BioLogos?

[Skovand]

I am a big fan of the work being produced by BioLogos a Christian organization led by scientists and founded by Francis Collins, one of the worlds leading geneticists who was the NHI appointed director by Obama and lead the Human Genome Project. Their organization is focused on harmonizing God, scripture, and science. Really focused on theistic evolution as opposed to things like intelligent design or literal creationism. The approach is not purely scientific though and they use just as much theology and biblical interpretations combined with ancient Jewish world views. Scripture is not diminished and science is not tossed out.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

Intelligent Design is awesome and I still to this day do not see the evidence for any type of Macro-Evolution. But I am an old earth creationist.

 

[Skovand]

I definitely see tons of evidence for evolution. Micro evolution and macro evolution are both the same process of natural selection. We see tons of evidence genetically and through the fossil record. One of the simplest arguments is the strata ( geological layers ) where we see species only found within certain layers. We always see layer A before B. Even if layers b and c are missing we still see the layers as A and then D. When going though layers we also see fossils doing the same thing. Some fossils never show up except for one or two layers. They never show up in other layers. We never see humans, or human tools in the same layers as T. rex and we never find humans before that layer and so on. Additionally we see plants following the same pattern. Like once you go back far enough all you see is conifers and never angiosperms. We see beetles before wasps and so on. It helps supper Pangea breaking apart and everything. It’s unbelievably clear.
Then once we jump into genetics we see genetics line up with the geological layers.
We see certain morphological traits in some layers. We never see bipedal animals prior to certain layers.

 

[JaumeJ]

One very telling crack of the evolution theory is quite simple. Various followers of this theory have searched for a missing link between primitive primates and man.

My problem has always been where are the villages and towns or at least tool remnants of man before 6000 years ago? Even the more primitive peoples, if you believe there is such, have archeological evidence of their existence but not before a few thousand years ago.

there are many large fissures in this tired and unprovable theory.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

I definitely see tons of evidence for evolution. Micro evolution and macro evolution are both the same process of natural selection. We see tons of evidence genetically and through the fossil record. One of the simplest arguments is the strata ( geological layers ) where we see species only found within certain layers. We always see layer A before B. Even if layers b and c are missing we still see the layers as A and then D. When going though layers we also see fossils doing the same thing. Some fossils never show up except for one or two layers. They never show up in other layers. We never see humans, or human tools in the same layers as T. rex and we never find humans before that layer and so on. Additionally we see plants following the same pattern. Like once you go back far enough all you see is conifers and never angiosperms. We see beetles before wasps and so on. It helps supper Pangea breaking apart and everything. It’s unbelievably clear.
Then once we jump into genetics we see genetics line up with the geological layers.
We see certain morphological traits in some layers. We never see bipedal animals prior to certain layers.

What you see is creation explosions followed by extinction events and more creation explosions as species just seem to pop up relatively quick in the timescale and then just disappear. As to why you are still searching for transition fossils. Each one they claim to find has been debunked as false and of the same species. Micro and macro are not the same in natural selection. Micro doesn't change species. Mutations 98% of the time kill the host and the 2% may benefit in the short run but have problems in the long run like the marbled crawfish. They can self replicate without a male. But invasive species means they need lots of food to survive. Too many crawfish with no food and they will eventually go extinct. They have tried to prove evolution in fruit flys who have very fast life spans. So far it has only ended in dead or severely mutated fruit flys who only live in a lab setting.

Old earth creation explains the creation events as the days of creation we're very long periods of time that had creation events like the land, sea, and sky animals. Over time God was preparing for humans by extinction events that prepared a livable atmosphere and eventually the tools needed to grow civilizations as fossil fuels we're discovered. Intelligent Design simply explains how many of these events are better explained by intelligence than say a random chance. For example, how the human DNA could not have come from the evolution of the human eye. We see what happens when 1 part of the human DNA is abnormal, it creates mental or severe health defects. The human eye could have never functioned as it is irreducibly complex. Natural selection would have dropped the eye in theory if it was a failure from the beginning.

 

[Godsgirl83]

forgive me for high jacking this thread and throwing a joke into it, but as a mama bear with young cubs VERY CLOSE in age I have really pondered these past several years:

If evolution is true, how come moms don't have 8 arms????

sorry, continue........

 

[Skovand]

Debunked? Lol..... no. 99% of them are never fairly quickly find their place in proper taxonomic clade.

Also micro and macro evolution is the same thing. Micro evolution is the beginning changes moving towards subspecies of the same genus and through the same process they move towards becoming their own separate species and often then later on become their own genus and sometimes even family over millions of years.

We have all kinds of scientific information on the formation of eyeballs. From single felled sunspots to even complex eyes in single celled organisms like those the warnowiids. When I have more time I can give a deeper answer.

 

[Skovand]

Why do you believe natural selection would have dropped the eye? There are many less “evolved” eyes and organs in general throughout the animal kingdom that a species functions perfectly well with.

 

[Lanolin]

arent bipedal animals mostly....birds.
Too bad humans havent evolved so we could all have our own wings. YET.

 

[Skovand]

arent bipedal animals mostly....birds.
Too bad humans havent evolved so we could all have our own wings. YET.

Yes. A significant portion of birds are bipedal. Prior that they were four legged reptiles.

It’s very unlikely that our species will ever evolve to being winged. We don’t see any environmental stressors that would support it even if some gradual mutation begin to head that way and was bred. Our population is also very large and stable and it would be very difficult for that to become a common trait.

 

[Lanolin]

Yes. A significant portion of birds are bipedal. Prior that they were four legged reptiles.

It’s very unlikely that our species will ever evolve to being winged. We don’t see any environmental stressors that would support it even if some gradual mutation begin to head that way and was bred. Our population is also very large and stable and it would be very difficult for that to become a common trait.

oh I was hoping.
nevermind. what about angels though.
and what were reptiles before they were reptiles? slugs?

 

[Godsgirl83]

A significant portion of birds are bipedal. Prior that they were four legged reptiles.

no, I'm pretty sure God spoke birds into existence and they came forth as such, wings and all. Reproducing more birds that were birthed as such, and so on........

Genesis 1:20-21
20 And God said, “Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the sky.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters teemed according to their kinds, and every bird of flight after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

 

[Skovand]

no, I'm pretty sure God spoke birds into existence and they came forth as such, wings and all. Reproducing more birds that were birthed as such, and so on........

Genesis 1:20-21
20 And God said, “Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the sky.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters teemed according to their kinds, and every bird of flight after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

This is the problem with that one interpretation.

1. It completely ignores the literary style in which genesis 1-11 is written. It would be like saying Revelation was literal and not full of clear symbolism. We can compare genesis 1-3 for example and see does it match the same writing style as things like exodus, or the story of Jesus and so on. We can tell from contextual analysis it’s not written as a actual historical and scientific explanation.

2. Additionally we can tell that it’s not scientifically accurate at all. It’s so far scientifically inaccurate that even middle school kids are taught a better understanding. We can look at genetics and see divergences. We can also look at the fossil records. If all animals were created fully created at the same time then we would find all animals in every geological layer. But we don’t. We find each layer full of fossils of their own distinct flora and fauna. We don’t find any humans in the same layers as t-Rex for example.

 

[Lanolin]

1. its clear God created birds as distinct from sea creatures and that they are after their 'own kind' meaning each creation would mate with their own kind. eg kiwis with kiwis, tuatara with tuatara, humans with humans. Not humans with gorillas, tuatara with kiwis, or kiwis with humans.

2. its because in the flood, dinosaurs are heavier (being bigger) and we crushed on a different level than to humans. That is if you actually know how the fossils are created, usually happens with sediment preserving a body after something catalysmic like a big flood.

 

[Lynx]

Yes. A significant portion of birds are bipedal. Prior that they were four legged reptiles.

It’s very unlikely that our species will ever evolve to being winged. We don’t see any environmental stressors that would support it even if some gradual mutation begin to head that way and was bred. Our population is also very large and stable and it would be very difficult for that to become a common trait.

Well shoot!

*Lynx goes off to listen to 4Him singing "give me my wings."

According to chaos theory, our large, stable population is in grave danger of extinction because we are so large and stable that nothing can change us. If the environment changes, we are doomed.

 

[Lanolin]

although you wonder if chickens and kiwis are birds at all since they cant fly. what makes a bird a bird? they have feathers? Lay eggs? Reptiles lay eggs. Have two legs? Humans have two legs. Have wings? Bats have wings.

Im thinking maybe its the feathers thing but then...we call female humans chicks and birds so, is it all abit arbitrary? This whole naming and categorising.

what is a bird that is too scared to fly? a chicken.

 

[Skovand]

1. its clear God created birds as distinct from sea creatures and that they are after their 'own kind' meaning each creation would mate with their own kind. eg kiwis with kiwis, tuatara with tuatara, humans with humans. Not humans with gorillas, tuatara with kiwis, or kiwis with humans.

2. its because in the flood, dinosaurs are heavier (being bigger) and we crushed on a different level than to humans. That is if you actually know how the fossils are created, usually happens with sediment preserving a body after something catalysmic like a big flood.

Well what about the fact that the flora and fauna are at different sizes? What scientific study are you referring to that states the layers are based on volume? Or any of that... or what evidence is there of a world wide flood?

For a fact based solely off of arguing from scripture you can place those verses in better context. Which will be one of my next threads.

 

[Godsgirl83]

For a fact based solely off of arguing from scripture you can place those verses in better context. Which will be one of my next threads.

then might I suggest posting it in Bible Discussion Forum......

you may have more response there than here in Miscellaneous.

 

[BlueTheComposer]

I haven't seen enough evidence myself to be an old-earth creationist, but I remember reading many years ago a scientific article that sought to find evidence and effects of a global flood on the perceived age of things via different dating methods. In the study, the researchers had sampled air from deep in a pocket of the ocean (and possibly frozen in ice? I can't recall). The study found that the air was evidence for a young earth. I wish I could provide a link to the study. It was interesting, but very technical and mostly over my head. It has stuck with me that such a global flood that is often ignored in the scientific dating of things and throws throws them into question since the possibility and effects of such a flood aren't considered.

 

[Skovand]

then might I suggest posting it in Bible Discussion Forum......

you may have more response there than here in Miscellaneous.

I have a few there. This was more of a intro about where I am coming from as far as my faith goes. I’ll blur lines a bit within discussion frameworks but I mostly
Keep it compartmentalized and fairy marrow in subjects.