Evolution and Genesis

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Agency is not in peril if as an element of his universe progression is eternal.

THis is an intriguing issue, and one I would like to discuss, but we can't start it here.

[creekster]

Let me add that I am firnly, and I mean firmly, on the side of TooBlue and Indycoug in terms of my belief in the gospel, but I find nothing inconsistent in that beleif and my recognition of the evidecne supporting evolution.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

The problem with this (in my eyes) is that it suggests that species haven't evolved. Species have evolved, and species do evolve. Did you have to have your wisdom teeth removed?

You are speaking about a different context for the theory of evolution.

Species do evolve and die out. Attributes, physical nature, presence and relvance of organs etc. change. There is most certainly is ample evidence to prove that aspect of evolutionay theory valid.

However there is ZERO evidence to suggest that one species becomes another species altogether -especially at random.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I see a lot of micro-evolution stuff here.

That's because you can't envision the difference between 20,000 years and 20 million years.

Do you deny the existence of hominids with huge variation in cranial capacity features that are intermediate between "ape" and human? Come on, man--they teach this stuff at BYU. I've seen the skulls with my own eyes. It's amazing, and it's undeniable.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You are speaking about a different context for the theory of evolution.

Species do evolve and die out. Attributes, physical nature, presence and relvance of organs etc. change. There is most certainly is ample evidence to prove that aspect of evolutionay theory valid.

However there is ZERO evidence to suggest that one species becomes another species altogether -especially at random.

Boy, I've never seen a post so at war with itself. Please explain the difference between "evolving" and "one species becomes another species altogether."

[SoonerCoug]

What you need to do, Indy, is explain to me why God created the australopithecines and the neanderthals.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Let me add that I am firnly, and I mean firmly, on the side of TooBlue and Indycoug in terms of my belief in the gospel, but I find nothing inconsistent in that beleif and my recognition of the evidecne supporting evolution.

Doesn't the plan of of redemption demand INEVITABLE emergence of humans capable of sin?

btw, nice job in this thread.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

I don't think this is the same thing. Is it possible that od simply used DNA as the mechanism for creating this world all at once? perhaps, but if so he left NO EVIDENCE that this is how it happened. Remove your belief and what evidecen is there that God had anything to do with it? Zero. If you live forever and and know everything, how inconvenient is it to use evolution as your mechanism for creating the world? Not very. It would be no more than a weekend gardening job for us, and probably even less.

Convenience is a mortal preoccupation and should not be assigned to deity. My physical and spiritual existence is evidence there is a God and that I have been introduced as an element in his Universe.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Doesn't the plan of of redemption demand INEVITABLE emergence of humans capable of sin?

btw, nice job in this thread.

Capability of sin is a natural result of knowledge of good and evil (see the Genesis creation allegory).

How knowledge of good and evil appeared--that's another thread. I'd love to talk about evolutionary theory behind: "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine," or even better: "I'll scratch your back, you'll scratch someone else's, and a completely independent third party will scratch mine."

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You are speaking about a different context for the theory of evolution.

Species do evolve and die out. Attributes, physical nature, presence and relvance of organs etc. change. There is most certainly is ample evidence to prove that aspect of evolutionay theory valid.

However there is ZERO evidence to suggest that one species becomes another species altogether -especially at random.

Zero evidence to suggest it? That is absurd. The evidence to merely suggest it is so overwhlming as to be undeniable.

When does a species become a different species. WHen man first domesticated the cow's predecessor, the first cow was still a wild animal. How about the next genreation? What about the third generation? Still a wild animal or is it a cow? How many genreations did it take to turn it inot a cow? What would the fossil record for this process look like? Did a wild mammal one day give birth to a holstein? Of course not. Instead, the 'link' is the new species itself. Was there an intermediate species? Taxonomists might say so, I am not sure, but any generation of the line transitioning from wild beast (auroch or whatever it was) to cow could still breed with the genreation immediately before nad after it. So which gneeration is the link? Nonetheless, do you deny that there was a non-domesticated predecessor?