Three powerful challenges to theistic evolutionists

[Philis]

I wouldn't know, they never discuss it.

I've heard them say several times to you that they accept that God made everything.

Or simply understand that to worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship Christ as Creator.

It seems to me that everybody here does that already.

All Christians are creationists, that much should be understood.

If you are using the word "creationist" more loosley then I agree with you.

Just as the YEC should have no problem with evolution as properly defined scientifically no TE should have a problem with creationism as properly defined doctrinally.

I think the issue becomes, what is the "proper" doctrine? It has been debated since long before Darwin. When speaking of the theology of creation it's not a creation/evolution issue which is what you keep trying to bring it back to.

Now it's a clutch phrase that does terrible violence to the essential doctrine, not just any doctrine, the first line of the Nicene Creed, Hebrews and John 1. Darwinism know no bounds, I don't think you fully realize how dangerous this philosophy is to Christian theism.

I don't know of any Darwinian philosophy. I'm not applying any such thing to my understanding of the creation account.

In the beginning God created is not an ANE cultural meme, it's a foundational doctrine of Christian theism. When you understand that the rest will be much easier to understand.

Again, it seems to me that everybody here accepts that God created everything. Why do you keep repeating that?

 

[Assyrian]

What makes you think I missed that part of the verse? Don't TEs also believe that God made the world?

I wouldn't know, they never discuss it.

You have got to be kidding Mark, all the times we discussed the creation with you and you claim we never discuss it? I hope you are joking because the alternatives are that you are being dishonest or possibly just plain delusional.

Here is gluadys discussing creation with you and telling you God created all things

Then that is what you should say. It is not a rejection of creation to reject the special creation of each species a la William Paley.

Scripture asserts that God created all things, and I believe that. But I don't find in scripture any unambiguous testimony that each thing was created in a separate miracle.

I discuss God creating all things here and Christ's role in creating the world. Yours is the next post in the thread.

The NT speaks of everything being created through Christ. Col 1:16 all things were created through him and for him. Heb 1:2 through whom also he created the world. Does that mean God the Father stood back and let the God the Son do everything, or does it mean the fullness of the Godhead was in Christ as he created everything actively creating it through him?

There is another picture of the creation in Proverb 8 which show both God and the one called wisdom working together
Prov 8:27 When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28 when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep,
29 when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
30 then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always.

Here is a whole thread on creation that you took part in:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5277279-7/

We had a long discussion of the meaning of create here: http://www.christianforums.com/t5003674-13/#post41421391

 

[samaus12345]

Ah k yah the combinations from Adam and Eve not including the variation in genes on the chromosomes is essentially *infinite* then. Glaudys so even though you seem to know genetics you still believe chimpanzee---> Man in Gods image. Why? Do you believe it too sfs? In literatures on 'neofunctionaliztion' they assign it to the unobserved past, so its a faith based belief, why have faith in that when you can have faith in Genesis?

 

[sfs]

Ah k yah the combinations from Adam and Eve not including the variation in genes on the chromosomes is essentially *infinite* then.

Sure. But the patterns of genetic variation you see in a population that's recently descended from a single couple are still very different from those seen in a population that's been large for a long time. For example, if we came from Adam and Eve in the last few thousand years, every genetic variant would either be extremely rare (being a new mutation), or somewhere around 25%, 50% or 75% in frequency. On the other hand, variant frequencies in a population that's been roughly constant in size for a long time drop off as 1/f(1-f). Would you care to guess what human variant frequencies look like? There are several other aspects of human genetics that provide strong evidence of a largish population size for at least hundreds of thousands of years.

Glaudys so even though you seem to know genetics you still believe chimpanzee---> Man in Gods image. Why? Do you believe it too sfs?

Absolutely (except that humans aren't descended from chimpanzees -- we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees). I accept it because common ancestry explains enormous amounts of genetic data and has predicted many features of that data. Special creation of humans explains nothing. There's really no contest scientifically speaking.

In literatures on 'neofunctionaliztion' they assign it to the unobserved past, so its a faith based belief, why have faith in that when you can have faith in Genesis?

The vast majority of all mutations and all evolution occurred in the unobserved past, or is going on unobserved right now; we constantly have to make inferences about events we haven't observed directly. Scientists accept neofunctionalization because it is consistent with known biological processes and explains the details seen in many genes, e.g. genes that do slightly different things that look exactly like one is a copy of the other, with only one being seen in related species. Stuff like that.

The early chapters of Genesis, on the other hand, looks exactly like a deliberate rewriting of existing ancient Near Eastern cosmology, written to make specific theological points. Taken as a scientific account, it predicts things that are wildly inconsistent with what's actually observed.

 

[gluadys]

. Glaudys so even though you seem to know genetics you still believe chimpanzee---> Man in Gods image. Why? Do you believe it too sfs? In literatures on 'neofunctionaliztion' they assign it to the unobserved past, so its a faith based belief, why have faith in that when you can have faith in Genesis?

What sfs said. He knows the details much better than I do.

As for unobserved past, any forensic study of any kind depends on expecting that if A->B consistently in the present, it probably did so in the past as well. The onus is on those who claim the event (present or past) is a special case to show why. How does it differ from the norm? What evidence do we have that it does?

Also, I would take exception to the idea that humanity as God's image is a product of evolution. Human physique, human social behaviour, human intellectual capacity--those are matters of evolution. But it is God who declares humanity to be his image in the temple of creation.

 

[samaus12345]

They are atheistic tenents and 'inferences'. Genesis predicts E V E R Y T H I N G. Fall of man predicts decay,suffering, disease, mutations. Created 'kinds' predicts limits to speciation. Noahs flood predicts speciation (~4,500 years ago).How does non living matter to prokaryote MYTH predict speciation? Tower of Babel-confusion of languages, speciation event of man kind.

John Sanford on Down - Not Up 2-4-2012 (at Loma Linda University) - YouTube

He came up with a God BELIEVING model for mutations.

 

[sfs]

They are atheistic tenents and 'inferences'.

Nonsense. How does anything that's been said here depend on atheism?

Genesis predicts E V E R Y T H I N G. Fall of man predicts decay,suffering, disease, mutations.

Disease, decay and suffering were all known long before Genesis, so they're hardly predictions. Genesis says nothing about mutations that I can recall. What allele frequency spectrum does Genesis predict? How correlated should neighboring alleles be, if Genesis is true? What does Genesis predict about the number of transitions vs transversions among variants? What does it predict about the frequencies of alleles that are the same as chimpanzee sequence, compared to those that differ?

Created 'kinds' predicts limits to speciation. Noahs flood predicts speciation (~4,500 years ago).

What limits? How much speciation? What does the Flood predict about the patterns of genetic variation in all of the animals that came off the Ark?

How does non living matter to prokaryote MYTH predict speciation?

The theory of common descent depends on speciation, so of course it predicts it.

Tower of Babel-confusion of languages, speciation event of man kind.

How does the Tower of Babel explain the observed relationships among languages?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHsu94HQrL0
He came up with a God BELIEVING model for mutations.

But unfortunately he's not very good at population genetics. (Not that I'm about to watch close to two hours of lecture. I've read enough of his book and corresponded with him enough to know what his ideas are.)

 

[Philis]

speciation event of man kind.

That sounds like a dangerous way to word it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Absolutely (except that humans aren't descended from chimpanzees -- we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees). I accept it because common ancestry explains enormous amounts of genetic data and has predicted many features of that data. Special creation of humans explains nothing. There's really no contest scientifically speaking.

Yea, random mutations explain everything while God Creating life on this planet explains nothing. Read the New Testament much Steve? Romans 5 or I Corinthians 15 maybe? I'm still wondering how you figure the human brain could triple in size starting about 2 mya when science has never observed a beneficial effect from a mutation in a brain related gene.

But yea, that explains everything, no problem.

The vast majority of all mutations and all evolution occurred in the unobserved past, or is going on unobserved right now; we constantly have to make inferences about events we haven't observed directly.

Oh, so inferences of requisite mutations with beneficial effects is fine, just can't infer a Creator or an Intelligent Designer. That sounds fair.

The early chapters of Genesis, on the other hand, looks exactly like a deliberate rewriting of existing ancient Near Eastern cosmology, written to make specific theological points. Taken as a scientific account, it predicts things that are wildly inconsistent with what's actually observed.

No it doesn't:

(Enuma Elish)
When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
Naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter,
(And) Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters commingling as a single body;
No reed hut had been matted, no marsh land had appeared,
When no gods whatever had been brought into being,
Uncalled by name, their destinies undetermined-
Then it was that the gods were formed within them.​

So your telling us that the pagan gods of Babylon and the revelation made to Moses on Sinai are the same thing? Pagan elementals giving rise to the gods is not the Hebrew covenant relationship with God who continues to show himself mighty to believers to this day.

Are you really going to lump Holy Scripture in with pagan mythology Steve? Seriously, did you give that any thought whatsoever?

 

[sfs]

Yea, random mutations explain everything while God Creating life on this planet explains nothing.

No, they both explain the same things, as you have been told many times.

Read the New Testament much Steve?

Yes, quite often. In fact, I'm very slowly translating the whole thing from Greek.

Romans 5 or I Corinthians 15 maybe?

Sure.

I'm still wondering how you figure the human brain could triple in size starting about 2 mya when science has never observed a beneficial effect from a mutation in a brain related gene.

Mutations and natural selection, of course. I'm still wondering why you figure God directly created humans' large brains but took two million years to do it. (And we have seen good evidence for positive selection at a specific brain-related gene, by the way.)

Oh, so inferences of requisite mutations with beneficial effects is fine, just can't infer a Creator or an Intelligent Designer. That sounds fair.

When you can come up with a scientific test for a creator or an intelligent designer, you're free to apply it. Until then, you're stuck with science.

So your telling us that the pagan gods of Babylon and the revelation made to Moses on Sinai are the same thing?

No, if I had meant to say that, I would have.

Pagan elementals giving rise to the gods is not the Hebrew covenant relationship with God who continues to show himself mighty to believers to this day.

Exactly. That's the whole point (or rather, one of the points) of Genesis. So stop trying to read it as telling us how are brains got to be the size they are. Read it for what the authors were trying to say.

Are you really going to lump Holy Scripture in with pagan mythology Steve? Seriously, did you give that any thought whatsoever?

"Lump" it in with pagan mythology? What on earth are you talking about? My point was that Genesis was written to oppose pagan mythology, and did so using the common understanding of the physical world in that culture. How you can twist that into lumping the two together I don't know. Have you ever read a book about Genesis that wasn't written by a fundamentalist?

 

[Martyrs44]

"Have you ever read a book about Genesis that wasn't written by a fundamentalist?"

Genesis was written by a fundamentalist...the greatest fundamentalist of all: Moses.

 

[Keachian]

"Have you ever read a book about Genesis that wasn't written by a fundamentalist?"

Genesis was written by a fundamentalist...the greatest fundamentalist of all: Moses.

Considering Moses was around about 3000 years before the rise of fundamentalism; No

 

[mark kennedy]

No, they both explain the same things, as you have been told many times.

That's not what you said, you said mutations explain everything and special creation explains nothing, or words to that effect.

Yes, quite often. In fact, I'm very slowly translating the whole thing from Greek.

How wonderful. Tell me does Adam mean Adam the man or something else in New Testament Greek? Studied a little myself, been a while since I actually declenched or conjugated anything though.

Mutations and natural selection, of course. I'm still wondering why you figure God directly created humans' large brains but took two million years to do it. (And we have seen good evidence for positive selection at a specific brain-related gene, by the way.)

There is direct evidence of profound differences between us and the chimpanzees. Mutations plus natural selection huh? I'm not real scientific in my orientation but doesn't natural selection need something to be beneficial in the first place.

When you can come up with a scientific test for a creator or an intelligent designer, you're free to apply it. Until then, you're stuck with science.

Why would I need a scientific test for an a priori, self evident fact? Moses certainly didn't.

No, if I had meant to say that, I would have.

So what cultural literature do you think Genesis was derived from?

Exactly. That's the whole point (or rather, one of the points) of Genesis. So stop trying to read it as telling us how are brains got to be the size they are. Read it for what the authors were trying to say.

Presently the literature does comparisons of chimpanzees and humans, noting deleterious effects of mutations in brain related genes. Still haven't found one that discussed the beneficial alleles in brain related genes that are even mildly adaptive. I'll keep trying though, I mean, the geneticists have only had a little over a hundred years to find one. Or do you have another explanation for the three-fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes, a molecular mechanism perhaps?

"Lump" it in with pagan mythology? What on earth are you talking about? My point was that Genesis was written to oppose pagan mythology, and did so using the common understanding of the physical world in that culture. How you can twist that into lumping the two together I don't know. Have you ever read a book about Genesis that wasn't written by a fundamentalist?

Moses must have been a fundamentalist, he wrote the creation week in a book of genealogically based historical narratives. We are left with but two choices here, Moses got his historical narrative from God at the base of Sinai or from one or several of the pagan cultures in the ancient near east. Let's see, that would be Egypt almost certainly since they spent some time there. So did Moses just adapt his story from the mythology of the Egyptians or did God tell him the story as a parable? Or maybe....this is going to sound really far out...maybe Moses thought of creation week as an actual historical 6 day period. I mean it makes sense since he describes it as six days, maybe he meant six days. That seems like a remote possibility doesn't it Steve, I mean a pretty good alternative to rejecting what the Genesis account explicitly states.

 

[samaus12345]

Sfs i used to be an electrician, why isnt ohms law mentioned in the bible? Why isnt voltage? Why isnt amps? Why isnt current? Wht isnt Tesla? Why isnt Ac/dc, yes i would be a I D I O T if i actual thought that

Tower of babel was 'speciation' of mankind in that people dispersed from that area, in only there language groups and certain alleles got fixed in those groups and so white skin/black skin different traits etc

How does the myth that a fish grew legs walked up onto the land predict speciation? Oh so a few thousand fish grew legs and walked up onto the land around the same time, each into a few hundred of different 'kind's ah k.

 

[sfs]

That's not what you said, you said mutations explain everything and special creation explains nothing, or words to that effect.

Yes, but that's not what you said. That God created each of us is fundamental to the Christian faith; that God created us without using natural mechanisms is not. Special creation does indeed explain nothing and, to the extent it makes any predictions, conflicts with what we observe. It didn't happen.

How wonderful. Tell me does Adam mean Adam the man or something else in New Testament Greek? Studied a little myself, been a while since I actually declenched or conjugated anything though.

Adam means Adam the figure in the Old Testament; it's usually used typologically.

There is direct evidence of profound differences between us and the chimpanzees. Mutations plus natural selection huh? I'm not real scientific in my orientation but doesn't natural selection need something to be beneficial in the first place.

There are profound differences between millions of species. There are also profound similarities. The patterns of the similarities are best explained by common descent, at least until someone comes up with a better explanation -- something creationists have signally failed to do to date. And yes, positive natural selection works on beneficial traits.

Why would I need a scientific test for an a priori, self evident fact? Moses certainly didn't.

You wouldn't need a scientific test for an a priori, self-evident fact. You do need a scientific test for the claims you're making, which are not self-evident. At least you do if you want to introduce them into science. (No, Moses didn't offer scientific tests, which helps explain why Moses made zero contribution to scientific knowledge.)

So what cultural literature do you think Genesis was derived from?

Genesis was written in an ancient Near Eastern culture, using an ancient Near Eastern language and an ancient Near Eastern understanding of the physical world.

Presently the literature does comparisons of chimpanzees and humans, noting deleterious effects of mutations in brain related genes. Still haven't found one that discussed the beneficial alleles in brain related genes that are even mildly adaptive.

FOXP2.

I'll keep trying though, I mean, the geneticists have only had a little over a hundred years to find one. Or do you have another explanation for the three-fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes, a molecular mechanism perhaps?

Still awaiting your proposed mechanism.

Moses must have been a fundamentalist, he wrote the creation week in a book of genealogically based historical narratives. We are left with but two choices here, Moses got his historical narrative from God at the base of Sinai or from one or several of the pagan cultures in the ancient near east. Let's see, that would be Egypt almost certainly since they spent some time there. So did Moses just adapt his story from the mythology of the Egyptians or did God tell him the story as a parable? Or maybe....this is going to sound really far out...maybe Moses thought of creation week as an actual historical 6 day period. I mean it makes sense since he describes it as six days, maybe he meant six days. That seems like a remote possibility doesn't it Steve, I mean a pretty good alternative to rejecting what the Genesis account explicitly states.

As I suggested, try reading an actual book by an actual scholar on the creation account in Genesis.

 

[Harry3142]

The reason for the Genesis creation stories (there are two of them) was not to give its readers a scientific explanation for how this planet came to exist. Instead, it was a rebuttal of a creation story which Moses' people had already learned during their stay in Egypt. Here is that story:

www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml

Note that in this earlier story the gods and goddesses of Egypt created other gods and goddesses for the vast majority of the time, with mankind and all the other animals being created on the last day as almost an afterthought. It also had a five day timeline for the important aspects of creation, namely, the giving birth to deities. On the last day (the sixth day) we and all the other species of animals were created under their story.

There were over 40 different gods and goddesses in the egyptian pantheon, with each of them having a physical form. The sun and moon were to be seen as deities. The stars were to be seen as the garment worn by Queen Nut. The other gods and goddesses had the forms of animals, or combinations of two or more animals. Even the atmosphere was to be seen as a deity.

Moses methodically stripped all of these physical features of their divine attributes. In Genesis 1:1-2:3, he identified the sun, moon, and stars as merely objects in the heavens which gave them light, the animals around them as nothing more than other species of animals, the earth itself as nothing more than a surface which they lived on, the atmosphere as nothing more than the space that exists between the earth and the heavens, and the heavens as nothing more than that space which is above the planet. The only deity that was still to be accepted as such was one Person, himself invisible and totally beyond having his likeness painted or chiseled.

The second creation story (Genesis 2:4-25) was again a rebuttal of the egyptian creation story. In theirs mankind was merely another animal 'dumped' by the gods onto this planet. Moses set mankind apart. Alone of all the animals he could talk with God, and have God talk with him. He was given the task of naming all the other species of animals, a symbol of authority over those animals in that time period. He was given a special region where he could live comfortably (The Garden of Eden). And even his helpmate was created in a special manner, setting her apart from all other creatures.

He was also given the ability to go against God's orders and instead substitute his own desires. It was his acting on these desires which cost him the innocence which all other species have yet today. Alone of all the animals mankind has the knowledge that some actions are evil and other actions are good. When he attained this knowledge no one really knows. The story of the temptation by the serpent in the Garden of Eden is pure plagiarism, and it was famous enough so that the people to whom Genesis was written would have immediately recognized it. In egyptian mythology it was Ra the sun god who engaged Sebau the serpent-fiend in battle, defeated him, and then hacked off his hind legs and bound his front legs together, forcing him to crawl on the ground. Moses simply took that story and used it as a means of identifying the time when mankind lost his innocence. You can find this attested to in the first paragraph under the heading 'A Hymn to Ra' in The Egyptian Book of the Dead ( about five paragraphs from the beginning of the book):

www.africa.upenn.edu/Books/Papyrus_Ani.html