Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, kingdombrat said:

So then, your View is what looks like Chaos and Accident, in reality (to You), is God's Intelligent Design?

Yes, this is actually a pretty good summary of what I believe. Further, it seems as though God's intended outcomes are very difficult (perhaps impossible?) to distinguish from a series of random, chance events when we use our tools to study His work.

I will get back to your post on figurative language in Genesis 1-3 later. This will take more time, care, and effort than a short reply like this one.

[Sparks]

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You have fundamentally misunderstood me. I think evolution most definitely has leadership - God Himself! I believe these things happened because God set them up to happen that way.

It's your own religion then. You have fundamentally misunderstood what God told you.  He told you He created the animals, not baked them.  You are fooled by Satan, sadly.

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I've dismantled multiple arguments you've raised already today, while you simply ignore the dismantling and move on to your next argument.

That's funny.  I thought I had dismantled yours.  I remember you denying mine, but hardly dismantling them.

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are unaware that the mistaken claim of "The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago" was not written by the author but a pop science writer, where headlines are often desired at the expense of accuracy.

That's cute, but that quote is from an interview with the authors of that paper from phys dot org, and the authors said that about their own project.  I guess they misunderstand their own project?  It's their conclusions, so, whatever. 

At least the author of the paper went with his observations, even though they went against his personal beliefs.  He is a true scientist for doing that.  His math added up to the results.  He did catch heat from people like you though, and had to add that disclaimer to his work.

I would say enjoy your religion of evolution.  I am not sure what to call your religion, exactly since you believe in God, but it sure denies what God said He did.

And, if you are so sure the author is wrong with his White Paper, write an official objection.

Cya

[one.opinion]

43 minutes ago, Sparks said:

It's your own religion then. You have fundamentally misunderstood what God told you.  He told you He created the animals, not baked them.  You are fooled by Satan, sadly.

If you really want to split hairs, God told the land to bring forth living creatures. Regardless, God is Creator. Are you seriously threatened enough by someone having a different opinion about a secondary issue that you are going to attempt to demonize them? 

49 minutes ago, Sparks said:

That's funny.  I thought I had dismantled yours.  I remember you denying mine, but hardly dismantling them.

Hydrological sorting of fossils? Dismantled.

Mutations can't increase information? Dismantled.

Irreducible complex systems can't evolve? Dismantled.

DNA barcoding disproves evolution? Dismantled.

58 minutes ago, Sparks said:

That's cute, but that quote is from an interview with the authors of that paper from phys dot org, and the authors said that. 

Continuing a trend for you, you have misread the phrase, which was not a quote at all. The research scientists (Stoeckle and Thaler) did not say this. Those are the words of Marlowe Hood, the phys.org writer.

Again, the MRCA can help us find the minimum age for a particular group, but cannot help us find the maximum age. Your argument fails for a variety of reason.

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

I am not sure what to call your religion, exactly since you believe in God, but it sure denies what God said He did.

For the record, I am a Christ follower.

[Sparks]

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

For the record, I am a Christ follower.

That's the best news.

You have dismantled nothing.   Have a good day, cya. 

[Guest kingdombrat]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Yes, this is actually a pretty good summary of what I believe. Further, it seems as though God's intended outcomes are very difficult (perhaps impossible?) to distinguish from a series of random, chance events when we use our tools to study His work.

I will get back to your post on figurative language in Genesis 1-3 later. This will take more time, care, and effort than a short reply like this one.

I am not opposed to ever think there is not a possibility when we think of Who God is and what God is able to do.   I hope your Scripture references give more insight to how your Views can be possible.   I obviously see the idealism behind [Intelligent Design by God] differently based upon my own select Verses of Scripture.   Am looking forward to seeing you use [Biblical references] to validate your scientific viewpoints.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

You have dismantled nothing.   Have a good day, cya.

Ok, I haven't dismantled anything, but you are done attempting to refute evolution with ill-informed argument. Makes sense.

You too. Bye.

[one.opinion]

16 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Can you point out these examples of [figurative Language] for me?

There are a couple of point of obvious figurative language in the Genesis account. Genesis 2:18-20 (NKJ) reads - "And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him."

I think we can all agree that God did not truly have Adam consider all of the animals as a suitable helper before finally deciding a female human just might work out better.

Genesis 3 gives us the story of the Fall. The language of the "serpent" is either not translated correctly, or must also be figurative. If the original text truly did mean serpent, one possibility would entail God creating another group of organisms with not only the ability to distinguish right from wrong, but somehow be in a sinful state before sin and intentionally deceiving Adam and Eve. The other possibility is figurative language of Satan as the serpent. In any case, a strictly literal interpretation is problematic for multiple reasons.

Not quite as obvious, but I believe another good example of figurative language is the timeline of creation listed in Genesis 1. Evening and morning (if taken literally) must exist prior to the creation of the sun. Any ad hoc explanation requires some time of extra-biblical interpretation because there just isn't any description of how that might possibly work.

So, there are figurative elements already in prominent positions of Genesis 1, 2, and 3. How do we know where to clearly mark the line of "ok, this part is figurative, but this other part must be literal". Honestly, we can't. Instead, we need to take the whole picture of creation and consider the important theological points that are being made.

1. God is Creator of all things.

2. God created humanity special and with the ability to communicate with Him.

3. Humans opted to make their own choices rather than to obey God's instructions, thereby ushering sin and its effects into the world.

4. God foretold of a way that He would allow humans to come back to relationship with Him.

This is a precursor to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, so the theology here in these points is foundational. However, the literal vs figurative interpretations of the particulars, while they should be carefully studied and considered, are of relatively minor importance in comparison to the 4 major theological points.

In the tradition of Francis Bacon, I believe in the "two books" of God - the Book of Scripture and the Book of His creative works. I recognize that both of these Books must be true, so over the course of decades (and a PhD education in Biology), I have come to the conclusion that the timeline is also figurative, and highlights God's creative power in all realms. The original audience of this account consisted of a people immersed in a civilization rampant with idolatry and it was important from the beginning to establish God as Creator of all, so that is where the focus should be.

I do not question the power of God to create all things in a week, in a day, or instantly. However, I do not believe a 144 hour creation week is consistent with the evidence that God has made available to us. I believe God used a beautifully intricate and complex system to bring about His creation over hundreds of millions of years in order to bring humans to the planet. Instantaneous Creation speaks of God's power, but Creation over eons speaks of His power, patience, surpassing knowledge, and beautiful attention to detail. I have a much greater respect for His creation now than I ever did as a child that was raised as a Young Earth Creationist.

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

We clearly see randomness within the circulatory systems.   Your view is that God did not individually choose how each [specific] system would work, for each test subjects mentioned.   But, that He provided the options for these to be the outcome.   Then He allowed Randomness, Chance, Natural Selection to choose which system was assigned to its Host?

"The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” St. Thomas Aquinas, (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1).

What do you imagine is random in circulatory systems?  

[Diaste]

Christ-like people that are naturalists.

How far we have fallen.

[one.opinion]

48 minutes ago, Diaste said:

Christ-like people that are naturalists.

How far we have fallen.

How are you defining naturalist? The term can be defined as a student of natural history. How is this inconsistent with following Christ?