A question for theistic evolutionists

[MedicMan]

What's happened to change your mind? I think God's love can be found anywhere, under any circumstances - I'd be more than happy to help you look for Him again.

 

[starelda]

Lots of things. It's a long story. I think I'm just going through a process of accepting my unbelief. I yo-yo between being comfortable with my lack of belief and being unhappy with it...each time the periods of being comfortable increase. I will no doubt continue reading about Christianity and other religions though.

 

[Boltwave]

Being that I have yet to accept the Christian religion, I will give you something to consider in the fine lines of evolution that I have yet to see mentioned:

The platypus, evolution says that mammals and birds evolved from reptiles, but the platypus is nearly a half mammal half bird creature! No, it certaintly doesn't have the abstract features of a bird (like the hardness of the duck's bill) but it nonetheless resembles the head of a duck, along with that, its feet are webbed, like a duck's, but its body and tail resemble a beaver, and, it is considered the only living mammal (besides the hedgehog) to lay eggs. (If this was an animal to have evolved from reptiles why isn't it a transitional form being a half duck half lizard organism? If instead evolutionists change it and say: "yeah, well, birds evolved from reptiles and then birds became mammals", so how did birds become mammals? And, why would the fossils suggest that mammals did indeed come from reptiles? (Triceratops becoming a rhinosaurus, Brontosaurus becoming a giraffe) the explanation does not hold water, as I see it, even being a non-Christian, I see the evolution theory beginning to crumble by the observation of modern day beings.)

Sometimes I'm inclined to believe in evolution, like the hairs that grow on humans and why they grow there, but there are so many more examples of instaneneous creation, along with ideas impossible for any evolutionary progress to take place! Listen to this: I was reading my world history textbook last night on the prehistory chapter and it revealed the accuracy of carbon dating: the latest is said to have exposed materials 50,000 years old, but, wait, the second dating method, thermolunesence, dates to 200,000 years at the most, why, in the world do we then consider the earth to be billions and billions of years old? It seems more and more clear to me that it is definetly a far fetched theory, especially when we have been unable to confirm anything older than the thousands range.

Along with that, my textbook even admits that there are "missing gaps" in the fossil record! And this is just how creationists have explained their perspective, I sincerely believe it's more logical to believe in creation than evolution, but how you go about it is completely up to you.

 

[BelindaP]

You are right that the platypus is the only living mammal that lays eggs. It's just a little behind the times, is all.

People forget that the membranes that surround a developing fetus are the remnants of the egg. And some babies are born with the membranes intact! Essentially, their mothers laid them.

 

[DailyBlessings]

.

 

[Boltwave]

DailyBlessings,

Of course reptiles lay eggs, you didn't seem to address the issue that the platypus does not have to be a half-bird, but it resembles a duck's head, again, where does the similiar resembling tail (that of a beaver) come in? It shows little origin of reptiles, it should suggest that it came from a type of bird and evolved into a type of mammal, the platypus lays eggs like a reptile, so what? So do birds.

And the dating methods are used to assume on where the fossils lye in the historical timeperiod, also, the "gap" mentioned in the textbook is quite clear: really, most of the "missing link" fossils we have are missing large parts of their composition, therefore evolutionists take the time to observe what these might have been like and build casts from there, then, it takes the shape of the evolution thesis, but then again, there's the obejectivity of its accuracy being misconstrued, not intentionally trying to deceive or discredit creationists.

Also, with the Neanderthals, I know "Talk.Origins" had an article about the creationist claims but when I read some of it it only seemed as a response of justification and nothing more or less convincing, just because perhaps Neanderthals weren't found with arthritis, or that rickets doesn't completely make someone out to look completely like a Neanderthal just tries to throw out these bone deformations in an attempt to justify it, ironically however, Neanderthals bone structure does resemble rickets, and its also very possible of many, many, other bone diseases and deformations, I consider evolution to be a theory, or a tied up fabricated web of facts put into explanation of a more naturalistic way of indentifying human and universal origins.

According to your icon you are a Christian, yes? IF you are a Christian, how can you explain the theory of evolution? I tried this once actually, it's very difficult and only jumbles the theories, either the earth was created instaneonously or it formed over billions of years, one of them alone has to be true, the other is just fantasy.

If you hold faith to Christ, you would then take into account the story of Genesis, if it was all written metaphorically then where does Satan's role come in? The ultimate opposer to God's will? The ultimate external enemy of mankind? If Satan doesn't exist, then where does Christ fit in? His sacrafice becomes meaningless, sin is of human nature, but what influenced it?

Another comparison is this: creasteceans and arachnids, someone would laugh at the idea of these sharing common ancestors, but they have many similairities.

Most crabs have eight legs just like a spider, with two claws in the front, just like two pincers for the spider, lobsters and scorpions have similar bodies as well, both bugs and creasteceans can come into different various forms, was there a common ancestor between bugs and cresteceans? No one would take this seriously because the spider is a bug and the crab is a fish! But, why do they look similiar? Despite the differences, they have similairites, some spiders, in fact, do inhabit waters, who's to say there isn't a common ancestor, but if there was, where does it fit with the evolutionary tree line? Didn't fish evolve into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles?

On another note, the dolphin's mentality is way more advanced than a chimpanzee's or ape's, pigs and swine resemble the closest parts of skin to the human, and the octupus have the closest eyes to a human.

Evolution is not 100% accurate, evolutionists even admit there are "flaws" to the theory, therefore evolution itself cannot be a fact, neither can it be a scientific law, you wouldn't be able to argue, for instance, that gravity depends on mass and distances of two objects, but evolution is just philosophical using scientific observations, it is not a scientific observation itself.

 

[ebia]

Being that I have yet to accept the Christian religion, I will give you something to consider in the fine lines of evolution that I have yet to see mentioned:

The platypus, evolution says that mammals and birds evolved from reptiles, but the platypus is nearly a half mammal half bird creature!

The platypus's resemblance to a bird is entirely superficial - it's decended from a reptile/mammal transitionary species, so it has some reptilian features (eg leathery eggs, venom), some primitive mammalian features (milk glands, but no breasts or nipples), and some full mammalian features (eg fur).

No, it certaintly doesn't have the abstract features of a bird (like the hardness of the duck's bill) but it nonetheless resembles the head of a duck, along with that, its feet are webbed, like a duck's, but its body and tail resemble a beaver, and, it is considered the only living mammal (besides the hedgehog) to lay eggs.

Hedgehogs do not lay eggs. You are thinking of echidnas - the only other monotreme.

(If this was an animal to have evolved from reptiles why isn't it a transitional form being a half duck half lizard organism?

To put it very crudely, it's half reptile, half mammal. No duck (or any other bird) at all.

If instead evolutionists change it and say: "yeah, well, birds evolved from reptiles and then birds became mammals", so how did birds become mammals? And, why would the fossils suggest that mammals did indeed come from reptiles? (Triceratops becoming a rhinosaurus, Brontosaurus becoming a giraffe)

That's not how it works at all. All mammals are decended from a single mammal ancestor species. Any resemblence between a triceratops and a rhino, or a brotosaurus and a giraffe is purely superficial.

the explanation does not hold water, as I see it, even being a non-Christian, I see the evolution theory beginning to crumble by the observation of modern day beings.)

You don't appear to understand evolution at all judging by the very serious misconceptions displayed in this post, so you are not well placed to assess it's viability.

Sometimes I'm inclined to believe in evolution, like the hairs that grow on humans and why they grow there, but there are so many more examples of instaneneous creation, along with ideas impossible for any evolutionary progress to take place! Listen to this: I was reading my world history textbook last night on the prehistory chapter and it revealed the accuracy of carbon dating: the latest is said to have exposed materials 50,000 years old, but, wait, the second dating method, thermolunesence, dates to 200,000 years at the most, why, in the world do we then consider the earth to be billions and billions of years old?

There are lots of ways of dating. And what's really conclusive is that they each turn out to support the others.

It seems more and more clear to me that it is definetly a far fetched theory, especially when we have been unable to confirm anything older than the thousands range.

This is simply incorrect.

Along with that, my textbook even admits that there are "missing gaps" in the fossil record!

There aren't "missing gaps". There will always be gaps - think of each fossil as a dot on an imaginary line. However many dots you have, there will always be gaps. You can't have a complete, gapless, line without an uncountably infinite number of dots, but we will only ever have a strictly finite set of fossils. To not have any gaps would require us to have a fossil of every animal in the chain of decent of every living animal, but fossilisation is an uncommon process and we will never find every fossil. What we have is enough fossils to conclusively make lots of connections.

And this is just how creationists have explained their perspective,

If it is, then they lied.

 

[Boltwave]

I suppose you will call these hoaxes then?

http://mtblanco.com/ForSale/2006/ICAStones.html

All of the written legends and myths about a flood, all of the stories and legends about dragons, beasts, and so forth, I don't see how evolution is any less faith based than creationism.

And creationists would agree on the matter of evolution, that is, microevolution.

 

[ebia]

DailyBlessings,

Of course reptiles lay eggs, you didn't seem to address the issue that the platypus does not have to be a half-bird, but it resembles a duck's head, again, where does the similiar resembling tail (that of a beaver) come in? It shows little origin of reptiles, it should suggest that it came from a type of bird and evolved into a type of mammal, the platypus lays eggs like a reptile, so what? So do birds.

You need to be prepared to look beyond the most superficial things. Vaguely similar appearances result from similar requirements. It's the mechanism behind them that show the relationships - a platypus bill might look a bit like a duck's, but its structure will tell you that it isn't built the same - the similarity is purely superficial.

According to your icon you are a Christian, yes? IF you are a Christian, how can you explain the theory of evolution? I tried this once actually, it's very difficult and only jumbles the theories, either the earth was created instaneonously or it formed over billions of years, one of them alone has to be true, the other is just fantasy.

The earth was formed in ways that science is discovering. Genesis isn't a science textbook, its a story to tell us about who created the world and what our place is in it.

If you hold faith to Christ, you would then take into account the story of Genesis, if it was all written metaphorically then where does Satan's role come in? The ultimate opposer to God's will? The ultimate external enemy of mankind? If Satan doesn't exist, then where does Christ fit in? His sacrafice becomes meaningless, sin is of human nature, but what influenced it?

Genesis is an account of how we collectively and individually make bad choices that separate us from God and what he would have us be (sin). Christ came to reconcile us to God and restore our place in creation.

Another comparison is this: creasteceans and arachnids, someone would laugh at the idea of these sharing common ancestors, but they have many similairities.

Most crabs have eight legs just like a spider, with two claws in the front, just like two pincers for the spider, lobsters and scorpions have similar bodies as well, both bugs and creasteceans can come into different various forms, was there a common ancestor between bugs and cresteceans? No one would take this seriously because the spider is a bug and the crab is a fish!

Again, you are talking without understanding what you are talking about. A crab is not a fish. Not remotely. It's not even a vertibrate. Opinions based on this kind of very basic misconception are not going to get you anywhere.

But, why do they look similiar? Despite the differences, they have similairites, some spiders, in fact, do inhabit waters, who's to say there isn't a common ancestor, but if there was, where does it fit with the evolutionary tree line? Didn't fish evolve into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles?

There are simply too many misconceptions in this one paragraph alone to even begin to sort it out. You are arguing against something you know next to nothing about.

On another note, the dolphin's mentality is way more advanced than a chimpanzee's or ape's, pigs and swine resemble the closest parts of skin to the human, and the octupus have the closest eyes to a human.

sigh.

Evolution is not 100% accurate, evolutionists even admit there are "flaws" to the theory, therefore evolution itself cannot be a fact, neither can it be a scientific law,

In science facts, laws, and theories refer to completely different things. One isn't better (or worse) than another.

you wouldn't be able to argue, for instance, that gravity depends on mass and distances of two objects, but evolution is just philosophical using scientific observations, it is not a scientific observation itself.

Yet more misunderstaning.

 

[Boltwave]

Alright, but you have one problem with that remark, if Genesis was simply metaphorical, where does the fall of man come in? People don't understand this very well, if the serpent wasn't Satan then what does Christ's execution have anything to do with us? It seems meaningless to me, Jesus exorcised demons, rebuked fallen angels, and resisted the temptations of Satan, so obviously Satan and Jesus are quite connected, where does Satan come in?

 

[BelindaP]

Gentlemen, let me remind you that this is not a debate forum. If you wish to argue evolution versus creation, or YEC versus Old Earth please go to the appropriate forum.

The OP was asking about theistic evolution. I don't believe she was interested in the other theories.

 

[starelda]

Gentlemen, let me remind you that this is not a debate forum. If you wish to argue evolution versus creation, or YEC versus Old Earth please go to the appropriate forum.

The OP was asking about theistic evolution. I don't believe she was interested in the other theories.

Thank you...just what I was about to say

This thread is not a creation vs. evolution thread! I'm not interested in creationism at all. I've looked into that idea before, I don't buy it.

I specifically asked about theistic evolution because I was confused about how God fits into that theory.

 

[ebia]

So have we answered all your questions?

 

[starelda]

Yes, this thread has helped my understanding of theistic evolution. Thanks to everyone who has replied.

 

[MedicMan]

No problem, starelda. If you do ever coming back to Christianity, feel free to PM me I'd be more than happy to chat about any problems you come up with