The Demise of Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

For past 50 years at least, evolution has been taught in school as the alternative to creation, the theory of evolution claims that living creatures and things started and change by thenselves without God, as opposed to theory of creation (where God designed and created). These are the concepts of evolution and creation that are heard almost everywhere - from Asia to Middle East Europe and Americas. It is what I mean by the conventional belief.

Now some people are changing the theory again. Now you are saying there is no such conventional theory. Others are saying that evolution does not mean no God, even though evolution has been taught in school as opposite to creation theory. In Asia, most churches do not believe in evolution, but of course, no one can stop some churches in USA or wherever to believe whatever they want. To those churches that believe in evolution, do they even have a clear definition of evolution? Are they saying there is a half-god evolution, that God exists? Or are they intellectual but lacking clarity?

No, the theory is not changing in that sense. Your understanding of the theory is incorrect. Demonstrating that a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong is not saying that there is no God. And of course a literal interpretation of Genesis was shown to.ge incorrect before Darwin formed his theory.

 

[pitabread]

You are saying that the theory of evolution -- which says there is no God

No, the theory of evolution does not say this and has never said this.

If your base understanding is that evolution is inherently atheistic, then your understanding of evolution is philosophically incorrect.

Scientific theories are inherently agnostic. They neither affirm nor deny the possibility of a supernatural creator. Ultimately, the belief of such comes down to individual philosophy.

 

[JackRT]

Not in this country. In the US, evolution has been and is taught as science, to the exclusion of biblical creationism. The existence of God and His authorship of our being is not denied in classrooms or textbooks. In fact, it would not be lawful for a science teacher to do so.

Same in Canada.

 

[Lazarus Long]

as opposed to theory of creation

There is no theory of creation, there is only an unattributed story in a 2000yr old religious book.

 

[roman2819]

To people who replied to my post past 2 days

Is there any Evolution articles you have read that talk about changes at cellular level? Before species evolved to the next level, there has to be changes at cellular level, isn't? Before a monkey transformed into human (as evolution claim), the monkey's cells had to evolve at cellular level.

So far, there are no evolutionists, no biologists, no microbiologists and no doctors have found or explained such changes. Has anyone read about it? Or can anyone even claim to know anything about changes at cellular level?

Or have you all even think about it? Perhaps subconsciously, you think that changes can happen like CGI or Special Effects, like at the movies? Perhaps you read articles about evidences and external evidences, such as fossils and appearances of living things that seem to point to evolutionary changes, but have you considered that fundamentally, changes at micro-level, at the cellular level, must precede everything?

 

[roman2819]

You seem poorly informed on the topic.

You are also quote-mining Occam...

He said to him, as an atheist, evolution doesn't include God...but to a Christian it can. It doesn't look like you bothered to read the link to Biologos he posted.



Where does the Theory of Evolution say that? Seriously, where? I won't call you a liar, because you are obviously just repeating what you have been told in good faith, but this is simply not true.



Somebody is making absurd statements. seriously read the links Occam provided... the Biologos site has a lot of information regarding how christianity and science can be reconciled.

I do believe that science and Christianity can be reconciled (as you said),. Science is actually discovering about God's creation. In "God is a Mathematician?" a scientist described an amazing numerical constant that prevails in the world and universe.

Before I read the links as you seriously suggest , I have a question:

Is there any Evolution articles you have read that talk about changes at cellular level? Before species evolved to the next level, there has to be changes at cellular level, isn't? Before a monkey transformed into human (as evolution claim), the monkey's cells had to evolve at cellular level. It didn't become a human just like that.

So far, there are no evolutionists, no biologists, no microbiologists and no doctors have found or explained such changes. Has anyone read about it? Or can anyone even claim to know anything about changes at cellular level?

Or have you all even think about it? Perhaps subconsciously, you think that changes can happen like CGI or Special Effects, like at the movies? Perhaps you read articles about evidences and external evidences, such as fossils and appearances of living things that seem to point to evolutionary changes, but have you considered that fundamentally, changes at micro-level, at the cellular level, must precede everything?

Is there any Evolution articles you have read that talk about changes at cellular level? Before species evolved to the next level, there has to be changes at cellular level, isn't? Before a monkey transformed into human (as evolution claim), the monkey's cells had to evolve at cellular level.

So far, there are no evolutionists, no biologists, no microbiologists and no doctors have found or explained such changes. Has anyone read about it? Or can anyone even claim to know anything about changes at cellular level?

Or have you all even think about it? Perhaps you read articles about evidences and external evidences, such as fossils and appearances of living things that seem to point to evolutionary changes, but have you considered that fundamentally, changes at micro-level, at the cellular level, must precede everything?

 

[Kylie]

To people who replied to my post past 2 days

Is there any Evolution articles you have read that talk about changes at cellular level? Before species evolved to the next level, there has to be changes at cellular level, isn't? Before a monkey transformed into human (as evolution claim), the monkey's cells had to evolve at cellular level.

So far, there are no evolutionists, no biologists, no microbiologists and no doctors have found or explained such changes. Has anyone read about it? Or can anyone even claim to know anything about changes at cellular level?

Or have you all even think about it? Perhaps subconsciously, you think that changes can happen like CGI or Special Effects, like at the movies? Perhaps you read articles about evidences and external evidences, such as fossils and appearances of living things that seem to point to evolutionary changes, but have you considered that fundamentally, changes at micro-level, at the cellular level, must precede everything?

When DNA is combined from the parents during sexual reproduction, that is where the variations in the DNA occur and that is what causes the offspring to have new traits. All evolution is at the DNA level.

 

[Ophiolite]

So far, there are no evolutionists, no biologists, no microbiologists and no doctors have found or explained such changes. Has anyone read about it? Or can anyone even claim to know anything about changes at cellular level?

Astounding. There are so many hundreds, probably thousands of text books discussing such changes, and tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of research papers discussing such changes that I wouldn't know where to begin in addressing your question.

How you could be unaware of this vast volume of work and yet feel sufficiently informed to challenge evolution leaves me flabbergasted. And saddened.

If you genuinely want your questions answered can you ask a more specific question? Most research is focused on minute detail that only takes on significance when juxtaposed with hundreds of other minute details, but I'll do my best to offer you something of substance if you can narrow things down a little.

 

[Speedwell]

I do believe that science and Christianity can be reconciled (as you said),. Science is actually discovering about God's creation. In "God is a Mathematician?" a scientist described how amazing that there is a numerical constant in the world and universe.

Before I read the links as you seriously suggest , I have a question:

Is there any Evolution articles you have read that talk about changes at cellular level? Before species evolved to the next level, there has to be changes at cellular level, isn't? Before a monkey transformed into human (as evolution claim), the monkey's cells had to evolve at cellular level. It didn't become a human just like that.

So far, there are no evolutionists, no biologists, no microbiologists and no doctors have found or explained such changes. Has anyone read about it? Or can anyone even claim to know anything about changes at cellular level?

Or have you all even think about it? Perhaps subconsciously, you think that changes can happen like CGI or Special Effects, like at the movies? Perhaps you read articles about evidences and external evidences, such as fossils and appearances of living things that seem to point to evolutionary changes, but have you considered that fundamentally, changes at micro-level, at the cellular level, must precede everything?

Is there any Evolution articles you have read that talk about changes at cellular level? Before species evolved to the next level, there has to be changes at cellular level, isn't? Before a monkey transformed into human (as evolution claim), the monkey's cells had to evolve at cellular level.

So far, there are no evolutionists, no biologists, no microbiologists and no doctors have found or explained such changes. Has anyone read about it? Or can anyone even claim to know anything about changes at cellular level?

Or have you all even think about it? Perhaps you read articles about evidences and external evidences, such as fossils and appearances of living things that seem to point to evolutionary changes, but have you considered that fundamentally, changes at micro-level, at the cellular level, must precede everything?

Yes, at the DNA level, and those changes are well understood and explained by any basic genetics text.

 

[Jimmy D]

I do believe that science and Christianity can be reconciled (as you said),. Science is actually discovering about God's creation.

In "God is a Mathematician?" a scientist described how amazing that there is a numerical constant in the world and universe.

I haven't read that one. The universe is amazing though.

Before I read the links as you seriously suggest , I have a question:

I suggest that you do read them, not for my benefit, but because they explain the beliefs of Christians who accept evolution. A concept you appear to dispute.

Is there any Evolution articles you have read that talk about changes at cellular level? Before species evolved to the next level, there has to be changes at cellular level, isn't? Before a monkey transformed into human (as evolution claim), the monkey's cells had to evolve at cellular level. It didn't become a human just like that.

So far, there are no evolutionists, no biologists, no microbiologists and no doctors have found or explained such changes. Has anyone read about it? Or can anyone even claim to know anything about changes at cellular level?

I would only be repeating what Ophiolite said up there .

Or have you all even think about it? Perhaps subconsciously, you think that changes can happen like CGI or Special Effects, like at the movies? Perhaps you read articles about evidences and external evidences, such as fossils and appearances of living things that seem to point to evolutionary changes, but have you considered that fundamentally, changes at micro-level, at the cellular level, must precede everything?

I hear a couple of guys, Watson and Crick, are looking into it.

 

[Astrophile]

Show me evidence of a human egg

Here you are; this is what we all started from.

 

[Astrophile]

I go by the conventional understanding that evolution means NO CREATOR, that evolution means simple cells evolve all by themselves -- without God -- into the millions of living species today. And i disagree with this theory of evolution. I ask if Occams has the same definition of evolution but there has been no answer. Well, maybe he believes in a halfway evolution where there is god involvement... or he is still trying to figure out.

There was a time when Christians thought that lightning and thunder were sent by God, and that eclipses and comets were warnings of God's judgement. Now, almost all Christians accept that thunderstorms originate by themselves, as a result of separation of electric charges in cumulo-nimbus clouds, that eclipses happen by themselves and are due to the Moon passing between the Sun and the Earth or the Moon passing through the Earth's shadow, and that comets are 'dirty snowballs' in elliptical heliocentric orbits and that most of them come from the Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune. The fact that these phenomena have natural explanations does not mean that there is no God, and I don't see why you should think that the reality of biological 'evolution means NO CREATOR'.

Occam's claim that some churches and individuals believe in evolution. Many? There are obviously a few minority churches who will say anything, everything -- and essentially nutthing. There are also individuals who consider themselves advanced and scientific, but who can't even use basic science to explain how evolution happen at cellular level of living organism. They think -- wrongly -- that creation is a naive myth but could only defend their 'scientific' theory with vague and general words. God's creation ls right before us and around us --- if people do not act blind, or do not try to separate the neurones that connect the eyes and brains.

Most of us could only 'defend the scientific theory' of thunderstorms, eclipses and comets 'with vague and general words', but that doesn't mean that we have to go back to a belief that these phenomena are signs and portents sent by God. In the same way, the fact that most of us have only the vaguest understanding of evolution doesn't mean that the creation story in Genesis 1 is scientifically correct.

 

[Yttrium]

Is there any Evolution articles you have read that talk about changes at cellular level? Before species evolved to the next level, there has to be changes at cellular level, isn't? Before a monkey transformed into human (as evolution claim), the monkey's cells had to evolve at cellular level. It didn't become a human just like that.

Gloriosky. Mutations and selection are what evolution is all about. Mutations in the genetic code happen at the cellular level. This is in the basic biology texts, as well as vast amounts of articles. How did you miss this?

It's like asking physicists if there are any articles that talk about acceleration due to gravity.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

As we consider how trillions of living creatures live in a symbiosis manner in the ecosystems, one cannot help feeling that it would be mightily impossible for all these to have happened by themselves.

But the idea they were all put on a wooden boat sailing merrily on the oceans seems more legit. Good thing we do not have any double standards here.

 

[Lazarus Long]

And yet it is the demise of a belief in creation that is the observable fact. Just saying.

 

[pitabread]

Is there any Evolution articles you have read that talk about changes at cellular level? Before species evolved to the next level, there has to be changes at cellular level, isn't? Before a monkey transformed into human (as evolution claim), the monkey's cells had to evolve at cellular level.

So far, there are no evolutionists, no biologists, no microbiologists and no doctors have found or explained such changes. Has anyone read about it? Or can anyone even claim to know anything about changes at cellular level?

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "changes at cellular level"?

If you're talking about how changes to DNA occur and what those changes are, the answer is a resounding yes. Especially in this day and age of modern genomics, where scientists can map out entire genomes of organisms.

A bit area of research into evolution is determining what specific mutations occur (both in modern evolving populations and the historic evolution of species). Scientists can even recreate ancestral genomes to map out genetic evolutionary pathways for the evolution of specific biological structures in organisms.

Now if you mean something entirely different by changes at the cellular level, then I'd be curious to know what that is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do believe that science and Christianity can be reconciled (as you said),. Science is actually discovering about God's creation. In "God is a Mathematician?" a scientist described how amazing that there is a numerical constant in the world and universe.

Before I read the links as you seriously suggest , I have a question:

Is there any Evolution articles you have read that talk about changes at cellular level? Before species evolved to the next level, there has to be changes at cellular level, isn't? Before a monkey transformed into human (as evolution claim), the monkey's cells had to evolve at cellular level. It didn't become a human just like that.

So far, there are no evolutionists, no biologists, no microbiologists and no doctors have found or explained such changes. Has anyone read about it? Or can anyone even claim to know anything about changes at cellular level?

Or have you all even think about it? Perhaps subconsciously, you think that changes can happen like CGI or Special Effects, like at the movies? Perhaps you read articles about evidences and external evidences, such as fossils and appearances of living things that seem to point to evolutionary changes, but have you considered that fundamentally, changes at micro-level, at the cellular level, must precede everything?

Is there any Evolution articles you have read that talk about changes at cellular level? Before species evolved to the next level, there has to be changes at cellular level, isn't? Before a monkey transformed into human (as evolution claim), the monkey's cells had to evolve at cellular level.

So far, there are no evolutionists, no biologists, no microbiologists and no doctors have found or explained such changes. Has anyone read about it? Or can anyone even claim to know anything about changes at cellular level?

Or have you all even think about it? Perhaps you read articles about evidences and external evidences, such as fossils and appearances of living things that seem to point to evolutionary changes, but have you considered that fundamentally, changes at micro-level, at the cellular level, must precede everything?

The Long Term E. Coli Experiment would qualify as such an experiment:

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

And by the way, you still are a "monkey" . There is no change of kind in evolution. That is a creationist strawman.

 

[roman2819]

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "changes at cellular level"?

If you're talking about how changes to DNA occur and what those changes are, the answer is a resounding yes. Especially in this day and age of modern genomics, where scientists can map out entire genomes of organisms.

A bit area of research into evolution is determining what specific mutations occur (both in modern evolving populations and the historic evolution of species). Scientists can even recreate ancestral genomes to map out genetic evolutionary pathways for the evolution of specific biological structures in organisms.

Now if you mean something entirely different by changes at the cellular level, then I'd be curious to know what that is.

Are there proof of cellular changes which show that one species evolved into another specie, or one kind evolved into another? For example: such as monkey evolved into human? Or an amphibian evolved into reptiles?

I am not saying that changes cannot happen within the same species, they do happen and has happened, but the specie don't evolve into another specie, or one kind dont evolved inro another kind: eg: a monkey don't evolved into a human.

Living things within the same specie do change, but the changes are limited to size, appearances or a little more changes. For example, in 2013, a report showed that a giant BEE about 2 feet into body size was found, which is hundreds of times larger than today's wasps or bumblebees. And there are other reports that LARGE mammals were found, definitely larger than their descendants today. Fossils and credible physical evidences demonstrate that changes happen -- but within the SAME specie(s).

I do believe that dinosaurs existed. In all probability, they may not be like those shown in the movies (not like gozilla). But large sized dinosaurs perhaps 20 or 30 feet tall were probably roaming the earth before. God created them, and later, He allowed them to be extincted, whether by the meteor from out space (as the theory goes) , or natural deaths -- we don't know the reasons. And the book of Job does mention leviathans, and today, we found their fossils.

But so far, there is no evidence that specie(s) or kind(s) evolved into another. This is what evolution is associated with. Having said that, I wonder if people in this discussion is going to deny that evolution say that. If so, try to read post #201.

 

[roman2819]

There was a time when Christians thought that lightning and thunder were sent by God, and that eclipses and comets were warnings of God's judgement. Now, almost all Christians accept that thunderstorms originate by themselves, as a result of separation of electric charges in cumulo-nimbus clouds, that eclipses happen by themselves and are due to the Moon passing between the Sun and the Earth or the Moon passing through the Earth's shadow, and that comets are 'dirty snowballs' in elliptical heliocentric orbits and that most of them come from the Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune. The fact that these phenomena have natural explanations does not mean that there is no God, and I don't see why you should think that the reality of biological 'evolution means NO CREATOR'.



Most of us could only 'defend the scientific theory' of thunderstorms, eclipses and comets 'with vague and general words', but that doesn't mean that we have to go back to a belief that these phenomena are signs and portents sent by God. In the same way, the fact that most of us have only the vaguest understanding of evolution doesn't mean that the creation story in Genesis 1 is scientifically correct.

In answer to your words " I don't see why you should think that the reality of biological 'evolution means NO CREATOR' try reading my new post #198

 

[roman2819]

Astounding. There are so many hundreds, probably thousands of text books discussing such changes, and tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of research papers discussing such changes that I wouldn't know where to begin in addressing your question.

How you could be unaware of this vast volume of work and yet feel sufficiently informed to challenge evolution leaves me flabbergasted. And saddened.

If you genuinely want your questions answered can you ask a more specific question? Most research is focused on minute detail that only takes on significance when juxtaposed with hundreds of other minute details, but I'll do my best to offer you something of substance if you can narrow things down a little.

Changes can happen to living things within the same specie, but one specie(s) do not evolve into another, or kind do not change into another, as evolution claims. You may read my new post #198 as I explain further.