[_ Old Earth _] Can a Christian believe Darwin's biological evolutionism?

[jasoncran]

of course as to assume that we knew what the earth was like when life wasnt here violates occam's razor

 

[Deavonreye]

Jason is correct. The ToE never gets into where life came from, only a process of change over a substantial amount of time. Abiogenesis postulates about it, but there isn't much that I am personally aware of on the subject.

As FOR the ToE, look up viable information from credible and peer reviewed scientific examinations from various scientific fields to find out what is actually taught about the subject.

 

[Texalberta]

Ah, the "go look it up" response.
And again, intellectually vacant.

I am very familiar with the ToE, telling me endlessly to "go google" is becoming really tiresome, and not a little insulting.

Again, there is no evidence for any proto-cell or anything else postulated by the church of evolution for the origin of life.
Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zeeeeero.
The house of evolution is built on sand.

But somehow..it just happened..again, and again.
Evolution is no science, nothing more than wild eyed, unsubstantiated claims of magical chocolate egg laying Easter bunnies.
It's true, I googled it.

 

[Pard]

To answer the OP, that is a hard question. Do you mean the evolution Darwin OBSERVED or the evolution Darwin POSTULATED?

If the former: Then yes, because micro-evolution is a documented thing. It doesn't contradict the Bible in any way, shape, or form. It even is used in many Creationist theories.

If the later: Then yes, but only if said Christian is willing to DENY large parts of the Bible.

Tex, what does that symbol you have mean? I know the fish, but not a fish with an "A" in the middle of it.

 

[Texalberta]

Anarcho-Christian.

 

[Evointrinsic]

I am very familiar with the ToE, telling me endlessly to "go google" is becoming really tiresome, and not a little insulting.

I have my very strong doubts that you are at all familiar with evolution. Even Jason pointed it out! (whom which I applaud for that)

Let's take a look at the history of your knowledge of Evolution judging strictly by your posts on this topic.

no evidence for it exists.

Evolution is one of the leading theories in all of science with one of the most vast collections of evidence that backs up the theory that describes the phenomenon.

You can go into any lab in the world, with all the chemicals you want, create any atmosphere you want, use any machine you want...and at the end of any time period you want...you will never make a self-reproducing anything.

Your describing the origin of life, not what happens when life already exists. This is not Evolution, this is Abiogenesis.

Now, no one can do this on purpose, but somehow, magically..it happened by accident, not once, but for the incredible diversity of life, it would have to happen bazillions of times.

I have no idea what your describing here...

C'mon, show proof of life or get off the evolution did it malarky.

I'm responding aren't I? Does that mean I'm proof? Once again, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

please end the personal crap and show me evidence of some imaginary evolutionary beginning of life.

Yet again, you think that evolution has something to do with the beginning of life. which it does not. Evolution only describes what happens to life that already exists, not how it began.

ToE belief system

A theory in science cannot be a belief system. it's an acceptance or rejection from an individual of a specific theory. Are you part of a "church of germs" or do you follow the "gospel of gravity?"

No human can make life.
Life only comes from life.

Actually, we HAVE made synthetic life...
Also, Life DOES come from other life... if you believe that, then your already on your way to accepting evolution. Because Evolution only describes what happens when Life comes from Life.




As you can see, you have yet to describe what evolution actually is. There for you don't know much about it do you? In fact you've been wrong on every single point you've made on what you take evolution to be. However, I'm not going to continue this with you on this topic. If you want to discuss what evolution is and why you think it doesn't exist or is false, please make a topic on it and I'll respond there.

But let me first make this post relevant to THIS topic.


Scotth1960: Yes, people can believe both in Christianity as well as the theory of evolution. The reason they can do this is because some Christians choose to take the bible as both fact as well as in a metaphorical sense. They read the bible as a guide book, not as a strict code of rules. If they can do this, they can accept that the planet is more than just a few thousand years old, which allows them to accept evolution as a whole (if they so choose).

The Christians that take the bible as 100% literal cannot accept evolution as a whole, they are restricted to what's been deemed as "micro-evolution" because it still fits into a few thousand year period... sorta (but not really). If they do accept micro-evolution, then they aren't technically accepting evolution at all because they are still pushing aside a lot of factors which show a longer lived planet.

Thanks for the question!

PS: Texalberta I'm in edmonton ;)

 

[Pard]

Actually, we HAVE made synthetic life...

Not really making life there, bud. Altering DNA and then sticking the synthetic DNA into a living creature and then letting it do it's thing is not really "making" anything.

When you can take inorganic material and create a cell from scratch without a surrogate parent, then we can start talking about "making" life.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Actually "the cell was created by stitching together the genome of a goat pathogen called Mycoplasma mycoides from smaller stretches of DNA synthesised in the lab, and inserting the genome into the empty cytoplasm of a related bacterium. The transplanted genome booted up in its host cell, and then divided over and over to make billions of M. mycoides cells.

Venter and his team have previously accomplished both feats – creating a synthetic genome and transplanting a genome from one bacterium into another – but this time they have combined the two.

"It's the first self-replicating cell on the planet that's parent is a computer," says Venter, referring to the fact that his team converted a cell's genome that existed as data on a computer into a living organism."

Which means they made a new genome and put it into a non-living cell. That cell is now alive and reproducing. Synthetic life yes. Spontaneous life, not yet.

 

[Texalberta]

It seems rather than actually bringing evidence to the table the evolutionists prefer to merely engage in denigrating ones knowledge.
Endlessly telling me I'm ignorant without refuting my assertion is intellectual cowardice.
Cute.

Your describing the origin of life, not what happens when life already exists. This is not Evolution, this is Abiogenesis.

And? Without any evidence for how life supposedly arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on earth arose, you have no foundation.
There is no evidence to show that any beastie has ever changed into another type of beastie.

Actually, we HAVE made synthetic life...

Evidence please. Not just claims that there really is caramel in those chocolate eggs.

In fact you've been wrong on every single point you've made on what you take evolution to be.

In my first response to the OP I stated that no one can believe in the fairy tale of evolution because of the fact that evolutionists cannot explain where life came from, nor demonstrate any of their theories on the subject.
At no time did I go into any explanation of ToE. I figured you all already knew what it was. So how can I be "wrong on every point" when I did not actually discuss any points?

Oh, wait, I get it.
It's easier to just trash someone rather than actually engage in a debate.
No prob, I'm yer huckleberry.

PS: Texalberta I'm in edmonton ;)

Edmonton? Hmmmmm...nope...never heard of it.;)

 

[Evointrinsic]

I actually did refute your assertions by showing you that you weren't talking about evolution... Not only that, but this topic isn't meant to be a discussion whether or not evolution is true, there for discussing it would be off topic. Which is also why I invited you to make a topic on that discussion so as to not derail this one.

If you want to talk about it, I will. But let's do it in an appropriate place, shall we? I'll respond to your newest post there or in a PM, whichever you prefer.

 

[Texalberta]

I actually did refute your assertions by showing you that you weren't talking about evolution... Not only that, but this topic isn't meant to be a discussion whether or not evolution is true, there for discussing it would be off topic. Which is also why I invited you to make a topic on that discussion so as to not derail this one.

The OP stated

Can a true Christian believe Darwin's theory of biological evolutionism by "natural selection". Can a true Christian believe people are descended from the animals, and not created in the image and likeness of God?

I said no, and stated why.
The topic was moved to this forum.

Since you have no evidence for the origin of life I understand your chagrin at the direction of this thread.

I asked for evidence for this "synthetic life", you weren't thinking of using the Venter Institutes experiment were you? Delighted to see you try.

 

[Evointrinsic]

I'm not quite sure of your point with that post seeing how the OP is only asking whether or not a christian can believe in evolution, not if evolution is true or not.

If you want to discuss if evolution is true or not, or if humans have created synthetic life, then I invite you to make a topic or start a PM discussion with me. But Both of those debates have no relevance to this topic.

 

[Texalberta]

Well, how can a Christian believe in something that is a lie?
Can't do it.
Also, can't just say..."uh no", and leave it at that, can we?

You actually have to explain why it's a lie.

 

[lordkalvan]

It seems rather than actually bringing evidence to the table the evolutionists prefer to merely engage in denigrating ones knowledge.

You have not offered any evidence of that knowledge, proffering personal incredulity and denial instead.

Endlessly telling me I'm ignorant without refuting my assertion is intellectual cowardice.
Cute.

Your assertion can simply be 'refuted' with a counter-assertion that has as much intellectual weight as the original assertion: your statements concerning the 'fairy tale' of evolution are wrong.

And? Without any evidence for how life supposedly arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on earth arose, you have no foundation.

No 'foundation' for what? As as been pointed out to you, evolutionary theory actually has nothing directly to say about the origins of life: it is about the ways in which pre-existing life adapts and responds to selective pressures and the consequences of that adaptation and response.

There is no evidence to show that any beastie has ever changed into another type of beastie.

As we have no idea what you regard as constituting 'evidence', we can only wonder what you make of the multiple observed phenomena that appear to provide a substantive underpinning to evolutionary theory: the fossil record, genetic sequencing, nested hierarchies, observed speciation events, ring species, pseudogenes, biogeography, homologous structures, vestigial structures, atavisms, etc.

Evidence please. Not just claims that there really is caramel in those chocolate eggs.

Clearly you regard the experimental evidence as unsatisfactory. Perhaps you should explain why?

In my first response to the OP I stated that no one can believe in the fairy tale of evolution because of the fact that evolutionists cannot explain where life came from....

Strawman. Evolutionary theory would be equally valid whether life occurred entirely naturally, was supernaturally created, or seeded on Earth by extradimensional, non-corporeal energy forms.

....nor demonstrate any of their theories on the subject.

I have no idea what failure to demonstrate what 'theories on the subject' you are referring to. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you mean?

At no time did I go into any explanation of ToE. I figured you all already knew what it was. So how can I be "wrong on every point" when I did not actually discuss any points?

Well, your 'point' seems to be that 'Evolution is no science, nothing more than wild eyed, unsubstantiated claims of magical chocolate egg laying Easter bunnies.' This is about as 'wrong on every point' as it is possible to be.

Oh, wait, I get it.
It's easier to just trash someone rather than actually engage in a debate.
No prob, I'm yer huckleberry...

You have offered nothing to debate other than to provocatively trail your personal incredulity across the thread.

 

[Deavonreye]

I agree with the others. You have not demonstrated an actual knowledge of the ToE at all. I'm not going to do your work for you. But realize that those who DO know about it will look at your posts in their ignorance.

 

[Texalberta]

But realize that those who DO know about it will look at your posts in their ignorance.

Their ignorance????? Your ignorance??? Whaaaaaaaaa????

And again, the evolutionists are making great pains to pile on, claiming I don't know anything about their precious religion of evolution.
Evolutionists will go on about how we evolved from the slime in the hypothetical fantasy of a pre-biotic soup, but that's not evolution.
It's funny to watch them engage in constant personal attacks, and make wild claims of so-called facts. Nit-pick over what they perceive as mixing up their theology.
Settle down, now. Relax.

I answered the OP, so I'm done with it. I'll let the evolutionists take a breath, collect themselves, maybe we can do this again sometime.

 

[Deavonreye]

And what have you been doing but personally attacking? Your condescending remarks have even been noted by a moderator. Yes, . . . calm down.

But realize that those who DO know about it will look at your posts, in the ignorance in which you have stated here, and will disregard them.

I have noted your "being done" with this post. Fine.

 

[jasoncran]

last reminder as i know that one must read the tos for the science forum. keep it civil.
one doesnt have to attack the person but the argument.

 

[Deavonreye]

Thanks, Jason. Civility really does make society a better place. It is just a debate forum and people really should BE civil, even if another person disagrees with them.

 

[caseagainstfaith]

I know that these kinds of discussions are rarely fruitful. So I probably am foolish for even posting. But, I'd like to try to respond to the question, can a Christian believe in evolution?

At least to me, it is difficult to reconcile evolution with Biblical literalism. But, there are lots of Christians that are not Biblical literalists.

Take for example Michael Behe. You know, the author of _Darwin's Black Box_, popular author among Creationists? He believes in evolution:

"I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent."

He believes that God created the first organisms, and evolution from there.

So, is Behe not a "true Christian"?


[FONT=Arial,Comic Sans MS]
[/FONT]