Evolution

[stevevw]

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered | LiveScience

Well proof that all living humans did come from one male and one female that lived approximately around the same time(never can be 100% sure). Apparently we are all related.

I accept Genesis as partly historical and partly telling a great truth about the human story. These would be the Adam and Eve that I consider the first humans. So I accept a Old Earth creationism.

This is interesting as it is related to other fossil and genetic evidence they are finding as well. In the past scientists were saying that the fossilis they were finding were separate species. Well at least for more modern man all the homo species seem to be the one kind. Skulls found at Georgia show % human skulls with all the variations of all skulls found around Africa and other places. This has put all those skull into one species of man.

Genetic evidence is showing that there may have been cross breeding going on with ancient man. They are finding links in the genes with different bone fossils they have found around Siberia, Africa and even down through to Australia. So this may indicated it was the one species and not really separate ones. So this is taking away more of the links that were being used to show the transitions from one species of ape man to another. Now it is creating Gaps by saying that these are not different species that evolved into a more modern man but they are just variations of the same man.

If humans bred only with other humans, all these markers would create a neat phylogenetic tree, showing that human genetic diversity can be traced to a single population that existed in Africa in the last 100,000 years.
Short Sharp Science: Early humans may have bred with other species – twice

The differences between the skulls were no more than that seen in modern humans, according to a report today in the journal Science. The findings suggest there may have been only one species of early human in a key period of time when they first began to migrate out of Africa, said David Lordkipanidze, an anthropologist at the Georgian National Museum in Tbilisi and the report’s author.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Ancient Skulls Suggests One Lineage for Early Human Ancestors
http://www.newsmax.com/surveys/Obam...kw/default?PROMO_CODE=10EFE-1"target="_blank"
​

 

[RighteousJudgement]

I understand you don't like it, but my statement is true, the majority of Christians accept evolution.

Majority? Who has counted?
Christians? Who or what is a Christian?
Evolution? What aspects of evolution?
The boldness of your statement is not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, the evidence of God's creation is absolutely clear.

 

[Jack Koons]

Majority? Who has counted?
Christians? Who or what is a Christian?
Evolution? What aspects of evolution?
The boldness of your statement is not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, the evidence of God's creation is absolutely clear.

I agree. I am a Christian, I was not polled; move the % point 1 in the other direction, I do NOT accept, or believe in evolution.

Jack

 

[stevevw]

Well, most Christians do write off Genesis as allegory, because they agree with evolution.

You need to clarify what you mean by evolution and being a christian means. Its not so black and white and it also depends on which survey you look at. Surveys that just ask a couple of basic questions dont differentiate between the different religions or whether the person is truly a christian. Many on surveys will associate themselves with a religion by birth but are no more a practicing and believing christian than a non believer. Some religions are very liberal and allow a lot of things that go against the bible and the true christian beliefs so that they can reconcile themselves with modern day society. Then you have the different versions of evolution in which people believe. There is theism evolution where God started the process of evolution with the chemicals and bacteria in the ancient sea.

There are those who believe God created the basic type animals and man as they were and a form of evolution that allowed creatures to change and adapt to their environment made all the species we see today. There is the evolution that makes random mutations morph one creature into a completely different one and thus through common decent all creatures are connected. There is the evolution in which creatures can only evolve and change with the genetics they already have and there are boundaries. This method only allows creatures to evolve varieties within their own groups and gene pools.

So even though many may say they believe in evolution it isn't necessarily the one you are thinking of. Many will not even understand the proper meaning of evolution to answer that question with any qualification. In most surveys you will find it is the ones who have educations in science and scientists who believe in the darwinian evolution the most. The practicing Christians will believe God created man and there is no evolution or at best there is a form of evolution that only allows some variation within the same kinds. Only the more fringe religions who who will allow some contradictory beliefs will allow the darwinian evolution. So really most true practicing Christians dont believe in the darwinian evolution.

The other thing is the bible does say that there will be false prophets.
2 Peter 2:1 - But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Besides Just because they say they are christians doesnt mean they are.
Lord, are there few that are saved? But he said to them: Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I tell you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able. (St. Luke 13:23-24)

 

[lismore]

The bible doesn't teach evolution. So what apostate 'Christians' think is neither here nor there.

 

[cubanito]

While I agree the Bible is not easily compatible with the current macroevolution mythology; I do not think we ought classify Christians who wrongly believe that macroevolution can be harmonized with Scripture as apostate. Salvation does NOT require a belief in special creation, as many very truly Christian authors such as CS Lewis attest. Apostate is a strong word best reserved for something more grievous than being fooled by the artificial prestige given to the current world creation mythology that Darwin's name is linked to.

JR

 

[Gunny]

I recently viewed the debate between Nye and Ham concerning evolution vs. creationism. The actual debate took place on February 4th of this year at the Creation Museum. Tickets to the debate sold out in two minutes and approx. four million individuals viewed the debate live via the internet.

The debate was done with civility between the two individuals. I'm thankful that individuals can agree to disagree and do so in a cordial manner.

 

[lismore]

While I agree the Bible is not easily compatible with the current macroevolution mythology; I do not think we ought classify Christians who wrongly believe that macroevolution can be harmonized with Scripture as apostate. Salvation does NOT require a belief in special creation, as many very truly Christian authors such as CS Lewis attest. Apostate is a strong word best reserved for something more grievous than being fooled by the artificial prestige given to the current world creation mythology that Darwin's name is linked to.

JR

Hello there!

I think creation/ evolution is a foundational doctrine.

Whether you believe you were created in the image of God or whether your ancestors swung down from the trees, whether God created everything very good and man's fall led to death and suffering or whether there was always death and suffering, it will have an influence on many other doctrines.

If Genesis is a complete fabrication how can the gospels be trusted? If we can re-interpret a passage of the bible based on external, ungoldly philosophy why can't the gospel be re-interpreted based on what atheists say? How can any of it be trusted?

If someone believes evolution can be harmonized with scripture, something so contrary to the gospel, the complete opposite in fact, then they can harmonize anything to scripture.

But the current applications of evolution theory are quite worrying too. As Attenborough recently said, all the providing for the poor and the third world is holding human evolution up. The survival of the fittest, natural selection. Evolution theory has consequences in the real world, abortion, euthanasia, racism etc. The weakest must die so that the fittest can evolve. Ask an evolutionist what humans are evolving into now.

 

[cubanito]

I recently viewed the debate between Nye and Ham concerning evolution vs. creationism. The actual debate took place on February 4th of this year at the Creation Museum. Tickets to the debate sold out in two minutes and approx. four million individuals viewed the debate live via the internet.

The debate was done with civility between the two individuals. I'm thankful that individuals can agree to disagree and do so in a cordial manner.

Agreed, while I find it difficult to understand how someone could maintain the bulk of Christian doctrine and yet believe macroevolution; it is a fact that many do. Quite probably the majority of True Christians today have some sort of compromize with macroevolution. That includes many honest and deep thinking theologians. Even Gresham Machen who in some ways spearheaded the Fundamentalist movement way back, believed in macroevolution.

As I had discarded macroevolution well before I even considered Christianity during my agnostic time this is very puzzling. All the current theories are IMO absurd and unworkable for a long list of scientifically confirmed facts stretching back to the 1700's! I can sort of understand atheists clinging to these false ideas against the huge majority of the evidence. Yet so many honest, well informed and intelligent Christians believe this crap!

There are SOME lines of evidence that do in fact fit better with a macroevolutionary framework than a creationist one. It does irritate me when creationists fail to be just in the interpretation of the evidence. Yet when I weigh the pros and cons it is not even close.

We do need to speak Truth, but in Love, and that requires a respectful exchange.

JR

 

[classicalhero]

I understand you don't like it, but my statement is true, the majority of Christians accept evolution.

The majority is never a good argument to use. There once was a time when the majority of scientists believed that there were four systems in the body and when you got sick you just had to bleed to get rid of the imbalance. That was until a doctor by the name Ignaz Semmelwies proposd that people used a chlorinated lime solution to stop people from getting diseases from the previous dead guy, but he was too radical and thus ignored, even though he got results. It wasn't until Louis Pasteur, who is a creationist, when he showed that erms caused disease and Semmelwies. The irony of the whole situation is that the Bible described laws about public health in Leviticus.

 

[VCViking]

http://youtu.be/U0u3-2CGOMQ

 

[JoshuaDaryl]

Hello there!

I think creation/ evolution is a foundational doctrine.

Whether you believe you were created in the image of God or whether your ancestors swung down from the trees, whether God created everything very good and man's fall led to death and suffering or whether there was always death and suffering, it will have an influence on many other doctrines.

If Genesis is a complete fabrication how can the gospels be trusted? If we can re-interpret a passage of the bible based on external, ungoldly philosophy why can't the gospel be re-interpreted based on what atheists say? How can any of it be trusted?

If someone believes evolution can be harmonized with scripture, something so contrary to the gospel, the complete opposite in fact, then they can harmonize anything to scripture.

But the current applications of evolution theory are quite worrying too. As Attenborough recently said, all the providing for the poor and the third world is holding human evolution up. The survival of the fittest, natural selection. Evolution theory has consequences in the real world, abortion, euthanasia, racism etc. The weakest must die so that the fittest can evolve. Ask an evolutionist what humans are evolving into now.

 

[JoshuaDaryl]

The majority is never a good argument to use. There once was a time when the majority of scientists believed that there were four systems in the body and when you got sick you just had to bleed to get rid of the imbalance. That was until a doctor by the name Ignaz Semmelwies proposd that people used a chlorinated lime solution to stop people from getting diseases from the previous dead guy, but he was too radical and thus ignored, even though he got results. It wasn't until Louis Pasteur, who is a creationist, when he showed that erms caused disease and Semmelwies. The irony of the whole situation is that the Bible described laws about public health in Leviticus.

 

[Tigermoose]

I will make some distinctions that are important for your consideration, and give proof that both guided and unguided amoeba to man evolution are unfounded by both logic and science.

"Macro-evolution" mechanism for adaptation
Mechanism for new adaptation that previously was not available in the genetics of the organism: Natural Selection selects beneficial adaptations that were created through genetic mutation.

"Micro-evolution" mechanism for adaptation
Mechanism for selecting traits more adapted to a given environment: Natural Selection selects traits already present in the genetic code of the organism. As organisms select traits that are better suited for a given environment, other genetic information once available to the organism becomes unavailable as future generations no longer have that genetic trait available in its genetic "menu." Example: 2 polar bears mating are not ever going to produce a black bear. 2 poodles are not going to produce a wolf, no matter how many generations of poodles are bred. The traits to select are no longer available. Conceivably, you could breed starting with two wolves and eventually get poodles. It is possible for genetic traits to turn off through mutation, which could cause a further degradation in the organism. For example, a cave fish might become blind because of a genetic mutation turning off a genetic code. Natural selection does not select against that creature. This might enhance the survival of the organism and thus lead to a greater population of blind cave fish as opposed to seeing cave fish. Note that this is a reduction in genetic information, and not a mutation that causes new information to be available for an additional body part.


It is important to note that natural selection only selects or turns off what is available. The only mechanism for achieving mutations to go from an amoeba to mankind would be genetic mutations. Those who have done the calculations for this state that it is impossible. Just to get the information needed for a cell would be like winning the lottery every day for 365 days.

We have never observed information coming from non-mind. If we ever see information, we always observe that it originated from a mental source. Therefore, it would be illogical to think that information could come from a non-mental source. DNA is a code system that is information. It fits the definition of information according to information theory and common sense. It would be illogical to think that DNA could originate from a non-mental source. This is logic based on observation.

Understanding the above points should convince you that non-guided amoeba to man evolution is not supported by logic or science.

The below should convince you that "guided" amoeba to man evolution is also not supported.


Fossil Record
Also, given the millions of fossils that have been collected, we can only see "adaptations" caused by the natural selection of already existing traits. This is a "downhill" selection rather than the "upward" path needed for amoeba to man evolution. We do not see fossils for the transitional ancestors of Cambrian invertebrates, vertebrate fish, dinosaurs, bats, and so on. The three best evidences of fossils are dinosaur to bird (archeopteryx), land creature to whale, and ape to man. Each of these "best" evidences are full of problems and have often involved fraud, forgery, and many speculations rather than fact. Artistic representations based on those speculations are presented to the public as fact, However, the public presentations are kept in place rather than modified to reflect accuracy.


There are many other proofs, but if space and time are limited.