Re: Special Creation

Its illogical in the sense that;
if Man is God's final and greatest creation, and that Man
was made to have a relationship with God here on Earth and
that this was to be eternal, then why wouldnt you start
with a fresh and perfect genome? It is the creation of
imperfection that I think is a contradiction, therefore
illogical.

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 07:25:21 -0500
  "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> i*t seems illogical, i.e. not surviving Occam's razor as
>you suggest, that
> the genome of this new creature would include
>preexisting pseudogenes,
> useless gene duplications, fatal mutations, etc.*
>
> I'm not sure it's illogical. In fact, it would be
>exactly what we'd
> logically expect if God used something like a cloning
>process to genetically
> engineer Adam using gentic material from an earlier
>hominid. I do agree
> that it doesn't survive Occam's razor, but I don't think
>of that as a test
> of logic, but rather a test of plausibility among
>competing alternatives.
> The simplest explantion isn't *always* the true one,
>though. Remember, even
> a pure TE position feels the blade -- Occam's razor
>would also cut out God
> as having any role at all in evolution.*
>
> *
> On 3/3/06, jack syme <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> If as Ross suggests, God fashioned Adam out of the dust
>>of the earth,
> (even if he used existing materials), it seems
>illogical, i.e. not surviving
> Occam's razor as you suggest, that the genome of this
>new creature would
> include preexisting pseudogenes, useless gene
>duplications, fatal mutations,
> etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: David Opderbeck
>> To: jack syme
>>
>> Cc: glennmorton@entouch.net ; asa@calvin.edu
>> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: Special Creation
>>
>>
>> The thread that touched all this interesting discussion
>>off was the
> announcement that Alan Templeton's work has falsified
>the RTB model. Having
> now had a chance to skim through Ross/Rana's "Who Was
>Adam," I'm not clear
> on why that is necessarily so.
>>
>> As I understand it, the problem for RTB's model arising
>>from Templeton's
> work would be that, although the genetic evidence still
>supports the recent
> (~100,000 years) emergence of "humans" as RTB define
>them (home sapiens
> sapiens) from a smal population migrating out of a
>Africa, it also suggests
> those modern humans interbred with indigenous
>populations of hominids that
> had migrated out of Africa in two earlier waves ~1.5MYA
>and ~750,000 years
> ago. Such interbreeding would suggest the indigenous
>populations were
> "human" as well, and thus human-kind is too ancient to
>trace back to a
> single Adam and Eve less than 150,000 years ago.
>>
>> But Ross/Rana seem to suggest, as I had earlier on the
>>list, that God may
> have used existing genetic material from earlier
>hominids when He formed
> Adam out of the "dust of the Earth." If God did this,
>then our genome would
> reflect the history of those earlier hominids, including
>those two earlier
> waves of African migration. The "replacement" theory
>could then still
> possibly be correct. Obviously, this wouldn't survive
>Occam's Razor, but
> neither would just about any theory that seeks actual
>historical events in
> Gen. 1 and 2.
>>
>> I realize there are other possible problems with the RTB
>>model, but it
> seems to me that the Templeton data doesn't kill it
>completely. Have I
> completely missed something here, or could that body in
>the cart be shouting
> "I'm not dead yet?" I admit I'm no genetic
>anthropologist.
Received on Fri Mar 3 08:44:52 2006