Evolution

[classicalhero]

That is why I go with theistic evolution. It and or OE creationism best show us the most probable way that God created us out if dust. That is just my view though

Then you don't fully trust in God's word, since there is a Genealogy given in the Bible listing the ages of the people. It is impossible to get billions of year from that genealogy.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Then you don't fully trust in God's word, since there is a Genealogy given in the Bible listing the ages of the people. It is impossible to get billions of year from that genealogy.

Ah yes, of course, I had quite forgotten - the date of 23 October 4004 BC.

But nobody has explained whether that is a Julian date or a Gregorian calendar date.

We must have accuracy.

 

[Second Phoenix]

Hi second phoenix,

Because God's word tells us that He made the first two human beings. Surely God could have done it the way that you explain, but it isn't how God tells us that He did it.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Surely God can use metaphors?

 

[cubanito]

Sure. Macro-evolution is evolution beyond the species level. The relationship of the branching of the diverse creatures that evolved from the first replicating progenote to all types of body plans that we observe in our planet Earth.

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macro-evolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree. Of course this is speculation, it was never observed in the fossil record.

Macro-evolution assumes that all species extinct and extant came into existence via the evolution from the first species via abiogenesis, and went on to evolve into all known single cell creatures, of which evolved into all known multicellular species on our planet.

Micro-evolution is evolution within a species up to the category of a Family containing related species, but with differing traits, , such as Darwin's Finches

A species is defined as the ability to interbreed and bear viable offspring.

Single cell creatures simply reproduce themselves.

While I agree with most everything else, i take issue with the last 2 sentences.

Bears can and often interbreed succesfully in the wild, as do all canines. In fact, one of the other times that, as an agnostic (by that time leaning strongly towards atheism) that gave me pause to reconsider Darwinian theories was when my parents brought home a dog/wold hybrid that occured accidentally when a German sherdess escaped and came back pregnant by a wolf. My high school biology book gave the standard definition as above and yet, here was this animal staring at me. I actually, out loud, told the puppy "you do not exist." The reality is that "species" is a POLITICAL word that has very little to do with science. It is used arbitrarily for POLITICAL reasons today as defining what is nothing but a minor variant as a species is sufficient to gain Govt grants for MONEY in research and also for the Govt to seize private property by making it unusable to the private owner. It greatly irritates me when scientists pretend they have no ulterior motives, such as advancing their carreers, getting grants and promoting an ecological view of "Mother Earth" that is basically modern paganism.

The last sentence is also wrong. I took a couple of graduate courses in genetic engeneering back in the late 80's. It has been known since 1947 that bacteria and most other single cell organisms not only do have sex, but MUST have sex in order to continue livintg. Bacterial conjugation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia From memory I remember e coli, which is the main prokaryote we used to screw the genes of, literally, has 7 genders. Ony one "gender" can conjugate with any "gender" that is not of itself (homosexual unions can occur for plasmid exchanges, but not for main DNA recombination). I do apologize that I am rusty on the exact nomenclature, and after 30+ years I would not be surprised if there is a different nomenclature and much more known than when we were screwing around introducing human genes into e coli (yes, we were doing that, though I was just a student, not a "hands on" or director type).

Other than those details, the answer to how the terms macroevolution (e coli to blue whale), which I think is bunk, and microevolution (wolf to chihuahua) which everybody agrees of is solid.

Parting shot, while nowadays everybody talks only about genetic similarity, when it comes to succesful mating among animals, chromosome number and homology is also crucial. This is a highly involved subject, generally ignored by science today BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ADVANCE THE EVOLUTIONARY AGENDA. In short, no matter how similar our DNA is to chimpanzees (and the figures generally quoted are, well, selective) we can not succesfully mate with apes because our chromosomes can not properly line up. This leads to an interesting question: how did the first proto-human, with a different number of chromosomes, ever find a mate? Down syndrome, the only viable trisomy can reproduce because the gametes exclude the extra 21, and thus their offsprings are normal humans. But how did the first 23 gamete haplotype of the first "protohuman" ever create a viable fetus when all other aprs produce 24 chromosome gametes?

Look at the list of chromosomes List of organisms by chromosome count - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and you will notice why all canines and bears succesfully interbreed: same NUMBER of chromosomes, as well as homology (same number is a necessary burt insufficient condition)

the interesting animal outlier is, of course, the ass horse breeds, but this is way long post already, so TTFN.

The more you scrutinize macroevolution, the more implausible, and eventually impossible it becomes. But hey, this is the age of twitter and soundbites. Who has time to think?

JR, a raging Bible Thumping "know-nothing" fundamentalist (at least that's what you theistic evos would like to thionk, huh?


The answer is a defening silence.

 

[cubanito]

Surely God can use metaphors?

Yes He can, and does (trees clap and mountains dance at His coming, I think from Isaiah). The question is did He intend Genesis 1-whatever as a metaphor. If He did, when did the metaphors end and real history begin?

Please understand, I gave up belief in evolution while still an agnostic and long before I came to Christ. For me it is absurd to believe in macroevolution on the physical evidence alone.

Christianity can survive if macroevolution be proven true, but secular humanism and atheism can NOT survive long if macroevolution is proven false (I was a very unhappy agnostic when I had to give up my belief in macroevolution, and with it that scientists were unbiased). Who then has most ulterior motives for supressing truth? You think a lab coat rids you of bias?

JR

 

[miamited]

Surely God can use metaphors?

Hi SP

So, what does your understanding hold 'man' as a metaphor for?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[KWCrazy]

As a slave to Christ and a former professor of medicine at U of Miami, this 54yo is ever more amazed that intelligent people can bend reality to make the absurd appear reasonable...

Excellent post, Cubanito. No doubt you will be attacked for it by the Lovers of the Lie; evolutionists.

Evolution isn't believed because it is scientifically viable, it is believed because the alternative is unacceptable to those who reject God.

 

[cubanito]

Excellent post, Cubanito. No doubt you will be attacked for it by the Lovers of the Lie; evolutionists.

Evolution isn't believed because it is scientifically viable, it is believed because the alternative is unacceptable to those who reject God.

Exactly right, and the underlying assumption is that the great majority of highly intelligent and dedicated scientists could not be wrong. This fails to understand what the majority of scientists are dedicated TO. If one believes the Scripture, God delivers them to a darkened mind because they would worship the creature/creation rather than the Creator. They are very intelligent and very dedicated, but the human heart is desperately wicked, who can know it?

The assumption, carefully cultured by the world system, that scientists are unbiased seekers of Truth is the underlying lie here. NOBODY is unbiased about anything, and the more important a subject, the more biased the individual.

I am certainly biased, and I make no pretentions not to be. However, I did not have sufficient faith to believe in the modern cosmological mythology to combat the increasing amount of evidence that refuted macroevolution. Thus I became a true agnostic, rather than the contemporary "agnostic" or atheist that substitutes an unfounded faith in what scientists proclaim rather than the FACTS uncovered by scientific inquiry. By the way, I am NOT saying that there is no evidence whatsoever that macroevolution might be true. There are some facts that do indeed point towards some sort of macroevolutionary process. They are few, inconclusive, and outweighed by the many, many that do not fit in any kind of macroevolutionary model. I am not saying creationist models are flawless. I myself am not sure of the age of the Earth, part of the problem is I find Geology and Astronomy boring and so I don't know much in these areas. Mathematics, physics I like and have a slight understanding of. The life sciences, especially biochemistry, well that's my main training and love.

It greatly bothers me that theistic evolutionists keep trying to argue that their approach is Biblically acceptable when my rejection of macroevolution has nothing to do with the Bible! While not tasteful, I can swallow an evolutionary view of at least some of Genesis as allegory. It is not the natural reading, methinks, but I can see Genesis 1 as a song or poetry, maybe. What I can NOT swallow, even when I was not a Christian, even when my mind was dark and even before my training as a biochemist, physician and later professor of medicine, is that neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, an "RNA world" or any of a long list of "theories" is compatible with even the most basic understanding of organic chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, informational dynamics ect ect ect

I reject macroevolution because it is untenable. While I acknowledge I am biased, I claim that since I CAN keep my Bible and any theory of origins, while the typical agnostic/atheist has NO alternative to macroevolution that he is much more biased.

JR

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly right, and the underlying assumption is that the great majority of highly intelligent and dedicated scientists could not be wrong. This fails to understand what the majority of scientists are dedicated TO. If one believes the Scripture, God delivers them to a darkened mind because they would worship the creature/creator rather than the Creator.

The assumption, carefully cultured by the world system, that scientists are unbiased seekers of Truth is the underlying lie here. NOBODY is unbiased about anything, and the more important a subject, the more biased the individual.

I am certainly biased, and I make no pretentions not to be. However, I did not have sufficient faith to believe in the modern cosmological mythology to combat the increasing amount of evidence that refuted macroevolution. Thus I became a true agnostic, rather than the contemporary "agnostic" or atheist that substitutes an unfounded faith in what scientists proclaim rather than the FACTS uncovered by scientific inquiry. By the way, I am NOT saying that there is no evidence whatsoever that macroevolution might be true. There are some facts that do indeed point towards some sort of macroevolutionary process. They are few, inconclusive, and outweighed by the many, many that do not fit in any kind of macroevolutionary model. I am not saying creationist models are flawless. I myself am not sure of the age of the Earth, part of the problem is I find Geology and Astronomy boring and so I don't know much in these areas. Mathematics, physics I like and have a slight understanding of. The life sciences, especially biochemistry, well that's my main training and love.

It greatly bothers me that theistic evolutionists keep trying to argue that their approach is Biblically acceptable when my rejection of macroevolution has nothing to do with the Bible! While not tasteful, I can swallow an evolutionary view of at least some of Genesis as allegory. It is not the natural reading, methinks, but I can see Genesis 1 as a song or poetry, maybe. What I can NOT swallow, even when I was not a Christian, even when my mind was dark and even before my training as a biochemist, physician and later professor of medicine, is that neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, an "RNA world" or any of a long list of "theories" is compatible with even the most basic understanding of organic chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, informational dynamics ect ect ect

I reject macroevolution because it is untenable. While I acknowledge I am biased, I claim that since I CAN keep my Bible and any theory of origins, while the typical agnostic/atheist has NO alternative to macroevolution that he is much more biased.

JR

Cubanito,

As a person with a science background, you have obviously (I am assuming) reviewed the evidence for evolution, which would include the fossil record and most recently, the DNA evidence for evolution.

Your conclusion is you find it untenable, if I read you right, correct?

Considering the overwhelming support amongst scientists most familiar with the evidence in support of evolution and even recently a devout christian such as Francis Collins who was head of the Human Genome Project and his statement that the DNA evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming, I would conclude that your opinion on this is quite unique (especially from someone of science) and you must have taken a very hyper critical approach to the evidence, to reach your conclusions.

With all this said, you are entitled to your opinion after reviewing the evidence and would add this question;

What is your opinion on the veracity of the bible, specifically the NT from a historicity and scholarly standpoint? Have you concluded that the contents so many christians heavily rely on is accurate? Have you given the bible and the claims the book makes (like the theory of evolution makes claims) the same level of objective critique you have in regards to evolution?

Just curious, thanks.

 

[cubanito]

As I wrote before, my knowledge of the fossil record and geology is spotty. There is a limit to how much I can cram into my head, and those subjects never interested me while young. As to the DNA evidence, please note my acknowledgement above that there is some evidence which fit into a macroevolutionary framework better than a creationist one. Frankly, I find the DNA evidence neutral, and my reasoning is based on history. Comparative genetics and complete genomic mappings are relatively new data. The main point macroevolutionists draw from it is that certain SUPPOSEDLY non-functioning sections of DNA are very similar to functioning genes in other species. This is essentially a new version of the argument from the older "vestigial organs" that were so popularized during the 1800s. Problem is, those lists of "vestigial organs" in humans sharnk very rapidly as surgeons began to take out "vestigial organs" and people became ill or died as a result. Right now the list of "vestigial organs" is quite small and debatable as even some of those claimed vestigial have some function. In animals for example, I saw a documentary of a giraffe autopsy where the scientists were making a case for evolution based on the length of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. They failed to realize, in their RELIGIOUS ZEAL to uphold macroevolution, that there is a simple reason for this: phonation. If a giraffe is going to make sounds, it must time it's breathing to it's larynx/mouth and that distance changes dramatically over the lifespan of the giraffe. A simple solution is to lengthen the recurrent laryngeal nerve. That idea occured to within seconds as they were going on about how there was no other possible explanation. How can very intelligent people so miss the obvious? They shut their eyes and/or God hands them over to what they seek: a darkened mind. They see the same data and believe what they want to believe before even thinking of an alternative to macroevolution. They only have a hammer, so every problem MUST be shaped as a nail. I, on the other hand, am free to accept or reject macroevolution as it does not impact my foundational belief. Thus while I am biased (everyone is) I believe I am LESS biased.

As to the overwhelming support, much of that is enforced. Go watch the movie "Expelled." I can tell you many scientists keep their mouths shut for FEAR of the Religious Orthodoxy of Secularism which is TOTALLY in control academically. I keep trying to tell you human nature does not change, do you think the Inquisition is only possible among theists? No, the human impulse to force one's beliefs on others, the mob, the herd mentality is alive and well in colleges. Just TRY to voice an objection to macroevolution in a secular college class, go ahead, try.

Whenever I try to have adiscussion with an evolutionist about something I DO know something about, like biochemistry, which is completely, totally, IMPOSSIBLE to fit with macroevolution they change the subject. It's like a magic act of misdirection. If there is an "inconvenient truth", change the topic. That will not do with me. I am very, very persistent and focused by nature. If there is a condition oppossite to ADD I have it to pathological levels. Do not change to fossils or genetics, deal with the problems first, either by an adequate answer or by admission of ignorance. Not every objection must be immediately answered. But when the list of problems grows to a certain level, it is time to re-examine the theory, not add more epicycles.

As to me being hyper-critical, I have always been such, about everything. I still read the Bible looking for errors from time to time, and occasionally find them (see my discussions with Koonz on this site re the purity of Biblical texts which I flatly deny). I am a fundamentalist, look up "the Chicago Statement of bliblical inerrancy" The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy The reason I am a Christian funadmentalist is that I subjected the Bible to the same hyper-critical attitude I did Nietche, Camu, Sartre, the Koran, the Ramayana, the Bhaga Gita, parts of the Tripitaka, the Tao, a few Shinto stuff and quite a few other belief systems as well as macroevolution. They all failed miserably, redundant I know, but failed miserably in my opinion. I have a VERY critical spirit from early youth, and I use it with a serious attempt to find Truth. I still do. Did the Bible answer each and every question perfectly to my satisfaction? No, but it did the huge majority, and I found things stated there that were amazing. I still do, look up some of my posts here. I have been called satanic and had more than one post deleted because my views on Scripture are, well, unusual at some points. The more acid I pour on the Bible, the more I hit it with the sledgehammer of my mind, the more it's brilliance shines and the deeper the ring of Truth comes from this most magnificent, most read, most important book ever compiled. I am not afraid to question it. Can I answer every seeming contradiction? No, but the list was small and grows smaller the older I get.

Understand that one of the greats that founded Christian Fundamentalism, Machen, also believed in macroevolution. The two are NOT incompatible.

So why do so many highly intelligent, very dedicated, well informed scientific people believe the absurdity of macroevolution?

Let me tell you a science experiment that was recently repeated on my youngest daughter at her high school (without her consent, btw). The science teacher brought in a clear soda bottle into which she had placed several raisins. The raisins moved around as the bubbles formed here and there. She told all her students these were a kind of animal and to determine how many legs each had. My youngest daughter, who also rejects macroevolution, said they were just raisins and not animals at all. She got heavy argument and peer pressure from the other students that they were indeed 6 legged insects, but would not budge. She was the only one of about 80 kids who did NOT see little animals as they were assured. Perhaps because I have taught each of my 4 children to fearlessly question EVERYTHING, to walk away from Christianity if it makes no sense to them. To not believe their teachers or even me and their mother, if it makes no sense to them. They have ALL gone to schools where macroevolution is taught. Being a physician I have not spent as much time as I should have, and yet each one is a raging Bible thumping fundamentalist Christian. Perhaps it was the influence of their parents, or perhaps it was exposure to every form of thought out there, with a safe assurance that whatever else they ought be true to themselves. Still in my house you can find a Koran, Plato, Camu, even Nazi inspired trash sitting on the shelves side by side with the Bible. Yeah I am not afraid of the valley of darkness, for You, my precious Jesus, have walked many times besides me there, and have let me explore darkness so that Your Light is even brighter to my eyes.

I am not afraid of Truth, nor of being the lone person that sees floating raisins instead of the "animals" I am assured are there.

JR

 

[bhsmte]

As I wrote before, my knowledge of the fossil record and geology is spotty. There is a limit to how much I can cram into my head, and those subjects never interested me while young. As to the DNA evidence, please note my acknowledgement above that there is some evidence which fit into a macroevolutionary framework better than a creationist one. Frankly, I find the DNA evidence neutral, and my reasoning is based on history. Comparative genetics and complete genomic mappings are relatively new data. The main point macroevolutionists draw from it is that certain SUPPOSEDLY non-functioning sections of DNA are very similar to functioning genes in other species. This is essentially a new version of the argument from the older "vestigial organs" that were so popularized during the 1800s. Problem is, those lists of "vestigial organs" in humans sharnk very rapidly as surgeons began to take out "vestigial organs" and people became ill or died as a result. Right now the list of "vestigial organs" is quite small and debatable as even some of those claimed vestigial have some function. In animals for example, I saw a documentary of a giraffe autopsy where the scientists were making a case for evolution based on the length of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. They failed to realize, in their RELIGIOUS ZEAL to uphold macroevolution, that there is a simple reason for this: phonation. If a giraffe is going to make sounds, it must time it's breathing to it's larynx/mouth and that distance changes dramatically over the lifespan of the giraffe. A simple solution is to lengthen the recurrent laryngeal nerve. That idea occured to within seconds as they were going on about how there was no other possible explanation. How can very intelligent people so miss the obvious? They shut their eyes and/or God hands them over to what they seek: a darkened mind. They see the same data and believe what they want to believe before even thinking of an alternative to macroevolution. They only have a hammer, so every problem MUST be shaped as a nail. I, on the other hand, am free to accept or reject macroevolution as it does not impact my foundational belief. Thus while I am biased (everyone is) I believe I am LESS biased.

As to the overwhelming support, much of that is enforced. Go watch the movie "Expelled." I can tell you many scientists keep their mouths shut for FEAR of the Religious Orthodoxy of Secularism which is TOTALLY in control academically. I keep trying to tell you human nature does not change, do you think the Inquisition is only possible among theists? No, the human impulse to force one's beliefs on others, the mob, the herd mentality is alive and well in colleges. Just TRY to voice an objection to macroevolution in a secular college class, go ahead, try.

Whenever I try to have adiscussion with an evolutionist about something I DO know something about, like biochemistry, which is completely, totally, IMPOSSIBLE to fit with macroevolution they change the subject. It's like a magic act of misdirection. If there is an "inconvenient truth", change the topic. That will not do with me. I am very, very persistent and focused by nature. If there is a condition oppossite to ADD I have it to pathological levels. Do not change to fossils or genetics, deal with the problems first, either by an adequate answer or by admission of ignorance. Not every objection must be immediately answered. But when the list of problems grows to a certain level, it is time to re-examine the theory, not add more epicycles.

As to me being hyper-critical, I have always been such, about everything. I still read the Bible looking for errors from time to time, and occasionally find them (see my discussions with Koonz on this site re the purity of Biblical texts which I flatly deny). I am a fundamentalist, look up "the Chicago Statement of bliblical inerrancy" The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy The reason I am a Christian funadmentalist is that I subjected the Bible to the same hyper-critical attitude I did Nietche, Camu, Sartre, the Koran, the Ramayana, the Bhaga Gita, parts of the Tripitaka, the Tao, a few Shinto stuff and quite a few other belief systems as well as macroevolution. They all failed miserably, redundant I know, but failed miserably in my opinion. I have a VERY critical spirit from early youth, and I use it with a serious attempt to find Truth. I still do. Did the Bible answer each and every question perfectly to my satisfaction? No, but it did the huge majority, and I found things stated there that were amazing. I still do, look up some of my posts here. I have been called satanic and had more than one post deleted because my views on Scripture are, well, unusual at some points. The more acid I pour on the Bible, the more I hit it with the sledgehammer of my mind, the more it's brilliance shines and the deeper the ring of Truth comes from this most magnificent, most read, most important book ever compiled. I am not afraid to question it. Can I answer every seeming contradiction? No, but the list was small and grows smaller the older I get.

Understand that one of the greats that founded Christian Fundamentalism, Machen, also believed in macroevolution. The two are NOT incompatible.

So why do so many highly intelligent, very dedicated, well informed scientific people believe the absurdity of macroevolution?

Let me tell you a science experiment that was recently repeated on my youngest daughter at her high school (without her consent, btw). The science teacher brought in a clear soda bottle into which she had placed several raisins. The raisins moved around as the bubbles formed here and there. She told all her students these were a kind of animal and to determine how many legs each had. My youngest daughter, who also rejects macroevolution, said they were just raisins and not animals at all. She got heavy argument and peer pressure from the other students that they were indeed 6 legged insects, but would not budge. She was the only one of about 80 kids who did NOT see little animals as they were assured. Perhaps because I have taught each of my 4 children to fearlessly question EVERYTHING, to walk away from Christianity if it makes no sense to them. To not believe their teachers or even me and their mother, if it makes no sense to them. They have ALL gone to schools where macroevolution is taught. Being a physician I have not spent as much time as I should have, and yet each one is a raging Bible thumping fundamentalist Christian. Perhaps it was the influence of their parents, or perhaps it was exposure to every form of thought out there, with a safe assurance that whatever else they ought be true to themselves. Still in my house you can find a Koran, Plato, Camu, even Nazi inspired trash sitting on the shelves side by side with the Bible. Yeah I am not afraid of the valley of darkness, for You, my precious Jesus, have walked many times besides me there, and have let me explore darkness so that Your Light is even brighter to my eyes.

I am not afraid of Truth, nor of being the lone person that sees floating raisins instead of the "animals" I am assured are there.

JR

I am posting this statement from Francis Collins who I mentioned was a devout christian and the former head of the Human Genome Project and is a well respected scientist.

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

http://biologos.org/blog/francis-collins-and-karl-giberson-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-2

Back to the bible for a moment. You stated you placed the same level of hyper critique to the bible as you did for the evidence of evolution. What did your hyper critique tell you in regards to not just the contradictions in the book (which there are indeed many), but the actual historicity of the book? I am referring to; who actually wrote the gospels? When were they written? How credible are the gospels when reviewed critically from a scholarly and historical standpoint?

Thanks for your response.

 

[miamited]

Hi bhsmte,

Just reading over this thread and I agree that you have a couple of times mentioned
Francis Collins being a 'devout christian'. I'm curious what that means to you and what it implies. Being a 'christian' isn't really a goal we are told of in the Scriptures that people should attain to. Jesus never said, "If you are a Christian, you will be saved". What he said was that if one is born again he will be saved.

Now, I bring up this issue for clarification because I do think the Scriptures do give us some indication as to just exactly how much 'faith' we can put into someone being a 'Christian'. If you would, take a moment and read this:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Jesus begins this account by warning us to watch out for false prophets. He tells us that they will come to us in sheep's clothing. That would mean looking like us - the sheep. But, he warns that they are not. They are actually ferocious wolves. Then he says, " By their fruit you will recognize them." Of course, those who enjoy mocking literalists always ask, "So, they're going to have apples or oranges hanging off their ears, right?" However, we literalists understand that just like the fruit of a tree is its crop of which others take from a fruit tree, so to, is the fruit of a man the teaching that others take from him. But, let me continue.

Jesus actually gives us a couple of examples of how a bad tree cannot produce good fruit nor, and this is very important, a good tree bear bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. So, question number one:

What makes a man a 'good tree'?

Now, you may be encouraged to answer that question saying, "Well, a Christian is a 'good tree'. If that is not your answer, then feel free to respond and tell me what you think makes a man a 'good tree'.

Let's continue.

Then Jesus moves away from speaking in parables and begins to teach about a real life event. The day of God's judgment. He says to his disciples gathered around, on that day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'

Who are these people? Are they muslims or hindus? Perhaps atheists or krishnas. Just who are these people?

Well, I think Jesus is clear to tell us that these are people who lived upon the earth doing great and miraculous things in the name of Jesus! Because of these great and miraculous things that they do in Jesus' name, I think it safe to assume that many people would follow them and fall in line with much of what they also taught and believed about Jesus and about God. I mean, really, I don't see Jesus explanation being of some homeless or indigent person of faith that no one knows even exists. Or, some quiet and unassuming follower of the faith that perhaps only his best friends know. Jesus says they prophesied. He says they drove out demons. So, I believe these people were many that we may today look up to as pillars of the faith based on their association and time spent teaching Christian principles and values. They are reasonably widely known to us because of their knack of prophecy and driving out of demons. After all, it's been my experience that most people who drive out demons and are associated with the Christian faith have TV shows and crowds gathering around them, much like Jesus had, to see their next big show. Jesus spoke of those who followed him because he fed 5,000 or he healed a blind or lame person.

So, these people are obviously 'christians' and from the description of their actions would probably be seen by us as very 'devout' Christians. So, some of these people are 'devout christians'. But here's the kicker. Jesus says that he doesn't know them. Huh?

Nowhere in the Scriptures are we encouraged to be 'christians', but to be born again. You see, it is only when a man is born again that he then has the Spirit of Truth that leads him to all truth. Being a 'christian' really isn't part of the equation.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[bhsmte]

Hi bhsmte,

Just reading over this thread and I agree that you have a couple of times mentioned
Francis Collins being a 'devout christian'. I'm curious what that means to you and what it implies. Being a 'christian' isn't really a goal we are told of in the Scriptures that people should attain to. Jesus never said, "If you are a Christian, you will be saved". What he said was that if one is born again he will be saved.

Now, I bring up this issue for clarification because I do think the Scriptures do give us some indication as to just exactly how much 'faith' we can put into someone being a 'Christian'. If you would, take a moment and read this:

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Jesus begins this account by warning us to watch out for false prophets. He tells us that they will come to us in sheep's clothing. That would mean looking like us - the sheep. But, he warns that they are not. They are actually ferocious wolves. Then he says, " By their fruit you will recognize them." Of course, those who enjoy mocking literalists always ask, "So, they're going to have apples or oranges hanging off their ears, right?" However, we literalists understand that just like the fruit of a tree is its crop of which others take from a fruit tree, so to, is the fruit of a man the teaching that others take from him. But, let me continue.

Jesus actually gives us a couple of examples of how a bad tree cannot produce good fruit nor, and this is very important, a good tree bear bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit. So, question number one:

What makes a man a 'good tree'?

Now, you may be encouraged to answer that question saying, "Well, a Christian is a 'good tree'. If that is not your answer, then feel free to respond and tell me what you think makes a man a 'good tree'.

Let's continue.

Then Jesus moves away from speaking in parables and begins to teach about a real life event. The day of God's judgment. He says to his disciples gathered around, on that day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'

Who are these people? Are they muslims or hindus? Perhaps atheists or krishnas. Just who are these people?

Well, I think Jesus is clear to tell us that these are people who lived upon the earth doing great and miraculous things in the name of Jesus! Because of these great and miraculous things that they do in Jesus' name, I think it safe to assume that many people would follow them and fall in line with much of what they also taught and believed about Jesus and about God. I mean, really, I don't see Jesus explanation being of some homeless or indigent person of faith that no one knows even exists. Or, some quiet and unassuming follower of the faith that perhaps only his best friends know. Jesus says they prophesied. He says they drove out demons. So, I believe these people were many that we may today look up to as pillars of the faith based on their association and time spent teaching Christian principles and values. They are reasonably widely known to us because of their knack of prophecy and driving out of demons. After all, it's been my experience that most people who drive out demons and are associated with the Christian faith have TV shows and crowds gathering around them, much like Jesus had, to see their next big show. Jesus spoke of those who followed him because he fed 5,000 or he healed a blind or lame person.

So, these people are obviously 'christians' and from the description of their actions would probably be seen by us as very 'devout' Christians. So, some of these people are 'devout christians'. But here's the kicker. Jesus says that he doesn't know them. Huh?

Nowhere in the Scriptures are we encouraged to be 'christians', but to be born again. You see, it is only when a man is born again that he then has the Spirit of Truth that leads him to all truth. Being a 'christian' really isn't part of the equation.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Well Ted, when we are contemplating finding the truth about issues, such as evolution or other pieces of the world we live in, it makes sense to rely on empirical evidence, objectivity and work done by people with credentials that make them "experts" in their various fields.

Just as if someone was to become sick with a rare disease, they would likely seek a physician that specialized in that disease for the best advice and treatment.

I mentioned that Francis Collins was a devout christian because he in fact is, by all accounts. I also raised the point, because many christians who reject the theory of evolution, often claim it is only the opinions from atheists scientists and they are only out to reject creation.

So, there you have it. You can read up on Francis Collins and come to your own conclusion as to whether he is a "false prophet" and if you feel he is, is it because he simply disagrees with a personal stance you have on the topic, or do you have a reason to claim he isn't qualified to have a legitimate opinion on how strong the evidence is to support evolution?

 

[cubanito]

The quote from Collins is his opinion. My question to you is are you authority driven or are you going to deal with specific questions?

I have posted several already, how does thin hydrogen gas in space defy PV=nRT and centrifugal force to collapse into a star? Not how solid matter clumps together, but how does the very weak force of gravity overcome the understood properties of gas in a vacuum. There is no mechanism or computer model for this, despite all the pretty animations.

How do chirally pure organic molecules arise from random chemichal reactions of achiral substrates? Louis Pasteur did his thesis by hand separating tartrate christals and proving chirality. There is no known mechanism for this either.

How does the first organism that has a different number of chromosomes than it's parents find a mate given the statistical improbability any such organism would even survive to begin with and that the mate would need an identical break or joining in it's chromosome ultrastructure?

As to Francis Collins, I am no one to call him a false prophet or whatever term Ted decides to use. It is unfortunate that ad hominim was introduced into this debate by someone who seems to believe as I do, but that has never been my position. I have already stated that many of the truly great Christians, even some who are known as fundamentalist Christians like Machen were macroevolution believers.

There is a basic arrogance to me. I do not care what anybody says or thinks; it has to make sense to me. If you read my posts here you will note I often take a very contradictory view to standard Christian interpretation of the Bible. I have the same approach to everything, for example medicine. When I started school some of the vital signs that we were taught were normal, like respiratory rate and temperature CLEARLY were not. I had arguments with my professors who used the same authority driven arguments to tell me that the respiratory rates I routinely observed in healthy adults of 14 or so were wrong. Generations of physicians and medical students routinely recorded respiratory rates of around eight despite the evidence of their own eyes. It was not until later that some ivy league school decided to revisit the vital signs based on actual observations instead of textbooks and, of course, I was correct. That is the benefit of being so arrogant that you actually trust your own senses instead of all the authority figures. I exude arrogance, and while that is generally a very bad thing, especially in Christian circles, and it does get me into trouble, it has one benefit: I do not follow the herd. I think independently. Just like my kid who saw floating raisins and refused to count imaginary legs, I do not get swept along in mob mentality.

There have been experiments on this. 19 or so actors pretending to be experimental subjects and one true subject are shown the color red. The actors each say it is blue. The overwhelming majority of test subjects actually see blue. The peer pressure overides their senses and they actually honestly come to see blue, some after some argumentation. But a few do not yield, they declare that they alone are stating the truth.

If I was the only person on Earth who thought something was a certain way, only by reason would you move my opinion (sure a gun to my head might induce me to lie, but I would know it is a lie). So, we can either argue actual facts or you can quote The Magesterial Authority of the Church all you want because, in fact, Galileo was wrong and the Roman Inquisition was actually correct: the Copernican system never fit the facts nor was it the closest fit. that honor belonged to Tycho Brae at the time.

Say what, Galileo was wrong? Yes sir, the Copernican system was bunk because it used circular orbits and the astronomical observations fit neither Ptolemy nor Copernicus; and Galileo refused to accept these facts. It was not until Kepler suggested ellipses that things fell into place. Yet would you know that from the secular propaganda machine? Your history is as biased as your scientists is what I am pointing out.

I just realized, you are changing the subject and I am falling for it. This is not a thread about the merits of the Bible. This is about macroevolution. I repeatedly have made it clear my objections are not Biblical, and they came while I was an agnostic. I do not believe macroevolution on the scientific merit of it. I have posted specific problems that seem to me insur mountable. I find no use in this discussion until you can answer those objections.

I have spent enough time on this, I am going to check in from time to time to see if you have any specific answers to the questions on the facts that I have put there. Otherwise, I have said all I want to say.

JR

 

[bhsmte]

The quote from Collins is his opinion. My question to you is are you authority driven or are you going to deal with specific questions?

I have posted several already, how does thin hydrogen gas in space defy PV=nRT and centrifugal force to collapse into a star? Not how solid matter clumps together, but how does the very weak force of gravity overcome the understood properties of gas in a vacuum. There is no mechanism or computer model for this, despite all the pretty animations.

How do chirally pure organic molecules arise from random chemichal reactions of achiral substrates? Louis Pasteur did his thesis by hand separating tartrate christals and proving chirality. There is no known mechanism for this either.

How does the first organism that has a different number of chromosomes than it's parents find a mate given the statistical improbability any such organism would even survive to begin with and that the mate would need an identical break or joining in it's chromosome ultrastructure?

As to Francis Collins, I am no one to call him a false prophet or whatever term Ted decides to use. It is unfortunate that ad hominim was introduced into this debate by someone who seems to believe as I do, but that has never been my position. I have already stated that many of the truly great Christians, even some who are known as fundamentalist Christians like Machen were macroevolution believers.

There is a basic arrogance to me. I do not care what anybody says or thinks; it has to make sense to me. If you read my posts here you will note I often take a very contradictory view to standard Christian interpretation of the Bible. I have the same approach to everything, for example medicine. When I started school some of the vital signs that we were taught were normal, like respiratory rate and temperature CLEARLY were not. I had arguments with my professors who used the same authority driven arguments to tell me that the respiratory rates I routinely observed in healthy adults of 14 or so were wrong. Generations of physicians and medical students routinely recorded respiratory rates of around eight despite the evidence of their own eyes. It was not until later that some ivy league school decided to revisit the vital signs based on actual observations instead of textbooks and, of course, I was correct. That is the benefit of being so arrogant that you actually trust your own senses instead of all the authority figures. I exude arrogance, and while that is generally a very bad thing, especially in Christian circles, and it does get me into trouble, it has one benefit: I do not follow the herd. I think independently. Just like my kid who saw floating raisins and refused to count imaginary legs, I do not get swept along in mob mentality.

There have been experiments on this. 19 or so actors pretending to be experimental subjects and one true subject are shown the color red. The actors each say it is blue. The overwhelming majority of test subjects actually see blue. The peer pressure overides their senses and they actually honestly come to see blue, some after some argumentation. But a few do not yield, they declare that they alone are stating the truth.

If I was the only person on Earth who thought something was a certain way, only by reason would you move my opinion (sure a gun to my head might induce me to lie, but I would know it is a lie). So, we can either argue actual facts or you can quote The Magesterial Authority of the Church all you want because, in fact, Galileo was wrong and the Roman Inquisition was actually correct: the Copernican system never fit the facts nor was it the closest fit. that honor belonged to Tycho Brae at the time.

Say what, Galileo was wrong? Yes sir, the Copernican system was bunk because it used circular orbits and the astronomical observations fit neither Ptolemy nor Copernicus; and Galileo refused to accept these facts. It was not until Kepler suggested ellipses that things fell into place. Yet would you know that from the secular propaganda machine? Your history is as biased as your scientists is what I am pointing out.

I just realized, you are changing the subject and I am falling for it. This is not a thread about the merits of the Bible. This is about macroevolution. I repeatedly have made it clear my objections are not Biblical, and they came while I was an agnostic. I do not believe macroevolution on the scientific merit of it. I have posted specific problems that seem to me insur mountable. I find no use in this discussion until you can answer those objections.

I have spent enough time on this, I am going to check in from time to time to see if you have any specific answers to the questions on the facts that I have put there. Otherwise, I have said all I want to say.

JR

Let me address some basics first, because I have little time.

At the beginning, are you discussing abiogenisis or evolution, as it sounds like the former, which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Also, your right, Collins statement is just that, his opinion based on his experience in the field. With this being the case and considering his background and former head of the Human Genome Project, would you agree he is in a better position to have a valid opinion on the evidence to form an opinion, as opposed to you or I? If we were in a court of law, where expert witnesses are relied on, would your opinion based on your background be given more weight then his?

Also, with the fact that 95%+ of the scientists that are a member of the national academy of sciences, who also have backgrounds in biology (biologists are in best position to have an opinion on evolution, just as an oncologist is in the best position to have an opinion on cancer) all agree that the evidence to support evolution is strong. Considering what you have already stated, do you feel there is some conspiracy amongst all these scientists who specialize in this area to claim they support evolution when the evidence is not present? Or is it, you feel all these scientists who specialize in this field are stupid and they are missing things that only you understand?

 

[cubanito]

In my last post I gave you 3 examples, from a long lists I would post were my own time not also short, of 3 things I reject. While I did not make the internal structure of my thinking plain, here it is:

1- I reject the possibility of planets and stars forming from a gas. Unmentioned are other problems related to matter becoming organized in a manner that could support life, such as the "fine tuning" of multiple physical constants to allow for synthesis of anything beyond helium. I find the "anthrocentric" argument a cop out, a "deus ex machina" brought into a theory that does not work.

2- Even if one could ignore the extreme weakness of gravity and somehow form stars and planets, I reject abiogenesis, again giving one example, the production of chirally pure compounds from achiral or racemic precursors for which there is no known mechanism. There are long lists of reasons for this rejection as well.

3- Finally, I reject macroevolution of one kind of being to a another. I will not use the word species because it is a scientifically meaningless word: if wolves and dogs routinely interbreed in the wild, they either should not be the same species or the meaning of the term is irrelevant to this discussion. Species has become a POLITICAL word used to advance careers and the ecological crowd's religion. I gave you one of again a long list of problems: the extreme difficulty of animals to produce fertile offspring if the parents have a different chromosome count.

As to "expert witnesses" we are not in a court of law. As I confessed (and it is a confession as I acknowledge my arrogance to be a sin) I am extremely arrogant by nature. It is my assumption that I am the most intelligent person in any room I walk in, and unfortunately for my Christian soul, I am almost always correct. Even aside my own "hyper-critical" nature, unless you accept the Hegelian dialectic in it's full quasi-pantheistic import, since when has Truth been determined democratically? I am protestant. It can almost be said we were born of one man standing against the entire Roman Church.

As to the very intelligent and highly dedicated men who declare it midnight at a noonday cloudless sky (no eclipse) I have already written what I think. For the most part they have chosen to worship the creature/creation and thus God has given them over to a darkened mind. The history of Darwinism is littered with outright fraud: Piltdown man, Heckel's embryology drawings for example. As to some others, they sucumb either to the need to make money (see the movie "expelled") or to the peer pressure that makes people see what is not there as I have pointed to psychological experiments.

I am repeating myself so please find something new to ask

JR

 

[bhsmte]

In my last post I gave you 3 examples, from a long lists I would post were my own time not also short, of 3 things I reject. While I did not make the internal structure of my thinking plain, here it is:

1- I reject the possibility of planets and stars forming from a gas. Unmentioned are other problems related to matter becoming organized in a manner that could support life, such as the "fine tuning" of multiple physical constants to allow for synthesis of anything beyond helium. I find the "anthrocentric" argument a cop out, a "deus ex machina" brought into a theory that does not work.

2- Even if one could ignore the extreme weakness of gravity and somehow form stars and planets, I reject abiogenesis, again giving one example, the production of chirally pure compounds from achiral or racemic precursors for which there is no known mechanism. There are long lists of reasons for this rejection as well.

3- Finally, I reject macroevolution of one kind of being to a another. I will not use the word species because it is a scientifically meaningless word: if wolves and dogs routinely interbreed in the wild, they either should not be the same species or the meaning of the term is irrelevant to this discussion. Species has become a POLITICAL word used to advance careers and the ecological crowd's religion. I gave you one of again a long list of problems: the extreme difficulty of animals to produce fertile offspring if the parents have a different chromosome count.

As to "expert witnesses" we are not in a court of law. As I confessed (and it is a confession as I acknowledge my arrogance to be a sin) I am extremely arrogant by nature. It is my assumption that I am the most intelligent person in any room I walk in, and unfortunately for my Christian soul, I am almost always correct. Even aside my own "hyper-critical" nature, unless you accept the Hegelian dialectic in it's full quasi-pantheistic import, since when has Truth been determined democratically? I am protestant. It can almost be said we were born of one man standing against the entire Roman Church.

As to the very intelligent and highly dedicated men who declare it midnight at a noonday cloudless sky (no eclipse) I have already written what I think. For the most part they have chosen to worship the creature/creation and thus God has given them over to a darkened mind. The history of Darwinism is littered with outright fraud: Piltdown man, Heckel's embryology drawings for example. As to some others, they sucumb either to the need to make money (see the movie "expelled") or to the peer pressure that makes people see what is not there as I have pointed to psychological experiments.

I am repeating myself so please find something new to ask

JR

Let me ask you again because you did not answer the first go around. Simple straight forward questions that could be answered with a simply yes or no:

Since 95% of scientists who belong to the National Academy of Sciences who are in the field of biology agree the evidence for evolution is STRONG, is it your opinion there is some conspiracy amongst the scientific community to have such overwhelming support for evolution?

If the answer to the above is no, then, would I be correct to assume your feeling than is all of these scientists that specialize in this area are incompetent?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

snip .... I am protestant. It can almost be said we were born of one man standing against the entire Roman Church.

snip ..

JR

Henry VIII!

(Forget the alimony, I've got a better idea)

 

[cubanito]

Let me ask you again because you did not answer the first go around. Simple straight forward questions that could be answered with a simply yes or no:

Since 95% of scientists who belong to the National Academy of Sciences who are in the field of biology agree the evidence for evolution is STRONG, is it your opinion there is some conspiracy amongst the scientific community to have such overwhelming support for evolution?

If the answer to the above is no, then, would I be correct to assume your feeling than is all of these scientists that specialize in this area are incompetent?

I decline to give a simple yes or no answer. As best as I can answer:

1- For many or most scientists, there is a concious attempt to deny the obvious evidence for, at minimum, intelligent design. I do not believe there is a formal conspiracy, as in people plotting together. This is the first problem with your question: what is a conspiracY?

FROM: conspiracy - definition of conspiracy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)
n. pl.con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

2. A group of conspirators.

3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas

I would say that most scientists are in a conspiracy as per definition 4 ONLY.

2- the second problem with your question is that different people have different motives, as I have written before. For some it is the religious zeal of secular humanism. For others it is preservation and/or advancement of their careers. For others it may be the herd mentality, and I could list other reasons. Yes, that includes some that are unable to think clearly (or at least anywhere near my own abilities, I told you I was arrogant). I generally dislike dealing with motives because they are often multiple, difficult to REALLY determine and come dangerously close to ad hominem attacks.

3- the third problem with your question is that you think I ought to answer. As I keep writing, I am not authority driven. I care alomst nothing WHY they are wrong, rather I see the relevant facts, evaluate them myself and whatever I think is what I stick by until someone can correct me. If someone states something, my general nature is to figure out why they are wrong. This is very much carried into my Church where some teachers have asked me not to come to their classes (not because I am disrespectful or disruptive); and others truly enjoy me around because I stir things up, and wind up teaching them. I think for myself. BTW to get to my position I hid my views, wrote down the answers they wanted because I know the material solidly. I am now 54, I gave up academics long ago, and so I no longer care. However, my thoughts were always my own.

JR

 

[Subdood]

Excellent post, Cubanito. No doubt you will be attacked for it by the Lovers of the Lie; evolutionists.

Evolution isn't believed because it is scientifically viable, it is believed because the alternative is unacceptable to those who reject God.

^ This.

In truth, the theory of evolution is but an alternate faith system that rejects the notion of a Creator in favor of the notion of infinite improbability - a notion which, despite the veritable wealth of "evidence" produced (and sometimes manufactured) to support it it still cannot answer two very basic questions: 1) "What is the origin of the LUA (Last Universal Ancestor)?" and, 2) "What accounts for the obvious design in living organisms?" And by way of corollary to #2, "How does evolution explain our ability to even discuss evolution - let alone that as a species we can hold two diametrically opposed viewpoints on it - or have we yet to evolve to the point where we all agree we evolved?"