If evolution is true...

[Mallon]

Thank you. Is the notion that humans are still evolving prominent among Theistic Evolutionists?

I can't speak on behalf of everyone, but I would imagine so. Theistic evolutionists (aka, evolutionary creationsits) are nothing more than Christians who accept the scientific theory of evolution (we're also theistic gravitationalists!). And given that the science states no reproducing animal is free from the effects of evolution, then it is likely that most evolutionary creationists accept this.

By the way, thanks for asking us what we believe instead of telling us, ToxicReboMan.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

I can't speak on behalf of everyone, but I would imagine so. Theistic evolutionists (aka, evolutionary creationsits) are nothing more than Christians who accept the scientific theory of evolution (we're also theistic gravitationalists!). And given that the science states no reproducing animal is free from the effects of evolution, then it is likely that most evolutionary creationists accept this.

By the way, thanks for asking us what we believe instead of telling us, ToxicReboMan.

Thank you for your responses as well. How exactly does science state evolution? Science states the periodic table of elements as fact. Science, however does not state the theory of evolution as fact as you seemingly present. It would be better to say that the scientific theory of evolution states no reproducing animal is free from evolution..

To say science "states" evolution is misleading and incorrect.

 

[Mallon]

Thank you for your responses as well. How exactly does science state evolution? Science states the periodic table of elements as fact. Science, however does not state the theory of evolution as fact as you seemingly present.

Evolution is actually both theory and fact. The fact of evolution states that species change through time. This is demonstrable and we can see this happening both in the lab and in nature today.
The theory of evolution provides the mechanism for this fact, and accounts for the change we see in the fossil record.
The same is true of gravity. Gravity is both a theory and a fact.

It would be better to say that the scientific theory of evolution states no reproducing animal is free from evolution..

That humans are subject to natural selection is a fact, unless you're willing to argue the existence of variation and differential reproduction. Can you suggest a mechanism that prevents human populations from responding to environmental change through time?

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Evolution is actually both theory and fact. The fact of evolution states that species change through time. This is demonstrable and we can see this happening both in the lab and in nature today.
The theory of evolution provides the mechanism for this fact, and accounts for the change we see in the fossil record.
The same is true of gravity. Gravity is both a theory and a fact.

That humans are subject to natural selection is a fact, unless you're willing to argue the existence of variation and differential reproduction. Can you suggest a mechanism that prevents human populations from responding to environmental change through time?

Evolution in terms of amoeba to man is pure theory. Yes, I acknowledge that species will change certain characteristics to better suit their environment. But macro evolution on the other hand is not a proven fact of science and not verifiable in the lab or nature.

 

[Mallon]

Evolution in terms of amoeba to man is pure theory. Yes, I acknowledge that species will change certain characteristics to better suit their environment. But macro evolution on the other hand is not a proven fact of science and not verifiable in the lab or nature.

I agree that the evolutionary scheme worked out by scientists is theory. We obviously cannot observe 3.5 billion years of evolution in a single lifetime.
We can, however, test such schemes with reference to fossils, comparative anatomy, DNA, biogeography, and embryology. These disparate fields of biology all attest to evolution. No other theory accounts for the fact that life exhibits a pattern of nested hierarchy.

 

[crawfish]

Wrong again. Again, you're simply accepting that whatever scientists say is true; that's what's called being brainwashed. Many retarded people, people with genetic defects, etc. live along enough to reproduce and many of them have healthy offspring.

So the lie that evolutionists tell us what led Hitler to wipe out everyone he could with a genetic defect so only the "strong" (the Nazis) will live. History showed how delusional he was because his beliefs were based on a delusion. And sadly, many scientists today have bought into the Darwin delusion as well since they are discarding frozen human embryos with genetic defects. We all know what playing God did under Hitler, but those who want to play God themselves, never learn from history. So the genetic profiling which leads to mass murder is continuing today.

But Jesus says; "The meek will inherit the earth." And that we will. "He who exalts himself will humbled and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

You could probably answer people better if you read their posts first.

 

[peace4ever]

I can't speak on behalf of everyone, but I would imagine so. Theistic evolutionists (aka, evolutionary creationsits) are nothing more than Christians who accept the scientific theory of evolution (we're also theistic gravitationalists!). And given that the science states no reproducing animal is free from the effects of evolution, then it is likely that most evolutionary creationists accept this.

By the way, thanks for asking us what we believe instead of telling us, ToxicReboMan.

If you're a Chrstian then I trust that you believe Jesus when he tells us that the meek, not the strong will inherit the earth. I also trust that you believe God when he says in 1 Corinthians 3:16, "For the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight."

I also trust that you believe Jesus in John 15:19, "If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world. For I have chosen you out of the world and that's why the world hates you."

I also trust that you believe 1 John 4:5, "They are from the world so they speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever is from God listens to us but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood."

So I trust you believe those verses. The only problem, is that they condemn worldly teachings. So do you listen to worldly scientists or God and those who believe God's word? The bible clearly tells us we can't do both. So which is it?

 

[ToxicReboMan]

I agree that the evolutionary scheme worked out by scientists is theory. We obviously cannot observe 3.5 billion years of evolution in a single lifetime.
We can, however, test such schemes with reference to fossils, comparative anatomy, DNA, biogeography, and embryology. These disparate fields of biology all attest to evolution. No other theory accounts for the fact that life exhibits a pattern of nested hierarchy.

Nobody really even knows how old the earth actually is. People think they know. Do I trust the scientist who say it is about so many billions years old? No, because their numbers will always fluctuate with new scientific knowledge and dating techniques which are eventually shown not to be as accurate as originally thought. Even carbon dating has not been entirely trustworthy as some people think.

 

[peace4ever]

Nobody really even knows how old the earth actually is. People think they know. Do I trust the scientist who say it is about so many billions years old? No, because their numbers will always fluctuate with new scientific knowledge and dating techniques which are eventually shown not to be as accurate as originally thought. Even carbon dating has not been entirely trustworthy as some people think.

Absolutely. Today's science will be archaic to tomorrow's science and tomorrow's science will be archaic to the future science of tomorrow. So there's no reason to trust anything scientists say.

 

[Sphinx777]

Nobody really even knows how old the earth actually is. People think they know. Do I trust the scientist who say it is about so many billions years old? No, because their numbers will always fluctuate with new scientific knowledge and dating techniques which are eventually shown not to be as accurate as originally thought. Even carbon dating has not been entirely trustworthy as some people think.

Modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old. The oldest such minerals analysed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old. Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to the multitudes of other stars, it appears that the solar system cannot be much older than those rocks. Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions rich in calcium and aluminium) – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old, giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the age of Earth. It is hypothesised that the accretion of Earth began soon after the formation of the Ca-Al-rich inclusions and the meteorites. Because the exact accretion time of Earth is not yet known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth is difficult to determine. It is also difficult to determine the exact age of the oldest rocks on Earth, exposed at the surface, as they are aggregates of minerals of possibly different ages. The Acasta Gneiss of Northern Canada may be the oldest known exposed crustal rock.

 

[crawfish]

So I trust you believe those verses. The only problem, is that they condemn worldly teachings. So do you listen to worldly scientists or God and those who believe God's word? The bible clearly tells us we can't do both. So which is it?

What other worldly teachings do we reject? Physics? Medicine?

 

[peace4ever]

Do you know what those calculations are based on? They're based on a hypothetical (an imaginary scenario). "If the earth was formed by molten lava, then it would have taken billions of years to cool down."

that's no different than this reasoning; "If dogs once ruled the world, then humans had to have come from dogs. Therefore they did. " So when a premise is hypothetical, the conclusion can only be as hypothetical as the premise is.

The only problem is, that scientists claim that the world cooled down so much that there were 4 ice ages, then the world warmed back up again. So they can make up any story they want and brainwash the public since they tell the public they know more than the public does. that's exactly what a brainwasher tells his victims. He tells them to stop thinking and believe everything he says. And that's what the public does, not matter how contradictory, irrational, and unreal the stories of scientists are.

 

[Mallon]

If you're a Chrstian then I trust that you believe Jesus when he tells us that the meek, not the strong will inherit the earth.

Certainly. But Jesus wasn't referring to biological fitness. After all, animals cannot inherit the earth. He was referring to those who humble themselves before God vs. those who do not. Those who are kind and patient vs. those who are belligerent and quarrelsome. Jesus definitely wasn't talking about reproductive success.

I also trust that you believe God when he says in 1 Corinthians 3:16, "For the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight."

I also trust that you believe Jesus in John 15:19, "If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world. For I have chosen you out of the world and that's why the world hates you."

I also trust that you believe 1 John 4:5, "They are from the world so they speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever is from God listens to us but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood."

So I trust you believe those verses. The only problem, is that they condemn worldly teachings. So do you listen to worldly scientists or God and those who believe God's word? The bible clearly tells us we can't do both. So which is it?

It's funny that you should so blatantly condemn human knowledge here, while at the same time making such a fuss about it being the defining characteristic of humanity in another thread.
Regardless, it was God who also said, " It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings" (Proverbs 25:2). God clearly does not condemn the search for knowledge, so long as we earnestly seek it in a way that brings Him glory.

 

[peace4ever]

Certainly. But Jesus wasn't referring to biological fitness. After all, animals cannot inherit the earth. He was referring to those who humble themselves before God vs. those who do not. Those who are kind and patient vs. those who are belligerent and quarrelsome.

Incorrect. By your reasoning, then Jesus doesn't save those in wheelchairs or people rejected by the world as being inferior. on the contrary, Matthew 11:25-27 says; "I praise you good father, Lord of heaven and earth for having hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealing to little children. For that was your good pleasure."

So you need to read 1 Corinthians 1:18-30 to see whom Jesus chooses. You will also see that it's God who condemns human knowledge in that passage and in 1 Corinthians 3:19, 1 John 4:5-6, Luke 16:15, Psalm 39:13-14 and 146:3:4, Isaiah 2:22, and many, many more verses.

So instead of making up your own creation story and thus, your own bible, you would be wise beleve God's word as written. Otherwise you are claiming that the words of scientists are the infallible words of God rather than the bible.

 

[Mallon]

Incorrect. By your reasoning, then Jesus doesn't save those in wheelchairs or people rejected by the world as being inferior. on the contrary, Matthew 11:25-27 says; "I praise you good father, Lord of heaven and earth for having hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealing to little children. For that was your good pleasure."

Again, please stop misconstruing my words. Biological fitness does not refer to whether or not people are saved and go to heaven. Biological fitness refers to reproductive output. Those animals that live to reproduce are "fit"; those that don't are "unfit".
People are capable of going to heaven regardless of whether or not they reproduce. So clearly, when Jesus said, "the meek shall inherit the earth," he was not referring to biological fitness. He was referring to spiritual fitness. I don't know how much clearer I can make this point.

 

[peace4ever]

Again, please stop misconstruing my words. Biological fitness does not refer to whether or not people are saved and go to heaven. Biological fitness refers to reproductive output. Those animals that live to reproduce are "fit"; those that don't are "unfit".
People are capable of going to heaven regardless of whether or not they reproduce. So clearly, when Jesus said, "the meek shall inherit the earth," he was not referring to biological fitness. He was referring to spiritual fitness. I don't know how much clearer I can make this point.

Sorry but again, those who are considered biologically "weak" do bear children. In fact, Abraham's wife Sarah, the parents of God's chosen people was barren until God made her conceive. He did that to show His miraculous power , not the human power to conceive, that supercedes any "wisdom" by worldly men.

So what the world considers biologically unproductive can absolutely be made productive by God. But since scientists reject God and play God themselves, they now destroy the embryos that are considered genetically defective. Sarah would probably have been considered one of them.

So again, your arguments contradict the bible every way around.

 

[Mallon]

Sorry but again, those who are considered biologically "weak" do bear children. In fact, Abraham's wife Sarah, the parents of God's chosen people was barren until God made her conceive. He did that to show His miraculous power , not the human power to conceive, that supercedes any "wisdom" by worldly men.

So what the world considers biologically unproductive can absolutely be made productive by God. But since scientists reject God and play God themselves, they now destroy the embryos that are considered genetically defective. Sarah would probably have been considered one of them.

So again, your arguments contradict the bible every way around.

You're trying too hard to make me into some sort of bad buy, peace4ever.
In evolutionary biology, "fitness" has a specific meaning. It doesn't mean an inability to go to heaven. It doesn't mean an inability to do something productive. It doesn't mean being physically strong. In evolutionary biology, "fitness" refers to the ability reproduce. So your earlier statement that evolution is somehow contrary to Christ's words that "the meek shall inherit the earth" doesn't make any sense because Christ was not referring to the content of one's biology, but to the content of one's spirituality.

 

[peace4ever]

What other worldly teachings do we reject? Physics? Medicine?

All you need is God because he tells us everything we need. Considering that most side affects of most medicines that scientists manufacture includes, death, then scientists can't cure a terminal illness. But Jesus can. He can heal anyone of anything.

 

[peace4ever]

You're trying too hard to make me into some sort of bad buy, peace4ever.
In evolutionary biology, "fitness" has a specific meaning. It doesn't mean an inability to go to heaven. It doesn't mean an inability to do something productive. It doesn't mean being physically strong. In evolutionary biology, "fitness" refers to the ability reproduce. So your earlier statement that evolution is somehow contrary to Christ's words that "the meek shall inherit the earth" doesn't make any sense because Christ was not referring to the content of one's biology, but to the content of one's spirituality.

I'm not judging you, I'm telling you where you are incorrect. If a math teacher tells a student that he is wrong if he thinks that 2+2 = 5, she is not judging him but correcting him. But if the pride of the student is too strong, he will blame the math teacher for his ignorance and think that she is attacking him.

I know that's what evolutionists say. But again, Sarah was barren. She bore Isaac when she was way past child-bearing years. So by the standards of scientists, Sarah was unfit. Yet she bore descendants that number more than the stars in the sky. So evolutionists are incorrect.

 

[Mallon]

I can't be incorrect because all I am doing is citing an accepted definition. The biological definition of fitness is the ability to reproduce. Period. Nothing factually incorrect there. You might not like that definition, but that doesn't change a thing.

Besides, saying evolution is wrong because God used a miracle to make Sarah fertile is like saying meteorology is wrong because God once rained manna down from the sky. You're really stretching it here.