Complexity and evolution of the cell

[mattrose]

I don’t know who might be a YEC, but it’s not me (I thought this thread was about the complexity of the cell)

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that anyone other than myself is a young earth creationist (nor that I'm alone). I was just participating in the discussion.

[SteveF]

I think the bigger issue is whether or not we think God would use such a process (millions and millions of years of death...

What was the point of the millions of years before the first 'Adam'?

Good questions Matt. I don’t know about you but I find that articulating questions the way you have and getting them out there helps me think through things.

I could add more questions to yours, like, why such a vast universe and so many planets and solar systems? What’s the point?

Why would God design the earth in such a fashion that destructive earthquakes are necessary in order to have life?

I’m not challenging God’s way of doing things; it’s just puzzling sometimes to a simple mind like mine. I’m quite content that He chose to do things this way even though I don’t quite get it.

even before The Fall

Matt, before I ask you my question, I wanted to say that I knew someone years ago who used to jokingly say that certain people were HDT’s (Heavy Duty Theologians). I’ve read enough of your posts that I think I’m ready to now give you the honorary degree. Matt Rose HDT

Anyway, after swelling you head, here’s my question. Do you think it’s possible we may be reading more into what happened at the fall than the Bible actually says? Here’s an example of something I had never noticed before when I was reading Genesis a few weeks ago. Did Noah in some way end the curse that was put upon the ground?

Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground ubecause of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
Gen 3:18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.

Gen 5:29 and called his name Noah, saying, "Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands."

Gen 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
Gen 8:21 And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

Was the ground cursed in a some fashion before Noah that we are not aware of? Even if the curse against Adam was lifted in some way, certainly women still have pain in childbearing but it’s also interesting to note that God didn't specifically call it a curse against the woman. I’m not sure where I’m going with this, I just hadn’t noticed this before, and hence I’m asking your thoughts.

Also, I don’t think the Bible says anywhere there was no death in any species before the fall. Only man seems to be addressed. Maybe Adam and Eve only had the potential of living forever if they remained faithful and not eat of the forbidden tree. Now through Christ, things are reversed. Instead of being doomed to death we have the opportunity of Life.

What are your thoughts?

Was there no other way to get an Adam? Was there something worthwhile about getting Adam that way? I'm genuinely curious.

More good questions Matt. Sometime ago I thought about starting a thread that asked a question something like; “Let’s suppose God used Evolution as His method of Creation, what do you think is the best explanation of how Adam fits in the picture?” I never asked the question because I was afraid it would simply digress into a scientific debate.

[mattrose]

Good questions Matt. I don’t know about you but I find that articulating questions the way you have and getting them out there helps me think through things.

I definitely agree That's why I asked!

I could add more questions to yours, like, why such a vast universe and so many planets and solar systems? What’s the point?

The universe is surely bigger than I can imagine. As is God's greatness. The vastness of the universe teaches me something good about God, I think. But millions and millions of years of death and destruction just to get to the point where there was a creature capable of being described as 'made in God's image' doesn't seem like a truth that teaches me something good about God (though, I admit, what 'seems' to be the case may not be the case).

Why would God design the earth in such a fashion that destructive earthquakes are necessary in order to have life?

I may just be ignorant here, but I'm not actually sure what you're referring to here.

I’m not challenging God’s way of doing things; it’s just puzzling sometimes to a simple mind like mine. I’m quite content that He chose to do things this way even though I don’t quite get it.

I am content to accept what the Bible says God did even if I don't understand them. But I am quite reluctant to accept what world consensus tells me when it doesn't 'seem' to fit what the Bible says. It would take a lot of strong evidence to cause me to change my hermeneutic orientation toward the passage in question.

Do you think it’s possible we may be reading more into what happened at the fall than the Bible actually says?

Sure.

Did Noah in some way end the curse that was put upon the ground?

I don't think so. I think he received God's grace in such a way that brought relief to the cursed ground (fulfilling his namesake). I think he pleased God and provoked a divine promise to never flood the earth again (a particular form of the curse).

Even if the curse against Adam was lifted in some way, certainly women still have pain in childbearing but it’s also interesting to note that God didn't specifically call it a curse against the woman. I’m not sure where I’m going with this, I just hadn’t noticed this before, and hence I’m asking your thoughts.

I think I probably DO read a lot into the curse on the ground in Genesis 3. I see it as a curse on more than just the dirt, but as a symbol of the corruption of the entire created world. Since Genesis 3, creation has been groaning (Romans 8:22). I think man was the climax of God's creation. When man fell, all of creation fell with him. And only in man's redemption will the rest of creation find peace. Admittedly, that is reading into some things.

Also, I don’t think the Bible says anywhere there was no death in any species before the fall. Only man seems to be addressed.

You are correct that it doesn't say there was ABSOLUTELY no death before The Fall. It also doesn't say there was (if anything, it is implied that there wasn't since we're told everything was 'very good' and we're not given the impression that a ton of time passed before day 1 of creation and The Fall). I could be reading too much implication into it

Maybe Adam and Eve only had the potential of living forever if they remained faithful and not eat of the forbidden tree. Now through Christ, things are reversed. Instead of being doomed to death we have the opportunity of Life.

I personally think they were naturally mortal, but were supposed to regularly eat from the tree of life (which represented Christ). They needed to be connected to the source of life to stay alive.

I don't consider it outrageous to theorize animal death (or, at least, POTENTIAL animal death, before The Fall). What I struggle with, in regards to theistic evolution, is the millions of years of Adam-like creatures dying before sin became a possibility. The guy that lived right before Adam... ALMOST BUT NOT QUITE CAPABLE OF SIN... died. So what was Adam's punishment really? Yes, he was evolved enough to make moral choices, but the penalty for making bad ones was harder work (I'm sure the guy before him had to work pretty hard gathering food and avoiding death)? Death (the guy before him died too)? I just find the whole theory not so much confusing as nonsensical.

Sometime ago I thought about starting a thread that asked a question something like; “Let’s suppose God used Evolution as His method of Creation, what do you think is the best explanation of how Adam fits in the picture?” I never asked the question because I was afraid it would simply digress into a scientific debate.

If I were persuaded that theistic evolution were true (and I often do feel a pressure to accept that very thing), I think I'd just live with the idea that Adam's father was just barely incapable of being labeled 'made in God's image, in God's likeness' and that he and thousands upon thousands of his ancestors had lived and died animal like lives while God waited patiently for His planned evolution to bring about an Adam.

[jriccitelli]

Everyone believes in evolution (change within a species) in the broadest sense… (Matt pg.3)

I know that millions are aware that life-forms can adapt, grow stronger, or weaker, and none of them would suggest it is ‘evolution’.

In fact, Young Earth Creationists believe in this form of evolution more radically than Darwinists, as far as I can tell… (ibid)

I’m not a YEC but I am sure most all of them would not consider ‘blind chance’ (evolution) to be the designer or creator of what is just rapid inherent traits, colors, and growth (adaptation and diversity) that has not deviated from the design already there.

Not everyone believes in evolution (change from species to species) in the particular sense. The evidence for the former is indisputable. (ibid)

'Indisputable' according to whom, and of what definition? Many like me know that what evolution means to Evolutionists is blind change or chance, and is the antithesis of ‘design’ purpose or planning. You swept adaptation (planned and purposeful design) onto the evolution side with no regard for the difference.

If it turns out that God used what we call Darwinian Evolution, OK. Such a discovery will re-shape my theology a smidgen here or there, but will have no major impact so far as I can tell. (ibid)

Only a little, aren’t you overwhelmed at the beauty and design made for us, I hear people thank God for many things, but at our home we thank God for apples, pears, lemons, oranges, chiles, tomatoes, the taste buds themselves and all the flowers in the garden, are we making a mistake in thinking He did not ‘plan’ all these things?

[mattrose]

Everyone believes in evolution (change within a species) in the broadest sense… (Matt pg.3)

I know that millions are aware that life-forms can adapt, grow stronger, or weaker, and none of them would suggest it is ‘evolution’.

Actually, 'change' is a pretty standard definition of the word 'evolution.' You seem to be insisting that the word evolution, by definition, carries a connotation of randomness. I don't think so. Here are the definitions:

noun
1.
any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2.
a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3.
Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4.
a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5.
a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.

A lot about 'change' in there. Pretty much nothing about randomness.

I’m not a YEC but I am sure most all of them would not consider ‘blind chance’ (evolution) to be the designer or creator of what is just rapid inherent traits, colors, and growth (adaptation and diversity) that has not deviated from the design already there.

Umm... I agree.

'Indisputable' according to whom, and of what definition? Many like me know that what evolution means to Evolutionists is blind change or chance, and is the antithesis of ‘design’ purpose or planning. You swept adaptation (planned and purposeful design) onto the evolution side with no regard for the difference.

Adaptation is sometimes referred to as evolution since evolution sometimes just means change. Everyone agrees that species adapt. That is all I'm saying. I don't think it wise to just change the basic definition of 'evolution' simply to appease you. I don't think it is necessary to fight against the meaning of the word. It is necessary to clarify the exact nuance one is talking about in a particular discussion. If naturalists/darwinists want to nuance the word evolution to mean the development of species totally by blind chance, then they are free to do so (and have little to no evidence on there side)

Only a little, aren’t you overwhelmed at the beauty and design made for us, I hear people thank God for many things, but at our home we thank God for apples, pears, lemons, oranges, chiles, tomatoes, the taste buds themselves and all the flowers in the garden, are we making a mistake in thinking He did not ‘plan’ all these things?

[/quote][/quote]

If I were persuaded to be a theistic evolutionist, I would still believe that God planned all these wonderful things you mention b/c I'd believe that God was guiding the process of evolution (I wouldn't believe such evolution was random). Until you give up on insisting that all uses of the term 'evolution' refer to the naturalistic darwinian variety... I think you'll find most dialogue on this subject quite upsetting. Why not just join the rest of us and recognize the words flexibility according to the dictionary? If you did so, we could still have the same discussion about the merits and demerits of Darwin's theory, but we'd spend less time talking about how to talk about what we're talking about and more time talking about what we're talking about

Overall, I think you are barking up the wrong tree in disagreeing with me here. We may not both be YECists, but I think we both disagree that randomness can account for our existence AND we both seem to agree that Darwinists purposefully manipulate flexible words to make their case seem stronger than it actually is.

[jriccitelli]

You seem to be insisting that the word evolution, by definition, carries a connotation of randomness (matt)

Evolution carries a connotation of randomness, yes. 'Evolutionists' use the word evolve and sometimes carry into the word the definition of design and purpose (as in the video), which is deceiving because that is what they are arguing against. We would be better off if we got them to 'admit' that they are doing so.

If you simply say ‘evolution is true’ (because there is change??) then Truman is completely justified in his repeated proof text last night of “evolution is a fact” and no one should debate him on that. Although, Steve 'did' respond to that repeated statement as being false. Maybe you should correct Steve, not me.

Actually, 'change' is a pretty standard definition of the word 'evolution.' You seem to be insisting that the word evolution, by definition, carries a connotation of randomness. I don't think so. Here are the definitions... (Matt)

I suppose since evolution can mean change, then you believe in evolution. Do you suggest that I inform my class that I believe in evolution now?
Although a recent Gallup pole suggests most people do ‘not’ believe in evolution, are they therefore ignorant and simply hung up on a misunderstanding of the word evolution and need to get over it. What definition do you suppose the people in the video have in mind when they use the word evolved and evolution?
The word seemed to have seldom been found in literature until the philosopher who coined Social Darwinism used it in his writings, before then it occasionally seemed to be used to describe an unrolling or unfolding. The word is as much owned by the Darwinists as Pro-choice is of the left.

I have debated over this for years, and have found it is necessary to begin here at the beginning with a correct definition of what design means, and that it is ‘unscientific’ to say something designs itself. This is the glossed over definition of Evolutionists (The devils ploy is to pour different meanings into words, right? ).

Nothing has ever been 'observed' designing itself into being. No one would (or should) use this word to describe what happened ‘without design’ outside of this Darwinian realm. And Darwinists continue to use this word in their definition to justify it, when the observation they are describing justifies a ‘designer’ .

If you do not think this is an important point, fine, use 'your' method. But if you leave out Creations obvious purpose planning and intention, you end up spinning in circles

[mattrose]

How hard is is to have a 2 minute discussion about the definition of evolution with your students?

I have, many times, alerted my students to the fact that the word 'evolution' broadly means change over time. They have never had any issue understanding that everyone believes in this broadest sense of evolution. It is not hard to make a distinction between the general meaning of the word evolution and the baggage it sometimes carries in a given context. For many years creationists have taken the time to point out the difference between micro and macro evolution. It is not a big deal in my opinion.

But hey, we're arguing about rhetorical choices. I have found my method more useful. You have found yours more useful. I consider it a minor point and wish you well in your discussions with naturalists.

[jriccitelli]

As a bible teacher, I am also helping Christians present their Gospel clearly, choose words wisely, and make a good logical argument because:

... we'd spend less time talking about how to talk about what we're talking about and more time talking about what we're talking about (You)

I love science and physics, but concerning debating 'evolution' I find you can avoid the molecular details, which can go on forever. I see people going down the whole biological road, and missing the whole design (complexity) in Creation element of the discussion (just like going down Church father lane and ignoring the Bible itself in too many doctrines) I hear it on radio, and at the table, missing the tree with all the barking.

My other biggest peeve is that commonly people who claim Evolution, think 'science' makes things and improves things.
So I find that putting an emphasis on the fact that 'designers, engineers and builders' are required to actually make things. Scientists 'can be engineers also and put things together, but they are then leaving the realm of the definition 'science'.

I have books and books of good arguments from biology and chemistry, it proves design is obvious so they need to see design does not just happen, naturally.

[SteveF]

Thanks for your thoughts Matt. I’m glad I asked.

I'll try and clear up something I wrote:

I wrote

Why would God design the earth in such a fashion that destructive earthquakes are necessary in order to have life?

you replied

I may just be ignorant here, but I'm not actually sure what you're referring to here

.



I’ll provide a couple of examples


Example 1

-Tectonic plates collide together causing earthquakes while at the same time forming mountain ranges (one recent earthquake caused mountains to rise several meters).

-Air forced over the mountains gets thinner which creates clouds and rain.

-The water from the rain slowly erodes the mountains and carries bits of rock out to the ocean through rivers formed from the rain.

-Without the mountain ranges water would literally cover the whole earth since the entire earth wold be eroded by water. The mountains force much of the earth’s rain to erode them instead.

-The heat from the inner earth forces the tectonic plates to collide thus forcing the earth (mountains) up. The height of the mountains helps create the very rain that wears them back down.

The system is perfectly balanced! Yet, earthquakes that are often destructive and deadly are part of the system God has created.



Example 2

-The earth needs a certain amount of Carbon Dioxide in its atmosphere in order to maintain a living temperature for us to survive. Too little and the earth is an ice cube, too much and its atmosphere could melt lead (like Venus)

-Volcanos release the needed Carbon Dioxide into our atmosphere

-The oceans absorb Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere

-Plankton use the Carbon in the ocean to grow

-When the plankton die they settle at the bottom of the ocean and over thousands of years transform into rock

-The rock is now Carbon Dioxide on the ocean floor

-When the earth plates collide the ocean floor is forced into the core of the earth

-The rock melts and releases the Carbon Dioxide

-The Carbon Dioxide is then released into our atmosphere once again through a volcano

Once again the system is perfectly balanced! Yet, the plates colliding cause earthquakes, plankton must die and volcanos can cause a lot of death and destruction. In spite of all that, this is the way God designed it.



I learned this from a documentary about volcanos. I provided a link for it earlier in the thread.
Here it is again if you’re interested. It was the only place I could find the entire documentary online.

http://mycommonsensepolitics.net/index. ... &Itemid=57

[jriccitelli]

Steve, you agree there is balance, despite chaos, doesn’t this demonstrate design?
(Chaos would multiply itself, so I agree that the earths systems are God’s plan, but possibly not the pre-fall plan)
Steve the ‘curse’ was put on the earth, and man was wiped out by a flood (I am not supposing a flood interpretation of everything, only that God allows and uses nature to put humans to death).

Mountains are not the only cause of rain, and volcanoes are not the dominate source of CO2, so I do not see your point?
I have long been amazed that so many people ‘continue’ to live in areas below sea level, near flood zones, at the base of known volcanoes, in tornado paths, along known fault lines (like me), and near dangerous sea coasts. Did I mention the terribly built brick and stone structures they ‘continue’ to erect?