As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[tas8831]

so how we can falsify evolution then?

Why do you ask?

"no since we can conclude design in a robot even if we never seen the designer."

So So you are saying you are a robot? I don;t get your arguments since they are silly and self-serving.

More of your pseudo-clever double standards?

You are not very good at this.

 

[tas8831]

so we cant conclude design when we see a robot?

What is the metal status of a person that thinks that recognizing human design in a robot indicates that a Hebrew tribal deity from the ancient middle east created a man from dust?


Are you really THIS desperate to prop up your failing beliefs?

 

[tas8831]

so how do you know that the evolution of the flagellum is possible? you only believe so.

lets check your claim. can you show a step by step explanation for the creation of the flagellum, at the dust-to-bacteria level?

so how do you know that the creation of the flagellum is possible? you only believe so

 

[xianghua]

There are more modern explanations but here is a thirteen year old video:

It is rather simplified, but here is the much much more thorough paper that it was based upon:

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

That paper is supported by over 200 peer reviewed papers, please forgive me for not linking them.

lets see. they start with "a hypothetical primitive type III export apparatus" or even a "simple" pore. but this isnt a simple step. such a system is very complex and has several parts. so the model fail even in the first step. secondly- this whole scenario is a theoretical. so it base on belief. a belief that a motor can evolve naturally.

 

[tas8831]

lets see. they start with "a hypothetical primitive type III export apparatus" or even a "simple" pore. but this isnt a simple step. such a system is very complex and has several parts. so the model fail even in the first step. secondly- this whole scenario is a theoretical. so it base on belief. a belief that a motor can evolve naturally.

lets check your claim. can you show a step by step explanation for the creation of the flagellum, at the dust-to-bacteria level?

so how do you know that the creation of the flagellum is possible? you only believe so

 

[Subduction Zone]

lets see. they start with "a hypothetical primitive type III export apparatus" or even a "simple" pore. but this isnt a simple step. such a system is very complex and has several parts. so the model fail even in the first step. secondly- this whole scenario is a theoretical. so it base on belief. a belief that a motor can evolve naturally.

Not hypothetical, you did not use that term correctly. Those are observed in nature. Nor do you know how to use the word "theoretical" properly.

I tell you what. Work on your language a bit and try again.

 

[xianghua]

Not hypothetical, you did not use that term correctly.

its actually a quot from your own source:

"The model begins with a hypothetical primitive type III export apparatus"

so they only believe that such a thing can happen. and again- even a primitive system is too complex.

 

[Subduction Zone]

its actually a quot from your own source:

"The model begins with a hypothetical primitive type III export apparatus"

so they only believe that such a thing can happen. and again- even a primitive system is too complex.

Nope, you did not understand the meaning of the term as used in context. You then took the word "hypothetical" out of context and used an equivocation fallacy. Such export apparatuses do exist. Here is an example of an article on one:

Fuel of the Bacterial Flagellar Type III Protein Export Apparatus. - PubMed - NCBI

Can you own up to your error? I will be bringing this up again if you fail.

 

[xianghua]

Nope, you did not understand the meaning of the term as used in context. You then took the word "hypothetical" out of context and used an equivocation fallacy. Such export apparatuses do exist. Here is an example of an article on one:

Fuel of the Bacterial Flagellar Type III Protein Export Apparatus. - PubMed - NCBI

Can you own up to your error? I will be bringing this up again if you fail.

lets go with this. so the first step is an export system. isnt it a complex system to begin with?

 

[brocke]

Oh, I forgot to mention in my previous post, evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive, but only if you are willing to change the ~5000 years ago creation date to a couple billion years. (Just to clarify).

I don't believe in evolution; I accept that evolution has and is occuring. I also accept that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. As a Christian I do believe that everything was created by God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

lets go with this. so the first step is an export system. isnt it a complex system to begin with?

Not especially. And do you know what it means when you move the goalposts? It means that you concede the earlier argument.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If Evolution is true, and involves survival of the fittest, then why try to save endangered species? If they cannot survive by themselves, then we need to allow evolution to take its course and let those species become extinct and for those species that are fit to survive without our help, to continue.

Also, if the human eye evolved over millions of years into a complete eye, then those species, including humans could not have survived, because until their eyes were fully developed, they would have been blind and they would be so disadvantaged they would not have been able to survive without sight. Natural selection - survival of the fittest would happen, and creatures and humans without sight would fall by the wayside!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I don't believe in evolution; I accept that evolution has and is occurring. I also accept that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. As a Christian I do believe that everything was created by God.

The spanner in the works of evolution is the simple fact of the human eye, and the eyes of every animal. If the bodies of humans and animals evolved from single cell organisms over millions of years, then until their eyes were fully formed, they would be blind and helpless. They wouldn't be able to find or hunt for food, avoid falling down cliffs and into holes, falling into water and being drowned, etc. The principle of evolution is the survival of the fittest. Blind humans or animals would not be fit enough to survive and they would have died out a very long time ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If Evolution is true, and involves survival of the fittest, then why try to save endangered species? If they cannot survive by themselves, then we need to allow evolution to take its course and let those species become extinct and for those species that are fit to survive without our help, to continue.

Also, if the human eye evolved over millions of years into a complete eye, then those species, including humans could not have survived, because until their eyes were fully developed, they would have been blind and they would be so disadvantaged they would not have been able to survive without sight. Natural selection - survival of the fittest would happen, and creatures and humans without sight would fall by the wayside!

You need to work on your logic skills if you want others to take you seriously. When vision was evolving those with limited sight were in competition with those with even less.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You need to work on your logic skills if you want others to take you seriously. When vision was evolving those with limited sight were in competition with those with even less.

Can science establish how the human eye evolved? What do you think are the mathematical odds of the human eye with all its complexity evolving by pure chance? You can give the odds of 1: 1-adding as many zeros as you like and it still wouldn't be enough zeros.

 

[Job 33:6]

If Evolution is true, and involves survival of the fittest, then why try to save endangered species? If they cannot survive by themselves, then we need to allow evolution to take its course and let those species become extinct and for those species that are fit to survive without our help, to continue.

For your first question, people appreciate the diversity of life and find it ascetically beautiful. So we attempt to dial back our own destructive nature.

 

[Tom 1]

I am curious if any Christians believe that evolution occurs (take careful note of the phrase, "evolution occurs" it means if it has happened or will happen, regardless of whether or not humans evolved from other primates). Please take the time to answer, thanks for any responses.


(For full disclosure I am atheist)

** Convenient definition of evolution for those unsure: Evolution is changes in a life form due to mutations in their genetic code, leading to the success or failure (or neither) of the mutation, leading to the mutated creature having more success mating, therefore passing on the improved gene or no success, leading to the gene not being passed on. Or to put it simply, changes in a life form over time. **

Yes, I've never come across any good reason to believe that evolution doesn't occur.

 

[Tom 1]

So we don't have free will? I do believe that the bible explicitly states that God gave humans free will...

Galatians 5:13

The bible doesn't explicity state that we have free will as such. There is a lot about choices, influences, directions people take and the consequences of that etc but no one verse addresses the idea of free will directly and completely, not in a way that can't be balanced with other passages on related issues. The passage from Galations is about the differences between living under the OT law and under grace, not about free will in a broader sense. The freedom being talked about involves some choice but it's a bit more complicated that the basic notion of whether we can make completely free choices about anything.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

For your first question, people appreciate the diversity of life and find it ascetically beautiful. So we attempt to dial back our own destructive nature.

When so much effort is made, quite rightly, to try and preserve endangered species, it is actually a denial of natural selection and therefore of one of the foundations of evolution. This is because those who are striving to stop the extinction of endangered species are working against the survival of the fittest, which is one of the main principles of evolution. Therefore these people don't believe in evolution in practice, even though they might say they do with their mouths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can science establish how the human eye evolved? What do you think are the mathematical odds of the human eye with all its complexity evolving by pure chance? You can give the odds of 1: 1-adding as many zeros as you like and it still wouldn't be enough zeros.

Why ask how the human eye developed? Our ancestors going back at least four hundred million years had eyes. It is not as if we needed to develop an eye just for ourselves.

The odds of the human eye developing was one. No zeroes needed.