Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[AVZ]

The Scriptures are indeed our source of truth, particularly about God.  But the Scriptures are not our only source of truth.  The ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is PI [π].  That is an absolute truth, but you will not find that anywhere in Scripture.

Seems to me that the Bible claims that creation was a guided process, not a matter of chance.
Evolution, as we are discussing it here, is an unguided process based on chance.

So we have two contradicting views here: guided/unguided & purpose/chance

They cannot both be truth.

[AVZ]

Is it not true?

Pertinently not true.

[The Barbarian]

Issue #1
God DID tell us the details of the creation of both man's body and man's spirit.

No.   We have a brief parable that says man's body came from nature, but his soul came directly from God.   That's it.

In your opinion it is evolution that provides you the undeniable proof that the accounts in Genesis cannot be understood in a literal setting.

No.   As you learned, Christians knew that Genesis could not be a literal history, long before evolutionary theory.

Issue #2
The fact is that you are not observing creation, you are observing natural processes which are the result of creation.

You're wrong about that, too.   Undergraduates observe it in labs every year.    The evolution of new species has been directly observed.   No point in denying it.

You call that evolution, but the whole point of the evolution theory is that it is unguided.

Nope.   Go to Darwin's five points of evolutionary theory.   Show me wherein there's a claim that it's unguided.    You won't find it in any of the subsequent revisions of the theory, either.   Some people think it's unguided.   Others disagree.

It is a process that came about by chance

If you think creation came about by chance, we've found your problem.   God created nature to serve His purposes.   No chance there.

and is subject to random processes.

So are all things in this world:
Ecclesiastes 9:11 I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skilful: but time and chance in all.

And there is the big misalignment with theistic evolution, because the inference of a creator by definition excludes the possibility of an unguided process.

You're assuming that God isn't powerful enough to use unguided processes.   And yet, in the Bible, He says that He does.   

"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 plan of divine providence conceives to happen from contingency. 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 plan of divine providence conceives to happen from contingency. "
St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica  22 The Providence of God
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1022.htm

God's a lot more capable than you seem to think He is.

You cannot subscribe to evolution as an unguided process by chance,

Darwin's great discovery was that it doesn't work by chance.

and make the claim God interfered with it by for example giving man a spirit that classifies him as a different species.

You can, if you acknowledge that God is capable of miracles.

So what are you? Are you an evolutionist, or are you a creationist?

I'm a Christian who realizes that God uses evolution to produce the variety of life we see today.

And if you are an "in-betweener",

That would be a YE creationist, willing to accept some of Genesis, but not all of it.

then can you share with me how many times you think God interfered with the evolution process?

Don't know that He ever did.  Giving us an immortal soul has no effect on evolution whatsoever.

Finally, when God created the universe, did God have a plan in mind?

Not in the strict sense of the word.   "Purpose" is a better word, since "plan" implies figuring out things.   And God has no need of that.

Was there a goal and a purpose for creation?

He wanted to share Heaven with us.

And if there was a goal and purpose, how did God reach that goal and purpose if what you say He chose to do is leave it up to chance?

See above.   You're just assuming God isn't capable of using contingency for His purposes.

[4WD]

Pertinently not true.

That is at least good to know.

[4WD]

Seems to me that the Bible claims that creation was a guided process, not a matter of chance.
Evolution, as we are discussing it here, is an unguided process based on chance.

So we have two contradicting views here: guided/unguided & purpose/chance

They cannot both be truth.

Both can be truth so long as God is allowed to make use of chance in His guided process.

[The Barbarian]

Both and be truth so long as God is allowed to make use of chance in His guided process.

And who among us will go and tell Him that He cannot?

[4WD]

And who among us will go and tell Him that He cannot?

Certainly not me ! !  I will leave that up to the YECs

[Michael2012]

To Barbarian and others who concludes, on the basis of scientific findings, that God created by evolution, including Adam.

That it started from an initial creation. And many many things with this initial creation, that Christian scientist believe to be light, randomly happened, until there evolved the universe, the heavens and the earth. Then, God caused the earth to bring forth all living things, starting with the evolution of the first simple living organism.......

The Christian believe that God intended and purposely created man from the beginning of creation. And so......

Now, the Christian scientist explains that man was created by God by evolution from a simple living organism. If that were the case, then all stages of the evolution of man are nothing but necessary evolutionary stages of the intended and planned creation of man by God and so, these stages may well be treated as creation or creatures that God did not really intend as an end, which is the human, in this case. And millions of years passed and so evolved the homo genus, the human being, man. The scientists say, that happened several million years ago. But when was Adam created according to God, in  scriptures? The Christian, based on scriptures, counts it to only some 6,000+ years ago, or as some calculates to be up to 12,000 years ago, but nowhere by the hundred thousands of years ago. So, even while man has already evolved several million years ago, God apparently has not reached His intended creation. So, evolution did not end but continue on for still millions of years. Now, of the human (homo) genus, there are said to be many species that evolved. And Adam could not belong to all species. Now, which among these species does Adam belong, him who was the intended creation of God? Let's see. Since God said in scriptures that we have come from the kind of Adam, Adam must be of the same species then of the modern human. And so, we can say that the human species God intended to create Adam from is of the Homo Sapien as science so named and say the modern man is a species of.

Now, it is said that according to genetic and fossil evidence, archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa by 60,000 years ago and over time replacing earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus. Further, it is said that, more recently, in 2017, fossils found in Jebel Irhoud (Morocco) suggest that Homo sapiens may have evolved as early as 300,000 years ago,[8] and other evidence suggests that Homo sapiens may have migrated from Africa as early as 270,000 years ago.[9][10] Does it mean then that Adam was created by God some 100,000 to 300,000 years ago? (Such range as to when the Homo Sapien evolved speaks of the accuracy or inaccuracy of scientific dating of the fossil evidence.)   Taking even that the Homo Sapien evolved some 100,000 years ago, the closest figure to that counted by the Christian based on scriptures, the following problems/questions arises:

1. Has the Homo Sapien stopped evolving since it is this species that God have intended to create in Adam?

If man continue to evolve as scientist say:

2. What does that make of the omnipotent and sovereign God?

3. What does that make of the present evolved modern man to be?

4. Will man evolve to be some still different sub species?

5. When will the evolution of man end?   

6. How do you interpret how God created Eve?

7. How do you interpret the fall of Adam?

8. How do yo interpret Adam and the garden of Eden?

...... and so on.

[AVZ]

Both can be truth so long as God is allowed to make use of chance in His guided process.

That is an unintelligible statement.
The whole point about a guided process is that it is not left to chance. That's why we call it guided in the first place.
If the process is a guided process, than the elements of that process cannot be uncertain.

Again I want to post the example: If you want to go to the supermarket, you don't take a taxi and leave it up to chance you will arrive at the supermarket.
It's downright contradictory to propose the existence of a guided unguided process.

[4WD]

Do you think that light from the sun reaching the earth is a process guided by God?  If not, that is indeed strange given your view of things. If so, then you must permit the chance movement of photons from the interior of the sun to the surface of the sun as part of the guided process.   But then perhaps you don't believe anything about chance, probability, statistics or any of that "science" stuff.

[Alan]

Greetings Alan~would you please explain this statement. I've been out of the loop, so it not easy to jump right back in without going over the many posts which I may, or may not do. Time is so precious to me at the moment. I have to pick my battles wisely, and this one is not at the top of my list, other than seeing what other professors believe or do not believe regarding creation based upon the scriptures, which is our ONLY true source of truth. As you know, I care little about science so-called.

Thank you for your time and answer in advance.

That is part of a statement regarding scientists work, the goal is discovery, break troughs, and giving new meaning to the mysteries that surround creation. If you don't give credence to science, then I expect your faith in scripture to be sufficient evidence for ALL creation. 

[Alan]

Do you think that light from the sun reaching the earth is a process guided by God?  If not, that is indeed strange given your view of things. If so, then you must permit the chance movement of photons from the interior of the sun to the surface of the sun as part of the guided process.   But then perhaps you don't believe anything about chance, probability, statistics or any of that "science" stuff.

That's a good example, to the YE creationist the sun is simply a big ball of burning hydrogen that is very stable and consistent by nature, rather than the chaotic, earth altering body it truly is.

[Texas Conservative]

Evolution is not fact or fiction.  It is a scientific theory.

[AVZ]

That's a good example, to the YE creationist the sun is simply a big ball of burning hydrogen that is very stable and consistent by nature, rather than the chaotic, earth altering body it truly is.

Both you and 4WD should really spend a bit more time thinking through your objections.
The sun does not burn hydrogen by chance, it burns following natural patterns. If the sun would burn by chance, then tomorrow it could stop burning?
Neither do the photons move around erratically, they too follow a process in which their movement and behavior is predictive.
The radiation emitted by the sun reaches into the universe according to a pattern that can be measured and predicted. The speed by which it does is constant, and if it is not then there is a explanation why it did not.

The process as a whole is guided, and is subject to the laws of nature. The sun cannot by chance behave other than a sun, the light cannot behave other than light and the photons cannot behave other than how photons behave.
Rather than describing it as a chaotic body, the sun and its effects are part of an ordered process and perfectly rational.

In fact, we consider the sun to be a body of such order, that we ourselves have ordered our lives around it.
The plant our crops according to the seasons and stock up for the winter, we set our clocks according to its position and we equip our roofs with solar panels to capture the radiation which is the same today and tomorrow.

[4WD]

Neither do the photons move around erratically, they too follow a process in which their movement and behavior is predictive.

It is a stochastic process.  The movement of any one photon from the center of the sun to the surface is random.

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is not fact or fiction.  It is a scientific theory.

Evolution is an observed phenomenon.   There are a number of theories to explain it.   The modern synthesis of Darwinian theory and genetics is the one currently accepted by almost all biological scientists.

[The Barbarian]

To Barbarian and others who concludes, on the basis of scientific findings, that God created by evolution, including Adam.

Remember He only used nature to make our bodies.  Our souls are given immediately by Him to each of us.

The Christian believe that God intended and purposely created man from the beginning of creation.

Genesis notes what was there in the beginning and man was not.

Now, the Christian scientist explains that man was created by God by evolution from a simple living organism.

No.   From other primates.

If that were the case, then all stages of the evolution of man are nothing but necessary evolutionary stages of the intended and planned creation of man by God and so, these stages may well be treated as creation or creatures that God did not really intend as an end, which is the human, in this case.

Given that God seems to be rather elegant in His creation, I'm thinking that all creatures have a purpose in the larger scheme of things.

And millions of years passed and so evolved the homo genus, the human being, man. The scientists say, that happened several million years ago. But when was Adam created according to God, in  scriptures?

He didn't provide a timeline.   I'm thinking that probably means it wasn't important to what He wanted to tell us therein.

The Christian, based on scriptures, counts it to only some 6,000+ years ago

Some modern Christians do.   But not most of them.

or as some calculates to be up to 12,000 years ago, but nowhere by the hundred thousands of years ago.

About 150 years ago, the great Baptist evangelist Charles Spurgeon, thought that it was millions of years old.    That is what Bryan said for the Creationist side in the Scopes trial.   That was before the Adventists invented YE creationism.

So, evolution did not end but continue on for still millions of years. Now, of the human (homo) genus, there are said to be many species that evolved. And Adam could not belong to all species. Now, which among these species does Adam belong, him who was the intended creation of God?

Would it offend you if the first humans were H. erectus instead of H. sapiens?    How about Neandertals?   You think they were human?   Denesovans?    Why does it mean anything at all to you?

Let's see. Since God said in scriptures that we have come from the kind of Adam,

Most creationists says "kind"is genus or family.  So that would include every species of homo.

Adam must be of the same species

Genus or family.   If you want to use the creationist idea of "kind."

1. Has the Homo Sapien stopped evolving since it is this species that God have intended to create in Adam?

Nope.  We've seen quite a number of useful mutations become established in the population.

If man continue to evolve as scientist say:

2. What does that make of the omnipotent and sovereign God?

Rather amazing in His power and creativity.

3. What does that make of the present evolved modern man to be?

Beloved of God, Who wants all of us to share Heaven with Him.

4. Will man evolve to be some still different sub species?

Could happen, although present travel and migration probably makes that unlikely.

5. When will the evolution of man end?

When there are no more humans in this world. 

6. How do you interpret how God created Eve?

Created like the other animals, but then God directly gave her an immortal soul.

7. How do you interpret the fall of Adam?

Act of disobedience.

8. How do yo interpret Adam

The first person to have an immortal soul.

and the garden of Eden?

Where Adam and Eve lived in complete grace with God.

[AVZ]

Remember He only used nature to make our bodies.  Our souls are given immediately by Him to each of us.

Wouldn't that make it a guided process then? God stepped in and meddled with the natural process of evolution.

Created like the other animals, but then God directly gave her an immortal soul.

Just to make it clear. You reject the Genesis account that claims Eve was made from a rib of Adam, and you reject the New Testament where it says that the woman was made from man?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Remember He only used nature to make our bodies.  Our souls are given immediately by Him to each of us.

Wouldn't that make it a guided process then?

The part where He gives us each a soul directly is guided.   Of course, that has nothing whatever to do with evolution, which is a natural phenomenon.


Barbarian observes:
We were created like the other animals, but then God directly gave her an immortal soul.

Just to make it clear. You reject the Genesis account that claims Eve was made from a rib of Adam,

No, that's wrong, too.   YE creationists reject the plain reading of that parable and want to change it to an historical account.

Females are made from males.    You see, males have an X and a Y chromosome.   Females have two X chromosomes.   So if a female is born, it is the male parent who determined it.   Again, you've tried to change the plain meaning of scripture to make it something else.



 

[AVZ]

Barbarian observes:
Remember He only used nature to make our bodies.  Our souls are given immediately by Him to each of us.

The part where He gives us each a soul directly is guided.   Of course, that has nothing whatever to do with evolution, which is a natural phenomenon.


Barbarian observes:
We were created like the other animals, but then God directly gave her an immortal soul.


No, that's wrong, too.   YE creationists reject the plain reading of that parable and want to change it to an historical account.

Females are made from males.    You see, males have an X and a Y chromosome.   Females have two X chromosomes.   So if a female is born, it is the male parent who determined it.   Again, you've tried to change the plain meaning of scripture to make it something else.

On the part of the soul
So you do not subscribe to evolution then.
Evolution excludes ANY and ALL interference from outside the natural, and claims that humans came to be by purely natural processes including our soul, mind, spirit and morals.

The question that I would have for you is: Was God pleasantly surprised with the evolution of Adam and Eve, as in "Look at that. There are two apes. I think I can do something with that!" or did God purposely worked towards the goal of creating Adam and Eve?

The other question I have: Were the apes Adam and Eve the ONLY apes that "deserved" to be upgraded with a soul, or where there other apes that had reached the same evolutionary standard as Adam and Eve?
If there were no other apes, then how did Adam and Eve reach the same upgradable standard at the same time by evolutionary means, and if there were other apes then why did God not give them a soul as well?


On the part of female origin
Your biological excerpt does not make sense and neither does it answer the question.
Two males cannot produce one female. It does not matter how many chromosomes a male has, as long as there is no female there can be no reproduction.
You will have to make an argument that the common ancestor was bi-sexual and produced both male and female offspring.

The origin of the female has nothing to do with YE creationism or OE creationism. There are many subscribers to OE creationism who believe that Eve was created from Adam's rib and there is absolutely no conflict. The only conflict is between the accounts listed in scripture and evolution.

You have to reject Genesis 2 as factual, in particular the reading that when Adam was created there was no woman around for him.
You also have to reject 1 Corinthians 11:8 and 1 Timothy 2:13-14, but I am sure you are going to give it a swing anyway.


Parable or lie?
You call Genesis 2 a parable, but that does not make sense.
Lets imagine for a second that Eve was not created from Adam...then Genesis 2 is not a parable, it would be an outright lie.
If it is a parable, then what lesson does it represent?
What lesson is there to learn from "Adam looked around and realized there was no mate for him", if indeed there were plenty of mates around?
And what lesson shall we learn from "God took a rib from Adam and created Eve from it", if indeed Eve was already around and no part of her was taken from Adam?

[AVZ]

It is a stochastic process.  The movement of any one photon from the center of the sun to the surface is random.

That's an empty statement because you have no proof whatsoever to substantiate your claim. The fact is we do not know how the interior process in the sun works exactly.
We do not know how one photon is preferred over another to be next in line to move.

What we do know however is that chaos cannot produce order, and we know that the burning of the sun and it's radiation is an ordered process.
Hence we deduce that the method by which the process operates is an ordered method. Most definitely not a random series of events by chance.

The unpredictability of the individual movement of the photons is exactly the same as the unpredictable individual appearance of lightning in a thunderstorm.
Any scientist would declare you utterly incompetent if you were to claim that lightning moves and appears by chance.
Lightning and photons are part of an ordered processes of which the individual elements cannot be explained in molecular detail, but of which the individual elements are well within the grasp of our intellectual descriptive and predictive comprehension.

[The Barbarian]

On the part of the soul
So you do not subscribe to evolution then.

Perhaps you don't know what "evolution" means in biology, then.

Evolution excludes ANY and ALL interference from outside the natural,

Nope.   Science doesn't in any way deny the supernatural.   It just can't say anything about that.   So, for example, if God stepped in and said, "hey, I think I'd like people with red hair" and magically created a ginger gene, that would not be contrary to science.   It would just be inexplicable.   Science can't account for miracles.   But scientists can.

and claims that humans came to be by purely natural processes including our soul, mind, spirit and morals.

But as you learned, science doesn't make such a claim.

The question that I would have for you is: Was God pleasantly surprised with the evolution of Adam and Eve, as in "Look at that. There are two apes. I think I can do something with that!" or did God purposely worked towards the goal of creating Adam and Eve?

If God were merely an amazingly competent creature, like us, but far more powerful, that might have been the case.  But He's omnipotent.   You're selling Him short, here.    To be fair, some creationists say that God might be a "space alien."   But most Christians would reject that view,and yours.

The other question I have: Were the apes Adam and Eve the ONLY apes that "deserved" to be upgraded with a soul,

You think we got that from God because we "deserved" it?   No, God owed us nothing.   It was a gift.

or where there other apes that had reached the same evolutionary standard as Adam and Eve?

Suppose that he picked two people from some population of hominids, and gave them a soul and the potential to have fellowship with Him.    Would that be offensive to you?     I don't see why.

On the part of female origin
Your biological excerpt does not make sense and neither does it answer the question.

From a Christian point of view, it does.    Parables are the way God explains things so we can understand them.   

Two males cannot produce one female.

Actually, they can, genetically.    Two females can't produce one male because there's no Y chromosome.  But males have an X and a Y.

You will have to make an argument that the common ancestor was bi-sexual and produced both male and female offspring.

Not if you assume the Christian belief that God chose one man and one woman and gave them immortal souls.

The only conflict is between the accounts listed in scripture and evolution.

Only if you don't think scripture has parables.

You have to reject Genesis 2 as factual, in particular the reading that when Adam was created there was no woman around for him.

So you're saying that God could not have given a woman a soul until later.  We know this scripture is parable, since it has God going around, figuring out what a proper companion would be for the man and woman.   Obviously, that's not compatible with an omnipotent God, unless it's a parable.

You also have to reject 1 Corinthians 11:8 and 1 Timothy 2:13-14, but I am sure you are going to give it a swing anyway.

Perhaps you don't know what those two verses actually say.    There's nothing there that rules out God's creation of humans.

Parable or lie?

Jesus told parables, so they certainly weren't lies.

Lets imagine for a second that Eve was not created from Adam...then Genesis 2 is not a parable, it would be an outright lie.
If it is a parable, then what lesson does it represent?
What lesson is there to learn from "Adam looked around and realized there was no mate for him", if indeed there were plenty of mates around?

That's not what it says.    I think a lot of the confusion could be cleared up by reading the chapters and thinking a little about them.

And what lesson shall we learn from "God took a rib from Adam and created Eve from it", if indeed Eve was already around and no part of her was taken from Adam?

That would be like someone, hearing Jesus speak of the good Samaritan, and interjecting that it would be very unlikely for a Jew and a Samaritan traveling in the same area.    He's be nitpicking details, and losing the whole point of the parable.

[The Barbarian]

That's an empty statement because you have no proof whatsoever to substantiate your claim.

The physics of particle motion in plasma is very, very well understood.   You've been misinformed about this.

The fact is we do not know how the interior process in the sun works exactly.

How the energy works its way to the surface is well known.    This sort of thing is directly observed, in fusion reactions and is critical to know when you're working with hydrogen bombs.

We do not know how one photon is preferred over another to be next in line to move.

It really is a stochastic process.    We can observe it in fusion reactions.

What we do know however is that chaos cannot produce order,

Actually, chaos has order.   Look up "Feigenbaum number" and learn.   I was involved with some of that in graduate school.   You've been misinformed on that, too.

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas.[1]

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems — a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect — rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[2][3] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[5][6] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[7]

    Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.[8][9] It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic.[10] This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Chaos theory has applications in several disciplines, including meteorology, sociology, physics,[11] environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, self-assembly process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

A physicist will tell you that the movement of molecules is a stochastic process, a matter of chance.   It appears to be determined because of the large number of molecules involved, but Brownian motion clearly shows the random nature of molecular movement.

[AVZ]

The physics of particle motion in plasma is very, very well understood.   You've been misinformed about this.

How the energy works its way to the surface is well known.    This sort of thing is directly observed, in fusion reactions and is critical to know when you're working with hydrogen bombs.

It really is a stochastic process.    We can observe it in fusion reactions.

Actually, chaos has order.   Look up "Feigenbaum number" and learn.   I was involved with some of that in graduate school.   You've been misinformed on that, too.

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas.[1]

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems — a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect — rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[2][3] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[5][6] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[7]

    Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.[8][9] It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic.[10] This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Chaos theory has applications in several disciplines, including meteorology, sociology, physics,[11] environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, self-assembly process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

A physicist will tell you that the movement of molecules is a stochastic process, a matter of chance.   It appears to be determined because of the large number of molecules involved, but Brownian motion clearly shows the random nature of molecular movement.

Thanks for making my point.
My statement was "chaos cannot produce order". You have made an excellent point that apparent chaotic process indeed are ordered.

[AVZ]

Nope.   Science doesn't in any way deny the supernatural.   It just can't say anything about that.   So, for example, if God stepped in and said, "hey, I think I'd like people with red hair" and magically created a ginger gene, that would not be contrary to science.   It would just be inexplicable.   Science can't account for miracles.   But scientists can.

You are not reading what I write. My statement was "Evolution excludes ANY and ALL interference from outside the natural,"
You answer that science doesn't deny this. That's not a relevant response, I am talking about evolution, not science.

As I said before, the theory of evolution claims to be an unguided process, based on chance.
Unguided means the exclusion of any and all interference from outside the natural.

[4WD]

All that effort, Barbarian, and AVZ didn't understand a word of it. As I noted earlier, you are a very, very patient man.  But usually if someone hasn't grasped the concept of addition and subtraction, the concept of multiplication and division is simply a bridge too far.

[th1b.taylor]

The physics of particle motion in plasma is very, very well understood.   You've been misinformed about this.

How the energy works its way to the surface is well known.    This sort of thing is directly observed, in fusion reactions and is critical to know when you're working with hydrogen bombs.

It really is a stochastic process.    We can observe it in fusion reactions.

Actually, chaos has order.   Look up "Feigenbaum number" and learn.   I was involved with some of that in graduate school.   You've been misinformed on that, too.

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas.[1]

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems — a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect — rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[2][3] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[5][6] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[7]

    Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

Chaotic behavior exists in many natural systems, such as weather and climate.[8][9] It also occurs spontaneously in some systems with artificial components, such as road traffic.[10] This behavior can be studied through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps. Chaos theory has applications in several disciplines, including meteorology, sociology, physics,[11] environmental science, computer science, engineering, economics, biology, ecology, and philosophy. The theory formed the basis for such fields of study as complex dynamical systems, edge of chaos theory, self-assembly process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

A physicist will tell you that the movement of molecules is a stochastic process, a matter of chance.   It appears to be determined because of the large number of molecules involved, but Brownian motion clearly shows the random nature of molecular movement.

Theory, that is what you work from and theory is not science, theory is what science works from.  You post these Theoretical Postulations as if they are a matter of fact and they do not have a legtg to stand on!

I learned before I went to Junior High, in Elementary School, that theories are what scientists think happened.  These positions you postulate are not proven and they cannot be proven because they are part of the great delusion promised by God.

[4WD]

And yet one more who seems to be completely ignorant in science.  There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but it is all rather interesting to find such folks voicing opinions on it one way or the other.

It is all rather like my dear grandmother, bless her heart, giving me her opinion on thermodynamics or physics.

[Alan]

Theory, that is what you work from and theory is not science, theory is what science works from.  You post these Theoretical Postulations as if they are a matter of fact and they do not have a legtg to stand on!

I learned before I went to Junior High, in Elementary School, that theories are what scientists think happened.  These positions you postulate are not proven and they cannot be proven because they are part of the great delusion promised by God.

Maybe you aren't understanding exactly what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is;


noun                     
1.  a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
the scientific theory of evolution.

A scientific theory is not a bunch of "best guesses".   

[Michael2012]

Michael:

Now, the Christian scientist explains that man was created by God by evolution from a simple living organism.

Barbarian:

No.   From other primates.

And primates evolved from.........which evolved from..........simple living organisms.......which evolved from.........non-living matter.......which evolved from.......,light which was created by God.

Michael:

If that were the case, then all stages of the evolution of man are nothing but necessary evolutionary stages of the intended and planned creation of man by God and so, these stages may well be treated as creation or creatures that God did not really intend as an end, which is the human, in this case.

Barbarian:

Given that God seems to be rather elegant in His creation, I'm thinking that all creatures have a purpose in the larger scheme of things.

And so think.

Michael:

And millions of years passed and so evolved the homo genus, the human being, man. The scientists say, that happened several million years ago. But when was Adam created according to God, in  scriptures?

Barbarian:

He didn't provide a timeline.   I'm thinking that probably means it wasn't important to what He wanted to tell us therein.

And so think again.

Michael:

So, evolution did not end but continue on for still millions of years. Now, of the human (homo) genus, there are said to be many species that evolved. And Adam could not belong to all species. Now, which among these species does Adam belong, him who was the intended creation of God?

Barbarian:

Would it offend you if the first humans were H. erectus instead of H. sapiens?    How about Neandertals?   You think they were human?   Denesovans?    Why does it mean anything at all to you?

Being offended is not the issue. I am just asking the Christian evolutionist which among the species of the Homo genus does he place Adam.

I am trying to see the scientific point of view on Adam. What species is he among the many species of the Homo genus. If you can tell me, being the scientists and evolutionist that you are, that will be nice.

Michael:

1. Has the Homo Sapien stopped evolving since it is this species that God have intended to create in Adam?

Barbarian:

Nope.  We've seen quite a number of useful mutations become established in the population.

And so, man apparently is yet not the intended creature of God at least in terms of what continues to evolve in him.

Michael:

If man continue to evolve as scientist say:

2. What does that make of the omnipotent and sovereign God?

Barbarian:

Rather amazing in His power and creativity.

The point of the question is that, the continuing evolution of man into something else makes God having no control of His creation of the man He intended to create. Evolution does not at all add anything to God as to be more amazing in His power and creativity. He is equally amazingly omnipotent and creative with or without creation by evolution. 

Michael:

3. What does that make of the present evolved modern man to be?

Barbarian:

Beloved of God, Who wants all of us to share Heaven with Him.

Evasive? Way out of context of the question.

Michael:

4. Will man evolve to be some still different sub species?

Barbarian:

Could happen, although present travel and migration probably makes that unlikely.

Now, evolution seem to come to a stop?

Michael:

5. When will the evolution of man end?

Barbarian:

When there are no more humans in this world. 

End of the human race? Don't you now believe in scriptures?


Michael:

6. How do you interpret how God created Eve?

Barbarian:

Created like the other animals, but then God directly gave her an immortal soul.

God said He took a rib from Adam and made it into a woman, Eve. How do you interpret that?

Michael:

7. How do you interpret the fall of Adam?

Barbarian:

Act of disobedience.

Obviously out of context of the question.

Michael:

How do yo interpret Adam

Barbarian:

The first person to have an immortal soul.

And the rest of the Homo Sapien with Adam, what became of them?

Michael:

and the garden of Eden?

Barbarian:

Where Adam and Eve lived in complete grace with God.

And what do scientists say, did they have dominion over the fish, birds, beasts and all? Did they commune together peacefully with them? In their time what do scientists observe on the probable behavior of the animals, the wild especially, then toward the Homo Sapien?

Can you tell us if snakes by then already crawled on their belly or have legs?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian notes:
Humans evolved from other primates.   

And primates evolved from.....

Sorry, no bunny trails for you today.

And millions of years passed and so evolved the homo genus, the human being, man. The scientists say, that happened several million years ago. But when was Adam created according to God, in  scriptures?

Barbarian observes:
He didn't provide a timeline.   I'm thinking that probably means it wasn't important to what He wanted to tell us therein.

Now, which among these species does Adam belong, him who was the intended creation of God?

Barbarian asks:
Would it offend you if the first humans were H. erectus instead of H. sapiens?    How about Neandertals?   You think they were human?   Denesovans?    Why does it mean anything at all to you?

Being offended is not the issue.

Why else would you be so obsessed with the details He didn't consider important?

I am trying to see the scientific point of view on Adam.

What's wrong with the Christian one?     They are compatible, but different things.

What species is he among the many species of the Homo genus.

No one knows.   Doesn't matter.

Has the Homo Sapien stopped evolving since it is this species that God have intended to create in Adam?

Barbarian observes:
Nope.  We've seen quite a number of useful mutations become established in the population.

And so, man apparently is yet not the intended creature of God at least in terms of what continues to evolve in him.

That sounds like the argument an atheist would make.   What makes you think that God isn't satisfied with us, just because humans occasionally evolve an improvement?   Why do you think it matters?


 

If man continue to evolve as scientist say: What does that make of the omnipotent and sovereign God?

Barbarian observes:
Rather amazing in His power and creativity.

Evolution does not at all add anything to God as to be more amazing in His power and creativity.

YE creationists are uneasy with a God that powerful.   I get that.

What does that make of the present evolved modern man to be?

Beloved of God, Who wants all of us to share Heaven with Him.

Evasive?

You keep hoping that there's some kind of evolutionary theology.   Sorry.   Just not there.

Will man evolve to be some still different sub species?

Barbarian observes:
Could happen, although present travel and migration probably makes that unlikely.

Now, evolution seem to come to a stop?

Nope.  You really don't understand what evolution is, do you?   Just so we know, how about telling us the five points of Darwinian theory and how genetics changed them?

When will the evolution of man end?

Barbarian:
When there are no more humans in this world.

End of the human race?

When we give up our earthly bodies for imperishable ones. Don't you now believe in scriptures?

God said He took a rib from Adam and made it into a woman, Eve. How do you interpret that?

Parable like much else in Genesis.

How do you interpret the fall of Adam?

Act of disobedience.

Obviously out of context of the question.

It's what God says.  I think you should believe Him.

The first person to have an immortal soul.

And the rest of the Homo Sapien with Adam, what became of them?

What makes you think they were H. sapiens?

and the garden of Eden?

Where Adam and Eve lived in complete grace with God.

And what do scientists say

Christian, Jewish and Muslim scientists say that.

Can you tell us if snakes by then already crawled on their belly or have legs?

Actually, the original says "serpent"; some serpents have legs.    Why would it matter?

If you pare away all the new doctrines you're holding onto, and just let it be Gods way, I think it would be a lot easier for you to accept Him.

[Michael2012]

From a website: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/science/en/

Science is . . .Observing the world. Watching and listening. Observing and recording.

So, science is basically observation of nature. It's all basically about the physical EYE.

Gen. 3:4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

The eyes.

[4WD]

From a website: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/science/en/

Science is . . .Observing the world. Watching and listening. Observing and recording.

So, science is basically observation of nature. It's all basically about the physical EYE.

The problem with your comprehension and understanding is demonstrated and noted.

[Alan]

From a website: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/science/en/

Science is . . .Observing the world. Watching and listening. Observing and recording.

So, science is basically observation of nature. It's all basically about the physical EYE.

Gen. 3:4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

The eyes.

lol, that certainly isn't the definition of science, it's from the NASA kids website; NASA Space Place is an award winning educational website about space and Earth science targeting upper-elementary aged children. Launched in 1998, it was the first NASA website to create content about multiple missions directly for children


Secondly, it would have been good of you to keep going to see what else the kids page says about science; Anyone can have an idea about how nature works. Some people think their idea is correct because "it seems right" or "it makes sense." But for a scientist (who could be you!), this is not enough. A scientist will test the idea in the real world. An idea that predicts how the world works is called a hypothesis.


If an idea, or hypothesis, correctly predicts how something will behave, we call it a theory. If an idea explains all the facts, or evidence, that we have found, we also call it a theory


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.


Nice try at deflecting but science is what it is.

[The Barbarian]

If an idea, or hypothesis, correctly predicts how something will behave, we call it a theory. If an idea explains all the facts, or evidence, that we have found, we also call it a theory


A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Yep.   A hypothesis is using what you already know, to investigate something you don't know.    When testing confirms your hypothesis again and again, then the hypothesis becomes a theory.    And "theory" is as certain as it gets in science.    A well-tested idea or group of ideas that explain physical phenomena.