How do I "stimulate", my Evolution? I can be stimulated to embrace the theory, but what next?

[Subduction Zone]

No, it's not and that's why what the bible means by using that word is of paramount importance when determining if something like evolution is compatible with the bible in any sense.
If you define a "kind" as a synonym for "species" then each species is individually created leaving 0 room for an evolutionary process. Hence you come to a complete impasse between science and the bible.

But if "kind" refers to an taxonomic family rather than species, there IS room for evolution.
and hybridization of closely related animals points to this being the case.

Okay. Fine, kind is at the family level. That makes humans of the ape "kind".

 

[Jamdoc]

Okay. Fine, kind is at the family level. That makes humans of the ape "kind".

Humans are the exception, because Humans have a specific creation and specific purpose.
You can't hybridize humans with anything, so we are.. one kind.
Now if you want to have the Homo genus as a kind and there have been other Homo species? okay then, but they were other species of humans.
Not apes.
You're not going to be able to hybridize through sexual reproduction, any Homo with any Pan.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Humans are the exception, because Humans have a specific creation and specific purpose.
You can't hybridize humans with anything, so we are.. one kind.
Now if you want to have the Homo genus as a kind and there have been other Homo species? okay then, but they were other species of humans.
Not apes.
You're not going to be able to hybridize through sexual reproduction, any Homo with any Pan.

Sorry, but that argument does not fly. For the same reasons that we know other species are in the same taxonomic families we know that humans are in the same taxonomic family as other apes.

You are an ape. To be a bit more specific you belong to the Great Apes. There is no doubt about this in the sciences. Only a very very small percentage of scientists oppose this and they cannot seem to find any scientific evidence that supports their beliefs.

Why does the fact that you are an ape bother you? That fact does not take away any of your values. Or at least it shouldn't take away any of them.

Please note, just because species are in the same family does not mean that they can hybridize. A puma cannot hybridize with a lion. Or if you want to keep it in the New World, they cannot hybridize with a jaguar.

 

[Jamdoc]

Sorry, but that argument does not fly. For the same reasons that we know other species are in the same taxonomic families we know that humans are in the same taxonomic family as other apes.

You are an ape. To be a bit more specific you belong to the Great Apes. There is no doubt about this in the sciences. Only a very very small percentage of scientists oppose this and they cannot seem to find any scientific evidence that supports their beliefs.

Why does the fact that you are an ape bother you? That fact does not take away any of your values. Or at least it shouldn't take away any of them.

Please note, just because species are in the same family does not mean that they can hybridize. A puma cannot hybridize with a lion. Or if you want to keep it in the New World, they cannot hybridize with a jaguar.

Because it directly contradicts the bible.
because of flexibility in the lack of details and the use of the word Kind which is somewhat ambiguous, you can say that it is not a direct contradiction to the bible for animals to evolve as they go, with say multiple species of canidae stemming from an ancestral canid species created by God.
The further you go back taxonomically, the more likely you ARE to contradict what the bible says.
Do respect where you are posting, and don't make it your goal to make new Atheists out of Christians here.
If you go to the extreme of "we all evolved naturally from single celled organisms" now you've crossed a line.
Because you are taking God out of the equation, on a Christian Board.

But with Humans, Humans were more directly created, specially created, and not lumped in with every other animal, and made in the image of God.
an Ape will never be said to be in the image of God, nor can an ape sin or be redeemed from sin.

at best, you could say that Humans were specifically genetically engineered. Afterall, Eve was actually cloned from Adam. Genesis 2 actually involves Adam being put under anesthesia, and a flat bone (where most hematopoeisis takes place in adults) that contains one of the best sources of stem cells in an adult human body was surgically removed, and the wound was surgically healed.
Yeah, you can make that argument that humans were genetically engineered I think

What you can't make without directly contradicting the bible, is saying mankind evolved from apes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In the case of separating 1 species from another it's does it reproduce and can its offspring reproduce with each other?

I note that you didn't answer the questions I asked about this previously, but this definition is inadequate - if you were to split a breeding population in two and isolate them geographically (a common way for speciation to start), they clearly could not and would not reproduce with each other, but it would not be reasonable to suggest that the fact of isolating them alone made them separate species.

Where I think the line for the biblical term "kind" is drawn is at the family taxonomic level rather than the species or even genus. Species have hybridized showing that by biblical definitions, they are the same "kind" reproducing after their own "kind".
and that's the important term, that's the term that can make science and the bible butt heads, and I think unnecessarily because it is based on an ASSUMPTION that kind = species.

There has been a lot of discussion here about what the biblical 'kind' means in biological terms - some say it corresponds to taxonomic 'family', some say it's 'genus', but no one's been able to adequately account for biblical descriptions of 'kind' - largely because the biblical usage seems to be functional rather than based on any understanding of biology.

Single point mutations are not adequate, even stacking on top of each other over time, to result in the Chromosomal differences necessary. It is an inadequate mechanism.

Citation? Unsupported assertion is not an argument. Suggesting that there is no number of point mutations of the genes regulating the reproductive process that could cause reproductive incompatibility, strains credulity - you need to explain why you think this.

However, point mutations are not the only genome changes - there are a variety of large-scale mutations that can lead to speciation, including chromosomal cross-over, translocations, deletions, and inversions.

I'm not seeing your point. My point is demonstrating that hybridization shows that speciation from a family does occur, and that biblically they are the same kind therefore, and that families of animals having radically different Chromosome pairs numbers of chromosomes, and configuration of Chromosomes shows enough separation to show another mechanism in play rather than just single point mutations stacking up which has always been the driving mechanism of abiogenesis and macroevolution as an origin of life.

Single point mutations are only one of a large variety of mutations.

There is still God involved in the process.

You're welcome to believe that, but the evidence we have indicates that the process of evolution requires no external intervention, and the results of evolution match what would be expected from a natural process involving no external intervention, let alone an intelligent one. IOW, as far as evolution is concerned, the God hypothesis is redundant.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My grandparents are dead as well as their parents. My success based on their DNA and efforts was not poor design or wasted effort. I have a wonkey foot that looks just as I remember my Grandmothers foot looked. Still, it works fine.

The post was about extinction of species.

If your foot was an example of good design, it wouldn't be 'wonky'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because it directly contradicts the bible.
because of flexibility in the lack of details and the use of the word Kind which is somewhat ambiguous, you can say that it is not a direct contradiction to the bible for animals to evolve as they go, with say multiple species of canidae stemming from an ancestral canid species created by God.
The further you go back taxonomically, the more likely you ARE to contradict what the bible says.
Do respect where you are posting, and don't make it your goal to make new Atheists out of Christians here.
If you go to the extreme of "we all evolved naturally from single celled organisms" now you've crossed a line.
Because you are taking God out of the equation, on a Christian Board.

But with Humans, Humans were more directly created, specially created, and not lumped in with every other animal, and made in the image of God.
an Ape will never be said to be in the image of God, nor can an ape sin or be redeemed from sin.

at best, you could say that Humans were specifically genetically engineered. Afterall, Eve was actually cloned from Adam. Genesis 2 actually involves Adam being put under anesthesia, and a flat bone (where most hematopoeisis takes place in adults) that contains one of the best sources of stem cells in an adult human body was surgically removed, and the wound was surgically healed.
Yeah, you can make that argument that humans were genetically engineered I think

What you can't make without directly contradicting the bible, is saying mankind evolved from apes.

The Bible is often wrong when an overly literal interpretation is used. For example we know that there was never a worldwide flood.

And when it comes to "the image of God" why assume that it is a physical image? You are limiting God quite a bit when you say he had to look like man.

 

[Jamdoc]

The Bible is often wrong when an overly literal interpretation is used. For example we know that there was never a worldwide flood.

And when it comes to "the image of God" why assume that it is a physical image? You are limiting God quite a bit when you say he had to look like man.

Because He does look like a man. Specifically Jesus, and it is described that way in both the old and new testament.

Jesus referred to Himself most often as the Son of Man, He was referring to this from Daniel 7

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

and when it comes to God the Father...

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

So, God created man in God the Father's image, and then God the Son was actually incarnated as a physical human being.

so, man is set apart from other animals. Man is the one specifically hand created, where the rest of animals there is flexibility. Man was also created full grown at first, Adam was not born, which is not compatible with an evolutionary origin. These kinds of details are NOT given for other animals.

So conflict between biblical account and science doesn't necessarily clash. It just takes understanding language differently, like the word kind.
and for plants specifically

Genesis 1

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

You could say most closely that plants evolved somewhat on their own, just at the command of God, but manifesting as a natural process.

Man is also set apart in WHY he was created, to have dominion over the earth, set apart from other animals in knowing the difference between good and evil, which makes him capable of sin (other animals do things that might be considered sin, but, as some would term it "they don't know any better"), and having the incarnation of God, are the only species that can be redeemed from sin. Angels that sin? They're damned and have no way out of it.

To lump it in as just another animal? Contradicts very key doctrine within the bible, and becomes incompatible with a biblical world view and with following Jesus.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible is often wrong when an overly literal interpretation is used.

The Bible is never wrong.

It is the overliteral interpretation that is wrong.

Definition of overliteral:

1. literal to an excessive degree - Merriam-Webster
2. literal to a fault - Collins English Dictionary, The Free Dictionary
   
3. excessively literal - Wiktionary, WordSense

Overliteral anagrams to "ill overrate."

 

[Freodin]

Even without religion you're aware that stealing and lying are wrong and immoral.

That is correct. So it seems I don't need a belief in any sort of god to have certain understandings.

and without any kind of judgement, you have no reason to worry about a lie you don't feel will ever be found out by a human. and that's part of the "comfort" of Atheism, is that you will take your lies to the grave with you and nobody will ever know and so there will never be consequence.

That is, basically, correct also. It leaves out the option of personal judgement, but the gist of it is correct.
But... so what?
You claimed that this "freedom from consequence" is the reason, the real reason for not believing in God.
It's not. It's a consequence of that believe. You are trying to put the cart before the horse. Do you understand that?

as for not understanding Christianity? Do you want to understand it?

Oh, I do understand it. It just doesn't make any sense... which was what I said.

because right now, not understanding?
what the bible says in regards to this is rather bleak.

1 Corinthians 1


2 Corinthians 4


But ultimately first you have to know your are a sinner and that there is judgement for sin, before you can see your need of a savior.

See, friend, that is the difference between "not understanding" and "not making sense".

I understand what Christianity says, claims, asserts, believes. I just see it as irrational, illogical, internally contradicting, without rhyme or reason.

Now you don't seem to understand how to talk to people who don't buy into your beliefs.
You simply make some baseless claims, and then ask us to "know" (that is: accept on claim only) the very thing we don't believe.

See... it's easy to be a real atheist. Ultimately you just have to know that there is no God, thus no divine judgement, and thus no salvation or saviour necessary from that divine judgement.
Easy, right? Are you an atheist already? Did that not convince you?

Consider why... and then come to talk to me again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because He does look like a man. Specifically Jesus, and it is described that way in both the old and new testament.

Jesus referred to Himself most often as the Son of Man, He was referring to this from Daniel 7


and when it comes to God the Father...


So, God created man in God the Father's image, and then God the Son was actually incarnated as a physical human being.

so, man is set apart from other animals. Man is the one specifically hand created, where the rest of animals there is flexibility. Man was also created full grown at first, Adam was not born, which is not compatible with an evolutionary origin. These kinds of details are NOT given for other animals.

So conflict between biblical account and science doesn't necessarily clash. It just takes understanding language differently, like the word kind.
and for plants specifically

Genesis 1


You could say most closely that plants evolved somewhat on their own, just at the command of God, but manifesting as a natural process.

Man is also set apart in WHY he was created, to have dominion over the earth, set apart from other animals in knowing the difference between good and evil, which makes him capable of sin (other animals do things that might be considered sin, but, as some would term it "they don't know any better"), and having the incarnation of God, are the only species that can be redeemed from sin. Angels that sin? They're damned and have no way out of it.

To lump it in as just another animal? Contradicts very key doctrine within the bible, and becomes incompatible with a biblical world view and with following Jesus.

Jesus was only one part of the Trinity. Does Jesus need a human body?

We are able to tell that we are descended from apes. We still are apes.

Do you understand the difference between knowledge and belief?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible is never wrong.

It is the overliteral interpretation that is wrong.

Definition of overliteral:

1. literal to an excessive degree - Merriam-Webster
2. literal to a fault - Collins English Dictionary, The Free Dictionary
   
3. excessively literal - Wiktionary, WordSense

Overliteral anagrams to "ill overrate."

You keep shooting yourself in the foot by using the dictionary. Since your beliefs are demonstrably wrong, just like those of a Flat Earther, your beliefs are overly literal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I note that you didn't answer the questions I asked about this previously, but this definition is inadequate - if you were to split a breeding population in two and isolate them geographically (a common way for speciation to start), they clearly could not and would not reproduce with each other, but it would not be reasonable to suggest that the fact of isolating them alone made them separate species.

There has been a lot of discussion here about what the biblical 'kind' means in biological terms - some say it corresponds to taxonomic 'family', some say it's 'genus', but no one's been able to adequately account for biblical descriptions of 'kind' - largely because the biblical usage seems to be functional rather than based on any understanding of biology.

Citation? Unsupported assertion is not an argument. Suggesting that there is no number of point mutations of the genes regulating the reproductive process that could cause reproductive incompatibility, strains credulity - you need to explain why you think this.

However, point mutations are not the only genome changes - there are a variety of large-scale mutations that can lead to speciation, including chromosomal cross-over, translocations, deletions, and inversions.

Single point mutations are only one of a large variety of mutations.

You're welcome to believe that, but the evidence we have indicates that the process of evolution requires no external intervention, and the results of evolution match what would be expected from a natural process involving no external intervention, let alone an intelligent one. IOW, as far as evolution is concerned, the God hypothesis is redundant.

He may be somewhat right about single point mutations not being enough. Single point mutations are only one sort of mutation. Some genes are very critical and if there was only single point mutation evolution may not be possible. But there are other mutations that occur. One common one is gene duplication. An entire gene or even longer section of DNA can be copied and added to the genome. With a critical gene one version can do its job while the other can mutate and take on a new function.

Gene duplication - Wikipedia

 

[AV1611VET]

Does Jesus need a human body?

Jesus took on a human body, so He could die like one.

That's why He came here: do die.

The just for the unjust.

 

[AV1611VET]

... your beliefs are overly literal.

Not hardly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus took on a human body, so He could die like one.

That's why He came here: do die.

The just for the unjust.

So he no longer needed the body once he rose from the dead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not hardly.

Of course they are. They are easily refuted.. Just like those of a Flat Earther.

 

[AV1611VET]

So he no longer needed the body once he rose from the dead.

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

When Jesus returns, and the Jews think He's coming for the first time, but they see "Him whom they have pierced," they are going to "sorrow unto repentance."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

When Jesus returns, and the Jews think He's coming for the first time, but they see "Him whom they have pierced," they are going to "sorrow unto repentance."

Sorry, the authors of the Gospels were not illiterate.

That does not help you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even without religion you're aware that stealing and lying are wrong and immoral.

If you ask for food or water to save a child's life and are denied, is it wrong and immoral to steal that food or water to save a life?

Is it wrong and immoral to make someone happy (or avoid them feeling bad) and keep a relationship together by telling 'white' lies? I suggest most successful relationships require it frequently.

Q: "How do I look?"
A: "Lovely, as always" (old and tired).

Q: "I bought you this - do you like it?"
A: "Oh, thank you, it's very nice" ([bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is this!!)

Or the classic counter to the Kantian categorical imperative on lying (updated): You're a journalist in Afghanistan shortly after the Taliban takeover. They're looking for your interpreter, to execute him as a traitorous collaborator. You hide him in your hotel suite. The Taliban death squad comes knocking. You answer the door and they ask if you know where your interpreter is. Do you tell them the truth? would it be wrong and immoral to lie?

...without any kind of judgement, you have no reason to worry about a lie you don't feel will ever be found out by a human. and that's part of the "comfort" of Atheism, is that you will take your lies to the grave with you and nobody will ever know and so there will never be consequence.

Not really; we don't need the ominous threat of divine oversight to know when we've done something wrong and to feel bad about it - and we also don't have the idea that we can do something with the sanction of God that we'd otherwise consider wrong.

The idea that, without the threat of divine punishment, atheists are free to do whatever wickedness takes their fancy is a common Christian trope. What they don't understand is that, as Penn Jillette said:

"The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what's to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn't have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that."​

You only have to look at the crime and violence statistics to see that secular societies are, if anything, less inclined to criminality and violence than religious ones.

But ultimately first you have to know your are a sinner and that there is judgement for sin, before you can see your need of a savior.

Not only is this a non-sequitur for atheists, but it's also close to apologetics, which is not allowed in this forum.