Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Mazzy
Valued Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:30 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Mazzy » Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:19 am

Kurieuo wrote:What of Scripture though? Day-Age is one synthesis between Scripture and what is seen as evidence from science that conforms to a Progressive Creation model.


Thanks for the links. I had a read of them.

I guess this part of your reply is what I'd like to comment on. I don't agree that what is presented as fossil evidence and resulting data is actually evidence.

For example Pollen spores have been found in Precambrian strata. Scripture says plants came before the animals of the sea. However evolutionary models can't bear this falsification of TOE. Instead stories, such as contamination etc etc, are meant to maintain the status quo. Other terms to excuse fossils in the wrong place and missing strata are uncomformities, Great uncomformities, over thrust, reworking, downwash etc.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v2 ... 292a0.html

Finding spores dated prior to the Devonian supports Day Age Creationism but not Progressive creationism. It appears Progressive Creationists would not accept what has been observed to be found in Precambrian strata and would accept the reasoning of man/researchers.

User avatar
Mazzy
Valued Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:30 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Mazzy » Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:31 am

hughfarey wrote: Several people have hovered over a dichotomy between evolution and purpose. Mazzy says that belief in evolution denies the possibility that "God planned to ultimately create mankind", and agrees with thatkidakayoungguy in saying: "I figure God intentionally made man." I don't think the dichotomy exists. For me, the entire progress of the universe is a product of the 'purpose' of God, and as such, man is as much an inevitable consequence of it as if Adam and Eve were individually created ex nihilo in 4004BC.


If i were a theistic evolutionist I would say I adhere to much of evolutionary theory but not all. My understanding is that atheist evolutionists don't accept mankind was inevitable.

And finally, the evolutionary story has changed very little since it was first formulated, in the sense that things Darwin claimed were true have since been found false. Instead, the theory has expanded and become more detailed with better and more extensive observation and experiment, such that the more we discover, the better the anomalies observed by Darwin fit the theory, and nothing seems to contradict it. Haldane's pre-Cambrian rabbit would be as devastating a blow today as when he suggested it 120 years ago, but it hasn't been found yet.


I have already spoke about Precambrian spores indicating plant life prior to the age of fishes. I think that should be as devastating a blow as finding a Precambrian rabbit. In fact a Precambrian rabbit would not align with scripture, where as Precambrian spores do.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9004
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Kurieuo » Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:26 am

Mazzy wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:What of Scripture though? Day-Age is one synthesis between Scripture and what is seen as evidence from science that conforms to a Progressive Creation model.


Thanks for the links. I had a read of them.

I guess this part of your reply is what I'd like to comment on. I don't agree that what is presented as fossil evidence and resulting data is actually evidence.

For example Pollen spores have been found in Precambrian strata. Scripture says plants came before the animals of the sea. However evolutionary models can't bear this falsification of TOE. Instead stories, such as contamination etc etc, are meant to maintain the status quo. Other terms to excuse fossils in the wrong place and missing strata are uncomformities, Great uncomformities, over thrust, reworking, downwash etc.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v2 ... 292a0.html

Finding spores dated prior to the Devonian supports Day Age Creationism but not Progressive creationism. It appears Progressive Creationists would not accept what has been observed to be found in Precambrian strata and would accept the reasoning of man/researchers.

Day-Age Creationism is simply an interpretation of Scripture, based upon yom being defined as an unspecified period of (age) of time. Hence "Day" and "Age". It's an interpretation of Scripture that says God created progressively in stages over time, hence it correctly falls under a "Progressive Creation" category.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby hughfarey » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:13 am

Goodness me. If the diagram above reflects Hugh Ross's attempt at concordance between Genesis and Geology then it's a pretty desperate straw-grasp. On Day 3, when Genesis gives us fruit-trees, all RTB can manage is "Microscopic eukaryotes", and on Day 4, on neither of the two days specified for fruit-trees and fish, we get "Some scientists believe first land plants arrive" followed by "First fish and shelly invertebrates." Fruit-trees don't appear until Day 5, two days later than specified in Genesis, as "Vascular plant fossils." In the light of this diagram, I look forward to DBowling's clarification even more keenly.

I'd still like to drill down a bit more in Kurieou's version of how God creates new organisms from pre-existing "stuff", because that's exactly what I, and other evolutionists believe. The difference as far as I can determine is that Kurieou thinks that the pre-existing stuff is quite dramatically changed, maybe quite suddenly from earth or bones into a new organism, whereas I think it happens more gradually. The 'new' organism is formed as a single-celled zygote and grows, also using pre-existing stuff (mostly water and carbon dioxide via photosynthesis followed by digestion, and a handful of soluble minerals). If Progressive Creationists were to accept this, then the difference between them and Theistic Evolutionists becomes very small indeed, I think.

The discovery of Pre-Cambrian pollen was indeed a surprise in the 1960s, and I am even more surprised that no further work has been carried out on it since then. Roraima is not vastly inaccessible, and if any creationist geologists would care to pop up and dig out new samples, they could destroy both the current theory of evolution, and defend the concept of the global flood in one neat swoop. I wonder why they haven't. Evolutionists think that given the similarity of the pollen to that of Tertiary plants, the fact that unlike the rock in which it is found, it appears both uncompressed and unheated, and the fact that no other plant remains, such as leaves or roots occur in the same strata, are all evidence that the pollen is later contamination.

And yes, I think Mazzy is correct in that Theistic Evolutionists think that the entire progress of the universe is the execution of a divine plan, in which both dinosaurs and people play a pre-ordained role, while Atheistic Evolutionists think they are both accidents of chance.

DBowling
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby DBowling » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:18 am

DBowling wrote:
hughfarey wrote:
DBowling wrote:I disagree that there is a profound difference between the sequence of events demonstrated in the fossil record and the sequence of events laid out in Genesis 1. (Navigating Genesis - Hugh Ross)
I hope you'll forgive me for not buying a book simply to inquire into your beliefs. As I understand it, in Genesis fruit-trees were created on Day 3 and fish on Day 5, while the fossil records suggest that fish arrived about 500 million years ago and fruit-trees about 300 million years ago. If Hugh Ross disagrees, would you be kind enough to summarise why?

:D
No problem... I'll try to find some typing time tomorrow...


From Chapter 5 Creation Days Three and Four
Plants on Dry Land
The story of creation day three continues: "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds" (Genesis 1:11). Here we read that the newly formed dry land now brings forth something new: vegetation.
Skeptics often point to this verse as a supposed error in the biblical account of life's history, both in content and chronology. Evidence for land plants, especially for advanced ones such as fruit trees, shows up late in the fossil record -- after the fossils of animal life, a day five creation event.
A closer look at the text and at the emerging scientific evidence, however, eliminates the basis for such error claims. The word for vegetation in the original Hebrew is deshe. It means vegetation or green plant life and would apply generically to any photosynthetic land life. Following the use of this generic term, Genesis 1:11 list three examples of the deshe. Obviously, other examples of deshe could exist as well.
The words for the three examples, translated 'seed', 'trees', and 'fruit', have more specific meaning in English than in Hebrew. The Hebrew nouns used here: zera, es, and peri, mean, respectively 'semen' or 'the embryos of any plant species', 'any large plant containing wood fiber' and 'the food and/or embryos produced by any living thing'. zera and peri could refer to any plant species that has ever existed. The es includes all large plants containing cellulose and could possibly refer to all larger-than-microscopic plants whose fibers provide a measure of stiffness. In light of this range of meanings, the description of creation day 3 is at least consistent with the discoveries of modern science. The earliest land plants fit the biblical description. Thus, the original text can be interpreted as a reference to some of the plant species scientists have identified as the earliest land vegetation.

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby hughfarey » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:02 am

Thanks, DBowling. If this is at all persuasive to anybody, then there is not much more to say. To think that the entire verse, "וַתּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע, לְמִינֵהוּ, וְעֵץ עֹשֶׂה-פְּרִי אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ-בוֹ, לְמִינֵהוּ; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב" can refer to nothing more than photosynthetic algae is stretching my credulity further than it will go. It is extremely doubtful if there was any Pre-Cambrian terrestrial vegetation at all (pace Mazzy above), and to distort words that commonly mean grass and trees (not, I venture to suggest, particularly specific, even in English) into 'any kind of plant' does not add to RTB's credibility.

But, fair enough. Each to his own.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9004
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Kurieuo » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:08 am

hughfarey wrote:Goodness me. If the diagram above reflects Hugh Ross's attempt at concordance between Genesis and Geology then it's a pretty desperate straw-grasp. On Day 3, when Genesis gives us fruit-trees, all RTB can manage is "Microscopic eukaryotes", and on Day 4, on neither of the two days specified for fruit-trees and fish, we get "Some scientists believe first land plants arrive" followed by "First fish and shelly invertebrates." Fruit-trees don't appear until Day 5, two days later than specified in Genesis, as "Vascular plant fossils." In the light of this diagram, I look forward to DBowling's clarification even more keenly.

Keep in mind it's only a graphic sketch, but it does seem confusing. It would be good if they fleshed it out more, perhaps they have somewhere online, besides in their books. I just haven't followed RTB for ages now.

hughfarey wrote:I'd still like to drill down a bit more in Kurieou's version of how God creates new organisms from pre-existing "stuff", because that's exactly what I, and other evolutionists believe. The difference as far as I can determine is that Kurieou thinks that the pre-existing stuff is quite dramatically changed, maybe quite suddenly from earth or bones into a new organism, whereas I think it happens more gradually. The 'new' organism is formed as a single-celled zygote and grows, also using pre-existing stuff (mostly water and carbon dioxide via photosynthesis followed by digestion, and a handful of soluble minerals). If Progressive Creationists were to accept this, then the difference between them and Theistic volutionists becomes very small indeed, I think.

To clarify on Theistic Evolution, it actually doesn't believe God created new organisms from pre-existing "stuff" except God doing so very indirectly. Similar to the "big bang" and how all stars and planets unfolded (God didn't directly create Earth in the sky, the moon or our Sun), Theistic Evolution has it that God planted the initial seed of life (perhaps even set in motion in the very beginning of the cosmos for life to naturally unfold). This "seed" had the potential to unfold according to natural laws and evolve into all lifeforms which have roamed Earth. There is no direct input from God throughout time, other than His simple sustaining of the universe and all laws within, and divine planning in the very beginning. If there is any divine guidance, such isn't direct intervention, but rather based upon God's foreknowledge of how each particle bouncing around and ripple would happen, He put in motion the one universe where all conditions would be met to have what we now see.

Moving onto Progressive Creation now. Unlike Theistic Evolution, it believes God has a direct hand in creating at different times and intervals throughout Earth's history. I believe God during creation made use of genetic code in previous species. To describe what I see, let me refer back to a post in another thread I mentioned earlier. There, I was pondering whether "Common Descent" necessarily needs to be via natural processes, or whether God's re-using parts of genomes in other species for a brand new creation is also a form of common descent. The other post, from memory, believed that taking "the biological code" of a previous species to create a new species wasn't common descent. Rather "common descent" also implies the actual pattern of one species evolving from their ancestor. I'll quote my post at length here (with edits), as it deals with your question to me in detail:
Kurieuo wrote:[Other guy was] saying what we have is not just shared [biology] if-you-will. Rather lifeforms look to have pattern of actually being [biologically] tied into each other, rather than two lifeforms simply making use of the same biological code.

[I'd say] that the ancestor of two species is the "biological template" if you will... God takes something pre-existing [as the starting template], adds to it and moulds some brand new life.

Now where Naturalists believe all the mechanisms to be natural, I'd say a driving mechanism for new biological information and function is intervention. Something new being created from what already existed plus God's added input and tweaking.

Previously, my view was that God created every new "species" (however we define such) in essentially ex nihilo fashion. I found endogenous retroviruses to be quite powerful evidence for common descent, such that it had me searching for answers.

Over the years as new knowledge became available, transposable elements (which ERVs are) do not randomly insert themselves but appear to attach to hotspots in the genome. Further, they actually appear to serve a purpose to protect. Therefore it seems to be that while apparently "random" it seems purposeful design is more suggestive.

That said, when first presented to me, ERVs challenged my previously held beliefs on how God created. Then, I read an article by Rich Deem discussing pseudogenes. His words challenged me further. Challenged me because he didn't see God's method of creation as God just creating new life brand new from nothing previous:

Rich Deem wrote:Evolutionists' assumptions about God
Does the presence of pseudogenes eliminate the possibility that God created life? To come to this conclusion, there are some assumptions that are implicit in the evolutionists' argument. The first assumption is that God would only create new creatures by producing an entirely new copy of DNA. In other words, DNA would be expected to be completely redesigned from any previously existing organism. Is this the way God works? We know from science that the Sun is a second generation star - formed from the remains of a supernova. For this reason, the Solar System is highly metal enriched, which is required for the existence of life on earth.11 Therefore, God does reuse material when designing "new" structures. When Jesus made wine at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1-11), He did not begin with nothing or air, but began with water. Part of the water was changed into alcohol, but greater than 80% of the original water was unchanged. When God brings a person to salvation, He does not change the genetics or physical makeup of the individual. The person remains in the same body - often a body that has been ravaged by the effects of a lifetime of sinful behavior.

A good analogy in the design of a genetic code is the design of computer programs. I do a significant amount of computer programming as part of my job. When I write programs, I always reuse sections of code in the new programs. I do not begin by writing an entire program from scratch. This would be silly, and highly inefficient. The computer program consists of the GUI (graphical user interface) and the code that performs the actual computations. This is analogous to biological organisms. The GUI is the phenotype (the way the organism looks) and the code that performs the computations is the biochemical pathways. If one Designer created all biological organisms, we would expect to see similar genetic code for both phenotype and biochemical pathways. This is a good argument in favor of monotheism as opposed to polytheism.

A creationary model for genetic similarity
The Bible says that God created humans from the dust of the earth.12 This statement suggests that humans were designed from preexisting material. I propose that part of this "dust" consists of the genetic code of previously existing organisms. If you were going to create a new species of primate, you would begin with primate DNA. This DNA would be altered to form the unique characteristics of the new species. I believe that this is the method that God used to create new species of life on earth. How does this differ from evolution driven through natural selection and how can you distinguish the two methods? Naturalistic evolution could, in theory, produce some of the changes in structures that would account for some of the phenotypic differences observed between the old and new species. However, evolution is unable to account for the design of new structures. Even more of a problem are the ravages of mutation on the genomes of organisms.13 Mutation, the mechanism by which evolutionary change is proposed to occur, most often has no effect upon the fitness of an organism. In humans, these "neutral" mutations occur at a rate of 2.6 mutations per person per generation. However, deleterious mutations occur at a rate of 1.6 mutations per person per generation. Although these deleterious mutations are usually recessive (not expressed unless there are two copies), they will accumulate in the gene pool over time. Decreases in population size leads to the expression of these deleterious mutations through inbreeding, which seriously affects the fitness of the species. In fact, this is the mechanism by which species go extinct. Because of the small amount of genetic variation among humans, evolutionists have proposed that the human species went through a population bottleneck in the recent past. However, such a bottleneck would lead to expression of deleterious mutations, which would further drive down the population numbers, leading to extinction. I believe that God created humans by editing primate DNA - adding new features and removing the deleterious mutations of this DNA template. If evolution were the mechanism by which species arose, deleterious mutations would continue to accumulate as new species evolved. This mechanism would lead to ever increasingly defective DNA through the biological history of the earth. How does this creationary model relate to pseudogenes? Since pseudogenes are not deleterious, I believe that God left them in the genome as part of the filler DNA required to maintain chromosome structure and function.


You know in my older creation beliefs, I assumed God just created new life from "nothing or air" (so I think Rich unfairly limits such an idea to just those who accept evolution). The rest of the article though -- the way Rich described God actually creating -- is something I had to think on for a while.

I suppose it felt suspect to me. Why did God do it that way? Like I suppose how YECs don't understand why God took millions of years, rather than 6 days. And then, [over time it began growing on me,] the more I thought on it [the more it made sense to me].

There is a certain romantic view to God tying all life together. For example, creating man from dust and taking a part of the man and forming the woman from it. It also evidences a much more personal God, delighting in His creation. ...

And then, well there are evidences in the physical world that I believe are strongly suggestive of an intelligent mechanism being required to go from A to B. (but I won't mention them here, at least not for now, because I'm just wanting to impart greater insight into these creation beliefs.)

SO, getting back to my original question.
Is this common descent?
I think it is so.

Evolutionary trees or cladograms could equally describe God's order of creation, what pre-existing life God drew from when bringing about something brand new. God could also make use of multiple parts of "previous lifeforms" in creating new life. You know, traits often associated with "convergent" evolution (however unlikely such might have been).

Scientists get all confused along certain branches because they're looking for 1:1 relationships rather than many to one.
Kind of like Dolly the Sheep huh? Which you said had three mothers. Which one is she descended from? Well actually many.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

DBowling
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby DBowling » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:31 am

hughfarey wrote:Thanks, DBowling.

:) No Problem

If this is at all persuasive to anybody, then there is not much more to say. To think that the entire verse, "וַתּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע, לְמִינֵהוּ, וְעֵץ עֹשֶׂה-פְּרִי אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ-בוֹ, לְמִינֵהוּ; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב" can refer to nothing more than photosynthetic algae is stretching my credulity further than it will go.

And strawmen arguments like that are meaningless, since your mischaracterization is not even what Ross claims.

and to distort words that commonly mean grass and trees (not, I venture to suggest, particularly specific, even in English) into 'any kind of plant' does not add to RTB's credibility.

Distorting the words of Scripture does not add to anyone's credibility.
No matter who does the distorting.

But, fair enough. Each to his own.

Yup

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9004
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Kurieuo » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:36 am

Fwiw, and this might come as a surprise to some who have followed me over the course of next to 20 years. As a Progressive Creationist, I see that I'm finding more alignment with something like the Framework Hypothesis, rather than a Day-Age interpretation.

As some would have realised, I actually haven't been Day-Age for some time now. It illuminated many things in both Scripture and science to me, provided many greats insights and increased my knowledge, but it tries to get everything down pat in way I don't believe was intended. Such "down-pattedness" always made me feel uncomfortable, since nothing in life is ever so neat especially so-far-as knowledge is concerned.

The main mistake, I see with Day-Age interpretations like RTB's, is in believing when Moses formulated the text, his concern was more with scientific matters rather than theology. Israel's in particular. In ignoring the intended theology behind the text, much gets missed in trying to literalise the text in a manner that creates a 1:1 alignment with science. Individual "trees" are looked out, but the "forest" gets missed. Same can be said for YEC, who are so busy debating days are 24-hours and picking a fight with science, that they too miss the forest, the important introduction and main stage that is being set in place.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

DBowling
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby DBowling » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:52 am

Kurieuo wrote:The main mistake, I see with Day-Age interpretations like RTB's, is in believing when Moses formulated the text, his concern was more with scientific matters rather than theology. Israel's in particular. In ignoring the intended theology behind the text, much gets missed in trying to literalise the text in a manner that creates a 1:1 alignment with science.

Here's where I come down on that topic...
And I know this is not a typical position for a day-ager.

I do not think Moses' 'original intent' when he wrote Genesis 1 bears much resemblance to Hugh Ross's interpretation of Genesis 1.
Moses had a vastly different context and set of paradigms when he wrote Genesis 1 than those Hugh Ross has now.

However, I do believe that the words that the Holy Spirit guided Moses to use within his paradigm are 'flexible' enough, so that those same words are consistent with the scientific data when used and understood within Hugh Ross's paradigm.

I do not believe that original intent in the original context is the only way that God communicates truth through his word. We can see this clearly demonstrated as OT Scriptures regarding Messianic expectations and the Resurrection take on 'new meaning' when placed in a new context and theological paradigm.

If there are multiple meanings for a given Greek or Hebrew word in Scripture, and one meaning is consistent with natural revelation and another meaning contradicts natural revelation, I think it is circular nonsense to cling to the meaning that introduces the alleged 'contradiction' and then assert contradiction because of the interpretation that you choose to embrace.

We see that logic in...
yom must mean 24 hours
erets must mean the whole planet
and we see that same logic from those who chose to interpret zera, es, and peri in a manner that contradicts natural revelation instead of in a manner that complements natural revelation.

My bias is simple. I believe Special Revelation and natural revelation are complementary.
So I will defer to complementary interpretations of Scripture over contradictory interpretations of Scripture.

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby hughfarey » Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:04 am

I think Kurieou's post is a very good summary. But permit me a small flight of fancy, and then a question.

Supposing he and I had looked down upon a group of miacids, living in the trees in North America about 42 million years ago. Resembling cats, but with rather rat-like faces, they preyed on tree-lizards and birds, and rarely descended to the forest floor. Over the years, we begin to distinguish that an increasing number of these creatures actually do descend to the floor, preying on ground-dwelling animals more and more. Why? Maybe there is overpopulation in the trees, or a shortage of lizards, or a group of larger predators which used to hunt on the ground have moved away or become extinct. We are watching the development of two species from one - something apparently allowed by many creationists as well as evolutionists. For a while we cannot even distinguish between the two groups by sight, and they freely interbreed, but after ten thousand generations or so, they not only look different, but no longer interbreed at all. What we cannot predict is that these two new species are the ancestors of all modern cats and dogs, and we have been watching the birth of two different taxonomic families, not just two different species.

Now, if Kurieou accepts that this scenario is not impossible, then where exactly is, and how do we identify, divine intervention? And if he does not, then would he like to suggest a scenario which better fits his idea? You see, although I understand the difference in philosophy between Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolution, I still don’t really understand how they might differ in practice.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5805
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Philip » Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:21 am

Hugh, the "intervention" began with how and when God created various things. The interconnectedness of species and their interdependencies,, their created environments, and especially of their timings of the arrival and interdependencies of all dictate how things transpired. This is true whether of evolution or even progressive creationism. Decisions (ALWAYS known, and not made, by God - He doesn't come to new decisions He didn't previously have) as to what, where, and when, and knowing all about what will transpire with each, are dependent upon the timings of each thing introduced. Again, pointless to belabor arguments over "Does God micromanage the Creation."

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5805
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Philip » Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:29 am

K: The main mistake, I see with Day-Age interpretations like RTB's, is in believing when Moses formulated the text, his concern was more with scientific matters rather than theology. Israel's in particular. In ignoring the intended theology behind the text, much gets missed in trying to literalise the text in a manner that creates a 1:1 alignment with science. Individual "trees" are looked out, but the "forest" gets missed. Same can be said for YEC, who are so busy debating days are 24-hours and picking a fight with science, that they too miss the forest, the important introduction and main stage that is being set in place.


This is why, when I met Fazale Rana - Hugh's close colleague, a few months back - that I was very surprised at his apparent lack of familiarity with the nuances of this argument of that what Moses was actually correcting and addressing was a pre-scientific age Israel's THEOLOGICAL misconceptions. Of course, RTB's long obsession has been to attempt to square of the Creation passages perfectly with known scientific evidences. As well, it is likely that there ALSO are scientifically historic truths mixed within the Bible's accounts. But if one compares the ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian creation myths with the Creation accounts provided by Moses, they are astoundingly similar, yet with great and opposing contrasts based upon Yahweh, as He is both the Creator of His Creation, but also stands outside of it and is in full control of it (very different from the other ancient mythical versions).

User avatar
Mazzy
Valued Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:30 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Mazzy » Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:55 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Mazzy wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:What of Scripture though? Day-Age is one synthesis between Scripture and what is seen as evidence from science that conforms to a Progressive Creation model.


Thanks for the links. I had a read of them.

I guess this part of your reply is what I'd like to comment on. I don't agree that what is presented as fossil evidence and resulting data is actually evidence.

For example Pollen spores have been found in Precambrian strata. Scripture says plants came before the animals of the sea. However evolutionary models can't bear this falsification of TOE. Instead stories, such as contamination etc etc, are meant to maintain the status quo. Other terms to excuse fossils in the wrong place and missing strata are uncomformities, Great uncomformities, over thrust, reworking, downwash etc.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v2 ... 292a0.html

Finding spores dated prior to the Devonian supports Day Age Creationism but not Progressive creationism. It appears Progressive Creationists would not accept what has been observed to be found in Precambrian strata and would accept the reasoning of man/researchers.

Day-Age Creationism is simply an interpretation of Scripture, based upon yom being defined as an unspecified period of (age) of time. Hence "Day" and "Age". It's an interpretation of Scripture that says God created progressively in stages over time, hence it correctly falls under a "Progressive Creation" category.


Yes, I believe a biblical day is an amount of time. I also believe that creation occurred in the stages reported in Genesis. I would believe that even if converted to theistic evolution.

How about whales? Do you think God was still in the 5th day as per Genesis, when whales and sea mammals supposedly were either created or adapted/evolved from the land?

We may be getting off the thread topic. Others may want to keep on track. Is there another thread we can use to continue, I wonder.

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby hughfarey » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:07 pm

Philip wrote:Hugh, the "intervention" began with how and when God created various things. The interconnectedness of species and their interdependencies, their created environments, and especially of their timings of the arrival and interdependencies of all dictate how things transpired. This is true whether of evolution or even progressive creationism.
This is what I believe too. What I want to know is whether believers in either would expect any any physical, observable difference.


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests