As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[Speedwell]

A

what? we know that a robot is made by d esign and not by a natrual process over millions of years. therefore a penguin ( a self replicating robot) is also the result of instant creation.

A penguin is not a self-replicating robot.

A robot made by design is not an "instant creation." The creation of a robot requires a process: concept, design and manufacture. Robots do not just pop into existence from nothing fully formed.

 

[Tom 1]

but we can say the same for creation for instance. so i dont see a real difference.

If you mean creationism, as in the attempts to apply biblical passages to the practice of science, I don't think that has the same solid basis in science. Trying to use science to pose the question 'how did God do it' is a bit of a non-starter I think, in that it's never going to be as effective as focusing on how things work, which to my mind anyway is what science is basically for, i.e. how things work and how can we use that to our advantage. I think perspective is important - knowing something about the bible doesn't give anyone the ability to figure out whether this or that scientific theory is accurate or not. Nothing in the bible attempts to provide an explanation relevant to how we now, in the modern era, think about 'creation' in the sense of what it's made of, how it works etc. Genesis provides a narrative to illustrate the order of things, and the nature of mankind, God, and a whole load of other lessons that are useful for living but have nothing to do with the functioning of the natural world. To understand the creation narrative it is necessary first to understand the overall worldview of the time and place in which it was written, what their preoccupations were, what they understood by the concept of creation, and so on. Without that context you end up just pulling random ideas out of a hat.

 

[Speedwell]

Keep in mind that although Xianghua represents himself as a Jew, he seems to know little or nothing about the theology of that religion, nor of any other religion, and never uses the Bible or religion as justification for his position.

 

[Job 33:6]

When so much effort is made, quite rightly, to try and preserve endangered species, it is actually a denial of natural selection and therefore of one of the foundations of evolution. This is because those who are striving to stop the extinction of endangered species are working against the survival of the fittest, which is one of the main principles of evolution. Therefore these people don't believe in evolution in practice, even though they might say they do with their mouths.

Ascetic values are values of their own right. A peacocks feathers are attractive, and so serve as a means of supporting it's survive through attracting a mate.

When we see beauty in the animal kingdom, we are not defying evolution, rather we are simply manipulating its course. We are substituting natural selection with an artificial constructed form of selection. We appreciate the beauty of the animal kingdom, so we remove some of our natural selection pressure from it.

And believing in the reality of evolution, doesn't mean that we cannot or should not, manipulate evolution through artificial means. I believe in the evolution of vegetables, all plants evolve and change over time, but I also believe in having good quality food on my table, and so I condone the artificial manipulation of the evolution of vegetables. So that I can enjoy dinner. May the most perfect and delicious vegetable survive above all others.

 

[Astrophile]

but we never seen how a creature can evolve into a different creature. we only see variations (all dogs for instance are still dogs). so we cant realy observe evolution.

Yes, and humans are still apes.

 

[Astrophile]

the problem with that is that it base on assumption. for instance: we can arrange designed objects in hierarchy:

but as we know this doesn't prove they evolved from each other. (image from http://www.33lease.com/commercial-vehicles/)

the second problem is that we find many out of place fossils. so many fossils don't fit with the evolutionary hierarchy. so if a fossil in the correct place is evidence for evolution then an out of place fossil should be evidence against it. right?

Do you still not understand the difference between the way that designed objects are made and the way that living things are made? Take whales as an example. No fossil whales have been found in Mesozoic rocks. Do you infer from this fact that the first whales that are preserved as fossils in Cenozoic rocks came into existence by spontaneous generation from water, that they were made in a 'whale factory' after the end of the Mesozoic era and put into the oceans, that they were descended from Mesozoic animals that were not whales, or that fossil whales are not the remains of living animals at all but were put in the rocks during the days of creation when the Earth was formed?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Why ask how the human eye developed? Our ancestors going back at least four hundred million years had eyes. It is not as if we needed to develop an eye just for ourselves.

The odds of the human eye developing was one. No zeroes needed.

So, 400 million years ago, our ancestors were just like us! No further evolutionary development! That's significant. By the way, where are all the remains of the people that have been around, lived and died for the last 400 million years, unless there was a big flood at some time that washed everything away!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The fossil record is pretty convincing, and changes in some organisms can be observed. I don't get why some Christians have an issue with evolution, and othe scientific theories - it seems to suggest a belief that God is somehow defined by the basic notions we get from reading the bible, all of which was written in a completely different time. All these kind of arguments do is to get in the way of understanding what the bible actually conveys.

Among the fossil record there is the imprint of an ordinary human foot. Oh! The human foot, just like ours evolved first and then stopped evolving!

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, 400 million years ago, our ancestors were just like us! No further evolutionary development! That's significant. By the way, where are all the remains of the people that have been around, lived and died for the last 400 million years, unless there was a big flood at some time that washed everything away!

I did not say that or imply that. Four hundred million years ago our ancestors were what you would call "fish".

And no, even a ninth grader can understand why there was no flood. You are all over the place in your arguments. I suggest you try to focus on one idea at a time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Among the fossil record there is the imprint of an ordinary human foot. Oh! The human foot, just like ours evolved first and then stopped evolving!

Where? The oldest human footprint would not be over 300,000 years old. And even since then we can observe evolutionary changes.

Make your claims, try to use valid links, not creationists sites since to even work at most of those one must swear not to use the scientific method.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Where? The oldest human footprint would not be over 300,000 years old. And even since then we can observe evolutionary changes.

Make your claims, try to use valid links, not creationists sites since to even work at most of those one must swear not to use the scientific method.

You can use Google as well as I can. I haven't got time. I need to go to work. To satisfy your curiosity, have a go at looking it up yourself and see if you can find a reference to it. I read it somewhere, but I can't remember.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can use Google as well as I can. I haven't got time. I need to go to work. To satisfy your curiosity, have a go at looking it up yourself and see if you can find a reference to it. I read it somewhere, but I can't remember.

That is not the way that it works. When you make a claim you must be ready to support it with a valid source. I have to do the same if I make a claim. If you can't support your claims then you have in effect refuted yourself.

 

[VirOptimus]

You can use Google as well as I can. I haven't got time. I need to go to work. To satisfy your curiosity, have a go at looking it up yourself and see if you can find a reference to it. I read it somewhere, but I can't remember.

Thats not how it works, but we already know you are in error and cant support your claims.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Thats not how it works, but we already know you are in error and cant support your claims.

Fossil Footprints | Genesis Park
Mysterious fossil footprints may cast doubt on human evolution timeline
Fossilized Human Footprint Found Nestled in a Giant Sloth Footprint

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fossil Footprints | Genesis Park
Mysterious fossil footprints may cast doubt on human evolution timeline
Fossilized Human Footprint Found Nestled in a Giant Sloth Footprint

LOL! What a mess. You start with a bogus source with bogus prints. The second source shows Australopithecus prints, and the third are modern human footprints. Which would you like to discuss first?

 

[VirOptimus]

Fossil Footprints | Genesis Park
Mysterious fossil footprints may cast doubt on human evolution timeline
Fossilized Human Footprint Found Nestled in a Giant Sloth Footprint

....

Yes, I was correct.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

LOL! What a mess. You start with a bogus source with bogus prints. The second source shows Australopithecus prints, and the third are modern human footprints. Which would you like to discuss first?

I don't think it would matter what sources I reference, you would not agree with them, so I don't see the point. As long as science refuses to allow the Divine a foot in the door concerning the origin of the universe, then we are not going to get anywhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think it would matter what sources I reference, you would not agree with them, so I don't see the point. As long as science refuses to allow the Divine a foot in the door concerning the origin of the universe, then we are not going to get anywhere.

You had one bogus source, a hoax that has been thoroughly refuted. And two proper sources that you did not understand. The human footprint and the giant ground sloth are very recent, within 15,000 years in all likelihood. They did not die out that long ago, and man was the likely cause:

Megatherium - Wikipedia

Your second example was an Australopithecus or closely related species' footprint, not a human one. Guess what? We already knew that Lucy was bipedal. That only tells us that their range was larger than first thought.

You are grasping at straws and demonstrating a lack of understanding of what you are debating against.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think it would matter what sources I reference, you would not agree with them, so I don't see the point. As long as science refuses to allow the Divine a foot in the door concerning the origin of the universe, then we are not going to get anywhere.

Nothing that science has discovered or in principle could discover can disprove the existence of God. The existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition and thus cannot be disproven by science--and all scientists know it, theists and atheists alike. Biblical creationism, on the other hand, has been a dead letter these past two hundred years and more.

 

[46AND2]

Keep in mind that although Xianghua represents himself as a Jew, he seems to know little or nothing about the theology of that religion, nor of any other religion, and never uses the Bible or religion as justification for his position.

One of the many reasons I think he's a Poe. A remarkably dedicated one, to be sure.