Theistic Evolution / Random Convergence or Spontaneous Generation

[GuardianShua]

Theistic Evolution​

Theistic Evolution contradicts God who said making man in His own image:

Genesis 1:26. Then God spoke making man in our image, and in our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
Genesis 1:27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female, He created them.
Genesis 2:7. The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
#1. The creation days are epochs of time. Example: God said to Adam,"In the day you eat of that fruit you will surly die." But yet Adam continued to live for hundreds of years until he died. #2. The oldest elements of earth are about 14 billion years old according to the speed of light. According to scripture before it was earth, it was a body of water without form, after God created the heavens. The Earth is younger than it's oldest elements. The animal life lived long before man was created. #3. Evolution is a falsehood because life is patterned. The limit of carbon dating is less than six thousand years. Animals that are able to cross breed are either sterile, or revert back to original form proving a pattern. The same is true in plant life. #4. Adam and Eve were real people and all life has a beginning. If Evolution was true, than it would be a fact and not a theory. There are many different life forms, but none ever leave their basic form. Theistic Evolution is a contradiction to the word of God. Evolution is "Random Convergence" or "Spontaneous Generation" for which is not demonstrated in science. All of the past proofs are either falsehoods or pure speculation of an artist. God's name "Yahwah" means "Life Began."

 

[Molal]

Can you provide any citations/references for the points made in your post?

 

[GuardianShua]

Can you provide any citations/references for the points made in your post?

If you mean people living today, I would say do a search on people who are creation scientist. One person to check would be Dr. Hugh Ross. http://www.reasons.org/about/staff/ross.shtml
Or Dr. Dino: http://www.drdino.com/

 

[Molal]

Hi Michael,

Thank you for your references, unfortunately a quick perusal of the referenced websites yields multiple factual errors. I think you are very aware of the many websites that show how the hypotheses of these two people are wholly inaccurate.

It is my understanding that it is one's biblical interpretation that can be wrong, not the word of God. Therefore, I assert that a literal interpretation of Genesis is fundamentally flawed when viewed with the evidence yielded from God's creation.

 

[GuardianShua]

Hi Michael,

Thank you for your references, unfortunately a quick perusal of the referenced websites yields multiple factual errors. I think you are very aware of the many websites that show how the hypotheses of these two people are wholly inaccurate.

It is my understanding that it is one's biblical interpretation that can be wrong, not the word of God. Therefore, I assert that a literal interpretation of Genesis is fundamentally flawed when viewed with the evidence yielded from God's creation.

It would be helpful if you were to state what you think is in error.

 

[Molal]

I would recommend reading Hovind's wiki page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind#From_creationists

It details all the criticism from creationists and non-creationists alike. This is a tiny amount of the criticism that Hovind has incurred.

In addition, here is another website (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/) that provides a detailed analysis of his claims.

It appears that Dr. Ross is not well received by creationists, let alone scientists...
http://www.trueorigin.org/hughross02.asp

It is my opinion that we stick to peer reviewed, journal articles, in this manner we are certain of the actual data.

 

[GuardianShua]

I would recommend reading Hovind's wiki page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind#From_creationists

It details all the criticism from creationists and non-creationists alike. This is a tiny amount of the criticism that Hovind has incurred.

In addition, here is another website (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/) that provides a detailed analysis of his claims.

It appears that Dr. Ross is not well received by creationists, let alone scientists...
http://www.trueorigin.org/hughross02.asp

It is my opinion that we stick to peer reviewed, journal articles, in this manner we are certain of the actual data.

I read your links, and I saw lots of opinions and few facts. You say that we should stick to the raw data and journal articles. In the the past it has been found that that info was also wrong or falsified. Here is a fact to cling to. In the rock strata of fossils it is noted that while one group of species died out, another suddenly sprang into existence. Evolutionist do not deny that as a matter of fact, but they offer no explanation of how that can be. And as for the rock from Mars having fossilized micro life; no good scientist could say if it is a chemical reaction or life. But because the Evolutionist has such a great faith in what they believe, that they announced it as a form of life.

 

[Molal]

I read your links, and I saw lots of opinions and few facts. You say that we should stick to the raw data and journal articles. In the the past it has been found that that info was also wrong or falsified. Here is a fact to cling to. In the rock strata of fossils it is noted that while one group of species died out, another suddenly sprang into existence. Evolutionist do not deny that as a matter of fact, but they offer no explanation of how that can be. And as for the rock from Mars having fossilized micro life; no good scientist could say if it is a chemical reaction or life. But because the Evolutionist has such a great faith in what they believe, that they announced it as a form of life.

Can you provide evidence of a peer reviewed, scientific journal article that has been knowingly falsified? I don't mean those articles that have been superseded by data/understanding.

So, which fossils are you discussing where one dies out and another re-appears? How do you know that one fossil "died out" and another took it's place in the environmental niche? Do you understand ancient depositional environments when discussing facies analysis in geology? How much time do you think it takes to deposit on bed within a particular, fossil bearing facies?

Fossils in martian rocks. The information released to the general public was purely data, with analysis. Your perception of this data has been coloured by the media storm surrounding the finding. While the data does not lie, the understanding of the depositional environment and the history of the martian rock is lacking.

It is my understanding that the creationist peddles disinformation, mis-quotes and mis-interpretation to purposely conflate ideas and dissuade the general public from scientific endeavour.

 

[gluadys]

Theistic Evolution contradicts God

Obviously that is a matter of opinion. I expect you understand neither evolution, nor the theology of those who accept evolution.

#1. The creation days are epochs of time. Example: God said to Adam,"In the day you eat of that fruit you will surly die." But yet Adam continued to live for hundreds of years until he died.

This is a day-age interpretation a la Hugh Ross. Many TEs do not agree with it. That an individual named Adam lived at all is not a necessary interpretation of scripture. And it is only on the basis that a literal reading is historical that we can state any individual lived for hundreds of years. The literal reading need not be historical.

#2. The oldest elements of earth are about 14 billion years old according to the speed of light.

Actually that is according to the mathematics of big bang theory which is supported by observational evidence. You may be thinking of the age of distant galaxies.

#3. Evolution is a falsehood because life is patterned.

The limit of carbon dating is less than six thousand years.

No, it is the half-life of C14 that is less than 6,000 years. But we can measure several half-lives. The limit of carbon dating is closer to 60,000 years.

Animals that are able to cross breed are either sterile, or revert back to original form proving a pattern. The same is true in plant life.

Usually, but there are also a number of instances of new species occurring through hybridization.

#4. Adam and Eve were real people

If one insists that a literal reading of scripture is also historical. But not every literal reading is historical and we need not assume that the story of Adam and Eve refers to two historical individuals.

If Evolution was true, than it would be a fact and not a theory.

It is both. Evolution happens (that's the fact) and the theory explains how it happens.

There are many different life forms, but none ever leave their basic form.

Certainly all species are constrained by their former history.

Evolution is "Random Convergence" or "Spontaneous Generation" for which is not demonstrated in science.

Evolution is not spontaneous generation, for evolution requires that organisms have parents. I don't understand the term "random convergence".

 

[Mallon]

What is the proper way to deal with an argument that consist solely of hearsay, is ill-informed, and plain doesn't make any sense? Honest question.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Theistic Evolution​

Theistic Evolution contradicts God who said making man in His own image:

Genesis 1:26. Then God spoke making man in our image, and in our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
Genesis 1:27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female, He created them.
Genesis 2:7. The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
#1. The creation days are epochs of time. Example: God said to Adam,"In the day you eat of that fruit you will surly die." But yet Adam continued to live for hundreds of years until he died. #2. The oldest elements of earth are about 14 billion years old according to the speed of light. According to scripture before it was earth, it was a body of water without form, after God created the heavens. The Earth is younger than it's oldest elements. The animal life lived long before man was created. #3. Evolution is a falsehood because life is patterned. The limit of carbon dating is less than six thousand years. Animals that are able to cross breed are either sterile, or revert back to original form proving a pattern. The same is true in plant life. #4. Adam and Eve were real people and all life has a beginning. If Evolution was true, than it would be a fact and not a theory. There are many different life forms, but none ever leave their basic form. Theistic Evolution is a contradiction to the word of God. Evolution is "Random Convergence" or "Spontaneous Generation" for which is not demonstrated in science. All of the past proofs are either falsehoods or pure speculation of an artist. God's name "Yahwah" means "Life Began."

You posted this in another thread... but since this thread seems to be more dedicated to your comments, let's continue this here.

1) Saying that elements of the earth are approx. 14 billion years old is a bit misleading. Current calculations put the age of the universe at about 13.7 billion years... so, technically, saying "elements" of the earth are that old is correct... but by the same token (and keeping in mind the law of conservation of matter), you might as well say that elements of human beings are 13.7 billion years old. Factually true, but ultimately misleading.

2) "Patterns" in life do not disprove evolution.

3) Carbon dating is considered accurate up to 60,000 years, not 6,000. Furthermore, Carbon dating is not the only radiometric dating method used. Potassium-Argon dating is used for samples that are more than 100,000 years old. Uranium-Lead dating is used for samples ranging from 1 million years old to over 4.5 billion years old.

4) Saying that Evolution is false just because it is a theory is rediculous. The be accurate, the Theory of Evolution is a theory that has come to be commonly-accepted as fact. Same thing with the Theory of Gravity. If you are going to say anything is untrue just because it is a theory, you might as well say gravity is untrue because it is a theory.

5) Evolution has nothing to do with "cross-breeding".

6) Evolution is not random or spontaneous. Mutations and variances are random, but it is important to recognize the difference between genetic mutation and variance, and the process of evolution.

I'm not going to comment on the points you made about scripture or biblical beliefs, as it is not my position to say if you are right or wrong there. I am only correcting your misrepresentations regarding scientific concepts.

 

[Mallon]

2) "Patterns" in life do not disprove evolution.

Indeed. It is the nested hierarchy pattern exhibited by life that is perhaps the best evidence FOR evolution!

 

[Van]

In a nutshell, theistic evolution proclaims "God did it" either naturally, using processes over time, or supernaturally, creation ex nilo. Now within that broad outline, individuals pick and choose what happened supernaturally and what happened via a natural process superintended by God.

One easy question you could ask yourself is this, when God created man in the image of God, is the creation our human spirit or our physical body. Since animals, such as primates, have a physical body, and God is spirit, logical necessity seems to me to say it was our human spirit. But opinions vary within the TE community. As I said, it is a very board view with many differing views within it.

The creation days could represent epochs of time or they might refer to parts of a 24 hour day. Both usages are found in scripture. I think they were intended to represent days figuratively to the intended audience, part of the idea that life happens over time, then we enter God's rest. More may have been intended, but since efforts to put more meat on those bones has resulted in a split within the body of Christ, I think maybe we should back up and cling to what we believe in common, which is God did it.

 

[Assyrian]

What is the proper way to deal with an argument that consist solely of hearsay, is ill-informed, and plain doesn't make any sense? Honest question.

Explain it to them. Assume the person is sincere and open hearted unless shown otherwise. A lot of decent people have been fed a lot of lies and propaganda by people who don't understand evolution either.

 

[Molal]

Explain it to them. Assume the person is sincere and open hearted unless shown otherwise. A lot of decent people have been fed a lot of lies and propaganda by people who don't understand evolution either.

I agree, we should, at least, do it for the lurkers.

 

[gluadys]

What is the proper way to deal with an argument that consist solely of hearsay, is ill-informed, and plain doesn't make any sense? Honest question.

Indeed, I was tempted to call Poe's law on this one, but I have seen the poster's name before and don't think he is masquerading.

 

[GuardianShua]

Obviously that is a matter of opinion. I expect you understand neither evolution, nor the theology of those who accept evolution.




This is a day-age interpretation a la Hugh Ross. Many TEs do not agree with it. That an individual named Adam lived at all is not a necessary interpretation of scripture. And it is only on the basis that a literal reading is historical that we can state any individual lived for hundreds of years. The literal reading need not be historical.



Actually that is according to the mathematics of big bang theory which is supported by observational evidence. You may be thinking of the age of distant galaxies.







No, it is the half-life of C14 that is less than 6,000 years. But we can measure several half-lives. The limit of carbon dating is closer to 60,000 years.



Usually, but there are also a number of instances of new species occurring through hybridization.




If one insists that a literal reading of scripture is also historical. But not every literal reading is historical and we need not assume that the story of Adam and Eve refers to two historical individuals.





It is both. Evolution happens (that's the fact) and the theory explains how it happens.




Certainly all species are constrained by their former history.




Evolution is not spontaneous generation, for evolution requires that organisms have parents. I don't understand the term "random convergence".

In order for Evolution to be true, and for all of the different species to come about at the (nearly) same time. There would have to be some kind of merging of dissimilar species. For which is not demonstrated and why the links are missing. And again I say, that in the rock strata while one group died out, another suddenly came about. That is not possible if Evolution is true. And also as for these days; we are losing species, not gaining. If Evolution is true, then how come the prehistoric life that is alive now did not continue to evolve?

 

[Molal]

In order for Evolution to be true, and for all of the different species to come about at the (nearly) same time. There would have to be some kind of merging of dissimilar species. For which is not demonstrated and why the links are missing. And again I say, that in the rock strata while one group died out, another suddenly came about. That is not possible if Evolution is true. And also as for these days; we are losing species, not gaining. If Evolution is true, then how come the prehistoric life that is alive now did not continue to evolve?

Evidence?

Different species come about at all the same time? Can you cite a source of that information?

Species died out and another suddenly appear in rock? Can you provide more information on this, with a citation? Can you explain what you know about geology, depositional rates, facies analysis, etc?

There are observed, documented cases of speciation. citation.

Prehistoric life today fills and environmental niche whereby they are not required to evolve.

You really need to read this website (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/). It will help answer your questions.

 

[Mallon]

It's that big, colourful font rule all over again! Someone should give it a name.

 

[GuardianShua]

It's that big, colourful font rule all over again! Someone should give it a name.

The big blue font is easy to find and read.