please help me understand debate creation vs evolution

[yak]

1) Is evolution fact or theory?

2) Do evolutionist and creationist use the same facts they just interpret them differently?

3) There has never been any macro evolutions documented?

4) There have been no transitional bones found?

A little about myself. I am an electrical engineer from schooling and have only looked at this debate in my spare time for about 6 months now. And these two questions I cannot seem to see in the debates. My personal take on it all is we all have the same facts and all ignore ones that do not quit fit. Creationist ignore more facts than evolutionist from what I notice.

Personally because of my belief I am a Creationist, though I admit more facts point to evolution than to creationism. Personally I would prefer yes/no answers and websites I should read.

Thank you for your time in helping me understand all of this stuff!!!!

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

1) Is evolution fact or theory?

Facts are elusive things in science. The earth going round the sun is a theory. The idea that disease is spread by germs is a theory. They're so well established that we consider them facts for practical purposes. In this way, evolution is a fact.

2) Do evolutionist and creationist use the same facts they just interpret them differently?

That is the usual creationist claim. However, creationist conclusions can only be reached by interpreting with that conclusion in mind from the beginning - i.e. "I know the conclusion - how can I make this piece of evidence fit it?"

3) There has never been any macro evolutions documented?

Yes. Macroevolution is evolution above the species level, and there are many examples on Talk Origins.

4) There have been no transitional bones found?

Many. Archaeopteryx - reptile/bird. Ichthyostega - Fish/Amphibian. Ambulocetus (my avatar) - land mammal/whale. Just off the top of my head.

A little about myself. I am an electrical engineer from schooling and have only looked at this debate in my spare time for about 6 months now. And these two questions I cannot seem to see in the debates. My personal take on it all is we all have the same facts and all ignore ones that do not quit fit. Creationist ignore more facts than evolutionist from what I notice.

Personally because of my belief I am a Creationist, though I admit more facts point to evolution than to creationism.

This should tell you something. Why would God create a universe one way and make it look like He did it another way?

Personally I would prefer yes/no answers and websites I should read.

Thank you for your time in helping me understand all of this stuff!!!!

's what we're here for.

 

[pressingon]

yak --

Contrary to Karl's view, there are a large number of reputable scientists that believe evolution is nothing more than a flawed theory. See the answersingenesis ministry for more details (you'll have to query google for the site, I can't post links here yet). It's a GREAT resource for information regarding the creation / evolution debate, answering all of the questions you've posed and more from the creationist viewpoint.

The main difference between creationists and evolutionists is the framework in which they interpret scientific "evidence". If your worldview is centered around the precept that the Bible is 100% accurate, you begin to see evidence in a different light than those that rely on their own intellect for answers, a light I believe is far more accurate.

One thought to think about before I close -- what does the method in which God created the universe and all life within it say about the Creator to you? What does it say about God if He created everything just as Genesis chapters 1-11 states? What does it say if God used billions of years of death, suffering, and mutations?

Food for thought....

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Contrary to Pressington's view P); although a "great number of scientists" is possibly a defensible phrase in sheer numbers, it could be misleading. The fact remains that only a tiny fraction of a percent of working scientists consider evolution anything other than an extremely well-founded and well supported model. The fact is that there are millions of working scientists; a fraction of one percent is therefore several hundred; enough to call a "great number"? Matter of semantics.

Pressington also saith:

The main difference between creationists and evolutionists is the framework in which they interpret scientific "evidence". If your worldview is centered around the precept that the Bible is 100% accurate, you begin to see evidence in a different light than those that rely on their own intellect for answers, a light I believe is far more accurate.

Could I put this slightly differently? The main difference between creation scientists and all other scientists is that the former have already decided that their interpretation of the Bible is a 100% accurate historical and scientific description of the creation of the universe, and all evidence must be made to support that view, or at the least a way found for it not to be contrary to it. This is not science. A scientist has to be willing for any model, no matter how cherished, to be amended or abandoned according to new evidence.

Pressington further quoth:

One thought to think about before I close -- what does the method in which God created the universe and all life within it say about the Creator to you? What does it say about God if He created everything just as Genesis chapters 1-11 states? What does it say if God used billions of years of death, suffering, and mutations?

I am often appalled by the God revealed by a literal reading of the Flood, the conquest of Canaan and several other parts of the Old Testament. Those of Pressington's theological bent (i.e. inerrancy) without fail inform me that I am not to judge the actions and commands of God; that His ways are above our ways, and that everything He does is good, regardless of how it looks to us. I find it strange, therefore, that the same people should invoke the question of God's goodness in the light of His actions when it comes to this question.

Incidently - which part of evolution requires suffering?

 

[pressingon]

Since when does death not involve suffering? Billions of years of evolutionary change require billions of years of organisms living and dying. Further, evolution teaches that beneficial mutations advance life (an issue in itself, since mutations generally cause loss of genetic information rather than addition). Doubts about beneficial mutations aside, would there not also be DETRIMENTAL mutations as part of the evolutionary process? If that's not suffering, I don't know what is.

Regarding biased views, I have a hard time seeing how evolutionists (not theolistic evolutionists), don't have a biased view. Evolutionary science is based on the precept that everything is in existence because of some sort of natural process, excluding the supernatural processes by which God operates from the start.

There are a wealth of issues "mainstream" science has yet to explain adequately for evolution to be considered "fact". If it's "real science", let's see a repeatable experiment which demonstrates evolutionary origin as fact. Any specific examples you'd like to share?

(oh, and by the way, it's PressingON, not PressingTON... a simple misread I'm sure)

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Since when does death not involve suffering?

Death will exist anyway. My guppies produce about 40 fry every month. We would be knee-deep in guppies alone if they did not also die. The universe God created requires that organisms die. Ecosystems work only because of it. It's something your theology has to deal with whatever.

Billions of years of evolutionary change require billions of years of organisms living and dying. Further, evolution teaches that beneficial mutations advance life (an issue in itself, since mutations generally cause loss of genetic information rather than addition). Doubts about beneficial mutations aside, would there not also be DETRIMENTAL mutations as part of the evolutionary process? If that's not suffering, I don't know what is.

A detrimental mutation does not have to mean having an extra arm or anything. It merely means a mutation that has a slightly lower reproductive advantage than other versions of the same allele.

Regarding biased views, I have a hard time seeing how evolutionists (not theolistic evolutionists), don't have a biased view. Evolutionary science is based on the precept that everything is in existence because of some sort of natural process, excluding the supernatural processes by which God operates from the start.

No, it isn't. Evolutionary science is based on three things:

Organisms reproduce
There is variation
Because of variation, some organisms are more successful at reproducing than others of their population.

That's it. Nothing about God or anything else. It doesn't talk about God for the same reason that quantum mechanics or wallpapering don't.

There are a wealth of issues "mainstream" science has yet to explain adequately for evolution to be considered "fact".

Any specific examples you'd like to share ?

If it's "real science", let's see a repeatable experiment which demonstrates evolutionary origin as fact. Any specific examples you'd like to share?

Indeed. Archaeopteryx is evidence of a reptilian evolutionary ancestry of birds. The fossil can be examined by as many people and as many times as you like. The observations remain the same each time. This is what repeatability means in science.

(oh, and by the way, it's PressingON, not PressingTON... a simple misread I'm sure)

Indeed.

 

[gluadys]

1) Is evolution fact or theory?

Both. Species change over time. This has been observed; therefore it is a fact. Most creationists as well as evolutionists agree this is a fact.

The theory of evolution is an explanation of how species change and also links the fact that species change over time to various other phenomena, such as embryological development, the distribution of species geographically and in the fossil record, the existence of vestigial organs, and so on, showing how these things make sense if evolution happened. They are the expected consequences of evolution. And they have been observed many times too.

The fact that we observe in nature the expected consequences of evolution is strong support for the theory.

2) Do evolutionist and creationist use the same facts they just interpret them differently?

No. Evolutionists use a great many facts which creationists tend to ignore. There are some facts evolution does not have complete explanations for yet (especially in the fine details of evolutionary process) but that is due to lack of evidence, not a wilful turning away from the evidence. Creationists, on the other hand tend to deny that much evidence even exists and to ignore evidence they can't explain.

For example, the few attempts to explain the distribution of species in the fossil record by creationists leave aside a great deal of evidence. Hypotheses such as biome distribution and hydrological sorting would result in a vastly different distribution of fossils than we actually see.

3) There has never been any macro evolutions documented?

Yes,there have been. Macro-evolution is evolution above the level of species. Every instance of speciation is an instance of macro-evolution. The talkorigins site has a FAQ on Observed Instances of speciation.

4) There have been no transitional bones found?

Yes, there are many, many, many bones of transitional species found, as well as many, many, many shells of invertebrate transitionals, and lets not forget plants --- not as many as they do not fossilize well, but some.

"rhyniophytes" for example are a group of plant species that straddle the difference between non-vascular plants such as mosses and the more familiar vascular plants.

http://www.palaeos.com/Plants/Rhyniophytes/index.html

This whole site is worth perusing.
For more on transitionals including transitional hominids see talkorgins.


pressingon says:

The main difference between creationists and evolutionists is the framework in which they interpret scientific "evidence". If your worldview is centered around the precept that the Bible is 100% accurate, you begin to see evidence in a different light than those that rely on their own intellect for answers, a light I believe is far more accurate.

No, interpretive frameworks are not the main difference between creationists and evolutionists---at least not if one is speaking of the evidence in nature. Creationists have to deny evidence as well as force-fit some into a given framework. Science uses all the evidence to create a framework from scratch and if something doesn't fit, it changes the framework, not the evidence.


pressingon continues

One thought to think about before I close -- what does the method in which God created the universe and all life within it say about the Creator to you? What does it say about God if He created everything just as Genesis chapters 1-11 states?

I assume you mean "if one interprets these chapters literally." It says God is a trickster, deceiver and lier, since what God made denies that God created in this way. It says God created one way but made it look as if God created another way. It says God gave us senses to perceive with and minds to reason with to no purpose since God made a world that cannot be known by using them.

What does it say if God used billions of years of death, suffering, and mutations?

Exactly the same thing as if God used only 6000 years. As long as life goes on the consequences of life go on. How long it has been going on is irrelevant.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Contrary to Pressington's view P); although a "great number of scientists" is possibly a defensible phrase in sheer numbers, it could be misleading. The fact remains that only a tiny fraction of a percent of working scientists consider evolution anything other than an extremely well-founded and well supported model. The fact is that there are millions of working scientists; a fraction of one percent is therefore several hundred; enough to call a "great number"? Matter of semantics.

If referring to Theistic Evolutionists, this might be a more accurate assertion but many evolutionists are Atheistic Evolutionists and are are openly hostile to the concept of God having anything to do with anything being here. I sometimes find it shocking how deeply their hatred for theists runs. That gives them motive for having a few presuppositions of their own when looking at evidence.

 

[yak]

Thank you to everyone for your time. The simple conclusion for me is there is to much info out there for me to ever join and make a meaniful discussion. So I shall always just keep reading and enjoying your debates.

1) Is evolution fact or theory?
I like how this website put it. talk origins FAQ's "evolution facts"

2) Do evolutionist and creationist use the same facts they just interpret them differently?
You all seem to agree with me. Facts are the same creationist ignore more so it fits into there interpretations.

3) There has never been any macro evolutions documented?
From what little I read on talkorigins my definition of macro is only documented from the dead. For me macro is a change from cat to dog or something similar.

4) There have been no transitional bones found?
This one would take me a along time to read up on and understand there reasoning why it is transitional. The 10 minutes I read about your Ambulocetus (from a google search) on leads me to believe it is like comparing the bones of a rat, cat, and dog and saying look at the transition. Of course remeber my experience with this stuff is close to 0. I guess my other hangup is dating bones and the like cannot be trusted since we do not know what happened back then and are assuming life has never changed composition.

Final conclusion, it will be an interesting topic, but since it, to me, does not have anything to do with salvation I shall just leave it as a curiosity. Expecially since I would rather teach myself Spanish and get my masters so I can start being a communications electrical engineer.

Again thank you for your time!!!!!!

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Thank you to everyone for your time. The simple conclusion for me is there is to much info out there for me to ever join and make a meaniful discussion. So I shall always just keep reading and enjoying your debates.

1) Is evolution fact or theory?
I like how this website put it. talk origins FAQ's "evolution facts"

2) Do evolutionist and creationist use the same facts they just interpret them differently?
You all seem to agree with me. Facts are the same creationist ignore more so it fits into there interpretations.

3) There has never been any macro evolutions documented?
From what little I read on talkorigins my definition of macro is only documented from the dead. For me macro is a change from cat to dog or something similar.

4) There have been no transitional bones found?
This one would take me a along time to read up on and understand there reasoning why it is transitional. The 10 minutes I read about your Ambulocetus (from a google search) on leads me to believe it is like comparing the bones of a rat, cat, and dog and saying look at the transition. Of course remeber my experience with this stuff is close to 0. I guess my other hangup is dating bones and the like cannot be trusted since we do not know what happened back then and are assuming life has never changed composition.

Final conclusion, it will be an interesting topic, but since it, to me, does not have anything to do with salvation I shall just leave it as a curiosity. Expecially since I would rather teach myself Spanish and get my masters so I can start being a communications electrical engineer.

Again thank you for your time!!!!!!

Your post really struck a nerve with me. I'm not really sure anymore I want to know how this "debate" ends. If I become convinced that naturalistic evolution took place, I will have to concede that the evidence then suggests that God doesn't exist. I can't rationalize the "facts" to make them fit my "faith" as many do.

Why would God create the universe one way and leave evidence that He did it another way? I think a more accurate and pointed question would be: Why would God create the universe, inspire someone to say He did it one way yet leave no evidence whatsoever to support that He had anything at all to do with it or that He even exists?

From the times that Jesus referred to Noah's time, the condition of the world then and comparing it to "the last days" it would seem that He believed it. I suppose that can be debated and rationalized away to Him referring to a parable but saying that "as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." seem like He is comparing a past event with a future event. If He believed something that was just a story, then I have to question how God-like His knowledge was.

It's too bad He made the Bible such a questionable book. Why couldn't He just make it easy to read and understand without having to decipher what is real and what is allegory?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Thing is, He didn't "make" the Bible. Men did. That what they wrote was inspired by Him is one thing, but there's no sense in my mind of God saying "write this. What happened was...". Rather, God used existing mythological accounts and breathed spiritual truth into them.

Why should the evidence for evolution mean God doesn't exist? All you have discovered is how God did it - it doesn't detract from the fact that God did at all.

Your point about how God-like Jesus' knowledge was is an interesting one. As fully man, He would have been limited to human knowledge of the day; as fully God, He would have been omniscience. Personally, I think that this is resolved by saying that omniscience is one of the privileges of Godhood that He gave up in order to be in every way like us, voluntarily - I develop this at http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/mark10.htm

 

[Dust and Ashes]

Thing is, He didn't "make" the Bible. Men did. That what they wrote was inspired by Him is one thing, but there's no sense in my mind of God saying "write this. What happened was...". Rather, God used existing mythological accounts and breathed spiritual truth into them.

Why should the evidence for evolution mean God doesn't exist? All you have discovered is how God did it - it doesn't detract from the fact that God did at all.

Your point about how God-like Jesus' knowledge was is an interesting one. As fully man, He would have been limited to human knowledge of the day; as fully God, He would have been omniscience. Personally, I think that this is resolved by saying that omniscience is one of the privileges of Godhood that He gave up in order to be in every way like us, voluntarily - I develop this at http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/mark10.htm

The link helped a lot. It helps me to concentrate on the "bigness" of God and how He can do things anyway He wants regardless of my preconceived notions.

It also helped me better articulate what I meant in my other post when referring to how I believe regarding the Incarnation. (That Jesus was God but that He gave up the "perks" of being God and operated purely as a man under guidance of the Spirit to show us man's potential when we walk with Him.)

 

[yak]

Not sure if I was misunderstood or not.

Your post really struck a nerve with me. I'm not really sure anymore I want to know how this "debate" ends. If I become convinced that naturalistic evolution took place, I will have to concede that the evidence then suggests that God doesn't exist. I can't rationalize the "facts" to make them fit my "faith" as many do.

The debate will never end until we are dead and see the truth that God gives us. I simply wanted to clear up some points I did not know about or were to find. You all gave me that information. As I stated my conclusion is I can never learn enough in this subject to ever be apart of the debates. I will have to keep going with my preconceived ideas and be happy with it. Weather God created it all 6000 years ago or 10 billion really does not matter.

 

[lucaspa]

If referring to Theistic Evolutionists, this might be a more accurate assertion but many evolutionists are Atheistic Evolutionists and are are openly hostile to the concept of God having anything to do with anything being here. I sometimes find it shocking how deeply their hatred for theists runs. That gives them motive for having a few presuppositions of their own when looking at evidence.

Maybe so, but they can't get their presuppositions into science. If they do, they get caught. As an example, look how Richard Dawkins has modified his views because fellow scientist have clobbered him for attempting to make his faith a conclusion of science.

You also have the problem that, when a young earth and creationism were falsified, there were no atheist scientists. They were all theists or, in the case of Charles Lyell, deists. Trying to say that falsification of creationism is an atheistic plot won't work in the face of the evidence.

Also, you will find that the atheistic evolutionists who hate theism are, for the most part, not scientists. If you look closely, they misuse science as badly as the professional YECers do.

 

[lucaspa]

One thought to think about before I close -- what does the method in which God created the universe and all life within it say about the Creator to you? What does it say about God if He created everything just as Genesis chapters 1-11 states? What does it say if God used billions of years of death, suffering, and mutations?

Food for thought....

It's an interesting question. Since after death you believe you will be united with God, I wonder why you see death as such an overwhelmingly bad thing?

Also, you do realize that the how creation happened in Genesis 2 is different from Genesis 1?

As to your last question, it says that God wanted a universe where our lives have meaning.

BTW, most mutations are neutral. Only 2.7 per thousand mutations are out and out harmful.

 

[pressingon]

As I don't have the time to respond to everything posted since I last visited, let me pick a couple and elaborate on those:

Karl, you asked me to identify issues I believe evolution has yet to resolve, which prevent it from being considered fact.

1. Irreducible complexity. If life evolved by chance from organic compounds, how do organisms, even simple single-celled life, develop when a certain level of genetic complexity is required for such to occur? Research has shown that even the most simple single-celled life forms have an immense amount of genetic information that must be present for the organism to survive.

2. Information generation via mutation. This goes back to irreducible complexity to some extent, although somewhat separate as well. For complex life to arise from single-celled organisms, additional genetic information must be developed (not genetic traits, information). Mutations have been shown almost unilaterally to cause genetic information LOSS rather than gain. How then, have we gone from single-celled life with hundreds or thousands of base genetic pairs to humanity, with billions of base genetic pairs?

These are just a couple issues. Wish I had time to identify more, but my lunch break is over.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

If referring to Theistic Evolutionists, this might be a more accurate assertion but many evolutionists are Atheistic Evolutionists and are are openly hostile to the concept of God having anything to do with anything being here. I sometimes find it shocking how deeply their hatred for theists runs. That gives them motive for having a few presuppositions of their own when looking at evidence.

Theistic evolutionists are not hostile to God. They believe that God created using evolution. He may have intervened in biological history, but we no way of telling when, where, or even if He did.

 

[lucaspa]

As I don't have the time to respond to everything posted since I last visited, let me pick a couple and elaborate on those:

Karl, you asked me to identify issues I believe evolution has yet to resolve, which prevent it from being considered fact.

1. Irreducible complexity. If life evolved by chance from organic compounds, how do organisms, even simple single-celled life, develop when a certain level of genetic complexity is required for such to occur? Research has shown that even the most simple single-celled life forms have an immense amount of genetic information that must be present for the organism to survive.

1. Notice your premise "if life evolved by chance ..." Evolution is not chance! Selection is the exact opposite of chance; it is pure determinism. Getting life from non-life is also not chance; it's chemistry. Chemical reactions are determined by the properties of the molecules involved. It's not chance. Research has shown that the first protocells formed from proteins that in turn formed from amino acids by polymerization had more information than modern cells.
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t155621

2. It has been shown that all "irreducibly complex" structures can be made by one or more routes of Darwinian selection. I urge you to read this article. If it goes over your head, then please ask about it: http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/articles/jtb.pdf

2. Information generation via mutation. This goes back to irreducible complexity to some extent, although somewhat separate as well. For complex life to arise from single-celled organisms, additional genetic information must be developed (not genetic traits, information). Mutations have been shown almost unilaterally to cause genetic information LOSS rather than gain.

That last sentence is simply untrue. The generation of information in plants and animals is a two-step process. First is variation, which you call "mutations". Then is selection. Now, what mutations do is create choices for selection to work on. Making choices, and picking among several possibilities, is hou you increase information. This is from creationist Willam Dembski's discussion of information in No Free Lunch, so there is no "evolutionist" bias here:

"Suppose that an organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of these N offspring M succeed in reproducing. The amount of information introduced through selection is then -log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds universally and is non-mysterious. Take a simple non-biological example. If I am sitting at a radio transmitter, and can transmit only zeros and ones, then every time I transmit a zero or one, I choose between two possibilities, selecting precisely one of them. Here N equals 2 and M equals 1. The information -log2(M/N) thus equals -log2(1/2) = 1, i.e., 1 bit of information n is introduced every time I transmit a zero or one. This is of course as things should be. Now this example from communication theory is mathematically isomorphic to the case of cell-division where only one of the daughter cells goes on to reproduce. On the other hand, if both daughter cells go on to reproduce, then N equals M equals 2, and thus -log2(M/N) = -log2(2/2) = 0, indicating that selection, by failing to eliminate any possibility failed also to introduce new information. "

Now, it is observed repeatedly that more offspring are produced than those who actually reproduce. So, let's do some calculations on Dembski's equation looking at these numbers.
1. In a population, there are 4 offspring born but selection eliminates 3 and only one reproduces. So we have N = 4 and M = 1. -log(2) (M/N) = -log(2) (1/4) = -(-2) = 2. We have gained 2 "bits" of information in this generation. Selection does increase information.
2. Let's take a more radical example. An antibiotic kills 95% of the population. So we have 5 bacteria that can reproduce out of 100. N = 100, M =5. -log(2) (5/100) = -log(2) (.05) = -(-4.3) = 4.3. Now information has increased 4.3 "bits". The more severe the selection, the greater the increase in information.
3. Let's take a less severe example. A selection pressure such that of 100 individuals, 99 survive to reproduce. -log(2) (99/100) = -log(2) (.99) = - (-0.01) = 0.01.
So now we have only an increase of 0.01 "bits" in this one generation due to selection. But remember, selection is cumulative. Take this over 1,000 generations and we have an increase of 10 "bits". Now, Nilsson and Pelger have estimated, using conservative parameters, that it would take 364,000 generations to evolve an eye. D-E Nilsson and S Pelger, A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B. 256: 53-58, 1994. Taking that over our calculations shows that the eye represents an increase of 3,640 "bits" of information.
Finally, note that selection must result in an increase of information by Dembski's equation. Any fraction always has a negative logarithm. With the negative sign in front of the logarithm (-log) that means that the value for information must be positive as long as selection is operative. The only way to get loss of information is for the number of individuals that reproduce (M) to be greater than the number born (N). This is obviously not possible.

How then, have we gone from single-celled life with hundreds or thousands of base genetic pairs to humanity, with billions of base genetic pairs?

By a combination of chemistry and evolution. We can go into the details in as much "complexity" as you would like.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Your post really struck a nerve with me. I'm not really sure anymore I want to know how this "debate" ends. If I become convinced that naturalistic evolution took place, I will have to concede that the evidence then suggests that God doesn't exist. I can't rationalize the "facts" to make them fit my "faith" as many do.

Why would God create the universe one way and leave evidence that He did it another way? I think a more accurate and pointed question would be: Why would God create the universe, inspire someone to say He did it one way yet leave no evidence whatsoever to support that He had anything at all to do with it or that He even exists?

From the times that Jesus referred to Noah's time, the condition of the world then and comparing it to "the last days" it would seem that He believed it. I suppose that can be debated and rationalized away to Him referring to a parable but saying that "as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." seem like He is comparing a past event with a future event. If He believed something that was just a story, then I have to question how God-like His knowledge was.

It's too bad He made the Bible such a questionable book. Why couldn't He just make it easy to read and understand without having to decipher what is real and what is allegory?

God wanted to show that He was the source of Creation. Telling the Hebrews how He created would have distracted them from His main point.

God could have made the Bible easy for us to understand, but He didn't. We are the secondary audience of the Bible. Every book of the Bible has a community that is its primary audience. It has to make sense to them. Writing the Bible so that it would make sense to us would cause it to make less sense to the original audience as well as 10th or 25th Century Christians.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

As I don't have the time to respond to everything posted since I last visited, let me pick a couple and elaborate on those:

Karl, you asked me to identify issues I believe evolution has yet to resolve, which prevent it from being considered fact.

1. Irreducible complexity. If life evolved by chance from organic compounds, how do organisms, even simple single-celled life, develop when a certain level of genetic complexity is required for such to occur? Research has shown that even the most simple single-celled life forms have an immense amount of genetic information that must be present for the organism to survive.

In the right medium, a surprisingly small amount of RNA is required for self-replication. Life merely had to start as a molecule that could autocatalyze. At this point, natural selection steps in and whatever can reproduce the best will dominate.

2. Information generation via mutation. This goes back to irreducible complexity to some extent, although somewhat separate as well. For complex life to arise from single-celled organisms, additional genetic information must be developed (not genetic traits, information). Mutations have been shown almost unilaterally to cause genetic information LOSS rather than gain. How then, have we gone from single-celled life with hundreds or thousands of base genetic pairs to humanity, with billions of base genetic pairs?

These are just a couple issues. Wish I had time to identify more, but my lunch break is over.

Could you define information in a biologically relevant manner?