I don't have a problem with this. I am happy with this frame of reference. That is not to say that I wholly agree with it. It paints a simplistic and binomial option, as either science or faith. I don't accept that Science rules out faith. I believe I established that at post #113 and indeed I not only see God having a foot in the door, I see God front and centre as the profound source and energy of all that is, what de Chardin described as the Alpha point of existence. Apparently not. Some people, many I suspect don't agree with me, however, that does not mean that they agree with you. When Galileo said that the earth revolves around the Sun, it was Christians faithful to scripture as they understood it who called for and were granted his ex-communication. It is probably unfair to mention that as he was granted a posthumous apology a few hundred years later. The Church was mistaken because it failed to recognise where science began and faith ended. Those who account for faith as of no worth are just as wrong as those who accord science of no weight. Philosophically I understand myself to be a pragmatist, and rather than explain that position at length, I do see it as in accord with what Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 13, where he said, For now, we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
But is this sequence of events any LESS likely to be possible for God to perform to achieve God's purposes, than that he literally reached down to earth and got His hands dirty making ( אָדָם ’âḏâm ) meaning Red or Mankind, out of mud from the ground, 6000 years ago? Which of these two possible sequences of events do you find most plausible from a practical point of view? By comparison to the reality you have been actually living in since birth, first or second? .
Young Earth Creationist literal fundamentalists are left, (with their theory of the mechanics of creation), with only three possible practical methods for the physical creation of the human race. (1) That, along with the rest of the created order of things, it has evolved over a long period of time, (a thing that God has plenty of and can use according to whatever purpose God decides). (2) That a man suddenly, sometime, popped into existence fully formed and functional, at the behest of Almighty, Invisible God only wise, a Spirit, incomprehensibly omnipresent throughout the Universe and time and beyond, and then this first man underwent a medical procedure from which a sexual partner was produced out of one of his ribs. (3) That, shortly after God had created the universe, the solar system and Earth, God, in the body and form of Jesus Christ, 2nd person of The Trinity, came to earth and produced a man from the dust of the ground, with his bare or gloved, physical hands. Jesus Christ then operated upon the man he had just produced and breathed life into it. He made a woman out of the rib he had removed from the anaesthetised man. The two of them, man and woman, then went on to produce the entire spiritually-defective human race. These are the logical options on offer explaining the existence and nature of the entire human race on Earth. Which ones do we each go for? One, two or three? I opt for number one. It seems the most plausible but still accords with what I understand scripture to be telling me about the spiritual condition of mankind. How about others in here? One, two or three which option or can anyone provide any more alternative options which would account for us all being here? And to return to the original thread intention, What, if anything, can be found in the teachings of Jesus Christ to give absolute certainty that he wouldn't have chosen option (1) himself had the three options been proposed to him as a test question by the Pharisees. .
Why are people bringing up "young earth" against me when I never mentioned it in this thread, not even one time? I have stated that macroevolution is not tenable from a statistical standpoint and is not sufficiently supported by the geologic record. Whether the six days of creation were six 24-hour days or not is beside the point and has not been brought up, except by some of you who are making an assumption and "reading it into" what I've written. Let's keep the eggs separate from the cheese, and not make an omelet out of what I have written, shall we?
Oh, it's like the game show, "Let's Make A Deal", only we get to know what's behind the 3 doors before we choose one! I pick 'door number 2' since it's consistent with a literalist reading of Genesis. You know that I default to the plain meaning of the writing any time the text does not oblige me to do otherwise. BTW (since others have brought up 'young earth'), if you believe that God could have worked creation through evolution, then logically you also should believe that God could have created an earth within 24 hours which contained decayed radioactive material, fossils, etc. for reasons of His own. Right? I'm not advocating for either idea, but still... God is All Mighty, after all. Maybe these two unlikely ideas are on a par with each other.
Only really because they epitomise the school of 'thought' that is rabidly anti evolutionary theory and totally sold out on Biblical fundamentalist interpretational method for their understanding of the mechanics of creation. I wouldn't dream of insulting your intelligence by implying you are one of them though. I'm sorry if it came across that way. Yes, of course God could have done, but everything I comprehend about reality itself here on earth yells to me that God didn't choose to do it in such a deviously sly way. All that radio isotope decay stuff and fossils, dinosaur coprolite do doos are just clues left for us to work out how god actually HAS done it all, if we just have intelligence enough to do it. So No! They're not on anything like a 'par' with one another. .
That's very much how I feel about the macroevolution hypothesis. Genesis tells us, "God said, let there be... and there was..."
Yes, and the reason you feel that way is because you don’t understand the theory. First of all, microevolution and macroevolution have happened: they have been documented by direct observation and by the fossil record. Secondly, if you accept the explanation for how microevolution occurs, then you shouldn’t have any problem accepting that macroevolution has indeed occurred, since they are one and the same process, differing only in scale. Put another way, macroevolution does not need any other processes beyond those required for microevolution, and the reason we know this is because the theory’s predictions have been confirmed many times over. Thirdly, microevolution still contradicts the most literal reading of Genesis 1. Whether something is a ‘species’ or a ‘kind’ is a distinction that would have been lost on the Bronze Age authors of Genesis. Either ‘new’ things have come into being or they haven’t. Microevolution also contradicts the notion that every creature was designed for its habitat: why was adaptation necessary if it was perfectly designed? The point is that creationists cannot resolve this problem by relying on an imaginary distinction between the processes of microevolution and macroevolution. It is a distinction without a difference, that nonetheless conceals a concession. Ultimately it’s just mental gymnastics, without connection to the real world. It’s better to just let science be science and recognize that there are limits to what we can deduce about the natural world from ancient texts, which weren’t written to give us such information in the first place.
Please cite the instance of macroevolution that has been directly observed, because I am unaware of this occurrence. As for the fossil record, the evidence is shaky and questionable IMO (or am I not allowed to have opinions that contradict yours?) as I have explained in an earlier post; I have searched online for "best fossil evidence for macroevolution" and viewed the results, and any alleged proof from the fossil record will need to be much more clear and certain than the sketchy smattering of alleged sequences I've seen. No, they are not the same process and they also differ in scope. Microevolution merely is an intra-genus change. Sparrows have differentiated over time into many groups we call species, yet they still are all sparrows; their appearances and sizes vary, but their eyes, beaks, feet, tissues, organs, enzymes, proteins, digestive systems, circulatory systems, etc. are all essentially the same. Their offspring, if any, will be more sparrows. Macroevolution requires major changes: theretofore nonexistent specialized cells, tissues, organs, and bones must develop, and must continue to develop to such a point that an entirely new and previously unknown organism both develops and propagates through breeding with another of its new kind. Only if you believe that macroevolution has occurred, which I do not believe. Adaptation is necessary any time habitat changes. Climate changes, food supply changes, (in the case of blind, white cave fish) lighting changes, and so on. But adaptation does not equal macroevolution. Put those cave fish with other fish of their basic type and they still crossbreed. An African man can marry and procreate with a European woman. A Chihuahua mated to a Great Dane could produce offspring (the small dog might need a boost, though). The respective offspring will still be fish, humans, and dogs. The male and female fish never produce an amphibian offspring or a mammal baby. Nor have mammals ever given birth to minnows. No matter how much time passes.
I see the problem now. Evolutionists define macroevolution as having its beginning demarcation at the species level, not the genus level. Apparently they place the dividing line there so they are able to point to any neighboring species that cannot interbreed as evidence of macroevolution. It's an interesting ploy. They say if two types (species) of sparrows can't produce offspring, then one "must have" evolved from the other. Yet they still are both sparrows. There is no evidence to suggest that one species of sparrow is on its way to developing into a chicken, or an eagle, or a tufted titmouse. Macroevolution seems to suggest that one sparrow species (in this example) has gained something new and heretofore unknown. I suggest that, in reality, one species has lost something in its genetic code (entropy has caused a loss of genetic information which we call a mutation) and that species is less advanced, less capable, and further away from the way God designed it to be. This is the natural consequence of living in a world which is under a curse and is continually degrading. Macroevolution postulates advancements. It supposes that the sun's energy somehow fuels totally new cellular structures which are superior to the previous ones. This is the phenomenon that has not been witnessed and which defies logic and entropy. As we examine DNA and chromosomes, we are learning that degradation mutations are the rule. Humans and other organisms are very gradually, but inevitably, "running down". This is why the dividing line between macro and micro evolution should logically be between different kinds of organisms, at the genus level or perhaps higher, rather than at the species level. Only if science can demonstrate an actual upward movement from one organism type to a previously nonexistent organism type should we believe that true macroevolution takes place. The cave fish are descendants of normal fish that got trapped in a lightless environment, so they lost their sight and their pigment. It is a loss, not a gain. Yet they are still fish; they do not develop into slugs, crawdads, spiders, frogs, or the Creature From the Black Lagoon (some previously unknown critter). How could some algae ever have become the first animal? That's quite a leap, don't you think?
Not exactly: a genus is simply a group of species, according to our taxonomy. It is the species that matters, because that is the boundary of reproduction, the mechanism that passes on genes to the next generation. That evolution focuses on speciation is quite basic, and would not be new information to you if you had taken the time to familiarize yourself with the actual theory in the first place. (The title of Darwin's book was On the Origin of Species, after all. That is the question he was trying to answer: what causes distinct species to emerge? His answer - Natural Selection - is one of the great breakthroughs in science.) It's not a "ploy." Whether a group of organisms can produce new generations is something that can be observed. It is objective. Again, no. The eye for example has evolved at least 6 different times independently. Each stage of that process required new proteins, changes in metabolism, etc., the result of which was a series of new traits that terminated in sight. You also don't seem to understand entropy. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics governs what occurs whenever heat is converted into kinetic energy and vice versa. In no sense does the 2nd Law rule out genetic changes in populations of living things across generations. (The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed', which some might say would seem to rule out creatio ex nihilo. If you're going to stretch the 2nd Law well beyond its applicable domain then why can't others do so for the 1st Law?) What evidence do you have that genetic information was lost? How are you determining that? Just counting the chromosomes, humans have 46 pairs and (for example) rhesus monkeys have 42, while chimpanzees and gorillas have 48. While outward physical features of humans differ greatly in many ways from other primates, the difference in DNA sequences is quite low. It is not so much a matter of genetic material being "lost" (somehow?) or "gained" (somehow - there's no inheritance of acquired characteristics...); it is rather that the function of the DNA and RNA relating to specific traits is altered in response to new environments, at least in successful cases. Most of the time, populations don't adapt: they go extinct. It does no such thing. The theory is non-teleological. Nature is indifferent to whether creatures have things like sight or smell. An animal having one or the other is not more "advanced" than one having one or the other. That is a human bias. No it's not. The genetic material responsible for developing the eye wasn't lost. The genes responsible for replicating the necessary proteins were simply deactivated. But there're still there, and can be reactivated (which may or may not result in new eyes). If we assume that certain creatures had eyesight when they were created but subsequently lost it because of the environment they were placed in, that's a problem for creationism because that's evidence of bad design. The ongoing maintenance of the eye was actively harming the creatures by diverting precious metabolism away from more useful functions, and thus impeding the ability of the creatures to survive and reproduce. The faulty understanding of microevolution as 'macroevolution in reverse' that creationists falsely put forward does not actually help the creationist argument, for it undercuts their assertion that biological structures were the result of deliberate design. Our DNA contains all sorts of information to produce structures we don't actually have, some of which we would not have known about prior to the advent of modern embryology. Like I've said before multiple times, you really should try to familiarize yourself with the subject from reputable sources, with an open mind. You would find it to be a rewarding and interesting study. Nature is a much more fascinating thing than misguided religious zealots make it out to be.
And in some cases of very primative colonies of bacteria which have survived various mass extinctions, still is, but most of the first creatures, (evolved/created), have long since been replaced by slightly or greatly different creatures better adapted to similar or differing environments, after mass extinctions. The evidence for all this is there for all to see today but also continues apace. It wasn't just written down in a book some 1,000's of years ago by poets and seers, inspired by God as the only knowledge we are permitted to have, to discover His handywork. His handywork, all around us, is a testament to his existence. Especially US. The Bible itself says so. So the fossil record is telling us something more about God and the way he has made us. .
I have to say, some of these responses are so absurd it's almost laughable. Exactly what I said was the evolutionists' position. So you say "not exactly" and then agree with what I wrote. But that doesn't stop you from talking down to me... As Bugs Bunny would have said, "What an ultramaroon!" Another unsupported assertion, and an assumption by evolutionists who cannot possibly know for a fact. Oh, not much... just a book I read, written by a geneticist. I could go in the other room and dig it out to recall the author's name, but I don't think the effort is deserved. Quite true, which is why we have lost so many species of plants and animals through the years. Which proves the point that adaptation was absolutely necessary (and therefore did take place) among the ones that have survived; otherwise they'd be extinct as well. So you're saying that the alleged evolution of more capable sight or hearing, faster animals, more drought- or disease-resistant plants, etc. were not advances. Coming from a misguided science zealot, apparently. I've tolerated enough insults for another month, perhaps you should change your screen name from Invictus to Invective. Time to block you once again.
BTW, for anyone who wants to read more on the subject, consider picking up a book or two by Fazale Rana or Hugh Ross. They don't avoid the hard questions that any committed macroevolutionist would ask, and they present a fair, well-reasoned approach to the subject.
Scientific models help researchers organize information into a conceptual structure to understand and interpret data, ask good questions, and identify anomalies. Famous scientific models include Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity and the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. Writers such as Robert Pennock and Steven Novella have claimed RTB's (the 'Reasons to Believe' foundation), testable creation model fails to meet the modern qualifications for a scientific theory or model and looks at known things and claims them as predictions.[22][23] In a review of an updated edition of Who Was Adam: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity (2015) by Ross and Fazale Rana, research psychologist Brian Bolton argues against the scientific status of the RTB model. Bolton sees violations of scientific logic in the form of immunity to falsification, the assumption of supernatural causation, (my italics and underlining), a lack of independent evaluations of evidence, circular reasoning, and the false equivalence of biblical creationism (faith-based) and human evolution (evidence-based) as scientific explanations.[24] RTB claims that all current humans are descended from a specially created couple (that lived about 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, at the time of the explosion of music, art, and jewelry. They also believe there is no common ancestor between humans and other primates) which is disputed in a scholarly essay by evangelical geneticist Dennis Venema.[19] There is strong genetic and fossil evidence suggesting a common ape-man ancestor as well.[25][26] It seems clear from this evidence that Fazale Rana is strongly influenced by a-priori assumptions dictated by an afinity to Creationist style Biblical fundamentalism, rather than a purely objective examination of the evidence supporting evolution through natural selection. This will inevitably colour the conclusions reached when examining the evidence at hand. As with any other examination of the 'facts', one needs to be very aware of the 'spin' that an author or an organisation, might be putting on their conclusions and the selective way the evidence is dealt with. It is clear that Fazale Rana and RTB have a particular 'axe to grind'. Their school of thought must be regarded as hardly, unbiassed. This sort of thing happens with anyone who sets out to prove what they already infallibly 'believe' to be true. The evidence selected and presented may well be true and accurate but the manner in which it is selected and presented will often be to support only the writers favoured pre-conceptions. This would not be truly dealing in The Truth or striving to attain it. .
Why am I not surprised? Labeling the equivalence as "false" is a mark of Bolton's own bias, don't ya think? Ross and Rana actually present evidence for creationism; IOW they present both concepts as 'evidence-based'. Only an anti-supernatural-biased reviewer would dismiss their analysis of creationism as merely 'faith-based.' I think you have stated the obvious. Frankly, I don't think it's possible to find a person who exhibits zero bias on this issue. Scientists who don't believe in God are biased against the supernatural and toward macroevolution. Scientists who do believe in God and who strongly believe what the Bible says about the world's beginning are biased toward the supernatural. However, Ross and Rana at least try to present the evolutionists' best arguments and deal with them, rather than ignore them in hope that readers won't know about the arguments. That is about as unbiased as one can get. Or do you think you can find a committed evolutionist who will examine, with fairness and no bias, the actual evidence for creationism?
Quite so. The lack of falsifiable predictions has been a consistent impediment to presentations of creationism being regarded as scientific.
No, I don't think that necessarily to be the case. I don't know what a-priori position Bolton might be coming from. He may be truly open minded concerning the possibility of the supernatural being involved in creation. I don't think Rana or Ross are that objective in where they want their conclusions to arrive at though. Evidence based means just that - based upon verifiable evidence. Faith based means just exactly that - based upon what a person BELIEVES to be true but cannot actually provide varifiable evidence of. For instance that Creation involved supernatural intervention to establish material existence. This needs experimental varification to establish the fact that supernatural spontaneous creation of matter actually does take place in the type of universe that contains us, and that God may have created. Without such experimental proof it would remain scientifically unvarifiable. True but some people don't even TRY to be impartial. They can't afford to, their faith and salvation depends on it. Only if they are particularly convinced atheists. Not necessarily, not all scientists who strongly believe what is written in The Bible, interpret what is written there by Literalist/Creationist/fundamentalist critera. Many people not committed either way have evaluated Creationist arguments against the theory of Evolution driven by Natural Selection and decided it is 'faith' rather than 'evidence' based. The 'evidence' is strongly selected to reinforce the 'faith' that influenced to selection and presentation process. To be fair, I freely admit, there are atheist scientists that do exactly the same with their treatment of the data, in order to bolster their own pre-conceived ideas. It is a very common human trait.