankly ridiculous. And the idea that God should be active in every stage of this long chain of events, seems to me an unnecessary and unparsimonious extravagance; to quote the words of everyone’s favourite atheist.
Here’s a fun vid for you guys to enjoy only 5 mins.
Funny guy don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but funny.
TubeChop - Complete Creation, 2nd Ed., Part 11 with Wazooloo (05:45)
Worth the watch, wait for the end
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I have learned that you are not going to change the mind of people like "confused".
So, for the rest of you who may be wondering, there are some questions.
Questions like:
Why would there be the need for a male and female, if evolution started with a single organism which could replicate at will on its own? And if it the two sexes did "evolve", how did a male and a female evolve at the same time and be completely compatible? This is a conundrum. Two separate beings. One evolving to be a male, the other a female yet completely compatible. Now that is a stretch. Now the species needs two organisms to continue the species. If you have only one, it would be only male or only female... species dies out...
How do you explain a duck billed platypus? What did it evolve from?
In evolution, change is slow. Over millions of years. However, we never see fossil record of these gradual changes. Evolutionists are looking for a missing link when they should be looking for 99% of the whole chain.
The people that believe that the 7 days of creation are not literal days need to ask themselves... Death did not exist until the fall (when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit). Until this time death was nonexistent. So, how did all the evolving take place in order to arrive at humans, birds, lions, fish, etc, IF there was no death for millions of years there would be billions upon billions of creatures.
Not to mention that in any and every process, left on its own, it will always move from organized to disorganization, always move from order to disorder. Yet evolution has this process in reverse. This goes against all odds.
It boils down to this..
The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. He created them in six days and then he rested. If you don't believe this, how can you call yourself a Christian?
That is the big question.
So, for the rest of you who may be wondering, there are some questions.
Questions like:
Why would there be the need for a male and female, if evolution started with a single organism which could replicate at will on its own? And if it the two sexes did "evolve", how did a male and a female evolve at the same time and be completely compatible? This is a conundrum. Two separate beings. One evolving to be a male, the other a female yet completely compatible. Now that is a stretch. Now the species needs two organisms to continue the species. If you have only one, it would be only male or only female... species dies out...
How do you explain a duck billed platypus? What did it evolve from?
In evolution, change is slow. Over millions of years. However, we never see fossil record of these gradual changes. Evolutionists are looking for a missing link when they should be looking for 99% of the whole chain.
The people that believe that the 7 days of creation are not literal days need to ask themselves... Death did not exist until the fall (when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit). Until this time death was nonexistent. So, how did all the evolving take place in order to arrive at humans, birds, lions, fish, etc, IF there was no death for millions of years there would be billions upon billions of creatures.
Not to mention that in any and every process, left on its own, it will always move from organized to disorganization, always move from order to disorder. Yet evolution has this process in reverse. This goes against all odds.
It boils down to this..
The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. He created them in six days and then he rested. If you don't believe this, how can you call yourself a Christian?
That is the big question.
Upvote
0
Yes, that's the explanation that many contemporary scientists give my friend. Sadly, a fundamental law of science is that things must be observed, and NO ONE has observed this process. Only, using this explanation of Macro to give credit. And this but one misinformed rationale.
Upvote
0
Harry3142
Regular Member
Jenny30-
The creation stories of Genesis were not intended as a scientific treatise; they were intended as a rebuttal and demythologization of another creation story which the Hebrews had learned as fact during their time in Egypt:
www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml
In the earlier one everything around them was to be seen as either a god, a goddess, or the representation of a deity. The sun and moon were to be seen as deities; the stars were to be seen as the garment worn by a deity; the atmosphere itself was to be seen as a deity; even justice was to be seen as a deity. The people were to accept that they were literally surrounded and enveloped in deities.
Genesis 1:1-2:3 methodically stripped all of these objects and animals of their divinity. By the time that the reader finished, the sun, moon and stars were to be seen as merely objects in the heavens, the atmosphere was to be seen as merely the space that separated the heavens from the earth, and all of the other species of animals were to be seen as nothing more than other species of animals. Only one being was to be recognized as a deity, and that being was over and above all that he had created, as well as being invisible. So no painting of him could ever appear on a tomb wall, and no sculpture of him could ever appear in a manmade temple.
The second creation story (Genesis 2:4-25) separated mankind from the other species of animals. In the egyptian creation epic he had been created along with all the other species on the last day, and then 'dumped' onto this planet. But this story in Genesis set him apart. Only man could converse with God, and have God converse with him. Only man had the authority to name all the other species of animals, a symbol of power during that era. God had created a special place for man (The Garden of Eden) where he could live comfortably. And even his helpmate (Eve) had been created in a special way.
As well, only man could choose to reject the innocence which he initially shared with the other species of animals, choosing instead to obtain the knowledge of good and evil. He could 'evolve' to the point where he recognized that certain actions were to be seen as good, while other actions were to be seen as evil. At a certain point in prehistory man attained this knowledge, and he has never been innocent since that point.
Moses, whom I accept as having written Genesis, used another egyptian myth to teach the Hebrews that when they first came into existence they were innocent, but at a certain point in time they lost that innocence. The Fall of Man, described in Genesis 3, was initially a battle between Ra, the sun god, and Sebau, the serpent-fiend. But whereas Ra had needed to fight Sebau, defeat him, and then cripple him so that he was required to crawl on the ground on his belly, as recorded in the egyptian book of the dead under A Hymn to Ra, God needed only to say the word and the serpent was doomed.
www.africa.upenn.edu/Books/Papyrus_Ani.html
Would the Hebrews have known what Moses was doing? Yes, they would have. The egyptian creation epic and the deeds of Ra were a major part of egyptian religious practices, so the link would have been instantly recognized by the people to whom Genesis was originally written. They would have understood what Moses was focusing on, namely, that there was only one God, not many, and that man was as innocent of good and evil as the other species of animals are yet today, but unlike them, man attained that knowledge, only to have it become his curse.
The creation stories of Genesis were not intended as a scientific treatise; they were intended as a rebuttal and demythologization of another creation story which the Hebrews had learned as fact during their time in Egypt:
www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml
In the earlier one everything around them was to be seen as either a god, a goddess, or the representation of a deity. The sun and moon were to be seen as deities; the stars were to be seen as the garment worn by a deity; the atmosphere itself was to be seen as a deity; even justice was to be seen as a deity. The people were to accept that they were literally surrounded and enveloped in deities.
Genesis 1:1-2:3 methodically stripped all of these objects and animals of their divinity. By the time that the reader finished, the sun, moon and stars were to be seen as merely objects in the heavens, the atmosphere was to be seen as merely the space that separated the heavens from the earth, and all of the other species of animals were to be seen as nothing more than other species of animals. Only one being was to be recognized as a deity, and that being was over and above all that he had created, as well as being invisible. So no painting of him could ever appear on a tomb wall, and no sculpture of him could ever appear in a manmade temple.
The second creation story (Genesis 2:4-25) separated mankind from the other species of animals. In the egyptian creation epic he had been created along with all the other species on the last day, and then 'dumped' onto this planet. But this story in Genesis set him apart. Only man could converse with God, and have God converse with him. Only man had the authority to name all the other species of animals, a symbol of power during that era. God had created a special place for man (The Garden of Eden) where he could live comfortably. And even his helpmate (Eve) had been created in a special way.
As well, only man could choose to reject the innocence which he initially shared with the other species of animals, choosing instead to obtain the knowledge of good and evil. He could 'evolve' to the point where he recognized that certain actions were to be seen as good, while other actions were to be seen as evil. At a certain point in prehistory man attained this knowledge, and he has never been innocent since that point.
Moses, whom I accept as having written Genesis, used another egyptian myth to teach the Hebrews that when they first came into existence they were innocent, but at a certain point in time they lost that innocence. The Fall of Man, described in Genesis 3, was initially a battle between Ra, the sun god, and Sebau, the serpent-fiend. But whereas Ra had needed to fight Sebau, defeat him, and then cripple him so that he was required to crawl on the ground on his belly, as recorded in the egyptian book of the dead under A Hymn to Ra, God needed only to say the word and the serpent was doomed.
www.africa.upenn.edu/Books/Papyrus_Ani.html
Would the Hebrews have known what Moses was doing? Yes, they would have. The egyptian creation epic and the deeds of Ra were a major part of egyptian religious practices, so the link would have been instantly recognized by the people to whom Genesis was originally written. They would have understood what Moses was focusing on, namely, that there was only one God, not many, and that man was as innocent of good and evil as the other species of animals are yet today, but unlike them, man attained that knowledge, only to have it become his curse.
Upvote
0
asiyreh
God is salvation
It's hardly surprising that many creation stories are similar, if that's what actually happened. Like for example mythologies of the flood appearing in just about every ancient civilization we have a name for. This is the type of evidence one should expect to find if it's the truth.
As you say however the bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is the one that gets it all correct. God is the creator not a created thing. The bible stands alone in ancient literature claiming this truth.
A creation event outside of space and time, the bible claims alone; in perfect agreement with discoveries in mainstream modern cosmology, though many don't know it.
In 1922 Hubble realised the universe was expanding despite Einstein's claim of it's constance. But multiple times in the bible, the answer was there all along.
This discovery put to the theory of the eternal existence of the universe to bed forever. Disproving atheism for all time, without escape.
A continuous permissive law of decay throughout the universe again the bible was correct.
While other cultures were claiming turtles hold up the planet the bible again under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit claimed that God suspended the world upon space.
Recently using creation models, Dr. Russell Humphreys predicted the magnetic magnetic fields strengths of Mercury, Mars, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto... using Biblical models. Natural science was off by a factor of 100000.
There's no comparisons to be done, the bible stands a giant to a flea.
During the temptation in the wilderness Jesus said to the author of sin and death, "Away from me, Satan! For... it.... is.... Written...
As you say however the bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is the one that gets it all correct. God is the creator not a created thing. The bible stands alone in ancient literature claiming this truth.
A creation event outside of space and time, the bible claims alone; in perfect agreement with discoveries in mainstream modern cosmology, though many don't know it.
In 1922 Hubble realised the universe was expanding despite Einstein's claim of it's constance. But multiple times in the bible, the answer was there all along.
This discovery put to the theory of the eternal existence of the universe to bed forever. Disproving atheism for all time, without escape.
A continuous permissive law of decay throughout the universe again the bible was correct.
While other cultures were claiming turtles hold up the planet the bible again under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit claimed that God suspended the world upon space.
Recently using creation models, Dr. Russell Humphreys predicted the magnetic magnetic fields strengths of Mercury, Mars, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto... using Biblical models. Natural science was off by a factor of 100000.
There's no comparisons to be done, the bible stands a giant to a flea.
During the temptation in the wilderness Jesus said to the author of sin and death, "Away from me, Satan! For... it.... is.... Written...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
As a God fearing Christian, I have to ask: Why would an all powerful, all knowing, ever present God take millions of years to evolve something from some one celled organism when He can instantly create it?
A wise man once said. If you were a creator and wanted to know if your creation loved and believed in you, then give them your book with the truth written in it. Then, allow for a parallel, man conceived story, give physical evidence that man could, through speculation, manipulation and deception, make believable to some. Then, the ones that stand firm on your story, the truth in your book, a story that is explained, only, through your unmatchable power and supreme control of everything in the universe, THEY are the ones that truly fear, believe, love and follow you.
The Bible is a totally, true to the letter, history of the worlds creation and the events that happened after that.
More and more science is proving the Bible to be just that, a book of truth, and the Bible is being used to confirm science. God is the master physicist, geologist, biologist, engineer, astrologist, and commander of all the forces of this vast universe.
A wise man once said. If you were a creator and wanted to know if your creation loved and believed in you, then give them your book with the truth written in it. Then, allow for a parallel, man conceived story, give physical evidence that man could, through speculation, manipulation and deception, make believable to some. Then, the ones that stand firm on your story, the truth in your book, a story that is explained, only, through your unmatchable power and supreme control of everything in the universe, THEY are the ones that truly fear, believe, love and follow you.
The Bible is a totally, true to the letter, history of the worlds creation and the events that happened after that.
More and more science is proving the Bible to be just that, a book of truth, and the Bible is being used to confirm science. God is the master physicist, geologist, biologist, engineer, astrologist, and commander of all the forces of this vast universe.
Upvote
0
The seven day schedule is for a purpose. It established the work ethic for all of mankind. Six days of work. one day of rest. Everything God does in has an ultimate purpose. God established this by his own example.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
