Theistic Evolution

[AV1611VET]

I don't believe it. For once he has got something right.

Do I detect a flair of supralapsarianism here?

 

[lesliedellow]

Do I detect a flair of supralapsarianism here?

It just sounds like vanilla flavour Calvinism to me.

 

[Doveaman]

A fact can be observed.

Where can I observe a man evolving from an ape?

You can't because we don't "come from" apes and evolution takes place in populations, not individuals.

A fact can be observed.

Where can I observe a population of humans evolving from a population of apes?

You can look at the overwhelming evidence in molecular genetics that demonstrates that we share a common ancestor.

A demonstration is only a measurement, it is not the observed fact of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

It just sounds like vanilla flavour Calvinism to me.

Which are you, by the way?

Supralapsarian, lapsarian, or one of the three (?) others?

(And if you don't know, I'd say that says a lot about how seriously you take your beliefs.)

 

[lesliedellow]

Which are you, by the way?

Supralapsarian, lapsarian, or one of the three (?) others?

If somebody held a gun to my head, I suppose I would say supra, but I feel half inclined to say that it is illegitimate speculation.

And if you don't know, I'd say that says a lot about how seriously you take your beliefs.)

And I would say that a great many Calvinists would refrain from labelling themselves.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Where can I observe a population of humans evolving from a population of apes?

Humans are apes. If you're asking where you can see a population of humans evolving from other apes like chimpanzees, you can't because that isn't what evolution says. We share a common ancestor that has long been extinct.

A demonstration is only a measurement, it is not the observed fact of evolution.

The study of molecular genetics explains evolution. Would you care to explain what you think shared ERVs between humans and chimpanzees explain? What do you think human chromosome #2 explains?

 

[AV1611VET]

And I would say that a great many Calvinists would refrain from labelling themselves.

Takes work, doesn't it?

Maybe they're too busy criticizing others' beliefs?

 

[justlookinla]

Humans are apes.

According to some.

If you're asking where you can see a population of humans evolving from other apes like chimpanzees, you can't because that isn't what evolution says. We share a common ancestor that has long been extinct.

Darwinist evolution claims much more than that.

The study of molecular genetics explains evolution. Would you care to explain what you think shared ERVs between humans and chimpanzees explain? What do you think human chromosome #2 explains?

That doesn't address the process whereby humanity was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That doesn't address the process whereby humanity was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you don't know what evidence is and repeat this same response ad infintum. It's not worth discussing since you'll ignore anything that contradicts your beliefs.

May I ask why you keep coming back to these threads to repeat the same responses over and over again? Do you have anything of substance to add to the conversation?

 

[justlookinla]

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you don't know what evidence is and repeat this same response ad infintum. It's not worth discussing since you'll ignore anything that contradicts your beliefs.

May I ask why you keep coming back to these threads to repeat the same responses over and over again? Do you have anything of substance to add to the conversation?

May I ask why you only present common ancestry when speaking of Darwinist evolution? And may I ask why you do not include the guesses and suppositions of Darwinism concerning the view of how all life we observe today was 'created' from an alleged single life form of long ago?

You apparently hope that part of Darwinist evolution would not be discussed...that it would go away. But it's not going away, it's an integral part of Darwinism.

 

[lesliedellow]

Takes work, doesn't it?

Maybe they're too busy criticizing others' beliefs?

It cuts both ways:

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

May I ask why you only present common ancestry when speaking of Darwinist evolution?

Avoiding my question by asking a question. You're really good at deflecting.
Common ancestry is apart of the overwhelming evidence that supports evolution by natural selection. It's been demonstrated to be true but you have to deny it because it contradicts your beliefs

And may I ask why you do not include the guesses and suppositions of Darwinism concerning the view of how all life we observe today was 'created' from an alleged single life form of long ago?

They aren't guesses. They are facts that are confirmed by observation and experimentation. Evolution does not state that life was 'created'. The diversity of life we see today is the result of evolution by natural selection.

You apparently hope that part of Darwinist evolution would not be discussed...that it would go away. But it's not going away, it's an integral part of Darwinism.

I'm not afraid to discuss it because it has an overwhelming amount of evidence to back it up. Evidence that you have to deny in order to maintain your beliefs. All you offer to the discussion is denial and deflection.

 

[justlookinla]

Avoiding my question by asking a question. You're really good at deflecting.
Common ancestry is apart of the overwhelming evidence that supports evolution by natural selection. It's been demonstrated to be true but you have to deny it because it contradicts your beliefs

Natural selection doesn't produce new life forms. Why not present the entirety of Darwinist evolution, not just a piece of it?

They aren't guesses. They are facts that are confirmed by observation and experimentation.

No, there's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the Darwinist claim of how all life forms observed today were produced.

Evolution does not state that life was 'created'. The diversity of life we see today is the result of evolution by natural selection.

Again, natural selection does not create new life forms, natural selection only acts on existing life forms.

I'm not afraid to discuss it because it has an overwhelming amount of evidence to back it up. Evidence that you have to deny in order to maintain your beliefs. All you offer to the discussion is denial and deflection.

Here's what you, nor anyone else, will offer. Evidence, based on the scientific method, for how all life we observe today was produced.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Natural selection doesn't produce new life forms.

What do you mean by 'new life forms'? Are you talking about speciation? That's been observed in nature.

No, there's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the Darwinist claim of how all life forms observed today were produced.

You have shown you don't know how the scientific method works. Are you going to post your favorite little picture now? How about instead of that, you describe in your own words what evidence for evolution would look like to you. Stop with your repeated responses and actually provide explanation for what you are arguing. You've written the above response hundreds of times in these types of threads.

Again, natural selection does not create new life forms, natural selection only acts on existing life forms.

Speciation has been observed. You've previously acknowledged that genetic mutations and natural selection are observed in nature on a 'microevolution' scale. I want you to describe why these small changes cannot be repeated over and over and over again through many generations adding up to macro changes. Also, what is the mechanism that prevents these larger changes from happening?

Here's what you, nor anyone else, will offer. Evidence, based on the scientific method, for how all life we observe today was produced.

Another response that you've repeated word for word hundreds of times here. There has been an abundance of evidence provided to you by several different posters. Your response is just denial and deflection to protect your deeply held beliefs.

 

[justlookinla]

What do you mean by 'new life forms'? Are you talking about speciation? That's been observed in nature.

I mean that natural selection acts on existing life forms. New life forms are produced by random mutation and then natural selection acts on those new life forms. Per Darwinist evolutionary theory.

You have shown you don't know how the scientific method works. Are you going to post your favorite little picture now?

I could. It would apparently help you understand the scientific method. Or not?

How about instead of that, you describe in your own words what evidence for evolution would look like to you. Stop with your repeated responses and actually provide explanation for what you are arguing. You've written the above response hundreds of times in these types of threads.

You keep responding but aren't posting evidence. Post your evidence and we'll verify if it passes the test of the scientific method. But, you aren't going to do that. You'll simply respond again with no evidence.

Speciation has been observed. You've previously acknowledged that genetic mutations and natural selection are observed in nature on a 'microevolution' scale. I want you to describe why these small changes cannot be repeated over and over and over again through many generations adding up to macro changes. Also, what is the mechanism that prevents these larger changes from happening?

No sir, the burden of proof is upon you to offer evidence that by only naturalistic mechanisms was all life produced that we observe today. There's not the slightest evidence, based on the scientific method, that completely new life forms which aren't closely similar to previous life forms, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms. Elephants and coconut trees produced from a common life form by only naturalistic mechanisms. That's nothing more than wild, wishful and faith-based thinking by those who embrace Darwinism.

Another response that you've repeated word for word hundreds of times here.

Empty Darwinist claims have been repeated thousands of times on here. Expect a response when those claims are made.

There has been an abundance of evidence provided to you by several different posters.

A typical empty claim by Darwinist. Notice you've still not offered evidence, based on the scientific method, but simply made a baseless claim. Show where the evidence for only naturalistic mechanisms producing all life we observe today was offered in the past. Just one single solitary reference. You'll not do it for it doesn't exist.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I mean that natural selection acts on existing life forms.

Yep. And I am asking you what the limit is on this natural selection. Are you suggesting these small changes cannot add up over generations resulting in a larger change? What is the limit of these changes and what is the mechanism that prevents smaller changes from adding up? How does it work?

I could. It would apparently help you understand the scientific method. Or not?

Posting a photo doesn't mean you understand it. You have shown that you don't in different threads many times. It would be like me posting a complicated math problem and all the required work to get the correct answer and claiming I understand it.

You keep responding but aren't posting evidence. Post your evidence and we'll verify if it passes the test of the scientific method. But, you aren't going to do that. You'll simply respond again with no evidence.

We've already went back and forth a month or so ago in a thread you created. There have also been several other posters who have gone over the evidence with you. Your responses consist of only denial because you can't have your beliefs threatened. Why would I entertain going over this again when you're just a time waster who doesn't even care to understand science?

No sir, the burden of proof is upon you to offer evidence that by only naturalistic mechanisms was all life produced that we observe today.

Again, this has been done for you by several posters. The burden of proof has already been met by experts in several different fields. The sources were provided to you many times.

Do you have anything of substance to add to this thread. This is my last reply to you on this subject unless you can add something of value instead of repeating yourself over and over again with your denial and defense mechanisms.

 

[justlookinla]

Yep. And I am asking you what the limit is on this natural selection. Are you suggesting these small changes cannot add up over generations resulting in a larger change? What is the limit of these changes and what is the mechanism that prevents smaller changes from adding up? How does it work?

Again, natural selection doesn't produce new life forms, it only acts on existing life forms. As far as the changes, all evidence we have, based on the scientific method, are life forms staying basically the same life form, bacteria become bacteria, finches become finches, ect. There's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for a life form becoming anything other than the basic life form.

Posting a photo doesn't mean you understand it. You have shown that you don't in different threads many times. It would be like me posting a complicated math problem and all the required work to get the correct answer and claiming I understand it.

I understand that you, nor anyone else, has offered evidence, to submit to the scientific method, for the claim that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today. In your response, if you choose to respond, you'll simply make disparaging comments with absolutely no offering of evidence. That's because there isn't any.

We've already went back and forth a month or so ago in a thread you created. There have also been several other posters who have gone over the evidence with you.

Who? Where? When? You keep making these claims but offer nothing but empty claims. You've personally not offered evidence. That's because there isn't any.

Your responses consist of only denial because you can't have your beliefs threatened. Why would I entertain going over this again when you're just a time waster who doesn't even care to understand science?

Evasion. Empty claims. You're not offering evidence. That's because there isn't any.

Again, this has been done for you by several posters. The burden of proof has already been met by experts in several different fields. The sources were provided to you many times.

Who? When? Where? You make empty claims but offer noting. That's because there's no evidence, based on the scientific method for the Darwinist view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today.

Do you have anything of substance to add to this thread. This is my last reply to you on this subject unless you can add something of value instead of repeating yourself over and over again with your denial and defense mechanisms.

Of course you're going to bow out without offering the evidence asked for. That's because there isn't any.

 

[Hoghead1]

Now, I sense you are working out of a kind of TULIP concept of salvation. Right? If so, OK,fine. However, not all Christians agree with the TULIP approach. I frankly do not agree with a bit of it. I know some will say that I am attacking God or presenting some kind of dangerous alterative religion, as if the TULIP approach has a monopoly on truth and is the only approach Christians should take Those of us who disagree often hear say that we must remember we have no business choosing God. However, I disagree. Micah 3:5-7 says return to me, that I might return to you. That means if we choose to move in a certain direction, closer to God, then God will change and move closer to us. It's our choice. Of course, I have received heat for many Christians who argue we are trying to choose the kind of God we want and therefore are questioning God. However, I do not see myself as attacking God at all; I see myself as attacking the theories and speculations of other humans on the true nature of God. What's the point of having and believing in a model of God in the first place, if the image of God provided does not satisfy our desires and runs contrary to our nature, to our deepest needs and desires,then what's the point of holding to that particular theory about God, especially when he appear to be working cross-grain against our natures?



I do not believe in original sin. I do not find it in the Bible. I also find it illogical. If we are born corrupt through and through if it is our nature to rebel against God, then so be it, as it is not right to go against nature. I believe that God loves everyone, not just the elect. I believe God saves everyone, not just the elect. In fact, for those who hold with the concept of election, I point out that this denotes only a tiny minority of persons. Calvin said the elect were so few in number that they may never meet up with one another. So, if you hold with election, chances are you are really really one of the reprobate. Further, I believe God as truly a God of love does not coerce people by threats of horrendous punishments, hell, damnation, etc. I reject the the TULIP emphasis that only bible-believing Christians are saved. I feel that is just another form of Christian Imperialism. For God, it is far more important how you live than any doctrines you hold. When fundamentalist Christians attack academics academics or view higher education, especially in biblical studies as something demonic,I point out that , ironically, the TULIP approach that went overboard on scholasticism, so that faith collapsed into simply intellectual ascent to doctrine. It really doesn't matter how you live, just what doctrines you believe .



I believe salvation and sanctification are one. The journey itself means as much as the final destination. God is the Cosmic Artist continually luring us to greater forms of beauty and that means greater depth and breadth of feeling. There is no relationship to God that cannot be deepened. I ask you this: What do you think will happen when you come before the throne of God and he asks you if you have any interesting snapshots to show?

 

[Doveaman]

Humans are apes.

But, according to you, humans were apes before they evolved into humans. Therefore, according to you, humans evolved from apes.

If you're asking where you can see a population of humans evolving from other apes like chimpanzees, you can't because that isn't what evolution says. We share a common ancestor that has long been extinct.

Was this "ancestor" an ape?

The study of molecular genetics explains evolution. Would you care to explain what you think shared ERVs between humans and chimpanzees explain? What do you think human chromosome #2 explains?

Re-Creation.

Re-Creation theory postulates that humans and apes were recreated (or resurrected) from the DNA of the same prehistoric species.

Evolution theory postulates descent with modification.

Re-Creation theory postulates resurrection with modification.

Two different theories, same evidence.

My view of reality is from a theistic perspective, and there is biblical support for resurrection with modification:

*So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.* -- (1 Cor 15:42-44).

It was sown the body of an ape, and it was raised the body of a man -- resurrection with modification.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

But, according to you, humans were apes before they evolved into humans.

Ummmm...no I did not state this. You're using a strawman to make what I said sound ridiculous. Humans are apart of the family Hominidae or 'great apes'. It's a taxonimic family of primates that includes chimpanzees, gorillas and humans.

Therefore, according to you, humans evolved from apes.

You are saying this, not me. You don't understand what I mean by common ancestor. Let me explain it this way. Did you come from your third cousin? No, but you share a common ancestor.

Was this "ancestor" an ape?

Likely. But it was neither human or a chimpanzee. There is a large fossil record with species having primitive ape and human like features. Example: bipedal hips but smaller skulls and 'ape like' upper body.

Re-Creation theory postulates that humans and apes were recreated (or resurrected) from the DNA of the same prehistoric species.

Re-Creation theory? A google search turned up nothing for this idea. If you're just making this 're-creation' idea up, please explain how you would test this hypothesis. Ignoring for a moment that this hypothesis of yours is falsified by the hominid fossil record, i'd like an explanation for how you'd test this idea.

Two different theories, same evidence.

One is an actual scientific theory that explains the facts of evolution, the other is incomprehensible nonsense.

My view of reality is from a theistic perspective, and there is biblical support for resurrection with modification:

*So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.* -- (1 Cor 15:42-44).

Please explain how you get the idea of resurrection with modification from this verse. Keep in mind that verse 39 of this chapter states "All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another". This is an example of you cherry picking text and twisting it into what you want it to mean. The bible is not a science book.