DC10

Hi Ninhao. May I suggest that Adam is important for the idea of Original sin? The story of sin and redemption just needs sin - yours, mine (certainly), everybody's - and redemption - the Resurrection.

Replying to the OP: Why am I here? I joined originally for some interesting discussions about evolution, but it has developed since to include enjoyment of fellowship. I still don't like the "vs." bit of the forum's title, although some of the posts have made me realise, with great sadness, that's it's not as much a false dichotomy as I first thought. I rather go along with Augustine's thoughts on the matter - there can only ever be one type of truth, and that comes from God. In typing that, I realise I probably also come here as witness, poor though it is.

Are you asking me, gw? If not, apologies for butting in! Pretty niche now, biotech-ish, but originally applied research, pretty ho-hummy.

Previously, Neil wrote: "Actually, in my opinion it’s not clear at all. To the contrary, it’s clear that many don’t know what they believe in. ... Evolutionists are also taken by surprise when asked what is it exactly that they believe in: gradualism or p.e. And many other things." I've just deleted a draft response that was going to end up asking what p.e. was, but I've just worked it out - punctuated equilibrium. I believe in both. To my mind, punctuated equilibrium represents a comparatively rapid change from a gene pool of one, almost stable, population, to a noticeably different gene pool of a subsequent population (which in turn becomes almost stable). The comparatively rapid change is never the less i n c r e d i b l y slow (no, much much slower than you've just imagined), and takes place over very many generations; this "rapid" phase is what punctuates the equilibrium of the two populations. In other words, the period of "comparatively rapid change" is itself a period of gradualism, but a gradualism that proceeds at a faster rate than either of the periods of equilibrium. For me, the discussion is about rate and pattern, not a choice between two conflicting theories. Surprised you asked.

Really sorry to hear your faith didn't grow. For what it's worth, as a fellow scientist (if I dare use that phrase in connection with my career), I can only say that when I asked Him into my heart, the experiment was successful. Best experiment I ever organised, thinking about it.

I appear to be the only one here who has no idea where you're going with this. I'm guessing, but I've seen Rh in the context of "gay genes" - is this what you want to discuss? And if you could please provide us with a reference to "Rhesus" coming from the name of some crackpot inventor, rather than the more common belief that it was first recorded in 1940 by Landsteiner and Wiener when they made the antibodies by injecting rhesus monkey red cells into rabbits, I'd be greatly interested. Mice have an Rh gene, by the way.

I wasn't asking you to. The point I was trying to make is that the argument will not work in a debate against evolution because the evolutionist will argue the mutation occurred in us well after our line split from that of the apes. So is this argument about the Nephilim? At least there's evidence in the Bible of such a union,we have no evidence of evolution. {Sorry folks, hit Return too early}

A while back I heard the quote "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". I knew what they were saying but it didn't really sink in until I started studying evolution. The quote is dead on, nothing makes sense in biology EXCEPT in light of evolution. It's the title of a very thought provoking article by Theodosius Dobzhansky, published in "The American Biology Teacher" in 1973, and reproduced in the excellent collection of articles in "Evolution" edited by Mark Ridley in the Oxford Readers series (nb not to be confused with the same author's textbook of the same name). In checking this before posting, I was amused to notice the closing comments in Ridley's Summary to the article: "The theory of evolution is established beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, it does not clash with religious faith." Hm.

Hi Viole "My favorite is the tail. True, we do not have a tail anymore, but the genes to create the tail are still there and sometimes babies are born with one tail. These genes are just silenced by another gene that disables them. What is the use of the tail-generating genes, if we do not need a tail, anymore?" Do you know if other apes show this atavism?

"Relativism- this is something that ALL evolutionists believe," No they don't. "they have to in order to back up their beliefs." No we don't.

I agree your points D9, but you will sometimes see authors use "prove" in the legal sense, meaning to test - more formally "demonstrate by evidence or argument the truth or existence of" (Concise Oxford English Dictionary). The evidence is, to my mind, overwhelming.

"Some of the world's most renown scientific organizations have taken the stance that you cannot be a scientist if you believe in God." Can you name a few, Spero? As someone who believes in God but makes a living from Science, I'm amazed any scientific organization would make such a claim - and nor is it remotely true - when I was in research we had a very active Christian Union, and several of my co-workers and fellow authors were Christians - one of the best was a Creationist. One's faith should not interfere with one's ability to do a job (or get paid for having fun, in my case) although it should always affect the behaviour of the worker, as witness to that faith. Which aspects of evolutionary science do you feel can't be proved, btw?

Really interesting link, artsylady, thank you.

Beloved, Why Ever Not The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. Matthew 1:1-17 Unless Most Christians Are Not Believers In The Christ Of The Bible That Is And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Luke 3:23-38 All of which is fine, none of which addresses my point. When polling, it is generally a bad idea to include your preferred answer in the question. Unless you want to bias the response, that is. But it's a common enough mistake, even by professional pollsters, especially on this sort of topic.

Don't suppose it's worth saying I don't think m o s t Christians believe it's only a few thousand years old? No, didn't think it was.

viole, Being in a high office in justice, others will have the ability to read his opinion on matters and monitor his alignment with the constitution. If he steps out of line with the constitution, there are mechanisms to remove him from his office. Granted, it would be more preferable to have a strict constitutionalist to hold that office rather than a person who may be affected by religious beliefs. I would see how is a bad thing to have a YE creationist appointed to any scientific position. Nonetheless, since this particular person will be holding high office, his actions will be seen by many. And this should hold him accountable for his judgments. Regards, UF Maybe UF, maybe - but how many citizens have to be persecuted by the state before the goodmen stand up to be counted? Me, I'm suspicious. If I were preparing a review of the Biblical background to a Christian's view on male homosexuality, I wouldn't start with: "It is based purely on the Biblical injunction that a man should marry a woman and that there shall be a husband and a wife. "

If the paper's as bad as its critics say, you have to wonder about the journal's editors, and the experts they asked to review the paper.

Well, Theistic Evolution is a hybrid ideaology that tries to argue that God used Evolution/Natural Selection as the means of accomplshing the creation account of Genesis 1. You are correct that it has basically no theology and very little Evolution. To make Theisitic Evolution "fit," one must to degrade both the Bible and the theory of Evolution. one must abandon the Bible as God's authoritative, infallible self-disclosure given by inspiration AND one must also abandon Evolution as it is commonly understood in the scientific community. Theistic Evolutionists cannot hold to the scientific view that Evolution is based wholly on a naturalistic, impersonal, unplanned, unguided process. Theistic Evolution requires a healthy dose of intellectual suicide and theological surrender at the same time. As a theory it is both empty and uselss. I understand what you are saying. My point was simply that if scientists are wanting to include the creative process to Evolution, those who hold to Theistic Evolution have a choice to make. If the science points to life being created via natural selection (which I am not sure exactly how that would work), then it expands the theory of Evolution in a whole new area, making it an even more effective enabler for atheists. Up to this point, Evolution has never been a creative theory. Evolution was never meant to explain where life came from, only how it has changed or evolved over the alleged biillions of years that life has existed. Very nicely put, Shiloh, thank you for taking the time.

Honestly, I cannot understand how so many people thing rehashed old Hume and John Stewart Mill arguments are so devastating, so it leads me to wonder if the average readers of his books even pay any attention to what he's saying. I'm pretty convinced a lot of his fans are following his intentions, not his arguments. Which books of his have you read? I've just read parts, mostly of the Blind Watchmaker. I've listened to quite a bit of his lectures and debates though, and man it is painful. Fair enough. I don't think I have heard him speak in a formal setting, but from what I've seen of him in panel discussions I share your pain. But I do find every one of his books that I've read leaves me with several fresh insights, sometimes in areas I hadn't previously considered. Selfish gene, obviously, but also The Extended Phenotype. The greatest show on Earth is, I thought, one of his most readable books and a very good summary of several areas of current evolutionary research.

Honestly, I cannot understand how so many people thing rehashed old Hume and John Stewart Mill arguments are so devastating, so it leads me to wonder if the average readers of his books even pay any attention to what he's saying. I'm pretty convinced a lot of his fans are following his intentions, not his arguments. Which books of his have you read?

Popularizers like Dawkins disagree. Are you familiar with his Weasel program? It attempts to demonstrate the origin of life using natural selection on abiotic matter. I would agree that it's senseless to pretend that such could be the case, but it's not some kind of Creationist misunderstanding to address the application of evolution on non-living material. Natural selection only works through reproduction. NS selects from what's available among living organisms, cutting out organisms that are less adapted for certain environments. Without life there is no pressure from selection, i.e. nothing from which to select. The process fundamentally requires living organisms that can reproduce, otherwise it would have to be a physical force, physically moving abiotic matter around, and selecting not for survival advantage but deliberating for future potential advantage... and an immaterial force acting physically to assemble something with deliberation would simply be a description of God or some kind of ghost or whatever. Actually, my comments in the earlier post probably owe their origin to having read some of Dawkins's books. I think the Weasel program first sees the light of day in the chapter entitled "accumulating small change" in Dawkins's "Blind Watchmaker". The purpose of the chapter is not to discuss the origin of life, but to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection, because "Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe [i.e. natural selection], but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom". The weasel program is indeed used in the context of a discussion on life's origin, but that discussion is solely within the framework of natural selection. If you read the chapter, I hope you would accept that my post sits comfortably within Dawkins's view. I'm not sure I'm following you here when you say the discussion is solely within the framework of natural selection, but I think this blogger put it well "Probably the most obvious flaw in Dawkins line of reasoning is that the Weasel Program must be supplied with information to generate information. In fact, the only information it can generate is the information that was put in to it. If you put nonsense into the Weasel Program you get nonsense out, not information. The Weasel Program is just a conversion algorithm. Dawkins’ argument assumes that you can start with something that automatically has the ability to reproduce itself. I thought the idea here was that life was represented by a meaningful sentence. Shouldn’t nonsense be considered dead an unable to reproduce? Dawkins’ argument assumes that all the selected intermediate strings can reproduce even though he acknowledges that there are vastly more was of being dead than alive. If we were to enforce some rule for what is considered to be alive, like requiring the character string be composed of only properly spelled words, the Weasel Program wouldn’t be able to find a path to its expected output. To say that “there are vastly more ways of being dead than alive” would be a gross understatement because there would be easily billions of more ways of being “dead” than “alive”" (source: http://randystimpson...el-program.html). Whether or not you're considering this as a simulation to demonstrate the origin of life or the increasing of applicable sequencing to facilitate adaptation to a certain environment, if nothing more than unguided forces are at play then either way the simulation fails to account for how the conversion algorithm (or genetic algorithm if the metaphor is to extend so far) was set up in the first place, and more importantly, how anything could survive long enough to reproduce nested generations of sequencing that's not set up to perform any valid function. This necessitates that organisms are not selected for survival advantage but for their potential suvival advantage according to some intelligently prescribed, desired future outcome. If the match between sequencing and environmental funcationality is a prospective one, then Natural Selection kills off the organism, since unguided forces have no foresight and all you have is something that's not adapted for survival in its environment. If Natural Selection were actually in effect, none of the sequences except the last one would have made the cut. To survive the sentence would have to pop into being all at once, fully formed and error free, or else it would be selected out, demonstrating that you have to start with information and an algorithm to select from changes in the sequencing, just to get started, and from there you'd have to account for variations that would come into being as complete and environmentally relevant sequences that do not come at the expense of the functionality of the rest of the sequence. I think the Weasel Program bears testimony to how stupid Dawkins thinks the average reader of his books are... Which books of his have you read?

If natural selection has been expanded to include the origin of life, as well as its development, then Theistic Evolution cannot be considered plausible by anyone who supports Evolution. To attribute the origino of life to a wholly naturalistic process without any involvement of a Creator, would make atheisim the only logical alternative for a proponent of Evolution. I have to confess profound ignorance, Shiloh. I have no idea what Theistic Evolution is - whenever I've seen the phrase used, I don't see any theology and very little evolution. I'm also not versed in classics, so "a wholly naturalistic process" means nothing to me. The second sentence of my post - in which I'd like to draw attention to "akin", btw - was my personal summing up of what I've read in the scientific literature. It may well not stand up to scrutiny more familiar with that literature, or on the other hand it might. The views expressed in that scientific literature are not necessarily views I share, anyway.

Popularizers like Dawkins disagree. Are you familiar with his Weasel program? It attempts to demonstrate the origin of life using natural selection on abiotic matter. I would agree that it's senseless to pretend that such could be the case, but it's not some kind of Creationist misunderstanding to address the application of evolution on non-living material. Natural selection only works through reproduction. NS selects from what's available among living organisms, cutting out organisms that are less adapted for certain environments. Without life there is no pressure from selection, i.e. nothing from which to select. The process fundamentally requires living organisms that can reproduce, otherwise it would have to be a physical force, physically moving abiotic matter around, and selecting not for survival advantage but deliberating for future potential advantage... and an immaterial force acting physically to assemble something with deliberation would simply be a description of God or some kind of ghost or whatever. Actually, my comments in the earlier post probably owe their origin to having read some of Dawkins's books. I think the Weasel program first sees the light of day in the chapter entitled "accumulating small change" in Dawkins's "Blind Watchmaker". The purpose of the chapter is not to discuss the origin of life, but to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection, because "Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe [i.e. natural selection], but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom". The weasel program is indeed used in the context of a discussion on life's origin, but that discussion is solely within the framework of natural selection. If you read the chapter, I hope you would accept that my post sits comfortably within Dawkins's view. I'm not sure I'm following you here when you say the discussion is solely within the framework of natural selection, but I think this blogger put it well "Probably the most obvious flaw in Dawkins line of reasoning is that the Weasel Program must be supplied with information to generate information. In fact, the only information it can generate is the information that was put in to it. If you put nonsense into the Weasel Program you get nonsense out, not information. The Weasel Program is just a conversion algorithm. Dawkins’ argument assumes that you can start with something that automatically has the ability to reproduce itself. I thought the idea here was that life was represented by a meaningful sentence. Shouldn’t nonsense be considered dead an unable to reproduce? Dawkins’ argument assumes that all the selected intermediate strings can reproduce even though he acknowledges that there are vastly more was of being dead than alive. If we were to enforce some rule for what is considered to be alive, like requiring the character string be composed of only properly spelled words, the Weasel Program wouldn’t be able to find a path to its expected output. To say that “there are vastly more ways of being dead than alive” would be a gross understatement because there would be easily billions of more ways of being “dead” than “alive”" (source: http://randystimpson.blogspot.com/2010/04/interactive-weasel-program.html). Whether or not you're considering this as a simulation to demonstrate the origin of life or the increasing of applicable sequencing to facilitate adaptation to a certain environment, either way, if nothing more than unguided forces are at work then the simulation fails to account for how the conversion algorithm (or genetic algorithm if the metaphor is to extend so far) was set up in the first place, and more importantly, how an organism could survive long enough to reproduce, and it's offspring could survive and so forth and so on for multiple generations, with DNA sequencing that's not set up to perform any valid function in its (or any other) environment. Such organisms would simply not live. This necessitates that organisms in the simulation are not selected for survival advantage but for their potential suvival advantage according to some intelligently prescribed, desired future outcome, so the junk sequencing is safeguarded by nothing more than intelligent intention. If the match between sequencing and environmental funcationality is a prospective one, then Natural Selection (being and unguided natural force) kills off the organism, since unguided forces have no foresight and all you have in hand is something that's not adapted for survival in its environment. If Natural Selection was properly represented, none of the sequences except the last one would have survived. To survive the sentence would have to pop into being all at once, fully formed and error free, or else it would not be sequenced to perform any function necessary to sustain life, and as such the organism would simply be naturally selected out. Therefore, you have to start with valid sequencing that informs an environmentally useful function and, for that matter, an algorithm to select from changes in the sequencing, so the simulation is misleading at best, relying on prospective, intelligently safeguarded intention and preexisting intelligently designed criteria, and thus strongly disconfirms what it proports to support. I'm not at all sure the blogger has read the chapter I refer to. Do you know if the the Weasel program has been used by Dawkins, or anyone else, elsewhere? At this stage I really am starting to think there is another program called Weasel, or that it has been invoked again in a different theatre, since I don't recognise any aspect of it in the blogger's comments. Can you help further? Have you used the program? Have you read the chapter in Blind Watchmaker? If not, it's going to be mighty tricky for us to have a conversation about it - although I'll try my best to keep my end up.

So the primeval puddle of chemical mix and the lightning bolt theory is wrong? It's still around, even if it's evolved quite a lot - I suppose it would have to, really, wouldn't it? I get the feeling that it has now gained widespread acceptance as just one way of providing some of the raw materials.

Popularizers like Dawkins disagree. Are you familiar with his Weasel program? It attempts to demonstrate the origin of life using natural selection on abiotic matter. I would agree that it's senseless to pretend that such could be the case, but it's not some kind of Creationist misunderstanding to address the application of evolution on non-living material. Natural selection only works through reproduction. NS selects from what's available among living organisms, cutting out organisms that are less adapted for certain environments. Without life there is no pressure from selection, i.e. nothing from which to select. The process fundamentally requires living organisms that can reproduce, otherwise it would have to be a physical force, physically moving abiotic matter around, and selecting not for survival advantage but deliberating for future potential advantage... and an immaterial force acting physically to assemble something with deliberation would simply be a description of God or some kind of ghost or whatever. Actually, my comments in the earlier post probably owe their origin to having read some of Dawkins's books. I think the Weasel program first sees the light of day in the chapter entitled "accumulating small change" in Dawkins's "Blind Watchmaker". The purpose of the chapter is not to discuss the origin of life, but to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection, because "Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe [i.e. natural selection], but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom". The weasel program is indeed used in the context of a discussion on life's origin, but that discussion is solely within the framework of natural selection. If you read the chapter, I hope you would accept that my post sits comfortably within Dawkins's view.