One thing I don't understand about the creationist position

[NBB]

On a side note, a fascinating application of evolution is evolutionary algorithms. It effectively uses the process of evolution in design and engineering. Humans have harnessed this process to design things themselves.

What is especially interesting is that it yields results that appear to go above and beyond normal human designs. For example, NASA used such a process to 'evolve' a radio antenna design which yielded superior results to traditional human design methods.

This suggests that the process of evolution observed in nature is a more powerful creative process than what humans can come up with on their own. Perhaps the process of evolution was created by a powerful God, capable to designing processes far beyond that of ordinary human mortals.

Lies, a process like evolution wouldn't produce anything, they input already made complicated solutions *designed and made from humans* is not like evolution where change and a selection process could create a brian.

Also all this process is directed by humans, they input things and expect results.

 

[NBB]

There is nothing about evolution which would preclude God giving people souls. The question is primarily around how God created living species. Is there anything that prevents God from using an evolutionary process to do that?

For example, Genesis 1 doesn't describe God specifically designing all the animals. It just says that the Earth and waters brought them forth.

You don't get that souls are very interconnected with our bodies its not like a cloud of something spiritual, it does stuff related to bodies.

 

[BobRyan]

fwGod said: ↑
Now, if God had used evolution, then atheists would all have to worship God.

True - it makes God -- the god of evolution. To place faith in evolution then is to place faith in the god of evolution

fwGod said: ↑
Let's not forget that it's the concept of atheists who set out to use science as a means to back up their atheism. So therefore it would not even be qualified as a supernatural method of creation for God to use.

As they said "an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (Richard Dawkins)

That doesn't make any sense. Atheism is the lack of theism.

I think the point is that God is not operating as the god of the atheist doctrine on origins -- evolutionism

 

[pitabread]

Lies, a process like evolution wouldn't produce anything, they input already made complicated solutions *designed and made from humans* is not like evolution where change and a selection process could create a brian.

Also all this process is directed by humans, they input things and expect results.

That's not how the process of evolution works. The output is not predefined. Rather the process itself moves towards an output based on environmental constraints.

For example, NASA used evolution in creating a radio antenna that yielded superior output than non-evolution based approaches: Evolved antenna - Wikipedia

In some cases it can yield totally unexpected results. There is a case where evolutionary algorithms were used to try to evolve an oscillator circuit. Instead, the process evolved a radio receiver: Radio emerges from the electronic soup

So I find it odd that creationists insist God couldn't do this. It seems like a fascinating process that could yield all sorts of interesting results. Like an entire biosphere full of wonderfully diverse organisms.

 

[NBB]

That's not how the process of evolution works. The output is not predefined. Rather the process itself moves towards an output based on environmental constraints.

In some cases it can yield totally unexpected results. For example, here is a case where evolutionary algorithms were used to try to evolve an oscillator circuit. Instead, the process evolved a radio receiver: Radio emerges from the electronic soup

*They input stuff alright*, a computer can't come up with even a transistor or something with just little random changes and a selection process.

 

[fwGod]

I've been down this road before. It's quite a short road, because when one tries to get into the details of how God specifically did things, one quickly releases those details aren't there.

The explanations that Jesus gave concerning the kingdom of God were relatable to farmers. So how can you say that the details aren't there? Is it maybe that something so simplistic is beneath your level of intelligence?

I'm not quite following what you mean by "you insist already existed"? What am I insisting that already existed? The process of evolution?

That is how I read the sentence. I don't keep up with the latest atheistic doctrine, I'm working with this.. The atheist says that all that we are aware of began with the big bang.

Answering questions with a question isn't an answer.

When you are addressing me, they are.

Okay, I wasn't expecting *that* response.

In my mind it was a useful descriptive antithesis.

 

[pitabread]

*They input stuff alright*, a computer can't come up with even a transistor or something with just little random changes and a selection process.

Why couldn't a computer come up with this on its own? If the process in place, there is no reason to assume that a computer couldn't evolve a transistor (in principle).

In the case of biology, yes, evolution requires biological organisms to be reproducing and changing over time. But that is exactly what we see in the natural world: biological organisms reproducing and changing over time.

So again, why couldn't go have used evolution as a process when diversifying living things across the planet?

 

[Speedwell]

Let's not forget that it's the concept of atheists who set out to use science as a means to back up their atheism. So therefore it would not even be qualified as a supernatural method of creation for God to use.

No, that's the big lie of creationism. Creationists, for some reason known only to themselves, are attempting to hold the Gospel of Christ as hostage to a literal interpretation of Genesis. They paint all opposition, whether from science or from other Christians, as "atheistic."

 

[pitabread]

The explanations that Jesus gave concerning the kingdom of God were relatable to farmers. So how can you say that the details aren't there? Is it maybe that something so simplistic is beneath your level of intelligence?

Because the details of specifically how God made things aren't there. Like I've said, I've been down this road before.

That is how I read the sentence. I don't keep up with the latest atheistic doctrine, I'm working with this.. The atheist says that all that we are aware of began with the big bang.

There is no "atheist doctrine" and it's not even relevant to this discussion. The question is what God could have done.

When you are addressing me, they are.

Answering a question with a question is an indication the person doesn't have an actual answer. Like I said, I've been down this road before. We've already seen it a lot within this very thread.

 

[NBB]

No, that's the big lie of creationism. Creationists, for some reason known only to themselves, are attempting to hold the Gospel of Christ as hostage to a literal interpretation of Genesis. They paint all opposition, whether from science or from other Christians, as "atheistic."

More lies is something that reinforces a belief that God was not needed at all and atheistics beliefs.

 

[Rachel20]

No, that's the big lie of creationism. Creationists, for some reason known only to themselves, are attempting to hold the Gospel of Christ as hostage to a literal interpretation of Genesis. They paint all opposition, whether from science or from other Christians, as "atheistic."

Why refer to it as a "lie" ? That goes to motive. These really do believe what they believe. What you just said could have been said about Christians in the 40s & 50s who denied the "science" of an infinite universe. They weren't liars, they just really believed it, and in that case turned out to be right.

 

[pitabread]

More lies is something that reinforces a belief that God was not needed at all and atheistics beliefs.

Nobody is saying God is needed. This thread is not about atheism. That creationists are trying to deflect the discussion into a theism/atheism debate is just a red herring.

This is a question of what God could or could not have done. IOW, we're assuming that God exists and created living things on this Earth.

The question is, why couldn't God have used an evolutionary process in diversifying species on the planet?

 

[Speedwell]

Why refer to it as a "lie" ? That goes to motive. These really do believe what they believe. What you just said could have been said about Christians in the 40s & 50s who denied the "science" of an infinite universe. They weren't liars, they just really believed it, and in that case turned out to be right.

They may really believe what they believe, but they are attributing a motive to people who demonstrably have no such motive.

 

[pitabread]

No, that's the big lie of creationism. Creationists, for some reason known only to themselves, are attempting to hold the Gospel of Christ as hostage to a literal interpretation of Genesis. They paint all opposition, whether from science or from other Christians, as "atheistic."

It seems the god of creationists exists only within a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. This has certainly been my impression discussing this with creationists over the years.

 

[Rachel20]

It seems the god of creationists exists only within a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. This has certainly been my impression discussing this with creationists over the years.

Which is frustrating to me, because I lean to literalist iinterpretation but still can see the pitfalls of being too literal, especially when other passages that shed light are ignored (like the one you already mentioned "a day is as a 1000 years to the Lord, etc...)

 

[BobRyan]

Creationists appear to be placing limitations on their god. For example, claiming that God couldn't use evolution because it's not a "supernatural method" makes no sense.

that does not make any sense. It is nonsense to suppose there is anything but a flat out miracle of God that can take dust at the start of one evening-and-morning day and at the end of that day have a fully functioning adult human.

And we all know it.

This is not "placing limitation" rather this is the parameters "in the text" itself.

If God had used evolution (and in fact created the very process) would that not make it by definition a supernatural method?

If God created a 4 billion year "process" for creating life on earth - then lied about it and said it was 7 evening-and-mornings "a day" like the Ex 20:9,11 day at sinai that it would mean the atheists are telling the truth about the time - and God is lying.

Why make that as a "proposal" to creationists? what is the logic for that?

 

[Rachel20]

ok well in Ex 20 we have "six days you shall labor... for in six days the Lord made". the author is the same, the context is the same the chapter is the same so if you consider that the methods of exegesis don't allow us to insert different meaning for the same word for the same passage because of an outside preference not known to the author or the author's readers.

Just for fun, consider the dark-light cycles may be entropy cycles of chaos-order. After all, Jesus said there's 12 hours in a day in John 11:9 and in John 9:4 linked "work" to the lighted portion.

 

[BobRyan]

It seems the god of creationists exists only within a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. This has certainly been my impression discussing this with creationists over the years.

Contrast that to the irrefutable fact - that even the atheists in world-class universities freely admit. (So then NOT something that creationists/literalist "MAKE UP" even by atheist standards)


Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.


Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

=========================== quote

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

 

[BobRyan]

Just for fun, consider the dark-light cycles may be entropy cycles of chaos-order. After all, Jesus said there's 12 hours in a day in John 11:9 and in John 9:4 linked "work" to the lighted portion.

How many 100's of millions or billions of years of "Chaos order" on Earth could be inserted into Day 3 where you have plants but no sun or moon?

How many 100's of millions or billions of years of "Chaos order" on Earth could be inserted into Exodus 20:9,11 - when we know for fact that Moses was no darwinist and neither he nor his readers were up on the big bang theory?? Exegesis involves taking the POV of the writer and his intended readers to omit bias being injected into the text by readers coming along 1000's of years after the fact.

 

[fwGod]

That doesn't make any sense. Atheism is the lack of theism. Whether God used evolution or not is independent of any theological ramifications thereof.

That's an atheistic response but all things created are used to point to God and in being aware of God the response is to praise and worship Him.

That's just the way it is.

Why wouldn't there be? After all, human usage of evolutionary processes in place of traditional design yields results that go beyond traditional design.
Why couldn't God do the same? Is God limited in some fashion?

Do you mean like taking a tree and using tools to make a house? That is not doing something better than God. The carpenter has raw material. God uses faith which isn't material to create all things material. God is not the limited one.

This has nothing to do with atheism. It's a question of what God could or could not have done.

Your first reply on this post indicates that it has everything to do with man-made atheism which does not recognize God as God. Yet you play around with the notion that God would better himself by using evolution to make things. Or that evolution would get some undeserved status of becoming supernatural if God used it.

Your concepts, ideas, notions are fanciful.

Whenever Jesus, being the supernatural Son of God, used the commode.. that didn't miraculously upgrade it to a beautiful golden vase. It still remained a vessel of dishonor that it was made to be.

And evolution don't get a born again experience to be transformed into something supernatural. God would rather redeem every atheist.

Creationists appear to be placing limitations on their god.

No, you are being fanciful about something that you really don't care about, except to use to argue with a Bible believing Christian.

For example, claiming that God couldn't use evolution because it's not a "supernatural method" makes no sense.

It makes no sense for God to use a man made concept when he has already used his own divine methods and done very excellently at that.

If God had used evolution (and in fact created the very process) would that not make it by definition a supernatural method?

No because it's man made. It exists solely as a counterfeit explanation for the existing universe that God created with His own divine power.