How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

[Mallon]

That is what I am saying. Every "evolutionary creationist" is deliberately blind on the"evolution" of intelligence, because there is no evidence for it. That is why they think they are apes.

It's ironic that you would tout the brilliance of the human mind as something inexplicable by evolution while at the same time insisting that we not use it to elucidate our origins.

 

[Assyrian]

Hands up an TEs who do not realise we are more intelligent than other apes.

 

[sfs]

There are those like Francis Collins. He is a Christian and one of the leading geneticists in the world. He was the Director of the Human Genome project. Apparently he could think well enough to successfully guide the mapping of the entire human genome but not when it comes to his application of evolution in his career? I don't buy it

He's also the new director of the National Institutes of Health.

 

[Assyrian]

What! A US Government sponsored health organisation? That means he is
a) completely incompetent and a waste of taxpayers money
and
b) part of a fiendishly clever socialist plot to enslave the American people.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

And plants don’t eat other life forms so they must not be able to survive either. Oh wait. Plant food is minerals and water found it dirt. Well, there were minerals and water... so... ta da!


We don’t have to know exactly what it was made up of. Why should we have to be able to describe it molecule by molecule for it to have existed? We don’t.



An asexual one, common to most single-celled organisms do today.


This sentence makes no sense. Sorry.


Single life is self-replicating chemicals, wherever the first organism arose there must have been those chemicals. Therefore, anything it needed to reproduce and sustain itself would be there.



What does this matter to its existence? Describe to me the soldier ranked 297th out of the 300 spartans at Thermopylae. Can’t? Guess he never existed then.


Same ones that act on you and me: thermodynamics, chemistry, physics, etc. And they are called ‘blind’ because they are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. They are not anthropomorphable into things with goals, there are none!

Metherion

But this organism gave life to "animals" it needs to get it's source from surviving from some place. So, where did this organism get its source of energy and explain how you know this to be fact?

Well, if the organism first derived from water, where did the land come from and these minerals you speak of? One cannot survive for MILLIONS of years off of nothing but water molecules of minerals, if so show documentation of organisms surviving off of water molecules instead of making "assumptions."

How did this single cellular organism switch from a single to a multiple one over the course of millions of years by surviving of an undefined environment? Where is documentation of this organism reproducing asexually that can be observable?

Note; Sorry. I meant, "be" not "me."

Oh, why should we be able to describe it molecule by molecule? Because we are so "intelligent" in this day and age to say we came from these ape-like creatures BILLIONS of years ago and there composition. Why not this single celled organism? What kind of theory would it be for it to not even describe by definition the make-up of its components, how it reproduced, how it survived, and the etc?

///////Single life is self-replicating chemicals, wherever the first organism arose there must have been those chemicals. Therefore, anything it needed to reproduce and sustain itself would be there.//////////

"Whenever" = You do not know?
"Chemicals" = Which chemicals? (Without assuming what you think are the chemicals.)
"Reproduction" = How did it reproduce? What did it reproduce into? When did it reproduce?
"Sustained" = Sustained by what? What is the force guiding upon it? (Without assuming that it is a self-sustained organism because you "assumed" it was without knowing it to be true.)

By your words, Chemicals = the organisms life is sustained. Which chemicals can sustain a water organism that is single celled within an undefined environment that cannot be rationalized? How did this "single-celled" organism create a Heart? Lungs? Blood? Muscles? The outer protection devices? Whenever it is made up of just "undefined chemicals" of the inner and outer self of this undefined reproductive organism? You have "assumed" it was a self-replicating organism without "knowing" it to be true so how can this be reliable?

The point that 300 of them existed is enough. We know that they were humans, we know the compositions of human beings. We know the history of our bodies and for the Christian we know where we came from. But as for the Theistic Evolutionist and Atheistic evolutionists they do not. Because they still cannot account for the answers of the questions stated that are critical to a reliable theory, in which has not been answered for over a 100 years.

 

[LightSeaker]

I was just wondering how a Bible believing person becomes a Theistic Evolutionist...Is Theistic Evolution even Biblical? If so, where in Scripture does one derive it from?

For myself, why not? All evoluton is, is a window into how God creates.

.

 

[LightSeaker]

LOL, People do not know that we all have the "same" evidence. It is just how we presuppositions are different according to our worldviews.

Not true. Mainly because Creationist do not have any evidence what so ever. Everything for them is based upon "faith", not evidence.

.

 

[gluadys]

But this organism gave life to "animals" it needs to get it's source from surviving from some place. So, where did this organism get its source of energy and explain how you know this to be fact?

It also gave rise to bacteria, protists, plants and fungi and many of them don't need food in the way animals do. So why should the first organism? As for how it got its energy, there are several ways that many single-celled organisms still use today. See:
Anaerobic organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, if the organism first derived from water, where did the land come from and these minerals you speak of? One cannot survive for MILLIONS of years off of nothing but water molecules of minerals, if so show documentation of organisms surviving off of water molecules instead of making "assumptions."

It didn't exactly derive from water. It lived in water as all organisms did until about 500 mya. Most minerals dissolve in water and were probably readily available in an aquatic or marine environment.

How did this single cellular organism switch from a single to a multiple one over the course of millions of years by surviving of an undefined environment?

Now you are switching to something that happened much, much later--probably, at least 2 billion years later, so there are now many,many, many varieties of unicellular organisms, both prokaryote and eukaryote. It appears that the move from a unicellular life-style to a multi-cellular organism happened at least four times (once each for plants, fungi, animals and chromists) and maybe more often than that. And there are lots of "in-between" species that live in colonies, sometimes with specialization of function, or switch back and forth between a unicellular and a multicellular form. Check out "slime molds". So there is no one answer to this question as it likely happened differently in different organisms.

Where is documentation of this organism reproducing asexually that can be observable?

Given how common asexual reproduction is (your own cells normally reproduce asexually) what would be surprising is if the first organism did not reproduce asexually.

"Whenever" = You do not know?

No. The oldest fossils are about 3800 million years old, but obviously these are remnants of species that had been around for awhile. We don't know when the first living cells came into being, only that it must have been sometime after the solar system formed and the earth cooled down enough to retain liquid water on its surface and before the first fossilized species lived.

"Chemicals" = Which chemicals? (Without assuming what you think are the chemicals.)

See the link on anaerobic organisms. It names many of the chemicals used by these species.

"Reproduction" = How did it reproduce? What did it reproduce into? When did it reproduce?

Almost certainly by asexual fission as most unicellular organisms (and the cells in your own body) still do. It reproduced into copies of itself. It probably reproduced within 20 minutes of coming into existence, as most bacteria still do today.

"Sustained" = Sustained by what? What is the force guiding upon it? (Without assuming that it is a self-sustained organism because you "assumed" it was without knowing it to be true.)

Sustained by its own metabolic activity just like your cells are today.

You have "assumed" it was a self-replicating organism without "knowing" it to be true so how can this be reliable?

Self-replication is one of the definitions of being alive. If it wasn't a self-replicating organism, it wasn't a living organism.

Because in Hebrews, it says God sustains us and the universe.

And God sustains the metabolic process that keeps cells alive.

 

[juvenissun]

Get as snarky as you like

It doesnt change the fact that the evidence does not support a 6 thousand year old earth

Creationism goes according to the Bible, not according to simple arithmetic.

 

[juvenissun]

It's ironic that you would tout the brilliance of the human mind as something inexplicable by evolution while at the same time insisting that we not use it to elucidate our origins.

I never said that.
Your origin is not my origin.

 

[juvenissun]

Hands up an TEs who do not realise we are more intelligent than other apes.

You know, but you do not ask why. That is the blindness I am talking about.

 

[juvenissun]

Not true. Mainly because Creationist do not have any evidence what so ever. Everything for them is based upon "faith", not evidence.

.

No no. Evidences First ! Faith comes the last when there is no more evidences.

And, there is always not enough evidences.

 

[metherion]

Wow. So many errors in one post.

But this organism gave life to "animals" it needs to get it's source from surviving from some place. So, where did this organism get its source of energy and explain how you know this to be fact?

Exactly where it arose? I do not know. But there are micro-organisms that survive without eating things on just minerals and chemicals and heat found in their surroundings, without eating other creatures. Thermo-philic bacteria in undersea geothermal vents are one example.

Well, if the organism first derived from water, where did the land come from and these minerals you speak of?

Wait. Are you SERIOUSLY asking me what the origin of LAND is if the first organism came from water? Seriously? You think things like the formation of continents is linked to the environment life first formed in? Mercury and pluto and asteroids etc have land but no life, is that a problem?

One cannot survive for MILLIONS of years off of nothing but water molecules of minerals

Go back to my example of thermophilic deep sea bacteria, they life off of nothing but water molecules and minerals. Along with the geothermal energy that’s all a microorganism needs.

How did this single cellular organism switch from a single to a multiple one over the course of millions of years by surviving of an undefined environment?

There are three distinct hypothesis I know of. The following is a site from a university lecture that does a passable job of explaining one of them and is a .edu, so both more trustworthy being from an education site and not wikipedia. If you want more go DO SOME RESEARCH.

Colonial Theory-

Where is documentation of this organism reproducing asexually that can be observable?

Note; Sorry. I meant, "be" not "me."

Oh, why should we be able to describe it molecule by molecule? Because we are so "intelligent" in this day and age to say we came from these ape-like creatures BILLIONS of years ago and there composition. Why not this single celled organism? What kind of theory would it be for it to not even describe by definition the make-up of its components, how it reproduced, how it survived, and the etc?

This, and a lot of other stuff, is characterized under “loki’s wager”. Pretty much, saying that if we can’t describe EXACTLY PERFECTLY WITHOUT ANY UNCERTAINTY OR ERROR 100% something it either cannot be talked about or must be wrong. For the rest of the response to this post, I will periodically call this.

I mean, if someone breaks into your home, do you need to know his leg hair count to know he was in your house, or can you tell just from the effects?

"Whenever" = You do not know?

Well, first off, I said wherever. Secondly , loki’s wager. I don’t need to know the exact square millimeter of space relative to the planet’s core when a chemical reaction we would finally go from calling non-life to life happened. Nor does it matter.

"Chemicals" = Which chemicals? (Without assuming what you think are the chemicals.)

Loki’s wager. Furthermore, let’s see, DNA, carbon, sugars, phosphates, etc etc etc.

"Reproduction" = How did it reproduce? What did it reproduce into? When did it reproduce?

Asexually, as do most single celled organisms. Into more copies of itself with mutations. Before it died.

"Sustained" = Sustained by what? What is the force guiding upon it? (Without assuming that it is a self-sustained organism because you "assumed" it was without knowing it to be true.)

Life is sustained by a chemical process called digestion which is governed by the physical laws that deal with chemical reactions providing matter and energy for the organism to maintain homeostasis. IE... survive. So... it sustained itself by digesting food in its surroundings.

By your words, Chemicals = the organisms life is sustained.

Digestible chemicals. That’s what all vitamins, carbohydrates, sugars, proteins, etc. are. Tho I imagine single-celled organisms have different dietary needs than you or I. Go ask the bacteria that eat nylon and see what they say.

Which chemicals can sustain a water organism that is single celled within an undefined environment that cannot be rationalized?

I don’t get what you mean with the cannot be rationalized. However, go ask the single celled organisms alive today what they need to sustain themselves and reproduce. Hint: it’ll be what can be digested and metabolized into what makes them up.

How did this "single-celled" organism create a Heart? Lungs? Blood? Muscles?

Strawman showing a profound misunderstanding of evolution.

It did not go:
first life form ->immediately-> complicated multicellular multi-internal system animals and plants.

Kthxbai.

The outer protection devices?

Bilayers spontaneously self-assemble under the right conditions.
Spontaneous vesicle formation at lipid bilayer membranes.
That’s a fairly cool article if you have the base knowledge of chemistry and such to understand it. Pretty darn neat.

Whenever it is made up of just "undefined chemicals" of the inner and outer self of this undefined reproductive organism?

I can’t parse your meaning here. Especially with the inner and outer self stuff.

You have "assumed" it was a self-replicating organism without "knowing" it to be true so how can this be reliable?

If it is an organism, it can reproduce. Period.

The point that 300 of them existed is enough. We know that they were humans, we know the compositions of human beings.

OH HO and special pleading rears its ugly head. So, you can NOT accept that a first organism existed if science can not detail every molecule that made it up. RNA/DNA, some sort of lipid bilayer, other self-replicating polymers most likely made it up. But without a blow by blow description you refuse to accept it. Why then do you net reject other things?

You do not have a molecule by molecule description of most of the 300 spartans. Why accept they existed? You do not know many things about Jesus, such as his exact height, nose size, eye and hair color, weight from birth till he died at each day, etc etc etc, but you accept His existence. Well, I do too lol. But you demand so much more from biology. Why is that? hrm?
Also... loki’s wager.

We know the history of our bodies

Really? Okay then.
Three hundred and four years ago, to the minute you read this, where was every single molecule in your body?
456?
1,256?
1 billion?
Huh. Guess you don’t then.

and for the "Christian" we know where we came from. But as for the Theistic Evolutionist and Atheistic evolutionists they do not.

Myself and the other TEs I know of do NOT take kindly to being called non-Christian over man-made doctrine secondary to whether or not Jesus died on the cross for our sins. I also know it is against the rules of this forum. I’m also pretty sure such pride is a sin warned about IN the Bible.

So, besides calling me and my fellow TEs non-Christian, you claim to know where you came from. Tell me then, where? I agree that the atheists do not know God created us. God gave us the breath of life and souls in His own image. HOWEVER! All the evidence that GOD put on this great green earth that GOD created points to evolution.

As for where we came from, from our parents of course! And they from theirs, and they from theirs, and so on. And of course, you are more different from your grandparents than from your parents, no? Okay then. Follow that back to its logical conclusion. kthxbai.

Because they still cannot account for the answers of the questions stated that are critical to a reliable theory, in which has not been answered for over a 100 years.

Knowing every single thing about the first organism is not necessary to biology. Sorry. Maybe once you’ve learned all the ins and outs of the biology and can point out why it is, then we’ll listen. Until then, science will worry about questions that actually ARE critical, instead of combinations of special pleading and loki’s wager.

See only to you and only you + other evolutionists have it answered as a "blind" force.

Please explain exactly WHAT about the following have the qualities of plans, goals, being able to formulate such, or anything else you need to show them to be not ‘blind’:
Thermodynamics
Chemistry
Physics

Thanks.

I & other Christians do not have a 'blind' force acting upon us.

So you are not subject to thermodynamics, chemistry, or physics? Do tell.

Because in Hebrews, it says God sustains us and the universe.

Yes. I know. I believe the Bible too you know. Telling me and other TEs that we do not is really old, really pointless, shows your head is so far up your butt you can see straight, and against the rules of this forum AS WELL AS the spirit of one brotherhood in Christ. But, the fact that God made and sustains the universe does NOT mean that the:
thermodynamics
chemistry
physics
God set up are not blind. God isn’t blind and can make them do what He wants, but it doesn’t mean they themselves are not blind.

Metherion

 

[Assyrian]

You know, but you do not ask why. That is the blindness I am talking about.

Personally I am fascinated by the origin of human intelligence, comparisons of chimp and gorilla intelligence with ours, the beginnings of research into genetic differences behind brain development. What would seem like wilful blindness to me is insisting our brains could not possible have developed from apes when we can see the increase in hominid cranial capacity over the past 3 or 4 million years as hominid skulls gradually become like modern human.

 

[juvenissun]

Personally I am fascinated by the origin of human intelligence, comparisons of chimp and gorilla intelligence with ours, the beginnings of research into genetic differences behind brain development. What would seem like wilful blindness to me is insisting our brains could not possible have developed from apes when we can see the increase in hominid cranial capacity over the past 3 or 4 million years as hominid skulls gradually become like modern human.

So you hold a piece of antique quality evidence as the ultimate light of hope?

I am expecting geneticists discover the gene of wisdom one day, just like they are searching for the gene of longevity today. Can you imagine when a mouse starts to think?

 

[Assyrian]

So you hold a piece of antique quality evidence as the ultimate light of hope?

Way to go Juv, dismiss all the fossil evidence as 'antiques' and try to conflate scientific research into evolutionary history with the hope we have in Christ. That is what blindness is, making up excuses not to face reality.

I am expecting geneticists discover the gene of wisdom one day, just like they are searching for the gene of longevity today.

By wisdom do you mean ordinary human wisdom which comes from experience and understanding for the world around us, or godly wisdom from above which is a gift from God? Ordinary human wisdom is probably a combination of the multiple genes that influence intelligence combined with experience and decision making. Don't know about you, but I doubt anybody will come up with a single gene for wisdom.

Can you imagine when a mouse starts to think?

Squeak*



*mouse for "no"

 

[The Lady Kate]

I never said that.
Your origin is not my origin.

Do you think one can alter their origin with simple stubbornness?

Or is it vanity?

 

[metherion]

I never said that.
Your origin is not my origin.

Do you think one can alter their origin with simple stubbornness?

Or is it vanity?

You know, I have often wondered about this too. And I wonder if the people who say it think about the theological implications.

You see, We all come from God originally. And we all know the YEC believe this. So do all Christians. Made in God's own image and all that. But when they say we who do not believe in YEC share different origins, it is pretty much the same as saying that us TEs DID NOT come from God. After all, what other meaning can you ascribe to it?

"Me, I came from a special act of Creation by God. You, you don't share my origins, you came from somewhere else." I mean, really. I guess we're not really human then, are we? After all, God created humanity (the only real difference is how we believe He did it), and telling us we came from somewhere else is pretty much telling us we're sub-human.


Personally... I wonder what Christ thinks, knowing people who believe in Him say that about fellow believers.

Metherion

 

[juvenissun]

Way to go Juv, dismiss all the fossil evidence as 'antiques' and try to conflate scientific research into evolutionary history with the hope we have in Christ. That is what blindness is, making up excuses not to face reality.


By wisdom do you mean ordinary human wisdom which comes from experience and understanding for the world around us, or godly wisdom from above which is a gift from God? Ordinary human wisdom is probably a combination of the multiple genes that influence intelligence combined with experience and decision making. Don't know about you, but I doubt anybody will come up with a single gene for wisdom.

I don't think it exists.
Fossils are remains and are dumb. One can never find any intelligence by looking at fossils.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't think it exists.
Fossils are remains and are dumb. One can never find any intelligence by looking at fossils.

And rocks don't eat anything so we can't tell anything about a T Rex's diet from its vicious looking teeth? So Creationists claim T Rex was a herbivore that ate water mellons. And you were talking about deliberate blindness? Are you seriously trying to tell me that because that because fossils are not alive and cannot talk to us, we cannot get any indication of a species' intelligence from the size of its brain, or that if you have two very similar species like homo habilis and homo erectus where the biggest difference between them is cranial capacity that we have no reason to think that the one with the larger brain may be more intelligent? Is there any reason not to think that an australopithicus with a cranial capacity only slightly larger than an chimp whose skull look more like a chimp than a human, even if it walked upright, probably had a very similar level of intelligent to a chimp? Or if the is no relationship between brain size and intelligence could australopithicus have been as intelligent as you and me? And if we look at the series of hominid fossils from Australopithecus and homo habilis through homo ergaster the various erectus to homo sapiens, each with gradually more human appearance and gradually increasing cranial capacity, and gradually more sophisticate tools, do you seriously think that there is no relationship between cranial capacity and intelligence, or are the hominid with the larger brain probably more intelligent than the smaller ones?