Some questions for Christians who accept evolution

[sfs]

Which posts in particular are you referring to? This is such an active forum it's hard to keep up with everything.

This one and this one.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Well, aside from the fact that you haven't responded to my last post on this thread, here is one of the many times you've been shown some of the evidence. http://www.christianforums.com/threads/opinion-on-a-creation-v-evolution-summary.7889986/

Why is it that creationists so often can't seem to do simply searches on their own?

In Christ-

Papias

I don't see any evidence. Just claims without any actual examples to back it up. As the latest newsletter from CMI states, "It's often claimed that evolution is simply change over time. And since change over time can be seen everywhere, then evolution is obviously true. But highly trained creation scientists say there is much more to it than that. For evolution to have turned particles into people a special type of change is needed. That is naturally occurring change that adds new genetic instructions. No one has seen this special kind of change happen, Darwin's Finches, peppered moths and adapting bacteria are all examples of naturally occurring change but none of them adds new genetic instructions. Not one of them adds new instructions for some new complex features, such as feathers for lizards, for example." Gullible Christians who have taken on board the myth of "goo to you via the zoo" evolution really have fallen for what will probably turn out to be the biggest hoax of all time. The only way they can keep their faith in The Gospel alive is to distort parts of th Bible to try to make it say something it was never intended to say, including claiming that even Jesus the creator of all things, supported creation via evolution. There is no evidence for that, whatsoever.

I would suggest you have a look at the web page which I provided above. Here it is again http://creation.com/jesus-age-earth

If you read the comments underneath the main article you will find something you will no doubt recognise as being similar to an accusation you made against me (it's Andre's comments, near the bottom). Can you see how shallow is your argument?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Yea, I wonder why those posts were ignored?

I've just had a brief look at one of them and it's telling that right near the beginning, the article contains these words, "thought to have diverged from a common ancestral species about five to seven million years ago" so right from the start, the author has made his/her mind up that evolutionism is the way it all happened. My starting point is God and therefore it shows common design, not common descent. You have your evolutionary Worldview for reference, I have The Bible as my source of truth. Whether your idea of the truth is correct or my trust in God as the source of truth will become apparent only after we die.

 

[sfs]

I've just had a brief look at one of them and it's telling that right near the beginning, the article contains these words, "thought to have diverged from a common ancestral species about five to seven million years ago" so right from the start, the author has made his/her mind up that evolutionism is the way it all happened. My starting point is God and therefore it shows common design, not common descent. You have your evolutionary Worldview for reference, I have The Bible as my source of truth. Whether your idea of the truth is correct or my trust in God as the source of truth will become apparent only after we die.

I don't care about your worldview. I care about your claim not to have seen evidence for evolution. That article, which I wrote, provides a little bit of that evidence. If you refuse to look at it, please be honest and change your claim to, "I've never seen evidence for evolution because I refuse to look at it." Otherwise, please tell me why it isn't evidence for evolution.

In the article, I don't just assume that common descent is true; I ask what we should expect to see in genetics if it is true, and then show that our observations agree with those expectations. That's how evidence works.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I don't care about your worldview. I care about your claim not to have seen evidence for evolution. That article, which I wrote, provides a little bit of that evidence. If you refuse to look at it, please be honest and change your claim to, "I've never seen evidence for evolution because I refuse to look at it." Otherwise, please tell me why it isn't evidence for evolution.

In the article, I don't just assume that common descent is true; I ask what we should expect to see in genetics if it is true, and then show that our observations agree with those expectations. That's how evidence works.

OK answer this then if evolution is not a myth:-

• Where did all the matter come from to form the universe (and yes, I realise that that part of the story is not evolution in the strictest sense, but without matter your ideology falls flat)?
• Tell me how stars can form from clouds of gas, without any other stars already in existence. Tell me why there are complex galaxies at the edge of the known universe, where, according to your theory, there should barely be any stars.
• Tell me how all the planets in our solar system are inclined at the wrong angle relative to the sun (about 7 degrees off I understand).
  
• How exactly was the first life supposed to have got started on its own? The chances of this happening have been shown to effectively be zero. To say otherwise is cheating with chance.
  
• The human genome contains encyclopaedic amounts of information. Where did all that information come from? Maybe the tooth fairy provided it?
• Provide one example of one type of creature changing into another? I look around me and I don't see anything in nature to verify that claim.
  
• What about chirality? Urey-Miller's famous experiment, for instance was a complete failure. Do you deny the fact that when a body dies, the chemicals that make up the body starting reverting away from life and returning to a mixture of right and and left-handed molecules?
• What about the Anthropic Principle? There is so much fine tuning in this universe for life to be possible on this planet that it beggars belief that it could have come about by accident. There is another thread about this, so I won't go into detail.
  
• How can you know that the universe is really billions of years old? I say it was created by God and is much younger, exactly as described in Genesis. Do you believe this verse in the Bible, "Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."? If not, why are you posting on a Christian forum? As it indicates in Romans above, if anyone doesn't start from the premise that God is behind this beautifully designed universe, they are wilfully ignorant.

One final point; you stated above, "I ask what we should expect to see in genetics if it is true, and then show that our observations agree with those expectations." I'm curious, did you also ask yourself the question about what you would expect to see if God created everything, just as he told us in Genesis?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

This one and this one.

I can't respond on the actual post because it says I have "insufficient privileges". All I'd say to the one that shows the skulls is, what is that supposed to tell me?

 

[Shemjaza]

You know that SFS is a Christian, right?

 

[bhsmte]

I've just had a brief look at one of them and it's telling that right near the beginning, the article contains these words, "thought to have diverged from a common ancestral species about five to seven million years ago" so right from the start, the author has made his/her mind up that evolutionism is the way it all happened. My starting point is God and therefore it shows common design, not common descent. You have your evolutionary Worldview for reference, I have The Bible as my source of truth. Whether your idea of the truth is correct or my trust in God as the source of truth will become apparent only after we die.

If you are not willing to peel back the layers and look at the evidence, don't claim you haven't seen any evidence.

Just be honest and say, you will never go against your interpretation of the bible, no matter what the evidence.

 

[sfs]

OK answer this then if evolution is not a myth:-

• Where did all the matter come from to form the universe (and yes, I realise that that part of the story is not evolution in the strictest sense, but without matter your ideology falls flat)?
• Tell me how stars can form from clouds of gas, without any other stars already in existence. Tell me why there are complex galaxies at the edge of the known universe, where, according to your theory, there should barely be any stars.
• Tell me how all the planets in our solar system are inclined at the wrong angle relative to the sun (about 7 degrees off I understand).
  
• How exactly was the first life supposed to have got started on its own? The chances of this happening have been shown to effectively be zero. To say otherwise is cheating with chance.
  
• The human genome contains encyclopaedic amounts of information. Where did all that information come from? Maybe the tooth fairy provided it?
• Provide one example of one type of creature changing into another? I look around me and I don't see anything in nature to verify that claim.
  
• What about chirality? Miller's famous experiment, for instance was a complete failure. Do you deny the fact that when a body dies, the chemicals that make up the body starting reverting away from life and returning to a mixture of right and and left-handed molecules?
• What about the Anthropic Principle? There is so much fine tuning in this universe for life to be possible on this planet that it beggars belief that it could have come about by accident. There is another thread about this, so I won't go into detail.
  
• How can you know that the universe is really billions of years old? I say it was created by God and is much younger, exactly as described in Genesis. Do you believe this verse in the Bible, "Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."? If not, why are you posting on a Christian forum? As it indicates in Romans above, if anyone doesn't start from the premise that God is behind this beautifully designed universe, they are wilfully ignorant.

None of that is relevant. I'm not asking you if you think evolution is true (in fact, most of your points have nothing to do with evolution), or if there is any evidence against it. We can talk about these points later, if you like. Right now, I'm just asking about your claim that you've never seen any evidence for evolution. I find that remarkable, since I see tons of evidence for evolution. So I'm asking you: is what I posted on the Quiet Thread evidence for evolution or not?

One final point; you stated above, "I ask what we should expect to see in genetics if it is true, and then show that our observations agree with those expectations." I'm curious, did you also ask yourself the question about what you would expect to see if God created everything, just as he told us in Genesis?

Sure. I was raised in a Conservative Baptist church, and creationism was the assumption (young earth or old didn't really matter much in those days). Pretty much everything I've learned about science since has told me that my expectations were wrong.

 

[Winepress777]

I have some questions for Christians who have accepted the theory of evolution as being the truth, rather than a straightforward reading of the biblical account of creation...

• If the Genesis account of creation isn’t true, what do you make of the following part of the ten commandments?

Exo 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labour and do all your work,
Exo 20:10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

• When did sin come into God’s creation and how does that relate to death and suffering in the world?
  
  
• If death came before sin then it wasn’t the penalty for sin. So, if there wasn’t a literal Adam who brought sin and death to God’s creation, then what was the purpose of Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross?
  
  
• In Mark 10:6, Jesus says this, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” So here we have God incarnate telling us directly that mankind was right there at the beginning of creation. How do you reconcile that with the evolutionary idea of billions of years?
  
  
• The evolutionists have various hypotheses for the ultimate fate of the universe. Which one do you accept as the most likely, or is the second coming of Jesus a part of the Bible that you still accept as being the truth?

There is no such thing as evolution of course. But to read the "six days" as six twenty-four hour time periods is where I draw the line of course. It is obvious that there have been billions of years of universe around before the "six days" of creation. Those who push otherwise have no clue what the story of creation is really about. The Bible is clear that a "day of the Lord is not a man's day". But I've seen the "faith -based" creationists of 6 24 hour days totally backhand that scripture away from their comprehension. So I don't deal with any group on it typically, evolutionists nor creationists. That isn't the way of the Lord to argue about such a thing.

 

[Givemeareason]

There is no such thing as evolution of course. But to read the "six days" as six twenty-four hour time periods is where I draw the line of course. It is obvious that there have been billions of years of universe around before the "six days" of creation. Those who push otherwise have no clue what the story of creation is really about. The Bible is clear that a "day of the Lord is not a man's day". But I've seen the "faith -based" creationists of 6 24 hour days totally backhand that scripture away from their comprehension. So I don't deal with any group on it typically, evolutionists nor creationists. That isn't the way of the Lord to argue about such a thing.

If you can stretch your interpretation to that extent why can't you stretch it to include evolution?

 

[florida2]

There is no such thing as evolution of course. But to read the "six days" as six twenty-four hour time periods is where I draw the line of course. It is obvious that there have been billions of years of universe around before the "six days" of creation. Those who push otherwise have no clue what the story of creation is really about. The Bible is clear that a "day of the Lord is not a man's day". But I've seen the "faith -based" creationists of 6 24 hour days totally backhand that scripture away from their comprehension. So I don't deal with any group on it typically, evolutionists nor creationists. That isn't the way of the Lord to argue about such a thing.

So if you accept the universe is billions of years old, how do you square that with saying there's no such thing as evolution? Do you claim that all animals and plants have existed in their current form unchanged for those billions of years?

 

[Winepress777]

So if you accept the universe is billions of years old, how do you square that with saying there's no such thing as evolution? Do you claim that all animals and plants have existed in their current form unchanged for those billions of years?

I think everything I've presented has been clear, I've covered all that if I could refer you back to my earlier posts. Thank you for asking. I don't think you'll find I've made any such claims... are you sure you are posting to me?

 

[Givemeareason]

I think everything I've presented has been clear, I've covered all that if I could refer you back to my earlier posts. Thank you for asking. I don't think you'll find I've made any such claims... are you sure you are posting to me?

Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:18

I think everything I've presented has been clear, I've covered all that if I could refer you back to my earlier posts. Thank you for asking. I don't think you'll find I've made any such claims... are you sure you are posting to me?

 

[Papias]

I don't see any evidence. Just claims without any actual examples to back it up. As the latest newsletter from CMI states,....

It sounds like you didn't bother to read the post. It included, among many other sets of evidence, the summary at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ , which describes 5 huge categories of evidence, each with many different sets of evidence. Since you are clearly too smart to have dismissed that without reading and understanding it, perhaps you could briefly summarize these, and explain why they are each wrong?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Not_By_Chance]

You know that SFS is a Christian, right?

Actually, I hadn't noticed until after I had made the post and then I had computer problems which have only just been resolved.

 

[TLK Valentine]

OK answer this then if evolution is not a myth:-

• Where did all the matter come from to form the universe (and yes, I realise that that part of the story is not evolution in the strictest sense, but without matter your ideology falls flat)?
• Tell me how stars can form from clouds of gas, without any other stars already in existence. Tell me why there are complex galaxies at the edge of the known universe, where, according to your theory, there should barely be any stars.
• Tell me how all the planets in our solar system are inclined at the wrong angle relative to the sun (about 7 degrees off I understand).
  
• How exactly was the first life supposed to have got started on its own? The chances of this happening have been shown to effectively be zero. To say otherwise is cheating with chance.
  
• The human genome contains encyclopaedic amounts of information. Where did all that information come from? Maybe the tooth fairy provided it?
• Provide one example of one type of creature changing into another? I look around me and I don't see anything in nature to verify that claim.
  
• What about chirality? Miller's famous experiment, for instance was a complete failure. Do you deny the fact that when a body dies, the chemicals that make up the body starting reverting away from life and returning to a mixture of right and and left-handed molecules?
• What about the Anthropic Principle? There is so much fine tuning in this universe for life to be possible on this planet that it beggars belief that it could have come about by accident. There is another thread about this, so I won't go into detail.
  
• How can you know that the universe is really billions of years old? I say it was created by God and is much younger, exactly as described in Genesis. Do you believe this verse in the Bible, "Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."? If not, why are you posting on a Christian forum? As it indicates in Romans above, if anyone doesn't start from the premise that God is behind this beautifully designed universe, they are wilfully ignorant.

One final point; you stated above, "I ask what we should expect to see in genetics if it is true, and then show that our observations agree with those expectations." I'm curious, did you also ask yourself the question about what you would expect to see if God created everything, just as he told us in Genesis?

Nice Gish Gallop -- haven't seen one of those in a while.

 

[florida2]

I think everything I've presented has been clear, I've covered all that if I could refer you back to my earlier posts. Thank you for asking. I don't think you'll find I've made any such claims... are you sure you are posting to me?

Yes I an. Apologies if I missed your previous posts. I'm just trying to understand your thinking. You say that it's obvious that the universe is billions of years old yet you claim there's no such thing as evolution, so I'm just wondering how you square that circle? In your view there is no evolution so have the current animal and plant species been around unchanging for those billions of years despite fossil evidence to the contrary?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes I an. Apologies if I missed your previous posts. I'm just trying to understand your thinking. You say that it's obvious that the universe is billions of years old yet you claim there's no such thing as evolution, so I'm just wondering how you square that circle? In your view there is no evolution so have the current animal and plant species been around unchanging for those billions of years despite fossil evidence to the contrary?

Very legit question and I was wondering the same thing.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

None of that is relevant. I'm not asking you if you think evolution is true

I don't believe that macro-evolution is true, no. And the other points are not irrelevant because if mankind has no answers to the impossible problem of how the universe or life could have got started on it's own, then it's more logical to believe that God was the creator. That being so and I assume you agree with me so far, we have to ask ourselves whether it is likely that God would have used an evolutionary process to bring about life, with all its cruelty, disease and death prior to sin and why He would do that when He could just have made everything perfect from the beginning as per Genesis 1. Are we made in God's image or are we merely advanced animals which have evolved from pond scum? Also, we have to consider how that would affect the Gospel message as a whole if indeed God did use that method.

I don't pretend to be a scientist, so I have no way of relating to the finer details. However, I do know that there are other scientists who have come to totally different conclusions than those in the article you quoted, some of whom used to teach evolution, but have sinced changed sides and now regard creation as the more likely explanation of how we got here. Given that the latter seem to be more attuned to the information given to us in the Bible, I feel more comfortable accepting their expert analysis of the known facts of nature than those who seem to have decided that no God is necessary.