[_ Old Earth _] Does Christianity defy evolution?

[VenomFangX]

Evolution is a fact and it has been verified time and time again. Industries have been built up using the knowledge gained from evolutionary theory. Not only that evolutionary theory is the golden thread that holds all of biology together. Science does this by continuously comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world. When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or rejected in favor of new theories that do conform. The evidence is carefully scrutinised. In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations. Evolution is merely an organisms ability to change over generations with a changing environment. Failure to do so can and does lead to extinction of a species. The term theory here does not mean mere speculation but is the highest proof possible and accepted as fact just as the theory of gravity is accepted as fact though open to modification (Einsteins theory of relativity).
Biologist have come to the conclusion that life occurred some 3 billion years ago as a result of natural occurrences due to the right combination of chemicals coming together and the right conditions. If this happened once it can happen again, elsewhere on other worlds as well. Darwin who was profoundly religious was forced to alter his views on the basis of the evidence put before him. He came to the conclusion that this is how God ordered things, and that God and nature are one and the same.

Theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are similar concepts that assert that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.
This view is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and some mainline Protestant denominations; some Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures. Various biblical literalists have accepted or noted openness to this stance, including theologian B.B. Warfield and evangelist Billy Graham.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

This is my view as well that this is Gods Universe and evolution is the way he ordered it, so Christianity does not defy evolution just some Christians who hold every word of the bible to be literal truth.
yours
??????????

 

[lordkalvan]

You have done nothing of the sort. All you have done is repeat your 'denial' mantra with no argument whatsoever to support it.

I have have shown that evolutionist believe is something but have no way to document the origin of their belief - that takes faith.

This makes no sense. What do you mean? There is no 'origin of their belief': evolutionary theory is supported by observed and measured evidence,

Evolutionist's believe that millions of years after the earth was formed that life some how magically began - that's a belief that takes faith.

Please explain how the origin of life pertains to whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially supported. There is, of course, no part of evolutionary theory that states that 'life somehow magically began'; this statement is a straightforward misrepresentation.

One has to have faith to believe that because there is -zero- scientific evidence that one can point to that proves the commonly accepted scenario - that life someone magically formed after the earth "cooled" down after it formed.

Your unsupported assertions about and misrepresentations of scientific inquiry into the question of abiogenesis are not evidential. There is no part of that inquiry that either states or assumes that life 'magically formed'. You are quite mistaken in this statement.

Without any proof of any kind this myth is accepted as actually happening.

The situation as described exists only in your own imagination; it bears no relation to scientific investigation in this field.

There apparently is no desire on the part of the evolutionary community to test this, or investigate the origins of things, just a simple acceptance of something that science cannot verify.

If by 'evolutionary community' you mean the biological sciences and those engaged in research in these fields, you are quite simply wrong on every part of this statement.

 

[RND]

This makes no sense. What do you mean? There is no 'origin of their belief': evolutionary theory is supported by observed and measured evidence,

Evolutionist's believe that life just magically happened.

Evolutionist's believe that millions of years after the earth was formed that life some how magically began - that's a belief that takes faith.

Please explain how the origin of life pertains to whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially supported.

Gladly. One doesn't buy a book and start reading in the middle. They start at the beginning. Evolutionist's buy the book and open it from the middle.

There is, of course, no part of evolutionary theory that states that 'life somehow magically began'; this statement is a straightforward misrepresentation.

I have been told 1,000 times how evolution is not concerned with origins. Therefore since that is never spoken of they must believe life "just happened."

Your unsupported assertions about and misrepresentations of scientific inquiry into the question of abiogenesis are not evidential. There is no part of that inquiry that either states or assumes that life 'magically formed'. You are quite mistaken in this statement.

Well, until evolution is willing to discuss how life formed from the very beginning it (and it won't) then we are only left with the understanding that evidently evolution believes life just happened.

The situation as described exists only in your own imagination; it bears no relation to scientific investigation in this field.

There is -zero- documented proof of science creating life and watching it evolve.

If by 'evolutionary community' you mean the biological sciences and those engaged in research in these fields, you are quite simply wrong on every part of this statement.

So evolution is interested in abiogenesis after all? I was told it wasn't. So which is it?

 

[ChattyMute]

This makes no sense. What do you mean? There is no 'origin of their belief': evolutionary theory is supported by observed and measured evidence,

Evolutionist's believe that life just magically happened.

Some may. Some don't. But their beliefs on the matter don't affect their beliefs on evolution.

[quote:3bv3l87t]

Evolutionist's believe that millions of years after the earth was formed that life some how magically began - that's a belief that takes faith.

Please explain how the origin of life pertains to whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially supported.

Gladly. One doesn't buy a book and start reading in the middle. They start at the beginning. Evolutionist's buy the book and open it from the middle.[/quote:3bv3l87t]
They are two separate books. One abiogenesis. The other is evolution. Evolution starts at the first living cell.

[quote:3bv3l87t] There is, of course, no part of evolutionary theory that states that 'life somehow magically began'; this statement is a straightforward misrepresentation.

I have been told 1,000 times how evolution is not concerned with origins. Therefore since that is never spoken of they must believe life "just happened." [/quote:3bv3l87t] Do you know what they say about people who assume?
You assume that because someone in an evolutionary debate has not told you what they beleive about abiogenesis, they automatically believe it just happened. That is illogical at best. And since there are Christians that know evolution is true, that kinda throws that hypothesis out the window.

[quote:3bv3l87t]Your unsupported assertions about and misrepresentations of scientific inquiry into the question of abiogenesis are not evidential. There is no part of that inquiry that either states or assumes that life 'magically formed'. You are quite mistaken in this statement.

Well, until evolution is willing to discuss how life formed from the very beginning it (and it won't) then we are only left with the understanding that evidently evolution believes life just happened. [/quote:3bv3l87t] You still don't understand that how life formed is a completely different process than how life changes through time and that they are two completely different theories. One does not effect the validity of the other .

[quote:3bv3l87t]The situation as described exists only in your own imagination; it bears no relation to scientific investigation in this field.

There is -zero- documented proof of science creating life and watching it evolve.[/quote:3bv3l87t]
Again, creating life has nothing to do with evolution. Now on watching populations evolve, I have seen that myself in a simple lab at school. Also, I've given you evidence. The finch case study by Borag and Grant.
Here are some more.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515120759.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060901_mussels
There are plenty more that you can find by doing a simple Google search. Google is your friend.

[quote:3bv3l87t]
If by 'evolutionary community' you mean the biological sciences and those engaged in research in these fields, you are quite simply wrong on every part of this statement.

So evolution is interested in abiogenesis after all? I was told it wasn't. So which is it?[/quote:3bv3l87t]
Biology in general is interested in how life formed. Some evolutionists may be interested in how life formed. But concerning the evolutionary theory, it doesn't matter how life formed.

My apologies for butting in on your conversation, kalvan.

 

[RND]

Some may. Some don't. But their beliefs on the matter don't affect their beliefs on evolution.

"just happenism"

They are two separate books. One abiogenesis. The other is evolution. Evolution starts at the first living cell.

Which came from where?

Do you know what they say about people who assume?

Yes, they become evolutionists.

You assume that because someone in an evolutionary debate has not told you what they beleive about abiogenesis, they automatically believe it just happened. That is illogical at best. And since there are Christians that know evolution is true, that kinda throws that hypothesis out the window.

No it doesn't it simply illustrates how confused, or worse deceived, some Christians are! Evolutionist never want to discuss origins....ever.

You still don't understand that how life formed is a completely different process than how life changes through time and that they are two completely different theories. One does not effect the validity of the other .

I understand this and this is a constant theme and mantra that evolutionist love to trot out but this is merely a deflection and a diversion.

Let's talk origins then.

Again, creating life has nothing to do with evolution. Now on watching populations evolve, I have seen that myself in a simple lab at school. Also, I've given you evidence. The finch case study by Borag and Grant.
Here are some more.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515120759.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060901_mussels
There are plenty more that you can find by doing a simple Google search. Google is your friend.

Nothing here about the change of one species into another.

Biology in general is interested in how life formed. Some evolutionists may be interested in how life formed. But concerning the evolutionary theory, it doesn't matter how life formed.

Which takes us back to "it just happened"! Circular logic.

My apologies for butting in on your conversation, kalvan.

You should be sorry because you aren't helping him.

 

[RND]

Why a Christian can't believe in evolutionism and the Bible is because the Bible plainly states that death came by sin and that Adam ushered in sin. Anything expressed contrary to this and it is not from the Bible. Period.

1Cr 15:21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Believing that animals lived and died millions of years before man was created is contrary to the Holy Scriptures. Period.

 

[lordkalvan]

There is no mutation that is desirable.

Easily refutable nonsense: the sickle-cell mutation provides those with only one copy of the mutation a high degree of resistance to malaria, an obviously desirable benefit to those living where the disease is endemic; lactose tolerance allows dairy products to be exploited for food; a mutation in an Italian community near Milan renders those with the mutation immune to atherosclerosis; a mutant allele on the CCR5 gene offers immunity to bubonic plague and the HIV virus.

 

[lordkalvan]

This makes no sense. What do you mean? There is no 'origin of their belief': evolutionary theory is supported by observed and measured evidence,

Evolutionist's believe that life just magically happened.

Non sequitur; whether correct or not, this assertion has no relevance with regard to the fact that evolutionary theory is supported by observable and measurable evidence. With respect to the correctness of your assertion, if you can show me any scientist in the biological sciences who 'believe that life just magically happened', I will be pleased to discuss the basis of their understanding.

[quote:3h2evt9d]Please explain how the origin of life pertains to whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially supported.

Gladly. One doesn't buy a book and start reading in the middle. They start at the beginning. Evolutionist's buy the book and open it from the middle.[/quote:3h2evt9d]
This tortured analogy does not explain how the question of the origin of life pertains to whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially supported. Astrophysicists do not need to have a fully-developed explanation for the origins of the Universe to make meaningful observations about stellar evolution or the origins of Saturn's rings.

[quote:3h2evt9d] There is, of course, no part of evolutionary theory that states that 'life somehow magically began'; this statement is a straightforward misrepresentation.

I have been told 1,000 times how evolution is not concerned with origins. Therefore since that is never spoken of they must believe life "just happened."[/quote:3h2evt9d]
Your misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory is concerned with and your ignorance of research into abiogenesis is not persuasive evidence that scientists engaged in research on evolution 'must believe life "just happened'''. Again, even if it is, this casts no doubt at all on whether or not evolutionary theory is evidentially supported. Your argument is lacking in any logical basis.

[quote:3h2evt9d]Your unsupported assertions about and misrepresentations of scientific inquiry into the question of abiogenesis are not evidential. There is no part of that inquiry that either states or assumes that life 'magically formed'. You are quite mistaken in this statement.

Well, until evolution is willing to discuss how life formed from the very beginning it (and it won't) then we are only left with the understanding that evidently evolution believes life just happened.[/quote:3h2evt9d]
My immediately preceding comment is as appropriate to this specious nonsense as it was to your previous remarks.

[quote:3h2evt9d]If by 'evolutionary community' you mean the biological sciences and those engaged in research in these fields, you are quite simply wrong on every part of this statement.

So evolution is interested in abiogenesis after all? I was told it wasn't. So which is it?[/quote:3h2evt9d]
Try reading for comprehension: you were not told that scientists engaged in biological research were not interested in abiogenesis; what you were told was that the question of abiogenesis is not relevant to whether or not the theory of evolution is supported by observable and measurable evidence.

 

[coelacanth]

RND, which of the following propositions do you disagree with?

A) Organisms (even within the same species) differ in their genetic makeup. Not all members of a species are genetically identical

B) Those genetic differences cause differences in their physical characteristics

C) Environmental conditions can cause individuals with certain characteristics to have a better chance of survival than others

D) Those individuals that survive have the opportunity to pass on their genes while those who are dead do not, thus making those genes more common

E) ) If statements, A, B, C, and D are accurate, then it logically follows that genes that make an individual more able to survive in their environment become more common, and those that make an individual less likely to survive in their environment become less common over time (generation after generation).

 

[RND]

Easily refutable nonsense: the sickle-cell mutation provides those with only one copy of the mutation a high degree of resistance to malaria, an obviously desirable benefit to those living where the disease is endemic;

It's also seen as a huge problem in those that have it, causes death in children and this is why researchers are seeking a cure for it! If it was so beneficial why are people working to eradicate it?!

Such utter non-sense.

lactose tolerance allows dairy products to be exploited for food; a mutation in an Italian community near Milan renders those with the mutation immune to atherosclerosis;

As always there is a trade-off. Lactose intolerance leads to calcium deficiency that leads to osteoporosis. Vitamin D deficiency can occur and compound the bone disease.

a mutant allele on the CCR5 gene offers immunity to bubonic plague and the HIV virus.

Having this "mutation" (if that's what you want to call it) by no means should be seen to suggest that having it will prevent HIV infection. What you are suggesting is simply incorrect and misleading.

 

[RND]

RND, which of the following propositions do you disagree with?

A) Organisms (even within the same species) differ in their genetic makeup. Not all members of a species are genetically identical

True. Explains why some are blonde with blue eyes and black with brown. Light skinned v. dark skinned.

If a white woman and man with blonde hair and blue eyes moved to Africa and had a family that inter breaded only with other whites would those children eventually after several generations begin to have darker skin and would the shape of their noses change? It's possible, maybe even likely. Would they cease being humans? Nope.

That's why red heads will eventually be bread out of the human gene pool. Mixing of the gene pool.

B) Those genetic differences cause differences in their physical characteristics

True. Explains why some are tall and some are short.

C) Environmental conditions can cause individuals with certain characteristics to have a better chance of survival than others

True. No doubt that environmental conditions can have a effect on populations. Famine is more likely to effect the weak and infirm as opposed to the healthy at first.

D) Those individuals that survive have the opportunity to pass on their genes while those who are dead do not, thus making those genes more common

Of course. But those genes have no effect on being able to overcome disease.

E) ) If statements, A, B, C, and D are accurate, then it logically follows that genes that make an individual more able to survive in their environment become more common, and those that make an individual less likely to survive in their environment become less common over time (generation after generation).

Has man developed a gene yet that makes starving to death unlikely or less likely? This has what to do with the evolution of a fish to a man?

 

[coelacanth]

Having this "mutation" (if that's what you want to call it) by no means should be seen to suggest that having it will prevent HIV infection. What you are suggesting is simply incorrect and misleading.

No, it's correct. Look it up, there are hundreds of scientific papers out there about it, and it's what led scientists to begin developing CCR5 antagonists to add to the cocktails for AIDS patients.

 

[coelacanth]

RND, which of the following propositions do you disagree with?

A) Organisms (even within the same species) differ in their genetic makeup. Not all members of a species are genetically identical

True. Explains why some are blonde with blue eyes and black with brown. Light skinned v. dark skinned.

B) Those genetic differences cause differences in their physical characteristics

True. Explains why some are tall and some are short.

[quote:3nme1w5v]C) Environmental conditions can cause individuals with certain characteristics to have a better chance of survival than others

True. No doubt that environmental conditions can have a effect on populations. Famine is more likely to effect the weak and infirm as opposed to the healthy at first.

D) Those individuals that survive have the opportunity to pass on their genes while those who are dead do not, thus making those genes more common

Of course. But those genes have no effect on being able to overcome disease.

E) ) If statements, A, B, C, and D are accurate, then it logically follows that genes that make an individual more able to survive in their environment become more common, and those that make an individual less likely to survive in their environment become less common over time (generation after generation).

Has man developed a gene yet that makes starving to death unlikely or less likely? This has what to do with the evolution of a fish to a man?[/quote:3nme1w5v]


How is it that in one post you can accept evolution by natural selection and also deny it? How is it that in one post you can suggest that some are more susceptible to starvation than others, then ask if that is the case? It never ceases to amaze me.

 

[ChattyMute]

Easily refutable nonsense: the sickle-cell mutation provides those with only one copy of the mutation a high degree of resistance to malaria, an obviously desirable benefit to those living where the disease is endemic;

It's also seen as a huge problem in those that have it, causes death in children and this is why researchers are seeking a cure for it! If it was so beneficial why are people working to eradicate it?!

Such utter non-sense.

You're talking about the homozygous recessive form, which is indeed harmful. However, the heterozygous form (one allele for sickle cell, the other normal) prevents malaria, which is what kalvan was speaking of.

[quote:33hq2qp9] lactose tolerance allows dairy products to be exploited for food; a mutation in an Italian community near Milan renders those with the mutation immune to atherosclerosis;

As always there is a trade-off. Lactose intolerance leads to calcium deficiency that leads to osteoporosis. Vitamin D deficiency can occur and compound the bone disease. [/quote:33hq2qp9]
I don't know much on lactose intolerance, so I won't speak on it.

[quote:33hq2qp9]a mutant allele on the CCR5 gene offers immunity to bubonic plague and the HIV virus.

Having this "mutation" (if that's what you want to call it) by no means should be seen to suggest that having it will prevent HIV infection. What you are suggesting is simply incorrect and misleading.[/quote:33hq2qp9][/quote]
It is a mutation in the CCR5 gene. HIV requires the normal CCR5 gene to enter the host cell. The mutated form of CCR5 has a different genetic code, but appears to function the same, except for the fact that HIV can no longer use it to enter the host cell. Thus, the person with all mutated CCR5 (which you have if you are homozygous recessive) is immune to HIV because HIV cannot enter the host cell to reproduce.
We do not know if someone with the CCR5 gene is immune to bubonic plaugue, but some researchers suggest that on account that it is most prevalent in people of European decent where the black plague was.
More about there here: http://zeitlerweb.com/about-2/immunity-to-bubonic-plague-and-hiv/

 

[coelacanth]

This has what to do with the evolution of a fish to a man?

Now all you need is the added rare mutation that is not deleterious.

 

[RND]

Having this "mutation" (if that's what you want to call it) by no means should be seen to suggest that having it will prevent HIV infection. What you are suggesting is simply incorrect and misleading.

No, it's correct. Look it up, there are hundreds of scientific papers out there about it, and it's what led scientists to begin developing CCR5 antagonists to add to the cocktails for AIDS patients.

I looked it up and read a study of people with this gene that had HIV.

 

[RND]

This has what to do with the evolution of a fish to a man?

Now all you need is the added rare mutation that is not deleterious.

Which would be unlikely to survive and later become advantageous.

 

[coelacanth]

This has what to do with the evolution of a fish to a man?

Now all you need is the added rare mutation that is not deleterious.

Which would be unlikely to survive and later become advantageous.

Unlikely? We're playing with very large numbers here, remember. Billions of years and an astronomical number of living organisms. Unlikely becomes a sure thing on a large enough scale.

 

[RND]

You're talking about the homozygous recessive form, which is indeed harmful. However, the heterozygous form (one allele for sickle cell, the other normal) prevents malaria, which is what kalvan was speaking of.

There is no form of sickle cell that is desirable.

I don't know much on lactose intolerance, so I won't speak on it.

OK.

It is a mutation in the CCR5 gene. HIV requires the normal CCR5 gene to enter the host cell. The mutated form of CCR5 has a different genetic code, but appears to function the same, except for the fact that HIV can no longer use it to enter the host cell. Thus, the person with all mutated CCR5 (which you have if you are homozygous recessive) is immune to HIV because HIV cannot enter the host cell to reproduce.
We do not know if someone with the CCR5 gene is immune to bubonic plaugue, but some researchers suggest that on account that it is most prevalent in people of European decent where the black plague was.

I have read a study where people with this mutation were HIV infected.

More about there here: http://zeitlerweb.com/about-2/immunity-to-bubonic-plague-and-hiv/

Thanks.

 

[RND]

Now all you need is the added rare mutation that is not deleterious.

Which would be unlikely to survive and later become advantageous.

Unlikely? We're playing with very large numbers here, remember. Billions of years and an astronomical number of living organisms. Unlikely becomes a sure thing on a large enough scale.[/quote] By there nature mutations are never beneficial.