Evolution

[Bushido216]

You just had to go ahead and do that, didn't you?

 

[Servant222]

I beleive the lie of evolution does take away from Christ. It takes the authority and power of God and gives it to mere chance and really offers no solid answers for how things began.

It also denies Scripture. In Genesis 1 and 2 God clearly defines the day as being a single light/dark cycle and commands that living creatures reproduce after their own kind.

First, how do you define "evolution"? Biologists say it is simply the change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

If you deny this, then how do you explain the great variation in pets, cattle, etc., never mind the changes in viruses and bacteria that make it so difficult for medical researchers to keep up with new diseases?

Finally, if you deny that evolution occurs, then how do you explain the different races of people on earth- were Adam and Eve white folk, black people, chinese, indian, etc.??

I have no doubt that God created us- no doubt whatsoever. I cannot believe that it is possible that a collection of gases or dust was "accidently" given the breath of life AND, at exactly the same instant of time, given the ability to reproduce itself.

The Bible does not spell out how God created the multitude of life forms that we see today, and biologists have not convinced me that there is enough scientific evidence to demonstrate that accidental biological evolution explains how a simple, single cell developed into the multitude of complex, different species that we see today. As a matter of fact, I question whether there are a sufficient number of transitional fossils and DNA evidence to show conclusively that new species developed accidently.

Eventually, we will have an answer- science will eventually get it right, and there will be no conflict between our understanding of how God created everything in the Universe, and how science explains how He did it.

 

[Technocrat2010]

First, how do you define "evolution"? Biologists say it is simply the change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

If you deny this, then how do you explain the great variation in pets, cattle, etc., never mind the changes in viruses and bacteria that make it so difficult for medical researchers to keep up with new diseases?

Finally, if you deny that evolution occurs, then how do you explain the different races of people on earth- were Adam and Eve white folk, black people, chinese, indian, etc.??

I have no doubt that God created us- no doubt whatsoever. I cannot believe that it is possible that a collection of gases or dust was "accidently" given the breath of life AND, at exactly the same instant of time, given the ability to reproduce itself.

The Bible does not spell out how God created the multitude of life forms that we see today, and biologists have not convinced me that there is enough scientific evidence to demonstrate that accidental biological evolution explains how a simple, single cell developed into the multitude of complex, different species that we see today. As a matter of fact, I question whether there are a sufficient number of transitional fossils and DNA evidence to show conclusively that new species developed accidently.

Eventually, we will have an answer- science will eventually get it right, and there will be no conflict between our understanding of how God created everything in the Universe, and how science explains how He did it.

Evolution doesn't happen "by accident".

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940.html

Regarding Transitional fossils -

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Here is the index -

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

 

[crawfish]

I beleive the lie of evolution does take away from Christ. It takes the authority and power of God and gives it to mere chance and really offers no solid answers for how things began.

So Joshua said to the Israelites: "How long will you wait before you begin to take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you? Appoint three men from each tribe. I will send them out to make a survey of the land and to write a description of it, according to the inheritance of each. Then they will return to me. You are to divide the land into seven parts. Judah is to remain in its territory on the south and the house of Joseph in its territory on the north. After you have written descriptions of the seven parts of the land, bring them here to me and I will cast lots for you in the presence of the LORD our God. The Levites, however, do not get a portion among you, because the priestly service of the LORD is their inheritance. And Gad, Reuben and the half-tribe of Manasseh have already received their inheritance on the east side of the Jordan. Moses the servant of the LORD gave it to them."

And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Those are only two examples of where, in the bible, God used "random chance" to enact his will.

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution ONLY seeks to explain how life adapts to its environment and how populations change over time.

Evolution needs TIME. 100 million years is not enough for it to happen. That is the problem you skipped.

 

[juvenissun]

I can clearly see through some very simple observations that the world does not fit a literal interpretation of Genesis.

You try one. This is a challenge to you.
Otherwise, you take your words back.

 

[juvenissun]

With regard to the opening post, and the video: if you want to see a refutation of the work of Dr. Robert Gentry on polonium haloes, check out this article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

The article questions Dr. Gentry's scientific methods, offers a valid alternative theory for the formation of the polonium haloes and, most important, points to the masses of other independent evidence that supports the notion of an old earth. Dr. Gentry basically ignores all this other evidence- which can't be done if one is trying to use science to prove a Biblical concept.

Your comment was addressed by this video. You do not have to repeat it. It is useless to repeat junk argument.

Any new idea?

 

[gluadys]

Evolution needs TIME. 100 million years is not enough for it to happen. That is the problem you skipped.

Not a problem when we have 45 * 100 million years to work with.

 

[juvenissun]

Not a problem when we have 45 * 100 million years to work with.

How do you know that is enough?

 

[Mallon]

Evolution needs TIME. 100 million years is not enough for it to happen. That is the problem you skipped.

Given YECs are forced to subscribe to hyper-evolution, I'm not sure this is a valid complaint coming from one.

 

[Molal]

Your comment was addressed by this video. You do not have to repeat it. It is useless to repeat junk argument.

Any new idea?

The problem is Juve, the aforementioned web link is correct and the video is wrong.

If you believe otherwise then provide some peer reviewed published data that refutes the argument.

 

[Molal]

You try one. This is a challenge to you.
Otherwise, you take your words back.

Ice cores, lake varves, plate tectonics, radiological dating, speed of light, cosmic radiation, sedimentary deposition rates, erosional rates, genetic drift, convergent evolution,

Should I go on?

There is no need for the accused to retract their statement.

How about you lay off the accusations and provide some evidence. Not opinion, evidence.

 

[gluadys]

How do you know that is enough?

How do you know it isn't? Gould and Eldredge made the case that evolution proceeds at different rates under different conditions: sometimes slow to the point of stasis, sometimes very rapidly. So how do you determine if there is not enough time?

Not enough time in which lineage for which transition?
Why? Selection pressure too feeble? Mutation rate too low?

What figures do you have that say there is not enough time for as much evolution as we have had?

 

[Servant222]

Ice cores, lake varves, plate tectonics, radiological dating, speed of light, cosmic radiation, sedimentary deposition rates, erosional rates, genetic drift, convergent evolution,

And what is important about these dating methods is that ALL of them point to an old earth and ALL of them are independent of each other.

Why would God want to go to extraordinary lengths to fool us into believing that the earth is less than 6000 years old, as most YEC claim.

But it gets even more questionable when one realizes that civilizations have been living on the earth since at least 3500 BC (before Christ), which means that the entire Universe, including the earth, must have been formed in a few hundred years if you believe the YEC.

 

[gluadys]

But it gets even more questionable when one realizes that civilizations have been living on the earth since at least 3500 BC (before Christ), which means that the entire Universe, including the earth, must have been formed in a few hundred years if you believe the YEC.

It also means that, according to the most generally proposed dates, all these civilizations survived the Deluge without noticing that it happened.

 

[Molal]

And what is important about these dating methods is that ALL of them point to an old earth and ALL of them are independent of each other.

Why would God want to go to extraordinary lengths to fool us into believing that the earth is less than 6000 years old, as most YEC claim.

But it gets even more questionable when one realizes that civilizations have been living on the earth since at least 3500 BC (before Christ), which means that the entire Universe, including the earth, must have been formed in a few hundred years if you believe the YEC.

I agree, there is a problem with the literal interpretation of genesis, in my opinion.

 

[juvenissun]

Ice cores, lake varves, plate tectonics, radiological dating, speed of light, cosmic radiation, sedimentary deposition rates, erosional rates, genetic drift, convergent evolution,

Should I go on?

There is no need for the accused to retract their statement.

How about you lay off the accusations and provide some evidence. Not opinion, evidence.

It is always a good policy to make a complete reply, which includes the original question.

What is this list for? What is the argument?

 

[Molal]

It is always a good policy to make a complete reply, which includes the original question.

What is this list for? What is the argument?

The question (which was yours) was included as a quote in my message.

I assumed that since you wrote the response, you would know what you were talking about. I think this is a fair and correct assumption.

 

[Melethiel]

While you are technically correct, we can not take anything away from God. However, people teach false doctrines, different gospels and make choices and believe things that deny Him and His rightful place in their lives.

I'm not sure I'd say evolutionists can be saved as, IMO, they follow another god. Of course, I'm talking about people who have read His Truth in Scripture and choose to reject it.

I assure you, those of us who believe that God used evolution to create the diversity in life aren't following another god.

 

[Mallon]

I'm not sure I'd say evolutionists can be saved as, IMO, they follow another god. Of course, I'm talking about people who have read His Truth in Scripture and choose to reject it.

Are you saying that one's acceptance of evolutionary theory is capable of over-riding Christ's redeeming work?