Creationism and Evolution. Conflict or reconciliation.

[Valjean]

Back about the year 2005 the idea of there being an early ocean was nonsense. Then came the
discovery of water in zircon crystals in Australia.

So?

Can't remember when it was decided that the continents rose - but they needed water for subduction
and the formation of lighter granite.

No! It happened more like this:

4.5B years ago planets accrete from cosmic 'dust'.
4B years ago our prtoto-planet cooled enough to form a solid crust formed over the still-molten molten core.
4.28B years ago water began condensing from the atmosphere. Nothing "rose," the water just pooled in low lying regions.
3.5B years ago prokaryotic life appeared in the now extant seas. Planet's crust fractures into floating (on magma) plates.
1.6B years ago eukaryotic life appears.
1B years ago multicellular life appears.

It wasn't till half a billion years later that microbes, fungi, plants, then arthropods and primitive tetrapods managed to occupy solid land. Nothing happened or appeared suddenly. Nothing was magically 'poofed' into existence.

The first real evidence for the early Venus-like atmosphere came in 2021. It's clearing opened the
earth to direct sunshine.

Earth's original hydrogen-Helium atmosphere was lost to space. Heavier volcanic gasses replaced them.

The conclusion that life came from the wetting and drying effect of fresh water for the early organics
came about 2020.

Link, please.

 

[Valjean]

Many people assume that belief in a Creator is the same as believing in magic......that is not true. What science studies is way more than magic.....the ultimate scientist is the Creator. How can anyone look at creation and not see intelligent planning? How can blind chance explain what science knows? How can laws exist that have no intelligent source?

Magic?
Magic is action without mechanism. If there's a natural mechanism to account for it, an intentional creator is unnecessary. If an intentional creator is needed, what mechanism have you discovered by which he created it all?
If none, then, magic. If mechanism, no need for magic.

You're arguing from personal incredulity. You see intelligent planning because you apparently never learned the natural, unplanned, unguided mechanisms by which these wonders came to be.

Ultimate scientist? Why would an omniscient creator be a researcher?
Blind chance? Please learn some physics, chemistry, geology, biology, &c. before you decide only a magical, intentional creator could account for it.

If an all powerful Creator exists, then he did not create all that we see in his vast universe for no reason. There has to be a purpose for its existence.....and ours.

1. "If."
2. Why? Why must there be purpose?
I think you may be extending your human experience as a planner, tool-maker, farmer, builder, &c. to unconscious physics and chemistry. Everything you're familiar with was planned and made to purpose. You're extending this idea to nature unnecessarily, because you don't understand the natural mechanisms involved.

Too many things exhibit thoughtful and clever planning, something unique to God and man, (made in his image). Like the Creator, we too can plan the future and by our own endeavours make those plans come to fruition.

They appear planned, because they're orderly and functional, and in your human experience order and function come from intentional planning and engineering.
This is not necessarily true of nature. If you understood the mechanisms involved you'd see a third possibility. Scientists understand these complex mechanisms. That's why they don't believe in magic.

So if we can find out why we are here, and how we fit into the big scheme of things, we will no doubt see why everything is the way it is.

You keep imputing schemes and purpose. Why? What evidence is there for any of this, when they've been shown to be unnecessary? Order happens without intention or purpose.

 

[Valjean]

The topic is not "mechanisms of evolution".

The creation vs evolution controversy -- the OP -- is all about conflicting mechanisms. It's a magic vs mechanism debate.

The fact that life has changed over time -- "evolution" -- I don't think is in dispute. The dispute is all over mechanism.

 

[Valjean]

No.

It is really just a question of which happened at which point.

Obviously, both evolution and creativity exist and naturally occur.

Specific points may be debunked, but the general idea of the necessity of a creator is logical.

Ironically, the idea that such a creator necessarily evolved is also logical.

"Logical?" How? Can you show your reasoning here, the steps leading to this conclusion?

 

[Valjean]

It depends. Actually, part of it depends on definitions of what is evolution, and what is creation.

Evolution is change over time.
The theory of evolution is an explanation of the mechanisms involved.
Creationism is the claim that the mechanism is magic.

 

[Valjean]

Knock and you shall find did not refer to knocking on the door of your local bakery
or your Lamborghini dealership. This is spiritual language. Saving the sick man also,
the Lord will raise him up. Raise him up where?
Matthew 5,6 and 7 refer to spiritual matters - this is the heart of the Gospels. Sure,
there's the claim that Jesus fed the poor (once or twice) and healed the sick. But
such gestures were to demonstrate who He was - not that the Gospel is about there
being no more poor or sick.

As an aside. The account where Jesus spoke in his local synagogue. He mentioned
how only two people were helped during a great famine in Elijah's day. Neither of
these two were even Jews. The listeners sought to kill Jesus.

You're citing passages of folklore and legend to counter science.

 

[Valjean]

You bring in many ideas. All good, but obviously require discussion and understanding. All the scriptures you quote are beautiful.

And they're beautiful folklore.
Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy is a beautiful legend, too, but I wouldn't cite it to counter well evidenced scientific facts.

 

[firedragon]

The fact that life has changed over time -- "evolution" -- I don't think is in dispute.

So, who said it is? Please explain.

 

[Valjean]

The debate between evolution and creation is connected to atheism trying to use evolution to politically bludgeon religion.

Atheism is just a lack of belief. It can't "bludgeon" anything. It's theology that consistently tries to bludgeon atheism.
Atheism threatens theology. Theology does not threaten atheism.

Modern evolutionary theory is not a good science weapon, since this theory cannot explain when life first appears nor can it make accurate predictions, in real time.

Nor does it claim to.
This is like criticizing the ToE for not explaining valve timing in engines.

Don't medicine, chemistry, agriculture, animal husbandry and chemistry rely on biological predictions all the time? The genetic mechanisms described by the ToE are used al the time. Selective breeding of plants and animals have been used for millennia. The ToE explains just what's going on and how it works.

These are huge philosophy of science problems, that should have red flagged the theory.

These are imaginary problems. They don't exist.

There is no other main line theory, in all of science, that gets such a pass in terms of making detailed predictions.

Where do you get this bizarre idea that biology, genetics, &c. are not predictive?

The real source of disagreement has to do with the foundation philosophies that underly each approach. Creation assumes an omniscience God, which implies he is smart enough to know how to build a universe and how to form a sequential plan. The natural change over the last 6000 years is part of a design and plan; rational universe based on access to the best of data; omniscience.

This God is a facile "explanation" for whatever is not immediately apparent -- rain, thunder and lightening, earthquakes, &c. No mechanism is imputed, just intention, ie: magic.
Science has devastated these religious/folkloric "explanations" with tested, predictive, evidenced based explanations that don't imply intentionality or purpose.

 

[Valjean]

So, who said it is? Please explain.

The debate is not over evolution. It's over mechanism -- magic vs natural selection &al.

 

[Etritonakin]

As for Bible-based creationism, the young earth sort is not biblical at all, but neither is the idea that God simply poofed everything into existence (except, perhaps, at the big bang).

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
(or are made of things which are not visible to us)

The book of Genesis is quite misunderstood -and is in no way against millions of years of evolution or even billions of years since the initiation of the universe. Many simply read such ideas into it -or saw no reason to read it otherwise prior to a great deal of scientific discovery.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.
There is no time frame specified yet.
Then -at some point -after an unspecified amount of time -the Earth HAD BECOME (check definitions) waste and ruin/formless and void TO AN UNSPECIFIED DEGREE.

THEN the rest took place!

Though not specified, the REASON for it being ruined is in the name/s of Satan -adversary, destroyer. The Bible actually places him on Earth before the events of Genesis -indicates the third of the angels under his charge "kept not their former estate" and that they ascended above the heights of the clouds to attempt their coup against God.

They were among the sons of God in Job -who shouted for joy at the initial completion of the Earth. It also describes God's construction process a bit -so no poofing there -and no being formless and void then.

Adam was directly created (not poofed) about 6000 years ago -the first man by Bible definition, but Cain found a wife in Nod -and was worried what other people would do to him when he left Eden.

Similarly, the animal life described are not specified to be the first on Earth -but part of the renewal of Earth in preparation for man to be made in the image of God -beginning with Adam.

 

[firedragon]

The debate is not over evolution. It's over mechanism -- magic vs natural selection &al.

Nope. Thats the wrong topic you are calling for.

Check the OP again.

 

[Valjean]

Nope. Thats the wrong topic you are calling for.

Check the OP again.

A vs B. How can we discuss these if we don't understand what each claims?

 

[YoursTrue]

The debate is not over evolution. It's over mechanism -- magic vs natural selection &al.

The problem is that, regardless of dna similarities, nothing is proven. (As you know.) And there are more questions. Such as: complexities, chicken and egg, and all kinds of things.

 

[blü 2]

Job "I know my Redeemer lives and he shall stand on the earth in the latter days"

Job 19:25 ─ I know my vindicator lives and he will at last stand on the earth.

This is personal to Job's plight, and refers to a personal vindicator. It doesn't predict a messiah and of course it doesn't predict Jesus.

David "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.. they cast lots for my vesture... I see all my bones... they pierced my hands and feet"

Psalm 22, a prayer during illness; the images are associated with dying of the illness, such that they've already started dividing (not, cast lots) his property. The author of Mark puts this in the mouth of Jesus on the cross, copied by the author of Matthew ie it's not a prophecy, it's a plagiarism, and again it doesn't predict a messiah.

Those are
David "I am an alien to my mother's children...they gave me gall... and vinegar to drink"

Psalm 69:21 "They gave me vinegar [no gall] to drink". Again copied by the author of Mark &c, again plagiarism, not prophecy.

Zechariah "I will destroy the nations that come against Jerusalem... and they shall look upon me whom they pierced... mourn..."

Zechariah 12:9 "and on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jesusalem". Ahm, so what?

Isaiah "despised and rejected... after he has suffered he shall see the light of life and be satisfied"

Isaiah 53:3. 'He' here is the Suffering Servant, the nation of Israel. Nothing about messiahs at all.

David "It shall be told to generations not yet born that he has done this."

That who has done what?

Daniel "and the annointed one will be cut off, but die for his people, and the ruler will come and destroy the city and the sanctuary"

Daniel 9:26 "an [not 'the'] anointed one shall be cut off". There have been various guesses as to who's being referred to ─ Cyrus and Zerubbabel for example.

My favorite is Jacob's prophecy of the line of Judah, leading to a Hebrew nation that would last until the Messiah comes, and in him shall the Gentiles trust.

That can't refer to the present nation of Israel, which didn't exist till 1947.

You haven't pointed out two different kinds of messiah, nor anything the Jews of Israel / Jerusalem should have noticed about Jesus in 30 CE. He was, for example, never anointed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that, regardless of dna similarities, nothing is proven. (As you know.) And there are more questions. Such as: complexities, chicken and egg, and all kinds of things.

It depends upon which definition of the word "proven" that one is using. By the legal standard of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" evolution is more than proven and DNA is very strong evidence for it. If you are talking scientifically then you are just spouting nonsense since nothing is "proven" in the sciences at all. Put it this way, if you accept gravity as a fact then by the same standards you should accept evolution as a fact.

 

[Valjean]

As for Bible-based creationism, the young earth sort is not biblical at all, but neither is the idea that God simply poofed everything into existence (except, perhaps, at the big bang).

So, barring magic poofing, what was the mechanism by which everything came into being? I don't see religion explaining any of it. It basically just insists Goddidit.

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

????? -- What does that mean?

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.
There is no time frame specified yet.
Then -at some point -after an unspecified amount of time -the Earth HAD BECOME (check definitions) waste and ruin/formless and void TO AN UNSPECIFIED DEGREE.

Evidence, please.
The fact it's written in a book is not evidence. Lots of things are written in books.
Citing an unsupported source doesn't advance anyone's case.

Though not specified, the REASON for it being ruined is in the name/s of Satan -adversary, destroyer. The Bible actually places him on Earth before the events of Genesis -indicates the third of the angels under his charge "kept not their former estate" and that they ascended above the heights of the clouds to attempt their coup against God.

They were among the sons of God in Job -who shouted for joy at the initial completion of the Earth. It also describes God's construction process a bit -so no poofing there -and no being formless and void then.

Adam was directly created (not poofed) about 6000 years ago -the first man by Bible definition, but Cain found a wife in Nod -and was worried what other people would do to him when he left Eden.

Similarly, the animal life described are not specified to be the first on Earth -but part of the renewal of Earth in preparation for man to be made in the image of God -beginning with Adam.

But why do you keep citing this unsupported folklore? I could rebut with citations from the Chronicles of Narnia.

Please cite either empirical evidence or justify your source.

 

[Valjean]

The problem is that, regardless of dna similarities, nothing is proven. (As you know.) And there are more questions. Such as: complexities, chicken and egg, and all kinds of things.

Quite so.
So which is better evidenced?

 

[firedragon]

A vs B. How can we discuss these if we don't understand what each claims?

Which one do you wish to understand and which one do you wish me to understand?

 

[PruePhillip]

Job 19:25 ─ I know my vindicator lives and he will at last stand on the earth.

This is personal to Job's plight, and refers to a personal vindicator. It doesn't predict a messiah and of course it doesn't predict Jesus.
Psalm 22, a prayer during illness; the images are associated with dying of the illness, such that they've already started dividing (not, cast lots) his property. The author of Mark puts this in the mouth of Jesus on the cross, copied by the author of Matthew ie it's not a prophecy, it's a plagiarism, and again it doesn't predict a messiah.
Psalm 69:21 "They gave me vinegar [no gall] to drink". Again copied by the author of Mark &c, again plagiarism, not prophecy.
Zechariah 12:9 "and on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jesusalem". Ahm, so what?
Isaiah 53:3. 'He' here is the Suffering Servant, the nation of Israel. Nothing about messiahs at all.
That who has done what?
Daniel 9:26 "an [not 'the'] anointed one shall be cut off". There have been various guesses as to who's being referred to ─ Cyrus and Zerubbabel for example.
That can't refer to the present nation of Israel, which didn't exist till 1947.

You haven't pointed out two different kinds of messiah, nor anything the Jews of Israel / Jerusalem should have noticed about Jesus in 30 CE. He was, for example, never anointed.

Just one for now
I parsed the sentence, "I know that my Redeemer lives, and he shall stand on the earth in the latter day."

I… not someone else, me

Know… not believe, not think, not suppose, but know

My… not someone else's, mine

Redeemer… not a king, not a warrior, not a philosopher

Lives … not did live, not will live, but live as in now

He … coming as a man

Shall… not maybe, not possibly

Stand… not recline, lie down - but stand for something

Earth … here, this place

Latter day… in the future - for Job this about 500 to a thousand years before Jesus. Isn't that marvelous?