What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[sfs]

‘The theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Entirely consistent with Christianity.

“Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

Drop the word "purposeless", which is not something science can address, and this view is also entirely consistent with Christianity. Christian theology has no problem with God working his will through natural processes.

The latter of which is incompatible with Christian Theism. Actually both.

Your statement is false on its face, since large numbers of devout Christians, including both theologians and scientists, do in fact accept evolution.

Irreducible complexity and others including chemistry deficiencies in explaining the origin of complex coded information in bio cells.

Um, no.

Behe already falsified evolution.

Again, no.

 

[sfs]

Biological evolution is not a foundational theory.

What exactly are you credentials as a biologist? In my work as a geneticist, evolution is indeed foundational.

It has no real value.

It has immense value in what many of us do. Again, what kind of biology do you do?

 

[dmmesdale]

What exactly are you credentials as a biologist? In my work as a geneticist, evolution is indeed foundational.

It has immense value in what many of us do. Again, what kind of biology do you do?

None professionally. Yours is an appeal to authority. That being if your draw a distinction between experimental and evolutionary then the latter is useless. Are you saying you cannot do your work without conceding to a belief in an imaginary extinct creature? How bout sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction? You can't do your work without those beliefs firmly ensconced in your head? Let me ask you this. Can modern economists do their work without a firm understanding of ancient Philistine economic systems?

[Staff edit].

 

[sfs]

None professionally. Yours is an appeal to authority.

Sure am -- I am indeed an authority on how biologists actually use evolution. You're making sweeping claims about what I do for a living. Your claim is, as far as I know, quite incorrect. So I'd like to know what the basis of your claim is.

That being if your draw a distinction between experimental and evolutionary then the latter is useless.

I have no idea what that means.

Are you saying you cannot do your work without conceding to a belief in an imaginary extinct creature?

Stripped of the tendentious wording, that's exactly what I'm saying. Many biologists would say the same. For example, I would have been unable to do some of the work I've done without relying on the fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. The fact that you find this surprising or controversial suggests that you should spend more time listening to biologists and less telling them how to do their jobs.

How bout sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction?

Nothing I've done relies on that aspect of evolution.

Let me ask you this. Can modern economists do their work without a firm understanding of ancient Philistine economic systems?

Sure. So? Economists and biologists study different things.

[Staff edit].

 

[dmmesdale]

Entirely consistent with Christianity.

It leaves out the Creator.

Drop the word "purposeless", which is not something science can address,

Why not? Purpose cannot be addressed for gravity?

and this view is also entirely consistent with Christianity. Christian theology has no problem with God working his will through natural processes.

The definition excludes God and is atheistic.

all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless.

Not according to those definitions. Molecules to man unguided, purposeless, nonintelligent processes alone.

 

[sfs]

It leaves out the Creator.

So do the periodic table, the germ theory of disease and special relativity. Science does not have tools to address the existence of a creator.

Why not? Purpose cannot be addressed for gravity?

Correct. Science cannot address whether gravity has a purpose. All it does is describe how gravity works.

The definition excludes God and is atheistic.

I saw nothing in your definition (beyond "purposeless") that excluded God. Not mentioning God is quite different from excluding God. ("Unguided" can mean various things, some of which are consistent with theism and some of which aren't.)

 

[dmmesdale]

Stripped of the tendentious wording, that's exactly what I'm saying. Many biologists would say the same. For example, I would have been unable to do some of the work I've done without relying on the fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

LOL! In the first place, it is far from fact. It is theoretical, not conclusive. Certainly not empirical so you are overstating. Don't confuse fact with wishful thinking.

The fact that you find this surprising or controversial suggests that you should spend more time listening to biologists and less telling them how to do their jobs.

Well I am not convinced and browbeating will certainly not work. Also, they were well aware of the similarities long before when they were doing autopsies on apes because they could not do them on humans hundreds of years ago. They did not need biologists to see the similarity. They did not need them to study ape anatomy and extrapolate to humans.

Nothing I've done relies on that aspect of evolution.

So you don't need it. It is worthless. Yet you do believe all male-female reproduction came from asexual reproduction in a step by step blind unguided process where both sexes developed compatible body parts at the same time across a wide variety of creatures? Let me ask you this. If the process is unguided then what prevents the immune system from attacking, killing, the fetus? What prevents the immune system from putting it thru the wood chipper? That being since the fetus would be a foreign body? And all of this is not goal-directed? A blind processes? Get out of town. How does the immune system know not to attack?

Sure. So? Economists and biologists study different things.

so show us the required economy course about ancient Philistine economic systems and why it is necessary.

[Staff edit].

 

[Speedwell]

“Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

Why do you suppose that evolution excludes divine Telos? Evolutionary biologists don't make that claim.

The latter of which is incompatible with Christian Theism. Actually both.

No, it is only incompatible with fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant theism.

 

[Noxot]

Or.

“Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

The latter of which is incompatible with Christian Theism.

actually this can be compatible with Christianity. it depends on the theology really. Christian theology is underdeveloped for a majority of Christians but there are a lot of possibilities. whatever theology says reflects on Gods character and in my experience most Christians have a somewhat terrible perception of God that is distorted by the shadows of a fallen reality. most people seem to be quite ignorant of the deeper things of God and there is still a lot of mysteries within the riches of Christianity.

if this universe is the product of the fall then God did not have a full hand in how it is. if God is rational and the universe is not but it is coming to such, then it is as if it was put to death and is being resurrected. in this you can already see an image of the Christ in how the universe is becoming. Christ was slain from before the foundations of the world, explain that! him being slain is the very cause of the creation of this inferior reality. God self-negated or emptied himself in order to create. this idea is found in the kabbalah of the jews and in other religions.

maybe God only creates perfect realities in some sense and this universe is a result of a perfect reality becoming something other than it was, which is why it is subject to vanity in hope. if something is empty/vain in and of itself it means it was cut off from God in some way.

panentheism is very compatible with Christianity and it helps to explain how God is not the only one to exist because it says the universe is in God but God is beyond it. a clearer understanding of freedom and being means that God is not responsible for sin. the proclamation that the Son of God is fully human and fully God can't be properly understood unless there is something other than God. the idea of the Trinity helps to reveal that there is some kind of divine process occurring within God.

 

[dmmesdale]

So do the periodic table, the germ theory of disease and special relativity. Science does not have tools to address the existence of a creator.

Garbage. If they are studying the origin of life here then they are overlapping into Theology. You are just submitting an artificial barrier where truth takes a back seat to ginned up rules.

Correct. Science cannot address whether gravity has a purpose. All it does is describe how gravity works.

So you are saying science cannot tell you the purpose of gravity is to keep your feet on the ground.

I saw nothing in your definition (beyond "purposeless") that excluded God. Not mentioning God is quite different from excluding God. ("Unguided" can mean various things, some of which are consistent with theism and some of which aren't.)

The overall definition is atheistic by an atheist.

 

[dmmesdale]

actually this can be compatible with Christianity. it depends on the theology really. Christian theology is underdeveloped for a majority of Christians but there are a lot of possibilities. whatever theology says reflects on Gods character and in my experience most Christians have a somewhat terrible perception of God that is distorted by the shadows of a fallen reality. most people seem to be quite ignorant of the deeper things of God and there is still a lot of mysteries within the riches of Christianity.

if this universe is the product of the fall then God did not have a full hand in how it is. if God is rational and the universe is not but it is coming to such, then it is as if it was put to death and is being resurrected. in this you can already see an image of the Christ in how the universe is becoming. Christ was slain from before the foundations of the world, explain that! him being slain is the very cause of the creation of this inferior reality. God self-negated or emptied himself in order to create. this idea is found in the kabbalah of the jews and in other religions.

maybe God only creates perfect realities in some sense and this universe is a result of a perfect reality becoming something other than it was, which is why it is subject to vanity in hope. if something is empty/vain in and of itself it means it was cut off from God in some way.

panentheism is very compatible with Christianity and it helps to explain how God is not the only one to exist because it says the universe is in God but God is beyond it. a clearer understanding of freedom and being means that God is not responsible for sin. the entire understanding that the Son of God is fully human and fully God can't be properly understood unless there is something other than God. the idea of the Trinity helps to understand that there is some kind of divine process occurring within God.

So you do belive Jesus was old Earth and Adam and Eve, for example were from some apelike creature common ancestor which is fine. What i need from you is to make your case from Scripture. That being where the whole of scripture is interpretated thru the lens of the New.

They are two contadictory histories of life here. You do know Jesus taught in the existence of Adam and Eve and Noah, as actual persons, the flood as an actual event, for example? These and more all associated with young Earth. So who is right Jesus or the moderns?

 

[rjs330]

It tells me we are not chimps and never have been. We don't come from a common ancestor.

Then God said, “Let us make humanity in our image to resemble us so that they may take charge of the fish of the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and all the crawling things on earth.”God created humanity in God’s own image, in the divine image God created them, male and female God created them.God blessed them and said to them, “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and master it. Take charge of the fish of the sea, the birds in the sky, and everything crawling on the ground.”Then God said, “I now give to you all the plants on the earth that yield seeds and all the trees whose fruit produces its seeds within it. These will be your food.To all wildlife, to all the birds in the sky, and to everything crawling on the ground—to everything that breathes—I give all the green grasses for food.” And that’s what happened.God saw everything he had made: it was supremely good. There was evening and there was morning: the sixth day. - Genesis 1:26-31 Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:26-31 - Common English Bible

We were created unique from everything else and created in a different fashion than everything else. We are the only creation that was made in the image of God.

And you don't need to believe in common ancestry to study or use biology. You can believe in common design and accomplish the same things.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When did the 'destroy the earth' gene evolve in man, and where is it located on the genome?

 

[xianghua]

For example, I would have been unable to do some of the work I've done without relying on the fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

how exactly? and why you call it a fact when its not?

 

[Noxot]

So you do belive Jesus was old Earth and Adam and Eve, for example were from some apelike creature common ancestor which is fine. What i need from you is to make your case from Scripture. That being where the whole of scripture is interpretated thru the lens of the New.

They are two contadictory histories of life here. You do know Jesus taught in the existence of Adam and Eve and Noah, as actual persons, the flood as an actual event, for example? These and more all associated with young Earth. So who is right Jesus or the moderns?

for one the scriptures are not scientific books. God even goes so far to preserve the spiritual meaning in favor of the accurate historical meaning. God purposely put contradictions in the bible to lead one into a deeper wisdom of it and for many other reasons.

I think a great gulf is set before most humans and heaven because they don't partake of the reality of spirit enough and how God operates in reality. the bible is mostly right brain thinking, not left brain. so unless you know the difference in how those two parts of the brain "reason" then you saying that Jesus literally believed in an historical adam and eve is invalid, because that is left brain thinking and I could argue that Jesus was mostly a right brain thinker.

Jesus was not concerned with scientific inquiry or historical accuracy, he was concerned with eternal things and saving humanity.

 

[dmmesdale]

for one the scriptures are not scientific books.

And you know that how? You do know it has science implications and makes a host of historical claims.

God even goes so far to preserve the spiritual meaning in favor of the accurate historical meaning.

So where is the description of the common ancetor between ape and man?

God purposely put contradictions in the bible to lead one into a deeper wisdom of it and for many other reasons.

God is not the author of confusion.....

I think a great gulf is set before most humans and heaven because they don't partake of the reality of spirit enough and how God operates in reality. the bible is mostly right brain thinking, not left brain. so unless you know the difference in how those two parts of the brain "reason" then you saying that Jesus literally believed in an historical adam and eve is invalid, because that is left brain thinking and I could argue that Jesus was mostly a right brain thinker.

Jesus did teach in historical Adam and Eve. I would like a basis from scripture wher the whole is interpretated thru the lens of the New where Adam and Eve had an ape like ancestor and the Earth is millions of year old.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

[Staff edit].

Biology is the study of the living creation. Evolution is the attempt to explain the creation without involving a creator. What is revealing is that the creation is thousands of times more complex than science admits; a complexity that they cannot address, thus the subtle invoking of their own 'miracles' throughout their writings.

 

[Noxot]

And you know that how? You do know it has science implications and makes a host of historical claims. So where is the description of the common ancetor between ape and man? God is not the author of confusion.....

Jesus did teach in historical Adam and Eve. I would like a basis from scripture wher the whole is interpretated thru the lens of the New where Adam and Eve had an ape like ancestor and the Earth is millions of year old.

if you think God can put all information about reality in the bible, then you don't even believe the bible.

john 21:25

you are using naive christian ideology, which are crude elements in our religion that God is working on destroying and you are exalting it in the place of God. God is the God of reality, not just the text of the bible. but most Christians have very big problems with thing such as that other religions might express truths even though it is absolutely logical that God would actually exist in the world rather than just through the bible.

you are the way you are because humans are biologically designed to attempt to preserve what they value as the truth. other elements of humanity, such as openness, also serve humans. man is made in the image of God and so to know God we should fully embrace all that we are that we might know God.

 

[Speedwell]

Evolution is the attempt to explain the creation without involving a creator

False. Trying to make the creation/evolution discussion into a cosmic struggle between theism and atheism is shabby and useless. Just because the theory of evolution upsets the theology of a 19th century Protestant minority pop-up sect doesn't make it atheistic.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

False. Trying to make the creation/evolution discussion into a cosmic struggle between theism and atheism is shabby and useless. Just because the theory of evolution upsets the theology of a 19th century Protestant minority pop-up sect doesn't make it atheistic.

The struggle is part of the larger struggle between light and darkness. The medieval dark ages plunged the world into the darkness of extreme religion. Modern science is plunging us into the spiritual darkness of 'enlightenment'.

The ignorance and cowardice of science in dealing with human problems is astounding. When faced with the evil side of man's nature science retreats to it's ivory tower of laboratories and microscopes, not to be heard from again until some needless esoteric discovery is made.