Question to Creationists: What's the Mechanism?

[Estro Felino]

I was hoping you'd discuss it from your perspective.

I can't speak for the RCC...since I am a Pelagian.

But I am a staunch believer in Evolution, as many Catholics are.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I can't speak for the RCC...since I am a Pelagian.

But I am a staunch believer in Evolution, as many Catholics are.

Oh. For some reason I thought you were catholic.

 

[Link]

He created the archetypes as explained by Plato, and created everything through that, and gave everything it's spiritual link to God's Name and reality by his words of light first.

Then he created animals as a instance of some archetype in the unseen world related to his name.

The native Americans I believe best show the link of animals and their traits, and how this relates to knowing ourselves and what traits we acquired. What they don't seem to understand (as far I know) is that we aren't limited to some spirit animals, even though most humans don't acquire all traits, Islamically man is supposed to acquire all positive traits found in creation and we can unite infinite attributes of God even though this sounds mathematically impossible, God has created human with infinite traits and animals are supposed to awaken us to realizing some of these features as explained by native Americans spirituality.

As there is infinite traits there is infinite animals possible in theory, but all of them would be created in truth. Evolution happens but God guides the process, and not of is random. There are no positive random mutations, but rather huge jumps occur by mutations calculated by God and at a frequency that causes the species to change fast.

I don't believe slow evolution is possible nor features like minds can come out because they are irreducible complex in design, different minds can evolve to different minds sure, but the design of a non-mind to a mind can't happen through natural selection and few random mutations, it will never go "on" and there is no guided direction to it, because it's a binary thing, either there is a mind or not.

 

[George-ananda]

As a creationist, YEC, OEC, ID proponent, guided evolution proponent, how do you imagine "creation" of species happens?
Is there a bearded man materializing from thin air and going to work on some clay? Do new species poof into existence? What exactly are the steps from a world without a given species to a world with that species?

I see a class of 'Nature Spirits' that involve themselves with the propagation of life forms throughout the universe. And a universe that has many levels of reality from the subtle planes to the gross planes. These beings work with the elements of a given plane to produce life forms through gradual steps.

 

[Heyo]

Evolution happens but God guides the process

How does it do that? What is the mechanism?

 

[viole]

You made such a general statement I was expecting you to know all of that very well.

I do not make the claims

You made such a general statement I was expecting you to know all of that very well.

Do I need to? It would be like asking me to know all superstitious claims, like the one that black cats bring bad luck, to dismiss them all. I think we can dismiss all that hokus pokus out of hand quite rellibly.

So, if you have a superstition, or religious tenet, that might pass the very first test, let me know.

good luck.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Link]

How does it do that? What is the mechanism?

Big non-random type mutations and rapid type, that can't be accounted by randomness.

I actually believe this only way species can survive, the slow wait for a good mutation speed of natural type evolution can never bring change fast enough for them to survive.

 

[Link]

Evolution has a random mutation happens, is positive, then eventually it get's traits through years of being advantageous. I believe this process is too small and slow, a positive mutation I believe will never spread fast enough to keep adaptation needs through time. I believe rather big jumps occur and mass amount that is calculative to spread to all the species.

I actually believe mathematically, the random process mutation of once in a blue moon positive mutation, as explained by evolutionists cannot account for evolution.

Also, you would see more genetic diversity in nature in all species if random mutations were frequent, but they aren't happening the way described by evolutionists. Rather calculative big changes happen time to time - that can't be random, this is the real process and evidence points to this.

 

[Heyo]

Big non-random type mutations and rapid type, that can't be accounted by randomness.

I actually believe this only way species can survive, the slow wait for a good mutation speed of natural type evolution can never bring change fast enough for them to survive.

So, no mechanism, just your personal incredulity.

 

[Link]

We all do our own research and reach different conclusions. In my experience, people who believe in evolution as taught today have studied it superficially and aren't aware of the many arguments against it. If they understood the latter, they wouldn't believe in it.

 

[Link]

So, no mechanism, just your personal incredulity.

I gave you the mechanism, it's different if you believe in it or not.

 

[Wildswanderer]

As a creationist, YEC, OEC, ID proponent, guided evolution proponent, how do you imagine "creation" of species happens?
Is there a bearded man materializing from thin air and going to work on some clay? Do new species poof into existence? What exactly are the steps from a world without a given species to a world with that species?

Is this a genuine question, or are you just looking for someone to make fun of? If you understand how something happens, but not why it's still a miracle. That's where we are at with a lot of science, but in the science of origins, we don't even know the how.

At any rate, here's some thoughts on the subject I wrote some time ago:

“yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” 1 Cor. 8:6

“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” Colossians 1:16

“For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
Romans 11:36

Starting to see a theme here? It’s not just that Jesus was there, as some kind of causal observer at creation, it’s not even just that he assisted in the creation, but that everything came about from and through him. It almost is starting to sound as if, Jesus didn’t just create or help create but that creation itself is made from his essence. Of course, I have to tread really carefully here, because someone is going to misunderstand and think either that I mean Jesus was created along with everything else or that I’m some New Age lunatic that thinks creation and Jesus are one and the same. That’s decidedly not what I’m saying. I’m saying “What if?” What if God was not creating ex nihilo, (from nothing) but that God drew the raw material for creation from himself and more specifically from the part of himself that is Yeshua Jesus. So, from his essence comes matter, comes planets and galaxies and rocks and trees and life in all it’s majestic variety.

And I can see someone squirming already, because it still sounds too mystical, too weird. Ok, so let me state my case a bit more. Obviously, creation is not God, creation cannot and does not have the properties of the Trinity, so you can relax. I’m not going New Age on you. But we are told that matter comes from energy and that everything was supposedly once a speck of pure energy. When I try to get a straight answer from Big Bang proponents I get replies like: ” A compressed speck of energy with infinite mass.” And my little brain retorts: ” I’m sorry, did you just seriously use the word “infinite” to describe matter? Are you loony tunes?” If that’s the case, then obviously that matter was magic or at least had properties that no matter we can observe has now, and we have just stepped into the realm of the theologians and left science far behind.

Let’s just run with this for a moment and then you call me loony tunes if you like. Matter from energy and energy drawn from the essence of Jesus the Christ, placed outside of himself (we really don’t need a place to put it other then outside of God, as no place could be said to exist yet in any sense we can understand. And time didn’t exist yet either.) Energy that God then re-formed into matter, that continued to expand, that spawned seemingly endless galaxies that we can’t find the end of, and he creates life from this raw material, here on a certain green and blue planet. No, not by some process of billions of years of random evolution, but quite deliberately, rapidly, and with intent. “In the beginning, God created the heavens (galaxies galore) and the earth.” (as far as we know, the only place he then went on to create life) Out of what? Not out of nothing, but out of the Word. So, you are quite literally a word of God spoken into being by the Word, whose life and death and resurrection are recorded in the Word we call the Bible.

A few things that should be obvious: God has no limits. He can give of Himself infinitely and never be any less than he was at the start. I’m also not saying that God is still creating new worlds. Unless someone can prove otherwise, I believe he continues to reshape what already exists, what was there in the beginning, drawn from his own essence.

This brings up all kinds of questions and connotations in my weird little brain. Like: (If this is so) Transubstantiation would be real in one sense at least. The communion bread really would be Christ in essence, because all matter consists of his essence. Remember, matter doesn’t ever go away, God just reforms it. A tree dies, it becomes mulch to grow other trees or firewood and then ashes, that rot and become part of the soil, but they don’t go away, they only become part of a different form of matter. Of course, I’m not saying that the bread is the literal body or Christ, but this makes it more then figurative. There is water somewhere in this world that ran off of Christ’s body at his baptism, but thank God, there has never been a corpse of Christ returning to the soil of this world.

I have all kinds of questions about how sin could be allowed to corrupt matter created from and by God himself, but that would take me on a long rant into mysteries that are never fully answered in the Word. We could talk about atoms and up quarks and down quarks, but we really can’t say scientifically what holds it all together. Fortunately, we were given the answer to that mystery:

(Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn [prototokos] of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities [these words in Greek refer to the hierarchical angelic powers]-all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:15-17

The Greek word used in this verse: “sunistemi”, means to be compacted together, “to stand-together,” “to be constituted with.”
Despite thermodynamics, despite death and decay, those alien invaders that sin brought with it, Christ holds everything in the universe together. His essence is the glue of creation.

I'm not trying to preach here and did my best to leave out the parts that could be seen as proletizing.

 

[Heyo]

I gave you the mechanism, it's different if you believe in it or not.

I must have missed it. Or are you referring to:

Big non-random type mutations and rapid type, that can't be accounted by randomness.

So we agree that all life (except the first) is descendent from previous life?

And we agree that mutations in the offspring are reason for diversity?

What we don't agree upon are the mechanisms that drive the mutations. You are asserting that mutations are not random and happen faster than the ToE predicts. We know of some mechanisms that increase the rate of mutations, e.g. ionizing radiation. So what exactly is it that causes the increased rate of mutations (and beneficial mutations to boot, which won't happen with increased X-rays)?

 

[Link]

I'm not saying increased rate of mutations in a natural way. I'm saying the type of mutations (the amount of changes) and rate it's done, is supernaturally done and not natural. Not just one mutation naturally, and very fast amount of them done, I'm saying the type of mutations occur when they occur do so at rate that make animals adapt fast enough, and that type is only supernaturally (too many mutations at once to be random).

And I don't agree we all came from one life. I believe in Gaia theory that earth and species interdependence are irreducibly complex. Sure those species evolve, but the way they co-exist with earth is irreducible complex at all times, this is the case.

Also, I believe for example, the mind is binary and irreducible complex. Different minds can evolve to different minds, but itself can't arise from a non-mind organ, and some few mutations won't turn any non-mind to a mind. And any type of co-interdependent system that can't have a missing component because of it's binary nature, is also proof of design.

I also believe the fossil evidence would look different if evolution occurred the way you guys hold it and at the rate you hold it. There needs to be tons and more between steps species, then species found there in. And that's not what we find.

Also there is problems with the rays thing, in that they cause more harmful mutations, then good, and so with increased positive mutations, you have severely many times more harmful type. The children that get passed the good positive mutations would have many more chances of receiving more harmful, if you increase the rate of mutations, and so this is essential flaw in the theory too, that there is many more harmful then positive mutations. Getting worse and more pathetic, not stronger, is what would occur in species if the rate increased in natural way.

 

[Jose Fly]

We all do our own research and reach different conclusions. In my experience, people who believe in evolution as taught today have studied it superficially and aren't aware of the many arguments against it. If they understood the latter, they wouldn't believe in it.

Well that's weird. Right here at RF you have at least two people who've taught courses in evolutionary biology, or courses related to it (e.g., anthropology), and some actual scientists (myself included...biologist). And speaking for myself, I've read and looked at so much creationist material over the years that I often tell creationists that I likely know more about creationism than they do.

For example, you mentioned irreducible complexity earlier. When I see that, the first thing that comes to my mind is....which version of IC are you referring to? Are you aware that Behe et al have offered multiple versions of it?

Also, how much have you studied evolutionary biology? Have you taken any college level courses in it? Do you regularly read relevant professional journals? Do you attend conferences and symposiums? Do you discuss evolutionary biology with qualified scientists?

 

[Link]

So it all comes down to appeal to authority. Okay show me how you understand it and refute it. I'm not sure what version of irreducible complexity, or that there are really many versions. He might have changed his explanations over the years, but intuitively, if something has parts that depend on each other and is a system that requires those components, and they can't just come by one by one type system, then it's proven. The mind I believe is an example of this. It has many components to create consciousness but there is no well it's a whole different organ, then one mutation and boom it's a mind. No that won't happen. There is no way. And it's like that with other systems, but because of how clear consciousness as a binary system is to all of us, either off or on, I stick to it. No need to spread shoot proofs when we have one sufficient that is clear to all audience and doesn't require that much complexity to understand why it's binary.

 

[Jose Fly]

So it all comes down to appeal to authority.

I assume this is a reply to my post. Is there a reason you're unable to just click the "reply" button?

And no, it doesn't come down to an appeal to authority. In science, data is what matters.

Okay show me how you understand it and refute it. I'm not sure what version of irreducible complexity, or there are really too many versions.

So right after you earlier figured it was the "evolutionists" who didn't know much about evolution or creationism, here we see that it's actually you who doesn't know much about either. Huh.

He might have changed his explanations over the years, but intuitively, if something has parts that depend on each other and is a system that requires those components, and they can't just come by one by one type system, then it's proven.

That was Behe's original version of IC, but after it was shredded by some scientists, he had to modify it to where it depends on the number of "unselected steps" in its evolutionary pathway. It never made sense and was (I think intentionally) defined in such a way as to never be demonstrable or falsifiable. It just boiled down to one's incredulity.

I mean there's a reason the scientific community completely and quickly rejected the concept. It's just plain wrong. The original definition that depended on "interdependent parts" was seized on by a number of scientists who showed that some of his examples (one type of flagellum, blood clotting cascade) exist and function with a subset of parts, thereby proving the underlying argument (they need all their parts to work) wrong.

That's why he had to come up with a second definition.

The mind I believe is an example of this. It either has many components to create consciousness but there is no well it's a whole different organ, then one mutation and boom it's a mind. No that won't happen. There is no way. And it's like that with other systems, but because of how clear consciousness as a binary system is to all of us, either off or on, I stick to it. No need to spread shoot proofs when we one sufficient one.

How are you defining consciousness?

 

[Link]

I assume this is a reply to my post. Is there a reason you're unable to just click the "reply" button?

And no, it doesn't come down to an appeal to authority. In science, data is what matters.


So right after you earlier figured it was the "evolutionists" who didn't know much about evolution or creationism, here we see that it's actually you who doesn't know much about either. Huh.


That was Behe's original version of IC, but after it was shredded by some scientists, he had to modify it to where it depends on the number of "unselected steps" in its evolutionary pathway. It never made sense and was (I think intentionally) defined in such a way as to never be demonstrable or falsifiable. It just boiled down to one's incredulity.

I mean there's a reason the scientific community completely and quickly rejected the concept. It's just plain wrong. The original definition that depended on "interdependent parts" was seized on by a number of scientists who showed that some of his examples (one type of flagellum, blood clotting cascade) exist and function with a subset of parts, thereby proving the underlying argument (they need all their parts to work) wrong.

That's why he had to come up with a second definition.


How are you defining consciousness?

The man had a good theory but chose bad examples in my view. There is nothing wrong with the first definition. In theory, it would prove design. He just didn't provide good examples.

I cringe every time I see JWs for example using the eye as an example of IC. I cringe, because it literally is the worse example you can use.

 

[Link]

How are you defining consciousness?

Are you saying it's not binary, there is semi consciousness? Well I'm defining in a way, any amount of the ghost in the machine (1% awareness let's say), is good enough to be called consciousness.

I am asserting it will never go from o to 1% or 0.000001% consciousness by any mutation. It's off and on thing. Too vastly different, any level of it, from no level of it.

 

[Jose Fly]

The man had a good theory but chose bad examples in my view. There is nothing wrong with the first definition. In theory, it would prove design. He just didn't provide good examples.

I cringe every time I see JWs for example using the eye as an example of IC. I cringe, because it literally is the worse example you can use.

Maybe you should let Behe know.

Also, you didn't answer my earlier questions about your background with this subject. Again....how much have you studied evolutionary biology? Have you taken any college level courses in it? Do you regularly read relevant professional journals? Do you attend conferences and symposiums? Do you discuss evolutionary biology with qualified scientists?