IF evolution is true,

[HankD]

Mark wrote:

Nothing is the Bible is compatible with the theory of evolution. It's an either/or situation. You either believe in the Bible or you believe in evolution - you can't believe both.

There is one more Mark:

Death, the result of sin.

Evolution has been said to say nothing about sin because it is a "theological" concept not a "scientific" concept.

Death however resides in both realms and they are in direct contradiction to one another.

Evolution says that death is part and parcel of the process that preceded and led up to "man" and in fact depends upon the remains (fossils, the result of death) along the predecessor way as "empirical evidence" that man came from a common lineage with the animals.

The Scripture however says it was the result of the sin of ONE man not part of a process leading to that ONE man.

Romans 5:
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

My question is : If TE is the story of creation then who sinned causing the death of these fossils before God chose an ape (or whatever) and turned him into Adam?

We are told by some that Genesis 1 is not a scientific treatise.

What kind of complicated science would it take and what could not be understood about an account of God choosing some "beast of the earth" and "breathing into his nostrils" producing the first man "Adam"?

While everyone acknowledges (TE and creationists) the literalness of Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image...

Some ignore the Scripture showing the uniqueness of the origin of man apart from the animals in another way:

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

"dust of the ground"

Dust
Strong's 6083 aphar
Meaning: 1) dry earth, dust, powder, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, rubbish 1a) dry or loose earth 1b) debris 1c) mortar 1d) ore

Ground
Strong's 0127 adamah
Meaning: 1) ground, land 1a) ground (as general, tilled, yielding sustenance) 1b) piece of ground, a specific plot of land 1c) earth substance (for building or constructing) 1d) ground as earth's visible surface 1e) land, territory, country

A sure Word of God that man's origin was not from the other creatures through variations via the reproductive system but directly from the soil of the earth itself (not even the sea) and when this ONE man Adam sinned, death entered the world.

This fact reinforced by:
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

HankD

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Hank, it is perfectly possible to understand the scripture talking about death coming as the result of sin to be referring to death for MEN, leaving the subject of death for ANIMALS undiscussed.

 

[HankD]

Hank, it is perfectly possible to understand the scripture talking about death coming as the result of sin to be referring to death for MEN, leaving the subject of death for ANIMALS undiscussed.

I understand Paul.
Although I don't see the Scriptures as saying this, I don't question anyone's salvation if this is what they believe.

But, after the supposed millions/billions of years of death and suffering of animals, I don't see God as saying that His creation was "very good".

And I admit the validity of the question "how did Adam understand God when He spoke of "death" if there was none?

I don't know, but then again how did he understand anything having been just taken from the dust of the earth?

Speaking of which Paul, what about the fact that the Scripture says that Adam was taken from the "dust of the ground" rather than from the "beast of the earth"?


HankD

 

[Scott J]

For those actually open minded enough to consider the idea that evolution could be false, please read the first article:

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200506.htm

It is noteworthy that another piece falls into place for what I have been contending- that genetically superior forms have "evolved" into genetically less complex, less variable but more diverse species. The research shows that multifunctional genes may have divided by subfunctionalization.

IOW's, genes divide already existing information. Due to the aforementioned bombardment of mutations or simple adaptation, one gene along with its information is lost but another is retained. In a "cousin" species, the opposite occurs. The species are related still genetically but differentiated by fixed adaptation.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mercury:
Evolution does not speak of lower and higher forms.

Yes it does. That's a ridiculous assertion.

Evolution teaches that lower forms evolved into higher forms. A single celled life form evolved into progressively more complex animals by random mutation and natural selection (which depends on chance circumstances of environment).</font>[/QUOTE]Mercury speaks the truth. Evolution is not about "lower" to "higher" lifeforms.

PBS - Evolution FAQ

2. Does evolution proceed toward increasing complexity?

In the approximately 3.8 billion years since life originated on Earth, evolution has resulted in many complex organisms and structures. The human brain and stereoscopic eyes are just two examples. At the same time, simpler organisms like algae, bacteria, yeast, and fungi, which arose several billion years ago, not only persist but thrive. The presence of single-celled organisms alongside complex organisms like humans testifies to the fact that evolution within a given lineage does not necessarily advance toward increasing complexity. When more complex organs are advantageous, complex organs have arisen. Single-celled organisms, however, fill many roles, or niches, much better than any multicellular organism could, and so they remain in a relatively stable state of adaptation.

Talk.Origins : Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

...
Common Misconceptions about Evolution
...
Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Paquin and Adams demonstrated this experimentally. They founded a yeast culture and maintained it for many generations. Occasionally, a mutation would arise that allowed its bearer to reproduce better than its contemporaries. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a variety of times. In later competition experiments, each strain would outcompete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could outcompete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones. Evolution can be like a game of paper/scissors/rock.

</font>[/QUOTE]Noteworthy that I didn't say that lower forms were eliminated by the rise of higher forms.

Are you saying that men are not more complex than their supposed original ancestors?

If not then please stop trying to obscure the point by playing semantics.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
" And that is exactly what my analogy was addressing within acknowledged limits of parallel.

Two or more designed machines can share some characteristics such as tires. Tires wear out. The only thing that proves is that a common solution was applied to different design projects.

Same with creation. The only thing these shared mutations prove is that there was a common design characteristic in the creatures- whether that characteristic came from a common ancestor or common designer."

Shared design flaws, that's an interesting concept.

READ MY STATEMENTS RATHER THAN ASSUMING YOUR BIAS.

I didn't say that there were flaws in the design. I said there were common design characteristics that when exposed to a degenerating environment hostile to life due to man's original sin would result in common maladies.

But in the case of vitamin C, you cannot go back and look at the original DNA sequence and see how it got to be there, you can only see what you observe now. And what do we observe?

NOT the explanation that you have posted... it is nothing more than conjecture regardless of whether it has been fitted to the evidence or not.

It is simply one of the possible theories and can never be claimed as "proof" for common ancestory.

Those two bits of information are hard to understand if the various "kinds" involved were the product of separate, intelligent creations.

sigh. Not if those intelligent creations were made employing common "parts".

You guys keep wanting to extend my analogy further than I intended but here it legitimately applies again. If a bicycle has rubber tires and a car has rubber tires, we should not be surprised if both wear out according to the law of physics.

If God designed men and various animals with common genetics then we should not be surprised when conditions cause common or similar reactions/mutations.

"Just be honest enough to say that if evolution can claim parallel but independent mutations then the same claim is valid when used by creationists."

You miss the key point. The mutation in the guinea pigs is a different mutation. Same result, different cause.

No. I didn't miss the point.

You claim that "a different" mutation causing the same result occurring independently is a perfectly valid scenario. At the same time, you say that the same mutation (a common gene acted upon by the same forces or inclinations to mutation) causing the same result but occurring independently is an invalid scenario.

IOW's, if it supports your presupposition then it must be allowed but if it doesn't it must be dismissed without consideration.

Your explanation is arbitray and without merit since it supposes that our all powerful God gave organisms in His creation the genetic ability to make useless body parts and in addition these body parts can only be made in a manner consistent with evolution.

Wrong. Our all powerful God gave His creatures the genetic ability to adapt. That ability (by known genetic processes that I have referenced in this thread) has been diminishing for the last 6K-10K years.

Your explanation would hold water only if you could show atavisms that do not make sense in light of evolution, as requested.

No, not at all. You assume that if something is POSSIBLE in "light of evolution" all other possibilities are null and void. That is irrational.

As is, your explanation is arbitrary and capricious.

No more so than the one's offered by evolutionists that you swallow hook, line, and sinker.

And what goes for atavisms also goes for other, similar lines of evidence such as shared pseudogenes, shared retroviral inserts, ontogeny, molecular parahomology, molecular vestiges, anatomical vestiges and anatomical parahomology.

Again, designed things using common design characteristics will react in similar ways when exposed to similar natural forces.

" Nothing except He didn't. The only difference here is that you believe these things showed up by blind chance."

Then you fail to understand the power of selective forces if you maintain your appeal to "blind chance" as the driving force of evolution.

Word play all you want but when a directionless "random" mutation meeting a "random" environmental condition is supposed as the mechanism for species evolving into new species with new information and functional biological systems... then that is by its very definition "blind chance".

I gave you a partial list of fossil transitional whales (Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Tackrecetus, Indocetus, Gaviocetus, Durodon, and Basilosaurus). Which of these are "poorly supported" and why?

Show which ones were found whole. What was the actual fossil find for any of them. Show that they weren't arbitrarily placed in the whale's evolutionary descent for no other reason than they are extinct (thus beyond disproof) and a presupposition of the need for an ancestor "in light of evolution."

"Whales might have once dwelt on land... even under a creation model. They also may have used those limbs for locomotion in shallow, ante-deluvian waters or even just used it for balance or to facilitate breeding or a thousand other things other than walking on dry land. The only thing you have here is something that looks like a leg and is now thought of as useless."

Uhhhh....No.

Uhhh....Yeah.

There is no mechanism you can suppose that fits evolution that will not fit the model I proposed. And now, evolutionists have even supported my claim by discovering that contrary to the 20+ year old assumptions of evolutionary biologists, the more mutations a gene is exposed to, the more it accepts.

IOW's, genetic "downward" evolution can occur very quickly under the right conditions... their discovery was no help but rather a major complication for "upward" evolution.

Any of that would be simply amazing!

Don't know about you but when I see some of modern technologies inventions I say, "Amazing"... and have absolutely no doubt that God's design and care of His creation is infinitely greater than man's highest achievement.

" Point to a case where a species has been observed through the process of accepting a new mutation that results in a more complex genome with greater variability... and a new useful system- not simply the adaptation of an old one."

Ohhhh...We have a thread for this one too.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/21.html?

Proof UT. Not speculation about why what is, is.

None of your explanations are simultaneously beneficial, observable, and repeatable.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
" And that is exactly what my analogy was addressing within acknowledged limits of parallel.

Two or more designed machines can share some characteristics such as tires. Tires wear out. The only thing that proves is that a common solution was applied to different design projects.

Same with creation. The only thing these shared mutations prove is that there was a common design characteristic in the creatures- whether that characteristic came from a common ancestor or common designer."

Shared design flaws, that's an interesting concept.

READ MY STATEMENTS RATHER THAN ASSUMING YOUR BIAS.

I didn't say that there were flaws in the design. I said there were common design characteristics that when exposed to a degenerating environment hostile to life due to man's original sin would result in common maladies.

But in the case of vitamin C, you cannot go back and look at the original DNA sequence and see how it got to be there, you can only see what you observe now. And what do we observe?

NOT the explanation that you have posted... it is nothing more than conjecture regardless of whether it has been fitted to the evidence or not.

It is simply one of the possible theories and can never be claimed as "proof" for common ancestory.

Those two bits of information are hard to understand if the various "kinds" involved were the product of separate, intelligent creations.

sigh. Not if those intelligent creations were made employing common "parts".

You guys keep wanting to extend my analogy further than I intended but here it legitimately applies again. If a bicycle has rubber tires and a car has rubber tires, we should not be surprised if both wear out according to the law of physics.

If God designed men and various animals with common genetics then we should not be surprised when conditions cause common or similar reactions/mutations.

"Just be honest enough to say that if evolution can claim parallel but independent mutations then the same claim is valid when used by creationists."

You miss the key point. The mutation in the guinea pigs is a different mutation. Same result, different cause.

No. I didn't miss the point.

You claim that "a different" mutation causing the same result occurring independently is a perfectly valid scenario. At the same time, you say that the same mutation (a common gene acted upon by the same forces or inclinations to mutation) causing the same result but occurring independently is an invalid scenario.

IOW's, if it supports your presupposition then it must be allowed but if it doesn't it must be dismissed without consideration.

 

[Scott J]

Your explanation is arbitray and without merit since it supposes that our all powerful God gave organisms in His creation the genetic ability to make useless body parts and in addition these body parts can only be made in a manner consistent with evolution.

Wrong. Our all powerful God gave His creatures the genetic ability to adapt. That ability (by known genetic processes that I have referenced in this thread) has been diminishing for the last 6K-10K years.

Your explanation would hold water only if you could show atavisms that do not make sense in light of evolution, as requested.

No, not at all. You assume that if something is POSSIBLE in "light of evolution" all other possibilities are null and void. That is irrational.

As is, your explanation is arbitrary and capricious.

No more so than the one's offered by evolutionists that you swallow hook, line, and sinker.

And what goes for atavisms also goes for other, similar lines of evidence such as shared pseudogenes, shared retroviral inserts, ontogeny, molecular parahomology, molecular vestiges, anatomical vestiges and anatomical parahomology.

Again, designed things using common design characteristics will react in similar ways when exposed to similar natural forces.

" Nothing except He didn't. The only difference here is that you believe these things showed up by blind chance."

Then you fail to understand the power of selective forces if you maintain your appeal to "blind chance" as the driving force of evolution.

Word play all you want but when a directionless "random" mutation meeting a "random" environmental condition is supposed as the mechanism for species evolving into new species with new information and functional biological systems... then that is by its very definition "blind chance".

I gave you a partial list of fossil transitional whales (Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Tackrecetus, Indocetus, Gaviocetus, Durodon, and Basilosaurus). Which of these are "poorly supported" and why?

Show which ones were found whole. What was the actual fossil find for any of them. Show that they weren't arbitrarily placed in the whale's evolutionary descent for no other reason than they are extinct (thus beyond disproof) and a presupposition of the need for an ancestor "in light of evolution."

"Whales might have once dwelt on land... even under a creation model. They also may have used those limbs for locomotion in shallow, ante-deluvian waters or even just used it for balance or to facilitate breeding or a thousand other things other than walking on dry land. The only thing you have here is something that looks like a leg and is now thought of as useless."

Uhhhh....No.

Uhhh....Yeah.

There is no mechanism you can suppose that fits evolution that will not fit the model I proposed. And now, evolutionists have even supported my claim by discovering that contrary to the 20+ year old assumptions of evolutionary biologists, the more mutations a gene is exposed to, the more it accepts.

IOW's, genetic "downward" evolution can occur very quickly under the right conditions... their discovery was no help but rather a major complication for "upward" evolution.

Any of that would be simply amazing!

Don't know about you but when I see some of modern technologies inventions I say, "Amazing"... and have absolutely no doubt that God's design and care of His creation is infinitely greater than man's highest achievement.

" Point to a case where a species has been observed through the process of accepting a new mutation that results in a more complex genome with greater variability... and a new useful system- not simply the adaptation of an old one."

Ohhhh...We have a thread for this one too.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/21.html?

Proof UT. Not speculation about why what is, is.

None of your explanations are simultaneously beneficial, observable, and repeatable.

 

[OldRegular]

I have posted the following quotes before but they are so pertinent I will post them again.

The following remarks by leading evolutionists [from The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John. D. Morris] show the absurdity of theistic evolution.

Nobel prize winning biologist Jacques Monod writes:

“Natural selection is the blindest most cruel way of evolving new species. .... I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Evolutionist A. J. Mattell is even more perceptive:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by HankD:
Death, the result of sin. [...] Evolution says that death is part and parcel of the process that preceded and led up to "man" and in fact depends upon the remains (fossils, the result of death) along the predecessor way as "empirical evidence" that man came from a common lineage with the animals.

Paul of Eugene already gave a very good short answer. A discussion, along with longer answers, can be found in [this thread].

My question is : If TE is the story of creation then who sinned causing the death of these fossils before God chose an ape (or whatever) and turned him into Adam?

Here's my idea (I admit it's speculative). Nobody sinned to cause cellular death, plant death or animal death. Human sinfulness caused human death and separation from God. I think that humans were created mortal, just as the animals before them were, but God supernaturally sustained them while they were in close relationship with him and creation (the relationship is symbolized by Eden and the sustenance is symbolized by the Tree of Life). When Adam was prevented from eating from this tree and he was kicked out of the garden, he no longer had supernatural preservation and would be subject to death the same way all animals are.

We are told by some that Genesis 1 is not a scientific treatise.

What kind of complicated science would it take and what could not be understood about an account of God choosing some "beast of the earth" and "breathing into his nostrils" producing the first man "Adam"?

I think you're setting a standard here that is higher than can be consistently applied elsewhere in the Bible. For instance, when Genesis 1:26-27 describes the creation of humanity, it doesn't even mention dirt. Certainly it would have been easy for the author to do so, and it would help to tie the account together with the next chapter, but the inspired author did not do that. Mentioning every step along the way doesn't appear to have been a main concern.

So, I don't think it's inconsistent to claim that the Genesis 2 description may also be simplifying things, just as Genesis 1 was. It's true that God spoke and as a result humans and animals were created. It's true that humans and animals are formed from dust. But, there's also more details that aren't in the Bible that can be discovered by examining creation itself.

Also, there's other passages where a small bit of science could also have cleared things up a lot. A quick mention in Joshua 10 that God responded by doing something to the earth, not the sun, could have prevented that passage from being used to support geocentrism. But, God didn't do that, and the account is really just fine if one doesn't try to use it to support dubious scientific claims.

But, after the supposed millions/billions of years of death and suffering of animals, I don't see God as saying that His creation was "very good".

This is a tricky claim to make. We know from Psalm 104:20-28 that prey for lions, among other things, are good things from God's hand. Some claim that this is only the case because the Fall changed what can be considered good, but since I don't think the Fall changed God's moral standards, I don't think that excuse works. If prey are a "good thing" God now provides, why couldn't a creation including predation be called "very good"?

 

[HankD]

why couldn't a creation including predation be called "very good"?

It can.

If you are the predator.

HankD

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> why couldn't a creation including predation be called "very good"?

It can.

If you are the predator.</font>[/QUOTE]Or the Provider, I guess, because it is God who ispired the psalmist to call prey a good thing from his hand.

 

[Mercury]

Make that "inspired". D'oh!

 

[HankD]

This is a tricky claim to make. We know from Psalm 104:20-28 that prey for lions, among other things, are good things from God's hand. Some claim that this is only the case because the Fall changed what can be considered good, but since I don't think the Fall changed God's moral standards, I don't think that excuse works. If prey are a "good thing" God now provides, why couldn't a creation including predation be called "very good"?

Actually Mercury the phrase Tov Mod ("very good") which is the Hebrew superlative goodness is not found in Psalm 104:20-28.

That God supplies the need, in a life with "predation", disease, pain, suffering and death is as "good" as it gets as a result of Adam's disobedience.

The Scripture certainly does not call this "very good" as in Genesis 1.


Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


HankD

 

[OldRegular]

Response posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Response posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mercury:
Evolution does not speak of lower and higher forms.

Yes it does. That's a ridiculous assertion.

Evolution teaches that lower forms evolved into higher forms. A single celled life form evolved into progressively more complex animals by random mutation and natural selection (which depends on chance circumstances of environment).</font>[/QUOTE]Mercury speaks the truth. Evolution is not about "lower" to "higher" lifeforms.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually Scott J. is correct. Evolution teaches:
1. That lower forms evolved into higher forms.
2. That these lower life forms sprang from nonlife.
3. All that exists came from nothing by some undefined means.

Those naive people who believe otherwise are simply misinformed.

 

[OldRegular]

Response posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Response posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mercury:
Evolution does not speak of lower and higher forms.

Yes it does. That's a ridiculous assertion.

Evolution teaches that lower forms evolved into higher forms. A single celled life form evolved into progressively more complex animals by random mutation and natural selection (which depends on chance circumstances of environment).</font>[/QUOTE]Mercury speaks the truth. Evolution is not about "lower" to "higher" lifeforms.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually Scott J. is correct. Evolution teaches:
1. That lower forms evolved into higher forms.
2. That these lower life forms sprang from nonlife.
3. All that exists came from nothing by some undefined means.

Those naive people who believe otherwise are simply misinformed.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by HankD:
Actually Mercury the phrase Tov Mod ("very good") which is the Hebrew superlative goodness is not found in Psalm 104:20-28.

Yes, I know. But, I think a position based on the difference between what God can call "good" and "very good" is on shaky ground. Further, prey for lions are among what is called tov, just as animals are called tov when they are created (Genesis 1:21,25).

That God supplies the need, in a life with "predation", disease, pain, suffering and death is as "good" as it gets as a result of Adam's disobedience.

It doesn't say "as good as it gets". It says prey for lions are a good thing God provides. In fact, some day when death will be vanquished, he'll provide a feast of meat for all of us! (See Isaiah 25:6-8.) Even if that feast is symbolic, it doesn't seem consistent with the idea that animal death is only good in a sinful world.

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Exactly. And when we compare that to other passages, we see that the death being referred to is not animal death.

Isaiah 25:6-8: "On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken."

 

[OldRegular]

Two posts just to show that the truth bears repeating.

Furthermore, evolution is an atheistic philosophy, or religion, if you prefer.

 

[Mercury]

OldReg, don't you mean:

"Evolution is an atheistic philosophy, or religion, if you prefer. "

Your argument loses all its substance without the smilies.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Mercury:
OldReg, don't you mean:

"Evolution is an atheistic philosophy, or religion, if you prefer. "

Your argument loses all its substance without the smilies.

If smilies make you happy?