Dinosaurs

[Phat8594]

You might want to link to a page that actually discusses macroevolution next time

Look at the top of the page.

It has several sectional headings...some of which are

1. Microevolution
2. Speciation
3. Macroevolution

[Phat8594]

Or at least that's how I tool it, Sorry if i'm wrong.

Saying you don't believe in one thing doesn't mean that you suscribe to another. I am actually quite agnostic on young earth / old earth. I just don't buy evolution. If anything, I think it shows the unsubstantiated pride of man and his "knowledge".

[oxmixmudd]

So changes in one chromosome can eventually accumulate and create whole new chromosomes with viable information?

Why not? We are looking for a hard reason here, not just 'it doesn't seem possible'.

As many times as you paint a car...it will never create a whole new car.

Painting is not a process that has the possibility of creating a car. A more apt analogy would be changes to a string of letters. Now consider your statement using that analogy:

As many times as you change the letters in SSSSSSS, it will never create a real word.

Hmm -that doesn't quite work, does it?

A still more apt analogy would be a million machines that make objects by reading strings of letters. Where a fellow stands at the exit of each machine and decides which objects meet his criteria and which ones don't. And where each object produces a new, slightly different set of letters from the set that produced itself which is fed back into the machine ONLY if it first passes the criteria test. (we could tweek the analogy to make it more and more like what evolution is, but you can probably see my point)*.

No how did those machines come to be? What made the first set of strings? Those are probably valid questions. But it does seem somewhat intuitively obvious that eventually the machines will produce objects that match the set of criteria imposed.


Jim

*Lest the impact be lost - the strings are DNA/RNA, the 'machines' are the fundamental chemical properties that allow DNA to produce proteins and eventually an animal or plant, the 'object' is an animal or plant, and the fellow that stands and decides which objects are used to make more objects is 'Natural Selection'.

[Phat8594]

Why not? We are looking for a hard reason here, not just 'it doesn't seem possible'

Because it doesn't. Not because "it doesn't seem possible"...Rather it has never been shown to happen. Not to mention it defies logic.

So, in other words, I am looking to YOU for a hard reason of why and how it is possible.

Painting is not a process that has the possibility of creating a car. A more apt analogy would be changes to a string of letters. Now consider your statement using that analogy:

And mutation within a chromosome does not have the possibility of creating a whole new chromosome with new viable information.

As many times as you change the letters in SSSSSSS, it will never create a real word.

More appropriate is:

As many times as you change the letters in SSSSSSS, it may at one point create a meaningful word (information by the way needs intelligence), but it can not create a whole new word:

e.g. change SSSS enough times and we may end up with WORD

however, change SSSS enough times and you will never end up with WORD + LOGIC

LOGIC representing the new chromosome with new viable information.

[oxmixmudd]

Because it doesn't. Not because "it doesn't seem possible"...Rather it has never been shown to happen. Not to mention it defies logic.

So, in other words, I am looking to YOU for a hard reason of why and how it is possible.

"Not to mention it defies logic" is in fact the same as "it doesn't seem possible" - because you 'logic' is not in fact the rigorous logic I am speaking of, but rather the fuzzy logic of what 'seems'.

And I can give you all sort of reasons it is theoretically possible. It's actually fairly simple in fact. Let us suppose that a DNA sequence AGGGTCCT nedds to go to AGGCCTTCT. These three changes accomplich the conversion (@4G->C, @5-T>C, @7C->T). Do we see changes like G->C, why yes. So it is theorectically possible for AGGGTCCT to got to AGGCCTTCT.

It is also possible for sequences to be duplicated or deleted. So I can effectively change from any existing sequence to any other propsed sequence. In fact, there are many such paths. So many in fact that for the typical shift seen in DNA between two closely related organisms it would be physically impossible to catalog and investigate to viability of each one.

Now a 'gene' is simply a sequence of amino acids in a DNA molecule. Therefore, it is possible first duplicate a gene (we see this all the time) and then for that Gene to morph into the new Gene.

So what has to be done to show this is impossible is to show there exists no sequence of alterations from one chromosome to some other chromosome or set of chromosomes where all the variations along that sequence. The problem, of course, is that this simply is an impossible task. However, it may be possible to construct such a path by examining the existing set of changes say between a chimpanzee and a human. Though this is also likely an intractable problem. What can, and has been done, is to show that some smaller sequence changes observed do in fact have viable pathways.

And mutation within a chromosome does not have the possibility of creating a whole new chromosome with new viable information.

This is your assumption, and it is not even true - It provably does - theoretically. What remains to be examined or show is that one such a path is viable(all organisms produced by the sequence of changes can live to reproduce), or that there is no viable path (in all possible paths, at least one organism can't survive to reproduce). Given the massive number of possible paths, the former is the more likely to be done in our lifetime, assuming the latter is not in fact true.

More appropriate is:

As many times as you change the letters in SSSSSSS, it may at one point create a meaningful word (information by the way needs intelligence), but it can not create a whole new word:

e.g. change SSSS enough times and we may end up with WORD

however, change SSSS enough times and you will never end up with WORD + LOGIC

LOGIC representing the new chromosome with new viable information.

Ah - but you are not following my analysis. Paint can't produce a car, so no matter how much paint you put on a car, you won't get a car. But a string of letters can produce a word. The actual problem we are looking at is can changes in DNA produce a new CHROMOSOME. My string of letters to word analogy was not meant to represent the situation in evolution, but to show the deficiency in the construction of your analogy.

If we were to construct an analogous relationship to DNA and GENES, then we need something that allows not merely for the change of the characters in the string, but for changes in the length of the string, or the number of distinct strings, as can and has been observed in relation to DNA itself. And this is not in fact hard to do, and I have in fact done it above. If we can copy/append/delete portions of a string, if we can join or divide exsting strings, then we have something far more analogous to DNA itself. And it is, in fact, fairly simple then to show a sequence from SSSSSS to WORD+LOGIC: to whit:

SSSSSS -> SSSSSSSSSSSS (copy/append)
SSSSSSSSSSSS -> SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS (S1 copy/append)

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS -> Phat8594 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS (S1 divide @ 9 to S1/S2, S1@1S->P,@2S->h,@3S->a,@4S->t,@5S->8,@6S->5,@6S->9,@8S->4,)

Phat8594 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS -> Phat8594 is SSSSSSSSSSSSSS (S2 divde @3 to S2/S3, S2 @1S->i, @2S->s)

Phat8594 is SSSSSSSSSSSSSS -> Phat8594 is wrong SSSSSSSSSS (S3 divide @ 6, S3 @1S->w, @2S->r, @3S->o, @4S->n, @5S->g)


Now I am not addressing the probability these changes will occur, only that they can. The issue of probability is another matter which could hold a key to you hypothesis being correct ... but you must account for the massive filtering effect of Natural Selection and the number of viable paths, not to a specific viable descendent, but to all possible viable descendents.


Anyway, this is the kind of thought path you must pursue to actually determine what is or is not possible. "Not logcial" or "does not seem likely" are not sufficient.

What is not in your favor is that the fossil record shows that life changed form in what appears to be a 'path' from older types to newer types. And it appears to have been the result of a sequence of smaller changes within a population over time - whatever the mechanism for change was.

Jim

[theblueprint_Ni]

Well, it certainly is your choice whether we pursue these topics in a discussion. I personally prefer not to predict how such would go, or what motivates you, the person holding the opposing view. It seems to me that in doing so, you form a caricature of who I am, or why I think the way I do. For example, you say the Bible informs your perceptions, not natural science, as if somehow does not inform mine.in a similar fashion to how it informs you. And yet, the reality is that much of what informs you as regards what the Bible says is in fact natural science. In fact, this is one of my fundamental complaints about the typical YEC approach to the entire issue. You assume that you are somehow more faithful to scripture than I, and less influenced by 'the world' or 'man's wisdom' in your reading than I. And yet, you reject a literal reading of every component of the text that implies a structure or form to the cosmos that you know from science is not correct. How do you know there are no pillars of the EArth. There is no sluices or windows in heaven, the heavens are not as a molten mirror, the are no foundations of the Earth, the sun and moon did not stop on joshua's long day, that God does not literally hurl hailstones from His abode above the clouds. There is so much language in this text that we do not even consider is lliteral because of what we know from science, elements that historically were debated on just that issue - literality. You are likely not even aware of how often you do this, so intuitive is the response.

But I agree that there is something fundamental about Evolution that crosses our traditional view in such a way as to almost universally draw a sense of rejection from people of faith. And not just Christians. It trips up muslims and orthodox Jews as well. But I think understanding what that is that drives this is critical. The Catholic church has limited the issue to Adam. Evolution is ok they say, as long as Adam is still a singular individual. Most OEC's and even many TE's take this same position - Adam remains a singular man and sin enters the world through him. Many of the theological issues that push you to YEC actually aren't as strong as you think they are. But there are others, most notably the origin of mankind, that are far more challenging, and may indeed be uncrossable for the Christian as regards the secular view of origins.

I'd love to actually be able to discuss these issues thoughtfully with someone from an opposing viewpoint, but alas, none will venture into this discussion with me. They either back away as you are, or they declare me a heretic or something close to it and stomp away

So why could we not discuss some of the theological issues? And why could we not discuss this glaring hypocrisy (as I see it) of folks in the YEC camp arbitrarily drawing the line as regards what they will accept from science in terms of its influence on their interpretation of scripture - while at the same time condemning anyone who goes beyond their own arbitrary boundaries doing the very same thing?


Jim

The Bible doesn't inform your perceptions, at least not primarily. If it did, we would agree about many things. It's an afterthought, the object for which what your perceptions are applied. You have a Kantian like approach to Scripture that I cannot accept.

In regards to scientific claims in Scripture, what is and is not to be taken literal is almost always self-evident. When the Psalmist writes about the pillars of the earth, it seems clear enough that he is not making a claim about the particularities of what the earth is, but is stating a general notion about its foundations being in the hands of God. Even we can relate to that. Earthquakes strike fear in the heart of every man because the ground that supports him is compromised, yet even in such cases we believe that God holds the earth together. Molten mirrors, windows of heaven, among other literary devices are made evident by the context. Have you ever read Hamlet? To my knowledge, there isn't much disagreement about how to interpret the body of Shakespeare's work. What supposedly happens in reality (encountering the ghost of his dead father), and what is a poetic expression (the many soliloquies against his uncle) is not hard to discern by understanding the whole context of the story. Such is the Bible.

In my opinion, all forms of OEC is a compromise to Scripture, and some more or less than others, but I'm willing to entertain the differing views. Evolution, however, is a distinct category because it's not OEC at all. The transition from evolution into any part of the creation narrative is incoherent. Every evolutionist Christian that I have ever met has been an inclusivist and a relativist without exception. It has never only remained as a pre-Adam doctrine, but has, like all forms of error, crept in and influenced every orthodox belief. The theological issues that push me to believe in YEC are incredibly strong and vitally important. Church history has a long, long record that testifies to the negative effects of unorthodox beliefs. This stretches back to Arianism, Seballianism, Marcionism, Gnosticism, and other isms that continue on throughout history.

We do not draw arbitrary lines between what is and is not scientifically acceptable. We read the Bible first and consider the science second. If the Bible reads like something should be taken literally, then even if modern scientific theory suggests something to the contrary, we stand on the Scriptures by placing the burden of proof on the theory, not on the Bible. The science and all the evidences, theories, and philosophies behind it stands to be corrected, not the Bible.

You have to do a lot of work to justify miracles of any kind if you really do believe them. Whether creation, the flood, divine judgments, Joshua's long day, the parting of the Red Sea, healings of various kinds, raising of the dead, the ascension, and the list goes on. Evolution, or rather the philosophy and worldview that drives it, attacks and undermines the reality presented in the word of God.

[oxmixmudd]

The Bible doesn't inform your perceptions, at least not primarily. If it did, we would agree about many things. It's an afterthought, the object for which what your perceptions are applied. You have a Kantian like approach to Scripture that I cannot accept.

The bible most certainly does inform my perceptions. I am always amazed how when a person i am discussing this issue with goes straight to some kind of implication that i am somehow do not take an orthodox or otherwise acceptable approach to faith or the scripture. the issue of the age of the earth or the mechanism of creation is not an issue of orthodoxy in the faith and never has been. That God is the creator is the issue of orthodoxy, not the length of the days, or the order of the days.

In regards to scientific claims in Scripture, what is and is not to be taken literal is almost always self-evident. When the Psalmist writes about the pillars of the earth, it seems clear enough that he is not making a claim about the particularities of what the earth is, but is stating a general notion about its foundations being in the hands of God. Even we can relate to that. Earthquakes strike fear in the heart of every man because the ground that supports him is compromised, yet even in such cases we believe that God holds the earth together. Molten mirrors, windows of heaven, among other literary devices are made evident by the context. Have you ever read Hamlet? To my knowledge, there isn't much disagreement about how to interpret the body of Shakespeare's work. What supposedly happens in reality (encountering the ghost of his dead father), and what is a poetic expression (the many soliloquies against his uncle) is not hard to discern by understanding the whole context of the story. Such is the Bible.

here is where you simply are unable to recognize your own dependence on science, your own application of what you know scientically to your reading of scripture. that there are not pillars upon which the earth rests is most certainly NOT self-evident - excepting that you grew up in the 20th and 21st centuries and the general makup of the earth and its position in the solar system is now common knoweldge. it was not common knowledge even 400 years ago. and i can point you to some rather wild speculations of how the 'firmament and the waters above/waters below could be understood relative to what was then 'modern science' the key being that in that time, the 'self-evidenct' nature of what we now know simply didn't exist and the very real literal meaning of the text was not masked by that same knowledge. you think a molten or cast mirror or windows of heaven are 'literary devices', and yet it is fairly common knowledge that peoples of the time in which th scriptures were written did in fact regard them as literal descriptions of what existed as the 'cosmos'. these were in fact literal references to literal structure. this same understanding can be found as late as the writings of both Luther and Calvin.

It is almost Orwellian how quickly these ancient understandings of scripture have been lost in the mists of time, how the modern evangelical has been brainwashed into thinking that these peoples somehow magically did not absorb into themselves these common misconceptions of the world, or that our scriptural references to nature do not in fact bear witness to what they thought in those times, even as recently as the time of Galileo. I would suggest you read some of the books written in the 16, 17 and 18 hundreds attempting to reconcile what was being learned about the natural world with what was then thought to be the 'plain teachng of scripture' concerning the natural world. It is possible that what the text says 'on its own' will become a bit more evident to you.

In my opinion, all forms of OEC is a compromise to Scripture, and some more or less than others, but I'm willing to entertain the differing views. Evolution, however, is a distinct category because it's not OEC at all. The transition from evolution into any part of the creation narrative is incoherent. Every evolutionist Christian that I have ever met has been an inclusivist and a relativist without exception. It has never only remained as a pre-Adam doctrine, but has, like all forms of error, crept in and influenced every orthodox belief. The theological issues that push me to believe in YEC are incredibly strong and vitally important. Church history has a long, long record that testifies to the negative effects of unorthodox beliefs. This stretches back to Arianism, Seballianism, Marcionism, Gnosticism, and other isms that continue on throughout history.

I would agree with you on the effects of unorthodox theological beliefs. When the acceptance of 'science' affects the theological teaching of scripture, there is a problem. But evolution itself does not require adjustment of Christian theology. Only an adjustment of ones perception of the pre-history or the world itself. And most certainly OEC does not require an adjustment of one's theology. What has to be adjusted is how one sees the mechanics of the theology being worked out. For example, We both believe in the sin nature which Christ came to redeem. But we understand differently how we may have come to have that sin nature. You think that because you have Adam created immortal and falling from Grace that you 'understand' how we came to have a sin nature. But you actually don't. We don't know how sin is passed down from generation to generation, we just know that it is. we don't know how Adam sinning could affect the whole human race. we just know that it did. so, without really understanding the mechanism itself, how can you say that any particular mechanism of creation is actually necessary to that theological truth being a reality?

You see, if we put down our disagreement about the secondary issues of YEC and evolution and simply discussed Christian theology, you'd likely find nothing outside the bounds of the more mundane differences we find in conservative, evangelical Christainity. but it think that is troublesome to you, because you go out of your way several times in this post to state in one way or the other that this can't really be true.

We do not draw arbitrary lines between what is and is not scientifically acceptable. We read the Bible first and consider the science second. If the Bible reads like something should be taken literally, then even if modern scientific theory suggests something to the contrary, we stand on the Scriptures by placing the burden of proof on the theory, not on the Bible. The science and all the evidences, theories, and philosophies behind it stands to be corrected, not the Bible.

i know you think that is what you do. but you already showed me that is not the case by your reference to these ancient biblical references to the natural world as simply literal devices, reading the text and applying a 20th century scientific understanding to them disregarding the culture and the clear meaning of the words themselves. again, you need to read the writings of the church fathers and see how they understood these texts, realizing that even there we are more than 1500 years after the fact in terms of the writing of these texts and the advances in the knowledge of the world as understood by the greeks and the romans.

You have to do a lot of work to justify miracles of any kind if you really do believe them. Whether creation, the flood, divine judgments, Joshua's long day, the parting of the Red Sea, healings of various kinds, raising of the dead, the ascension, and the list goes on. Evolution, or rather the philosophy and worldview that drives it, attacks and undermines the reality presented in the word of God.

And you see, here you go applying a false conception of what i 'must' believe based on your own misconceptions. I have no trouble believing in any of the miracles you mention, though I do not arbitrarily assume the form they took. Hoefully you at least understand that much of the writing about nature in scripture is phenomenal, and that one must understand the culture's perception and scientific understanding to properly understand what they are talking about. but even so, you probably think that if God used (or i propose that God used) the massive volcanic eruption of thera n 1500 bc to create some or all of the effects that are mentioned in the exodus that this somehow undermines the miracle, or undermines scripture. but this is absurd. the miracles took place, the exodus occurred, the israelites walked across dry land and the egyptians drowned. i don't need a natural explanation to believe in them. but then again, my faith is not shaken if there is in fact some natural component to their fulfillment.

There is a very great danger that folks in your position face. I'll illustrate it with two examples. There is this crowd of very conservative Christians that actually think the King James Version is the only valid version of the Bible. This is of course absurd. We have access to much more complete texts today that the kjv translators had, we know a very great deal more about the cultures and languages so as to enable us to produce a much more accurate initial source for translation, and subsequent translation. but, because in some cases this knowledge undermines traditional mistranslation found in the kjv, the KJVO crowd deems these newer translations inferior and to some degree compromises with the world etc. A second example is like the first - you mention the parting of the Red sea. yet the text refers not to the Red Sea. but rather the Sea of Reeds or rushes, which may or may not refer to what we now know of as the 'Red Sea'. Some go so far as to try to make the case this mistake is in fact not a mistake, and some see defering to this as some kind of compromise. Now what does it say when the actual meaning of the actual Hebrew text is viewed as a 'compromise' of scripture, and a mistake by a translator in the 16th century is viewed as 'the inerrant word of God'? do we value the bible, the truth - or do we value our tradition. do we want to truly know God, and his creation as it actually is, or do we want to feel safe and comfortable with nothing mysterious or not clearly understood?



Jim

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Names certainly follow conventions; Elijah was neither El nor Yahweh.

"Though art Peter on this rock I shall place my Church" Sounds like he was a literal rock to me, you Calling God a Liar?

This gets back to the point that science works, regardless of whether it's technically "true", inasmuch as induction is technically a logical fallacy. But my point was not that science is "all bad." My point was that Scripture is completely true in all that it teaches, and to whatever extent science fails to incorporate all relevant data, its conclusions are suspect.

And I say that your interpretations are failing to take into account the science I consider capable of guiding our interpretations. After all truth cannot contradict truth.

I'm not sure what you're saying in the first part here. "we'd be a little bit more analogous then you to a modernist heretic"? I can't parse that. At any rate, I am sure that we have different views of the authority of the Bible, and probably most of our other differences fall out predictably from there. But since you say that your view of these matters is in flux, is there anything you'd like to know about my position?

I view the Bible as authoritative in all areas (This being the change) BUT all knowledge is also authoritative in our interpretations. Because Truth cannot contradict reality.

[ThePuppyTurtle]

More appropriate is:

As many times as you change the letters in SSSSSSS, it may at one point create a meaningful word (information by the way needs intelligence), but it can not create a whole new word:

e.g. change SSSS enough times and we may end up with WORD

however, change SSSS enough times and you will never end up with WORD + LOGIC

LOGIC representing the new chromosome with new viable information.

The problem here is that DNA cannot have noise, every possible Codon codes for a protein ans therefore there is not analogous noise. Every stretch of DNA is is information if any other is and thus the information argument is worthless.

[theblueprint_Ni]

The bible most certainly does inform my perceptions. I am always amazed how when a person i am discussing this issue with goes straight to some kind of implication that i am somehow do not take an orthodox or otherwise acceptable approach to faith or the scripture. the issue of the age of the earth or the mechanism of creation is not an issue of orthodoxy in the faith and never has been. That God is the creator is the issue of orthodoxy, not the length of the days, or the order of the days.

Evolution is an issue. You can't properly believe much of the Bible while maintaining that belief. Orthodoxy is specific, not general.

here is where you simply are unable to recognize your own dependence on science, your own application of what you know scientically to your reading of scripture. that there are not pillars upon which the earth rests is most certainly NOT self-evident - excepting that you grew up in the 20th and 21st centuries and the general makup of the earth and its position in the solar system is now common knoweldge. it was not common knowledge even 400 years ago. and i can point you to some rather wild speculations of how the 'firmament and the waters above/waters below could be understood relative to what was then 'modern science' the key being that in that time, the 'self-evidenct' nature of what we now know simply didn't exist and the very real literal meaning of the text was not masked by that same knowledge. you think a molten or cast mirror or windows of heaven are 'literary devices', and yet it is fairly common knowledge that peoples of the time in which th scriptures were written did in fact regard them as literal descriptions of what existed as the 'cosmos'. these were in fact literal references to literal structure. this same understanding can be found as late as the writings of both Luther and Calvin.

What is self evident is that the Bible doesn't talk much about the "pillars" outside of poetic expression, but when it does, it's not at all a point of contention. It's not surprising that the ancients would have thought that the sun orbited the earth because it was an implied reading from the perspective of the observer. However, my point still stands that the sparse, physically irrelevant mentions of the "pillars", "windows", or the sun's relation to the earth should never have been a hill to die on because the Bible was never explicit on the meaning. The Bible is explicit about creation. I must repeat that the whole Bible is written on the assumption that the creation narrative was a literal event. You don't make any distinction between that and out of context mentions of the sun, the pillars of the earth, and windows of heaven because you see some kind of correlation between scientific progression and Biblical reinterpretation of supposedly scientific statement recorded in the Scripture. It's not at all surprising that the ancients would have assumed that many of those things could have been literal references, yet I seriously doubt that any respectable ones among them would have agreed that the text labored itself to make sure that we understood that they were actual, literal things. You had to have a theory about something, so why not start with the Bible? Even so, they weren't infallible. In fact, I disagree with the church fathers and reformers about a number of things.

The creation account is in a different category altogether because it does labor itself with a detailed description about what is taking place. Same goes with the flood, the crossing of the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds is the preferred reading for those who don't want to believe in what the Bible specifically describes, though the evidence is greatly in favor of the "Red" interpretation), and other miraculous events. Each of them are accompanied with supporting details, descriptors, and usually repetition of verses. The same cannot be said about the sun's relation to the earth, the "pillars", or windows of heaven. All of them are easily explained by figures of speech which we use even to this day.

It is almost Orwellian how quickly these ancient understandings of scripture have been lost in the mists of time, how the modern evangelical has been brainwashed into thinking that these peoples somehow magically did not absorb into themselves these common misconceptions of the world, or that our scriptural references to nature do not in fact bear witness to what they thought in those times, even as recently as the time of Galileo. I would suggest you read some of the books written in the 16, 17 and 18 hundreds attempting to reconcile what was being learned about the natural world with what was then thought to be the 'plain teachng of scripture' concerning the natural world. It is possible that what the text says 'on its own' will become a bit more evident to you.

Of course they do, I never argued otherwise. It's obvious that Augustine was still heavily influenced by neo-platonist philosophy in light of his beliefs about creation. There will always be an attempt to reconcile the science and philosophies of the day with Bible. It was also recognized over time that some things were never meant to be taken literally, and science has helped us to determine those things because without any competing view its much more difficult to remain objective. It has always happened that way, that's how we received the council of Nicaea and settled the doctrine of the Trinity. If it weren't for Arianism, we would never seriously taken a closer look. In the same manner, science has helped us to discern and solidify what is actually meant to be taken literal. The Bible is not some organic thing that continues to morph with the sciences. It's an absolute construct that is meant to be rightfully divided. It has refined our understanding of Scripture, so unlike the church fathers and reformers, we have a much better understanding than they did about the book of Genesis, much like Nicaea did for those who came after. Evolution has revealed to us what's at stake, so it served as a catalyst and opened our eyes to what God intended with creation.

I would agree with you on the effects of unorthodox theological beliefs. When the acceptance of 'science' affects the theological teaching of scripture, there is a problem. But evolution itself does not require adjustment of Christian theology. Only an adjustment of ones perception of the pre-history or the world itself. And most certainly OEC does not require an adjustment of one's theology. What has to be adjusted is how one sees the mechanics of the theology being worked out. For example, We both believe in the sin nature which Christ came to redeem. But we understand differently how we may have come to have that sin nature. You think that because you have Adam created immortal and falling from Grace that you 'understand' how we came to have a sin nature. But you actually don't. We don't know how sin is passed down from generation to generation, we just know that it is. we don't know how Adam sinning could affect the whole human race. we just know that it did. so, without really understanding the mechanism itself, how can you say that any particular mechanism of creation is actually necessary to that theological truth being a reality?

Do we agree? I believe that men are hopelessly lost and wicked and wholly unable to please God outside of faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the second Adam, but unlike Adam, gave way to redemption instead of condemnation. I believe the Jesus is God in the flesh, perfect in every way, and physically rose from the dead and ascended into heaven according to the Scriptures. Anyone who does not believe in Christ will spend eternity in hell. No exceptions.

You see, if we put down our disagreement about the secondary issues of YEC and evolution and simply discussed Christian theology, you'd likely find nothing outside the bounds of the more mundane differences we find in conservative, evangelical Christainity. but it think that is troublesome to you, because you go out of your way several times in this post to state in one way or the other that this can't really be true.

We may believe similarly, but it's quite unlikely that we believe many of the same things. If you do, I would say that your beliefs are compartmentalized and unstable. I don't see how it's possible without contradicting yourself.

i know you think that is what you do. but you already showed me that is not the case by your reference to these ancient biblical references to the natural world as simply literal devices, reading the text and applying a 20th century scientific understanding to them disregarding the culture and the clear meaning of the words themselves. again, you need to read the writings of the church fathers and see how they understood these texts, realizing that even there we are more than 1500 years after the fact in terms of the writing of these texts and the advances in the knowledge of the world as understood by the greeks and the romans.

You sound like a post-modernist. The ancients were right about some things, wrong about others. I don't deny that my 20th century scientific understanding influences my reading of Scripture. It has, again, helped me to focus in on what the Psalmist was really trying to say rather than being distracted with something that he obviously wasn't trying to say. You'd have to absolutely butcher the book of Genesis to do the same thing.

And you see, here you go applying a false conception of what i 'must' believe based on your own misconceptions. I have no trouble believing in any of the miracles you mention, though I do not arbitrarily assume the form they took. Hoefully you at least understand that much of the writing about nature in scripture is phenomenal, and that one must understand the culture's perception and scientific understanding to properly understand what they are talking about. but even so, you probably think that if God used (or i propose that God used) the massive volcanic eruption of thera n 1500 bc to create some or all of the effects that are mentioned in the exodus that this somehow undermines the miracle, or undermines scripture. but this is absurd. the miracles took place, the exodus occurred, the israelites walked across dry land and the egyptians drowned. i don't need a natural explanation to believe in them. but then again, my faith is not shaken if there is in fact some natural component to their fulfillment.

Sure, I don't have a problem with some of that either. Maybe Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by meteorites that happened to fall in their direction. That doesn't matter to me at all, but what does matter is that they were destroyed exactly in the manner that the Bible describes and for the reason that the Bible gives, not using their random destruction by natural causes something for the author to capitalize on. In any case, some miracles cannot be described by natural means. the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus 13 specifically states that the Hebrews walked on dry land and that there was a wall of water on the right and on the left, which is then repeated just a few verses later. There is no natural explanation for that unless you pervert the text.

There is a very great danger that folks in your position face. I'll illustrate it with two examples. There is this crowd of very conservative Christians that actually think the King James Version is the only valid version of the Bible. This is of course absurd. We have access to much more complete texts today that the kjv translators had, we know a very great deal more about the cultures and languages so as to enable us to produce a much more accurate initial source for translation, and subsequent translation. but, because in some cases this knowledge undermines traditional mistranslation found in the kjv, the KJVO crowd deems these newer translations inferior and to some degree compromises with the world etc. A second example is like the first - you mention the parting of the Red sea. yet the text refers not to the Red Sea. but rather the Sea of Reeds or rushes, which may or may not refer to what we now know of as the 'Red Sea'. Some go so far as to try to make the case this mistake is in fact not a mistake, and some see defering to this as some kind of compromise. Now what does it say when the actual meaning of the actual Hebrew text is viewed as a 'compromise' of scripture, and a mistake by a translator in the 16th century is viewed as 'the inerrant word of God'? do we value the bible, the truth - or do we value our tradition. do we want to truly know God, and his creation as it actually is, or do we want to feel safe and comfortable with nothing mysterious or not clearly understood?

Fundamentalism can be just as great a danger as liberalism. However, fundamentalists seem to be the ones that have protected the integrity of the Scriptures and the purity of the Christian religion throughout the ages. Without them, all would have been lost after the last Apostle went to rest.


Jim[/QUOTE]

[RBerman]

"Though art Peter on this rock I shall place my Church" Sounds like he was a literal rock to me, you Calling God a Liar?

You know I'm not. First, I don't accept the Roman exegesis that Peter was the "rock" in question. Jesus is making a pun, comparing Peter, the "little rock," (Πέτρος) to the "big rock" (πέτρα) on which the church is placed: the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Second, regardless of whether πέτρα is a reference to Peter or to his confession, obviously it's not a literal rock in either case. Language is rife with metaphors of that sort, as when Jesus calls himself a door, or a vine, or a shepherd, etc. That's an obvious convention of speech. But what features of Genesis 1 make you think that it's not a historical record?

And I say that your interpretations are failing to take into account the science I consider capable of guiding our interpretations. After all truth cannot contradict truth...I view the Bible as authoritative in all areas (This being the change) BUT all knowledge is also authoritative in our interpretations. Because Truth cannot contradict reality.

False dichotomy. Science's interpretation of the world is not "truth," else it would never change. Neither is your or my interpretation of Scripture. We're pitting interpretation against interpretation here. It's all well and good that you consider the Bible authoritative; you should! I commend you for that. But what exactly is your position on the veracity of the Bible? If the Bible says that Jesus rose from the dead, and a scientific consensus says he did not, what do you do with that?

[oxmixmudd]

I will again point out that you continue to declare what I can or can't believe based on you own (misunderstood) perceptions of what accepting evolution must imply about my Christian beliefs, and then assuming your declarations true, you then go on to declare my faith impossible to retain the elements of orthodox Christian faith! I am simply amazed at the arrogance of such an approach! Why do you suppose that you know what I must believe or what I am as a Christian - how in the world can you possibly hope to understand what I believe without first at least asking the questions, or discussing what I actually believe?

The primary difference in what we believe is not going to be found in the basic tenets of faith, but rather in what we believe the Bible MUST be in terms of its literary genre in certain sections. The inspiration of scripture is not in doubt in my case or in yours, but how God was inspiring the text and what He was saying in certain passages we do most certainly disagree. But that He is speaking through the text, and that the writer is inspired is not in question.

Further, in any element where how He was inspiring, or what the literary genre was, we would not disagree in theologically orthodox terms concerning what it is He is saying, within the bounds of the normal Christian differences of opinion. For example, I do not know if we agree precisely on free will vs predestination, but our disagreements on such an area would not be outside the bounds of disagreement found in mainline protestant denominations.

Evolution is an issue. You can't properly believe much of the Bible while maintaining that belief. Orthodoxy is specific, not general.

OK - sorry to break this on a single sentence (but it is where you broke your reply). This is a declaration, without any support, and which disregards without explanation my attempts to explain why this simply is not true. So, can you back up and explain WHY you think it is a problem so at least it will be possible to explore the basis for your declaration, and so that perhaps I can have a chance to put forward why I think this declaration is in fact not correct? We would need to discuss exactly what we mean by "Evolution" and theologically why that is or is not a problem. I have a sense that we are at least in part using different definitions for Evolution - where you conflate the biological theory and Materialistic Naturalism as one and the same. I do not. I would agree with you that Materialistic Naturalism and Christianity are incompatible worldviews, but I would disagree that the mechanical theory that life evolved is compatable with a belief God created because the mechanism of creation is not defined and the language of the text is phenomenal and general to the point there can be no sure way of knowing if the time frame of creation is meant to be a technical component of the creation epic. There is, in fact, a good bit of historical (a la the church fathers take on this text), textual (a la the declaration in Psalms and Peter that time for God is not at all like time for us) and yes even scientific in the same and precise sense that you apply science to declare the pillars of the earth or firmament 'literary devices'.

What is self evident is that the Bible doesn't talk much about the "pillars" outside of poetic expression, but when it does, it's not at all a point of contention. It's not surprising that the ancients would have thought that the sun orbited the earth because it was an implied reading from the perspective of the observer. However, my point still stands that the sparse, physically irrelevant mentions of the "pillars", "windows", or the sun's relation to the earth should never have been a hill to die on because the Bible was never explicit on the meaning. The Bible is explicit about creation. I must repeat that the whole Bible is written on the assumption that the creation narrative was a literal event. You don't make any distinction between that and out of context mentions of the sun, the pillars of the earth, and windows of heaven because you see some kind of correlation between scientific progression and Biblical reinterpretation of supposedly scientific statement recorded in the Scripture. It's not at all surprising that the ancients would have assumed that many of those things could have been literal references, yet I seriously doubt that any respectable ones among them would have agreed that the text labored itself to make sure that we understood that they were actual, literal things. You had to have a theory about something, so why not start with the Bible? Even so, they weren't infallible. In fact, I disagree with the church fathers and reformers about a number of things.

The creation account is in a different category altogether because it does labor itself with a detailed description about what is taking place. Same goes with the flood, the crossing of the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds is the preferred reading for those who don't want to believe in what the Bible specifically describes, though the evidence is greatly in favor of the "Red" interpretation), and other miraculous events. Each of them are accompanied with supporting details, descriptors, and usually repetition of verses. The same cannot be said about the sun's relation to the earth, the "pillars", or windows of heaven. All of them are easily explained by figures of speech which we use even to this day.

In this 'explicit' creation description, the text speaks of a 'firmament' (raqia) which divides the waters from the waters. It tells us God put the stars and the moon and the sun into this 'firmament'. It tells us that the birds fly across the 'face' of this firmament. No interpreter of the text prior to Galileo understood this text to imply anything other than that this 'firmament' was some kind of structure that held the sun moon and stars and which had 'waters' above it. The 'sluices' or windows of heaven are mentioned as devices to allow passage from heaven to the Earth through this firmament or barrier in the context of the flood, in the context of the 'manna from heaven', and in the context of God sending messengers (angels) to the Earth. Further, the only other use of the word is found in a vision in Ezekiel where what is being described is a firm, crystalline dome on which or above which sits a throne.

In the first two or three centuries that followed Galileo's discovery the Earth orbits the sun there was a great deal of theological consternation over how to reconcile this very clear reference to some kind of physical structure with waters abve and below and that held the sun moon and stars with what was becoming quite clear fact in apparent contradiction to what is the plain meaning of the text. While the Early church fathers agreed that there was perhaps some question as to the literality of the days of genesis, the tended to agree on the fact this firmament was some kind of firm structure that otherwise prevented these heavenly waters from flooding the Earth and that in some fashion held the sun moon and stars. Luther and Calvin both discuss these issues in the context of the then novel and theologically repugnant (at the time) idea the Earth moved in an orbit around the sun.

You wish to dismiss these as notions derived from Greek Philosophy - but that concept fails miserably in that the same men of faith over the millenia that excepted these notions as the plain meaning of the text most firmly rejected other notions of the Greeks where they conflicted with what they regarded as the plain meaning of the text. That is, these men of faith did exactly as you propose - they rejected notions that they could not reconcile with a plain reading of the text on theological grounds. But the notions they rejected are ones you currently readily accept because of the robustness of the science behind the current conceptualization - placing that knowledge above the plain meaning of the text. And the notions they thought were not so iron clad - specifically the length of the days in Genesis - you declare immutably set in orthodox stone!

Of course they do, I never argued otherwise. It's obvious that Augustine was still heavily influenced by neo-platonist philosophy in light of his beliefs about creation. There will always be an attempt to reconcile the science and philosophies of the day with Bible. It was also recognized over time that some things were never meant to be taken literally, and science has helped us to determine those things because without any competing view its much more difficult to remain objective. It has always happened that way, that's how we received the council of Nicaea and settled the doctrine of the Trinity. If it weren't for Arianism, we would never seriously taken a closer look. In the same manner, science has helped us to discern and solidify what is actually meant to be taken literal. The Bible is not some organic thing that continues to morph with the sciences. It's an absolute construct that is meant to be rightfully divided. It has refined our understanding of Scripture, so unlike the church fathers and reformers, we have a much better understanding than they did about the book of Genesis, much like Nicaea did for those who came after. Evolution has revealed to us what's at stake, so it served as a catalyst and opened our eyes to what God intended with creation.

Now I do not disagree with you in principle at all here. But you seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth here. You will accept that science offers and objective insight into how to interpret certain aspects of the Bible, yet you will reject that same insight arbitrarily based on you specific ability to reconcile the text with what is being learned? What kind of hermeneutic is that? Keep in mind that there are in fact 'scientific geocentrists' that would take you to task on this very inconsistency. They would tell you that you simply can't defer to science on any of these issues and you must seek out an understanding of the cosmos that is absolutely consistent with the text speaking literally concerning its descriptions of nature. And they do this. They propose that the entire universe whirls about the Earth contained in a plank density semi-solid with all sorts of interesting properties, thus validating the texts where the Earth is said not to move, and the element which contains the sun, moon, and stars is, in fact, immensely firm. I am, of course, not recommending this approach, but it is consistent, whereas yours is not.

If we then allow science to inform us as to what is metaphor or figurative or phenomenal language, what possible construct can you then use to justify rejection of the very clear implication from nature that these 'days' of creation are also some sort of literary device or metaphor, exactly as you view the firmament or pillars of the Earth? Indeed, it is the very self-same passage that speaks of days that also speaks of this firmament! What possible reason can you have for accepting the influence in the one case and rejecting it in the other? Times are always literal but natural constructs are not? We certainly can show that is not the case - for in Genesis 2 God sums the entire creation event up in a single 'day'! And even more so - whereas the firmament is NEVER scripturally discussed in metaphorical or figurative terms, the scriptures most certainly, in the context of the creation itself, tells us that a 'thousand years is AS a day to the Lord, even as a watch in the night'. This parallel construct of 'day' and 'watch in the night' tell us this passage is not providing a literal pairing of 'day' and 1000 years, but is rather saying that immensely long periods of time or like a day to God. And this to explain the immensity of the age of the mountains. What more do we need?

Do we agree? I believe that men are hopelessly lost and wicked and wholly unable to please God outside of faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the second Adam, but unlike Adam, gave way to redemption instead of condemnation. I believe the Jesus is God in the flesh, perfect in every way, and physically rose from the dead and ascended into heaven according to the Scriptures. Anyone who does not believe in Christ will spend eternity in hell. No exceptions.



We may believe similarly, but it's quite unlikely that we believe many of the same things. If you do, I would say that your beliefs are compartmentalized and unstable. I don't see how it's possible without contradicting yourself.

We agree within orthodox variation in the church. For example, we agree that Christ is the only way to the Father. So anyone who stands before God uncondemned does so by the blood of Christ and the washing of regeneration. I get the feeling, however, that you would try to define how God implements that, whereas I would not to the extent that even though we agree on this, I would not apply your 'No exceptions' emphasis clause. It is kind of like saying to God He has to do it your way and that there is no possibility you have missed something. I prefer to leave that kind of absolutism in the hands of God.

You sound like a post-modernist. The ancients were right about some things, wrong about others. I don't deny that my 20th century scientific understanding influences my reading of Scripture. It has, again, helped me to focus in on what the Psalmist was really trying to say rather than being distracted with something that he obviously wasn't trying to say. You'd have to absolutely butcher the book of Genesis to do the same thing.



Sure, I don't have a problem with some of that either. Maybe Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by meteorites that happened to fall in their direction. That doesn't matter to me at all, but what does matter is that they were destroyed exactly in the manner that the Bible describes and for the reason that the Bible gives, not using their random destruction by natural causes something for the author to capitalize on. In any case, some miracles cannot be described by natural means. the parting of the Red Sea in Exodus 13 specifically states that the Hebrews walked on dry land and that there was a wall of water on the right and on the left, which is then repeated just a few verses later. There is no natural explanation for that unless you pervert the text.

hmm - again you tend to a kind of self-assured absolutism. A tidal wave appears as a 'wall of water' to a fellow standing on the ground. Again we should be humble and reminded that the Bible often speaks in phenomenal terms recording natural observations and within a cultural context. The text says the wind caused the sea to go back. And then says the waters were (like) a wall on the left and right. To then conclude from that it is to deny the miracle if the water was not literally like a cliff on both sides is just not heeding what we know to be the case as far as how things like this are described. God most certainly could have parted the sea like two cliffs, but I would not freak if he simply used a natural event to do the work and this description is more phenomenal than literal. Whatever happened, that is how it APPEARED, but it is not necessarily a technical description.

Fundamentalism can be just as great a danger as liberalism. However, fundamentalists seem to be the ones that have protected the integrity of the Scriptures and the purity of the Christian religion throughout the ages. Without them, all would have been lost after the last Apostle went to rest.

The scriptures were preserved by the RCC monks and others. Protestant Fundamentalism would not be an accurate description of their beliefs.



Jim

[Phat8594]

And I can give you all sort of reasons it is theoretically possible.

And thats where we are at: "Theoretically possible"

This is your assumption, and it is not even true - It provably does - theoretically.

Again...with the theoretically...how is it proven, if its merely theoretical and has not been observed? In other words, is the theory not based on certain assumptions and presuppositions.

To me, this theory you speak of seems to be merely a necessary cog to keep a system from falling apart. Until the creation of new chromosomes with viable information has been obsserved, I see no such reason to believe it does or even could happen.

This is where we have left observable phenomenom and gone to hypotheticals.

Ah - but you are not following my analysis. Paint can't produce a car, so no matter how much paint you put on a car, you won't get a car.

That's my point.

You seem like an intelligent individual, so surely you can understand that analogies tend not to be perfect. Analogies, by nature, are not meant to walk on all four...so to speak. My point was that we have never seen changes in one chromosome create a whole other chromosome with viable information...let alone at a level that can be passed down genetically to offspring.



My point was that changing one thing does not account for the creation of another.

What is not in your favor is that the fossil record shows that life changed form in what appears to be a 'path' from older types to newer types. And it appears to have been the result of a sequence of smaller changes within a population over time - whatever the mechanism for change was.

And what does the fossil record tell us about the genetics?

We can filter the fossil record through several different paradigms. Clearly, you have claimed it as support for your theory, despite the fact that it can be made consistent within multiple paradigms.

[Phat8594]

The problem here is that DNA cannot have noise, every possible Codon codes for a protein ans therefore there is not analogous noise. Every stretch of DNA is is information if any other is and thus the information argument is worthless.

No, the problem is that we need to account for the creation of new chromosomes with viable information that can be passed to offspring. Not every species has the same number of chromosomes.

[oxmixmudd]

And thats where we are at: "Theoretically possible"




Again...with the theoretically...how is it proven, if its merely theoretical and has not been observed? In other words, is the theory not based on certain assumptions and presuppositions.

To me, this theory you speak of seems to be merely a necessary cog to keep a system from falling apart. Until the creation of new chromosomes with viable information has been obsserved, I see no such reason to believe it does or even could happen.

This is where we have left observable phenomenom and gone to hypotheticals.

It is far more than merely hypotheticals. The hypothesis that these kinds of modifications are what has produced the variation we see in the existing biosphere is subject to testable consequences. These testable hypothesis concern what kinds of creatures we can expect to find in the fossil record what kinds of relationships should exist between extant species and their DNA and their morphology and so forth. So, for example we can postulate that humans and chimpanzees should be closely related genetically if they are the descendents if a common ancestor as Evolution proposes. And indeed this is the case. In fact, there is what appears to have been a unique event in the evolution of humans verses Chimpanzees in that there is a human Chromosome that matches very closely the fusion of two chromosomes in the Chimpanzee DNA. So much so that the Telemeres which tie off each end of the individual Chromosomes are preserved in the middle of the human Chromosome at precisely the expected location if in fact the two Chromosomes fused at some point in the past.

We can also look at retroviral insertions and postulate that if creatures evolved there would be a direct relationship between these insertion events and the relative closeness of the individual species as asecertained from examination of the species morphology and the known fossil record, and for the most part that is indeed precisely what we find.

We can also predict were (in time) to expect to find intermediate forms based on existing forms, and indeed this has proven to be fairly successful and consistent with the evolutionary theory were such transitionals have been located. Of course one of the most celebrated recent examples is Tiktaalik.

I would also point out that your original statement was that it was simply impossible for such a change to take place. You did not qualify your statement in any way. And so I simply showed that your are in fact wrong. There is nothing we know of stopping these changes from taking place. In essence you;ve now moved the goal posts from 'it is impossible' to 'it is theorectially possible, but has not been observed', which is an entirely different kind of argument. But as you can see, we can indeed observe a great deal in relationship to the process itself.

So what exactly do you propose is the explanation for all of the above? Remembering that all of these various trees and relationship diagrams order themselves in time as a branching structure were the older elements invariables form the roots of branching structures that end in leaves. We do not see graphical cycles, or inverse chronological trees.

That's my point.

You seem like an intelligent individual, so surely you can understand that analogies tend not to be perfect. Analogies, by nature, are not meant to walk on all four...so to speak. My point was that we have never seen changes in one chromosome create a whole other chromosome with viable information...let alone at a level that can be passed down genetically to offspring.

Actually, this is not in fact true. we do have what maps rather amazingly to an event in our past which took two Chromosomes and made them into one chromosome (See this article). And, in fact events like this in individuals are somewhat common. So we do observe them occurring. The issue then becomes how often does this happen where the end result is viable. I don't know the answer to that, but we do have evidence, direct evidence in fact for humans, that it does occur.

The problem for you in claiming this is impossible is that all around us is evidence life has a long history of descent with modification. IF evolution does not explain this, what does? Does it not make more sense that God designed creation to work in this way than that over millions of years God twiddles (miraculously) with the DNA of creatures from time to time to make variants on a theme which eventually over time become whole new themes?

No, it seems to me this is a dead end. If you concede a million year history of life on the Earth where that life has varied in form across those epochs, you gain nothing by showing that 'evolution' can't explain it. All the theological problems remain, and there is theologically no difference between God designed the world to be able to make life and God tweaked live through a serious of billions of 'little' miracles over millions of years.

In the end there is nothing I know of stopping the processes we can observe from producing the changes we do in fact observe in the fossil record.

My point was that changing one thing does not account for the creation of another.




And what does the fossil record tell us about the genetics?

We can filter the fossil record through several different paradigms. Clearly, you have claimed it as support for your theory, despite the fact that it can be made consistent within multiple paradigms.

Change is creation of another. I am different from my parents in a few places of my genome that are unique, not from ether parent. I am 'new' in that sense. There is 'new' information in my genome. To say that successive generations of these kinds of changes can't produce something noticeably different over time requires something not at all intuitive, something which has eluded all the simulations and models of evolution. IT is in fact counter intuituve to every bit of knowedge we have that something new could not be produced by what we observe happening.

The fossil record itself tells is life changes, morphs from one form to another over time. Genetics allows us to examine the present day record of that change. And indeed, consider this. The fossil record tells us that birds at one time had teeth. So, if evolutionary theory is correct, we just might find in unused DNA of modern birds a coding for teeth, or tails, or hands. And indeed, that is what is there.

Here is an interesting video where Jack Horner who is a fairly well known paleantologist explains his plans to try to reactivate (or keep from being deactivated) these leftover pieces of dinosaur DNA still present in modern day birds.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner...a_chicken.html

I don't actually know how successful Jack might be, or how the project is going, but the point is, there is DNA in a chicken that codes for old Dinosaur characteristics, as would be expected from the fossil evidence.


and a more recent article on the project:

http://news.discovery.com/animals/bi...ur-111219.html

Jim