How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[-57]

I don't really see how that verse disproves theistic evolution in any way. There is still a genetic Eve and a genetic Adam.



Again, this really doesn't disprove my view in anyway. There is part of me that believes mankind was created to be physical immortal, and the other part, which is likely, that Paul is talking about spiritual death. I don't believe in the traditional view of Hell as a place of eternal torment, but that people Hell will result in complete and total non-existance (spiritual death).



He cited symbolic scripture to prove a point, I cite Genesis 1-3 all the time to prove points, that doesn't mean theistic evolution is wrong.

Reading your post....I see you already dismiss many portions of the bible.

 

[lesliedellow]

You do realize it is your bias and speculative assumption that labels it as a mutant gene.

It is mutant because it mutated.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Reading your post....I see you already dismiss many portions of the bible.

I don't dismiss anything, I just interpret it differently than you do.

 

[sfs]

Then provide me with an example.

I gave you a list of examples once before,
here. What was wrong with them?

 

[sfs]

I would think it worked the other way around....it was a mutation that caused humans to lose the ability to digest the lactose in milk rather than establish the ability.

But, I do understand the need for you to have it your way.

I told you how we know that they started as new mutations here. You don't seem to be interested in pursuing the information you request, or incorporating your understanding of evolution.

 

[elopez]

Why is it when I post about ID...show the organelle inside of a cell.....then ask how they evolved via a process that uses random chance to change the information in the DNA code...all I hear is crickets?

That'sridiculous. I've replied to more than one of your threads. Answered your questions. And you literally ignore them...

 

[Not_By_Chance]

The overwhelming evidence can be found in DNA and molecular genetics

I agree; it overwhelmingly points to intelligence being behind the origin of life!

So you'd rather believe based on no evidence.

A bit like evolutionists then. At least the Christian faith has a miracle maker for it's miracles, so it's not a blind faith.

But it's not. The bible got it wrong here.

The Bible can't get it wrong because it's the word of God. You would need to speak to experts of Biblical hermeneutics to get the full story. There is a useful comment about this on the following link, although it doesn't go into any great depth: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/contradictions-hanging-on-pillars-of-nothing/

If we cannot observe or test something, it is by definition, imaginary

You mean, like love or kindness or moral truth; or perhaps you mean Dark Matter / Dark Energy, which I would say, are very likely to be imaginary? Can you observe or test the origin of the universe or life? If not, does that mean we don't really exist then, or even the universe for that matter?

But wait, I thought you said that you can't test for God? But now you're saying there are clues. Then we should be able to test them

You can, by using your own powers of logic and observation.

they have observed it. They are WATCHING IT HAPPEN.

"It" yes, but they can't be certain what they are watching from so great a distance. And even if they are correct and we'll probably never know that for sure, what does it prove in the grand scheme of things? Absolutely zilch, nada, nothing.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Mutations are not smart enough for evolution. All they can lead to is
sterility and death.

As a red head could you possibly explain to me how the mutations that make my hair its color have rendered me sterile and/or dead?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Not_By_Chance]

When you combine a random event with a nonrandom force the result is not random.

So if I had a machine, dropping a tennis ball totally at random [the "random event"] and I had another machine trying to hit the dropping balls with a cricket bat say once every 15 seconds [the "nonrandom force"], you are saying that the amount of times the machine hit the ball would not be random? Can you explain that, because it makes no sense to me?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

As a red head could you possibly explain to me how the mutations that make my hair its color

I apologise for butting into your conversation, but isn't red-headedness just a trait that has come about by natural selection (presumably resulting in a loss of information for dark hair)?

 

[lesliedellow]

I apologise for butting into your conversation, but isn't red-headedness just a trait that has come about by natural selection (presumably resulting in a loss of information for dark hair)?

it is not obvious what evolutionary advantage red-headedness might bestow, so it is unlikely to be selected for. It is caused by mutations in the MC1R gene.

 

[-57]

Matt: I don't really see how that verse disproves theistic evolution in any way. There is still a genetic Eve and a genetic Adam.

What you are saying is that Like got it wrong in Acts 17:26 "And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth,
One man means just that. A genetic Adam speaks of an evolving population. What you have done negated Genesis and inserted evolutionism in it's place. Basically, you changed the bible.

Again, this really doesn't disprove my view in anyway. There is part of me that believes mankind was created to be physical immortal, and the other part, which is likely, that Paul is talking about spiritual death. I don't believe in the traditional view of Hell as a place of eternal torment, but that people Hell will result in complete and total non-existance (spiritual death).

.....which is non-biblical. The bible doesn't support annihilation.


He cited symbolic scripture to prove a point, I cite Genesis 1-3 all the time to prove points, that doesn't mean theistic evolution is wrong.

Paul wasn't proving a point. Paul was establishing theology based upon what happened in Genesis concerning Adam and Eve...not on something symbolic.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I apologise for butting into your conversation, but isn't red-headedness just a trait that has come about by natural selection (presumably resulting in a loss of information for dark hair)?

There is no "loss of information", but it is a mutation in the genes responsible for hair pigmentation. The mutation exists rarely in many human populations across the globe, but has a higher frequency among northern Europeans, especially Celtic peoples.

To say that mutations always result in sterility or death is both absurd and objectively false--as my red-headedness is a rather clear example of a mutation that doesn't result in sterility or death. Further mutations aren't rare, every time two gametes fuse together to become an embryo the result isn't a perfect replication of the parents' chromosmoes, mutations occur throughout the genome resulting in a unique individual.

Some mutations can be beneficial, some mutations can be detrimental. The vast majority of mutations are neither. And chiefly what determines whether a mutation is beneficial or harmful isn't objective. A mutation of the gene responsible for pigmentation--such as albinism--can be harmful or beneficial depending on environmental factors. Polar bears are, in fact, a recent diverged form of brown bear (most closely related to the grizzly and kodiak), a mutation which has rendered their fur completely colorless (they don't have white fur, rather their fur is clear and translucent) has become dominant because it was beneficial to that brown bear population that became polar bears living in the icy and snowy arctic where they blend in far better than their brown-furred relatives.

Conversely, the same mutation wouldn't be particularly beneficial in greener temperate climes where they'd stick out like a sore thumb.

Natural selection is at work in this. How? Because individuals who survive to breeding age and successfully breed, thus passing on their genes, means their genes have survived while perhaps others did not. That's natural selection.

It's why male peafowl have their spectacular plumage, it's why tigers have their stripes, it's why we have such a vast array of varied life all across this marvelous blue orb we call home.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lasthero]

it is not obvious what evolutionary advantage red-headedness might bestow,

To be fair, redheads are hot.

 

[-57]

The big problem with evolutionism besides the loss of information when a mutation occurs...is the ability to add to the results of the mutation in future generations to the point that a new morphological feature that enhances the fitness of an animal is observed.

 

[-57]

I gave you a list of examples once before,
here. What was wrong with them?

It's been explained what's wrong with them...as I said before "So, what you have is chemical adaptions. Eh. It can be argued that the genes already existed. I was hoping for some sort of morphological evolution."

In those instances you assumed they were a result of mutations. I disagree. The genetic material was already there or there was a loss of information which caused the situations you presented. I did mention you only chose chemichal evolution and stayed away from morphological traits.

I then responded by asking you how something such as a dolphins echo-location system could evolve....and you used MADE UP numbers...pulled out of the air in your feeble attempt to answer the question.

 

[-57]

That'sridiculous. I've replied to more than one of your threads. Answered your questions. And you literally ignore them...

Sorry. I really don't recall you responding.

 

[lesliedellow]

The big problem with evolutionism besides the loss of information when a mutation occurs...is the ability to add to the results of the mutation in future generations to the point that a new morphological feature that enhances the fitness of an animal is observed.

If the two byte sequence 0cdh, 021h in the machine code of a computer program "mutates" to 0cdh, 019h is information lost?

Nope. With the different information, the computer might (would) behave differently, but information is not lost - except in the sense of being replaced by new information.

 

[lasthero]

It's been explained what's wrong with them...as I said before "So, what you have is chemical adaptions. Eh. It can be argued that the genes already existed. I was hoping for some sort of morphological evolution."

sfs gave you an example. You ignored it.

In those instances you assumed they were a result of mutations. I disagree. The genetic material was already there or there was a loss of information which caused the situations you presented.

sfs asked you to provide evidence for that assertion. You did not.

I then responded by asking you how something such as a dolphins echo-location system could evolve....and you used MADE UP numbers...pulled out of the air in your feeble attempt to answer the question.

What actually happened was that you asked sfs for an estimate on how many mutations that would take, and he gave you an estimate.

 

[-57]

If the two byte sequence 0cdh, 021h in the machine code of a computer program "mutates" to 0cdh, 019h is information lost?

Nope. With the different information, the computer might (would) behave differently, but information is not lost - except in the sense of being replaced by new information.

If I took the word you just posted...and randomly change out the letters....you would still argue there is information present.

You might be right....letters are information...but your information would be useless.