Assume two things with me... Evolution is not a lie, AND the Bible is not a lie...

[Neogaia777]

Humor me for a minute and assume two things with me... Evolution is not a lie, AND the Bible is not a lie...

Now, ready, set, GO!

Where is the middle ground...? What's left when you assume these two things...

Ideas? Comments?

God Bless!

 

[AV1611VET]

What's left when you assume these two things...

Theistic Evolution

 

[HitchSlap]

I suppose it comes down to which parts of the bible you choose to interpret as literal, and non-literal.

 

[Neogaia777]

I suppose it comes down to which parts of the bible you choose to interpret at literal, and non-literal.

Genesis can be literal and evolution still be true...

God Bless!

 

[HitchSlap]

Genesis can be literal and evolution still be true...

God Bless!

Yep, it's all in what you choose to believe.

 

[ron4shua]

Humor me for a minute and assume two things with me... Evolution is not a lie, AND the Bible is not a lie...

Now, ready, set, GO!

Where is the middle ground...? What's left when you assume these two things...

Ideas? Comments?

God Bless!

Greetings my brother , I rolled on the mat with this one a
third of my adult life . One afternoon half asleep it came to
me like all the other Epiphanies before it .
IF , I say IF our Infinite Almighty Elohim YAH can zap , all there is up in six twenty-four hour days . Just what would hamstring this Omnipotent Being from cranking in a few billion years of history ?

I view this ultimate wisdom as one of the top five , sheep / goat filters & marvelous in my eyes . Number one in MY list of , live forever or total destruction is accepting , the washing of regeneration , obeying Acts 2:38 .

Of course I may be in error , it's happened before .

Hallelu-YAH .

 

[TomZzyzx]

Humor me for a minute and assume two things with me... Evolution is not a lie, AND the Bible is not a lie...

Now, ready, set, GO!

Where is the middle ground...? What's left when you assume these two things...

Ideas? Comments?

God Bless!

What exactly do you mean when you say evolution?

Some Christians mean something different, than atheist, when they say evolution.

 

[HitchSlap]

What exactly do you mean when you say evolution?

Some Christians mean something different, than atheist, when they say evolution.

Did you mean to say biologist?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hard to come to a decision about that seeing as science can't make up it's mind whether evolution produces improved critters or just critters that are good at reproducing.

 

[juvenissun]

Humor me for a minute and assume two things with me... Evolution is not a lie, AND the Bible is not a lie...

Now, ready, set, GO!

Where is the middle ground...? What's left when you assume these two things...

Ideas? Comments?

God Bless!

There is no motivation to spend my brain power on this question. Why should I worry about alternatives if both were true?

 

[juvenissun]

Theistic Evolution

No. They lied on both side.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'ld say that you need to be more specific on the biblical side.
Which interpretation are we talking about here?

If we take it as written, literally, then both can't be true.

 

[capnhi9er]

Humor me for a minute and assume two things with me... Evolution is not a lie, AND the Bible is not a lie...

Now, ready, set, GO!

Where is the middle ground...? What's left when you assume these two things...

Ideas? Comments?

God Bless!

The Bible is TRUE but often misconstrued.

Evolution is true but ONLY WITHIN LIMITS. I distinguish between "Micro Evolution" and "Macro Evolution".

By my definition "Micro Evolution" is where no new genetic information is created and only the relative frequency of pre-exisitng alleles varies within a population. Both industrial melanin (proportion of dark to light moths) and finch beak sizes (depending on food type available) are "Micro Evolution" and observable. But nothing new was created. All alleles existed before this "evolution". So why should it not be true?

By my definition "Macro Evolution" requires that SOME new genetic information be created. This can be either in structure (e.g. number of chromosomes, order of genes on a given chromosome) or data (e.g. different alleles available for a given gene locus). Scientific examples of either of these actually being observed is very hard to come by if at all. The only example that jumps to mind is the CLAIM that two chimp chromosomes fused to form the single human chromosome 2. This type of "evolution", if it exists at all, is limited to variation within KIND. Of course there are differences between a chihuahua, a bull dog, a greyhound and a Saint Bernard. But they are all still the dog KIND. Conceivably these variations within kind happened by "Macro Evolution" but more likely, they were all present in different individuals of the created kind.

 

[The Cadet]

Evolution is true but ONLY WITHIN LIMITS. I distinguish between "Micro Evolution" and "Macro Evolution".

By my definition "Micro Evolution" is where no new genetic information is created and only the relative frequency of pre-exisitng alleles varies within a population. Both industrial melanin (proportion of dark to light moths) and finch beak sizes (depending on food type available) are "Micro Evolution" and observable. But nothing new was created. All alleles existed before this "evolution". So why should it not be true?

By my definition "Macro Evolution" requires that SOME new genetic information be created. This can be either in structure (e.g. number of chromosomes, order of genes on a given chromosome) or data (e.g. different alleles available for a given gene locus). Scientific examples of either of these actually being observed is very hard to come by if at all.

Actually, I spent ten minutes as a complete layman googling (timed myself too) and came up with this list:

Spoiler: Stuff

Opsin in the eye:
http://www.nyas.org/publications/detail.aspx?cid=93b487b2-153a-4630-9fb2-5679a061fff7

tRNA endonucleases of Archaea
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/25/8791.long

Salmonella duplication to study mechanisms!
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6105/384.abstract

Drosophilia eye color, plus lots of other useful info
http://www.umich.edu/~zhanglab/publications/2003/Zhang_2003_TIG_18_292.pdf

Just a huge mess of different resources
http://www.umich.edu/~zhanglab/publications/2014/Zhang_Oxford_review.pdf

Whole-genome duplication in Arabidopsis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11130711

Maize, various
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v37/n9/abs/ng1615.html

Streptomyces coelicolor genome sequence
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6885/full/417141a.html

Gene duplication used as the model for proteome evolution:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519303000286

"Cattle-specific evolutionary breakpoint regions in chromosomes have a higher density of segmental duplications"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5926/522.short

And that list is just gene duplication. It's not rare, unusual, or unknown. Indeed, a lot of the discussion I found (but did not include in the list) involved examinations of how this sort of thing can lead to new or improved functions in the gene.

This type of "evolution", if it exists at all, is limited to variation within KIND.

Care to define "kind"? Because the evidence we have is not exactly indicative that there is any limitation.

 

[juvenissun]

I'ld say that you need to be more specific on the biblical side.
Which interpretation are we talking about here?

If we take it as written, literally, then both can't be true.

Here is the illustration of the guiding principles:

Gen. 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

We can elaborate it a lot. But the principle is the same.
For example, if I like to define a kind called "Domesticated Home Pets", then I can certainly put some animals into that kind. It would not be a clearly defined kind in the classification, but it illustrates the principle and it will be useful.

 

[Neogaia777]

I'ld say that you need to be more specific on the biblical side.
Which interpretation are we talking about here?

If we take it as written, literally, then both can't be true.

Not unless God was running two separate programs, so to speak, that's the only way I can see that they both could be true...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

E

What exactly do you mean when you say evolution?

Some Christians mean something different, than atheist, when they say evolution.

"Evolution", from the primordial ooze, to the human being...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Not unless God was running two separate programs, so to speak, OR, the beginnings of Genesis are true in another way other than literal, that's the only way I can see that they both could be true...

God Bless!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not unless God was running two separate programs, so to speak, that's the only way I can see that they both could be true...

God Bless!

That doesn't make sense to me.
Things originated one way or the other.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Here is the illustration of the guiding principles:

Gen. 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

That didn't answer my question.

I asked which interpretation of the bible we need to assume is correct in context of this thread.

Which is a question for the threadstarter.

We can elaborate it a lot. But the principle is the same.
For example, if I like to define a kind called "Domesticated Home Pets", then I can certainly put some animals into that kind.

Sure, you can arbitrarily define ad hoc all kinds of things.
So can I. I can define a "kind" called "carbon based life" and include every carbon based living thing in it as well.

It would not be a clearly defined kind in the classification, but it illustrates the principle and it will be useful.

Please, you have no classification - clear or otherwise.
If you want clearly defined "kinds" in a clearly defined "classification", then I have news for you... there's a whole branch of science doing exactly that.

It's called Taxonomy.