Evolution credible?

[Just]

I am new here, I would like to see how many christians do agree with evolution and why/why not.

 

 

 

[wblastyn]

Hi, atheists can also post in this forum so your poll would also include atheists, there is a Christian only creation/evolution forum here: http://www.christianforums.com/forums/143.html

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I would have worded it as "Is evolution correct".  In that case, I would say that - yes evolution is indeed correct based on a vast amount of scientific evidence.

 

[coujoe]

 

I cant give you a straight answer but....

Yes, I believe that organisms do change over time from one generation to another whether that change is good or bad. I am speaking in the sense that dominant genes overpower recessive genes. For example... a bald gene for hair overpowering a recessive, non-bald gene.

No, I do not believe that humans evolved from monkeys.  I believe that we were created by God as human beings. Nor do I believe that we have developed any extra abilities outside of Gods original creation of us.

 

 

[Just]

Coujoe,

Thank you for the polite answer, I would like to ask you a few questions, some of them may be a bit difficult to answer so I don't expect flawless answers.

1) Are you YEC or OEC or what?

2) What has happened to the other species of animals (which have been very similar to homo-sapiens (us))?

3) Did god cease to create new species after we were created? An example of a newer creature than us would be a polar bear which begun existance around 100,000 years ago (according to science)- compared with humans which began around 150,000 years ago.

4) the main question was: Is macroevolution (fish->amphibian->reptile->mammal-&gt correct, rather than microevolution (which no-one can reject as there is direct evidence such as bacteria & insects becoming resistant to chemicals, breeds of dogs, etc.)

I admit that macroevolution does have some archeological evidence missing, however I do think that it is probable that it IS there, just we haven't found it yet. Also the fossil record is not expected to have a few holes in it (only a very small % of creatures actually become fossils)

5) Is it possible to hold the view that macroevolution is correct AND be christian?

 

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 04:20 PM Just said this in Post #1

I am new here, I would like to see how many christians do agree with evolution and why/why not. 

The evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming.  To get just a taste of the volume of data supporting evolution, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed and enter "evolution" as your search term.  Start reading the abstracts.  And that's a medical database going back only 38 years.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 10:44 PM coujoe said this in Post #4 

 Yes, I believe that organisms do change over time from one generation to another whether that change is good or bad. I am speaking in the sense that dominant genes overpower recessive genes. For example... a bald gene for hair overpowering a recessive, non-bald gene.

No, I do not believe that humans evolved from monkeys.  I believe that we were created by God as human beings. Nor do I believe that we have developed any extra abilities outside of Gods original creation of us. 

Recessive genes can also become fixed in a population under natural selection. 

What you need to realize is that natural selection is an algorithm to get design.  Follow the steps and design is assured.  And the formation of new species by evolution has been observed both in the wild and in the lab.

Now, your assertion that humans are separate and did not evolve is the crux of the matter for creationists.  Niles Eldredge suspects that creationists would allow all the rest of life to be a "kind" and admit evolution "within the kind" as long as humans were separate.  I agree with him; that does appear to be what creationists want.

Let me submit this for you to think about.  What you want is for there to be something inherent about humans so that they are special.  Something internal and not dependent on anyone or any God from outside.  Having humans specially created by  God does that. What evolution does is mean that humans are special only because God considers them so.  Otherwise they are "just" another animal.  However, if you look at Exodus, you find that the Hebrews are not "special" in any way.  In fact, they are slaves.  They are special only because God chose to regard them as His Chosen People.

So, humans are special to God only because God decided to view them as special.  This hurts human pride. Altho Christians talk about being totally dependent on God, IMHO creationists don't want to believe it.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 02:27 AM Just said this in Post #5
Coujoe,

Thank you for the polite answer, I would like to ask you a few questions, some of them may be a bit difficult to answer so I don't expect flawless answers.

I know you asked Coujoe, but some of the questions are scientific and Coujoe has already told you his beliefs in the matter.

2) What has happened to the other species of animals (which have been very similar to homo-sapiens (us))?

They went extinct.  Probably by competition with H. sapiens.  This does not mean by war and murder, but rather that H. sapiens was better at occupying the niche for intelligence than they were.  In the case of neandertals, shifting climate probably had something to do with it also.

3) Did god cease to create new species after we were created? An example of a newer creature than us would be a polar bear which begun existance around 100,000 years ago (according to science)- compared with humans which began around 150,000 years ago.

There have been new species originating in the last 70 years and even later.

4) the main question was: Is macroevolution (fish->amphibian->reptile->mammal-&gt correct, rather than microevolution (which no-one can reject as there is direct evidence such as bacteria & insects becoming resistant to chemicals, breeds of dogs, etc.)

I admit that macroevolution does have some archeological evidence missing, however I do think that it is probable that it IS there, just we haven't found it yet. Also the fossil record is not expected to have a few holes in it (only a very small % of creatures actually become fossils)

Macroevolution is speciation. Formation of new species.  The biological reality is simply species.  All the "higher taxa" are simply groupings of species. So once you get a new species, you're done.  Generation of higher taxa is simply multiple speciation events spread thru time.  In the fossil record there are transitional series of individuals documenting the evolution of new species and sequences going through several species to new genera, family, order, and class.  I'll post the references if you want.  The paleontological record is not lacking.  One of those transitional sequences is in the hominin line. For instance, there are enough transitional individuals linking H. erectus to H. sapiens for there to be no doubt that those are chronospecies: the same species sampled at two different points in time.

5) Is it possible to hold the view that macroevolution is correct AND be christian? 

 Absolutely it is possible.  As demonstrated by the large number of people who accept evolution and are Christians. This includes at least half the evolutionary biologists in history -- starting with Darwin.  See http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4650_statements_from_religious_orga_3_13_2001.asp for a list of Judeo-Christian denominations accepting evolution. Also read Ruse's Can a Darwinian be a Christian?  Ruse doesn't dodge any questions or pull any punches.  And his answer is "yes".

Finally, there is Kenneth Miller's (a Catholic) statement at the end of Finding Darwin's God
"I find a way [at the end of his class on evolutionary biology] to make it clear that I do not regard evolution, properly understood, as either anti-religious or anti-spiritual.  ... There are always a few who find me after class and want to pin me down. Usually they ask me point-blank, 'Do you believe in God.' And one-on-one, I carefully tell them, "Yes" Puzzled, they ask what kind of God? Over the years, I have struggled to come up with a simple but precise answer to that question. Eventually I found it.
"I ask my inquiring students to reread the final chapter of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. ... I hope to make the point that my beliefs do not depend upon a flaw of evidence or logic in The Origin. ... What kind of God do I believe in?   I believe in Darwin's God."  Finding Darwin's God, pg 291-292.

 

[Just]

 Lucaspa,

I was actually look for a creationists point of view on these things as they can easily be solved via the evolutionary theory as you have shown.

I would be interested in a list of the newest species.. What species is only 70 years old?

I would also be interested in your views on how you believe Christianity and also the Evolutionary Theory simultanouesly (I assume you are Christian).

 

Thanks,

Justin.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 08:38 PM Just said this in Post #9 

 Lucaspa,

I was actually look for a creationists point of view on these things as they can easily be solved via the evolutionary theory as you have shown.

Just, if you want to learn the creationist pov, you can find the creationist position on several creationist websites, such as www.icr.org,  www.answersingenesis.com or www.arn.org or in several books I can name if you wish.  None of those professional creationists are on this board so what you will get are the opinions of these particular creationists,which will not lead to learning but only debate.   

I would be interested in a list of the newest species.. What species is only 70 years old?

A new species of salmon. The paper is:
12. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are:  AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000

For speciation in the lab within 5 years:
1.  G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster  Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. 

For speciation in lab and wild in a period of 5-10 years:
2.  Speciation in action  Science 72:700-701, 1996  A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species.  Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.  Follow up paper in PNAS http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/20/11757

I would also be interested in your views on how you believe Christianity and also the Evolutionary Theory simultanouesly (I assume you are Christian).

I prefer not to state my personal beliefs. This is about ideas and not personal beliefs. I can report to you how most Christians reconcile the two and you can decide if you want to accept the ideas into your personal belief system:

1. God wrote 2 books: the Bible and the physical universe (Creation). This view is older than Christianity, tracing its roots back to rabbinical teachings.

2. The Bible is a theological  document.  It tells the who and the why of creation.  Creation (evolution) itself tells the how.

3. Internal evidence says that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8 as a literal history is wrong, not to mention the second book.  So what gets discarded is a literal interpretation of those chapters of Genesis.

4. The basic theology of Christianity doesn't change if a literal interpretation is abandoned. God is still God. Jesus still has died for your sins and bought your salvation.

5. Natural selectcan even provide the "original sin" by providing the "selfish genes" that tend to have humans put their interest before God and disobey God.

6. Evolution even gets God off the hook that special creation makes.  Special creation makes God directly responsible for all the sadistic and stupid designs in organisms.  Natural selection becomes the direct or secondary cause and thus responsible.

 

[Didaskomenos]

As a Christian who believes in macroevolution, I would suggest that you're on the right track. Obviously I believe that one can be an evolutionist and a Christian at the same time. The Creation myth in the Bible was meant to convey mythological, archetypal, and otherwise non-historical (but perhaps not necessarily un-historical) truth. I agree with Lucaspa's assertion that the universe is itself God's book to man, which we are no less responsible for reading than God's other book for man, the Bible.

For theological discussion of the doctrine of the Fall and how to understand it vis-a-vis evolutionary theory, check out C.S. Lewis's The Problem of Pain. Great stuff.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 10:07 AM lucaspa said this in Post #6

The evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming.  

Excuse me, but do you mean that the lies that support evolution are overwhelming? The reason I ask is because I see you use the word "falisify" so much. I checked into that and it can mean to corrupt or pervert the truth. Is comes from the french word falisifier, which must be another name for the serpent.

So I figure, sense you seek to falisify the truth, then the only evidence you can have is lies. As happens so often though, people get it upside down and backwards, they call the truth a lie and then they will call a lie evidence that supports their theory.

That is what the serpent did with Eve from the very beginning. First he would seek to "falsify" the truth that God had given her. Then he tried to slip his lies in on her.

Genesis 3:3-4
    But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. [4] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Here we are almost 6000 years later, and not much has changed. The serpent still uses the same standard method of operation, and why not, it is still working on people. They seem to have ears that are dull of hearing, when it comes to the truth.

Matthew 13:15
    For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
    Their ears are hard of hearing,
    And their eyes they have closed,
    Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
    Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
    So that I should heal them.'
 






 

 

[chickenman]

john, you're an idiot, I can't hold my tongue any longer

you're the type of christian who turns people away from christianity

 

[Freodin]

Now, chicken, that was unneeded.


But, John, you should really try to use this mind of Christ you claim to have to see the position of other people truly.

I have seen you so many times misrepresent other peoples word, twist them and take statements vastly out of context.

How do you assume people will believe you always tell the truth, when you continuously state testable falsehoods in these forum?


falsifying has nothing to do with lying (well, not directly). It just means "to show that something is false".

While it is difficult to show that something is true (Mind: I said "TO SHOW THAT"), it is possible by various means to show something is false.

And in this sense, and only in this sense this term is used in scientific discussions.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 02:42 AM chickenman said this in Post #13
you're the type of christian who turns people away from christianity

Everyone has a choice. They are either going to take on the mind of christ or they take on a reprobate mind. There is no middle ground, everyone has to make their choice.

You are either for God or against God. You can not be luke warm.

Rev. 3:15-16
    I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. [16] So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

God can not tolerate the luke warm. We are told that he will spue them out of His mouth. He wants people hot or cold.

Rev. 3:17-18
    Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'--and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked-- [18] I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.

Here we are told quite a bit about luke warm people. They do not know their need for God, they do not know that they are wretched before God. Also they are not aware that they are blind that their eyes do not see what God is doing.





 

 

[Arikay]

the question is, how do you be for god?

Is only following your way, for god? Could there be multiple paths? How are you sure you are following god?

the question about evolution and christianity boils down to:
Do you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible more or less than gods creation?

Gods creation says evolution exists.
The literal interpretation of the bible says evolution doesnt exist at all.

So, pick a side.

Today at 01:56 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #15 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=702342#post702342)

Everyone has a choice. They are either going to take on the mind of christ or they take on a reprobate mind. There is no middle ground, everyone has to make their choice.

You are either for God or against God. You can not be luke warm.

Rev. 3:15-16
    I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. [16] So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

God can not tolerate the luke warm. We are told that he will spue them out of His mouth. He wants people hot or cold.

Rev. 3:17-18
    Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'--and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked-- [18] I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.

Here we are told quite a bit about luke warm people. They do not know their need for God, they do not know that they are wretched before God. Also they are not aware that they are blind that their eyes do not see what God is doing.





 

 

[PhantomLlama]

Today at 09:56 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #15 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=702342#post702342)

Everyone has a choice. They are either going to take on the mind of christ or they take on a reprobate mind. There is no middle ground, everyone has to make their choice.

You are either for God or against God. You can not be luke warm.

I am not against God, in the same way I am not against Gandalf.

Here we are told quite a bit about luke warm people. They do not know their need for God, they do not know that they are wretched before God. Also they are not aware that they are blind that their eyes do not see what God is doing.

John, has it ever occured to you that you might be wrong, and that some people might not need God. Thinking about that, has it ever occured to you that you might be wrong at all? Is the concept of you being wrong concievable to you?

Excuse me, but do you mean that the lies that support evolution are overwhelming?

It appears it is not. A rough translation of this sentence would appear to be 'Anything that agrees with evolution is lies' so we have the argument:

'Evolution has no support'
'What about the evidence'
'It is all lies'
'How do you know'
'Because evolution is wrong'
'How do you know'
'Because it has no support'
'What about all the evidence'
Round and round we go...

Now I am being generous here. A more accurate description would be:
'All evidence for evolution is lies'
'how do you know'
'it says so in the bible'
'but couldn't you be misinterpreting the bible?'
Now pick one from:
1: 'I am a theologist. I know more about the bible than you.'
2: 'you have a reprobate mind that denies God'
3: *theological treatise filled with bible quotes that has no connection at all with the question*


JohnR7, this is the Science forum. The dogmatic bigotry that you like to spout at regular intervals has no place here.

 

[euphoric]

Today at 04:03 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #12

Excuse me, but do you mean that the lies that support evolution are overwhelming? The reason I ask is because I see you use the word "falisify" so much. I checked into that and it can mean to corrupt or pervert the truth. Is comes from the french word falisifier, which must be another name for the serpent. 

(Snip long senseless diatribe)

 

This is precisely the problem with this debate.  Illustrated for us by John and a few others.  No matter what evidence you present, all you'll get in return is handwaving, a mini sermon and a few quoted verses that may or may not have anything to do with the topic. 

There are many Christians who are open to ideas and willing to discuss things rationally, and I think that time is well spent debating and discussing with them, but when someone like John proves themselves to be both woefully ignorant on the topic and unwilling to pursue an education on even the basics, then your in a pointless excercise.  It's a downward spiral into increasing lunacy and off topic ranting. 

John has his ideas about what evolution is and neither logic nor reason will convince him that he is wrong.  Perhaps there is some value in exposing his "arguments" for the lurkers and other participants, but it seems like a big waste of valuable time.

-brett

 

[PhantomLlama]

I wouldn't mind, except that he appears so often.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 11:03 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #12

Excuse me, but do you mean that the lies that support evolution are overwhelming?

No, I mean the data, John.  Data are the repeated observations by many, many people. What are often called "facts". 

The reason I ask is because I see you use the word "falisify" so much. I checked into that and it can mean to corrupt or pervert the truth. Is comes from the french word falisifier, which must be another name for the serpent.

LOL!! Oh please.  You are just playing semantic games here.  From Merriam-Webster:

"transitive senses
<B>1</B> <B>:</B> to prove or declare false
<B>2</B> <B>:</B> to make false : as <B>a</B> <B>:</B> to make false by mutilation or addition &lt;the accounts were <I>falsified </I>to conceal a theft&gt; <B>b</B> <B>:</B> to represent falsely <B>: MISREPRESENT</B>
<B>3</B> <B>:</B> to prove unsound by experience
<I>intransitive senses</I> <B>:</B> to tell lies"

Science uses definition 1 and 3.&nbsp; It comes directly from deductive logic.&nbsp; True statements can't have false (wrong)&nbsp;consequences.&nbsp; Hypotheses/theories are statements about the physical universe.&nbsp; Scientists look at the&nbsp;observed consequences of theories to see if the consequences match the statements.&nbsp; If they don't, then a hypothesis/theory has been shown to be false.&nbsp;


So I figure, sense you seek to falisify the truth, then the only evidence you can have is lies.

Figure again, John.&nbsp; Your calculator is broken.

That is what the serpent did with Eve from the very beginning. First he would seek to "falsify" the truth that God had given her. Then he tried to slip his lies in on her.

What the serpent supposedly did there&nbsp;is not how the word is being used here.&nbsp; Of course, you are as slippery with language as the serpent.&nbsp; Cousins, perhaps?

John, if you had the evidence, the data, that evolution was false/wrong, then all you have to do is post it.&nbsp; We've been posting the data&nbsp;that shows that creationism/special creation is wrong.&nbsp; The data was found by&nbsp; Christians, most of them ministers.&nbsp; If Christian ministers are so easily fooled by the physical universe, just think how much easier it would be for a supernatural being -- such as God -- to fool them about salvation and laws.&nbsp; In fact, God even said at one point that He deceived people with bad laws. Ezekiel 20:25.&nbsp; So, if Christians and even ministers are so easily fooled, then you destroy their credibility that they&nbsp;were not fooled by&nbsp;God.&nbsp; Can't have it both ways.

Another reason why your ideas&nbsp;are such a&nbsp;danger to Christianity, John.&nbsp;