Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
Assyrian wrote:Nor does astronomy explain aerodynamics. You are confusing biological evolution with abiogenesis.
Assyrian
Don't mean to pick on you Assyrian, but this comment sort of sums things up.
The original post has to do with creation, prophecy and the bible. It is not limited to evolution. The Christians on this thread are constantly being accused of not listening and not understanding evolution. Be that as it may, this thread does have room to discuss how the original life began. Therefore a staement such as the one below, albeit in the evolutionist mind is incorrect as you have so aptly pointed out
A billion years of undirected mistakes, as postulated by Macro-evolution, DOES NOT explain how dead chemicals could come alive spontaneously.
The question still begs: science "DOES NOT explain how dead chemicals could come alive spontaneously."
Come out fighting at the sound of th ebell.0 -
BrianCalgary wrote:A billion years of undirected mistakes, as postulated by Macro-evolution, DOES NOT explain how dead chemicals could come alive spontaneously.
The question still begs: science "DOES NOT explain how dead chemicals could come alive spontaneously."
Evolution does not explain how "dead" chemicals could come "alive" spontaneously
Science does explain how "dead" chemicals could come "alive" spontaneously
A few points -
Firstly, evolution only starts working after you have a simple self-replicating molecule replicating in a hostile environment. Evolution doesn't explain (nor does it attempt to) how that first self-replicating molecules forms. The theory of evolution is not concerned with the processes that create the first self-replicating molecule, only what happens when it starts replicating.
Secondly, science (more specifically chemisty) has shown how simple self-replicating molecules can form. Not only that but scientists have formed simple self-replicating molecules by replicating the conditions of early Earth. So how self-replicating molecules can form is well known.
Thirdly I relucantly used J C terms in the above sentences for consistency. They are in fact very misleading and loaded (probably on purpose), to make what he is talking about seem improbable
There was nothing "spontaneous" about the first self-replicating molecules. They didn't suddenly just happen. They happened due the conditions of the environment, and because of the on going chemical reactions taking place in the early seas on Earth.
And neither did these molecules just flip from suddenly being "dead" to suddenly being "alive".
To know what is alive and what isn't you first have to define what "alive" actually is. Is a simple self-replicating molecules "alive"? That is up to philisophers amoung you to decide, but it doesn't change the fact that a self-replicating molecule will develop, by evolution and given a billion years, into what we commonly know as "life".
Where exactly on that billion year evolutionary line the complex molecules become "life" depends on how you define "life" in the first place.0 -
Wicknight wrote:And neither did these molecules just flip from suddenly being "dead" to suddenly being "alive".
To know what is alive and what isn't you first have to define what "alive" actually is. Is a simple self-replicating molecules "alive"? That is up to philisophers amoung you to decide, but it doesn't change the fact that a self-replicating molecule will develop, by evolution and given a billion years, into what we commonly know as "life".
Where exactly on that billion year evolutionary line the complex molecules become "life" depends on how you define "life" in the first place.
The traditional question is "are viruses alive"? A lot of them are nothing more than RNA in a protein coat, and all they do is replicate.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Scofflaw said:
It certainly is. And I try not to dwell on these historical facts too much: the depravity of man would overwhelm with despair, if I did not know God is in control and will bring them all to their appointed end.Hmm. That is a particularly nasty little picture - I hope you don't think of this kind of thing regularly!
That would be in line with what the Bible reveals of the origin of the 'races'. From one perfect man and woman, all we see today has descended. They had the full set of genetic information that later generations gradually lost in specialization.In the timescale given from the Flood, it is not possible for micro-evolution to give rise to the variety within species that we see today from a single breeding pair, unless, as JC asserts, those on the Ark had entirely different genetic characteristics from modern representatives of their "kinds", somehow containing within themselves all the genetic material necessary to give rise to that variety.This would suggest that God planned the Flood long before he told Noah, or that antediluvian animals & plants were all of this genetically-maximal variety. If the latter, why have they changed, and when did they change? If the former, it is not recorded that way in the Bible.
It is the latter, and the Bible does not describe the scientific means, just the scientific fact, eg., that men are all 'one blood'. The reason why they were more genetically enabled than us is the loss of information as we grouped together in areas and nations. For example, white on white breeding eventuallly meant no coloured offspring; same with blacks. But in our first parents, and indeed the 3 pairs coming from the Ark, there was as yet no such specialization. The wide dispersal of humanity (and isolation of people groups) only happened after the Flood, in fact only after Babel.
You ignored what I gave on divorce, which is of the same order as the morality of slavery. In fact, slavery was shown not to be moral in itself, as what we consider slavery today was also banned in the OT for any but non-Israelites. The Jews were permitted to buy foreigners as slaves, but their brethren only as indentured servants, whose term ended anytime they bought themselves back and always in the Year of Jubilee (every 50th year).You may have missed my point, abstruse as it is. The dispensation that Paul is suggesting that Jesus gave relates entirely to ritual impurity, not to any other anathematised behaviours. Now, if you assume that those prohibitions in the OT that look like ritual purity are ritual purity, then you get to dispense with the prohibitions on mixed clothing and the like. On the other hand, you can't dispense with the Biblical rules on slavery. Alternatively, you can argue that the new dispensation covers all the OT prohibitions, in which case you dispense with slavery, but also with homosexuality.
That is correct. There is nothing on paedophilia or bestiality either. Only certain specifics are recorded. Adultery, fornication, theft, oppression, murder, in thought as well as deed are condemned. Homosexuality and bestiality are encompassed in the prohibitions of the moral Law Christ upheld. But He also appointed His disciples to teach to the people to obey everything I have commanded you.Matthew 28:20a. They clearly condemn homosexuality specifically. And all other forms of sexual depravity implicitedly by holding out married sex as the only option.Furthermore, there appears to be no record of Jesus' teachings on homosexuality, although we do have an unequivocal opinion on divorce.
Yes, that is true. But the moral decay of society allowed such oppression to exist and had not it been moderated in Britain by the revivals, then wickedness would have had its just reward.One more thing Marx was wrong about. I don't think you can actually lay the blame for the French Terror, or indeed the French Revolution, at the door of "moral decadence". It belongs fair and square in the arena of politics, and the political decadence of the ancien regime. At the time of the Revolution, French tenants were still little more than serfs, and ocupied a very similar position to Irish tenants, who also rose, famously, in 1798. Consider that French landlords still had private prisons at the time of the Revolution.
The English had revolted, of course, in the 1640's, and later in the 1600's there were other rebellions, such as Monmouth's in the south-west, which were bloodily repressed. That left England "inoculated" against such revolutionary responses to suffering, partly through the political adjustments which had occurred as a result of the Glorious Revolution.
BTW, I'm not suggesting Christians individually bear no responsibility for the wickedness of society, for their failure to do what they can to help the oppressed is a sin that brings judgement if it is not repented of. And that goes societies where Christians may make up a significant minority, yet the society pursues unrighteous policies. I am convinced the oppression of the American Indians and black slavery was an immediate cause of the American Civil War: God's judgement on wickedness. As you know, many Christians thought it more important to defend the liberties of their State than the liberties of the negroes. God is no respector of persons: all who sin will be punished for it.
All that God does is right.It's an extremely good incentive, but not a moral one - it's simply God's might making right.
I follow your reasoning on the 'man-made' nature of morality, but the logic ends there. If any are 'man-made' then it is not an absolute, and one man's morality is just as valid as another's. This is where only a theistic morality can possibily be absolute, binding on everyone.Most atheists will happily give reasons why someone should behave well. In general, they derive from "do as you would be done by", and appeal to the same basic moral sense that Christian morals do. I know you will disagree with that statement, but, being an atheist, I don't accept that God exists - therefore Christian morals are just as "man-made" as any I might suggest.
It may be a false theistic morality, and worth no more than any secular version. But if it is true, if there really is a God to whom we must answer, then His morality is binding on all.
Well put. I agree. But if the Christian premise is right, that God exists and requires certain behaviour of us, then it is perfectly logical to devote oneself to that even if it causes us trouble or offends friends who want us to behave like them. However, if the premise of atheism is true, then there is no reason for me to behave other than what outcome I want. There is no right or wrong other than the standard I by faith set up for myself. It might be love and compassion for all; it might be hedonism; it might be self-sacrifical revolutionary socialism, etc. You, the atheist, can only say what is moral by your standards, not for anyone else.I would put it to you, therefore, that accepting Christian morality requires a step of faith - the acceptance of God, through Christ. Atheist morals also involve a step of faith - the belief that it is wrong to do wrong to others, for which sound reasons can be given, even through self-interest. One is a step of faith, the other is a step of faith. You prefer one, I prefer the other. Our putative hoodie can choose either, and may choose neither.
Taken throughout the world, that is correct. I'm speaking of British society today, focussing on feral youth. Generally, the pubbers and clubbers right across the age groups do not believe in a supernatural being to whom they must give account. That characterises the hoodies.Except that most people are not atheists, in any sense that I would, as an atheist, accept. That they are not Christians in any sense that you would accept does not make them atheists. If you ask people, the majority in the West will say "Christian" - and that may not be your particular sect, but I'm afraid it certainly doesn't make them atheists.0 -
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw said:
I wouldn't want to argue against it. But remember, if it mandates war for a particular purpose, one cannot just make that a general principle. For example, if it mandates the nation of Israel under the Law of Moses to exterminate the Amalekites, that did not give them the right to do so to just any nation; nor to any nation today to act likewise.If you believe that the Bible condones war for a particular purpose, then you automatically condone war for that purpose. If it suggests killing for a particular transgression, what argument do you have against it?
That is true - but it just means we have to be careful not to violate the general principles of the Word when we seek to understand what it teaches about specifics.In many places, of course, the Bible is open to interpretation, so you have a little bit of wriggle-room to exercise your own sense of morality, atrophied though it is likely to be!0 -
wolfsbane wrote:But atheism can offer no reason why we should not oppress one another
Neither can the theory of evolution, a resturaunt menu or Song of Songs for that matter.
None of these contain moral guidance, don't get me wrong I think God holds the authority over what is good and evil and only through him can you grasp the tiniest bit, however to ignore the fact that a person without God can see why oppressing people is bad will allow people to ignore you.
God has inbuilt in us his law, he designed the motivation in the cells in your body to cooperate just as much as he designed the motivation to maintain ourselves through the same cooperation.0 -
Assyrian said;
Yes, He did. It is His enemy because it harms His people. His people however were sinners, and deserving of death. But God sent not only punishment to them, but salvation also. That salvation results in the overcoming of every foe, even that which God sent to chastise them. Think of your namesakes: Isaiah 10:5 “ Woe to Assyria, the rod of My angerYou seem to keep missing the point that Paul describes death as the enemy of God. Did God create something so evil, it was his enemy, the last enemy he destroys?
And the staff in whose hand is My indignation.
6 I will send him against an ungodly nation,
And against the people of My wrath
I will give him charge,
To seize the spoil, to take the prey,
And to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
They were sent by God to chastise the sinful nation; yet they too would be destroyed when Israel was delivered.
Enoch never died. How is he an example of death before the Fall?So Enoch is still wandering around then?
If the return to the dust was already true for perfect Adam, why bring it up now, in revealing the curse?No the reason for his death is given in the verse. 'For out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.' Adam would die because because he was made of 'dust' in the first place. Then the only thing that could have stopped his natural body growing old and dying, the tree of life, was put out of his reach.
Paul is speaking of Adam's fallen state, not his pre-sinnership condition. Had he not sinned, no last Adam (Christ) would have been needed.This is exactly how Paul interprets our, and Adam's, mortality.
Man was created like us, flesh and blood, perishable. The reason he was perishable, not imperishable, is because he was from the earth, a man of dust. Adam was mortal because God made him from dust, from the earth.
According to this logic, we cannot give any genealogy for Seth and Adam! One was born naturally, one directly from God. In the real world, genealogies encompass whatever is actual: natural, adoption, whatever. Christ being both God and man, His genealogy encompassed both.It is a genealogy, yet you have to talk a completely different meaning for 'son of God' than you do for 'son of Seth'. One refers to literal biological parenthood, the other takes 'son of' in anything but the normal sense. Of course if you want to say Adam was the son of God the same way Jesus was, you run into even deeper problems with a four person Trinity.
And, No, Christ was not made from the dust, nor was Adam a pre-existent Son.
Common sense tells one that the only point in dispute with the Jews was the actual fatherhood of Christ, not the lineage as such. Joseph was His father, as far as the Jews were concerned. Luke wants us to know that that was not the case. Or do TEs also believe Joseph was His father, since science proves a virgin conception of a male is impossible?The 'as was supposed' is attached to the only verb in the whole genealogy 'being'. The whole genealogy, son of...of...of...of is given as Jesus genealogy by that verb, except it is his 'supposed' genealogy.
Yet these sites are published by scientists just as credible as the anti-creationists.That is the problem, most ordinary people aren't qualified to dispute the details. Creationist sites publish their claims for ordinary Christians who simply don't have the training and skill to see how bad their arguments really are.
Yes, so called well characterises them. They were never under the authority of Scripture; rather their own ideas, the findings of human wisdom or science. They had invented for themselves many wonderful ideas over the centuries, things utterly foreign to Scripture. Those who can find a priesthood in the NT will have no bother finding sub-human races, especially if it means they can steal their land or use their labour for nothing.So called Christians had no problem massacring and enslaving the natives before Darwin came along. They just used the bible and religion as justification. After all the savages 'had no souls', or they were Hamites under a curse. I doubt that famous Irish American Gen. Phil Sheridan was being influenced by Darwin Origin of Species when he said "the only good Indians I ever saw were dead", (usually quoted as The only good Indian is a dead Indian.)
But as I said to Scofflaw, some Christians collaborated in these things, bringing false theology or science to support their views. No plain reading of the Scripture would permit these beliefs. TEs should sympathise with them.
I'm glad you have given a clear TE position on Adam not being a single man. How a number of humans sinned so as to make all of their descendants sinners also, that puzzles me. Any suggestions? I take it also that Christ was a number of individuals who suffered to recover for us what the first 'Adam' lost? How many crosses on Golgotha? Or was this a metaphor, the reality being Jesus, Buddha, and other great founders being the 'Christ'?Who says we all came from a single pair? Didn't you know that Adam means 'Man'. Genesis is the story of creating mankind. Gen 5:2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Adam when they were created. Adam is a 'them', male and female. Basically Adam was the first Mr Man.0 -
archdukefranz said:
Exactly so. That is where conscience comes from. That is a rational explantion why we should behave well. But atheism says no such god exists, that our conscience is only the result of conditioning. It is therefore irrational to say anyone ought to behave in a particular way. Even in the evolutionary scenario, we stopped behaving only with our homones when we came to reflect on our existence. Knowing that there is no existence beyond the grave, that we are merely a sophisticated gathering of chemicals, we are then free to behave as we think fit.God has inbuilt in us his law, he designed the motivation in the cells in your body to cooperate just as much as he designed the motivation to maintain ourselves through the same cooperation.0 -
wolfsbane wrote:archdukefranz said:
Exactly so. That is where conscience comes from. That is a rational explantion why we should behave well. But atheism says no such god exists, that our conscience is only the result of conditioning. It is therefore irrational to say anyone ought to behave in a particular way. Even in the evolutionary scenario, we stopped behaving only with our homones when we came to reflect on our existence. Knowing that there is no existence beyond the grave, that we are merely a sophisticated gathering of chemicals, we are then free to behave as we think fit.
Well, not all atheists believe in no existence beyond the grave anyway.0 -
Advertisement
-
wolfsbane wrote:archdukefranz said:
Exactly so. That is where conscience comes from. That is a rational explantion why we should behave well. But atheism says no such god exists, that our conscience is only the result of conditioning. It is therefore irrational to say anyone ought to behave in a particular way. Even in the evolutionary scenario, we stopped behaving only with our homones when we came to reflect on our existence. Knowing that there is no existence beyond the grave, that we are merely a sophisticated gathering of chemicals, we are then free to behave as we think fit.
True but regaurdless of what an athiest may believe it doesn't change the fact that God has implanted in us the desire for self preservation which naturally leads to cooperation.0 -
think he means athiest in the no deity/supernatural fashionbluewolf wrote:Well, not all atheists believe in no existence beyond the grave anyway.0 -
wolfsbane wrote:But atheism says no such god exists, that our conscience is only the result of conditioning. It is therefore irrational to say anyone ought to behave in a particular way.
No its not. Would you please stop telling atheists what they are supposed to believe when it is clear you don't have a clue what most actually do. You have already been told reasons why atheists can follow morality, and they are a lot better reasons that it-was-written-by-some-bloke-in-a-book-2000-years-ago
Your argument works if the only reason to follow a moral code is because of a belief in an almight God and his infalable moral decisions. It isn't
The idea that without religion everyones moral system, from the person who helps little old ladies across the road to the serial killer, suddenly becomes equally valid is nonsense.
You speak as if you don't have any clue why certain things are moral and immoral, beyond its in the Bible, or God says so. You did mention homosexuality, and sex before marriage, which you seem to believe is immoral. Can you explain the logic behind that, beyond "God says so"?
As I said, I can give you the logic and rational behind everyone one of my moral beliefs. I am beginning to seriously doubt you can do the same.wolfsbane wrote:Knowing that there is no existence beyond the grave, that we are merely a sophisticated gathering of chemicals, we are then free to behave as we think fit.
Again with the "Don't do that because you will be punished by God in the after life" argument.
I have already explained to you why I would not do certain things, like steal money from little old ladies or rape women. And none of these reason have anything to do with being punished by God.
If the only reason you don't harm others for your own benefit is because you are scared off how God will punish you in the after life, well that is a rather disturbing idea TBH. And, as has been mentioned a few times, it gives justification for all forms of cruelty in the name of religion if you can convince yourself or others that your god is "on your side".
Religion, instead of strengthen the idea of absolute morality, infact removes it, because anything can be justified as moral once you have convinced yourself or others that God would approve of your actions. The morality of an action is removed from the action itself, and instead placed in the approval or disapproval of your god for that action. The act of killing innocent people is only immoral if God says it is, so if you can convince yourself or others that God says its ok then it becomes a moral and justified action. Which is exactly how people like Islamic terrorists think.0 -
wolfsbane wrote:archdukefranz said:
Exactly so. That is where conscience comes from. That is a rational explantion why we should behave well. But atheism says no such god exists, that our conscience is only the result of conditioning. It is therefore irrational to say anyone ought to behave in a particular way. Even in the evolutionary scenario, we stopped behaving only with our homones when we came to reflect on our existence. Knowing that there is no existence beyond the grave, that we are merely a sophisticated gathering of chemicals, we are then free to behave as we think fit.
Again, your logic is partial. You accept the existence of conscience, and so do I. You suggest that it is "built-in", and I agree with you (how else does a toddler have it?). You believe it comes from God, and I don't.
In 2000 years, no-one has proven the existence of the Christian God (indeed, any God) beyond doubt. If we both agree that there is such a thing as conscience, and that it is in-built to humanity, then we share the same basis for morality - our argument is the source of conscience, and that is a matter of faith.
So, while I would agree with you that atheism as a "religious position" does not specify or require any morality, I believe that being a human involves (usually - there are always outliers) being moral. This morality can be conditioned, but there is actually a great deal of agreement between all social systems of morality. I can with certainty deny that in the absence of religion humans are necessarily either immoral or amoral. The most bizarre distortions of human morality have, in fact, occurred in religious systems.
On balance, I would say that the evolution of humanity as a species has equipped us with morality, amongst other adaptations to sociality.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
wolfsbane -
I notice that you've not addressed the point I made a day or two back:"Differential reproductive success" means that some random variations in a species will produce more offspring than others. So there'll be more of them than the less successfully reproducing variations. Nothing magical about that, you'll agree
And if being nice to your neighbours increases your chances of producing reproducing offspring, then being nice to your neighbours will spread as a reproductive strategy over long periods of time.
So, what do you reckon -- does being nice seem to be a better strategy than murdering all around you?0 -
Hi Brian, I have no problem with the origin of life being part of this discussion. What I cannot understand is any rational reason for JC to come up with the statement in the form he gave it. If he had said, as you put it, science DOES NOT explain how dead chemicals could come alive spontaneously, that would be a reasonable point, wrong, but still reasonable.BrianCalgary wrote:Don't mean to pick on you Assyrian, but this comment sort of sums things up.
The original post has to do with creation, prophecy and the bible. It is not limited to evolution. The Christians on this thread are constantly being accused of not listening and not understanding evolution. Be that as it may, this thread does have room to discuss how the original life began. Therefore a staement such as the one below, albeit in the evolutionist mind is incorrect as you have so aptly pointed out
A billion years of undirected mistakes, as postulated by Macro-evolution, DOES NOT explain how dead chemicals could come alive spontaneously.
The question still begs: science "DOES NOT explain how dead chemicals could come alive spontaneously."
Come out fighting at the sound of th ebell.
What he said was that evolution, with its mechanism of random mutation, even given a billion years, does not explain how life originated. Now why should JC make that claim? Does he not know enough about evolution to know that it deals with changes once there are self replicating systems, and not with how a self replicating system can arise in the first place? He made this claim before, he called it "the ‘flaw’ that I have discovered in Evolution" 23 April, Scofflaw told him quite plainly Theory of Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis. So why does JC keep suggesting evolution should explain how dead chemicals could come alive spontaneously? It's a great sound bite, sounds devastating to science, but is actually devoid of any meaningful content.
The reason Christians on this thread, or rather Creationists, are accused of not listening and not understanding evolution, is because some clearly don't listen, and either don't understand evolution or prefer to stick to clever sounding but empty rhetoric.
Science has come up with a number of different possible mechanisms that explain how dead chemicals could come alive spontaneously. (For a given value of 'life' of course, but once you have self replicating molecules natural selection will start to work.) What science cannot tell us is what particular mechanism actually happened.science "DOES NOT explain how dead chemicals could come alive spontaneously
Assyrian0 -
Presumably this was not talking about Assyria's utter destruction, God had better plans for Assyria.wolfsbane wrote:Assyrian said;
Yes, He did. It is His enemy because it harms His people. His people however were sinners, and deserving of death. But God sent not only punishment to them, but salvation also. That salvation results in the overcoming of every foe, even that which God sent to chastise them. Think of your namesakes: Isaiah 10:5 “ Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger
And the staff in whose hand is My indignation.
6 I will send him against an ungodly nation,
And against the people of My wrath
I will give him charge,
To seize the spoil, to take the prey,
And to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
They were sent by God to chastise the sinful nation; yet they too would be destroyed when Israel was delivered.
Isaiah 19:23 In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and Assyria will come into Egypt, and Egypt into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians.
24 In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth,
25 whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance."
The Assyrian were humans, God called them to discipline Israel, but of their own free will they went way beyond God's commission. Humans are like that. They have free will and can disobey God. God punished them for it.
Now death is not a human being with free will. How could death go beyond God's plan? If it was simply doing what God intended, it would be a servant of God not his enemy. If the Assyrians had kept to God's call, they would not have become his enemy and would not have been punished. How did death go from being the servant God created to being his enemy?
He's not. He just answers your problem about having the earth populated by mortal men and immortal resurrected men.Enoch never died. How is he an example of death before the Fall?
Why bring up his creation at all if mortality only came with the fall?If the return to the dust was already true for perfect Adam, why bring it up now, in revealing the curse?
It was Adam's natural mortality that would result in his physical death when he was cut off from the source of eternal life.
The last Adam is needed because man sinned, but when Paul describes the difference between our present perishable body and the new imperishable body we will have through Christ, Paul tells us our perishable body comes from the way God originally made man, not the fall. It is because he was 'from the earth, a man of dust', not because he sinned.Paul is speaking of Adam's fallen state, not his pre-sinnership condition. Had he not sinned, no last Adam (Christ) would have been needed.
In the real world genealogies tell us who the biological parents were. If 'Adam son of God' is not literal biological genealogy, then you have to ask where the literal genealogy begins. Presumably it is when consecutive members are both literal human beings.According to this logic, we cannot give any genealogy for Seth and Adam! One was born naturally, one directly from God. In the real world, genealogies encompass whatever is actual: natural, adoption, whatever. Christ being both God and man, His genealogy encompassed both.
So questioning how literal the genealogy was when it said 'Adam son of God' does not as you claimed 'question Jesus' conception'?And, No, Christ was not made from the dust, nor was Adam a pre-existent Son.
Common sense tells one that the Jews also believed Heli was Jesus grandfather, and Matthat his great grandfather, and that the whole genealogy was actually Jesus' own genealogy. Are you suggesting Jesus really had two genealogies, one maternal and the other paternal? If you don't attach the 'supposed' to the whole genealogy, then you do throw out the virgin birth, you just have the miracle of his human lineage skipping a generation.Common sense tells one that the only point in dispute with the Jews was the actual fatherhood of Christ, not the lineage as such. Joseph was His father, as far as the Jews were concerned. Luke wants us to know that that was not the case. Or do TEs also believe Joseph was His father, since science proves a virgin conception of a male is impossible?
Credible to who?Yet these sites are published by scientists just as credible as the anti-creationists.
A lot of people involved thought they were taking a plain reading of scripture. Christians really should approach this with a lot more humility. Before claiming evolution gives a basis for racism, we should remember the glass house we live in, and that many bearing the name of Christ did some pretty nasty things in his name and supposedly on the basis of his word.Yes, so called well characterises them. They were never under the authority of Scripture; rather their own ideas, the findings of human wisdom or science. They had invented for themselves many wonderful ideas over the centuries, things utterly foreign to Scripture. Those who can find a priesthood in the NT will have no bother finding sub-human races, especially if it means they can steal their land or use their labour for nothing.
But as I said to Scofflaw, some Christians collaborated in these things, bringing false theology or science to support their views. No plain reading of the Scripture would permit these beliefs. TEs should sympathise with them.
You have to ask yourself, is it the plain reading of scripture that teaches you that racism is wrong, or is it the inspiration of the Holy Spirit teaching you to read God's word with the mind of Christ? Is it the heart that sees a message of love, or hate in the bible? Just because a racist can happily justify his racism from the Bible or the Origin of Species, that doesn't make either book racist.
Adam didn't make you a sinner. You did.I'm glad you have given a clear TE position on Adam not being a single man. How a number of humans sinned so as to make all of their descendants sinners also, that puzzles me. Any suggestions? I take it also that Christ was a number of individuals who suffered to recover for us what the first 'Adam' lost? How many crosses on Golgotha? Or was this a metaphor, the reality being Jesus, Buddha, and other great founders being the 'Christ'?
Is the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep a metaphor? Does this mean the Jesus who called himself the good shepherd was a metaphor too? Does it mean laying down his life for us was a metaphor? What about the lion of Judah, was that a real lion? If it wasn't, when we call Jesus the lion of Judah, are we saying he wasn't real? Paul compared Jesus and Adam on an allegorical level, he said Adam was a figure of Christ (Rom 5:14). Just because Adam was figurative, it doesn't mean Jesus and hid sacrifice weren't real.
You believe Jesus died for us all don't you? That doesn't mean lots of Jesuses had to died together to pay for all our sins, does it?
Assyrian0 -
Scofflaw
do you mean that they (survival of the fittest and differential reproductive success) mean the same thing in a genetic sense
In a word, YES.
However, there is an element of finding the result ‘after the fact’ about both of these concepts.
‘The Fittest’ can really only be determined by measuring its ‘differential reproductive success’ – and equally there is no guarantee that ‘the fittest’ historically will continue to enjoy ‘differential reproductive success’. The term 'differential reproductive success' is also a relative term that is meaningless unless you are comparing members of the same species.
Because of this , these concepts are somewhat circular and with little predictive value – which is an important commercial and scientific criterion.
Equally, Natural Selection is limited to passively SELECTING what may come it’s way. It shows NO POTENTIAL as a mechanism to PRODUCE the infinite information differential that exists between ‘muck and man’.
Participants on this thread have described the principle behind N S as ‘a one eye man in the land of the blind being king’. Could I point out that, in such a scenario, there is no reason to believe that N S would ever move beyond a ‘one eyed man’.
Natural Selection CANNOT account for the massive INCREASE in genetic information between ‘muck and man’. Because N S lacks any information PRODUCING mechanism – it can only utilise EXISTING genetic diversity to adapt to changing environments.
Equally, even it’s selection potential is often severely circumscribed. For example, the ability of Natural Selection to select in the particular direction demanded by environmental factors can be easily frustrated by, sexual selection and/or by genetic diversity limitations / selection walls. The large number of species extinctions are proof of the inability of Natural Selection to deliver new adaptations i.e. it primarily operates via the blunt instruments of death and extinction based upon the relative or absolute LACK of genetic diversity.
Natural Selection is thus a neutral / subtractive phenomenon – and it therefore can only maintain / reduce genetic information.
Originally Posted by J C
It’s actually the phenomenon described by Robin in an earlier post as follows:-
“if you bear in mind that each woman has only one mother, but possibly many offspring, meaning that the number of common ancestors must decrease at each generation. Go back far enough and the number will eventually reduce to one. Think about it -- it's easy!!!”.
Quote Wicknight
That is true, which is why there is one Mitocondiral Eve and one Y-Chromosone Adam.
That is how you can get back to one Mitochondrial ancestor.
But you use a different line of ancestory to get back to the Y-Chromosone Adam, that goes only through men. You don't use the same line because you are looking at two different elements, the mitocondrial DNA and the Y-Chromosone.
The lines of ancestory are completely different. The odds that the two lines would eventually meet up to one couple are astronomically high, so of course M-Eve and Y-Adam didn't mate.
OK, so we’re in agreement that our Mitochondrial DNA proves that we are ALL descended from ONE woman – and Robin has given us a practical reason why this is also a physical CERTAINTY.
We’re also in agreement that men’s Y-Chromosome DNA proves that ALL men are descended from ONE man – and Robin’s idea has also given us a practical reason why this is also a physical CERTAINTY.
Now the only thing we disagree about is whether this one woman and one man were the only people on Earth at the time and whether they KNEW each other (in both the normal and biblical sense of the word).
It seem logical that the rates of decrease in common ancestor numbers between each generation as we go backwards in time (in accordance with Robin’s idea) would be similar for both men and women (with a 50/50 male/female birth ratio).
Therefore it is a virtual CERTAINTY that the two lines of descent will converge backwards on one man and one woman who were contemporaneous both in time and space.
M-Eve and Y-Adam were actually Adam and Eve!!!
Scofflaw
Fred Hoyle, of course, was a champion of panspermia
Wibbs did ask for “evolutionist” quotes – and Professor Sir Fred Hoyle was an Evolutionist – of the Panspermia variety!!
Wicknight
I think you missed the "recent", "evolutionist" and "radical change" part of Wibbs question
RECENT
I gave you a quote from Robin that is less than a week old – and provided a link to several peer-reviewed papers that are hot off the academic press.
RADICAL CHANGE
Intelligent Design is probably one of the most radical off-shoots from Evolution.
Equally Professor Sir Fred Hoyle’s Panspermia Theory is probably the next most radical.
And finally Robin’s Theory on the ‘descent of Man’ from one woman and one man is quite a radical proposal – from an Evolutionist!!
EVOLUTIONIST
I gave you quotes from the 80’s to provide a historical perspective on some of these issues and because the questions raised about Gradual Evolution in the 60’s and 70’s have continued to ‘dog’ it,.
Robin
"Differential reproductive success" means that some random variations in a species will produce more offspring than others. So there'll be more of them than the less successfully reproducing variations. Nothing magical about that, you'll agree
And if being nice to your neighbours increases your chances of producing reproducing offspring, then being nice to your neighbours will spread as a reproductive strategy over long periods of time.
So, what do you reckon -- does being nice seem to be a better strategy than murdering all around you?
It is indeed nice to be nice!
However, the crazed rutting Stag and the cub-eating Lion beg to differ with you Robin on this issue.
What you are actually describing is the social restrictions placed by rational people (who are made in the image and likeness of God) on their behaviour.
The irrational and the tyrant may also use strategies that we would find offensive to achieve “differential reproductive success”.0 -
bmoferrall
this book (Chapter 8) shows that a (consistently) plain reading of Genesis 1-3 is actually impossible, and requires at least some of the text to be treated as allegory; that is, without resorting to a degree of lexical and theological gymnastics. Who decides which parts are allegory and which parts are literal? (I won't repeat the arguments here as they are quite lengthy.)
Creationists support the PLAIN reading of Scripture – interpreting it LITERALLY when the passages describe obvious literal or historical events and ALLEGORICALLY when metaphors are being clearly deployed.
The only aspect of the Bible that Theistic Evolutionists and Creationists substantially disagree about is the Genesis accounts of Creation and Noah’s Flood. Theistic Evolutionists believe that Genesis 1 is a largely ALLEGORICAL account of the Evolution of life – while Creationists believe it to be a SUBSTANTIALLY LITERAL account of Special Divine Creation and the early history of the Earth. This difference in interpretation is actually the main reason for the debate among Christians on the ‘origins issue’.
Science, in so far as it can be applied to the study of Evolution and Creation, is actually quite clear and in favour of Special Direct Creation.
I think that BOTH Genesis and the Gospels ARE written as SUBSTANTIALLY LITERAL HISTORY.
Something like Genesis 1:1, which starts with the words “In the beginning God…..” certainly gives the impression that what will follow will be a SUBSTANTIALLY LITERAL ACCOUNT of what God actually did – and NOT something veiled in allegory, as Theistic Evolutionists maintain.
Gen 1:27 confirms that the sequence of the creation of Mankind was firstly a single man Adam “in the image of God He created HIM” and subsequently Eve “male and female He created THEM. This sequence is also confirmed in Gen 2:7 and Gen 2:21-22.
Genesis 2:7 says “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground” – and NOT many men from a population of Ape-like ancestors – as Theistic Evolutionists would have us believe.
Jesus is referred to as “The Last Adam” (who defeats death) in 1 Cor 15:45 – and without a LITERAL First Adam (who introduced death) this would be meaningless. In fact, without the Fall of Adam and Eve from grace, there would not be any reason for God to send his only begotten son Jesus Christ to save humanity from their sin, which according to Rom 5:12, “entered the world through ONE MAN and death through sin”.
Any form of Evolution, either “theistic” or “secular”, requires death millions of years before the emergence of Mankind – which is in straight contradiction of Rom 5:12 – which confirms that Man came first followed by sin and then death.
Anyway, why would God take “the long way around” to create Humans, using death and cut-throat competition as indispensable ingredients of so-called “evolutionary progress” on the way?
If He did so, why didn’t He say so?
The Bible makes it clear that death is a direct result of the FIRST Man and a Woman’s DECISION to misuse God’s gift of free-will to defy God – and not because God deliberately decided to use death and competition to perfect his original creation (as implied by Evolution).
Death is destructive and it is confirmed by Genesis to be the result of Man’s folly and NOT God’s instigation.
Theistic Evolution also implies a ‘meddling God’ who continues to DIRECTLY intervene in the World via some (unobserved) evolutionary ‘tweaking’ mechanism to perfect His Creation. This idea is directly contradicted by Genesis 2:2 which states that “by the seventh say God had finished the work he had been doing” i.e. He finished his Creation activity.
bmoferrall
If science proves beyond all reasonable doubt that evolution is the mechanism that explains man's complexity and life's diversity, then Christians will just have to accept that this is indeed how God chose to work out our (physical) creation
You are correct, of course, IF science proves beyond all reasonable doubt that evolution is the mechanism that explains man's complexity and life's diversity, then Christians would just have to accept that this is indeed how God chose to work out our (physical) creation.
However, ALL scientific OBSERVATIONS indicate the opposite – that man’s complexity and life’s diversity is the result of the once-off direct application of enormous intelligence.
bmoferrall
We marvelled when Newton showed how planetary motion was subject to a few simple laws of nature. Can we not also marvel at man's (physical) 'creation' being subject to similar laws and mechanisms. Would this not be just as intellectually satisfying as the aforementioned laws of motion?
We could possibly marvel in gob smacked awe IF man’s physical creation WAS the result of such simple laws – but ALL scientific OBSERVATIONS indicate the opposite – that man’s complexity and life’s diversity is the result of the once-off direct application of enormous intelligence.
IF such a simple natural mechanism WERE to be discovered it would largely eliminate the relevance and the importance of the God of the Bible. His main claim to our undivided attention relies on the validity or otherwise of His claim to have Directly Created us and to have died to save us from our sins. One was the direct follow-on of the other.
If we are in fact the result of undirected natural processes we logically only owe allegiance to these natural processes – and indeed talk of an eternal destiny can be taken with a giant ‘pinch of salt’.
Indeed, if a PLAIN reading of scripture cannot be trusted to mean what it says on the origins of Man, then how can we trust what it says about the destiny of Man either?
bmoferrall
Of course an omnipotent God could have miraculously created everything in a week, or even simultaneously; if the evidence says otherwise we shouldn't ignore or twist it.
Agreed, scientists should behave with absolute integrity – but such integrity also demands that we report evidence that DISPROVES the popular consensus as well – and the principle of Academic Freedom should protect all scientists who do so.
All of the EVIDENCE denies the proposition that muck evolved into Man and supports the idea of a rapid recent Direct Creation – and we certainly shouldn’t ignore this EVIDENCE or twist it.
bmoferrall
As recorded in Genesis, God chose to reveal to us something about our origins and our creation. If evolution were the mechanism he used to 'create' us should we have expected a complex treatise on its scientific and mathematical underpinnings? Evidently, he chose to communicate it in such a way as to be digestible by all audiences down through the ages, not just in our (scientifically) enlightened times.
God appears to have chosen to do much more than merely “reveal to us something about our origins and our creation”. Genesis 1 appears to be a substantially literal and relatively detailed account of HOW He did so.
The idea that Genesis was a ‘simple account of Creation for a simple people’ is patently preposterous – the people who built the Pyramids in Egypt were certainly NOT ‘a simple people’.
The fact that many of today’s 10 year olds can describe the basics of Evolution but cannot identify the location of Iraq on a map of the World, proves that the concept of ‘Theistic Evolution’ would have been well within the abilities of even a so-called ‘simple people’ to understand.
Equally, the Ancient Greeks didn’t have any difficulties understanding the concept of Evolution – so why would the Israelites have any difficulties comprehending it either – if it was TRUE?
bmoferrall
Genesis says that God used existing material (dust) to create man; could this be his way of intimating a mechanism such as evolution to us?
The God of the Bible tends to say what He means and mean what He says.
If God had used evolution to ‘produce’ us I think that He would have told us that He did so in unambiguous terms – like the ones that He actually used in Genesis to tell us that He DIRECTLY CREATED us.
The use of physical dust and a rib to directly create Man and Woman is indicative of the special place that Mankind occupies in Creation.
The first man and woman were PHYSICALLY and PERSONALLY created by God – unlike all other lifeforms which was merely spoken into existence by Him.
This foreshadowed God’s PHYSICAL involvement with Humanity during the incarnation of Jesus Christ – and it also underlines God’s desire to have an intimate PERSONAL relationship with each one of us for eternity.
He ‘stands at the door and knocks’. All we need to do to be saved is to repent of our sin and believe on Jesus Christ.0 -
Again, noJ C wrote:OK, so we’re in agreement that our Mitochondrial DNA proves that we are ALL descended from ONE woman – and Robin has given us a practical reason why this is also a physical CERTAINTY.
All women on Earth share an unbroken line of Mitochondrial DNA back to one women, who lived 150,000 years ago. They share millions (billions) of broken lines of Mitochondrial DNA (and normal DNA) to millions of other people, but these lines are broken, they stop and start and therefore it is not possible to identify common ancestors on these lines. For example, if M-Eve's next door neighbour had a son and that son mated with one of M-Eve's daughters, that neighbour is a decendent of every female on Earth as well, but that line of accension is broken on the female side (since the neighbour had a son, not a daughter)
Of course these unbroken lines continue back in time past M-Eve, M-Eve is simply the most recent that can be traced back for all women. Likewise there are plenty of unbroken lines that are more recent than M-Eve but they do not cover the entire population. And there are millions of broken lines of ancestory.
Mitochondrial Eve was not the first women. She wasn't even the first link in this unbroken Mitochondrial chain that spread through all woman kind. She was though the most recent that can be traced to all women on Earth.
The same holds for Y-Adam for men
No. Even if you go on the 50/50 ration of each couple having one daughter or one son (or both) the time period they lived could, by that statistical system, still be hundreds of years apart given the slight fluctuation between men and women on Earth. Which they were (not that this statistical system has much relivence in the real world, since M-Eve and Y-Adam were not the first or even the only humans alive at the time).J C wrote:Therefore it is a virtual CERTAINTY that the two lines of descent will converge backwards on one man and one woman who were contemporaneous both in time and space.
M-Eve and Y-Adam did not live in the same time period, they didn't mate and they certainly were not the only two humans alive at the time
Are you claiming now that Robin is a evolutionists calling for a radical change in the way science treats evolution? You might want to check that with him.J C wrote:RECENT
I gave you a quote from Robin that is less than a week old – and provided a link to several peer-reviewed papers that are hot off the academic press.
Which part of ID? Because a lot of "followers" ID seems to reject evolution off hand, other followers of it parts of it totally accept evolution, there problem is with abogenesis, which is not a topic covered by evolution, it is covered by chemistry.J C wrote:RADICAL CHANGE
Intelligent Design is probably one of the most radical off-shoots from Evolution.
I have yet to see a theory on what ID actually is, beyond the rather vague "Things are complicated therefore something must have designed them". Who, how, or why seem to be ignored by this "theory". I can't even get Creationists to explain what exactly God did to produce life on Earth and when he did it. All you get is "He did do it, lets just leave it at that"
So when "Intelligent Design" actually comes back with a coherient theory of its own, rather than simply attack (or agreeing) with evolution, get back to me.0 -
Advertisement
-
> Natural Selection is limited to passively SELECTING what may come it’s way. [...] It is indeed nice to be nice!
JC, you're going from strengh to strength! By this statement, you've shown that not only have you understood what natural selection is (thereby making you an evolutionist even more firmly than before!), but you're even showing the first flickerings of an understanding of the evolution of co-operation as well! I take it that you've finally got around to reading the chapter "Nice guys finish first" in that Dawkins book (The Selfish Gene) that you said you valued so highly!
Anyhow, from the position of being the frantically-dribbling clown of the forum last year, you're beginning at last to show in public the kind of fact-based reasoning that I would expect from a fellow-evolutionist!
Well done! Keep it up! Congratulations!0 -
Let's just add this interesting little suggestion into the debate between those who understand the concept of Mitochondrial Eve and those who don't. These researchers suggest that the human and chimp genetic lines split apart not once, but twice, which suggests the proto-humans and proto-chimps interbred after the original split:
BBC article
New Scientist
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
One last go at explaining M-Eve for JC's benefit, and then I'll throw up my hands:
If we trace the descendants of my great-grandmother on my mother's side, we find that she had 1 daughter, 4 sons. Her daughter, my grandmother, had 2 daughters (my mother and her sister) and 3 sons. My mother had one daughter, and my aunt had one daughter, one son.
Now, there are, out of all the people descended from my great-grandmother, only two people with unbroken chains of female descent - from my great-grandmother to my sister and her cousin. If either of these has only sons, then that line will be broken.
M-Eve is to the human race what my great-grandmother is to my sister and cousin - the most recent common ancestor in an unbroken female line. She is certainly not their only female ancestor, any more than my great-grandmother on my mother's side is my sister's only female ancestor.
Scofflaw0 -
J C wrote:Science, in so far as it can be applied to the study of Evolution and Creation, is actually quite clear and in favour of Special Direct Creation.
Simply repeating this line does not make it true. You have utterly failed to demonstrate it in any way.J C wrote:Something like Genesis 1:1, which starts with the words “In the beginning God…..” certainly gives the impression that what will follow will be a SUBSTANTIALLY LITERAL ACCOUNT of what God actually did – and NOT something veiled in allegory, as Theistic Evolutionists maintain.
Once upon a time....J C wrote:Any form of Evolution, either “theistic” or “secular”, requires death millions of years before the emergence of Mankind – which is in straight contradiction of Rom 5:12 – which confirms that Man came first followed by sin and then death.
...and that's the whole problem with "Creation Science", folks. It's Creation first, and if the Science disagrees, so much the worse for the Science.J C wrote:Theistic Evolution also implies a ‘meddling God’ who continues to DIRECTLY intervene in the World via some (unobserved) evolutionary ‘tweaking’ mechanism to perfect His Creation. This idea is directly contradicted by Genesis 2:2 which states that “by the seventh say God had finished the work he had been doing” i.e. He finished his Creation activity.
...or "had finished the work he had set himself to do". If I said that I had "finished the work I had set myself to do" it would simply suggest that I had finished a particular project.J C wrote:However, ALL scientific OBSERVATIONS indicate the opposite – that man’s complexity and life’s diversity is the result of the once-off direct application of enormous intelligence.
As I said above - you keep saying this. And you keep saying it. You don't seem to be able to provide any proof, but by all means take it on faith, and excuse me if I don't.J C wrote:IF such a simple natural mechanism WERE to be discovered it would largely eliminate the relevance and the importance of the God of the Bible. His main claim to our undivided attention relies on the validity or otherwise of His claim to have Directly Created us and to have died to save us from our sins. One was the direct follow-on of the other.
If we are in fact the result of undirected natural processes we logically only owe allegiance to these natural processes – and indeed talk of an eternal destiny can be taken with a giant ‘pinch of salt’.
Indeed, if a PLAIN reading of scripture cannot be trusted to mean what it says on the origins of Man, then how can we trust what it says about the destiny of Man either?
Amazing how many people, how many religious people, seem to get by without your "plain reading", isn't it?J C wrote:All of the EVIDENCE denies the proposition that muck evolved into Man and supports the idea of a rapid recent Direct Creation – and we certainly shouldn’t ignore this EVIDENCE or twist it.
Except that scientists who have evidence that contradicts the mainstream view of evolution (or any other scientific theory) can publish, and do publish.
People who, like yourself, insist that the evidence is, and has to be, something other than it is, because of the Bible (or whatever dogma), do not get published in scientific journals because what you do is not science. Science starts with the question, and hopes to arrive at an answer. You start with the answer, and that's not science, it's faith.J C wrote:The fact that many of today’s 10 year olds can describe the basics of Evolution but cannot identify the location of Iraq on a map of the World, proves that the concept of ‘Theistic Evolution’ would have been well within the abilities of even a so-called ‘simple people’ to understand.
Ho ho ho. So the fact that six-year olds understand computers means that....?J C wrote:Equally, the Ancient Greeks didn’t have any difficulties understanding the concept of Evolution – so why would the Israelites have any difficulties comprehending it either – if it was TRUE?
Dear oh dear - can you not even read a simple article? The Greek philosophers had a variety of "spontaneous generation" theories, with added bits that explained how water "evolved" into more complex forms - which is to say, how it generated them. I hate to laugh at you, but you seem to have misunderstood the word "evolved" there - it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, except that Darwinian evolution borrows the term from it.
Scofflaw0 -
J C wrote:Natural Selection CANNOT account for the massive INCREASE in genetic information between ‘muck and man’. Because N S lacks any information PRODUCING mechanism – it can only utilise EXISTING genetic diversity to adapt to changing environments.
Again, just like nearly all your points, you keep repeating the same tired ill-informed mantra despite the fact it has been explain why and how you are wrong to you already a number of times. :rolleyes:
Mutations can and do produce NEW genetic diversity. This has been shown a large number of times, the most famous and easy to understand example being the Nylon bateria
The Nylon bug eats nylon. Since nylon is artifical and cannot be produced in nature (first nylon entered the environment in the 1930s), these bateria must have produced, through evolution, a new way to eat nylon.
Now, like most biological discoveries in the last 150, this was rather devistating to the Creationist dogma that says evolution cannot produce new genetic information, new ways of cells or animals doing things. God made them once and they do exactly the same thing they always did.
So the Creationists scrambled around to try and explain how this bateria could be eating the nylon, and how it couldn't have anything to do with evolution or genetic mutations. Like most Creationists "science" these were very weak
For a description of most of their claims, and responses show them to be wrong, and even in some cases flat out lies, this link is good
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm#update
Other examples include the famous Lederberg experiments (mentioned in the Nylon bug articles) that showed mutation in bateria is random and not a response to the environment. Bateria that develop resistence to anti-bodies do not do it in a process directly related to the exposure to the anti-bodies, the resistant genetic information appears naturally and randomly through mutation. These mutations existed before exposure to the anti-bodies.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1bLederberg.shtml
Mutation produces new genetic information. That is not a theory, it is a fact. Its more of a fact than macro-evolution because we can actually test it, in a lab, in a few days.0 -
I respect where you are coming from on this.J C wrote:You are correct, of course, IF science proves beyond all reasonable doubt that evolution is the mechanism that explains man's complexity and life's diversity, then Christians would just have to accept that this is indeed how God chose to work out our (physical) creation.
However, ALL scientific OBSERVATIONS indicate the opposite – that man’s complexity and life’s diversity is the result of the once-off direct application of enormous intelligence.
.
.
IF such a simple natural mechanism WERE to be discovered it would largely eliminate the relevance and the importance of the God of the Bible. His main claim to our undivided attention relies on the validity or otherwise of His claim to have Directly Created us and to have died to save us from our sins. One was the direct follow-on of the other.
If we are in fact the result of undirected natural processes we logically only owe allegiance to these natural processes – and indeed talk of an eternal destiny can be taken with a giant ‘pinch of salt’.
Indeed, if a PLAIN reading of scripture cannot be trusted to mean what it says on the origins of Man, then how can we trust what it says about the destiny of Man either?
For what it's worth, I'm satisfied that it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the earth is considerably older than the 6-10000 yrs inferred from a plain literal reading of genesis. This would obviously mean treating as allegory (or metaphorical history) parts of genesis previously read as plainly literal, thus opening the text up to a different, and hopefully more faithful, interpretation.
With that in mind, I believe any evaluation of macro-evolution should be undertaken from the perspective of an old earth, as well as being backed by solid up-to-date science, rather than a particular reading of genesis or the conclusions of non-current/non-specific scientists; the alternative will surely lead up blind alleys and cul-de-sacs. I believe science will establish the truth about all this in due course, and that it will still be in harmony with the bible text. Many non-Christians, and some Christians, will argue that this all undermines the biblical claim to divine inspiration; I'm satisfied now that that view is based on faulty theology.
I wish you and your colleagues godspeed in your continued research.0 -
Assyrian
according to Genesis God made man at the very end of creation, not the beginning. So these statements actually contradict Genesis, unless they are talking about the beginning of mankind rather than the universe, that is, when mankind was created.
Direct Divine Creation ONLY lasted six days – so there is no practical time difference between ‘the beginning’ and ‘the end’ of Direct Divine Creation on a 7,000 years timeline.
So Mankind WAS created at the BEGINNING i.e .during the same WEEK that the rest of the Universe was created.
Assyrian
Jesus didn't actually say anything about the flood being worldwide.
Jesus and Peter confirm the REALTY of Noah and the Genesis Flood in Mt 24:37-39a and 1 Pet 3:20b.
Genesis 6:13 confirms that the Flood was WORLDWIDE
“So God said to Noah, ‘I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth’ (NIV).
Assyrian
It is worth pointing out that what Luther was writing against here was the prevailing theological opinion for well over a thousand years, that the days in Genesis were figurative and that creation was really instantaneous, as was taught by men like Augustine and Aquinas.
Yes indeed, the historical debate within mainstream Christianity was whether Creation was instantaneous or took six days – and NOT whether God used evolution.
Assyrian
I don't think Calvin would have had any problem with the age of the universe.
Neither do I.
Calvin DIDN’T have any problem with the age of the universe – he believed it to be about 6,000 years old!!
John Calvin stated:-
“…albeit the duration of the world, now declining to its ultimate end, has not yet attained six thousand years ……. God’s work was completed not in a moment but in six days.”
Assyrian
Now we have creationism being described as 'a kind of paganism' by the Vatican's astronomer Brother Consolmagno. Trying to regain some ground there after Galileo then.
How can a plain reading of God’s Word in Genesis be described as ‘a kind of paganism’?
Equally, the following article points out that Galileo WAS a Creation Scientist who correctly questioned the ‘mainstream’ philosophical view of his time – just like Creation Scientists today also question the prevailing (evolutionary) view of our time.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/galileo.asp
Assyrian
It is odd when YECs produce lists of Creationist scientists, they are mainly people who lived before Origin of Species was published.
It would indeed be odd if it were true.
There are many top scientists BOTH pre and post-Darwin who were/are Creationists.
Here is a list of SOME of them
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp
Assyrian
people who believed in evolution, if not Darwin's natural selection, like Pasteur. Maxwell believed in biological evolution
Louis Pasteur believed in Direct Creation – and actually DISPROVED the idea that simple life could arise spontaneously – and proposed the Law of Biogenesis which denies even the possibility of undirected Darwinian Evolution.
James Clerk Maxwell was a Creationist Physicist and Mathematician. He WASN’T a Biologist and he therefore didn’t express any scientific views Evolution.
Assyrian
Though he died 80 years before Darwin published the Origin of Species, Linnaeus's work led him to reject the concept of fixity of species and declared "Species are the work of time".
Linnaeus discovered, and as a result Creation Science has always accepted, that species below the level of Created Kind do indeed vary over time, using pre-existing genetic information.
Assyrian
(The) Theory of Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis. So why does JC keep suggesting evolution should explain how dead chemicals could come alive spontaneously? It's a great sound bite, sounds devastating to science, but is actually devoid of any meaningful content.
Evolutionists like to split the supposed evolutionary continuum between muck and man into two stages of ‘Abiogenesis’ and ‘Evolution Proper’. This artificial split is in part an attempt to distance Evolution from the fact that Abiogenesis is in contradiction of the Biological LAW of Biogenesis.
Neither concept has been observed and so BOTH remain within the realm of scientific speculation.
Equally, the point where Abiogenesis begins and ends is (even theoretically) unknown.
The fact that Evolutionists cannot explain or demonstrate how dead chemicals could come alive spontaneously may have something to do with the fact that it is mathematically impossible to produce specific useful protein sequences using undirected processes.
It ISN’T in the least devastating to science – but it IS devastating to Evolution.0 -
Wicknight
Firstly, evolution only starts working after you have a simple self-replicating molecule replicating in a hostile environment
Natural Selection can only begin to select when you have a population of reproducing viable living organisms with significant extant genetic diversity in their genome and the ability to express it. The Laws of Mathematical Probability and Big Numbers rule out ever getting to this stage in the first place, using undirected processes.
For example:-
There are 10 to the power of 21 stars in the Known Universe.
There are 10 to the power of 61 ELECTRONS in our Sun (which is an average sized star).
There are therefore ONLY 10 to the power of 82 Electrons in ALL of the STARS in the Known Universe.
The odds of producing a specific useful amino acid sequence using undirected processes, choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on a 100 amino acid chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20 …… 100 times. This happens to be odds of one over 10 to the power of 130.
There are 10 to the power of 26 nanoseconds (one thousand of one millionth of a second) in 5,000 million years.
If every ELECTRON in the KNOWN UNIVERSE, produced a random 100 amino acid sequence one thousand million times every second for 5,000 million years only 10 to the power of 108 permutations would be produced.
You would need 10 to the power of 23 Universes to guarantee the production of the specific sequence for a particular useful protein with a chain length of only 100 amino acids – and that is only the chance of getting the SEQUENCE right – never mind the problem of actually producing the protein. – and a protein is ‘nothing’ compared to even a so-called “simple cell”.
We also have only ONE Universe – and not 10 to the power of 23 of them!!! Also an electron isn’t capable of producing a protein sequence and ALL stars are obviously too hot for life. Even using evolutionary timescales, there is simply not enough MATTER or TIME in the Universe to randomly produce the SEQUENCE for a SIMPLE protein.
These odds are there, working against you EVERY TIME that a new useful specific protein must be generated.
To put this ‘problem’ into some perspective, I will look at the FIRST STAGE of the biochemistry of sight in ONE retina cell:-
“When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (BTW a picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single Human hair.)
The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, RHODOPSIN, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters it’s behaviour. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein called TRANSDUCIN.”
So, if by some miracle, the sequence for the protein Rhodopsin were to be produced using undirected processes – this will have NO EFFECT on the odds of spontaneously producing the sequence for the equally important Transducin protein – to say nothing about actually producing these proteins and coherently harnessing them to produce the desired biochemical effects.
Equally, Natural Selection cannot ‘build up’ to a useful protein – it is either functional Rhodopsin or it isn’t any use at all.
What the maths is MEASURING is something that we know intuitively – that complex, tightly specified machines are the result of Intelligent Design – and the more complex and tightly specified, the more intelligence is required to design them.
What the gigantic figures for even small 100 amino acid proteins are indicating, is that living systems are approaching infinite specificity, infinite density of information and infinite probability of design by an infinitely Intelligent Designer.
To go to the other extreme, if you came across something as basic as a steel nail you would immediately identify it as an artefact of the appliance of Intelligence. The nail exhibits tight specificity by having a formed head and a sharpened point as well as a cylindrical smooth wire linking both ends. In addition it is made of steel, which has never been observed to be spontaneously generated, nor indeed could a mechanism for an undirected wire forming and nail manufacturing process be even theoretically postulated.
What IS amazing however, is that many scientists, who would stoutly defend the Intelligent Design of a simple steel nail, refuse to countenance the Intelligent Design of the infinitely more complex and tightly specified, Intelligent Designer of the nail!!!
There are two levels of applied intelligence observable in living systems:-
The first level of applied intelligence shows an ability to SPECIFY specific sequences to order. A 10 year old can specify any particular 100 amino acid sequence choosing from 20 amino acids at each point on the chain in 20 minutes – yet all of the electrons in the known Universe would fail to produce enough permutations to do this by undirected processes in an effective infinity of time.
The second level of applied intelligence shows an ability to CHOOSE and GENERATE specific sequences and to coherently assemble these sequences to perform precisely co-ordinated functions. This would require an intelligent and creative power approaching infinity and therefore it is proof of Direct Divine Creation.
The relatively simple task is SPECIFYING the order of the amino acids.
The really intelligent ability is to know WHAT sequences to specify and how to coherently assemble them. A particular sequence might specify for a really useful Peptide that would be critical to producing a vital structural protein, for example, or it could be totally useless. However, merely examining the sequence superficially wouldn’t give any idea as to whether it was useful or not.
There are very limited combinations of Critical Amino Acid Sequences that produce useful proteins – and even one “wrong” Amino Acid along a Critical Sequence will utterly change the three dimensional shape of the protein – making it functionally USELESS.
Natural selection can’t solve the problem – I am talking here about the chances of PRODUCING SEQUENCES for a simple protein – i.e. long before Natural Selection would have any role in “selecting out” anything.
Natural Selection doesn’t provide a mechanism to GENERATE genetic information – it merely SELECTS alternatives amongst PRE-EXISTING genetic information. Mutations are equally not observed to generate genetic information – they merely degrade it.
The only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is that DNA had an external intelligent Creator. Science cannot observe this Creator – but it can validly conclude that such an intelligence existed at the time when life originated.
The evidence for Creation is overwhelming and repeatably observable – and so there is no issue in relation to it’s scientific validity.
Wicknight
Secondly, science (more specifically chemisty) has shown how simple self-replicating molecules can form.
All chemical molecules are simple and indeed ‘self-replicating’ from their raw materials by using the Laws of Chemistry.
However the INFORMATION GAP between these simple bio-chemicals and life is enormous.
Michael Polanyi’s seminal essay, Life’s Irreducible Structure, is illuminating in this regard.
Quote from Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 2006, Vol 28(4), 1000-1004.
“As Polanyi put it, “the structure of life is a set of boundary conditions that harness the laws of physics and chemistry (but) their (the boundary condition's) structure cannot be defined in terms of the laws that they harness.”
As he further explained, “As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule.” Like Polanyi, Voie argues that the information and function of DNA and the cellular replication machinery must originate from a source that transcends physics and chemistry. In particular, since as Voie argues, “chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals,” and since “mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations,” it is “therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans.”
Remainder of quote from Professor James Barr, Regis Professor of Hebrew, at Oxford University,
“the apologetic arguments which suppose the `days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, (of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university) as far as I know.
The only thing I would say to qualify this is that most professors may avoid much involvement in that sort of argument and so may not say much explicitly about it one way or the other. But I think what I say would represent their position correctly. However, you might find one or two people who would take the contrary point of view and are competent in the languages, in Assyriology, and so on: it's really not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as of appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is.”
Whether technical linguistics or the type of text is the most important aspect is really a moot point.
What Professor Barr has confirmed is that the argument that the days of Creation are ALLEGORICAL is not taken seriously by any professors of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university.
The fact that Professor Barr is NOT a YEC (who could be accused of bias in the matter) makes his comments even more devastating to the allegorical case.0 -
SSDD. Arguments from authority went out in the Middle Ages. Cut and pastes from the Discovery Institute website simply show a willingness to regurgitate undigested (and probably indigestible) material from others. The argument about random protein generation has been demonstrated to be false a hundred times on this thread alone - JC simply doesn't understand the counter-arguments.
As a matter of interest, what does "specified complexity" mean when it's at home? If I state that a rock with a given sedimentary structure has is both complex and specifiable, is it therefore designed?
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw
These researchers suggest that the human and chimp genetic lines split apart not once, but twice, which suggests the proto-humans and proto-chimps interbred after the original split:
Quote from New Scientist Article
Commenting on the research, Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard, told the Associated Press: "It's a totally cool and extremely clever analysis.
"My problem is imagining what it would be like to have a bipedal hominid and a chimpanzee viewing each other as appropriate mates, not to put it too crudely."
Quite!!!
Quote from BBC Article
So far, Rich admits, this is only a plausible hypothesis and not a proven fact.
In other words it is SPECULATION. .
Wicknight
All women on Earth share an unbroken line of Mitochondrial DNA back to one women, who lived 150,000 years ago. They share millions (billions) of broken lines of Mitochondrial DNA (and normal DNA) to millions of other people,
The common female ancestor of ALL of Mankind must logically be the first woman and that is why ALL women CAN trace their Mitochondrial DNA back to HER and her ALONE.
Of course, there are an infinite variety of possible common and/or intermediate ancestors to PROPORTIONS of Mankind – and billions of broken lines between billions of other people!!!
Wicknight
For example, if M-Eve's next door neighbour had a son and that son mated with one of M-Eve's daughters, that neighbour is a decendent of every female on Earth as well, but that line of accension is broken on the female side (since the neighbour had a son, not a daughter)
Accepting, for the purposes of argument, the above scenario then your conclusion is correct.
However, if M-Eve’s next door female neighbour had a DAUGHTER and she mated with M-Eve’s SON to produce daughters then the proportion of women descendants of this union would trace their common ancestry to the next door female neighbour INSTEAD of M-Eve.
The only way that ALL women can trace their descent from ONE woman is if that woman was the ONLY woman on Earth at the time that she began to reproduce i.e she would HAVE to be the First Woman on Earth.
M-Eve IS therefore proof that there WAS a First Woman on Earth and that ALL of Humanity is descended from her.
M-Eve can ONLY BE the Eve of the Bible.
Robin
I take it that you've finally got around to reading the chapter "Nice guys finish first" in that Dawkins book (The Selfish Gene) that you said you valued so highly!
Nice guys DON’T always finish first.
Do you believe that Munster beat Leinster by being NICE to them?
Do you believe that rutting Stags win the Deer Harem by being NICE to other rutting Stags?
Being nice WON’T even get you to Heaven – many ‘rough and tough’ deeply sinful and violent people ARE saved because they believed on Jesus Christ and many NICE people AREN’T saved because they didn’t.
BTW I have re-checked The Selfish Gene and I didn’t find any chapter entitled "Nice Guys Finish First".
I did find chapters rather ominously entitled “Genesmanship”, “Battle of the Generations”, “Battle of the Sexes” and “You Scratch my Back, I’ll Ride on Yours”!!!!
Lying, manipulation, deceit etc might be expected to give someone an 'edge' in a ‘fallen world’ – yet this is not our actual experience, (as you are also confirming, Robin) because God’s Moral Laws apply just as rigorously as His Physical Laws. Equally, Christians should love their fellow man – because God commanded them to do so.
Scofflaw
If we trace the descendants of my great-grandmother on my mother's side, we find that she had 1 daughter, 4 sons. Her daughter, my grandmother, had 2 daughters (my mother and her sister) and 3 sons. My mother had one daughter, and my aunt had one daughter, one son.
Now, there are, out of all the people descended from my great-grandmother, only two people with unbroken chains of female descent - from my great-grandmother to my sister and her cousin. If either of these has only sons, then that line will be broken.
M-Eve is to the human race what my great-grandmother is to my sister and cousin - the most recent common ancestor in an unbroken female line. She is certainly not their only female ancestor, any more than my great-grandmother on my mother's side is my sister's only female ancestor.
Please note that M-Eve is the common ancestor with unbroken lines of female descent to ALL of Mankind.
Your great-grandmother was the common ancestor with unbroken lines of female descent to ONLY your sister and your cousin – and NOBODY ELSE in that generation!!!
The common female ancestor of ALL of Mankind (in this and every other generation) must logically be the first woman.
For the Human population to grow, she would have to produce children with the first man and therefore they would have to be contemporaneous.
Originally Posted by J C
Theistic Evolution also implies a ‘meddling God’ who continues to DIRECTLY intervene in the World via some (unobserved) evolutionary ‘tweaking’ mechanism to perfect His Creation. This idea is directly contradicted by Genesis 2:2 which states that “by the seventh say God had finished the work he had been doing” i.e. He finished his Creation activity.
Scofflaw
...or "had finished the work he had set himself to do". If I said that I had "finished the work I had set myself to do" it would simply suggest that I had finished a particular project.
Got it in one Scofflaw.
God had indeed finished the ‘particular project that He had set Himself to do’ namely the Creation of the Universe and all life therein – which is exactly what I said above.
Wicknight
Mutations can and do produce NEW genetic diversity. This has been shown a large number of times, the most famous and easy to understand example being the Nylon bateria
The Nylon bug eats nylon. Since nylon is artificial and cannot be produced in nature (first nylon entered the environment in the 1930s), these bacteria must have produced, through evolution, a new way to eat nylon.
Da, Da, Da...... Roll the drums – I give you the Nylon Bug – hit the cymbals!!!
There are bacteria out there that do the most amazing things including gobbling up crude oil, and living in boiling hot sulphuric acid springs.
Indeed there are people out there who also do the most amazing things, like inventing Concorde, walking on the Moon – and getting saved in Jesus Christ.
The bacteria and the people possess these amazing abilities because the genetic information that provides them with these powers was originally programmed into their genomes by an all powerful and intelligent God during Creation Week.
Even though Nylon is an artificial petrochemical polymer, the systems needed to break it down would not have been new.
It is a truism ‘that it is far easier to destroy than to create’.
Breaking something down only requires general systems e.g. fire will destroy almost anything, including Nylon and it is a SIMPLE combustion system. Ditto for bacterial destruction of Nylon.
Synthesising something requires specific systems.
If you would like to really impress me find me a Nylon Bug that CREATES Nylon – instead of DESTROYING it.
Nylon may be an artificial polymer but the bacterial ability to break it down wasn’t dependent upon developing a NEW way to eat Nylon – the breakdown pathways and the diversity of bacterial genetic information already existed.
Wicknight
Bacteria that develop resistance to anti-bodies do not do it in a process directly related to the exposure to the anti-bodies, the resistant genetic information appears naturally and randomly through mutation. These mutations existed before exposure to the anti-bodies.
The mutation of Retroviruses and the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria are examples of the distribution, reduction, or recombination of EXISTING genetic information and mutations – but NONE of these processes have ever been observed to INCREASE genetic information.
Bacterial antibiotic resistance is caused by a LOSS of genetic information or the recombination of such defective genetic information into normal bacteria. What actually kills most bacteria is not the antibiotic itself – but the metabolites of the antibiotic – and if the ability to metabolise the antibiotic IS LOST the bacterium usually stays alive and therefore “resistant”. The non-resistant bacteria literally "know" too much for their own good!!!
Antibiotic resistance is an example of DEVOLUTION in action i.e. a LOSS of genetic information – admittedly doing some short term good for the bacterium. However, as soon as the antibiotic pressure is removed from the environment the non-resistant (but otherwise “fitter") bacteria tend to take over again and rapidly replace the resistant ones.
All of these agents of disease-and death – and they are not capable of generating life – only destroying it.
Could I also suggest that it would provide considerably more support for the Evolutionary case if the bacteria ‘LEARNED’ from their exposure to the antibiotic rather than what you have confirmed – that the mutations existed BEFORE the exposure to the antibiotic.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement