Darwin's evolution theory?

[GraceInHim]

Jesus is the Word. The bible are Gods words. Gravity is a fact of life. Evolution is theory.

amen

 

[ArchangelGabriel]

incorrect.

? my Biology teacher tells me otherwise

 

[tall73]

not getting away from just taking a small break
plus it was like 1:30 and no one was anywhere to be seen

I understand where you are coming from. No big deal. I just want to give those who are commenting on the detaiisl a chance to see them.



NOTE FOR CREATIONISTS

If you don't understand natural selection, the terms used by evolution, our relation to apes from the perspective of evolutionists etc. then please take some time to acquaint yourself with the baic arguments.

To fail to do so means that you make it easier to dismiss creationist viewpoints.

As to DNA, yes, it does change. But only through mutation. Which as I have said from early on is problematic. Positive (helpful in an adaptive sense) mutations are quite rare and are often not passed on. So the thougt of the sheer number of mutations needed to go from a single cell organism to hugely complex interdependent systems is mind boggling.

 

[coolstylinstud]

All the evidence you have given is crap because it doesnt match up with the word of god

 

[GraceInHim]

nothing against evolution - but I go by Gods words - John1 and Gen1 tells it all - in the beginning was the word - in the beginning was God - the word is what stands over anything.

 

[calidog]

The concept of sin is purely theological. Evolution does not try to account for it. That's like expecting the theory of gravity to explain how the Red Sox won last year's World Series...it's simply not within it's scope to do so.



Yes, I would say that the account of the fall of man is not literal.



I don't believe in original sin, so I'm not sure how to answer this question. I know my 6 month old daughter is without sin, despite what many claim the Bible says in this regard. As noted above, sin is a theological concept, anyway, so how could early humans, with no concept of the idea of God as we have, commit sins? Sins against whom? Adultery might have always been wrong, but it didn't become a "sin" until God included it in his 10 Commandments.

We are born with sin in us, that is why we are able to sin.
"Sin against whom?" Sin against God; missing the mark.

 

[calidog]

All the evidence you have given is crap because it doesnt match up with the word of god

__________________
The bible is it just a book that we read no if it says soemthing it is to teach us something and we should hide it in our heart and never forget it
​

I appreciate the believing youth.

 

[dunkel]

well i could prob. explain that through gravity but thats not your point

Yes, you could probably use gravity as a tool to help explain how the Red Sox won, but it's only that...a tool. You can't start with gravity and end with Red Sox winning the World Series. You can look at the Red Sox winning the world series and include gravity as one of the things that influenced it, conceded.

evolution and The study of the nature of God and religious truth(theology)
go hand in hand since evolution may or may not be a religious truth

Evolution doesn't try to be religious truth. It's only trying to explain, in scientific terms, what we have observed. Now, it is possible to work God into the idea of evolution, but the primary purpose of evolution is not to be a religious study.

how do you know that she hasnt sinned?

Good lord, are you serious? Unless crapping your pants counts as a sin, yes, I am 100% certain that my 6 month old daughter has not sinned.

-has she ever cried?

Is crying a sin? She cries for one of several reasons...dirty diaper, hungery, tired, or uncomfortable. Last I checked, none of those are considered sinful.

-humans have always known about God though

I would agree that humans have always had some spiritual beliefs. I would not agree, however, that humans have always had the same concept of God that we have today, or that Jews had 2000+ years ago.

if what your sayig is true and huamns really did never have original sin and God never let them know he existed then why not if they were sinless

This is just nonsensical.

-you dont sin against someone sinning is the lack of following God

Again, this makes very little sense. I am sure you were trying to make some point with those last two quotes, so please restate them so that they make sense.

 

[dunkel]

All the evidence you have given is crap because it doesnt match up with the word of god

Well, you've convinced me.

 

[tall73]

So, do any of the evolutionists care to comment on the claim that there was not sufficient time to account for the mutations needed to comprise the 2-3 percent difference between chimp DNA and our own? (Or if it is easier, the 1.5-2 between the common ancestor).

 

[dunkel]

We are born with sin in us, that is why we are able to sin.
"Sin against whom?" Sin against God; missing the mark.

I disagree what we are born with sin in us. We are born with the potential to sin, sure. Sin, however, is an artificial concept. A person growing up has to be taught that adultery is a sin or that murder is a sin. These things may also be immoral, illegal, or otherwise "wrong", but they are only sins because God said they are. Slavery is a wrong, but it is not layed out specifically to be a sin. Likewise, lying is a sin, but I can think of 101 situations where lying to someone can be a good thing.

Personally, I think the reason people seem to commit so many sins is that, as a species, we are awfully short sighted. People murder or commit adultery because they are unable to accuratly predict the potential consequences of such actions. This doesn't mean people are inherently flawed or evil, it just means that people can't predict the future very well. Take my dog, for instance. I've laid down the law that my schnauzer can't dig in the trash. She'll dig in the trash and I'll spank her. Then she'll go get in the trash again. Is this because she is evil or is revolting against me? No, it is because she thinks the trash smells good and doesn't have enough foresight to realize that I will discover her transgression and punish her again. Same with humans, I'm afraid. People rob, steal, lie, cheat, kill, etc, because they have an inflated opinion of their ability to get away with it, not because they are evil or are somehow burdened with original sin.

 

[coolstylinstud]

Well, you've convinced me

Good

I appreciate the believing youth.

Was this serious

 

[dunkel]

So, do any of the evolutionists care to comment on the claim that there was not sufficient time to account for the mutations needed to comprise the 2-3 percent difference between chimp DNA and our own? (Or if it is easier, the 1.5-2 between the common ancestor).

Not sufficient time based on what, exactly?

 

[calidog]

Good



Was this serious

I do appreciate the biblical faith of our youth, very much. It is incouraging.

 

[tall73]

Not sufficient time based on what, exactly?

A popular, and much debated, illustration of the genetic problem is Haldane's dilemma. Here it is in a nutshell:

Imagine a population of 1,000,000 of those [pre-human] organisms quietly evolving their way to humanity. For easy visualization, I'll have you imagine a scenario that favors rapid evolution. Imagine evolution happens like this. Every generation, one male and one female receive a beneficial mutation so advantageous that the 999,998 others die off immediately, and the population is then replenished in one generation by the surviving couple. Imagine evolution happens like this, generation after generation, for ten million years. How many beneficial mutations could be substituted at this crashing pace? One per generation -- or 500,000 nucleotides. That's 0.014 percent of the genome. (That is a minuscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees).

Now of course the original dilemma has some problems:


a. it assumes only one mutation per generation..ie that they would only happen one at a time.
b. It assumes that the whole non- mutated population must die off and be replaced by mutated specimens.
c. The example is regarding differences between chimpanzees and humans, since they are the closest. But of course, the pre-human ancestor's DNA is unknown. What we can determine though is that the LEAST that would do, and that is unlikely, is cut the problem in half. 1.5 percent of the genome, accounting for their branch and ours going completely different directions, which is somewhat unlikely since the adaptive pressures are the same, so the same mutations would seem to be favored.
d. Some would say that a lot of that 3 percent is "junk DNA" but as I already said, that argument is not terribly valid since the opinion on junk DNA is changing.
These are problems, but they don't really address the real issue. It is still rather unlikely that you would get one positive mutation per generation. That is why he states he is giving a rather impossible scenario that favors evolution. They of course say his scenario was unrealistic...but that was the point. It is unrealistic in a way that favors evolution. Getting one positive one is absurdly unlikely. Getting one that lasts and predominates is even more unlikely. Having all that happen still doesn't allow time for the scenario presented for human evolution.

Second, whether the population dies off or is substituted immediately doesn't matter. You are still postulating one positive net mutation per generation which actually is preserved in some population. Even then you are WAY short of the necessary 2 to 3 percent of the genome in the required time.

Evolutionists, not creationists are the ones who have something to prove when it comes to the rate of beneficial mutations, the solution to which is not immediately obvious. It is great to posit huge periods of time for evolution, but that still doesn't mean it happens at the rate necessary. And when you tie certain elements of evolution (human for instance) to particular time frames, then you have to show that they could happen in that time frame.

Again, MUTATION is the only means for adjustments at the genotype level.

 

[calidog]

I disagree what we are born with sin in us. We are born with the potential to sin, sure. Sin, however, is an artificial concept. A person growing up has to be taught that adultery is a sin or that murder is a sin. These things may also be immoral, illegal, or otherwise "wrong", but they are only sins because God said they are. Slavery is a wrong, but it is not layed out specifically to be a sin. Likewise, lying is a sin, but I can think of 101 situations where lying to someone can be a good thing.

Personally, I think the reason people seem to commit so many sins is that, as a species, we are awfully short sighted. People murder or commit adultery because they are unable to accuratly predict the potential consequences of such actions. This doesn't mean people are inherently flawed or evil, it just means that people can't predict the future very well. Take my dog, for instance. I've laid down the law that my schnauzer can't dig in the trash. She'll dig in the trash and I'll spank her. Then she'll go get in the trash again. Is this because she is evil or is revolting against me? No, it is because she thinks the trash smells good and doesn't have enough foresight to realize that I will discover her transgression and punish her again. Same with humans, I'm afraid. People rob, steal, lie, cheat, kill, etc, because they have an inflated opinion of their ability to get away with it, not because they are evil or are somehow burdened with original sin.

sorry about the full quote here, I just wanted to respond to the right person. . I understand what sinning is, but the sin we inherit from Adam is a little hard for me to grasp. The way I read it is we inherit sin. That is why we gravitate to sin naturally. Biblically, sin means missing the mark or the target. God sets the standard, and we miss the standard (or mark). The types of sinning that you describe are more like tresspasses, or deliberate sin(transgression is what you call it). I don't believe we are born evil. The bible refers to evil as a "mystery",But you have to admit, some people have been known to be evil. We are all sinners, we cannot achieve Gods righteousness on our own. God bless.

 

[Sophia7]

The concept of sin is purely theological. Evolution does not try to account for it. That's like expecting the theory of gravity to explain how the Red Sox won last year's World Series...it's simply not within it's scope to do so.

Yes, I would say that the account of the fall of man is not literal.

I don't believe in original sin, so I'm not sure how to answer this question. I know my 6 month old daughter is without sin, despite what many claim the Bible says in this regard. As noted above, sin is a theological concept, anyway, so how could early humans, with no concept of the idea of God as we have, commit sins? Sins against whom? Adultery might have always been wrong, but it didn't become a "sin" until God included it in his 10 Commandments.

There are many ideas about what the Genesis story is all about. I think the simplest answer is that the originators of the story were looking around them, wondering how and why everything they saw got there, just like the originators of any myth. Why is there land and water? Why is childbirth so painful? Why must we work so hard to get food out of the ground? Why are there some people that want to hurt other pepole? The story of Genesis answered their questions. Obviously, we no longer know the questions to some of the answers that Genesis provides...why was Cain's sacrifice rejected while Abel's was accepted? There must have been a reason to include that in the story, but we don't now what it is now.

Thank you for answering my questions. I understand that evolution itself does not deal with the concept of sin; my questions were specifically in regard to theistic evolution. Everyone who believes in God has to come to some understanding of how the Bible and the Christian teachings on sin and salvation relate to evolution vs. creation. I guess I find it easier to understand how someone can be an atheistic evolutionist and not worry about fitting God into his or her worldview and scientific understanding at all than how someone can believe in theistic evolution and simply interpret those parts of the Bible that don't fit as myths and metaphors.

If the Genesis account is a myth developed by the ancient Hebrews to explain the natural phenomena that they observed, just as other ancient peoples (Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, etc.) had supernatural explanations for natural occurences, how much of the rest of the Bible was made up? Should any of it be interpreted literally, especially anthing that involves supernatural events? And, most importantly, what is the truth about Jesus' incarnation, life, miracles, death, resurrection--the Bible's version or some other version?

Finally, in the context of theistic evolution and a figurative interpretation of the Bible, what does Christianity as a belief system have to offer people that they couldn't find in atheism or paganism or Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam? I know that these questions are not within the scope of evolution as a scientific theory, but I see them as a concern in reconciling evolution with Christianity and a reason that many people question, as the original poster did, whether a Christian should believe in evolution.

 

[Silent Bob]

how much of the rest of the Bible was made up?

A fair amount if you ask me. Things like selling daughter into slavery and the murder of the firstborns of egypt have to be discarded. What also need to be taken with a grain of salt is Paul's misogyny and a litteral reading of the revelation.

Should any of it be interpreted literally, especially anthing that involves supernatural events?

Some can be taken litterally it all depends on what you want to believe and to which extent.

And, most importantly, what is the truth about Jesus' incarnation, life, miracles, death, resurrection--the Bible's version or some other version?

Miracles, death and resurrection tell me nothing about Jesus or the message He tried to convey which is ONE: Love each other cause God loves you. Everything else I repeat EVERYTHING ELSE is a package you can believe it litterally, figuratively or not at all as long as you understand the importance of the message.

Finally, in the context of theistic evolution and a figurative interpretation of the Bible, what does Christianity as a belief system have to offer people that they couldn't find in atheism or paganism or Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam?

THE message. That is IT! Atheism has many moral philosophies some of which resemble Christianity. Paganism it all depends on what God you are looking at. Buddhism has some amazing philosophies and it identifies desire as the cause of evils. Hinduism I wouldn't know where to start far too many Gods and incarnations. Islam has gotten a bad name and guess how they managed to get it: By taking some of the things expressed in the Koran (sorry about the spelling) too litterally. But if you talk to a muslim you will soon realise that Islam teaches compasion and love too.

In the end of the day I think there is only one God, one Truth but myriads of ways to get to it. Some work for some people, others work for others.

I know that these questions are not within the scope of evolution as a scientific theory, but I see them as a concern in reconciling evolution with Christianity and a reason that many people question, as the original poster did, whether a Christian should believe in evolution.

Well if evolution is a fact of life AND the Bible does not agree with it AND you must take all of the Bible litterally then YES you need to discard it. But this is a false dichotomy.

The message is crystal clear and it is many fundamentalists and litterallists who are missing it (points to Pat Robertson and company). Love your neighbour as you love yourself not just because you are made in the image of God but because God IS inside everyone.

Goodnight and God bless.

 

[linssue55]

Isaiah 43:7 (New International Version)

7 everyone who is called by my name,
whom I created for my glory,
whom I formed and made."

 

[linssue55]

Question: "What does the Bible say about cavemen, prehistoric men, neanderthals?"



Answer: The Bible doesn't actually use the term "caveman" or "Neanderthals," and according to the Bible there is no such thing as "prehistoric" man. The term "prehistoric" means "belonging to the era before recorded history" (dictionary.com). It presupposes that the Biblical account is merely a fabrication because the Book of Genesis purports to record events which precede the creation of man (namely, the first five days of creation - man was created on the sixth day).

With that said, the Bible does describe a period of traumatic upheaval (the Flood – Genesis chapters 6-9) upon the earth during which time civilization was utterly destroyed and men were forced to start over. It is in this historical context that some scholars believe that men lived in caves and made use of stone tools. These men were not primitive; they were simply destitute. And they certainly weren't half ape. The fossil evidence is quite clear: cavemen were human (hence the term cave-"men," men who lived in caves).

There are some fossilized ape remains which Darwinian paleo-anthropologists interpret as being some sort of transition between ape and men. Most people seem to think of these interpretations when they imagine cavemen. They picture furry half-men half-ape crouched in a cave next to a fire, drawing on the walls with their newly developed stone tools. This is a common misconception. And as far as Darwinian paleo-anthropology goes, please keep in mind that these interpretations reflect a peculiar worldview. They are not necessarily the clear leading of the evidence. In fact, not only is there major opposition to these interpretations within the academic community, the Darwinists themselves don't entirely agree with each other on the details.

Unfortunately, the popular mainstream view has become this idea that man evolved from some sort of ape, but this is certainly not the only plausible interpretation of the available evidence. In fact, the evidence in favor of this particular interpretation is lacking. For more information on this, check out: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp

When God created Adam and Eve, they were fully developed human beings, capable of communication, society, and development (Genesis 2:19-25; 3:1-20; 4:1-12). It is almost entertaining the lengths evolutionary scientists go to prove the existence of prehistoric cavemen. They find a misshaped tooth in a cave and from that create a misshapen human being who lived in a cave and hunched over like an ape. There is no way that scientist can prove the existence of cavemen by a fossil. Evolutionary scientists simply have a theory and then they force the evidence to fit the theory. Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever created and were fully-evolved, intelligent, and upright.[font=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]

[/font]