Some questions for Christians who accept evolution

[Not_By_Chance]

So God attempted to solve it... many times over.

I don't think this quite fits with scripture for it ignores the fact that God knows the future as well as the past and present. Thus, He doesn't need to try anything out because He knows everything there is to know about everything. He even knows all your thougths you've ever had and how many hairs you have on your head (if you have any of course). We can't place limits on God's power and knowledge. For God to create the universe out of nothing and then create complex life on it from lifeless chemicals is a testament to His power and glory, "Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." We cannot create anything, despite our intelligence; God can create anything He wishes.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't think this quite fits with scripture for it ignores the fact that God knows the future as well as the past and present. Thus, He doesn't need to try anything out because He knows everything there is to know about everything.

It does present a pretty problem, doesn't it?

Of course, take a look at the characterizations of God in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 and see some rather undeniable differences. Most Biblical scholars who have done so have come to the conclusion that the two creation accounts were written by different authors in different time periods.

IIRC, it's the Gen 2-3 account which was written first, because, among other reasons, the portrayal of God's limitations -- you wouldn't expect gods to get weaker as their stories grow...

He even knows <snip>

Yes, yes, I know the PR campaign... but I also know the scripture and the history behind it. A side effect of studying literature instead of worshiping it.

 

[Loudmouth]

The question is not on transition, the question is to the evidence showing fossils in the billions as the evolution theory relies that have been proven to not yet make it to realised life stage, lie.

Why show you billions of fossils when you won't even look at a handful of fossils?

Also, you claim that we should have billions of fossils from every stage of life. Can you back up this claim?

For example a fish without a head or a species that tried to materialise somehow but just didn't quiet make it into the evolutionary life chain.

All fish should have heads if evolution is true. Perhaps you should learn what evolution is before claiming that it is false.

Thank you kindly for your effort, but that only proves the absence of missed trials to spark life into a purposeful function that not only materialised but was a sustained life form to a degree of its continued transitions as you have demonstrated that life continued from the basic specimen to the more complicated one.

Why aren't transitional fossils evidence that humans evolved from an ancestor shared with other apes? You claim that we need to find these fossils, and I am showing them to you. Why ignore them?

Are there original fossils with no transitional specimens, if so were they a life sustaining form? how long did they sustain material status before they discontinue and collapse? and did they have a function that permitted life beyond the point of materialisation?

Am I to understand that English is not your first language?

 

[Loudmouth]

There's so much that we don't know that we've yet to learn. I understand that much of what was regarded as junk DNA has been found to have a function after all.

Such as?

Junk DNA is called junk DNA because of what we do know about it, not because of what we don't know about it. We identify junk DNA by finding regions of a genome where sequence is not conserved. These regions accumulate mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift. If you want to claim that these regions have function, then you need to explain how there can be no deleterious mutations in a functional section of DNA. How can we completely change the DNA sequence and still have that function?

Perhaps it's the same with this. Only the creator knows the answer, just as only He knows what's beyond the edge of the known universe.

The perfect escape clause for ignoring inconvenient facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

God is not into a hit and miss affair friend.

Genesis 1:31
Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good! And evening passed and morning came, marking the sixth day.

Your argument implies that the all powerful God was doing this:

Let's try! oops
Let's try again! Oops

After the billionth attempt............

Bingo! Succes! The Eureka Moment! Yeh finally life!

The expression that God uses throughout Genesis is that God saw that it was very good meaning perfect.

If you haven't established it already but God is a perfectionist when it comes to bringing forth creation and life itself. It reflects his efforts and his character.

A person who has many hit and miss affair is one that does not reflect well upon his character. Would you employ an accountants or financial adviser who makes a lot of mistakes with your accounts?

I thought not and so your arguing for a completely lost cause, it is a none sequitur, it simply does not follow logic to have death and plenty of it before bringing forth life.

Scripture even states that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel is the God of the living and not the dead.

That being reflective of God's character how can you seriously make a preposterous statement like that friend?

That doesn't even touch on what I wrote. You claimed that God doesn't do obvious miracles in front of people because if he did then we would all keel over dead. Are you still sticking by that? If so, then explain why a supposedly all powerful deity is incapable of doing miracles without killing people.

 

[justlookinla]

Are these transitional fossils myths?

So are you able to see those fossils?

Nothing to see here folks, just a few skulls. A didn't transist into L, as the graphic seems to suggest

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Most Biblical scholars who have done so have come to the conclusion that the two creation accounts were written by different authors in different time periods.

But there are many who don't take this view and instead, conclude that the second chapter of Genesis is merely adding detail to the original summary given in chapter one.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

If so, then explain why a supposedly all powerful deity is incapable of doing miracles without killing people.

When God was here on earth in human form, not only did His miracles not kill people, but he restored life to a lifeless body. However, and I'm not too sure of my theology on this point, I think there is something about God The Father, that He cannot be approached without going through Jesus as the second person of the Trinity. Also, Jesus acts as a shield against judgement and makes believers righteous before God, as if their sins never existed. This is all a bit deep and I'm not an expert on this, but it is explained in a very easy to read book called "The Road to Emmaus." I must read it again to re-familiarise myself with this. I must also find time to read the book of Revelation all the way through as I have a feeling that we are approaching the end times.

 

[Loudmouth]

When God was here on earth in human form, not only did His miracles not kill people, but he restored life to a lifeless body. However, and I'm not too sure of my theology on this point, I think there is something about God The Father, that He cannot be approached without going through Jesus as the second person of the Trinity. Also, Jesus acts as a shield against judgement and makes believers righteous before God, as if their sins never existed. This is all a bit deep and I'm not an expert on this, but it is explained in a very easy to read book called "The Road to Emmaus." I must read it again to re-familiarise myself with this. I must also find time to read the book of Revelation all the way through as I have a feeling that we are approaching the end times.

I just find it strange that threads like these are full of claims from Christians where they describe things that God can not do. These aren't paradoxes like make a rock so heavy he can't lift. These are things that you and I can do, like lift a rock of regular size.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

The perfect escape clause for ignoring inconvenient facts.

Not so. We have to recognise that we only know a tiny fraction of the details of our existence and the world/universe around us. You may find answers to some of your questions here, but you probably won't accept them because of your commitment to naturalism.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Why must all other lineages change if one lineage changes?

Well, logic would suggest that if many creatures were changing radically over vast amounts of time, then the same causes that were driving those changes would apply to all living things. To find no changes in some beggars belief if the evolution story/vast amounts of time were really true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not so. We have to recognise that we only know a tiny fraction of the details of our existence and the world/universe around us.

That isn't an excuse for ignoring the details that we have discovered.

You may find answers to some of your questions here, but you probably won't accept them because of your commitment to naturalism.

What parts of that essay explain how a sequence of DNA can be completely mutated without losing its function? Where do they explain how a section of DNA can accumulate mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift without losing function?

We conclude that sections of a genome are junk because of POSITIVE evidence, not because we don't know what it does. It is considered junk DNA because of what it does, namely accumulate mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, logic would suggest that if many creatures were changing radically over vast amounts of time, then the same causes that were driving those changes would apply to all living things.

What logic is that?

To find no changes in some beggars belief if the evolution story/vast amounts of time were really true.

Then I guess you haven't heard of a fitness peak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape

This happens when a species adapts to a specific niche and becomes specialized. Once specialized, any changes would reduce the fitness of the species and be selected against. The species wouldn't be able to bridge the gap between different niches because it would require too many steps that reduce fitness.

 

[TLK Valentine]

But there are many who don't take this view and instead, conclude that the second chapter of Genesis is merely adding detail to the original summary given in chapter one.

And they now have to deal with the question of how and why God turned from an all-powerful deus faber in Genesis 1 to an much more limited being, who got blindsided by a talking reptile in Genesis 3.

 

[justlookinla]

Of course, take a look at the characterizations of God in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 and see some rather undeniable differences. Most Biblical scholars who have done so have come to the conclusion that the two creation accounts were written by different authors in different time periods.

"Most Biblical scholars"? Really?

Source?

 

[justlookinla]

And they now have to deal with the question of how and why God turned from an all-powerful deus faber in Genesis 1 to an much more limited being, who got blindsided by a talking reptile in Genesis 3.

Blindsided?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

But there are many who don't take this view and instead, conclude that the second chapter of Genesis is merely adding detail to the original summary given in chapter one.

they do this by ignoring obvious contradictions. One can show them the differing orders of creation, they will simply repeat that there are no contradictions. One can ask them how many days of creation are specified in chapter 2, they will simply repeat there are no contradictions.

 

[justlookinla]

But there are many who don't take this view and instead, conclude that the second chapter of Genesis is merely adding detail to the original summary given in chapter one.

And there are others who believe they are two separate creation events.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

And there are others who believe they are two separate creation events.

Just so you know . . . Genesis 1 has Adam and his mate created on the last creation day. Genesis 2 and following has only Adam created and then a long narrative of all the other animals being created and no help meet found for Adam, and so Eve is created from his rib.

Since these stories appear contradictory . . . .early rabbinical commentators decided that there were two wives created for Adam. The first, Lillith, apparantly sinned in some way and so Eve was created to replace her.

Today, commentators simply consider them to different traditions conflated into the single book of Genesis.

Except there are those who simply deny they are contradictory, in spite of the difficulties in timing with that view.

 

[Colter]

Just so you know . . . Genesis 1 has Adam and his mate created on the last creation day. Genesis 2 and following has only Adam created and then a long narrative of all the other animals being created and no help meet found for Adam, and so Eve is created from his rib.

Since these stories appear contradictory . . . .early rabbinical commentators decided that there were two wives created for Adam. The first, Lillith, apparantly sinned in some way and so Eve was created to replace her.

Today, commentators simply consider them to different traditions conflated into the single book of Genesis.

Except there are those who simply deny they are contradictory, in spite of the difficulties in timing with that view.

We can also see that the world outside of the garden was already populated with Cain finding a wife in Nod. Adam and Eve materialized on an evolved earth.