| |
2903030829:
FoC, Your not
alone on this. I am with you my brother. I too am a YEC. I think that in
order to understand why people have fallen for the lie of evolution we
must go deeper than regurgitating what fallible men are saying or have
said about the topic. We must begin with the infallible word of God and
then defend our position on why we believe in the literal account of
Genesis. Remember we must always begin with the absolute authority of the
word of God, because the Truth of God will set us free from the bondage of
sin and death.
From my perspective what compels me to absolutely reject the ToE is that
it undermines the Gospel of Jesus Christ. How does it do that? Simple, Why
do we need Jesus? Because of SIN. What is sin? Man's rebellion of God.
Where does it describe an account of this rebellion? GENESIS.
Death and suffering is the result of sin. To accept the idea that the God
of the Bible (the supreme God of the universe) used pain and suffering as
a means of creating (as seen in the fossil record) is NONSENSE of the
highest degree. For it is written that after He created everything He said
that “it was very good”. Would He have said this if it was already full of
death and suffering. ABSOLUTELY NOT.
2903030834 – Ray Cho said:
I am assuming that the basis for this argument is
Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned."
Note, however, that Paul said that death passed upon all men. He says
nothing about animals dying.
I was referring to Genesis 2:17
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of
it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
And we know the rest of the story. Remember however later on it says in
Romans 8:22 "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth
in pain together until now." I won't get into an argument of exegeses of
scripture with you, because I am not a theologian nor do I claim to have
scriptural authority. However the point I am making here is that when we
let our own interpretations of the Bible interfere with the what the Bible
is really saying then we are bound to misunderstand, instead allow the Holy
Spirit to reveal to us the truth.
As for God declaring His creation "very good," it
seems a bit of a stretch to interpret this passage to mean that animals
were initially created to live forever, and were exempted from the
life-death cycle until Adam's sin.
That is exactly what I am saying. Why wouldn't it be a perfect creation?
Would not a perfect creator create a perfect world where pain death and
suffering did not exist? We are talking about God here now, an infinitely
powerful and wise creator. It makes no sense at all to imagine that God
would allow pain, suffering and death in His creation if He is the God of
Love that He claims to be.
This notion of a "perfect" creation before Adam's
fall (which I was also taught growing up -- by very godly men) has very
little actual scriptural foundation. As much as we would like to think
that this was the case, I have not found anything in the Bible to
absolutely support this idea. Even Romans 8:19-23 does not explicitly
state this if you read the old KJV, which uses the word creature instead
of creation.
If you are looking for absolute proof of this you will not find it until
you are right with God. For if we cannot believe in all that the scripture
teaches than why believe in any at all?
Abbreviations Used
YEC = Young earth creationist - literal
creation account in Genesis
ToE = Theory of Evolution
FoC = Follower of Christ
HS = Holy Spirit
JC = Jesus Christ
2903301002 – Follower of Christ said:
"And then to see their view of God, Christ and salvation it becomes
apparent that when evolution gets added to the mix, compromise of all
scripture isn’t far off.
Yes, too often men are willingly ignorant of the Truth even when it is
plain as day, for men love the darkness rather than the light. It is not
because of their level of intelligence but because of spiritual blindness
and the sinful nature of man. For men often value themselves in the eyes
of other men rather than in the righteousness of the almighty God. I too
have fallen into that slough of despond when I have set my eyes on men and
not God, but I am back on my feet now and on my way to that celestial city
- looking only at the light of Christ as my guide and not what men say.
Do not be discouraged my brother, for the journey to that celestial city
must be made alone - for I cannot bring you, nor you I - for we must all
make the journey individually. Often it is a lonely journey and we will
not know if we have made it until we have crossed that river of death, but
if we hold fast to the word of God as our guide we will reach that city.
2903031128:
As I have often
told my Christian friends who are proponents of theistic evolution that it
is not my intention to break up the house of God - for a house divided
cannot stand. However what does this tell non Christians who scoff at the
very idea that a god who would use pain and suffering as a process of
creating this universe is a god no better than those worshipped by the
Greeks and the Romans and want no part in believing such a god. I
definitely do not think that the God of the Bible is like that, He is God,
and most of all He is a God of Love.
Am I being intellectually dishonest when I talk about God and science at
the same time? ABSOLUTELY NOT And can the Bible be trusted when it touches
on the creation? ABSOLUTELY.
Take for example the Neo Darwinian formula for life and the creation
formula for life:
Matter + Time + Energy = Life [Neo Darwinian]
Matter + Energy + Concept (Logos, Idea, Thought) = Life [Creation]
As a scientist can you truthfully say that you can work with the ND
formula for life? Can you make a machine - much less a biochemical machine
such as the simplest of living organisms of any sort by using the ND
formula? Has there been evidence of LIFE arising by this method in the
last two hundred years or so by natural processes? NO, NEVER HAVE.
Notice: By life I am referring to a living, reproducing, regenerating,
self sustaining organism, not mere amino acids and enzymes.
3003031414 – wblastyn said: "Or it actually is pseudo-science. Science works by
finding evidence and allowing it to lead them to a conclusion, whereas AiG
already assume an absolute truth (that Genesis is literal) and
bend/twist/ignore the evidence to fit Genesis. By definition, they are a
pseudoscience, the only reason you like them is because it tells you what
you want to hear."
I really wonder who is teaching false science here - after all science is
merely the study of God's creation. We all look at the same evidence
because we all live in the same world. You must realize that those who
compromise and attempt to bridge the two sides are often scoffed at from
both sides. Let me ask you who would gain more from distorting the truth?
From a Christian perspective the evolutionist would because the truth of
God is not in them. Creationists are not out there to primarily deceive
people for they know the consequences if they do - if they are the True
believers they claim to be.
Honestly, theistic evolution is no different from materialistic evolution
in any sense because it undermines the fundamental Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Too often we allow fallible human reasoning to determine our faith in God
instead of allowing our faith in God and the scriptures to determine our
reasoning.
The bottom line between the literal Genesis versus theistic evolution is
that the word of God is compromised with the fallible theories of men on
both sides of the fence. The stand behind the literal creationists is that
there is no compromise of God's word. After all what will you place your
belief system on, something that changes all the time such as the ToE, or
the never changing word of the almighty God?
You forget the fundamental reasoning behind the ToE is that man determines
truth. It isn't about what theory sounds best or most intelligent because
as mortals we do not know everything nor will ever know. Further, it is
not a question of who has the most evidence - because evidence alone are
meaningless unless it is interpreted within each belief system. For
evolutionist matter is the only reality, and beyond reality to them it
does not matter. Seems rhetorical but if you truly believe that there is
no God then despite every evidence for God's existence you would conclude
otherwise. For literal creationists it is not winning the debate in the
eyes of men or worldly gain that is of priority, but that they win souls
to God in the process. Most YEC scientists if you ask them what motivates
them to do what they do, I would assume it would be for God's glory and in
winning souls to God, not monetary gain or fame.
If you are a Christian as you claim to be, allow faith to guide your
reasoning, not your reasoning to guide your faith. God is the God of Truth
and He does not lie. If we cannot accept what God said about creating the
world as He claims He did, then it is obvious that he lied to us and what
makes us think He did not lie to us elsewhere in the Bible?
I really wonder who is teaching false
science here - after all science is merely the study of God's creation. We
all look at the same evidence because we all live in the same world. You
must realize that those who compromise and attempt to bridge the two sides
are often scoffed at from both sides. Let me ask you who would gain more
from distorting the truth? From a Christian perspective the evolutionist
would because the truth of God is not in them. Creationists are not out
there to primarily deceive people for they know the consequences if they
do - if they are the True believers they claim to be.
3003031530 – wblastyn:
So you're equating "evolutionist" with atheist,
because "the truth of God is not in them".
Honestly, theistic evolution is no different from materialistic evolution
in any sense because it undermines the fundamental Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Too often we allow fallible human reasoning to determine our faith in God
instead of allowing our faith in God and the scriptures to determine our
reasoning.
Evolution says nothing about Jesus or the Gospel, it
just describes how God created.
The bottom line between the literal Genesis versus theistic evolution is
that the word of God is compromised with the fallible theories of men on
both sides of the fence. The stand behind the literal creationists is that
there is no compromise of God's word. After all what will you place your
belief system on, something that changes all the time such as the ToE, or
the never changing word of the almighty God?
Yes, and what about when those who don't
"compromise" the word of God study biology/geology/cosmology and see that
evolution/old earth/big bang aren't lies like creationists told them?
You forget the fundamental reasoning behind the ToE is that man determines
truth. It isn't about what theory sounds best or most intelligent because
as mortals we do not know everything nor will ever know. Further, it is
not a question of who has the most evidence - because evidence alone are
meaningless unless it is interpreted within each belief system. For
evolutionist matter is the only reality, and beyond reality to them it
does not matter. Seems rhetorical but if you truly believe that there is
no God then despite every evidence for God's existence you would conclude
otherwise. For literal creationists it is not winning the debate in the
eyes of men or worldly gain that is of priority, but that they win souls
to God in the process. Most YEC scientists if you ask them what motivates
them to do what they do, I would assume it would be for God's glory and in
winning souls to God, not monetary gain or fame.
Evolution is NOT atheism, I do not believe "matter
is the only reality", I believe in the supernatural.
The fact that we don't know everything is why
Evolution is a theory, because it could potentially be falsified, but so
far it hasn't. On the other hand, creationist has been falsified, it just
doesn't fit with reality.
What you don't seem to realize is creationism pushes
people away from Christianity, because a lot of people know more about
evolution, etc than you do and if you tell them evolution is false, the
earth is 6000 years old, etc they'll think your insane. You're doing
exactly what Augustine said not to do (talk nonsense to non-Christians
about what they know is true).
If you are a Christian as you claim to be, allow faith to guide your
reasoning, not your reasoning to guide your faith. God is the God of Truth
and He does not lie. If we cannot accept what God said about creating the
world as He claims He did, then it is obvious that he lied to us and what
makes us think He did not lie to us elsewhere in the Bible?
I do have faith in God, just because Genesis may not
be literal does not mean God lied, Jesus told parables all the time.
If you are a Christian as you claim to be,
allow faith to guide your reasoning, not your reasoning to guide your
faith. God is the God of Truth and He does not lie. If we cannot accept
what God said about creating the world as He claims He did, then it is
obvious that he lied to us and what makes us think He did not lie to us
elsewhere in the Bible?
3003030401 – notto said:
Only if your faith demands a literal approach to
Genesis. God did not lie to a theistic evolutionist, he lied to the
creationist because reality shows us how the world was created. My
understanding of the lessons of Genesis do not depend on a literal
approach, therefore, God did not lie to me.
As far as the rest of the bible is concerned, any
belief or interpretation in the bible is accepted on faith. I accept God
on faith. I accept that creation happened the way the creation shows us it
happened. I have faith the Genesis was not to be interpreted literally. I
have faith that God did not lie and did not mean it to be interpreted
literally.
This God has lied stuff is not an honest approach to
my faith and it does little to convince me that I should not trust God.
It sounds as if you are saying that if YEC was
indeed falsified (which it appears to be) that you would lose your faith
because God is a liar. Is that true?
3003031749 –wblastyn said:
"So you're equating "evolutionist"
with atheist, because "the truth of God is not in them".
Not really, only that theistic evolution is not very different from
materialistic natural evolution. The Truth is that God is their creator
and He will hold them accountable for everything that they do and for many
that is just not acceptable.
"Evolution says nothing about Jesus or the Gospel,
it just describes how God created."
Exactly, that is the very reason I reject the ToE. It undermines the need
for a Savior, because according to theistic evolution (or naturalistic
evolution) death and suffering is a part of life, even before Adam. Why
even pray for relief from death and suffering if it has always been apart
of life? If sin did not cause death and suffering what did sin do? And
besides, what sort of god do you think would use such a cruel way of
bringing about life where the strong survive and the weak die? Surely he
or she is not worthy to be my god.
You are wrong there when you say that it describes how God created because
it doesn't. And besides what makes you think the ToE gives us the best
evidence for how life came about? If you are willing to accept that the
ToE gives you the best way of explaining how life came about then by all
means embrace it, I just don't think I can because the Bible is true not
because I believe it is true, but that it is the truth that is why I
believe in it.
By the way if you want to know why evolution is a false theory I suggest
you look into the book, "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution"
written by A.E. Wilder-Smith.
"Yes, and what about when those who don't
"compromise" the word of God study biology/geology/cosmology and see that
evolution/old earth/big bang aren't lies like creationists told them?"
As I have stated earlier it is when we allow outside influence from
fallible men to reinterpret the scriptures that we become blind to the
truth ourselves. The point I am making is that if you cannot trust the
language system and accept what is written then what can you trust?
"Evolution is NOT atheism, I do not believe "matter
is the only reality", I believe in the supernatural."
Perhaps, but you need to realize that it is the foundation for atheism.
"The fact that we don't know everything is why
Evolution is a theory, because it could potentially be falsified, but so
far it hasn't. On the other hand, creationist has been falsified, it just
doesn't fit with reality.
What you don't seem to realize is creationism pushes people away from
Christianity, because a lot of people know more about evolution, etc than
you do and if you tell them evolution is false, the earth is 6000 years
old, etc they'll think your insane. You're doing exactly what Augustine
said not to do (talk nonsense to non-Christians about what they know is
true).
I do have faith in God, just because Genesis may not
be literal does not mean God lied, Jesus told parables all the time."
As Christians we should not squabble over our interpretations of the
scriptures but be as living examples of the grace and love of Jesus
Christ, for even if a man were to come back from the dead and told us that
God is real and that He will hold us accountable for everything that we
do, how many do you think will truly believe? Very little, because the
heart of man is by nature sinful and wicked.
I do not doubt your faith in God, but when I said "lie" what I was saying
is that if we can not believe that God did what He did due to outside
influence, then how do we know what he said elsewhere is the truth?
3003032016 – notto said:
"Only if your faith demands a literal approach to
Genesis. God did not lie to a theistic evolutionist, he lied to the
creationist because reality shows us how the world was created. My
understanding of the lessons of Genesis do not depend on a literal
approach, therefore, God did not lie to me."
Yes, my absolute faith in God compels me to believe in the literal account
of the creation as told in the Bible. The ToE is man's explanation for how
life could of arisen when they were not there to begin with. The Bible is
the inspired Book of God revealed to man. As a Christian which is more
credible God's words or man's theory?
"As far as the rest of the bible is concerned, any
belief or interpretation in the bible is accepted on faith. I accept God
on faith. I accept that creation happened the way the creation shows us it
happened. I have faith the Genesis was not to be interpreted literally. I
have faith that God did not lie and did not mean it to be interpreted
literally."
Your contradicting yourself here. If you accept that God did not lie and
accept that the creation occurred the way it is recorded then why add the
ToE? Is God's word that He did it that way not sufficient?
"This God has lied stuff is not an honest approach
to my faith and it does little to convince me that I should not trust
God."
Read my reply to wblastyn
"It sounds as if you are saying that if YEC was
indeed falsified (which it appears to be) that you would lose your faith
because God is a liar. Is that true?"
That is far from the Truth. If God is the omnipotent, omniscient being
that we know Him to be then what He said in His book would be the truth
whether we choose to believe in it or not. Then it would not matter what
fallible men such as ourselves may say that we can take as literal or
allegory because His Truth exists irregardless of our interpretations. The
bottom line is would it not be better to err on the side of man than in
the sight of God?
"Not really, only that theistic evolution is not
very different from materialistic natural evolution. The Truth is that God
is their creator and He will hold them accountable for everything that
they do and for many that is just not acceptable."
3103030459 – wblastyn said:
and what? I accept the theory of gravity, many
atheists accept the theory of gravity, big deal.
"Exactly, that is the very reason I reject the ToE.
It undermines the need for a Savior, because according to theistic
evolution (or naturalistic evolution) death and suffering is a part of
life, even before Adam. Why even pray for relief from death and suffering
if it has always been apart of life? If sin did not cause death and
suffering what did sin do? And besides, what sort of god do you think
would use such a cruel way of bringing about life where the strong survive
and the weak die? Surely he or she is not worthy to be my god."
Electricity says nothing about Jesus either.
Just because sin did not enter the world by someone
eating from a magic tree does not mean sin did not enter the world. Maybe
it happened in a much more complicated way, so God used the story of Adam
and Eve to show man rebelled against God and is sinful, who cares what
actually happened.
Also, I think you are referring to Natural Selection
when you talk about the strong surviving, etc. It's a fact of nature, if a
group of antelope are being chased by a cheetah then the ones which have a
gene for stronger legs will have a better chance of surviving, whereas the
ones with weaker legs will most likely get caught, it's pretty obvious
when you think about it.
"You are wrong there when you say that it describes
how God created because it doesn't. And besides what makes you think the
ToE gives us the best evidence for how life came about? If you are willing
to accept that the ToE gives you the best way of explaining how life came
about then by all means embrace it, I just don't think I can because the
Bible is true not because I believe it is true, but that it is the truth
that is why I believe in it."
Yes it does, creation shows that God , assuming He
exists, created everything using evolution.
But if Genesis was never supposed to be taken
literally in the first place then what you believe isn't really true is
it?
"By the way if you want to know why evolution is a
false theory I suggest you look into the book, "The Natural Sciences Know
Nothing of Evolution" written by A.E. Wilder-Smith."
I'm sure it's nothing I haven't seen before. If he
truly falsified evolution he would have won a Nobel Prize.
3103031003 - wblastyn said:
"and what? I accept the theory of gravity, many
atheists accept the theory of gravity, big deal."
So do I because it is what we observe, it is something that is testable,
repeatable, and it is a natural law. Evolution in the sense of natural
unguided process is not a good theory because it cannot be repeated,
tested or observed. But of course you will say that it is being observed
through speciation but that is a bigger topic that I will address later
on.
"Electricity says nothing about Jesus either."
A bit off topic here.
"Just because sin did not enter the world by someone
eating from a magic tree does not mean sin did not enter the world. Maybe
it happened in a much more complicated way, so God used the story of Adam
and Eve to show man rebelled against God and is sinful, who cares what
actually happened."
How do you know it didn't? What version of the Bible are you reading? Did
I miss something?
"Also, I think you are referring to Natural
Selection when you talk about the strong surviving, etc. It's a fact of
nature, if a group of antelope are being chased by a cheetah then the ones
which have a gene for stronger legs will have a better chance of
surviving, whereas the ones with weaker legs will most likely get caught,
it's pretty obvious when you think about it."
YECs are aware of natural selection and it has little to do with survival
of the fittest. For YECs, natural selection deals more with genetics and
variations within the "kind" with natural selection as a mechanism for
that variation. There are no genes for stronger legs that I am aware of,
because as you know acquired characteristics cannot be passed on to
succeeding generations. I will explain this later.
"Yes it does, creation shows that God , assuming He
exists, created everything using evolution."
No it does not, because evolution is a blind process, because many
biological systems found in the living world function as finely tuned
machines - it is only logical to conclude that it was created that way as
mentioned in the first chapters of Genesis. Evolution requires that each
mutation adds a small step in each generation. It is illogical to conclude
that an instrument such as echo location (sonar) found in certain sea
creatures like dolphins to have developed in such a manner since the
dolphin would not of known the mathematics formula for the speed of sound
in water unless it was preprogrammed in its brain. You cannot create such
an instrument of that complexity by chance. If you think you can try
duplicating a radar system by any unguided process, you simply can't.
"But if Genesis was never supposed to be taken
literally in the first place then what you believe isn't really true is
it?"
As I have said to notto earlier - If God is the omnipotent, omniscient
being that we know Him to be then what He said in His book would be true
whether we choose to believe in it or not. And it would not matter what
fallible men such as ourselves take as literal or allegory because God's
Truth exists irregardless of our interpretations. The bottom line is I
would rather err in the sight of man and be on side of God.
"I'm sure it's nothing I haven't seen before. If he
truly falsified evolution he would have won a Nobel Prize."
The book is primarily for die hard evolutionists who insist on believing
that life came about through unguided random processes. It may or may not
apply here since we do believe in God as the creator - our only difference
is our interpretations of how God did it. His book was not intended to
falsify evolution but does provide very good evidence on the
improbabilities of life having arisen by chance from working in his own
field of biochemistry for over 50 years. It is worth a look. Yes he is a
fallible man such as ourselves but still he was a respected scientist even
in the evolutionary circle due to his credentials as holding three
doctorates in the sciences and spoke 7 different languages.
"How do you know it didn't? What version of the
Bible are you reading? Did I miss something?"
3103031032 – wblastyn said:
You were implying "evolutionists" undermine the
Gospel because if Genesis is not literal then sin could not have entered
the world, except theist evolutionists do believe sin entered the world.
"YECs are aware of natural selection and it has
little to do with survival of the fittest. For YECs, natural selection
deals more with genetics and variations within the "kind" with natural
selection as a mechanism for that variation. There are no genes for
stronger legs that I am aware of, because as you know acquired
characteristics cannot be passed on to succeeding generations. I will
explain this later."
Yes, that's what "evolutionists" accept too. The
stronger legs thing was just an example. Creatures with genes better
adapted for their surroundings are more likely to survive there than those
who don't have better adapted genes.
"No it does not, because evolution is a blind
process, because many biological systems found in the living world
function as finely tuned machines - it is only logical to conclude that it
was created that way as mentioned in the first chapters of Genesis.
Evolution requires that each mutation adds a small step in each
generation. It is illogical to conclude that an instrument such as echo
location (sonar) found in certain sea creatures like dolphins to have
developed in such a manner since the dolphin would not of known the
mathematics formula for the speed of sound in water unless it was
preprogrammed in its brain. You cannot create such an instrument of that
complexity by chance. If you think you can try duplicating a radar system
by any unguided process, you simply can't."
Some Theistic Evolutionists believe God guided
evolution. Do you need to understand neurons to use your brain? No, so why
would a dolphin need to understand mathematics to use sonar?
"The book is primarily for die hard evolutionists who insist on believing
that life came about through unguided random processes. It may or may not
apply to us since we do believe in God as the creator - our only
difference is our interpretations of how God did it. His book was not
intended to falsify evolution but does provide very good evidence on the
improbabilities of life having arisen by chance from working in his own
field of biochemistry for over 50 years. It is worth a look. Yes he is a
fallible man such as ourselves but still he was a respected scientist even
in the evolutionary circle due to his credentials as holding three
doctorates in the sciences and spoke 7 different languages."
By "die hard evolutionists" do you mean atheists?
Evolution is not random, it works by natural SELECTION. Creation itself
backs up our interpretation, so I'd prefer to go with that one. Our
interpretation of scripture should reflect what actually happens in
reality.
3103031307 - wblastyn said:
"You were implying "evolutionists" undermine the
Gospel because if Genesis is not literal then sin could not have entered
the world, except theist evolutionists do believe sin entered the world.
Yes, that's what "evolutionists" accept too. The stronger legs thing was
just an example. Creatures with genes better adapted for their
surroundings are more likely to survive there than those who don't have
better adapted genes."
If that is the case then why not take God on His word as being the truth
and not contaminate it with men's fallible theories? If God created all
life as He said He did then it would have been perfect - no death or
suffering etc.? He would have created all life with the maximum amount of
genetic information. Would He not? And would it not be logical to conclude
that the curse of sin has resulted in the dramatic change to His creation,
something that He did not intend for it to be?
"Some Theistic Evolutionists believe God guided
evolution."
So you really believe that God used evolution to bring about life as we
see it today? What is the best proof that you can cite to support that?
Note: By proof I mean proof that is undisputed, not just so-so
interpretations surmised from incredulity of scripture.
"Do you need to understand neurons to use your
brain? No, so why would a dolphin need to understand mathematics to use
sonar?"
Could not a creator as omnipotent as our God have done this? My point as
you may or may not be aware of follow in the lines of "irreducible
complexity". Simply stated that all parts of living organisms had to be
there at the same time or it won't work - much like a car without a drive
shaft or fuel injection system can not function, so living organisms which
are much more complex biochemical machines cannot function without all its
essential parts working together in harmony.
"By "die hard evolutionists" do you mean atheists?"
Basically, but let me remind you that we are not wrestling with mortals on
this issue but with the forces of darkness. Even with absolute proof that
God did what He did only a few thousand years ago you will still have
unbelievers. Why? Because our sins blind us from God's truth, and until
that barrier of sin is removed - atheists, non believers etc. will never
see the Truth. Until a person confesses that s/he is a sinner, repents
their sin acknowledges that JC is their Lord and Savior - then no matter
what is presented to them will not move them to faith in God. Man alone
cannot bring man into faith with God, it is only by the conviction of the
HS that they are compelled to faith.
"Evolution is not random, it works by natural
SELECTION."
Evolution from nonliving matter to living matter is a random process.
Speciation however is not random. By evolution not being random you really
mean that speciation is not random. The later I agree with.
"Creation itself backs up our interpretation, so I'd
prefer to go with that one. Our interpretation of scripture should reflect
what actually happens in reality."
What really happens in reality is that things change, speciation does
occur. This is not do to evolution but variations within a created kind.
From what we observe in real life, we are not evolving but are rather
devolving - because mutations when studied at the molecular level do not
add genetic information but reduces genetic information (obviously due to
the curse of sin). Speciation occurs because built in genetic information
that a wise creator has put in place is simply reshuffled allowing
organisms to adapt to their environment. Can I prove this beyond a
reasonable doubt? Probably not, because I am a fallible human being just
like everyone else. But it makes sense because an omniscient being such as
God would have known what was to become of His creation and would have
been prepared for it. Would He not?
"If that is the case then why not take God on His
word as being the truth and not contaminate it with men's fallible
theories? If God created all life as He said He did then it would have
been perfect - not death or suffering etc.? He would have created all life
with the maximum amount of genetic information. Would he not? And would it
not be logical to conclude that the curse of sin has resulted in the
dramatic change of His creation, something that He did not intend for it
to be?"
3103031726 - wblastyn said: Genesis only says creation was "good" not perfect.
Instead of telling God how He should have created, look at how He did
create (evolution).
"So you really believe that God used evolution to
bring about life as we see it today? What is the best proof that you can
cite to support that? Note: By proof I mean proof that is undisputed, not
just so-so interpretations surmised from incredulity of scripture."
Well there are the conflicting creation accounts,
the figurative language, the evidence from creation against literal
Genesis, etc. If you're looking for a direct "and God used evolution to
create..." there is none, although it does say God formed life from the
ocean, which could support abiogenesis. But I could show you scripture
that says the earth is immovable and sits on pillars. The Bible is not a
science book.
"Could not a creator as omnipotent as our God have
done this? My point (as you may or may not be aware of) follow in the
lines of "irreducible complexity". Simply stated that all parts of living
organisms had to be there at the same time or it won't work - much like a
car without a drive shaft or fuel injection system can not function, so
living organisms which are much more complex biochemical machines cannot
function without all its essential parts working together in harmony."
Yes, but I don't understand why that couldn't have
come about by evolution.
"Evolution from nonliving matter to living matter is a random process.
Speciation however is not random. By evolution not being random you really
mean that speciation is not random. The later I agree with."
That's abiogenesis, and it's not entirely random,
molecules arrange themselves in specific patterns. How are speciation and
evolution different?
"What really happens in reality is that things
change, speciation does occur. This is not do to evolution but variations
within a created kind. From what we observe in real life, we are not
evolving but are rather devolving - because mutations when studied at the
molecular level do not add genetic information but reduces genetic
information (obviously due to the curse of sin). Speciation occurs because
built in genetic information that a wise creator has put in place is
simply reshuffled allowing organisms to adapt to their environment. Can I
prove this beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably not because I am a fallible
human being just like everyone else. But it makes sense because an
omniscient being such as God would have known what was to become of His
creation and would have been prepared for it. Would He not?"
But there is no magical barrier that stops a species
from becoming something else. The species could change so much that it
could no longer mate with the original to produce fertile offspring, which
is when it is labeled a new species I think. We don't actually know what
"kinds" are.
Mutations can add new genetic info, bacteria are
becoming resistant to antibiotics, that is new information added to their
genome.
3103031741 – chickenman said:
nonliving matter to living matter isn't evolution,
its abiogenesis, and it isn't random either, because chemical evolution
relies on natural selection too, so you're incorrect
by evolution being non random, he means exactly that, and he is correct,
every phenotype is acted on by selection, so evolution isn't random
I have yet to meet a creationist who has ever stated the theory of
evolution correctly, that’s part of the problem
Where is it documented that abiogenesis is even observed to take place in
the last hundred years? It is the very foundation of evolution, without
the first primitive organism there is no evolution of any kind. I think
you are fooling yourself here if you were to work with the evolutionary
formula for life: matter + energy + time = life, (experiment using that
formula for a while and then tell me how it turns out before you start
making the bold claims that you are making). Even today with the
advancement of science they are not even able to produce the simplest of
life forms from non living matter. You need to research a little more
before you make the assertion that abiogenesis is possible because it
isn't.
- its easy to disagree with a theory you don't fully
understand
Obviously you have been duped into believing that evolution (life from no
life) is a workable theory. You have disregarded the very laws of nature
which God has put in place where non life cannot become life if simply
left to time.
"Where is it documented that abiogenesis is even
observed to take place in the last hundred years? It is the very
foundation of evolution, without the first primitive organism there is no
evolution of any kind. I think you are fooling yourself here if you were
to work with the evolutionary formula for life: matter + energy + time =
life, (experiment using that formula for a while and then tell me how it
turns out before you start making the bold claims that you are making).
Even today with the advancement of science they are not even able to
produce the simplest of life forms from non living matter. You need to
research a little more before you make the assertion that abiogenesis is
possible because it isn't."
0104030906 – wblastyn said: Abiogenesis is not the foundation of evolution, God
could have created the first single celled life forms by "magic" and
allowed them to evolve (which is kind of what Augustine believed),
although I don't believe God did it that way either, but you never know.
What I'm trying to say is, if abiogenesis was falsified it would not
effect evolution.
If you look in the other forum scientists have been
able to produce protocells in the lab, which fit the definition of life.
See the post "Protocell Redux" by Lucaspa.
Why is abiogenesis impossible?
0104030930 - notto said:
"Both theistic evolutionists and creationists accept
that life came from non-life at some point. The disagreement is as to what
form that life took."
Not quite, you forget the only difference
between naturalistic evolution and theistic evolution is that God is added
into the equation.
Naturalistic Evolution: matter + evolutionary factors (chance and
necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time
periods.
Theistic Evolution: matter + evolutionary
factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death)
+ very long time periods + God.
Creationists believe in the creation of the
"kinds" already in their basic forms with the ability to diversify and
adapt to their environment.
"Evolution does not depend on life from non-life. It depends on life being
present and well, look around, the chances that life came to be on this
planet are a sure bet."
That is not true, naturalistic evolution requires life to arise via
abiogenesis - which has never occurred nor will it ever. Assuming however
that it is true that life came to be by itself - it goes against all the
known laws of nature! Even a good biochemist will tell you that life is
not merely basic substances mixed together. Life requires highly organized
processes in order to sustain and reproduce itself.
"Evolution deals with what happened after that.
Science cannot at this point say where that life came from. From outer
space, from God, from ocean vents."
I think your assumptions are based on regurgitating what others in the so
called field of evolution are saying. It seems you have been evolutionized
to the point of not recognizing that God is the only source of all life.
"This does not change evolution. We can accept that
God created the first molecules that became living and evolution would
work just the same as if they came from non-life through a chemical
reaction."
As I have said to wblastyn earlier - embrace evolution if you want but I
stand on the word of God. His word is true not because I believe it is
true, but it is truth that is why I believe it.
"The evidence used to support evolution or accept
evolution is not dependent on where the first life came from."
Life cannot evolve if there is no life to begin with. How can something
mutate if there is nothing to mutate.
|
|