How does one become a Theistic Evolutionist?

[sfs]

Science now tells us that the DNA structure of present day man can be traced back to a beginning which occurred less than 75,000 years ago.

No, science tells us nothing of the sort. Real scientists (i.e. the ones who actually sequence genomes and survey genetic variation, as opposed to people who read the Bible to decide what science conclude) say that human DNA carries traces of at least hundreds of thousands of years of accumulated mutations -- and that's just from looking within our own species, and not assuming anything about evolution. I don't know where you got this factoid, but it's wrong.

 

[metherion]

Ohm's Law
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
Newton's laws of motion
Boyle's Law
The Law of Biot and Savart
Fourier's Law
Charles's Law
Kepler's three laws
Ideal Gas Law
The Law of Definite Proportions

Yeah, I knew about a few of those. I'm WELL acquainted with the inaccuracies of the Ideal gas law when you try to apply it to reality Had goodness knows HOW many labs, homework and test problems, etc where if you tried to use it you just kinda failed.

Metherion

 

[Gus2009]

Yeah, I knew about a few of those. I'm WELL acquainted with the inaccuracies of the Ideal gas law when you try to apply it to reality Had goodness knows HOW many labs, homework and test problems, etc where if you tried to use it you just kinda failed.

Metherion

If only water always behaved as an ideal gas than my thermo book wouldnt have had all those pages and pages of steam tables.

 

[JusSumguy]

John 10:10[/B]]Science now tells us that the DNA structure of present day man can be traced back to a beginning which occurred less than 75,000 years ago.

No, science tells us nothing of the sort. Real scientists (i.e. the ones who actually sequence genomes and survey genetic variation, as opposed to people who read the Bible to decide what science conclude) say that human DNA carries traces of at least hundreds of thousands of years of accumulated mutations -- and that's just from looking within our own species, and not assuming anything about evolution. I don't know where you got this factoid, but it's wrong.

You're both right.

There can be found many mutations, but the structure is the same. The mutations are in the sequencing within the basic structure.


-

 

[sfs]

You're both right.

There can be found many mutations, but the structure is the same. The mutations are in the sequencing within the basic structure.

Sorry, but that doesn't save his statement. First, the structure of human DNA has indeed changed, and varies between individuals; there are numerous large insertions, deletions and inversions of DNA (collectively known as structural variants) that are present in some individuals and not in others. Second, if you leave all of the variation aside, what is there about human DNA structure that could possibly suggest a beginning for it 75,000 years ago? (And how can hundreds of thousands of years of mutations have accumulated on structure that's 75,000 years old?)

 

[juvenissun]

No, science tells us nothing of the sort. Real scientists (i.e. the ones who actually sequence genomes and survey genetic variation, as opposed to people who read the Bible to decide what science conclude) say that human DNA carries traces of at least hundreds of thousands of years of accumulated mutations -- and that's just from looking within our own species, and not assuming anything about evolution. I don't know where you got this factoid, but it's wrong.

I have a feeling that the DNA tracing is such a huge work even within one species, so that it might be an impossible work (statistically meaningless) to trace the changes across a process of speciation, for example, from chimp to human. In other words, we can compare the differences, but we can not trace the change.

Am I shooting too far?

 

[juvenissun]

If we are comparing gospels, the one I follow was valid 10 Billion years ago, it's just as equally valid today and it will be equally valid 10 billion years from now. That gospel can only be found with in life itself as Created and signed off by God's own signature.

.

I guess you know there was no human 10 million years ago, according to evolution theory.

Gospel at that time? Save who?

So, my argument is that the Gospel will also expired when we evolved out of human. Right?

This is why this T-shirt design does not make any sense.

 

[Mallon]

God has revealed in His Word that all plants and animals were created “after their own kind” (Gen 1), which means they did not evolve from one species to another to another.

The Bible says a lot of things that evangelical Christians have since rejected on the basis of science: flat-earthism, geocentrism, preformatism, etc. YECism is just another subject in that long list. If history is any guide, evangelicals will eventually incorporate evolution into a theology of nature the same way they accommodated a round earth, antipodes, heliocentrism, epigenetics, etc. Repeatedly citing Genesis 1 in favour of the existence of supposed "kinds" makes no more sense than citing Job 9 in favour of the existence of pillars supporting the earth. We're moving beyond such a simple concordist hermeneutic. It just doesn't work.

 

[metherion]

We'll never stop being human. Just like we'll never stop being vertebrates, never stop being mammals, never stop being multicellular, and so on.

Metherion

 

[Assyrian]

I guess you know there was no human 10 million years ago, according to evolution theory.
Gospel at that time? Save who?
So, my argument is that the Gospel will also expired when we evolved out of human. Right?

I don't think that is the way God sees it. The gospel existed in the purposes of God, was predestined, before the foundation of the world. Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.

Eph 3:8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Not only was the gospel message hidden for ages past in God, God's purpose is eternal. Hebrews calls it an eternal covenant. Heb 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant. In Revelation it is called the eternal gospel. Rev 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people.

 

[lawtonfogle]

We'll never stop being human. Just like we'll never stop being vertebrates, never stop being mammals, never stop being multicellular, and so on.

Metherion

Someone doesn't know about my cyborg plans...

 

[lawtonfogle]

I disagree. Scientific theories can and do become "scientific facts" or "scientific laws" when they are validated to be true to a high degree of accuracy. Theories that can't be validated to be true to a high degree of accuracy remain just that - theories. Some of them, such as the ToE, have very bad consequences, both for time and for eternity.

Laws still are not facts. They can be broken, especially with large/small scale physics (just like I believe Law of Thermodynamics has been broken numerous times, but any extra energy is unusable at the macro level).

 

[Tiberius]

Ecclesiastes 3:

"18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."

No one has any comments on this?

 

[Assyrian]

Verse 18 is one of my favourites.

 

[juvenissun]

No one has any comments on this?

Yes, verse 18 means:

If we study science, we WILL inevitably conclude that evolution is true. Because it is a T/F question: Evolution, or Creation.

This verse is much much more true now than it was at Solomon's time.

 

[Assyrian]

Where is the either/or in Eccles 3:18?
I would agree if it was Evolution or Creationism, and according to Ecclesiastes God wants us to understand that we are beasts.

 

[John 10:10]

Kindly give a single example of a scientific theory which became a "scientific law."

During the years 1907-1915 Einstein proposed the Theory of Relivity which specifically addressed two theories: special relativity and general relativity. One of the consequences of general relativity proposed that rays of light bend in the presence of a gravitational field.

Fortunately, much more accurate measurements can now be made in the radio wavelengths, especially of quasars, since such measurements can be made from observatories with the best equipment and careful preparation (rather than hurriedly in a remote location during a total eclipse). In particular, the use of Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VBLI), combining signals from widely separate observatories, gives a tremendous improvement in resolving power. With these techniques it’s now possible to precisely measure the deflection (due to the Sun’s gravitational field) of electromagnetic waves from stars at great angular distances from the Sun. According to Will, an analysis in 2004 of over 2 million VBLI observations has shown that the ratio of the actual observed deflections to the deflections predicted by general relativity is 0.99992 ± 0.00023. Thus the dramatic announcement of 1919 has been retro-actively justified.
Bending Light

I believe Einstein's theory which first proposed that rays of light bend in the presence of a gravitational field is now considered scientific fact. I'll leave it to the word smiths if it's consided a scientific law.

This is the primary way scientific facts/laws are determined. Someone proposes something or observes something. Then they or others set out to prove to a high degree of accuracy that the proposed theory is true, or show how what is being observed is caused by a causal agent(s). This is true science. Anything less than this is speculation, or in the case of the ToE shear folly.

 

[sfs]

During the years 1907-1915 Einstein proposed the Theory of Relivity which specifically addressed two theories: special relativity and general relativity. One of the consequences of general relativity proposed that rays of light bend in the presence of a gravitational field.

I believe Einstein's theory that first proposed that rays of light bend in the presence of a gravitational field is now considered scientific fact. I'll leave it to the words smiths if it's consided a scientific law.

This is the primary way scientific facts/laws are determined. Someone proposes something or observes something. Then they or others set out to prove to a high degree of accuracy that the proposed theory is true, or show how what is being observed is caused by a causal agent(s). This is true science.

Yours facts are right, but your conclusions are muddled. There is no particular scientific definition of fact, but one might say that it is a fact that light bends in the presence of a massive object. General Relativity is the theory that provides the explanatory framework for why and how much light bends because of gravity. The theory explains the facts, which is exactly what has been told to you repeatedly. Note also that it is still referred to as the General Theory of Relativity, not the fact of relativity or the law of relativity, even though its predictions have been confirmed with great accuracy. Theory is as good as it gets in science.

The situation is nearly identical with evolution. There are a large number of facts in biology: mutations occur, allele frequencies change over time, organisms show certain patterns of geographical, morphological and genetic similarities, etc. The theory of evolution (which is actually a set of theories) explains those facts. The theory is tested by its ability to explain existing facts, to predict new facts, and to guide researchers into fruitful areas of investigation. It does all of those things extremely well, which is why it is the backbone of biology and one of the great scientific achievements of all time.

Anything less than this is speculation, or in the case of the ToE shear folly.

I don't know where you get the idea (or the gall) to think that you should be the one to tell scientists what is good science and what isn't, when you don't know the facts and don't understand the theory. What standing do you have for making such a decision? Scientists accept and use evolution because it does the things scientific theories are supposed to do, and no other theory comes close to its ability.

 

[juvenissun]

Where is the either/or in Eccles 3:18?
I would agree if it was Evolution or Creationism, and according to Ecclesiastes God wants us to understand that we are beasts.

I wonder how do you understand.

God wants us to understand that we may look (by all means) like beasts, but we are NOT beasts.

 

[SixStringPlank]

There is no particular scientific definition of fact, but one might say that it is a fact that light bends in the presence of a massive object. General Relativity is the theory that provides the explanatory framework for why and how much light bends because of gravity. The theory explains the facts, which is exactly what has been told to you repeatedly. ...

The situation is nearly identical with evolution. There are a large number of facts in biology: mutations occur, allele frequencies change over time, organisms show certain patterns of geographical, morphological and genetic similarities, etc. The theory of evolution (which is actually a set of theories) explains those facts.

To simplify (all caveats apply): scientific facts are phenomena that are consistently observed; scientific laws are observed relations among phenomena; and scientific theories are the explanations that make sense of the facts and laws.