Theistic Evolution (God + Evolution)

[superdave5221]

There have been many extinctions, including two during the Devonian period, one during the Permian, one during the Triassic period, and one around 65 million years ago which cause the extinction of the dinosaurs. The rapid reemergence of new life forms caused evolutionary scientists to once again revise their theory to say that the rapid growth of new species was the result of the vacuum created by the mass extinctions. This, of course denies uniformitarianism, which has been a backbone of geology since it became a science. This, along with the Cambrian explosion denies the "long time periods" you are still preaching in your earlier post. There is no way that evolution can be applied to the "Cambrian explosion". If you deny "uniformitarianism", and declare that these "long time periods" must be repeated over and over, there is not enough time for your evolution to occur.

The new model, which resembles a cactus, more than a tree, has the same problems with the fossil record as before. Using the evolutionary model, the simpler, less complex lifeforms should be found in the trunk, not in the branches, where the more complex lifeforms should be. Yet you have the trilobite, which is extremely complex, having a compound eye, and an exoskeleton, as well as the ability to enroll itself in defense, in the trunk! So now evolutionists are considering a forest model, which is what the fossil record has revealed all along. (Actually it resembles a lawn)

I am not a scientist, and perhaps you can excuse me for not seeing evidence at times, but evolutionists, who claim to be not only scientists, but to have a consensus of knowledge, have been ignoring obvious evidence for decades. Maybe its time to realize that when the evidence points towards God, then just accept it!

 

[Jrac]

Also, back to superdave5221:

The strict model yes, would fall. But a basic model that can change, but still keep a basis can hold with support. Creationism says that creatures where given large gene pools, which again (look at my other post) through processes acheive variety, but that is through existing information, created by God. The model Evolution says that there is a mechanism, and processes that through time achieve a greater complexity, creating divercity. Using the world today and gather information of our past we can conclude which is more reliable, becuase each comes with a perspective and world view for life.

Also I forgot to ad this to my above post, Humans and the second law of thermodynamics. In the beggining, their was incest, and no problems (supposedly), and God was okay with that. Supposedly they had Huge gene pools that with time (I say thousands of years) created the divercity we have today. But today we can't have incest going on, becuase of recessive genes--mutations, and defects. This comes from a decaying line of heritage. In the begging their was such variety between a brother and sister that there where no problems with those two breeding. Soon God banned incest, becuase defects where about to come along. For am example look at the Monoarchy families that reguralry had incest, the results where (sadly) more corrupt children. The art of sexual interaction is the trading and variety of gametes. Which today is limited per person. Back then it wasn't a probelem, suppoesedly. This conects to the second law becuase we are a dieing race in essence. Back then If you had a defect, you died, this was part of survival of the fittest, keeping the race somewhat healthy, today, we keep our 'sick' alive, passing on the recessive genes, which builds up. Not to say a human with a defect is less human, no we are al created in Gods image, but this fallen world corrupts the image. Now if the Pinacle and most advanced race is decaying, supposedly, then wouldn't all the other creations?

Responding to another post before, I agree with micro-evolution----that is observed, not Macro-evolution

Praise the Lord Amen

 

[ItinerantLurker]

There have been many extinctions, including two during the Devonian period, one during the Permian, one during the Triassic period, and one around 65 million years ago which cause the extinction of the dinosaurs. The rapid reemergence of new life forms caused evolutionary scientists to once again revise their theory to say that the rapid growth of new species was the result of the vacuum created by the mass extinctions. This, of course denies uniformitarianism, which has been a backbone of geology since it became a science.

Really? Mass extinctions "deny" uniformitarianism? Are you altogether sure you understand what "uniformitarianism" actually is?

This, along with the Cambrian explosion denies the "long time periods" you are still preaching in your earlier post.

Really? Are you altogether sure you understand what the Cambrian Explosion was? Do you realize that this term refers to between 5 to 40 million years depending upon whom you ask?

Using the evolutionary model, the simpler, less complex lifeforms should be found in the trunk, not in the branches, where the more complex lifeforms should be.

Um. . .no actually. Evolution is not a monolithic progression from simple to complex and nested hierarchies are based on traits, not levels of complexity.

Yet you have the trilobite, which is extremely complex, having a compound eye, and an exoskeleton, as well as the ability to enroll itself in defense, in the trunk!

What on earth are you talking about? Here is the phylogeny of Trilobita as nested within the arthropods,

keep in mind that there were numerous orders of Trilobites, here's a view of the phylogeny of just one of those orders (Asaphida). Note the lack of a central "trunk" as you seem to envision it.




Lurker

 

[ItinerantLurker]

I should have made the point of difference between Macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution I say is true, and seen and observed. It relates to natural selection. Macro-evolution is a massive change done by a mechanism (they could not find a mechansim fro macro-evolution, some thought Mutations was the mechanism, but mutations resulted in more then 700 to 1 ration bad/good, and none found resulted in an increase of information, which is needed to 'advance,' so it's to un-probable, also thinking of all the systems that try to avoid mutations)

If you don't understand the actual difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution then it's not going to make much difference whether or not you choose to point out their differences. Microevolution is evolution below the species level whereas macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level. They both use the same mechanisms (random variation acted upon by natural selection), the only difference between them is time.

As an example you can walk to your couch and you can walk from California to New York - the mechanism for moving is, in both cases, the same (walking) but the effects of walking a longer distance over a longer period of time is obviously distinct.

Also just becuase a large percentage of people (not all christians I will add) trust a theory, does not mean its true, though great amounts can give support, but not prove truth.

While that is true, when over 95% of professionals in a given field not only endorse a theory but spend decades researching and publishing findings which support said theory it's a safe bet that they are onto something.

The Sun gives energy, yes the earth is an open system, yes energy is literally dumped into the earth, but, energy does not provide organization.

If you are going to try and relate this to the second law of thermodynamics then you are radically redefining "entropy".

For a link of four protiens, the probabilty is next to 0. I apologize, I do not have the figures with me as of right now, but later I can get the mathmatics in the process, which I am sure you have heard of.

That would be a good idea, because I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Also Lurker, a species that is created through time and natural selection---yes I agree with this statement. I agree with this becuase the 'Creationist' says that creatures had a massive gene pool when first created. Through natural selection, breeding, survival of the fittest, adaptation, you get variety, this evolutionists say, and I agree with.

Is there any evidence for this massive gene pool which included all possible variations we now observe? Why don't we then find increasing diversity within genomes in preserved dna from critters thousands of years ago?

Its the simple to more complex I don't agree with.

Fantastic, but when you disagree with reality you will inevitably lose. We've already observed random mutations being acted upon by natural selection generating new traits.

And through the second law of thermo dynamics, which apply to our open system since raw energy does not provide (I say, as well as supporters) raw information.

While that may be your personal definition of the second law of thermodynamics it is not the actual second law of thermodynamics. Feel free to keep making stuff up at your leisure, but you may want to ask yourself why anyone else should care.

Randomness as I have read and been taught, can not advance a creatures genotype, which affects the phenotype.

Yet random variation acted upon by natural selection has been observed to generate both novel genotype and phenotype. Again, when you disagree with reality you will inevitably lose.

I have to learn about evolution, Lurker, I ask if you look into Creationism.

I already know about Creationism as I used to be a YEC. I've argued for the exact same points you are now back when I used to debate on the side of YEC and, later, Intelligent Design. What happened, however, is that the more I learned about biology, paleontology, geology, physics, chemistry, and genetics the more I came to realize that the evidence supporting evolution and an old universe is truly overwhelming while those arguing against these positions must invariably employ cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.





Lurker

 

[Mark777]

Any literal-6-dayers wanna tell us how the light from the stars in the night sky has travelled here in just a few thousand years to be visible to us?

That is not a two second answer. It is covered in the book "Starlight, Time and the New Physics" by Dr John Hartnett. It all has to do with how God "stretched out the heavens."

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Creationism says that creatures where given large gene pools, which again (look at my other post) through processes acheive variety, but that is through existing information, created by God.

Again, think about what you are saying - if this is true shouldn't we find evidence of this larger gene pool by looking at the genomes of people who lived thousands of years ago? Why isn't this evidence ever found?




Lurker

 

[AnandaHya]

Again, think about what you are saying - if this is true shouldn't we find evidence of this larger gene pool by looking at the genomes of people who lived thousands of years ago? Why isn't this evidence ever found?

Lurker

Acutally the out of Africa theory of Human evolutionary theory is based upon the data that African genome has more diversity then other people and that the bottleneck effect caused a decrease of biodiversity in the population of different ethnic groups. Most scientist trace human origins to a region in Africa, but there is a small component that disagree.


so how do you suggest looking at the genomes of people who lived thousands of years ago?

 

[AnandaHya]

Now, let me tackle this one again. Your insistence on a literal translation of Genesis 1 makes no sense. To begin with, God does not need time at all. God created time itself, and transcends that time. What is 5 billion years to God? It is nothing! It is an instant!

So really God had two choices, or a combination of two choices which makes much more sense than your literal translation.

It comes down to the question, When did God create time?

If God created time in the beginning, then why create the "illusion of time" by simulating billions of years in six days? He could have just as easily used the 5 billion years. It would be nothing to Him. So why create this illusion and deception, when it is unnecessary?

Or he could have created the universe first, and then created time, in which case your theory of the appearance or illusion of time would be somewhat viable.

In either case, there is no reason to limit God to a literal six day creation.

no I never understood this either, why do people say literally six days of 24 hours and why 6000 years where did they get that? I didn't read it in the Bible. It doesn't make that much sense to me since as it has been pointed out the sun and moon were not created until the 4 th day according to the Bible.

 

[Protection_Retribution]

Any literal-6-dayers wanna tell us how the light from the stars in the night sky has travelled here in just a few thousand years to be visible to us?

Oh yeah I saw a post on this a while back apparently the speed of light has slowed down so It couldve been like 9x108 or somthing like that... which apparently explains everything and makes sense

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Acutally the out of Africa theory of Human evolutionary theory is based upon the data that African genome has more diversity then other people and that the bottleneck effect caused a decrease of biodiversity in the population of different ethnic groups. Most scientist trace human origins to a region in Africa, but there is a small component that disagree.

Very true, but the issue isn't simply a matter of diversity - it's a matter of perfection. We should expect to see a more and more homogenous and supposedly more "perfect" genome the further back in time we look. However, we don't see this at all.

However, the subject of genetic bottlenecks in human history is definitely an interesting one, especially to this discussion: Genetic Bottlenecks

so how do you suggest looking at the genomes of people who lived thousands of years ago?

By. . .studying their preserved dna, how else?




Lurker

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Oh yeah I saw a post on this a while back apparently the speed of light has slowed down so It couldve been like 9x108 or somthing like that... which apparently explains everything and makes sense

Please. . .please tell me you are joking.




Lurker

 

[AnandaHya]

lol you're asking PR? lol

hey IL you have your own website neat

 

[zone]

no I never understood this either, why do people say literally six days of 24 hours and why 6000 years where did they get that? I didn't read it in the Bible. It doesn't make that much sense to me since as it has been pointed out the sun and moon were not created until the 4 th day according to the Bible.

please go to the geneologies in the Bible and add up the numbers of years each lived.

start with ADAM. we are given the geneologes for a reason.

if evolution were true, JESUS would have taught it. Jesus did not teach evolution.

He would have spoken like Carl Sagan "eons and eons and s-s-s-tar s-s-s-t-uf-f-f-f-f".

 

[trust_in_the_name]

please go to the geneologies in the Bible and add up the numbers of years each lived.

start with ADAM. we are given the geneologes for a reason.

if evolution were true, JESUS would have taught it. Jesus did not teach evolution.

He would have spoken like Carl Sagan "eons and eons and s-s-s-tar s-s-s-t-uf-f-f-f-f".

anybody else notice that Agent Smith from the Matrix (Hugo Weaving) talks just like Carl Sagan

 

[AnandaHya]

please go to the geneologies in the Bible and add up the numbers of years each lived.

start with ADAM. we are given the geneologes for a reason.

if evolution were true, JESUS would have taught it. Jesus did not teach evolution.

He would have spoken like Carl Sagan "eons and eons and s-s-s-tar s-s-s-t-uf-f-f-f-f".

hey Zone when did God make angels? Ever wonder if the Bible doesn't start at the creation of the universe but the creation of our solar system?

Genesis 1

The History of Creation

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.


Did you notice that the waters are already in existence? the earth was without form and space is a void. What is the face of the deep and the face of the waters? It doesn't mention God creating them. I'm just wondering if God told us the short version of the story. Just what we need to know about the world, because does it really matter how early earth was form, unless of course we want to terraform the moon or something.

God has all the knowledge in the whole world and He did not write it all in a book. He wrote it in the world since that too is His creation. Scientists try and read that creation and understand the laws of nature that GOD set up.

Jesus didn't teach about indoor plumbing or electricity either, would that be considered evil?

Evolution is just a tool God placed for animals to adapt to the changing environment.

Genesis tells us that God made animals to reproduce each to their own kind, but He only listed:

plants, great sea creatures, birds, cattle, creeping things, beasts and then mankind.


The Six Kingdoms:
Plants, Fungi, Animals, Protists, Fungi, Archaebacteria, Eubacteria.

did you notice that birds are created at the same time as great sea creatures and scientist are now thinking that birds were ancestors to DINOSAURS? This was the fifth day before land creatures were made.

The scientific evidence is being translated through an atheist lens. That doesn't mean the observations are lies, it means the resulting conclusions might be a bit off.

What do you know about the reconstruction of dinosaur bones?

I know that dinosaurs were massive and that whales are massive. the reason whales are able to live is that they are in water. can dinosaurs support their body weight outside of water as scientist say?

I don't know I'd have to do more research, but looking at the skeleton of a TRex with its stubby two legs and tail???

If you haven't noticed I question everything until someone gives me a logical answer based on the shown data or God tells me to let it go.

so when do you think angels were made? before the Genesis account started since they were there to witness the foundations of the earth being laid or are they the stars (in Revelation the stars are angels of the 7 churches) in day 4 or winged creatures spoken of in day 5 (since they are described as having wings by the prophets)?

 

[AnandaHya]

By. . .studying their preserved dna, how else?
Lurker

ever heard of weathering and decay?

you expect to find a perfect strand of ancient DNA and discount the theory based on the fact its missing some things after centuries of being out in the elements. not adding to the fact you might be testing bacterial DNA and not that of an older organism?

Hmmm logical and rational???

If you still think so I'll provide some science articles that say the same thing but in much fancier words.

its like saying animals don't exist because there are no fossil records.

I state again. I believe that GOD created a template for all species in existence (species defined as any thing that can sexually reproduce with each other. if they reproduce by asexual reproduction then there are different rules of operation for those organisms). Microevolution in these terms occur because it is within a SPECIES, not your narrow definition since your species can change due to social preference and courting behavior not just biological factors or DNA variations.

I mean species as IN the Beginning God made animals and they reproduced each to their own kind.

Now their own kind traits and appearance may have changed with the times like the peppered moths that change color to better blend with the tree trunks. However the traits are already IN the population, it just that for a while some exhibit it more then at other times depending on the selecting agent.

God made autotrophs in Day 3 and He made sea creatures and winged creatures in Day 4 and He made land animals in Day 5.

I don't know what Day means to God but it really doesn't matter except for those who want to argue about numbers, since we are unlikely to reproduce it. God is the Divine catalyst. what it would take nature thousands of years to do, God could have done in 7 days if he so wanted to, just speed up what people call "random chance" cool down the earth faster and introduce already complete templates for each creature.

that would cut out the estimates of time needed to develop life as we see it considerably and

you still haven't answered about if you believe Enzymes and catalyst could have been created by random chance or not?

 

[carolineh]

here is a link to a brilliant speaker on the topic FreeHovind -