• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
6,864
4,793
NW
✟258,051.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Why shouldn't it?
You'd think an all-powerful being would have more important things.
Oh? You mean biological factories don't carry out all sorts of fascinating operations?
Fascinating to who? Nobody outside of the human race is interested in biology.
That's quite the claim. I am under the impression that there is a fairly decent circumstatial case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ
That's news to me. I'm unconvinced he ever existed, and I've actually researched it. Now, there might be a human at the origin of the stories, but I don't see any evidence for the actual events that define Christ.
so long as we don't dismiss resurrection as impossible due to prior presuppositions. But you go on making bold claims about no evidence as if you have some kind of definitive position on the matter.
What claims have I made? I keep asking for evidence, and not getting any.

Some here seem to think that questions are evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,035
2,578
45
San jacinto
✟198,309.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That’s a good question, and it gets to the heart of the issue.
The problem isn’t with change itself, variation within species (microevolution) is well documented. But the leap to large-scale transformations (macroevolution) assumes that small changes, over enough time, naturally build into entirely new body plans, organs, or systems. That’s a major assumption.
What makes this different isn’t just the amount of change, but the type of change required. Complex biological systems, like the circulatory system or the eye, require multiple, interdependent parts working together. If one part is missing or undeveloped, the system doesn’t function, leaving natural selection with nothing to preserve or act upon.
So, the real question is: where’s the evidence that random mutations and gradual steps can build new, functional systems, not just tweak existing ones? That’s not just a matter of time; it’s a matter of coordinated innovation. And that’s exactly where the theory runs thin.
You didn't answer my question, though I'm not all that surprised. You just made an assertion with no explanation of what's supposed to be special about those "body plans" that they can't be from gradual step-wise changes, and then threw out a couple of supposed examples without clearly identifying what's supposed to make those special and immune to resulting from gradual changes.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,035
2,578
45
San jacinto
✟198,309.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You'd think an all-powerful being would have more important things.
Why would you think that?
Fascinating to who? Nobody outside of the human race is interested in biology.
Yet another assertion.
That's news to me. I'm unconvinced he ever existed, and I've actually researched it. Now, there might be a human at the origin of the stories, but I don't see any evidence for the actual events that define Christ.
Oh, you're one of those. I suppose overwhelming academic consensus on his existence is trumped by "research"
What claims have I made? I keep asking for evidence, and not getting any.
You claim there is no evidence and that we are only special to ourselves, which are rather definitive claims. You may dispute what evidence there is, but circumstantial evidence remains evidence even if it doesn't suit your tastes.
Some here seem to think that questions are evidence.
Some may, but I certainly wouldn't qualify as much.
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,197
4,119
82
Goldsboro NC
✟255,255.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
That’s a good question, and it gets to the heart of the issue.
The problem isn’t with change itself, variation within species (microevolution) is well documented. But the leap to large-scale transformations (macroevolution) assumes that small changes, over enough time, naturally build into entirely new body plans, organs, or systems. That’s a major assumption.
What makes this different isn’t just the amount of change, but the type of change required. Complex biological systems, like the circulatory system or the eye, require multiple, interdependent parts working together. If one part is missing or undeveloped, the system doesn’t function, leaving natural selection with nothing to preserve or act upon.
So, the real question is: where’s the evidence that random mutations and gradual steps can build new, functional systems, not just tweak existing ones? That’s not just a matter of time; it’s a matter of coordinated innovation. And that’s exactly where the theory runs thin.
Some of us have attempted to open a discussion on that particular point by suggesting the actual solution. You didn't respond.
Erosion illustrates how existing structures break down over time, consistent with the law of entropy. But evolution isn’t about things falling apart, it’s about complex systems building up, organs, body plans, and genetic information. That’s not a good analogy; it assumes what it needs to prove, that natural processes can increase specified complexity, not just wear things down.

Darwin’s four key points (variation, inheritance, overproduction, and differential survival) aren’t controversial in and of themselves, we observe microevolution all the time. What’s debated is whether these small-scale changes can accumulate to explain large-scale innovations, like new organs, body plans, and information-rich systems. That leap is where the real contention lies and where the evidence gets thin.
Some of us have attempted to open a discussion on that particular point by suggesting the actual solution. You didn't respond.
Similarity doesn’t prove ancestry. It’s an interpretation based on the assumption of evolution. The same similarities can also be explained by common design. After all, an engineer will reuse successful structures in different machines. And when you dig deeper, many bird features (like feathers, flight capability, metabolic rate, bone structure) are vastly different from reptiles, not just similar. The burden of proof is on showing a plausible, step-by-step path from land-based reptiles to powered flight, not just pointing to surface-level resemblances.
An example I previously used, humans share a high percentage of DNA with bananas, but no one claims we evolved from them. DNA similarity doesn’t automatically mean descent. It is a presumption based upon a previous bias.

While Intelligent Design pushes back against chance evolution, it still allows for millions of years of death before humans, which contradicts the Bible. Scripture teaches that death entered the world through Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12). If evolution and death happened before the Fall, then the Gospel loses its foundation. ID might argue for a designer, but it doesn’t uphold the biblical account of creation, sin, and redemption.
We gather that is your opinion, but it relies on facts not in evidence and on an interpretation of Genesis which many Christians (perhaps the majority) reject. Not even all the Fathers accepted it, so perhaps we should put it aside for the time being.
 
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
6,864
4,793
NW
✟258,051.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That’s a good question, and it gets to the heart of the issue.
The problem isn’t with change itself, variation within species (microevolution) is well documented.
Speciation is well documented.
But the leap to large-scale transformations (macroevolution) assumes that small changes, over enough time, naturally build into entirely new body plans, organs, or systems. That’s a major assumption.
It's not an assumption.
What makes this different isn’t just the amount of change, but the type of change required. Complex biological systems, like the circulatory system or the eye, require multiple, interdependent parts working together. If one part is missing or undeveloped, the system doesn’t function, leaving natural selection with nothing to preserve or act upon.
There is very strong evidence that an eye can evolve from a single light-sensitive cell in a couple hundred thousand generations. You should look it up.
So, the real question is: where’s the evidence that random mutations and gradual steps can build new, functional systems, not just tweak existing ones?
In the many correct predictions. The Tiktaalik's ancestors, far enough back, didn't have the ability to crawl out of the water.
Erosion illustrates how existing structures break down over time, consistent with the law of entropy. But evolution isn’t about things falling apart, it’s about complex systems building up, organs, body plans, and genetic information.
You're wrong in that assertion. Organs form, but they also evolve away. The whale evolved from land mammals.
Darwin’s four key points (variation, inheritance, overproduction, and differential survival) aren’t controversial in and of themselves, we observe microevolution all the time. What’s debated is whether these small-scale changes can accumulate to explain large-scale innovations, like new organs, body plans, and information-rich systems. That leap is where the real contention lies and where the evidence gets thin.
You didn't answer the question.
Similarity doesn’t prove ancestry.
Who said anything about proof?
It’s an interpretation based on the assumption of evolution.
Conclusions based on evidence are not assumptions.
The same similarities can also be explained by common design.
What testable predictions can you make about a designer? er
An example I previously used, humans share a high percentage of DNA with bananas, but no one claims we evolved from them.
But we share a common ancestor with bananas. We already covered this.
While Intelligent Design pushes back against chance evolution
Evolution is not driven by chance.
 
Upvote 0

partinobodycular

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,623
1,046
partinowherecular
✟136,169.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Why would an atheist get angry over something that they do not believe exists?

You seem to have missed the point of my post... atheists DON'T get angry at God. They simply get annoyed at the never-ending nonsense that supposedly rational people will put forth in defense of their particular version of said God. (The above quote being but one example)

I have not seen any Christian on here claim to be self-righteous. In fact, you will find that Christians will admit that they are sinners.

And yet that very admission often comes steeped in self-righteousness, for it carries with it the insinuation that they're so humble that they'll even admit that they're a sinner. I'm sorry, but such piety often reeks of self-righteousness. Claims of humility often demonstrate the exact opposite.

The way you word things sounds like you do believe that there is a God,

He walks with me every moment of every day... how could I not believe? He's the thing to which I pray, even when I pray to myself, and He's the goal to which I aspire, even when I only aspire to persevere. In so much as He exists in me... He is.
 
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
6,864
4,793
NW
✟258,051.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Why would you think that?
Because I'm not vain enough to think I'm the center of the universe.
Yet another assertion.
Can you offer a counterexample?
Oh, you're one of those.
One of what?
I suppose overwhelming academic consensus on his existence is trumped by "research"
If you respected academic concensus, we wouldn't be debating evolution, now would we?
You claim there is no evidence and that we are only special to ourselves, which are rather definitive claims.
Surely you can produce a counterexample for an easy refutation?
You may dispute what evidence there is,
I dispute that there is any evidence at all.
but circumstantial evidence remains evidence even if it doesn't suit your tastes.
What evidence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,035
2,578
45
San jacinto
✟198,309.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Because I'm not vain enough to think I'm the center of the universe.
So you say.
Can you offer a counterexample?
Other than the obvious one?
One of what?
From your denial, I take it that you're a Jesus-mythicist. Did I misunderstand?
If you respected academic concensus, we wouldn't be debating evolution, now would we?
Am I debating evolution? News to me.
Surely you can produce a counterexample for an easy refutation?
I've already stated my counterexample, in the circumstantial historical case for Jesus- resurrection.
I dispute that there is any evidence at all.
No literary evidence? Or historical evidence? Testimonial? Seems quite bold to deny all evidence.
What evidence?
Historical documents, communal evidence, testimonial evidence. The kind of stuff that circumstantial cases are built upon.
 
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
6,864
4,793
NW
✟258,051.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So you say.
Have I ever claimed otherwise?
Other than the obvious one?
I mean, an example you can actually show me.
From your denial, I take it that you're a Jesus-mythicist. Did I misunderstand?
No, you just failed to clearly state your point.
Am I debating evolution? News to me.
What's the thread title again?
I've already stated my counterexample, in the circumstantial historical case for Jesus- resurrection.

No literary evidence? Or historical evidence? Testimonial? Seems quite bold to deny all evidence.
I'm still waiting to hear about this evidence.
Historical documents, communal evidence, testimonial evidence. The kind of stuff that circumstantial cases are built upon.
How tall was he? What color were his eyes? What was the date of the Resurrection? Surely someone wrote these things down.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,035
2,578
45
San jacinto
✟198,309.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Have I ever claimed otherwise?
I don't know, have you?
I mean, an example you can actually show me.
I can't force a horse to drink. Nor can I make a blind man see.
No, you just failed to clearly state your point.
I wasn't really making a point there, just expressing a (lack) of surprise.
What's the thread title again?
Perhaps you should look at the contributions I have made, as I am not debating against evolution
I'm still waiting to hear about this evidence.
How do you define evidence? I've already identified several different types of evidence that exist, which demonstrates your cllaim of "no" evidence is false.
How tall was he? What color were his eyes? What was the date of the Resurrection? Surely someone wrote these things down.
This seems thoroughly ignorant of the types of historical evidence that exist for most historical figures, and just shows an unreasonable expectation likely from a lack of familiarity of how historical evidence works.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,542
5,495
European Union
✟224,311.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
For some, it is that they are doing stuff that God would not like and so they choose not to believe in Him.
You can not just choose to believe or not to believe. It is such a complex psychological process that Bible calls faith a gift.

It does not work this way: "I believe there is God, but I do not want to live as He likes, therefore I choose to not believe in Him". We may have some emotional motivation to want to believe or not, but this alone cannot make it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
14,964
7,378
31
Wales
✟422,187.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
I just don't agree with a literal reading of Genesis because God's creation doesn't match up with the Biblical account. And since the Bible was written by man and God's creation cannot lie...
 
  • Winner
Reactions: dlamberth
Upvote 0

Larniavc

I’m the best.
Jul 14, 2015
14,483
8,857
52
✟379,259.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
If dreams are the subconscious working out conflicts in the conscious mind, it wouldn't seem to work.
When we dream we are performing maintenance’ memory consolidation and strengthening neural pathways. It’s not about working out conflicts, more like consolidating previous learning.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

I’m the best.
Jul 14, 2015
14,483
8,857
52
✟379,259.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
It does not go unnoticed that despite Christians preaching about souls going to heaven, they all insist on a belief in the "resurrection of the body."
It's almost as if, deep down, the really believed that the "soul" was an emergent property of the brain.
I sometimes wonder if not believing that brain is what creates out personality and ability to think and feel is a way of avoiding facing the fear of death.
 
Upvote 0

1Tonne

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2021
1,200
716
49
Taranaki
✟136,024.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You didn't answer my question, though I'm not all that surprised. You just made an assertion with no explanation of what's supposed to be special about those "body plans" that they can't be from gradual step-wise changes, and then threw out a couple of supposed examples without clearly identifying what's supposed to make those special and immune to resulting from gradual changes.
I did answer your question. In short, irreducible complexity. So basic that if one part is missing or undeveloped, the system doesn’t function, leaving natural selection with nothing to preserve or act upon.
But we share a common ancestor with bananas. We already covered this.
I can see by your posts that you are related to a banana. LOL
 
Upvote 0

BCP1928

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2024
8,197
4,119
82
Goldsboro NC
✟255,255.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I did answer your question. In short, irreducible complexity. So basic that if one part is missing or undeveloped, the system doesn’t function, leaving natural selection with nothing to preserve or act upon.
No examples of irreducible complexity have ever been found in nature. Your argument boils down do, "I can't figure out how evolution works so it couldn't have" and you refuse to learn why it does work.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

I’m the best.
Jul 14, 2015
14,483
8,857
52
✟379,259.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I'm not concerned with the feelings or opinions of human beings,
That’s why often Christians are looked at is a bit weird from the perspective of a person who values people for their individual intrinsic merits.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

Larniavc

I’m the best.
Jul 14, 2015
14,483
8,857
52
✟379,259.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
And you are a moral authority because...?
We are our own moral authority. This is why it comes as no surprise that when a person says they follow God’s morality it just so happens that ‘God’s’ morality is identical to the one they already hold.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

I’m the best.
Jul 14, 2015
14,483
8,857
52
✟379,259.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
That's all a fine opinion, but at the end of the day if that is all it is then there is no such thing as moral authority beyond one's ability to impose their values upon others. No matter how flowery and "rational" the language involved.
It’s not about imposing. It’s about agreeing. We agree not to kill each other and sanction those who don’t agree get sent to jail.

It’s a bit like God does not impose faith in him. But if you don’t agree you get sent to Hell.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

I’m the best.
Jul 14, 2015
14,483
8,857
52
✟379,259.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
ultimately it's a poor fit because without an ability to generate objective value statements we're all just grasping around in a dark cave and the only imperative is the biological imperative to pass on one's genes by hook or by crook.
I’ll be honest, I do feel worried around people who need an external rather than internal driver to modulate their proclivity for anti social behaviour.
 
Upvote 0