Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[AV1611VET]

I might contract cancer continuing to visit this thread.

Sounds witchy.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That doesnt say anything about evolution at all. Thats talking about how we will die and be ressurrected in a spiritual body. All bodies are different, but that doesnt mean they didnt proceed from the same origin. Now if a celestial or spiritual body is different than a terrestial body, and yet a celestial body proceeds from a terrestial body when it dies, why cant the flesh of man proceed from the flesh of animals?

Because God's Word says there is.... "...one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."

This is in context to "not all flesh is the same flesh."



...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I feel that people here have jumped to conclusions and mischaracterized me completely.

Im not some Darwin fanatic. I couldnt care less whether evolution is true or not, and neither should you.

I simply have an open mind. My faith is based on trusting in God alone, not on arrogant insistence that I know everything. So whether Im right or wrong, Im still going to believe in God. Can you say the same for yourself?

Did I ever say that the saints believed the sun rotated around the earth? No. When the discovery was made, it was a common belief and people who did not believe in the sun rotating around the earth were condemned as heretics. Not unlike the accustions being made here against people who disagree with you.

Now, when I was younger I wanted to be a paleontologist, and I stayed up to date on the debate about Evolution, so I know a thing or two about it. I have argued for both sides and frankly both sides have issues.

The gaps in the fossil record are, indeed, one of the most damning problems with the theory. I have a fossil collection and while fossils are abundant and I myself own hundreds, not a single one is in the process of transition. Why?

But thats not to say that transitional fossils dont exist, there are a few examples. Just not as many as we would expect to see.

Of course, if you believe in evolution being a tool used by God, its easy to reconcile the difference. We dont need to guess where the big bang came from, because we can say it happened at Gods command. Evolution, likewise, was caused by Gods command and so did not need to be caused by time and chance. God already knew the designs he had in mind and guided the process. They would have evolved much more quickly.

But the science is never final. When people say you need to accept the scientific consensus as fact, im immediately suspicious of their knowledge of the history of science. For as long as weve had the scientific process, scientists have been getting things wrong. Read the history of science and youll cringe. For instance, less than a century ago Darwin was mocked by everybody else in the scientific field as being unscientific for sticking to his theory, because the scientific consensus at the time was that the earth was 400,000 years old. And scientists in every field had corroborating evidence, from astronomy, the salt in the oceans, the thermal heat of the earth, etc. They thought it was a fact. But when radiation was discovered, it completely shattered their theory.
A recent study in a peer reviewed journal said that 90% of peer reviewed studies turn out to be false.

So, no, just because a scientist says it doesnt mean its undeniable fact. We have been wrong in the past, why would we be suddenly perfectly right about everything now? Most likely we arent and will look back and cringe in the future at how ignorant we were. But thats the nature of science, theories are constantly being disproved and replaced, and we move forward. And thats how we advance as a society. One cannot be too stuck in their own ways. No matter which side you are on.

Here is one of those babies stuck in the mud you asked for.

"Among extinct dinosaurs, feathers or feather-like integument have been discovered on dozens of genera via both direct and indirect fossil evidence. The vast majority of feather discoveries have been for coelurosaurian theropods. However, integument has also been discovered on at least threeornithischians, raising the likelihood that proto-feathers were also present in earlier dinosaurs, and perhaps even a more ancestral animal, in light of the pycnofibers ofpterosaurs. Crocodilians also possess beta keratin very similar to those of birds, which suggests that they evolved from a common ancestral gene.[3]"
"A number of non-avian[14] dinosaurs are now known to have been feathered. Direct evidence of feathers exists for the following species, listed in the order currently accepted evidence was first published. In all examples, the evidence described consists of feather impressions, except those genera inferred to have had feathers based on skeletal or chemical evidence, such as the presence of quill knobs (the anchor points for wing feathers on the forelimb) or a pygostyle (the fused vertebrae at the tail tip which often supports large feathers).

Avimimus portentosus (inferred 1987: ulnar ridge)[15][16]Sinosauropteryx prima (1996)[17]Protarchaeopteryx robusta (1997)[18]GMV 2124 (1997)[19]Caudipteryx zoui (1998)[20]Rahonavis ostromi (inferred 1998: quill knobs; possibly avialan[21])[22]Shuvuuia deserti (1999)[23]Beipiaosaurus inexpectus (1999)[24]Sinornithosaurus millenii (1999)[25]Caudipteryx dongi (2000)[26]Caudipteryx sp. (2000)[27]Microraptor zhaoianus (2000)[28]Nomingia gobiensis (inferred 2000: pygostyle)[29]Psittacosaurus sp.? (2002)[30]Scansoriopteryx heilmanni (2002; possibly avialan)[31]Yixianosaurus longimanus (2003)[32]Dilong paradoxus (2004)[33]Pedopenna daohugouensis (2005; possibly avialan[34])[35]Jinfengopteryx elegans (2005)[36][37]Juravenator starki (2006)[38][39]Sinocalliopteryx gigas (2007)[40]Velociraptor mongoliensis (inferred 2007: quill knobs)[7]Epidexipteryx hui (2008; possibly avialan)[41]Similicaudipteryx yixianensis (inferred 2008: pygostyle; confirmed 2010)[42][43]Anchiornis huxleyi (2009; possibly avialan)[44]Tianyulong confuciusi? (2009)[45]Xiaotingia zhengi (2011; possibly avialan)[46]Yutyrannus huali (2012)[47]Sciurumimus albersdoerferi (2012)[48]Ornithomimus edmontonicus (2012)[49]Ningyuansaurus wangi (2012)[50]Eosinopteryx brevipenna (2013; possibly avialan)[51]Jianchangosaurus yixianensis (2013)[52]Aurornis xui (2013; possibly avialan)[53]Changyuraptor yangi (2014)[54]Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus? (2014)[55]Citipati osmolskae (inferred 2014: pygostyle)[56]Conchoraptor gracilis (inferred 2014: pygostyle)[56]Deinocheirus mirificus (inferred 2014: pygostyle)[57]Yi qi (2015)[58]Zhenyuanlong suni (2015)[59]Dakotaraptor steini (inferred 2015: quill knobs)[60]Apatoraptor pennatus (inferred 2016: quill knobs)[61]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

However, there is no transitional fossils in abundance, though. There is no findings like that. If Macro-Evolution were true, we would have tons of transitional half giraffe half something else type bones and half gorilla half something else type bones. But we do not even have one species where we can see a clear line of transition slowly happening over time by looking at their fossil record. Finding a species that shares common traits of two other species is not proof but it is conjecture. We need solid proof of Macro Evolution by seeing tons of transitional fossils and there is none. This is just one of the many problems with Macro Evolution. Oh, and I believe your studying to be a paleontologist is what influenced you to believe that Macro Evolution could be potentially true or that the Earth is old and not young. The world can be pretty influential. To reject the ways of the world and to stand up for God's Word is not an easy thing to do. For who wants to be made fun of?


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here is the thing. I will have to answer to God one day and not men. For where is my trust? Is it solely in God and His Word or is in scientific theories that come from unbelievers?

For me, I see Macro-Evolution in direct oppositon to God's Word. Genesis talks about animals created after THEIR KINDS. God spoke nothing about creating one type of life source whereby it all evolved from that point on. It's absolute non-sense to suggest Macro-Evolution is remotely even true.


...

 

[Kenny'sID]

I simply have an open mind. My faith is based on trusting in God alone, not on arrogant insistence that I know everything. So whether Im right or wrong, Im still going to believe in God. Can you say the same for yourself?

If you trust god, you trust his word, and if you trust his word, then.....

To dismiss evolution (in such a way as seen in this thread), is to fail to be honest.

Or could it be, it is to fail to be stupid?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Or could it be, it is to fail to be stupid?

Well said.

1 Corinthians 1:25
"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."


...

 

[Jamie Lee]

However, there is no transitional fossils in abundance, though. There is no findings like that. If Macro-Evolution were true, we would have tons of transitional half giraffe half something else type bones and half gorilla half something else type bones. But we do not even have one species where we can see a clear line of transition slowly happening over time by looking at their fossil record. Finding a species that shares common traits of two other species is not proof but it is conjecture. We need solid proof of Macro Evolution by seeing tons of transitional fossils and there is none. This is just one of the many problems with Macro Evolution. Oh, and I believe your studying to be a paleontologist is what influenced you to believe that Macro Evolution could be potentially true or that the Earth is old and not young. The world can be pretty influential. To reject the ways of the world and to stand up for God's Word is not an easy thing to do. For who wants to be made fun of?


...

Most of what I studied was from Young Earth Creationists. I told you that there are transitional fossils but theres not an abundance of them. And that could be explaoned by Gods involvement. Dont people read anymore? Its very frustrating having to repeat myself when people dont understand! Why do I even bother?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well said.

1 Corinthians 1:25
"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."


...

You too.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Most of what I studied was from Young Earth Creationists. I told you that there are transitional fossils but theres not an abundance of them. And that could be explaoned by Gods involvement. Dont people read anymore? Its very frustrating having to repeat myself when people dont understand! Why do I even bother?

So you are saying that when you studied "paleontology", you did it thru a Christian school and not a secular one? Are you saying you did not go to a public high school, as well (whereby it did not teach Macro Evolution)? How did you come to learn of Macro-Evolution?


...

 

[Anguspure]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?

I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.

The truth seems to be that the untouchable doctrine lies is on the side of Darwinism and anybody who challenges Darwinian pan-adaptionism instantly gets put in the heretical "young earth creationist" box.

There are any number of ways by which the account of Genesis is reconciled with the perceived evidence of science by Christians, some more thought out and succesful than others. It is important to rememebr that Christianity is predicated on faith in Christ Jesus death and ressurection and as such within the grace of God there are many ways in which a person might understand biblical and natural revelation.

Whatever the eplanatory power of evolution (By which I take it you mean Darwinism) it has not supplied any evidence whatsoever that challenges the assertion that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Nor has it supplied any evidence that God did not in fact create all of the life we see on the planet.

Darwinism is a theory of science that is perhaps on the level of Newtonian physics and which is very useful for describing general physical interactions at a human level but is no longer succesful when molecular or cosmological problems are considered.

Darwinian evolution restricts biological explanation to that which may be assesed by material considerations and describes biological interactions with the environment, and the way in which these allow the development of life over time, quite succesfully, but fails to explain either invention or purpose.

Properly considered there is nothing in Evolution that challenges the assertions of Genesis and to go further in this respect the findings of Science in general often serve to bolster the position.

 

[Indent]

However, there is no transitional fossils in abundance, though. There is no findings like that. If Macro-Evolution were true, we would have tons of transitional half giraffe half something else type bones and half gorilla half something else type bones. But we do not even have one species where we can see a clear line of transition slowly happening over time by looking at their fossil record. Finding a species that shares common traits of two other species is not proof but it is conjecture. We need solid proof of Macro Evolution by seeing tons of transitional fossils and there is none. This is just one of the many problems with Macro Evolution. Oh, and I believe your studying to be a paleontologist is what influenced you to believe that Macro Evolution could be potentially true or that the Earth is old and not young. The world can be pretty influential. To reject the ways of the world and to stand up for God's Word is not an easy thing to do. For who wants to be made fun of?


...

The fossil record tells a clear story.

There is lots of "solid proof."

We know that fossilization is a rare phenomenon, as it requires specific set of conditions for it to happen. There are well-document and phenomenal examples like the evolution of the whale. It hardly matters to some Christians that there are lots of fossils, it'll be the same half-baked excuse "there are gaps."

"But where are the fossils between those two???"

Secondly, this isn't a problem for "macroevolution."

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?

What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?

I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.

I asked by Private Message if you...

(a) Accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior.
(b) Believe Jesus is God.
(c) Believe the Word of God is divinely inspired.

Your answer was that you proclaimed Christ.
I asked these questions again and you gave no answer.

For proclaining Christ can mean many things. Are you proclaiming Christ to be a just a man and that He was a good teacher only?


...

 

[AV1611VET]

I told you that there are transitional fossils but theres not an abundance of them.

Transitional fossils is a made-up term.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The fossil record tells a clear story.

There is lots of "solid proof."

We know that fossilization is a rare phenomenon, as it requires specific set of conditions for it to happen. There are well-document and phenomenal examples like the evolution of the whale. It hardly matters to some Christians that there are lots of fossils, it'll be the same half-baked excuse "there are gaps."

"But where are the fossils between those two???"

Secondly, this isn't a problem for "macroevolution."

This is just a fantasy. You have not dug up these bones and analyzed them for yourself on a genetic level (Which would be considered as solid proof). Anyone can takes bones from the ground and arrange them in a way that is pretty and nice and say.... "Hey look! Transitional fossils!" when it is simply not true.

Again, the Bible says there is a flesh of beasts, a flesh of birds, a flesh of fishes, that is different from the flesh of men. For the Bible says not all flesh is the same flesh.


...

 

[JacksBratt]

The fossil record tells a clear story.

There is lots of "solid proof."

We know that fossilization is a rare phenomenon, as it requires specific set of conditions for it to happen. There are well-document and phenomenal examples like the evolution of the whale. It hardly matters to some Christians that there are lots of fossils, it'll be the same half-baked excuse "there are gaps."

"But where are the fossils between those two???"

Secondly, this isn't a problem for "macroevolution."

Fossils tell us one thing and one thing only...... that that organism, animal, bird, plant,.....lived and died.

It cannot tell us if it had other siblings, offspring, what it's father or mother looked like, what it's great grandparents were, what it's great grand children looked like.... nothing.

Fossils are a snap shot of a period in time where the particular animal existed and died.

The rest is speculation, assumption, extrapolation, exaggeration and guess work.

In order for the complete library of organisms on this planet to have all came from one ancestor, over billions of years, there would need to be a plethora of transitional beings. The fact that they are not there, kills evolution. If you say that they existed but only certain conditions are favorable for fossils to form... then you still have no evidence. Your argument is conjecture.

 

[AV1611VET]

It hardly matters to some Christians that there are lots of fossils,

Don't even evolutionists claim that the theory of evolution can stand sans fossils?

... it'll be the same half-baked excuse "there are gaps."

That's right ... there are gaps.

If you can't daisy-chain the fossil record, the fossil record can take a hike.

 

[Jamie Lee]

So you are saying that when you studied "paleontology", you did it thru a Christian school and not a secular one? Are you saying you did not go to a public high school, as well (whereby it did not teach Macro Evolution)? How did you come to learn of Macro-Evolution?


...

I was homeschooled until my junior year of highschool by my mother on Sonlight Christian curriculum and ACE Christan curriculum, when I went to a private Christian school, and I studied paleontology through Christian curriculum, Christian video programs (such as those from the Museum of Christian Science and Ken Hovind and other prominent Creationist scientists), and Bible class. Thats where I first heard about Macro Evolution.

 

[Jamie Lee]

This is just a fantasy. You have not dug up these bones and analyzed them for yourself on a genetic level (Which would be considered as solid proof). Anyone can takes bones from the ground and arrange them in a way that is pretty and nice and say.... "Hey look! Transitional fossils!" when it is simply not true.

Again, the Bible says there is a flesh of beasts, a flesh of birds, a flesh of fishes, that is different from the flesh of men. For the Bible says not all flesh is the same flesh.


...

Please answer my question. If a celestial body can come from a different kind of terrestial body, according to that very scripture, why can the flesh of man not come forth from the flesh of animals?

 

[Indent]

Fossils tell us one thing and one thing only...... that that organism, animal, bird, plant,.....lived and died.

It cannot tell us if it had other siblings, offspring, what it's father or mother looked like, what it's great grandparents were, what it's great grand children looked like.... nothing.

Fossils are a snap shot of a period in time where the particular animal existed and died.

The rest is speculation, assumption, extrapolation, exaggeration and guess work.

In order for the complete library of organisms on this planet to have all came from one ancestor, over billions of years, there would need to be a plethora of transitional beings. The fact that they are not there, kills evolution. If you say that they existed but only certain conditions are favorable for fossils to form... then you still have no evidence. Your argument is conjecture.

That's an opinion based off a poor understanding of the field/evolution.

But thanks for sharing.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

I personally don't see evolution as a threat to our faith.

Does the facts that we are a creation loved by God with a soul and a unique connection to him, that we fell and commit sin every day, that God loves us even though we sin, that he sent Jesus to save us from our depravity so we could have eternal life with him.........

All become nonsense if the ToE correct?

Nope

God's existence, his love towards us, and our sinfulness does not go away if evolution is true.

Sure the ToE would make some things nonsense, such as a view of the Bible that believes the books have to be perfect and historically accurate all the time. But that view is not a core part of our faith. Christianity can survive without it.