Theistic Evolution - My Personal Problem with it

AV1611VET said:

So can a person have a docterate in astronomy without knowing any thing about biologic evolution?

Click to expand...

Of course, a person can have a docterate[SIC] in astronomy without knowing anything about biologic evolution.

Would you consider them to be more scientifically literate, if she did, though?

HitchSlap said:

Of course, a person can have a docterate[SIC] ...

Click to expand...

... It appears my sarcasm went over your head.

I'm responding to someone who appears to be saying one can be a Mozart, a Brainiac, or a Smart Do-bee; but if he doesn't know biological evolution, all in all he's just another brick in the wall.

That almost always generates one of my favorite sayings: Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

Catch up.

spinner981 said:

I am new to these forums, this is my first post. I've thought about theistic evolution before, and reading through Genesis this verse gets my attention: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." - Genesis 1:11

Later in Genesis 1:29 it says "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

My problem then, is if theistic evolution is true, why did fruit trees evolve before animals that would eat the fruits existed? Not only that, but the fruit from the trees were good for eating. Even if the fruit trees somehow evolved seed bearing fruit without animals to eat the fruit, how would the fruit become good as food for animals that didn't yet exist through the process of natural selection?

Click to expand...

Friend I am not an evolutionists of any kind. I believe the Bible cover to cover, There are those who do not agree with that. However I see it all fits the way the way its written. I encourage you to seek out those who agree with you on this. Many well educated people have accepted evolution and generally are pretty much dead set against people who don't think like they do. I have yet to find anyone who believes in T.E. who respects and honors those who believe the Bible just as God said it. So buck up and be strong and hold to your convictions.

by the way if anyone reading this believes in evolution would ever show kindness and respect please let me know I would like to know who you are. Tolerance, I have yet to see it.

AV1611VET said:

... It appears my sarcasm went over your head.

I'm responding to someone who appears to be saying one can be a Mozart, a Brainiac, or a Smart Do-bee; but if he doesn't know biological evolution, all in all he's just another brick in the wall.

That almost always generates one of my favorite sayings: Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

Catch up.

Click to expand...

Well, ignorance is a choice.

HitchSlap said:

Well, ignorance is a choice.

Click to expand...

Was Mozart ignit?

AV1611VET said:

Was Mozart ignit?

Click to expand...

What did Morgzit ignite?

dougangel said:

Evolution is an unobserved science.
There findings things out about it. Many things are changing with more knowledge.
There are many unexplained theories and disagreements about theory between evolution scientists.
Therefore it's also an incomplete science.

Click to expand...

Lol I am so tired of people saying it has not been observed, this is total BS concocted by the people who absolutely refuse to do any research. Which makes me wonder why you would think you're entitled to any sort of cogent opinion when you refuse to look into it. It's so dumb like "yeah I have no knowledge in this area but here's what I know for a fact!" Lol, wow.
Anyway, it totally has been observed dude. Micro organisms and small insects, for example, have very short lives and so therefore we can observe many generations of, say, an E. Coli bacterium, in a relatively short amount of time.
Scientists will do a test like expose a sample of E. Coli bacteria to a certain antibiotic. 99% of the E. Coli die but the ones that survived happen to have an unusually thick cytoplast that helped them resist the antibiotic. These surviving E. Coli go on to replicate and they pass on that thicker cytoplast gene down to it's "children" and it's "children" to their "children." That's evolution.
It's really, really simple, it's a pattern in natural that is intuitive and very easy to understand. The faster cheetah gets to eat, it survives to pass on it's DNA, it's cubs inherit this DNA and themselves are more likely to be unusually fast.
There's not much to believe or not believe, we observe this in nature ALL THE TIME. The Heiki Crab in Japan used to have patterns on its shell that sometimes looked kind of like a samurai face. Fisherman would throw back in the water the crabs whos shells strongly resembled the face and kept and cooked the ones whos shell pattern was a little more abstract. Over the centuries it has reached the point where 99% of Heiki Crabs have the samurai face on its shell. This is because the ones with the face pattern were spared by humans and so they were able to continue to survive and pass on their DNA. Modern day Heiki Crabs are mostly descendants of these survivors and therefore look like them, complete with the samurai face on their shells. This is an example of artificial selection because man was the driving force behind the species' change instead of a natural force, or, natural selection. Dog breeds are an example of artificial selection. The greener lizard is less likely to be noticed and snatched up by the snake. So it is more likely the greener lizard will survive to pass on its genes, and its greener lizards from there on. Thats natural selection.
So yeah, its very much observable. The Theory of Evolution simply states and describes this pattern of biological change in natural. By the way, thats the difference between a law and a theory. A law basically states something. The law of gravity. A theory states, describes and explains something. This is evolution, this is how it works, this is why this works. If there were a hierarchy of scientific classifications then a theory would be higher than a law.
And as far as this whole "the jury is still out, the scientists dont agree" um, no. Sorry. The question of things like how did the biogenesis events go down, were there any more subspecies of australopithecus we havent found, did they cross the arabian peninsula, how can the synthesisation of RNA naturally occur? These are the question scientists are asking and they are often not agreeing with each others answers. They are not still wondering if evolution itself is real. I mean dude, come on these are scientists, they study this for a living, if evolution was false then all of modern biology would be false and so many things that have come from that understanding, genetics, cloning, medicine, oncology etc. wouldnt be around. It's proven to work because everything we've built off of it works. Also because it's such a simple concept that makes complete sense to anyone not dumb enough to think God will destroy them if they believe in it. Sucks to live through fear huh. I was always taught God loves us. So why should I fear the truth? Honestly I don't think God has a problem with evolution.

AV1611VET said:

So can a person have a docterate in astronomy without knowing any thing about biologic evolution?

Click to expand...

Dude if you have a PHD in Astronomy then you took General Science courses and learned about evolution. Not to mention if you have a PHD in science then that means you understand intimately the scientific process and arent likely going to approach it like someone clinging to a fragment of emotion based doubt who revokes any evidence that doesnt support his or her feelings, which is essentially what alot of you guys do.

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

Not to mention if you have a PHD in science then that means you understand intimately the scientific process and arent likely going to approach it like someone clinging to a fragment of emotion based doubt who revokes any evidence that doesnt support his or her feelings, which is essentially what alot of you guys do.

Click to expand...

That's rich coming from a guy that claims to be a Christian.

What "fragment of emotion based doubt" do you cling to, when it comes to the nature-defying Resurrection?

And if you want to keep this conversation solely about evolution, that's fine.

When you realize what science I deny to believe in the Resurrection, hopefully you'll realize what science I deny to believe in the creation events that took place in 4004 BC.

AV1611VET said:

That's rich coming from a guy that claims to be a Christian.

What "fragment of emotion based doubt" do you cling to, when it comes to the nature-defying Resurrection?

And if you want to keep this conversation solely about evolution, that's fine.

When you realize what science I deny to believe in the Resurrection, hopefully you'll realize what science I deny to believe in the creation events that took place in 4004 BC.

Click to expand...

You can believe in God and science, that's my whole point. I don't believe in a God that created the universe in exactly 6 calendar days and aims to punish man for accepting scienctific discoveries. That's not my God, that's man's made up interpretation of God, that's an idea of God engineered to control the masses. The Bible is a holy book, it provides spiritual guidance. It is not a source of information for how natural systems function, that is what science is for. Looking to the bible for knowledge on how the physical mechanisms of the universe work makes no sense to me, again it does not contain guidance on that subject, it is the Holy Book. Scientific literature holds these descriptions and should be heralded as one of mankind's greatest achievements not disregarded because it's not an extension of the Bible. So many people dismiss things simply because it doesnt directly fit into the parameters of the Bible. Wouldnt you agree that there's more to life than the teachings of the Bible?

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

You can believe in God and science, that's my whole point.

Click to expand...

I've been making that point here for almost ten years now.

And I have a set of what I call "Boolean standards" that I use to meld the two together.

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

I don't believe in a God that created the universe in exactly 6 calendar days ...

Click to expand...

I do.

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

... and aims to punish man for accepting scienctific discoveries.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that, either.

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

That's not my God, that's man's made up interpretation of God, that's an idea of God engineered to control the masses.

Click to expand...

It sounds to me like you just made this up as well.

I've never, in 61 years, heard someone even hint that God punishes man for accepting scientific discoveries.

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

The Bible is a holy book, it provides spiritual guidance.

Click to expand...

Yup.

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

It is not a source of information for how natural systems function, that is what science is for.

Click to expand...

That is correct.

Trying to use the Bible as a source of information for how natural systems function is like trying to use Bill Gates diary as a source of information for how digital systems function.

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

Looking to the bible for knowledge on how the physical mechanisms of the universe work makes no sense to me,

Click to expand...

Me, either.

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

... again it does not contain guidance on that subject,

Click to expand...

Again yup.

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

... it is the Holy Book.

Click to expand...

Yes, It is.

Wouldn't it be nice if scientists treat It like that?

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

Scientific literature holds these descriptions and should be heralded as one of mankind's greatest achievements ...

Click to expand...

I disagree.

It should be heralded as one of mankind's greatest gifts from God.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

... not disregarded because it's not an extension of the Bible.

Click to expand...

God gifts us scientists for two reasons: 1) to help Israel in these last times, and 2) to make our lives easier.

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

So many people dismiss things simply because it doesnt directly fit into the parameters of the Bible.

Click to expand...

As they should.

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

Wouldnt you agree that there's more to life than the teachings of the Bible?

Click to expand...

Yes.

I read about it in Psalm 19.

AV1611VET said:

1) to help Israel in these last times

Click to expand...

Uhhh, what? lol

2) to make our lives easier.

Click to expand...

He must have forgot about all those people who died a horrible death from polio before there was a cure. Oops, born in the wrong century I guess, huh?

AV1611VET said:

That's rich coming from a guy that claims to be a Christian.

What "fragment of emotion based doubt" do you cling to, when it comes to the nature-defying Resurrection?

And if you want to keep this conversation solely about evolution, that's fine.

When you realize what science I deny to believe in the Resurrection, hopefully you'll realize what science I deny to believe in the creation events that took place in 4004 BC.

Click to expand...

AV, what do the rules of this site tell you about questioning the religiosity of others. Plenty of Christians reconcile belief with science. Do you honestly think god is going to punish believers for not taking every word of the bible literally?

dougangel said:

Evolution is an unobserved science.

Click to expand...

Here are the observations:

There findings things out about it. Many things are changing with more knowledge.
There are many unexplained theories and disagreements about theory between evolution scientists.
Therefore it's also an incomplete science.

Click to expand...

Every scientific theory is incomplete. If you think that any scientific theory is complete, then you don't understand what science is.

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

Lol I am so tired of people saying it has not been observed, this is total [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] concocted by the people who absolutely refuse to do any research. Which makes me wonder why you would think you're entitled to any sort of cogent opinion when you refuse to look into it. It's so dumb like "yeah I have no knowledge in this area but here's what I know for a fact!" Lol, wow.
Anyway, it totally has been observed dude. Micro organisms and small insects, for example, have very short lives and so therefore we can observe many generations of, say, an E. Coli bacterium, in a relatively short amount of time.
Scientists will do a test like expose a sample of E. Coli bacteria to a certain antibiotic. 99% of the E. Coli die but the ones that survived happen to have an unusually thick cytoplast that helped them resist the antibiotic. These surviving E. Coli go on to replicate and they pass on that thicker cytoplast gene down to it's "children" and it's "children" to their "children." That's evolution.
It's really, really simple, it's a pattern in natural that is intuitive and very easy to understand. The faster cheetah gets to eat, it survives to pass on it's DNA, it's cubs inherit this DNA and themselves are more likely to be unusually fast.
There's not much to believe or not believe, we observe this in nature ALL THE TIME. The Heiki Crab in Japan used to have patterns on its shell that sometimes looked kind of like a samurai face. Fisherman would throw back in the water the crabs whos shells strongly resembled the face and kept and cooked the ones whos shell pattern was a little more abstract. Over the centuries it has reached the point where 99% of Heiki Crabs have the samurai face on its shell. This is because the ones with the face pattern were spared by humans and so they were able to continue to survive and pass on their DNA. Modern day Heiki Crabs are mostly descendants of these survivors and therefore look like them, complete with the samurai face on their shells. This is an example of artificial selection because man was the driving force behind the species' change instead of a natural force, or, natural selection. Dog breeds are an example of artificial selection. The greener lizard is less likely to be noticed and snatched up by the snake. So it is more likely the greener lizard will survive to pass on its genes, and its greener lizards from there on. Thats natural selection.
So yeah, its very much observable. The Theory of Evolution simply states and describes this pattern of biological change in natural. By the way, thats the difference between a law and a theory. A law basically states something. The law of gravity. A theory states, describes and explains something. This is evolution, this is how it works, this is why this works. If there were a hierarchy of scientific classifications then a theory would be higher than a law.
And as far as this whole "the jury is still out, the scientists dont agree" um, no. Sorry. The question of things like how did the biogenesis events go down, were there any more subspecies of australopithecus we havent found, did they cross the arabian peninsula, how can the synthesisation of RNA naturally occur? These are the question scientists are asking and they are often not agreeing with each others answers. They are not still wondering if evolution itself is real. I mean dude, come on these are scientists, they study this for a living, if evolution was false then all of modern biology would be false and so many things that have come from that understanding, genetics, cloning, medicine, oncology etc. wouldnt be around. It's proven to work because everything we've built off of it works. Also because it's such a simple concept that makes complete sense to anyone not dumb enough to think God will destroy them if they believe in it. Sucks to live through fear huh. I was always taught God loves us. So why should I fear the truth? Honestly I don't think God has a problem with evolution.

Click to expand...

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup

According to conventional thinking among origin of life theorists, life arose via unguided chemical reactions on the early Earth some 3 to 4 billion years ago. Most theorists believe that there were many steps involved in the origin of life, but the very first step would have involved the production of a primordial soup -- a water-based sea of simple organic molecules -- out of which life arose. While the existence of this "soup" has been accepted as unquestioned fact for decades, this first step in most origin-of-life theories faces numerous scientific difficulties.

In 1953, a graduate student at the University of Chicago named Stanley Miller, along with his faculty advisor Harold Urey, performed experiments hoping to produce the building blocks of life under natural conditions on the early Earth.4These "Miller-Urey experiments" intended to simulate lightning striking the gasses in the early Earth's atmosphere. After running the experiments and letting the chemical products sit for a period of time, Miller discovered that amino acids -- the building blocks of proteins -- had been produced.

For decades, these experiments have been hailed as a demonstration that the "building blocks" of life could have arisen under natural, realistic Earthlike conditions,5corroborating the primordial soup hypothesis. However, it has also been known for decades that the Earth's early atmosphere was fundamentally different from the gasses used by Miller and Urey.

The atmosphere used in the Miller-Urey experiments was primarily composed of reducing gasses like methane, ammonia, and high levels of hydrogen. Geochemists now believe that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain appreciable amounts of these components. (Reducing gasses are those which tend to donate electrons during chemical reactions.) UC Santa Cruz origin-of-life theorist David Deamer explains this in the journalMicrobiology & Molecular Biology Reviews:

This optimistic picture began to change in the late 1970s, when it became increasingly clear that the early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers…6

Likewise, an article in the journalSciencestated: "Miller and Urey relied on a 'reducing' atmosphere, a condition in which molecules are fat with hydrogen atoms. As Miller showed later, he could not make organics in an 'oxidizing' atmosphere."7The article put it bluntly: "the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey situation."8Consistent with this, geological studies have not uncovered evidence that a primordial soup once existed.9

There are good reasons to understand why the Earth's early atmosphere did not contain high concentrations of methane, ammonia, or other reducing gasses. The earth's early atmosphere is thought to have been produced by outgassing from volcanoes, and the composition of those volcanic gasses is related to the chemical properties of the Earth's inner mantle. Geochemical studies have found that the chemical properties of the Earth's mantle would have been the same in the past as they are today.10But today, volcanic gasses do not contain methane or ammonia, and are not reducing.

A paper inEarth and Planetary Science Lettersfound that the chemical properties of the Earth's interior have been essentially constant over Earth's history, leading to the conclusion that "Life may have found its origins in other environments or by other mechanisms."11So drastic is the evidence against pre-biotic synthesis of life's building blocks that in 1990 the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended that origin of life investigators undertake a "reexamination of biological monomer synthesis under primitive Earthlike environments, as revealed in current models of the early Earth."12

Because of these difficulties, some leading theorists have abandoned the Miller-Urey experiment and the "primordial soup" theory it is claimed to support. In 2010, University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated the primordial soup theory "doesn't hold water" and is "past its expiration date."13Instead, he proposes that life arose in undersea hydrothermal vents. But both the hydrothermal vent and primordial soup hypotheses face another major problem.


The Origin of life hasn't been observed and other things and there are other problems eg Humans Display Many Behavioral and Cognitive Abilities that Offer No Apparent Survival Advantage But actually I agree with you that science explains the specifics of how God done things and the bible deals with spiritual truths. God is the greatest biologist. I still think there are still a lot of unexplained things in biology and it's still not a completed science.

dougangel said:

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup

Click to expand...

That's abiogenesis, not evolution. Those are two different things.

SharkOfTheCovenant said:

Dude if you have a PHD in Astronomy then you took General Science courses and learned about evolution.

Click to expand...

Take it easy, there, Shark. My degree is in physics, and though I had to take two classes in the life sciences, the anatomy class and botany class I took didn't really touch on evolution.

essentialsaltes said:

Take it easy, there, Shark. My degree is in physics, and though I had to take two classes in the life sciences, the anatomy class and botany class I took didn't really touch on evolution.

Click to expand...

How long ago was it? It may also vary by institution. For example, in the first college I attended, calculus was not required for my degree, but the college I later transferred to did require it.

PsychoSarah said:

How long ago was it?

Click to expand...

I may be an old goat, but my college days were long after Darwin's theory gained general acceptance in the scientific community.

essentialsaltes said:

I may be an old goat, but my college days were long after Darwin's theory gained general acceptance in the scientific community.

Click to expand...

XD my point was that the requirements for degrees have change significantly within a relatively little amount of time. For example, the level of math I took in high school was more than that which my mother has taken ever; and she has a Master's degree in accounting.