Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[hughfarey]

I'll explain my view again first. I'm old earth and I think God likely (not totally sure of the details) created pairs at a time. I obviously think some speciation occured. So back again to tigers. Perhaps he created a pair of tigers. Then Siberian tigers may have "evolved" from that family of tigers. But God would have put those tigers on the continents, not on the oceanic islands. Take your bats for example (and birds, and various plants). God created bats. They populate. A very small group makes it's way to an oceanic island. They then "evolve" into a species of bats not seen on the continents due to genetic and environmental pressure. Again, this fits the evolutionary model very well, but doesn't conflict with a day age or even young earth view. < snip > Just one more thing for clarification. I have no problem with God creating a tiger and a siberian tiger (I really don't know biology well), but I also don't have a problem with some varieties coming from one dominant species. But something like a leopard versus a tiger. I think they were individually created. I hope that makes sense.

It makes excellent sense and thank you for explaining your point if view so clearly. Evolutionists believe that cats originated from small rather generalised carnivores about 25 million years ago, and radiated across Asia and Europe. Remarkably these lines nearly all died out, modern cats being derived from only two ancestral lineages (basically big ones and little ones) and the handful of remaining big cat species all evolved quite recently, between 2 and 4 million years ago. These are the genus Panthera. There are a great many fossil cats, and one has to ask, as I have before, why God waited till relatively recently to create a couple of leopards and a couple of tigers (and couples of jaguars, lions and snow leopards), when he had already created so many other varieties of cat, only to let them go extinct.

Before we go on it would be worth considering the overall meaning of the Genesis story. It is the story of God's gradually preparing the world for the coming of people. My question is: which of the two interpretations of the method of creation best expresses this meaning? Evolution speaks of primitive life forms endlessly giving birth to new forms, increasing in diversity and number. Extinctions, by this reasoning, are part of the preparatory process, as life adapted increasing well to changing conditions, and new improved versions sprang from ancestral stock. Creation, by your interpretation, speaks mainly of destruction, of millions of species created and destroyed before man arrived. The previous species were not part of the preparation of the world, as they left no descendants, they were simply wasted efforts, whose only relevance to man was in the few fossils he finds of their existence. I am no theologian, but I wonder which of these two descriptions of the origins of the world as we see it today best seems to reflect God's purpose?

A quick question. Do you know if the bats you mentioned are able to reproduce with sister species of bats? It may be that's never been examined. It would be interesting to know. The bats may not want to either though. If they could not reproduce it would make for a stronger evolutionary case. If they could it would make the day age view no different really. I wonder how much bats and birds can be breed like dogs to produce varieties?

The definition of a species is that it cannot interbreed with another species, no matter how similar. So yes, we do know about these bats and they are sufficiently genetically distinct not to be able to breed with bats of other species. All organisms are genetically different, of course, but all those of the same species are sufficiently similar to be able to interbreed. All domestic dogs, for example, from the chihuahua to the mastiff, can interbreed, and the variety of breeds we see today is the result of humans selecting genetic traits for colour, size and shape, without interfering with reproductive possibility. If the world's populations of chihuahuas and mastiffs were to be kept strictly apart, with no interbreeding with intermediate varieties such as labradors and terriers, then it is likely that in a very short geological time (say half a million years) they would become separate species, and not even IVF would be possible. It is interesting to note that even after 30 000 years, domestic dogs can still interbreed with wolves, and are generally considered a sub-species rather than a distinct species, even after all this time. I don't know about bats, but birds can certainly be bred to produce distinct varieties, the domestic chicken and the domestic pigeon being particularly well documented examples.

[ryanbouma]

Hi Hugh,

Just to clarify. I don't think God went about destroying his creation as a means of preparing our home. Rather he enjoys creating, hence he created abundently. Extinction of much of his creation is just a result of the creation. The earth surely needed preparation. In order to prepare the earths surface, much death was requires. And at various times on earth's history, mostly a result of comic influence, different creatures were best suited. As new predators are intruduced by God, or as comic influences occured, extinction also occured. All this is very obvious if we look at the earth 3 billion years ago. We could not survive.

But more recently it is harder to reconcile so much extinction. And admittedly it's not an easy question for me. I'm sure there are many questions about evolution that are not easy for you, I've heard many. Mass extinctions would be one of them for me. Like why create all the dinos just to smash them with a meteor. Well, there's some reasons I can think of, but admittedly they're weak. Like providing fossil fuels. Give scientists something fun to look at. God likes to create. Etc. But then I'd ask myself, if TE, why did God guide evolution to yield dinos and then smash them with a big rock. Same problem applies. Maybe there's better reasons for creation-extinction than I'm aware of.

Side note. I think the Genesis story should be given more authority as it gives the Bible predictive power, which is a strong aplogetic power. If Gen 1 is just a story, then the fact that the Universe has a beginning is really nothing special. If Gen 1 is accurate, but worded for all generations, then it can be shown the Bible is scientifically accurate whilst written thousands of years ago.

[SonofAletheia]

Simple really. I'll explain my view again first. I'm old earth and I think God likely (not totally sure of the details) created pairs at a time. I obviously think some speciation occured. So back again to tigers. Perhaps he created a pair of tigers. Then Siberian tigers may have "evolved" from that family of tigers. But God would have put those tigers on the continents, not on the oceanic islands. Take your bats for example (and birds, and various plants). God created bats. They populate. A very small group makes it's way to an oceanic island. They then "evolve" into a species of bats not seen on the continents due to genetic and environmental pressure. Again, this fits the evolutionary model very well, but doesn't conflict with a day age or even young earth view.

There is a RTB science news flash that just came out about scientists who selected certain traits in foxes to yield houshold friendly foxes who had flappy ears. No doubt a small group of any animal that is naturally selected upon can yield a new variety of that type of animal, and that is exactly what evolution predicts. Where I have a problem, and this is scientifically based IMO, is the evolutionary prediction that says the foxes could eventually evolve into something more than a canine. I agree with the OP that the fossils are telling us this doesn't happen.

Thanks for taking the time to explain all that SonofAletheia. I haven't heard anyone like RTB address this topic before. So perhaps there's a better explanation than mine. Or perhaps I've missed something altogether and I'm wrong.

PS. A quick question. Do you know if the bats you mentioned are able to reproduce with sister species of bats? It may be that's never been examined. It would be interesting to know. The bats may not want to either though. If they could not reproduce it would make for a stronger evolutionary case. If they could it would make the day age view no different really. I wonder how much bats and birds can be breed like dogs to produce varieties?

ETA - Just one more thing for clarification. I have no problem with God creating a tiger and a siberian tiger (I really don't know biology well), but I also don't have a problem with some varieties coming from one dominant species. But something like a leopard versus a tiger. I think they were individually created. I hope that makes sense. My biology background is grade 12

I see where you're coming from. While I think that view can make sense of much of the evidence we have, theistic evolution (in my opinion) seems so much simpler and makes sense of more of the evidence.
I'm curious though, what evidence lead you to this position? I'm seeing this view pop up more. I can't help but feel this is a new position that has to deal with contemporary evidence that they can't deny. As opposed to creating a legitimate position that comes from the evidence. Do you see what I mean?

For example: The age of the earth has to be dealt with in addition to the huge number of species that have been around and then extinct. Not to mention the species that are incredible similar, are dated close together, and seem like amazing transitions between each other.
Evolution seems (to me) to be a simple and very effective answer here.

Or back to my previous post on oceanic islands and their distributions. Why are the islands only species ones that can traverse there? (people can look back to my previous post for a more detailed explanation of this) Why did God only put certain species there when species that are introduced there do very well?
Again, I would say evolution is a simple answer here

Same for atavisms, dead genes, and more. As a psychology major I've even noticed how much makes sense of human behaviors/emotions when evolution is in the background (relationships-how males and females interact with each other is one area I've written on)

I guess my question is, do you deny some of (or all) the evidence and therefore hold to a progressive creationist perspective? Or do you affirm the evidence and think PC makes better sense of it than evolution?

[SonofAletheia]

Look at those ridiculous dates. There is no credible dating method in existence that goes that far back. But that's the least of your problems. You stated above that the transition from fish to amphibians is Eusthenopteron foordi. Let's go back to the example that I gave hughfarey regarding the hypothetical creatures.

In this example, we will use Creature A to represent Eusthenopteron foordi fish, and we will use Creature C to represent amphibians (four-legged vertebrates which includes frogs, toads, salamanders, newts, mudpuppies, and caecilians). Although the extinct Eusthenopteron foordi fish might share similarities with present-day amphibians, one cannot conclude that amphibians (Creature C) evolved from Eusthenopteron foordi fish (Creature A). Here's why: There are no bones showing how Eusthenopteron foordi fish (Creature A) evolved and became Creature B, and no bones showing how Creature B then evolved into amphibians (Creature C). Why not? Because the bones of Creature C do not exist. That is what the paleontologists refer to as gaps in the fossils record or missing links. In other words, they are speculating aka giving their personal opinion when they claim Eusthenopteron foordi fish is the predecessor of amphibians.

Eusthenopteron foordi was a fish and confined to the ocean. Amphibians are land animals and do not live underwater after they have gone through the aquatic larval stage (and some of them do not even go through the aquatic larval stage). Fish are in the exact opposite position: they cannot survive out of the water for very long.

Hugh responded to most of this already, but I'll mention some things.
You say "there is no credible dating method in existence that goes that far back" when this is not the case. All the pseudo-arguments against the dating method have failed and the dates are constantly confirmed when cross checked. Just saying "it looks ridiculous!" is not an argument against something.
Your last paragraph seems to be reviewing high school biology so I don't think I need to respond there

The whole bones argument seems to be missing the mark. If a transitional fossil shared all the forms with only one side of the transition...it would not be a transitional fossil. The changes (in bones, size, skin etc) come with millions of years of evolution by natural selection. What we look for in a transitional fossils is a fossil that shares multiple traits/forms between two species and is dated in between the two. This is exactly what we find! And we have a huge number of them
I'm not sure if you don't understand what evolution actually predicts (natural selection? Mutations?), or you just don't know how many excellent transitional fossils we have (and continue to find).

[ryanbouma]

I see where you're coming from. While I think that view can make sense of much of the evidence we have, theistic evolution (in my opinion) seems so much simpler and makes sense of more of the evidence.
I'm curious though, what evidence lead you to this position? I'm seeing this view pop up more. I can't help but feel this is a new position that has to deal with contemporary evidence that they can't deny. As opposed to creating a legitimate position that comes from the evidence. Do you see what I mean?

A new view? I thought my view was fairly in line with the RTB model of day-age/PC. No? I don't follow RTB to much. Maybe I hold a different view. I used to be a Gap Theorist for the longest time

For example: The age of the earth has to be dealt with in addition to the huge number of species that have been around and then extinct. Not to mention the species that are incredible similar, are dated close together, and seem like amazing transitions between each other.
Evolution seems (to me) to be a simple and very effective answer here.

I don't see how the age of the earth is a problem. The age of the earth I hold, also holds to that which the scientific community holds. A lot of time was required to form the earth into what it is now. With a geology background, I'm really quite ok with this. And I did already address the similar/dated/order species question, but that was back on page 3 or something I stated that the order appears to fit an evolutionary view because God was placing animals on the earth in a particular order/time/similarity. For instance, the dinos were all similar, but that's what worked at that time. He "progressively" created. It fits both models very well IMO, and I'd of course say that what I believe fits the scientific data and the Biblical account the best. But we all have opinions don't we.

Or back to my previous post on oceanic islands and their distributions. Why are the islands only species ones that can traverse there? (people can look back to my previous post for a more detailed explanation of this) Why did God only put certain species there when species that are introduced there do very well?
Again, I would say evolution is a simple answer here

Just as I said, God did his creating on the continents. I feel this fits both models well, but I accept my view to be the better explanation. Realistically, I'd expect more diversity on those islands as a result of evolution, if it were true. So thanks for the good argument, I'll use it later

Same for atavisms, dead genes, and more. As a psychology major I've even noticed how much makes sense of human behaviors/emotions when evolution is in the background (relationships-how males and females interact with each other is one area I've written on)

I can't speak to all these things. I understand the ENCODE project is firing up a few evolutionists about dead genes. Atavisms, I dunno. Could be a mutation or something but I really do not know anything about them. Yes, the behavior observation is an interesting one. I personally think we behave very uniquely. But I doubt I know more about it than you. And it is an interesting point. I always say to myself when staring at a fire, it must be thousands of years of doing this that makes me stare.

I guess my question is, do you deny some of (or all) the evidence and therefore hold to a progressive creationist perspective? Or do you affirm the evidence and think PC makes better sense of it than evolution?

I certainly feel the evidence makes better sense for PC. I could do like you and say what about origin of life (you're using God to fill the gap), what about irriducible complexity (the evolutionary explanation is poor), how about those fossils again (I still hold to it that the fossil record sucks at explaning evolution), etc. It's not that I'm turning a blind eye to evidence or something. But I also freely admit the realm of science is so large I can't possibly know everything. I encourage you though, as I do, to consider both perspectives when applying it to your own creationist views. I always ask, does this work for YEC, PC, TE, etc. Like your point about oceanic islands. I don't believe in a young earth, but really I don't feel like what you said is evidence against a young earth. Or PC, or TE. I really fits all of them, IMO.

[SonofAletheia]

I don't see how the age of the earth is a problem. The age of the earth I hold, also holds to that which the scientific community holds. A lot of time was required to form the earth into what it is now. With a geology background, I'm really quite ok with this. And I did already address the similar/dated/order species question, but that was back on page 3 or something I stated that the order appears to fit an evolutionary view because God was placing animals on the earth in a particular order/time/similarity. For instance, the dinos were all similar, but that's what worked at that time. He "progressively" created. It fits both models very well IMO, and I'd of course say that what I believe fits the scientific data and the Biblical account the best. But we all have opinions don't we.

It's an interesting view no doubt. And I can honestly say it's a viable option (far more than YEC). It seems a little ad hoc to me but I guess we can agree to disagree here.

Just as I said, God did his creating on the continents. I feel this fits both models well, but I accept my view to be the better explanation. Realistically, I'd expect more diversity on those islands as a result of evolution, if it were true. So thanks for the good argument, I'll use it later

But if we take your view then we have to accept some very strange views about the oceanic distribution (why He only put creatures there that could traverse the ocean. Just a coincidence?) And there is amazing diversity on the islands. The diversity of honeycreepers on Hawaii or finches on the Galapagos islands to name just a few. Taking a non-evolutionist view, God just wanted to limited His creation on these islands and then just arbitrarily created tons of birds that look alike which have extinct fossils that look very much like transitional fossils.
He certainly could have done it this way. It just seems contrived and not the simple answer in my opinion

I certainly feel the evidence makes better sense for PC. I could do like you and say what about origin of life (you're using God to fill the gap), what about irriducible complexity (the evolutionary explanation is poor), how about those fossils again (I still hold to it that the fossil record sucks at explaning evolution), etc. It's not that I'm turning a blind eye to evidence or something. But I also freely admit the realm of science is so large I can't possibly know everything. I encourage you though, as I do, to consider both perspectives when applying it to your own creationist views. I always ask, does this work for YEC, PC, TE, etc. Like your point about oceanic islands. I don't believe in a young earth, but really I don't feel like what you said is evidence against a young earth. Or PC, or TE. I really fits all of them, IMO.

Evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of life. It just explains what happens when we do have life. That would be a good topic for another thread.
Irreducible complexity is largely considered pseudo-science, and interestingly enough, I don't hear IC much anymore from people. I think it has really fallen of the scene given what we now know about evolution
A video from Dawkin's (horrible philosopher but a great scientists haha ) on irreducible complexity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wg ... &index=129

As for the fossils, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here

I do appreciate hearing your views though. I've never really considered the PC view and I have a new found respect for it. Although I'm still a huge supporter of evolution as God's way of creating life/humans, your view is a viable one.

[hughfarey]

Hi Hugh,

Just to clarify. I don't think God went about destroying his creation as a means of preparing our home. Rather he enjoys creating, hence he created abundently. Extinction of much of his creation is just a result of the creation. The earth surely needed preparation. In order to prepare the earths surface, much death was requires. And at various times on earth's history, mostly a result of comic influence, different creatures were best suited. As new predators are intruduced by God, or as comic influences occured, extinction also occured. All this is very obvious if we look at the earth 3 billion years ago. We could not survive.

But more recently it is harder to reconcile so much extinction. And admittedly it's not an easy question for me. I'm sure there are many questions about evolution that are not easy for you, I've heard many. Mass extinctions would be one of them for me. Like why create all the dinos just to smash them with a meteor. Well, there's some reasons I can think of, but admittedly they're weak. Like providing fossil fuels. Give scientists something fun to look at. God likes to create. Etc. But then I'd ask myself, if TE, why did God guide evolution to yield dinos and then smash them with a big rock. Same problem applies. Maybe there's better reasons for creation-extinction than I'm aware of.

Side note. I think the Genesis story should be given more authority as it gives the Bible predictive power, which is a strong aplogetic power. If Gen 1 is just a story, then the fact that the Universe has a beginning is really nothing special. If Gen 1 is accurate, but worded for all generations, then it can be shown the Bible is scientifically accurate whilst written thousands of years ago.

I have to say I think there is something quite appealing about the idea that God simply enjoys creating, and so he created abundantly, and far more than was ever necessary for the preparation of the earth for humanity. However, I can't agree that "In order to prepare the earth's surface, much death was required," is a support for Creationism. To prepare the earth for man, a single act of creation, maybe in seven days, maybe in five minutes, would have been enough. Extinction need not have come into it. Only if each successive act of extinction was actually necessary to prepare the earth, would "much death" have been required, and that suggests that God's method was by generation (i.e. Evolution) rather than Creation.

Your example of the extinction of the dinosaurs makes makes much better sense in the light of Evolution than of Creation. Although they were indeed delightful, is it really the character of the God of Genesis to create for joy, only to destroy them all, and create a whole new set of replacements? Spontaneous creation didn't need dinosaurs: Evolution did.

You are quite right that there are plenty of questions about Evolution - probably more than there are about Creation as Evolution has been explored so much more extensively. Nevertheless, while all the questions about Creation make sense in the light of Evolution, none of the questions about Evolution make sense in the light of Creation.

Please do not feel that being "just a story" is in any way demeaning to the book of Genesis or any other. After all Jesus's most effective teachings were "just stories." What is significant, whether scientific or fictitious, is what the story means.

[ryanbouma]

Just some clarification:

To SonofAletheia - He may have created on the oceanic islands. But that's not what I'm saying. I am in agreement with you on how life got to those Islands. Even how some speciation occured. I suppose God may have sprinkled a little life here and there. But I believe he created on the continental islands and migration is what gave life to the oceanic islands. Their unique diversity is a results of environmental pressure, which of course is a major mechanism for evolution.

Hugh Farey - You're right that God could have snapped his fingers to create all of this, so I'm not arguing that. But we know that is not what happened. It was at least 6 days What we know though, is that death was necessary to prepare the ground. Especially with plant life. And we need plant life to support advanced life. It's a continuous chain. Start simple. Lots of death. Slightly more advanced thrives. Lots of death. So on. If the advanced plants arrived immediately, there'd be not topsoil for them to live in. And at various times in earth's history there were various conditions that supported different life better than others, including the dinos. And if they didn't go extinct, it would be a little crowded around here. So I do maintain the position that death and extinction was a requirement to prepare the earth. Extinction fits both the PC position and the TE position. It doesn't however fit the YE position very well as far as I can tell, other than that the earth is cursed so things die. But then does that mean 5 thousand years ago there were billions of life forms on the planet, that invokes the overcrowding problem.

[hughfarey]

Hugh Farey - You're right that God could have snapped his fingers to create all of this, so I'm not arguing that. But we know that is not what happened. It was at least 6 days What we know though, is that death was necessary to prepare the ground. Especially with plant life. And we need plant life to support advanced life. It's a continuous chain. Start simple. Lots of death. Slightly more advanced thrives. Lots of death. So on. If the advanced plants arrived immediately, there'd be not topsoil for them to live in. And at various times in earth's history there were various conditions that supported different life better than others, including the dinos. And if they didn't go extinct, it would be a little crowded around here. So I do maintain the position that death and extinction was a requirement to prepare the earth. Extinction fits both the PC position and the TE position. It doesn't however fit the YE position very well as far as I can tell, other than that the earth is cursed so things die. But then does that mean 5 thousand years ago there were billions of life forms on the planet, that invokes the overcrowding problem.

All sounds a bit too deathy for a proper Creationist point of view, doesn't it? Moving on, what do you think of the order of Creation in Genesis? The first living things to be mentioned, on Day 3, are grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit trees (although to be fair more modern translations have vegetation, plants bearing seed and fruit trees). Grass and fruit trees are fairly recent organisms to have evolved on earth - certainly less than 100 million years ago, so an enormous number of other plants and animals seem to have gone unnoticed up to then. Next, we hear that the sun came out. I find it difficult to believe that the earth hadn't had a sunny day for more than 3 billion years before the sun came out, don't you? No matter, on Day 5, all marine animals (including whales, which evolved from land animals) and, most curiously, birds turn up. Walking animals don't arrive until Day 6.

As a tale of Evolution, this makes no sense at all, and even as a tale of progressive Creation, it's quite hard to swallow. However, as a guide to man's place among his fellow organisms, it makes perfect sense. Plants first (regardless of their true order of arrival on earth) then "the fish of the sea and the birds of the air" by which the author of Genesis was referring to the kingdoms of the world (water and air) to which man has no access, and finally our own kingdom, the land and its creatures. The appearance of the Sun and Moon are a little anomalous, except that to the writer of Genesis they had nothing to do with plants, who carried on growing in their own way, but a lot to do with the control of the behaviour of animals, and so were created after plants but before animals for just that purpose.

[ryanbouma]

Hey Hugh,

Well, both our views require a lot of death. I don't see what's improper from a creationist point of view. You need it for us to be here, so...

I do think the Gen 1 account can be read fairly literally, yet requires some consideration for the Hebrew language and writer context. I defer to other theologeons to explain that bit. RTB has answered all those questions. The sun in particular gets a lot of criticism, but I find it to be a simple explanation that fits with what we know occured on the early earth.

As a start: http://www.reasons.org/articles/setting ... r-creation

The author is describing the origin of life that occured in the second verse of the Bible. Perfectly in time with our knowledge of life origins.

I find it a little odd that TE's call the whole thing an allegory when it describes your beliefs as well, IF you're willing to (I hate to say it like this) read between the lines. In our modern age we understand God's creation much better than anyone before, and we can read the very basic description of creation in Gen 1 and say, "ya, that must be this or that". I suppose it's Gen 2 that upsets the TEs. And that's where PC gets a lot of its meat from.

[SonofAletheia]

Hey Hugh,
I find it a little odd that TE's call the whole thing an allegory when it describes your beliefs as well, IF you're willing to (I hate to say it like this) read between the lines. In our modern age we understand God's creation much better than anyone before, and we can read the very basic description of creation in Gen 1 and say, "ya, that must be this or that". I suppose it's Gen 2 that upsets the TEs. And that's where PC gets a lot of its meat from.

I didn't quite understand your point(s) here.
I, as a student of the Bible, don't read Gen 1-2 so much as a science book. I try and read it more in the context of who the original audience was and the problems they were dealing with. Then I try and pull the doctrine that's being taught in the book. So, from my view, there's no need to read between the lines (the literal interpretation falls prey to this much more in my opinion).
So I hardly every say when I read a verse that "ya, that must be this or that" because that's not how I think God intended the book to be read/'understood. William Lane Craig calls out a number of creation views for using concordism in their exegesis (which I believe RTD hold to)
As far as Gen 2, I don't recall ever getting upset here. Perhaps you could explain what you meant?

[hughfarey]

I do think the Gen 1 account can be read fairly literally, yet requires some consideration for the Hebrew language and writer context. I defer to other theologeons to explain that bit. RTB has answered all those questions. The sun in particular gets a lot of criticism, but I find it to be a simple explanation that fits with what we know occured on the early earth. As a start: http://www.reasons.org/articles/setting ... r-creation. The author is describing the origin of life that occured in the second verse of the Bible. Perfectly in time with our knowledge of life origins.

Consideration of language is indeed important. RTB explains my problem of plants being the first living things mentioned in the bible by claiming that verse 2 of Genesis "The Spirit of God hovered over the water" implies that primitive marine life was created before plants, as the word "hover over" implies care and protection. RTB conveniently forgets here that this life was created before the origin of light of any kind, let alone the sun, and also that all the major animal phyla evolved before the first land plants. Furthermore, RTB claim that in the Hebrew Bible the word translated as 'hover" is only used once again, in Deuteronomy 32:11, where an eagle is described "fluttering" over its young. However, Paul Kissling, in his book "Genesis," says that the word ("rahaph") occurs again in Jeremiah 23:9, where "All my bones shake." It is clear that it is simply an expression of vigorous movement, and does not imply either care or protection. It is quite strange that RTB chooses the Hebrew Bible rather than the Christian one for this particular interpretation. The Greek word in the Septuagint from which all English versions of the Bible derive is "epephereto" which also has connotations of being shaken, but which is passive, and means "was being moved vigourously" rather than "was moving vigorously." This was noticed by the Latin translators of the Septuagint, who used the word "ferebatur" which simply means "was carried" and has no real connotations of vigorous movement.
All in all, considerations of both language and context do not help the RTB cause.

I suppose it's Gen 2 that upsets the TEs. And that's where PC gets a lot of its meat from.

I, too, don't understand what this means. Genesis 1, as I have said before, actually suffers from the quasi-similarities it bears to a description of the evolution of the earth, which has encouraged some people to try to treat it as a historical document, when they would be better off concentrating on its meaning. Genesis 2 suffers from no such problem. We can ignore it as any kind of scientific account, and treat it properly as a discussion of man's emerging self-awareness and sense of responsibility.

[ryanbouma]

Hi guys,

I didn't mean Gen 2 is emotionally upsetting. I meant, if Gen 1 & 2 are taken literally, it upsets the TE way of thinking. I must be mistaken, TEs find Gen 2 more literal? Ok fine.

Hugh, I can't comment specifically on translations and technical items like that. I don't see an issue with the Holy Spirit preparing the earths surface with prebiotics or something. The sun is created. Simple life forms are then created. The creation of simple life forms are not stated, but I feel it's implied. Especially as an observer on the surface of the earth. Everything in Gen 1 is based on that observation point. The sun wasn't a fourth day thing. That was a dramatic atmospheric change that gave clarity to the sun, moon, and stars. At least that my understanding of it. Day three is when we see the first signs life that would matter to an observer and as far as I know, it makes sense. Then we see birds and significant water creatures. Then we see the advanced land animals. Note, I don't think the text is excluding any land animals like insect, bacteria, etc until day six. In fact, he may have created very advanced life on land before day six. The days are just compartmentalized in a way to show the significant stages of creation.

I am still a little unsure how the TE explains some of the problems with evolution? Do you just inject God into those problems, like a god of the gaps mentality? I think most atheists would find that unsettling. I don't, but others may. I could get on board with evolution IF I could use God to bridge problems like:

- co-option is a silly explanation for irreducible complexity;
- origin of life;
- 23 chromosone fusion;
- many leaps in the fossil record like the explosions and whales;
- Seemingly sudden appearance of mankind;
- Warm bloodedness and lack of understanding why this would occur;
- etc.

If God could be used to say, "well God directed creation this way miraculously to overcome, say warm bloodedness" then that would be at least viable to me. Obviously I don't have a problem with God creating through miracles.

[ClassicalTeacher]

Alter 2 EGO...PLEASE READ THIS PAPER AND LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution is an essay by the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky.

And dude, its hard to read your posts in many colors, try a single color.

Pot, meet kettle.

[ClassicalTeacher]

Hi Alter2Ego, good of you to return to your thread!

You first make the point that we should not simply grab quotes to support our arguments, which I thoroughly agree with. However you then grab three quotes from a pair of the most dedicated evolutionists of our time, wholly out of context, which seems a little inconsistent.

No matter. The context is easy to explain, and it becomes clear that Eldredge and Gould in no way support a creationist position. Their point is that for thousands of generations a species remains fairly stable, adapted to its surroundings, but that when its environment changes suddenly, or a group of organisms from a species move to a new environment, then they take a few hundred generations to adapt to the new conditions. Obviously we would expect far fewer fossils from the relatively short transitional stages than from the long stable stages, which is exactly what we find. The contrast they are making is not between evolution and creation, but between continuous gradual evolution and sporadic rather rapid evolution.

You find that Eldredge and Gould's stated lack of evidence for gradual evolution is evidence for creation, but this is not true either. Quote number 2 mentions an absence of 'gradationally intermediate transitional forms.' What is clear from the rest of the book is that for many species or groups of species they observe a geologically rapid series of intermediate transitional forms between the ages-long series of stable forms, which accounts for the disproportionate number of fossils of each kind. Quote 3 says that there is 'precious little' in the way of transitional fossils, which is good evidence against Darwin's idea of continuous gradual evolution (Quote 4). However, the quoted paucity of the transitional stages is always relative to the abundance of stable-stage fossils, and is what it says it is, a relative paucity, not a non-existence. There are sufficient transitional forms to demonstrate the truth of saltatory, or punctuated evolution, as explained in earlier posts.

Having examined your objections to evolution, may I inquire about your creationist views. New Earth or Young Earth? Progressive Creation or all at once at the beginning?

HughFarey: This is no surprise. She's done this kind of thing on numerous forums. She will ignore your questions and get back on her "merry-go-round"! Good luck!