Theistic evolution

[OldWiseGuy]

I think you did about as good a job as Richard Dawkins would explaining the meaning of Christmas ...

I knew someone would find that humorous.

owg

 

[Mallon]

This is exactly what happens. Godidit. Evolution holds that the creature can change itself using it own resources. My whole arguement is for changes (if any) at the hand of God. Apart from God there isn't any. What TE's have done is borrow the scientific model of change, Evolution, and applied it to God's creation.

owg

With respect, owg, you really don't understand evolution. The individual creature itself does not change. The population to which it belongs changes over time.
Regardless, I appreciate your argument, but I don't think it is with merit. We all acknowledge that nothing happens apart from God, but that does not mean proximate causes -- which science seeks to explain -- are not also at work. You yourself rely on proximate causation every day, when you turn your car key and expect the engine to start, for example. That doesn't mean God is not involved, even though the owner's manual doesn't make explicit reference to Him. Nor does is mean He isn't involved.
I would really recommend you watch this series of short videos for a better understanding of the integration of science and Christian faith:
http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament....ation/science-and-christian-education-page-1/

 

[gluadys]

My point is that so called natural processes aren't natural at all but supernatural and are purposefully guided by God.

I suppose it is a matter of perspective. Augustine made exactly the opposite conclusion---that all supernatural processes are really natural.

We admit that what is contrary to the ordinary course of human experience is commonly spoken of as contrary to nature. .... But God, the Author and Creator of all natures does nothing contrary to nature; for what is done by Him who appoints all natural order and measure and proportion must be natural in every case.​

~~Reply to Faustus the Manichean 26.3

Although you and Augustine seem to be poles apart, I think you are actually agreeing with each other. You call all God's doings supernatural--even those we ordinarily call natural; and Augustine calls all God's doings natural--even those we ordinarily call supernatural.

Where you agree, it seems to me, is that in God a distinction of natural and supernatural is unwarranted. Whether natural or supernatural, it is all God's creative and purposeful work.

That is something any TE would agree with.

 

[gluadys]

This is exactly what happens. Godidit. Evolution holds that the creature can change itself using it own resources.

But the creature's resources come from God. And its use of those resources is guided by God. It is empowered by God to adapt, just as an individual is empowered by God to mature. I don't see the problem here.

 

[Chesterton]

I suppose it is a matter of perspective. Augustine made exactly the opposite conclusion---that all supernatural processes are really natural.

We admit that what is contrary to the ordinary course of human experience is commonly spoken of as contrary to nature. .... But God, the Author and Creator of all natures does nothing contrary to nature; for what is done by Him who appoints all natural order and measure and proportion must be natural in every case.
​

~~Reply to Faustus the Manichean 26.3

Although you and Augustine seem to be poles apart, I think you are actually agreeing with each other. You call all God's doings supernatural--even those we ordinarily call natural; and Augustine calls all God's doings natural--even those we ordinarily call supernatural.

Where you agree, it seems to me, is that in God a distinction of natural and supernatural is unwarranted. Whether natural or supernatural, it is all God's creative and purposeful work.

That is something any TE would agree with.

I find the words "natural" and "supernatural" so tricky for the Christian. The atheist considers God supernatural, but if God is self-existant and eternal, then really He is the most, or only, "natural" thing there is. Conversely, since the universe is a creation (in an eternal sense; an artifice), every cloud and every blade of grass you see is "supernatural". Depending on what you're trying to say, the words are almost interchangeable.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But the creature's resources come from God. And its use of those resources is guided by God. It is empowered by God to adapt, just as an individual is empowered by God to mature. I don't see the problem here.

Well, maybe we are all skinning the same cat (with apologies to the cat).

owg

 

[shernren]

 

[crawfish]

My point is that so called natural processes aren't natural at all but supernatural and are purposefully guided by God.

I think there is a general misunderstanding of "natural". All it means is predictable and testable - something we can depend on. God may be pulling us down towards the center of the earth every second of every day, but we can count on the fact that we aren't going to be spontaneously flung into space.

Supernatural, on the other hand, is where God breaks those predictable rules and does something out of the ordinary. You can't test for them. You can't repeat them. They are delivered at God's discretion, through God's grace.

The actual nature of "natural", therefore, is irrelevant.

 

[Theo Lojan]

"Theistic evloution" is an oxymoron.

Theistic means having to do with God.
Evolution is change over time.

God can't create change over time? I always thought he was omnipotent.

 

[peace4ever]

"Theistic evloution" is an oxymoron.

 

[peace4ever]

The population to which it belongs changes over time.

Sorry, but no population can do what no member of that population can do. For example, if no male and female giraffe can breed humans descendants, then populations of giraffes certainly can't breed human descendants!

So the first step evolutionists need to take is describe the common ancestor so we know what kind of descendants his species is capable of producing in the first place before they can even continue with their story. Then the next step is to show that it's even possible for the male and female of that species to breed humans descendants before they can even talk about populations.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Sorry, but no population can do what no member of that population can do. For example, if no male and female giraffe can breed humans descendants, then populations of giraffes certainly can't breed human descendants!

So the first step evolutionists need to take is describe the common ancestor so we know what kind of descendants his species is capable of producing in the first place before they can even continue with their story. Then the next step is to show that it's even possible for the male and female of that species to breed humans descendants before they can even talk about populations.

Not. Linear.

Nested. Tree. Model.

 

[gluadys]

Sorry, but no population can do what no member of that population can do. For example, if no male and female giraffe can breed humans descendants, then populations of giraffes certainly can't breed human descendants!

So the first step evolutionists need to take is describe the common ancestor so we know what kind of descendants his species is capable of producing in the first place before they can even continue with their story. Then the next step is to show that it's even possible for the male and female of that species to breed humans descendants before they can even talk about populations.

Question 1 Do you know the difference between breeding hybrids and cladistic speciation? You say a lot about who can't breed what, but most evolutionary change involves speciation not hybridization. So can you describe what speciation is and how it happens? Shouldn't be too difficult. Scientists regularly observe speciation in their labs.

Question 2 Have you ever heard of asexual reproduction? It's very common actually. With asexual reproduction you don't need to worry about what males and females can do. Along the same line have you ever heard about hermaphroditic species? Individuals in these species are both male and female.

 

[Mallon]

Question 1 Do you know the difference between breeding hybrids and cladistic speciation? You say a lot about who can't breed what, but most evolutionary change involves speciation not hybridization. So can you describe what speciation is and how it happens? Shouldn't be too difficult. Scientists regularly observe speciation in their labs.

Question 2 Have you ever heard of asexual reproduction? It's very common actually. With asexual reproduction you don't need to worry about what males and females can do. Along the same line have you ever heard about hermaphroditic species? Individuals in these species are both male and female.

Do you seriously expect a more informed response beyond "birds and bees "???

 

[peace4ever]

Not. Linear.

Nested. Tree. Model.

That says nothing. So please explain how whole populations can do what not even one couple in that population can do? Or is the story of evolution not only based on events that don't happen in reality and that no one in history can verify but also on contradictions as well? It appears so.

 

[peace4ever]

Question 1 Do you know the difference between breeding hybrids and cladistic speciation? You say a lot about who can't breed what, but most evolutionary change involves speciation not hybridization. So can you describe what speciation is and how it happens? Shouldn't be too difficult. Scientists regularly observe speciation in their labs.

Question 2 Have you ever heard of asexual reproduction? It's very common actually. With asexual reproduction you don't need to worry about what males and females can do. Along the same line have you ever heard about hermaphroditic species? Individuals in these species are both male and female.

Sorry but hybrids are almost always infertile or sterile since they depend on the exact parents to breed them. Thus they can't breed any offspring, much less large populations of their own!

So you're free to call yourself an animal if you like. But that can never make apes, monkeys, lizards, elephants, giraffes, or fictitious animals capable of breeding with humans or exchanging genes with humans. So an animal can never pass along his genes to humans nor can his genes change into humans because the human imagination wants them to. So calling a human an animal is a waste of time.

 

[gluadys]

Sorry but hybrids are almost always infertile or sterile since they depend on the exact parents to breed them. Thus they can't breed any offspring, much less large populations of their own!

Depends on the hybrid. If you cross a Persian cat with a Siamese cat, there is no problem with fertility.

But I didn't ask about fertility. I asked if you knew the difference between breeding hybrids and speciation? You did not describe speciation. Can you?

 

[An Arch Angel]

Sorry but hybrids are almost always infertile or sterile since they depend on the exact parents to breed them. Thus they can't breed any offspring, much less large populations of their own!

So you're free to call yourself an animal if you like. But that can never make apes, monkeys, lizards, elephants, giraffes, or fictitious animals capable of breeding with humans or exchanging genes with humans. So an animal can never pass along his genes to humans nor can his genes change into humans because the human imagination wants them to. So calling a human an animal is a waste of time.

Humans are animals. They are not above or below the rest of life on this planet. Take away microbes and we die.

We are mamals. It does not mean we have to act like animals though, we are capable of great things rooted in love.

 

[MattLangley]

I don't know if acting like animals is such a bad things, I have observed animals acting much better than humans in a lot of cases.

 

[Son of My right hand]

That says nothing. So please explain how whole populations can do what not even one couple in that population can do? Or is the story of evolution not only based on events that don't happen in reality and that no one in history can verify but also on contradictions as well? It appears so.

I believe this comes with a basic understanding of adaptations. Adaptations are when a species becomes better suited to its habitat. For example: Europeans spread disease to Native Americans. Ninety percent of the Native population is wiped out almost immediately, but the immune system of the other ten percent deals with the foreign disease and creates an immunity that is passed down through their genes. It's really quite simple, and it explains a great deal about regional genetic characteristics (such skin color, hair colors, etc.)

Many blessings

Oh and I'm pulling these percentages out of the air as an example only. Less than ten percent lived through European occupation.