KevinK
Member
You want a better pic of me?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
[__ Science __ ] Evolution and Harmless Mutations
- Thread starter AndyBern
- Start date
-
- Tags
- evolution creation
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Sure. You've been around here a long time.
If you're going to post a pix...post one we can see!
OR,,, you could not. Your choice.
I think the problem is that too many Christians think it is our responsibility or duty to prove our faith or convince non-believers of the truth. That is not what we are called to do. We are called to be witnesses and a witness does nothing except share what they believe and perhaps explain why. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit.
Not_Now.Soon
Member
I think there's so much that is hinged on evolution. It's become a common belief of fact instead of as an explaination of data and observations. It's become a pillar and foundation for no belief in God. Then on top of that the identity of evolution as a sphere of study has morphed from a biological study to a common phrase for change, growth, and the continuous movement of events and behavior. Since evolution is counted as being true, then every theory or chance conversation that mentions evolution plays on that foundation to support their own theory and opinions.
Because of it's large support base, the only ones who would actively try to debunk it would largely be those that are antigonized by it by nonbelievers who try to debunk their faith. Anyone else might consider evolution, as well as consider any claim that has evolution as part of it's claim regardless if evolution actually does fit there, or if it is a theory not relating to biology and evolution at all.
For me I'd go with the idea that the conclusions of evolution are conclusions not the data. It is usually just as plausible conclusion for most studies to say that "God made things this way," as it can be to say that "things evolved this way," when the topic doesn't include how the changes progressed or if there was a progression. People can even incoperate change as part of God's actions, instead of calling the change an act of evolution. There can be a drastic change of conclusion even while looking at simular data and evidence.
Barbarian
Member
It's observed every day. Remember what evolution is. "A change in allele frequencies in a population over time."
"Kind", is a religious belief, not any sort of demonstrable classification. But of course, speciation is well-demonstrated, and that is all that's necessary for common descent. Do you see why.
Rather, YE creationists don't realize that sentence involves a conflation of physiologic response (such as making more red blood cells at higher altitudes) with genetic adaptation, (such as having a mutation that allows healthy living at very high altitudes).
I feel sorry for those who don't wonder about such things. How dreary the world must be for them. The more one knows about the details of His creation, the more wonderous it becomes.
Barbarian
Member
For those who don't know anything about it, perhaps.
Since Darwin thought God created the first living things, that seems rather unlikely to me.
You have it backwards. "Evolution" originally meant just "change." If that bothers you, you might consider using Darwin's choice of terms. "Descent with modification."
It's directly observed. So not much chance of rational people doubting it.
Seems unlikely, given the large number of theists who acknowledge the fact of evolution.
The data are evolution. Often, creationists confuse evolution (the observed phenomenon) with agents of evolution (such as natural selection) and consequences of evolution (such as common descent).
Two ways of saying the same thing.
Barbarian
Member
The evidence shows all life on Earth had a common ancestor.
Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. Most scientists today, think that the Earth brought forth living things, as God says in Genesis.
In my own (admittedly long) lifetime, I've seen numerous predictions of evolutionary theory confirmed. This is why scientists accept it as compelling.
Not quite. He acknowledged the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record as it was known in his day. Again, in my lifetime, almost every major group of organisms, now has many transitional forms that have been discovered since Darwin.
This is why YE creationist Kurt Wise acknowledges that the many transitional series in the fossil record are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
Somewhat later, the "Cambrian explosion" was presented as a puzzle. The discovery of many, many forms of Precambrian life, including many complex animals with forms thought to have evolved much later, put that to rest.
Barbarian
Member
The video erroneously assumes that something can't arise from nothing.
Virtual particles are directly observed to arise from nothing.
And there is no substance of space. Morely/Michaelson demonstrated that. "Holographic" .... ?
So some key flaws in the assumptions.
On the other hand, if God created this universe for us, it is a temporary "reality" created with particular, internally consistent rules.
It's an old idea. Read "Non Servium" in the collection The Mind's I by Douglas Hoffstader.
The Mind's I: Fantasies And Reflections On Self & Soul: Hofstadter, Douglas R, Dennett, Daniel C.: 9780465030910: Amazon.com: Books
The Mind's I: Fantasies And Reflections On Self & Soul [Hofstadter, Douglas R, Dennett, Daniel C.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Mind's I: Fantasies And Reflections On Self & Soul
www.amazon.com
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Nice avatar!
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
All my life I've heard science say that the universe always existed because something CANNOT come from nothing.
Then the Big Bang.
Now I heard that something CAN come from nothing due to the BB.
Now I hear guys like Lawrence Krauss say that nothing could create something and that there is no empty space.
Even if there is no empty space,,,what created the first OF ANYTHING?
It seems to me that scientists are twisting ideas around because they don't like the idea of an ID.
I don't see how it could be otherwise.
If I make a watch, I can't be part of that watch.
Something on the "outside" of space and time had to make what we see.
This makes much more sense to me than something being created out of nothing.
However, I think we'll all just have to wait and see.
Been watching a lot of youtube about this lately.
Dr. Tour is a chemist and he doesn't understand evolution either...as do other scientists I've been listening to.
Nathan12
Member
Fantasy is meant to give them a chuckle. Not to be taken too seriously. It is simply amazing how so many major hoaxes have been perpetrated and taken seriously. The latest was the Mueller Witch Hunt, which was pure fantasy, and should have been shut down by Trump immediately.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Hey Nathan...
I've been living here a long time and have lost touch with politics over there --- which I used to be very interested in BTW.
Mueller is the investigation into the Russian Connection?
Trump was found NOT GUILTY,,,
but NOT INNOCENT.
You're saying the investigation was a witch hunt because the accusation was a fantasy...Which I agree from the little I know.
(getting SOME news and living in a country, is different)
Did I understand you?
So Evolution is also a witch hunt?
Yes. I'd agree to that.
150 years later and they're still arguing this and that and looking for fossil proof, etc.
I'm not a YEC either however. I just learned what that stands for.
I'm told that ALL science now accepts the theory put forth by Darwin,,which MUST by necessity include the origin of life.
Then you find persons like Meyer (a mathematician) and Tours (a chemist) and Berlinsky (?), a philosopher, who disagree -- are THEY not scientists?
Looks like a war between "evolutionists" and "creationists".
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
P.S. I just realized our avatar has all information taken away.
So you don't know I live in Italy now. Long time.
Nathan12
Member
Yes you did understand me, and no, evolution is just pure fantasy (just the the Mueller Witch Hunt).
Even Darwin had serious reservations but he decided "Why not give them another fairy tale".
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
I do believe in microevolution...that's no problem and has been observed.
My problem is with macroevolution: one thing changing into another. If we consider the amount of time it takes just for the small changes within an animal, it makes macroevltn seem to be impossible.
Darwin didn't understand the Cambrian Explosion and hoped future scientists would provide proof - but so far nothing.
And yet I'm told by different scientists that evolution is an accepted theory by all. ALL is a big word, and I see many dissenters.
Barbarian
Member
I know some biologists who don't understand delocalization of electrons in benzine, too. For the same reason Tour doesn't understand evolution.
It's not surprising that a chemist would not understand biology.
Barbarian
Member
The overwhelming majority, at least. Using the Discovery Institute's list of "scientists who doubt Darwin", and Project Steve, we find about 0.3 percent of scientists with doctorates in biology or a related field, don't accept modern evolutionary theory.
No, that's wrong. Evolutionary theory assumes life began somehow, and describes how populations of organisms change over time. Darwin, for example, just supposed that God created the first living things:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1872
KevinK
Member
Referring to the electron cloud of the aromatic ring structure?
Barbarian
Member
So has macroevolution. Speciation isn't seen often, but it's been recorded a good number of times. Even many creationist groups now admit the fact. They just retreated a bit, and claim that it "isn't real evolution."
It can happen in a single individual.
Several things happened since Darwin:
First, many, many transitional series have been found in the fossil record, showing how major groups evolved. These transitional forms are admitted by YE creationist (and PhD in paleontology) Kurt Wise as " very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
Second, it turns out that creationists wrongly assumed that all those body plans appeared first in the Cambrian. We now realize that many of them first appeared over a long period of time in the Precambrian. The Ediacaran fauna (recently, scientists identified cholesterol in one of them, showing that it was an animal, and not some weird form of life that left no descendants) includes worm-like, trilobite-like, coral-like, and cnidarian-like forms.
Never heard any scientist say it was accepted by all. Most of us are well aware of creationists. Last time I checked, about 0.3 percent of scientists with PhDs in biology or a related subject, did not accept evolutionary theory.