Does "Sin" Prove Evolution to be Incorrect?

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, enoob57 said:

Theism is God’s Word as written...

evolutionist is empiricism as no god exists...

Thus putting them together is an oxymoron... 

In one way, that's an error, and in another, it's not. 

Empiricism certainly does not rule out God.   Plumbers are empirical in their practice, but there are all sorts of theistic plumbers.   

On the other hand, "theistic evolution" is like "deistic radio waves."   In each of those, the first half is a religious belief, and the second is an observed phenomenon.

  

[Tristen]

5 hours ago, enoob57 said:

Theism is God’s Word as written...

evolutionist is empiricism as no god exists...

Thus putting them together is an oxymoron... 

Hi Enoob.

Before I respond I wanted to be clear that I am a Biblical (or Young-Earth) creationist – in accordance with what I consider to be the most straight forward interpretation of Genesis. Nevertheless, I disagree with how you are defining terms.

“Theist” is not Christian (or Bible) specific. It is a derivation of the Greek word 'theos' and, when used as an adjective, speaks to belief in the involvement of a god or gods.

“Evolutionist” is a problematic term because “evolution” can be (and has been) used to mean a raft of different concepts. Some of these concepts line up readily with both scripture and observation. But some (namely, Common Ancestry) are neither observed, nor line up with scripture.

Therefore, literally speaking, a 'theistic evolutionist' just refers to someone who believes god(s) directed evolutionary processes. In reality, I find this term generally refers to those who try to insert the Biblical God into the secular story of history (post hoc, ad hoc) – out of some perceived (though misguided IMO) obligation to that secular story.

 

[enoob57]

19 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Hi Enoob.

Before I respond I wanted to be clear that I am a Biblical (or Young-Earth) creationist – in accordance with what I consider to be the most straight forward interpretation of Genesis. Nevertheless, I disagree with how you are defining terms.

“Theist” is not Christian (or Bible) specific. It is a derivation of the Greek word 'theos' and, when used as an adjective, speaks to belief in the involvement of a god or gods.

“Evolutionist” is a problematic term because “evolution” can be (and has been) used to mean a raft of different concepts. Some of these concepts line up readily with both scripture and observation. But some (namely, Common Ancestry) are neither observed, nor line up with scripture.

Therefore, literally speaking, a 'theistic evolutionist' just refers to someone who believes god(s) directed evolutionary processes. In reality, I find this term generally refers to those who try to insert the Biblical God into the secular story of history (post hoc, ad hoc) – out of some perceived (though misguided IMO) obligation to that secular story.

 

Words can be manipulated to the bias of individual thought... it is God = Theos as there exist only One God... thus allowing the mind to the admission of more than one God is simply lie... no reason exists with lie allowed in the reason process. 

[Tristen]

3 hours ago, Sparks said:

"Evolution theory attempts to explain the formation of the universe, the Earth and life but it fails, because it cannot explain the genesis of matter, energy or life."  -- Joseph Farah

I have really never been able to say it as consisely as Joseph did, but then he is a professional writer.  He is exactly right. 

As for observations of evolution, we have only seen microevolution.   Macroevolution has not been seen, despite Lensky's continuing efforts. 

There have been a lot of mistakes about microevolution being claimed as macroevolution, though.  I will give you that.

Hi Sparks,

Thought you might find this interesting.

According to (evolutionist) zoologist Kerkut GA (1960) “Implications of Evolution”

"There are, however, seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of Evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six of these assumptions and only consider the seventh.

These are as follows.

(1) The assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.

(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

The other assumptions all follow from the second one.

(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.

(4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa.

(5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

(6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

(7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e. that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock and so on.

For the initial purposes of this discussion on Evolution I shall consider that the supporters of the theory of Evolution hold that all these seven assumptions are valid, and that these assumptions form the "General Theory of Evolution."

The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification. They assume that a certain series of events has occurred in the past. Thus it may be possible to mimic some of these events under present-day conditions, this does not mean that these events must therefore have taken place in the past. All that it shows is that it is possible for such a change to take place. Thus to change a present-day reptile into a mammal, though of great interest, would not show the way in which the mammals did arise. Unfortunately we cannot bring about this change; instead we have to depend upon limited circumstantial evidence for our assumptions, and it is now my intention to discuss the nature of this evidence." (pages 6-7)

"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand, there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place." (page 157)

 

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Hi Sparks,

Thought you might find this interesting.

According to (evolutionist) zoologist Kerkut GA (1960) “Implications of Evolution”

"There are, however, seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of Evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six of these assumptions and only consider the seventh.

These are as follows.

(1) The assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.

(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

The other assumptions all follow from the second one.

(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.

(4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa.

(5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

(6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

(7) The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e. that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock and so on.

For the initial purposes of this discussion on Evolution I shall consider that the supporters of the theory of Evolution hold that all these seven assumptions are valid, and that these assumptions form the "General Theory of Evolution."

The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification. They assume that a certain series of events has occurred in the past. Thus it may be possible to mimic some of these events under present-day conditions, this does not mean that these events must therefore have taken place in the past. All that it shows is that it is possible for such a change to take place. Thus to change a present-day reptile into a mammal, though of great interest, would not show the way in which the mammals did arise. Unfortunately we cannot bring about this change; instead we have to depend upon limited circumstantial evidence for our assumptions, and it is now my intention to discuss the nature of this evidence." (pages 6-7)

"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand, there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found by future experimental work and not by dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place." (page 157)

 

That was interesting, Tristen.  Thank you! 

[The Barbarian]

17 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Hi Sparks,

Thought you might find this interesting.

According to (evolutionist) zoologist Kerkut GA (1960) “Implications of Evolution”

"There are, however, seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of Evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first six of these assumptions and only consider the seventh.

There are four claims of Darwinian theory:

1. More are born than can survive.

2. Every individual is slightly different than its parents

3. Some of these differences can affect the likelihood of an organism living long enough to survive.   Those that help tend to mean more offspring, and those that harm, tend to mean fewer or none.

4. These differences accumulate in a population and change it over time.

The other's are Kerkut's assumptions, not of evolutionary theory.   Some of them are consequences of evolution, not evolutionary theory.   For example, Darwin wrote that God just created the first living things.  

23 minutes ago, Tristen said:

(1) The assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation occurred.

 

Actually, that is not a necessary part of evolutionary theory.  However, God tells us that non-living matter gave rise to living things.   So it's a pretty good bet.

26 minutes ago, Tristen said:

(2) The second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

That would be a contradiction in terms.   "Spontaneous generation" is the belief that living animals can be produced by rotting plant and animal material.    Kerkut is confusing abiogenesis (earth and waters brought forth living things, as God says), with an 18 century assumption.

However, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that says life only appeared once.   Indeed, many researchers, looking at the evidence for early life on Earth have found indictations that it began more than once, and our particular kind of living things are the survivors of a competion between various forms of life.

https://www.amazon.com/New-History-Life-Discoveries-Evolution/dp/160819910X

59 minutes ago, Tristen said:

(3) The third assumption is that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated.

It's a conclusion based on evidence.   You have more genes in common with a banana, than you have genes by which you differ.    Molecular biologists were surprised to find that genetics shows the same tree of life first discovered by Linnaeus (who didn't know about evolution) based on physical characteristics.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

(4) The fourth assumption is that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa.

Conclusion based on evidence.  Genetics says so.   And there are transitional forms between them.   Again, Kurkut has confused a consequence of evolution with evolution itself.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

(5) The fifth assumption is that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated.

"Invertebrate" isn't a classification.  It's a sort of convenient way of saying "not chordate."

And vertebrates are more closely related to some of them than others are to each other.  

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

(6) The sixth assumption is that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.

As YE creationist Kurt wise admits:

 " Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Pikaia (between echinoderms and chordates), ...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."

Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms  pp 2-3

Since then, there is considerable genetic and embryological data confirming this finding.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

The seventh assumption is that within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e. that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock and so on.

As Dr. Wise points out, there is considerable fossil evidence for this; no assumptions necessary.   And yes, there is considerable genetic and anatomical data to support it as well.   Huxley predicted the dinosauran evolution of birds on the basis of anatomy.   Today, we have many examples of the transitional forms he predicted.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification.

See above.   Kurkut's assumptions have been overturned by evidence.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand, there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.

Notice that Dr. Kurt Wise has refuted Kurkut's assumption citing "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Since Kurkut published his assumptions, the science of evolutionary development has repeatedly shown that genetics indicates the way the same homobox genes work in the same way in widely divergent phyla, to produce very different results.   Would you like to talk about that?

 

 

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

Words can be manipulated to the bias of individual thought... it is God = Theos as there exist only One God... thus allowing the mind to the admission of more than one God is simply lie... no reason exists with lie allowed in the reason process. 

In order to effectively communicate, we have to be able to deal with concepts that are beyond the bounds of our own faith. I agree with you that the Christian concept of God is the only correct rendering of reality. That is why I am a Christian (a specific type, or subset, of 'theist').

The term 'theism' speaks to the unspecific belief that god(s) exist. Since there are many beliefs that incorporate the existence of god(s), we need a general word that encompasses all such beliefs (including, but not limited to, Christianity). Again, I agree with you that all non-Christian beliefs are a “lie”. However, it is not reasonable to ignore the existence of such beliefs, or disfranchise them from an appropriate label. Using an appropriate, agreed-upon term is simply a matter of efficient communication – not manipulation.

I would use the word 'Christian' to precisely reference belief in the Biblical God.

 

[enoob57]

3 minutes ago, Tristen said:

In order to effectively communicate, we have to be able to deal with concepts that are beyond the bounds of our own faith. I agree with you that the Christian concept of God is the only correct rendering of reality. That is why I am a Christian (a specific type, or subset, of 'theist').

The term 'theism' speaks to the unspecific belief that god(s) exist. Since there are many beliefs that incorporate the existence of god(s), we need a general word that encompasses all such beliefs (including, but not limited to, Christianity). Again, I agree with you that all non-Christian beliefs are a “lie”. However, it is not reasonable to ignore the existence of such beliefs, or disfranchise them from an appropriate label. Using an appropriate, agreed-upon term is simply a matter of efficient communication – not manipulation.

I would use the word 'Christian' to precisely reference belief in the Biblical God.

 

I understand brother... but I fashion my mind to the acceptance of The Lord as all else will merely pass away  We each give an account of ourselves for every word we speak so this is my careful  

[The Barbarian]

5 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Again, I agree with you that all non-Christian beliefs are a “lie”. However, it is not reasonable to ignore the existence of such beliefs, or disfranchise them from an appropriate label.

"Lie" is not an accurate description of other faiths.   

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all of humanity.”

As St. Paul wrote:

Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

[teddyv]

Wow, a 60 year old quote. Plate tectonic theory was barely becoming mainstream in 1960.