RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17187
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Living in Parricide just north of Jacob's bosom

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby RickD » Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:15 am

Hugh,

As I'm at work, I don't have time to address your entire post. But I did want to disagree with this:
Hugh wrote:
I think there is a fundamental difference, however, which might be expressed thus; that evolution proposes that all living things share a common ancestor, while creationism proposes that all living things derive from a number of ancestral forms that were not genetically related.

I have no problem agreeing with you that life forms can be genetically related, without believing all living things share a common ancestor. I see God using similar DNA in similar life. I don't think the evidence points to evolution from one common ancestor being the only explanation for that.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

hughfarey
Senior Member
Posts: 718
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby hughfarey » Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:57 am

RickD wrote:I have no problem agreeing with you that life forms can be genetically related, without believing all living things share a common ancestor. I see God using similar DNA in similar life. I don't think the evidence points to evolution from one common ancestor being the only explanation for that.
I think I understand that, although I'm not sure how two animals can be genetically related without sharing a common ancestor. I think that's what genetically related means. I agree that they could be genetically similar without sharing a common ancestor - is that what you had mind?

If so, then we can discuss why, with the same evidence, we come to different conclusions. You might say that since a frog and a rabbit both have to live in the world as we know it, it is not surprising that both have, for example, very similar respiratory chemistry, initiated by very similar DNA. That in itself would not be better evidence of common descent than individual creation. However, when we see the remarkable similarities between the frog and rabbit embryos, and how they form themselves into the adult organ systems, producing those bizarre distortions such as the wandering routes of the recurrent laryngeal nerve and the vas deferens, I think there the evidence points better towards common descent than individual creation.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 4898
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby Philip » Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:28 am

If the Creator of all things, created the code which He subsequently created and assembled ALL living things from, then it makes perfect sense that the genetics WILL undoubtedly share commonalities! As He utilized HIS engineered designs and organisms' senses that are cross-functional and applicable across a wide variety of organism types, with whatever varying modifications, per their intended functions, geographic placements, in time and place, etc., then the commonalities most definitely can be explained, NOT by common ancestries descending from original and primitive forms, but by A COMMON ENGINEER AND DESIGNER Who has utilized these features, chemistries and genetic code across all organisms. One may not agree with this being the case - especially if one assumes the only explanation can be evolution. But if God exists, this has to be a possible explanation one should consider.

User avatar
Stu
Senior Member
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:32 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby Stu » Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:59 am

neo-x wrote:
Stu wrote:
neo-x wrote:
I said God is the source of all things. I believe in God. But I don't believe in evolution, Rick. That is misrepresentation. I don't believe God guided evolution or anything either.

I have no idea what this means. To me it's a contradiction. How can you believe God is the source, but He didn't guide evolution?

Edit:maybe "guide" is not the correct word in your case. You would agree that God put in place, whatever was needed for evolution to happen, correct?


Actually, yes in my view as long as we maintain that evolution happens randomly and God doesn't micromanage. I can say that.

Rick, my broader point was that we can't mix God and evolution together. That is contradictory to me. I think, K, also understood that in a post a couple of pages back.


How do you reconcile what you just said with "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

I don't.


So the Bible is wrong?
Only when the blood runs and the shackles restrain, will the sheep then awake. When all is lost.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby neo-x » Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:43 am

Stu wrote:
neo-x wrote:
Stu wrote:
neo-x wrote:
I said God is the source of all things. I believe in God. But I don't believe in evolution, Rick. That is misrepresentation. I don't believe God guided evolution or anything either.

I have no idea what this means. To me it's a contradiction. How can you believe God is the source, but He didn't guide evolution?

Edit:maybe "guide" is not the correct word in your case. You would agree that God put in place, whatever was needed for evolution to happen, correct?


Actually, yes in my view as long as we maintain that evolution happens randomly and God doesn't micromanage. I can say that.

Rick, my broader point was that we can't mix God and evolution together. That is contradictory to me. I think, K, also understood that in a post a couple of pages back.


How do you reconcile what you just said with "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

I don't.


So the Bible is wrong?


Do you believe that the Bible could not be wrong about anything?

For example, do you believe that when the Bible says that the sun and moon stopped when Joshua prayed, did that really happen?

And why did God made Adam out of the dust on the ground but eve he made out of a rib? Incidently, Eve came from a Rib, not per say in the image of God as Genesis 1 say, in contrast to what chapter 2 says?
How do you understand it, Stu?

As for me, technically, I say, as I have said in the past, that scientifically Genesis has a few problems, in my opinion. I don't hold to Biblical inerrancy, in case you missed it. However, I think it is kind of awkward to consider all the books as one. They had various authors, backgrounds, vocab and context. So I really don't think that if there's a problem in Genesis, then the whole of the Bible is wrong. I think it's a rather stretchy conclusion, and a thin one, if I may say so.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17187
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Living in Parricide just north of Jacob's bosom

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby RickD » Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:52 pm

hughfarey wrote:
RickD wrote:I have no problem agreeing with you that life forms can be genetically related, without believing all living things share a common ancestor. I see God using similar DNA in similar life. I don't think the evidence points to evolution from one common ancestor being the only explanation for that.
I think I understand that, although I'm not sure how two animals can be genetically related without sharing a common ancestor. I think that's what genetically related means. I agree that they could be genetically similar without sharing a common ancestor - is that what you had mind?
I'm not sure how you define, "genetically related", and how it differs from genetically similar.

If so, then we can discuss why, with the same evidence, we come to different conclusions. You might say that since a frog and a rabbit both have to live in the world as we know it, it is not surprising that both have, for example, very similar respiratory chemistry, initiated by very similar DNA. That in itself would not be better evidence of common descent than individual creation. However, when we see the remarkable similarities between the frog and rabbit embryos, and how they form themselves into the adult organ systems, producing those bizarre distortions such as the wandering routes of the recurrent laryngeal nerve and the vas deferens, I think there the evidence points better towards common descent than individual creation.
And I think similarities point to a Designer who uses efficient biological systems in different creatures. Not unlike a car designer using similar braking systems, or electrical systems, in different vehicles.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

hughfarey
Senior Member
Posts: 718
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby hughfarey » Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:19 pm

RickD wrote:I'm not sure how you define, "genetically related", and how it differs from genetically similar.
I use the word 'related' to mean having a common ancestor, just as human relations share a common ancestor. The more closely related, the more recent the common ancestor.

And I think similarities point to a Designer who uses efficient biological systems in different creatures. Not unlike a car designer using similar braking systems, or electrical systems, in different vehicles.
Yes, I covered that. It is not the good designs that provide better evidence for evolution than creationism, but the awkward ones that appear to be derived, rather inefficiently, from others. Such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve and the vas deferens.

Philip wrote:As He utilized HIS engineered designs and organisms' senses that are cross-functional and applicable across a wide variety of organism types, with whatever varying modifications, per their intended functions, geographic placements, in time and place, etc., then the commonalities most definitely can be explained, NOT by common ancestries descending from original and primitive forms, but by A COMMON ENGINEER AND DESIGNER Who has utilized these features, chemistries and genetic code across all organisms. One may not agree with this being the case - especially if one assumes the only explanation can be evolution. But if God exists, this has to be a possible explanation one should consider.
Philip, you have carefully ignored almost everything I said in my previous post. You have ignored my agreement that common DNA might be expected among organisms utilising common features (I used respiratory chemistry as an example), you have ignored my mention of examples of inefficient design, and you have ignored the fact that I neither assumed that the only explanation was evolution, nor that the direct intervention of God could not be a possible explanation. My last sentence sums up my view, that I think the evidence in this case points better towards common descent than individual creation. Had you in fact read what I said, you might understand why I do not agree that "the commonalities most definitely can be explained, NOT by common ancestries descending from original and primitive forms, but by A COMMON ENGINEER AND DESIGNER Who has utilized these features, chemistries and genetic code across all organisms." Not unless the common engineer and designer was at least in some respects clumsy and inefficient.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8404
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby Kurieuo » Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:28 pm

RickD wrote:
hughfarey wrote:
RickD wrote:I have no problem agreeing with you that life forms can be genetically related, without believing all living things share a common ancestor. I see God using similar DNA in similar life. I don't think the evidence points to evolution from one common ancestor being the only explanation for that.
I think I understand that, although I'm not sure how two animals can be genetically related without sharing a common ancestor. I think that's what genetically related means. I agree that they could be genetically [b]similar without sharing a common ancestor - is that what you had mind?[/b]
I'm not sure how you define, "genetically related", and how it differs from genetically similar.

If so, then we can discuss why, with the same evidence, we come to different conclusions. You might say that since a frog and a rabbit both have to live in the world as we know it, it is not surprising that both have, for example, very similar respiratory chemistry, initiated by very similar DNA. That in itself would not be better evidence of common descent than individual creation. However, when we see the remarkable similarities between the frog and rabbit embryos, and how they form themselves into the adult organ systems, producing those bizarre distortions such as the wandering routes of the recurrent laryngeal nerve and the vas deferens, I think there the evidence points better towards common descent than individual creation.
And I think similarities point to a Designer who uses efficient biological systems in different creatures. Not unlike a car designer using similar braking systems, or electrical systems, in different vehicles.

Understand, many Progressive Creationists take a "programming" approach to design. Rich does in his article on psuedogenes and how his creation beliefs account for such. And, it would appear RickD meant something like this.

So you know, when I'm coding, I choose a suitable language and framework. For a starting framework, pick a particular kind of creature. From there, I might decide that I desire it to have function A, B and C. I know there exists 'A' already, in fact, some coders have developed it to run quite well on existing platform environments. So I use what has "evolved" for 'A'. Then 'B', I see I already created code for 'B' in another "program" (life form), so I'll reuse that thanks very much. And then 'C' well nothing exists for that, so looks like I'll have to create new code for that bit.

Therefore, one life form could be genetically related to multiple species in their "shared" genetic information mixed in with new. This is unlike Natural Evolution where we would to see genetic information ALWAYS passed on down the line one-to-one. Furthermore, with this PC view, convergent "evolution" should be seen and expected, intricate symbiotic relationships (multi-part biological and biochemical systems), and I'm sure I can think of several other distinguishing features too.

The question isn't, as many ask, why would God. Why would God create over millions of years rather than in his 6 days of creation? Certainly, the specific details of how God created isn't something we read about in Scripture, but neither does Scripture say anything against it. We also now understand that life forms have biological code and complex internal biological systems, so it may not be that case that God just created life forms, but rather also created the inner workings of biochemical systems which are often shared across any inherited by species. And indeed, Adam and Eve were themselves created directly from pre-existing matter (according to Genesis, Adam from dust of the Earth and Eve from Adam's side). So, then, the question is rather what good evidence is there for this position?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17187
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Living in Parricide just north of Jacob's bosom

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby RickD » Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:22 pm

RickD wrote:
I'm not sure how you define, "genetically related", and how it differs from genetically similar.

Hughfarey wrote:
I use the word 'related' to mean having a common ancestor, just as human relations share a common ancestor. The more closely related, the more recent the common ancestor.

Ok. I guess my next question would be, how do you differentiate between something being related/having a common ancestor, and having similar, even very similar, DNA?

RickD wrote:
And I think similarities point to a Designer who uses efficient biological systems in different creatures. Not unlike a car designer using similar braking systems, or electrical systems, in different vehicles.

Hughfarey wrote:
Yes, I covered that. It is not the good designs that provide better evidence for evolution than creationism, but the awkward ones that appear to be derived, rather inefficiently, from others. Such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve and the vas deferens.

How does something that works efficiently, appear to be inefficiently derived? The system works, so it's not inefficient in and of itself. It just appears to be derived inefficiently? I would think that a system that works just fine, would only appear to be derived inefficiently, if it was assumed to be derived in a way that it wasn't.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17187
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Living in Parricide just north of Jacob's bosom

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby RickD » Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:24 pm

kurieuo wrote:
Understand, many Progressive Creationists take a "programming" approach to design. Rich does in his article on psuedogenes and how his creation beliefs account for such. And, it would appear RickD meant something like this.

So you know, when I'm coding, I choose a suitable language and framework. For a starting framework, pick a particular kind of creature. From there, I might decide that I desire it to have function A, B and C. I know there exists 'A' already, in fact, some coders have developed it to run quite well on existing platform environments. So I use what has "evolved" for 'A'. Then 'B', I see I already created code for 'B' in another "program" (life form), so I'll reuse that thanks very much. And then 'C' well nothing exists for that, so looks like I'll have to create new code for that bit.

That's pretty much the gist of what I was thinking. And the coding example was a good one.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 4898
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby Philip » Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:12 pm

Hugh: Philip, you have carefully ignored almost everything I said in my previous post.

No, Hughie - I didn't really read through it - just jumped in with a thought, TBH.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8404
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby Kurieuo » Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:31 am

Neo-X, Hugh, here's a YouTube video with Jerry Coyne I thought you might find interesting on Rubin Report. I expect you'd disagree with his anti-religion smugness, but it is sadly what he believes. I do wonder if you came across someone like him in real life, how you might respond about your Christianity (or would you shy away from it altogether)?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
Stu
Senior Member
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:32 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby Stu » Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:52 am

neo-x wrote:
Stu wrote:
neo-x wrote:
Stu wrote:
neo-x wrote:
Actually, yes in my view as long as we maintain that evolution happens randomly and God doesn't micromanage. I can say that.

Rick, my broader point was that we can't mix God and evolution together. That is contradictory to me. I think, K, also understood that in a post a couple of pages back.


How do you reconcile what you just said with "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

I don't.


So the Bible is wrong?


Do you believe that the Bible could not be wrong about anything?

For example, do you believe that when the Bible says that the sun and moon stopped when Joshua prayed, did that really happen?

And why did God made Adam out of the dust on the ground but eve he made out of a rib? Incidently, Eve came from a Rib, not per say in the image of God as Genesis 1 say, in contrast to what chapter 2 says?
How do you understand it, Stu?

As for me, technically, I say, as I have said in the past, that scientifically Genesis has a few problems, in my opinion. I don't hold to Biblical inerrancy, in case you missed it. However, I think it is kind of awkward to consider all the books as one. They had various authors, backgrounds, vocab and context. So I really don't think that if there's a problem in Genesis, then the whole of the Bible is wrong. I think it's a rather stretchy conclusion, and a thin one, if I may say so.


So then what part of the Bible is true?

If you can dismiss one of the most important aspects (the creation of man) of the Bible why can others not do the same for all aspects of the Bible.

I mean did Jesus even perform miracles; did Jesus even rise up to heaven or was He just caught up in a UFO as some might claim. You can make up any old story then about the whole Bible.
Only when the blood runs and the shackles restrain, will the sheep then awake. When all is lost.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby neo-x » Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:50 am

Stu wrote:
neo-x wrote:
Stu wrote:
neo-x wrote:
Stu wrote:
How do you reconcile what you just said with "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

I don't.


So the Bible is wrong?


Do you believe that the Bible could not be wrong about anything?

For example, do you believe that when the Bible says that the sun and moon stopped when Joshua prayed, did that really happen?

And why did God made Adam out of the dust on the ground but eve he made out of a rib? Incidently, Eve came from a Rib, not per say in the image of God as Genesis 1 say, in contrast to what chapter 2 says?
How do you understand it, Stu?

As for me, technically, I say, as I have said in the past, that scientifically Genesis has a few problems, in my opinion. I don't hold to Biblical inerrancy, in case you missed it. However, I think it is kind of awkward to consider all the books as one. They had various authors, backgrounds, vocab and context. So I really don't think that if there's a problem in Genesis, then the whole of the Bible is wrong. I think it's a rather stretchy conclusion, and a thin one, if I may say so.


So then what part of the Bible is true?

If you can dismiss one of the most important aspects (the creation of man) of the Bible why can others not do the same for all aspects of the Bible.

I mean did Jesus even perform miracles; did Jesus even rise up to heaven or was He just caught up in a UFO as some might claim. You can make up any old story then about the whole Bible.


Yeah I can. The Bible is useless to me I might throw it in the garbage bin, because I am an arrogant fool and I just want to tarnish the scriptures and their reputation.
I hope I have hit the stereotype you may have in your mind.

On a serious note, the parts that we have evidence against are not true or at least are problematic enough to be viewed with caution.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17187
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Living in Parricide just north of Jacob's bosom

Re: RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

Postby RickD » Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:18 am

neo wrote:
On a serious note, the parts that we have evidence against are not true or at least are problematic enough to be viewed with caution.

Evidence that parts of the Bible are not true?
Not true as you interpret them? Or not true, period?

I'm sure you see where this leads.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest