Would Jesus believe in evolution?

Originally Posted by carole2u Since evolution is a human concept, I cannot see him lending credit to it.

Click to expand...

dlamberth said:

Evolution is more than a concept, it provides a direct window into how God creates new life forms.
Because the evolutionary process (change over time) is so imbedded into the very fabric of life itself, I have no doubt that that's what Jesus sees too when looking at Creation and new life forms.

.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. Thks for posting that.

mzungu said:

You are in essence admitting that the Bible was not only written by men but was prone to the very mistakes men make and is basically totally outdated since we now know that the Earth is not a flat disk etc.

Click to expand...

He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth on nothing [Job 26:7]

The knowledge that the earth is 'hanging on nothing" in the void of space kind of goes against the argument that the writer thought the earth was a round circle atop a foundation of pillars, now doesn't it? The Bible is the revealed word of God. It tells us what we need to know to prepare ourselves for eternity. The details of this world are rather inconsequential since it will one day be cast aside and destroyed. However, it isn't what is NOT in the Bible that bothers people, it's what IS in the Bible; that sin separates man from God and without accepting the sacrificeof Christ that separation will one day be permanent, There IS a God and there ARE consequences for our actions. If we were simply another evolving life form and there was no God then we would be free to do anything we desired without fear of ultimate justice.

God revealed enough for those who have faith to know He is real. For those who refuse to believe, no evidence is great enough.

Dieselman said:

He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth on nothing [Job 26:7]

The knowledge that the earth is 'hanging on nothing" in the void of space kind of goes against the argument that the writer thought the earth was a round circle atop a foundation of pillars, now doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Which means one of two things:

1. the writer of Job had a different cosmology than the writer of Samuel
2. (far more likely), One or both of the writers are speaking metaphorically.

Since Job was most likely written somewhere between the 6th and 4th century BC, and other civilizations (namely the Greeks) had long since hypothesized the notion of the round Earth hanging in space by that point, it's entirely possible that the anonymous author of Job got the idea from somewhere a little bit closer than God.

Dieselman said:

Energy cannot be created either, only it's form can be changed.

Click to expand...

So why is that a problem?

You CANNOT SAY that energy was always there since the second law contra-indicates the perpetuity of matter.

Click to expand...

First, the laws of thermodynamics only applies within our universe. Second, our universe has a finite history so I really don't know what you are trying to argue.

In other words, if it's constantly breaking down it could not possibly be eternal.

Click to expand...

It doesn't need to be since our universe is not eternal.

Your misinterpretations of "evidence" and your failed attempts to find a scientific and natural explanation for the creation of the universe is not a failing of God, but of man.

Click to expand...

So where is the evidence that God did it?

If you fail to believe Him, that's up to you.

Click to expand...

If a Muslim told you the same about Mohammed would you be convinced? If not, then why should I be?

Learn first. Then speak.

Click to expand...

The Bible says that the Earth sits on foundations and does not move. There are no such foundations, and the Earth moves about the Sun.

BobRyan said:

if you want to admit that these examples prove the dishonest, fraud rich, hoax-bloated history of blind faith evolutionism to be every bit as corrupt as it is cracked up to be - I don't blame you.

Click to expand...

Why would I agree to a lie? Why would you push a lie?

Notice that Piltdown man hoax was promoted over many decades - it was not some flash in the pan.

Click to expand...

It was challenged immediately and was always marginalized within the scientific community. That is the truth. When Dart presented Taung Child the scientific community sided with dart, and not with Piltdown man. No one was surprised when Piltdown man was shown to be a hoax. It was suspected of being a hoax since it was first presented to the scientific community.

So also with every hoax example given - other than Obsborn's hoax with Nebraska man - where he chose to duke it out in the press claiming that his pig's tooth was the "irrefutable evidence" of nebraska man.

Click to expand...

And the scientific community completely disagreed with Osborn. What you have is a single scientist pushing bad evidence which the scientific community was quick to correct him on. Can you please tell us how this is a hoax?

No wonder Christ would not toss away His Bible in favor of such a junk-science riddled system of mythology as we find in blind-faith evolutionism.

Click to expand...

Why would Jesus support someone who lies and distorts like you have in your posts? Please tell me. You twist Patterson's own words. You lie about the history of Piltdown man and Nebraska man. Is this how a christian acts?

The argument is never that good science does not exist.

Click to expand...

The argument is that the fraud-infested system of evolutionism is not it.

Click to expand...

Why do you have to lie about frauds?

Notice that Collin Patterson was a diehard atheist do the day he died - yet even he could see the blunders of the evolutionist.

Click to expand...

Where did Patterson ever doubt common ancestry and evolution? He never did. What he doubted was our ability to determine if one fossil was directly ancestral to another. That's it. You want to blow this up into a huge controversy, but it never was a controversy. What we can do, and what Patterson agrees with, is determine if a fossil is transitional.

Is it any wonder that Christ's Word rejects such nonsense?

Click to expand...

Have you heard abou the Commandment on not bearing false witness?

That is totally false. Osborne carried on is diatribe about "Nebraska man" being "irrefutable evidence" for evolutionism in the public press - debating across the ocean with Webster - using his wild false, hoax claims.

Click to expand...

Osborne is not the scientific community. The consensus from day one is that this tooth was not from a hominid. That is the truth that you refuse to accept.

Creationists questioned it from the start - but it was accepted by the scientific community none-the-less.

Click to expand...

Creationists close their eyes to all evidence, even the fossils that are not a hoax. They also lie and misrepresent, and they use fools to repeat their lies.

Dieselman said:

He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth on nothing [Job 26:7]

The knowledge that the earth is 'hanging on nothing" in the void of space kind of goes against the argument that the writer thought the earth was a round circle atop a foundation of pillars, now doesn't it? The Bible is the revealed word of God. It tells us what we need to know to prepare ourselves for eternity. The details of this world are rather inconsequential since it will one day be cast aside and destroyed. However, it isn't what is NOT in the Bible that bothers people, it's what IS in the Bible; that sin separates man from God and without accepting the sacrificeof Christ that separation will one day be permanent, There IS a God and there ARE consequences for our actions. If we were simply another evolving life form and there was no God then we would be free to do anything we desired without fear of ultimate justice.

God revealed enough for those who have faith to know He is real. For those who refuse to believe, no evidence is great enough.

Click to expand...

Let me cut this short; I use everything science has to offer and you just use your Bible and we both have to design a jet turbine that will have a thrust of 20,000 kg without afterburner.
OK?

Tell me when and where we may meet and you are only allowed to carry a Bible and I will have at my disposal computers, internet, books, tools, machine shop, etc.

I think I will be at a handicap since you have the creator on your side but will you care to wager a years salary on the outcome?

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']

carole2u said:

I believe species adapt to enviroment but not change to different species, that's where I am

Click to expand...

Creation, as created by God and signed off with His own Signature shows us a picture where evolution is imbedded into the fabric of life itself...So much so that over time we see new species that are Created such as birds. And today scientist even use evolution to create new medicines.

.

mzungu said:

Let me cut this short; I use everything science has to offer and you just use your Bible and we both have to design a jet turbine that will have a thrust of 20,000 kg without afterburner.
OK?

Tell me when and where we may meet and you are only allowed to carry a Bible and I will have at my disposal computers, internet, books, tools, machine shop, etc.

I think I will be at a handicap since you have the creator on your side but will you care to wager a years salary on the outcome?

Click to expand...

You would be at a particular disadvantage if you were forbidden to use any of the materials that God created and YOU would have to create out of your own word the atoms you would need to make your jet turbine.

BondiHarry said:

You would be at a particular disadvantage if you were forbidden to use any of the materials that God created and YOU would have to create out of your own word the atoms you would need to make your jet turbine.

Click to expand...

'get your own dirt!'

LifeToTheFullest! said:

'get your own dirt!'

Click to expand...

Exactly what popped into my mind too! But in context it's appropriate, since mzungu wants to pull rank, as if science had something on God. (Along those lines, scientists would need to forfeit use of their brains as well)

BondiHarry said:

You would be at a particular disadvantage if you were forbidden to use any of the materials that God created . . .

Click to expand...

Then you should demonstrate that the materials were created by a supernatural deity. I am aware of observations of heavy elements being created by supernovae, but I have yet to hear of anyone observing a deity making anything.

RaiseTheDead said:

Exactly what popped into my mind too! But in context it's appropriate, since mzungu wants to pull rank, as if science had something on God. (Along those lines, scientists would need to forfeit use of their brains as well)

Click to expand...

First you have to prove that God made the materials you are going to use. But I will be nice and let you have the raw materials. As for the knowledge you will have to refer to the Bible. Ready?

mzungu said:

Let me cut this short; I use everything science has to offer and you just use your Bible and we both have to design a jet turbine that will have a thrust of 20,000 kg without afterburner.
OK?

Click to expand...

First let's remove the air that God created and we'll see if you can breathe long enough to build a jet that could never generate lift from materials He created.

God can answer something science cannot; WHY? Science is only the study of what is and wild guesses about why or how. Regardkess, within the next 100 years you will be in a place where science has absolutely no value. How will your theories hold up then? If I'm wrong I'm dead anyway. If you're wrong you're damned. Since eternity is a littel longer than my expected lifespan, I think I'll stick with God.

mzungu said:

First you have to prove that God made the materials you are going to use.

Click to expand...

God doesn't allow proof. He demands faith. He could tap you on the shoulder and say Hi, I'm God. Then you might believe in Him, but you would have no pathway to Heaven. Read the accounts of the 150+ miracles recorded in the Bible and explain why those who were there didn't stone the authors for heresy. False prophets were put to death. The test for a false prophet was simple; if ANYTHING they said failed to come true they were considered false. What you can't erase is a 6,000 year history of man's interaction with his Creator.

Can science predict the future? Could science have helped Daniel interpret Nebuchadnez'zar's dream, having never been told what it was in the first place? Part of how the Bible proved its veracity is that it made predictions which came true many years later. If these predictions had not come true the Scriptures would have been discarded as heresy. All the science in the world will not tell you what will happen tomorow. God has done that from the beginning.

carole2u said:

I believe species adapt to enviroment but not change to different species, that's where I am

Click to expand...

Well, Carole... you get to study Lucuspa's list of Observed Speciations:

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies Speciation through homoploid hybridization between allotetraploids in peonies (Paeonia)
3. Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. Science Magazine: Sign In Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Dieselman said:

God can answer something science cannot; WHY? Science is only the study of what is and wild guesses about why or how. Regardkess, within the next 100 years you will be in a place where science has absolutely no value. How will your theories hold up then? If I'm wrong I'm dead anyway. If you're wrong you're damned. Since eternity is a littel longer than my expected lifespan, I think I'll stick with God. [/COLOR]

Click to expand...

You're not sticking with "God"... you are sticking with an outmoded, naive and erroneous interpretation of scripture which has led you to reject what we as a species have learned about the world around us. Oh and you can drop the Big Creationist Stick argument.. it doesn't scare most of us.

Split Rock said:

You're not sticking with "God"... you are sticking with an outmoded, naive and erroneous interpretation of scripture which has led you to reject what we as a species have learned about the world around us.

Click to expand...

There's nothing erroneous about it. Jesus spoke about the first man and woman (Adam and Eve) as well as the great flood and Noah. He affirmed that the Scriptures were the word of God, not stories written by men.

What we've learned about biology is that adaptation is a conservtive process that resluts in a net loss of genetic information. There are no processes in science which account for the adding of new genetic information and the coding of it into the reproductive system; no miracle magic mutations that enable plankton to sprout legs and crawl from the slime; no process of abiogenesis; and no process by which dinosaurs could become increasingly less adaptive until they morphed into birds (a line of "science" that came from someone looking at a picture of a chicken and deciding it must be so).

What we've learned about cosmology is that if the "Big Bang" happened that all planets in a solar system would spin the same direction. They don't. We've learned that if the material of the universe WAS compressed into a super dense singularity that the gravity would be so strong nothing could ever escape; not even light. We've learned that the "Star of the East" actually went into supernova about the time Christ was born. We've learned that order cannot come from disorder, so there had to be a purpose behind the formation of the universe. We've learned that there is for more we do not know than what we know.

I could go on, but you really don't care anyway. You have your opinion and will continue to try and make others believe it regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Dieselman said:

God doesn't allow proof. He demands faith. He could tap you on the shoulder and say Hi, I'm God. Then you might believe in Him, but you would have no pathway to Heaven. Read the accounts of the 150+ miracles recorded in the Bible and explain why those who were there didn't stone the authors for heresy. False prophets were put to death. The test for a false prophet was simple; if ANYTHING they said failed to come true they were considered false. What you can't erase is a 6,000 year history of man's interaction with his Creator.

Can science predict the future? Could science have helped Daniel interpret Nebuchadnez'zar's dream, having never been told what it was in the first place? Part of how the Bible proved its veracity is that it made predictions which came true many years later. If these predictions had not come true the Scriptures would have been discarded as heresy. All the science in the world will not tell you what will happen tomorow. God has done that from the beginning.

Click to expand...

OK You may have what you want so long as you bring evidence that shows God created the said materials. In fact I will go even further by declaring that I will allow God to keep me from using anything he created and leave to my use anything he did not create.

Do you want to wager that I will have use of all materials you claim were created by him?

All this would not be necessary if you had just applied your religion to the spiritual world instead of trying to impose it on the physical world that is the domain of science.

Now when do we start? Like I said God can restrict me from using all the things he created. Fair enough?

1 years wages is what I bet. Are you game?

mzungu said:

First you have to prove that God made the materials you are going to use. But I will be nice and let you have the raw materials. As for the knowledge you will have to refer to the Bible. Ready?

Click to expand...

Sure. The bible says that people figure things out. So by your rules, you have to stop doing that. Ready?

On the other hand I will agree for you to use all the natural materials you claim God created. As for the man made (science) things like monocrystal turbine blades and the various composites and special alloys you will have to invent them yourself by using the Bible as a guide! OK?