Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[Platte]

Hard to explain then, why Darwin attributed the origin of life to God. You and I seem to have very different ideas of what an "atheist" is. I always thought atheists deny the existence of God. You might want to go and check that out again.


Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. How, exactly, do you think the universe has a genome? Sure there are lots of other natural processes out there, besides biological evolution. But they aren't part of evolutionary theory.


Well, that's a testable assumption...

Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.

Evolution Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary

Learn Evolution definition, examples, and more. Answer - Evolution Biology Quiz!

www.biologyonline.com

Always a bad idea to be napping in science class.


I do. I even taught biology classes in grad school. But this is middle school science. You should know about this kind of thing.
This kind of thing is curable. Libraries are free. Use one.

Darwin was a self announced agnostic.

The study of evolution begins with the Big Bang and the process that led to life evolving from a muddy mix. There is nothing about God or Creation in the study of evolution or the Big Bang. It is an atheistic world view.

 

[Platte]

So is Physics.

Nope. IT's based on observation.

"these things" are rubbish.

Evolution and the Big Bang is a direct alternative to what the Bible teaches and what God has said. It is an alternative to the Bible explanation as to how we and the universe came to be. It teaches that there is no God that created the universe.

These things are NOT rubbish. They are important distinctions. .

 

[trophy33]

There are no scientific details. No more than there are Hans Christian Anderson details. So how could the bible include them? God did not use modern science. Any limited little understanding man attains about how His creation works does not mean God was limited to that! Once man begins to really understand how things work, he will comprehend that God speaking results in things happening. Science has not begun to understand that yet. They should not dare to say that creation needed to consist of 'scientific details' God formed a man like we form a clay vessel. What kind of dirt He used does not matter. God made woman from a bone. What bone does not matter. What matters is that the details and sequence and order He gave are accepted. Or not

I am glad we agree that Genesis contains no details in the scientific way. Therefore, it cannot be in any conflict with science.

Regarding your literal, but unattentive reading of symbolic texts (like man being formed from dust, not dirt, btw; dust cannot be formed like clay) - it may work only till we does not use it to contradict scientific facts.

The bible is not a non literal genre. Other books must fall in line.

This sentence does not make any sense. Bible is a relatively modern chosen library of various ancient books and genres - mythological concepts, poetry, proverbs, parables, apocalyptic literature, songs (none of these is literal), history, letters to churches and others. Many times literal and non-literal devices are mixed in one book.

Only after Hebrew came to Exist. God gave Hebrews the names, so naturally they would now be considered Hebrew names.

This is just a wild imagination of yours. Much more simple explanation is that when Hebrews wrote and composed their origin story as a part of their Mosaic Law, they used the places and words they knew.

Chapter and verse?

And a river proceeds out of Edem to water the garden, thence it divides itself into four heads.
The name of the one, Phison, this it is which encircles the whole land of Evilat, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good, there also is carbuncle and emerald. 13 And the name of the second river is Geon, this it is which encircles the whole land of Ethiopia. 14 And the third river is Tigris, this is that which flows forth over against the Assyrians. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
Gen 2:10-14, Septuagint Brenton

 

[truthpls]

I am glad we agree that Genesis contains no details in the scientific way. Therefore, it cannot be in any conflict with science.

False. Just because man cannot yet recognize the science in Genesis to any great degree does not mean that Genesis does not conflict with falsely called science. The measure of a creation account from God is not whether it conforms to man's current knowledge

Regarding your literal, but unattentive reading of symbolic texts (like man being formed from dust, not dirt, btw; dust cannot be formed like clay) - it may work only till we does not use it to contradict scientific facts.

Believing what God said is not 'unattentive' Dust can be formed when God is doing the forming.

This sentence does not make any sense. Bible is a relatively modern chosen library of various ancient books and genres -

Jesus affirmed that it is true. Both the prophets and Moses, and the future words He promised to send. The bible is just a name for the package.

mythological concepts, poetry, proverbs, parables, apocalyptic literature, songs (none of these is literal), history, letters to churches and others. Many times literal and non-literal devices are mixed in one book.

If you are talking about Scripture you display a lack of understanding

Much more simple explanation is that when Hebrews wrote and composed their origin story as a part of their Mosaic Law, they used the places and words they knew.

That is baseless doubt, not an explanation. The only explanation is that Jesus was right about the Scripture

And a river proceeds out of Edem to water the garden, thence it divides itself into four heads.
The name of the one, Phison, this it is which encircles the whole land of Evilat, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good, there also is carbuncle and emerald. 13 And the name of the second river is Geon, this it is which encircles the whole land of Ethiopia. 14 And the third river is Tigris, this is that which flows forth over against the Assyrians. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
Gen 2:10-14, Septuagint Brenton

There were four rivers. Your point..?

 

[trophy33]

False. Just because man cannot yet recognize the science in Genesis to any great degree does not mean that Genesis does not conflict with falsely called science. The measure of a creation account from God is not whether it conforms to man's current knowledge

Not false. Just because man cannot yet recognize that Genesis is not a scientific book does not mean that Genesis should be read that way.

Believing what God said is not 'unattentive' Dust can be formed when God is doing the forming.

Your reading was unattentive because you used dirt instead of dust. Dust has specific biblical symbolism - mortality. Dirt, which is what you used, is not in the text. Genesis communicates that people are mortal, not that they are dirty.

Jesus affirmed that it is true. Both the prophets and Moses, and the future words He promised to send. The bible is just a name for the package.

Jesus used religious texts of the Jews to support His teachings. Jesus did not affirm anything else.

If you are talking about Scripture you display a lack of understanding

If you do not know that Bible contains various non-literal genres - mythological elements, proverbs, songs, parables etc, then its you who display a lack of (basic) knowledge about the Bible.

That is baseless doubt, not an explanation. The only explanation is that Jesus was right about the Scripture

Its not a baseless doubt, its the simplest explanation. Jesus was right about the Scripture, but you are not.

There were four rivers. Your point..?

Did you forget what we are discussing? Try to pay more attention so that we do not run in circles. Again: "Eden existed in the same time in which Cush (or Greek: Ethiopia) and Asshur (or Greek: Assyria) existed."

 

[The Barbarian]

Darwin was a self announced agnostic.

Well, let's see what Darwin says...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Looks like someone took advantage of your trust.

The study of evolution begins with the Big Bang

They lied to you about that, too. I took my first course in evolution back in the 1960s, and nothing at all about how that stuff happened. Don't be so trusting.

and the process that led to life evolving from a muddy mix.

Nothing about the origin of life, either. Darwin's comment about God breathing life into the first living things was a religious comment, not a scientific one.

There is nothing about God or Creation in the study of evolution

Nothing about God or Creation in chemistry, physics, geology, genetics, hydraulics, etc. either. Can you guess why?

Science is too weak a method to consider the supernatural. Science can't consider God.

But (as Darwin shows us) scientists can. Learn from this.

Darwin's theory:
More are born than can survive to reproduce.
Every individual is somewhat different than its parents.
Some of these differences affect the likelihood of survival.
The good differences tend to accumulate, and the bad ones tend to be removed, and this accounts for the evolution of new species.

I don't see anything about the Big Bang or the origin of life there. They lied to you. Go and check for yourself.
Then you won't be their victim any longer.

 

[o_mlly]

Who is "us"? You are the only one who reports to have a problem with it.

You seem to be behind in your reading:

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newman

thenewamerican.com

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.
The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually.

"Often defined"? You picked just one (Ernst Mayr's) of the many current debatable definitions for the highly problematic notion of the word "species".

Species - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It seems Mayr's notion of species lacks for many scientists the necessary scientific rigor:
"Ernst Mayr emphasized reproductive isolation, but this, like other species concepts, is hard or even impossible to test."

So, in your Tree of Life you dismiss the theory of evolution because it offers no explanatory value for all living organisms that do not interbreed in nature. That's a good start. Now, would you exclude all so-called "species" from your Tree that are extinct? How about so-called "species" from hybridization? Tell us your position of "ring species"; are they in or out of your Tree of Life?

Here is the genetic study of observed speciation I already posted before, but you ignored it:

Really, yet another finch claim?

The study at the get-go violates your purported definition of "species".

“Through our work on Daphne Major, we were able to observe the pairing up of two birds from different species and then follow what happened to see how speciation occurred.”​

It seems evolutionists need to tighten up their theory. As it stands now, the laxity in definitions of terms and lack of agreement among its proponents degrades the theory to merely imagination which is not science.

 

[o_mlly]

Darwin's comment about God breathing life into the first living things was a religious comment, not a scientific one.

Do let us know when your science offers a better explanation on the evolution of living things from non-living things.

... it may work only till we does not use it to contradict scientific facts.

You do know that there are no "scientific facts", don't you? All science is merely provisional and remains in the realm of doubt.

Doubt exists if there is any possibility at all (1) of its claims being challenged in the light of additional or more accurate observations or (2) of its claims being criticized on the basis of more cogent or more comprehensive reasoning.

 

[The Barbarian]

You seem to be behind in your reading:

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newman

thenewamerican.com

That's an old list from the Discovery Institute, about "scientists who doubt Darwin." It contained people listed as "science worker", "metallurgist" and so on. But many of them were real scientists, even if not very many of them were biologists.

So I took a look at comparing that with Project Steve. You can be part of Project Steve if you have a doctorate in biology or a related field, accept evolutionary theory, and be named "Steve" or some variant like Stephany. So I counted up all the biologist Steves on the DI list and compared them to the list on Project Steve. There were about 34 times as many Steves on the Project Steve list.

Unfortunately, the DI was withdrawn their list. It's a dead link at the DI now. So we can't get a current test. Project Steve is still up, though. Currently there are 1497 Steves on board. I'll see if I can find the DI list somewhere for an update.

But I'm sure you see why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for Creationists.

"Often defined"? You picked just one (Ernst Mayr's) of the many current debatable definitions for the highly problematic notion of the word "species".

Yes. This is a huge problem for creationists. If YE creationism were true, we'd see nice neat categories of species, each separately created. But instead, we see all sorts of transitional forms between species in many cases. Some creationists have retreated a bit and now allow for evolution of new species, genera, and maybe families. But this only moves the problem forward.

 

[The Barbarian]

Darwin's comment about God breathing life into the first living things was a religious comment, not a scientific one.

Do let us know when your science offers a better explanation on the evolution of living things from non-living things.

Biological evolution only refers to the way populations of living things change. Forget Pokemon. It's not really like that. You're talking about abiogenesis, an entirely different theory. However, science has a lot of evidence that God was right when He said that life was brought forth by non-living matter. Would you like to start a thread about that?

You do know that there are no "scientific facts", don't you?

Of course there are. You've confused facts with theories. Theories make predictions. When facts are found that fit the predictions, theory is confirmed. Theories are always provisional on new evidence. But evidence is fact.

All science is merely provisional and remains in the realm of doubt.

In the sense that there's a possibility of all the oxygen molecules in the room moving to one corner and suffocating you. Possible, but rather unlikely. That's how it is with theories. Some are better-confirmed than others, of course.

Evolution is an observed fact; the genome of populations change with time. Evolutionary theory explains it.

Gravitation is an oberved fact; things fall down. Gravitational theory explains it.

The difference is, we know why evolution works. We still aren't exactly sure why gravitation works.

 

[trophy33]

You seem to be behind in your reading:

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newman

thenewamerican.com

They are not here, only you.

"Often defined"? You picked just one (Ernst Mayr's) of the many current debatable definitions for the highly problematic notion of the word "species".

Species - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It seems Mayr's notion of species lacks for many scientists the necessary scientific rigor:
"Ernst Mayr emphasized reproductive isolation, but this, like other species concepts, is hard or even impossible to test."

I like it for its simplicity and its frequent use. I do not need any other, for now.

So, in your Tree of Life you dismiss the theory of evolution because it offers no explanatory value for all living organisms that do not interbreed in nature. That's a good start. Now, would you exclude all so-called "species" from your Tree that are extinct? How about so-called "species" from hybridization? Tell us your position of "ring species"; are they in or out of your Tree of Life?

Sorry, I am not a scientist, so I will leave these specifics either to somebody who is more into it or to scientific debates.

Really, yet another finch claim?

The study at the get-go violates your purported definition of "species".

“Through our work on Daphne Major, we were able to observe the pairing up of two birds from different species and then follow what happened to see how speciation occurred.”​

I read the whole article and it seems compatible with "my" definition of species. Do you want to evade the study so cheaply, though? Just by saying "another finch claim"?

It seems evolutionists need to tighten up their theory. As it stands now, the laxity in definitions of terms and lack of agreement among its proponents degrades the theory to merely imagination which is not science.

Actually, the theory is developing the whole time and its the way it should be, in science. Nature is not simple and mechanisms are complex, its understandable that Darwin did not get everything 100% right.

 

[trophy33]

You do know that there are no "scientific facts", don't you? All science is merely provisional and remains in the realm of doubt.

Of course there are scientific facts. Only the usage of the word is a bit different from the common usage, similarly to the word "theory", for example.

What Do We Mean By Facts? - Field Museum

www.fieldmuseum.org

 

[Platte]

Well, let's see what Darwin says...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one;
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Looks like someone took advantage of your trust.

They lied to you about that, too. I took my first course in evolution back in the 1960s, and nothing at all about how that stuff happened. Don't be so trusting.

Nothing about the origin of life, either. Darwin's comment about God breathing life into the first living things was a religious comment, not a scientific one.

Nothing about God or Creation in chemistry, physics, geology, genetics, hydraulics, etc. either. Can you guess why?

Science is too weak a method to consider the supernatural. Science can't consider God.

But (as Darwin shows us) scientists can. Learn from this.

Darwin's theory:
More are born than can survive to reproduce.
Every individual is somewhat different than its parents.
Some of these differences affect the likelihood of survival.
The good differences tend to accumulate, and the bad ones tend to be removed, and this accounts for the evolution of new species.

I don't see anything about the Big Bang or the origin of life there. They lied to you. Go and check for yourself.
Then you won't be their victim any longer.

By the time of his death in 1882, he was happy to call himself an “agnostic”—a word invented by his friend Thomas Henry Huxley to denote an inability to reach certainty about the existence or non-existence of God.

The origins of life are outlined by God in Genesis in great detail. Evolution contradicts what God specifically did in 6 days approx 6000 years ago. That’s the difference between evolution and the other branches of science

 

[Platte]

Of course there are scientific facts. Only the usage of the word is a bit different from the common usage, similarly to the word "theory", for example.

What Do We Mean By Facts? - Field Museum

www.fieldmuseum.org

Lol

 

[trophy33]

Lol

Cool.

 

[o_mlly]

So I took a look at comparing that with Project Steve. You can be part of Project Steve if you have a doctorate in biology or a related field, accept evolutionary theory, and be named "Steve" or some variant like Stephany. So I counted up all the biologist Steves on the DI list and compared them to the list on Project Steve. There were about 34 times as many Steves on the Project Steve list.

What's your point? Project Steve is a lark.

You must have a lot of time on your hands. Lucky you.

Yes. This is a huge problem for creationists.

Nonsense. Defining "species" is the responsibility of the proponent of the theory. So far, not so good.

If YE creationism were true, we'd see nice neat categories of species, each separately created.

Uh, were going to need you to give us your definition of "species" first. You have plenty to choose from but do choose just one.

Of course there are. You've confused facts with theories.

Do try to keep up. The topic is the Theory of Evolution.

Evolution is an observed fact; the genome of populations change with time.

Nope. We don't need evolution theory to see that my siblings and I are alike and different. Microevolution is accepted. Macroevolution, no.

Let's satisfy the OP's question. Do you believe that the Theory of Evolution explains fully Homo sapiens?

 

[o_mlly]

They are not here, only you.

They are here. Do you not read all the posts?

Actually, the theory is developing the whole time and its the way it should be, in science.

At best, and I'm being quite generous, the Theory of Evolution is a historiographical science. The claims of the historiographical sciences are often contrived and always lacking the greater certainty of the empirical sciences.

 

[The Barbarian]

So I took a look at comparing that with Project Steve. You can be part of Project Steve if you have a doctorate in biology or a related field, accept evolutionary theory, and be named "Steve" or some variant like Stephany. So I counted up all the biologist Steves on the DI list and compared them to the list on Project Steve. There were about 34 times as many Steves on the Project Steve list.

What's your point?

The bandwagon argument is a huge mistake for you. As you now see, only a tiny minority of biologists doubt evolutionary theorly.

You must have a lot of time on your hands. Lucky you.

Wasn't hard. Just looked up the numbers and compared them. It could have saved you a lot of embarrassment, if you had done it.

Explaining why the creationist prediction of nice, well-defined species has been falsified is a huge problem for creationists.

Nonsense.

Nope. Explaining why your beliefs don't match reality is your problem. BTW, Darwin's theory predicted such transitional forms between species.
Some YE creationists have dealt with this by retreating a bit and admitting the evolution of lower taxa. It still leaves the problems of transitionals between higher taxa, however.

Microevolution is accepted. Macroevolution, no.

That won't help you. "Microevolution" is evolution within a species. "Macroevolution" is speciation.

Let's satisfy the OP's question. Do you believe that the Theory of Evolution explains fully Homo sapiens?

It can't explain the living soul that God gives each of us directly. Our bodies are formed naturally. Our souls are not.

 

[The Barbarian]

At best, and I'm being quite generous, the Theory of Evolution is a historiographical science.

Well, that's a testable assumption. (Barbarian does a quick literature search)

The genomic basis of adaptive evolution in threespine sticklebacks​

Jones, F., Grabherr, M., Chan, Y. et al. The genomic basis of adaptive evolution in threespine sticklebacks. Nature 484, 55–61 (2012). The genomic basis of adaptive evolution in threespine sticklebacks - Nature

Abstract​

Marine stickleback fish have colonized and adapted to thousands of streams and lakes formed since the last ice age, providing an exceptional opportunity to characterize genomic mechanisms underlying repeated ecological adaptation in nature. Here we develop a high-quality reference genome assembly for threespine sticklebacks. By sequencing the genomes of twenty additional individuals from a global set of marine and freshwater populations, we identify a genome-wide set of loci that are consistently associated with marine–freshwater divergence. Our results indicate that reuse of globally shared standing genetic variation, including chromosomal inversions, has an important role in repeated evolution of distinct marine and freshwater sticklebacks, and in the maintenance of divergent ecotypes during early stages of reproductive isolation. Both coding and regulatory changes occur in the set of loci underlying marine–freshwater evolution, but regulatory changes appear to predominate in this well known example of repeated adaptive evolution in nature.

Directly observed, and genetically verified. If you want to discuss evolution knowledgeably, you've got a lot of reading to do.

 

[o_mlly]

So I took a look at comparing that with Project Steve. You can be part of Project Steve if you have a doctorate in biology or a related field, accept evolutionary theory, and be named "Steve" or some variant like Stephany. So I counted up all the biologist Steves on the DI list and compared them to the list on Project Steve. There were about 34 times as many Steves on the Project Steve list.

The bandwagon argument is a huge mistake for you. As you now see, only a tiny minority of biologists doubt evolutionary theorly.

? You wrote that you counted all the "Steves" in the DI piece. That sounds pretty tedious and time consuming.

An observation is not an argument. That a thousand scientist had the courage to place their careers in jeopardy to take a stand on the evolution nonsense is remarkable. So, I remarked.

Wasn't hard. Just looked up the numbers and compared them.

? You wrote that you counted all the "Steve's" in the DI list of one thousand scientists. Seem pretty tedious and time-consuming task.

Explaining why the creationist prediction of nice, well-defined species has been falsified is a huge problem for creationists.

Nope. Explaining why your beliefs don't match reality is your problem. BTW, Darwin's theory predicted such transitional forms between species.
Some YE creationists have dealt with this by retreating a bit and admitting the evolution of lower taxa. It still leaves the problems of transitionals between higher taxa, however.
That won't help you. "Microevolution" is evolution within a species. "Macroevolution" is speciation.

The only help I need, again, is your definition of "species". If you're going to keep bantering the word in your posts w/o defining it then no point in continuing this exchange with you. Would you like some more Kool-Aid to help with your assignment?

It can't explain the living soul that God gives each of us directly. Our bodies are formed naturally. Our souls are not.

So, science is at a dead-end with the origin of living beings and an explanation for the highest of those living beings. Bad start with a worse finish. Dust-bin time for your beloved theory.