Evidences for evolution

Originally posted by Catchup
Ray K: Later when I have time I will try to get a handle on what you are referring to in your last post.

Though there is something that you need to understand about people who believe in God as the Creator....

We have no need and very little desire to search for the origination of life. We leave that to you, who are not satisfied with the correct answer...Goddidit!

But for right now, I am out the door to enjoy this beautiful Sabbath day.

LOVE

Click to expand...

This is easily one of the top three misconceptions that creationists have about evolution.

Of all the biologists in academia, almost all subscribe to evolution. Of all of them, perhaps one half of one percent research the 'origins of life.' We are quite a ways away from answering that problem.

Evolutionary theory adresses change over time. How and why did ants evolve nonreproductive casts? How did reptilian jawbones become exapted into part of the human auditory system? *Not*, how did life originate?

That's just not what evolutionary theory is. Whatever you're arguing against, it isn't what the people who have PHDs and work at Universities are doing.

Originally posted by Ray K
For example, the fossil record shows that whales evolved from mammals that returned to an aquatic lifestyle. However, the whale still grows "legs" in a way, but they are stunted and remained internal in the animals. Snakes are the same way. Both snakes and whales have vestigial pelvises, which cannot be easily explained without the idea that the animals evolved from ancestors that had legs.

Click to expand...

"Then the Lord said to the serpent:
'Because you have done this, you shall be banned from all the animals and from all the wild creatures,
On your belly shall you crawl, and dirt shall you eat all the days of you life.' [...] " - Genesis 3:14 (NAS)

I believe that Evolution is just a word to describe the unseen force which governs and maintains our universe.
In other words: Evolution is the hand of God improving his beloved creation.
Think of it this way: If your are an artist and draw a beautiful picture in black and white but later decide that it would look much better in color, are you not at liberty to add in color since you are it's creator?

Originally posted by Catchup
Bear: I am confused by your responses. Please do not take offense. But it is hard for me to discuss an issue with someone that I do not understand... Set me straight.

You have faith in God? But you have doubt that God created us as stated in the Bible? You look to science for answers instead of God? You do not realize that science will never have all the answers of creation until God is included?

I am at this point running for cover.

LOVE

Click to expand...

Catchup,

Let me explain my position on this.

I am going to start off with a question. Is the Bible straight forward and direct, with no chance of misinterpretations?

John

Originally posted by tericl2




1. Evolution is a scientific theory, but the ordinary definition of "theory" as "hunch," or "guess" does not apply in the world of science. There, the word "theory" means an explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, which has been confirmed by verifiable fact (and the absence of incompatible fact).


I purposely took this definition from a anti-creationist site.

Three components of theory are listed here.
First is observation.....I would just like to know who exactly has EVER observed evolution in process.

Second is experimentation........NO concrete experimentation has ever been done to prove evolution. It is impossible by the very nature of the subject!

Third is reasoning.........ah, now we get to the heart of the evolutionary theory. Fallible men REASON, that since they think God cannot possibly exist, there must be another answer to why we are here. Here is what we reason, that everything evolved over billions of years, getting better and more complex after each evolutionary stage. Natural law does not support this but it is our reasoning.

Seems to me that no matter how one defines theory, it is still just an idea, yet to be proven, yet disproven at almost every turn. That is why the evolutionary theory itself is always under constant change and revision. If it were testable and observable wouldn't all scientists at least agree on WHICH specific theory of the whole theory they were going to use?

On the other hand, we have the Bible which scientists have been desperate to disprove for centuries, yet at every turn they find evidence (scientific and archaelogical) that proves the Bible is correct. Which standard should we choose?

Click to expand...

Even though I was asking A Christian what his deffinition of a theory is, because he keeps all-capping the word, for one reason or another, you have not adequetly defined what a scientific theory is, how it is arrived at or what the confidence level is, regardless of your cut & paste from another website. But, I admire your effort.

John

Originally posted by Counter Cult
I believe the fight between creation vs. evolution is a fight between the Christian faith vs. the Humanistic faith.
What philosphy one has will determine what view there going to take. We wheren't there when the beginning happened. Sinse the time of major discoveries in science the fight has been between: the possiblities of supernatural intervention, devine intervention verses naturalims, Humanistic views; the belief that we came here and the whole universe with know purpose with know devine intervention or supernatural events.
The supernatural can't be tested with science, you can't test it in the laboratory, you can't re examine it, its not possible to do that with our 5 senses.

C.S Lewis put it nicely here:

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents -- the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists' and astronomers' as well for anybody else's. But if their thoughts -- i.e., of Materialims and Astronomy -- are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reasonfor believing the one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents" (C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing co., 1770), p. 52-53

Click to expand...

First of all, let me just state, long, loud and clear, that I believe in God Almighty, who created heaven and earth. I believe that man is eternally seperated from God by sin, I believe that God came to earth in the form of a man, Jesus Christ, to redeem all who accept His gift of Salvation. I belive that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and that no man can go to God, the Father, except through Jesus Christ. I believe that the reward for believers, is eternal life with God. I believe that the reward for non-believers is spiritual death, an eternal separation from God.

My faith in the above is unshakable.


That being said, I see absolutely nothing in scripture, that tells me not to use my God-given brain, to search for answers that lie outside the scope of Biblical teachings. I don't consult scripture to work on my car. I don't consult scripture to get cooking recipies. I don't consult scripture to use the internet. I don't consult scripture to use my brain for many things that lie outside the scope of Biblical teachings. Is microbiology usefull for the betterment of mankind? You bet it is. Does the Bible address that subject? Absolutely not. Does this mean we are to scrap all medical advancements, that improve and prolong lives, just because it is not wrapped up in some theological doctrine, written in scripture? Of course not. Does the Bible address magnetism, radio waves, gravity, geology, medicine, computer science, aerodynamics, hydrofoils, mathematics, televisions, the combustion engine, indoor plumbing, or electric guitars?

Think about what I am saying. Try to separate Biblical teachings and faiths, from 'outside studies'.


John

Originally posted by ThienAn
TheBear, regardless of how I feel about this thread, conversing with you has made me realize alot more about my faith to God, and where and how that faith should be placed. And for that, I thank you.

Click to expand...

Praise be to God! Thank's, Bro.

John

The complication seems to be that the Bible does have a teaching involving the begining of the world, and it is rather tightly wound up with the introduction of sin and the basis for the whole rest of the moral teachings of the Bible.

I bring this up because I think if you understood the underlying forces that drive the debate you would adress the things about it that matter. I don't have a particular problem with people who believe in evolution, but there is a conflict here. Obviously believing in evolution doesn't send one packing off to hell, but I just never get the feeling like you have even an idea of what drives people to doubt the evolutionary story.

We all just talk around and around and don't get anywhere.

Originally posted by Profugus
If your are an artist and draw a beautiful picture in black and white but later decide that it would look much better in color, are you not at liberty to add in color since you are it's creator?

Click to expand...

Yeah, God could do anything that He wants. But your statement presumes that God had a second thought about His creations, or He changed His mind - and that, I think, is a false statement; unless you can show me some scriptures.

I think everything that God has created were and are perfect, and is exactly the way He wanted. If evolution came from God, then it exists not because God had a second thought or He changed His mind.

I, the Lord do not change.Malachi 3:6a



If I'm wrong, show me the scriptures.

First of all, let me say the variations within each own species and survival of the fittest where that is concerned can definately be observed in the world around us. There is no dispute on that.
Now evolution... that's a bit of a strecth don't you think?

The dating methods used on the fossil record are inaccurate. In order to get a correct reading there MUST NOT be any contaminents in the sample. (this isn't even possible.) Also, if you used different methods of dating on the same sample you would get different ages for that sample often enough to cast serious doubt on the validity of the methods. Look it up if you don't believe me.

The great catastrophe of The Flood caused the layers to form the way they did.

Secondly, explain why a certain plant bears seeds and only one kind of bird eats those seeds and through their digestion process is the only way the seeds are able to germinate and reproduce. How can a plant like that grow if there is no bird to help it? What would be the advantage of evolving that charactoristic?

Or a bumble bee, who by all scientific measurements should not be able to fly because of the aerodynamics and weight of his body.

Again look it up.

I could go on naming species who have disadvantages to their environment that have been around forever. Wouldn't these creatures have been wiped out or changed into something better evolved for the environment?

Or ape's, if ape's evolved into humans they shouldn't be around anymore right? Either that, or they should still be evolving as we speak. We should be able to witness the missing links before our very eyes!

If creatures have been evolving for millions of years they would each be evolving at different rates and times. Don't you think that within the last 2000 years SOMEONE would have seen one link species? But they haven't, because species only change in and of themselves.
(& don't say the duck billed platypus. He is his own type of guy and I think God threw him in there just for fun, because God is like that!)

Notice the vast diversity of creatures all working together as ecosystem upon ecosystem. Without one species contribution a whole ecosystem could be wiped out and so on. You know as well as I do that that IS A FACT. How could all of these creatures have developed in succession?

Finally, take one good look around you. Notice the intricacies of each object or person or animal or mountain or ocean. Think about your brain and body and all the processes that have to happen exactly right for you to even be able to read this or type or breathe!

Also, I am a Biology major. Feel free to look these things up. I have not been corrupted by the theory of evolution that my classes have been passing off as fact. What I've learned has only made my belief in Creation that much stronger. I look around, and to me there is no way that this universe JUST HAPPENED to plop out of the sky and JUST HAPPEND to create the right mixture of elements to host life. And then, JUST HAPPEND to start creating cells and then multi-celled creatures and then JUST HAPPEND to go on slowly to create what is all around us in all the magnificence that God made it. (Which by the way is nothing compared to its condition before The Flood.) I haven't even mentioned the stars and celestial bodies that JUST HAPPEN to rotate on schedule and JUST HAPPENED to be placed at the right proximity to each other and JUST HAPPEN to have the right weight and gravitational pull.

Do you really think that your mind, that is deep enough to understand and comprehend and even contemplate the question you are posing JUST HAPPEND??!!??!!

I think thats A LOT harder to believe than the idea that God created everything! None of us will know for sure until Jesus comes for us and sits us down at the banquet table. Maybe when we get there, we will find out that everyone was a little off. God created science and the laws that are set up in our universe. But the laws are specific to our universe and God can not be defined by science or anything else He created. How can we know the Awesome ways of God?
All I know is that He was involved.

P.S. Snakes used to have legs at one time if you read The Bible. They were cursed to slither around on the earth. I guess that would explain the pelvis right?

Praise God for His brilliance! Praise God for He is worthy of our praise!

It just seems bacteria have no reason to evolve into anything else. They can even survive in outer speace. I saw a Discovery channel blurb where they got some bacteria off a camera that had been on the moon. Now, maybe the Discovery Channel is full of it, I dunno, cuz I don't know how they got that thing off the moon, but still.

Anyone real up on how colonies turn into actual whole organisms?

subsitute "environmental pressure" for reason, before someone goes off on my head.

Bear: I love you man!! God bless you!
That is exactly what I have been trying to say!

The Atheist get off trying to make Christians sound like some kind of oxymoron. We are not all stuck somewhere in the past, claiming this world's destruction because of science. God has given Christians insight into the inner reaches of our beings both physical through science and spiritually through Christ. There is no need for conflict. Science will never disprove the reality of truth that is God. But you must understand that natural science is the physical study of life therefore scientist do not take the soul and spirit into consideration. For this reason... although I will be grateful for their many contributions to my life, I will keep my soul and spirit safe in the arms of my Creator. Their false theories of our origination will always remain unproven. For unless God is allowed in... a gaping hole will remain.

Thank you for being considerate in your repose to me. I am sorry, if it looked to you like I was Bear trapping.I only come on the threads started by Atheist if I think they are posing a danger to Christians. To tell you the truth my interest at this point is far removed from the beginning of time... for instead my eyes and ears are evaluating signs and thoughts of the "End of Time".

LOVE

My opinion, for what little it is worth: this stuff doesn't matter. God made us. How He did it, I won't know in this world. I believe the Bible, and I believe His ways are above our ways. I believe there is a spiritual dimension we may never understand in this world. But how we came to be matters little compared to WHY we came to be. TO GLORIFY GOD. To "reflect" his glory. To love Him. To be loved by Him. For people to see Him in us. We should not ever forget that. He neve quibbled over stupid stuff.

Originally posted by Ray K


Your God sounds pretty vain. You would think that an all-powerful, all-knowing being could figure out something better to do that create things merely for the purpose of worshiping him. You know, like maybe having an intelligent dialog with him.

I think a God seems to be severely restricted by the limited imaginations and baser impulses of his believers.

Click to expand...

One of the more hostile posts I've seen you make. You seem to have missed the part where she mentioned Him loving us was a big part of the picture. So what's so wrong with creating people to love and be loved by?

I posted a big huge explanation of this for you once and apparently it didn't really make much of an impact. Anyhoo, that last post seemed a bit uncalled for, to me.

That is a view very highly influenced by your own wordlview, and does not reflect how Christians view the concept of worship. looking around in the world, Christians tend to blame the obvius culprit for human wrongdoing: humans. Even if I were to hypothesize that we have made up a God, I would suggest that the reason for that action, and the subsequent worship of that being, would be precisely that our rational minds have seen the dichotomy between what would be good and what is, and have used both our rational minds and our spiritual or emotional souls (or feelings/instincts, for your benefit) to come up with an artistic and pragmatic solution to the problem. Again, that is assuming thre is no God.

Obiously if there IS a God, He's just miffed you think He's vain. (kidding!)

But I mean seriously, you get the two views I'm getting at here, and how if there's a God, your view is invalid from the get go, and even if you are right and there is no God, this does not necessarily represent the imaginationless and stupid but rather an invetion of the whole mind, both rational and emotional?

And also that I make run on sentences?

In 1964, Dr. D.J. Reish removed 6 polychaetes (Nereis acuminata) from Los Angeles/Long Beach harbor, and grew his sample to a size of thousands. In 1986, four pairs from this group were brought to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; the population at Woods Hole thus had gone through two bottlenecks, which are supposed to help drive evolution through genetic drift. In 1977-1978, two new cultures of N. acuminata were gathered from nearby Long Beach and Newport Beach, and grown under the same conditions as the Woods Hole sample. The three populations were later crossed, and it was found that the only crosses that would not produce viable offspring were the crosses involving Woods Hole and the two new cultures. This signifies nothing less than speciation, and all in the laboratory - all observed directly (Weinberg et al. 1992.)


Apart from that,

from someone on this forum, i forget who:
Their false theories of our origination will always remain unproven.

Click to expand...

Just because they are unproven doesn't mean that they are false.
For you to say they are false would require that you prove, by scientific method, the existence of God.

Originally posted by brt28006
In 1964, Dr. D.J. Reish removed 6 polychaetes (Nereis acuminata) from Los Angeles/Long Beach harbor, and grew his sample to a size of thousands. In 1986, four pairs from this group were brought to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; the population at Woods Hole thus had gone through two bottlenecks, which are supposed to help drive evolution through genetic drift. In 1977-1978, two new cultures of N. acuminata were gathered from nearby Long Beach and Newport Beach, and grown under the same conditions as the Woods Hole sample. The three populations were later crossed, and it was found that the only crosses that would not produce viable offspring were the crosses involving Woods Hole and the two new cultures. This signifies nothing less than speciation, and all in the laboratory - all observed directly (Weinberg et al. 1992.)


Apart from that,


Just because they are unproven doesn't mean that they are false.
For you to say they are false would require that you prove, by scientific method, the existence of God.

Click to expand...

Depending on how you define speciation. This is part of the problem I have with the concept. It is possible, but every example I have seen so far has real problems. This is not really an entirely different species, this is one where a specific crossbreed of the species gives rise to children not able to survive. One can imagine closing the circle on these with a 4th breed of worm.

Furthermore, working in worms and bacteria and yeast does not give much support to the idea of development and speciation in the higher order animals.

There is another interesting example I read where one breed of a certain animal could not cross with another breed of the same species, but it was brought on by microrganisms. WHen the beasts were fed antibiotics, they could once again cross-breed. Very odd stuff.

You have said, just because something hasn't been proven doesn't mean it didn;t happen. It is also true, however, that just because something happens now doesn't mean it happened before. So even if you could get some examples of convincing speciation in higher order animals, I'm afraid it would still not be proof to many.

Part of the problem with these competing worldviews is a difference of opinion on the very nature of consciousness and free will, and on the understanding of what is "likely" or plausible in the minds of the adherents to the oposing viewpoints.

Just some things for you to chew on.