creationism and evolution

[buffalo]

wanerious:

Yep. At least, that’s the only way I can reconcile them. I’m of course open to other possibilities.

.

We discussed this before. God just created and inserted man in his image exactly where He wanted to in the timeline. Even though other circumstantial evidence may exist it can have the effect of leading the investigator to make wrong conclusions.

 

[Chris_W]

buffalo:

We discussed this before. God just created and inserted man in his image exactly where He wanted to in the timeline. Even though other circumstantial evidence may exist it can have the effect of leading the investigator to make wrong conclusions.

Please elaborate, Buffalo…for my benefit. (I still don’t like the idea of accepting the theory of evolution).

Thx,
Chris

 

[buffalo]

Chris W:

Please elaborate, Buffalo…for my benefit. (I still don’t like the idea of accepting the theory of evolution).

Thx,
Chris

It’s very simple. The current thinking pits evolution against Revelation. It’s one or the other. Revelation tells us what happened. Evolution advances what science thought happened.

Science limited by its own definition cannot explain anything supernatural therfore it has to work to fit its findings to naturalism.

Let’s not limit ourselves to one or the other.

God could have just inserted (created) man into the timline at any time he wished. The evidence we now find cannot fully describe anything that happened that we are not witness to.

Evolution and investigation of the past is like having one piece of a thousand piece puzzle. Science claims it can paint the whole picture with so few pieces. But it really can’t because it was not there to actually observe what happened. Revelation tells us what happened.

It’s just looking at the issue through the lens of faith rather the limited lens of science.

 

[Chris_W]

buffalo:

It’s very simple. The current thinking pits evolution against Revelation. It’s one or the other. Revelation tells us what happened. Evolution advances what science thought happened.

That has always been my stance as well (my thinking has certainly always pitted evolution against Revelation). What I am trying to decide now is, and perhaps you can help me with this: What is the theological significance of the answer wanerious gave to my Adam and Eve question?

 

[rossum]

Chris W:

Please bear with my ignorace, but with the procdure you outlined, haven’t you merely verified the current rate of decay, and in one particular environment?

What mechanism do you propose to change decay rates? Things do not just change without a cause. Normal radioactive decay has been shown in the laboratory not to change with extreme variations in temperature, pressure and other influences. There is a particular form of electron capture decay whose rate does change with temperature, but this form of decay is not used for measuring the age of rock samples.

That leaves only the passage of time to cause the change in decay rates, which would be reflected as a change in one or other of the fundamental constants of physics. Astronomers can look back in time by looking at distant objects. Astronomical observations of decay rates in supernova debris etc. show that decay rates are the same for the last 10 billion years or so. There are some indications of a small (about 0.8% IIRC) change in the Fine Structure Constant prior to that time. This is not enough to cause any major change in either the decay rates or the calculated ages, and only applies to times well before the earth coalesced about 4.5 billion years ago.

As I said, scientists spend a lot of time checking, re-checking and cross-checking results. Nearly all questions such as yours have been thought about and looked at already. Decay rates are known by experiment to be invariant under a large number of different environmental changes. Scientists have checked their invariance on many occasions.

For a more detailed summary see either Radioactive dating from a Christian Perspective or Radiometric dating does work.

rossum

 

[Chris_W]

rossum:

What mechanism do you propose to change decay rates?

I did not propose anything. I merely said that the process you described only observes the current rate of decay. Scientists are limited by what they know. Surely you are not proposing that scientists have come so far that new ideas, which may add to or change what is currently understood, are impossible?

rossum:

Things do not just change without a cause.

That would be logical.

rossum:

That leaves only the passage of time to cause the change in decay rates, which would be reflected as a change in one or other of the fundamental constants of physics.

Perhaps. Or perhaps there are other unknowns, or things not realized by scientists yet.

rossum:

Astronomers can look back in time by looking at distant objects. Astronomical observations of decay rates in supernova debris etc. show that decay rates are the same for the last 10 billion years or so…

Hmmm. I don’t pretend to be even remotely educated about astronomy, so I cannot give an educated rebuttal. I would have to guess there are a few presumptions and theories involved in the exact science of astronomy though.

I am reminded of a story: If memory serves me right, I think it was one of the scientists involved with the design of the space shuttle that took Neil Armstrong to the moon. He described how the shuttle had these huge pods for landing gear because with all they knew about the age of the earth, gravitational pull of the moon, cosmic dust, etc, they had calculated that there would be many feet of cosmic dust on the moon. Of course, we all watched the 1.5 inches or so of dust kick up as Neil made that historic first step.

A lot is unknown Rossum. And I find it rather arrogant of scientists to present their case as if they for sure had all the answers. These are theories we are talking about and nothing more. There may be evidence that seems to support theories, but they are merely theories nonetheless.

rossum:

As I said, scientists spend a lot of time checking, re-checking and cross-checking results. Nearly all questions such as yours have been thought about and looked at already.

As well they should…I don’t doubt that a bit. I also do not doubt your assertion that my thoughts are not insightful breakthroughs in reasoning. At the same time, it is worthwhile in my opinion, to ask the questions as they come up.

Thanks for the info.

 

[buffalo]

rossum:

What mechanism do you propose to change decay rates? Things do not just change without a cause. Normal radioactive decay has been shown in the laboratory not to change with extreme variations in temperature, pressure and other influences. There is a particular form of electron capture decay whose rate does change with temperature, but this form of decay is not used for measuring the age of rock samples.

That leaves only the passage of time to cause the change in decay rates, which would be reflected as a change in one or other of the fundamental constants of physics. Astronomers can look back in time by looking at distant objects. Astronomical observations of decay rates in supernova debris etc. show that decay rates are the same for the last 10 billion years or so. There are some indications of a small (about 0.8% IIRC) change in the Fine Structure Constant prior to that time. This is not enough to cause any major change in either the decay rates or the calculated ages, and only applies to times well before the earth coalesced about 4.5 billion years ago.

As I said, scientists spend a lot of time checking, re-checking and cross-checking results. Nearly all questions such as yours have been thought about and looked at already. Decay rates are known by experiment to be invariant under a large number of different environmental changes. Scientists have checked their invariance on many occasions.

For a more detailed summary see either Radioactive dating from a Christian Perspective or Radiometric dating does work.

rossum

The link between radiometric dating and lightspeed

Speed of light slowing down?

 

[Orogeny]

Speed of light slowing down?

Is that a peer-reviewed publication?

Peace

Tim

 

[PhilVaz]

That Setterfield guy that Buffalo linked to is a young-earth creationist. So his “data” on changing light speeds is not free from his young-earth bias. For example, he has calculated the universe and earth was created about 5792 BC (less than 8000 years ago), and he gives the time of the dinosaurs (Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous) from 3301 to 3305 BC. Interesting. All those dinosaurs created and destroyed in 300 years. Actually I guess he believes the dinosaurs were created on “day 5” of creation week less than 8000 years ago and were contemporary with man.

Combined Timeline by Setterfield

For a critique of the R.A.T.E. ICR creationist group, see Kevin Henke’s articles at NoAnswersInGenesis

Articles by Henke on Woody and R.A.T.E. group

A detailed response to Setterfield is of course found at TalkOrigins (where else)

The Decay of c-Decay

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

PhilVaz << from 3301 to 3305 BC >>

Of course I meant to type 3301 to 3005. Setterfield squeezes the Triassac, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods into a tiny 300 years. Ridiculous. All the dinosaurs lived and died during this 300-year period? That’s where they are found in the fossil record.

Age of the Dinosaurs

The Decay of c-Decay response to Setterfield

Can we please keep the bad creationist arguments in one thread, they seem to be percolating into the other creation-evolution threads and I can’t keep track of them all.

Phil P

 

[Chris_W]

Hey, so Philvaz and Orogeny are still viewing this thread.

Guys (not excluding wanerious of course),

Are you aware of any scientific arguments that would be posed perhaps by atheistic evolutionists, which would dispute wanerious’ suggested resolution to the conflict I see between Christianity and evolution regarding Adam and Eve (the idea that there were basically two kinds of humans roaming the earth and that the soulless ones merely died out for some reason)?

Is it reasonable to consider that possibility? What are the chances that Adam and Eve’s offspring survived and the offspring of the other 57 to 9998 humans died out? Within just a few generations, Adam and Eve’s offspring would have made up a very very small percentage of the overall population.

I know these may be odd questions, but as much debating as you guys do regarding evolution, I figure you may have seen this come up before.

Thx,
Chris

 

[Chris_W]

wanerious:

Yep. At least, that’s the only way I can reconcile them. I’m of course open to other possibilities.

…I’d be interested to hear other thoughts.

Okay, wanerious. I have thought about this for two days now, prayed about it as well, and re-read Genesis a couple times. I have kept an open mind. You’re just gonna have to trust me when I tell you I approached your idea almost as ready to accept it, as I was ready to reject it (I would be lying if I said I was completely un-biased…none of us are ).

I gotta tell ya, I just cannot see what you’re talking about as being supported in the least by the Word of God. Not even the slightest inference of the possibility of other humans. In fact quite the opposite:

(Gen2,8) “The Lord planted a garden in the east, and he put there the man He had formed.” Not only is the language using the singular form, but if your theory is correct, it should have read “the man into whom He breathed the breath of life” or something to that effect, to distinguish this man from the other men. But instead it reads “the man He had formed”,

The word “formed” would also indicate physical creation, not the creation of a soul, since earlier, in Gen 2,7 it says the man was formed out of the dust of the ground. It describes as a separate act that God breathed life into his nostrils. This breath of life, I suppose, could be interpreted to mean God gave him a soul. But I don’t think you could argue that the word “formed” in Gen 2,8 was referring to the instituion of the soul in that one man, because the verse immediately preceding it uses the verb “formed” for physical creation, and the verb “breathed” for the giving of life.

(I’ll stop there and continue in another post, so as to make it easier for people to respond.)

 

[Chris_W]

…continued…

Then, in Genesis 2, verse 18 we read that “the Lord God said, it is not good that the man is alone; I will make him a helper like himself.” And God took a rib…(you know the rest).

The point I would make here is this: The creation of the woman followed the creation of the man, right? We know this was the chronology, because the reason for woman is given (to help the man). So…if your theory is correct, and Adam was one of many men who lived at the time, how did they all (the 59 to 10,000 humans) come to be, without the existence of women yet? Is there scientific evidence that would suggest prior to evolution arriving at a full fledged homo-sapien, that the preceding species were asexual? (I have been told that scientists have our predecessors preserved in some kind of fossil form or another, from a gazillion years ago, so that one should be easy to answer ).

Lastly (maybe…unless more comes to me later), I find it striking that as many times as the rest of creation is mentioned (birds of the air, beasts of the field, cattle, swimming creatures, etc) that never is mention made of the relationship that would be between Adam and the other poor brutes. It describes how God watched Adam name them all (including this new creation he called woman) but there isn’t the slightest inference of other men.

It seems like a pretty significant detail to be left out, don’t you think? Elsewhere in the Bible, it describes how God chose certain men from among the others, and certain women from among the others, etc. It would’ve been quite logical to give some kind of indication that God chose Adam from among men.

Okay, I will wait for your response.

Peace,
Chris

 

[PhilVaz]

ChrisW << which would dispute wanerious’ suggested resolution to the conflict I see between Christianity and evolution regarding Adam and Eve (the idea that there were basically two kinds of humans roaming the earth and that the soulless ones merely died out for some reason)? >>

Yes, I’m still paying attention as I try to keep up with all the creation-evolution threads in here. Have missed very few the past 8 months.

One new book to get is Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003) edited by Keith Miller which has at least one chapter on Adam/Eve and original sin. I need to get this book myself, its next on my creation-evolution book list.

Here are eleven (11) possibilities reconciling a literal Adam/Eve or Adam(s)/Eve(s) with human evolution, suggested by Loren Haarsma of Calvin College, off a creation-evolution discussion list I found

(1) God used evolutionary creation of plants, animals, and some hominids; followed by special creation of Adam & Eve, the parents of all modern humans, in a literal Garden of Eden several tens of thousands of years ago.
(2) God used evolutionary creation, including modern homo sapiens; followed by special creation of Adam & Eve, as representatives of all existing and future humanity, in a literal Garden of Eden.
(3) God used evolutionary creation, including modern homo sapiens; followed by special selection of Adam & Eve, as representatives of all existing and future humanity, in a literal Garden.
(4-6) The same as 1-3 above, except the Garden of Eden story is an allegorical re-telling of some other historical event. The historical details of The Fall are unknown, but it involved revelation from God, choice, and rebellion.
(7) Same as #1 above, but occurring 5 million years ago with the Genesis flood (a local flood) corresponding to the filling of the Mediterranean basin; Abraham (Genesis 12) is a modern person.
(8) God used evolutionary creation, including modern homo sapiens. The story of Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden is an allegorical version of some actual historical event, in the distant past, where God revealed Himself to a group of humans (perhaps more than two), and the humans rebelled. The Fall was not inevitable, but a choice. Original sin “spread” from this group who received the first “revelation” outward to eventually include all humans.
(9) Same as #8, but the story of the Fall is a telescoping of multiple events of revelation and rebellion in human pre-history.
(10) Same as #9, but taking into account the slow development of hominid intelligence and self-awareness over time. Analogous to the gradual development from the ordinary self-centeredness of an infant into the sinful selfishness of a toddler.
(11) Same as #10, but the eventual sinful state of humanity was inevitable, given the number of opportunities for it to happen.

Of these points, position (1) I believe to be the Hugh Ross position who dates the special creation of Adam/Eve at around 50,000 years ago.

Position (2) has been suggested in past threads by Buffalo (the insertion of Adam/Eve into the train of humanity idea, see also Dick Fischer’s articles In Search of Historical Adam)

Position (3) is suggested by wanerious. The “dying out” of the “soul-less” humans I wouldn’t have a problem with, since we could posit God allowed or “guided” the soul-less ones to die out. Science wouldn’t have anything to say about that, since science doesn’t deal with “souls.”

I might go with (4) to (6), but I need to study some commentaries on Genesis which gets into the historical backgrounds, literary genres, etc. I would understand (7) as Glenn Morton’s position in his book Adam, Apes, and Anthropology which I do have.

I know biologist Kenneth Miller (from a private Email to me) and theologian John Haught (his book Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution) do not take Adam/Eve as literal so they seem to go with (8) to (11) which is harder to reconcile with orthodox Catholic teaching (for example, the Catechism is quite explicit about Adam/Eve, original sin, and the Fall in paragraphs 355ff, and 385ff). But that’s how they deal with it.

I post a lot of material here in my 3-part response to Sungenis (almost finished)

Theistic Evolution vs. Six-Day Creation

Phil P

 

[Pondero]

I was under the impression that the Pope had said that evolution may be true. I keep an open mind about the matter. I certainly don’t believe in the kind of Creationism that believes that the world was created about 6000 years ago. It would be ridiculous to believe that.

 

[4_marks]

Many biblical exegetical scholars and theologians reasonably posit that the characters and events as described in Genesis 1 through 11 are not historical. Much of the information was gleaned from oral mythologies, and the personages described more representative of tribes of people than of definitive individuals. In other words, it would be a mistake to consider these chapters as delivering to us certain historical, factual and scientific truth.

The scriptures present us with a story of the development of faith in the one true God of Israel which, for Christians, triunely culminates in the Incarnation, in the “Christ event,” and in the establishment of the Church.

 

[CreosMary]

Put simply the THEORY of evolution is a pack of ****. God is all powerful and He created, in 6 days.
You need more Faith to believe that intelligent life came about by billions of accidents than in a loving and Creative God. End of story

 

[4_marks]

PhilVaz:

ChrisW << which would dispute wanerious’ suggested resolution to the conflict I see between Christianity and evolution regarding Adam and Eve (the idea that there were basically two kinds of humans roaming the earth and that the soulless ones merely died out for some reason)? >>

I know biologist Kenneth Miller (from a private Email to me) and theologian John Haught (his book Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution) do not take Adam/Eve as literal so they seem to go with (8) to (11) which is harder to reconcile with orthodox Catholic teaching (for example, the Catechism is quite explicit about Adam/Eve, original sin, and the Fall in paragraphs 355ff, and 385ff). But that’s how they deal with it.

I post a lot of material here in my 3-part response to Sungenis (almost finished)

Theistic Evolution vs. Six-Day Creation

Phil P

We must also understand that Catholic teaching and doctrine are to be considered in the light of the historical and social contexts in which they were proclaimed. Men like Saint Augustine, Saint Anselm and Saint Thomas Aquinas were not privy to the advances in scientific understanding which are now available to us. For these, the explanations of human origins given in Genesis may have been embraced as factual science and history. Jesus, Himself, quotes from these sections of scripture in the Gospels. In the mystery of His Incarnation, He may have also embraced them as scientifically and historically true.

Our Church is a living body of faith on a pilgrimage. What has been officially uttered as doctrine is to be understood both in the original milieu in which it had been decreed, and re-examined in the illumination of the many counter disciplinary advances, be they scientific, historical or other, which we are most fortunate to have available to us in 2005 C.E.

 

[PhilVaz]

creosMary << Put simply the THEORY of evolution is a pack of ****. >>

Do you agree with the following also:

Put simply the THEORY of gravity is a pack of lies. (I’ll fill in your word).
Put simply the THEORY of germs is a pack of lies.
Put simply the THEORY of electromagnetism is a pack of lies.
Put simply the THEORY of atoms is a pack of lies.

Do I need to go on? This is the 21st century. You do know the computer you are using is based on the same scientific method as that used in biology, right?

Get a book like Perspectives on an Evolving Creation by Keith Miller (link above) or Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology by Darel Falk, and you might just learn something. Written by believing Christians.

God and is all powerful and he could create in 6 days. However, the problem you’re gonna have is that ALL the scientific evidence points to an earth around 4.5 - 4.6 billion years old, a universe around 13 billion years old, and an evolving creation, or a “gradual creation” to use Darel Falk’s term.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

4 marks << What has been officially uttered as doctrine is to be understood both in the original milieu in which it had been decreed, and re-examined in the illumination of the many counter disciplinary advances, be they scientific, historical or other, which we are most fortunate to have available to us in 2005 C.E. >>

Exactly what I’ve been trying to say for at least 8 months in here. But folks like creosMary don’t get it yet. And I use the old-fashioned A.D. instead of C.E.

Phil P