Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution

[gluadys]

(I was talking about a nucleac acids). Where does nucleic acid come from? Bacteria could not be bacteria without the acid however. So where is your evidence for the origin of nucleic acid which includes DNA I believe?

You were talking about the origin of differentiated genders.

On nucleic acids, you were already answered by wikipedia.

Perhaps you should stop jumping so much from topic to topic that you can't keep straight what the topic is.

 

[createdtoworship]

You were talking about the origin of differentiated genders.

On nucleic acids, you were already answered by wikipedia.

Perhaps you should stop jumping so much from topic to topic that you can't keep straight what the topic is.

so you admit that there is no answer to the origination of nucleic acids?

I just wanted to be sure about this before moving on.

 

[wayseer]

It's good to see someone point out that going back through the founder of the evangelical movement, back to Augustine, shows that recognizing that the evidence from the world is divine revelation is part of being Christian.

Why do you think some people today have lost sight of this ancient truth?

Papias

Because it was never part of the Christian doctrine.

Whether the world was made 15 billion years ago for fifteen minutes ago has nothing to do with your salvation.

 

[lucaspa]

well neither variation, mutation or evolution has occurred to spontaneously create nucleic acids. This has to happen for any bio-genesis to occur. Again no evidence. "The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known" wikipedia states.

Which Wiki article did you get this from? And it demonstrates why Wiki is not always a reliable source.

What you are talking about here is abiogenesis, not evolution. It is chemistry.

There are 2 ways to get nucleic acids:
1. The RNA world.
2. Protein first and protocells.

As it turns out, sugars (including ribose) are made by a number of chemical reactions. The bases that are in nucleic acids are also made by a number of different chemical reactions. Just in the last month, several bases were discovered to be present on comets and meteors; they are made by the action of UV light on simpler chemicals in space. But they are also made in the Miller-Urey reactions by lightning in a wide variety of atmospheres (including oxidizing ones).
4. http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~simmons/1116/16origin.htm
"However various experiments using the Miller-Urey apparatus, and different mixtures of gasses, have produced all 20 amino acids, ATP, some sugars, lipids and purine and pyrimidine bases of RNA and DNA."

So, the reactions to make RNA or simple nucleic acids are easy.
1. Szostak's lab: http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak.html
2. Lazcano, A and Miller, SL The origin and early evolution of life: prebiotic chemistry, the pre-RNA world, and time. Cell 85: 793-798, 1996.
20. L Orgel, A simpler nucleic acid. Science 290: 1306-1307, Nov 17, 2000. 222/sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5495/1306 Threose nucleic acids are easy to synthesize under prebiotic conditions and act like RNA chemically. Could be precursors to RNA.

Alternatively, protocells made from proteins are living cells. These cells, in turn, make nucleic acids:
JR Jungck and SW Fox, Synthesis of oligonucleotides by proteinoid microspheres acting on ATP. Naturwissenschaften, 60: 425-427, 1973.

So there you have it: spontaneous chemical synthesis of nucleic acids.

good brother showed shed some light on the theory of evolution:

"life sprang from an electrocuted mud puddle, that fishy fish sprouted legs and crawled up on shore, that those same fishy fish split off in two different directions- mammalian and reptilian, that those reptilian frayed their scales until they became feathers, shrunk down in size, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around and became tweety birds. Or that the mammalian family ditched the four legged transportation for two, grew a tail, climbed a tree, swung around from the branches until their tails fell off and they fell out the trees, built a fire, shed the fur, grew a beard, and now believe we came from monkeys.

None of that is evolution! Now, if you want to discuss the actual lineages, I will be happy to do so.

 

[lucaspa]

but we are heterosexual so somewhere along the line our sexes had to evolve, and this is where you end up with little or no evidence. you have two separate organisms both evolving heterosexual sex at the same time within the same proximity. And then they must reproduce twice and the offspring must also reproduce. Is this what you are saying? I find it very very difficult to believe.

As I noted, sexual reproduction starts with neither organism being distinctly male and female. And they have "heterosexual sex". We have living organisms -- such as the Volvox -- who reproduce this way.

From this you have a series of steps where specific sexual organs evolve. For instance, there are living fish where the "female" produces gametes and just drops them on the ocean floor. Then a "male" fish sprays the other set of gametes over the ones on the ocean floor. This is fertilization, but not sex.

From there it is easy for population to gradually evolve specific sexual organs for more efficient fertilization. The female keeps her gametes (ova or eggs) inside and the male has the squirter evolve to be longer, into a penis, so that his gametes can be deposited within the female. There are whole books discussing the evolution of sex and sexual organs. Here is one as it looks at living animals for the intermediate steps in evolving sexual organs:
The evolution of sex - Google Books

Gradyll, the argument you are using are known as the Argument from Ignorance. Just because you don't know a subject doesn't mean that there isn't considerable knowledge of the subject. Many creationists sites like to pretend that the evolution of sexual reproduction and sexual organs is completely unknown. You need to consider the ethics of such people who would deliberately try to deceive you.

 

[lucaspa]

As far as populations evolving this is even worse for your case. Because instead of just one or two evolving you have an entire population experimenting at the same time, which is even more unlikely than before. What tells each individual to experiment for sexual adaptivity, especially when they are single sexes? Much more what tells an entire population to do the same? Simply nonsense.

As gluadys pointed out, populations evolve. Nor does the entire population "experiment for sexual adaptivity". In the case where the population reproduces asexually, it is going to be two individuals who have a variation that allows exchange of genetic material. It would not even be meiosis yet. Bacteria do this by exchanging short stretches of DNA called "plasmids". Sometimes chromosomal genes move to plasmids and sometimes genes on plasmids move to the chromosome. Some bacteria who live in colonies exchange entire chromosomes.

In the case of Dictolystelium (you did read the article, didn't you?), the closest relative is Chlamydia. In Dictylostelium sexual exchange of genetic material happens under environmental stress. This allows more variation in the next generation. When food is plenty, reproduction is asexual. So there is no sharp dividing line between complete asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction. Therefore it is possible for the individuals in a population to have small variations that allow interaction with other members of the population. You don't have just isolated individuals. Over generations, as the population moves thru these small steps, eventually you will get a population that was once asexual reproduce exclusively sexually. And the evidence is in currently living species that are still in the intermediate stages.

 

[lucaspa]

you brought up bacteria so where did it come from? That was my question. A bacteria comes from something, it doesn't create itself from nothing. Again no evidence of abiogenesis either.

Again, that is not true. Start by reading these webpages where abiogenesis has been observed today in real time:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
The Harbinger. My Scientific Discussions of Evolution for the Pope and His Scientists

We can discuss this in as much detail as you like.

 

[lucaspa]

the chain of events that had to happen in abiogenesis are these...

1) Certain simple molecules underwent spontaneous, random chemical reactions until after about half-a-billion years complex organic molecules were produced.

2)Molecules that could replicate eventually were formed (the most common guess is nucleic acid molecules), along with enzymes and nutrient molecules that were surrounded by membraned cells.

3)Cells eventually somehow “learned” how to reproduce by copying a DNA molecule (which contains a complete set of instructions for building a next generation of cells). During the reproduction process, the mutations changed the DNA code and produced cells that differed from the originals.

4)The variety of cells generated by this process eventually developed the machinery required to do all that was necessary to survive, reproduce, and create the next generation of cells in their likeness. Those cells that were better able to survive became more numerous in the population (adapted from Wynn and Wiggins, 1997, p. 172).

so where are these hundreds of thousands of transitions required in abiogenesis, unless you don't want to take up this topic just let me know that you don't have the answer to the question.

OK, let's discuss the steps. First, the steps are out of order. #1 happened first. And the chemical reactions to form the basic building blocks of life happened about 4 billion years ago. A half billion years ago is when we see multicellular life with hard exoskeletons.

There are several ways to get amino acids, sugars, lipids, and purines and pyrimidines. They can come from reactions in the atmosphere (which I documented in an earlier post), at hydrothermal vents, or delivered to earth via comets, interstellar dust clouds, or meteorites during the first half billion years of the earth's history.

Then comes #4. I gave a website for that in the last post. Amino acids form proteins and the proteins spontaneously form living cells. The cells metabolize, respond to stimuli, grow, and reproduce. At this point they have no DNA or directed protein synthesis.

Next comes #2. Proteins can replicate, and they are present in the previous step. But there are also nucleic acids, either made by the proteins inside the cells or by abiotic chemical reactions and absorbed by the cells. Many of the nucleic acids can catalyze reactions (ribozymes), including the synthesis of proteins and new nucleic acids.

The lasts step is #3, directed protein synthesis. This evolves. The step-by-step Darwinian process for that has already been described:
1. AM Poole, DC Jeffares, D Penney, The path from the RNA world. J. Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17, 1998. Describes Darwinian step-by-step for evolution from RNA molecules to cells with directed protein synthesis. All intermediate steps are useful. http://awcmee.massey.ac.nz/people/dpenny/pdf/Poole_et_al_1998.pdf

It appears that part of the reason your sources think the whole thing is "impossible" or the steps are missing is that they have the wrong order of steps. BTW, what's the complete reference for Wynn and Wiggins? It appears that you got this from a creationist website. I'm guessing Answers in Genesis because you used that before for calling annual tree rings into question. Why don't you just admit you are copying from their website?

 

[lucaspa]

the first single celled organisms didn't have a nucleus! This had to evolve, but there is no evidence for it evolving. Nothing to do with DNA, thats a separate topic all together. This is chemical reactions and biology topics.

Actually, there is considerable evidence that the first cells did have a nucleus. The protocells form a series of concentric shells, the innermost one would be the nucleus. There is also evidence that prokaryotes (cells without a nucleus) evolved from eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus).

However, there also has been work done on the evolution of the nucleus with prokaryotes coming first.
The Birth of the Nucleus

I have a subscription to Science, so if anyone wants the full article, including you, Gradyll, just say so and I will download it and either attach it to a post or send it to you individually via PM.

Another article for you to look at is:
Evolution of the eukaryotic cell by wrapping the nucleus with an extra membrane | Albert de Roos

 

[Zeena]

Because it was never part of the Christian doctrine.

Whether the world was made 15 billion years ago for fifteen minutes ago has nothing to do with your salvation.

 

[lucaspa]

First, Augustine was not the founder of evangelicalism, and he has some pretty bad doctrines he held to, including mixing fatalism into christianity.

Ah, the fallacy of Guilt by Association. What you need to do is see whether this doctrine was bad. Since it has been echoed by all Christians since, including Luther and Calvin, it doesn't appear that you can simply dismiss it. Also, Hodge was definitely an evangelical and one of the founders of the modern evangelical (Fundamentalism) movement.

Second, REJECTING evolutionary doctrine is necessary to the Christian faith, and whoever stated the above (Jonathan Dudley, I presume) doesn't know or understand what they are talking about.

Empty assertion. Too many denominations have accepted evolution for you to claim that rejecting evolution is necessary to Christian faith.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4650_statements_from_religious_orga_3_13_2001.asp
I belong to one of those denominations.

When the assumptions of evolution are effectively divorced from the facts of nature, evolutionary theory has no evidence. It is a scientific religion in its own right, held together by blind, willful faith - it is not science.

What "assumptions of evolution" are you talking about?

 

[lucaspa]

Because it was never part of the Christian doctrine.

Whether the world was made 15 billion years ago for fifteen minutes ago has nothing to do with your salvation.

But denying God's Creation and God as Creator to stick with a literal interpretation of the Bible is a salvation issue, isn't it? The first statement of faith in the Nicene Creed is that God is Creator.

Also, if the world was made 15 minutes ago it means that all the evidence, including our memories of our lives, is false. Having a god that lies is indeed a salvation issue, isn't it?

 

[lucaspa]

You should have thought that one thru better before you said "Amen". Having a world that was made 15 minutes ago means you are "amening" a god that lies to you. Let's see, what entity in scripture is "Prince of Lies"?

 

[createdtoworship]

Which Wiki article did you get this from? And it demonstrates why Wiki is not always a reliable source.

What you are talking about here is abiogenesis, not evolution. It is chemistry.

There are 2 ways to get nucleic acids:
1. The RNA world.
2. Protein first and protocells.

As it turns out, sugars (including ribose) are made by a number of chemical reactions. The bases that are in nucleic acids are also made by a number of different chemical reactions. Just in the last month, several bases were discovered to be present on comets and meteors; they are made by the action of UV light on simpler chemicals in space. But they are also made in the Miller-Urey reactions by lightning in a wide variety of atmospheres (including oxidizing ones).
4. http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~simmons/1116/16origin.htm
"However various experiments using the Miller-Urey apparatus, and different mixtures of gasses, have produced all 20 amino acids, ATP, some sugars, lipids and purine and pyrimidine bases of RNA and DNA."

So, the reactions to make RNA or simple nucleic acids are easy.
1. Szostak's lab: http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak.html
2. Lazcano, A and Miller, SL The origin and early evolution of life: prebiotic chemistry, the pre-RNA world, and time. Cell 85: 793-798, 1996.
20. L Orgel, A simpler nucleic acid. Science 290: 1306-1307, Nov 17, 2000. 222/sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5495/1306 Threose nucleic acids are easy to synthesize under prebiotic conditions and act like RNA chemically. Could be precursors to RNA.

Alternatively, protocells made from proteins are living cells. These cells, in turn, make nucleic acids:
JR Jungck and SW Fox, Synthesis of oligonucleotides by proteinoid microspheres acting on ATP. Naturwissenschaften, 60: 425-427, 1973.

So there you have it: spontaneous chemical synthesis of nucleic acids.


None of that is evolution! Now, if you want to discuss the actual lineages, I will be happy to do so.

the real question is how did DNA evolve? I am sure your not going to simply state that it was a chemical reaction with sugar.

 

[wayseer]

But denying God's Creation and God as Creator to stick with a literal interpretation of the Bible is a salvation issue, isn't it? The first statement of faith in the Nicene Creed is that God is Creator.

No. It is only a issue with those who think they have to work their way to salvation.

Jesus set us free from such thinking.

 

[lucaspa]

the real question is how did DNA evolve? I am sure your not going to simply state that it was a chemical reaction with sugar.

There are 2 things:
1. How did DNA form?
2. How did directed protein synthesis evolve? Directed protein synthesis is where DNA "codes" for the amino acid sequence in proteins.

The answer to #1 is chemistry. DNA is a polymer of nucleotides. A nucleotide is a base (adenine, thymine, cytosine, or guanine) + deoxyribose (a sugar) + phosphate. Nucleotides form by simple chemistry.

DNA is a particular member of a class of polymers called "nucleic acids". RNA is also a polymer of nucleotides. The difference between DNA and RNA is the sugar. In RNA the sugar is ribose instead of deoxyribose. There are nucleic acids where the sugar is threose.

We usually write DNA in terms of the bases. So when we write ATGC, that is shorthand for a 4 nucleotide polymer whose bases are adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. However the linkage between the nucleotides occurs between the phosphate attached to one deoxyribose and another deoxyribose. DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is very simple chemistry and the chemical reaction is favored. The bases "stick out" from the sugar-phosphate "backbone". As I noted, in protocells formed abiotically, the proteins in the protocell will catalyze the synthesis of DNA or RNA from nucleotides. So, there we have the formation of DNA.

Modern cells use directed protein synthesis. That is, DNA is copied to messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA serves as a template for the synthesis of proteins in the ribosomes. Proteins are polymers of amino acids. Modern cells use 20 amino acids. 3 base "triplets" in the DNA dictate which amino acid will be used in a protein. So, the sequence of bases in the DNA dictate the sequence of amino acids in proteins. How did this system evolve? That's the subject of this paper:
1. AM Poole, DC Jeffares, D Penney, The path from the RNA world. J. Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17, 1998. Describes Darwinian step-by-step for evolution from RNA molecules to cells with directed protein synthesis. All intermediate steps are useful. http://awcmee.massey.ac.nz/people/dpenny/pdf/Poole_et_al_1998.pdf

So, in one scenario proteins form by thermal polymerization of amino acids. Thse proteins spontaneously form living cells. The proteins in the protocells make RNA from nucleotides that form by chemistry from bases, sugars, and phosphate. Then the paper details how these RNAs evolved directed protein synthesis by DNA.

 

[lucaspa]

No. It is only a issue with those who think they have to work their way to salvation.

Jesus set us free from such thinking.

Protestant thinking is that we are saved by faith alone. But if we don't have faith that God created? Remember, Jesus is God. Which means that Jesus is also Creator. That's the point of John 1, isn't it? Again, if we don't have faith that God created, doesn't that mean we don't really have faith in Jesus?

You are also ignoring the problems with that "15 minutes ago".

 

[createdtoworship]

There are 2 things:
1. How did DNA form?
2. How did directed protein synthesis evolve? Directed protein synthesis is where DNA "codes" for the amino acid sequence in proteins.

The answer to #1 is chemistry. DNA is a polymer of nucleotides. A nucleotide is a base (adenine, thymine, cytosine, or guanine) + deoxyribose (a sugar) + phosphate. Nucleotides form by simple chemistry.

DNA is a particular member of a class of polymers called "nucleic acids". RNA is also a polymer of nucleotides. The difference between DNA and RNA is the sugar. In RNA the sugar is ribose instead of deoxyribose. There are nucleic acids where the sugar is threose.

We usually write DNA in terms of the bases. So when we write ATGC, that is shorthand for a 4 nucleotide polymer whose bases are adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. However the linkage between the nucleotides occurs between the phosphate attached to one deoxyribose and another deoxyribose. DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is very simple chemistry and the chemical reaction is favored. The bases "stick out" from the sugar-phosphate "backbone". As I noted, in protocells formed abiotically, the proteins in the protocell will catalyze the synthesis of DNA or RNA from nucleotides. So, there we have the formation of DNA.

Modern cells use directed protein synthesis. That is, DNA is copied to messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA serves as a template for the synthesis of proteins in the ribosomes. Proteins are polymers of amino acids. Modern cells use 20 amino acids. 3 base "triplets" in the DNA dictate which amino acid will be used in a protein. So, the sequence of bases in the DNA dictate the sequence of amino acids in proteins. How did this system evolve? That's the subject of this paper:
1. AM Poole, DC Jeffares, D Penney, The path from the RNA world. J. Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17, 1998. Describes Darwinian step-by-step for evolution from RNA molecules to cells with directed protein synthesis. All intermediate steps are useful. http://awcmee.massey.ac.nz/people/dpenny/pdf/Poole_et_al_1998.pdf

So, in one scenario proteins form by thermal polymerization of amino acids. Thse proteins spontaneously form living cells. The proteins in the protocells make RNA from nucleotides that form by chemistry from bases, sugars, and phosphate. Then the paper details how these RNAs evolved directed protein synthesis by DNA.

so you can take bases, sugar, and phosphate and make DNA? I dont' think so. I think it takes a lot more than that.

 

[metherion]

As an idea, in the Mind of God.

For it is by His good pleasure we are. This is why I can say that; what is, was: even as the Preacher;

Ecc 1:10
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

[note the Preacher did not say any new 'work', bur rather, 'thing' and 'it']

But being in the Mind of God does not mean that it also exists in the cell of the organism yet, until it is actually produced, correct? I am not disputing that God knew how evolution or individual mutations would play out, but until they actually happened, they weren’t there yet.

We don't know that, for we know not the function of non-encoding DnA (which is now considered a faulty term by the scientific community).

Actually, we can by math. DNA is a double helix, so it has two backbones per strand, one on each helix. After it splits once, there are two strands, so four backbones, 2 per helix, 2 helixes per strand. But only 2 of those are from the original. And if we have a 10,000 bp strand with 1 mutation, out of the original 20,000 base pairs, after one round of duplication, 19998 out of 40,000 are original. After one more round of duplication, we go from 4 backbones to 8 backbones, in four strands. But only 2 of those backbones are the original backbones! So two strands cannot have any of the original backbones. And with 1 more mutation per 10,000, we are left with 19,996 out of 80,000 being the originals. And so on, and so forth.

Non-coding DNA is actually the correct term, but Lucaspa, please correct me if I am wrong. The ‘wrong’ term is junk DNA, and some uses are known. A lot of retroviruses are coded in the non-coding DNA, and it also provides spacing between genes, which is needed for the body to use the genes.

And what are the functions of this 'new' strand? Is they not for mitigating damage to the original? Therefore it is a hard copy, so that the orignal can read from it what is true.

Actually, they are for making new cells, either to reproduce or replace damaged cells or to grow to adulthood, or the like.

But we don't know, we can only surmise based on what is visable with the eyes. Take for example the non-encoding DnA example above
...
So, there is obviously more than 'meets the eye' going on here.

Yes, there is. And the only way to find out what is going on is to investigate.

When a baby is conceived, he goes through meiosis, his cells split and he begins to grow. Same scenario, no? Well, that baby has the same DnA he had since the moment he was concieved. In fact, he will have the same DnA his entire lifetime, though it will be altered by both how he treats the body and whatever this world throws at it, not to even mention apoptosis (the self destruction of cells) in longevity of his life.

Actually, he or she will go through a lot more MITOSIS than MEIOSIS. MEIOSIS is used for making sexual cells in humans, mitosis for making regular body cells.

He will also not have the same DNA his entire life. Some of it will mutate. Some of it may get damaged by radiation and the like. If it is altered, then it cannot be the same, because alteration involves changing, no?

Ergo, there are many factors which can alter the life form, but never change it into something other than what it already is.

The example given earlier, of rabishes, for instance, never actually changed the species, but rather, altered it. It is still of the mustard family, and nothing can ever change that. Do you know of something that can change that, empirically?

Here is where you are starting to go astray. Nobody claims that organisms suddenly change families.

With the rabish, it does not change the species, it changes the individual. If the individual goes on to have lots of offspring, it will become a new species, but the old species is still there until every last member has died off or changed into something else, one change at a time.

The differences between species is the sum total of all the changes of all the generations between the last common ancestor. No change was very much... but if you stack enough pieces of paper on top of each other you can get multiple feet thick encyclopedia volumes (even if you neglect the covers).

The point is, the further back you go, the more similar everything is. It is differences since then that make up the changes.

Take a tree. Take the trunk as the central part. The roots go down, the limbs go sideway, and the trunk goes up. Are all still part of the tree? Yes. Will anything growing on the tree ever not be part of the tree? Well, when it dies and falls off, but for this thought experiment that doesn’t count. So... no. But if I take a certain limb and a certain root, they are both part of the same tree. But they are not the same part of the same tree. And the limb will split into branches. Are all the branches the same? No. Some have more twigs, some have fewer, some are higher, some are thicker... but they are all part of the tree.

It is like that with life. At first, there were just cells. No plant cells, no animal cells, just cell. But some developed a cell wall, while some developed the ability to eat others. They are still just cells, and there are still single celled plants and animals even today. But having a cell wall and photosynthesis versus the proteins needed to engulf and digest cells are only two changes, right? Two changes isn’t very different. So lets follow plants. Some of them became multicellular, some didn’t. Just one change, right? On one hand, we have some blobs of cells that stick together so single celled animals can’t eat just one, because they’re all attached. On the other hand, we have some floating alone so they aren’t beacons to predators going HEY THERE IS A LOT OF FOOD HERE IF YOU CAN JUST GATHER ENOUGH GUYS TO EAT IT ALL AT ONCE! Just one change, right?
Now let’s fast forward a bit, and focus on trees. Trees have seeds. Let’s say they just have plain, bare seeds. Some get squashed, some fall fight down onto the tree roots and don’t go anywhere... blah. But in two places, some trees change a little. One on trees, a bit of a shell forms around the seeds. Now they are more durable, and more trees grow. Elsewhere, the nuts develop some sugars or sap covering them. They are much more tasty, animals eat them, and spread them further in their dung. Just one change, but it goes two different ways. Now we have acorns on one hand and fruit on the other.

So, no big changes are needed, no big family jumps. Just one or two small changes over time, piling up.

And I have a computer which stores information. When it is turned on, the information is readily available to me, providing I know where to look. When it is turned off, however, no information at all is forthcoming, no matter if I know where to look, or not.

Same difference, for we can only utilize what is readily available to us at any given moment. Point being, the idea is there, though the material for the formation of the idea be asbsent.

But if the material of the formation of the idea is absent, then there is no material there, and the thing is not there. Blueprints are not cars, even though they are the idea for cars.

And this only alters the body. That's my point.

But the propagation of alterations is all that is needed. If you are born missing an arm due to a genetic defect, then your children will be more likely to have one fewer arm. And THEIR children will have more of a chance to have one fewer arm, and so on.

Just because I am missing an arm or have a cold does not make me any less or more of a person. The alteration of the body is nothing new, but it's always backwards, hence our bodies grow old and die. Our bodies do not mutate into something Eternal, but by the Spirit, EG; something FROM Someone, even God. There is never an instance where God is not actively working on/in all things. So also there is never an instance when something pops out of nothing. Even if the only possible boiling point would be God by the Spirit, it is still something, err Somone.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

To us, yes. From our perspective, yes.

But not to God, Who see's things as they really are.

When the Apostles, for instance, saw Jesus transfigured before them;

Matt 17:12
And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Were they seeing Him as He really was, or what He was to become?

So we can’t actually know what the world around us is or is like? Like the Matrix or something? As Gluadys said, isn’t this rather dishonest on the part of God?

We can only 'see', by the Spirit, what it is He is revealing to us at any given time. We are to walk by faith, not sight.

With regards to faith and God. Does God want us all to blindfold ourselves, cross the street without looking, and such? Even Jesus used His eyes to look at and see people.

So what more is there to know?

Plenty. Knowing that people have souls does not tell us how to stop diseases, how to alleviate suffering caused by diseases, how to irrigate crops to help avoid famines from droughts, and so on.

I do not agree with your definition of man. For you leave out both soul and spirit,

Actually, I didn’t leave out soul, with this line:
but the souls God gave us ...

Unfortunately, yes. And I would beg to differ as to your classification of species here. For, as species stands at the top (or bottom, depending on your view) of taxonomic rank it must needs be more definative than genre and family. Ergo, there must be too many differences from the genre and family with which to classify a given species, in order for it to be classified as a new one.

No. This is not correct. For a species to be in a genus and family, it must have certain characteristics. For it to be a new species, it must have all the characteristics of the family, all the more specific ones of the genus, and some MORE that distinguish it from any other current species. But it still needs (and will have) all the features of the genus and of the family.

Yet, Metherion, surely we can agree that God has had us in mind?

Yep. And I believe that there is no problem in God setting up the natural laws in a way that He knew would lead to humans developing.

Metherion

 

[wayseer]

Again, if we don't have faith that God created, doesn't that mean we don't really have faith in Jesus?

It is interesting, is it not, how worldly thinking infiltrates the minds of believers?

I have faith in that God loves us to bits regardless of your academic brilliance.

Whether creation happen 15 billions years ago or in the last 15 minutes has no bearing on God's love. Making out that one must believe something or other is nothing less than a 'works' based salvation plan put up by your local church insurance company.

I don't buy my salvation from the church.