May I just say that while I don’t know how relevant it is to the current thread, that link (and links within the link) was pretty fascinating. Particularly interesting to me were a number of the findings from ancient DNA (aDNA) about ancient migrations and interbreeding, such as that aDNA in South American native populations had a greater concentration of Australian aboriginal / Melanesian DNA than North American native populations. Surely the next couple of decades will be a fascinating time for paleoanthropology! Anyway, thanks for posting.
Uncertainty is the corrosive of faith. And the genetic and biological aspects of Evolution seem particularly resilient to developing CERTAINTIES when it comes to the age of Earth and Humankind.
I debated the biological factors of Evolution with Karl Giberson for some four years… and he persistently and resolutely maintained his Creationism (ala Henry Morris) the entire time.
But within a few years of attaining his Ph.D in Physics, Prof. Giberson took the short-cut to Earth’s history. He became convinced that physics and chemistry conclusively showed that Earth was 5 billion years old and/or that it definitely was not less than 10,000 years old. Once he confidently and serenely arrived at this conclusion, his religious views were able to focus on God and his providence … instead of the minutia of the first chapters of Genesis.
Your assumption that [quote=“gbrooks9, post:15, topic:5147”]
It might be much easier to focus on the physics and chemistry of Earth’s age!
[/quote]
Is a nice side-step of the biological problems. However, assuming that if the earth is older than 6000 years it old proves evolution, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the multiple threads embedded in evolutionary theory. Even if the world was much older, does not prove that evolution happened in the way proposed, and in fact, even the proposed very old age of 4 by is not long enough for evolution to have happened on earth in any kind of undirected fashion from microbes to man.
Furthermore, as much as we think that chemistry will prove something, even there the assumptions are essential, and because of that, deciding which rocks to evalutate or measure, which amount of starting elements to assume, and which methods of radio decay to accept as authoritative will impact the supposed authority of the interpolated dates.
ha! I think physics is way more clear than the post you just made.
If the Earth is billions of years old… the Evangelicals are wrong. And that’s all we need to worry about.
The scientific evidence is that evolution did happen. Now if you look at it and think that evolution is something that is relatively unlikely to occur in say, a planet, then that’s one thing. Let’s say it’s extremely unlikely. Now if it did happen, and we find no evidence that it was directed in any way (and I don’t think there is any that is actually convincing), does that mean that God had no hand in? Of course not. God created the entire universe. It was God who made it unlikely that life would evolve spontaneously. And it was also God who ordains that life would spontaneously evolve on our planet. And it was also God who ordained the organisms which this spontaneous evolution would produce, because it was not spontaneous from his point of view.
1 Like
Jamie, the fact that you are willing to live with obvious contradictions… ie. “it evolved spontaneously vs it was not spontaneous” shows that you want to plant one foot each in two different worlds. The improbability of spontaneous evolution is shown both by mathematics, and also by simple observation of the universe. When we see all the unique conditions required for generation and sustaining of life, and in particular for the habitat of man, then talking about spontaneous evolution is nonsense, and is only a statement of a misbegotten faith. The fact that it appears somewhat random and spontaneous, does not mean it actually is. It also appears to be very organized and directed and structured. When you choose one principle instead of the other as an over-arching principle, then it is a reflection of world-view, rather than of mere observation.
I am glad however, that you acknowledge that God created the entire universe. You are starting on the right path when you make that statement.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.