Some questions for Christians who accept evolution

[Not_By_Chance]

Yet, you're willing to use an alternate translation (the NASU), yet you're not willing to believe translations such as the NIV, which says:[verse=Genesis 2:8,niv]Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.[/verse]Thus it appears you're under the impression that these two chapters are contradictory, and are willing to filter out anything that would reconcile them.

Have a look at my post #738 for more on this.

 

[Berean777]

This is what it says in my Genesis commentary, "As a matter of fact, it would be quite legitimate to translate verse 19 as follows: 'Also out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air; and had brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.' The Hebrew conjunction waw can just can just as well be translated 'also' as 'and.' Furthermore, the word 'formed' as in the King James (Hebrew yatsar) can, in the context, legitimately be translated 'had formed.' In any case, the obvious intent of the passage is to tell us that certain of the animals, already in existence, were now brought at this time to be inspected by Adam. There is no contradiction, either real or apparent, with the 'official' order of creation in Genesis 1."

waw is also when used at the beginning of a sentence. For example, "also this person". Again yatsar will be used at the beginning do a sentence to imply past tense that is has already been formed. In concrete language the past tense verb is before the object. These are all concrete functional language that abstract thinkers can't grapple with.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yet, you're willing to use an alternate translation (the NASU), yet you're not willing to believe translations such as the NIV, which says:[verse=Genesis 2:8,niv]Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.[/verse]Thus it appears you're under the impression that these two chapters are contradictory, and are willing to filter out anything that would reconcile them.

I'm not following how that particular translation of that particular verse actually rescues the apparent contradiction. Remember, I'm talking about when the animals were formed, not when then garden was made. In any case, why are you arguing from an english translation, instead of from the Hebrew original? Because if you are going to go in for nuances of particular verb meanings, its time to consult the original Hebrew, isn't it?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Here's an interesting passage I found today, "Dawkins and others have recognized that the ‘information space’ possible within just one gene is so huge that random changes without some guiding force could never come up with a new function. There could never be enough ‘experiments’ (mutating generations of organisms) to find anything useful by such a process. Note that an average gene of 1,000 base pairs represents 4 to the power of 1000 possibilities—that is 10 to the power of 602 (compare this with the number of atoms in the universe estimated at ‘only’ 10 to the power of 80). If every atom in the universe represented an ‘experiment’ every millisecond for the supposed 15 billion years of the universe, this could only try a maximum 10 to the power of 100 of the possibilities for the gene. So such a ‘neutral’ process cannot possibly find any sequence with specificity (usefulness), even allowing for the fact that more than just one sequence may be functional to some extent." Another nail in the coffin for evolutionary theory.

I've just discovered another item which looks interesting http://creation.com/clash-over-origins

I think I'll get my hands on a copy of the DVD - it should be quite amusing to see the arguments for evolution shot down.

Your argument is that beneficial mutations among all the possible mutations are so rare as to provide nothing useful for evolution to grab on to to preserve. Your calculations assume there is only one possible beneficial mutation among all the possible mutations, which is not true. We have plenty of evidence that evolution has actually happened, so your efforts to prove it cannot happen are wasted. However, you might transform your arguments into asserting that it was necessary for God to guide evolution along, which is something you could assert by faith and no evidence as yet could prove that to be wrong.

 

[justlookinla]

We have plenty of evidence that evolution has actually happened, so your efforts to prove it cannot happen are wasted.

There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, that Darwinist evolution created humanity

 

[bhsmte]

Same tired preaching.

 

[justlookinla]

Same tired preaching.

Same undeniable fact.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, that Darwinist evolution created humanity

And yet we share a coccyx; not only with our own species, but with the other apes. Some try to claim the coccyx has a "use" . . . but they cannot make the same claim for the muscle that would, if the coccyx were only still a tail, lift that tail. That muscle is not only useless, it is actually missing in over half of us.

That is evidence for Darwinist evolution.

 

[Colter]

rt

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet we share a coccyx; not only with our own species, but with the other apes. Some try to claim the coccyx has a "use" . . . but they cannot make the same claim for the muscle that would, if the coccyx were only still a tail, lift that tail. That muscle is not only useless, it is actually missing in over half of us.

That is evidence for Darwinist evolution.

The evidence goes one layer deeper. The vestigial structures are also consistent with the nested hierarchy. We don't see any mammals with vestigial flight feathers, or birds with vestigial nipples. We only see vestigial structures that are consistent with the proposed evolutionary history of that species.

 

[justlookinla]

And yet we share a coccyx; not only with our own species, but with the other apes. Some try to claim the coccyx has a "use" . . . but they cannot make the same claim for the muscle that would, if the coccyx were only still a tail, lift that tail. That muscle is not only useless, it is actually missing in over half of us.

That is evidence for Darwinist evolution.

Is that evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms created all life we observe today?

 

[justlookinla]

The evidence goes one layer deeper. The vestigial structures are also consistent with the nested hierarchy. We don't see any mammals with vestigial flight feathers, or birds with vestigial nipples. We only see vestigial structures that are consistent with the proposed evolutionary history of that species.

We do not see any evidence, based on the scientific method, that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago, do we?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Is that evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms created all life we observe today?

No, it is evidence that evolution happened. However, we have a naturalistic theory that accounts for the evolution we know has happened. There is no scientific evidence for anything but naturalistic mechanisms.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The evidence goes one layer deeper. The vestigial structures are also consistent with the nested hierarchy. We don't see any mammals with vestigial flight feathers, or birds with vestigial nipples. We only see vestigial structures that are consistent with the proposed evolutionary history of that species.

And the family tree based on morphology is backed up by the family tree based on DNA and based on observed vestigial structures.

 

[justlookinla]

No, it is evidence that evolution happened.

I don't think anyone is questioning that evolution happens, the issue is with Darwinist evolution view and the alleged creation of all life we observe today (not abiogenensis) by only naturalistic mechanisms. There is absolutely no evidence, based on the scientific method, for this particular view of evolution.

However, we have a naturalistic theory that accounts for the evolution we know has happened. There is no scientific evidence for anything but naturalistic mechanisms.

There is no scientific evidence that only Darwinist naturalistic mechanisms created humanity.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Eve lead people to conclude that they were the first man and women on earth so the authors attempted to trace their blood lines back to Adam and Eve.

They were the first man and women on earth. There may have been male and female before Adam and Eve but Eve was the first women. If you do not understand the difference between a female and a women try looking in the dictionary. The biggest distinction being a female can be any age but a women is grown up and no longer a child. Also a male and female can be any animal. A man and women can only be human. Meaning they have a quality that makes them different from the animals.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I don't think anyone is questioning that evolution happens, the issue is with Darwinist evolution view and the alleged creation of all life we observe today (not abiogenensis) by only naturalistic mechanisms. There is absolutely no evidence, based on the scientific method, for this particular view of evolution.

The fact that evolution occurred, which you have handsomely conceded, is actually evidence for the sufficiency of the scientific theory proposed to explain it. You have not established that the theory is an inadequate explanation.

There is no scientific evidence that only Darwinist naturalistic mechanisms created humanity.

There is scientific evidence in favor of evolution theory as currently understood.

 

[justlookinla]

The fact that evolution occurred, which you have handsomely conceded, is actually evidence for the sufficiency of the scientific theory proposed to explain it. You have not established that the theory is an inadequate explanation.

Of course evolution has occurred. Darwinian evolution on the other hand is nothing more than a series of guesses and suppositions with no evidence based on the scientific method.

There is scientific evidence in favor of evolution theory as currently understood.

There is no scientific evidence for Darwinism.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Of course evolution has occurred. Darwinian evolution on the other hand is nothing more than a series of guesses and suppositions with no evidence based on the scientific method.



There is no scientific evidence for Darwinism.

The evolution you admit has happened is itself evidence for Darwinism.

 

[Colter]

They were the first man and women on earth. There may have been male and female before Adam and Eve but Eve was the first women. If you do not understand the difference between a female and a women try looking in the dictionary. The biggest distinction being a female can be any age but a women is grown up and no longer a child. Also a male and female can be any animal. A man and women can only be human. Meaning they have a quality that makes them different from the animals.

It's not that complicated, men and women have been on the earth for a million years. Adam and Eve incarnate long after man evolved.