Rapid Adaptation

[The Barbarian]

The great Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, in his sermon ‘Hideous Discovery’, preached on July 25, 1886, made the following comment on evolution:

‘In its bearing upon religion this vain notion is, however, no theme for mirth, for it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree. There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail, but it rends and tears the simple ones. In all its bearing upon scriptural truth, the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God’s Word be true, evolution is a lie. I will not mince the matter: this is not the time for soft speaking.’

Interesting... Let's see what else Mr. Spurgeon said...

But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God.
Charles H. Spurgeon
http://www.oldearth.org/spurgeon/spurgeon_sermon_30.htm

You sure you want to go with his opinions?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No, it's an observation that (for example) Adam and Eve could have had no more than four alleles for each gene locus between them. And yet there are dozens of useful alleles for each today. The rest could only have evolved by mutation and natural selection. That's just the way it is. Rather than the genome deteriorating, it grew, became more diverse and robust.

They are speculations and you've bought one, ignored the other.

No. Humans have only two sets of chromosomes, so each of our two ancestors could only have one or two alleles each. No way to avoid that. And of course, no one can deny that a gene pool with dozens of useful alleles per gene locus is more robust than one with just a few.

I wasn't there, neither were you. You can 'think' you have the answer but a few innocent men are in jail, even with DNA and ballistics. Science can often be arrogant.

These aren't arguable. If you want to imagine some non-scriptural miracles, that might work. But once you start that, everything is possible.

It is like demanding that all trees from all of creation, could not have existed without 100 rings.

No, of course it isn't, and if you thought about it for a few minutes, you would surely realize why it isn't.

That is a ridiculous demand. Food has to exist for life to be sustained. I've "after their kind" might support either model BUT our models are our suppositions.

The difference is evidence. And some of the strongest evidence for evolution was discovered before evolutionary theory. No way to write that off.

I'll start with "God" created as a non-negotiable. I'd hope you'd be correctable and start there too.

Of course.

Earth and water certainly did not and couldn't create life.

Not without God creating earth and water capable of bringing forth life, as He commanded. Why do you find it objectionable that He used nature to do it?

If God didn't create, there is no reason for you to be a Christian or a Catholic (if you see a difference).

I don't think you're necessarily less of a Christian than we are. But you certainly worry too much about the way He created life, and perhaps not enough about what the creation means.

Barbarian asks:
So the genome didn't deteriorate after all?

This is you and Alate_one trying to speculate.

It's a question, not a speculation. You seem to have reversed yourself. I'm just wondering if that was your intention.

I don't mind that. I mind the backhanded slaps as if you and he have some one-up from the rest of us. You don't. You are both arrogantly assertive.

Knowing biology is an advantage, if you want to discuss living things, yes. Perhaps you're an old man, who has spent many, many years carefully studying living things and learning about them. But it seems unlikely, given what you just said about the human genome. I'm not lording it over you because I've collected some degrees in biological sciences. But unless you've learned a lot more than you've shown us here, your arrogance is astonishing.

I am an old man who has spent many, many years carefully studying living things and learning about them. I would not presume to argue about law with Town Heretic, or about guns with TomO. Because I know my limits. It saves me a lot of embarrassment.

Just saying.

Barbarian observes:
So from their POV, it's a clever trick and a good one. Remember, they subscribe to Luther's belief that a "good strong lie" is O.K. with God.

Jonathan Sarfati, another frequent contributor to your creationist perspective website, is no better. In his article “Exploding Stars Point to a Young Universe: Where Are All The Supernova Remnants?” first published in Creation Ex Nihilo 19:46-48 and later online at http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...9/i3/stars.asp, Sarfati tries to claim that the absence of Type III supernovas suggests that the universe is young, perhaps a few thousand years old, not billions of years as evolutionary scientists claim. He offers the following quote from Clark and Caswell in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1976, 174:267:

"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’."

Sarfati conveniently forgot to finish the last sentence, which actually appears on page 301. In its entirety, it reads

"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/1...rueorigin.html


After several years, Sarfati took down the article. But it's a good indication of the willingness of AiG to lie when they think they can get away with it.

Actually, this is historical license

It was flat-out deception. They doctored the statement, precisely because it contradicted their entire claim. They have no shame.

Rather convenient to hear this repeated from Catholics ad nauseam. If it existed/exists, it was talking about the problem of polygamy in the OT and a man choosing in Luther's day to try and marry two women. That is the context in which even the secondary sources cite it. To stretch it to flat-out lying, is actually more of the lie than Luther's original statement as far as I can tell. We'll see if you throw it around fast and loose in the future....

It fits nicely with Luther's argument that we should sin frequently.

If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/letsinsbe.txt

https://books.google.com/books?id=RBEaAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA381#v=onepage&q&f=false

The quote in question comes from these meetings. Smith translates:

Is it not a good plan to say that the bigamy had been discussed and should not Philip say that he had indeed debated the matter, but had not yet come to a decision? All else must be kept quiet. What is it, if for the good and sake of the Christian Church, one should tell a good, strong lie? .. . And before he, Luther, would reveal the confession which Bucer had made him in the Landgrave's name, or let people talk so about a pious prince whom he always wished to serve, he would rather say that Luther had gone mad, and take the blame on himself.


In the end, Luther was to find out that Philip was not entirely honest about his extra-marital activities and said that had he knew beforehand, he would never have given Philip permission to take a second wife. Even after the entire situation was exposed, more controversy followed as supporters of Philip published treatises defending his polygamy. Luther immediately began writing against this, writing things like, "Anyone following this fellow and his book and takes more than one wife, and thinks that this is right, the devil will prepare for him a bath in the depths of hell. Amen" (p. 214). This writing was stopped for publication for political reasons (Brecht, pp. 213-214). Brecht concludes that in the end Luther realized giving confessional advise to Philip was one of the worst mistakes he made (p. 214). Smith concludes a bit differently:

Luther's letters tell the truth but not the whole truth. Regrettable as is his connection with the bigamy, an impartial student can hardly doubt that he acted conscientiously, not out of desire to flatter a great prince, but in order to avoid what he believed to be a greater moral evil. His statement in the Babylonian Captivity that he preferred bigamy to divorce, and his advice to Henry VIII in 1531, both exculpate him in this case. Moreover the careful study of Rockwell has shown that his opinion was shared by the great majority of his contemporaries, Catholic and Protestant alike. It is perhaps harder to justify his advice to get out of the difficulty by a lie. This, however, was certainly an inheritance from the scholastic doctrine of the sacredness of confession. A priest was bound by Church law to deny all that passed in the confessional. Moreover, many of the Church Fathers had allowed a lie to be on occasions the lesser of two evils. Nevertheless, though these considerations palliate Luther's guilt, the incident will always remain, in popular imagination as well as in historic judgment, the greatest blot on his career.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/02/luther-what-harm-could-it-do-if-man.html

You didn't touch it, but I challenge you, once again, from that longer post, to talk about Jesus when you talk about Creation.

Jesus is not a being separate from God. He is God. The Trinity is a mystery, but it is clear that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in being and created all things.

It will dramatically change your relevance on TOL even if your hands are tied behind your back in the classroom.

I have no need to bring my religious beliefs into a classroom, nor can science even approach the supernatural. It can neither deny nor assert God. It's a method, like plumbing. Christian plumbers don't do plumbing in a different way than other plumbers do. Plumbing can't deal with the supernatural.

But plumbers can. If this confuses you, perhaps we should talk some more about it.

 

[Alate_One]

:nono: They are speculations and you've bought one, ignored the other. I wasn't there, neither were you. You can 'think' you have the answer but a few innocent men are in jail, even with DNA and ballistics.

"You weren't there" is a cop out. We don't throw up our hands at a crime scene because nobody was there to see it. As you point out, the analysis isn't perfect, but it is far better than pretending events in the past are unknowable.

You can, of course, invent any set of miracles you like to make things work, but that's outside of science. One thing YECs should be willing to do is understand that science isn't everything. YECs are so desperate to make their ideas fit science, they come up with all kinds of creative (and wrong) ideas. As far as faith is concerned, it's fine to leave the science alone. It's problematic when you feel the need to tell the scientists your ideas must be right and theirs are wrong.

Science can often be arrogant. It is like demanding that all trees from all of creation, could not have existed without 100 rings. That is a ridiculous demand.

This "example" is ridiculous but it has nothing to do with the point I made about number of alleles. Eukaryotic organisms have two copies of each gene. That is how it works.

Some organisms can tolerate polyploidy (multiple copies of an entire genome), but this is extremely rare in mammals and has only been documented once - a tetraploid (4 sets of chromosomes) rodent.

Polyploid human embryos don't generally even make it to full term. But even if you had a tetraploid human that could survive and not suffer terrible physical consequences you could only have each person having four copies of every gene instead of two. Then you'd somehow have to get to the normal number of chromosomes later. Plants can tolerate up to about eight copies but that's about it.

So when YECs talk about "genomic robustness", it's a fairy tale. You can have genomes that lack any deleterious alleles, but that doesn't solve the problem of diversity.

Food has to exist for life to be sustained.

Actually no. Lots of living organisms make their own food from the energy provided by the sun's fusion reaction. And all of us humans must consume other living organisms in order to survive. In a biological sense, death is a part of life. "Food" must nearly always come through the death of something, even if it's a single celled organism.

I've "after their kind" might support either model BUT our models are our suppositions. I'll start with "God" created as a non-negotiable. I'd hope you'd be correctable and start there too. Earth and water certainly did not and couldn't create life.

If God commands it to, wouldn't you say it could, especially since God presumably created the earth and water in the first place.

This is you and Alate_one trying to speculate. I don't mind that. I mind the backhanded slaps as if you and he have some one-up from the rest of us. You don't. You are both arrogantly assertive.

There's nothing arrogant about reporting well known scientific understanding (at least as far as the alleles go). This isn't speculation. Perhaps it sounds arrogant but it isn't my knowledge, it's the knowledge gained by thousands of human beings studying the world God made for us. Don't you think that counts for something?

 

[6days]

Barbarian you must be the most dishonest person in TOL..

THIS is the sentence that you quote mined. ..

"It appears that with the above explanation there is no need to postulate values of E/n differing greatly from those in the Galaxy, and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved.”

Contrary to the way you framed things, the article is in actuality proposing an answer to the mystery.

You're embarrassed and upset. But denial and counter-accusations won't help you.

You are silly.
Why would I be embarrassed that you are dishonest? It was you who quoted just part of a sentence to give it a different meaning.

After several years, Sarfati took down the article. But it's a good indication of the willingness of AiG to lie when they think they can get away with it.*

Barbarian... you must be the most dishonest person in TOL. Sarfati has not removed the article. In 2006, AIG that employed Sarfati, became Creation Ministries... The article is still on their website.*

Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome."

However your 'facts' don't match reality.*

 

[everready]

Interesting... Let's see what else Mr. Spurgeon said...

But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God.
Charles H. Spurgeon
http://www.oldearth.org/spurgeon/spurgeon_sermon_30.htm

You sure you want to go with his opinions?

He got this part right "it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree" but he's off on the age of Gods creation according to scripture. He did the same thing many of today's preachers do "they compromise" when there's no need to.

everready

 

[6days]

You're not just compromising, you're denying what God said. He told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. Adam eats from the tree, but lives on physically for many years thereafter. So if God tells the truth, that death was spiritual, not physical.

It has been explained to you before that is inaccurate...and contradictory to the Gospel.*

Remember... we have had discussions before that the word 'yom' in Hebrew can mean a longer period of time. The days of creation are literal days... several indicators in the Hebrew do not allow the days of creation to be longer periods of time. However the context of 'yom' in the verse you now refer to clearly allows for an extended period... "In the day".*

Also throughout scripture we see that physical death was part of the curse. There was no reason for Christ to suffer..then defeat physical death if it was part of God's "very good" creation.*

 

[6days]

He got this part right "it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree" but he's off on the age of Gods creation according to scripture. He did the same thing many of today's preachers do "they compromise" when there's no need to.
everready

Evolutionists who quote Spurgeon won't volunteer that he said "There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail, but it rends and tears the simple ones. In all its bearing upon scriptural truth, the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God’s Word be true, evolution is a lie."

 

[Alate_One]

Also throughout scripture we see that physical death was part of the curse. There was no reason for Christ to suffer..then defeat physical death if it was part of God's "very good" creation.*

Um separation from God ring any bells? Physical death isn't the problem.

Why would Jesus say this, if physical death was the big problem?

"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
Matthew 10:28

Why would Jesus and so much of the NT refer to physical death as "falling asleep" if it was the true enemy?

The concept of spiritual death is ALL OVER scripture.

How does Ephesians 2 describe salvation?

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

I think creationists have confused biology for the spirit.

 

[Alate_One]

Evolutionists who quote Spurgeon won't volunteer that he said "There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail, but it rends and tears the simple ones. In all its bearing upon scriptural truth, the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God’s Word be true, evolution is a lie."

And? He still accepted that the earth was far older than 6000 years. Either way, what does Spurgeon's opinion matter at this point? Theologians and scientists of his era and today disagree with him.

 

[Lon]

Barbarian observes:
No, it's an observation that (for example) Adam and Eve could have had no more than four alleles for each gene locus between them. And yet there are dozens of useful alleles for each today. The rest could only have evolved by mutation and natural selection. That's just the way it is. Rather than the genome deteriorating, it grew, became more diverse and robust.

Er, then we couldn't have come from apes?

No. Humans have only two sets of chromosomes, so each of our two ancestors could only have one or two alleles each. No way to avoid that. And of course, no one can deny that a gene pool with dozens of useful alleles per gene locus is more robust than one with just a few.

And the point was that God diversified people in Genesis 11. He is the actor, not earth, not water, that's called 'setting' and can but contribute. How is it that chimpanzees have a different set? (yet a third teachable moment)...

These aren't arguable. If you want to imagine some non-scriptural miracles, that might work. But once you start that, everything is possible.

:nono: Not true. Every scientific theory is arguable by its nature and postulation. EVERY one of them. We can ALWAYS revisit them.
They are written down observations of the way a man or group sees and describes something. To whatever degree they do it accurately, kudos. To whatever degree they give pause, there is a reason (logic) for that misgiving. People, in the field of science, have gotten things wrong. More importantly, we are talking about how things exist. Just saying "LEGOs" isn't an answer to why the wall is there but that is all Science can provide. You are well beyond that limitation in speculation. You are failing to read and weigh biblical information given to you, and in that, you are one-side blind. You aren't a theologian but sadly don't seem to want to be either.

No, of course it isn't, and if you thought about it for a few minutes, you would surely realize why it isn't.

Read your bible. I gave you Genesis 11 for a reason. It was about however God diversified people and it was His doing.

The difference is evidence. And some of the strongest evidence for evolution was discovered before evolutionary theory. No way to write that off.

Even strong 'evidence' can be misleading and wrong.

Of course.

That is the most important point of this thread. Nails and lumber cannot make anything.

Not without God creating earth and water capable of bringing forth life, as He commanded. Why do you find it objectionable that He used nature to do it?

Image of God, and breathed life by God.

I don't think you're necessarily less of a Christian than we are. But you certainly worry too much about the way He created life, and perhaps not enough about what the creation means.

You say very odd things that make me wonder about what you do and don't comprehend. This is one of those.

Barbarian asks:
So the genome didn't deteriorate after all?

It's a question, not a speculation. You seem to have reversed yourself. I'm just wondering if that was your intention.

I have no idea what is a legitimate question and what is dig.
My answer was that God does as He wills and that it isn't always observable or clear to 'finite' creatures. I can speculate by looking at data. There are MANY well-known scientists AND theologians of note, that have said we may never know about the origins of life. It is like forensic work: You 'may' come up with a few good answers, but it doesn't work if there is no DNA evidence. Police do not rely on DNA (lab science) alone, but evolutionary scientists tend to. I know what the limitation of the man in the lab has. Sometimes more so than the lab guy who seems to think his/her lab is the 'whole world.'

Knowing biology is an advantage, if you want to discuss living things, yes. Perhaps you're an old man, who has spent many, many years carefully studying living things and learning about them. But it seems unlikely, given what you just said about the human genome. I'm not lording it over you because I've collected some degrees in biological sciences. But unless you've learned a lot more than you've shown us here, your arrogance is astonishing.

So is yours. You are like that lab guy who doesn't get out much and thinks 'his' field of study is definitive for the whole world. What is sad, is I've said nothing about it other than giving clues as to variation and then AGAIN, you slammed me (and others in thread) for it! You are that guy.

"My" point was to say that this is what you were doing, not to denounce the point. It was your 'delivery' that I was slamming, not necessarily the content. In fact, as a teacher, I greatly fault you for it. You did NOT stimulate discussion nor grasp the teachable moment. <--THIS was my point. Genesis 11 was a introduced as a talking point and you shunned that as well. Perhaps you are an arrogant scientist and can be, but this makes for terrible teaching and meaningless, and dare I say, mindless, debate.

I am an old man who has spent many, many years carefully studying living things and learning about them. I would not presume to argue about law with Town Heretic, or about guns with TomO. Because I know my limits. It saves me a lot of embarrassment.

Just saying.

Mine is Bible and language, yet you do 'presume' to cross that barrier with me. :doh: We've had this conversation before :sigh:

The dogged indifference and entrenching doesn't have to come with old age. It is harder to get around, but once you are no longer teachable, you pretty much ready for retirement out to pasture.

Barbarian observes:
So from their POV, it's a clever trick and a good one. Remember, they subscribe to Luther's belief that a "good strong lie" is O.K. with God.

"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’."

Sarfati conveniently forgot to finish the last sentence, which actually appears on page 301. In its entirety, it reads

"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/1...rueorigin.html

After several years, Sarfati took down the article. But it's a good indication of the willingness of AiG to lie when they think they can get away with it.

Er, I thought 'biology' was your field of study. As far as partial quotes, it isn't necessary to quote all once 'your' point is conveyed. It depends on intention and you've labeled it dubiously. It is gossip and perhaps false accusation at the worst of it. Let's be above such things. This was my point with Luther as well.

It was flat-out deception. They doctored the statement, precisely because it contradicted their entire claim. They have no shame.

"If..." You get the same accusation against you a lot on TOL, so I'd think you'd be a bit more sensitive to doing the same abuse yourself.

It fits nicely with Luther's argument that we should sin frequently.

If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/letsinsbe.txt

https://books.google.com/books?id=RBEaAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA381#v=onepage&q&f=false

The quote in question comes from these meetings. Smith translates:

Is it not a good plan to say that the bigamy had been discussed and should not Philip say that he had indeed debated the matter, but had not yet come to a decision? All else must be kept quiet. What is it, if for the good and sake of the Christian Church, one should tell a good, strong lie? .. . And before he, Luther, would reveal the confession which Bucer had made him in the Landgrave's name, or let people talk so about a pious prince whom he always wished to serve, he would rather say that Luther had gone mad, and take the blame on himself.


In the end, Luther was to find out that Philip was not entirely honest about his extra-marital activities and said that had he knew beforehand, he would never have given Philip permission to take a second wife. Even after the entire situation was exposed, more controversy followed as supporters of Philip published treatises defending his polygamy. Luther immediately began writing against this, writing things like, "Anyone following this fellow and his book and takes more than one wife, and thinks that this is right, the devil will prepare for him a bath in the depths of hell. Amen" (p. 214). This writing was stopped for publication for political reasons (Brecht, pp. 213-214). Brecht concludes that in the end Luther realized giving confessional advise to Philip was one of the worst mistakes he made (p. 214). Smith concludes a bit differently:

Luther's letters tell the truth but not the whole truth. Regrettable as is his connection with the bigamy, an impartial student can hardly doubt that he acted conscientiously, not out of desire to flatter a great prince, but in order to avoid what he believed to be a greater moral evil. His statement in the Babylonian Captivity that he preferred bigamy to divorce, and his advice to Henry VIII in 1531, both exculpate him in this case. Moreover the careful study of Rockwell has shown that his opinion was shared by the great majority of his contemporaries, Catholic and Protestant alike. It is perhaps harder to justify his advice to get out of the difficulty by a lie. This, however, was certainly an inheritance from the scholastic doctrine of the sacredness of confession. A priest was bound by Church law to deny all that passed in the confessional. Moreover, many of the Church Fathers had allowed a lie to be on occasions the lesser of two evils. Nevertheless, though these considerations palliate Luther's guilt, the incident will always remain, in popular imagination as well as in historic judgment, the greatest blot on his career.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/02/luther-what-harm-could-it-do-if-man.html

And again: "We don't have that statement OTHER than second and fifth-hand from others." IOW, it is 'about' Luther rather than "Luther." Who knows what he really said? You? Because you 'want' to believe it? Do you 'know' what gossip is? Do you 'know' what scripture says about it?

As a rule, I try not to repeat second-hand information, other than me being the second-hand guy because even me saying it then, is second-hand information (the best any of us can do when reporting on another).

Jesus is not a being separate from God. He is God. The Trinity is a mystery, but it is clear that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in being and created all things.

As I said, this IS my degree. Interesting to see a 'scientist' trying to teach me about 'theology.' You have a LOT of accusatory that falls back on yourself in these discussions, Barb. You aren't a nice guy nor a great teacher. My Masters is in teaching.

I have no need to bring my religious beliefs into a classroom, nor can science even approach the supernatural.

You are compartmentalized in your Christianity then. I can no more 'stop' being a Christian than I can stop being a father to my kids AND bringing that into the classroom. It makes me who I am. I wonder at what you could possibly even mean by such a statement because it is certainly not true. It cannot be. You bring who you are into the classroom.

It can neither deny nor assert God. It's a method, like plumbing. Christian plumbers don't do plumbing in a different way than other plumbers do. Plumbing can't deal with the supernatural.

But plumbers can. If this confuses you, perhaps we should talk some more about it.

Plumbing doesn't deal with God's creation in any direct way. Science does. Christianity does. Your plumbing analogy, imho, misses the boat because of it.

 

[Stripe]

Stipe's definition lacks any use.

Nope.

Surprise!

And even if it did, it would still be a definition.

because it's not testable.

No definition is testable. You either agree with it or you don't. You've been sucked in by the incorrect use of terms you do not understand properly.

So, I can say humans and chimps are a kind, because they have a common ancestor.

Evolutionists commonly say a lot of things. They just struggle when it comes to evidence. And the evidence is that organisms adapt to their environment without evolution.

And that fits his definition nicely.

Nope. Evidence, remember? Evolutionists treat it like a vampire treats sunlight.

Or I could say that humans and chimps are two different kinds, because they don't have a common ancestor. Which also fits.

Nope. Only one of them can fit. This one has the advantage of lining up with evidence.

And a definition that fits all things, is useless.

That's nice. Except that this definition is based on the words I wrote, not the nonsense you spout.

At least the baraminologists are trying to find a rational way to define kind.

I see you've given up the lie that kind has not been defined.

 

[Lon]

"You weren't there" is a cop out. We don't throw up our hands at a crime scene because nobody was there to see it. As you point out, the analysis isn't perfect, but it is far better than pretending events in the past are unknowable.

Sometimes, they walk away with insufficient data. In a court, you HAVE to prove it. Science sometimes skips this step and the wrong conclusions can cause damage even to science. Proffering facts against what is real is bad for science, theology, and a lot of other inter-related disciplines.

You can, of course, invent any set of miracles you like to make things work, but that's outside of science.

So is speculation about a TON of observations. It 'might' have been millions and billions of years. I really don't know. Do you? My textbook says it like it is gospel. If we don't know, we shouldn't be saying it.

One thing YECs should be willing to do is understand that science isn't everything. YECs are so desperate to make their ideas fit science, they come up with all kinds of creative (and wrong) ideas. As far as faith is concerned, it's fine to leave the science alone. It's problematic when you feel the need to tell the scientists your ideas must be right and theirs are wrong.

When science says "no global flood" then what alternative do they have? They are at least trying to mesh two truths in a meaningful way, if possible. In the end, I would chuck man's thoughts if they contradicted God's words. One of these is infallible, one of these is not.

This "example" is ridiculous but it has nothing to do with the point I made about number of alleles. Eukaryotic organisms have two copies of each gene. That is how it works.

"Ridiculous?" :nono: I disagree. Unlearned? Perhaps. It is offering a teachable moment. I'm glad you take that up, even if 'ridiculous' might have turned another off to what you would say. We use words that give ourselves away and this can be misconstrued as posturing, rather than know-how. It is what keeps these pages going as long as they do at times.

I do not know a lot about this particular subject. My brother is a biologist so I could go and become informed regarding this subject. My interest is theological in this discussion. From what I can tell from reading his abstract, he is concerned with providing a model for post flood population, and trying to explain the time frame for such. Genesis 11 provides an example of possible rapid diversification. None of us has seen God do these things, we just have them recorded.

Some organisms can tolerate polyploidy (multiple copies of an entire genome), but this is extremely rare in mammals and has only been documented once - a tetraploid (4 sets of chromosomes) rodent.

Polyploid human embryos don't generally even make it to full term. But even if you had a tetraploid human that could survive and not suffer terrible physical consequences you could only have each person having four copies of every gene instead of two. Then you'd somehow have to get to the normal number of chromosomes later. Plants can tolerate up to about eight copies but that's about it.

So when YECs talk about "genomic robustness", it's a fairy tale. You can have genomes that lack any deleterious alleles, but that doesn't solve the problem of diversity.

We can track these things now, but we are talking about radical changes, with the evolutionary scale and model. I'm convinced, both from my science classes and my theology degree, that we don't know a lot about how He did it, comparative to what we do know.

Actually no.

For me, poor choice of words. You even proved that point. "Making own food" doesn't preclude them needing it. IOW, I think you could have forgone the objection and the expiation would have stood on its own merit quite well:

Lots of living organisms make their own food from the energy provided by the sun's fusion reaction. And all of us humans must consume other living organisms in order to survive. In a biological sense, death is a part of life. "Food" must nearly always come through the death of something, even if it's a single celled organism.

If God commands it to, wouldn't you say it could, especially since God presumably created the earth and water in the first place.

Yes, but this is the same objection leveled at creationists with the magical 'god-did-it' but simply rephrasing and saying "earth/water-did-it." Inanimate objects 'creating' is about like saying "LEGO's made that wall." Well, no, "God made life and we assume He used water and dirt when He did so."

There's nothing arrogant about reporting well known scientific understanding (at least as far as the alleles go). This isn't speculation. Perhaps it sounds arrogant but it isn't my knowledge, it's the knowledge gained by thousands of human beings studying the world God made for us. Don't you think that counts for something?

Rather, the "Chuckle" posturing. Some of your audience may know a bit about this particular (I don't). I think it better to explain than to attack between Christian camps. I really haven't engaged the nonChristians in this thread. I don't expect them to understand or appreciate this part of the discussion. I have expectations for a meaningful Christian discussion.
-Lon

 

[6days]

Also throughout scripture we see that physical death was part of the curse. There was no reason for Christ to suffer..then defeat physical death if it was part of God's "very good" creation.

Um separation from God ring any bells? Physical death isn't the problem.*

Why would Jesus say this, if physical death was the big problem?
"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
Matthew 10:28

The answer to your question seems pretty obvious, especially if you keep reading through v34. You may be called to give your life in the service of Christ. Better to die 'fearing God' than go to Hell. *But physical death is clearly not part of God called "very good" when creation was completed.

To imagine that*Genesis 2:17*is not referring to physical death, is refuted in*Genesis 3:19*"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
*
Physical death ...returning to dust, IS part of the curse. It is something that Christ has defeated and we can join Him in the resurrection. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."*Rev. 21:4

Other reasons from scripture showing us that physical death (semmingly to*humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah*'living creatures') was a consequence of sin.
1.*Genesis 2:17*in the KJV reads*"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Well... Adam did eat of the tree, and he did not physical die that day. So is the verse only referring to spiritual death / separation from God? No... The Hebrew actually suggests a dying process. A more literal translation would be "dying you shall die" or less literally "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall be doomed to die".http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

A few examples from other translations...
Young's Literal Translation
and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

New International Version
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."
New Living Translation
except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die."

2. The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....

1Cor. 15: 21*"For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see*Rom. 5:12-19

3. The Bible refers to death as evil... it is the enemy.
1 Cor. 15:26*"The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

So... if physical death is evil... its hard to rationalize that with*Genesis 1:31*where God calls His creation " very good". Obviously physical death did not exist until sin entered the world.
(Sad side note... The story of Charles Templeton...amazing evangelist...but he compromised on the matter death before sin, and he eventually turned away from God)

4. If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in*1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.*

 

[Alate_One]

Sometimes, they walk away with insufficient data. In a court, you HAVE to prove it. Science sometimes skips this step and the wrong conclusions can cause damage even to science. Proffering facts against what is real is bad for science, theology, and a lot of other inter-related disciplines.

Well, in a court you have particular standards of evidence. You don't exactly "prove" anything in the absolute sense. That kind of proof is for mathematics.

So is speculation about a TON of observations. It 'might' have been millions and billions of years. I really don't know. Do you? My textbook says it like it is gospel. If we don't know, we shouldn't be saying it.

There are various levels of knowing in science. One thing about science is nothing is proved. But something may be very highly confirmed by a variety of evidence, such as a theory. Textbooks usually contain major scientific theories. The cell theory, gene theory, theory of heredity and theory of evolution are examples of biological theories. The age of the earth is pretty certain, that we're dealing with millions and billions of years is confirmed by a wide variety of evidence. It's not 100% certain, but the odds of it only being 6,000 years is extremely low.

When science says "no global flood" then what alternative do they have?

Christians of the past that were confronted with geological information didn't do what YECs of today are doing.

They are at least trying to mesh two truths in a meaningful way, if possible. In the end, I would chuck man's thoughts if they contradicted God's words. One of these is infallible, one of these is not.

The scripture may be infallible but our understanding of it is not. It wasn't written in English. It wasn't written to us. It's an ancient document.

I do not know a lot about this particular subject. My brother is a biologist so I could go and become informed regarding this subject. My interest is theological in this discussion. From what I can tell from reading his abstract, he is concerned with providing a model for post flood population, and trying to explain the time frame for such. Genesis 11 provides an example of possible rapid diversification. None of us has seen God do these things, we just have them recorded.

This is the thing if you enter God into a situation you can say "God just did it that way" for pretty much anything.

Rather, the "Chuckle" posturing. Some of your audience may know a bit about this particular (I don't). I think it better to explain than to attack between Christian camps. I really haven't engaged the nonChristians in this thread. I don't expect them to understand or appreciate this part of the discussion. I have expectations for a meaningful Christian discussion.
-Lon

When you have the other side that claims lies, and that the science is on *their* side, when there's clear evidence to the contrary, the discussion gets framed in that way.

If people don't want to get upset with scientific arguments, don't argue the science. As I have said before, it's the creationists putting science on a pedestal that makes them feel the need to enter this discussion. Science is great and helps us learn about our world, but it doesn't answer existential and moral questions.

 

[Alate_One]

The answer to your question seems pretty obvious, especially if you keep reading through v34. You may be called to give your life in the service of Christ. Better to die 'fearing God' than go to Hell. *But physical death is clearly not part of God called "very good" when creation was completed.

To imagine that*Genesis 2:17*is not referring to physical death, is refuted in*Genesis 3:19*"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
*
Physical death ...returning to dust, IS part of the curse. It is something that Christ has defeated and we can join Him in the resurrection. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."*Rev. 21:4

For humans to some extent yes. But there's no evidence Adam and Eve were immortal to start with. Otherwise, why is there a tree of life and why do they have to be kept from it?

Other reasons from scripture showing us that physical death (semmingly to*humans and vertebrates (nepesh chayyah*'living creatures') was a consequence of sin.

Why vertebrates and not other animals or plants?

1.*Genesis 2:17*in the KJV reads*"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

Well... Adam did eat of the tree, and he did not physical die that day. So is the verse only referring to spiritual death / separation from God? No... The Hebrew actually suggests a dying process. A more literal translation would be "dying you shall die" or less literally "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall be doomed to die".http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/die.html

Gotta try really hard with that one. It's actually been an argument from ancient times.

2. The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....

1Cor. 15: 21*"For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see*Rom. 5:12-19

3. The Bible refers to death as evil... it is the enemy.
1 Cor. 15:26*"The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

But humans still die. If Christ came to save humanity from *physical* death, clearly that didn't happen.

4. If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in*1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.*

It is to some extent *part* of the curse, it's not the main point of the curse though.
Because without separation from God (spiritual death), dying is gain!


However all you've posted gives no evidence that anything other than *human* death is involved, and only as a lack of attaining immortality. Not a loss of something they had already.

I would say there's nothing evil about death in animals. If animal death was evil, why would God command it as part of the worship of the ancient Israelites?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes
Stipe's definition lacks any use.

Nope.

Denial won't help. As noted, you couldn't even tell us if frogs were a kind.

And even if it did, it would still be a definition.

Barbarian explains:
because it's not testable.

No definition is testable.

Let's see...

Amino acids are organic compounds composed of amine and carboxylic acid functional groups, and an organic side chain.

It's a testable definition, since you can use it to identify whether or not a chemical is an amino acid. Your definition is useless, because it cannot be used to determine whether or not a group is a "kind."

Barbarian demonstrates how useless Stipe's definition is:
So, I can say humans and chimps are a kind, because they have a common ancestor.

Evolutionists commonly say a lot of things.

But I'm using your definition, Stipe.

And that fits your definition nicely.

Or I could say that humans and chimps are two different kinds, because they don't have a common ancestor. Which also fits.

Nope. Only one of them can fit.

They both fit. You just assume whatever you want, and the definition applies. Which is why it's useless.

In fact, we know that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to anything else.

This one has the advantage of lining up with evidence.

Yes, evidence like genetics, anatomy, fossil transitionals, chromosomes, etc.

Barbarian, regarding Stipe's definition allowing contradictory results:
And a definition that fits all things, is useless.

That's nice.

Perhaps you don't know what "nice" means.

Barbarian suggesting why Stipe might want to learn about "discontinuity systematics":
At least the baraminologists are trying to find a rational way to define kind.

I see you've given up the lie that kind has not been defined.

We know you've defined it. You've just not found a testable definition of it. And so it can be whatever you want it to be.

And that's useless.

 

[everready]

For humans to some extent yes. But there's no evidence Adam and Eve were immortal to start with. Otherwise, why is there a tree of life and why do they have to be kept from it?

Why vertebrates and not other animals or plants?

Gotta try really hard with that one. It's actually been an argument from ancient times.

But humans still die. If Christ came to save humanity from *physical* death, clearly that didn't happen.

It is to some extent *part* of the curse, it's not the main point of the curse though.
Because without separation from God (spiritual death), dying is gain!


However all you've posted gives no evidence that anything other than *human* death is involved, and only as a lack of attaining immortality. Not a loss of something they had already.

I would say there's nothing evil about death in animals. If animal death was evil, why would God command it as part of the worship of the ancient Israelites?

They weren't being kept from that tree, in the beginning they had free range with one exception.

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


everready

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian tries an analogy:

Barbarian observesStipe's definition lacks any use.Denial won't help. As noted, you couldn't even tell us if frogs were a kind.Barbarian explainsbecause it's not testable.Let's see...Amino acids are organic compounds composed of amine and carboxylic acid functional groups, and an organic side chainIt's a testable definition, since you can use it to identify whether or not a chemical is an amino acid. Your definition is useless, because it cannot be used to determine whether or not a group is a "kind."Barbarian demonstrates how useless Stipe's definition is:So, I can say humans and chimps are a kind, because they have a common ancestor.But I'm using your definition, Stipe. And that fits your definition nicely.Or I could say that humans and chimps are two different kinds, because they don't have a common ancestor. Which also fits.

You are only rationally justified in asserting one of those conclusions. Either chimps and people are the same kind or they aren't. Which is it?

They both fit. You just assume whatever you want, and the definition applies. Which is why it's useless.

Evidence, remember? We look at that to determine which case is more likely. And that we could look at the evidence and use the definition to pick one or the other shows that it is not the definition that is at fault, but rather your dogged determination to avoid a scientific discussion.

Just as the definition of a circle is not at risk because we do not know whether pools on a distant planet are round, so too no definition is "testable." You just got caught out trying to use words together that do not mesh. Definitions are not "testable"; they are accepted or rejected.

In fact, we know that chimpanzees and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to anything else.

Only by assuming the truth of your evolutionism.

We know you've defined it. You've just not found a testable definition of it. And so it can be whatever you want it to be. And that's useless.

Nope. And meanwhile, OP remains unanswered.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes:No, it's an observation that (for example) Adam and Eve could have had no more than four alleles for each gene locus between them. And yet there are dozens of useful alleles for each today. The rest could only have evolved by mutation and natural selection. That's just the way it is. Rather than the genome deteriorating, it grew, became more diverse and robust.

Nope.

Evidence, remember? Surprise!

The evidence shows that organisms respond rapidly to changes in their environment, eliminating evolution as a possibility.

And you've made the classic evolutionist's mistake of thinking diversity is equivalent to robustness. The advent of diversity degrades a genome's ability to allow organisms to adapt.

 

[Lon]

Well, in a court you have particular standards of evidence. You don't exactly "prove" anything in the absolute sense. That kind of proof is for mathematics.

There are various levels of knowing in science. One thing about science is nothing is proved. But something may be very highly confirmed by a variety of evidence, such as a theory. Textbooks usually contain major scientific theories. The cell theory, gene theory, theory of heredity and theory of evolution are examples of biological theories. The age of the earth is pretty certain, that we're dealing with millions and billions of years is confirmed by a wide variety of evidence. It's not 100% certain, but the odds of it only being 6,000 years is extremely low.

But then you (and most of the rest of science) are arguing 'gambling.'

That, imo, is cocky and bad, actually.

Christians of the past that were confronted with geological information didn't do what YECs of today are doing.

Does evidence point to millions? Billions? Trillions? Further than that? We are 'best guessing.' I'm not particularly hung up about "How long" something took, but telling me a figure like "8 billion years" is a little too cocky for my science book. Teaching is about passing along knowledge and readily admitting best guesses.

The scripture may be infallible but our understanding of it is not. It wasn't written in English. It wasn't written to us. It's an ancient document.

Who did you hear this from? This is my field of study and you didn't hear it from me. Example:
John 17:20"I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
John 17:21that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
It is the exact opposite of what anybody told you or you wrongly supposed. There is no 'chuckle' icon with this because it is a teachable moment. It is important that correction take place.

This is the thing if you enter God into a situation you can say "God just did it that way" for pretty much anything.

It doesn't matter if that is the answer. If you ask how pipes fit into a house and I say: "The plumber did it." It may not be all you are asking for, but it an acceptable answer. In fact, in some cases, it explains everything because a general contractor has to have a license and pay for expert inspectors. On bigger projects, they have to be done by those experts. That means 'The electrician did it,' is the correct answer, because you can't do a thing about it. The only reason a scientist 'needs' to know is because some other human is making it his or her business to know.

When you have the other side that claims lies, and that the science is on *their* side, when there's clear evidence to the contrary, the discussion gets framed in that way.

We are talking about the gospel and truth of our Lord God.
If you as a scientist say 'Billions' and a theologian, who has knowledge in language and interpretation, says 'thousands,' one of them is wrong. Calling that a lie is shallow and seems to completely miss the point. There is a debate and it is an important one. Trash talking and claiming lying behavior isn't really helpful, nor necessarily true. I've read some of this vitriolic posturing on both sides and have not been impressed with either. I don't think you a 'liar.' I do think you a bit duped-able. I was skeptical of science findings and claims. When I repeatedly asked, in geology class, how we 'know this' the professor said 'because the text says so.' We can all read. The learning curve isn't beyond any of us. "Because the book says so" or "Because science says so" sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?

These 'millions' tend to be 'extrapolations.' Well, we don't know extrapolations.

If people don't want to get upset with scientific arguments, don't argue the science. As I have said before, it's the creationists putting science on a pedestal that makes them feel the need to enter this discussion. Science is great and helps us learn about our world, but it doesn't answer existential and moral questions.

A kid goes to high school and hears one thing from a teacher, and goes to Sunday School and church and hears another thing that doesn't jive, about the same subjects. This necessarily crosses into these other discussions. Each tramples into the other's territory without much ado or apology. That means it'll continue to be a TOL discussion in the religion section. Science, necessarily crosses into religious discussions, including anybody else's myth about creation as well as philosophical discussions as well. Shoot, philosophy class questions the truth and veracity of every other college study, let alone religion. It isn't just Christians questioning scientific finding when paths cross. To not realize they do cross paths is a bit odd to me. Is that your true perception? That evolution doesn't cross existential, moral, and spiritual matters?