Evolution is Not Atheistic

[TudorGothicSerpent]

Please give me your foremost and strongest direct evidence that an invertebrate grew a backbone and became a vertebrate.

The absolute strongest evidence is fairly complicated genetic information. Right now, in every cell of your body, you have genetic information that's identical to animals who don't have a spine. Some of it is information that your cells don't use at all anymore, that isn't there for any logical reason. Some of it is junk DNA (or, at least, DNA that has incredibly limited use in your body) that matches the genetic information of animals so primitive that you wouldn't even think about their relationship to you. Some of it, on the other hand, is DNA that your body still uses for the same reason as your incredibly primitive ancestors.

Other than that? The genetic and fossil evidence both suggest that there are animals that developed a notochord (a structure still preserved in fetal vertebrates and in adult examples of basal chordates) and then a true spinal column. There are living "transitional" organisms between primitive invertebrates and modern vertebrates. This animal, a lancelet, is a good example of a chordate that retains basal features from a time prior to the development of vertebrae.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Some Popes accept evolution, others believe in creationism.

Obviously the book of Genesis had some relevance to them in making their decisions.
.
At what point in Genesis are we sure that it is an historical narrative rather than allegorical?
Was Adam an historical person? 4:1
Was Cain an historical person? 4:1
Was Abram (Abraham) an historical person? 15:1
Was Isaac an historical person? 26:1

 

[ecco]

Except that Benedict was the one who declared it virtually inarguable, and Francis is perpetuating that..

That doesn't matter anyway. I was being a bit brash, it's just disappointing to a creationist to see the majority of Catholics simply fall into theistic evolution over that.

A few hundred years ago they, along with their Protestant counterparts, accepted heliocentricity.

It's called progress. It's also called accept reality. It's also called "bend, do not break".

 

[roasthawg]

I'm a Christian that believes the old and new testaments were authored by God thru men and are hence perfect. That said I'm undecided on evolution and the age of the earth (two separate topics). There's not a lot of evidence supporting evolution but I don't believe the bible rules it out either. I mean if there were a video camera around for the creation of Adam what would we see? A whirlwind of dirt forming into a man? Or something else? I dunno.

I do know that time is relative according to Einstein. So when the bible says God created the earth in seven days are those seven days in relation to God's time? If Adam fathered Seth when he was 130 years old are those 130 years in relation to Adam? Time is different for everyone... Very slightly so for those of us living on the earth but possibly drastically different for God. The bible confirms as much when it says that a thousand years is like a day and a day like a thousand years. So those seven days in the Lord's time could be a split second or millions of years or anything in between no?

My point is when the Bible is listing years or days in relation to a man we can approximate a pretty good guess at the relative time since we all experience it so closely. But if the time we are taking about is in relation to the Lord then who can guess what that looks like in relation to our experience of time?

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

A few hundred years ago they, along with their Protestant counterparts, accepted heliocentricity.

It all sounds very Greek to me.

Aristotle

.
The Greeks made it very clear that they saw the earth as the centre of the universe. Both Catholics and Protestants accepted and taught Greek views.

 

[ecco]

here it is http://www.christianforums.com/threads/rejecting-evolution-believing-the-earth-is-flat.7917272/

Thanks. I posted a question for you there.

 

[Meowzltov]

Jesus is a creationist.

How do you know? Do you really think he was going to go around trying to explain evolution without a developed science for people to understand?

 

[ecco]

I'm a Christian that believes the old and new testaments were authored by God thru men and are hence perfect. That said I'm undecided on evolution and the age of the earth

I understand how you can be undecided on the age of the earth. But the bible is very clear on when adam was created.
From then until now, there is not enough time for evolution to have worked.


ETA: Welcome aboard.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

How do you know? Do you really think he was going to go around trying to explain evolution without a developed science for people to understand?

Matthew 19:4
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
Mark 10:6
“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

 

[Butterfly99]

I understand how you can be undecided on the age of the earth. But the bible is very clear on when adam was created.
From then until now, there is not enough time for evolution to have worked.


ETA: Welcome aboard.

How is the Bible very clear on when Adam was created?

 

[ecco]

Butterfly99:

OK. I will. I'm trying to learn the basics for now. ​

Evolution dictates that we were already carnal and wicked, rather than having been created and tempted by Lucifer which is the biblical cause of the Fall.

Stating that "Evolution dictates that we were already carnal and wicked" pretty much rules you out as someone who Butterfly99 should be learning from. If you don't believe in evolution, for whatever reasons, that's OK. Making ridiculous assertions about evolution is not.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Butterfly99:

OK. I will. I'm trying to learn the basics for now. ​

Stating that "Evolution dictates that we were already carnal and wicked" pretty much rules you out as someone who Butterfly99 should be learning from. If you don't believe in evolution, for whatever reasons, that's OK. Making ridiculous assertions about evolution is not.

Have you ever picked up a Bible in your life? Do you understand the concept of there being the Fall in which mankind gained a curse that evolution dictates they would have already had through natural processes?

I think your indoctrinating fixation with evolution has caused you to try and pick sides between an argument you are completely blind on, with no real intent to satisfy a belief in God, and should desist.

 

[SkyWriting]

or creating a model.

How would a model give you repeatable test results?
Please cite your sources.

https://www.google.com/search?pws=0&q=the+scientific+method.&gws_rd=ssl

 

[ecco]

How is the Bible very clear on when Adam was created?

I used adam as a starting point as compared to the creation of the earth because the "length" of the days between those two events can be almost anything.

Bishop Ussher, and others did the math..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

1. Early times (Creation to Solomon). Ostensibly the easiest period, as the Bible provides an unbroken male lineage from Adamthrough to Solomon complete with the ages of the individuals involved. However, not all of the versions of the Bible provide the same ages — the Septuagint gives much longer ages, adding about 1500 years to the date of Creation.[citation needed] Ussher resolved this problem by relying on the Hebrew Bible instead.
2. Early Age of Kings (Solomon to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity). The lineage breaks down at this point, with only the length of the kings' reigns being provided and a number of overlaps and ambiguities complicating the picture. Ussher had to cross-reference the Biblical records with known dates of other people and rulers to create an overall timeline.
3. Late Age of Kings (Ezra and Nehemiah to the birth of Jesus). No information at all is provided in the Bible. Ussher and his counterparts therefore had to try to link a known event from this period with a dateable event in another culture, such as the Chaldeans, Persians or Romans. For instance, the death of the Chaldean King Nebuchadnezzar II (who conquered Jerusalem in 586 BC) could be correlated with the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27).

Another article is here:
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm

 

[Meowzltov]

Does saying that an invertebrate grew a backbone and became a vertebrate, make it true?
There is in reality, not much evidence of this.

There is, in reality, so much evidence for this that only close minded fundamentalists and people who are uneducated in the facts disagree that invertabrates slowly evolved into vertebrates.

 

[ecco]

Have you ever picked up a Bible in your life? Do you understand the concept of there being the Fall in which mankind gained a curse that evolution dictates they would have already had through natural processes?

No, evolution does not dictate they would have already had wickedness through natural processes. Evolution makes no claims regarding things like evil and wickedness.

In your belief - Adam and Eve's indiscretions caused wickedness. In evolution, there is no Adam & Eve. Hence, evolution cannot dictate wickedness.

I think your indoctrinating fixation with evolution has caused you to try and pick sides between an argument you are completely blind on, with no real intent to satisfy a belief in God, and should desist.

Are you suggesting that I was trying to indoctrinate someone when I stated that evolution does not dictate wickedness? I was just correcting your nonsensical comment about evolution.

 

[Meowzltov]

How would a model give you repeatable test results?
Please cite your sources.

Understand what I mean by a model. For example, we see evolution today into whole new species (meaning that the new species can no longer reproduce with the old species, and its offspring is not sterile). Given the long time that life has existed on our planet, we can extrapolate from this model that such evolution would, from a single life form, produce all the different genera and species we find today.

 

[Meowzltov]

Obviously the book of Genesis had some relevance to them in making their decisions.
.
At what point in Genesis are we sure that it is an historical narrative rather than allegorical?
Was Adam an historical person? 4:1
Was Cain an historical person? 4:1
Was Abram (Abraham) an historical person? 15:1
Was Isaac an historical person? 26:1

Although there was undoubtedly a first human being, the Genesis account does not portray him.

Abraham is a historical account, although it blends with legend, much the same way that George Washington is historical, but some of the tales about him are simple legends (such as chopping down the cherry tree). Because Abrahams story is so old and is a blend, it is too difficult for me to know which part is which.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

There is, in reality, so much evidence for this that only close minded fundamentalists and people who are uneducated in the facts disagree that invertabrates slowly evolved into vertebrates.

I didn't require a broad statement that provided no evidence. I just wanted your strongest single evidence (fact) that invertabrates evolved into vertebrates.
As there are no fossils recording this transition, how can you be so sure? We know of fossils that are vertabrates, and fossils that are invertabrates, but there are none transitioning between the two.
.
SCIENCE: worm >>> fish

 

[Meowzltov]

Matthew 19:4
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
Mark 10:6
“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

According to everything science knows about evolution, the first human beings were male and female. Human beings were never androgynous. Androgynous species were millions of years back down the evolutionary chain.