Evolution is a FACT!!!!

[kevin36]

So now you want to claim that you really didn't mean "species", you really meant some larger group such as family (the Linnean rank of "fruit fly"). That's called shifting the goal posts.

No, that's called somebody who isn't as clear as you about the scientific use of the terms seeking clarification, so that we both know that we're talking about the same thing.

Kevin

 

[kevin36]

Gluadys,

Thank you for your very informative post. As I said, this is not a topic that I am any sort of authority on, and you made much clearer several points that I apparently misunderstood because of the reasons that you stated.

I won't say that I agree with everything that you said, but I now have a much clearer understanding of the terminology, and what is meant in their common usages.

Thanks

God Bless
Kevin

 

[shernren]

I'm not a biologist, but I don't consider myself an ape, no matter what anybody says.

God made Man seperate from the animals, and for any Christian to say that it took thousands or millions of years for God's "very good" creation- made in His own image- to finally become what He wanted to have a relationship with is both intelectually and morally reprehensible.

I can certainly understand why you feel the way you feel. But let me ask you something: How do you know that you are created in the image of God? Is it something you can see in the mirror? And if so, what would happen if one day I forcibly changed what you see in the mirror? (Say, by pouring acid on you, or chopping off a limb, or downloading your personality into a computer, or something. Just for the sake of the example. )

Don't worry, I completely agree with you that we are created in the image of God. But I also think that evolution happens to be a very good explanation for a lot of our biological characteristics. And when you consider what it means to be "in the image of God", things will be a lot clearer.

 

[gluadys]

No, that's called somebody who isn't as clear as you about the scientific use of the terms seeking clarification, so that we both know that we're talking about the same thing.

Kevin

Fair enough.

Most of the common terms we use to refer to plants, animals and other life forms are not equivalent to "species" but actually refer to a much larger grouping of related species.

It happens that there is currently only one species of human, just as there is only one species of platypus. But there are two distinct species of elephants, and two of chimpanzees. There are hundreds of different species of monkeys and almost as many species of frogs as there are of the whole class of mammals.

Generally speaking, the less familiar we are with a certain group of species, the more likely it is that we use the same common name for a larger group. So we easily differentiate between species like dog and wolf, or horse and zebra even though, in both cases, the species are similar enough to interbreed. But we often have only one common name for whole families, or even orders of species such as squirrels or butterflies. In such cases, new species will still belong to the same family or order or whatever higher ranked group the old species was part of. A new species of bat will still be a bat. A new species of shrimp will still be a shrimp. But it will be a new species.

This use of common names to refer not to species, but to large groups of species produces confusion when scientific lay-people hear about evolution of new species. They envision a much larger transformation than an actual species-to-species change and are apt to be disappointed in real-life examples of species-to-species change as it doesn't live up to their expectations of evolution.

Just remember that the larger transformations do happen as well, not in one go, but as a series of species-to-species transitions. Kind of hard to believe when one looks at how different a mammal is from a reptile, or a frog from a fish, but the fossil evidence shows much of how it happened.

 

[Blake4000]

If you can't even believe Genesis from the start. you have no hope of believing the rest of the Bible. Darwin was NOT so clever, he just knew how to read and he himself must have believed God and The Bible, because that is exactly where he got his information from.

(Adam) man, God states on the very FIRST page of the Bible that all life EXCEPT MAN - the Adamic race - came out of the sea (Evolution or Creation) - Genesis chapter 1 verse 20. Afterwards God CREATED SEPARATELY, on the sixth day.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the WATERS bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Before his death, Darwin acknowledged that there was a "missing-link" and he admitted that he was wrong about the Adamic Race having evolved from apes.

 

[Dannager]

If you can't even believe Genesis from the start. you have no hope of believing the rest of the Bible.

There's a difference between believing Genesis and believing Genesis was literal. The former is valid, the latter is not.

Darwin was NOT so clever, he just knew how to read and he himself must have believed God and The Bible, because that is exactly where he got his information from.

No, it's not. Darwin was very clever, in fact.

Before his death, Darwin acknowledged that there was a "missing-link" and he admitted that he was wrong about the Adamic Race having evolved from apes.

No, he didn't. Both of those statements are lies.

 

[kevin36]

I can certainly understand why you feel the way you feel. But let me ask you something: How do you know that you are created in the image of God? Is it something you can see in the mirror? And if so, what would happen if one day I forcibly changed what you see in the mirror? (Say, by pouring acid on you, or chopping off a limb, or downloading your personality into a computer, or something. Just for the sake of the example. )/quote]

Good question, and one that I've been asked before...

When I say that I am made in God's image, I don't mean that to be physically. God is a spirit, although for sake of ease in Scripture He is talked about as having human attributes.

No, when I say that we are made in God's image, I mean that we have eternal souls- that we aren't simply animals. We were created differant from them...

I've always wondered how people think that "in God's image meant physically, since there was no physical form before Jesus...

God Bless
Kevin

 

[kevin36]

Fair enough.

Most of the common terms we use to refer to plants, animals and other life forms are not equivalent to "species" but actually refer to a much larger grouping of related species.

It happens that there is currently only one species of human, just as there is only one species of platypus. But there are two distinct species of elephants, and two of chimpanzees. There are hundreds of different species of monkeys and almost as many species of frogs as there are of the whole class of mammals.

Generally speaking, the less familiar we are with a certain group of species, the more likely it is that we use the same common name for a larger group. So we easily differentiate between species like dog and wolf, or horse and zebra even though, in both cases, the species are similar enough to interbreed. But we often have only one common name for whole families, or even orders of species such as squirrels or butterflies. In such cases, new species will still belong to the same family or order or whatever higher ranked group the old species was part of. A new species of bat will still be a bat. A new species of shrimp will still be a shrimp. But it will be a new species.

This use of common names to refer not to species, but to large groups of species produces confusion when scientific lay-people hear about evolution of new species. They envision a much larger transformation than an actual species-to-species change and are apt to be disappointed in real-life examples of species-to-species change as it doesn't live up to their expectations of evolution.

Just remember that the larger transformations do happen as well, not in one go, but as a series of species-to-species transitions. Kind of hard to believe when one looks at how different a mammal is from a reptile, or a frog from a fish, but the fossil evidence shows much of how it happened.

See? The problem was in my usage of the terms...

I am closest to what is (derisively it seems, here...) called a Young Earth Creationist. Common consensus has it that I'm not a complete idiot, but I'm certainly not highly educated on some of the subjects I'm definately highly opinionated about.

Having said that, I'll also admit that most, if not all, of my grumblings stemmed from my misuse/misunderstanding of the terminology some take for granted to mean something differant than what I've always known. Again, that failing is mine, and I'm not too proud to admit it.

If I had known then what has been explained so patiently to me now, my initial reaction to "Evolution is a fact!" would have been something along the lines of "Yeah... so?" My understanding it to be the name of a process that I accept as true changes quite a lot to me, and I think that if the time was taken to find out, many creationists probably feel the same way.

Now, when somebody says they're for or against "evolution", I will certainly have to ask what they understand that to be before I react.

I won't accept that Man is descended from apes, or that land life came from the seas, or that all life began as one or a few sources (except God, of course), but I have ceratinly learned much, and I thank you all for putting up with my ignorance.

I don't care too much about sounding like an idiot, but I hate to be misunderstood, and I simply didn't have the proper vocabulary to properly express what I believe.

God Bless
Kevin

 

[shernren]

I can certainly understand why you feel the way you feel. But let me ask you something: How do you know that you are created in the image of God? Is it something you can see in the mirror? And if so, what would happen if one day I forcibly changed what you see in the mirror? (Say, by pouring acid on you, or chopping off a limb, or downloading your personality into a computer, or something. Just for the sake of the example. )/quote]

Good question, and one that I've been asked before...

When I say that I am made in God's image, I don't mean that to be physically. God is a spirit, although for sake of ease in Scripture He is talked about as having human attributes.

No, when I say that we are made in God's image, I mean that we have eternal souls- that we aren't simply animals. We were created differant from them...

I've always wondered how people think that "in God's image meant physically, since there was no physical form before Jesus...

God Bless
Kevin

Cool! Glad to know you agree with me. Now, you agree that being in the image of God isn't about what you see in the mirror. On the other hand, evolution is only about what you see in the mirror (plus, of course, the other stuff inside you - but basically it's all physical stuff). So evolution only says that our physical makeup can be quite well explained in terms of a descent from apes. But it never tries to tell us anything about us as souls (at least, when it's properly used).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If you can't even believe Genesis from the start. you have no hope of believing the rest of the Bible. Darwin was NOT so clever, he just knew how to read and he himself must have believed God and The Bible, because that is exactly where he got his information from.

(Adam) man, God states on the very FIRST page of the Bible that all life EXCEPT MAN - the Adamic race - came out of the sea (Evolution or Creation) - Genesis chapter 1 verse 20. Afterwards God CREATED SEPARATELY, on the sixth day.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the WATERS bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Before his death, Darwin acknowledged that there was a "missing-link" and he admitted that he was wrong about the Adamic Race having evolved from apes.

Where do you get your information?

 

[lucaspa]

If you can't even believe Genesis from the start. you have no hope of believing the rest of the Bible.

There are different types of truth. We can believe the theological truths in Genesis without believing a scientific theory built on a literal interpretation and contradicted by God.

Darwin was NOT so clever, he just knew how to read and he himself must have believed God and The Bible, because that is exactly where he got his information from.

You don't seriously think attacking Darwin is going to have any effect at all on the validity of evolution, do you?

(Adam) man, God states on the very FIRST page of the Bible that all life EXCEPT MAN - the Adamic race - came out of the sea (Evolution or Creation) - Genesis chapter 1 verse 20. Afterwards God CREATED SEPARATELY, on the sixth day.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the WATERS bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

A problem for you is that Genesis 2:19 says that God made those fowl from dust, not from the sea. You've got 2 creation stories and they contradict.

Before his death, Darwin acknowledged that there was a "missing-link" and he admitted that he was wrong about the Adamic Race having evolved from apes.

Uh, NO! This is a creationist myth and has been documented as a myth to the point that Answers in Genesis states that it is an argument that creationists should no longer use. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp

By now, the "missing links" have been filled such that we have transitional individuals linking us, H. sapiens, to H. erectus to H. hablis to A. afarensis. BTW, AiG says A. afarensis is an ape.

So, those missing links are no longer "missing".