God and natural selection

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
So how far away is it to the next life bearing planet anyway? My faith is that God has arranged one way or another for life to be common throughut the universe, but its only a hypothesis, unsupported so far by any evidence.

Okay, so did the Son of God die on all of these planets to cover sin with His blood, or were we just the lucky planet out of billions and billions where Satan landed? </font>[/QUOTE]How could I possibly know that?

I conjecture that most of them would be unfallen worlds and that our world is the one where the Savior was drawn to come to just like He said in his parable about the 99 sheep that were safe and the one that was lost.

I admit its just a conjecture.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by RayMarshall19:
Dear Paul of Eugene:

I hope everybody will carefully read and study your post immediately above. You do a great job of explaining your motives and your beliefs and exactly what is wrong with both. There is no need for me to add anything further.

Let me expound a little bit more about the subject of "motives" and "beliefs".

I have been educated. I have learned some of the science behind the astronomy and the geology and the cosmology and the biology that teaches us the universe and earth are billions of years old and life is all of common descent.

These things have become, in my mind, facts. Would you try to tell me that I must believe that the sky is not blue? Can you understand that would be a futile thing to try to persuade me against? It is the same thing for the age of the earth and the fact of common descent. These things have become as facts in my mind and that is not something I have an option to choose to disregard. To do so would require me to disbelieve my senses and my reason. God does not require that of me, God works in my life and uses me even in this condition, as he does many who are not aware of the facts of science as facts.

 

[Scott J]

God does require you to believe Him... as opposed to naturalism.

BTW, what you describe above isn't reason... it's indoctrination. It is fundamentally metaphysical... not scientific. The best clue is that you compare the "facts" of evolution to the sky being blue. One is tangible, observable. The other is 100% speculation. Yet you claim that you have no conception of the difference.

No matter what you do or how many explanations "scientists" come up with... unrecorded, interpretive natural history (especially on the scale proposed by evolution) can never rise to the level of "fact" by any means of reason or logic.

 

[Johnv]

Scott J, the "anonomous YECer's" I'm referring to was the general YEC view of the past. The establised YEC view has changed over time to take into account microevolution, natural selection, genetics, and similar discoveries. The YEC timeline, which used to be a strict 4004BC creation date, is now believed by many YECers to be closer to 10,000 years, and some subscribe to a 20,000+ view.

Not chastising or edifying any one pov, just noting.

 

[Scott J]

I guess my response was a reaction to the typical treatment of any change in the YEC position. Evolution is in constant flux...yet that is considered a "strong" proof that it is true as well as the philosophical presupposition of naturalism.

But if YEC proponents accommodate evidence by changing their explanations while still remaining faithful to the text of scripture... We are chided and mocked.

 

[Johnv]

Scott, I attempt to refrain from chiding and mocking. It's not edifying. Doesn't matter what one's side is. DOesn't matter if it's a pro-evolution person doing it to a pro-YEC person, or a pro-YEC person doing it to a pro-evolution person. Yes, there's a bit too much of that in this forum, which is why I rarely post here. When I do post, I try to be matter of fact in the posts. Then I run for the hills

I sincerely promise everyone here that I will never post anything that's attacking or mocking of a person in this forum. I mean that, with all my heart.

 

[Scott J]

Oh besides being chided and mocked... if they respect our intelligence enough... they will usually get around to accusing us of dishonesty as well. IOW's, we can't make an honest change of opinion. If we say anything that differs from what was asserted before then we must have been lying somewhere.

 

[JWI]

I agree with Helen that microevolution is nothing more than adaptation, something that cannot be denied and has been observed.

But regardless of claims, macroevolution has never been observed. Not once.

Observation is not on evolutions side. For instance, evolution claims that man has been around for at least a million years or longer. But what do we observe? We can go back about 5000 years and find evidence of man and civilizations. We cannot find anything conclusive before that. Cave paintings and evidence of this sort are not proof that man lived many hundreds of thousands, or millions of years ago. People live in caves at this present time. And people have always expressed themselves through art.

Finding people with slightly different skeletons proves nothing either. We have a great variety of people on Earth right now. The Pygmies are regarded to be the shortest people on Earth generally, while the Watusi are considered the tallest generally. They live in the same region with the same environment, and have a history of warfare with each other.

But whenever evolutionists find a skeleton that is slightly different than generally found today, they claim this is an ancient ancestor and is proof of evolution.

Occams Razor argues that the most reasonable explanation should be accepted. It is more likely that these skeletons simply represent a certain people that lived in modern times with certain physical characteristics as the Pygmies and Watusi. That is a far more acceptable explanation that has a basis in observation.

If man has been around for many hundreds of thousands or millions of years, there should be evidence easily found. It is silly to think that man suddenly became highly intelligent just 5000 years ago and started building cities.

But that is exactly what the evidence shows. Man and civilization suddenly appeared about 5000 years ago.

This fits perfectly with the Bible account. This is about the time after the great flood of Noah's time. Soon thereafter, man multiplied and started building cities. The evidence supports it.

There is no evidence for man living a million years ago. Zero. None.

And the different layers of soil on the Earth? Does this prove evolution? What do we observe? Do we observe different soil building up in specific layers??

No.

And this does not make sense. Soil building up in such a fashion, you would not be able to distinguish specific layers as the buildup would be very gradual. But we do see specific layers.

This is not evidence for an old earth. It is evidence for a great flood. This can be demonstrated by anyone. Take different soils and put them in a jar and mix with plentiful water. Shake the jar up and allow the different soils to settle. You will see specific layers as we truly see in the world.

Evolutionists deny evidence that is very easy to see.

Evolutions rob God of his power. God says in the Bible that he created the world in just 6 days. This shows his wonderful power and knowledge. Evolutionists deny this. And Theological Evolutionists do no better. They claim God created simple single celled life and then just sat back and observed while random chance took over. God is reduced to an observer.

If evolution were true, we should see abundant evidence for it now. We should see many thousands of examples of one species transforming into another. We should see reptiles developing feathers and wings. We should see all sorts of creatures in a transitional stage. To say this would not be recognized is pure foolishness. If I saw a lizard whose front legs were transforming into wings I could easily identify it as a transistional. And you could too.

But transitionals have not been found now, or in the past. Honest evolutionists have admitted this and come up with bizarre explanations like Punk Eek and the Hopeful Monster theories to explain the lack of real evidence. The very fact that these theories exist is absolute proof that evolutionists do not have evidence for transitional forms. Their own foolish theories is proof against them.

Evolutionists start with the assumption that evolution truly happened, and interpret all data to confirm it.

Even a lack of evidence.

 

[RayMarshall19]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RayMarshall19:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

Examples of the intermediate stages of the eye are available in living creatures today - all stages! </font>[/QUOTE]Dear Paul,

Could you please share with us some examples and explain how each "stage" evolved from the previous one? </font>[/QUOTE]PBS made this video on that subject:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html [/QB][/QUOTE]


I asked you for specific examples of "all (intermeditate) stages" of the eye and you referred me to a video in which a guy describes his idea of how the eye MIGHT HAVE evolved.

Once again, could you please supply us examples of the "all stages" of eye evolution and tell us exactly how each evolved from the previous one?

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

I conjecture that most of them would be unfallen worlds and that our world is the one where the Savior was drawn to come to just like He said in his parable about the 99 sheep that were safe and the one that was lost.

I admit its just a conjecture.

That's funny. Romans 8 tells us that ALL creation groans...poor innocent aliens, suffering because of us....

The sheep, by the way, have to do with us earthlings who are believers...

 

[RayMarshall19]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RayMarshall19:
Dear Paul of Eugene:

I hope everybody will carefully read and study your post immediately above. You do a great job of explaining your motives and your beliefs and exactly what is wrong with both. There is no need for me to add anything further.

PAUL: Let me expound a little bit more about the subject of "motives" and "beliefs".
I have been educated. I have learned some of the science behind the astronomy and the geology and the cosmology and the biology that teaches us the universe and earth are billions of years old and life is all of common descent.

RAY: I HAVE LEARNED MUCH OF THE SAME SCIENCE AND I CONCLUDE THAT THE IDEA OF COMMON DESCENT IS HOGWASH.

PAUL: These things have become, in my mind, facts.

RAY: THINGS CANNOT BECOME FACTS IN YOUR MIND. WHAT IS IN YOUR MIND DOES NOT DETERMINE IF SOMETHING IS A FACT.

PAUL: Would you try to tell me that I must believe that the sky is not blue?

RAY: NO. AND NEITHER WOULD SCRIPTURE. YOU SEEM TO BE IMPLYING THAT SCRIPTURE CAN BE WRONG.

PAUL: Can you understand that would be a futile thing to try to persuade me against? It is the same thing for the age of the earth and the fact of common descent. These things have become as facts in my mind and that is not something I have an option to choose to disregard.

RAY: FACTS IN YOUR MIND AGAIN. TO CLAIM THAT COMMON DESCENT IS AS OBVIOUS AS THE BLUE SKY IS RIDICULOUS.

PAUL: To do so would require me to disbelieve my senses and my reason. God does not require that of me,

RAY: I DO NOT BELIEVE GOD REQUIRES YOU TO DISBELIEVE YOUR SENSES, EITHER. BUT GOD DOES REQUIRE YOU TO BELIEVE SCRIPTURE. IF SCRIPTURE DISAGREES WITH YOUR REASON WHICH DO YOU THINK IS RIGHT?

PAUL: God works in my life and uses me even in this condition, as he does many who are not aware of the facts of science as facts.

RAY: I DON'T DOUBT THAT GOD WORKS IN YOUR LIFE OR THAT HE USES YOU. I ALSO DON'T DOUBT YOUR HONESTY OR SINCERITY. IT JUST APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU CONFUSE YOUR BELIEFS WITH FACTS AND THAT YOUR MOTIVE IS TO MAKE THESE BELIEFS CONSISTENT WITH SCRIPTURE. I DON'T THINK THAT IS POSSIBLE.

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[UnchartedSpirit]

What was that thing about gravity? I mean that is one of the crucial aspects about our faith. God vs. Gravity has been my favorite debate to watch.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Helen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

I conjecture that most of them would be unfallen worlds and that our world is the one where the Savior was drawn to come to just like He said in his parable about the 99 sheep that were safe and the one that was lost.

I admit its just a conjecture.

That's funny. Romans 8 tells us that ALL creation groans...poor innocent aliens, suffering because of us....

The sheep, by the way, have to do with us earthlings who are believers... </font>[/QUOTE]Glad to have given you a cause for amusement.

perhaps "all creation" in the Romans passage refers to "all earthly creation". I simply do not imagine the moon suffering anything at all due to our sin, do you? Its just rocks, after all. What kind of suffering can rocks have, anyway?

But I'm curious as to your own view of life on other planets. If we rule out non-planetary purely spiritual life (as many suppose Angels and Demons to be) from consideration, and consider simply planetary physical life such as you and me, how much other life like us do you suppose exists in our galaxy? What would be your own estimate as to the frequency of fallen nature per planet . . . 1 out of 2? One out of three? only one ever?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

RAY: I HAVE LEARNED MUCH OF THE SAME SCIENCE AND I CONCLUDE THAT THE IDEA OF COMMON DESCENT IS HOGWASH.

RAY: THINGS CANNOT BECOME FACTS IN YOUR MIND. WHAT IS IN YOUR MIND DOES NOT DETERMINE IF SOMETHING IS A FACT.

I admit that my opinion as to what is a fact is not the same thing as what actually is a fact. There is of course only an aproximate relationship between my idea of what is a fact and what is really a fact. But my idea of what is a fact is all I've got, and the same is true for you as well.

. . . YOU SEEM TO BE IMPLYING THAT SCRIPTURE CAN BE WRONG.

By faith I accept scripture as infallible when properly interpreted, but that does not mean I accept your interpretations as infallible.

TO CLAIM THAT COMMON DESCENT IS AS OBVIOUS AS THE BLUE SKY IS RIDICULOUS.

Not as ridiculous as some of the so called science that is dragged out as evidence against evolution.

RAY: I DO NOT BELIEVE GOD REQUIRES YOU TO DISBELIEVE YOUR SENSES, EITHER. BUT GOD DOES REQUIRE YOU TO BELIEVE SCRIPTURE. IF SCRIPTURE DISAGREES WITH YOUR REASON WHICH DO YOU THINK IS RIGHT?

Hmmm. For what possible reason would I abandon reason? Such an argument cannot be reasonable.

RAY: I DON'T DOUBT THAT GOD WORKS IN YOUR LIFE OR THAT HE USES YOU. I ALSO DON'T DOUBT YOUR HONESTY OR SINCERITY. IT JUST APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU CONFUSE YOUR BELIEFS WITH FACTS AND THAT YOUR MOTIVE IS TO MAKE THESE BELIEFS CONSISTENT WITH SCRIPTURE. I DON'T THINK THAT IS POSSIBLE.

Thank you for accepting my sincerity. I also accept your sincerity. I'm glad we can agree on that.

But how can any of us help but assume our beliefs are facts? If we didn't think our beliefs were facts, they wouldn't be beliefs, now would they?

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Helen:
Mark, ignorance is not a good way to exert dominion over the world the Lord has given us.

Helen,

Speculation is no part of knowledge. Speculation is just speculation, and it doesn't help to convert any unbeliever to God.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Prov 25:2
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
NASU

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

I conjecture that most of them would be unfallen worlds and that our world is the one where the Savior was drawn to come to just like He said in his parable about the 99 sheep that were safe and the one that was lost.

I admit its just a conjecture.

That's funny. Romans 8 tells us that ALL creation groans...poor innocent aliens, suffering because of us....

The sheep, by the way, have to do with us earthlings who are believers... </font>[/QUOTE]Glad to have given you a cause for amusement.

perhaps "all creation" in the Romans passage refers to "all earthly creation". I simply do not imagine the moon suffering anything at all due to our sin, do you? Its just rocks, after all. What kind of suffering can rocks have, anyway?

But I'm curious as to your own view of life on other planets. If we rule out non-planetary purely spiritual life (as many suppose Angels and Demons to be) from consideration, and consider simply planetary physical life such as you and me, how much other life like us do you suppose exists in our galaxy? What would be your own estimate as to the frequency of fallen nature per planet . . . 1 out of 2? One out of three? only one ever? </font>[/QUOTE]Genesis 1:1, as well as other passages in the Bible, say God created the heavens and the earth. The Old Testament indicates three heavens: the heavens where the birds fly, or our atmosphere; the heavens where the stars and sun and moon are, or 'outer space'; and the third heaven, God's Throne.

Isaiah 40:25-26 read: "To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One.
Lift your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one,
anc calls them each by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing."

Isaiah 45:12 reads: It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it.
My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts"

Colossians 1:15-16 reads: "He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. for by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."

Hebrews 1:1-2 reads: "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe."

Therefore, when Romans 8:20-22 reads
"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning asin the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." -- then, letting Bible explain Bible, we know that this is not limited to just the earth.

We also read, in Hebrews 10:11-14 -- "Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest [Christ] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."

Therefore, if there is sentient life anywhere else in this universe, then, if they have rebelled against God and are guilty of sin, there is no sacrifice for them and all are doomed to hell. For Jesus sacrificed Himself only once, here on earth, and since then He has been waiting, there at the right hand of the Father. And if the sentient life is innocent, then they are suffering for something they have never done and have no control over.

And is the moon in bondage to decay? Yes, it is. Every atom in the universe is.

ALL creation is in bondage to decay. Christ sacrificed Himself ONCE in all time and eternity, here on earth, for us. That tells me quite clearly that there is no sentient life anywhere else in the physical universe.

 

[Gold Dragon]

The entropy of the universe is always increasing so yes, it can be stated that the universe is always in net decay. However, like the formation of stars, there are many processes created by God where entropy decreases locally at the expense of a greater increase of entropy somewhere else in the universe.

Evolution is another of God's creative processes that may involve a local increase in entropy that works within this universe of net decay.

 

[Helen]

man, you guys don't quit, do you? It doesn't matter what the Bible says, or how God says He did it, or that genetics does not indicate evolution is even remotely possible....it happened!

Why? Because it happened, that's why! No evidence.

but it happened!

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Helen:
It doesn't matter what the Bible says, or how God says He did it,

It most definitely does matter what the Bible says and how God says He did it. The question is: what does the Bible actually say about creation? I don't believe what YECs tell me that the Bible says. I do believe in how God says He did it.

Originally posted by Helen:
or that genetics does not indicate evolution is even remotely possible.

I would say the opposite that the field of genetics (being discovered after the theory of evolution was initially proposed) was one of the strongest confirmations of evolution. While the findings in genetics are in no way proof of evolution, they reinforced the theory.