Can you prove common descent, or disprove God created "kinds" (spin-off)

This is my first post on this forum. Im from finland and english isn’t my first language, so don’t be to harsh on my writing. I’ll do my best :slight_smile:

“The disconnect is huge and this illogical conclusion either smells of buying the beliefs of naturalism over the Judeo Christian worldview that God is Creator who did indeed create instantaneously kinds of plants and animals which is riddled throughout the Bible.”

My take on this subject is that the creationing is still happening. I’ll try to point the theology behind this.

Let’s look what Paul says first:

“3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.”

So all the God’s works were finished from the foundation of the world and God rested on the seventh day. But from our time bounded human point of view, the seventh day is yet to come. We have not entered in his rest yet.

Also Jesus said:

“17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work”

So again from our point of view God still works on his creationing, and the rest day is yet to come.

So i believe this means that every new species and “kinds” that is still evolving to this day, is still what genesis describes as God creating animals etc.
So my believe is that the six days described in genesis is not to take literally, but as a ongoing profecy, which started in the very beginning and continues to the last day(the seventh rest day).

So when Paul said that “his works were finished” i believe it means that there are really no randomness in the creation, alltough it appears so to us, because we see what is happening in the nature, but we can’t physically see that it’s God doing his work with natural laws. He saw every little detail of his creation(physical) and he spoke and it was done All is done from God’s point of view, but we still see it happening.

This imo doesn’t mean that human destinies is predestined, but that’s another subject.

Hopefully my text is understandable and the points makes any sense. Feel free to criticize my beliefs.

2 Likes

Got it. Sorry. Just blurting out what comes to mind and not enough time on my end to keep track I suppose!

1 Like

Welcome. Your English is very good.

That’s nice thank you.

3 Likes

Here are some of the “smoking guns” which convince me that the Theory of Evolution is just as obvious and sound as the scientists have long demonstrated in the peer-reviewed literature:

(1) After over a century and a half of falsification attempts, the Theory of Evolution has yet to be falsified. Not once.

(2) Genome mapping and the PREDICTIONS which the Theory of Evolution made about the patterns which would be found at the molecular level have been incredibly convincing. (In fact, I considered this the ultimate “slam dunk” confirmation of Common Descent.) The same nested hierarchies observed by scientists for many years were found in the genome maps of the compared species. Common Descent beautifully predicts such patterns. Common Design does not. Yes, a sound scientific theory makes solid, accurate predictions. I can’t think of a scientific theory with a more impressive prediction history than the Theory of Evolution (e.g., the prediction that humans would be found to have a merged chromosome was published about seven (??) years prior to the discovery that human chromosome #2 is a merging of two chromosomes which today remain separate in chimpanzee DNA.)

(3) The mapping of ERVs is yet another collection of “smoking gun” examples of accurate predictions under Common Descent.

(4) Here’s a convenient summary of just a few of the “pillars” of evidence which support the Theory of Evolution:

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

Yet, the search for a single “smoking gun” to CONFIRM evolution theory gets the scientific method exactly backwards. If you think the Theory of Evolution is flawed, you should make history (and earn a Nobel Prize for yourself) by publishing the smoking gun which falsifies the theory. The Theory of Evolution is put to the test daily by scientists all over the world—but its explanatory and predictive track record remains impressive and becomes even more impressive with each such falsification attempt. If you can publish a smoking gun discovery where the Theory of Evolution totally failed and actually contradicts what you found, then you will win the attention and respect of scientists all over the world. Could you share with us such an example of a smoking gun “flaw” in the Theory of Evolution?

Your question about a “smoking gun” brought to mind this classic article:

The author does a nice job of explaining why some non-scientists think that a search for a “smoking gun” is a useful rhetorical tactic.

3 Likes

We even wrote our non-native English speaker guests into our dialogue policy, “Be willing to learn from the perspectives and expertise of others and respect the diversity of your conversation partners. This includes being sensitive to differences in educational backgrounds, faith traditions, cultural contexts, and levels of English language fluency.” FAQ/Guidelines

Welcome, and thanks for sharing your perspective!

2 Likes

Yes there is something wrong with that! I have been interacting with good folks thru this website for a couple of months now and for the life of me, I have absolutely no idea what grounds biologos nor the theistic evolutionists represented therein stand upon! What this means is that I am being offered a lot of confusion and not a lot of answers. It is as if you are buying the naturalist model that naturalistic philosophies have developed with an utter unwillingness to take on the title. The central figure in Christianity is God and handling this situation that makes truth declaration how He did things is shaky grounds. Are you feeling lucky?

The combination of a naturalistic model that relies on chance, time and energy for creation and God just creating are like oil and water. Of course nature is a beautiful God given resource which plants and animals are able to live, adapt and reproduce. But nature CREATING these things and labeling this “Of God” is about the most confusing, illogical and utterly the most statistically impossible idea one could possibly imagine…and I believe it disrespects God.

Another way that it disrespects God is the actual evolutionary methodology itself. I read a sad article on Fox the other day about a 10 or 12 year old boy who was suffering from some form of cancer. They showed a picture of this poor child laying on the bathroom floor writhing in agony from his condition-preparing for the ability to vomit without having to run back to this room. I thought to myself, this is an example of evolutionary creationism in action. Nature threw this boy a curveball and his genetic makeup was weak and for this he was to be disposed for the better human to survive. likewise, evolution took subhumans and did the very same thing to them…the weak were discarded and the strong replaced them then give this ongoing agonizing process a couple of million years and walla-you have the human beings that God created through pain, death, suffering who were made in His image. That is what I call sick folks and in Genesis when God called his creation “Good” I dare say that I would consider Him a liar if this is the way He accomplished such goodness.

I took a biology class on the human brain in college years ago. The thought that nature, after it was seeded with some bacteria molecule of some sort had the capability to develop an organ like the human brain while busily preparing the heart, spleen, liver, kidney, lungs all simultaneously and all needed for pumping life blood into it to give it function is so imbeccile that even a child will pick up insanity of such a proposition. And this is the argument Paul uses in early Romans to suggest that man is without excuse because they see God’s handiwork as the designer, fabricator and molder of life…not nature. God. Therefore they are without excuse.

Then I hear some of you say that God started the process and others that God interject sporadically in creation. And all of this is working off the backs of really poor scientific conclusion to bolster the claim. UGH UGH UGH.

Sorry to beat a dead horse. I love you all…really.

@grog

I just don’t think you understand BioLogos and its various frames of reference.

You are criticizing just one particular view, and perhaps not even the dominant view within BioLogos.

I think there are a great number of BioLogos supporters who could never write the first part of your sentence the way you do:

“The combination of a naturalistic model that relies on chance, time and energy for creation …”

God directs evolution … there is no room for chance from God’s perspective. God takes his time and uses his energy for creation. And if Evangelical websites endorse the idea that the animals released from the ark are capable of speciation (which is a de-facto acknowledgement of Common Descent), I really don’t know what you object to… except how to interpret some of the evidence.

Your many, many posts objecting to Speciation (aka “speciation is impossible”) seem to be completely wrong and out of step with your brother Evangelicals, with whom you yourself say you are in agreement!

Exactly, although I’m confident that this important point is completely lost on Greg.

2 Likes

Greg, how many times has it been explained to you that natural selection is not chance? I think you’re determined to misrepresent evolutionary biology.

[quote=“grog, post:27, topic:35535”]
Another way that it disrespects God is the actual evolutionary methodology itself…
[/quote]Yet nothing that followed your claim had anything to do with methodology!

2 Likes

But it’s okay for God to dispose of him? Try thinking about what you write.

2 Likes

And I understand that pigs are all too similar to humans too. What does all of this suggest? That perhaps God created chimps and that He created humans with similar ingredients perhaps. It is not logical, fair or scientific to come to the conclusion that we evolved from common decent based on this information. It is a leap. If it were true, then where are the ape-human hybrids? Where are the only partial humans who cannot quite reproduce with full humans? That is what nature would have given after10’s of millions of years, don’t you think?

I build residential structures. If the house has really high ceilings, the walls will be more likely to have sturdier construction materials than say a house with low ceilings. Similar looking structures may have similar types of construction materials…so what? Does this mean that the houses reside in the same community or that they were built by the same builder? I am always amazed about how much some chimps have human qualities…yet they were not created in the image of God and for this they are finite creatures who’s lives will end permanently when they die. Humans are all together different. We both have similar bone structures, similar appendages, we are both mammals and have hair on our heads but humans were created more differently than chimps than (let me think of an idiotic comparison) the titanic compared to a slug. .

Greg sorry to jump in here but your words above clearly show you do NOT understand evolution. If you don’t want to actually learn what evolution means then please limit yourself to talking about what you do know or ask questions about the parts you have failed to understand.

3 Likes

There is an extreme difference between the naturalistic philosophy’s model that suggests that we evolved from a common decent that want to push God out so far he is hardly seen and the creationist model that suggests that God created kinds with the ability to adapt and even speciate within the realm of the genetic possibility built within the fabric of its created being. These are apples and oranges. One is nature -glorifying the other is God glorifying. Biologos choses the prior and simply re labels it. That is hardly different than the Biblical concept of hypocracy which is less our version today of saying one thing and doing another and more like putting on a costume and putting on an act.

God designed a wolf dog to have the ability to turn into what appears to be a horse in the great dane or a little practically furless rat looking dog…Perhaps he created certain marsupials with a vaster array of genetic possibilities. And perhaps He chose to speciate the planet rapidly as He saw fit. He is that powerful and more.

So we have a dog with 3 different capabilities of types of fur and it evolves to have thin fur to survive in a hot environment which was one of the genetic capabilities within its original type. From this, I believe from what some of you have said to me that this dog then looses the ability to produce thick fur because it evolved out the genetic possibility of thick fur…right? (this might be a crude example but follow me on principle.) If the environment then changes to cold, then chances are that the animal would die off…and if you have millions of years of climate change, this would more likely lead to extinction of all animals…right? So the new scientific go to is genetic mutation. Genetic mutation? GENETIC MUTATION??? Really? That is what science is coming up with now to explain all of this? When is science going to finally succumb to the reality that God just placed creatures and plants by design on the earth?

A theistic evolutionist theory that is so unbelievably inconceivable statistically is totally trumped by the more common sense statistical likelihood that an animal with certain genetic possibilities within the fabric of its being will more likely have devolved into oblivion in long ages. That means that long ages would more likely cause extinction of all species which were placed here than long ages causes evolution to complexity.

We are all heading to extinction…But our Lord is coming soon! He created us in an instant and he will re-create anyone instantly into a new creation in Him who comes to Him, looks to the cross and sees Jesus who was lifted on that cross to take our place for the crimes we have committed. Thank you God for your Goodness. We look forward to the celebration of your gospel of your love and grace this Easter!

According to the book of Genesis, how did human death come to earth? Whose fault was it? If we are unable to agree on the fundamentals of the Christian faith, then it will be really difficult to have a conversation.

I spoke to some Mormon missionary girls a few weeks ago who came to our door…check out the Mormon view of original sin sometime…Essentially Adam and Eve chose to turn their backs on God and disobey and from this they were blessed with the ability to reproduce and have children. The opposite is true about original sin. When Adam and Even disobeyed, it opened the door for human death, suffering, strenuous work, disease, extended pain in child birth, confusion, and a tendency to want to play God instead of worship God.

It is amazing how when one takes a step away from the basic theological principles in Genesis it can flub the entirety of the rest of their worldview with absolute absurdity such as in this really sadly errorsome worldview in Mormonism.

So, your “logic” works like this:

(1) Mormons reject your views on Genesis.

(2) Mormonism is a “sadly errorsome worldview.”

(3) Therefore, anybody who “takes a step away” from your “theological principles in Genesis” is headed into similar “absolute absurdity.”

Grog, have you noticed any classic logic fallacies in this kind of argument?

Meanwhile, you’ve not responded to the “smoking gun” replies you requested of us. Are you conceding your misunderstanding of how science works? Did you read the links I provided in order to discover what evolution is and what massive evidence supports the Theory of Evolution?

2 Likes

@grog

I’m going to have to flag your posts again if you continue to ignore the basic question:

There are many Evangelicals who assert that the present diversity of animals we find today is due to the Speciation that occurred once the animals were released from the Ark.

Do you, or do you not, concur with your fellow “Speciating” Evangelicals? You are dancing and ducking the basic question… trying to find fault with the scientific underpinnings of Speciation - - all the while you say you agree with your Evangelical colleagues who admit to speciation.

So which is it, @Grog? Do you or do you not agree that broad and expansive animal Speciation occurred once the animals were released from the Ark? Consider this the end of your “dancing permit”.

Even @Socratic.Fanatic is getting impatient with your unwillingness to engage the logic of your own posts!

1 Like

Gee, Grog…maybe you simply need new glasses!

1 Like

Welcome, whatisthetruth, you express yourself well. Regarding your comment:

So all the God’s works were finished from the foundation of the world and God rested on the seventh day. But from our time bounded human point of view, the seventh day is yet to come. We have not entered in his rest yet.

You may be interested in reading John Walton’s Lost World of Genesis 1, in which he outlines how God’s rest on the 7th day represents taking his seat in the temple of creation, where he rules and the seventh day continues. It is an interesting way to think of it.

Also, having been reading the Adam and the Genome book this evening, your post reminded me of how the book states being made in the image of God means we are God’s agents in creation, so that perhaps advances in science and the arts are part of God’s ongoing creation.

Perhaps that wondered a bit off subject, but quite honestly, it is difficult to figure out what the subject is on this thread.!:wink:

2 Likes

@grog , the last time it rained in your city, did you start a heated discussion with the meteorologist who described it as the result of a collision between warm, moist air and a cold front? (How could that clearly atheistic meteorologist dare attribute to natural causes what the Bible ascribes to God’s gracious hand?!)

Do you understand that it is possible to describe the rain as both the product of natural causes and the product of God’s gracious providence? Many atheists have espoused an atheistic understanding of meteorology. Do you think that a Christian must choose between faith on the one hand, and Godless meteorology on the other?

Remember, the Bible very clearly states that God sends the rain. Are you going to deny the Word of God by saying that rain is the result of a collision between warm, moist air and a cold front?

2 Likes

“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.