How God can create through evolution:

[hughfarey]

Hi Rick, I have listened to Hugh Ross several times, and visit 'reasons.org' from time to time, so I think I have some idea of Ross's ideas, but I have not read his book. However, I shall be delighted to both read and discuss it, and it is downloading onto my ipad as I type. From what I read in the (continuously updated) 'addendum' to the book, at http://www.reasons.org/resources/predictions, it appears that in observational practice, there is likely to be so little difference between Ross's RTB model and conventional evolution as to make it very difficult to distinguish between them.

There are a few predictions which clearly discriminate between RTB and evolution, some of which have failed even in the few years since the publication of his book. Prediction 21, for instance, says (for RTB): "As astronomers discover more planets, they will find increasing evidence that analogs of the solar system and Earth similar enough to permit the existence of advanced life are either rare or nonexistent." Actually, of course, the list of potentially habitable exoplanets is ever increasing, and more detailed observation of these planets, which can find more evidence that perhaps a planet is not suitable for life after all, is not preventing the list increasing. Other Predictions simply mis-state the Evolutionary position in order to support the RTB position. Prediction 19, for instance, says, for Theistic Evolution: "Research increasingly will show that life has been abundant and widespread on Earth throughout the past 3.8 billion years", compared to RTB's "Research increasingly will show that life has been abundant and widespread on Earth throughout the past 3.8 billion years except for very brief intervals after mass extinction events." This is a false dichotomy. Evidence for mass extinctions is already well-established under conventional evolutionary theory, such that both the abundance and spread of life is recognised as having decreased drastically after them. It would have been more honest for the RTB prediction to read something like: ""Research increasingly will show that life has been abundant and widespread on Earth throughout the past 3.8 billion years, but became entirely extinct for very brief intervals after mass extinction events." This, however, is not borne out by the stratigraphical evidence, where some organisms appear almost unchanged in the fossil record on both sides of the geological indication of the mass extinction.

Anyway, I now have 'More than a Theory' in front of me. Would you like to point to any page at all which presents non-biblical evidence for a hypothesis for the development of life other than that of evolution?

As a footnote, it may seem to some creationists that my exclusion of the bible as acceptable evidence demonstrates a preformed atheistic position, but that's not true. It is simply that belief in the words of a book, in the absence of any other confirmation, must be rooted in faith rather than reason, and are therefore not able to be rationally challenged. They may, of course, be entirely true, literally or conceptually, but that does not make them scientific evidence. I believe most creationists understand this, and, at least when attempting to defend their position rationally, use the bible as support for their other evidence, not the other way round, although theologically the reverse could be the case.

[Audie]

Because the only thing evolution science has demonstrated is normal variation in reproduction and adaptation .

No matter how many times you say it, it is still an "argument from ignorance" and
no more true if you say it ten thousand times.

You cannot very well claim you are not ignorant, when dont know "...the difference between normal variation in reproduction,adaptation and life evolving?"

Here is the binary, clearly implied by your statement:

Either you know more and understand better than the entire world scientific community

or

you dont.

Which is more believable?

[Audie]

xx

[Audie]

xx

[Nicki]

When you say that you "went looking online for transitional forms", I wonder what you actually did? If you Google "transitional forms" "whale", you will find some 20,000 sites, and the second image, from http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm, shows a representative selection of nine transitional forms, and those are from a book published in 1999. Since then not only have more whale fossils been excavated, but those already known have been considerably better understood. There are at least 30 transitional stages currently being studied.

I found an educational site called Understanding Evolution - it's pretty easy to understand itself. I liked your explanations too; I'm not really on one side or the other currently but the incredible complexity of living things has always made evolution seem doubtful to me.

[hughfarey]

'Understanding Evolution' is a fine site, although it only deals with things very quickly. The page on whale evolution, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_03, mentions a number of transitional stages between the land-dwelling ancestors of whales and modern whales, including a diagram of at least six. The two chosen to illustrate the actual fossils, and the different two chosen to illustrate the movement of the nostrils up the head, are only selections from many more possibles.

[Audie]

When you say that you "went looking online for transitional forms", I wonder what you actually did? If you Google "transitional forms" "whale", you will find some 20,000 sites, and the second image, from http://darwiniana.org/landtosea.htm, shows a representative selection of nine transitional forms, and those are from a book published in 1999. Since then not only have more whale fossils been excavated, but those already known have been considerably better understood. There are at least 30 transitional stages currently being studied.

I found an educational site called Understanding Evolution - it's pretty easy to understand itself. I liked your explanations too; I'm not really on one side or the other currently but the incredible complexity of living things has always made evolution seem doubtful to me.

You are no doubt keeping in mind that "counterintuitive" is a word much used to describe a very great many of the discoveries in math and science.

It is best to deal with what actual data shows, rather than what one's not necessarily well informed feelings want.

[Philip]

Progressive Creation offers a powerful, evidence-based explanation of similar forms that perfectly matches up with a very ancient earth (4.5 billion years old), and that is that there was a Designer who used similar designs and guided the entire process. The similarities actually should be expected, if ONE Designer utilized various forms that could be engineered and adapted, with variations, to many differing species. Think of the key features of design an ancient cart or chariot shares with 18th century buggies, today's SUVs, and all manner of very different-looking vehicles suitable for a wide variety of uses, precisely because they share key design components, cross-functional engineering principles, etc. These vehicles all have wheels, axles, carriage frames, some ability to harness energy, be controlled, ground points of contact for a variety of terrain, and maneuverability - even considering their wide range of sizes, designs and appearances. Yet, these diverse vehicles didn't evolve from each other, as their common features were designed because of their common usefulness and adaptability across a range of types. Similarly, the biological world's commonalities are explainable because of their common Designer God, whom engineered and utilized key components of His designs that He used to incorporate key cross-functional elements across a huge and diverse array of creatures. From their methods of locomotion, whether quadrupedal, bipedal, etc., to shared elements of sight and vision, hearing, ability to smell, ability to think, acquire energy and sustenance from the environment. Regardless of whether utilized in animal or man, such common design features are useful to all creatures. I would argue that these many creatures don't share evolutionary lines of descent, but instead, share a common, intelligent DESIGNER!

Similarly, to the genetic code shared across ALL creatures that have ever existed, the SAME shared computer code utilized by software programmers today provides the operational basis for an astounding variety of software with an immense range of functionalities and applications, in how they work, look, and what they are capable of - ALL from the SAME cross-functional and incredibly adaptive code - depending upon how the specifics as to how such code is specifically arrayed and deployed. And similarly, God, the ultimate Programmer, designed and utilized the very same genetic code (HE originated), depending upon how it is arranged and deployed, and that is inherent in the DNA of every biological entity on the planet. And so, God created and used this same DNA code to create ALL living creatures, their designs, and functional capabilities and parameters - from worms to mammoths to human beings.

As the same genetic code determines, with astonishing precision, exactly what species a lifeform will become, its features and functionality - whether it be a fish or primate - and yet each creature is individually dependent upon how its coding has been specifically arranged, sequenced and deployed by our Designer / God. Likewise, today's computer software and coding didn't just come from nowhere, uncreated, and morph into various software types and applications. No, ALL software has code creators and designers that have strategically utilized it. And DNA is an extremely complex coding. It's clearly a incredibly sophisticated and complex LANGUAGE that is so intricate and complex that it simply cannot remotely be explained by the blind, unguided, supposed mechanisms of evolution. To see just how the incredible sophistication of DNA coding works in creation of specific species, read here: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpa ... l-6493050/

The enormous mistake of non-theistic evolutionists is that they assume the commonalities and similarities between species mean they all sprang from common ancestral and biological roots. But absolutely NOTHING about unguided, random processes can 1) explain the instant and awesome functionality of the universe's first things / building blocks, that one moment did not exist, but in the very next did - instantly operating with unfathomable precision and complexity (in no way random). And 2) Evolution cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion's exceptionally narrow time window between simple forms and the sudden appearance of a tremendous number of complex and higher functioning species bursting forth. There simply wasn't enough TIME for such things to evolve, per the Cambrian - not without some Super Intelligence creating and guiding such a process. But an Intelligent and all-powerful Designer can explain the fossil record FAR better than the asserted tenants of unguided evolutionary processes. A common DESIGNER makes a LOT more sense in explaining the existence, diversity, and functionality of the shared designs and DNA coding across ALL biological creatures. But most of those who reject that God created all we know cannot accept that the God of the Bible is THE Designer that created all species and their physical similarities and functionalities, yet with a stunning array of amazing differences.

[abelcainsbrother]

Because the only thing evolution science has demonstrated is normal variation in reproduction and adaptation .

No matter how many times you say it, it is still an "argument from ignorance" and
no more true if you say it ten thousand times.

You cannot very well claim you are not ignorant, when dont know "...the difference between normal variation in reproduction,adaptation and life evolving?"

Here is the binary, clearly implied by your statement:

Either you know more and understand better than the entire world scientific community

or

you dont.

Which is more believable?

Show I'm wrong then.I know you can't though. Any evidence you put forth from evolution science that is used for evidence life evolves will only demonstrate variation in reproduction or adaptation,just like I said. You will see I'm not as ignorant about evolution as you think.

[Audie]

Because the only thing evolution science has demonstrated is normal variation in reproduction and adaptation .

No matter how many times you say it, it is still an "argument from ignorance" and
no more true if you say it ten thousand times.

You cannot very well claim you are not ignorant, when dont know "...the difference between normal variation in reproduction,adaptation and life evolving?"

Here is the binary, clearly implied by your statement:

Either you know more and understand better than the entire world scientific community

or

you dont.

Which is more believable?

Show I'm wrong then.I know you can't though. Any evidence you put forth from evolution science that is used for evidence life evolves will only demonstrate variation in reproduction or adaptation,just like I said. You will see I'm not as ignorant about evolution as you think.

You are the one who claims to know more than any scientist, yet
you have not one datum point contrary to ToE.

So yeah, ignorant, hollow claims.

Dont answer till you get that fact contrary to ToE.

That will end this conversation permanently.

[Audie]

Xx

[Audie]

Progressive Creation offers an explanation of similar forms that matches perfectly with very ancient earth (4.5 billion years old), and that is that there was a Designer who used similar designs and guided the entire process. The similarities actually should be expected, if ONE Designer utilized various forms that could be engineered, with variations, to many differing species. Again, what features of design does an ancient cart or chariot have with 18th century buggies, today's SUVs, and all manner of very different-looking vehicles that some key components, design principles and functionality in common? The same available computer code provides the basis for an astounding variety of software that has an immense range of functionality, how they work, how they look - all from the same cross-functional and incredibly adaptive code.

The enormous mistake of evolutionists is they assume the commonalities and similarities mean species sprang from common roots. But absolutely NOTHING about unguided, random processes can 1) explain them instant and awesome functionality of things that one moment did not exist, but in the very next did - operating with unfathomable precision and complexity (in no way random), and 2) evolution cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion's VERY narrow time window between simple forms and when suddenly an immense number of complex and higher functioning species burst forth. There simply wasn't enough TIME for such things to evolve - not without some Super Intelligence guiding that process. But an Intelligent and all-powerful Designer can explain the fossil record just as well as unguided evolution - and it makes a LOT more sense. But most whom reject that God created all we know, cannot accept that the God of the Bible is that Designer.

All that, but nothing contrary to ToE. Assertions of facts not in evidence,
opinions etc are not data.

You do realize that those skeptical of your god will tend to think you were no more diligent
in your investigation into the reality of said god?

Does that matter to you?

[hughfarey]

The enormous mistake of evolutionists is they assume the commonalities and similarities mean species sprang from common roots.

No. We assume nothing. Evolutionist simply look for explanations for observed phenomena. Commonalities and similarities between siblings do indeed suggest common roots, and it is not unreasonable to infer that commonalities and similarities between species may be due to a similar cause, although evolutionists recognise that homologous similarities may indicate convergence towards environmental adaptation rather than common descent.

But absolutely NOTHING about unguided, random processes [...]

Evolution is neither unguided nor random. Environmental pressures are often extremely precise, and direct evolution along very specific paths, remarkably rapidly.

[...] can 1) explain them instant and awesome functionality of things that one moment did not exist, but in the very next did - operating with unfathomable precision and complexity (in no way random)

I do not know what you mean by "one moment" and "the very next", but there is no evidence for any such instantaneous change. Several million years is required for evolution to produce dramatic changes, and several millions years was, for example, the length of the Cambrian explosion.

[...] and 2) evolution cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion's VERY narrow time window between simple forms and when suddenly an immense number of complex and higher functioning species burst forth. There simply wasn't enough TIME for such things to evolve - not without some Super Intelligence guiding that process.

This is an unwarranted assumption. Evolution can happen in a remarkably small geological timespan.

But an Intelligent and all-powerful Designer can explain the fossil record just as well as unguided evolution - and it makes a LOT more sense. But most whom reject that God created all we know, cannot accept that the God of the Bible is that Designer.

This rather suggests that believers in evolution must be atheists, which is completely untrue.

[abelcainsbrother]

Audi says evolution is true and must be accepted because scientists who know more than you and they believe it and teach it.

[Audie]

Abe is putting on a disgraceful displsy, lying about me.