Jump to content


Photo

An Old-Earther, But Not A Theistic Evolutionist!


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Dredge

Dredge

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 29 April 2017 - 08:58 PM

Greetings to all.  I've been on several atheism-centric forums to discuss ToE, but I tired of the abuse and the bizarre aversion to rational thinking.  So I thought I'd head for friendlier and saner waters.  When I came across Evolution Fairytale I thought it sounded right up my alley.  

I am Roman Catholic and an old-earth creationist - however, I would like  to make it very clear that I am definitely NOT a theistic evolutionist!  I believe that the Lord created all life on earth in six days (each of 24-hours duration), about 5778 years ago.  I regard theistic evolution as a heresy, since evolution is totally incompatible with, and makes a mockery of, Holy Scripture.  If the truth of the Genesis account of creation can be thrown into doubt, then the entire Bible can be thrown into doubt.  Whom should a Christian believe - the Word of God, or a bunch of deluded atheist pseudo-scientists?  Surely, the wise man will choose the former and the only a fool will choose the latter.

 I also believe that the theory of evolution is not only the greatest hoax in the history of mankind, but is demonically inspired - to promote atheism and to blind mankind to the truth and light of Christ and the Gospel.

Sadly, many of my fellow Catholics are theistic evolutionists, but as a model of how a true Catholic should regard ToE, I highly recommend the anti-evolution writings of the late Catholic intellectual, Paula Haigh (eg, Thirty Theses Against Theistic Evolution).  I would also like to mention that although many high-ranking Catholics are theistic evolutionists, Catholics are free to totally reject ToE and believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 - as many of them do.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#2 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 29 April 2017 - 09:48 PM

Welcome to the forum, Dredge, and I hope you'll find a home here. It will be interesting to see your take on things.



#3 Dredge

Dredge

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 29 April 2017 - 10:23 PM

Welcome to the forum, Dredge, and I hope you'll find a home here. It will be interesting to see your take on things.


Thank you for your kind welcome. I have much to learn about many aspects of both evolution and creation science, but I'm not completely stupid and ignorant, so hopefully I can contribute something worth reading! At the very least, I am Catholic, which seems to be a bit of a novelty on this site.

#4 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,629 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 30 April 2017 - 02:31 PM

Greetings to all.  I've been on several atheism-centric forums to discuss ToE, but I tired of the abuse and the bizarre aversion to rational thinking.  So I thought I'd head for friendlier and saner waters.  When I came across Evolution Fairytale I thought it sounded right up my alley.  

Welcome, Dredge.  I think you'll find this forum much more to your liking than the open hostility that infects so many of these discussions.

 

I am Roman Catholic and an old-earth creationist - however, I would like  to make it very clear that I am definitely NOT a theistic evolutionist!  I believe that the Lord created all life on earth in six days (each of 24-hours duration), about 5778 years ago.  I regard theistic evolution as a heresy, since evolution is totally incompatible with, and makes a mockery of, Holy Scripture.  If the truth of the Genesis account of creation can be thrown into doubt, then the entire Bible can be thrown into doubt.  Whom should a Christian believe - the Word of God, or a bunch of deluded atheist pseudo-scientists?  Surely, the wise man will choose the former and the only a fool will choose the latter.

I too am Roman Catholic and spent the first 15 years of my education in Roman Catholic schools.

 

Where does 5778 years ago come from as the Ussher chronology based on the Biblical genealogies was about 6020 years ago?  (Not that a difference of 40 odd years is real big when compared to differences on the order of billions of years in the time of creation.)

 

Why doesn't an "old-earth" make just as big a "mockery of Holy Scripture" as "old life" does?  How "old" is the "old Earth?"  How about the Sun... was it created before the Earth or after?

 

Are you aware that many of what you call "atheist pseudo-scientists" are, in fact, Christians?  In fact, there's an entire organization of Christian scientists who accept evolution at "asa3.org."

 

 I also believe that the theory of evolution is not only the greatest hoax in the history of mankind, but is demonically inspired - to promote atheism and to blind mankind to the truth and light of Christ and the Gospel.

Yeah.... and the Catholic inquisitors at the time of Galileo believed the same thing of the telescope.  We all know how that turned out......

 

Sadly, many of my fellow Catholics are theistic evolutionists, but as a model of how a true Catholic should regard ToE, I highly recommend the anti-evolution writings of the late Catholic intellectual, Paula Haigh (eg, Thirty Theses Against Theistic Evolution).  

Haigh's theses can be found here:  http://www.catholica...n/etheistic.htm

 

Frankly, I found many of them to be non-issues....

 

I would also like to mention that although many high-ranking Catholics are theistic evolutionists, Catholics are free to totally reject ToE and believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 - as many of them do.

Yes.  So far as I know, the "official" position of the Catholic Church is that we are free to accept evolution or not so long as we consider evolution to be a God-driven process of creation.

 

Anyway, welcome again.... it'll be nice not to be the only active Catholic on the forum.



#5 Dredge

Dredge

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 01 May 2017 - 10:05 PM

I also believe that the theory of evolution is not only the greatest hoax in the history of mankind, but is demonically inspired - to promote atheism and to blind mankind to the truth and light of Christ and the Gospel.
Sadly, many of my fellow Catholics are theistic evolutionists, but as a model of how a true Catholic should regard ToE, I highly recommend the anti-evolution writings of the late Catholic intellectual, Paula Haigh (eg, Thirty Theses Against Theistic Evolution). I would also like to mention that although many high-ranking Catholics are theistic evolutionists, Catholics are free to totally reject ToE and believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 - as many of them do.

Due to a recent upgrade in my knowledge of evolution science, I need to amend parts of the aforementioned part of my introductory message.
Until yesterday, I was under the impression that when biologists refer to "the theory of evolution", it necessarily included the theory that all life evolved evolved from a common ancestor. Apparently this is incorrect. According to Wiki, for example, ToE is "the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioural traits" - which sounds like microevolution to me. If so, then I am not opposed to ToE, since microevolution is a demonstarable and undeniable scientific fact.

But Darwinists claim that the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor (macroevolution) is a no-brainer sequitur of ToE. This is what I disagree with - microevolution doesn't necessarily imply macroevolution.

So the terminology surrounding "the theory of evolution" can be very confusing - as far as I can ascertain, there are at least three theories of evolution:
1. ToE - the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioural traits - (microevolution)
2. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection - ToE + natural selection + the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor (macroevolution)
3. The general theory of evolution - all extant life evolved from simpler forms of life (macroevolution).

So, to sum up, I am not opposed to ToE (micro'), but I am opposed to the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor (macro').

#6 Dredge

Dredge

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 01 May 2017 - 10:29 PM

[quote name="piasan" post="137377" timestamp="1493587874"]Welcome, Dredge.  I think you'll find this forum much more to your liking than the open hostility that infects so many of these discussions.[/quote]
 Thanks for your welcome.

Where does 5778 years ago come from as the Ussher chronology based on the Biblical genealogies was about 6020 years ago? 

I get the 5778 years from Jewish sources - various Jewsih publications use this date.  I think the Catholic Church comes up with  a slightly different date.  I will have to read up on the Ussher chronology that you mention.
 

Why doesn't an "old-earth" make just as big a "mockery of Holy Scripture" as "old life" does?  How "old" is the "old Earth?"  How about the Sun... was it created before the Earth or after?

As far as I know, an old-earth belief doesn't conflict with Scripture (unlike millions of years of evolution). I don't know how old the earth is; I can't see that it's important.
The Sun was created on the fourth day.  (What is the "lIght" that was created on the first day?  I don't know.)

 
[/quote]Are you aware that many of what you call "atheist pseudo-scientists" are, in fact, Christians?  In fact, there's an entire organization of Christian scientists who accept evolution at "asa3.org."[/quote]
Please read my new post (#5) re ToE, in which I amend certain points made in my initial intro. Thanks for the reference to asa3.org; I'll check it out.
 

So far as I know, the "official" position of the Catholic Church is that we are free to accept evolution or not so long as we consider evolution to be a God-driven process of creation.


I am not sure what you mean by "evolution", but any Christian who accepts that all life evolved from a common ancestor is in error, imo, as such a belief cannot be reconciled with Scripture - nor with science.
 

Anyway, welcome again.... it'll be nice not to be the only active Catholic on the forum.

Thanks. God bless.

#7 Dredge

Dredge

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 02 May 2017 - 01:07 AM

I've just read the definition of "biological evolution" that this site uses, as per Forum FAQS. Great idea, as it can be so confusing.

#8 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 02 May 2017 - 09:08 AM

Due to a recent upgrade in my knowledge of evolution science, I need to amend parts of the aforementioned part of my introductory message.
Until yesterday, I was under the impression that when biologists refer to "the theory of evolution", it necessarily included the theory that all life evolved evolved from a common ancestor. Apparently this is incorrect. According to Wiki, for example, ToE is "the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioural traits" - which sounds like microevolution to me. If so, then I am not opposed to ToE, since microevolution is a demonstarable and undeniable scientific fact.

But Darwinists claim that the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor (macroevolution) is a no-brainer sequitur of ToE. This is what I disagree with - microevolution doesn't necessarily imply macroevolution.

So the terminology surrounding "the theory of evolution" can be very confusing - as far as I can ascertain, there are at least three theories of evolution:
1. ToE - the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioural traits - (microevolution)
2. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection - ToE + natural selection + the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor (macroevolution)
3. The general theory of evolution - all extant life evolved from simpler forms of life (macroevolution).

So, to sum up, I am not opposed to ToE (micro'), but I am opposed to the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor (macro').

 

The way evolution is used, particularly in this debate, can be confusing. In the biological sciences evolution deals with both small and large changes; so both micro and macro evolution are addressed within the theory of evolution. In the biological sciences there isn't really a distinction between micro and macro evolution as they are seen as the same process, but the two are used to distinguish between the amount of evolutionary change. Actually most biology textbooks define micro evolution as change at or below the species level, and macro evolution as changes above the species level.

 

However, creationists use the terms differently, and on this site we usually use the creationist definitions. For how creationists use the words falls back on what a "kind" is as first used by the Bible. "Evolution" within a kind is accepted by most creationists that debate this stuff, and is dubbed "micro evolution", and evolution above the kind is considered "macro evolution" and contradictory to biblical creationism. Long story short a "kind" has more or less been defined by creation scientists as approximately equal to the "family" rank in biological taxonomy, especially for land vertebrates, but there are exceptions like humans and chimps are in the same taxonomic family but are considered two separate kinds.

 

To that end we usually only refer to changes above the kind level to be evolution on this site, and changes within a kind are often called "adaptation" by creationists, but I still use "micro evolution" because I think it is the most appropriate term.
 

I consider this article from "Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal" to be the quintessential starting point for understanding the concept of "kind" in a rigorous way: http://www.creationr...raminology.htm



#9 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 May 2017 - 12:01 PM

 

 

Goku: For how creationists use the words falls back on what a "kind" is as first used by the Bible. "Evolution" within a kind is accepted by most creationists that debate this stuff, and is dubbed "micro evolution", and evolution above the kind is considered "macro evolution" and contradictory to biblical creationism. Long story short a "kind" has more or less been defined by creation scientists as approximately equal to the "family" rank in biological taxonomy, especially for land vertebrates, but there are exceptions like humans and chimps are in the same taxonomic family but are considered two separate kinds.

 

Creationists don't really accept evolutionary taxonomy anyway. Recent changes made it so that humans are now classed as apes it seems. This is just propaganda. Defining a human as an ape won't mean humans are apes.

 

Secondly, creationists don't accept that the original kinds were at the family level. What creation scientists I have listened to say, is that there is ambiguity in evolutionary science also, and that the taxanomical classification can't be exactly matched to animal kinds anyway.

 

For example sometimes they say two organisms are different species but it seems you could argue they are the same. You could certainly make a case that neanderthals were simply the same species for example.

 

Cynically, many evolutionists think creationists are out to be obfuscative when it comes to defining "kind" but there are logical problems. For example how can we know if there was not a missing ancestor that was close enough between to genera, that it's extinction NOW, it's absence to us NOW, means we make the mistake of saying they are "two kinds".

 

This is a genuine problem-area for creationists, because we ourselves don't know the original ancestors. If there are extinct ancestors which had features of both genus 1 and genus 2, we may say they are two kinds, but if such an ancestor existed, then the information originally in that ancestor, could have been shared in the modern genera as natural selection created a scenario of allopatric speciation, leading to a split.

 

Conclusion; you can't know what you don't know. But anyone can see that a chimp and a human are different things.

 

It's misleading that you keep trying to argue this Guru, I have noticed you keep trying to say that creationists mainly go with the family level but even if they did as individuals, there is disagreement about that anyway, and no creationist would ever argue that the family level in taxonomical classification, perfectly matches with baramins.

 

How could it if the evolutionists themselves toy with the classifications? if you can change it so that the great apes now include humans then what is that change based on? Nothing more than a DECISION to include humans based on evolution-belief.



#10 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,629 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 May 2017 - 12:37 PM

I get the 5778 years from Jewish sources - various Jewsih publications use this date.  I think the Catholic Church comes up with  a slightly different date.  I will have to read up on the Ussher chronology that you mention.

OK .... mostly I see the Ussher chronology which places creation on October 23, 4004 BCE.  There are other dates, but that's probably the most common one.

 

 As far as I know, an old-earth belief doesn't conflict with Scripture (unlike millions of years of evolution). I don't know how old the earth is; I can't see that it's important.

The Sun was created on the fourth day.  (What is the "lIght" that was created on the first day?  I don't know.)

This is exactly where I lost a literal Genesis.  It has the Sun, Moon, and stars created on day 4.  Yet we can see stars billions of light years from Earth.  In a 6,000 year old universe, we shouldn't even be able to see some 99.9999999999% of it.

 

Please read my new post (#5) re ToE, in which I amend certain points made in my initial intro. Thanks for the reference to asa3.org; I'll check it out.

I did see your new post.

 

There are a lot of definitions of "evolution" as well as "species" and "kind."  It's pretty necessary to pin down exactly what one means.  Your post #5 was probably skirting around Forum Rule #6 regarding "micro/macro" evolution.  But your clarification at the end probably pulled it out.....

 

Rule #6 is one of the reasons I seldom discuss evolution as I don't accept the Forum definition of "macro" evolution.  Combine that with my lack of background in biological sciences.

 

IMHO, physics is much more a "deal killer" for a literal reading of Genesis than evolution ever could be.

 

I am not sure what you mean by "evolution", but any Christian who accepts that all life evolved from a common ancestor is in error, imo, as such a belief cannot be reconciled with Scripture - nor with science.

From a scientific perspective, all proposals for the origin of life are speculative.  When I speak of evolution, I'm speaking of a process that acts on populations of organisms.  IOW, evolution cannot take place until AFTER life exists.



#11 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 02 May 2017 - 08:05 PM

Creationists don't really accept evolutionary taxonomy anyway. Recent changes made it so that humans are now classed as apes it seems. This is just propaganda. Defining a human as an ape won't mean humans are apes.

 

Secondly, creationists don't accept that the original kinds were at the family level. What creation scientists I have listened to say, is that there is ambiguity in evolutionary science also, and that the taxanomical classification can't be exactly matched to animal kinds anyway.

 

For example sometimes they say two organisms are different species but it seems you could argue they are the same. You could certainly make a case that neanderthals were simply the same species for example.

 

Cynically, many evolutionists think creationists are out to be obfuscative when it comes to defining "kind" but there are logical problems. For example how can we know if there was not a missing ancestor that was close enough between to genera, that it's extinction NOW, it's absence to us NOW, means we make the mistake of saying they are "two kinds".

 

This is a genuine problem-area for creationists, because we ourselves don't know the original ancestors. If there are extinct ancestors which had features of both genus 1 and genus 2, we may say they are two kinds, but if such an ancestor existed, then the information originally in that ancestor, could have been shared in the modern genera as natural selection created a scenario of allopatric speciation, leading to a split.

 

Conclusion; you can't know what you don't know. But anyone can see that a chimp and a human are different things.

 

It's misleading that you keep trying to argue this Guru, I have noticed you keep trying to say that creationists mainly go with the family level but even if they did as individuals, there is disagreement about that anyway, and no creationist would ever argue that the family level in taxonomical classification, perfectly matches with baramins.

 

How could it if the evolutionists themselves toy with the classifications? if you can change it so that the great apes now include humans then what is that change based on? Nothing more than a DECISION to include humans based on evolution-belief.

 

I don't know how appropriate it is to get into a lengthy discussion about this in the welcome section, especially since it is neither of our welcome threads.  :)  ...... but I would like to make a few points. If it becomes too much we can move to a new thread.

 

Biological taxonomy was invented by Linnaeus, who was a Christian creationist roughly 100 years before Darwin.

 

As for "kind" being roughly equivalent to "family"; I did say this was an approximation, was most valid for land vertebrates, and that there were exceptions like humans and chimps.

 

From Answers in Genesis (excerpt in blue): https://answersingen...nds-in-genesis/

 

"Creation scientists use the word baramin to refer to created kinds (Hebrew: bara = created, min = kind). Because none of the original ancestors survive today, creationists have been trying to figure out what descendants belong to each baramin in their varied forms. Baramin is commonly believed to be at the level of family and possibly order for some plants/animals (according to the common classification scheme of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). On rare occasions, a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels."

 

From the Creation Network (this page is eerily similar to the "Creation Wiki" page on kinds) (excerpts in green): http://nwcreation.ne...licalkinds.html   

 

"The created kind is thought to be more often synonymous with the "Family" level of classification in the taxonomic hierarchy; at least in mammals; and occasionally it can extend as high as the order level."

 

"Hybrid plants are created when the pollen from one kind of plant is used to pollinate and entirely different variety, resulting in a new plant. This type of crossbreeding is also used support that the created kind is broader than the species designation, and often synonymous with the family level of taxonomic classification."

 

"Assigning the kinds to a particular level of the modern taxonomic hierarchy has proved problematic, as evolutionary assumptions have influenced the classification system. As a result, the kinds do not coincide on a consistent basis with any particular taxonomy level. Nevertheless, today most creation scientists identify the family level of classification (such as Felidae) as most frequently synonymous with the baramin, whereas for others like humans it coincides with the genus level (homo)."

 

 

Cynically, many evolutionists think creationists are out to be obfuscative when it comes to defining "kind" but there are logical problems. For example how can we know if there was not a missing ancestor that was close enough between to genera, that it's extinction NOW, it's absence to us NOW, means we make the mistake of saying they are "two kinds".

 

This is a genuine problem-area for creationists, because we ourselves don't know the original ancestors. If there are extinct ancestors which had features of both genus 1 and genus 2, we may say they are two kinds, but if such an ancestor existed, then the information originally in that ancestor, could have been shared in the modern genera as natural selection created a scenario of allopatric speciation, leading to a split.

 

Well, it is the creationist position that God created all life in distinct kinds. That it is so difficult to have a working kind classification system in place is a testament to the reality of evolution where life is messy, IMHO.



#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 May 2017 - 02:30 AM

 

Goku: Well, it is the creationist position that God created all life in distinct kinds. That it is so difficult to have a working kind classification system in place is a testament to the reality of evolution where life is messy, IMHO.

 

 

I don't think so though. Think of it this way, if a kind seems to be the family level, sometimes order, sometimes genus, this may just reflect the absence of data and the mismatch between reality, and trying to pigeon-hole reality. It would be a fairly big non-sequitur to jump to the irrational conclusion that evolution has no limits, against all of the data that shows that it does, just because of our ignorance of organisms lost in time.

 

If there is license to not quite know where to classify a car-plane, does that really then mean that both originated from the bicycle?

 

I think the, "messiness" could simply mean that organisms can't be classified neatly into a taxonomy because they differ from each other in a way that doesn't allow such a uniform classification. Some may seem easier to group because they may simply be different in that regard, to other species which can create more diversity. But I don't see any evolution if we are simply missing ancestors. Another issue is time. If 25 years for humans is one generation, then since animals disembarked from the ark, for birds that's over 100 thousand years for diversification but about 4,500 for humans.

 

As you know adaptation, or what you call, "evolution", isn't about time, it's about how much reproduction can happen within a time-span. If birds have many more chances to reproduce, then effectively this is like giving you 500 mb file room for pictures and giving me 1.2 KB. Who do you think can get more pictures?

 

If we have group A and group B that originally are group X and group X contained information from both A and B but is now extinct because of allopatric speciation leading to them splitting, if group X also had a feature that neither A or B had, then the bridge between the groups is somewhat of an illusion, IMHO.

 

That argument evolutionists of used of, "if you can't define kinds this means evolution", has always struck me as a weak argument. It's a bit like saying this; "if you don't want to use the car you bought then I will use it for you." as an argument to justify theft.



#13 Dredge

Dredge

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 04 May 2017 - 01:30 AM

This is exactly where I lost a literal Genesis. It has the Sun, Moon, and stars created on day 4. Yet we can see stars billions of light years from Earth. In a 6,000 year old universe, we shouldn't even be able to see some 99.9999999999% of it.

Yes, well, the literal interpretation is incomprehensible - to the human mind (read: science) - but so what? My attitude is: It's very mysterious and sounds crazy; nevertheless I accept it as the literal truth. What's being described in Genesis 1 is a miracle, so I accept it as I would any other miracle in the Bible ... that is to say, I have absolutlely no idea how that could possibly happen, but I believe it because it's the Word of God.

God doesn't ask us to understand the miracles He performs - because it's utterly impossible to understand them! God asks only that we accept them as truth and as manifestations of His power and glory.

I did see your new post.
There are a lot of definitions of "evolution" as well as "species" and "kind." It's pretty necessary to pin down exactly what one means.

I have changed my definition of "evolution" to .... Evolution = Biology + the atheist cult of Darwinism.

#14 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 04 May 2017 - 03:53 PM

I don't think so though. Think of it this way, if a kind seems to be the family level, sometimes order, sometimes genus, this may just reflect the absence of data and the mismatch between reality, and trying to pigeon-hole reality. It would be a fairly big non-sequitur to jump to the irrational conclusion that evolution has no limits, against all of the data that shows that it does, just because of our ignorance of organisms lost in time.

 

That argument evolutionists of used of, "if you can't define kinds this means evolution", has always struck me as a weak argument. It's a bit like saying this; "if you don't want to use the car you bought then I will use it for you." as an argument to justify theft.

 

I'm not talking about whether kind is equal to family or genus or order; the criticism is that creationists claim that God created distinct kinds that cannot overlap, yet creation scientists have an incredibly hard time telling us what animal is in what kind - as if there is no distinct kinds to begin with. We expect such distinctions between groups to be blurred in an evolutionary paradigm since virtually all life has a common ancestor, but I don't see why it should be so difficult if God did in fact create distinct kinds that do not overlap.
 

I suppose you could say God can do whatever he wants, and if he wants to create an organism in one kind that is extremely similar to another kind so as to effectively give the appearance that kinds are not distinct there is nothing stopping God from doing that. However, I think that line of thinking raises some serious philosophical and theological issues.

 

If there is license to not quite know where to classify a car-plane, does that really then mean that both originated from the bicycle?

 

If creation scientists don't know how to classify a given organism, doesn't that fly in the face of God creating distinct kinds that cannot overlap?

 

I think the, "messiness" could simply mean that organisms can't be classified neatly into a taxonomy because they differ from each other in a way that doesn't allow such a uniform classification. Some may seem easier to group because they may simply be different in that regard, to other species which can create more diversity. But I don't see any evolution if we are simply missing ancestors. Another issue is time. If 25 years for humans is one generation, then since animals disembarked from the ark, for birds that's over 100 thousand years for diversification but about 4,500 for humans.

 

As you know adaptation, or what you call, "evolution", isn't about time, it's about how much reproduction can happen within a time-span. If birds have many more chances to reproduce, then effectively this is like giving you 500 mb file room for pictures and giving me 1.2 KB. Who do you think can get more pictures?

 

If we have group A and group B that originally are group X and group X contained information from both A and B but is now extinct because of allopatric speciation leading to them splitting, if group X also had a feature that neither A or B had, then the bridge between the groups is somewhat of an illusion, IMHO.

 

A hundred thousand years ago our ancestors were still H. sapiens, at least morphologically. We as a species evolved from an earlier species about 200,000 years ago from H. heidelbergensis. No matter how much you want to tinker with the numbers (within reason), the simple reality is that you can't get the amount and diversity of life we see today (and which history has recorded) with all non-aquatic animals coming off a boat in pairs 4,500 years ago. It truly amazes me how creationists talk about evolution in the most vile language, yet when it comes to post-flood biological diversity creationists advocate a 'hyper-evolution' scenario that is above and beyond anything a learned evolutionist would consider. This does seem a bit off topic so I'll stop here. 

 



#15 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,629 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 May 2017 - 01:23 AM

..... I lost a literal Genesis.  It has the Sun, Moon, and stars created on day 4.  Yet we can see stars billions of light years from Earth.  In a 6,000 year old universe, we shouldn't even be able to see some 99.9999999999% of it.

Yes, well, the literal interpretation is incomprehensible - to the human mind (read: science) - but so what? My attitude is: It's very mysterious and sounds crazy; nevertheless I accept it as the literal truth. What's being described in Genesis 1 is a miracle, so I accept it as I would any other miracle in the Bible ... that is to say, I have absolutlely no idea how that could possibly happen, but I believe it because it's the Word of God.

God doesn't ask us to understand the miracles He performs - because it's utterly impossible to understand them! God asks only that we accept them as truth and as manifestations of His power and glory.

So, why do you describe yourself as Old Earth Creationist?

 

I have changed my definition of "evolution" to .... Evolution = Biology + the atheist cult of Darwinism.

Interesting .... and the 60-80% of evolutionists who believe God was involved?



#16 Dredge

Dredge

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 08 May 2017 - 11:24 PM

So, why do you describe yourself as Old Earth Creationist?

Because I believe the earth was created before the "six days"  of creation mentioned in Genesis 1.
 

Interesting .... and the 60-80% of evolutionists who believe God was involved?

If by "evolutionists", you mean those who accept Darwin's theory of Common Decent, then my opinion is they are victims of an elaborate, demonic hoax.
And if by "God", you mean the God of the Bible, then those evolutionists who don't believe Adam and Eve were real, historical figures would find that such a belief is incompatible with Scripture - if they bothered to look.  And even if the incompatibility was apparent to them, a lot of them would conclude that the Bible must be wrong.  If the Bible is wrong, why are they are silly enough to still be Christians?  

#17 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,874 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 10 May 2017 - 03:23 AM

I am Roman Catholic and an old-earth creationist - ... I believe that the Lord created all life on earth in six days (each of 24-hours duration), about 5778 years ago.  

...

There seems to be some confusion, usually old-earth creationists believe in a Billions year old universe.

Typically <6000 years is called young-earth creation.

 

You're free to use whatever label you decide of course. What do you see as a young-earth creationist?



#18 Dredge

Dredge

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 12 May 2017 - 01:18 AM

I am Roman Catholic and an old-earth creationist - ... I believe that the Lord created all life on earth in six days (each of 24-hours duration), about 5778 years ago.  
...

There seems to be some confusion, usually old-earth creationists believe in a Billions year old universe.
Typically <6000 years is called young-earth creation.
 
You're free to use whatever label you decide of course. What do you see as a young-earth creationist?
I believe life was created on earth about 5778 years ago, but that the earth existed before that for a period of time that is unknown to me.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users