Biological Information and Intelligent Design: New functions are everywhere

See my comments to Chris Falter. And observe Ro 5. One cannot get around the existence of a literal Adam and Eve Biblically. the theistic gymnastics engaged here is enough to justify about any behavior unbecoming and warned against in Scripture.

Regarding the wolf- dog genetics, it seems it is more complicated, and you can’t make a chihuahua out of present day wolf, though there was a now-extinct common ancestor.

Hi Greg,

Since you are introducing more Scriptural detail – a very good thing! – and it’s somewhat orthogonal to the original topic, perhaps the admins will move our conversation to its own thread.

I take the Scriptures very seriously, as you do. Several details in the Scripture indicate that Adam and Eve were not the only individuals alive at the time God was dealing with them:

  • Cain was afraid of being attacked by hostile men in the many places he might go (Genesis 4:14). How did those men come into being if they were actually brothers of Cain?
  • Cain founded a city (Genesis 4:17). Who were the inhabitants of that cities?

And notice that Paul spoke of Adam as one man, through whom sin entered the world. Paul never claimed that Adam was the only man. This means you can reconcile Scripture with genetics by regarding Adam as the first member of Homo Sapiens in whom God breathed His Spirit, and whom God formed in His image.

I contend that Romans 5 and Genesis 4 are equally authoritative, and we need to incorporate both into our theology.

Still remembering Father Clement Falter,
Chris

@grog

  1. Based on your hypotheticals, virtually all evolution is devolution. So what?

  2. It is a bogus category, because we are a long time away from knowing exactly what is gained or lost with each “change” in a population’s genetics.

  3. If a human population develops a higher propensity for sickle-cell blood, which happens to help mitigate the effects of malaria in the region in which the population lives, is that a loss in information or a gain in information? Nothing imaginary here, Grog; there are real distinctions in the incidence of sickle-cell blood, correlating to the incidence that population experienced chronic malaria.

  4. How cavalier you are about dog breeding. I you have a dachshund, and you successfully breed a St. Bernard that can bound through snow while carrying supplies, have you lost information or gained it?

Ultimately, Evolution is any change. You and Behe bandy about the term “devolution” as if it really meant something. As far as I’m concerned, you might as well say

o a lizard is a devolved fish (who has lost the ability to swim);

o a bat is a devolved mouse (who has lost the ability to eat grain and be active during the day); and

o a whale is a devolved mammal (who has lost the ability to live on land).

The concept of devolution is meaningless. Evolution goes up, down and sideways … and in no particular order.

devolution suggests that something with complexity and incredible tools within its genetic makeup and ability to adapt and survive becomes something with less complexity and less ability to adapt and survive. Give this a lot of time and you have extinction. Devolution thus demands CREATION of something complex that is running down. Sounds familiar to some of the laws of thermodynamics.

On the other hand, evolution suggests that through the process of time, energy, chance, and selection, complex life was the result. This paradigm not only flies in the face of general principles of thermodynamics but is additionally pitted against any form of experiment that tries to duplicate such in the lab. When the evolutionists suggest that we can assign a numerical probability to such an event, then are admitting that this process was by chance with absolutely no intelligent forces involved in the event otherwise the numbers are a mute point because statistics measures chance and chance cannot have intelligent forces intertwined. So when folks in the theistic evolution camp suggest that the math reveals the potential for such an event of complexity via evolution thus needing 10’s of millions of years yet at the same time suggest that God does it, this is confusing, twisted and illogical. God is NOT the author of confusion nor does He want to be assigned credit for such confusion.

@grog

Sometimes genes are lost…sometimes they are gained. Are you going to tell me that after all the discussion on this list, you don’t believe chromosomes ever produce additional genes?

What rule of science are you using that a chromosome has some sort of “gene budget” … where it has to eliminate genes to make room for new ones?

You still haven’t responded to the example of sickle cell blood traits in human populations that are exposed to high chronic levels of Malaria.

How come I get the feeling that anything I say you ignore, and then write what you were going to write before I posted a thing?

You left out God as usual.

As soon as you tell me how to get God to cooperate with an experiement in the lab somebody can make a go of it. Can you tell me why you continually leave God out? Most of us here don’t.

2 Likes

@Grog,
You are trying to explain things to @jammycakes ? What a sight to behold!

So what do you make of the sickle cell blood trait that is genetic … and helps humans cope with malaria?

Is that losing information too?

Secondly, the Christian Evolutionists on these pages would not agree with you when you write:
"… and instead insist that chance mutation and selection …"

Why do you keep stating the position for some group of Atheists … when you are here discussing God-guided evolution?

You are barking up the wrong tree … and you are a cat!

Lets assume for a minute that Adam and Eve were indeed the very first humans on earth. I know its tough for some, but work with me and let’s just assume that this is the case. So with this assumption to be 100% true, when we see that Cain was fearful of being attacked by others, what are all of the possibilities for this to be? What are the options we have to work with? One, Adam lived to over 900 years old. Two, Cain and Abel were mentioned first but they may not be the first of Adam’s sons. Were there sibs born between Cain and Abel? How old was Cain and Abel when this event occurred? In the span of only a fraction of Adam’s life of say 200 years, what are the potentials of population density in just this short time? How long did Adam live? How long did Cain live? Did this event occur immediately after the Garden episode or 100’s of years after?

And as far as you thoughts about the city: Is a “city” the equivalent to a Chicago with millions of people or would it be more of a settlement? Why would Cain be interested in such a settlement? For protection? Why was He afraid that he thought it necessary for such a settlement? He was afraid of folks and were these folks his brothers or pre-humans all around him? Are we really given the Biblical freedom here to pronounce that there were humans before Adam? And How did Cain even come to a place of such sinful tendency as to kill his brother? Would pre humans even think twice about the sinfulness of killing another to where there would be anger towards someone who did? Did Caine become a sinner via evolutionary processes which some call God’s creative purposes? Would this not suggest that God created sin, death, disease? Since the Bible has not even one suggestion anywhere in it a logical explanation that declares that God was NOT responsible for evil that evolutionary creationism does indeed insinuate, should we toy around with the idea? The account in Genesis in its plain rendering very clearly explains how evil came about and it was not of God. Evolutionary Creationism throws a wrench into this entire paradigm. Evolution is not scientific, it is not statistically logical, it defies the odds, it is foolish to give God credit to such and it does not explain how God was not the maker of evil, the very thing that God was clearly trying to explain in the plain rendering of the Genesis account!

Hands down, you will NEVER be able to drum up enough Biblical theology through contorted theological gymnastics to explain away the historicity of the first human beings. If you say that you revere the Bible, then revere it…even before man’s observational capabilities of the deep past. God is not trying to deceive us with what appears to be confusion between science and revelation…He is trying to shake us into attentiveness that God is God, we are not and God and His ways may not ever be discoverable via our observations. He transcends us.

So this is a very very poor argument for stiff arming the idea that Adam and Eve were the first humans who ushered in sin, death, disease by their own volition. If that is all you have in the face of dozens of passages that suggest God as Creator of kinds including the first humans, then this is thin ice. If you are willing to allow what science says at the hands of mainstream naturalism today to trump Bible, that is your prerogative. I am not a gambling man myself…especially when some of the finest Christian scientists are making incredible leaps towards valid scientific models that mesh creationism with genetics…

Lastly I have listened to some of the theologies coming out from the theistic evolution camp and many of these tie themselves to evolutionary ideas and less to the plain rendering of the Bible starting in Genesis. That is called heresy. I have a gift of discerning the spirits and I was drawn to investigate some of the claims surfacing through this website and when contrasting these claims to good Biblical theology, I am sorry to say that the spirit engaging such ideas is not of representative of the precepts and principles in the Word of God nor is it of God. Very sorry.

The reason I keep stating the position that atheists hold is because I keep hearing folks in the theistic evolution camp declare mathematical things about algorithms and beckoning me to provide statistics that bolster the idea that evolution via natural processes is not possible statistically. When folks go there, they HAVE to be necessarily suggesting that intelligence is outside the equation of evolution because otherwise, statistics are a mute point…right?

The other noticeable item is the division between evolutionists here and creationists including all of those in the ID movement. When an evolutionist who claims to be a Christian is purposely engaging all scientific resources to disproving God’s hand in the process of creation and pitting itself against ID, then they are taking the same position as atheistic evolutionists yet holding onto the tittle of “Christian” I find this incredibly odd behavior. How does this encourage in one single iota an atheist to consider the claim of Christ? It is the very inch that gives most in the atheist/agnostic camp the mile needed to carry their views straight to their deathbed!

Hey, @Chris_Falter, did you notice how @Grog completely side-steps answering your question. I hope you aren’t surprised or disappointed.

Let’s see how close he gets…

@Chris_Falter, why do you ask Grog any questions. He will not answer them. And when he does, he ignores the context in which you asked the question.

His discussions are completely non-responsive to anything anyone asks him… unless we want an Amen! Amen, brother!

1 Like

Hi Bill: Isn’t that the definition of “evolution?” Evolution is all about natural forces taking a life seed and after millions of years forming complexity. I of course believe that God created kinds with the ability to evolve and adapt. that is called creationism and grace where God was kind enough to give his creation the ability to adapt and survive. Evolution from common decent on the other hand circumvents how evil, death and disease was brought onto this planet via Adam and it indeed does suggest that God created via death disease and pain and then had the nerve to call it “good” . Not only this, it insinuates that God created evil via the naturalistic process in evolution. Genesis 1-3 does a fantastic job of explaining sin and how the presence of evil is not of God and from this the Gospel of Jesus, the last and better Adam, makes sense. Theistic evolution throws a wrench into the Genesis account and thus can offer a lot of confusion of the gospel.

If theistic evolutionists believes that God created, then call yourself a creationist. God transcends us. And if you are so willing to call yourself a Creationist who believes that God is indeed that great to create dna in a split second, then don’t be so quick to sneer at the possibility that God did all of this in thousands of years and not billions regardless of the way it appears!

I did indeed answer the question! Read a little more closely Mr. brooks. Read Socrates sometime too. Christian theology does not give a lot of wiggle room for stiff arming the first human beings. It does not give a lot of wiggle room for creationism via evolution either which suggests that God not only created via pain death and disease but also insinuates that He created evil. I have said this before: Theistic evolution is worse than godless naturalistic evolution because we can understand why a non believer would demand that nature was mainly responsible for complexity because God is not allowed in the equation. But attributing God to such is like taking the Bible and all of the precepts therein and twisting and contorting them inside out, backward and suggesting that this is of God who is not a God of confusion.

Interesting, please elaborate as to how you explain how and why God created the universe with the appearance of age in the billions of years, but it really is not very old, since that seems to be your position. How does that correlate with a holy God of truth, and how does that work with a God who wants all to be saved, even science types? How is that seen in relation to Psalm 19 and Romans 1 where the Bible says we all can see God’s glory in creation?

All that I know is that we based the age of the earth on dating an asteroid that came to earth. I have read also from well meaning scientists that the number of assumptions that go into dating this asteroid is astoundingly great. Secular science pays this no mind because downstream for the sin nature is to circumvent anything Bible or anything God which naturalistic evolution does a great job at which requires long ages.

Some would believe that thinking the earth to be thousands of years old about the most insane thought imaginable. Likewise, there are well meaning scientists today that provide a long list of BIG problems with the earth being billions of years old too. And we are entering into the beginnings of understanding quantum physics which I wonder if someday all of our assumptions based on the knowledge we have today be dismantled with new ideas from there all together. Read Ravi Zacharius on this sometime.

I bet that you believe that Jesus did turn water into wine…a miracle. Wine has the appearance of age. When it comes to creation, this is the miracle of miracles! Could the very miracle of Jesus turning the water into wine be one of those soft voices that suggests that we not pay too much mind to our observational skills when it comes to deep history and its age? Maybe.

Where I used to be on the fence about whether the earth was old or young (although a firmly committed creationist all along) I am siding more and more towards the earth being younger and not older…this is NOT because I hang with the yec boys and peruse the yec websights all day long. It is NOT because I am making a buck somewhere or any other allegiances. It is because my sense of things after reading the Bible, praying and seeing the fruit out from the various camps is causing me to turn towards the plain rendering of the Biblical account where the earth is suggested to be young and not old.

If I did consider buying into the idea of an old earth, Sailhammer’s view would be the most acceptable. Theistic evolution is the least.

@grog,

Really? You answered the question? Well, if that is true, then you should be able to point out what sentence was the answer, right below. I took a snapshot of your entire post, so you won’t be tempted to “touch up” a sentence or phrase here or there.

So… where’s the answer to @Chris_Falter’s question: Who lived in those cities?

I’m wagering 100 Klingon Talons that you can’t find the sentence you think is in there …
[Note: the Exchange Rate for Klingon Darsek’s into Talon’s is unknown, and not collectable until the 23rd century. See link below.]

I don’t know which “well meaning scientists” you’re referring to here, but they aren’t telling the truth. I’ve seen many, many YEC claims about the assumptions involved in radiometric dating that are simply not true. For starters:

  1. Radiometric dating does not make assumptions about the initial amount of parent and daughter isotope in the rocks. There is a technique called isochron dating that side-steps this assumption completely.

  2. Similarly, isochron dating does not make assumptions about contamination or leakage either. These would readily be apparent because the points on the graph would not lie on a straight line.

  3. Samples are routinely dated using multiple methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, and close agreement to within a fraction of one percent is the norm in more than 90% of cases. Claims that these methods only give the same results because they are calibrated against each other, or because they make the “same assumptions of uniformitarianism,” are untrue.

  4. Anomalous results account for less than 10%, and possibly as few as 5%, of cases. In most cases, they were not actual radiometric results at all, but were merely attempts to determine whether or not specific methods could be applied to novel situations. There’s a vast difference between showing that one particular method does not work on metamorphic rocks, and showing that no methods work on anything.

  5. Cherry-picking of the data can not account for this high degree of concordance, because (a) there are hundreds of thousands of results recorded in the scientific literature, and (b) radiometric dating is too expensive (thousands of dollars per sample) to allow for this kind of chicanery to remain covered up for very long.

  6. The suggestion that nuclear decay rates could have varied significantly in the past is complete science fiction. Even the young-earth creationist RATE team admitted that accelerated nuclear decay sufficient to squeeze the observed radiometric results into 6,000 years would have released enough heat to vaporise the earth.

  7. There is no evidence of primordial radiocarbon in ancient coals and diamonds. The RATE team did not follow the correct procedures for taking contamination into account.

  8. Allegations of circular reasoning — such as the claim that “fossils are used to date rocks and rocks are used to date fossils” — are untrue.

  9. Vast swathes of the evidence for an ancient earth comes from oil exploration. Petroleum geologists have to produce results that are correct, not results that are ideologically convenient. There is no room whatsoever in oil exploration for “secular science” fudging the figures to produce artificially inflated or otherwise fictitious ages. If they tried any such thing, oil companies would waste a fortune drilling in the wrong places only to find that they couldn’t get the oil out of the ground.

Greg, I suggest you read the article Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Roger C Wiens. He explains these things in fairly comprehensive detail. Make sure that you read it carefully and that you properly understand the maths and reasoning behind it.

4 Likes

You failed to address the question, so let me simplify the wording and restate: Why would God make earth appear ancient when it really is not?

Hi George,

I think our friend @grog was suggesting via his questions that the men that Cain would encounter as he wandered all over the earth, and who would inhabit the city he founded, were his 100% brothers (same father, same mother).

The obvious issue with this line of reasoning is that the Bible does not even hint at this; it is pure, unadulterated, 100% speculation.

I acknowledge that the scenario I favor is also 100% speculation, of course. The difference between Greg’s scenario and mine is that mine is in agreement with a very large body of scientific evidence, while Greg’s scenario cannot possibly be reconciled with that scientific evidence.

Of course, Greg could always say, “I don’t have to reconcile the Bible with science. Let God be true and all men liars.” This of course has its own problems:

(1) It very well may not be God’s Word that Greg supports, but his own sincere but misinformed hermeneutics.
(2) The Scripture expects all men and women to be able to accurately investigate the creation. This is the theological foundation of biology, geology, paleontology, and the other sciences. In turn, this would mean that God’s Word contradicts much of God’s work.

Cheers,
Chris Falter

1 Like

If it is 100% undeniable fact that Adam and Eve are the first humans and Eve births Caine:

Someone then brings up this passage for discussion-my emphasis added:

Gen 4:14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
Gen 4:15 Then the LORD said to him, “Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him.
Gen 4:16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
Gen 4:17 Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.

From these passages it is suggested that this proves that there were other humans besides Cain’s family members.

From this a series of questions to ask about this:

  1. When did Caine slay his brother? Was it 100 years after his birth, or longer? Some experts suggest he was around 130 when doing the history.
  2. Was Abel the second born or was there a brother or maybe even 8 brothers between Caine and Abel?
  3. When folks lived as long as they do and did not practice birth control, how many generations of people must have been produced when Caine worried about retribution after he killed his brother?
  4. What is a “city” Looking at the context of this passage, this should be considered more of a settlement of sorts made to protect Cain and his family more than a city with thousands of people. Cain was seriously concerned that the sinful act he did in the sin state he was in was going to reap retribution from a family member who was just as sinful and who would have potentially been very interested to slay he who slayed a kin in the name of justice.
  5. If there are sub humans abounding in this area of the world enough to build an actually “city” would they have a consciences? Would they have souls? And how much interest would they have to see justice against a guy who killed his brother when it would have not personal bearing on them? Does not make sense.

My point is I don’t give an answer, I give a defense for what I already know and I know it because the Bible says so! There were no other humans abounding who did not fall in line in Adam’s family tree at this point… Period, end of story. As soon as one begins to play theology gymnastics, they are pretending to be self proclaimed prophets who describe what is not in the text in context. That is grounds for furthering apostacy and potentially heresy.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.