Theistic Evolution (God + Evolution)

ItinerantLurker · Mar 23, 2011

Well, evolution above the species level (speciation) has been observed so all you are really doing is rejecting reality here.

Be that as it may, not using scientific terms correctly is not going to impress anyone about your opinions regarding scientific theories. Especially when those opinions contradict virtually all scientists in the field in question (biology) as well as observed reality.

It's been a while since I've been on here so you may very well be responding to something I said a while ago but I don't actually recall what you're talking about.

Can God sin? Well I guess that really depends on what you define as sin and what your particular views are regarding the trinity. Personally I don't think so, but that has more to do with my understanding of "sin" as being disobedience to God. . .and it doesn't make much sense that God could disobey Himself.

Can God have created life, the universe, and everything any way He pleased including using plate tectonics to create mountain ranges, weathering and erosion to create canyons, gravity and the convservation of angular momentum to form the solar system, and evolution to create the diversity of life? Of course.

Lurker

superdave5221 · Mar 23, 2011

ItinerantLurker said:

It has been awhile since I looked at animal taxonomy, and it has been refined and updated. There is no evolution above the "family" level, i.e. no tree of life. You are being picky, as you knew quite well what I was referring to. Therefore there is no evidence for darwinism. I'm not really trying to impress you. Therefore, since it was not one of the criteria I was aiming for, I feel that I still made my point.

I will try to be more precise in the future. Starting now with the above. Let me rephrase. Can God lie? Can God break a promise? For you to say that there is nothing that God can't do shows a lack of precise thinking on your part as well. Again, He must remain true to His nature as God. But no worries. I'm used to not being impressed.

trust_in_the_name · Mar 24, 2011

superdave5221 said:

For some reason, you're confusing two different people as being the same person. Lurker made comments about evolution, and I made comments about the Bible.

As for whether or not God can sin, since sin is anything contrary to the will of God, then of course He can't sin, since that would be a contradiction. It's like asking if God can do something that He doesn't want to do. The question itself just doesn't make sense. So, as I said before, and I'll say it again, God can and does do whatever He pleases. And if you don't believe me, you should believe scripture, since it says so, and I've already posted it. Can God lie? No, He cannot lie.

2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, (Titus 1:2)

However, He can send delusion. He can mislead without lying, if He wants to. Making the universe look older than it actually is is not lying, even if it may appear misleading.

trust_in_the_name · Mar 24, 2011

As for the tree of life and common ancestry, when you examine the fossil record and the molecular evidence from DNA, what you get is a nested hierarchy, the kind that results from a branching process, such as a family tree. And this is exactly what we would expect if in fact life did evolve, as evolution tells us, in a family tree that branches off, resulting in a nested hierarchy. What we see is that, for example, in terms of specific DNA molecules (as well as the fossil evidence, though the DNA evidence alone is even more powerful and entirely sufficient), a lemur has a lot in common with a monkey, both of which have less in common with a cow or buffalo, but both of which have a lot in common with each other. Similarly a lizard and a turtle have even less in common with any of these, but a fair amount in common with each other, etc., and this is pattern continues consistently throughout every lifeform that we know of. It's all exactly as we would expect it to be if evolution had actually occured.

If you want to know more about this, The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution by Richard Dawkins is pretty good.

superdave5221 · Mar 24, 2011

trust_in_the_name said:

What we see instead, is that God is very efficient in his creation in creating a DNA which takes only small variations to produce widely varied life. DNA will not eliminate God from the picture. The fact that information is present in DNA instead should be evidence that it is not random. The fact that "Hamlet" could not "evolve" from monkeys pounding computer keyboards, is indicative of the fact that the incredible amounts of information contained in DNA could not have evolved randomly. Even if the chemical medium could have evolved, (doubtful), the information it contains could not have.

In making decisions in the present, we have only empirical evidence and past experiences to work with, (that is if you eliminate faith and work only with the scientific method). In all of our past experiences, whenever you find evidence of intelligence, whether it be a book, a computer program, a watch in the desert, an automobile, or whatever, if we search for the source of that intelligence, it always leads us back to an intelligence that is responsible for it. If we find information coded into the backbone of DNA, then based on our past experiences and all empirical evidence, the source of that information, must be an intelligence. Why not God?

I am sorry for the confusion.

superdave5221 · Mar 24, 2011

Just to add to the previous post. If we eliminate the randomness component from evolution, (i.e. God directed) then it becomes a possibility, though in my opinion, not the best one.

superdave5221 · Mar 24, 2011

Itinerant Lurker,

Let me begin by apologizing for my rudeness and confusion in previous texts. Sometimes my fingers get ahead of my brain. You are correct in that we should be consistent and correct in our facts, otherwise unbelievers will use that against us. Do not give the accuser ammunition to work with. Normally I try to be, but alas, I am not perfect.

superdave5221 · Mar 24, 2011

trust_in_the_name said:

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.

Jrac · Mar 24, 2011

I have not read all the posts, but I am in college classes bieng fed the evolution theory (though technically it's not a theory, but a model, like creationism). I do not agree with the evolutionary theory, not becuase it contradicts Gods (though in the end it does) nature, as said by the original post about God bieng the God of Death, but I don't agree with it becuase its just plain out wrong.

Here is my disclaimer: Some agree with evolution and are still christians-- and thats fine, I am not trolling or hating on you, we are all christians and we are one body. There is always a chance that evolution is true, I just don't think that the chance is very high, and I suppport the evidence supporting full fleded creationism, but I can't completely deny it.

(with my disclaimer)-- Evolution is a model, Scientists use this 'theory' to interpret data, say, the fossil record, or mutations. The problem is that they can't prove evolution, they can't, my BIO 101 professer still won't prove evolution to me, but thats beside the point. Though, scientifically (ignoring the historical reference of the Bible, the most accurate, and most reliable reference accepted and denied by man, and philosophy) creatinism can not be proved either. Creatinism is a 'theory' just like evolution, but with God in it. The thing is evolution and creationism can not be observed, therefore can not be scientific, or a theory (for quotes and support you may request). BUT what scientists can do, and try to do, is use the model to interpret things happening today, as well as interpretting the past, to prove the model. If you use the model of evolution to explain something, say an animals orign, and it turned put to be correct, then the model used is reliable, which is what evolutionists try to claim. The problem that evolutionists come across is that their model doesn't work, and they have to make assumption to create data to support their own data. The beuty of this is that the creation model, works buetifully. This model has effectively described things happening today, and in the past. A part of the Creationist model is a thing called catastrophism (I think thats spelled right). What that word means is the doctrine that certain vast geological changes in the earth's history were caused by catastrophes rather than gradual evolutionary processes. Evidence gathered by various scientists (evolutionists included) found overwhelming evidence of a catastrophe that affected the entire earth and was mainly done by water............... ring any bells? Also, evolution believes that the complex things mutated from simple things, byt the secong Law of thermo-dynamics, its impossible, the second law states that in a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe. Entrophy means disorganization, destruction, DECAY. Things die, not get better. Things change yes, but with limits, information doesnt come from nowhere (the sun's energy is not information), the information that gave us our genticic code came from God. This universe is dieing, not getting better.

Anyways, if you want to know mroe about that, I can message you some books, one book in particualr (Creation Science) explaining this stuff, complete with quotes, and info.

Also, about the original Post, even if God used Evolution, does that mean he is the God of Death, I would have to say no. God uses natural selection (which isn't evolution by the way), which helps keep nature healthy, but things die. Plants die to fertilize the next generation. Humans die in Gods name, we sacrifice ourselves for him. Christs death is how we live. God is not death, but he uses death. By death we are saved. Recall genesis, what did God say to himself after they ate the apple? He said he must cast them out so they would not eat of the tree of life and live on. God killed them, with a purpose.

another disclaimer: I habve to make the point that God is a killer, but not a murderer, there is a difference. To kill is with purpose and justified reason, to murder is to kill without justified reason (God determines justified). In the Bible, multiple times God has killed many people. The flood, the sea of reeds, the angel that struck down a thousand men, Job situation, all that was becuase of God, and had death in it, does that mean GHod is a God of death? Heavens no. For us to go to God, we must die (I am not sure about the guy that 'didn't die', cuase he was taken up) but yes, death is apart of this creation since the fall, and is wielded by God, who is not the Auther of evil but the giver of Life.

Praise the Lord Amen, and if anyone would like to speak with me feel free. I admit I am young.

ItinerantLurker · Mar 24, 2011

superdave5221 said:

I'm glad that we now agree that both macroevolution and microevolution are real, observed, and documented phenomena. If you don't mind me asking, if populations can evolve to the point where they are so genetically/morphologically disimilar as to no longer naturally interbreed what is stopping that process from moving beyond the family level over time?

The fact that we have not, within the space of a few centuries, observed evolution at or above the family level comes as no surprise seeing as the process of evolution works pretty slowly.

Lurker

superdave5221 · Mar 24, 2011

Jrac said:

Hello Jrac,

It is good that you are questioning and trying to find the truth.

The real problem is that people don't recognize the limitations inherent in a particular system. Science uses evidence which can be tested, observed, and measured. For this reason, science can never supply a valid model to describe the history of the earth or the beginnings of life. Any attempt to do so must take these limitations into account. Much of what people claim to be "science", is not science at all, for it cannot be tested. For this reason, many "scientific" disiplines dealing with humanity, such as psychology, have become behavioristic, in order to be able to base their results on what is testable, measurable, and observable. Darwinism meets none of these qualifications. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not science. It takes more "faith" to believe in Darwinism, than it does to believe in God.

At the same time, Christians can never prove the supernatural existence of God to an atheist. Even if miracles were performed, the atheist could always claim that it is a natural occurence using natural laws that we haven't discovered yet, or existing ones in which we don't fully understand. For this reason, we cannot rely on science to "prove" the existence of God, or creationism. However, there is much empirical evidence that comes out of scientific endeavor which is supportative of creationism. By using such evidence, in the correct way, we can add weight to our arguments, and perhaps increase our faith.

The problem that occurs is that people are selective. They tend to accept evidence which supports their position, and reject evidence which does not. While having faith that God exists, and believing everything that the bible tells us, we must at the same time evaluate ALL evidence in the same light. I truly believe that our God will not lead us astray, if we honestly, and faithfully search for answers.

superdave5221 · Mar 24, 2011

ItinerantLurker said:

We don't have to do that in a few centuries. There are millions of years of the fossil record in which it doesn't exist either. In addition, there have been many catastrophic events in the recorded geological record in which mass extinctions ocurred. In most of those cases, "new" lifeforms became evident at a pace which is much too quick to be explained by evolutionary methods. Even evolutionists agree with that.

superdave5221 · Mar 24, 2011

For those of you reading post #51 above, I have created another thread to deal with the issue of science and God.

ItinerantLurker · Mar 24, 2011

Hello Jrac, welcome to the fray. If you're taking BIO 101 I'm really really hoping that this is your first year in college in which case you will have plenty of time to correct some of the errors you display here both in matters of science and spelling.

Jrac said:

No, technically it is a theory. Look up "theory" in your BIO 101 textbook and you'll find something along the lines of an ". . .explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways." (source)

That seems an awfully bold statement for someone taking BIO 101 to say about the leading theory in biology which virtually all professional biologists would disagree with.

It's quite likely that your professor has already told you this, but in the strictest sense science isn't about "proving" things, it's about amassing evidence to explain/describe things. Think about it, what is your definition of "prove"? Do you mean that scientists cannot present overwhelming evidence in support of this theory? Or do you mean that scientists cannot present enough evidence to impress you personally?

Um. . .no. . .no it is not; as in "at all" or "even a little bit". Creationism (by which I take you to mean YEC) doesn't employ methodological naturalism, doesn't propose and testable hypotheses, and isn't falsifiable.

It may help to think of evolution as both a fact and a theory:

the fact or process of evolution is the change in allele frequences over time in response to environment
the theory of evolution is that the process of evolution is responsible for the observed diversity of life

The process of evolution is observed literally every day by scientists around the world. Evidence for the theory of evolution is also observed literally every day by scientists around the world in that what we would expect or PREDICT to see if life evolved over time is what we actually do see in both the fossil and genetic record of living things.

Oddly enough, +95% of professional biologists disagree and regularly publish studies and experiments which support their position whereas creation "scientists" (whose model supposedly works "beautifully") have been unable to support their claims with any evidence at all. In science, as in life, we tend to go with the answers that work.

At this point your post simply devolves into common Creationist PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times).

Open any geology textbook and you'll find that catastrophic events have been a part of modern geology for centuries.

The second law states that entropy will increase within a closed system into which no external source is pumping energy. Go outside around noon, look straight up, if there's no cloud cover you will likely notice a very large, very bright source of energy that fuels virtually all life on earth. The earth is not a closed system, therefore the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply.

And repeated experiments have shown that random variation acted upon by selection can produce information. Google "genetic algorithms" sometime.

Lurker

PneumaPsucheSoma · Mar 24, 2011

What I'd like to hear is a how the first three days were measured as solar Earth days when there wasn't a solar Earth day until the fourth day creation of the sun/moon to divide the day/night and for signs, seasons, days, and years.

ItinerantLurker · Mar 24, 2011

superdave5221 said:

Again, all you are doing is disagreeing with reality. The fossil record shows a progression of transitional traits that fall within a pattern of nested hierarchies - this pattern MUST exist for evolution to be true as it is exactly what one would expect to see if populations slowly diverged over long periods of time, but there is absolutely no reason for it to exist if all living things were created synonymously 6,000 years ago. Matters only get worse (for your argument) when genetic studies show the SAME PATTERN of nested hierarchies even when non-functional sequences such as ERV's are considered.

As for your second claim, can you provide some specifics? I mean besides simply throwing out a bunch of quote mines.

Lurker

PneumaPsucheSoma · Mar 24, 2011

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?

superdave5221 · Mar 24, 2011

ItinerantLurker said:

And when did I ever proclaim a 6000 year old earth? I have been arguing quite vehemently against that. If you will go back and read my original post, you will find that the "nested hierarchies" which is an adaptation the evolutionist applied when evidence worked against their theory, comes from the same phenomena that also explains my description of creation in my original post. As you say, this must exist for evolution to be true, yet that wasn't the claim 20 years ago. What other "adaptations" do evolutionists have in mind for future problems?

How would you explain the biblical writer's knowledge of actual events in the fossil record?

If you take the proper interpretation of Genesis 1: 10-11 , you will find for example, that (Hr. deshe) or grass, (moss; algae) occured first, followed by (Hr. eseb) or herbs, followed by (Hr. peri) or flowering tree.

In the fossil record, you have find the stromatolites, (algae), occurring first; followed by Gymnosperms, (ferns, conifers); followed by angiosperms, (flowering plants).

I wonder how these simple shepherds and farmers knew so much about the fossil record, and science knows so little?

superdave5221 · Mar 24, 2011

Lurker

I will look up specific examples of the latter and provide them later, as I do not have time now.

Jrac · Mar 24, 2011

Lurker, yes I am young, yes I am looking for the Truth, yes I have to make bold statements, and I know I can't spell well, please take my points for what they are, not by who, or how they are presented.

Thank you for looking over and responding to my post. Though I don't want to make a fight, lets continue and make points. 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) 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. 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. The complexity and detail in genetics is beyond our understanding, today we are still learning. 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. Supposedly, the probability is so low (that is getting a 'correct' sequence of protiens), that a scientist looking at it would make the probablility just 0, supposedly. Again I can get the figures later tonight, if I have time. Also not considering all the other things that go 'wrong.'

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. Its the simple to more complex I don't agree with. I say that God created massive gene pools that created variety in creation, also creating the ability to adapt. 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. Randomness as I have read and been taught, can not advance a creatures genotype, which affects the phenotype.

Now this is from a creationist perspective, it is a model, and a 'theory.' If you would like to read about it, to know about it from a scientific view (excluding a Biblical perspective), Then look up "What is Creation Science" by Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker (1987) on amazon for info, and you might find it at a libray. It goes over all the big arguements, and gives qoutes and info mainly in the end supporting creationism.

Don't take anything for granted, we are to look for Truth, and to never stop looking for Truth, and even if we might find it, we never stop studying it. I have to learn about evolution, Lurker, I ask if you look into Creationism. And if Evolution is True, then that Truth will show. We as Christians are to test everything. The Bible is the final authority, and I say this becuase we get sidetracked at times, in doctrine and sciences. Hold to Truth, seek for Truth and you will find it.

Praise the Lord Amen

Theistic Evolution (God + Evolution)

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Jrac

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Jrac

Guest