Theistic Evolution

[Doveaman]

Ummmm...no I did not state this. You're using a strawman to make what I said sound ridiculous. Humans are apart of the family Hominidae or 'great apes'. It's a taxonimic family of primates that includes chimpanzees, gorillas and humans.

You are saying this, not me. You don't understand what I mean by common ancestor. Let me explain it this way. Did you come from your third cousin? No, but you share a common ancestor.

Was this "ancestor" an ape?

Likely.

So, according to you, humans likely evolved, or descended, from an ape ancestor.

Happy now?

Re-Creation theory?

Yes.

A google search turned up nothing for this idea.

It's new.

If you're just making this 're-creation' idea up

All theories are made up ideas.

please explain how you would test this hypothesis.

Please explain how you would test the hypothesis of humans and apes descending from a common ancestor?

We have the historical record of the resurrection and the observation of shared ERVs.

Conclusion: Humans and apes were recreated/resurrected from the same prehistoric species.

Resurrection with modification.

Ignoring for a moment that this hypothesis of yours is falsified by the hominid fossil record, i'd like an explanation for how you'd test this idea.

How is it falsified?

One is an actual scientific theory that explains the facts of evolution, the other is incomprehensible nonsense.

The scientific theory is a myopic explanation that completely ignores the biblical record of history. History is evidence. You cannot cherry-pick the evidence.

Re-Creation theory explains both the historical evidence and the observational evidence in a cohesive, consistent way, which makes it more reliable than your myopic scientific theory.

Please explain how you get the idea of resurrection with modification from this verse. Keep in mind that verse 39 of this chapter states "All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another". This is an example of you cherry picking text and twisting it into what you want it to mean. The bible is not a science book.

This is an example of you not understanding the text.

"All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another"

The text is introducing us to the fact that the resurrected body of man will not be the same body we have now.

The text goes on to say:

*So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.* -- (1 Cor 15:42-44).

The body we have now is a natural body, and at the resurrection the natural body will be modified into a spiritual body -- resurrection with modification.

It's not complicated.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

So, according to you, humans likely evolved, or descended, from an ape ancestor.

Happy now?

That is what the evidence tells us, yes.

Yes.
It's new.

Would you like to share a source? A google search turned up nothing and the way you described it is incomprehensible.

All theories are made up ideas.

Not in the scientific context. A scientific theory is a well substantiated hypothesis that explains some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method. It is repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Please explain how you would test the hypothesis of humans and apes descending from a common ancestor?

By looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion. The difference between the theory of evolution and your "re-creation" idea is that you are starting at the conclusion and working backwards. This is what is called pseudoscience. The exact opposite of how science is done.

As described before we can look at the shared ERVs. I will direct you to a thread that was started by a frequent poster, loudmouth, who also has scientific training. http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/

To avoid bias, I will go to experts Ken Miller (cell biologist) and Francis Collins (Geneticist),who are both devout Christians.

Francis Collins quote: "As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."

I will also recommend his book "The Language of God"

Ken Miller explains human chromosome #2

We have the historical record of the resurrection and the observation of shared ERVs.

Do we? Did you use the historical method to come to this conclusion? You'll need several independent and contemporary sources that agree with an event. So you'll need to put your bible away to attempt coming to this conclusion as it is the claim and not the evidence.

Here are six criticisms you'll be considering when attempting this exercise.
1. When was the source written and produced?
2. Where was it produced?
3. By whom was it produced? (Author)
4. What pre-existing material was it produced?
5. In what original form was it produced?
6. Whatis the evidence value of its contents

Here is a helpful link to use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Conclusion: Humans and apes were recreated/resurrected from the same prehistoric species.

You're starting at the conclusion and working backwards. This is not a reliable way to come to truth.

How is it falsified?

The evidence contradicts your idea of re-creation.
Since we're talking about human evolution, we'll stick to the hominid fossil record. This record shows the modification we'd expect if evolution were true. An example being seeing primitive ape like features along with human like features. Bipedal hips with human like legs and feet but also including smaller brains, primitive ape like chest, shoulders, arms and hands.

The evidence for genetics and DNA is also what we'd expect to see if evolution were true. This is just a sliver of the enormous mountain of evidence in favor of evolution. We could also look at comparative anatomy, geographical distribution of species, embryology, observations we've made in the lab and in nature,etc. If you care about what is true instead of what you want to be true, your idea of 're-creation' should immediately be thrown in the garbage.

The scientific theory is a myopic explanation that completely ignores the biblical record of history. History is evidence. You cannot cherry-pick the evidence.

The theory of evolution is one of the most robust theories in all of science. It has defeated every challenger it's had for 150 years and has embarrassed creationism and intelligent design in the court room several times (even with a conservative Christian judge). I'm sorry to say but your 're-creation' idea would get laughed out of court and immediately rejected by any reputable scientific journal.

Re-Creation theory explains both the historical evidence and the observational evidence in a cohesive, consistent way, which makes it more reliable than your myopic scientific theory.

It does not. As explained before, you are starting at your conclusion and working backwards. You're basically saying "This is the conclusion I want, now what facts can I twist in my favor?" You fail to properly use the historic method. You are also taking the conclusions reached by the scientific method in regards to evolution and twisting them to mean something else.

This is an example of you not understanding the text.

Nope. It's you twisting the text to say what you want it to say. Starting with what you want to be true and then using your confirmation bias and twisting of text to mean what you want it to mean is not an intellectual honest way to come to logical conclusions.

 

[Hoghead1]

Whenever one pits science against Scripture and argues that science has a myopic view , one should consider the Protestant Reformation and Calvin. The Reformation came at a time when science was beginning to challenge many geophysical accounts in the Bible, such as the flat earth, everything revolving around the earth, etc., were in question. Enter Calvin and the doctrine of accommodations. Calvin staunchly believed that Scripture was inerrant. He also believed that science was also correct. How did the two fit together? In his commentary on Genesis, specifically Gen. 1:6, Calvin emphasized that God did not write Scripture to teach us anything about astronomy, and, by implication, anything to be found in science. Rather, God often had to make accommodations to the crudeness of our intellects, talk "baby talk" to us. Because the biblical writers did not even begin to have a mind-set capable of understanding science, God had to talk baby talk to them, and the flat earth and so on was all part of this. If Calvin were alive today, he would say that evolution is correct and the Bible is correct. Because of the myopic mind-set of the writers, God had to grossly simplify matters and speak in terms of six days, etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

Calvin staunchly believed that Scripture was inerrant. He also believed that science was also correct. How did the two fit together? In his commentary on Genesis, specifically Gen. 1:6, Calvin emphasized that God did not write Scripture to teach us anything about astronomy, and, by implication, anything to be found in science.

Then why don't Internet scientists here believe him?

Why do they still say the Bible teaches geocentrism, if Calvin said otherwise?

If they don't believe Calvin, do you mind if I don't believe him either?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why don't Internet scientists here believe him?

Why do they still say the Bible teaches geocentrism, if Calvin said otherwise?

If they don't believe Calvin, do you mind if I don't believe him either?

What are "internet scientists"? You should not use your own terminology. And when it comes to what one believes in the Bible you will find all sorts of beliefs by Christians. There are not many, but there are still geocentrists out there

And the Bible does teach geocentrism. Or did you forget the trial of Galileo? The protestants at that time had similar beliefs to the Catholics. Galileo was persecuted because his beliefs were perceived to be against the teachings of the Bible at that time. Just as teacher that taught evolution was persecuted in the U.S., perhaps you have heard of the Scopes trial.

What is funny is that the beliefs of Christians continually change and then they will deny that they had those beliefs in the first place.

 

[Hoghead1]

Because, AV1611, many scientists and believers alike do not study theology as they should. If you wish to disagree with Calvin, that is your privilege. However, the burden then falls upon you to offer up a solid rebuttal.

 

[AV1611VET]

And the Bible does teach geocentrism.

Thank you for substantiating what I just said.

I take it you don't believe what Calvin said?

Or what Hoghead1 said Calvin said?

 

[Hoghead1]

It's really bad form in a theological discussion, AV1611, for one to resort to rebutting by citing biblical passages that denounce something back then as denouncing something now. This can easily backfire, and one could just as easily argue that you are the one presenting profane and vain babblings.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because, AV1611, many scientists and believers alike do not study theology as they should. If you wish to disagree with Calvin, that is your privilege. However, the burden then falls upon you to offer up a solid rebuttal.

I agree with Mr. Calvin 100%.

Trying to use the Bible as a science book is like trying to use Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

But if John Calvin, like these Internet scientists (or scientific methodists) here, believes the Bible taught geocentrism, he is wrong.

Notice that Internet scientists here will set aside general relativity for the sake of trying to make the Bible say something It doesn't say.

This substantiates what Peter said:

2 Peter 3:5a For this they willingly are ignorant of,

They willing set aside general relativity for the sake of trying to score a point against the word of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's really bad form in a theological discussion, AV1611, for one to resort to rebutting by citing biblical passages that denounce something back then as denouncing something now.

Why?

Doesn't the Bible say It is just as up-to-date today as It was when It was written?

You disagree?

Then what does this passage mean:

Hebrews 4:12a For the word of God is quick,

 

[Hoghead1]

The Bible, AV1511, does no say specifically whom today it is refereeing to. You could accuse anyone of profane and vain babblings. You don't like them? Simple, just say you guys represent profane and babblings that Scripture talks about. But see, two can play at that t game. I could say you are the false prophet that Scriptures talks about. And, of course, most fanatics use these kind of criticisms to denounce their opponents. See, what you need to do is not just accuse, and that is all you are doing, you need to make a case, and that is something you haven't done. See, you said something about general relativity and Peter. What exactly is your understanding of general relativity and why does this apply to Peter? Indeed, how could the biblical writers, I the first place, be tailing abut anything in modern science, when they had absolutely no knowledge of this subject?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for substantiating what I just said.

I take it you don't believe what Calvin said?

Or what Hoghead1 said Calvin said?

So I take it "internet scientists" means people that understand the Bible. Thank you for the reply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why?

Doesn't the Bible say It is just as up-to-date today as It was when It was written?

You disagree?

Then what does this passage mean:

Hebrews 4:12a For the word of God is quick,

It means that you take verses out of context. On its own it is meaningless.

Psalm 14:1 b "There is no God". Two can play at your game.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed, how could the biblical writers, I the first place, be tailing abut anything in modern science, when they had absolutely no knowledge of this subject?

But you do have the benefit of knowledge today, do you not?

In fact, God has given us scientists who have made discoveries that better our lives.

It's when people set aside their acquired knowledge ... (general relativity, in this case) ... to say the Bible teaches geocentrism.

The Bible does not teach geocentrism.

The Bible teaches that the sun and moon stood still for about a day.

That is exactly what happened from the perspective of the point of the observer.

We speak of sunrise and sunset, and those listening to us know exactly what we are saying.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

In fact, God has given us scientists who have made discoveries that better our lives.

Why not just give the discoveries right away? Is God lazy? Cell phones and internet could have spread the story of Jesus to the entire world in an instant. But nah, we'll wait till after 70AD to write any of that down. Seems inefficient and incompetent to me. I don't buy it.

The Bible teaches that the sun and moon stood still for about a day.

So the laws of physics were suspended? Why isn't this reported in any other culture at the time?
If the sun stood still for an entire day, that means that the earth's rotation would have to stop. This would slam you into the nearest wall at 500 MPH depending where you were on Earth. The Earth would also have to stop it's orbit around the sun, which would eject you into space or crush you into the earth faster than you can blink your eye, depending on what side of the planet you are on.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why not just give the discoveries right away?

Right.

That way, Egypt could have prevented the Israelites from leaving by threatening them laser-guided missiles.

And the conquest of Canaan ... no problem ... just nuke'em.

Some believe -- (as do I) -- that technology was advancing too fast, and that was one of the reasons for the tower of Babel incident.

Is God lazy?

No.

He knows what to do and when to do it.

Cell phones and internet could have spread the story of Jesus to the entire world in an instant.

What about towers and satellites?

Should God have put those up too?

But nah, we'll wait till after 70AD to write any of that down. Seems inefficient and incompetent to me. I don't buy it.

In this day of fast food, fast cars, and fast living, I can see why you would think that.

So the laws of physics were suspended?

Yes.

Why isn't this reported in any other culture at the time?

Who said it wasn't?

If the sun stood still for an entire day, that means that the earth's rotation would have to stop.

Or be stopped.

This would slam you into the nearest wall at 500 MPH depending where you were on Earth.

Well, thank Heaven, I wasn't!

The Earth would also have to stop it's orbit around the sun, which would eject you into space or crush you into the earth faster than you can blink your eye, depending on what side of the planet you are on.

Do you see how you're wording that?

You didn't say, "The earth would also have to be stopped".

You're leaving out a very important part of the story: God.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Right.

That way, Egypt could have prevented the Israelites from leaving by threatening them laser-guided missiles.

And the conquest of Canaan ... no problem ... just nuke'em.

I see you are going to deflect on the suggestion that God is incompetent in spreading his message via internet and cell phones by bringing up modern military technology. If your God is omnipotent, he should be able to stop his enemies from using nuclear warfare. According to you, he is perfectly capable of defying the laws of physics when stopping the sun in the sky but laser guided missiles are just too much for him. Okay then.

He knows what to do and when to do it.

Are you suggesting that having someone write down a story several decades after it allegedly happened is more efficient than modern day technology with the internet and cell phones? Come on AV, you know that is ridiculous nonsense.

Yes.

Evidence please. The bible is the claim.

Who said it wasn't?

Do you have any independent and contemporary accounts to suggest that it was? If not, the claim is easily dismissed and there is no good reason to believe it.

Or be stopped.

Which would have catastrophic consequences, which were explained in my previous post. You seem to think that the devastation of such an event can magically be avoided. Explain to me, without using circular reasoning why you believe this.

Do you see how you're wording that?

You didn't say, "The earth would also have to be stopped".

You're leaving out a very important part of the story: God.

Because I don't believe in magic. I'm explaining to you why the story is ridiculous.

 

[Doveaman]

That is what the evidence tells us, yes.

That is not what the evidence tells you, no. That is how you chose to interpret the evidence.

Fossils do not speak.

Would you like to share a source? A google search turned up nothing and the way you described it is incomprehensible.

Doveaman is the source.

Not in the scientific context. A scientific theory is a well substantiated hypothesis that explains some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method. It is repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Until it is falsified.

The fact that it can be falsified proves that it is only a made up idea and not a fact.

By looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion.

The problem is that your evidence is limited to the physics. There is more to reality than just physics. There are spiritual forces behind the physics.

*For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.* -- (Ephesians 6:12).

The difference between the theory of evolution and your "re-creation" idea is that you are starting at the conclusion and working backwards.

The difference between your idea of evolution and re-creation theory is that you fail to recognize all the facts of reality by limiting yourself to the physics. There is more to reality than just physics.

*We fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.* -- (2 Corinthians 4:18).

Do we?

Yes, we do.

Did you use the historical method to come to this conclusion?

Yes, my method, not yours.

Scientists speculate about past events using evidence from the present, but the ancient records are a description of past events that were lived and experienced by the ancients.

The ancients were there, and you were not.

That's the method.

You'll need several independent and contemporary sources that agree with an event.

The Bible was written by several independent and contemporary sources.

So you'll need to put your bible away to attempt coming to this conclusion as it is the claim and not the evidence.

Why would I do that? The biblical history is the evidence. You are asking me to put away the evidence. Putting away the evidence may work for evolution theory, but not for re-creation theory.

You're starting at the conclusion and working backwards. This is not a reliable way to come to truth.

Nope, I am starting at the truth and working my way forward.

*The entirety of Your word is truth* -- (Psalms 119:160).

God's word is the truth.

The evidence contradicts your idea of re-creation.
Since we're talking about human evolution, we'll stick to the hominid fossil record. This record shows the modification we'd expect if evolution were true. An example being seeing primitive ape like features along with human like features. Bipedal hips with human like legs and feet but also including smaller brains, primitive ape like chest, shoulders, arms and hands. The evidence for genetics and DNA is also what we'd expect to see if evolution were true.

These modification are also what we'd expect if re-creation were true.

So?

The theory of evolution is one of the most robust theories in all of science. It has defeated every challenger it's had for 150 years and has embarrassed creationism and intelligent design in the court room several times (even with a conservative Christian judge). I'm sorry to say but your 're-creation' idea would get laughed out of court and immediately rejected by any reputable scientific journal.

Re-creation theory is not intended for a scientific journal. Scientific journals are too myopic. Scientific journals are not about reality. They are about physics. Nothing more.

It does not.

Yes, it does.

As explained before, you are starting at your conclusion and working backwards.

As explained before, I am starting at the truth and working my way forward.

God's word is the truth.

You're basically saying "This is the conclusion I want, now what facts can I twist in my favor?"

Nope, I am saying "This is the truth, what conclusions can I draw from the truth."

God's word is the truth.

You fail to properly use the historic method.

I fail to use your myopic method.

You are also taking the conclusions reached by the scientific method in regards to evolution and twisting them to mean something else.

Nope, I am simply showing that the conclusions reached by the scientific method in regards to evolution can also be reached in regards to re-creation.

Different theories, same evidence.

Nope. It's you twisting the text to say what you want it to say. Starting with what you want to be true and then using your confirmation bias and twisting of text to mean what you want it to mean is not an intellectual honest way to come to logical conclusions.

The text is saying exactly what I said it is saying.

You obviously have very little experience in studying the text.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That is not what the evidence tells you, no. That is how you chose to interpret the evidence.

So you'd believe a DNA test to demonstrate who your father or mother is but when the human genome and chimpanzee genomes are 98% similar, we're interpreting it wrong? Sounds like you're scared of what the evidence tells you so you have to twist it into something that makes you feel good. That's not being honest with yourself.

Fossils do not speak.

Neither does a dead body in a murder trial but we can still figure out who the killer was.

Doveaman is the source.

Just as I suspected. You're twisting the evidence to mean something else. Some of us aren't comfortable with that level of cognitive dissonance. Some care about what is true, even if that truth isn't what we want it to be.

The fact that it can be falsified proves that it is only a made up idea and not a fact.

You really don't know how science works don't you. The fact that it could be falsified is what makes it so strong. If something is unfalsifiable, that claim is VERY weak. Let me give you an example.

There is a teapot that is orbiting around the moon. It is too small to be seen by modern telescopes. Is the fact that you can't prove this doesn't exist make my claim true? Do you see how an unfalsifiable claim is absolutely ridiculous?

The problem is that your evidence is limited to the physics.

Evolution is the foundation for modern BIOLOGY. Not physics.

. There are spiritual forces behind the physics.

LOL. Evidence please. Your bible doesn't count. For one, it's the claim. Secondly, the bible doesn't talk about physics. Well, unless you want to twist the text to say what you want, which you love to do.

Yes, we do.
Yes, my method, not yours.

The historical method is not my method. It's what historians use to determine if an event likely happened or not. Your method is nonsensical and unreliable as I will demonstrate to you in a moment.

The Bible was written by several independent and contemporary sources.

Contemporary- "belonging to or occurring in the present."

Using the Gospels as an example: They were written after 70 AD. This is DECADES after the alleged events. So it is neither contemporary nor independent and unbiased. You are demonstrably wrong on this. If you properly used the historic method, you would throw out the bible entirely when trying to demonstrate that these events happened.

Why would I do that? The biblical history is the evidence. You are asking me to put away the evidence.

The bible is the claim not the evidence. Once you realize this, your arguments will get better. If you use the bible and call it evidence, it's easily dismissed. Care to try again?

Nope, I am starting at the truth and working my way forward.

*The entirety of Your word is truth* -- (Psalms 119:160).

"It's true because it says it's true" is circular reasoning and logically fallacious. You need to improve your arguments. If you want to talk in circles in attempt to demonstrate your idea, i'm just going to roll my eyes and point out the problems with your argument.

Scientific journals are not about reality. They are about physics. Nothing more.

LOL. You really have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Do you think all scientific research only studies physics? You realize there are several different lines of study in science right? Biochemistry, geology, chemistry, biology, astrophysics, cosmology, anthropology, paleontology, zoology, ecology, oceanography. For whatever reason you think all science is about physics? That is terrifyingly ignorant.

Also, scientific journals are about reality. They are rigorously peer reviewed before they are published. Again, you demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about. Just jibberish.

As explained before, I am starting at the truth and working my way forward.

So basically the same thing. "Here is what I believe to be true, now let me seek out things that may confirm what I believe" This is how pseudoscience is done. If you use the strategy you describe, you are likely to be wrong many, many, many times. You are starting with the assumption you are right and using your bias to point out anything you think confirms your assumption. This is a dangerous way of thinking.

Nope, I am simply showing that the conclusions reached by the scientific method in regards to evolution can also be reached in regards to re-creation.

Really? You should write it in a paper and have it peer reviewed by experts. Are you willing to do this? If not, then you're just spouting nonsense and won't be taken seriously. Explain what tests you ran to come to what you say is the same conclusion. Also what falsifiable test did you run to make sure you weren't wrong? All of this must be demonstrated or your idea is rejected.

The text is saying exactly what I said it is saying.

How do you know? There are 40,000 different denominations of Christianity, many with different interpretations of the text. How are you 100% certain you have it right? What tests did you run? I think it's arrogant that you think you own a monopoly on the truth.

Be honest with me: Going into this discussion, in your mind, is there any possibility that you could be wrong? If not, then why are we having this discussion? If you could be wrong, what evidence would demonstrate that you are in error?

 

[[serious]]

Oh, neat.

Then explain, please, how some plants in the past existed as mature full-grown plants, never having seen the sun yet.

Magic.