I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
This video was referenced in an interview between E Michael Jones and some spacey Hindu convert. It describes the common elements of the original Chinese religion with the Old Testament, as well as these elements actually contained within the Chinese language itself.

I am far more interested in the commonalities in ancient cultures regarding Biblical truth than the back and forth of the scientific camps, so I found this particularly interesting.

"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

"modern Catholics have tended to put too much faith in the pope and too little in the Church." - Bishop Williamson.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • LionHippo
Reply
There's a logical flaw in the position of theistic evolution that was brought to my attention: that of the Resurrection in the Last Judgment. If theistic evolutionists, of the Christian variety, believe that Christ will restore all men to their bodies at the end of time for judgment, an instantaneous act, why then do they have such trouble with God speaking man into existence, instantaneously, at creation? Obviously most men's bodies will have returned to dust by then.
Unless they think that Christ will call forth the dead and then wait a few eons for man to re-develop from the base elements, I don't see how theistic evolutionists can believe that God had to use a natural process at the beginning, but then can merely act in an instant at the end. It's a completely contradictory view.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

"modern Catholics have tended to put too much faith in the pope and too little in the Church." - Bishop Williamson.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • Teresa Agrorum
Reply
(02-09-2020, 11:14 PM)Augustinian Wrote: There's a logical flaw in the position of theistic evolution that was brought to my attention: that of the Resurrection in the Last Judgment. If theistic evolutionists, of the Christian variety, believe that Christ will restore all men to their bodies at the end of time for judgment, an instantaneous act, why then do they have such trouble with God speaking man into existence, instantaneously, at creation? Obviously most men's bodies will have returned to dust by then.
Unless they think that Christ will call forth the dead and then wait a few eons for man to re-develop from the base elements, I don't see how theistic evolutionists can believe that God had to use a natural process at the beginning, but then can merely act in an instant at the end. It's a completely contradictory view.

If they believe that 'God had to use a natural process at the beginning', I agree, but I've never heard that argued. What I've read is that God chose to use a natural process.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • Melkite
Reply
(02-09-2020, 11:22 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(02-09-2020, 11:14 PM)Augustinian Wrote: There's a logical flaw in the position of theistic evolution that was brought to my attention: that of the Resurrection in the Last Judgment. If theistic evolutionists, of the Christian variety, believe that Christ will restore all men to their bodies at the end of time for judgment, an instantaneous act, why then do they have such trouble with God speaking man into existence, instantaneously, at creation? Obviously most men's bodies will have returned to dust by then.
Unless they think that Christ will call forth the dead and then wait a few eons for man to re-develop from the base elements, I don't see how theistic evolutionists can believe that God had to use a natural process at the beginning, but then can merely act in an instant at the end. It's a completely contradictory view.

If they believe that 'God had to use a natural process at the beginning', I agree, but I've never heard that argued. What I've read is that God chose to use a natural process.

That's exactly it.  I think I would describe myself more as a progressive creationist now than a theistic evolutionist, but the problem for me has always been, if God created everything instantaneously, then how do we explain the preponderance of evidence that really makes it look like gradual changes took place over many eons?  This is the same problem that theistic evolutionists have.  God didn't have to choose evolution; he just as easily could have chosen instantaneous creation.  But then we can't explain what we're observing.
Reply
(02-10-2020, 11:07 AM)Melkite Wrote: but the problem for me has always been, if God created everything instantaneously, then how do we explain the preponderance of evidence that really makes it look like gradual changes took place over many eons?  This is the same problem that theistic evolutionists have.  God didn't have to choose evolution; he just as easily could have chosen instantaneous creation.  But then we can't explain what we're observing.

One explanation is that God created different kinds of animals in the beginning, but they evolved within those kinds after that. He created, for example, one type of cat, that later evolved into lions and jaguars and house cats.

But if He did create every species, in the modern sense, at the beginning, and created each one a little bit different from the others, how could we tell the difference between that and evolution? It seems to me that much of the evidence for evolution presumes evolution, since it involves comparing structures in one animal to those in another, and if they're similar, they must be related. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying it here, but similarity by itself doesn't prove relatedness. That's assuming what you're trying to prove. It's like saying cars evolved from trucks, since they're obviously similar and have many of the same parts. But they're similar because they were created by a creator for a common purpose.
Reply
(02-12-2020, 10:06 AM)Paul Wrote: But if He did create every species, in the modern sense, at the beginning, and created each one a little bit different from the others, how could we tell the difference between that and evolution? It seems to me that much of the evidence for evolution presumes evolution, since it involves comparing structures in one animal to those in another, and if they're similar, they must be related. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying it here, but similarity by itself doesn't prove relatedness. That's assuming what you're trying to prove. It's like saying cars evolved from trucks, since they're obviously similar and have many of the same parts. But they're similar because they were created by a creator for a common purpose.

That may have been how it was described before the advent of modern genetics. We can see various species, even species from "different kinds" coming from the same genetic source, having the same original genetic pathway. We can trace it back now just as we can be certain who your parents, grandparents, great-grand parents, etc., were by looking at your genes. I've heard the same argument for this; that maybe the genes just look the same because they were made by the same creator. But this ignores what we know about how genetics work. It's essentially the same as saying "my parents really aren't my parents, even though they have genetic markers that show that they are. It's just that I and they were made by the same creator." It makes zero sense to look at genes, observe how they replicate and build upon what came before them, and then say this paradigm only works back to a certain point, beyond which it was just an instantaneous replication by the same creator, even though it doesn't show any sign of operating any differently prior to that point.

Once you get into it, creationists really have to do some mental gymnastics to avoid what we can know from modern genetics.
Reply
That still assumes common descent. DNA tests work on humans because we know humans are descended from other humans. Shared genes only mean that two organisms are related if we already know they share an ancestor. Otherwise, they could have had those genes separately from the beginning. It’s trying to prove common descent by assuming common descent, and that’s just circular.

It only works back to a certain point, because prior to that, all the different kinds were separate. If there was no first organism for everything to descend from, shared genes prove nothing. It makes all sorts of sense to say that you can’t compare the genes of fish to those of dogs if the two never had a common ancestor. The only way it works your way is if there were, which is assuming what you want to prove.
Reply
(02-12-2020, 05:25 PM)Paul Wrote: That still assumes common descent. DNA tests work on humans because we know humans are descended from other humans. Shared genes only mean that two organisms are related if we already know they share an ancestor. Otherwise, they could have had those genes separately from the beginning. It’s trying to prove common descent by assuming common descent, and that’s just circular.

It only works back to a certain point, because prior to that, all the different kinds were separate. If there was no first organism for everything to descend from, shared genes prove nothing. It makes all sorts of sense to say that you can’t compare the genes of fish to those of dogs if the two never had a common ancestor. The only way it works your way is if there were, which is assuming what you want to prove.


I think it's a little more advanced than that.  Have you ever taken one of those mail-in dna tests?  They're pretty accurate in matching up your relations and to the degree you're related.  Mine was able to accurately tell that my mother was my mother, not a grandmother or aunt.  It was able to accurately tell that my great aunt was my great aunt, and not my fourth cousin.  If what you're saying is accurate, we shouldn't be able to discern degrees of separation, but a simple yes/no to the question of relation.

I'll admit I'm a little fuzzy on how it works for determining extra-species relations, but based on what I've read, it seems a little like tree rings.  If a notch was made into a tree x years ago, then that notch has a ripple effect on all the rings that come after it.  It's kind of like that with genes long term.  We can discern genetic markers that are older than humanity, lets say pre-human/gorilla divide.  The marker exists in humans, chimps and gorillas, but because of the distance in time from the original mutation, it looks slightly different in each.  It looks more similar between humans and chimps, because our shared 'ripple' diverged later than our common ancestor did from gorillas.

You're not making a circular argument, but you are apolying your bias against a common ancestor onto the evidence.  You are saying that, because each kind was made separately, the evidence cannot suggest a common ancestor.  But the evidence does not suggest the kinds were created independently, so there is no reason *not* to interpret the evidence as pointing to a common ancestor.  You're creating an ad hoc hypothesis.
Reply
(02-12-2020, 10:39 PM)Melkite Wrote: I think it's a little more advanced than that.  Have you ever taken one of those mail-in dna tests?  They're pretty accurate in matching up your relations and to the degree you're related.  Mine was able to accurately tell that my mother was my mother, not a grandmother or aunt.  It was able to accurately tell that my great aunt was my great aunt, and not my fourth cousin.  If what you're saying is accurate, we shouldn't be able to discern degrees of separation, but a simple yes/no to the question of relation.

We can discern degrees of separation only by assuming common descent. We know it's true within a species, because we know about sexual reproduction.

(02-12-2020, 10:39 PM)Melkite Wrote: I'll admit I'm a little fuzzy on how it works for determining extra-species relations, but based on what I've read, it seems a little like tree rings.  If a notch was made into a tree x years ago, then that notch has a ripple effect on all the rings that come after it.  It's kind of like that with genes long term.  We can discern genetic markers that are older than humanity, lets say pre-human/gorilla divide.  The marker exists in humans, chimps and gorillas, but because of the distance in time from the original mutation, it looks slightly different in each.  It looks more similar between humans and chimps, because our shared 'ripple' diverged later than our common ancestor did from gorillas.

But if that notch is found in three different trees, are those trees related, or was the notch made three different times?

That marker may be shared between gorillas, chimps, and humans because their common ancestor had it and it's been passed down. Or all three species were created with similar DNA, including that particular marker. It's also possible that gorillas and chimps had a common ancestor, and humans didn't, but Adam's DNA and ape DNA both included that marker.


(02-12-2020, 10:39 PM)Melkite Wrote: You're not making a circular argument, but you are apolying your bias against a common ancestor onto the evidence.  You are saying that, because each kind was made separately, the evidence cannot suggest a common ancestor.  But the evidence does not suggest the kinds were created independently, so there is no reason *not* to interpret the evidence as pointing to a common ancestor.  You're creating an ad hoc hypothesis.


I'm not saying that at all. One interpretation of the evidence is indeed a common ancestor. But that doesn't prove it. It only proves it if the common ancestor hypothesis is correct, and modern science's first axiom is that the supernatural doesn't exist. Therefore, the only possible way for two different species to have similar DNA is a common ancestor, or the same DNA evolved twice, since God, according to science, doesn't exist. But there's no evidence ruling out creation, only the bias of science against it.
Reply
(02-13-2020, 04:44 PM)Paul Wrote: We can discern degrees of separation only by assuming common descent. We know it's true within a species, because we know about sexual reproduction.

You said that God created all the kinds, and that what we call species could be from them. So tigers and lions and jaguars and house cats can all come from the same original pair. Who defines the kinds? What if the kinds God created are not distinguished in the same way we distinguish them? Is a horse from a different kind than a donkey? A tiger a different kind from a wolf? A tasmanian tiger a different kind from a wolf? A whale a different kind from a hippo? What if the kinds God distinguishes are only plants from animals, animals from fungus, fungus from bacteria?

Quote:But if that notch is found in three different trees, are those trees related, or was the notch made three different times?

That marker may be shared between gorillas, chimps, and humans because their common ancestor had it and it's been passed down. Or all three species were created with similar DNA, including that particular marker. It's also possible that gorillas and chimps had a common ancestor, and humans didn't, but Adam's DNA and ape DNA both included that marker.

Is there a reason, other than inserting creationism, to think that that notch was made three different times?

If you find three different computers, from various parts of the world, and they all have some variation of Windows installed, would you think that their respective OSs were all developed from the same system, or that they were invented three different times separately? DNA functions very much like a computer program. I used the notch analogy for simplicity, but the marker would be better described as a particular command. You could make each of those three computers perform a function, and because the programs are all Windows, the command will probably be either the same, or very similar. Use that command on an Apple computer, and it won't work. You have to make a completely different command to perform the same function. Evolutionists think things like eyesight and sexual reproduction probably evolved multiple times, rather than just once, because the markers and the pathways aren't always the same. The genetic command for all apes to do one thing may be the same genetic makeup, or slightly varied, but that same composition will have a completely different effect, or perhaps no effect at all, in a salamander. And the salamander has the same trait caused by a completely different genetic code on a different chromosome.

We don't think apes have a common ancestor only because the notch is the same. That it is the same isn't the only evidence of common ancestry.


Quote:I'm not saying that at all. One interpretation of the evidence is indeed a common ancestor. But that doesn't prove it. It only proves it if the common ancestor hypothesis is correct, and modern science's first axiom is that the supernatural doesn't exist. Therefore, the only possible way for two different species to have similar DNA is a common ancestor, or the same DNA evolved twice, since God, according to science, doesn't exist. But there's no evidence ruling out creation, only the bias of science against it.

If the literal interpretation of the Bible didn't contradict evolution, would this even be a problem? Is there any other evidence to suggest that the various kinds were created separately? Or is it only necessary to hypothesize it because evolution and a literal Genesis are mutually exclusive? If a literal Genesis supported evolution, is there some kind of physical evidence suggesting separate creation that fundamentalists would be screaming are just lies from the Devil? If not, then your argument is still ad hoc. Even if common ancestry is just one possible explanation among many, the argument of several separate creations isn't being inserted because of any actual evidence that this is what happened, but because of the cognitive dissonance common ancestry causes to one's faith in a more-or-less literal Genesis.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)