Humans are responsible for most of the recent global warming

[oxmixmudd]

This is really interesting to observe. everyone can see how Jichard is wrong and burning a straw man, yet he is completely blind to it and blithely continues to think he is completely competent in the subject matter of theistic evolution, while his own sources contradict him. This is a pristine example of the dunning-kruger effect in action.


From jichard's wiki link on theistic evolution:

"Theistic evolution typically postulates a point at which a population of hominids who had (or may have) evolved by a process of natural evolution acquired souls and thus (with their descendants) became fully human in theological terms. This group might be restricted to Adam and Eve, or indeed to Mitochondrial Eve, although versions of the theory allow for larger populations. The point at which such an event occurred should essentially be the same as in paleoanthropology and archeology, but theological discussion of the matter tends to concentrate on the theoretical. The term "special transformism" is sometimes used to refer to theories that there was a divine intervention of some sort, achieving hominization."

...which is what oxmix was saying. To which Jichard said he wasn't TE

I have been quite bemused watching Jichard blather all over himself trying to prove I'm not a Theistic Evolutionist. Everybody else here gets it, from Atheist to YEC (or at least OEC). But Jichard doesn't get it. And, as I said earlier, a lot of it is because he is the anti-Jorge. Jorge believes you simply can't really accept evolution and be a Christian. And so does Jichard. Although Jichard would deny it (as would Jorge tee hee). But the bottom line is, unless you are a Deist who thinks God NEVER intervenes in history, Jichard says you are not accepting Evolution. That is what his world so far imply. It would not be even slightly illogical to conclude from his writings that it may well be that if You think God moved 1 molecule at anytime in the entire history of the Earth so as to cause a different result that would have occurred 'naturally', then you aren't accepting evolution according to Jichard. But regardless of if he is that extreme, he has clearly stated that if you think God had anything to do with the evolution of humankind, you don't 'really' accept the theory of evolution.

What idiocy.

I accept the Theory of Evolution as fact - that life on the Earth evolved in response to random change and directed by (in almost all cases) natural selection. That is evolution. But do I believe God had a hand in the final result - absolutely. Do I believe God was involved in the Evolution of mankind - absolutely. Do I believe there were two distinct and first humans described as Adam and Eve - absolutely.

Do I believe these first two humans were created in a vacuum, completely independently of animal evolution - No. I think it is much more nuanced than that (as TheLurch pointed out).

Jichard freaks out when I say God created them and set them apart in the Garden. But this has long been one of the TE alternate views. And there have been long debates over whether Adam and Eve where completely unique physically or only two individuals of a population set aside as representatives of mankind, placed in the Garden and given the opportunity to transition from mortality to immortality, from ignorant of right and wrong to aware of it by the correct or incorrect choice.

None of this is incompatible with the theory of evolution. It is, all of it, in fact completely irrelevant as regards evolution - unless you couple evolution and philosophical naturalism. Which is exactly how Jichard and Jorge think. The theory of evolution and philosophical naturalism MUST go hand in hand. But the fact is the simply are unrelated to each other.

To be a Christian, one MUST believe God is active in History. He has intervened at least once - in the advent of Christ. If one doesn't believe at least that much, one can't claim to be a Christian. I believe God has (and continues to) intervene a good deal more than just one time.

The Theory of evolution is about an overall process - and mostly NOT SPECIFIC EVENTS. In fact - this is a common creationist mistake (to base evolutionary conclusions on what occurred or can occur in a specific individual animal). To assert that evolution isn't really evolution unless you kick God out of it completely is not the theory of evolution, its a philosophical addenda to evolution.


Jim

ETA: This entire debate is based on limited, bifurcated, only one possibility or the other types of thinking. In this case, only God or only natural. That is not how most Christians think or believe. If I believe God sent me a specific Job, that doesn't mean I don't also believe there were an entire host of causally related natural events that led up to me getting that same Job. God acting in the world doesn't mean there were not also physical events in process. It doesn't even mean that the only possible explanation of an event is miraculous intervention. Likewise God's creation of life through the process of evolution.

[klaus54]

Just to expand on this a bit - the cigarette companies never had some alternate theory about cigarette smoke or the causes of lung cancer. They just denied the evidence that kept building against them. Even today, after the health benefits of public smoking bans have been extensively documented, there are people in denial about that evidence, people who will tell you there's no solid indication that second hand smoke is harmful. But they're not trying to develop other theories that explain the data.

Lucky-Strike-Doctor-Cigarette-Ad.jpg.cf.jpg

[Sparko]

I have been quite bemused watching Jichard blather all over himself trying to prove I'm not a Theistic Evolutionist. Everybody else here gets it, from Atheist to YEC (or at least OEC). But Jichard doesn't get it. And, as I said earlier, a lot of it is because he is the anti-Jorge. Jorge believes you simply can't really accept evolution and be a Christian. And so does Jichard. Although Jichard would deny it (as would Jorge tee hee). But the bottom line is, unless you are a Deist who thinks God NEVER intervenes in history, Jichard says you are not accepting Evolution. That is what his world so far imply. It would not be even slightly illogical to conclude from his writings that it may well be that if You think God moved 1 molecule at anytime in the entire history of the Earth so as to cause a different result that would have occurred 'naturally', then you aren't accepting evolution according to Jichard. But regardless of if he is that extreme, he has clearly stated that if you think God had anything to do with the evolution of humankind, you don't 'really' accept the theory of evolution.

What idiocy.

I accept the Theory of Evolution as fact - that life on the Earth evolved in response to random change and directed by (in almost all cases) natural selection. That is evolution. But do I believe God had a hand in the final result - absolutely. Do I believe God was involved in the Evolution of mankind - absolutely. Do I believe there were two distinct and first humans described as Adam and Eve - absolutely.

Do I believe these first two humans were created in a vacuum, completely independently of animal evolution - No. I think it is much more nuanced than that (as TheLurch pointed out).

Jichard freaks out when I say God created them and set them apart in the Garden. But this has long been one of the TE alternate views. And there have been long debates over whether Adam and Eve where completely unique physically or only two individuals of a population set aside as representatives of mankind, placed in the Garden and given the opportunity to transition from mortality to immortality, from ignorant of right and wrong to aware of it by the correct or incorrect choice.

None of this is incompatible with the theory of evolution. It is, all of it, in fact completely irrelevant as regards evolution - unless you couple evolution and philosophical naturalism. Which is exactly how Jichard and Jorge think. The theory of evolution and philosophical naturalism MUST go hand in hand. But the fact is the simply are unrelated to each other.

To be a Christian, one MUST believe God is active in History. He has intervened at least once - in the advent of Christ. If one doesn't believe at least that much, one can't claim to be a Christian. I believe God has (and continues to) intervene a good deal more than just one time.

The Theory of evolution is about an overall process - and mostly NOT SPECIFIC EVENTS. In fact - this is a common creationist mistake (to base evolutionary conclusions on what occurred or can occur in a specific individual animal). To assert that evolution isn't really evolution unless you kick God out of it completely is not the theory of evolution, its a philosophical addenda to evolution.


Jim

ETA: This entire debate is based on limited, bifurcated, only one possibility or the other types of thinking. In this case, only God or only natural. That is not how most Christians think or believe. If I believe God sent me a specific Job, that doesn't mean I don't also believe there were an entire host of causally related natural events that led up to me getting that same Job. God acting in the world doesn't mean there were not also physical events in process. It doesn't even mean that the only possible explanation of an event is miraculous intervention. Likewise God's creation of life through the process of evolution.

but but but... bottleneck!!!


lol. even in atheistic evolution each species starts with a small population of a couple of individuals. an entire species doesnt just pop into existence all at once with an entire breeding population in place.

[Jichard]

This is really interesting to observe. everyone can see how Jichard is wrong and burning a straw man, yet he is completely blind to it and blithely continues to think he is completely competent in the subject matter of theistic evolution, while his own sources contradict him. This is a pristine example of the dunning-kruger effect in action.


From jichard's wiki link on theistic evolution:

"Theistic evolution typically postulates a point at which a population of hominids who had (or may have) evolved by a process of natural evolution acquired souls and thus (with their descendants) became fully human in theological terms. This group might be restricted to Adam and Eve, or indeed to Mitochondrial Eve, although versions of the theory allow for larger populations. The point at which such an event occurred should essentially be the same as in paleoanthropology and archeology, but theological discussion of the matter tends to concentrate on the theoretical. The term "special transformism" is sometimes used to refer to theories that there was a divine intervention of some sort, achieving hominization."

...which is what oxmix was saying. To which Jichard said he wasn't TE

This is actually what ox said:

"Evolution in general makes the idea of a unique Adam and Eve difficult - as a population is required and population bottlenecks are destructive and of to severe typically result in extinction. So to retain a believe in a unique Adam and Eve requires belief in some sort of miraculous intervention in the creation of mankind.

But I don't see that as any sort of real problem - mankind is singled out as created specifically by God and separately from the other life on the planet."

You seem a bit ignorant on biology, Sparko, and seem to be suffering from Dunning-Kruger. So let me correct your ignorance. The source you just quoted is discussing mitatochondrial Eve. Mitochondrial Eve results in destructive no populations bottleneck. So it can't be what ox is talking about. Furthermore, ensoulment results in no such population bottleneck either, and thus cannot be what ox is talking about. What would result in a population bottleneck is something that contradicts evolutionary theory: having humans specially created apart from other non-human animals, as opposed to evolving from non-human animals. It's really, simple Sparko. Try not to display basic ignorance on evolutionary biology.

[Sparko]

This is actually what ox said:

"Evolution in general makes the idea of a unique Adam and Eve difficult - as a population is required and population bottlenecks are destructive and of to severe typically result in extinction. So to retain a believe in a unique Adam and Eve requires belief in some sort of miraculous intervention in the creation of mankind.

But I don't see that as any sort of real problem - mankind is singled out as created specifically by God and separately from the other life on the planet."

You seem a bit ignorant on biology, Sparko, and seem to be suffering from Dunning-Kruger. So let me correct your ignorance. The source you just quoted is discussing mitatochondrial Eve. Mitochondrial Eve results in destructive no populations bottleneck. So it can't be what ox is talking about. Furthermore, ensoulment results in no such population bottleneck either, and thus cannot be what ox is talking about. What would result in a population bottleneck is something that contradicts evolutionary theory: having humans specially created apart from other non-human animals, as opposed to evolving from non-human animals. It's really, simple Sparko. Try not to display basic ignorance on evolutionary biology.

try reading a whole paragraph instead of a single fragment.

"This group might be restricted to Adam and Eve, or indeed to Mitochondrial Eve, although versions of the theory allow for larger populations."

You seem determined to have tunnel vision and only see what you want to see, no matter what anyone or any source says. I think ox knows what he believe a little better than you do.

and ox never said that humans were created apart from other animals. that is what you want to see and so that is all you see despite it not being true. I am not sure exactly what ox believes but he never said that humans were created separately from animals. many TE's believe that God guided evolution from animals to humans and then gave the humans a soul. every species starts with a single mutated individual so the first individuals of any species will be small. Including the first humans. that is why their even is a mitochondrial Eve.

[Jichard]

I cannot believe this is serious. One, there is no "them" there that i can see - there's only one link.

There is a "them". The link for the first definition and the link for the second definition.

And it's to an editorial, not a peer reviewed publication.

It's published in a scientific journal, which was my point: if you have a problem with what was written, then write to the journal and complain.

Anyway, you also missed this:

"Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed."

If you don't know what "externally peer reviewed" means, then go here. That should help you. It makes things rather clear:

"The BMJ [British Medical Journal] peer reviews all the material it receives."

And it's part of the BMJ Christmas issue, which is typically a bunch of jokes. Such as:
"Evidence of a Christmas spirit network in the brain: functional MRI study"

http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h6266

If you feel the article is a joke, then write the journal and ask them. But come on; we both know what I posted is not an obvious joke, like the one you posted. You're grasping at straws. But if you doubt that, then feel free to contact the authors or contact the journal. I'd love to see what sort of response they'll give, especially since the journal commissioned the writing of this article:

"Contributors: This paper builds on previous work on denialism by the authors. Both authors contributed equally to writing it, following a commission from the BMJ."

By the way, Lurch, why didn't you address your erroneous claims about the definitions? Simple oversight?

[Jichard]

I have been quite bemused watching Jichard blather all over himself trying to prove I'm not a Theistic Evolutionist. Everybody else here gets it, from Atheist to YEC (or at least OEC). But Jichard doesn't get it. And, as I said earlier, a lot of it is because he is the anti-Jorge. Jorge believes you simply can't really accept evolution and be a Christian. And so does Jichard.

You're making stuff up again, as usual. I believe no such thing and I told you I believed no such thing:

The truth is that you simply can't have a person that accepts evolution AND believes in God,

You're making stuff up again. I'm well aware that Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and my father exist.

But at this point, I'm no longer surprised that you do this.

But the bottom line is, unless you are a Deist who thinks God NEVER intervenes in history, Jichard says you are not accepting Evolution. That is what his world so far imply. It would not be even slightly illogical to conclude from his writings that it may well be that if You think God moved 1 molecule at anytime in the entire history of the Earth so as to cause a different result that would have occurred 'naturally', then you aren't accepting evolution according to Jichard. But regardless of if he is that extreme, he has clearly stated that if you think God had anything to do with the evolution of humankind, you don't 'really' accept the theory of evolution.

What idiocy.

I guess you find it easier to find yes-people who'll nod their head at your misrepresentations, than to actually respond to me. Sad.

Let me know when you can answer this:

So, ox, do you think there was a unique Adam and Eve? I'm pretty sure I already know the answer, but I want to see if you have a shred of intellectual honesty left.

I accept the Theory of Evolution as fact - that life on the Earth evolved in response to random change and directed by (in almost all cases) natural selection. That is evolution.

I guess that's a pretty good middle-school-level definition of evolution. But I'd expect high-school level students (and higher) to mention things like mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, speciation, and so on.

Just remember, the theory of evolution is not limited by magic: we don't simply throw out it's conclusions willy-nilly, so that some theists can introduce God-of-the-gaps appeals to magic. That would be as silly as someone claiming that I accept the scientific consensus on AIDS; I just want to make this special case here, where this case of AIDS was caused by God, as opposed to HIV.

Anyway, your words betray you:

"Evolution in general makes the idea of a unique Adam and Eve difficult - as a population is required and population bottlenecks are destructive and of to severe typically result in extinction. So to retain a believe in a unique Adam and Eve requires belief in some sort of miraculous intervention in the creation of mankind.

But I don't see that as any sort of real problem - mankind is singled out as created specifically by God and separately from the other life on the planet."

But do I believe God had a hand in the final result - absolutely. Do I believe God was involved in the Evolution of mankind - absolutely. Do I believe there were two distinct and first humans described as Adam and Eve - absolutely.

Do I believe these first two humans were created in a vacuum, completely independently of animal evolution - No. I think it is much more nuanced than that (as TheLurch pointed out).

Jichard freaks out when I say God created them and set them apart in the Garden. But this has long been one of the TE alternate views. And there have been long debates over whether Adam and Eve where completely unique physically or only two individuals of a population set aside as representatives of mankind, placed in the Garden and given the opportunity to transition from mortality to immortality, from ignorant of right and wrong to aware of it by the correct or incorrect choice.

I didn't know evolutionary theory claimed that humans descended from a bottleneck of two people who were once immortal, but then went on to live hundreds of years. ... Oh wait, no, that's non-scientific nonsense. Humans don't live that long, anymore than Zeus hurls lightning blots from Oylmpus.

None of this is incompatible with the theory of evolution.

Actually, it is incompatible, for one of the very reasons you pointed out: it leads to a population bottleneck. You can't get out of that; it's basic biology.

It is, all of it, in fact completely irrelevant as regards evolution - unless you couple evolution and philosophical naturalism. Which is exactly how Jichard and Jorge think. The theory of evolution and philosophical naturalism MUST go hand in hand. But the fact is the simply are unrelated to each other.

To be a Christian, one MUST believe God is active in History. He has intervened at least once - in the advent of Christ. If one doesn't believe at least that much, one can't claim to be a Christian. I believe God has (and continues to) intervene a good deal more than just one time.

One can be a Christian without believing that God intervened in evolution at all.

The Theory of evolution is about an overall process - and mostly NOT SPECIFIC EVENTS.

Hilariously off-base. For example, macroevolution occurs based on speciation events, which can occur via a number of means of reproductive isolation. And you seem not to recognize that a process is made of up specific events, so your dichotomy between the two is a false one. Evolutionary theory gives an account of the specific sorts of events involved in biological processes, including mutation, genetic drift, and so on. Nowhere is "supernatural magic" listed on there, anymore than the the germ theory lists "supernatural magic" as a cause of infection.

In fact - this is a common creationist mistake (to base evolutionary conclusions on what occurred or can occur in a specific individual animal).

You're confused. Creationists often talking about evolution as if it occurs within the lifetime of a specific organism, causing that specific organism to evolve. That's not what I'm talking about, since I actually understand evolutionary theory. I'm talking about events that result in a population evolving. In this case, I'm talking about the sort of speciation events that would have resulted in humans. On evolutionary theory, speciation events don't occur by a supernatural deity specially making a group separate from other organism, to generate a population bottleneck. If you think that's how the common ancestors of all humans arose, then you're rejecting evolutionary theory.

To assert that evolution isn't really evolution unless you kick God out of it completely is not the theory of evolution, its a philosophical addenda to evolution.

Not at all what I said. What I actually said was your position is not a theistic evolutionist one, since you contradict evolutionary biology

Jim

ETA: This entire debate is based on limited, bifurcated, only one possibility or the other types of thinking. In this case, only God or only natural. That is not how most Christians think or believe. If I believe God sent me a specific Job, that doesn't mean I don't also believe there were an entire host of causally related natural events that led up to me getting that same Job. God acting in the world doesn't mean there were not also physical events in process. It doesn't even mean that the only possible explanation of an event is miraculous intervention. Likewise God's creation of life through the process of evolution.

And you still have no explanation for the population bottleneck, or for thinking that God specially created humans apart from non-human life. It just amounts to non-scientific, wishful thinking, akin to claiming that the Olympian god cause lightnight bolts to strike.

[Jichard]

try reading a whole paragraph instead of a single fragment.

"This group might be restricted to Adam and Eve, or indeed to Mitochondrial Eve, although versions of the theory allow for larger populations."

Again, you still miss the point: if there's a larger population, then there's no population bottleneck. But as ox himself admits, he's positing a bottleneck if there's a unique Adam and Eve. So that can't be what he's talking about:

"Evolution in general makes the idea of a unique Adam and Eve difficult - as a population is required and population bottlenecks are destructive and of to severe typically result in extinction. So to retain a believe in a unique Adam and Eve requires belief in some sort of miraculous intervention in the creation of mankind."

You seem determined to have tunnel vision and only see what you want to see, no matter what anyone or any source says.

And you still seem to have no clue what a population bottleneck is, even though that's gone over in high school biology.

I think ox knows what he believe a little better than you do.

... says the person who continues to ignore the words ox actually typed.

and ox never said that humans were created apart from other animals.

*facepalm* Seriously, can you see this? ox said:

"But I don't see that as any sort of real problem - mankind is singled out as created specifically by God and separately from the other life on the planet."

This has been repeated for you over and over.

that is what you want to see and so that is all you see despite it not being true. I am not sure exactly what ox believes but he never said that humans were created separately from animals.

*double facepalm*

"But I don't see that as any sort of real problem - mankind is singled out as created specifically by God and separately from the other life on the planet."

many TE's believe that God guided evolution from animals to humans and then gave the humans a soul.

Which is not the same thing as claiming that there's a population bottleneck, as I told you before. But a bottleneck is what ox is positing for a unique Adam and Eve.

every species starts with a single mutated individual so the first individuals of any species will be small. Including the first humans. that is why their even is a mitochondrial Eve.

No. That's a horribly confused understanding of biological evolution, speciation, and mitochondrial Eve. For someone who accused me of suffering from Dunning-Kruger, it's ironic that you don't know this.

First, discussing mitochondrial Eve is not the same as saying that all humans descended from a bottleneck of two people. Instead, the point is that you can trace the lineage of all living humans mitochondrial DNA back to one woman in the distant past. There is no reason to claim that woman was the first (or second) human, nor that she was specially created apart from other non-human animals, nor that she represents a dangerous population bottleneck for humans, nor that she lived for hundreds of years, nor.... Second, species almost never start as just one mutated individual, unless you're talking about asexual microbes and other such small organisms. The reasons for that should be obvious: the species' gene pool would be too small and there'd be no one else in the species to mate with. Cheetahs are the classic example of what happens when a gene pool gets too small. Instead, speciation events tend to occur for populations, not a particular individual, such as a population of birds become reproductively isolated on a small island away from the mainland, and then evolving overtime into a species of bird different from the one of the mainland. Again, this is all gone over in high school biology courses.

No wonder you're siding with ox on this topic; you don't seem to understand what's being discussed.

[oxmixmudd]

Here's your position:
Now, what does your position look like?

Ok - so I've had enough amusement for one day watching the arrogant one making a fool of himself. Let's take a look at the context of this 'quote' that Jichard has bantered about so many times as defining 'my' position on Adam and Eve.

Here is the entire context of the quote. I am actually answering a question from seer about Ken Miller's position, I am NOT defining MY position on Adam and Eve:

I have no problem with this. Does Ken Miller believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

I've read his books but at the moment I can't recall his precise position on Adam and Eve as specific real persons. Evolution in general makes the idea of a unique Adam and Eve difficult - as a population is required and population bottlenecks are destructive and of to severe typically result in extinction. So to retain a believe in a unique Adam and Eve requires belief in some sort of miraculous intervention in the creation of mankind.

But I don't see that as any sort of real problem - mankind is singled out as created specifically by God and separately from the other life on the planet.

Notice what Jichard left out. No ellipsis, not nothing. Just a quote ripped from context to make me say what I did not say. Sound like a Young Earth Creationist (e.g. Sarfati) tactic to anyone here???

And to what was seer referring? My earlier discussion where I do in fact lay out a position, but not on Adam and Eve as specific individuals, but rather my THEOLOGICAL position on why God would have placed mankind/Adam and Eve into a creation that was itself not perfect:

So Jim, do you believe God created life on earth with all the obvious death and pain in the animal world, even before Adam came around? Why?
I do believe physical death was in the world prior to Adam. I believe Evolution was the means by which the Earth obeyed God and brought forth life.

So why would God create in that fashion? I can only speculate seer, I can't know. BUT, it is clear that first the Garden was a special place on the Earth. A place where mankind could live forever if he but passed a single test. In it was the tree of life, which we know from scripture had the capacity to give immortality to Adam. But why did that tree even exist in the garden if it was not necessary for Adam? And why would God banish Adam lest he eat of it and become immortal if Adam was already immortal?

But why make the world that way in the first place? I think Ken Miller gives a very good answer. So that the universe would be a place where Adam could choose to sin, and his choice would not necessarily be eternal. So that the universe could be a place where Adam could choose, where his, and our, will to be what we want and to follow God or not follow God could exist unfettered by any external influence that would prevent the capacity for a fully free choice in the matter. And a place that would be suitable for the life of mankind regardless of the choice made.

In all of this, I never actually give a firm position on the 'how' of Adam and Eve. I simply talk about them as individuals and the theology of the Garden and the Fall. But the point of that particular thread of discussion doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not Adam and Eve are the first Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens on the planet. The focus is quite different. Why God would have created a world with death in it. The only clear thing I am saying about Adam and Eve in this exchange is that I believe they were NOT immortal before the fall, and I view that as THEOLGICALLY consistent with the existence of the Tree of Life, and SCIENTIFICALLY consistent with the evolutionary creation of their physical bodies.

So the 'jichard quote' on the difficulty of a unique Adam and Eve as regards evolutionary theory is just that - an acknowledgement there are scientific problems with taking the view Adam and Eve were not part of a population. I then simply acknowledge that is not a problem from a FAITH standpoint because scripture describes mankind's creation as separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. This means there is nothing unscriptural about taking a position where evolution creates the animals and God specially creates mankind independent of that process. But - and this is critical - I am not in this quote offering any solution or reconciliation of those issues, nor am I defining my specific position on the matter, and hence despite what Jichard has implied over and over again, this quote is not defining my position on Adam and Eve.

And had Jichard not ripped the quote out of context, that would have been obvious to all.

And for the most part, even with it ripped out of context, it was fairly obvious Jichard had completely botched it.



Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Again, you still miss the point: if there's a larger population, then there's no population bottleneck. But as ox himself admits, he's positing a bottleneck if there's a unique Adam and Eve. So that can't be what he's talking about:

"Evolution in general makes the idea of a unique Adam and Eve difficult - as a population is required and population bottlenecks are destructive and of to severe typically result in extinction. So to retain a believe in a unique Adam and Eve requires belief in some sort of miraculous intervention in the creation of mankind."

And you still seem to have no clue what a population bottleneck is, even though that's gone over in high school biology.



... says the person who continues to ignore the words ox actually typed.

Go read the post before this one Jichard. You don't have a clue what I meant or what I was trying to say in that quote. And you've made a fool of yourself using that hatchet job on that quote for 5 pages now. Next time, before you go off all cock sure of your own self, ask the person you are quoting if that is what they meant in the first place.

And the next time you decide to take revenge for some parody of your position on 'denialism', at least read the ENTIRE context of the discussion you are going to use as the basis for your attack ...

[Roy]

and ox never said that humans were created apart from other animals.

*facepalm* Seriously, can you see this? ox said:

"But I don't see that as any sort of real problem - mankind is singled out as created specifically by God and separately from the other life on the planet."

Yes, he wrote that. But the phrasing, especially the present tense, suggests that he's describing the text of Genesis. This may or may not co-incide with his own views.

Roy

[oxmixmudd]

You're making stuff up again, as usual. I believe no such thing and I told you I believed no such thing:
But at this point, I'm no longer surprised that you do this.

The problem Jichard is that you can't tolerate your own medicine. You have completely and totally botched my position, you've gotten it completely wrong, yet you sit there and insist over and over and over that you know what I think. So what I have done is extend your words to their logical conclusion. The fact is, you saying you believe a Christian can believe in evolution, yet demanding that when a Christian believes the Theory of evolution is accurate they ALSO exclude any possibility God was directly involved in the process is itself self-contradictory. It is not a requirement of the Theistic Evolutionist position, and my personal experience is that it represents a smaller fraction of the opinion of those that identify themselves and Theistic evolutionist and Christian.

I guess you find it easier to find yes-people who'll nod their head at your misrepresentations, than to actually respond to me. Sad.

Let me know when you can answer this:

I already answered it above in the previous two posts. The problem here is that you didn't read the context of my original quote and ran off all half cocked not understanding that I was not presenting my position, but simply discussing two different elements that must be resolved IF one is to arrive at a scientifically consistent position on Adam and Eve. So your own sloppiness is to blame here, not any inconsistency in my own position.

I guess that's a pretty good middle-school-level definition of evolution. But I'd expect high-school level students (and higher) to mention things like mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, speciation, and so on.

It was not my purpose in that reply to formally define evolution. But rather to point out that the theory of evolution is not about defining the philosophical position on Naturalism, but rather, about explaining scientifically the evidence found as regards the history of life on the Earth.

Just remember, the theory of evolution is not limited by magic: we don't simply throw out it's conclusions willy-nilly, so that some theists can introduce God-of-the-gaps appeals to magic. That would be as silly as someone claiming that I accept the scientific consensus on AIDS; I just want to make this special case here, where this case of AIDS was caused by God, as opposed to HIV.

I never said it was, nor do I appeal to 'magic' as you put it within the context of Evolutionary Theory. However, when deriving a consistent THEOLOGICAL position on Adam and Eve, it is also ridiculous to insist God was not involved in the process - otherwise at best it becomes Deism, not Christian Faith. So unless you are willing to admit you do NOT allow for a Christian to accept evolution, you must allow for the Christian who accepts evolution and who also believes God was directly involved in the process.

I didn't know evolutionary theory claimed that humans descended from a bottleneck of two people who were once immortal, but then went on to live hundreds of years. ... Oh wait, no, that's non-scientific nonsense. Humans don't live that long, anymore than Zeus hurls lightning blots from Oylmpus.

I never claimed they did. You simply didn't understand or apparently even read the full context of the quote, which I've explained for you above. As an example of how pitifully poor your understanding of my position is, I believe Adam and Eve where MORTAL from the start. And I am quite convinced the scriptures tells us that in the discussions surrounding the Tree of Life and the reason why Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden after the Fall.

Source: Genesis 3:22

He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever

© Copyright Original Source

From this point I've eliminated elements of your argument based on the strawman that is your invalid conclusion concerning the quote you've been using incorrectly the last few days.

One can be a Christian without believing that God intervened in evolution at all.

One CAN, but it is not a REQUIREMENT to be considered a Theistic Evolutionist, as has been pointed out to you many, many times.

Hilariously off-base. For example, macroevolution occurs based on speciation events, which can occur via a number of means of reproductive isolation. And you seem not to recognize that a process is made of up specific events, so your dichotomy between the two is a false one. Evolutionary theory gives an account of the specific sorts of events involved in biological processes, including mutation, genetic drift, and so on. Nowhere is "supernatural magic" listed on there, anymore than the the germ theory lists "supernatural magic" as a cause of infection.

But it doesn't focus on specific individuals, in the sense that it is concerned with the evolution within populations, not evolution within specific individuals - which was my point. It should be a given that one understands that yes specific mutations occur in individuals. But evolution itself happens as certain mutations become fixed in a population through the process of natural selection.

Jichard, I'm not going to waste time in these kinds of discussion with ridiculously pedantic formal definitions. They are unnecessary, except when dealing with ridiculously pedantic individuals that have nothing better to do than create rabbit trails over minutia. I'm not writing an essay here for publication in a peer reviewed journal. If for some reason you think my point is not sufficiently precise, it would be more efficient for you to simply ask for clarification.


Secondarily, you continue to confuse methodological and philosophical naturalism. When I speak of God's action in guiding evolution, I am not necessarily speaking in terms of a provable miracle,or a jump that could only have been a miracle, I am speaking of God directing the process, making sure that the right mutation occur at the right time potentially along with the right environmental constraints so as to create who we are. From you atheistic position, you would just call it blind luck or coincidence.

You're confused. Creationists often talking about evolution as if it occurs within the lifetime of a specific organism, causing that specific organism to evolve. That's not what I'm talking about, since I actually understand evolutionary theory. I'm talking about events that result in a population evolving. In this case, I'm talking about the sort of speciation events that would have resulted in humans. On evolutionary theory, speciation events don't occur by a supernatural deity specially making a group separate from other organism, to generate a population bottleneck. If you think that's how the common ancestors of all humans arose, then you're rejecting evolutionary theory.

Well the problem HERE is that you have wasted a lot of time refuting a position I don't hold. And if you would just have read the original context of my original comments, you might have been able to figure that out.

Maybe.



Jim

[Carrikature]

lol. even in atheistic evolution each species starts with a small population of a couple of individuals. an entire species doesnt just pop into existence all at once with an entire breeding population in place.

Not quite. Speciation happens in populations, not a handful of individuals. There's not really a species 'start', merely a rough point where you can identify enough divergence between once-merged groups to justify identification as separate species. A good indicator is when groups stop interbreeding, but that can actually happen within a population.

[shunyadragon]

but but but... bottleneck!!!


lol. even in atheistic evolution each species starts with a small population of a couple of individuals. an entire species doesnt just pop into existence all at once with an entire breeding population in place.

This does not happen in scientific evolution. Species evolve in larger populations and hydridization between related populations. From these larger populations species usually become physically or ecologically isolated, and no longer significantly interbred. With isolation varieties and sub-species become separate species over time. This process requires large populations and genetic diversity.

[Jorge]

....................

This thread is on the alleged "Global Warming" fiasco. In numerous other posts I have plainly stated my position - that the entire "Climate Change" propaganda is a gigantic ruse, a sick lie by groups of criminals with a very sinister agenda. For this I have been called "paranoid" and other 'niceties'. Soon - if the government has its way - I may even be called "criminal" and actually jailed for opposing their agenda. I posted on that not too long ago (Attorney General Lynch and her band of criminal henchmen are contemplating labeling "Climate Change deniers" as "criminals").

Evidence that supports my position is legion but, just as for Evolution, the contrarians will never listen to anything that opposes them. Thus, I don't spend much time on this - you either know and embrace the truth or you embrace the lies.

That said, here's something that I just came across - it is quite revealing:

"Fraud:


More than "revealing", it is scary as all can be!

Of course, I expect no change from anyone here. But at least the deniers here cannot truthfully say that they haven't heard the truth. Then again, when have such people ever cared about TRUTH? They have embraced lies (such as Evolution) and are quite content with that status. "Truth be damned!" - they say.

Article here :

http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...warming-scare/


Jorge