Created after its own kind

[Punchy]

St. Augustine expounded on biological evolution long before Charles Darwin was even born.

 

[pastorkevin73]

St. Augustine expounded on biological evolution long before Charles Darwin was even born.

Reference please.

 

[Deamiter]

Reference please.

[Sarcasm]
It's on wikipedia so it must be true!
[/Sarcasm]

Yes, do provide a citation for this one! I'm sure many philosophers provided all sorts of interesting suggestions that could be related to evolution. Heck, even the Bible's "everything reproduces according to it's kind" could be describing evolution because it never defines 'kind' or suggests that kinds cannot split into subkinds (as is the basis of common ancestry).

Meh, I'll shut up now, but yes punchy, do provide a citation for that gem!

Oh, and pastorkevin, don't go searching for the quote on wikipedia, that was a joke

 

[DiscipleDave]

Originally Posted by DiscipleDave
Is it not True that evolutionists have been trying to find the missing link for a very long time ? The missing link being one person with both human and ape parts ? This then would prove evolution to be True.

No, that's not what a missing link is. Evolution is never about individuals. Individuals do not evolve. It is about populations changing over time. And we do have fossils (thousands of them) from many populations that are intermediate between modern humans and the hominoid ancestors of modern humans.

i think we are talking about two entirely different things, you are talking about the normal evolution that each species goes through, and this is True, humans are getting taller and taller, and less and less hair. All species evolve to some degree, in that we are not in disagreement. But in all the books that i have read on the subject of evolution ( Darwin and the such ) about the creation of all the species, this is what i am discussing, not the evolving of individual species, but the beginning of LIFE itself on this planet. And those who believe in Evolution, according to all the books that i have read on the matter, are in fact looking for that piece of evidence that would prove their theory about HOW all life appeared on this planet, and they are indeed looking for that missing link, to prove their theory, that humans derived from some other animal, that all life can be traced back to a single living organism, that somehow found its way onto this planet. This then is what i have been talking about, and teach against. Not if each species evolves, because Yes they do, this is not what i have been discussing.

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^

 

[DiscipleDave]

No, this was never what was indicated by the theory of evolution and I am sorry you had teachers who did not understand evolution and taught you badly. As I said earlier, evolution is a concept that does not apply to individuals. It is always about populations. All living things are made of cells. In some populations each individual consists of a single cell, in others each individual is a complex of many cells. The first group are called "Unicellular" from "uni"= "one" and the other is called "multicellular" from "multi"="many". But even unicellular populations are populations, and evolution is change in populations. It is not a matter of being descended from one particular individual. ?

Tell me, i am curious, how do you think life started on this planet ? Be specific. If you say from one living cell, then tell me from wence did this one living cell come from, if as you say, many single cells, from wence did these come from or how were they made.
for in all our technology, we are unable to create any living cell whatsoever. Please tell me, what you believe, how did life start on this planet ?

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^

 

[Deamiter]

i think we are talking about two entirely different things, you are talking about the normal evolution that each species goes through, and this is True, humans are getting taller and taller, and less and less hair. All species evolve to some degree, in that we are not in disagreement. But in all the books that i have read on the subject of evolution ( Darwin and the such ) about the creation of all the species, this is what i am discussing, not the evolving of individual species, but the beginning of LIFE itself on this planet. And those who believe in Evolution, according to all the books that i have read on the matter, are in fact looking for that piece of evidence that would prove their theory about HOW all life appeared on this planet, and they are indeed looking for that missing link, to prove their theory, that humans derived from some other animal, that all life can be traced back to a single living organism, that somehow found its way onto this planet. This then is what i have been talking about, and teach against. Not if each species evolves, because Yes they do, this is not what i have been discussing.

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^

If you were discussing the origin of life itself, why did you claim that the missing link scientists are looking for is "one person with both human and ape parts?" It seems like you're very quickly changing your definition of a missing link as soon as one is demonstrated!

Quite simply, the evolution you accept as "every species evolves" can indeed account for the diversity of life on this planet. Quite simply, when two populations of a single species are genetically seperated (usually geographically) they simply evolve differently. After enough time, it no longer makes sense to call them the same species so they would be labeled differently. They both have the same common ancestors -- both populations are still identified by their common origin. For example, we're still identified by the first vertebrate, the first mammal, the first ape etc... We've just diverged enough that it no longer makes sense to just talk about us as mammals since the common ancestor to all mammals now has a very wide variety of offspring!

Now if you want to talk about where life came from as your 'missing link' that's fine, but why suddenly change it from 'human with ape parts' (which is nonsensical since humans are and always have been classified as apes)?

Talking about the origin of life (abiogenesis, not evolution by the way) is extremely fascinating. Recent research has found a number of self-replicating molecules that are likely similar to the original replicators that went on to become the first cellular organisms. It's a pretty speculative field, but it shouldn't be too difficult to understand how once a structure starts replicating, those that replicate more and faster will become dominant -- the very basis of evolution.

Anyway, let's stick to a single topic. If you want to talk about human evolution from a common ancestor with other apes, that's great. If you want to talk about abiogenesis, I'd love to! But let's go into some depth on a single topic so we're not flailing around asking and answering a slew of barely-related questions.

 

[gluadys]

i think we are talking about two entirely different things, you are talking about the normal evolution that each species goes through, and this is True, humans are getting taller and taller, and less and less hair. All species evolve to some degree, in that we are not in disagreement. But in all the books that i have read on the subject of evolution ( Darwin and the such ) about the creation of all the species, this is what i am discussing, not the evolving of individual species, but the beginning of LIFE itself on this planet.

In that case, you are reading the wrong books, books that mislead you as to what evolution is all about. I strongly recommend looking at the Understanding Evolution site hosted by the University of California at Berkeley. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ to get a primer on evolution, and then if you want to explore further, look for a first-year college text-book on the subject.

Briefly, though, evolution is not about the origin of life. It is, as the title of Darwin's book states, about the origin of species through the changes that occur in species over time.

Naturally, scientists do wonder about the origin of life, and there is a whole field of scientific study on it called abiogenesis. Do a search on "abiogenesis" to find out more about that.

Back to evolution. The topic of evolution covers three basic areas: fact, theory and history. The factual side of it establishes that evolution happens by showing that species do actually change over time. As you say, you have no problem with that. Most people today don't, even those who say they don't believe in evolution.

The theory deals with why and how evolution happens i.e. the natural mechanisms that make evolution happen. Darwin's main contribution to the theory of evolution was to propose the mechanism of natural selection. More recent investigation has led to a better understanding of heredity and genetics and how they work together with natural selection. Again, most people have no real problem with the theory, even though they claim not to believe in evolution. Many, however, do have problems really understanding the theory. A lot of people think the theory of evolution is about species improving or becoming more complex over time. It's not. Evolution is change in a species over time and whether that change is one that makes the species more complex, or simpler, or just different, it is all evolution.

The history of evolution is the area where people have problems. Since evolution is change in species over time, it follows that it has a history. The question is to what extent we can know that history, can trace the evidence back to common ancestors. The evidence strongly suggests that all species are related to each other through a network of common ancestors. We don't know at every point just what that common ancestor was, but to date all the evidence we have points to a single phylogeny (a species "family tree" or "tree of life".) I already gave you a link to the Tree of Life web site.

 

[gluadys]

Tell me, i am curious, how do you think life started on this planet ?

Forgive me if I am making assumptions, but I think the real question you are asking is whether life originated through nature or by the hand of God.

And my answer is that this is the wrong way to look at the question. It is not a proper either-or question. The proper way to see it is not as a choice between one or the other, but to see it as including both.

Current work in the field of abiogenesis strongly suggests that life originated through nature. But that doesn't mean this was not God's purpose in creating nature, nor that God did not play a direct role in creating life.

It is really rather like ordinary reproduction. Are you the child of your human parents or are you one of God's creatures? Stated that way--as an either-or choice--the question makes no sense. Obviously the correct answer is "I am both a child of my human parents and one of God's creatures".

Just so, life itself can be both a product of natural causes and a work of God.

Be specific. If you say from one living cell, then tell me from wence did this one living cell come from, if as you say, many single cells, from wence did these come from or how were they made.
for in all our technology, we are unable to create any living cell whatsoever. Please tell me, what you believe, how did life start on this planet ?

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^

It is probably wise to insert a "yet" in your statement. "we are unable to create any living cell, yet." Whether we ever will or not, I don't know, but it will not surprise me if one day a laboratory announces that they have in fact produced a living cell from pre-cellular replicators. Never count on scientific gaps remaining unfilled.

 

[lucaspa]

If evolution was True, then why are there no NEW kinds of animals being created? ... If evolution was True, should we not have appleorange trees? . Do we have a new Creature which is a Catdog ? Dogs can mate with a cat, and it does not produce anything. Scientists have tried, ON PURPOSE, to create other species of animals, a mixture of two types of animals, and EVERY ONE OF THEM, FAILED,

New species are being formed. Not by "a mixture of two types of animals", but by changing the environment and letting natural selection work.

For instance, dogs are no longer a single species, but genetically are 4 species:
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

My favorite is this laboratory study on using a species of Drosophila (a genus often called "fruit flies"):
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.

Three new species (three different environments). Only 2 of them aren't "fruit" flies anymore. They are "bread" flies or "meat" flies since that is the diet the population is now adapted to.

In plants, it is easier to do hybridization to get new species. Humans have done this with a wheat/rye hybrid to produce triticale, which is a whole new genus of several species.

Other examples of hybridization leading to new plant species are:
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 (sunflowers)
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

What you have is a strawman version of evolution. Evolution would NOT allow a "catdog". Cats and dogs are evolutionary cousins that arose from a common ancestor. Changes from one species to another are small. It is only the accumulation of small changes as you start from species A1 and then split to two lineages -- A and 1 -- that leads to species B then C then D in one lineage and species 2 then 3 then 4 in the other lineage. Species D and 4 correspond roughly to your fictional "catdog". They have each accumulated different changes from the common ancestor so that they are very different now.

Let the Scriptures be True and humans a liar.

Sorry, but the correct statement is:

Let God be true in His Creation and the human interpretation of scripture a liar.

I choose God. Too bad you don't.

 

[lucaspa]

Tell me, i am curious, how do you think life started on this planet ? Be specific. If you say from one living cell, then tell me from wence did this one living cell come from,

Sure, no problem. The first cell came from chemistry.

Start at this website -- read it all the way thru -- and then we can discuss the subject in much more detail if you would like:
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

I have to tell you, tho, that you are doing some very, very bad theology. You are making 2 mistakes:

1. You think evolution is atheism. That is not the case.
2. You are using god-of-the-gaps theology. You think if you can find a "gap" in our knowledge of the history of life, then that means "God did it". That's really, really bad theology. Because the corollary to your reasoning is: if there is no gap, then God is absent! And THAT is the basic statement of faith of atheism.

You can't argue for God if you accept atheism as being true!

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ

Please don't call on Jesus when you busy denying him.

 

[DiscipleDave]

Sure, no problem. The first cell came from chemistry.

Start at this website -- read it all the way thru -- and then we can discuss the subject in much more detail if you would like:
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

I have to tell you, tho, that you are doing some very, very bad theology. You are making 2 mistakes:

1. You think evolution is atheism. That is not the case.
2. You are using god-of-the-gaps theology. You think if you can find a "gap" in our knowledge of the history of life, then that means "God did it". That's really, really bad theology. Because the corollary to your reasoning is: if there is no gap, then God is absent! And THAT is the basic statement of faith of atheism.

You can't argue for God if you accept atheism as being true!


Please don't call on Jesus when you busy denying him.

Why would you say such an evil thing about me ?
Why would you say that i am busy denying Him ??? He is my life, He is my everything, i only obey Him and i never obey satan and commit any sin whatsoever against my Master and Savior Jesus Christ. i only obey Him, therefore He speaks with me, and i with Him, i communicate with Him and He with me, and i do not knowingly and willingly commit any sin at all against Him, he is my Master and Lord, and only Him do i obey, tell me, why do you say such evil things against me ? What have i did unto you, or said about You personally that you have to attack me is this manner ? reread all my posts, i have not attacked you personally at all, nor do i know you, to do so, i know you not, What i do know is what Christ tells me, that i teach, and because i teach what He tells me, you say i am denying Him. Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord, but i hope and pray even now, that He does not come upon you in anger, for so accusing me, a servant of Jesus Christ, of denying Him. Know you not that blaspheme of the Holy Ghost is not forgiven unto humans, not in this life nor the life to come. Therefore do not call that which is Good evil, i have said no evil thing, nor any untruth comes from my lips, my thoughts are on Christ 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, never giving place for satan to creep into my thoughts and i commit sin of any kind against my Lord Jesus Christ, i say the Lords prayer minimum 5 times daily, and hear the New Testament on CD every three days, so then i hear it about twice a week, i have spoke with and seen angels, and spoke with Jesus Himself, and He with me, and all that i teach, He has taught me, there is no lie in my lips, but only Truth, Why then do you say such evil things against another, that they deny Jesus, Tell me then, if you are going to accuse me of this evil thing, tell me how i have done this ? And What have i did to you, to cause you to be so angry to say such a thing against another human, that Christ loves.
i will pray for you, i will.

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^

 

[DiscipleDave]

Do you believe Scriptures, when it says God created the Earth in 6 days ?
Do you believe Scriptures, When it says God flooded the entire Earth ?
Do you believe Scriptures, When it says God sent His only Son to the Earth to be a sacrifice ?

You do well if you believe all three, for it is what Scriptures teach, But if you do not believe all three, then you do not believe Scriptures, but lack Faith that they are True and accurate. And you rely more on what humans say and teach moreso then what Scriptures teach. Therefore children who believe all three, will be your judges.

1Cor:1:20: Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Does the wisdom of this world teach, the Earth is billions of years old ?

1Cor:1:27: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Is it not foolishness to this world to believe God created the EArth in 6 days as Scriptures teach, which is contrary to what we see in Nature ?

1Cor:2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Do i believe God created the Earth in 6 days based on what i see naturally, or do i believe it because it is what the spirit teaches me?

1Cor:3:19: For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, i can see why.

i believe Scriptures, Do you believe what Scriptures teach, or do you make excuses not to believe what it teaches ?

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^

 

[pastorkevin73]

2. You are using god-of-the-gaps theology. You think if you can find a "gap" in our knowledge of the history of life, then that means "God did it". That's really, really bad theology.

God-of-the-gaps is not bad theology. What is bad theology is not realizing that God did it all, whether we have a scientific explaination or not. Fact is, God created the universe and all life. When we don't give God credit for what He has done shows a lack of reverence and fear of Him.

 

[Dannager]

Do you believe Scriptures, when it says God created the Earth in 6 days ?

No.

Do you believe Scriptures, When it says God flooded the entire Earth ?

No.

Do you believe Scriptures, When it says God sent His only Son to the Earth to be a sacrifice ?

Yes.

You do well if you believe all three, for it is what Scriptures teach,

No, it's not.

But if you do not believe all three, then you do not believe Scriptures, but lack Faith that they are True and accurate.

I lack faith in their factual accuracy, but not in their truth.

And you rely more on what humans say and teach moreso then what Scriptures teach.

A) Humans wrote scripture.
B) I rely on reality. It's got a pretty good track record. You might want to try it out one of these days.

Therefore children who believe all three, will be your judges.

Children who believe all three are being led astray.