Mutations: Accidents or not?

[Right Divider]

At least one atheist evolutionist here complains when I call mutations accidents.

My question is: what else can they be called but accidents? Are they purpose driven?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Most mutations are errors. Some mutations are environment driven, which is the result of God's amazing design of the genetic mechanisms present in all organisms.

My evidence for this is the 17 year experiment that was done on the finches.

https://kgov.com/spetner

 

[Right Divider]

Most mutations are errors. Some mutations are environment driven, which is the result of God's amazing design of the genetic mechanisms present in all organisms.

My evidence for this is the 17 year experiment that was done on the finches.

https://kgov.com/spetner

I agree.

I guess that I should have been more clear in my OP.

From an atheist evolutionist viewpoint, which does not allow for any purpose in their completely materialist worldview, how can mutations be anything but purposeless accidents?

 

[User Name]

Some mutations are environment driven, which is the result of God's amazing design of the genetic mechanisms present in all organisms.

Are you saying that environment-driven mutations (which is the result of God's amazing design of the genetic mechanisms present in all organisms) are beneficial mutations?

 

[Trump Gurl]

I say that anything that happens within the laws of nature (which God created) is normal. If the laws of nature allow for mutations then they are normal. I think they do.

 

[Right Divider]

I say that anything that happens within the laws of nature (which God created) is normal. If the laws of nature allow for mutations then they are normal. I think they do.

The actual point is not whether they are "normal" but whether they are a creative force or are accidents that are detrimental to an original design.

The creationist view is that they are not a creative force and cannot "design" anything but are corrupting existing designs.
The evolutionist view is that they are the "fuel" that evolution uses to create complex interdependent systems.

 

[Trump Gurl]

I say that anything that happens within the laws of nature (which God created) is normal. If the laws of nature allow for mutations then they are normal. I think they do.

The actual point is not whether they are "normal" but whether they are a creative force or are accidents that are detrimental to an original design.

The creationist view is that they are not a creative force and cannot "design" anything but are corrupting existing designs.
The evolutionist view is that they are the "fuel" that evolution uses to create complex interdependent systems.

Since I don't think that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, I don't see why they cannot be both. Who is to say that God's design does not include evolving changes and even species.

 

[Right Divider]

Since I don't think that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, I don't see why they cannot be both. Who is to say that God's design does not include evolving changes and even species.

You can think whatever you want. Mutations are errors and damage to the existing beings on this planet.

Those that push the atheistic materialistic world view try to claim that mutations are a creative force, but science shows otherwise.

Many Christians have tried to accommodate much of the atheistic materialistic world view into their beliefs. That is a huge mistake.

 

[Trump Gurl]

You can think whatever you want. Mutations are errors and damage to the existing beings on this planet.

Those that push the atheistic materialistic world view try to claim that mutations are a creative force, but science shows otherwise.

Many Christians have tried to accommodate much of the atheistic materialistic world view into their beliefs. That is a huge mistake.

I am no atheist. You can take that to the bank.

So with that in mind, you also cannot prove that God did not include in His great plan an evolving universe. There is no reason to be scared of the word "Evolution" just because atheists use it. It is pretty clear that their view of evolution is wrong since it excludes God. However, there is nothing wrong with entertaining the idea that God's plan includes an evolving Universe. Wondrous are his ways, and they are far, far above our understanding.

 

[ok doser]

I am no atheist. You can take that to the bank.

So with that in mind, you also cannot prove that God did not include in His great plan an evolving universe. There is no reason to be scared of the word "Evolution" just because atheists use it. It is pretty clear that their view of evolution is wrong since it excludes God. However, there is nothing wrong with entertaining the idea that God's plan includes an evolving Universe. Wondrous are his ways, and they are far, far above our understanding.

The problem I have with reconciling an omnipotent and just God and evolution is that evolution relies on a process that produces disease, infirmity and death more often than supposed improvements

 

[Right Divider]

I am no atheist. You can take that to the bank.

I never even remotely hinted at any such thing.

So with that in mind, you also cannot prove that God did not include in His great plan an evolving universe.

That is irrelevant.

There is no reason to be scared of the word "Evolution" just because atheists use it.

I'm not the slightest bit scared to the word "Evolution". The point is that real science shows that things don't change into other things. Much less that accidents (mutations) can have the creative power to do just that.

It is pretty clear that their view of evolution is wrong since it excludes God. However, there is nothing wrong with entertaining the idea that God's plan includes an evolving Universe. Wondrous are his ways, and they are far, far above our understanding.

You can say things like that, but there is no reason to believe it based on the Bible and science.

 

[Trump Gurl]

The problem I have with reconciling an omnipotent and just God and evolution is that evolution relies on a process that produces disease, infirmity and death more often than supposed improvements

What is the alternative? That God baked all those bad things into the cake?

Here is another thing to think about: God's original plan got jacked up when the first man and woman sinned, right? No more Eden, no more sinlessness, creation was "fallen." Maybe evolution is part of that.

 

[Trump Gurl]

It is pretty clear that their view of evolution is wrong since it excludes God. However, there is nothing wrong with entertaining the idea that God's plan includes an evolving Universe. Wondrous are his ways, and they are far, far above our understanding.

You can say things like that, but there is no reason to believe it based on the Bible and science.

Based on science there IS evidence to at least entertain the possibility.

As for the Bible, too many people interpret it to say what they want it to say. In fact, it says nothing on this issue.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Since I don't think that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, I don't see why they cannot be both. Who is to say that God's design does not include evolving changes and even species.

When you define "evolution" as "change over time," atheists win the discussion, because no one here argues that species do not change ever.

Stripe

 

[ok doser]

What is the alternative? That God baked all those bad things into the cake?

Here is another thing to think about: God's original plan got jacked up when the first man and woman sinned, right? No more Eden, no more sinlessness, creation was "fallen." Maybe evolution is part of that.

if you're really interested in having your hair blown back on this stuff, take some time and chew on what PneumaPsucheSoma is serving - he posts all through this thread - if I get better service this evening I'll try to find some specific posts:

https://theologyonline.com/forum/pol...54#post2385954


I think this is where it starts getting deep:

https://theologyonline.com/forum/pol...71#post2386171


he really gets rolling here:

https://theologyonline.com/forum/po...torment-biblical-or-not?p=2386193#post2386193

 

[JudgeRightly]

So with that in mind, you also cannot prove that God did not include in His great plan an evolving universe.

Well, yes we can.

There is no reason to be scared of the word "Evolution" just because atheists use it. It is pretty clear that their view of evolution is wrong since it excludes God. However, there is nothing wrong with entertaining the idea that God's plan includes an evolving Universe.

Well, no, it doesn't. God designed creatures to be able to adapt to their environment, but always within boundaries. The kind of evolution that darwinists want to have happened is not simply adaptation to an environment, it's that the species becomes a different species.

Wondrous are his ways, and they are far, far above our understanding.

God's ways are higher than our ways, to be sure, but they are not LOWER.

God, through Moses, said that He created man on Day 6, and Jesus said He created man at "the beginning of creation."

Meaning, there's simply not enough time (not enough time anyways, but that's a different argument) for evolution to happen.

There was no death (animal or human) prior to Adam's fall. This is explicitly clear in the Bible.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What is the alternative? That God baked all those bad things into the cake?

The alternative to theistic evolution?

It's called the Fall of Man, and entropy taking it's toll due to no access to the Tree of Life.

God created man perfect. The Tree of Life would have been used to maintain/restore God's creation to its original state.

But since man sinned, God took away access to the Tree of Life, and so man (and the rest of creation) began to suffer the consequences, which includes disease, decay of the genome, and the build-up of negative mutations.

Here is another thing to think about: God's original plan got jacked up when the first man and woman sinned, right? No more Eden, no more sinlessness, creation was "fallen." Maybe evolution is part of that.

It's not.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Based on science there IS evidence to at least entertain the possibility.

Well, no, the evidence supports a young earth.

It's when scientists who reject God twist the evidence that it looks like it supports their position against Him.

But when you look at the evidence without their spin on it, it fits perfectly with what the Bible says.

As for the Bible, too many people interpret it to say what they want it to say. In fact, it says nothing on this issue.

There is plenty that is said on how God created. You only need to look.

 

[Right Divider]

Based on science there IS evidence to at least entertain the possibility.

Entertainment... sure...

As for the Bible, too many people interpret it to say what they want it to say. In fact, it says nothing on this issue.

The Bible explains that kinds reproduce their kind. It's not a free for all.

 

[Trump Gurl]

The Bible explains that kinds reproduce their kind. It's not a free for all.

I don't plan on getting into a giant argument with you. I will just say that the Bible is not a science book and God did not intend for it to be used as one. Using the Bible for things it was not intended for is one of the biggest mistakes that too may people make. The Bible does not exclude the possibility of evolution. Evolution as explained by atheists is obviously wrong. But legitimate evolution is not disproved by the Bible.

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the “project” of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Eerdmans, 1995), 50).