Destroying Evolution in less than 5 minutes

[FaithT]

Remember you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution... there are Christian scientists in the very thread who accept evolution.

Yeah why is it that whenever we discuss evolution some people have to go back to the accusation that we’re all atheists? I’m Catholic and it’s acceptable for a Catholic to believe in it and I do.

 

[River Jordan]

But the real question is: how many of those differences had to be functional to account for the profound anatomical, cognitive, and behavioural differences between humans and chimps?

You're not assuming the modern human genome evolved from the modern chimp genome, are you?

The concern isn’t that all changes are one-at-a-time

It most certainly is. A single copying event can account for thousands of base pair differences. Are you aware of CNVs?

or all beneficial, it’s that beneficial mutations must become fixed in the population, which takes time and reproductive cost.

You're just repeating your error of assuming that all the mutations must be beneficial. How many of the differences are in sequence types like microsats, or retrotransposons for example?

 

[NBB]

Sir, this is a science subfora.

Why you think scientists make science, because they have a personal experience inside, God can be as real as anything else.

 

[Shemjaza]

You're right that interpretation has varied throughout history, sometimes with serious consequences. But differing interpretations don't mean all interpretations are equally valid. The goal is to interpret Scripture faithfully and consistently, using context, genre, and the original languages. It’s not about claiming personal authority, but about seeking truth with humility.

Yet you are right here claiming that your interpretation is correct?

Yeah why is it that whenever we discuss evolution some people have to go back to the accusation that we’re all atheists? I’m Catholic and it’s acceptable for a Catholic to believe in it and I do.

It's an easier argument to ignore. If everyone you are arguing with is a faithless atheist then who cares what they claim? My favourite statistic is that in most of the west, evolution accepting Christians outnumber atheists of all varieties.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If intelligent humans can’t produce life from non-life or build a human from scratch, that highlights just how incredibly complex life is. If even intelligence struggles with this, how much more unlikely is it that blind, unguided processes, without any mind or purpose, could do it by chance?
Randomness has no intelligence, yet we’re told it produced birds, humans, dogs, fish, and everything else.
But you do have intelligence. So, if unguided chance can supposedly create a leaf, go ahead, make a leaf from raw, non-living matter. Start there.

But that wouldn't prove that evolution is factual, just that humans are able to create life from non-life. It'd still be something you and others would rail against, since it would literally be playing God.

It's also not something that evolution claims at all, since evolution is how life evolved to fit the environments life was already in. Origins is not evolution and evolution is not origins.

From your world perspective. Not from the bibles perspective.
If evolution is correct, then the foundation of the bible is a lie. Death was in the world before Adam sinned.
Also, Jesus would not have been telling the truth when He said that He made them male and female. So, He did not make sludge that evolved.
By giving evolution the credit, we take the Glory away from God and give it to the creatures of the earth. We say it was the creature that made itself into what it is today.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honour Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures."

Many people profess to believe but in the end, they do not even trust the very foundation of God's word. Genisis. They say the creation account cannot be trusted and that it was simply poetic. So, they suppress the truth of what is written in the Bible with a lie. In God's creation, there is evidence that God made everything, and God has made this known to all men. When you give creation the glory instead of God, it is like you are worshipping the creation instead of the creator. You profess to know God, but you are not giving honour and thanks to Him. Instead, in your own wisdom, professing to be wise, you give honour and thanks to the birds, four-footed animals and crawling creatures because they evolved. That is really wrong. The first commandment is that you shall have no other Gods before Him. The second is that you shall not make any idols. If you do make an idol, you will then give it glory. And this is what biologists do with evolution. They give glory to the creation instead of the creator. They say it was the creation that got us where we are today; we all evolved. So, in their own wisdom, they elevate evolution over God.

And you're welcome to believe that, but you are wrong. The only people who have a problem with evolution are Biblical literalists like yourself, which really leaves the question... why are you even bothering with all of this? It's obvious that your mind isn't going to be changed by evidence, even when God's own creation shows that He used evolution otherwise it wouldn't be in the world. So why are you even here?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Tell that to evolutionist, they would say evolution doesn't need God, is a process that does its thing alone and no need no God.

There are atheists who accept evolution as well as there being Christians who accept evolution. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, and anyone who thinks that REALLY needs to have a good think about the society they want to live in.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why you think scientists make science, because they have a personal experience inside, God can be as real as anything else.

Can you repeat that again but make it make sense please? Because I have no real idea what you're trying to say.

 

[1Tonne]

You're not assuming the modern human genome evolved from the modern chimp genome, are you?

Not at all. I’m aware that both are said to have evolved from a common ancestor. My point is simply that the functional genetic differences, whatever their origin, must be significant enough to explain the vast gap between humans and chimps in anatomy, cognition, and behaviour. That’s a high bar for random mutations to clear.

It most certainly is. A single copying event can account for thousands of base pair differences. Are you aware of CNVs?

Yes, I’m aware of CNVs (copy number variations) and other large-scale mutations. But the concern isn’t just the quantity of changes, it’s about the functionality of those changes. Even if thousands of base pairs change at once, how many of them are beneficial, coordinated, and preserved without disrupting existing systems? It's not just about generating variation, but producing integrated, functional innovation.

You're just repeating your error of assuming that all the mutations must be beneficial. How many of the differences are in sequence types like microsats, or retrotransposons for example?

I'm not assuming all mutations must be beneficial, only that the key functional differences driving major anatomical and cognitive changes would need to be. Differences in neutral regions like microsatellites or retrotransposons don’t explain the development of complex traits. The real challenge is whether enough functional changes can arise, become fixed, and coordinate to produce the profound differences we see.

It's an easier argument to ignore. If everyone you are arguing with is a faithless atheist then who cares what they claim? My favourite statistic is that in most of the west, evolution accepting Christians outnumber atheists of all varieties.

A good question could be asked, "Are those who do not believe God's word really Christians"? -This is an important question that we should ask ourselves.
So, the statistics you give may be badly misinformed about Christians.
I know many people who claim to be Christian, but you would not be able to see it at all in their lives.

But that wouldn't prove that evolution is factual, just that humans are able to create life from non-life. It'd still be something you and others would rail against, since it would literally be playing God.

It's also not something that evolution claims at all, since evolution is how life evolved to fit the environments life was already in. Origins is not evolution and evolution is not origins.

You're right, evolution and abiogenesis are technically separate topics. But they’re still deeply connected: evolution requires life to already exist. So, the question remains, where did that life come from?
If life couldn't have arisen without intelligent input, that has major implications for whether purely naturalistic explanations are sufficient. The complexity we observe in even the simplest life forms raises legitimate questions about whether mindless processes alone can account for it, from origin through development.

And you're welcome to believe that, but you are wrong. The only people who have a problem with evolution are Biblical literalists like yourself, which really leaves the question... why are you even bothering with all of this? It's obvious that your mind isn't going to be changed by evidence, even when God's own creation shows that He used evolution otherwise it wouldn't be in the world. So why are you even here?

I’m here because truth matters, and if the foundation of our faith is being reinterpreted in ways that undermine it, that’s worth addressing. It’s not about resisting evidence; it’s about how we interpret that evidence. God's creation doesn’t contradict His Word; both speak truth, and I believe they must align.
If evolution requires death before sin, then it changes the entire redemptive framework of Scripture. That’s not just a side issue; it touches the Gospel itself. I'm not here to argue for argument’s sake, but to stand on what I believe is the plain meaning of Scripture and encourage others to think carefully about where their worldview ultimately leads.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're right, evolution and abiogenesis are technically separate topics. But they’re still deeply connected: evolution requires life to already exist. So, the question remains, where did that life come from?
If life couldn't have arisen without intelligent input, that has major implications for whether purely naturalistic explanations are sufficient. The complexity we observe in even the simplest life forms raises legitimate questions about whether mindless processes alone can account for it, from origin through development.

Life on earth could have been started through abiogenesis. Life on earth could have been started through genetic material from outer space coming here. Life on earth could have been started by God, Odin, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any number of deities from across the world. That doesn't change the fact that evolution, as a concept, only talks about how lifeforms change in response to environmental pressures.

Yes, they are connected, but the one does not need to follow the other.

I’m here because truth matters, and if the foundation of our faith is being reinterpreted in ways that undermine it, that’s worth addressing. It’s not about resisting evidence; it’s about how we interpret that evidence. God's creation doesn’t contradict His Word; both speak truth, and I believe they must align.
If evolution requires death before sin, then it changes the entire redemptive framework of Scripture. That’s not just a side issue; it touches the Gospel itself. I'm not here to argue for argument’s sake, but to stand on what I believe is the plain meaning of Scripture and encourage others to think carefully about where their worldview ultimately leads.

But it's not THE truth that matters to you though. It's YOUR truth that matters, and your truth is solely focused on your singular and person interpretation of the Bible. You say God's creation doesn't contradict His word, but you say that His creation is in error since His creation clearly shows that evolution occurred. We have the genetic and fossil evidence to back it up, which means that God's creation show it.

Why does the Catholic Church, wider Protestant churches or even a good half of the Orthodox Church accept evolution as scientific fact if it goes against Scripture?

The message of redemption in Christ and God does not hinge on whether the story of Genesis is shown to be false through the evidence, and it does show that it's false, but it's easy to get them to coexist when you accept that Genesis is a story written by Hebrews, the Jews, to explain their place in the world and how they got there in a time when no-one knew virtually anything about the world around them.

 

[1Tonne]

Life on earth could have been started through abiogenesis. Life on earth could have been started through genetic material from outer space coming here. Life on earth could have been started by God, Odin, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any number of deities from across the world. That doesn't change the fact that evolution, as a concept, only talks about how lifeforms change in response to environmental pressures.

Yes, they are connected, but the one does not need to follow the other.

Evolution, strictly defined, deals with changes in existing life forms over time. But that doesn't mean the origin of life is irrelevant to the broader discussion. If evolution is a natural, unguided process, then the same framework is typically assumed for how life began, namely, that it arose through natural means (abiogenesis). That's why these two ideas are often treated together: they both aim to explain life without intelligent input.

The suggestion that life could have come from anywhere, space, God, Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, only reinforces the fact that we don’t actually know how life began. But that’s precisely the issue: the origin of life is foundational. If mindless matter could not have produced the information, machinery, and function we see in even a “simple” cell, then that puts serious pressure on the idea that unguided processes can account for all of life.
Abiogenesis is not just a separate topic; it’s a necessary prerequisite for naturalism to be a complete explanation. If it fails, and intelligent design is required at the beginning, then the door is wide open to consider whether intelligence is also needed in the development of life, not just its origin.

But it's not THE truth that matters to you though. It's YOUR truth that matters, and your truth is solely focused on your singular and person interpretation of the Bible. You say God's creation doesn't contradict His word, but you say that His creation is in error since His creation clearly shows that evolution occurred. We have the genetic and fossil evidence to back it up, which means that God's creation show it.

Why does the Catholic Church, wider Protestant churches or even a good half of the Orthodox Church accept evolution as scientific fact if it goes against Scripture?

The message of redemption in Christ and God does not hinge on whether the story of Genesis is shown to be false through the evidence, and it does show that it's false, but it's easy to get them to coexist when you accept that Genesis is a story written by Hebrews, the Jews, to explain their place in the world and how they got there in a time when no-one knew virtually anything about the world around them.

Firstly, I want to clarify something: I’m not claiming to have "my truth". I believe in the truth, as revealed by God in Scripture and confirmed in what He has made. The issue isn’t about ignoring evidence; it’s about how we interpret it. All evidence is interpreted through a framework. You’re interpreting it through a naturalistic lens, one that assumes no divine intervention, while I’m interpreting it through the lens of God’s revealed Word.

When you say that “creation clearly shows evolution occurred,” that’s not an observation; it’s an interpretation. The fossil record, genetic similarities, and variation are real data, but they can be interpreted differently depending on one’s presuppositions. I’m not saying God’s creation is in error; I’m saying our interpretations of it can be, especially when they contradict the plain reading of Scripture.

Regarding the widespread acceptance of evolution among denominations: Yes, many Christians today do accept evolution. But truth isn’t decided by consensus. Church history is full of moments where the majority view was wrong. The fact that some churches have adopted theistic evolution doesn’t prove it’s biblical; it shows how influential cultural and scientific assumptions can be, even accepted in theology.

Now, about Genesis being “a story” to explain ancient Israel’s place in the world: that’s one view, but not the one Jesus held. He referred to Adam and Eve as real people (Matthew 19:4–6) and linked marriage, sin, and even His own mission to them. Paul bases core doctrines, like the resurrection and our need for redemption, on the literal events of Genesis (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15). If sin didn’t enter through one man, then why did Christ need to die?
So yes, if evolution requires death before sin, then it reshapes the entire Gospel. Death becomes a normal part of creation rather than the result of the Fall. That undermines the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice, which came to defeat death (1 Corinthians 15:26).

I'm not here to win a debate, but to stand where I believe God’s Word plainly speaks. This matters not just because I believe Genesis is true, but because what we believe about origins ultimately affects how we view God, sin, salvation, and even the nature of Christ’s return.

 

[Larniavc]

Why you think scientists make science,

Because we want to find out how things work. ‘Godidit’ is not a scientific answer.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolution, strictly defined, deals with changes in existing life forms over time. But that doesn't mean the origin of life is irrelevant to the broader discussion. If evolution is a natural, unguided process, then the same framework is typically assumed for how life began, namely, that it arose through natural means (abiogenesis). That's why these two ideas are often treated together: they both aim to explain life without intelligent input.

Yes, evolution deals with the natural world as a natural unguided process because that is what the scientific evidence shows us. There is no scientific evidence for God, since God is supernatural, beyond and outside of nature. Thus He cannot be studied through a scientific lense, only a theological lense.

The suggestion that life could have come from anywhere, space, God, Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, only reinforces the fact that we don’t actually know how life began. But that’s precisely the issue: the origin of life is foundational. If mindless matter could not have produced the information, machinery, and function we see in even a “simple” cell, then that puts serious pressure on the idea that unguided processes can account for all of life.
Abiogenesis is not just a separate topic; it’s a necessary prerequisite for naturalism to be a complete explanation. If it fails, and intelligent design is required at the beginning, then the door is wide open to consider whether intelligence is also needed in the development of life, not just its origin.

The origin of life is foundational, but it is not THE foundational issue. As I said, life could have started through any other way, but the theory of evolution would still stand on its own merits because it is a scientific fact that evolution as it is known in the scientific community today is a factual explanation of the evidence we have.

Firstly, I want to clarify something: I’m not claiming to have "my truth". I believe in the truth, as revealed by God in Scripture and confirmed in what He has made. The issue isn’t about ignoring evidence; it’s about how we interpret it. All evidence is interpreted through a framework. You’re interpreting it through a naturalistic lens, one that assumes no divine intervention, while I’m interpreting it through the lens of God’s revealed Word.

But you are ignoring evidence. You've done it repeatedly in this thread and the other thread you've been on.

When you say that “creation clearly shows evolution occurred,” that’s not an observation; it’s an interpretation. The fossil record, genetic similarities, and variation are real data, but they can be interpreted differently depending on one’s presuppositions. I’m not saying God’s creation is in error; I’m saying our interpretations of it can be, especially when they contradict the plain reading of Scripture.

"It's an interpretation" is such an out and out lie, it's ridiculous. You cannot 'interpret' the fossil evidence we have for the multitude of extinct flora and fauna we have to fit with the framework presented in Genesis. And you distinctly are saying that God's creation is in error, that's what people who focus solely on a literal reading on Genesis beyond everything else do.

Regarding the widespread acceptance of evolution among denominations: Yes, many Christians today do accept evolution. But truth isn’t decided by consensus. Church history is full of moments where the majority view was wrong. The fact that some churches have adopted theistic evolution doesn’t prove it’s biblical; it shows how influential cultural and scientific assumptions can be, even accepted in theology.

But it's a simple fact: if evolution REALLY was at odds with Christianity as you've been claiming it is, then why do so many major Christian denominations accept it as the scientific fact it is and that it can work with religious views of the Bible?

Now, about Genesis being “a story” to explain ancient Israel’s place in the world: that’s one view, but not the one Jesus held. He referred to Adam and Eve as real people (Matthew 19:4–6) and linked marriage, sin, and even His own mission to them. Paul bases core doctrines, like the resurrection and our need for redemption, on the literal events of Genesis (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15). If sin didn’t enter through one man, then why did Christ need to die?
So yes, if evolution requires death before sin, then it reshapes the entire Gospel. Death becomes a normal part of creation rather than the result of the Fall. That undermines the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice, which came to defeat death (1 Corinthians 15:26).

Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as real people because he knew who he was talking to and knew how to get them to understand his message. If you have characters that are well known in society through folklore and stories, then you'll have no problem using them to get a message you need through to people.

Genesis is clearly allegory to anyone who knows how to read literature, but that doesn't mean that Jesus' message of redemption isn't valid. Even if sin didn't enter the world through one man, which is a holdover from the wider Zoroastrian religion that came before older Judaism, it's still an acknowledgement that sin exists in the world. If you focus solely on Jesus' sacrifice, then you very much ignore the rest of his teachings, which even further undermines his crucifixion and the meaning behind it.

I'm not here to win a debate, but to stand where I believe God’s Word plainly speaks. This matters not just because I believe Genesis is true, but because what we believe about origins ultimately affects how we view God, sin, salvation, and even the nature of Christ’s return.

And you fundamentally do none of those things by posting half-baked videos, quote mines, lies and ignorance about the very thing you are railing against. You clearly act as if you want to win a debate with everyone who responds to you and you ignore the fact that there are people on this website who have no problem believing in Christ's message and accepting that the theory of evolution is a sound scientific description of how God's creation works.

You would be better off being in the Christians ONLY section of the forum then here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

@1Tonne don't bother replying to the other comment above since I can easily imagine what you're going to say and I can very much imagine it's going to just go round in circles with no end, so just answer this question for you: is there any evidence at all that would get you to accept that the theory of evolution is a sound and valid facet as I and others accept it to be, yes or no?

 

[Valletta]

Why does the Catholic Church, wider Protestant churches or even a good half of the Orthodox Church accept evolution as scientific fact if it goes against Scripture?

The Catholic Church does not accept evolution as scientific fact.

 

[Valletta]

Because we want to find out how things work. ‘Godidit’ is not a scientific answer.

Eliminating God as a possibility goes against scientific method.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The Catholic Church does not accept evolution as scientific fact.

No, you are correct that there is no official position on the matter. But when the last Pope, Francis, says "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation" then... that kind of reads like an acceptance of evolution as scientific fact.

 

[BCP1928]

But it is about whether you believe the word of God or not.

You asked not to be reported for your offensiveness, and we have been patient with you because theological disputations are mostly off topic for this forum, but I think you have just used up your last chance. You don't own the Bible and are in no position to dictate to others what they must believe about it.

 

[BCP1928]

The Catholic Church does not accept evolution as scientific fact.

Nor does it prohibit believers from accepting it.

 

[Larniavc]

Eliminating God as a possibility goes against scientific method.

No it doesn’t. Until God is established it cannot be eliminated.

 

[Shemjaza]

A good question could be asked, "Are those who do not believe God's word really Christians"? -This is an important question that we should ask ourselves.
So, the statistics you give may be badly misinformed about Christians.
I know many people who claim to be Christian, but you would not be able to see it at all in their lives.

Here again you equating "agreeing with your personal interpretation" with "believing in God's word"... and people call atheists arrogant and prideful.

Christians believe in God's word... they just don't all think the Earth has a glass dome or that there was a miraculous boat full of dragons and unicorns.