• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

A Question for the Evolutionist (of any stripe)

How would an illumination that defines the start of a 24 hour day have no bearing on context?
I don't recall bringing up a 24-hour day. iow ya got me.
You realize that Jn 1 and 2 Cor 5 about about the spiritual significance of Christ arriving when Judaism was quite confused, right?
The reason Judaism was 'confused' is because a partial blindness has been placed on them. (Rom 11:25)
 
I don’t understand your question.

As it is with everything else we believe in, our claims have to be supported by Scripture with nothing left open to interpretation.
Agreed, but the reality of Judas hanging himself is scriptural, but what difference does it make?
 
Agreed, but the reality of Judas hanging himself is scriptural, but what difference does it make?

Matthew informs us that Judas took his own life by hanging, while the book of Acts states that he fell headlong. Many of us harmonize these accounts by suggesting that Judas' decaying body eventually fell from the rope after a period. Although this remains open to interpretation, we can confidently say that both narratives refer to the same Judas.

However, regarding the light referenced between Moses and John, we cannot be certain that it refers to the same entity, as too much remains open to interpretation.
 
I have stated clearly and multiple times what my position is on that question. We have empirical evidence that speciation happens.



Yes. I hold that all three statements are true.



Question: What would a transitional fossil look like? Kind of halfway between this species and that species?



Does anyone believe that a dog ever gives birth to a cat? (No.)
When has there been an adaption and change within Dna code material of a species, so that could transition to another one?
 
Again, I assumed as much.



You and me both, brother. It is my second-favorite subject—mostly because it is so complex, complicated, and controversial. I am invigorated by conflict and drawn toward solving allegedly impossible conundrums. (I really did miss my calling as an attorney.) I told ChatGPT that I had reconciled the creation narrative of Genesis and a literal Adam and Eve with an evolutionary view of natural history, and it flat-out told me that was impossible. In less than an hour of discussion and on the basis of only two epiphanies, I had it convinced that it was in fact possible after all. I answered its every criticism until none was left. It resorted to telling me, “But this view will not find wide acceptance—by either theists or atheists,” and I am okay with that.



Again, you and me both. I was in the same place as you 10 years ago, learning from the likes of Hugh Ross and Stephen Meyer. I sincerely doubt you could cite something from either of them that doesn’t exist in my library—including Darwin’s Doubt, which is sitting right there, dog-eared and full of Post-it Notes and highlights.



As I hinted, I would love to know what convinced you. I have read Meyer and Ross extensively, so I am going to be very familiar with whatever you cite.

Question: Have you read Kenneth D. Keathley, J. B. Stump, and Joe Aguirre, eds., Old-Earth or Evolutionary Creation: Discussing Origins with Reasons to Believe and BioLogos (IVP Academic, 2017)? This is, like, one of the most important books in my library. Honestly, it really is. If the view represented by the likes of Ross and Meyer is scientifically and biblically solid, then this book should only strengthen that confidence. It places your position in direct conversation with the best evolutionary creationist scholarship available, without strawmen. For those who care about truth more than sectarian fidelity (like the two of us), this is required reading.



I know. But to what, if anything, should I have paid attention in that video, and what do you think needs addressing?



I understand that, which is why I asked whether Meyer said anything in that video that you found especially persuasive or thought-provoking. I am genuinely interested in engaging the strongest version of his case. If his arguments had held up under scrutiny, I would still be an old-earth creationist who supports intelligent design.



I have read it, too. It’s right there on my shelf, next to his other books, like Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe (HarperCollins, 2021).
Are you holding then to both micro and macro evolution process then?

And how do you interpreted how Jesus and Paul saw Genesis account?
 
I don't recall bringing up a 24-hour day. iow ya got me.

The reason Judaism was 'confused' is because a partial blindness has been placed on them. (Rom 11:25)
Which is still omn to this very day, until the fulness of the Gentiles now come in
 
Both still cats did not become something no longer part of the feline family
There has been billions of fruit flies generations bred since the 1900's....in order to study genetics.
They may have had mutations that placed a leg or an antenna in a wrong place...BUT...the fruit fly remains a fruit fly.
 
There has been billions of fruit flies generations bred since the 1900's....in order to study genetics.
They may have had mutations that placed a leg or an antenna in a wrong place...BUT...the fruit fly remains a fruit fly.
In a lab one might be able to cross Dna and form a new species, but that would be in a lab, using external sources and tech, nothing that evolution could ever produce internally in nature
 
When has there been an adaption and change within DNA code material of a species, so that could transition to another one?

According to evolutionary biology, there has never been a time when the DNA of a living population was not changing. Even now, literally right now before our very eyes, the DNA of species is constantly changing. A simple, visible example is human eye color. Variations such as brown, blue, green, and hazel arise from small genetic changes in and around genes like OCA2 and HERC2, which regulate melanin expression in the iris. These changes were once novel mutations, then inherited, propagated, and diversified across populations.

So, I guess the answer to your question would be, “For over three billion years.” Mutation, recombination, gene duplication, deletion, and chromosomal rearrangement occur every generation. Variation is built into the very mechanics of reproduction. What you call “species transition” is not a single moment but the cumulative result of countless small genetic changes accumulating across populations over time, eventually producing reproductive isolation through lineage splitting (an observable example of which would be the end points in ring species).

In a lab one might be able to cross DNA and form a new species, but that would be in a lab, using external sources and tech, nothing that evolution could ever produce internally in nature

As you can see (above), that is incorrect. It happens in nature routinely. Horizontal gene transfer is an example of “crossing DNA” that happens in nature all by itself—uptake of free DNA from the environment, DNA transferred via viruses (transduction), direct DNA transfer through cell-to-cell contact, etc. DNA even crosses species boundaries naturally through hybridization. Entire new plant species arise through genome duplication and hybridization. Many bird species show ongoing genetic introgression. And don’t forget, our DNA contains Neanderthal and Denisovan segments as a result of something that happened long before labs existed.

What happens in the lab is not a different kind of process from what happens in nature. It is the same genetic mechanisms but operating under controlled conditions. The lab merely isolates and accelerates the evolutionary biology already present.

Are you holding then to both micro- and macro-evolution process then?

Yes. As I have said before, elsewhere (here):

Microevolution refers to genetic change within a species—how allele frequencies in a population shift over time. These changes are the product of such forces as mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, gene flow, and competition within the species. Macroevolution addresses evolutionary patterns and processes operating above the species level that are involved in the formation of new species and the disappearance of existing ones (speciation and extinction), and the long-term trends that shape biological diversity across geological timescales.

Accepting one brings along the other, as they are analytically distinct but causally linked, microevolution providing the raw material for macroevolution, and macroevolution shaping the context for microevolution. Taken together, they constitute the evolution of life with its patterns of descent with modification from a common ancestor found in molecular and fossil records.

And how do you interpret how Jesus and Paul saw Genesis account?

As the earthly unfolding of redemptive history, beginning in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve.

Edited to add:

I am an evolutionary creationist. This is the belief that natural processes, orchestrated by God’s ordinary providence in accordance with his good pleasure and the purposes of his will, are the temporal means by which God brings forth all things including life and mankind. It is a constituent of a biblical world-view that describes the evolutionary patterns of natural history in terms consistent with Christian orthodoxy in harmony with modern science.
 
Last edited:
According to evolutionary biology, there has never been a time when the DNA of a living population was not changing. Even now, literally right now before our very eyes, the DNA of species is constantly changing. A simple, visible example is human eye color. Variations such as brown, blue, green, and hazel arise from small genetic changes in and around genes like OCA2 and HERC2, which regulate melanin expression in the iris. These changes were once novel mutations, then inherited, propagated, and diversified across populations.

So, I guess the answer to your question would be, “For over three billion years.” Mutation, recombination, gene duplication, deletion, and chromosomal rearrangement occur every generation. Variation is built into the very mechanics of reproduction. What you call “species transition” is not a single moment but the cumulative result of countless small genetic changes accumulating across populations over time, eventually producing reproductive isolation through lineage splitting (an observable example of which would be the end points in ring species).



As you can see (above), that is incorrect. It happens in nature routinely. Horizontal gene transfer is an example of “crossing DNA” that happens in nature all by itself—uptake of free DNA from the environment, DNA transferred via viruses (transduction), direct DNA transfer through cell-to-cell contact, etc. DNA even crosses species boundaries naturally through hybridization. Entire new plant species arise through genome duplication and hybridization. Many bird species show ongoing genetic introgression. And don’t forget, our DNA contains Neanderthal and Denisovan segments as a result of something that happened long before labs existed.

What happens in the lab is not a different kind of process from what happens in nature. It is the same genetic mechanisms but operating under controlled conditions. The lab merely isolates and accelerates the evolutionary biology already present.



Yes. As I have said before, elsewhere (here):

Microevolution refers to genetic change within a species—how allele frequencies in a population shift over time. These changes are the product of such forces as mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, gene flow, and competition within the species. Macroevolution addresses evolutionary patterns and processes operating above the species level that are involved in the formation of new species and the disappearance of existing ones (speciation and extinction), and the long-term trends that shape biological diversity across geological timescales.

Accepting one brings along the other, as they are analytically distinct but causally linked, microevolution providing the raw material for macroevolution, and macroevolution shaping the context for microevolution. Taken together, they constitute the evolution of life with its patterns of descent with modification from a common ancestor found in molecular and fossil records.



As the earthly unfolding of redemptive history, beginning in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve.

Edited to add:

I am an evolutionary creationist. This is the belief that natural processes, orchestrated by God’s ordinary providence in accordance with his good pleasure and the purposes of his will, are the temporal means by which God brings forth all things including life and mankind. It is a constituent of a biblical world-view that describes the evolutionary patterns of natural history in terms consistent with Christian orthodoxy in harmony with modern science.
Were Adam and eve the first humans then, were they a special creation of God, and were not formed from any evolutionary process?
And the Dna encoding changing that I do not see at all would be added Dna code to produce a transition to a new species
Spo did God start life on earth 'billions of years go" by creating single cells animals who then evolved to complex states now observing?
 
I am an evolutionary creationist. This is the belief that natural processes, orchestrated by God’s ordinary providence in accordance with his good pleasure and the purposes of his will, are the temporal means by which God brings forth all things including life and mankind. It is a constituent of a biblical world-view that describes the evolutionary patterns of natural history in terms consistent with Christian orthodoxy in harmony with modern science.
As an evolutionary creationist .... did God use the process of descent with modification to make the different kinds of animals that Adam named....or....did the process of evolution begin after their creation and after them being named by Adam?
 
As an evolutionary creationist .... did God use the process of descent with modification to make the different kinds of animals that Adam named....or....did the process of evolution begin after their creation and after them being named by Adam?
Did God create within each first species the Dna encoding to have diversity in species, or did he still have to use evolutionary process?
referring to hold that God made a common ancestor Canine who in them had dna code for all kinds yet t come after, collie, lab, beagle etc
 
Did God create within each first species the Dna encoding to have diversity in species, or did he still have to use evolutionary process?
referring to hold that God made a common ancestor Canine who in them had dna code for all kinds yet t come after, collie, lab, beagle etc
There is much to say on this topic but...in a nut shell so-to-speak.....Let's start here. (I was considering to start a new thread but this seemed to fit here.)

Some Theistic Evolutionist want to include "vertical" or macro-evolutionism as God means of creation starting from a single species then diverging from that species to form all the other species (including man) and this happened on day 5 and 6 where day 5 and 6 represented long, long ages rather than days. (Yom). Their claim is pretty much that this explains all the species we see today.

If any Theistic Evolutionist would like to add to or change what I just said above, that is welcomed.

In reality the animal Kinds were created fully formed (no evolution) with species contained with in the Kinds. The ability to mix genetic information was possible and form new species but not new Kinds.

Todays "species"...

John Woodmorappes in his book" Noah's Ark a Feasibility Study presented this list of animal "kinds" in the language of "Genera/Order" the were on the Ark Noah built. The total number of each male and female Kind listed below as being approximately equal to what is taxonomically ranked and considered in modern language as Genera/Order.
The total number of animals on the ark were about 16,000

Passeriformes 2,236
Squamata 1,938
Rodentia 1,746
Artiodactyla 1,144
Carnivora 696
Therapsida 508
Marsupialia 468
Perrissodactyla 436
Chiroptera 412
Primates 412
Insectivora 404
Saurischia 390
Gruiformes 280
Ornithischia 278
Apodiformes 276
Notoungulata 252
Edentata 250
Charadriiformes 208
Condylartha 198
Galliformes 176
Falconiformes 170
Psittaciformes 164
Captorhinida 152
Thecodontia 144
Piciformes 128

Using one kind from the list above we can break it down into the species that represented the "kind".

Below is a partial list of 873 kinds of rodentia that could have been aboard the ark.

Agouti,
Beaver,
Capybara,
Cavy,
Chinchilla,
Chipmunk,
Coypu,
Dormouse,
Flying squirrel,
Gopher,
Guinea pig,
Hamster,
Jerboa,
Jumping mouse
Kangeroo rat,
Lemming,
Marmot,
Mouse,
Muskrat,
Packrat,
Porcupine,
Prairie dog,
Rat,
Sewell,
Squirrel,
Vole,
White footed mouse,
Woodchuck,
....plus many many more not listed here.

From these 873 of the rodentia kind and others not mentioned, all of the species came about through the mixing or deletion of the already existing genetic information. There is no need for Macro-evolutionism to produce the species we see today.
The speciation via....micro-evolution... would have grown and have been facilitated at an exponential rate due to the changing characteristics of the environment coupled with the also changing physical conditions of their surroundings after the flood. Currently things are a bit more settled and the world wide niches are not changing at the same rate which led to the rapid speciation after the animals departed the ark.
 
I don't recall bringing up a 24-hour day. iow ya got me.

The reason Judaism was 'confused' is because a partial blindness has been placed on them. (Rom 11:25)


Prism, it seems that there is no rentention of a previous post when talking to you.

I didn't mention a 24 hour day because you had mentioned it but because a special light that you imagine to be in the text, sets the 24 hour day, in the text. How would "the light of Christ" set a 24 hour day?

Yes, Judaism was partially blind (actually the race-nation was). But that does not help a person connect the Genesis quote in 2 Cor 5 to the physical, celestial mechanics that Gen 1's first verses are describing. The situations, to start with, are some 4000 years apart...
 
I didn't mention a 24 hour day because you had mentioned it but because a special light that you imagine to be in the text, sets the 24 hour day, in the text. How would "the light of Christ" set a 24 hour day?
Jumping in here.....the 24 hour day refers to the earth rotating.

From the biblical text it appears the light is a "point" source that illuminates one side of the earth at a time.
 
There is much to say on this topic but...in a nut shell so-to-speak.....Let's start here. (I was considering to start a new thread but this seemed to fit here.)

Some Theistic Evolutionist want to include "vertical" or macro-evolutionism as God means of creation starting from a single species then diverging from that species to form all the other species (including man) and this happened on day 5 and 6 where day 5 and 6 represented long, long ages rather than days. (Yom). Their claim is pretty much that this explains all the species we see today.

If any Theistic Evolutionist would like to add to or change what I just said above, that is welcomed.

In reality the animal Kinds were created fully formed (no evolution) with species contained with in the Kinds. The ability to mix genetic information was possible and form new species but not new Kinds.

Todays "species"...

John Woodmorappes in his book" Noah's Ark a Feasibility Study presented this list of animal "kinds" in the language of "Genera/Order" the were on the Ark Noah built. The total number of each male and female Kind listed below as being approximately equal to what is taxonomically ranked and considered in modern language as Genera/Order.
The total number of animals on the ark were about 16,000

Passeriformes 2,236
Squamata 1,938
Rodentia 1,746
Artiodactyla 1,144
Carnivora 696
Therapsida 508
Marsupialia 468
Perrissodactyla 436
Chiroptera 412
Primates 412
Insectivora 404
Saurischia 390
Gruiformes 280
Ornithischia 278
Apodiformes 276
Notoungulata 252
Edentata 250
Charadriiformes 208
Condylartha 198
Galliformes 176
Falconiformes 170
Psittaciformes 164
Captorhinida 152
Thecodontia 144
Piciformes 128

Using one kind from the list above we can break it down into the species that represented the "kind".

Below is a partial list of 873 kinds of rodentia that could have been aboard the ark.

Agouti,
Beaver,
Capybara,
Cavy,
Chinchilla,
Chipmunk,
Coypu,
Dormouse,
Flying squirrel,
Gopher,
Guinea pig,
Hamster,
Jerboa,
Jumping mouse
Kangeroo rat,
Lemming,
Marmot,
Mouse,
Muskrat,
Packrat,
Porcupine,
Prairie dog,
Rat,
Sewell,
Squirrel,
Vole,
White footed mouse,
Woodchuck,
....plus many many more not listed here.

From these 873 of the rodentia kind and others not mentioned, all of the species came about through the mixing or deletion of the already existing genetic information. There is no need for Macro-evolutionism to produce the species we see today.
The speciation via....micro-evolution... would have grown and have been facilitated at an exponential rate due to the changing characteristics of the environment coupled with the also changing physical conditions of their surroundings after the flood. Currently things are a bit more settled and the world wide niches are not changing at the same rate which led to the rapid speciation after the animals departed the ark.
Still do not see where God had macroevolution happening
 
Were Adam and Eve the first humans, then?

In my view? No, they were not the first humans.

Were [Adam and Eve] a special creation of God?

In my view, they were created by God the same way that you were.

Were [Adam and Eve] not formed from any evolutionary process?

Correct, they were not—because nobody is formed from evolutionary processes. As I have said multiple times now, populations are formed by evolution, not individuals.

The DNA encoding changing that I don’t see at all would be added DNA code producing a transition to a new species.

If you aren’t seeing it, then it’s because you are not looking (and creationist material is not informing you), because it is there to be seen. For example, the hybrid cordgrass Spartina × townsendii underwent a genome duplication event—which is added DNA—that restored fertility and created a stable, reproductively isolated species, Spartina anglica (now classified as Sporobolus anglicus after a taxonomic revision in 2014).

Did God start life on earth “billions of years go” by creating single-celled animals, who then evolved to complex states now observed?

I can almost agree with that. In my view, the origin of species, of complex traits, of life, the earth, the solar system, the entire universe, God brought forth all of it through perfectly natural processes—but not purely natural. (For me, there is no such thing as “purely” natural. I am not a deist.) The same goes for you and me (God knit us together in the womb), or rain and snow (God’s storehouses). We describe these through biological and meteorological processes, respectively.

Did God create within each first species the DNA encoding to have diversity in species, or did he still have to use evolutionary process?
referring to hold that God made a common ancestor Canine who in them had dna code for all kinds yet t come after, collie, lab, beagle etc

It is not a question of either this or that, it’s a matter of both this and that. God created the genome contained in each species and he produced each species, both through evolutionary processes.
 
[Answering] as an evolutionary creationist, did God use the process of descent with modification to make the different kinds of animals that Adam named? Or did the process of evolution begin after their creation and [their] being named by Adam?

Yes, all creatures are the result of evolutionary processes, just as all humans are the result of reproductive processes and all weather is the result of meteorological processes. While evolution has continued since the time of Adam, it did not begin then. Evolution began over three billion years prior to Adam.

Some theistic evolutionists want to include "vertical" or macro-evolutionism as God means of creation starting from a single species then diverging from that species to form all the other species (including man) and this happened on day 5 and 6 where day 5 and 6 represented long, long ages rather than days. (Yom). Their claim is pretty much that this explains all the species we see today.

If any theistic evolutionist would like to add to or change what I just said above, that is welcomed.

For the record, I emphatically reject that view. Evolution does not map onto Genesis.
 
Back
Top