The lie of evolution, part II

Another interesting point is the fact that evolutionists try to use the fact that God made animals with organs and molecules (DNA for instance) that works the same. If God were to make a perfect creation before sin came along to wreck it--then all this shows is that it was all created by the same designer.

I can look at an electronic circuit and tell you which engineer designed it, because that engineer will use many of the same circuits over and over--why reinvent the wheel? This certainly doesn't mean that his designs evolved to become better and better--since his designs are actually based on the job he is handed at the time.

 

Why, exactly would God tell such a wild story?

 

Actually, we have some interesting comparisons we can make between intelligent creation and evolved creative works. Engineers have arranged for computer driven evolution of electronic circuits, for example, in order to develop circuits that work efficiently. What we find as a result are circuits that work very well, but also have parts that don't add to the function. We have parts that work together in ways we literally do not understand and far surpass the efficiency a human would be able to develop together with extra parts that do nothing - junk wiring in the circuits!

Human designed circuits, however, are characterized by every wire and every element having a purpose.

Shouldn't this differential result between the two kinds of creation be used as evidence for what kind of creation life turns out to be?

 

Why, exactly would God tell such a wild story? </font>[/QUOTE]Who said it was a wild story, or a story at all. Isn't God capable of anything? Isn't God capable of things that our tiny minds could never grasp? There is a big difference between the puny mind of man and an omnipotent and infinite mind.

 

I think what you're suggesting -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that God could have created the universe around 6,000 years ago, and at that point created both everything after that point and everything before that point. The past would be no less real than the present we live in, and it would all be God's creation.

Now, that's an interesting idea, but it has some consequences.

1) It means that the past is real. If this is your belief, you should be supporting what is discovered about the earth's history and the universe's history, because those fossilized animals really existed and those supernovas millions of years ago really happened. It means that animal death long before the Fall really happened, as did a long history on Earth before people came around. It means that attempts to compress the entire history of our universe into mere thousands of years are woefully misguided.

2) You should also explain why God would step into time at a certain point to create time. Why would God choose a time 6,000 years ago to create both the past and the present, if the time 6,000 years ago did not yet exist until God created? You seem to be tying God's creative activity to a time frame that itself is a result of that creative activity. This is a paradox at best, if not an outright contradiction.

That's true, but please keep in mind -- and I don't mean this as an insult -- that you also have "the puny mind of man", and that is where your idea comes from. You can't use the difference between God's mind and our mind to elevate your ideas above other human ideas.

 

Bold mine

BINGO, SLAM DUNK, HOME RUN, TOUCHDOWN!!!!!

Now, if the evolutionists will simply concede this fact, we can agree that thIS whole concept of the beginnings is a matter of faith.

You either believe what God said, as He said it, OR you believe what man has said, as he said it!!!!

I'm elated that, hopefully, we now have a concensus!

 

That's true, but please keep in mind -- and I don't mean this as an insult -- that you also have "the puny mind of man", and that is where your idea comes from. You can't use the difference between God's mind and our mind to elevate your ideas above other human ideas.

Good point Mercury!!

 

First off, you're equivocating from what I said to what you say. The "this fact" you refer to is what I said about not being able to use the difference between God's mind and our mind to elevate one's ideas above other human ideas. That is different from saying that the whole concept of beginnings is a matter of faith. I don't need to appeal to faith to believe that at one level my beginning was the result of something my parents did. That's a logical inference from the evidence (and at another level, I have faith that God created me). There is also much evidence revealing details about the history of life, Earth and the universe. However, if you are speaking about the absolute beginning, yes, that is a matter of faith. As Christians, we all share the same faith in that regard: God is the creator of all.

Aside from that, I also don't see why you thought my statement was a major revelation. I'm well aware that I'm not God and that my ideas are fallible. My statements stand or fall on the evidence for them, not on any appeal to me speaking in place of God.

Unfortunately, there have been others who certainly are not "evolutionists" who have appealed to the greatness of God's mind to defend the products of their mind. I'm glad we can agree that that is not a valid form of argumentation.

 

That sounds like what some folks call a "genetic algorithm." I have seen some results. But I haven't seen any useful results. Maybe you can send along a reference to one that works well.

Actually, Brother Paul, computers do contain a lot of junk circuitry. Examples are unused card slots (including some ISA), unused serial and parallel ports (junk now that we have USB) and floppy drives (junk in any event).

On the other hand I use a computer with an NT operating system that doesn't support USB. Nevertheless, the hardware has a USB port.

So human designed circuitry does have a lot of junk wiring in it.

I have designed a lot of electronic circuits. So, I will have to go along with Brother Phillip here.

God's work looks like design to me too.

God Bless,
A.F.

 

YES, PLEASE send some references. I think this is just so much mumbo jumbo and it certainly has nothing to do with what is being called "DNA" today in electronics design.

 

Here's a link to where one user of evolutionary design methods found a lot of useless stuff came along: check out the last three paragraphs of the article.


http://www.genetic-programming.com/published/eetimes060396.html

 

Just why would God have to use evolution in design?

God is all-knowing. God already knows the ultimate perfect design from the beginning. When we look at our world, and how all life works together in harmony we can see the excellence of His designs. It was only when sin, and death through sin was introduced into the world that problems began. When God finished his 6 day creation, it was VERY GOOD.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

There you go, EVERY THING was VERY GOOD. And it was all within 6 DAYS.

So, there was no need for evolution. Everything was already very good in God's own words.

Face it, evolution does not agree with the creation account in Genesis in anyway whatsoever.

The creation account is very simple. If God had used evolution as you claim, then the creation account is very misleading. God does not make mistakes, and he is no liar, so this cannot be the case. He surely understands language that would be easily misunderstood as well. He has more wisdom than us all.

Genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict each other. Genesis 1 is a chronology as shown by the account of the various creations day by day.

Genesis 2 is an account of the fall. So, it is a different topic altogether. It is not describing the order of creation. It pertains to events after creation was FINISHED.

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

It is clear that everything, the heavens, the earth, and ALL THE HOST OF THEM were finished.

"God ended his work which he had made"

Notice the word, ENDED.

The wordS FINISHED and ENDED must exclude evolution.

Evolution is NEVER finished. And evolution NEVER ends.

God's Word has beaten you AGAIN.

No, you simply don't believe what the Bible says. It is not that creationists misinterpret Genesis.

Evolutionists misinterpret the Bible.

 

Nice try JWI, but true as your post is, you're just spittin' in the wind for all the good you hope to accomplish with the ones who take Genesis as fable.

 

Hmmm. Gen 1:26-27
6 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
NASU

Gen 2:21-22
21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.

22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
NASU

I leave it to the readers: Is chapter two talking about a time after chapter one or is chatper two reprising chapter one in a different way? I submit it must be reprising chapter one in a different way, in spite of our brother's erroneous statement above that the one deals strictly with what happened AFTER the other.

That said, how long did creation take?

In six days, according to chapter one.

But look at this verse:

Gen 2:4
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
NASU


Hmmmm . . . was it all done in a day? Thats what it says there!

Which came first, man or animals?

Gen 1:25-26

25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
NASU

Animals first, then man, obviously.

Unless you believe chapter two:

Gen 2:18-20
18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
NASU

Oops, it was man first and then the animals.

Well, one can indulge in rescue interpretations here. No doubt someone will post a rescue interpretation soon enough.

But they could just as easily post a rescue interpretation that will reconcile both chapters with the revelation from the skies and the rocks, which God also created.

If it isn't a sin to reinterpret these verses so they don't contradict each other, it isn't a sin to reinterpret them so they don't contradict the findings of science.

The same God Who gave us these verses also gave us the galaxies in the skies, the fossils in the ground, and the means to date them and measure them.

 

Thanks for the link Brother Paul. I was expecting something a little more technical.

So far genetic algorithms have proven to be more hype than hope. Part of the hype is the idea that genetic algorithms model evolution. That isn't really correct. Even though the algorithm uses random changes to the circuit as a driving function there is a decision made in each "generation" as to the relative value of an individual with respect to a particular overall goal. That method of selection better models the techniques of animal husbandry than Darwinian evolution.

God Bless,
A.F.

 

"Just why would God have to use evolution in design?"

Why would God have to do anything in particular? He doesn't. It just so happens that in this case that evolution is the method which He used to create the diversity of life on this planet.

"God is all-knowing. God already knows the ultimate perfect design from the beginning. When we look at our world, and how all life works together in harmony we can see the excellence of His designs."

I agree. When we view the universe that God gave us, we see that the laws which He set up under which all things in the universe operates are perfectly set up to allow for His will. For our specific subject, the laws are set up so perfectly as to allow His will for life on this planet to have been created through those laws which He set up to govern life.

By the same token, when you look at the specifics of life on this planet, you see no evidence of design in life itself. It very much bears the traits of being created through natural means. Of course, I also bear the marks of having been created through natural means but that makes me no less a creation of God.

"There you go, EVERY THING was VERY GOOD. And it was all within 6 DAYS."

Only if you insist on a literal interpretation. Various posters have given you reason, including from the text itself, for why this might not be the case. Paul just did so again.

Now let's think about this for a second. Either the Bible is or is not compatible with evolution. Either evolution happens or it does not. THis gives us 4 combinations, one of which can obviously be dismissed right away. This leaves three.

1. The Bible is compatible with evolution and evolution happened. - The pros of this position are that it is consistent with reality and it eliminates some of the inconsistencies that come about from trying to force a literal reading of the creation. The major con is that you must reinterpret part of the Bible as not literal which understandibly upsets some people. (I'd rather not have to did it myself but I find it to be the only acceptable answer.)

2. The Bible is not compatible with evolution and evolution does not happen. - The major pro here is that you get to keep the reading of the Bible on creation as literal. The major flaw is that there is overwhelming evidence that evolution has occurred. For this option to be true, there would by necessity need to be YE interpretations of the evidence that better fits the observations that the OE interpretations. But as you read through this thread and others, you will see that the evidence presented to support evolution is rarely if ever addressed, and never with better testible interpretations, and that the evidence presented for a young earth is generally...where's that list of yours..."[mis]UNDERSTAND [], lies, misrepresentations, quoted out of context, the math is wrong, the writer is unreliable......"

3. The Bible is incompatible with evolution and evolution happens. - The third rail. This is the one none of us wants to be true. And none of us believes this one to be true. However, when you make your case that the Bible is incompatible with evolution yet you have no answers for the data supporting evolution, this ends up being the position you are supporting by default.

"No, you simply don't believe what the Bible says. It is not that creationists misinterpret Genesis.

Evolutionists misinterpret the Bible."

No, no. The possibility exists that you are the one misinterpreting. I know that most people naturally feel that their position on a given subject is always the right one. But for most subjects there are multiple positions and they are not all right. Even in Biblical interpretation, there are many positions on many issues. We divide up into demoninations partially over these issues with each demonination thinking they have the right way. Well, it is unlikely that they all have the right way on all subjects or even that one has the right way on all.

I very well could be wrong on my position here. Are you willing to admit the possibility of error?

 

"It's not spitting in the wind, jwp, even though it seems like it. Petrel, Paul, UTE, etc. are presenting a stage on which we can present the creation facts and arguments, and people read these discussions to see what they are. "

Absolutely.

And as we have done so, the uncommitted lurker should have noticed something by now. The assertions that are put forward by the YE side are quickly and factually addressed by the OE side. These assertions are without fail shown to be based on same sort of flaw or ommission. They do not stand up to judgement.

The assertions from the OE side are very rarely addressed by the YE side. There is talk about alternate interpretations and bad assumptions, but it is unusual to see a fact based response. Sometimes there will be an ad hoc kind of story. But the lurker should notice a distinct lack of factual, testible, falsifiable alternates to the observations in support of an old earth.

"The readers here are not dummies -- they can see what is happening and I get PM's and emails letting me know how much they appreciate what we present and the logic and faith we show."

Yes, there are many intelligent people on this board. I, too, get personal messages from those who appreciate the insights of those who accept evolution as true. Sometimes they will express private support that they are afraid to admit to publically because of the attitudes exhibited towards those who do not accept the opinion of the other side. You never see OEers claiming that the other side is trying to tear down God or publically doubting their faith or any of the other personal attacks that get launched for taking an unpopular opinion. Of course there are then the personal attack PMs which trickle in from time to time as if the public attacks are not vicious enough. A few times I have been ready to give up and just leave you be when one of the encouraging PMs will come in.

 

Thanks for the link Brother Paul. I was expecting something a little more technical.

So far genetic algorithms have proven to be more hype than hope. Part of the hype is the idea that genetic algorithms model evolution. That isn't really correct. Even though the algorithm uses random changes to the circuit as a driving function there is a decision made in each "generation" as to the relative value of an individual with respect to a particular overall goal. That method of selection better models the techniques of animal husbandry than Darwinian evolution.

God Bless,
A.F. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree, the article is just another approach at trying to automate a process (that is design or optimize a circuit based on so many inputs). This is NOTHING new--just the comparisons with living genetics, etc. may be new.