Philologos

In my initial post I say that I am not offering conclusive proof. But that the preponderance of evidence weighs on the side of evolution.

Additionally,if you hold to a literal Genesis you have to reject things that are quite provable, such as radiological dating techniques that show animal fossils to be millions of years old.

What I do show clearly with the two points put forth is that it is possible for an ape (a chipanzee) to evolve into a human. The plasticity of morphology is demonstrated by the diversity of dogs. The Neoteny photo show how closely a young chimpanzee resembles humans. Together these points make this evolution a real possibility.

One thing that Miller also discusses and allows for that many scientists object to is that God acts in the here and now, and not just in the past. Many scientists reject this completely.

Jake

Jake
you wrote:Additionally,if you hold to a literal Genesis you have to reject things that are quite provable, such as radiological dating techniques that show animal fossils to be millions of years old.

Not necessarily. Up until the 1950's most evangelicals were not 'young earthers'. They believed we have an old earth but a young human race. In addition, up until the early 1900's most evangelicals held to a 'gap theory', that it to say that Gen 1:1 is all we have revealed to us of the actual creation but that something happened in Gen 1:2. Literally it reads, and the earth became void and without form

Since the writings of Whitcomb and Morris 'The Genesis Flood' many , if not most, evangelicals have settled for a young earth and have rejected the 'gap theory'.

However, there are just a few of us dinosaurs left. :-D

_________________
Ron Bailey

Jake
I didn't reply to your original posting but your more recent one has drawn my attention to it again.

I have a reaction or two.
A. your quote re 'mastiffs and chihuahuas' This shows the plasticity of morphology of animals. Or it may simply show the incalculable riches of the original gene pool in wolves/dogs.

B. your quote Neoteny The picture of the juvenile chimpanzee looks just like a human. I have followed the link and seen the pictures of the juvenile chimpanzee. I am tempted to ask what part of the States you come from if the picture is exactly like the juveniles you are used to. ;-) We have some pretty odd juveniles over here too, but none that I would mistake for the juvenile chimpanzee in the illustration. ;-) In fact, the text to the link is much more moderate in its claims. You say ‘just like’ the text says ‘resembling’. Relatively rapid growth of the jaw gives juvenile chimps skull proportions resembling those of adult humans. I don’t mean to be patronising or frivolous, but if God had a good idea why shouldn’t He use it just as he wants to, in apes or humans? I understand, that we share lots of DNA characteristics with the cabbage, but I don’t know that anyone has suggested we have a common ancestor. Although, the more I think about it… ;-)

Finally This may not be conclusive proof, but taken together these points put the burden on the person who denies evolution because they demonstrate that human evolution from primates is clearly possible.
Surely in scientific debate the ‘burden of proof’ lies with the person who claims he has ‘proved’ something. I don’t think creationists think they have ‘proved’ creation. They believe it and regard the evidence as not incompatible with that belief. What they would like ‘evolutionists’ to do is admit that their system too is a ‘belief’ rather than a ‘scientific proof’. Evidence must be interpreted. The creationist knows that he is interpreting evidence; the evolutionist should be prepared to make the same admission.

_________________
Ron Bailey

Philologos wrote:

"In order to 'prove evolution' science has to disprove that God created, and the proof should take place in a laboratory where it can be monitored by other scientists."

This is not correct. Evolution is the means by which God has created us. It is described in story format in Genesis, and my point is that the story format matches and supports the story line of evolution. The order of events is parallel. Life forms are described in ascending order of complexity. Events in Genesis have parallels in science. (Such as the Noah Ark story and the Out of Africa Theory both saying that all humans are the descendents of one small clan. Furthermore, do you actually believe that two of EVERY creature were on the Ark? This is completely impossible because not all creatures live in continguous areas of the earth, not to mention that the Ark would have had to be a couple of miles long in order to have enough space.)

Jake

Jake wrote:Philologos wrote:

"In order to 'prove evolution' science has to disprove that God created, and the proof should take place in a laboratory where it can be monitored by other scientists."

This is not correct. Evolution is the means by which God has created us.

More exactly, I should have said that 'atheistic evolution'. It is frequent claim of atheistic scientists that unaided evolution has proved that God does not exist. In the nature of things, other than in mathematical proofs, it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. The whole of 'Star Trek' is based on scientific possibility, but possibility does not prove actuality. The possibility of atheistic evolution cannot 'prove' the actuality of atheisitc evolution.

_________________
Ron Bailey

Philologos wrote:

"I am tempted to ask what part of the States you come from if the picture is exactly like the juveniles you are used to."

I didn't say "exactly like". You must admit that there is a clear resemblence. Sans the facial hair and with slight facial modifications, this young chimpanzee would look very much like a human child. What the plasticity of morphology of dogs shows is that these modifications are a real possibility.

Jake

Genesis 1:9 "God said, 'Let the waters under heaven be gathered into one place, so that dry land may appear'" This is a reference to what scientists call "pangea" where all the continents were connected and the seas were one.

What astounds me is that this happened long before people were around to make record of it. Thus, it is clear that the story of Genesis was given to the authors though somekind of "vision" process.

Jake

Philologos wrote:

"and the earth became void and without form"

This is true. Planets were formed from large gaseous clouds that condensed due to the force of gravity. In the initial stages they had no consistent or defined form, but were free flowing in shape.

Genesis 3:8-9 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God..
Then the Lord God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?"

Clearly God spoke directly to Adam and Eve. I don't see any need for somekind of "vision" process. God spoke to them of which trees to eat of and not to eat of. Perhaps God spoke many things to them before their disobedience.

One other thought is that Moses is the one that is usually believed to have written Genesis. God spoke to Moses many things and there is no indication that they were through a "vision" process.

Mike

_________________
Mike

Here is a link to an article that sets forth a good argument detailing why theistic evolution is an oxymoron. It's worth a read.

[url=http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/evolution/michaelb.htm]Theistic Evolution[/url]

May God's grace be with you,

Ron

_________________
Ron Halverson