Dinosaur with feathers and scales?

[River Jordan]

Or, maybe it seems that way if one takes a particularly liberal approach that suggests that any and every interpretation is valid.

Good thing no one is taking that approach.

If you are thinking that I believe only one particular interpretation is valid and that mine is infallible, you are seriously mistaken.

Then on what basis do you insist that it is impossible for scripture and evolutionary theory to be compatible? It's one thing to claim that you aren't able to do it, but it's something else entirely to claim that it's impossible for anyone to do it.

I can believe you are wrong and your view is seriously heretical to orthodox interpretations of Scripture throughout history without asserting my own exegetical infallibility. You seem to have the "all or nothing" view here that anyone who disagrees with you is narrow minded and lacks humility. Very convenient I suppose, but not very convincing.

Not at all. I fully appreciate that we all take different approaches to interpreting scripture, and (as we discussed before) we all have to make choices in that process. Given that, I in no way am trying to convince you or anyone else that my way is the right way, nor am I calling anyone else's choices "heretical".

Again, you are confusing the observation of what has been created and its our observations of it with a particular theory on how something was made that is quite oppositional to the narrative account. Not even a poetic reading of Genesis would lead to such a conclusion that you have embraced.

You totally and utterly missed the point. No one witnessed the creation of Mt. Everest. It's origins are completely unobserved. Scripture very clearly states that God creates mountains, yet science says tectonic activity is the mechanism behind the origins of Mt. Everest.

Do you see the parallel? Both tectonics and evolutionary theory are about unobserved historical origins of things (mountains and species), and in both cases we have scripture that very clearly states God created those things. Yet conservative Christianity is entirely focused on one (evolution) while at the same time totally conceding the other (tectonics) to science. That leads to an obvious question: Why aren't you conservative Christians opposing plate tectonics as an ungodly, materialistic attempt by science to usurp God's creative realm?

I never claimed they couldn't agree. Lets not confuse philosophical naturalism with science.

You said "it simply is not possible to argue for a common ancestry and that man descended from apes". Now you're saying they can agree?

The difference is that God's breath exists in man. We are spiritual people who perceive God, morality, purpose, etc. The point here is that our distinction is not that were are more highly evolved or are fortunate enough to have developed opposable thumbs and a larger frontal lobe through the random scrambling of DNA codes, but that we are distinctly created from other life forms.

Exactly!! "In the image of God" and what makes us distinct from other organisms isn't our physical attributes, but is our God-breathed soul. Thus, when we say "humans were created in the image of God", we're not talking at all about our physical bodies. Given that, when we look at the data and clearly see that our bodies are the product of evolutionary processes, that's totally fine and not at all incompatible with the belief that we are created in God's image.

Your logic is baffling. Either everyone accepts your view as potentially valid or they are a black/white egomaniac. Why is it that your disagreement with me is not equally "extreme" and arrogant? Quite a double-standard you have here.

Um....your view is black/white because that's exactly how you present it. You're the one who claimed it's impossible for evolutionary theory and scripture to agree, and presented it as only having two options: "you have to determine to which you will adhere and whether or not you will accept Scripture as authoritative or view it as a merely and ancient, human produced, flawed series of documents". You said that, not me.

Yes, well I think you are quite mistaken that the theory of Darwinian evolution is rooted purely in methodologies and observations. Quite the contrary.

What else do you think it's rooted in?

 

[Wormwood]

Then on what basis do you insist that it is impossible for scripture and evolutionary theory to be compatible? It's one thing to claim that you aren't able to do it, but it's something else entirely to claim that it's impossible for anyone to do it.

Perhaps on the same basis that you think its impossible for men and women to be created distinctly: the evidence. Only my primary source of evidence is the authority and teaching of the Bible. This is not merely a manner of interpretation or arguing if Yom means literal day or unspecified period of time (which are both possibilities). There is nothing in the biblical account of creation of life that suggests that all life came from a single-celled organism and that the ancestors of humans are apes. Rather, the narrative quite specifically indicates that creatures were made distinctly according to kinds and man was made distinctly from the animals. What verse would lead you to believe that men came from apes? What part of the narrative would even hint at such a possibility? Its one thing to allow for variance in how we understand words or phrases or imagine different timelines for the narrative material based on a range of word meanings or gaps of time between verses... and quite another to imagine the entire narrative to be misrepresentative and entirely unrelated to any actual events that transpired. It would be like me saying to you, "I believe the entire crucifixion scene is merely a poetic literary device that never really took place at all. There was no crucifixion or resurrection and Jesus is merely a symbol of what humans ought to be." At some point we have to say, "Your conclusions are foreign to anything the Bible actually teaches and significantly undermine the theological constants in the entire biblical narrative. Your beliefs are clearly formed independently from the actual texts themselves and stand well outside what is considered orthodox Christianity."

Not at all. I fully appreciate that we all take different approaches to interpreting scripture, and (as we discussed before) we all have to make choices in that process. Given that, I in no way am trying to convince you or anyone else that my way is the right way, nor am I calling anyone else's choices "heretical".

So you are saying that I am right? If so, why are we discussing this? If not, then you obviously think I am wrong. Yes there are different approaches to Scripture. However, some are right and some are wrong. You have clearly communicated that you think I am wrong on many accounts. I am simply saying I think you are wrong and that your views undermine critical theological concepts that are central to the Bible, those which have been a constant among orthodox believers for 2,000+ years. The nature and situation of man is a significant theme in Scripture upon which everything else is built not to mention that this discussion relates to hermeneutical methods by which we derive meaning from the text. The text has to be recognizable in our interpretation to be considered authoritative in any capacity.

Do you see the parallel? Both tectonics and evolutionary theory are about unobserved historical origins of things (mountains and species), and in both cases we have scripture that very clearly states God created those things. Yet conservative Christianity is entirely focused on one (evolution) while at the same time totally conceding the other (tectonics) to science.

Actually I think you are missing the point. Yes, God created the mountains. Perhaps we could say that he did it by means of plate tectonics over millions of years even and still be within the parameters of a viable reading of the creation account via gap or day/age theories. However, if the text said, "God created the mountains in an instant, not as a process of colliding plates" then we would have a problem. We would then have to say, "Well, science is making an assumption that things were once flat and plate tectonics over millions of years created mountains through volcanos, colliding continents, etc. While plate tectonics are a reality, on the basis of scripture we would have to say that plate tectonics were not the ultimate process for mountain formation. They were created instantly and plate tectonics lead to further development that which was originally created." The difference is what the Bible actually says. It says that God "created according to their kinds." It says that God created a living man from non-living dirt and with his breath in a manner that was distinct from the animals. It says that God created the woman, not through evolution from apes, but through a miraculous act drawn from the body of Adam. You see, there is a conflict from what you believe and what the Bible actually teaches. That is the issue. I can find no way to read these narratives poetically and come up with the Darwinian common ancestor view. It renders everything in the narrative completely meaningless and unrecognizable. This view is not based in any plausible rendering of the narrative. It has been developed entirely separately from the narrative. Do you see the difference?

Now you're saying they can agree?

I'm saying Darwinian evolution is a theory and is not mandated for "science" to work. Someone can still be "scientific" and reject the theory. Thus there is no conflict with my faith and science. I think your definition of "science" is suspect here if it requires such philosophical naturalism. Moreover, it does not line up with foundational scientific thinkers such as Keplar, Boyle, Newton and others who saw no conflict here between faith in God's creative power but rather saw the order and laws of the universe as evidence of such. Did the laws of gravity evolve too? At some point we have to say "it was created as such." Why is this such a problem with the creation of man?

Given that, when we look at the data and clearly see that our bodies are the product of evolutionary processes, that's totally fine and not at all incompatible with the belief that we are created in God's image.

Um, except that the Genesis account shows that the origin of the soul/spirit is the result of a distinct creative act. It did not evolve into being...nor do we read of God breathing into an ape to make it a distinct part of creation. To suggest such is to import the concept into the text that can only be put there if something else is being used as the authority for how scripture ought to be interpreted. The literature itself would never lend to such a possibility...not even remotely. So I think the issue here is what is what we determine the ultimate authority is on determining origins. Mine is Scripture...and there is no way to interpret Scripture to come up with a common evolutionary ancestor for all species.

Um....your view is black/white because that's exactly how you present it.

Well, its not. I am open to both YEC and OEC. I am open to both somewhat poetic and instructive readings of Genesis as well as a literal historical narrative account. What I am not open to is completely dismissing the text as a whole. Ultimately this is what has to be done to incorporate common ancestry into the Bible. I think you are very errant here. Simply because I believe you are taking a severely heretical view does not mean that there is only one right answer. I am sure the Mormon would say I am "black/white" as well in my interpretation of the person and work of Jesus. Yet that would make them just as wrong as you are. I appreciate many different denominations (even if I reject some of their views), but I wont embrace the heresy of Mormonism. If that makes me a literalist, black/white, egotist then so be it. But I do not think it does.

you have to determine to which you will adhere and whether or not you will accept Scripture as authoritative or view it as a merely and ancient, human produced, flawed series of documents". You said that, not me.

Oh, well I look forward to your exegesis of the Genesis text and how the Hebrew language points to the possibility of a common ancestor in the creation account.

What else do you think it's rooted in?

What do you think the "scientific" view that cells, DNA, proteins and so forth developed spontaneously out of non-living matter approximately 3.7 billions years ago is rooted in? Mathematics? Observation? Hardly. Yet its in the science books. Where or where did it come from? Oh root, where art thou? You tell me. You've taken more classes on the topic than I have.

 

[River Jordan]

Perhaps on the same basis that you think its impossible for men and women to be created distinctly: the evidence. Only my primary source of evidence is the authority and teaching of the Bible. This is not merely a manner of interpretation or arguing if Yom means literal day or unspecified period of time (which are both possibilities). There is nothing in the biblical account of creation of life that suggests that all life came from a single-celled organism and that the ancestors of humans are apes. Rather, the narrative quite specifically indicates that creatures were made distinctly according to kinds and man was made distinctly from the animals. What verse would lead you to believe that men came from apes? What part of the narrative would even hint at such a possibility?

First, I don't subscribe to the framework of "If the Bible doesn't specifically describe something, then it can't be true". The Bible doesn't describe ionic bonds, the earth orbiting the sun, the existence of South America, viruses, or any number of other things, yet no one (that I know of) goes around proclaiming "Those things aren't specifically described in the Bible, so we must reject them!". So that Genesis doesn't specifically describe evolution is hardly a problem.

Next, if you read the Genesis account we see a consistent theme of creation. God creates things by letting the earth bring forth, e.g., Genesis 1:11. Even land animals are created this way in Genesis 1:24. The earth bringing forth animals? Gee, what does that sound like?

Also, the "each according to its kind" is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory. We know that organisms are limited in the amount of evolutionary change that can be accomplished in a single generation. A dog cannot give birth to a cat, a cow cannot give birth to a whale, and so on. Instead, we know that each generation can be slightly different than the previous, and only after very long periods of this process do we see larger scale taxonomic changes.

Finally, I think you really need to pay attention to this part....I fully agree that humans are created distinctly from everything else. But it's not our physical bodies that make us distinct, it's that we have a soul, and are thus accountable for our actions. It was only when God breathed a soul into us that we became distinct.

Its one thing to allow for variance in how we understand words or phrases or imagine different timelines for the narrative material based on a range of word meanings or gaps of time between verses... and quite another to imagine the entire narrative to be misrepresentative and entirely unrelated to any actual events that transpired.

Well it's a good thing no one is making the argument that the narrative is misrepresentative or not related to actual events.

So you are saying that I am right? If so, why are we discussing this? If not, then you obviously think I am wrong. Yes there are different approaches to Scripture. However, some are right and some are wrong. You have clearly communicated that you think I am wrong on many accounts. I am simply saying I think you are wrong and that your views undermine critical theological concepts that are central to the Bible, those which have been a constant among orthodox believers for 2,000+ years. The nature and situation of man is a significant theme in Scripture upon which everything else is built not to mention that this discussion relates to hermeneutical methods by which we derive meaning from the text. The text has to be recognizable in our interpretation to be considered authoritative in any capacity.

There's a difference between "I think you're wrong" and "I think you're wrong, are guilty of heresy, and are undermining the entire basis for our faith." Yes, I do think you're wrong, but do I think you're a heretic? Not at all. I just think you're locked in to a psychological and emotional way of approaching this subject that doesn't allow you to think objectively or critically.

Actually I think you are missing the point. Yes, God created the mountains. Perhaps we could say that he did it by means of plate tectonics over millions of years even and still be within the parameters of a viable reading of the creation account via gap or day/age theories.

Going back to your first paragraph above, can you show me anywhere in those passages where it says anything about plate tectonics?

The difference is what the Bible actually says. It says that God "created according to their kinds." It says that God created a living man from non-living dirt and with his breath in a manner that was distinct from the animals.

You need to read more carefully.

Genesis 1:11-12 "Then God said, “Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And that is what happened. The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good."

It doesn't say God created things according to kinds, it says God let the earth produce plants, which then reproduced after their kind (see above).

Genesis 1:20-22 "Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply. Let the fish fill the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.”"

Same as above.

Genesis 1:24-25 "Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened. God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good."

Same thing. See the consistent theme? God creates by letting the earth give rise to organisms. Even man is created from the earth, with the distinction being that God breathed a soul into us.

It says that God created the woman, not through evolution from apes, but through a miraculous act drawn from the body of Adam.

First, it says nothing about "not through evolution from apes". That's as bad as imposing "not through plate tectonics" onto Amos 4:13.

Second, if you take that as a newspaper style description of the events, do you also believe that Eve therefore had a Y-chromosome and was a clone of Adam?

You see, there is a conflict from what you believe and what the Bible actually teaches. That is the issue. I can find no way to read these narratives poetically and come up with the Darwinian common ancestor view. It renders everything in the narrative completely meaningless and unrecognizable. This view is not based in any plausible rendering of the narrative. It has been developed entirely separately from the narrative. Do you see the difference?

As you now have seen, no one is reading it "poetically", and it is not only possible to read Genesis as compatible with science, but it actually fits surprisingly well.

I'm saying Darwinian evolution is a theory and is not mandated for "science" to work. Someone can still be "scientific" and reject the theory. Thus there is no conflict with my faith and science. I think your definition of "science" is suspect here if it requires such philosophical naturalism. Moreover, it does not line up with foundational scientific thinkers such as Keplar, Boyle, Newton and others who saw no conflict here between faith in God's creative power but rather saw the order and laws of the universe as evidence of such. Did the laws of gravity evolve too? At some point we have to say "it was created as such." Why is this such a problem with the creation of man?

Like other creationists I've seen, you conveniently redefine science to mean "all fields of science that I agree with" and then use that to proclaim that there's no conflict between your beliefs and "science", all the while hoping no one notices that you've arbitrarily thrown out most of the life sciences.

And again, I have no idea why you keep bringing up philosophical naturalism, since no one here is advocating it.

Finally, the reason for saying humans share a common ancestry with other primates is because we do. The evidence overwhelmingly points that way. That really is the reason why the vast majority of scientists agree with that conclusion, and have done so for over a century. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but it really is that simple.

Um, except that the Genesis account shows that the origin of the soul/spirit is the result of a distinct creative act. It did not evolve into being...nor do we read of God breathing into an ape to make it a distinct part of creation.

I agree. While Genesis clearly states that God created organisms by letting the earth give rise to them, it also says God directly and specifically breathed our soul into us.

To suggest such is to import the concept into the text that can only be put there if something else is being used as the authority for how scripture ought to be interpreted. The literature itself would never lend to such a possibility...not even remotely. So I think the issue here is what is what we determine the ultimate authority is on determining origins. Mine is Scripture...and there is no way to interpret Scripture to come up with a common evolutionary ancestor for all species.

Yes there is. Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done.

Well, its not. I am open to both YEC and OEC. I am open to both somewhat poetic and instructive readings of Genesis as well as a literal historical narrative account. What I am not open to is completely dismissing the text as a whole. Ultimately this is what has to be done to incorporate common ancestry into the Bible. I think you are very errant here. Simply because I believe you are taking a severely heretical view does not mean that there is only one right answer. I am sure the Mormon would say I am "black/white" as well in my interpretation of the person and work of Jesus. Yet that would make them just as wrong as you are. I appreciate many different denominations (even if I reject some of their views), but I wont embrace the heresy of Mormonism. If that makes me a literalist, black/white, egotist then so be it. But I do not think it does.

And there's the problem. You can't escape your mindset that I am "reading Genesis poetically" and/or "dismissing the text as a whole", even though I've done no such thing. For whatever psychological/emotional reason, you just can't get past this rather obvious misconception.

What do you think the "scientific" view that cells, DNA, proteins and so forth developed spontaneously out of non-living matter approximately 3.7 billions years ago is rooted in? Mathematics? Observation? Hardly. Yet its in the science books. Where or where did it come from? Oh root, where art thou? You tell me. You've taken more classes on the topic than I have.

You didn't answer the question. What do you think evolutionary theory is rooted in, besides methodologies and observations?

 

[Wormwood]

First, I don't subscribe to the framework of "If the Bible doesn't specifically describe something, then it can't be true". The Bible doesn't describe ionic bonds, the earth orbiting the sun, the existence of South America, viruses, or any number of other things, yet no one (that I know of) goes around proclaiming "Those things aren't specifically described in the Bible, so we must reject them!".

I don't either.

So that Genesis doesn't specifically describe evolution is hardly a problem.

The Genesis account is the antithesis of a universal ancestor developed from mutation and natural selection.

We know that organisms are limited in the amount of evolutionary change that can be accomplished in a single generation. A dog cannot give birth to a cat, a cow cannot give birth to a whale, and so on.

This is nonsensical. It is the opposite of what is being proposed. The creation of birds, mammals, fish, according to kinds implies both a distinct creative act for each kind as well as the indication that they would only produce their own kind. Not, their own kind for a generation or two, but then would create a different kind. Its like suggesting that when Jesus told the woman to "Go and sin no more" he really only meant, "Go and sin no more today. If you want to sin tomorrow, no biggie."

Same thing. See the consistent theme? God creates by letting the earth give rise to organisms. Even man is created from the earth, with the distinction being that God breathed a soul into us.

Yes I am familiar with the text. I agree man was formed from the earth, just as other living organisms were formed from the non-living materials. It explains why all living organisms consist of non-living elements. However, our distinction is God's breath. Moreover, if man was made from dirt, he was not made from an ape. To say that this text is saying man was made from dirt just like all other life and actually was a product of the other life is to do violence to the intent of this passage. The only common ancestry I can see in this text is Adam and Eve. One was brought out of the other. This is not how the rest of the rise of life on earth is described...one coming out of the other. The only way someone can see that in this text is if they bring it to the text themselves.

First, it says nothing about "not through evolution from apes".

You interpret my words as recklessly as you interpret the Bible. My point is simple. Nothing in the text indicates that one life was brought forth from the other, whether you read it poetically, symbolically or upside down. There is simply no way to see that here. Im not expecting the Bible to give a scientific account of the details of how life was formed. Obviously this is not what we have. However, I am expecting the narrative to somewhat resemble actual events. This narrative could not be any more contrary to the view you hold. Your view holds that there was one creative act that brought forth all the various kinds of life. The Genesis narrative describes multiple creative acts where each creative act produces a particular form of life that is unique and produces its own type. The creation of man was even more specific yet as it says he was formed from the ground by the breath of God. None of the other animals were like Adam and so Eve was formed as a separate creative act from Adam because she couldn't be formed from the animals. Why? Because they were different and inferior to Adam. My point is this. If you were to ask someone to write a story of how things came to be that was the complete opposite from Darwinian evolution, you would have something similar to Genesis 1-2. If we can find a way to make Genesis 1-2 teach common ancestry then we can get any passage in the Bible to say anything we want. At this point, the words are not only viewed symbolically, but essentially have no meaning at all. Even symbols point to something recognizable.

Like other creationists I've seen, you conveniently redefine science to mean "all fields of science that I agree with" and then use that to proclaim that there's no conflict between your beliefs and "science", all the while hoping no one notices that you've arbitrarily thrown out most of the life sciences.

How can you suggest I throw out life sciences after our lengthy discussion on cells, DNA, and so forth? Because I disagree with a theory of origins I reject all life sciences? Please tell me you aren't serious. I'll have to tell my friend who works in a lab with bacteria all day that he rejects life sciences because he doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution. He will be very disappointed.

Finally, the reason for saying humans share a common ancestry with other primates is because we do. The evidence overwhelmingly points that way. That really is the reason why the vast majority of scientists agree with that conclusion, and have done so for over a century. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but it really is that simple.

Actually, from what I have been reading from "life sciences" the small percentage of genetic differences between men and apes reveals a much more vast gap between the two the more we understand genomes and DNA. Im sure my sources are all liars though.

And there's the problem. You can't escape your mindset that I am "reading Genesis poetically" and/or "dismissing the text as a whole", even though I've done no such thing. For whatever psychological/emotional reason, you just can't get past this rather obvious misconception.

Now that I look at it again, its all so clear. I can see how light evolved from darkness, the heavens evolved form the waters of the earth, the land also evolved from the waters. Oh, and according to this chronology, the universe, stars and sun all evolved and came to being well after the earth was in existence. So, apparently the big bang formed the earth first which then all the heavens and so forth evolved from our planet. You okay with this reading? Just trying to keep your interpretation consistent.

You didn't answer the question. What do you think evolutionary theory is rooted in, besides methodologies and observations?

I think I did answer the question and you just didn't like the answer. You tell me why the HS science book says that life formed by chance from non-living material on the earth 3.7 billion years ago when "science" has discovered that the chances of such an event are somewhere around 10167. Is this view rooted in methodologies and observations? If not, why is it considered "scientific" and intelligent design is not?

 

[River Jordan]

The Genesis account is the antithesis of a universal ancestor developed from mutation and natural selection.

No it's not. As I've demonstrated, the text very clearly states that God created by letting the earth produce everything. Even the Hebrew phrase used there is a jussive, which is used to describe a passive action.

The creation of birds, mammals, fish, according to kinds implies both a distinct creative act for each kind as well as the indication that they would only produce their own kind.

You're deviating from the text. As I demonstrated by actually quoting it, the Genesis account says God's method of creation was to passively let the earth produce everything, after which point they would reproduce according to their kinds (which is never defined). All of that is entirely consistent with evolutionary theory.

Yes I am familiar with the text. I agree man was formed from the earth, just as other living organisms were formed from the non-living materials. It explains why all living organisms consist of non-living elements. However, our distinction is God's breath.

Exactly. Our distinctiveness has nothing to do with our physical bodies, but is 100% about our souls.

Moreover, if man was made from dirt, he was not made from an ape.

So if you are cut open, there's dirt inside?

To say that this text is saying man was made from dirt just like all other life and actually was a product of the other life is to do violence to the intent of this passage. The only common ancestry I can see in this text is Adam and Eve. One was brought out of the other. This is not how the rest of the rise of life on earth is described...one coming out of the other. The only way someone can see that in this text is if they bring it to the text themselves.

Obviously I disagree. When I see God's creative act described as Him passively allowing the earth to produce everything, that strikes me as surprisingly consistent with what science has discovered. You guys seem to have this almost childish vision of God snapping His fingers and poofing everything into existence instantaneously, even though there's nothing in the text that says that, and is actually contradicted by the text.

Nothing in the text indicates that one life was brought forth from the other, whether you read it poetically, symbolically or upside down. There is simply no way to see that here.

That's true, just like there's nothing specifically about plate tectonics in Amos.

Im not expecting the Bible to give a scientific account of the details of how life was formed.

Looks to me like that's exactly what you're expecting. Look at what you wrote above...it doesn't specifically describe evolution or common descent, therefore it can't be true. By the same reasoning, since Amos doesn't specifically describe tectonic activity, that can't be true either.

However, I am expecting the narrative to somewhat resemble actual events.

And it does. God created by allowing the earth to produce everything, just like the science indicates.

The Genesis narrative describes multiple creative acts where each creative act produces a particular form of life that is unique and produces its own type.

Yet all those creative acts are the same thing...God allowing the earth to produce everything.

It's like if we had a text that said God created Mt. Everest by letting the earth form it, and later on another passage said God also created Mt. Ararat by letting the earth form it. Under your reasoning we'd have to insist those were two distinctly separate creations, never even considering the possibility that the two were formed by the same natural processes that God set up.

The creation of man was even more specific yet as it says he was formed from the ground by the breath of God.

No, it says man was formed from the ground, and then God breathed into him.

My point is this. If you were to ask someone to write a story of how things came to be that was the complete opposite from Darwinian evolution, you would have something similar to Genesis 1-2.

Not at all. The narrative very clearly describes God creating by passively allowing the earth to produce everything.

How can you suggest I throw out life sciences after our lengthy discussion on cells, DNA, and so forth? Because I disagree with a theory of origins I reject all life sciences? Please tell me you aren't serious. I'll have to tell my friend who works in a lab with bacteria all day that he rejects life sciences because he doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution. He will be very disappointed.

By waving away most of evolutionary biology, you have dismissed the foundation and interpretive framework for all the life sciences. Basically what you're doing is trying to claim that even though you reject the concept of gravity, you still embrace physics. And I'm sorry, but your continued appeals to your anonymous "friend" aren't compelling.

Actually, from what I have been reading from "life sciences" the small percentage of genetic differences between men and apes reveals a much more vast gap between the two the more we understand genomes and DNA. Im sure my sources are all liars though.

Without a citation or reference, all you've done is posted an empty assertion.

I think I did answer the question and you just didn't like the answer.

No, you still haven't answered the question. You claimed Darwinian evolution is rooted in things other than methodologies and observation. Since then I've been asking what those things are, and you have yet to list them. Is this yet another question that you will dance and dodge around?

You tell me why the HS science book says that life formed by chance from non-living material on the earth 3.7 billion years ago when "science" has discovered that the chances of such an event are somewhere around 10167. Is this view rooted in methodologies and observations? If not, why is it considered "scientific" and intelligent design is not?

*sigh* <_<

This is why it's pointless to try and explain science to people (creationists) who have a clear incentive to misrepresent it. We've been over this before, and I explained to you then the horrible straw man that creationist talking point is based on (remember, chemistry is non-random?), yet here you are repeating it. All that shows is that my attempts to get you to understand were a waste of time. Either you are unable to understand, or you have such an emotional investment in repeating this laughable creationist talking point that nothing can ever get you to recognize its fundamental flaw.

And "intelligent design" is not science because it was a political strategy specifically created to get creationist talking points into public schools after the courts had ruled that teaching Biblical creationism is unconstitutional. After those rulings, creationists simply stripped all the direct Biblical references out of their material and re-labeled their arguments as "intelligent design". You can see this yourself in how the creationist textbook Of Pandas and People the creationists simply did a find and replace where they replaced "creation" with "intelligent design" without changing the meaning at all. The smoking gun there was the hilarious "cdesign propopentists", where the find-replace didn't quite work right.

Simply put Wormwood, you're being duped by these people. But because you see them as members of your team, you aren't willing to objectively or critically evaluate their material.

 

[Wormwood]

No it's not. As I've demonstrated, the text very clearly states that God created by letting the earth produce everything. Even the Hebrew phrase used there is a jussive, which is used to describe a passive action.

I disagree with your grammar. The verbs are imperfect in a jussive mood. They are not passive. These verbs are commands and are in an imperfect tense. The tense shows that something took place in the past with ongoing effects. Jussive means "command" and is a mood that is more mild than an imperative but is a command, nonetheless. In any event, "Let there be light." "Let their be expanse in the midst of the waters." "Let the waters be gathered together in one place." "Let us make man in our image." are not phrases that suggest something took place on its own as a passive, self-guided act. You are grasping at straws here.

I gotta run. Will respond to the rest later.

 

[River Jordan]

I disagree with you grammar. The verbs are imperfect in a jussive mood. They are not passive. These verbs are commands and are in an imperfect tense. The tense shows that something took place in the past with ongoing effects. Jussive means "command" and is a mood that is more mild than an imperative but is a command, nonetheless. In any event, "Let there be light." "Let their be expanse in the midst of the waters." "Let the waters be gathered together in one place." "Let us make man in our image." are not phrases that suggest something took place on its own as a passive, self-guided act. You are grasping at straws here.

I gotta run. Will respond to the rest later.

You're completely misunderstanding. Of course they are commands, but they are commands in a jussive sense, i.e., they are commands to allow things to happen. That's why the english translation is "let the earth bring forth". If the author's intent was to convey that God directly an individually poofed everything into existence, it would have been very easy to write it that way. But he didn't. Instead he deliberately wrote it in the manner we see...God creates by commanding the earth to bring forth things, which is entirely consistent with the science.

 

[Wormwood]

So by that rationale, light came into existence through a passive/evolutionary means? I think you are trying to apply something in a specific way in verse 11 that is much different than how you understand the other command s in the other verses. "Let there be light" is not a passive command. Moreover, the jussive is not something that is communicated well in the English. It is translated somewhat passively, but its an imperfect verb that is in the form of a mild command.

If verse 11 was all Genesis said in regards to life on earth, I could maybe see your point. However, man's portrayed as a separate, distinct act in which he was brought from the ground independently from the animals and his life from the ground was bought about by God's breath rather than God's command. Moreover, historically, Hebrews understood this as such. This narrative not only gives us an indication of events that transpired but was a narrative that was in direct opposition to the creation stories of the other cultures. While other cultures worshipped animals and heavenly lights, this creation account puts man as the centerpiece, a distinct creation from the other elements of the universe and all things are brought about by one Creator.

 

[River Jordan]

So by that rationale, light came into existence through a passive/evolutionary means? I think you are trying to apply something in a specific way in verse 11 that is much different than how you understand the other command s in the other verses.

No. I'm not saying that whenever scripture says God let something happen, that means it evolved. I'm saying that when scripture says God created by letting things happen (letting light be, letting the earth bring forth life) that's an indication that God's method of creation was to allow His creation to work on its own. How that happened is for us to figure out, mostly via science. God creates light by allowing it to come into existence, and through the field of cosmology we are figuring out how that happened. God creates life by allowing the earth to produce it, and through the life sciences we are figuring out how that happened.

"Let there be light" is not a passive command. Moreover, the jussive is not something that is communicated well in the English. It is translated somewhat passively, but its an imperfect verb that is in the form of a mild command.

First of all, yes it is a passive command. I can't believe you're arguing otherwise. Do you not understand the difference between allowing something to come into existence, and directly making it exist? Again, if the author wanted to convey this sort of instantaneous direct poofing into existence that you seem to believe, he could have certainly written it that way. But he didn't.

If verse 11 was all Genesis said in regards to life on earth, I could maybe see your point. However, man's portrayed as a separate, distinct act in which he was brought from the ground independently from the animals and his life from the ground was bought about by God's breath rather than God's command.

Again, it does not say that our bodies were created by God's breath. Our bodies, just like everything else, came from the earth. God's breath is what gave us our soul, which is what made us distinct from all other life on earth. I don't know why you're having so much trouble with this. I realize you'll likely never agree with me, but at the very least I expect you to understand.

Moreover, historically, Hebrews understood this as such. This narrative not only gives us an indication of events that transpired but was a narrative that was in direct opposition to the creation stories of the other cultures. While other cultures worshipped animals and heavenly lights, this creation account puts man as the centerpiece, a distinct creation from the other elements of the universe and all things are brought about by one Creator.

And Catholics understood scripture to teach a fixed earth that is orbited by the sun. Just because a group of people used to read scripture a certain way prior to our more complete understanding of God's creation, that doesn't mean they were automatically 100% correct.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Uppsala,

If that's going to be your response to whatever data I post, then we can stop now. You seem to be thinking I'm trying to demonstrate "God didn't do it", whereas I think I'm trying to demonstrate the evidence for common ancestry. I obviously have no interest in trying to show "God didn't do it", nor is such a thing possible...and not just for evolution, but for everything.

River, I DO realize that you are a theistic evolutionist, and therefore my argument would never be along the lines that you suggest. My argument was directed towards what you call evidence of common ancestry, not "God didn't do it", so why are you trying to imply that it is? The response that you quoted was NOT directed at what you are "trying to demonstrate", but the "validity of the conclusions of evolutionary biology". If the conclusions of biology dictate whether or not "God did it" then let me know, otherwise I don't think you have a point here.

Was that gravity that caused the ball to fall to the ground, or did God do it?

Was it erosion that formed that valley, or did God do it?

Is it chlorophyll that makes plants look green, or does God do it?

Did tetrapod limbs evolve, or did God do it?

Since God can do absolutely anything and everything, it's impossible to answer any of those questions. No matter what data you collect, someone can always claim "That's just how God made it look". That's the whole point behind the analogy of Last Thursdayism.

Sure, I agree with that, but why exaggerate???

I don't think "Last Thursadyism" is equivalent to considering the possibility that God created the universe as a complete working system, rather than slowly building it up one atom at a time as though his major concern was to appease scientists. God's purpose for creating the universe in a period of days, according to scripture, was not to provide mankind with scientific knowledge of our origins.

And I think this is the true root of our problem here. You're approaching this thinking that we're talking about God and His creation, and that by defending evolutionary biology, I'm trying to disprove God's creating. Thus you state very clearly that unless I can demonstrate that God didn't create whatever data I present, I haven't done anything. Of course the problem is, I'm not trying to do anything like that at all. I was just trying to explain some of the science behind biology.
Unless we resolve this issue, nothing else either one of us post on this subject will matter.

Well, since this is not the "problem", as I explained above, then we still have issues to discuss, don't we? I don't imagine we will see eye-to-eye on this, but I do think we can agree on what we disagree with, don't you agree?

 

[Wormwood]

No. I'm not saying that whenever scripture says God let something happen, that means it evolved. I'm saying that when scripture says God created by letting things happen (letting light be, letting the earth bring forth life) that's an indication that God's method of creation was to allow His creation to work on its own. How that happened is for us to figure out, mostly via science.

And I'm saying you are completely misunderstanding the grammar as well as the clear context here. When God says, "Let light be" (which is a little more literal), he is not allowing light to direct (since it is ex nihilo). Light does not have a mind of its own to do its own thing by its own will. Since light is not something that exists, God is calling it into existence via a jussive command. It is not a passive verb. No, no, no no. It is not passive. God's command to light, the stars, the waters, etc. is no different from his command to create life on earth. This is especially true since he is quite evidently creating ex nihilo and thus calling the different "kinds" into existence just as he called light and land into existence.

Do you not understand the difference between allowing something to come into existence, and directly making it exist?

Its an imperfect verb! Its not passive. Can you show me where the jussive mood causes imperfect verbs to become passive? He is calling things into existence by saying, "let it be so." Nothing passive here. God is quite active (which it is considered 6 days of work and 1 day of rest). Each day, God was actively creating and calling things into existence. It seems pretty clear to me.

 

[River Jordan]

And I'm saying you are completely misunderstanding the grammar as well as the clear context here. When God says, "Let light be" (which is a little more literal), he is not allowing light to direct (since it is ex nihilo). Light does not have a mind of its own to do its own thing by its own will.

?????????? I never said anything about light directing itself.

Since light is not something that exists, God is calling it into existence via a jussive command.

Yes, by letting it come into existence. If the primary point of Genesis 1 was to describe the methods by which God created things (as you seem to believe) and God created things not by letting anything happen, but by directly manufacturing them out of nothing, then why didn't the author write it that way? Why would the author choose to instead describe God's creative acts as letting light be and the earth produce living organisms? It doesn't make sense.

It is not a passive verb. No, no, no no. It is not passive.

It is a jussive. That's why all the translations use the word "let" rather than just saying "God made animals out of nothing".

God's command to light, the stars, the waters, etc. is no different from his command to create life on earth. This is especially true since he is quite evidently creating ex nihilo and thus calling the different "kinds" into existence just as he called light and land into existence.

Now you're directly contradicting scripture. Not only does it not say God created organisms ex nihilo, it specifically says God created them by allowing the earth to bring them forth. So they weren't created from nothing, they were created from the earth (which sounds surprisingly like our scientific conclusions).

Its an imperfect verb! Its not passive. Can you show me where the jussive mood causes imperfect verbs to become passive? He is calling things into existence by saying, "let it be so." Nothing passive here. God is quite active (which it is considered 6 days of work and 1 day of rest). Each day, God was actively creating and calling things into existence. It seems pretty clear to me.

I think you're over-focused on the word passive. You can go ahead and scratch it from everything I've said if you like. I'm not sure what other word to use, but the fact remains that the author deliberately described God's creation of life on earth as God letting the earth bring them forth, rather than God directly creating them out of nothing. We can debate how to describe that all we want, but that fundamental fact will not change.

Also, I never did get an answer to my question. You claimed Darwinian evolution is rooted in things other than methodologies and observation. Since then I've been asking what those things are, and you have yet to list them.

 

[River Jordan]

River, I DO realize that you are a theistic evolutionist, and therefore my argument would never be along the lines that you suggest. My argument was directed towards what you call evidence of common ancestry, not "God didn't do it", so why are you trying to imply that it is?

I guess this is another case where I've totally misunderstood what you posted. Specifically, when you said, "you still haven't provided anything that cannot be equally explained by the existence of a designer", and after I posted about the anatomical homology among tetrapods, you said "from my point of view, each and every animal has exactly the number of digits it requires in order to get by wherever God designed them to live".

I took those as you basically saying those things could have just been created that way by God, therefore they aren't truly supportive of UCA. That's why I was like "If you're going to go that route, then we can stop because you can go that route for absolutely anything".

So could you help me out and explain what you really meant?

The response that you quoted was NOT directed at what you are "trying to demonstrate", but the "validity of the conclusions of evolutionary biology".

Those are the same thing. I am demonstrating how the conclusions of evolutionary biology are scientifically valid.

If the conclusions of biology dictate whether or not "God did it" then let me know, otherwise I don't think you have a point here.

I'm sorry, but again I don't really understand what you mean here.

I don't think "Last Thursadyism" is equivalent to considering the possibility that God created the universe as a complete working system, rather than slowly building it up one atom at a time as though his major concern was to appease scientists.

IMO, a "complete working system" is one that actually works on its own without the need for God to constantly tinker with it. He can command the earth to bring forth life, and because it's a complete working system, it'll do just that (rather than God saying "let the earth bring forth" and then having to go in make it all Himself). I also agree that God didn't create in any specific way to "appease scientists".

God's purpose for creating the universe in a period of days, according to scripture, was not to provide mankind with scientific knowledge of our origins.

I agree.

Well, since this is not the "problem", as I explained above, then we still have issues to discuss, don't we? I don't imagine we will see eye-to-eye on this, but I do think we can agree on what we disagree with, don't you agree?

That's great! We both agree that demonstrating the scientific validity of evolutionary theory is not the same thing as arguing against God's creation.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I guess this is another case where I've totally misunderstood what you posted. Specifically, when you said, "you still haven't provided anything that cannot be equally explained by the existence of a designer", and after I posted about the anatomical homology among tetrapods, you said "from my point of view, each and every animal has exactly the number of digits it requires in order to get by wherever God designed them to live".

I took those as you basically saying those things could have just been created that way by God, therefore they aren't truly supportive of UCA. That's why I was like "If you're going to go that route, then we can stop because you can go that route for absolutely anything".

So could you help me out and explain what you really meant?

Sure. What I mean is that there is absolutely nothing that indicates that the number of digits in any living organism should be considered the result of UCA rather than the number that a designer could have determined. So what I think you need to do is not simply provide evidence that might be considered consistent with such a theory, but to provide evidence that explains why it is the best possible explanation.

I'm sorry, but again I don't really understand what you mean here.

Well, if among the "conclusions of biology" we can find the possiblity of a designer determining the number of digits of an organism, then why are we not seeing evidence that they are doing that? All we are being fed with today is that "evolution did it". You claim that what you are trying to demonstrate is equivalient to the "validity of the conclusions of evoutionary biology". If by that you mean that such conclusions are the best explanation for the number of digits in an animal then please explain what you base that on.

IMO, a "complete working system" is one that actually works on its own without the need for God to constantly tinker with it. He can command the earth to bring forth life, and because it's a complete working system, it'll do just that (rather than God saying "let the earth bring forth" and then having to go in make it all Himself). I also agree that God didn't create in any specific way to "appease scientists".

That sounds like you are making up rules for what "tinkering" God would be able to do. From my point of view, God tinkered exactly when he said he did. If that puts a spanner in the works for evolutionary scientist then all I can say is "so what"? God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in it in six days.

I agree.

Then why are you suggesting that a belief in the truthfulness of scripture concerning something that is beyond the reach of science is an example of Last Thursdayism? Last Thursdayism is simply a philisophical idea concerning what might be possible. I don't advocate any such idea. I believe in the testimony of scripture, not a philosophical whim.

That's great! We both agree that demonstrating the scientific validity of evolutionary theory is not the same thing as arguing against God's creation.

Sure, in the same measure that we both agree that demonstrating the scientific validity of design is not the same thing as arguing against science.

 

[River Jordan]

Sure. What I mean is that there is absolutely nothing that indicates that the number of digits in any living organism should be considered the result of UCA rather than the number that a designer could have determined. So what I think you need to do is not simply provide evidence that might be considered consistent with such a theory, but to provide evidence that explains why it is the best possible explanation.

That's kinda strange, since earlier, after I asked you how we differentiate between changes that happen via evolution (random mutations) and ones that happen via design, you said "It's obviously a faith issue that neither evolutionists can prove, nor creationists disprove".

Of course we can look at the data and see what it looks like. For example, as I explained earlier even the tetrapods that have less than 5 digits as adults have 5 in the embryonic stages. Basically they develop 5 digits in the womb, just like all other tetrapods, but later on during embryonic development some of those digits undergo cell death and the resulting organism is left with fewer digits.

Is that consistent with "design"? If so, how? Why would any designer have organisms commit resources to developing digits only to later have them deliberately die prior to birth?

Under evolutionary theory however, it makes sense. Since all tetrapods are descended from a common ancestor that had 5 digits, the embryonic death of some of them in certain organisms is a later evolutionary development. Thus, those organisms start off making all 5 digits (just like all other tetrapods) and later some of those digits die away. It's unnecessarily inefficient, but that's how evolution works.

Now if your answer to that is "Maybe that's just how God made things", then we're back to my point in post #197.

Well, if among the "conclusions of biology" we can find the possiblity of a designer determining the number of digits of an organism, then why are we not seeing evidence that they are doing that? All we are being fed with today is that "evolution did it".

Because that's all we ever see. No matter where we look or what we study, all we ever see is evolution generating new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species. We never, ever, ever see any supernatural entity designing anything. And not only that, the evidence we find for past events (e.g., the origin of tetrapods) favors evolutionary processes over "design" (see above). And if you want to take this one step further, there's also the fact that this whole "design" thing is just code for Christian creationism, and since that centers on the Christian God, it lies outside of science. As we've been over, God can create anything in any way imaginable, even to the absurd point of Last Thursdayism. Thus, "God made it that way" is a religious belief and not a scientific conclusion. So that's why from a scientific perspective you hear "evolution did it". It's the best and only scientific explanation for all the data.

You claim that what you are trying to demonstrate is equivalient to the "validity of the conclusions of evoutionary biology". If by that you mean that such conclusions are the best explanation for the number of digits in an animal then please explain what you base that on.

See above. And again, we're not done yet with the data supporting the origin of tetrapods. But like I said before, if no matter what I present your response is "but you haven't proved that God couldn't have made it that way", then there's no point in continuing.

That sounds like you are making up rules for what "tinkering" God would be able to do. From my point of view, God tinkered exactly when he said he did. If that puts a spanner in the works for evolutionary scientist then all I can say is "so what"? God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in it in six days.

No, no making up rules here. I'm just noting what I think is obvious. A complete working system is one that works on its own without any need for tinkering. A system that requires constant tinkering can't be said to be a "complete working system"; it only "works" when it's tinkered with.

Then why are you suggesting that a belief in the truthfulness of scripture concerning something that is beyond the reach of science is an example of Last Thursdayism? Last Thursdayism is simply a philisophical idea concerning what might be possible. I don't advocate any such idea. I believe in the testimony of scripture, not a philosophical whim.

No, I'm not suggesting that a belief in scripture is an example of Last Thursdayism. I'm saying that invoking "God just made it that way" as a response to data is rooted in the same concept as Last Thursdayism. In both cases, no matter what contrary data is found, advocates can always say "God just made it look that way".

Sure, in the same measure that we both agree that demonstrating the scientific validity of design is not the same thing as arguing against science.

Since no one has demonstrated the scientific validity of design, it's kind of a moot point.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

That's kinda strange, since earlier, after I asked you how we differentiate between changes that happen via evolution (random mutations) and ones that happen via design, you said "It's obviously a faith issue that neither evolutionists can prove, nor creationists disprove".

I'm not really sure what you think is "kinda strange". Nothing in the comment you quoted conflicts in any way with my earlier comment about it being a faith issue, does it? So what do you consider to be "kinda strange"?

Of course we can look at the data and see what it looks like. For example, as I explained earlier even the tetrapods that have less than 5 digits as adults have 5 in the embryonic stages. Basically they develop 5 digits in the womb, just like all other tetrapods, but later on during embryonic development some of those digits undergo cell death and the resulting organism is left with fewer digits.

And??? As far as I can see there are all kinds of things that happen in the embryonic stages of different kinds of animals that DON'T appear in the adult versions of those animals. A larv turns into MUSH before it becomes a butterfly. Does that mean it "looks like" butterflies evolved from mush? Now come on River! I can gladly agree that loss of digits might be the result of some kind of evolutionary process. That doesn't concern me too much! But whether or not tetrapods should be considered tetrapods depending on the number of digits they have is up to the classification system we employ. Isn't it?

Is that consistent with "design"? If so, how? Why would any designer have organisms commit resources to developing digits only to later have them deliberately die prior to birth?

If I was the designer and I understood all things then I guess I would have a good answer to that. But you are forgetting one very important point here! What we observe today is not necessarily consistent with the original design. As far as I can see from a Christian point of view, God did not "design" a cursed environment. He did not design sin. He did he design death. And he did not design sicknesses and diseases.

With that in mind it is practically impossible for any proponent of design to have a universal explanation that explains all the anomolies and bizarre phenomenon we see in biology. Losing digits during the transition between embryo and adult stages IS an anomoly, and yet you are treating it as though it was the norm - something we can see in all kinds of animals. We don't, so what does that "look like"? It looks like countless organisms are missing these kinds of "throw-backs" doesn't it? Why is that?

We can always pick out evolutionary explanations for these things just as we can always claim that they are a result of design. Just as I said, it is a faith issue, and whatever evidences we collect for our convictions is most likely a result of the worldview we possess.

Under evolutionary theory however, it makes sense.

If it was difficult for evolutionists to point out things that "make sense" according to a theory that is very easily tweaked then you would have a point. If, rather than a loss of digits during the embryo-adult transformation there was a gain in the number of digits, rather than a loss, then there would STILL be an evolutionary explanation that any proponent of that worldview would be satisfied with. It took me about three seconds to come up with one! So what does that prove? As I pointed out, it might be some kind of throw-back. But as far as I can see there is nothing in post #197 that suggests that either of us are free from assuming that "Maybe that's just how God made things"!

Because that's all we ever see

No, we are not. We are not seeing evolution doing anything other than the kinds of things both of us agree on - adaption - confined within differnt families of animals. We can always go back and start disussing definitions of kinds and species if you want, but the fact remains that the evidence of UCA is extremely weak and is subject to the worldview that one adheres to.

No matter where we look or what we study, all we ever see is evolution generating new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species. We never, ever, ever see any supernatural entity designing anything. And not only that, the evidence we find for past events (e.g., the origin of tetrapods) favors evolutionary processes over "design" (see above). And if you want to take this one step further, there's also the fact that this whole "design" thing is just code for Christian creationism, and since that centers on the Christian God, it lies outside of science. As we've been over, God can create anything in any way imaginable, even to the absurd point of Last Thursdayism. Thus, "God made it that way" is a religious belief and not a scientific conclusion. So that's why from a scientific perspective you hear "evolution did it". It's the best and only scientific explanation for all the data.

Oh what rubbish! The very fact that you claim that "all we ever see is evolution" testifies to the fact that you only "see" what evolutionists dictate and ignore the rest. If all we see is evolution generating new traits, abilities genetic sequences.. and so on... then we WOULDN'T see any living fossils, would we? But boxing these things into an "explanation" is a convenient way of pretending that everything we see is evolution! As I pointed out, what you "see" as evidence of evolution, I see as evidence of design - that God designed living organisms with the ability to adapt to changes within their environments.
One of the first things that Genesis teaches us about life is that God created it according to his own classification system - animals living in separate environments (with of course the exception of mankind). Now we could have another disput about whether or not animals such as amphibians live on land or in the sea, but the fact remains that there is nothing within the realm of science that demonstrates that any kind of living creature completely changed from living in one distinct environment into another. What it all boils down to is what we think we "see".

I'm just noting what I think is obvious.

I rest my case. B)

A complete working system is one that works on its own without any need for tinkering. A system that requires constant tinkering can't be said to be a "complete working system"; it only "works" when it's tinkered with.

OK, so who is advocating "constant tinkering"? I certainly am not, so I don't know where you get that idea from. A complete working system MUST be tinkered with at some stage, otherwise how on earth would anyone consider it to be a creation?

I'm saying that invoking "God just made it that way" as a response to data is rooted in the same concept as Last Thursdayism. In both cases, no matter what contrary data is found, advocates can always say "God just made it look that way".

So what you are trying to say is that life today is exactly the way God made it in the beginning. Doesn't seem to support evolution at all does it? And quite OBVIOUSLY your argument bounces back in your face, since you can always claim that "evolution made it look that way" (just as you did with the number-of-digits argument earlier on).

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

River,

How do you have time to do science? Every time I check in you are still here preaching. Have you converted anyone yet?

#defintionofinsanity

 

[River Jordan]

I'm not really sure what you think is "kinda strange". Nothing in the comment you quoted conflicts in any way with my earlier comment about it being a faith issue, does it? So what do you consider to be "kinda strange"?

You said, "there is absolutely nothing that indicates that the number of digits in any living organism should be considered the result of UCA rather than the number that a designer could have determined. So what I think you need to do is not simply provide evidence that might be considered consistent with such a theory, but to provide evidence that explains why it is the best possible explanation."

So let's clear this up. First, can you agree that when you say "designer", you're referring to God? Second, remember that I'm not trying to disprove creation by God; I'm demonstrating how UCA is a scientifically valid and reasonable conclusion that stems from the data (the key word there is "scientifically"). If you think "design" is a plausible scientific alternative explanation, then I need you to describe that in more detail. For example, what is the mechanism behind "design"? How can we scientifically investigate the designer, the mechanism, and other aspects of this alternative? How do we tell the difference, from a scientific perspective, between something that was "designed" and something that evolved?

And??? As far as I can see there are all kinds of things that happen in the embryonic stages of different kinds of animals that DON'T appear in the adult versions of those animals. A larv turns into MUSH before it becomes a butterfly. Does that mean it "looks like" butterflies evolved from mush? Now come on River! I can gladly agree that loss of digits might be the result of some kind of evolutionary process. That doesn't concern me too much! But whether or not tetrapods should be considered tetrapods depending on the number of digits they have is up to the classification system we employ. Isn't it?

No, whether or not something is a tetrapod is determined by the number of limbs (4) and the presence of a vertebrae.

If I was the designer and I understood all things then I guess I would have a good answer to that. But you are forgetting one very important point here! What we observe today is not necessarily consistent with the original design. As far as I can see from a Christian point of view, God did not "design" a cursed environment. He did not design sin. He did he design death. And he did not design sicknesses and diseases.

With that in mind it is practically impossible for any proponent of design to have a universal explanation that explains all the anomolies and bizarre phenomenon we see in biology. Losing digits during the transition between embryo and adult stages IS an anomoly, and yet you are treating it as though it was the norm - something we can see in all kinds of animals. We don't, so what does that "look like"? It looks like countless organisms are missing these kinds of "throw-backs" doesn't it? Why is that?

Is there any possible discovery or experimental result you can think of that isn't consistent with "design"?

We can always pick out evolutionary explanations for these things just as we can always claim that they are a result of design. Just as I said, it is a faith issue, and whatever evidences we collect for our convictions is most likely a result of the worldview we possess.

Definitely from the creationist side, yes. That explains why all the creationists are from very specific religious backgrounds. From the scientific side however, that's not the case. There are, and have been, millions of scientists from all sorts of different countries, ethnicities, religions, etc. who have all reached the same conclusion that evolutionary theory is the best and only scientific explanation for the data. If that conclusion were entirely, or even mostly, based on a person's worldview, then we would expect scientists to break out along those lines. But they don't....at all, and that strongly suggests that the scientific conclusions about life on earth are based on something other than worldview.

And when we look through the scientific literature we see what that something is....the data.

If it was difficult for evolutionists to point out things that "make sense" according to a theory that is very easily tweaked then you would have a point. If, rather than a loss of digits during the embryo-adult transformation there was a gain in the number of digits, rather than a loss, then there would STILL be an evolutionary explanation that any proponent of that worldview would be satisfied with. It took me about three seconds to come up with one! So what does that prove? As I pointed out, it might be some kind of throw-back.

Well, that's a nice imaginary scenario I guess, but it's not really much of a rebuttal. I'm sorry, but appealing to things you imagine might happen isn't at all convincing.

But as far as I can see there is nothing in post #197 that suggests that either of us are free from assuming that "Maybe that's just how God made things"!

And again, I'm not defending the position of "and God didn't do any of this".

No, we are not. We are not seeing evolution doing anything other than the kinds of things both of us agree on - adaption - confined within differnt families of animals.

Ah, and that's where you're wrong. If all we had to go one was the anatomical pattern among tetrapods, then you might have a point. Fortunately (and as I said earlier), there's a lot more to this story than I think you're aware of.

What actually makes the tetrapod limbs (and what makes them occur in the same patterns across such a wide variety of animals, from humans, to lizards, to whales, to birds)? By studying embryonic development we find that tetrapod limbs are made by a series of genes called Hox genes (you probably should read and understand that Wiki entry). And when we study and compare Hox gene activity and tetrapod limb development in a variety of organisms, we see a very striking pattern of similarities and divergences. We find that at the earliest stages of development, the same genes are activated in the same ways in all tetrapods. Interesting. But when we look at fish fin development, we find that they also activate the same genes in the same ways in the same early stages! Hmmmm......

Why would fish use the same set of genes in the same ways in the early stages of fin development, as tetrapods use in their limb development? At the very least, that justifies hypothesizing that the reason is because tetrapods evolved from ancient fish, and tetrapod limb development is an evolutionary modification of ancient fish fin development processes. So we look and study more.

From the fossil record we know of a group of ancient fish called "lobe-finned fish". In the lobe-finned fish, the fins extend from the body via a stalk that is articulated to the shoulder and pelvis via a single bone. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Not only that, but many lobe-finned fish that exist today use their fins to walk on land (e.g., lungfish)!

So based on that data, we can get more specific with our hypothesis. Not only are tetrapods descended from fish, but from a specific group of fish, i.e., the lobe-finned fish. And of course, we study even further.

Again we go back to looking at Hox genes. When we study Hox genes and limb development in zebrafish and lobe-finned fish, we see something else striking. When zebrafish Hox genes stop developing fins, lobe-finned Hox genes continue. And not only do they continue on to later stages of development, they do so in the same pattern as tetrapods! It's only in the very last stages of limb development that tetrapods continue on to make things like primate hands or bird wings.

So you see the pattern. Finned-fish, lobe-finned fish, and all tetrapods start off with the same early limb developmental processes, including using the same set of genes. Lobe-finned fish and tetrapods share the same later limb developmental processes, including the same set of genes. Tetrapods share the same late limb developmental processes, including the same set of genes. This pattern and the genetic data behind it is entirely consistent with our hypothesis that tetrapods evolved from ancient lobe-finned fishes.

Ah, but we're not done yet!

Naturally if our hypothesis is accurate, we would expect to find some evidence of this evolutionary history in the fossil record. And we can even get reasonably specific with our expectations. From the fossil record, we see that ~400 million years ago (MYA) there were no tetrapods, but there were fish (including lobe-finned fish). But later on the record shows the existence of a handful of primitive tetrapods ~350 MYA. So from this information, we predict that we should be able to find fossils showing the transition between lobe-finned fish and early tetrapods, and those fossils should occur between 350-400 MYA.

So paleontologists go out and start looking. And I think you know this part of the story....they found exactly what was predicted! We have a very, very good series of fossil specimens from that time showing stages of lobe-finned fish to tetrapod evolution. I'm not going to describe all of them (because there's a lot of 'em), but you can look at the following to see what I'm talking about.

Wiki Page

UC Berkeley

And if you'll notice, even in those fish-tetrapod transitional fossils we see the same bone pattern...one bone, two bones, little bones, digits. But wait, there's yet another pattern! The fossil record also shows the following pattern as we move forward in time...

Lobe-finned fish, but no tetrapods

A few lobe-finned fish--tetrapod transitionals

A few primitive tetrapods

More early tetrapods

A continued period of tetrapod diversification

This pattern can even be put into graph form. (It's too big to post here, but you should really go look at it)

Ok, we now have strong supporting evidence from genetics, embryology, anatomy, and the fossil record supporting our hypothesis that tetrapods evolved from lobe-finned fish between 400-350 MYA. On that basis we can say that our hypothesis is supported by the data from diverse fields of science, and therefore it's reasonable to conclude that it's accurate.

But even if we conclude that all this did happen, that still doesn't address the question of how it happened (or more to your original question about if it's genetically possible). To answer that we go back to our earlier discovery of Hox gene expression patterns. As you should know by now, Hox genes occur in clusters, and different taxa have different clusters of Hox genes and regulatory regions. And specific to this issue, we also notice that many of these clusters and regulatory regions look an awful lot alike. In fact, they look exactly like some of them are modified copies of other Hox clusters. So we hypothesize that at least one of the evolutionary mechanisms behind the transition from lobe-finned fish to tetrapod genetic copying and rearrangement.

Remember the example I showed you earlier where a population of yeast copied different parts of different genes and re-arranged the copied bits into new functional genes? Those results (and they're not the only ones demonstrating this concept) show that the mechanism we hypothesize above is not only possible, but actually happens. Ah, but we're still not done! Scientists have actually taken modern fish and, by exposing their embryos to certain hormones, changed the Hox gene expression pattern in fin development. The fish ended up developing the early stages of tetrapod limbs! So yet again we have experimental results that support our hypothesis.

Of course this doesn't mean that scientists have the entire step-by-step history of the evolution of tetrapods figured out. There's a lot more to work on, and there are competing scenarios for different aspects. With that said however, hopefully from the above you will get a basic idea of some of the data and why scientists have concluded that tetrapods are the evolutionary descendants of lobe-finned fish.

We can always go back and start disussing definitions of kinds and species if you want, but the fact remains that the evidence of UCA is extremely weak and is subject to the worldview that one adheres to.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. First, you are in no position to authoritatively declare what the data is or isn't in evolutionary biology. That's just a fact. Second, as I explained above, the diversity of "worldviews" among scientists who, over the last 150 years or so, have reached the same conclusions about the evolutionary history of life directly contradicts your claim.

There's no other way to put it Uppsala...you're wrong, and demonstrably so at that.

Oh what rubbish! The very fact that you claim that "all we ever see is evolution" testifies to the fact that you only "see" what evolutionists dictate and ignore the rest.

That's a pretty serious accusation. Do you have anything at all to back it up?

If all we see is evolution generating new traits, abilities genetic sequences.. and so on... then we WOULDN'T see any living fossils, would we?

Sure we would. But if you're disputing the conclusion that the only mechanism for generating new biological traits we've ever seen is evolution, then what other mechanism for generating biological traits do you think we've witnessed?

But boxing these things into an "explanation" is a convenient way of pretending that everything we see is evolution! As I pointed out, what you "see" as evidence of evolution, I see as evidence of design - that God designed living organisms with the ability to adapt to changes within their environments.

And by what non-evolutionary mechanisms do these organisms adapt and develop new traits?

One of the first things that Genesis teaches us about life is that God created it according to his own classification system

No it doesn't. It says God let the earth produce living things that later reproduced "according to their kinds".

Now we could have another disput about whether or not animals such as amphibians live on land or in the sea, but the fact remains that there is nothing within the realm of science that demonstrates that any kind of living creature completely changed from living in one distinct environment into another. What it all boils down to is what we think we "see".

See above. You're just plain wrong.

OK, so who is advocating "constant tinkering"? I certainly am not, so I don't know where you get that idea from. A complete working system MUST be tinkered with at some stage, otherwise how on earth would anyone consider it to be a creation?

Which is a more complete creation....one where God says "let the earth bring forth life" and the earth brings forth life, or one where God says "let the earth bring forth life" and He then has to go and create life Himself?

So what you are trying to say is that life today is exactly the way God made it in the beginning. Doesn't seem to support evolution at all does it? And quite OBVIOUSLY your argument bounces back in your face, since you can always claim that "evolution made it look that way" (just as you did with the number-of-digits argument earlier on).

I'm sorry, but that response make no sense to me.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

So let's clear this up.

Well I don't think throwing the burden back on me has anything to do with clearing things up. No one clears things up simply by claiming that what they assert is scientifically valid. What exactly is "valid"? If an animal gains digits then that, according to the theory is valid. If it loses digits then it is still valid. And if it retains the same number of digits, then guess what? It is still valid.

And to answer your questions then I would say yes, the designer is God. Why not? From my point of view that is the best possible explaination. And naturally the mechanism behind design is an intellect that has power over matter. And if you think you can demand greater details than that, then perhaps you give a detailed explanation of the mechanisms chemistry uses in order to create an information system that surpasses our own ability to fathom. Science teaches us that complex logical systems are the result of an intellect, not molecules bumping into each other.

No, whether or not something is a tetrapod is determined by the number of limbs (4) and the presence of a vertebrae.

Yes, according to the classification system that is being used, which is exactly what I pointed out to you in the comment you quoted! We classify animals in such a way that makes it convenient for us to study them, but that doesn't prove anything at all in this discussion. If scientists happened to discover a "tetrapod" that had five limbs then hypothecically all they need to do is classify it differntly - either it is a tetrapod with an extra limb or a non-tetrapod. What does it prove? Absolutely nothing.

As it is, the animals we classify as tetrapods have 4 limbs and a vertebrae. Great! But what scientific evidence do we have that they were not designed that way from creation? Classifying animals and then assuming that they had a different number of digits in the past is not science as far as I can tell.

Is there any possible discovery or experimental result you can think of that isn't consistent with "design"?

Sure. If everything in the universe was just a huge, messy, structureless blob, then I don't think that would be consistent with design. Now of course, someone who is trying to win a debate could obviously claim that a propenent of design could always turn around and claim that a designer created it that way, which is what I think you are trying to imply. But I don't see anyone playing that card. We do see a certain amount of chaos, blobs and so on, but that does not nullify the fact that there is an incredible amount of structure in the world around us. Minds have the tendency to create order, and there is absolutely no reason why a designless universe would have any structure in it at all.

Definitely from the creationist side, yes. That explains why all the creationists are from very specific religious backgrounds. From the scientific side however, that's not the case. There are, and have been, millions of scientists from all sorts of different countries, ethnicities, religions, etc. who have all reached the same conclusion that evolutionary theory is the best and only scientific explanation for the data. If that conclusion were entirely, or even mostly, based on a person's worldview, then we would expect scientists to break out along those lines. But they don't....at all, and that strongly suggests that the scientific conclusions about life on earth are based on something other than worldview.

The problem with that argument is that you are appealing to popularity in order to support the idea that those who do so are beyond having a worldview. Holding to whatever is mainstream IS a worldview. In other words, when you rely on the fact that "millions" of scientists cannot be wrong about something that NONE of them have observed, then what you are left with is a worldview, not observable, objective science as you would love to believe. And you don't seem to have the slightest concern that appeals to popularity have an incredibly strong snowballing effect. The more who jump on that wagon, the stronger the argument actually gets, and consequently the more difficult it becomes for anyone to stand in opposition.

And when we look through the scientific literature we see what that something is....the data.

What data? No one is denying any data here. When, however, you interpret data through a certain worldview then what point is there in appealing to "data"? That doesn't make sense.

Well, that's a nice imaginary scenario I guess, but it's not really much of a rebuttal.

I didn't says it was a "rebuttal". I am just pitting one imaginary scenario against another. Fighting fire with fire, so to speak.

I'm sorry, but appealing to things you imagine might happen isn't at all convincing.

Exactly my point.

And again, I'm not defending the position of "and God didn't do any of this".

Never said you were River, never said you were...

Ah, and that's where you're wrong. If all we had to go one was the anatomical pattern among tetrapods, then you might have a point. Fortunately (and as I said earlier), there's a lot more to this story than I think you're aware of.

What actually makes the tetrapod limbs (and what makes them occur in the same patterns across such a wide variety of animals, from humans, to lizards, to whales, to birds)? By studying embryonic development we find that tetrapod limbs are made by a series of genes called Hox genes (you probably should read and understand that Wiki entry). And when we study and compare Hox gene activity and tetrapod limb development in a variety of organisms, we see a very striking pattern of similarities and divergences. We find that at the earliest stages of development, the same genes are activated in the same ways in all tetrapods. Interesting. But when we look at fish fin development, we find that they also activate the same genes in the same ways in the same early stages! Hmmmm......

Why would fish use the same set of genes in the same ways in the early stages of fin development, as tetrapods use in their limb development? At the very least, that justifies hypothesizing that the reason is because tetrapods evolved from ancient fish, and tetrapod limb development is an evolutionary modification of ancient fish fin development processes. So we look and study more.

From the fossil record we know of a group of ancient fish called "lobe-finned fish". In the lobe-finned fish, the fins extend from the body via a stalk that is articulated to the shoulder and pelvis via a single bone. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Not only that, but many lobe-finned fish that exist today use their fins to walk on land (e.g., lungfish)!
So based on that data, we can get more specific with our hypothesis. Not only are tetrapods descended from fish, but from a specific group of fish, i.e., the lobe-finned fish. And of course, we study even further.

Again we go back to looking at Hox genes. When we study Hox genes and limb development in zebrafish and lobe-finned fish, we see something else striking. When zebrafish Hox genes stop developing fins, lobe-finned Hox genes continue. And not only do they continue on to later stages of development, they do so in the same pattern as tetrapods! It's only in the very last stages of limb development that tetrapods continue on to make things like primate hands or bird wings.
So you see the pattern. Finned-fish, lobe-finned fish, and all tetrapods start off with the same early limb developmental processes, including using the same set of genes. Lobe-finned fish and tetrapods share the same later limb developmental processes, including the same set of genes. Tetrapods share the same late limb developmental processes, including the same set of genes. This pattern and the genetic data behind it is entirely consistent with our hypothesis that tetrapods evolved from ancient lobe-finned fishes.

Ah, but we're not done yet!

Naturally if our hypothesis is accurate, we would expect to find some evidence of this evolutionary history in the fossil record. And we can even get reasonably specific with our expectations. From the fossil record, we see that ~400 million years ago (MYA) there were no tetrapods, but there were fish (including lobe-finned fish). But later on the record shows the existence of a handful of primitive tetrapods ~350 MYA. So from this information, we predict that we should be able to find fossils showing the transition between lobe-finned fish and early tetrapods, and those fossils should occur between 350-400 MYA.

So paleontologists go out and start looking. And I think you know this part of the story....they found exactly what was predicted! We have a very, very good series of fossil specimens from that time showing stages of lobe-finned fish to tetrapod evolution. I'm not going to describe all of them (because there's a lot of 'em), but you can look at the following to see what I'm talking about.

Wiki Page

UC Berkeley

And if you'll notice, even in those fish-tetrapod transitional fossils we see the same bone pattern...one bone, two bones, little bones, digits. But wait, there's yet another pattern! The fossil record also shows the following pattern as we move forward in time...

Lobe-finned fish, but no tetrapods

A few lobe-finned fish--tetrapod transitionals

A few primitive tetrapods

More early tetrapods

A continued period of tetrapod diversification

This pattern can even be put into graph form. (It's too big to post here, but you should really go look at it)

Ok, we now have strong supporting evidence from genetics, embryology, anatomy, and the fossil record supporting our hypothesis that tetrapods evolved from lobe-finned fish between 400-350 MYA. On that basis we can say that our hypothesis is supported by the data from diverse fields of science, and therefore it's reasonable to conclude that it's accurate.

But even if we conclude that all this did happen, that still doesn't address the question of how it happened (or more to your original question about if it's genetically possible). To answer that we go back to our earlier discovery of Hox gene expression patterns. As you should know by now, Hox genes occur in clusters, and different taxa have different clusters of Hox genes and regulatory regions. And specific to this issue, we also notice that many of these clusters and regulatory regions look an awful lot alike. In fact, they look exactly like some of them are modified copies of other Hox clusters. So we hypothesize that at least one of the evolutionary mechanisms behind the transition from lobe-finned fish to tetrapod genetic copying and rearrangement.

Remember the example I showed you earlier where a population of yeast copied different parts of different genes and re-arranged the copied bits into new functional genes? Those results (and they're not the only ones demonstrating this concept) show that the mechanism we hypothesize above is not only possible, but actually happens. Ah, but we're still not done! Scientists have actually taken modern fish and, by exposing their embryos to certain hormones, changed the Hox gene expression pattern in fin development. The fish ended up developing the early stages of tetrapod limbs! So yet again we have experimental results that support our hypothesis.

Of course this doesn't mean that scientists have the entire step-by-step history of the evolution of tetrapods figured out. There's a lot more to work on, and there are competing scenarios for different aspects. With that said however, hopefully from the above you will get a basic idea of some of the data and why scientists have concluded that tetrapods are the evolutionary descendants of lobe-finned fish.

That's quite a lot of evolutionist dogma, and I don't have time to sift through it all at the moment, but as far as I can see much of it has to do with patterns and similarities that you assume to be strong evidence of UCA. You tell me I am "wrong", and then you suggest that things like "a very striking pattern of similarities and divergences" is proof of that. Well it doesn't. If God created a universe with patterns and structures then why wouldn't he create life in a similar manner. Any software developer, such as myself, would tell you that using the same repeatable patterns is incredibly beneficial for creating code that can be easily understood and maintained by different software developers. Perhaps you should google the term "design patterns" and do a little study yourself! God made the universe in such a way that human beings could fathom it, and so there is absolutely nothing wrong with science - IF you have the correct worldview, which is NOT one that excludes God from the equation!

So instead of just going with the flow and assuming that related patterns are evidence of UCA, consider the fact that if every single "non-related" animal was designed with completely different patterns than all others then we would live in a very chaotic environment, one that would be extremely difficult for us to navigate through and understand. So it makes sense that he created life in families having similar traits and genetic structures, but not necessarily physically related to one another. Your arguments, or rather, the arguments you swallow, do not hold, so it doesn't help you one bit to say "hmmmmmm" as though it was blatently obvious that what you conclude about the matter is correct. People who adhere to evolution are in love with a philosopical idea, not with any scientific "facts".

Now when you mention the evolution of fish to tetrapods you present it as though preaching it directly from a textbook, without any evidence of critical thinking. You simply pretend that the only "data" that exists is the data that such books provide as support for this imaginary transistion. Are you aware of ANY evidence that disagrees with what the textbooks declare? My guess is no, because you WON'T find it in these textbooks. If the accepted paradigm is evolution then it is evidence of evolution that is going to be taught, which has the effect of churning out over-confident students who naively think that all the evidence points to evolution and that anyone who disagrees with this is denying "science".

So let me provide you with some other data and see if you can answer why the "patterns and similarities" between these "stages" suddenly don't line up as much as you would want or expect. But mind you, Per Ahlberg an expert in this field (a product of Uppsala university of all places), was challenged by a creationist to give such an answer, but failed to give a clear explanation for the contradictory evidence.

Now the evidence that evolutionists submit in order to support the progression from fish to tetrapods is based on the following assumed transision:

Eusthenopteron - Panderichthys - Tiktalik - Acanthostega - Ichtheostega

So why, instead of just pointing out a number of similarities that you consider supports transition, don't you explain why ALL the physical attributes of these animals do not agree with such a transision. Why do the lenghts of the limbs/fins grow shorter/longer/shorter and so on? Why not just grow longer as would be expected? Why does the number of snout/skull bones vary so much? And it is not as though they progress in any particular direction. Eusthenopteron has a few, Panderichthys has more, then tiktalik and acanthostega have fewer again, whereas ichtheostega suddenly has more again. So what you need to do, as someone who thinks all the "data" in on your side, is to provide hard evidence that something in the environment of these creatures caused natural selection to slowly and methodically weeded out those with fewer snout bones, thus selecting creatures with more, and then did the opposite by selecting those that had less, only to do a 180 again and select those with more. Sure, you can assume and pretend and try to figure out an explanation for this, but don't try to tell me that all the data points in the direction you assume it does.

And there is absolutly nothing in the realm of science that indicates that for any of these creatures, the correct direction to take is towards land and not back into the sea. Just as you pointed out, we see lobe-finned fish today, just as we see amphibians, tetrapods, land-dwelling animals and so on, and not a shred of evidence that they are developing in any particular direction. It is a fantasy trip, nothing else.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. First, you are in no position to authoritatively declare what the data is or isn't in evolutionary biology. That's just a fact. Second, as I explained above, the diversity of "worldviews" among scientists who, over the last 150 years or so, have reached the same conclusions about the evolutionary history of life directly contradicts your claim.
There's no other way to put it Uppsala...you're wrong, and demonstrably so at that.

No, YOU are demonstrably wrong. The fact that evolution is one worldview whereas creationism is another has nothing to do with the me being in any "authorative position" concerning biolgy. Don't create strawmen simply because you cannot "demonstrably" show that you are correct.

See above. You're just plain wrong.

Ditto.

Which is a more complete creation....one where God says "let the earth bring forth life" and the earth brings forth life, or one where God says "let the earth bring forth life" and He then has to go and create life Himself?

Well since God rested AFTER six days, that is AFTER he "let" certain things happen then I guess his "tinkering" was completed AFTER that. Don't 'cha think???

I'm sorry, but that response make no sense to me.

Well OK, let me ask you this. What do you think God actually did when he created the universe? Did he just sit back and watch it unfold by itself and then take all the credit? How exactly, according to you, was he involved?

 

[River Jordan]

Well I don't think throwing the burden back on me has anything to do with clearing things up.

If you're going to offer "design" as a scientific alternative, then it falls on you to explain it and present it's supporting evidence. It certainly isn't on me to support your arguments.

No one clears things up simply by claiming that what they assert is scientifically valid. What exactly is "valid"? If an animal gains digits then that, according to the theory is valid. If it loses digits then it is still valid. And if it retains the same number of digits, then guess what? It is still valid.

As I explained earlier, it's the specific mechanism and pathway by which organisms gain and lose digits. If it were what you described above, then you would have a point. Since it's not, what you said above is irrelevant.

And to answer your questions then I would say yes, the designer is God. Why not? From my point of view that is the best possible explaination. And naturally the mechanism behind design is an intellect that has power over matter. And if you think you can demand greater details than that, then perhaps you give a detailed explanation of the mechanisms chemistry uses in order to create an information system that surpasses our own ability to fathom. Science teaches us that complex logical systems are the result of an intellect, not molecules bumping into each other.

So your alternative is supernatural creation by God. Can you explain how that alternative can be investigated using science?

Yes, according to the classification system that is being used, which is exactly what I pointed out to you in the comment you quoted! We classify animals in such a way that makes it convenient for us to study them, but that doesn't prove anything at all in this discussion. If scientists happened to discover a "tetrapod" that had five limbs then hypothecically all they need to do is classify it differntly - either it is a tetrapod with an extra limb or a non-tetrapod. What does it prove? Absolutely nothing...

...Classifying animals and then assuming that they had a different number of digits in the past is not science as far as I can tell.

Again, if anyone had argued "we can classify them, therefore evolution" you'd have a point. But since I specifically said the opposite, I'm not sure who you think your point is for. And again, appealing to imaginary hypotheticals is not compelling.

As it is, the animals we classify as tetrapods have 4 limbs and a vertebrae. Great! But what scientific evidence do we have that they were not designed that way from creation?

...If God created a universe with patterns and structures then why wouldn't he create life in a similar manner.

...there is absolutely nothing wrong with science - IF you have the correct worldview, which is NOT one that excludes God from the equation!

Wow. For what feels like the billionth time....I'M NOT TRYING TO DISPROVE CREATION BY GOD. So you can stop asking me "How do you know they weren't designed that way".

Sure. If everything in the universe was just a huge, messy, structureless blob, then I don't think that would be consistent with design. Now of course, someone who is trying to win a debate could obviously claim that a propenent of design could always turn around and claim that a designer created it that way, which is what I think you are trying to imply. But I don't see anyone playing that card. We do see a certain amount of chaos, blobs and so on, but that does not nullify the fact that there is an incredible amount of structure in the world around us. Minds have the tendency to create order, and there is absolutely no reason why a designless universe would have any structure in it at all.

Well now I'm playing that card. Are you saying that God couldn't create a "structureless blob"?

The problem with that argument is that you are appealing to popularity in order to support the idea that those who do so are beyond having a worldview. Holding to whatever is mainstream IS a worldview. In other words, when you rely on the fact that "millions" of scientists cannot be wrong about something that NONE of them have observed, then what you are left with is a worldview, not observable, objective science as you would love to believe. And you don't seem to have the slightest concern that appeals to popularity have an incredibly strong snowballing effect. The more who jump on that wagon, the stronger the argument actually gets, and consequently the more difficult it becomes for anyone to stand in opposition.

?????????????? I have no idea....no idea at all....how you got that from what I posted. Did I argue that since evolution is supported by X number of scientists, it is therefore valid?

What I pointed out is that if your claim (it all comes down to worldviews) were true, then we would expect all "evolutionists" to be very similar in their worldviews. The fact is, we see the exact opposite. "Evolutionists" come from pretty much every worldview out there. Now to explain this to you again....I'm not saying "evolutionary scientists come from diverse worldviews, therefore evolution is valid". I'm saying "evolutionary scientists come from diverse worldviews, therefore the argument that their acceptance of evolution is based on worldview is false".

I hope you are able to grasp the difference.

What data? No one is denying any data here. When, however, you interpret data through a certain worldview then what point is there in appealing to "data"? That doesn't make sense.

What "worldview" do you think is being used here?

That's quite a lot of evolutionist dogma, and I don't have time to sift through it all at the moment

Great....so that was a complete waste of my time. I spent all that time doing exactly what you asked, and you respond with "It's just dogma, and I didn't really read it anyways"?

I hope you understand why I won't do anything like that for you again.

So instead of just going with the flow and assuming that related patterns are evidence of UCA, consider the fact that if every single "non-related" animal was designed with completely different patterns than all others then we would live in a very chaotic environment, one that would be extremely difficult for us to navigate through and understand. So it makes sense that he created life in families having similar traits and genetic structures, but not necessarily physically related to one another.

So your response is basically "God made it that way", just as I said from the outset.

Your arguments, or rather, the arguments you swallow, do not hold

How do you know? You didn't even bother to read what I wrote!!

So let me provide you with some other data and see if you can answer why the "patterns and similarities" between these "stages" suddenly don't line up as much as you would want or expect.

Are you kidding me? Are you freaking kidding me? :blink:

I spent all that time writing up a layperson friendly description of some of the data....at your request...you don't bother to read it, and now you demand that I do it again? You can't be serious. No way. Creationists never cease to amaze me.

"Yeah, well why can't you explain the evolutionary history of tetrapods to me, with all its supporting data, and in a way that I can understand without doing any work?"

--takes time to write it all up--

"Meh...I didn't really read it. Now why don't you explain even more of the data to me?"

And there is absolutly nothing in the realm of science that indicates that for any of these creatures, the correct direction to take is towards land and not back into the sea. Just as you pointed out, we see lobe-finned fish today, just as we see amphibians, tetrapods, land-dwelling animals and so on, and not a shred of evidence that they are developing in any particular direction. It is a fantasy trip, nothing else.

So what do you think is going on in evolutionary biology then? Are these scientists just really bad at their jobs?

No, YOU are demonstrably wrong. The fact that evolution is one worldview whereas creationism is another has nothing to do with the me being in any "authorative position" concerning biolgy. Don't create strawmen simply because you cannot "demonstrably" show that you are correct.

This is just bizarre. Absolutely bizarre.

Over the last 150+ years, millions of scientists from every philosophical/religious worldview have recognized the validity of evolutionary biology.

From that, you conclude that the reason they are "evolutionists" is because of their "worldview"? Exactly what "worldview" do you think is motivating them?

Well OK, let me ask you this. What do you think God actually did when he created the universe? Did he just sit back and watch it unfold by itself and then take all the credit? How exactly, according to you, was he involved?

We don't know; scripture doesn't say. But it does say God created organisms by letting the earth bring them forth.