Christians Only : your evidence please

[Loudmouth]

It doesn't appear that theories of dark matter and especially dark energy will be benefiting us technologically though.

You are shifting the goal posts from "True" to "useful".

 

[USincognito]

so if one of this group will evolve into a bacteria, it's still be a tetrapod?

 

[USincognito]

I used to believe in evolution because I was taught to believe in it at a very young age as everyone else. Though I have nothing against Christians that believe in evolution, when they try to harmonize evolution with the Bible, there are noticeable contradictions.

One example: Evolution claims birds evolved from dinosaurs which is in direct contradiction with Genesis 1:20, as birds were created before land animals. If we are talking about the Genesis account as just a story, then if evolution happened, then death was widespread before man evolved. But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam's sin, then sin is not the cause of death - so we do not need a saviour.

While they may "harmonize" one aspect of the Bible with evolution, there is always another aspect where there is a contradiction. Quite simply, the Bible and Christianity and the theory of evolution are not compatible.

Well, you're left with a few options then.
- Genesis is wrong.
- Your interpretation of Genesis is wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

While they may "harmonize" one aspect of the Bible with evolution, there is always another aspect where there is a contradiction. Quite simply, the Bible and Christianity and the theory of evolution are not compatible.

I think that you are right in that your interpretation of Genesis is not compatible with evolution. On the other hand, I see no reason to suppose that you are in a position to speak generally about Christianity.

 

[Kylie]

so if one of this group will evolve into a bacteria, it's still be a tetrapod?

It can't evolve into a bacteria. A bacteria is a member of a group called prokaryotes, meaning they don't have things like a nucleus or organelles. All tetrapods are members of a group called Eukaryotes, which means they do have a cell nucleus and organelles.

So a tetrapod might evolve into a state which is bacteria-like (although the chances are very small), but it won't actually be a bacteria. And it will still be a tetrapod, because it will always carry the genetic signs of having evolved from that group.

It's similar to how dolphins evolved from land animals that evolved towards a more shark-like shape, but they aren't actually sharks.

 

[xianghua]

It can't evolve into a bacteria. A bacteria is a member of a group called prokaryotes, meaning they don't have things like a nucleus or organelles. All tetrapods are members of a group called Eukaryotes, which means they do have a cell nucleus and organelles.

So a tetrapod might evolve into a state which is bacteria-like (although the chances are very small), but it won't actually be a bacteria.

why not? they can loss their nucleus or organelles and evolving back into bacteria like shape.

And it will still be a tetrapod, because it will always carry the genetic signs of having evolved from that group.

so in theory: even if it will be a bacteria-like it can be consider as a tetrapod?

 

[Speedwell]

why not? they can loss their nucleus or organelles and evolving back into bacteria like shape.




so in theory: even if it will be a bacteria-like it can be consider as a tetrapod?

If a family on the other side of the world gave birth to a child which, by chance, resembled you closely enough to be your twin, would he be your brother?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Now here's question 1 : Is Evolution, really a BIG FAT LIE?

Nope. It is a well substantiated and evidenced theory that consistently matches with the data. It is one of the best evidenced theories there is. We have a better understanding of the workings of evolution than we do gravity.

Question 2 : What evidence would you offer in support of such an idea?

Of Evolution being a lie? I wouldn't. Not least of which because consistently supposed "evidence" against the theory of evolution amounts to lies, mishandling of data, pseudoscience, and the like.

Question 3 : If you are a Christian who stands by the evidence in support of Evolution, how do you reconcile the two - your faith in Jesus and Evolution?

There's nothing to reconcile. It's like asking how I reconcile my faith in Jesus and general relativity, or my faith in Jesus and Newton's laws of motion. There's nothing to reconcile. Evolution is an observable and well evidenced theory that has exceptional explanatory power when it comes to the biological diversity of life on our planet; and my faith in Jesus Christ is a result of my trust in the Gospel. The only reason one would see a contradiction or variance between these things is by inventing one for the sake of an artificial conflict that does not exist in reality, but only in the imagination of some who wish there to be one.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

why not? they can loss their nucleus or organelles and evolving back into bacteria like shape.

A group of artiodactyls took to a marine existence and have evolved into a "fish-like shape". That doesn't make whales fish.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[xianghua]

Evolution is an observable and well evidenced theory that has exceptional explanatory power when it comes to the biological diversity of life on our planet

how we can test if evolution is true or not? any scientific theory need a way to test it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

how we can test if evolution is true or not? any scientific theory need a way to test it.

Yes.

Experimental evolution - Wikipedia
Evolutionary physiology - Wikipedia
Bacteriophage experimental evolution - Wikipedia
Selective breeding - Wikipedia
Natural selection - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

 

[xianghua]

Yes.

Experimental evolution - Wikipedia
Evolutionary physiology - Wikipedia
Bacteriophage experimental evolution - Wikipedia
Selective breeding - Wikipedia
Natural selection - Wikipedia

-CryptoLutheran

in any of those examples there is not example of one family changing into another one. so this is not evolution but only a variation in the kind.

 

[ViaCrucis]

in any of those examples there is not example of one family changing into another one.

You mean we don't see dogs evolving into cats? If we saw that it would mean evolution is false. That's not what evolution is or how it works.

so this is not evolution but only a variation in the kind.

Provide a scientifically valid definition of "kind".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[xianghua]

You mean we don't see dogs evolving into cats? If we saw that it would mean evolution is false. That's not what evolution is or how it works.

so evolution means that a dog will stay as dogs then? or its just a matter of time? and its just a matter of time then how we can test it?

[QUOTE="ViaCrucis, post: 70961337, member: 293637"

Provide a scientifically valid definition of "kind".

-CryptoLutheran[/QUOTE]

a group of creatures that can interbreed (even by insemination).

 

[ViaCrucis]

so evolution means that a dog will stay as dogs then? or its just a matter of time? and its just a matter of time then how we can test it?

It means that those organisms we call "dogs" diversified from a common ancestor--the domesticated dog in all its variety through artificial selection descend from the wolf. Canines, which includes wolves, coyotes, and a few others share a common ancestor with ursines (bears); if we traveled back in time we could find a time when there were not yet bears or dogs but the ancestor of both, what we would call these animals is a matter of taxonomy. This common ancestor would have probably had a lot of variety, we might even see one population that seems a bit more "bear-ish" and another a bit more "dog-ish"; and separated either by geography may have drifted apart enough that they can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring. That's called speciation, and it happens. An example of this can be seen with horses and donkeys, they can produce offspring, but not fertile offspring; donkeys and horses haven't drifted far enough apart to be unable to produce offspring at all, but they cannot produce fertile offspring together.

We're not going to see a dog become a cat because that's not how it works.

Let's give an analogy. You and your spouse will never give birth to your cousin. Right? That's not going to happen. But you and your cousin do share a common ancestor, your grandfather.

a group of creatures that can interbreed (even by insemination).

And when two populations of related organisms, through variation and time, have drifted apart genetically to the point when they can no longer interbreed? Yeah, that's speciation.

Your definition also doesn't take into account, for example, the phenomenon of ring species such as the laurus gull. But the laurus gull is a good example of how we could see speciation occur (the below image shows populations of the laurus gull:

1 can interbreed with 2, and 2 with 3, etc. But 7 cannot interbreed with 1. If 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 all disappeared we would be left with two populations of laurus gulls unable to interbreed. At that point these two populations could develop along completely different trajectories over succeeding generations and we would have two distinct species of laurus gulls instead of one.

Do you want to refine your definition of "kind" or would you like to keep it as-is?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[xianghua]

We're not going to see a dog become a cat because that's not how it works.

if so then we cant test the claim that one kind can evolve into another one. and it always be a belief-base claim.

And when two populations of related organisms, through variation and time, have drifted apart genetically to the point when they can no longer interbreed? Yeah, that's speciation.

first: speciation isnt evolution. because they still belong to the same family.

secondly: there is also a problem with the ring species itself:

Sorry, Ring Species Do Not Provide Good Evidence for the Origin of New Species by the Darwinian Mechanism - Evolution News


"The classic example of a ring species was the herring gull, with populations circling the northern hemisphere. But this example is not what it has been advertised to be. In a 2004 paper titled “The herring gull complex is not a ring species,” -

so in some cases even the suppose ring species it isnt a ring species.

 

[Speedwell]

so evolution means that a dog will stay as dogs then? or its just a matter of time? and its just a matter of time then how we can test it?

Yes, even if Chihuahuas evolved their forelimbs into wings and flew around like bats they would still be Canids. They could never become Chiroptera.

 

[ViaCrucis]

if so then we cant test the claim that one kind can evolve into another one. and it always be a belief-base claim.

It would serve you a lot of good to have a clue as to what you're talking about.

I remember once coming across someone on the internet saying that the earth can't be round, because if the earth was round then people "on the bottom" would "fall off". That's how you sound when you say things like the above.

first: speciation isnt evolution. because they still belong to the same family.

You stated that there can only be variation within "the same kind", when I asked for a definition of "kind" you said being able to interbreed.

so in some cases even the suppose ring species it isnt a ring species.

If it's a problem with a specific ring species not being a ring species, that doesn't change anything I mentioned because the issue of a ring species is still there. And thus you are missing the point.

But here's the real problem: You don't even know what the theory of evolution is or what it says, but you are trying to argue against it. This isn't shocking, this is standard for the majority of creationists, they simply don't understand even the most basic elementary school level aspects of the theory. This is illustrated by the fact that you think a dog should be able to become a cat in order for evolution to be true, even though a dog becoming a cat would instantly render evolution false. And until you are willing to actually bother to understand the thing you are trying to argue against, any and all discussion on the matter is pointless.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, please go read a book or watch a program on the Discovery Channel.

-CrypotLutheran

 

[Kylie]

why not? they can loss their nucleus or organelles and evolving back into bacteria like shape.

But they can't perfectly retrace their path through evolutionary history and get back to exactly what they were.

so in theory: even if it will be a bacteria-like it can be consider as a tetrapod?

Yes.

 

[Kylie]

if so then we cant test the claim that one kind can evolve into another one. and it always be a belief-base claim.

There are many sources of evidence supporting the idea of one species evolving into another.

first: speciation isnt evolution. because they still belong to the same family.

Yes, it is evolution.