# Thinking About Evolution



## Believer1993

Recently I've been looking at the scientific evidence for evolution, and I must say it is rather convincing. However, I don't think I can reconcile evolution with the account in Genesis. It is easy to say well then it's settled evolution is wrong, but that seems dishonest. If God created the world why would he create the world the way it would appear if evolution is correct? On top of that, many of the Christian sources I've come across seem to lack the critical thinking they utilize when dealing with theology when it comes to evolution. I simply don't know what to do, or where to go from here. Some help would be appreciated.


----------



## Tim

Read Jonathan Sarfati. You will not find any lack of critical thinking there. The man is a true genius. 

Dr Jonathan D Sarfati

By the way, I attended your Canton church for the Martin/Beeke conference a few months ago. Were you there? I live in Washtenaw county, just down the road from Canton.


----------



## Doulos 2

I found "Creation and Change" by Douglas Kelly very helpful.

Creation and Change: Dr. Douglas Kelly - Book - Christian Living, Controversies in the Church, Creationism | Ligonier Ministries Store


----------



## Andres

Believer1993 said:


> Recently I've been looking at the scientific evidence for evolution, and I must say it is rather convincing.



Really? I'd be interested to know what you're studying because I've always understood the evolution argument to be extremely weak.


----------



## Miss Marple

I also found evolution bizarre, and illogical, even as a child in a non-Christian home. A few of my childish queries below - may not be helpful, and perhaps advanced scientists with big degrees have better objections. But here goes:

1. Where did the stuff come from that supposedly started life?

2. Why can't we similarly start life in controlled lab experiments?

3. Is matter eternal? Does that make sense?

4. How can, say, a horse type animal's cells and DNA start spontaneously figuring out that if it elongates the neck, better food will be available? Why would anything stay as a horse-like animal if it were advantageous to eat treetops? In short why do we still have amoebas? If it was supposedly to their advantage to become two celled, then 50 celled, then lung breathing, etc.

5. Would not wings also be advantageous to the horse type animal? How about the ability for fly for humans? Why is there no evidence that any such thing is occurring? Doesn't hair help us all keep warm? Why aren't all creatures covered with hair/feathers by now? Humans have little hair on their bodies to keep them warm. Why did we lose our hair?

6. Where are the missing links?

7. Why do I see no evidence in the natural world of systems organizing themselves?


----------



## baron

I was always told if you get the first 3 chapters of Genesis wrong than you will get the rest of the Bible wrong. 

Maybe you should read J. MacArthur book The Battle For The Beginning.

Also one of my favorites was the Ben Stein No Intelligence Allowed. Espically where he is told by a leading evolutionist that life began with rocks.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Doulos 2 said:


> I found "Creation and Change" by Douglas Kelly very helpful.
> 
> Creation and Change: Dr. Douglas Kelly - Book - Christian Living, Controversies in the Church, Creationism | Ligonier Ministries Store


I'll second this; Kelly's book is great.


----------



## Peairtach

Darwin made the unwarranted leap in the dark from there being a degree of flexibility and variation within species (which everyone would agree with, and which had been observed long before Darwin), to the notion, for which he didn't have the evidence, that all species are related and descend from a common ancestor. 

He jumped - via unwarranted speculation - from a truth to an untruth.


----------



## J. Dean

I'd Check out John MacArthur's book Amazon.com: The Battle For The Beginning (9780849916250): John MacArthur: Books


----------



## jwithnell

Since most reformed folks tend to be intellectually serious and honest, the pressure to deal with the "science" of evolution has been particularly brutal. So much that was passed off as "creation science" was so much junk -- often just ad hominem arguments against evolutionists. Then the whole BioLogos crowd kicked in (run, don't walk away from that one). 

The best science and reasoning appears in the intelligent design camp by folks like Stephen C. Meyer. Michael Behe, who wrote _Darwin's Black Box_, didn't identify himself as Christian (I'm going way back in my memory here, so I could be wrong.) My point is, even those in the science community who don't identify themselves as people of faith, are having a hard time with the militant evolutionists and are putting forward better scientific work.


----------



## ChristianTrader

The post at the beginning of this thread may be helpful - http://www.puritanboard.com/f50/fou...ise-solution-called-theistic-evolution-71373/


----------



## Believer1993

> Really? I'd be interested to know what you're studying because I've always understood the evolution argument to be extremely weak.



Well the fossil record, the genetic evidence, the age of the earth, vestigial organ. All of these have been pretty convincing.


----------



## Eoghan

It might be helpful to know which area you are interested in. If it is geology, genetics or the big-bang theory. I spent a lot of time rethinking this at University and was shocked to discover many of my lecturers knew there were inadequacies in evolution. What shocked me was that when I asked why they did not look for the truth they said "What is truth" almost as Pilate did to Jesus. 

To quote a proverb "The first to present his case seems right, until another steps forward to question him."


----------



## Believer1993

> 1. Where did the stuff come from that supposedly started life?
> 
> 2. Why can't we similarly start life in controlled lab experiments?
> 
> 3. Is matter eternal? Does that make sense?
> 
> 4. How can, say, a horse type animal's cells and DNA start spontaneously figuring out that if it elongates the neck, better food will be available? Why would anything stay as a horse-like animal if it were advantageous to eat treetops? In short why do we still have amoebas? If it was supposedly to their advantage to become two celled, then 50 celled, then lung breathing, etc.
> 
> 5. Would not wings also be advantageous to the horse type animal? How about the ability for fly for humans? Why is there no evidence that any such thing is occurring? Doesn't hair help us all keep warm? Why aren't all creatures covered with hair/feathers by now? Humans have little hair on their bodies to keep them warm. Why did we lose our hair?
> 
> 6. Where are the missing links?
> 
> 7. Why do I see no evidence in the natural world of systems organizing themselves?



1. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
2. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
3. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
4. It didn't just spontaneously happen. Some horses would have longer necks naturally, much like some people have larger hands, smaller feet, etc. Since they could eat leaves higher in the trees they would pass on their genes. This would happen until long neck 'horses' which could eat tree tops aka giraffes finally evolved. There was no figuring out, it just happened. The reason we still have simpler life forms would be because it must be advantageous. Here's an example. If you go to the store and there is only one check out line the line becomes very long. If a second one opens and everyone goes to the second one it is no longer advantageous. There was a point when it was advantageous to stay in the first line. Evolution would work the same way. If it was advantageous for one species to begin going multi-celled there would be a point when it was no longer advantageous. 
5. Feathers supposedly evolved in dinosaurs, which then evolved into birds. Since mammals are not in this evolutionary line feathers would have to evolve separately in mammals. 
6. From what I can tell there have been quite a few. I found stuff on the evolution of manatees and there were quite a few 'missing links'.
7. Again doesn't deal with evolution.

These are responses I've read/heard to your questions. Hopefully you can use the responses to sharpen your critiques.

---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------




Eoghan said:


> which area you are interested in



I'm interested in the fossil record and genetics the most.


----------



## jwithnell

> the genetic evidence


Here's a 600-word book that addresses that one: Signature in the Cell. I was at a conference last year and found it interesting that the "junk" DNA geneticists had been presenting for years as vestigial castoffs from the evolutionary process is actually proving to have purposes that have only recently been understood.

Here's another book for you: Redeeming Science by Vern Poythress


----------



## ChristianTrader

Believer1993 said:


> 1. Where did the stuff come from that supposedly started life?
> 
> 2. Why can't we similarly start life in controlled lab experiments?
> 
> *3. Is matter eternal? Does that make sense?*
> 
> 4. How can, say, a horse type animal's cells and DNA start spontaneously figuring out that if it elongates the neck, better food will be available? Why would anything stay as a horse-like animal if it were advantageous to eat treetops? In short why do we still have amoebas? If it was supposedly to their advantage to become two celled, then 50 celled, then lung breathing, etc.
> 
> 5. Would not wings also be advantageous to the horse type animal? How about the ability for fly for humans? Why is there no evidence that any such thing is occurring? Doesn't hair help us all keep warm? Why aren't all creatures covered with hair/feathers by now? Humans have little hair on their bodies to keep them warm. Why did we lose our hair?
> 
> 6. Where are the missing links?
> 
> 7. Why do I see no evidence in the natural world of systems organizing themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
> 2. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
> *3. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.*
> 4. It didn't just spontaneously happen. Some horses would have longer necks naturally, much like some people have larger hands, smaller feet, etc. Since they could eat leaves higher in the trees they would pass on their genes. This would happen until long neck 'horses' which could eat tree tops aka giraffes finally evolved. There was no figuring out, it just happened. The reason we still have simpler life forms would be because it must be advantageous. Here's an example. If you go to the store and there is only one check out line the line becomes very long. If a second one opens and everyone goes to the second one it is no longer advantageous. There was a point when it was advantageous to stay in the first line. Evolution would work the same way. If it was advantageous for one species to begin going multi-celled there would be a point when it was no longer advantageous.
> 5. Feathers supposedly evolved in dinosaurs, which then evolved into birds. Since mammals are not in this evolutionary line feathers would have to evolve separately in mammals.
> 6. From what I can tell there have been quite a few. I found stuff on the evolution of manatees and there were quite a few 'missing links'.
> 7. Again doesn't deal with evolution.
Click to expand...


3)Does relate to your question because it means that Naturalism is not true. At that point, you have to reconcile evolution with a form of Theism, and that is an impossible task.

CT


----------



## ProtestantBankie

Are you determined to not accept any help?

Do you believe that you have, by God's grace, trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as your own personal saviour?


----------



## Mathetes

Believer1993 said:


> 2. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.



Evolutionists certainly seem to think it does, given how often they point to the Miller-Urey experiments. Jonathan Wells deals with this in Icons of Evolution.

Also, Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism is quite compelling.


----------



## Miss Marple

Believer1993 said:


> Really? I'd be interested to know what you're studying because I've always understood the evolution argument to be extremely weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the fossil record, the genetic evidence, the age of the earth, vestigial organ. All of these have been pretty convincing.
Click to expand...


The fossil record has absurd numbers of missing links. Genetic evidence can be used to prove a common ancestor (Eve). The age of the earth would correspond to God creating things that are already mature (grown trees, flowering plants, adult deer, frogs not just pollywogs. . .) and is presented in Scripture as a miracle. I don't know enough about vestigial organs to comment.

How do you feel about other miracles? Does Science disprove the making of water into wine, the feeding of the 4,000, the resurrection of the dead?


----------



## SolaSaint

I listened to The Dividing Line yesterday and James White had a sound bite of a lecture from William L. Craig where he stated most all Christians are now ok with darwinism. He even ackowledged Theistic Evolution as a viable theory and even plugged the Catholic position of man evolving to the point where he was capable of recieving a soul. This floored me for I really admire Craig. White has been exposing Craig a lot lately and I feel some of it is unwaranted but this point was right on. I can see where it is really difficult to see many strong Christians fall for incorporating evolution into the biblical narrative. God help us.

Seems like some very intelligent Christians come up against an argument from evolution that they cannot reconcile within creation so they cave into Theistic Evolution instead of full blown Neo-Darwinism. in my opinion


----------



## Believer1993

> Are you determined to not accept any help?



What do you mean? I would like help, that was the reason for the post.



> Do you believe that you have, by God's grace, trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as your own personal saviour?



Yes I do.

---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------

I was just saying that evolution is defined as "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation," has nothing to do with the origins of matter/life/etc.

I will have to look at Plantinga's argument, I've never read it before.

---------- Post added at 10:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 PM ----------




Miss Marple said:


> How do you feel about other miracles? Does Science disprove the making of water into wine, the feeding of the 4,000, the resurrection of the dead?



I definitely believe in miracles and see no reason why God couldn't perform them.

---------- Post added at 10:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 PM ----------




ChristianTrader said:


> The post at the beginning of this thread may be helpful


Definitely gave me something to think about, thanks for sharing.


----------



## Miss Marple

Robert, the six days of creation were miraculous. Of course science won't in general support the Genesis account; any more than science would support the withered man's hand healing, or Jesus walking on water. That is the point of a miracle. It is not the usual process.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Believer1993 said:


> I was just saying that evolution is defined as "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation," has nothing to do with the origins of matter/life/etc.



Perhaps you are getting tripped up by the fuzzy definitions of evolutionists. Christian creationists do not reject the idea of changes in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations, whether caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. Observational science teaches us that these changes do occur. However, the descent of men and creatures from a common ancestor is not the same thing. Please check out these resources from Answers in Genesis. Careful definition of terms is in order.

Brother, I was raised on Ranger Rick and National Geographic magazines. It was only a few years that I embraced the Biblical creation account (praise God for a faithful pastor and the witness of the RCUS!). Every day, I recognize how my education and the surrounding world have conditioned me to think in unbiblical categories. To undo this indoctrination, you need to start by resolving to believe what God's Word teaches no matter how hard it is. Scripture's authority is not founded upon your ability to logically reconcile everything in it with your perception of the world. Next, you need to focus on identifying the unbiblical presuppositions upon which the secular worldview is grounded. These ideas have been pounded into us by hours of teaching, television, and the general influence of popular culture. There's a massive paradigm shift which needs to happen: The earth is thousands of years old, not billions. There was a global worldwide flood which massively reshaped the world's geography and geology. Death was not part of the original creation. Submit to the Word of God first and trust that His Word is true, despite what the secular academy says (and also says about the Resurrection). Reversing the effect's of our culture's brainwashing will be a loooong process which will require hard work and dedication.


----------



## ac7k

A good resource is Reasons to Believe. Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge


----------



## RobertPGH1981

Here is a good resource for everything science. 

Center for Science and Culture - Challenging Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Promoting Intelligent Design


----------



## Tim

ac7k said:


> A good resource is Reasons to Believe. Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge



Sorry, brother. This is definitely NOT a good resource. Danger. This is the organization of Hugh Ross, who does not advocate a Biblical theology of creation. He is a progressive creationist. Jonathan Sarfati (who I cited above) wrote a book specifically to refute the position of Hugh Ross. 

This from the Creation.com website:



> In 2004, he wrote Refuting Compromise, defending a straightforward biblical creation timeline and a global flood, and answering biblical and scientific objections, concentrating on the errant teachings of day-age/local flood advocate Hugh Ross. It has been acclaimed as ‘the most powerful biblical and scientific defense of a straightforward view of Genesis creation ever written!’ See the introductory chapter and some reviews.



Refuting Compromise


----------



## J. Dean

I think we need to define "missing link," because never have I seen a missing link fossil (besides speculative conjecture on what people MIGHT think is a missing link, which has more often than not turned out to be fraudulent). 

Missing link would consist of a fossil of an "in-between" species, like something between a lizard and a fish, or something between a bat and a mouse.

And if you accept evolution, by default you alter Genesis, whether you mean to or not. 

I should submit my "God vs. Darwin" lectures sometime to you guys. I covered the problems with theistic evolution in the class (because it ALWAYS comes down in favor of man over God, and because it creates a host of other problems, such as the origin of death, sin, etc.).


----------



## Somerset

Believer1993 said:


> 1. Where did the stuff come from that supposedly started life?
> 
> 2. Why can't we similarly start life in controlled lab experiments?
> 
> 3. Is matter eternal? Does that make sense?
> 
> 4. How can, say, a horse type animal's cells and DNA start spontaneously figuring out that if it elongates the neck, better food will be available? Why would anything stay as a horse-like animal if it were advantageous to eat treetops? In short why do we still have amoebas? If it was supposedly to their advantage to become two celled, then 50 celled, then lung breathing, etc.
> 
> 5. Would not wings also be advantageous to the horse type animal? How about the ability for fly for humans? Why is there no evidence that any such thing is occurring? Doesn't hair help us all keep warm? Why aren't all creatures covered with hair/feathers by now? Humans have little hair on their bodies to keep them warm. Why did we lose our hair?
> 
> 6. Where are the missing links?
> 
> 7. Why do I see no evidence in the natural world of systems organizing themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
> 2. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
> 3. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
> 4. It didn't just spontaneously happen. *Some horses would have longer necks naturally, much like some people have larger hands, smaller feet, etc. Since they could eat leaves higher in the trees they would pass on their genes. This would happen until long neck 'horses' which could eat tree tops aka giraffes finally evolved. *There was no figuring out, it just happened. The reason we still have simpler life forms would be because it must be advantageous. Here's an example. If you go to the store and there is only one check out line the line becomes very long. If a second one opens and everyone goes to the second one it is no longer advantageous. There was a point when it was advantageous to stay in the first line. Evolution would work the same way. If it was advantageous for one species to begin going multi-celled there would be a point when it was no longer advantageous.
> 5. Feathers supposedly evolved in dinosaurs, which then evolved into birds. Since mammals are not in this evolutionary line feathers would have to evolve separately in mammals.
> 6. From what I can tell there have been quite a few. I found stuff on the evolution of manatees and there were quite a few 'missing links'.
> 7. Again doesn't deal with evolution.
> 
> These are responses I've read/heard to your questions. Hopefully you can use the responses to sharpen your critiques.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eoghan said:
> 
> 
> 
> which area you are interested in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm interested in the fossil record and genetics the most.
Click to expand...


I gather there is more it than just ever longer necks. Once a neck gets to a certain length the blood supply to the brain fails when you bend over. So all the young giraffes would pass out at the watering hole and be easy prey for lions. A giraffe needs pumps and pressure gauges, which it either has or it doesn't.


----------



## jwright82

The "proof" of evolution is airtight if you interpret the evidence from their perspective. That is just because we see mutations from generation to generation in a given species why should we assume that that means that the species can change into another species? That is just because dogs evolve into different kinds of dogs doesn't mean that they can evolve into cats. They simply interpret the evidence that way.

Since we know only like 1% of the fossil record we can never really know the whole story. But they interpret one peice of bone burried depper than another to mean that one evolved from another for no good reason. We and chimps have like 98% of our DNA in common and they interpret that to mean that we our related for no good reason.

The crunch is the reason that they make these interpretations is because as Plantinga points out they are commited to naturalism but why? Naturalism is the idea that only natural or physical causes can explain the way things are. But why should we assume that? If this point fails than their whole edifice falls.


----------



## J. Dean

Wanna have some fun? Ask them how "Nebraska man" panned out.


----------



## Believer1993

J. Dean said:


> Wanna have some fun? Ask them how "Nebraska man" panned out.



I don't think Nebraska Man is overly relevant to the issue. It was misidentified when first discovered and failed to garner widespread scientific support. The issue was resolved within a decade.

I think that is a lot like saying, look at the Arian Controversy, thus Jesus can't be God. Just because there are issues doesn't necessarily mean anything for the system as a whole.

And just as a side note, I'm not trying to defend evolution in this post so much as state the arguments that I find convincing, as well as trying to show where arguments against evolution have come up short.


----------



## Believer1993

jwright82 said:


> That is just because we see mutations from generation to generation in a given species why should we assume that that means that the species can change into another species?



Well I think that speciation has been well documented. 




jwright82 said:


> just because dogs evolve into different kinds of dogs doesn't mean that they can evolve into cats



Well no one's saying that.



jwright82 said:


> hey interpret one peice of bone burried depper than another to mean that one evolved from another for no good reason



That's not entirely true, they would say a bone buried in a deeper layer of rock would be older, but it would require more evidence to establish any kind of evolutionary relationship. For instance, dinosaurs are buried deeper than humans, but no one says that humans evolved from dinosaurs.




jwright82 said:


> We and chimps have like 98% of our DNA in common and they interpret that to mean that we our related for no good reason.



There's more to it than that, physiology has something to do with it as well. Ken Miller also has a good presentation describing the genetic evidence that chimps and humans are related.

Lastly, I haven't read Plantinga, but in light of this whole conversation it seems that I should put him on my reading list.


----------



## sastark

Robert,

It seems that thus far, the arguments you have raised in favor of evolution have been:

The Fossil Record
The Genetic Evidence
The age of the earth
And vestigial organ

In addition to these things, you have stated that the question of the origin of life has no bearing on evolution.

The Fossil Record is far from conclusive when it comes to supporting the theory of evolution. Evolution (the gradual rise of higher life forms from lower over a period of thousands of millennia) is unable to account for many phenomena in the fossil record, not the least of which is the Cambrian Explosion.

The Genetic Evidence strongly favors inference to a Designer, not random mutation. There is a deep connection between sequences of nucleotide bases in DNA which code for protein and sequences of alphabetic characters written on a page that convey meaning. E. J. Ambrose (former University of London cell biologist) said, "There is a message if the order of bases in DNA can be translated by the cell into some vital activity necessary for survival or reproduction." Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell, which you fail to interact with, is excellent on this point.

The age of the earth used by evolutionists is based on principles of uniformitarianism--that those process which we now observe have always been at work at the same rate we now observe them. However, this is an assumption and not proven. Further, William Dembski, who accepts a very old earth/universe, has done the math to show that given the age of the universe currently claimed by evolutionists, there is simply not enough time for the "beneficial" mutations necessary to move from single-cell organism to advanced forms of life (such as Man) to occur. Evolution doesn't even work in a very old (13.2 billion years or whatever the latest number is) universe. It doesn't add up.

Finally, vestigial organs are a joke. 

I recommend, in addition to Signature in the Cell, that you read "The Design of Life" by Dembski and Wells. It is a very basic introduction, but it covers all the issues you have raised.

You have also stated that origin of life has no bearing on evolution, but you are very wrong. The origin of life is the very question evolution seeks to answer. How non-living molecules "evolved" into a living cell has always been a central question of evolution, and they have, thus far, been incapable of answering this. The famed Miller-Urey experiment was an abject failure. The atmospheric conditions supposed in the experiment did not and do not at all resemble what even evolutionists believe our "early" atmosphere looked like. Further, even if they were able to produce proteins: so what? Proteins are not cells, they are the building blocks of cells, which must be arranged much like bricks in order to form a building. How do you move from a pile of bricks to a building? By an Intelligent agent arranging them properly. Not through random reshuffling of the bricks.

But, what you have failed to do is demonstrate how evolution can be true if God's Word is true. It is clear in Scripture that God created all things in the space of six days, that He created animals after their "kinds", and that he created man out of the dust of the ground, not from any lower form of life. If evolution or the (improper) interpretation of the world around us contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, then evolution or that interpretation of the world is wrong. God's Word is sure and authoritative in every area of life and it clearly speaks to the issue of creation and the origin of life. 

So you are forced to choose: Either God is trustworthy and natural man's interpretation of the world is not, or fallen man whose reason is debilitated due to sin, who is unable to properly interpret the facts with which he is confronted, has stumbled upon the truth of the universe and God is, in fact, a liar. 

Which will it be?


----------



## gordo

sastark said:


> So you are forced to choose: Either God is trustworthy and natural man's interpretation of the world is not, or fallen man whose reason is debilitated due to sin, who is unable to properly interpret the facts with which he is confronted, has stumbled upon the truth of the universe and God is, in fact, a liar.



So one must have a 100% literal view of the first parts of Genesis or God is a liar??? 

I'm not defending evolution at all, but never once have I viewed creation in a literal 6 day sense.


----------



## sastark

gordo said:


> So one must have a 100% literal view of the first parts of Genesis or God is a liar???
> 
> I'm not defending evolution at all, but never once have I viewed creation in a literal 6 day sense.



I really don't want to have this thread get sidetracked on this issue, but: Did God speak to the issue of the age of the earth/length of creation? If so, what did He say? Young earth and old earth cannot both be true. The Westminster Confession clearly states that God created all things in "the space of six days." (WCF 4.1). This is the view supported by Scripture. If God has said this, and man says something else, ultimately, either man is lying or God is.


----------



## gordo

Fair enough. We will leave it at that for now as to not sidetrack the thread.


----------



## crimsonleaf

Believer1993 said:


> 1. Where did the stuff come from that supposedly started life?
> 
> 2. Why can't we similarly start life in controlled lab experiments?
> 
> 3. Is matter eternal? Does that make sense?
> 
> 4. How can, say, a horse type animal's cells and DNA start spontaneously figuring out that if it elongates the neck, better food will be available? Why would anything stay as a horse-like animal if it were advantageous to eat treetops? In short why do we still have amoebas? If it was supposedly to their advantage to become two celled, then 50 celled, then lung breathing, etc.
> 
> 5. Would not wings also be advantageous to the horse type animal? How about the ability for fly for humans? Why is there no evidence that any such thing is occurring? Doesn't hair help us all keep warm? Why aren't all creatures covered with hair/feathers by now? Humans have little hair on their bodies to keep them warm. Why did we lose our hair?
> 
> 6. Where are the missing links?
> 
> 7. Why do I see no evidence in the natural world of systems organizing themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
> 2. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
> 3. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
> 4. It didn't just spontaneously happen. Some horses would have longer necks naturally, much like some people have larger hands, smaller feet, etc. Since they could eat leaves higher in the trees they would pass on their genes. This would happen until long neck 'horses' which could eat tree tops aka giraffes finally evolved. There was no figuring out, it just happened. The reason we still have simpler life forms would be because it must be advantageous. Here's an example. If you go to the store and there is only one check out line the line becomes very long. If a second one opens and everyone goes to the second one it is no longer advantageous. There was a point when it was advantageous to stay in the first line. Evolution would work the same way. If it was advantageous for one species to begin going multi-celled there would be a point when it was no longer advantageous.
> 5. Feathers supposedly evolved in dinosaurs, which then evolved into birds. Since mammals are not in this evolutionary line feathers would have to evolve separately in mammals.
> 6. From what I can tell there have been quite a few. I found stuff on the evolution of manatees and there were quite a few 'missing links'.
> 7. Again doesn't deal with evolution.
> 
> These are responses I've read/heard to your questions. Hopefully you can use the responses to sharpen your critiques.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eoghan said:
> 
> 
> 
> which area you are interested in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm interested in the fossil record and genetics the most.
Click to expand...


I think there's a confusion between natural selection (or survival of the fittest) and evolution, which is common. The question of horses raised here is one of natural selection - those with mutated genes and the resultant longer necks would have access to foods that their shorter bretheren wouldn't and higher numbers of the taller horses would survive, perpetuating the mutated gene and assimilating it into the genome.

Evolution has more to do with the origins of life and development of species. Question 1 is a good starting point, as without the answer Evolution is dead in the water. Evolution is about change and must therefore have had something to change from. Start there and your argument will take one of only two possible directions.

When you've decided on your direction then ask a further question: To move from a simple to a complex organism requires a great deal of additional genetic information - can you name one example of where DNA has developed additional information on its own? Dawkins can't, and has been seen failing all over the net.

Also chart the instances of mutation forming genuine improvement. Generally speaking, mutation results in catastrophic failure, with disease and birth defects abounding.

Perhaps you should look at the evolution of sex, both from a "how" and a "why" perspective. Actually, scratch the "why" question, because it falls outside of the true study of evolution. "Why" questions a purpose, and there is no purpose in evolution, just results. So, how did separate sexes develop? How did self-replicating, genetically pure single cells develop from the simple perfection of self-generation to the complex and arguably disadvantageous process of requiring two sexes with perfectly matching sex organs? And what do you think THEIR missing links or transitional stages would have looked liked and how would they have reproduced with incomplete working parts?

Then look at irreducible complexity. Start with a bicycle and remove as many parts as you can until any further removal causes failure. That's the point of irreducible complexity. Darwin's Black box is about cellular construction and origins and contains many examples of IC within every single cell in life.

Really, there's so much to question. As an ex-theistic evolutionist I'd urge you to read some of the stuff recommended above, then go back to question 1. Investigate the processes required for those initial chemicals (which sprung out of nowhere) to form into anything we could call life. I'll be interested in your discoveries, because a Nobel prize lies at the end of them.


----------



## rookie

Wow.....so much here, and being at work, I would love to add more comments to this one. Robert, from my perspective, it seems you are trying in every way to prove evolution. The first thing you MUST do is define evolution. There are 6 definitions of it.
1. Stellar evolution - evolution of the stars
2. Chemical evolution - how chemicals have all evolved from previous ones
3. Cosmic Evolution - Creation of time, space matter
4. Organic Evolution - How life began
5. Macro Evolution - From one species to another (from a whale to a horse as an example)
6. Micro Evolution - From a German Shepherd to a Golden Lab (both dogs)

The first 5, are lies and absolutely no documented true evidence stand for them. The last one, we see all the time. And when it comes to Vestigial organs. Are we talking the 2 little bones that are sticking out of whales, or the ones that snakes also have? Snakes have them to hold on to each other when mating, and whales? They help support the new born since a whales doesn't just weight 6lbs.

And as far as the day age theory (6 long periods of time). Since Yom (the Hebrew for day) is accompanied by numbers (first day, second day, third day....) it always means 24 hr periods. If they are not accompanied by a number....it can have varying definitions. (In my dad's day, could be a span of a few years).

So before the debate carries on longer here, some definitions should be made a little more precise. I have much, much more that could be added, but I am at work at the moment....


----------



## Believer1993

rookie said:


> it seems you are trying in every way to prove evolution



I'm just trying to clarify things and respond to objections. If a Muslim had an inaccurate view of Jesus we would respond to it and say that's not what we believe. Or, if a Muslim raised an objection we could point to where it has already been answered. I'm just doing the same with evolution.

The definition of evolution that I'm struggling with is "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation." 

And I would be careful about using the word "species", since speciation has been documented.


----------



## MW

sastark said:


> Evolution doesn't even work in a very old (13.2 billion years or whatever the latest number is) universe.



That's the main issue from a scientific standpoint. It is presented as a working hypothesis. It must be pointed out that it doesn't actually work.


----------



## Nate

sastark said:


> DNA is made up of proteins which must be arranged intelligibly to be of use


???

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------




Dearly Bought said:


> Believer1993 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just saying that evolution is defined as "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation," has nothing to do with the origins of matter/life/etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are getting tripped up by the fuzzy definitions of evolutionists. Christian creationists do not reject the idea of changes in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations, whether caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. Observational science teaches us that these changes do occur. However, the descent of men and creatures from a common ancestor is not the same thing. Please check out these resources from Answers in Genesis. Careful definition of terms is in order.
Click to expand...


I am a tried and true literal 6 day 24 hour believer, but I have to say that organizations like Answers in Genesis and the Creation Institute do at least as poor of a job with their definitions of evolution as many secular scientists do. In fact, Robert is totally correct in his definition of evolution... biological evolution is simply defined as a heritable changes in a population spread over generations. Just because AIG and CI don't want to accept this definition, it does not mean that this is not the working definition of evolution for the vast majority of practicing biologists.


----------



## Dearly Bought

NateLanning said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is made up of proteins which must be arranged intelligibly to be of use
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> ---------- Post added at 09
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believer1993 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just saying that evolution is defined as "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation," has nothing to do with the origins of matter/life/etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are getting tripped up by the fuzzy definitions of evolutionists. Christian creationists do not reject the idea of changes in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations, whether caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. Observational science teaches us that these changes do occur. However, the descent of men and creatures from a common ancestor is not the same thing. Please check out these resources from Answers in Genesis. Careful definition of terms is in order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a tried and true literal 6 day 24 hour believer, but I have to say that organizations like Answers in Genesis and the Creation Institute do at least as poor of a job with their definitions of evolution as many secular scientists do. In fact, Robert is totally correct in his definition of evolution... biological evolution is simply defined as a heritable changes in a population spread over generations. Just because AIG and CI don't want to accept this definition, it does not mean that this is not the working definition of evolution for the vast majority of practicing biologists.
Click to expand...


Nate, I am utterly confused. Do you reject the concept of changes in the genetic composition of a population over generations?


----------



## Nate

crimsonleaf said:


> Evolution has more to do with the origins of life and development of species.


Maybe this is true for the relatively few numbers of faculty members of the Evolutionary Sciences branch of Biology Departments and the few odd molecular biologists asking this question. For the majority of practicing biologists, evolution definitely has more to do with heritable changes in a population spread over time.




crimsonleaf said:


> When you've decided on your direction then ask a further question: To move from a simple to a complex organism requires a great deal of additional genetic information - can you name one example of where DNA has developed additional information on its own? Dawkins can't, and has been seen failing all over the net.


Dawkins is rather bad at arguing his position. Again, I am a 6/24 believer, but I can show you how this happens not-so-infrequently. In the case of humans, we have varying levels of copy number of each gene. That means that some of us have more information than others. This happens from segments of DNA duplicating during cell division or DNA repair processes.



crimsonleaf said:


> Also chart the instances of mutation forming genuine improvement. Generally speaking, mutation results in catastrophic failure, with disease and birth defects abounding.


This is a pillar of evolutionary biology. It is unclear to me why we creationists keep ramming this point home. I guess we agree with it, so it does not hurt to state it, but it does make us look bad when we think we are pulling one over the evolutionists by telling them something that they don't already promote.




crimsonleaf said:


> Then look at irreducible complexity. Start with a bicycle and remove as many parts as you can until any further removal causes failure. That's the point of irreducible complexity. Darwin's Black box is about cellular construction and origins and contains many examples of IC within every single cell in life.


I couldn't agree more.

---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------




Dearly Bought said:


> Nate, I am utterly confused. Do you reject the concept of changes in the genetic composition of a population over generations?



Sorry about that Bryan. I see how I was not clear. I accept the position. My argument is that AIG and CI type organizations refuse to call change in heritable information over time "evolution". The majority of practicing biologists do define this process as "evolution". So do textbooks. Although, I agree with you that textbooks and some (many?) scientists have other definitions for evolution.


----------



## Dearly Bought

NateLanning said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate, I am utterly confused. Do you reject the concept of changes in the genetic composition of a population over generations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about that Bryan. I see how I was not clear. I accept the position. My argument is that AIG and CI type organizations refuse to call change in heritable information over time "evolution". The majority of practicing biologists do define this process as "evolution". So do textbooks. Although, I agree with you that textbooks and some (many?) scientists have other definitions for evolution.
Click to expand...


Ah, thanks for the clarification. I don't think there is much to criticize regarding AiG or other Creation Science organizations on this point. Answers in Genesis readily acknowledges there are various definitions of the term _evolution_. They try to point out that secular scientists often pull a tricky bait-and-switch, moving from a general genetic principle of "descent with modification" to a common ancestry of all creatures while using the same term. The link which I posted above deals with this problem of terminology. In my experience, they generally are very careful to point out that we agree with evolution in one sense but not the other.


----------



## Nate

Dearly Bought said:


> NateLanning said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nate, I am utterly confused. Do you reject the concept of changes in the genetic composition of a population over generations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about that Bryan. I see how I was not clear. I accept the position. My argument is that AIG and CI type organizations refuse to call change in heritable information over time "evolution". The majority of practicing biologists do define this process as "evolution". So do textbooks. Although, I agree with you that textbooks and some (many?) scientists have other definitions for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, thanks for the clarification. I don't think there is much to criticize regarding AiG or other Creation Science organizations on this point. Answers in Genesis readily acknowledges there are various definitions of the term _evolution_. They try to point out that secular scientists often pull a tricky bait-and-switch, moving from a general genetic principle of "descent with modification" to a common ancestry of all creatures while using the same term. The link which I posted above deals with this problem of terminology. In my experience, they generally are very careful to point out that we agree with evolution in one sense but not the other.
Click to expand...


OK. I have a generally positive view of AiG and I agree that they do spend some time grappling with definitions (I am familiar with the link you shared). However, I see them (perhaps unconsciously) pulling the same bait-and-switch routine, often stating that "evolution" was most certainly not proven by a particular experiment, when all the scientists were trying to say was that they observed a change in genomic information in a population over time.


----------



## Tim

Well, the problem with this thread is that we have had 45 posts and I still don't think we have properly defined what might be meant by evolution. 

I think we need to go further than to define evolution as _mere_ change. Try this:

Evolution as increase in complexity, sometimes called macro-evolution

This position holds that evolution includes increases in complexity brought about by random changes in genetics, that is sufficient to bring about a change from one _kind_ into another, more complex _kind_. An example of this would be to hold that man has animal ancestors and ultimately simple life forms (like amoeba) in distant history.

Speciation as decrease in complexity, sometimes called micro-evolution

The common example of this is grandfather dog, who has genetics for long fur and short fur. He has medium fur, but his grandchildren have either short fur or long fur. The grandchildren that have short fur have lost the long fur genes. Their complexity has decreased because they no longer carry the information for long fur. This is a change indeed, but the information content decreases, rather than increases, as with the former example.

When 6/24 Biblical creationists talk about "evolution", they are almost always referring to the former example.

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 PM ----------

So, my question for our brother Robert (from the original post) is which of the two above do you struggle with?


----------



## Nate

Brother Tim, why do you dismiss the very precise definition that Robert gave in post #21? i.e., change in genetic composition rather than increases or decreases in complexity. Why dismiss mere change when a good many evolutionists use this definition?


----------



## Tim

Hi Nate, I don't think that definition is precise enough. That is why I brought in the aspect of complexity. Complexity is crucial to the issue because the direction of complexity is one way to separate views that are compatible with scripture from those that are not. As I said above, I don't believe it is sufficient to define evolution as mere change; the sort of change needs to be explained. 

My comments follow what Bryan posted above regarding the bait-and-switch often employed by secular scientists: a finding of local speciation (loss of genetic information in a local habitat due to natural selection) that is said to be an example of evolution (a term that is then used in a way that includes common ancestry of all creatures = increase in genetic information from simple to complex).

Do you see my point?


----------



## Nate

Yes, I see your point, but I don't think I agree with it. Maybe you can help my misunderstandings.

1. My first understanding of your point is that simple change in genetic composition is not commonly defined by secular scientists as evolution, or is not precise enough to convey what they think evolution is. I am arguing that this definition of evolution is precise enough as it is used very often in the fields of cell biology, animal biology, and even evolutionary biology. The field of cell biology is far more expansive probably than all other biological fields combined, and I argue that this definition of evolution is the most commonly used definition in this field. Most scientists are not concerned with speciation, or increases in complexity, but are actually concerned with changes in plasmid frequencies, mutational frequencies, allele frequencies, single nucleotide polymorphisms, and copy number variations in populations of organisms over time. These changes are defined as evolution, and as far as I can tell, this definition is universally accepted by secular scientists. In fact, this is one of two definitions of evolution stated in black and white in the Campbell Biology textbook (most commonly used college biology text) that I teach from. Speciation and complexity never enter the conversation in the vast majority of these cases. 

2. My second understanding of your point is that local speciation always results from a loss of genetic information, but never a gain of genetic information. Like the AiG folk who argue that gain of genetic information has never been demonstrated (it has), I have never seen demonstrable evidence of loss of genetic information driving speciation. This is a point on which I can be educated as this it is often made by AiG and CI, and therefore the evidence must be present. 

3. I agree completely with you that the bait and switch method is often employed... use the definition in #1 above, then smoothly transition into a discussion on how birds descended from dinos. Although, my interactions with actual evolutionary biologists are interesting... the second definition of evolution in the Campbell biology text is a "descent with modification" one that quickly blurs into "molecules to man". The admittedly few evolutionary biologists with which I have interacted detest this definition. They insist that changes within populations over time is the only accurate definition. However, it is readily evident from scientific publications and textbooks that this is not the majority opinion. I am unclear as to what the prevailing thought is on complexity. My capstone in college was evolutionary biology, and one point that was driven home was that evolution is not synonymous with complexity. This is a theme that prevails in the research environment which I currently inhabit too. Evolution does not necessitate increased complexity. 

I guess my take-home argument is be careful with limiting your definition of evolution to the two that you proposed as the majority of biologists will use the change in information definition that Robert proposed at least as much as your first definition.


----------



## KingofBashan

Believer1993 said:


> Recently I've been looking at the scientific evidence for evolution, and I must say it is rather convincing. However, I don't think I can reconcile evolution with the account in Genesis. It is easy to say well then it's settled evolution is wrong, but that seems dishonest. If God created the world why would he create the world the way it would appear if evolution is correct? On top of that, many of the Christian sources I've come across seem to lack the critical thinking they utilize when dealing with theology when it comes to evolution. I simply don't know what to do, or where to go from here. Some help would be appreciated.



Are you familiar with creationscience.com and answersingenesis.org? These may prove helpful as you try to reconcile science with revealed truth.


----------



## Bern

It should be clear by now that often people are talking past each other when it comes to this topic. I think there is also a common misconception that just because an objection to evolutionary thought doesn't sound complicated or "educated", that it cannot be valid. All data only has meaning when it is interpreted. If you approach the data from a worldview that presupposes evolutionary ideas, then you'll likely come to a wrong conclusion. Something we must also remember is that man is not morally neutral. He is corrupt and will not approach the topic of creation rationally and without bias, no matter how much he claims neutrality. The choice one has to make as a believer is this: do I follow an idea that is incompatible with the bible or not? If you believe the bible is true, then all data must be interpreted accordingly.


----------



## rookie

Believer1993 said:


> rookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> it seems you are trying in every way to prove evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just trying to clarify things and respond to objections. If a Muslim had an inaccurate view of Jesus we would respond to it and say that's not what we believe. Or, if a Muslim raised an objection we could point to where it has already been answered. I'm just doing the same with evolution.
> 
> The definition of evolution that I'm struggling with is "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation."
> 
> And I would be careful about using the word "species", since speciation has been documented.
Click to expand...


Fine, use the word "kind". And every animal shall bring forth from its own kind......


----------



## Tim

NateLanning said:


> I guess my take-home argument is be careful with limiting your definition of evolution to the two that you proposed as the majority of biologists will use the change in information definition that Robert proposed at least as much as your first definition.



Nate, I am not so much concerned with how _evolution_ is defined in the secular lab or classroom. I am concerned that we on the PB are able to define our terms sufficiently so that we may reject anti-Biblical thinking and accept only those models that are consistent with the Bible. 

I am happy to concede the point:



> Most scientists are not concerned with speciation, or increases in complexity, but are actually concerned with changes in plasmid frequencies, mutational frequencies, allele frequencies, single nucleotide polymorphisms, and copy number variations in populations of organisms over time.



but the problem is that most scientists do believe that man ultimately evolved from simpler life forms, even if their research is centered around a smaller, specialized topic. This is where it is important that we mention increases or decreases in complexity (perhaps increases or decreases in information would work as well) so that we may distinguish what needs to be distinguished.

As Bern mentioned above, I admit that there has been a bit of "talking past one another" (not just you and me), so I appreciate the opportunity to pursue this point. Please let me know how close we are in our thinking at this moment.


----------



## Nate

Tim said:


> NateLanning said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my take-home argument is be careful with limiting your definition of evolution to the two that you proposed as the majority of biologists will use the change in information definition that Robert proposed at least as much as your first definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nate, I am not so much concerned with how _evolution_ is defined in the secular lab or classroom. I am concerned that we on the PB are able to define our terms sufficiently so that we may reject anti-Biblical thinking and accept only those models that are consistent with the Bible.
> 
> I am happy to concede the point:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most scientists are not concerned with speciation, or increases in complexity, but are actually concerned with changes in plasmid frequencies, mutational frequencies, allele frequencies, single nucleotide polymorphisms, and copy number variations in populations of organisms over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but the problem is that most scientists do believe that man ultimately evolved from simpler life forms, even if their research is centered around a smaller, specialized topic. This is where it is important that we mention increases or decreases in complexity (perhaps increases or decreases in information would work as well) so that we may distinguish what needs to be distinguished.
> 
> As Bern mentioned above, I admit that there has been a bit of "talking past one another" (not just you and me), so I appreciate the opportunity to pursue this point. Please let me know how close we are in our thinking at this moment.
Click to expand...


Bern is right - I will make more of an effort to not talk past others.
Tim, I think we are on virtually the same page with our understanding of the biological mechanisms and phenomena our great Creator has established that contribute to the diversity of life. You bring up an important point that we need to sufficiently define our terms so that we may reject anti-biblical thinking. I also concede your point that most scientists do believe that man ultimately evolved from simpler life forms, and that this belief is incorporated into their definition of evolution. So, I agree with you that increases and decreases in complexity need to be _part_ of our working definition of evolution. My issue is that it would be dishonest if we limit our definition to complexity and refuse to include change in genetic information. By including both, we will be better able to accept models that are consistent with the Bible and also reject anti-biblical thinking.
I believe our thinking diverges with respect to gains and losses of information. I see gains of genetic information that are able to drive diversity in populations. I have not come across examples of gains of information driving speciation, but gains of genetic information do occur. Perhaps this is not an important point in the conversation, so I will let it go.
Thanks for the interaction Tim, and I look forward to any additional comments you might have.


----------



## rookie

Ok, we don't have to use the word species. We can use the word "Kind". And each brought forth from its own kind.....


----------



## Tim

NateLanning said:


> Bern is right - I will make more of an effort to not talk past others.
> Tim, I think we are on virtually the same page with our understanding of the biological mechanisms and phenomena our great Creator has established that contribute to the diversity of life. You bring up an important point that we need to sufficiently define our terms so that we may reject anti-biblical thinking. I also concede your point that most scientists do believe that man ultimately evolved from simpler life forms, and that this belief is incorporated into their definition of evolution. So, I agree with you that increases and decreases in complexity need to be part of our working definition of evolution. My issue is that it would be dishonest if we limit our definition to complexity and refuse to include change in genetic information. By including both, we will be better able to accept models that are consistent with the Bible and also reject anti-biblical thinking.
> I believe our thinking diverges with respect to gains and losses of information. I see gains of genetic information that are able to drive diversity in populations. I have not come across examples of gains of information driving speciation, but gains of genetic information do occur. Perhaps this is not an important point in the conversation, so I will let it go.
> Thanks for the interaction Tim, and I look forward to any additional comments you might have.



Thanks, Nate. This interaction has been useful. I don't have the time to go into much more depth about information/genetics, but there is this book that might be useful in a future dialogue. 

Amazon.com: In the Beginning Was Information (9783893972555): Werner Gitt, Jaap Kies: Books


----------



## jwright82

Believer1993 said:


> Well I think that speciation has been well documented.



Read the book _In Search of Deep Time_ By Henry Glee, an evolutionist. He affirms that we can never know if two different fossils are related and he admits (along with Dawkins in his new book "proving" evolution _The Greatest Show on Earth_) that evolution is exactly a theoretical interpretation of the facts. Again interpretation always brings with it the possibility of saying why should I look at things that way?




Believer1993 said:


> Well no one's saying that.



Ah one of my most favorate statements to trip up an evolutionist, not that I am accusing you of being one. But the idea of adaptive mutation and speciation in theory are saying exactly that. That it is possible over a long period of time that a species of dog can through adaptive mutation evolve into what we call a species of cat. If you place any limits on adaptive mutaion, the most debated part of evolutionary theory BTW, it uterlly destroys the idea of macroevolution. So when the dust settles on the whole adaptive mutation debate they may end up with a theory that limits how far animals can mutate to adapt and that will destroy the whole notion of macroevolution and common ancestry.




Believer1993 said:


> That's not entirely true, they would say a bone buried in a deeper layer of rock would be older, but it would require more evidence to establish any kind of evolutionary relationship. For instance, dinosaurs are buried deeper than humans, but no one says that humans evolved from dinosaurs.



But the point is just because something is deeper than something doesn't mean that it is neccessarally older. As well common ancestry cannot be proved by either genetics or the fossil record unless you interpret the facts from evolutionary perspective, and that is my point. It begs the question of why should I interpret things that way? Only if naturalism is essential to science and true, which it is not. 




Believer1993 said:


> There's more to it than that, physiology has something to do with it as well. Ken Miller also has a good presentation describing the genetic evidence that chimps and humans are related.



I think I am aware of that. As I understand it chimps and us share certian genetic anomalies that are passed from one generation to another but it is just assumed that the only way to explain it is to interpret it through an evolutionary lens. Also structle similaraties are just that similaraties not proof that we are related unless interpreted through the lens of evolution. 




Believer1993 said:


> Lastly, I haven't read Plantinga, but in light of this whole conversation it seems that I should put him on my reading list.



I don't recomend him on everything but on this is pretty sound, although he sees no problem between beleiving in common ancestry (which I would not agree with). He is very good in epistemology as well. Doctrine of God not so good.


----------



## sastark

NateLanning said:


> Quote Originally Posted by sastark View Post
> 
> DNA is made up of proteins which must be arranged intelligibly to be of use
> ???



Thanks for catching that, Nate. I've edited my original post to make my point clearer and more accurate (my original wording, which you quote was not correct).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Robert (Believer1993), in your posts you noted the concept of "vestigial organs" as providing "pretty convincing" arguments for the validity of evolution. Contra that view, I'd like to bring to your attention the work, _"Vestigial Organs" Are Fully Functional_, by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D and George Howe, Ph.D (Creation Research Society Books, MO.1993) ISBN: 0940384094. I see copies are still available: link. I believe it will hold up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. I quote briefly from the Introduction:
. . . Until very recently, vestigial organs were interpreted to be strong evidence favoring macroevolution. The vestigial organ argument was considered one of the strongest supporting data of evolution for well over a century. But of the approximately 180 vestigial organs compiled by researchers around the year 1900, it is now almost unanimously agreed that most of them have at least one function in the body. After examining the few organs still generally believed to be vestigial, it can be concluded that each of these also has one or more functions . . .

Since medical research has all but closed the door to consideration of organs in the human body as "functionless," some macroevolutionists still assert that there are useless organs in the bodies of such animals as whales, pythons, and horses. Although our primary emphasis here concerns human organs, we shall discuss several supposed vestiges in various animals and one in plants . . .

Extensive reading and discussion with colleagues has led us to conclude that every organ labeled "useless" is not functionless. Ignorance alone has prevented scientists from understanding these organs. We feel confident that future research will eliminate the few remaining structures from the "vestigial" category.

In the present work we center primarily on the history of science because most of the conclusions herein are generally accepted by the authorities in the various medical and biological specialties, no matter what philosophy of origins they hold. Our task was to review the literature and to tie together various sectors of vestigial organ research. We have relied heavily upon work reported in medical or scientific journals and on the conclusions made by the researchers themselves.

The amount of literature is enormous; we have unearthed dozens of articles and six books on the pineal gland alone. In our extensive study, however, we were not able to locate a single book or monograph published in English this century covering all the vestigial organs, although numerous reviews have been produced on specific organs. It is our hope that this book will fill a void in the current origins literature . . . (pp. x, xi)​
I hope this is helpful. Welcome to PB!


----------



## Believer1993

First I want to thank everyone for their posts, this has been pretty helpful. 

Now for those of you that want to use the word kind, what does that mean? A specific answer would be good since I find the term vague and not very helpful.


----------



## Tim

You will find _kind_ in the Genesis creation accounts. Example: _dog_ is a _kind_. Included in the "dog kind" would be:

wolves
coyotes
great dane
sheep dog
bulldog
etc....

God created the dog kind, along with the other land animals and Man, on Day Six. The first dogs contained all the genetic information to eventually have different species like those listed above.[SUP]1[/SUP] This original genetic information would include things like size, shape, hair length, leg length. Over time, there can be changes in genetic information: long haired dogs would not live well in hot places: they could die out and leave only short-haired genetics in the African dog population, for example. Thus, today each of these species of dog have slightly different genetic information (especially because man breeds dogs to have unique characteristics), but they can never change into something that is not a dog. They remain part of the dog kind.

Does this help?

[SUP]1[/SUP]If this seems strange, we are still like this today. I have brown hair, but it may be possible that I carry genes that would allow me to father a blonde or red haired child.


----------



## Eoghan

Believer1993 said:


> I'm interested in the fossil record and genetics the most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil Record -You need to look in much more detail at exactly what reconstructions are based on. You also need to be aware of the extend of genetic variation and that new species are often based on morphology not genetics. It shocked me to find out a fossil species is a very different beast from a genetic species. There was one raven kind and one dove kind on the Ark - both of these have diversified enormously since. In this I see the providence of G-d.
> 
> As regards the genetics I was intrigued to find the human immune system contains more genes than can be passed through the information bottleneck that is called reproduction. The solution was a system very similar to "winzip". In the providence of God we effectively have zipped files and an unzipping programme. (an article begging to be written)
> 
> Genetics have limitations and many "advances" are actually damage. In the formation of the human hand fingers start webbed and the webbing is programmed to die as the embryo grows. Webbed feet are a testimony to information loss not gain.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bookworm

Believer1993 said:


> Recently I've been looking at the scientific evidence for evolution, and I must say it is rather convincing. However, I don't think I can reconcile evolution with the account in Genesis. It is easy to say well then it's settled evolution is wrong, but that seems dishonest. If God created the world why would he create the world the way it would appear if evolution is correct? On top of that, many of the Christian sources I've come across seem to lack the critical thinking they utilize when dealing with theology when it comes to evolution. I simply don't know what to do, or where to go from here. Some help would be appreciated.



Hi Robert,

I’m very interested in your post because you are clearly thinking seriously about this issue, and I think that’s really commendable. I am a young-age creationist, in fact I am employed as a researcher and lecturer with Biblical Creation Ministries here in the UK. Like you I am convinced on biblical and theological grounds that evolution is incorrect. It seems to me that evolutionary theory is incompatible with the biblical teaching of an historical Adam who was the ancestor of the entire human race, of death and bloodshed entering the world as the result of Adam’s sin, and of the flood as a global, epoch-making event that anticipates the new creation. But I also agree with you that the scientific evidence supporting evolution cannot be lightly dismissed. Evolution is a powerful and persuasive idea and what is _really _impressive is the way that many lines of data from fields of enquiry as diverse as comparative anatomy, molecular biology, genetics, biogeography and palaeontology seem to converge on evolution. Too often, creationists make the mistake of downplaying this evidence or lapsing into knee-jerk responses, and I think that’s a great mistake. We must learn to listen carefully to what evolutionary scientists are saying with the goal of trying to understand not simply to refute. So I think you are on the right track in the way you are approaching the scientific evidence.

Having said all that, it is also important to recognise that powerful and persuasive ideas like evolution can be wrong. Acknowledging the strength of evolution as an idea – even as an explanatory concept – does not mean accepting that it is true. The history of science is littered with simple, elegant theories that were supported by evidence – but which turned out to be incorrect. One example is preformism, the idea that the embryo was a ‘mini adult’ that simply unfolded during pregnancy. Preformism was supported by the best science of the day and the highly speculative alternative – that the embryo was the result of some mystical ‘organising force’ – was rejected by most people. But preformism was wrong and its opponents were right. Or consider geosynclinal theory, which sought to explain how sedimentary rocks accumulated in subsiding basins and were uplifted and deformed to produce mountain ranges. In 1960, Clark and Stearn’s textbook ‘Geological Evolution of North America’ proclaimed: “The geosynclinal theory is one of the great unifying principles in geology ... Just as the doctrine of evolution is universally accepted among biologists, so also the geosynclinal origin of the major mountain systems is an established principle in geology.” But by the early 1970s, geosynclinal theory was on its way out and being replaced by the new theory of plate tectonics.

On the subject of evolutionary evidences, two excellent resources that I recommend are Kurt Wise’s ‘Faith, Form, and Time’ (Broadman and Holman, 2002) and Leonard Brand’s ‘Faith, Reason, and Earth History’ (Second Edition, Andrews University Press, 2009). Both authors are young-age creationists with impeccable credentials. Wise has a PhD in invertebrate palaeontology from Harvard where he studied under Stephen Jay Gould. Brand has had a long academic career in biological and palaeontological research. Wise’s book includes a number of ‘breakout boxes’ that examine major evidences for biological evolution and suggest ways in which the data actually favours a creationist interpretation. Brand’s chapter 11 does a magnificent job of setting out the case for evolution (in my opinion better than many evolutionists) but then in chapter 12 he reviews the same data from a creationist perspective. I think both books would really help you think things through. It is also important that we do more than poke holes in evolutionary arguments. One of the greatest challenges for creationists is to develop robust theories that explain the data of biology and geology better than the conventional alternatives. In the long run that will be an even more powerful apologetic. Both Wise and Brand are good on this, and I also cover this ground at the layman’s level in my own book, ‘The New Creationism’ (Evangelical Press, 2009).

One final thought: You asked why God would create the world in such a way that to many thinking people evolution appears to be correct, even though it is not. Kurt Wise has some things to say on this. He introduces the concept of “intentional ambiguity”, the idea that God has provided just enough evidence to encourage people to come to him, yet not enough for them to get there without faith. After all, it is faith that ultimately pleases God and is itself the gift of God. Something to ponder, perhaps?

I’m sorry this is such a long post, but I hope you find these thoughts helpful.


----------



## FedByRavens

I haven't read this entire thread, so I'm not sure if anyone has brought up the following points, but every time I hear someone make mention of an organ and refer to it as vestigial it's only a matter of time before I hear the scientific community find the use for that particular organ. Another point that I'm reminded of is that the bible tells us God intentionally made a mature earth that looked old, but in fact wasn't. You've heard the Chicken and the egg " Which came first question?" Genesis teaches that the chicken came first. Did God create Adam as an infant, or an adult? He created the world to appear mature, when in fact it is quite young. Wine isn't something that you can make instantly, yet Jesus made it in seconds. God has a written history of making his creations look older than they really are. The earth may appear to look old, just as Adam appeared to be an adult when he was only a few seconds old.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

baron said:


> I was always told if you get the first 3 chapters of Genesis wrong than you will get the rest of the Bible wrong.
> 
> Maybe you should read J. MacArthur book The Battle For The Beginning.
> 
> Also one of my favorites was the Ben Stein No Intelligence Allowed. Espically where he is told by a leading evolutionist that life began with rocks.



He was told that, "life began on the backs of crystals"! 

-FYI


----------



## BertMulder

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/study_guides/CreationEvolution_MR.pdf

http://nwcreation.net/riddle/creation.html

I like this book, 'it matters what you believe', as, rather than proving from science that the Bible is right, it proves from Scripture that creation is true, and that evolution is another religion.


----------



## baron

CalvinandHodges said:


> Originally Posted by baron
> I was always told if you get the first 3 chapters of Genesis wrong than you will get the rest of the Bible wrong.
> 
> Maybe you should read J. MacArthur book The Battle For The Beginning.
> 
> Also one of my favorites was the Ben Stein No Intelligence Allowed. Espically where he is told by a leading evolutionist that life began with rocks.
> He was told that, "life began on the backs of crystals"!



Your right, I have not watched the movie in a few years. Thank you for the correction.


----------



## TexanRose

I do think this is a useful discussion. Thanks for bringing it up. It's always useful, in the context of debate, to actually listen to what your opponent is saying and to refine and clarify your arguments in response.



Believer1993 said:


> rookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> it seems you are trying in every way to prove evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just trying to clarify things and respond to objections. If a Muslim had an inaccurate view of Jesus we would respond to it and say that's not what we believe. Or, if a Muslim raised an objection we could point to where it has already been answered. I'm just doing the same with evolution.
> 
> The definition of evolution that I'm struggling with is "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation."
> 
> And I would be careful about using the word "species", since speciation has been documented.
Click to expand...


----------



## mainahgal

> Read Jonathan Sarfati. You will not find any lack of critical thinking there. The man is a true genius.
> 
> Dr Jonathan D Sarfati
> 
> By the way, I attended your Canton church for the Martin/Beeke conference a few months ago. Were you there? I live in Washtenaw county, just down the road from Canton.



I've never heard of this guy...I'm excited to check him out.


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

I just read through most of this thread and I'm a little bit confused. Perhaps someone can answer a few questions for me.

1) I think that most scientists accept the theory of evolution (see this 2009 Pew Research Center Survey) Is that at issue here?
2) If 97% of scientists believe this, and most of them are probably more educated in this area than we are, why do we not accept their facts?
3) I have, in the past, heard some Christians claim that scientific support of evolution is a conspiracy. If this is believed, what motive would exist for people to join that conspiracy?
4) If the facts from the world around us appear support evolution, how seriously should we consider the question?
5) Apart from the illogical rants of a few (Dawkins, Dennett), it seems like there is nothing in the scientific theory of evolution that endangers the existence of God or provides evidence against his love and grace. But it seems like a number of people fear that admitting any aspect of evolution will be a problem for their faith, why is this?

Thanks for your consideration. Finally, I've heard Plantinga speak a number of times, and his most recent book focuses on showing that "evolutionism" (the weak philosophy that evolution proves the non-existence of God) is flawed, mainly because evolution and naturalism (the philosophy that everything arises from natural causes and supernatural explanations are discounted) do not fit together. He leaves plenty of room for evolution and theism to go together.


----------



## Gord

A well-known scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. He discovered that all reality, in other words, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...*time, force, action, space* and *matter.* 

Now think about that. *Time, force, action, space* and *matter*. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's *time*...
"God," that's *force*, 
"created," that's *action*, 
"the heavens," that's *space*, 
"and the earth," that's *matter*. 

Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse of the Bible.


----------



## Christopher88

Believer1993 said:


> Well the fossil record, the genetic evidence, the age of the earth, vestigial organ. All of these have been pretty convincing.



That is not so much evolution my friend as it is old earth creation. 

Evolution is the theory of human development and spacial development from other creatures or particles. 

Do you happen to be in college? I took a Geology class last semester from a liberal Christian, college courses are great at laying out "their truth" of science, but also read some Reformed Christian taking to answer the questions on evolution, or the age of earth. 

There are two sides to the coin, learn both perspectives if you have to debate them.


----------



## Afterthought

Reformed Philosopher said:


> I just read through most of this thread and I'm a little bit confused. Perhaps someone can answer a few questions for me.
> 
> 1) I think that most scientists accept the theory of evolution (see this 2009 Pew Research Center Survey) Is that at issue here?
> 2) If 97% of scientists believe this, and most of them are probably more educated in this area than we are, why do we not accept their facts?
> 3) I have, in the past, heard some Christians claim that scientific support of evolution is a conspiracy. If this is believed, what motive would exist for people to join that conspiracy?
> 4) If the facts from the world around us appear support evolution, how seriously should we consider the question?
> 5) Apart from the illogical rants of a few (Dawkins, Dennett), it seems like there is nothing in the scientific theory of evolution that endangers the existence of God or provides evidence against his love and grace. But it seems like a number of people fear that admitting any aspect of evolution will be a problem for their faith, why is this?


Perhaps these older threads may be of use? http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/age-universe-50029/ I know I've been hoping to squeeze a little more discussion out of my thread here (I also hope to unlock the thread I linked to in there sometime in the future to continue that discussion a bit). I'm also curious as to how much we should let the natural world influence our interpretation of Scripture, but that probably merits a thread on its own. As for why Christians would be concerned about this issue (5), those Christians who are against evolution usually are because they believe God's Word teaches otherwise, so at the very least, evolution is an attack on the trustworthiness and truthfulness of God and His Word. Other issues include the various theological problems that emerge, including some kind of death not being a part of the curse of the Fall--and the Fall is usually understood to have been the introduction of all that is evil in the world, even animal death being seen as such--though I've heard and seen some say at this board that animal death not being a consequence of the Fall is not harmful to our understanding of Scripture.

As for conspiracies, I don't know of anyone who holds to that, outside of the usual sinful human condition which naturally rebels against God's Word, which for the natural man is heightened to trying to find anything to hide from the truth, evolution being an excellent scape-goat given how many people seem to view science with a realist mindset.

But I speak all this with my limited personal experience and knowledge.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr

i've been reading on the topics discussed here for awhile.
i tried to collect a few ideas on amazon guides.
Amazon.com: study evolution with a Christian world and life view
So you'd like to... study evolution with a Christian world and life view

Amazon.com: study evolution and you're a Christian Biblical conservative
So you'd like to... study evolution and you're a Christian Biblical conservative

i haven't keep up with the topic, the guides are from c.2004, the topic is an extraordinary time sink, but maybe these books will help.
be encouraged, there are lots of Christians concerned about the natural world and desiring to do justice to what we see in God's wonderous creation.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Benjamin / Reformed Philosopher,

If, as you have stated in your profile, you subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity of the Reformed churches, why do you so heavily lean toward evolutionary theory, and - it seems to me - take others to task for holding to the Bible's plain and straightforward account of God's creation of the universe, earth, and mankind in six days? Your own avowed confessional standards say just the same, as Articles 9 through 14 of the Belgic Confession abundantly declare.

Have you not learned that a large number of believers do not make a truth, as the _argumentum ad populum_ fallacy makes clear? When the *million+* Israelites believed the unbelieving report of the ten unbelieving spies (and were ready to stone Moses, Caleb, and Joshua for believing God), did this not show that numbers do not necessarily make a thing true?

We believe the clear statements of our God, even if all the world with its scientists, wise men and philosophers do not. Why on earth would you be taking believers to task for faith in God's clear word in a discussion board such as this? _*That's*_ the odd thing!


----------



## Reformed Philosopher

Jerusalem Blade said:


> If, as you have stated in your profile, you subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity of the Reformed churches, why do you so heavily lean toward evolutionary theory, and - it seems to me - take others to task for holding to the Bible's plain and straightforward account of God's creation of the universe, earth, and mankind in six days? Your own avowed confessional standards say just the same, as Articles 9 through 14 of the Belgic Confession abundantly declare.



First, I do not want to take anyone to task for what they believe. If it comes across that way, I am sorry. What I do want to challenge is the idea that "we cannot be wrong." I am troubled by the lack of serious consideration given to, what appear to me to be, significant challenges.

Second, I do subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity, and I haven't found anything in there that conflicts with an interpretation of Genesis that works with evolution. Articles 9 through 14 do make it clear that God created both the world and humanity, which I believe wholeheartedly. What I am curious about is the manner in which he did so.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Have you not learned that a large number of believers do not make a truth, as the argumentum ad populum fallacy makes clear?



I am not trying to claim that evolution is true because most scientists believe it. But scientific consensus usually rests on important evidence, and I do question the wisdom of flat-out rejecting this consensus when it appears to disagree with one's personal belief. Especially for no other reason than because it conflicts with one's personal belief.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> We believe the clear statements of our God, even if all the world with its scientists, wise men and philosophers do not. Why on earth would you be taking believers to task for faith in God's clear word in a discussion board such as this?



We have statements of God that you believe clearly support your position on this issue. Again, I don't want to take anyone to task for their faith in God, but I do want to challenge the idea that our theology is so good that we can afford to reject all other evidence. I just want a serious reconsideration.


----------



## Peairtach

If naturalism is true, then the theory of evolution is the best that naturalism has to explain life on earth, even although evolution isn't a good explanation at all.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Benjamin, you make huge assumptions when you opine that we have not given serious consideration to the “significant challenges” of the evolutionists.

It seems to me, Benjamin, that the “important evidence” you posit “scientific consensus” as resting upon, and your assumption that we reject this evidence merely because it conflicts with our personal beliefs, have led you to a misunderstanding. Some of us have studied these things long and hard, and have concluded that the six-day-creation-of-all-things-by-God model of origins are far more in accord with the geologic, paleontologic, biologic, and cosmologic data than the Big Bang, the Old Earth, and the Theistic Evolutionary models.

Some of us have weighed the so-called “scientific consensus” and found it wanting.

Your confessional standards say that God created Adam and Eve from the dust of the earth, and that in Adam’s disobedience and sin he brought ruin upon all of his posterity – all of humankind. In our New Testament it is written – referring to this very sin of Adam – “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12).

If death did not come into the world before the sin and fall of Adam, how can you posit theories which assert that death indeed came into the world _millions_ of years before humans or an Adam came on the scene? Theories which say that the Garden of Eden was built on a graveyard of bones? And you say that you hold to your confession?

I must rejoin that our theology _is_ so good that we can afford to reject any supposed evidence which blatantly contradicts the clear statements of Scripture. It is the theology of the believing church up through the ages, and it is based upon the word of God. Do we err believing God rather than men? Is God’s word not as reliable as the suppositions of men to you? Would you disregard the Scripture just a little to make it fit those suppositions?

There is far too much trying to _harmonize_ what we know by faith with what we know by sight. By sight we see many supposed evidences that contradict what we know by faith. Abraham knew full well that both he and Sarah were too old to have children, but he believed God could do it despite the evidences of his eyes and worldly knowledge. Hebrews 11 is a whole chapter lauding people who trusted God over evidences. The Spirit of God says “we walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7), and will you try to convince us to consider the evidences of scientists (the great majority of whom disdain and wickedly reject the idea of a sovereign creator God) who walk in spiritual and intellectual darkness? Have you never heard that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God (1 Cor 1:20ff).

It sure sounds to me like you’re chiding us for not giving you and the “scientific consensus” the “serious reconsideration” you want from us!

Some of us have been seriously considering these things for decades – even for decades before you were born, young man! – and we continue to keep abreast of developments in science, but these things do not move us from our faith in God’s word, and our careful understanding of it. On pain of death we will not depart from the word of truth.


----------

