The Barbarian

It's been observed between jackals and tigers in S. Asia. Golden jackals hang out near tigers and feed off their leavings. They will occasionally make a tiger aware of a prey animal nearby. Most tigers tolerate the jackals. I suspect humans were able to more quickly figure out the benefits of such interactions. It's true that dogs have evolved the "sad eyes" face that humans find appealing, and research has shown that they know what they are doing to us: In a study published June 17 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers looked at the evolution of "puppy dog eyes" — the signature, eyebrows-raised look of sadness that any dog can employ to escape virtually any consequence — and found that the expression finds its source in a powerful eye muscle that seems to have evolved specifically to mimic human emotions. [Like Dog, Like Owner: What Breed Says About Personality] In a small survey of dogs and wolves, the researchers found that the muscle is "uniformly present" in modern dogs, but conspicuously absent in their wild cousins. The ability to make this hangdog expression, which closely resembles the look of confused sadness oft worn by human babies, "may trigger a nurturing response" in humans who behold it, the authors wrote, and could therefore be an evolutionary advantage to doggos. https://www.livescience.com/65738-how-dogs-evolved-sad-eyes.html Previous studies have demonstrated that dogs can read and respond to human facial expressions—and even synchronize their emotions to match. “Dogs are watching us very closely—some of this is based on our gaze and body language, but also on the sounds we make and the scents we give off,” Monique Udell, an animal behaviorist and associate professor of animal sciences at Oregon State University in Corvallis, told National Geographic in 2021. https://www.popsci.com/animals/dog-domestication-wolves-evolution-puppy-eyes/ Dog Gazes Hijack the Brain’s Maternal Bonding System When a dog looks into your eyes, it’s bonding with you in the same way babies bond with their human moms https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dog-gazes-hijack-brains-maternal-bonding-system-180955019/

Some sources: The invaders: how humans and their dogs drove Neanderthals to extinction https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674975415 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=18cf09365e40f4db789eace578819609f0ccf96d Behaviorally, humans are the most canid-like of primates. And dogs are the most primate-like of canids. We've changed, perhaps as much as they have. A band of humans and dogs cooperating in hunting are the predators from hell. Together, they have everything. Imagine two proto-canids considering these new arrivals. "Sure, they're slow, and they can't track to save their lives. But did you see last week? They took down a mammoth. We need to get in on that."

Evolution is a fact, because it's an observed phenomenon. Common descent of life on Earth is a conclusion based on the facts that even informed YECs admit is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Scientists make a distinction between facts like evolution and conclusions based on facts, like common descent. Some YECs claim otherwise; it's that sort of disingenuous nonsense that has led many believers to view young Earth creationism with a great deal of suspicion.

This seems to conflate final causes with efficient causes. The efficient causes of evolution are well-understood and easily observed. The final cause is outside the reach of science, being God (IMO).

Well, let's test that opinion. How do you measure complexity? For example, how would you decide whether a shark is more or less complex than a turtle? Full disclosure; biological complexity calculations make my head hurt, but I'd be willing to discuss yours, or alternately explore a relatively simple case. What would you like to do? Biological information is more applicable to evolution, because it focuses on populations. As you probably know, evolution happens to populations, not individuals. The good thing about that is, information is somewhat less difficult to calculate. Again, how should we go forward with this?

I really didn't think much about this when I first read it. Since the opening lines of Genesis show us the triune nature of God, the Word is not Hebrew. It's the Son.

They just don't want to call it "evolution." Darwin defined it as "descent with modification." Today, it's defined as "a change in allele frequencies in a population over time." And that's what we observe. AIG is trying to blur the lines between common descent and evolution. For the obvious reasons. They've had to retreat to admitting the fact of speciation, of new species and genera (and sometimes families) evolving over time. They just want to cancel the original meaning to maintain their position.

The point is that you can't make Genesis and your revision of it compatible. I don't think you're lying; you're so indoctrinated that you refuse to look at facts. But adding your new interpretations is a revision. You're merely assuming things untrue. As you learned ancient Jewish and Christian theologians wrote that Genesis was not a literal account. I've given you examples. Why deny something everyone has seen here? So do Christians. You just don't approve of the way He did it. Why not just accept it His way?

Evolution is a directly observed natural phenomenon. Just as you confuse Genesis with YEC, you've confused adaptation with evolution. Since you forgot again... Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population. Adaption is a response by an organism to environment. Not all adaptation is evolution, and not all evolution is adaptation. Getting a suntan is adaptation, but not evolution. A new neutral mutation is evolution but not adaptation. Tibetans evolving the EPAS1 mutation to survive at high altitudes is evolution and adaptation. Write it down this time, so you don't forget again. It's constantly observed. No point in denial. Would you like me to show you some more examples? That is evolution. You can actually get a genetic breakdown of breed which is the change in allele frequencies. If it did, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. That's not what evolutionary theory says. Can you actually make a post without saying anything untrue?

The point is that you can't make Genesis and your revision of it compatible. Evolution, as you know, is an observed fact. So your revision is clearly incompatible with God and His creation. Christians who reject the Bible aren’t “Christ like,” because Christ actually believed the Bible. Why won't you?

It's a directly observed natural phenomenon. Why not just let God decide how it should be? You are promoting false doctrine. That distances you from Him.

An informal survey of major Christian organizations and denominations in the United States, based mostly on publicly available statements, indicates that in fact most Christians, as represented by their governing bodies, view evolution as being compatible with their faith You aren't going to hell for being a YEC; it's an error, not a heresy. It's not orthodoxy, but it's not something that affects your salvation. Only if you make an idol of it, and insist that one must believe it to be saved, does it put your salvation at risk. You call yourself a Christian, for example. But you don't act much like it. Set your pride aside, and let it be God's way.

Since the text itself tells us that it's not a literal six days, there's no contradiction at all between God's word and His creation. Why not just accept it as it is, without creationist additions?

We see evolution happening in all populations. No point in denial. Did you forget what evolution is, again? Descent with modification, or a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. We see that constantly. You've confused evolution with common descent. Let's see what a knowledgeable and honest YE creationist has to say about the evidence for that... Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumedancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf As you learned, evolution is consistent with God's word. Christians disagree with you. You're welcome to believe what you like, but it's not orthodox Christian belief. An informal survey of major Christian organizations and denominations in the United States, based mostly on publicly available statements, indicates that in fact most Christians, as represented by their governing bodies, view evolution as being compatible with their faith. Although on a worldwide basis this is largely a result of the high number (estimated at 1.2 billion) of adherents to Catholicism, even in the United States, where Protestants outnumber Catholics and where anti-evolution sentiment runs high, there is more acceptance than non-acceptance of evolution among Christians, based on statements from their organizing bodies or spokespersons. Protestant groups are divided on the issue, with more “mainstream” denominations (e.g., Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian) accepting evolutionary biology as being compatible with their faith, and more fundamentalist or Pentecostal groups denying compatibility or rejecting evolution. Relevant statements from denominations or organizations both pro and con are included. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0221-5 Not surprisingly, there's nothing therein that denies evolution. You just added some things to make it more acceptable to you. If you believe God, you wouldn't be making those additions.

We see it happening in all populations. You might as well say that gravity will never be proven. I think you've forgotten again, what biological evolution is. Can you tell us what it is? No, that's wrong too. God could easily use nature to make our bodies. In fact, He says the earth brought forth living things as He intended. Of course, evolution is not about the organization of the universe, and Darwin's great discovery was that evolution is not random. "People are usually down on things they aren't up on." Everett Dirkson IDer Michael Denton would disagree. God is not required for teleology. Nor is evolution inconsistent with God's creation. It is His creation, after all. Otherwise it wouldn't exist for us to observe. As you learned, evolution is consistent with God's word. It's just inconsistent with the revisions of some YECs. Not all of them, but most of them.

You've now abandoned any attempt to reason and are again just insisting you are right despite the evidence. Time for you to take a little time to calm yourself.

Nothing in scripture denies the fact. C'mon. You're still trying to force a literal revision onto Genesis. Your word is not God's word. Do you have a hard time understanding that, or are you being dishonest? God never said how long it took. You're still adding things to His word. Don't have any idea what atheist websites say about it. Your distortions of scripture are quite similar to those of atheists, though. Extreme YECs and atheists are determined to make God's word inconsistent with His creation. I'm pointing out that Christians have usually considered them to be figurative, just as you learned Jewish theologians have generally done so. If you have to change the meaning of "evening" and "morning" to make your new doctrines work, isn't that a tip-off for you? The image in in our minds and souls. God doesn't have elbows and fingers or a humn body. Jesus says that God is a spirit. And He tells us that a spirit has no body. Why not just believe Him? Thing is, even broken genes and viral remnants are very much the same in human and chimp genomes. Why would God fake virus infections and mutations that broke genes? Wouldn't it just be better to accept that He did it the way He made it look like He did it?

You're assuming that these were actually periods of time. It is commonly suggested that this is such a “plain reading” of Scripture—so obviously clear and true—that the only people who doubt it are those who have been influenced by Charles Darwin and his neo-Darwinian successors. The claim is often made that no one doubted this reading until after Darwin. (This just isn’t true—from ancient rabbis to Augustine to B. B. Warfield—but that’s another post for another time.) So it may come as a surprise to some contemporary conservatives that some of the great stalwarts of the faith were not convinced of this interpretation. Augustine, writing in the early fifth century, noted, ”What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine” (City of God 11.7). J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), author of the 20th century’s best critique of theological liberalism, wrote, “It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each.” Old Testament scholar Edward J. Young (1907-1968), an eloquent defender of inerrancy, said that regarding the length of the creation days, “That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.” Theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003), one of the most important theologians in the second half of the twentieth century and a defender of Scriptural clarity and authority, argued that “Faith in an inerrant Bible does not rest on the recency or antiquity of the earth. . . . The Bible does not require belief in six literal 24-hour creation days on the basis of Genesis 1-2. . . . it is gratuitous to insist that twenty-four hour days are involved or intended.” Old Testament scholar and Hebrew linguist Gleason Archer (1916-2004), a strong advocate for inerrancy, wrote ”On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer’s conviction that yôm in Genesis could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four hour day.” https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/biblical-reasons-to-doubt-the-creation-days-were-24-hour-periods/ Genesis 1 does not give scientific facts. What then is it for? Primarily, it reveals God as Creator. The things that other people worshiped are not gods. Rather, they were created by the true God, who rules over the chaos “god,” who has power to command the ocean “god.” God is above the powers of nature; he is supernatural. Each day of creation dismisses more deities — light and darkness, earth and sky, land and water, sun and moon and stars, fish and birds, animals and even man. They are all created, having no power except that appointed by the Creator God. Archer writes: “The purpose of Genesis 1 is not to tell how fast God performed His work of creation (though, of course, some of His acts, such as the creation of light on the first day, must have been instantaneous). Rather, its true purpose was to reveal that the Lord God who had revealed Himself to the Hebrew race and entered into personal covenant relationship with them was indeed the only true God, the Creator of all things that are.” It is also possible that some of the described events, especially those in day 4 (which we have already admitted) and in 2:4-7, are out of their original order. This is also within biblical literary style. Bruce K. Waltke writes: “As so often happens in Scripture, historical events have been dischronologized and reconstructed for theological reasons. For example, the nations listed in Genesis 10 came into existence after the confusion of languages at Babylon recounted in Genesis 11, but the writer has dischronologized events in order to put the nations under Noah’s blessing, not under the Babylon’s curse. According to Genesis 35:16-18, Benjamin was born in Canaan, but less than 10 verses later it lists Benjamin among Jacob’s sons born in Paddan-Aram, presumably to represent the youngest patriarch as taking part in the return of all Israel from the exile in Paddan-Aram. Biblical writers display a freedom in representing historical events for theological reasons.” (“The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One,” Crux, December 1991, volume 27, number 4, page 7). Days grouped in a pattern There is also a schematic arrangement. In the first group of three days, God organized motionless spaces by separating one from another; in the second group of three days, God formed things to fill and “rule” over those spaces. The sun and moon and stars occupy and govern the light and darkness; the fish and birds fill and rule the water and air; the animals fill the land, and humans rule all. Another theological reason for the six days of creation is the Sabbath. A one-day creation could demonstrate God’s power over all other powers, but we are given a pattern of six days and a day of rest. The Sabbath commemorates God as Creator, as having all power. It does not matter whether creation was actually done in six days. What matters is that the week is assigned to correspond to creation. Using that pattern, God told the Israelites to take a break from their occupations on the Sabbath, a break from their concerns with created things, so they can remember the Creator. This is one of the ritual laws that became obsolete when Christ died. Faith and facts None of the interpretations of Genesis 1 has explained everything. But it is clear that we cannot require a strictly literal reading. The difficulties involved in literalism show that the account is not intended strictly literally. It is right to allow exploration and to suggest some possible nonliteral explanations. https://www.gci.org/articles/genesis-1-are-the-six-days-of-creation-literal-or-figurative/ Genetics informs evolutionary theory. So does chemistry. But neither of them is part of evolutionary theory. Well, that's a testable assumption... Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations. https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/evolution Biological evolution is the change in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/biological-evolution A good source, accessible to those with little biological knowledge... https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/hardy-weinberg-equilibrium/a/allele-frequency-the-gene-pool When learning about science, it's smart to consult science sources. Otherwise, you will get misled. As happened to you, this time. Humans are apes. I didn't give humans and chimps almost-identical genes. God did. And because we can test that with organisms of known descent, we know that they indicate common descent. Humans and chimps are more closely related than either is to any other ape.

More recently, scientists have found convincing evidence that God and Darwin had it right. He wrote that God created the first living things. If this seems contradictory to you, that would explain a lot of things you've written here. Maybe if you read the Bible a little you'd learn that even revising it into a literal narrative Don't have any idea what atheist websites say about it. But it clearly misled you. Here's a better place for you to learn what it says: https://www.biblegateway.com/ Worth checking out. Read and learn. You have learned something from our conversations. Well done. The Bible is about God and man and our relationship. Science can't comment on that. Neither is the Bible a science text. If you try to get science from the Bible or God from science, you'll end up completely misled. And that's the part you still haven't figured out.

More recently, scientists have found convincing evidence that God and Darwin had it right. Why not just accept it His way? 100% false. Maybe if you read the Bible a little you'd learn that even revising it into a literal narrative, that creationist belief won't work. It seems that in order to make your point you have to misrepresent everything. Common descent is a finding from genetics, not evolutionary theory. Geneticists. Genetics. One of the strongest evidences for common descent comes from gene sequences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent More convincing is what real scientists say about it. Your article: The virtually infinite variations on life are the fruit of the evolutionary process. All living creatures are related by desc.ent from common ancestors. Humans and other mammals descend from shrewlike creatures that lived more than 150 million years ago; mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes share as ancestors aquatic worms that lived 600 million years ago; and all plants and animals derive from bacteria-like microorganisms that originated more than 3 billion years ago. Doesn't say anything about the evidence. Do you even read what you quote here?

That's your go-to whenever you don't like stuff that's been debunked so often that even you don't believe it any longer. Everyone notices. C'mon. You're assuming that these were actually periods of time. But in Hebrew they don't have to be so. They are merely aspects of God's creation. Show me where in scripture it says that if a figurative verse is repeated, that converts it to a literal history. I don't see that anywhere. God makes it very clear what was there in the beginning, and humans were not. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. Jesus was speaking of the beginning of our race. Again, you're adding your own wishes to scripture to make it more acceptable to you. Nothing in scripture opposes biological evolution. Nothing in scripture mentions it, just as nothing in scripture mentions protons. There are many things that are true that aren't in scripture. It's about God and man and our relationship, while you keep trying to make it about other things. And in doing so, you miss everything He's telling you. And even many creationist organizations have now retreated to accepting a limited amount of common descent to include new species, new genera, and even sometimes new families. You keep forgetting that evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population, not about the origin of life. It's one of the most difficult things for YECs to understand. And common descent is a finding from genetics, not evolutionary theory. Nonsense. You might as well claim that chemistry is part of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory was around long before genetics was a science. Genetics informs evolutionary theory. So does chemistry. But neither of them is part of evolutionary theory. Humans are apes. We are hominoids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hominoids And again, your go-to when you come up against facts you don't like. It's very noticeable. And here, you're confusing man's body, which is produced by nature, with his soul, which is given directly by God, as He tells us in Genesis. Why not just set your pride aside and accept it His way?

As you know, YECs always confuse evolution with the origin of life. Do you not thing you are a creation of God? And as you learned earlier, the text itself says that the "yom" of creation are not literal 24 hour days. That would be rather odd, since we directly observe evolution in living populations. God does not contradict His creation. Did you forget again, what biological evolution is? "Descent with modification" (Darwn) or "change in allele frequencies in a population" (genetics). Try to find a way to live with creation as He did it. Nothing in scripture opposes biological evolution. I think you're still confusing evolution and common descent. And even many creationist organizations have now retreated to accepting a limited amount of common descent to include new species, new genera, and even sometimes new families. If they retreat just a little more, we won't have anything to argue about. That is a finding from genetics, not evolutionary theory. It is as you know, consistent with evolutionary theory and scripture.

Darwin never made a theory on the origin of life. His only word on it attributes it to God. As you know, YECs always confuse evolution with the origin of life. If you think God creating life is a "natural occurence", the Bible would support you on that. It says that the Earth brought forth animals. Evolution is a directly observed phenomenon. Technically, speciation is macroevolution. But evolution as such is just a change in allele frequencies in a population. That also happens without speciation. We see evolution in all sorts of populations. No, that's your addition to God's word. It's nowhere to be found in the Bible. God didn't say it, case closed. If you were right, we wouldn't be observing it happening. But descent with modification (Darwin's theory) and changes in allele frequency (modern definition) are observed everywhere. Even AiG now admits the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes families. They just don't want to use the word "evolution." So let's just use "descent with modification" as Darwin put it. Why not just accept that God did it His way? It won't cost you your salvation if you want to be a YEC, but you would have a closer relationship with God if you accepted His word on this.

He never made a theory on the origin of life. His only word on it attributes it to God. As you know, YECs always confuse evolution with the origin of life. It's a directly observed phenomenon. YECs also frequently confuse evolution with common descent. I don't think they are lying about this; they are just so indoctrinated in their false doctrines that they are unable to think about it clearly. But not the founder of error. And I think most YECs are merely in error, not lying. If so we wouldn't be observing it happening. Nature is God's creation, not Satan's. And evolution is just the way He makes new species. Which even YECs have finally admitted. (most of them anyway) Yep.

I'm just pointing out that Darwin assumed that God created the first living things. Yes, when he published his theory. In fact, he said he was "leaning toward being an agnostic." But he was an orthodox Anglican Christian when he published his theory. As you learned, neither God nor Satan said anything about that. You shouldn't be presuming to speak for either of them.