Evidence for God from Science

archaeology wrote:

bizzt wrote:so how can you prove that Micro-Evolution was not a product of Creation

creation was complete at the time God finished it. gen. 2:1-- 'By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing...' there is no place that micro-evolution is added to the mix.

Let me pose some questions.

Didn't God complete the creation and still have created process that are in flux? For example, while climates may stay relatively constant, weather from one day to the next and even from one season to the next may fluctuate....This does not negate the fact that creation was complete. Nor that He is stll ultimatley in control.

What about the tides? And the shifting coastlines? Forests must grow, succession progress to climax communities, deserts shift...Coral reefs develop

Even Yellowstone National Park (one giant calderra...cool) is changing from radical geothermal activity that is shifting shorelines

UNless we demand that these changes are a result from the fall, then we are forced to the conclusion that God established universal, global, and regional systems that are designed to fluctuate and operate within changing variables. Unless we think that the creation before the fall was entirely static...?!

Why in the world couldn't God have created populations and communities that are designed with enough genetic variation and fliexibility that they can operate with these changing systems?

We are limited by our finite understanding and cannot understand completely God's established design. What we may even perceive as an imperfection may, in His infinite wisdom, may be His perfection. This is ultimately inteliigent design must be approached very carefully.

zoegirl wrote:...{clip}... We are limited by our finite understanding and cannot understand completely God's established design. What we may even perceive as an imperfection may, in His infinite wisdom, may be His perfection. This is ultimately inteliigent design must be approached very carefully.

Yes, this is in line with my thinking too, and with my earlier post regarding assumptions that humans may make about God.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.

2 Samuel 22:31
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him.

Ezekiel 28:15 (King James Version)
15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

So, if God's work is perfect, His way is perfect, and He even declares to one particular member of creation, He was perfect in the day he was created. What you are saying is, perfect could mean something less than perfect. Right?

Never said it didn't meet GOd's standards, only that we do not know what they are.

how do you know? you haven't provided any scripture to backup your perspective.

To claim we know God's mind, and what he declares is good is automatically perfect, is more than an audacious claim

not at all. He does tells us but i would like to see scripture backing your viewpoint, please.

If God Says something is Good then Says something is Very Good. What is the Difference

just dependsupon which meaning you attach to those words. i can use all three to mean the very same thing. from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:

1. Very Good-- used before adjectives, adverbs and determiners to mean 'in high degree'...

2. Perfect-- ...used to express actions completed...complete, correct, exact, accurate...excellant, very good.

3. Good-- of high quality or an aceptable standard...suitable or appropriate...used to show that you are pleased about something that has been said or done...

obviously, i left out many other meanings to the words.

So what is the Definition of Perfect then? Are we to agree that Noah was a perfect man in his Generations Literally

i think you need to be more flexible in how words are used and be aware of the many meanings words have.

Not sure what you're getting at here

the point is God called His creation good=perfect which means you do not call it anything else.

That's in read because Jesus said it

so? for the rest of that paragraph--you need to learn the many different meanings and applications of the word 'good'

Good seems to mean exactly that, Good. Not perfect. Good.

NO.

Didn't God complete the creation and still have created process that are in flux

NO. the passage is very clear--He finished His work.

For example, while climates may stay relatively constant, weather from one day to the next and even from one season to the next may fluctuate

NO. stop trying to hang on to evolutionary thinking. it is not of God.

What about the tides

what about them?

And the shifting coastlines

what about them? you mean to say that there is no normal activity in creation? that everything that is done is done by evolution?

Coral reefs develop

so? that doesn't prove evolution,it proves that God gave them the ability to develope.

Even Yellowstone National Park (one giant calderra...cool) is changing from radical geothermal activity that is shifting shorelines

changing to what?

UNless we demand that these changes are a result from the fall

we do not know what the world looked like prior to the fall but if you look at the curses you will see that all is instituted or allowed by God. there is no evolutionary process no natural selection at work.

Why in the world couldn't God have created populations and communities that are designed with enough genetic variation and fliexibility that they can operate with these changing systems

number one-- you rely too much on genetics for your answers. it is another limited field which will not provide them.

number two-- if God made it so nothing would die then how would we be with Him? we would also be stuck with the likes of hitler, stalin and so on. death plays an integral part in God's plan.

We are limited by our finite understanding and cannot understand completely God's established design

God gives wisdom and understanding beyond what we know, the Bible tells us to ask for it but you have to be prepared to get rid of that which isn't of God.

Yes, this is in line with my thinking too, and with my earlier post regarding assumptions that humans may make about God.

please cite examples. also what we know about God is revealed to us in His word, his creative acts and our personal experiences with Him. the only people i see making assumptions are those who are calling the creation imperfect.

archaeologist wrote:

Judah wrote:Yes, this is in line with my thinking too, and with my earlier post regarding assumptions that humans may make about God.

please cite examples. also what we know about God is revealed to us in His word, his creative acts and our personal experiences with Him. the only people i see making assumptions are those who are calling the creation imperfect.

I am saying that our knowledge is imperfect. We simply cannot know everything about God and His creation. Therefore we need to be careful that we do not consider all our assumptions to be true.

Isaiah 40:12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance?
13 Who has understood the mind of the LORD, or instructed him as his counselor?
14 Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him, and who taught him the right way? Who was it that taught him knowledge or showed him the path of understanding?
15 Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket; they are regarded as dust on the scales; he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust.

Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!
34 "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?"
35 "Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?"
36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.

1 Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

zoegirl wrote:Let me pose some questions.

Didn't God complete the creation and still have created process that are in flux? ...
Why in the world couldn't God have created populations and communities that are designed with enough genetic variation and fliexibility that they can operate with these changing systems?

In principle, I have no problems with this. There is variablility and I agree that God must have designed it that way. Like Arch, however, I don't think everything needs to be answered by falling back on genetics. In most cases the variance is not that great, we (people, animals, plants, etc) just deal with it. And it changes year to year; high once, low the next, hot once, cold the next, more then less. Ebb and flow. It doesn't have to affect the genes. I really don't understand how it could unless there was a long trend one way or the other.

We are limited by our finite understanding and cannot understand completely God's established design. What we may even perceive as an imperfection may, in His infinite wisdom, may be His perfection. This is ultimately inteliigent design must be approached very carefully.

And as I have already said, I do not judge what is perfect or imperfect. God makes that judgment.

archaeologist wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Didn't God complete the creation and still have created process that are in flux

NO. the passage is very clear--He finished His work.

I have never said that God did not finish His work. I said that His creation was designed with process is flux. And understand me here, I am not saying that it progresses from nothingness, or started from nothingness. God was in control, God designed, deliberately made, intended, engineered, imposed HIs will, was satisfied with, created ex nihilo, conducted, sculpted...any other word that shows that He was in control.

But this does not exclude that in His glory and wisdom, that He could not make a system that contains weather changes or coastlines.

So please be very clear, are you denying that weather patterns shift from year to year? My statement was that weather patterns change fro year to year....you said the passage is very clear, He finished His work

So eleaborate, are you saying that these fluctuations are inresponse to the curse? Were there no changes before the fall?

Judah wrote:I am saying that our knowledge is imperfect. We simply cannot know everything about God and His creation. Therefore we need to be careful that we do not consider all our assumptions to be true.

I agree with this Judah. But don't you think we can judge, with God's help, what is true?

I don't think anyone here would be foolish enough to claim its possible to fully know the mind of God or completely comprehend His ways.

Forum Monk wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Let me pose some questions.

Didn't God complete the creation and still have created process that are in flux? ...
Why in the world couldn't God have created populations and communities that are designed with enough genetic variation and fliexibility that they can operate with these changing systems?

In principle, I have no problems with this. There is variablility and I agree that God must have designed it that way. Like Arch, however, I don't think everything needs to be answered by falling back on genetics. In most cases the variance is not that great, we (people, animals, plants, etc) just deal with it. And it changes year to year; high once, low the next, hot once, cold the next, more then less. Ebb and flow. It doesn't have to affect the genes. I really don't understand how it could unless there was a long trend one way or the other.

We are limited by our finite understanding and cannot understand completely God's established design. What we may even perceive as an imperfection may, in His infinite wisdom, may be His perfection. This is ultimately inteliigent design must be approached very carefully.

And as I have already said, I do not judge what is perfect or imperfect. God makes that judgment.

Arch, I will be blunt here and ask that you refrain from responding to this comment, simply because both you and I already know where you stand. I would like to discuss this with FOrum MOnk

F/M

Please understand, I am not simply saying it is all about genetics, but we were/are discussing microevolution/natural selection and this hinges on genetics. You can go back to my previous statements when I was debating with Arch. Probably the most long term experiment was conducted by Rosemary and Peter Grant on the mdeium ground finch. For upwards of 30 years now, they have correlated beak size with seasonal rain. They know from previous experiments (Peter Boag) that beak size is heritable. The dry years meant that finches had to rely on larger seeds, the next severla years they found an increase in the frequency of medium ground finches with larger beaks. THis has happened at least three times (years of drought followed by increased frequnecies of large beaks).

I will repeat again that this does not lead to large scale changes. In fact this only points to oscillations within the environment. But to deny that genetics and environment do not have an influence on survivorship and reproduciton is throwing out common sense.

I have to wonder too, why we are so threatened by this? The evolutionists like to use this as evidence but we don't. And for us to deny that this exists is sounding remarkably like the church denying Galileo's claim.

I guess, Forum Monk, I would want to know what other reasons there could be for the changes in frequency in beak sizes? [/img]

Maybe I assumed you were citing variable weather, changing shorelines, etc as factors driving genetics. But what I am pointing out, these things are short term occurances. Look at this way.

Every year several clutches of nestlings may be born to each mating pair. Standard mendolsson (sp?) genetics will apply in any case, depending on which traits are recessive, dominate, etc. In addition to that, random mutations (defects, eh, Arch?) occur which means any given year (in spite of classic mendolsson genetics) some will end up with smaller beaks and some with larger (NOW lets also clarify, there are relatively few of these kinds of mutations, very few, but they still exist - most of the effect is classic inheritance). Now, as you have well pointed out. It may be, because of seed size, that smaller or larger beaked birds may not survive as easily and so fewer are left to carry the trait to the next generation.

Next year. The normal genetics kick-in, mendolsson, has his day and the few defects here and there do their thing. Some larger, some smaller. Only this year, the seed size is different. Now the other group survive and pass on their traits.

And so on, ebb and flow, year after year. And as long the seed sizes continue to vary, the selection will vary also resulting in no lasting advantage for any group.

However, if the long term trend is for a particular size of seed (extended dry conditions due to impending ice age) then the "natural selection", mutation, defect, micro-evil, pick a term, begins to overwhelm the natural ebb and flow and then you will see selection, defect, micro-whatever, pick a term, make a real change. (But of course no higher order species).

Does that clarify it? Maybe I misunderstand how it works but I think I understand it and you can educate me if not.

Forum Monk wrote:Maybe I assumed you were citing variable weather, changing shorelines, etc as factors driving genetics. But what I am pointing out, these things are short term occurances. Look at this way.

Every year several clutches of nestlings may be born to each mating pair. Standard mendolsson (sp?) genetics will apply in any case, depending on which traits are recessive, dominate, etc. In addition to that, random mutations (defects, eh, Arch?) occur which means any given year (in spite of classic mendolsson genetics) some will end up with smaller beaks and some with larger (NOW lets also clarify, there are relatively few of these kinds of mutations, very few, but they still exist - most of the effect is classic inheritance). Now, as you have well pointed out. It may be, because of seed size, that smaller or larger beaked birds may not survive as easily and so fewer are left to carry the trait to the next generation.

Ah, okay, so let;s extend the Mendelian (Gregor Mendel ) genetics. For each mating, one can assume that standard random assortment applies. However, we are not dealing with simply pairs but looking at the entire population. This is where the Hardy-Weinberg equation comes in. Let's assume that we have a simple dominance-recessive gene pattern.

p= frequency of large beak
q= frequency of small beak

p2 (p squared)represents as organism that has both large beak genes (homozygous dominant)

2pq represents an individual with both alleles (heterozygous)

q2 (q squared) represents individuals that have both recessive alleles (homozygous recessive). So if our population consists of the following individuals

pp *
pq *
pp *
pp *
pq *
qq
pq *
pq *
qq
qq *

Then our frequency of both alleles is .5 (10/20 )

However, if, because the larger beaks, let's say that the ones with asterisks repoduce more. Notice that this means that now the frequency of the p allele increases. Out of every 16 alleles given to the next generation, suddenly there are now 10 p alleles given and only 6 q. Now, each pair will have randomly assorting genes (pq x pq, each offspring will have a 75% of having large beaks) it's the fact the overall more matings occur with the p gene. Another way to think of it....there will be more of these crosses

pp x pp
pq x pp
pq x pq

fewer of these
pq x qq

and still fewer than these
qq x qq


Now, with the dominant phenotype, those finches that are heterozygous will still donate the recessive allele, however, from mathematical comparison, more p alleles are being donated.

forum monk wrote: Next year. The normal genetics kick-in, mendolsson, has his day and the few defects here and there do their thing. Some larger, some smaller. Only this year, the seed size is different. Now the other group survive and pass on their traits.

And so on, ebb and flow, year after year. And as long the seed sizes continue to vary, the selection will vary also resulting in no lasting advantage for any group.

Yep, no disagreements here. We could start again with those other frequencies and see that if more qq finches breed then the frequencies of the alleles oscillate closer to .5 p and .5 q

forum monk wrote: However, if the long term trend is for a particular size of seed (extended dry conditions due to impending ice age) then the "natural selection", mutation, defect, micro-evil, pick a term, begins to overwhelm the natural ebb and flow and then you will see selection, defect, micro-whatever, pick a term, make a real change. (But of course no higher order species).

Does that clarify it? Maybe I misunderstand how it works but I think I understand it and you can educate me if not.

Yep... we understand each other.

thanks...

(maybe you were thinking of meselson? another cool experiment of the nature of DNA replication or the composer, also cool...Elijah, great oratorio)

I was thinking of Gregor Mendel. But the name had evaded me. I was trying to flashback to pea pods and all but I tripped over my keyboard on the way.

pesky things those keyboards

Arch, I will be blunt here and ask that you refrain from responding to this comment,

that is what pm's are for. i have always been told that on a forum that allows all to post no one is allowed to be exclusive or demand that no one answers.

The dry years meant that finches had to rely on larger seeds

why? were there not smaller seeds still in existence?

But to deny that genetics and environment do not have an influence on survivorship and reproduciton is throwing out common sense.

it is not denying that genetics or the enviornment plays a part, they are not the sole influential factor. do you not think that God has foresight and would have taken into account what is needed when he created all things?

I don't think anyone here would be foolish enough to claim its possible to fully know the mind of God or completely comprehend His ways.

the Bible already tells us we can't, but we do know from what he has told us, we can make fairly good judgments.

I said that His creation was designed with process is flux

the act of creation does not give us many details and what we know we can discern from other passages. water erosion is a fact of life and has been since that time, God obviously instilled certain actions to take place. the same with tides, there is nothing evil about those or imperfect. they say if the moon was in a different position it would have devastating effects on earth.

so God placed the moon in the perfect position to make life liveable {for lack of a better word} for all. not just humans but for all species.

But this does not exclude that in His glory and wisdom, that He could not make a system that contains weather changes or coastlines

we know there were coastlines because the water was divided from the land, but we do not know about weather changes except in Genesis 1 or 2 {i believe} which states that God had a mist to water the garden. it is quite possible that weather changes came with the fall.

are you saying that these fluctuations are inresponse to the curse? Were there no changes before the fall

from what we can gather, prior to the fall, life was 'perfect' but that doesn't mean the seasons weren't established, sometimes you just have to say 'i don't know'. which we don't but that doesn't leave the door open to further creation or show evolution in action.

what it does tell us is that we do not know everything and that we should focus on what is important--God created, He finished it, there is no evolution or natural selection, He doesn't share Glory or credit becuase if He did then non-believers would not know He is God of all.

yes God uses people but He does it in the fashion where He gets the glory not the person who works with HIm. let's look at the lesson of Gideon. God told Gideon to get an army, 10,000 men responded. sure God could have used that army but what did He do? He had gideon pare it down to a modest force. why?

1. God gets the Glory
2. Non-belieivng nations see that God is above their gods, who are powerless against Him.
3. Israel learns that God is big enough to and will protect them. He is strengthening their faith.

this isn't discussion isn't about which theory makes sense, it is about what did God do which is is testimony to the world so that 1. they see God, 2. they see His followers following Him, 3. a believers faith is strengthened.

if God followers do not do what God wants, what is their motivation to change their sinful lives? the picture is bigger than a theory or genetics.

I am saying that our knowledge is imperfect. We simply cannot know everything about God and His creation. Therefore we need to be careful that we do not consider all our assumptions to be true

OKAY i can see your point but look at those verses you quoted and see what it tells you about God. are we making assumptions or going off the evidence that God has revealed about HImself?

do any of them tell us that He would make something imperfect?