Can you explain how evolution is miraculous? I’ve never heard it described as such. I’m sure Richard Dawkins would like to know too, in addition to Charlie Darwin.
My mistake, I was reading too much into your bolded phrasing. Exodus 20 and 31 are often used as evidence of a literal creation account. However, since these are symbolic instructions, I believe it is reasonable to take a symbolic approach to their meaning.
I know you are working on replying to a lot of responses at once, but I’d still like to see why you think the Beatitudes are evidence against evolution, since they were clearly instructions to mankind, and not a commentary on natural history.
Let me get back to the original reason I decided to participate in this thread. Have you attempted to listen to anyone that holds an evolutionary creation/theistic evolution viewpoint? Your posts here suggest that you are much more interested in winning a debate than in understanding those with a viewpoint that differs from yours.
1 Like
I’ve read plenty of YEC literature (and material from textbooks – BJU, Abeka). You need to start learning about evolution other than from just a few militant atheists who have seduced you away from any firm foundation.
An agenda is the only thing you have been able to display here so far, (at least among the material of yours I’ve read above – I’ve not read all of it.) From what I have read, you don’t have any understanding of actual evolution beyond what you’ve allowed a few militant atheists to seduce you into believing. You delight in what you no doubt think of as a righteous anger, but you are spreading heat instead of light, and have departed from wisdom and from scriptures in that regard. I will not follow you there; anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.
Prayers and blessings for you in this new year.
4 Likes
Yes, I do realize my comment is not an argument and it wasn’t intended to be one. I don’t think every assertion on the internet merits a counter argument. There is this thing people do called “evaluating sources.” Sometimes people confuse it with a genetic fallacy argument, but that is wrong, because it isn’t an argument at all, it’s a foundational skill involved in research and learning. I don’t think your sources are worth arguing with because they are, as Steve pointed out, either woefully outdated given the topic, or produced by people without what I consider relevant credentials. I wasn’t trying to deal any “killer blows,” and you can believe whatever you want. I was just pointing out how utterly uncompelling your views are to those who don’t share them because you are unable to support them with recent scholarship.
2 Likes
Any time you find that many ellipses in a quote you can just about guarantee that a dishonest creationist organization has ripped it completely out of context. Let’s see how it goes. You can find the actual full paper here.
Here is the first nugget taken out of the quote mine:
"My topic is mutation. Mutation is the ultimate source of variability on which natural selection acts; for neutral changes it is the driving force. Without mutation, evolution would be impossible. My concern, however, is not with mutation as a cause of evolution, but rather as a factor in current and future human welfare. Since most mutations, if they have any effect at all, are harmful, the overall impact of the mutation process must be deleterious. And it is this deleterious effect that I want to discuss. "
Wow, talk about ripping something out of context. It clearly states that mutations are the driving force of neutral drift. It then narrows the field down to mutations that have an effect, which is the minority. Of those minority of mutations that have an effect the majority are going to be deleterious, and most biologists agree. However, those mutations are removed through natural selection.
Now for the second nugget from the quote mine, found several paragraphs later:
"The most important properties of gene mutations, for the purposes of this talk, are: First, to repeat, if they have an observable effect they are almost always harmful. Second, most of the changes are not in the genes, but in the great bulk of so-called “junk” DNA, most of which has no known function. Many of these changes are effectively neutral. Third, most mutations have very minor effects, if any. We usually think of a mutation as an eye color change, a conspicuous disease, or some other phenotypic change that is sharp and striking, and indeed these are the kinds of mutations that have been most useful for classical genetic analysis. But diverse experiments in various species, especially Drosophila, show that the typical mutation is very mild. It usually has no overt effect, but shows up as a small decrease in viability or fertility, usually detected only statistically. Fourth, that the effect may be minor does not mean that it is unimportant. A dominant mutation producing a very large effect, perhaps lethal, affects only a small number of individuals before it is eliminated from the population by death or failure to reproduce. If it has a mild effect, it persists longer and affects a correspondingly greater number. So, because they are more numerous, mild mutations in the long run can have as great an effect on fitness as drastic ones. "
Funny how they cut out the part where the author specifically states that the majority of mutations occur in junk DNA which has no known function, and such mutations are neutral.
Here is the next group of nuggets:
"…each mutation leads ultimately to one ‘genetic death’…so we have a problem…It seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating…The decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1-2% per generation…I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but with a much longer fuse.”
If you want to know why creationists have such a bad name, this quote is a perfect example. My advice? Start learning about real science.
5 Likes
Then why do you freely use dishonest quote mines? Is that what a truth seeker would do?
4 Likes
Exactly how many peer reviewed primary creationist research papers appear in real peer reviewed scientific journals?
2 Likes
You obviously haven’t read the BioLogos Mission Statements.
It specifically describes the scenario that God intentionally used Evolution to assist in God’s creation.
This is the same as God specifically using evaporation to create a rain cloud that he could use to rain on armies as well as on parched farmland.
Your inability to grasp that God can use his own natural laws to accomplish various things - - while also using miraculous actions, depending on the circumstances - - would suggest that you need to re-visit basic theology to cope with God’s handling of the Universe he created.
@Ron,
The Book of Job describes rain storms as one of God’s miracles. Does this mean you don’t believe God uses evaporation to help in the conduct of his miraculous rain activities?
Ron I think you misunderstand me
You had asked how God could interact with evolution. The answer is I do not know, nor do we need to know in the same way that we do not know how God brings about miracles.
we don’t seek to explain how God creates, so why do we need to explain the divine action in respect of evolution.
we presume God can interact with matter in all cases without explaining the precise way. We simply affirm the divine ability to do so.
1 Like
I’m not sure why you have to be so vague at this point. God interacts with his Universe at any and every point with which He wants to interact.
In Evolution, there are a myriad ways to create a genetic change.
And there are a “myriad times myriad” ways to create changes in an ecosystem that would drive natural selection.
It’s really not a mystery as to how God could introduce changes. The mystery is the forlorn hope of knowing which technique might have been employed at “this” or “that” time.
However, if God wanted to eliminate the dinosaurs so that the rise of advanced mammals would be possible, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see that God arranged for the arrival of the Dinosaur killing asteroid!
1 Like
We also need to remember that science uses methodological naturalism, not ontological naturalism. As it pertains to random mutations (and the rest of nature for that matter), all science can say is that the observations are consistent with a random process and a specific level of confidence based on statistical models. Science does not and can not say that a process is devoid of divine interaction simply because it is consistent with being random.
Also, I have always found this verse to be interesting as it relates to the idea of randomness and Christian theology:
Jonah 1:7-- And they said every one to his fellow, Come, and let us cast lots, that we may know for whose cause this evil is upon us. So they cast lots, and the lot fell upon Jonah.
This isn’t the only example of lots being cast in the Bible (see Wiki). At least in the OT, it seems to indicate that what appears to be random to us can still serve God’s purpose.
1 Like
Who is arguing with this? Of course you can be a devoted follower of Christ, and effective emissary for Him and be a literal six day creationist. The argument you seem to be advancing is that you can’t be a devoted follower of Christ and effective emissary for him unless you are also a literal six day creationist. That is what people are taking issue with, not the fact that lots of fine Christians are creationists.
1 Like
Curtis,
Follow your OWN logic:
-
“I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before Me." NOT SYMBOLIC
-
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I, the Lord am thy God." NOT SYMBOLIC
-
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" NOT SYMBOLIC
-
“Honor thy father and thy mother" NOT SYMBOLIC
-
“Thou shalt not kill." NOT SYMBOLIC
-
“Thou shalt not commit adultery." NOT SYMBOLIC
-
“Thou shalt not steal." NOT SYMBOLIC
-
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." NOT SYMBOLIC
-
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house" NOT SYMBOLIC
-
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day. Whosoever doeth any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." DEFINITELY SYMBOLIC.
So which is the actual symbolic element to Moses and the Israelites? Is it a symbolic 6 or is it a symbolic execution? Or are both symbols? Care to explain (away) your argument?
The rest of God’s people on the Sabbath is symbolic of God’s rest after His creative work, regardless of one’s viewpoint. The importance is remembering the Creator. Would you agree?
Please prove me wrong if you are interested in discussion. Otherwise, I will probably not respond further.
Au contraire, mon ami! Of course this is symbolic language, or we would be forever banned from engraving anything or making any kind of likenesses of real things. Also we bow all the time to show respect (or practice yoga) and serve our family, friends, and employers as appropriate. We know not to take this literally as it’s all about the symbolism!
Hm. It seems once again that the point I thought you were arguing (that mutations were almost all deadly, or later that there was too much build-up of mildly deleterious mutations) is not actually what you meant to argue about at all. It’s tempting to read this as you being totally unfamiliar with how fish actually evolved step by step into philosophers, but I’m disinclined to spend much more time on that problem. Let me know how your search for Truth is going, I hope it exceeds my expectations!
Here’s a more up-to-date article on why evolution and its faith in beneficial mutations has lost the argument.
https://creation.com/beneficial-mutations-real-or-imaginary-part-2
@Ron,
Don’t you find it a bit ironic that you are quoting from a death sentence verse for anyone who works on the Sabbath… one of the verses of the Bible that is virtually disdained if not ignored?
When’s the last stoning you’ve been to … after pulling a clerk out of a 7/11?
After the raft of quote mines from that source, I think we need to see quotes, in context, from the original sources (which is how it’s supposed to be done in the first place).
1 Like