Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Hello everyone,
I just finished reading this book by Hugh Ross. I was annoyed that he didn't go into the question of evolution further. His summing up was basically how can we have a common ancestor with primates since birds show high intelligence, sometimes more than apes and we're not descended from them. His beliefs about the world coming about were essentially the same as mine. He believes God created the earth just as the bible said, but that the 7 days thing has been mistranslated and should be something like 7 "periods of time." He believes it took millions of years for God to create Earth just as he wanted it, with our future in mind (for example, Dinosaurs on "Day 5" for our later benefit: fuels, etc). However, if God took so long (in our time) to create the world and animals...what are the odds he created MAN (Adam) in seconds? Isn't it more likely that people evolved? (Although personally, this makes humans seem less special and seems to be at odds with biblical beliefs) I'm so confused and don't know what to believe. How do you get around this?
Last edited by mum1983 on Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Us being evolved does not make us less special. However it does make it at odds with the bible when it says in Genesis 2 that we were created by dust on a rainless shrubless land. I think evolution is riddled with wierd improbable events like the evolution of sex, first land animals, and the mind of humans; but at the same time I would not mind being pushed back by natural probability. Also evolution does in some sense have an element of not being controlled mostly by chance, since evolution does tell us that the anatomy of the eye developed independantly about 8 times in history. Instead it is more controlled by the environment and ecology, which God could have a hand in. Time would certainly not be an issue for God either. The only theological problem I see is matching the rhetoric and form of the bible with science or admiting a certain mythological element to the Genesis creation story. Us being evolved would not make us less special because our uniqueness on earth is not derived from our origins or what we are made up of, but image of God being created using dust. Only God can make miricles like that., and the motif fits with the rest of the bible which is God creating good out of what is not.
Romans 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.
wrain62 wrote: wierd improbable events like the evolution of sex, first land animals,
These changes seem improbable because they are viewed as either/or scenarios. A species reproduces asexually or sexually; an animal lives in the water or on the land. The reality is that there are intermediate stages. Fungi, including yeasts, can reproduce both asexually and sexually. Mudskippers spend time in water and on land.
Actually i am talking about the origin of sex, since it did not start with fungi. That is like the whale is an intermediate between sea and land animal. It was only an intermedite because it somewhat reverted. Some fungi can only be considered asexual because they are homothallic. They produce offspring with themselves, but do it with gametes and mieosis like we do. You got me on the mud skipper though.
Romans 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.
We are all stardust. For those of you who believe that humans did evolve, how do you get around the question of how sin came into the world? Scientists believe groups of "people" sprang up, so did God test a group instead of one couple?
Last edited by mum1983 on Tue Jan 03, 2012 4:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
wrain62 wrote: wierd improbable events like the evolution of sex, first land animals,
These changes seem improbable because they are viewed as either/or scenarios. A species reproduces asexually or sexually; an animal lives in the water or on the land. The reality is that there are intermediate stages. Fungi, including yeasts, can reproduce both asexually and sexually. Mudskippers spend time in water and on land.
I've recently read "The Edge of Evolution" and found it to be quite revealing of the portion of evolutionary theory known as "mutation". We have plenty of examples of natural selection, survival of the fittest, and DNA similarities between creatures. But based on the study of Malaria (as well as some human biological responses to it), its fairly clear that mutation is not the prime mechanism by which evolution occurs and it brings into question the entire theory.
It takes millions of generations of malaria to produce a single mutation that is beneficial in spreading into humans who ingest cinchona bark, but the mutation hurts the strength of the disease (it makes it weaker biologically). No other mutations have been found to provide pure benefit. Evolution of creatures who have generations of longer than a few hours seems insane when a single amino acid change results in a net weakness (with temporary benefit) in a creature with a generation of a few hours, over millions of generations.
-- Josh
“When you see a man with a great deal of religion displayed in his shop window, you may depend upon it, he keeps a very small stock of it within” C.H. Spurgeon
1st Corinthians 1:17- "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel””not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power"
mum1983 wrote:We are all stardust. For those of you who believe that humans did evolve, how do you get around the question of how sin came into the world? Scientists believe groups of "people" sprang up, so did God test a group instead of one couple?
I do not know.
Romans 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.
wrain62 wrote: wierd improbable events like the evolution of sex, first land animals,
These changes seem improbable because they are viewed as either/or scenarios. A species reproduces asexually or sexually; an animal lives in the water or on the land. The reality is that there are intermediate stages. Fungi, including yeasts, can reproduce both asexually and sexually. Mudskippers spend time in water and on land.
You are someone I have never seen here. And I've been here for quite sometime. You must have been more active before I came here. Seeing you are an evolutionist, are you a theistic evolutionist or a traditional atheist evolutionist? Just curious.
wrain62 wrote:Also evolution does in some sense have an element of not being controlled mostly by chance, since evolution does tell us that the anatomy of the eye developed independantly about 8 times in history. .
Question for you Wrain62, how do evolutionists know this is certain? What kind of physical or observational evidence do they have to back up this claim? Thanks.
wrain62 wrote:Also evolution does in some sense have an element of not being controlled mostly by chance, since evolution does tell us that the anatomy of the eye developed independantly about 8 times in history. .
Question for you Wrain62, how do evolutionists know this is certain? What kind of physical or observational evidence do they have to back up this claim? Thanks.
"One of the most famous examples of convergent evolution is the camera eye of cephalopods (e.g., squid), vertebrates (e.g., mammals) and cnidaria (e.g., box jellies).[5] Their last common ancestor had at most a very simple photoreceptive spot, but a range of processes led to the progressive refinement of this structure to the advanced camera eye."
I don't know where I heard the number 8 but here is what wikepedia says.
"The evolution of the eye has been a subject of significant study, as a distinctive example of a homologous organ present in a wide variety of taxa. Certain components of the eye, such as the visual pigments, appear to have a common ancestry – that is, they evolved once, before the animals radiated. However, complex, image-forming eyes evolved some 50 to 100 times[1] – using many of the same proteins and genetic toolkits in their construction."
Romans 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.
wrain62 wrote:Also evolution does in some sense have an element of not being controlled mostly by chance, since evolution does tell us that the anatomy of the eye developed independantly about 8 times in history. .
Question for you Wrain62, how do evolutionists know this is certain? What kind of physical or observational evidence do they have to back up this claim? Thanks.
"One of the most famous examples of convergent evolution is the camera eye of cephalopods (e.g., squid), vertebrates (e.g., mammals) and cnidaria (e.g., box jellies).[5] Their last common ancestor had at most a very simple photoreceptive spot, but a range of processes led to the progressive refinement of this structure to the advanced camera eye."
I don't know where I heard the number 8 but here is what wikepedia says.
"The evolution of the eye has been a subject of significant study, as a distinctive example of a homologous organ present in a wide variety of taxa. Certain components of the eye, such as the visual pigments, appear to have a common ancestry – that is, they evolved once, before the animals radiated. However, complex, image-forming eyes evolved some 50 to 100 times[1] – using many of the same proteins and genetic toolkits in their construction."
Hmm, interesting, say does anyone who like me who is a OEC but does NOT hold to darwinian evolution who know about this and if so, how do you respond to atheists and other evolutionists who bring this up?
DRDS wrote:You are someone I have never seen here. And I've been here for quite sometime. You must have been more active before I came here. Seeing you are an evolutionist, are you a theistic evolutionist or a traditional atheist evolutionist? Just curious.
Does it matter? I would prefer to let my comments stand or fall on their own.
wrain62 wrote:Actually i am talking about the origin of sex, since it did not start with fungi. That is like the whale is an intermediate between sea and land animal. It was only an intermedite because it somewhat reverted. Some fungi can only be considered asexual because they are homothallic. They produce offspring with themselves, but do it with gametes and mieosis like we do. You got me on the mud skipper though.
And I thought the mudskipper was the weaker example. Apparently they can not stay underwater forever. But they do use different mechanisms for breathing in air or in water.
My point wasn't that these two examples are the actual links between the different groups but that they are present day examples of how such changes might have happened. On the face of it, the idea of male and female appearing simultaneously is pretty ridiculous. But if you look at intermediates similar to yeast, the development of different sexes then at least seems possible. [And on a related note, parthenogenesis is an odd phenomenon.]
Well I can see how an animal can switch between water and land, since it can be a gradual change between land and water. But from mitosis to mieosis it is more of a change in a major cell function. All cells do one or the other at one point and there is no in between point to these processes that I have seen. Now granted some organisms can do both or they reproduce asexually with mieosis but I still don't see how mieosis could have popped up in the first place.
Romans 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.
His beliefs about the world coming about were essentially the same as mine. He believes God created the earth just as the bible said, but that the 7 days thing has been mistranslated and should be something like 7 "periods of time." He believes it took millions of years for God to create Earth just as he wanted it, with our future in mind (for example, Dinosaurs on "Day 5" for our later benefit: fuels, etc). However, if God took so long (in our time) to create the world and animals...what are the odds he created MAN (Adam) in seconds? Isn't it more likely that people evolved? (Although personally, this makes humans seem less special and seems to be at odds with biblical beliefs) I'm so confused and don't know what to believe. How do you get around this?
