Does Evolution conflict with the Bible?

[Arikay]

you mean 3.8 billion years ago (around when life was believed to come about).

The Odds argument is basically garbage. Its often called "garbage in, Garbage out" Since it assumes that things are random, and often it tries to jump steps to try and increase the numbers. Its called Garbage in Garbage out because if you but bad data and misunderstandings In, then you will get bad data and missunderstandings out.

But how could life have began in the state the earth would have been in 400 million years ago? The odds against the correct amino acids forming with the correct bonds in the correct order hundreds of times to create a single protein, then for it to happen hundreds of times for the basic necessities of life to be present, and then for DNA to be made to hold it together and reproduce, all happening at the exact same time and completely randomly, are so astronomical it's completely impossible.

 

[Pope Gonzo]

you are overcomplicating abiogenesis there, but nevertheless that isn'T the major error here.

"the odds are very small so it is impossible"

is the false conclusion you have drawn. Improbable does not mean impossible; would you argue with a lottery winner that has only ever bought one ticket that the odds of them winning are so small that it is impossible that they have won? no, you wouldn't, because they would just smile at you, show you their bank account, and drive off in their ferrari.

Except the odds of winning the lottery are one in millions, even billions. The odds of abiogenesis are so small there isn't a number to put it at odds to. Infinitesimal is a good word for it.

And if I'm overcomplicating abiogenesis, would you describe it without oversimplifying?

 

[aggie03]

For a moment let's consider what Gonzo said and look at the matter using coins.

If you were to walk across a penny. nickle, dime and quarter all perfectly spaced at 3.15 inches in a straight line with the head side up, what would you assume? Would you think that someone had placed those coins in the positions that you found them in? Or would you assume that through some act of chance that the randomly fell that way from someone's pocket?

If you're honest intellectually the answer is that they were placed that way. Sure, they might randomly fall that way given an few hundred billion iterations or so - but that's not the logical decision.

 

[Jet Black]

you are basically constructing an entire cell, and there is no need for that. RNA I believe has been shown to form simple enzymes, and naturally replicates given the right chemical mix. If you want to know more about abiogenesis, I suggest you go and read up a better source than me, as this isn't my field, but one thing I know, is that no-one has shown a mechanism that stops abiogenesis from happening.

you are still using the false assumption that improbable means impossible. it does not, there is a difference in the two words for a reason.

 

[Arikay]

Wahoo, strawman.

I would think it was inteligently designed, Only if there was no known natural occuring thing that places quarters.

However, Aggie, are you willing to accept the correct definition for Macro Evolution?

 

[Jet Black]

For a moment let's consider what Gonzo said and look at the matter using coins.

If you were to walk across a penny. nickle, dime and quarter all perfectly spaced at 3.15 inches in a straight line with the head side up, what would you assume? Would you think that someone had placed those coins in the positions that you found them in? Or would you assume that through some act of chance that the randomly fell that way from someone's pocket?

If you're honest intellectually the answer is that they were placed that way. Sure, they might randomly fall that way given an few hundred billion iterations or so - but that's not the logical decision.

strawman argument, logical fallacy.

 

[aggie03]

strawman - a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

One could say the exact same thing about evolution

Here's what the 'authority according to Benjamin Cummings' says on the topic, and this covers what I really wanted to get at in the previous posts. It probably would have been faster to just start with this:

macroevolution - Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of new taxonomic groups, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction.

microevolution - A change in a gene pool of a population from generation to generation.

The micro results in speciation. Speciation is encompassed by macro, but is not essentially macro. That's too large of a generalization and leads to logical flaws in deductions and reasoning when spanning large quantities of time hypothetically.

 

[Jet Black]

so you accept that your anti abiogenesis argument was a blatant strawman? then why did you even use it?

Furthermore, evolution is not a strawman. show me a mechanism that stops microevolution becoming macroevolution.

 

[Arikay]

Can you give us a source to your definitions?

 

[Jet Black]

oh, who is Benjamin Cummings?

 

[aggie03]

The BC remark was a joke about the publisher of text book on my desk. Benjamin Cummings is the name of the publishing company that put out the 6th edition of "Biology" by Campbell and Reece. Gotta get some sleep - we can talk more tomorrow.

 

[Arikay]

I found this about him:
http://www.aw-bc.com/aboutus/history.html

Aggie03: Something to mention is that Speciation is pretty much it. Once you have speciation, you have Evolution. Unless you can show us a mechanism that stops species from speciating to far, thats pretty much it. All the other taxonomy is for our benefit but Nature only cares about species.

oh, who is Benjamin Cummings?

 

[Jet Black]

that's all I could find too. I didn't realise she was talking about a publisher

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why thank you Nathan. Yesterday I was convinced that you hated me and today your saying that what I say about the Bible might be true

Think nothing of it. For the record, I don't hate you, although I don't have a whole lot of respect for you or your debating tactics.

Second, Even if I did hate you, it wouldn't have any effect on whether or not what you say is right or wrong. After all, if Osama Bin Laden told me that 2+2=4, I'd have to agree with him, regardless of what I thought about the man himself.

Personal feelings carry little weight in a debate. To act otherwise would be Ad Hominem

Third, anybody who seeks knowledge must always be open to the possibility that they may be wrong. How am I to learn if I don't acknowledge my own limitations?

"True wisdom comes from knowing that you know nothing." --Socrates
"We don't know a millionth of a percent about anything." --Thomas Edison

There is a possibility, although I consider it a remote one, that your interpretation of the Bible is right on the money, although I would consider it a sad day for humanity if that were so.

Osama might be right too, although that would be a far sadder day for humanity.

I'm not afraid to admit that I don't know, although you have done a poor job thus far of proving your point. (But I certainly don't hate you for it.). Osama hasn't proven his point either (and I do hate him, but for obvious reasons.)

I might be correct. You might be correct. Osama Bin Laden might be correct. I accept the possibility that I am wrong so that I might learn what is right. You do not. I doubt very much that Osama does either.

My only objective here is to be used by God to show people God's plan for them. To help them along the way so that they can make it to heaven. If that is something they are interested in.

The Bible teaches that we shall know people by their fruit. This what you say you wish to do, but what I have seen of you on this board does not convince me.

God is for people. He wants to build them up and encourage them. He does not ever beat people down, or belittle them in any way. He just wants to show people all the good that is available to them.

A very noble thought. But there are those who prefer to build themselves up without any help from any god, or who choose to ask the help of a different god than your own.

I am trying to learn how to walk in His love, so that I can be loving at all time. So that I can encourage people and help them to be strengthened in the power that God has for them to be strengthened in.

A noble goal. But in your quest to walk in His love, you have stumbled, and you will do so again in the future. Should you continue to refuse to acknoledge your mistakes, you will get nowhere.

The letter of the law killeth. It is the spirit that gives life. How can there be any contradiction to the love of God and the liberty we have?

A theological question best answered in the GA forum.

Yes, the Holy Spirit helps me to understand the word of God. So I give a testimony that the same Holy Spirit can do a work in you, so that you also can understand the word of God.

But unless I already have "The Holy Spirit" in me, it won't make any sense, according to you. If the truth is so obvious, why is it not obvious to all?

But to answer your question, I have never found any evidence that contradicted the word of God. So it is a hypothetical question.

Because, as it has been explained to you time after time, you choose to ignore anything which may possibly contradict your fallable, incomplete, and limited interpretation of the Word of God.

 

[lucaspa]

This is a Christian forum. As Christians we believe the Bible is without error and is the word of God. That is what makes us Christian and that is what makes this a Christian forum.

Only a small percentage of Christians maintain the first sentence. What Protestants believe is Sola Scriptura, which means that you only need the Bible to instruct you in Christianity; you don't need an intermediary (priest). Your declaration is Sola Scriptura on steroids.

As to this forum, the Rules make state clearly that to be a Christian means subscribing to the Nicean Creed. The Nicean Creed doesn't say anything like this.

Nice strawman you built, John. Are we supposed to discuss it as tho it is real?

 

[lucaspa]

Actually, I was making it sort of easy. The Bible actually makes it a bit more strict than that.

1 John 2:3-4
Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. [4] He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Does this include the 9th commandment?

 

[lucaspa]

The question then becomes: Is evolution true? If evolution is true, then there will be no conflict between the theory of evolution and the Bible.

And there isn't. Altho there may be conflict with a particular INTERPRETATION of the Bible. But in that case, Christians have already told you what to do:

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437;

So we are not talking about "the Bible", but about a particular interpretation of it, aren't we?

John, we've been around this barn before. Why are you bringing it up again? Hoping for a different truth to emerge this time?

 

[lucaspa]

First off I would have to disagree with your major premise that they are the same thing. Inclusive in the idea of 'E'volution is the spontaneous generation of organic material from inorganic material, and then the spontaneous combination of that organic material into a lifeform. This is much different than speciation.

But different from speciation. Here is Darwin. He clearly separates the generation of the first life from evolution. Why do you want to put them together when Darwin didn't?

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

[/QUOTE] Secondly, I would like to know specifically which (maybe not all at once though) examples you are referring to. It helps in keeping the conversation going.[/QUOTE]

Of speciation? I'll start a thread and put the examples I've researched, which is not a complete list by any means.

 

[lucaspa]

Why thank you Nathan. Yesterday I was convinced that you hated me and today your saying that what I say about the Bible might be true

My only objective here is to be used by God to show people God's plan for them. To help them along the way so that they can make it to heaven. If that is something they are interested in.

if that is your true objective, then you need to hear that you are doing just the opposite. Many of the arguments you have advanced would, if we accepted them, destroy Christianity and drive people away from God.

Which is why, whatever is "using" you, I have my sincere doubts it is God.

 

[lucaspa]

Evolution has no direction, it has no ultimate goal to achieve, its without purpose.

Speaking as a scientist, we don't know that. Many scientists have inadvertently, and incorrectly, made statements to this effect, but those statements were wrong. That is why the National Association of Biology Teachers removed the words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" from their definition of evolution.

If God wound up the universe and created the first cells and watched everything unfold, at best, God always has a direction, a goal, and a purpose.

One of the things evolution did for Christianity is make this deists' god impossible. I'm surprised you, as a Christian, have such a view of God, because that view isn't Christian.

Evolution is random chances in DNA structures which result in beneficial mutations. And once again, God is not random.

Source for this claim about God? Why can't God use a random process as PART of His means of creating? God had choices to make about how the universe looks. He couldn't have made some of those choices by flipping a coin?

Any God believing person would agree evolution is not inline with God's character, plus its not even giving God full glory of creating humans.

Nice ad hominem. As a matter of fact, most Christians disagree with you. You've just told all of them that they are not "God believing". I don't think you are qualified to attack their relationship with God this way.

I would never not want to give God ALL the glory, im only here for a short time, i gotta meet the boss again some day.

Then why do you refuse to give God all the glory? Why do you refuse to acknowledge His Creation? You ignore it or downright disagree with the Book of Creation. Written directly by God since He Created. Instead, you deny that He created and worship a false idol of your interpretation of Genesis. Yes, you gotta meet the boss some day. Good luck. You are going to need it.