Evolution

[Jase]

There is a big difference between asexual and sexual creatures. asexual basicly clone themselves while my children are not my clones.
Lab studies so far has shown fruit flies are resisting evolution (so they must be creationist) :

Experimental evolution reveals resistance to change : Nature

These small steps that evolution badly need are very rare and if they do appear, they get lost in all the neutral mutations in the sea of genetic drift. Evolution seems to have to a very serious sex problem.
That's one of the problems with evolution thinkers, they believe antibiotic resistance is on the same level as growing wings and fly.

P.S If war against bacteria (as well bacteria fighting back) and taking antibiotics and medicine= evolution then I'm an evolutionist. If giving out presents on Christmas day = Santa then I'm Santa. Now flying reindeers is a different story.

Antibiotic resistance is that same as the parts of evolution you are opposed to. The only difference is the amount of time one takes vs. the other. And no creationist has ever presented evidence for the existence of a barrier that allows "microevolution" but prevents "macroevolution".

 

[Papias]

OK, so here we are:

So which is it? Was mankind created male and female, as Jesus said, which is consistent with the evolution of male and female concurrently through evolution, OR, was man made only as a male first, by mouth to nose recusitation on a mudpie, as a literal interpretation (only) of Genesis says?

WW wrote:

Yes. The beginnings of the various races of mankind were placed here on the sixth day.

Resolved. WW's two step human origin view resolves the "OR" above. Other problems with that approach (Like Paul's saying that Adam was the first man) are being hashed out in the huge thread that blew up from this. Maybe update later, but OK for now.

Papias wrote:

So then do you agree that "theory" doesn't mean "unproven"? Q2 Do you agree to stop using the term "theory" when you mean "hypothesis"? You might also read Polycarp's good post, where he explains this too.

No.
No.
I have read it.

So you are saying that you dont understand what "theory" means, and further that you will continue to misuse a scientific term on purpose? Are those two intentions consistent with Christian attempts to be accurate and honest?



​

So if evolution is evil because it contradicts a literal reading, then why are Heliocentric theory, germ theory, Gravitational theory not evil, even though they too contradict a literal reading? Q3
​

Because germs and gravity are NOT mentioned. Creation is.

and

It doesn't mention many things. That has no bearing on this at all. Creation IS mentioned and evolution tells us it is a lie.

The relationship of the Sun and the Earth is indeed mentioned, in Genesis 1. Cosmolgy IS mentioned and heliocentrism tells us it is a lie.

The cause of sickness is mentioned (many times) and germ theory tells us it is a lie.

The reason behind the motion of the planets is mentioned, (also in Genesis 1), and the theory of gravity tells us it is a lie.

Because you are picking out one of these, and ignoring the others, it looks hypocritical, thus making it easier for many observers to say that Christians are hypocrites. I don't think we should do things to help them be able to say that.

First...this should be added to the list with germs, circle of the earth, of things that HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.

They have to do with evolution because creationists on this thread brought them up as proof that we are to interpret genesis literally with regard to evolution. Obviously, geneologies that go back to Adam in a few thousand years are in conflict with evolution if interpreted literally, and evolution is what we are discussing here.

Do you agree that the idea that Heli was Joseph's father in law contradicts the clear text of Luke, which states that Heli was Joseph's father? Q4

What I see is that Joseph was the son of Heli. Jesus was (as was supposed) the son of Joseph. That gives the legal line.

Resolved. We agree that Luke says that Joseph was the son (not the son in law) of Heli.


Do you agree that there are three mutually contradictory geneologies given for Jesus in most Bibles, if interpreted literally? Q5
​

The geneologies are literal. I previously wrote that when there is an apparent conflict it means we need to dig in for it contains a lesson

If it contains a lesson, then isn't it a figurative geneology, not a literal one?

or it is a mistranslation.

Are you saying we can't trust what our each of our different Bibles say? Even if we go back to our oldest copies, we don't have anything near the originals of any of the books of either of our Bibles. If that's a possibility, then how do you know that genesis isn't a mistranslation or copying error?

I don't feel compelled to do so at this time but I do think that using it to give the go-ahead for evolution to trump creation as is being attempted....is not a good thing.

Um, reminder: Creationists brought up the geneologies on this thread to give the go-ahead for creationism to trump evolution.

I also see in Matthew that Joseph was not just the husband of Mary but her father too was named Joseph. (count the generations for the key) It appears to me to be a mistranslation of husband and father.

??
I help me out. I don't see anywhere that says that Joseph was the father of Mary.

Mt has:

Matthan the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

My church venerates Saint Joachim as the father of Mary, which is attested to in the Gospel of James. May I ask where you heard that Joseph married his daughter?

Oh, "count the generations" - are you referring to the fact that matthew says there are 14 generations, but only lists 13? How does that make Joseph the father of Mary?

Thanks-

Papias.

 

[1whirlwind]

Sorry- maybe you've already done this- but what exactly is your definition of evolution? I know you don't like the textbook definitions- but how do you define evolution?

.

The evolution being taught in schools and on television....ape to man.

I'm not going to quibble about some microbe splitting into another. I'm speaking of man evolving from apes.

A lie.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

It's a valid question. The foundation of Medicine is based on the theory of evolution. Without it, antibiotics would not exist.

Medicine has been around for a long, long, long time.



.

 

[Polycarp1]

Medicine has been around for a long, long, long time.

.

And evolution has been around even longer. If you want to engage other CF members in constructive discussion, stop laughing at them and try answering their questions.

 

[Jase]

The evolution being taught in schools and on television....ape to man.

I'm not going to quibble about some microbe splitting into another. I'm speaking of man evolving from apes.

A lie.


.

Evolution says man and other apes have a common ancestor - not that apes turned into humans. Next you're going to ask why are there still apes around if humans evolved from them.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Evolution says man and other apes have a common ancestor - not that apes turned into humans. Next you're going to ask why are there still apes around if humans evolved from them.

Evolution also says that all the complex biological entities that exist today all hail from a single, macroscopic common ancestor that Dawkins argues would resemble bacteria if it were around today.

 

[Papias]

Happy wrote:

macroscopic common ancestor that Dawkins argues would resemble bacteria if it were around today.

Giant bacteria? Sounds like a B Horror film!

Papias

 

[Smidlee]

Antibiotic resistance is that same as the parts of evolution you are opposed to. The only difference is the amount of time one takes vs. the other. And no creationist has ever presented evidence for the existence of a barrier that allows "microevolution" but prevents "macroevolution".

This is a statement of faith. Lab studies so far doesn't agree with you especially when sex is involved.

 

[Smidlee]

The evolution being taught in schools and on television....ape to man.

I'm not going to quibble about some microbe splitting into another. I'm speaking of man evolving from apes.

A lie.


.

Evolution teaches that man and ape from from a mythological creature which no human have ever seen before. Instead of looking for Bigfoot they are looking for Littleheads. They did actually found "Littleheads" but they were found buried along with modern humans. If only "Littleheads" were found deeper down then evolutionist would be bragging these "Littleheads" are evidence of this mythological ancestor.

Evidence is allow to support evolution but contradicting evidence is not allow to disprove evolution. It's often the same with all these scientific theories.

 

[1whirlwind]

Evolution says man and other apes have a common ancestor - not that apes turned into humans. Next you're going to ask why are there still apes around if humans evolved from them.

A common ancestor in the ape realm isn't truth either but what is being taught depicts ape becoming man.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

And evolution has been around even longer. If you want to engage other CF members in constructive discussion, stop laughing at them and try answering their questions.

I wasn't laughing at someone but was laughing at the statement. My apologies...I don't wish to offend anyone.


.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Antibiotic resistance is in fact evidence of evolution, as is insect resistance to insecticides. Also Smidlee. Macroevolution is just microevolution on a long scale so...........

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Evolution teaches that man and ape from from a mythological creature which no human have ever seen before. Instead of looking for Bigfoot they are looking for Littleheads. They did actually found "Littleheads" but they were found buried along with modern humans. If only "Littleheads" were found deeper down then evolutionist would be bragging these "Littleheads" are evidence of this mythological ancestor.

Evidence is allow to support evolution but contradicting evidence is not allow to disprove evolution. It's often the same with all these scientific theories.

I suspect you don't know A. the fact that evolution occurs is not in contention among scientists. B. What scientists DO content is things like time lines of evolutionary changes, what factors in any given organisms environment helped create changes and to what extent, and where to place certain transitional species at.

But I suspect facts will never stop people from believing in the myth of creationism.

 

[1whirlwind]

Evolution is not really anti god. the only fool is the one who made this post. Why dont you learn how to communicate intelligently without calling names and state your points clearly. just saying evolution is wrong doesnt make it wrong

Why that fool would be me. Is "fool" calling someone a name? I don't believe I have yet called anyone a name Snackster so perhaps you should get your ducks in a row (or apes lined up on the evolutionary chart) before accusing someone. My points are clearly made...I'm sorry you don't understand.


.

 

[Smidlee]

I suspect you don't know A. the fact that evolution occurs is not in contention among scientists. B. What scientists DO content is things like time lines of evolutionary changes, what factors in any given organisms environment helped create changes and to what extent, and where to place certain transitional species at.

But I suspect facts will never stop people from believing in the myth of creationism.

I also know C) scientist are human and can be wrong just like everyone else. D) the reason they have contention over details is because most of the so called evidence is based on human opinions and human ideas and not on solid facts.

P.S I'm glad a lot scientist are evolutionist as I wouldn't want it any other way since I enjoy reading how they try to explain away contradicting evidence which they discover themselves. It's because of these scientist I have less and less faith in their scientific theories.

 

[1whirlwind]

hmmm.... you do know evolution has been.. pretty much... proven M'kay?

You must take man's word over our Father's to believe that. It is, as all things....your choice. M,kay?



.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Sorry- maybe you've already done this- but what exactly is your definition of evolution? I know you don't like the textbook definitions- but how do you define evolution?

The evolution being taught in schools and on television....ape to man.

I'm not going to quibble about some microbe splitting into another. I'm speaking of man evolving from apes.

A lie.

Well, first- evolution isn't about "some microbe splitting into another"- it is about the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

But I presume that when you say you're "not going to quibble" you mean you don't have a problem accepting that an existing strain of pathogenic microbes may, through a mutation, produce a new, genetically distinct family of microbes that are resistance to existing antibiotics.

Trouble is, that is exactly what evolution is- so what you're really arguing about is how much an existing organism can evolve, and not about the fact of evolution itself.

Am I correct? Please be honest here.

.

 

[Assyrian]

Evolution is not really anti god. the only fool is the one who made this post. Why dont you learn how to communicate intelligently without calling names and state your points clearly. just saying evolution is wrong doesnt make it wrong

Why that fool would be me. Is "fool" calling someone a name? I don't believe I have yet called anyone a name Snackster so perhaps you should get your ducks in a row (or apes lined up on the evolutionary chart) before accusing someone. My points are clearly made...I'm sorry you don't understand.
.

I suspect Snackster was referring to him/herself as the fool making the post. If only we were all that wise.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Evolution is not really anti god. the only fool is the one who made this post. Why dont you learn how to communicate intelligently without calling names and state your points clearly. just saying evolution is wrong doesnt make it wrong

Snackster- you're new here; only your fourth post. Welcome- your opinions are valued- but it is best to be as respectful as possible, otherwise the moderators may shut down the thread. The good news: you can go back to your original post and use the "Edit" button to modify it if you think you might want to change something.

And you also haven't identified yourself as a Christian- something you're supposed to do before posting on this thread.

Again, though, welcome to Christian Forums.

.