[__ Science __ ] Some Thoughts On The Religion Of Evolution.

[Barbarian]

What's going on?
Can't any other scientist be wise?

I've known lots of them who are/were.

What does Tour have in front of him that he can't see?

Evolution. It's observed daily. I suspect that he doesn't know what "evolution" means in biology.

He doesn't believe the right chemicals (which would spark life) could come together in a random way.

It's not random. BTW, God says that the earth brought forth living things, so life did come from non-life. However, this has nothing at all to do with evolution, which assumes living populations and describes how they change over time.

Doesn't he have the right to come to his own conclusions?

Everyone does. But that doesn't make them right.

As you well know, I know very little about science....but I've always thought it impossible for something to come from nothing.....
which is what atheists seem to believe.

Creation did. Ex nihilo.

You think life could have sparked all on its own with no help from God?

The miracle was in creating a universe in which life would appear as He intended.

But that's not evolution. He also produced a universe in which living things could evolve to fit their environments.

 

[Barbarian]

Well at least we can be sure that you dont have any sudden degrees in theology, especially the Bible.

I merely pointed out the application of those verses.

Your knowledge here is drastically in need of updating.

First I was trying to be nice but those verses about ever learning and never coming to the truth is talking about you.

Funny how the people to whom the verses apply, never realize it.

Anyways so let me get this straight your response to having the entirety of God's chosen people disagree with you is to simply say that they know nothing.

In fact, the vast majority of the world's Christians belong to denominations that accept the fact of evolution as consistent with God's creation. Would you like me to show you?

Germ theory was first published in 1861 by dr Pasteur.

While thousands of years earlier on Mount Sinai the Israelites were given detailed instructions for how to deal with illness and disease and cleaning that shows they now knew how to safeguard against germ contamination.

They were quite aware of contagion, but didn't know what it was. A Roman scientist, Varrow was the first to actually present the idea; "Note also if there be any swampy ground, both for the reasons given above, and because certain minute animals, invisible to the eye, breed there, and, borne by the air, reach the inside of the body by way of the mouth and nose, and cause diseases which are difficult to be rid of."

On farming : M. Terenti Varronis Rerum rusticarum libri tres : Varro, Marcus Terentius : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

14

archive.org

Or do you also say that God was ignorant?

If you say so, one of us does.

The idea of a round earth was first proposed by a Greek thinker around 500 bc. However Solomon recorded a round earth around 900 bc.

Actually, Greek sailors knew the Earth was round, long before that. It was obvious to anyone who moved away from coasts, or noticed the shadows of eclipses.

Of course it doesnt actually hang. That was the point in Solomon saying that it hung on NOTHING.

That was Job.
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Your knowledge here is drastically in need of updating.

So as you can see, according to the bible, the ancient Israelites were quite knowledgeable about the natural world. And Paul was extremely qualified in his study of these ancient Hebrew works. So consodering that and the fact that he had a very intimate relationship with God, the logical assumption to draw is that Paul did in fact know a great deal of the natural world.

However, he had no knowledge of evolution, viruses, or electrons. So no opinion on those.

It is always a bad idea to add things to scripture. Let it be as it is.

 

[GodsGrace]

I've known lots of them who are/were.

Evolution. It's observed daily. I suspect that he doesn't know what "evolution" means in biology.


It's not random. BTW, God says that the earth brought forth living things, so life did come from non-life. However, this has nothing at all to do with evolution, which assumes living populations and describes how they change over time.


Everyone does. But that doesn't make them right.


Creation did. Ex nihilo.



The miracle was in creating a universe in which life would appear as He intended.

But that's not evolution. He also produced a universe in which living things could evolve to fit their environments.

Hi Barb,
I'd say that microevolution is observed everyday and every person I know believes in adaptation and microevolution.
The problem is macroevolution --- one type of animal becoming a different type of animal over a long period of time.
Did a one cell organism come crawling out of the primorial soup as a walking fish/mammel ?

I would say that Dr. Tour knows what evolution means in biology....
he just doesn't agree with HOW LIFE began and believes that an intelligent being created it --- in whatever way that being saw fit.

If an intelligent being put the right chemicals together, then it can be accepted.
He just doesn't believe, that RANDOMLY, the right chemicals combined to create life.
Chemicals are needed to create life.

And yes, the universe was created, and our planet in particular, to create and sustain life.
I, personally, do believe God created everything, including each TYPE of family of animal.
Sorry, I don't have the scientific terms.

 

[Barbarian]

Hi Barb,
I'd say that microevolution is observed everyday and every person I know believes in adaptation and microevolution.
The problem is macroevolution --- one type of animal becoming a different type of animal over a long period of time.

Sometimes that happens very rapidly. There's a good number of speciations that happened so quickly that we could observe them occuring.

Did a one cell organism come crawling out of the primorial soup as a walking fish/mammel ?

No. The evidence shows that cells came together in endosymbiosis before complex metazoans evolved.

I would say that Dr. Tour knows what evolution means in biology....

It turns out that he doesn't. It's not just that he confuses evolution with abiogenesis; he also doesn't realize the scientific definition of biological evolution. He's apparently also confused it with a consequence of evolution, common descent.

he just doesn't agree with HOW LIFE began and believes that an intelligent being created it --- in whatever way that being saw fit.

Which has nothing whatever to do with evolution. Evolutionary theory is indifferent to the way life began. If the IDer "space alien" did it, or if it came about from non-living matter as God says, it would all work the same.

If an intelligent being put the right chemicals together, then it can be accepted.
He just doesn't believe, that RANDOMLY, the right chemicals combined to create life.

Since biochemistry isn't random, that makes some sense. He's just assumed that evolutionary theory is about the origin of life, and that the theory supposes that evolution is random. Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

Chemicals are needed to create life.

Our sort of life, anyway. Don't sell God short. He might use other means elsewhere in His creation.

And yes, the universe was created, and our planet in particular, to create and sustain life.
I, personally, do believe God created everything, including each TYPE of family of animal.
Sorry, I don't have the scientific terms.

Most scientists think so, too. It's just that the creationists don't approve of the way God did it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Sometimes that happens very rapidly. There's a good number of speciations that happened so quickly that we could observe them occuring.

No. The evidence shows that cells came together in endosymbiosis before complex metazoans evolved.


It turns out that he doesn't. It's not just that he confuses evolution with abiogenesis; he also doesn't realize the scientific definition of biological evolution. He's apparently also confused it with a consequence of evolution, common descent.


Which has nothing whatever to do with evolution. Evolutionary theory is indifferent to the way life began. If the IDer "space alien" did it, or if it came about from non-living matter as God says, it would all work the same.

Since biochemistry isn't random, that makes some sense. He's just assumed that evolutionary theory is about the origin of life, and that the theory supposes that evolution is random. Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

Our sort of life, anyway. Don't sell God short. He might use other means elsewhere in His creation.

Most scientists think so, too. It's just that the creationists don't approve of the way God did it.

Thanks for the info Barb.
Actually, I'm more interested in HOW life began.
Evolution is secondary to me.

I hear that evolution has been accepted as a "proven" theory.
Then I hear that many scientists do not accept the theory of evolution.
I have no opinion until one way or the other is proven, as some say it already has.
Creationists, IMO, are to firm in their thinking and beliefs and their faith will prove
fallible if evolution is ever accepted das fact.

I believe you and I agree in that God can choose to use whatever method HE picked to create life
and for it to evolve - if it did evolve. (from one species to another).

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, I'm more interested in HOW life began.
Evolution is secondary to me.

If you want to learn what we know about it, (other than the earth brought forth living things) you might want to read "A New History of Life", which is fairly accessible to non-biologists and has most of the current research covered.

Then I hear that many scientists do not accept the theory of evolution.

I heard that too. It was promoted by the Discovery Institute; they keep a list. Fortunately, there's a way to check it. "Project Steve" has a list of scientists (you have to have a PhD in biology or a related field and be named "Steve" or some variant like "Stephanie" and accept evolutionary theory).

So you can get a comparison by matching Project Steve with the number of people with the same qualifications on the "Scientists who doubt Darwin" list.

Last time I checked about 0.3% of biology PhDs named "Steve" or some variant don't accept evolutionary theory. Not 3%; 0.3%.

So there is that.

Creationists, IMO, are to firm in their thinking and beliefs and their faith will prove
fallible if evolution is ever accepted das fact.

It really isn't. One's faith in God has nothing whatever to do with your acceptance or rejection of evolution. But I have seen many young scientists, raised to believe that creationism is an essential part of Christianity, go through crises of faith when they learned that it could not be true. Some never recovered. This is the real damage creationism does to faith.

I believe you and I agree in that God can choose to use whatever method HE picked to create life
and for it to evolve - if it did evolve. (from one species to another).

Yes. It's just not a theological issue.

 

[Moseme]

wondering
I am afraid that you would be wasting your time with a conversation on this thread. My friend barbarian believes that Dr tour does not know anything because dr tour disagrees with his belief of macro-evolution. He says it is because understanding the basic building blocks needed to create and sustain life still does not qualify dr tour to be able to make any statements about evolution. However, if dr tour had happened to agree with the belief of macro-evolution then you best believe that barabarian would have found him more than qualified.

You see micro-evolution has been observed and verified. However, macro-evolution has not been observed or verified and as a theory it is ludicrous because it cannot even be tested. Macro-evolution cannot be replicated in an experiment and so even though there is no evidence for it what so ever, evolutionists persist in calling it true. To put it simply macro-evolution has just as much credibility as believing in the greek god Zeus because neither of them can ever be tested with science and they have the same amount of evidence supporting it.

Barbarian is confused about the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. He credits all of the observations that we have made about micro-evolution to macro-evolution and basically makes micro-evolution meaningless.

But do be careful he is a crafty man. He will switch up definitions on you and try many ways to make you think science supports his beliefs when in reality it doesn't. Let me show you an example. He brought up where the bible says the land brought forth life (plants) genesis 1:11 to make it seem as if life came from something unliving. But he doesnt mention that in a few verses down it also says that the waters also brought forth life in the form of sea creatures and birds genesis 1:20. Now why did he not include that part when it appears to also strengthen his case? Because the very next verse genesis 1:21 explains what it really means when it says God created all of the sea life and birds. So he is only giving you half the scripture to try and make it look like it's saying something that it not actually saying.

Bottom line I can sit here and tell you all of these other ways that my friend is wrong. But as he also said this topic is not essential to salvation amd I agree with him on that. You will learn nothing positive in this thread because it is just 2 senseless people wasting time arguing about a vain subject just because we like to argue.

I would also like to comment about when he said that according to some list somewhere only 0.3 percent of biologists disagree with evolution. Read this.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Matthew 7: 13, 14

The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact.
- Malcolm Muggeridge

 

[Moseme]

I merely pointed out the application of those verses.

Funny how the people to whom the verses apply, never realize it.


In fact, the vast majority of the world's Christians belong to denominations that accept the fact of evolution as consistent with God's creation. Would you like me to show you?





They were quite aware of contagion, but didn't know what it was. A Roman scientist, Varrow was the first to actually present the idea; "Note also if there be any swampy ground, both for the reasons given above, and because certain minute animals, invisible to the eye, breed there, and, borne by the air, reach the inside of the body by way of the mouth and nose, and cause diseases which are difficult to be rid of."

On farming : M. Terenti Varronis Rerum rusticarum libri tres : Varro, Marcus Terentius : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

14

archive.org

If you say so, one of us does.



Actually, Greek sailors knew the Earth was round, long before that. It was obvious to anyone who moved away from coasts, or noticed the shadows of eclipses.



That was Job.
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Your knowledge here is drastically in need of updating.



However, he had no knowledge of evolution, viruses, or electrons. So no opinion on those.

It is always a bad idea to add things to scripture. Let it be as it is.

Sorry I got confused about who wrote about the earth hanging on nothing. I was writing about alot of different statements.

So I know that God is not ignorant that God would know about germs and invisible contagions. I also know that he is a loving God who loves intimate relationships with his friends. I know that God delights in teaching us about the world that he made for us and that God does not want to keep anything secret from us. So I do not think it is a stretch to say that God could have dropped some scientific knowledge on Paul about viruses and electrons. However, for the sake of our argument lets assumed that Paul knew nothing about electrons and viruses. He didnt talk about it. But he did talk about his beliefs regarding creation so you can't compare his knowledge of creation to his knowledge of electrons. On the hand regarding his belief in electrons the knowledge (according to our argument) is simply missing. But on the hand regarding his knowledge on creation being the way life was brought into existence and not evolution (simply making the logical connections), your belief is that this writer who was divinely inspired by God is wrong. Not just that he doesnt know, but that what he thinks he knows is incorrect. Now Paul has an amazing habit of letting us know when something is simply his own brilliant advice and not directly from God. His statements about God creating the world and everything in existence are from God. To disagree with that would be to provide the basis to invalidate the entire word of God. If I can't believe that what Paul wrote is true, or Moses, then what reason would I have for believing what Mathew wrote or John?

So tell me, how far would you go to not have to admit that you were wrong?

 

[Barbarian]

So I know that God is not ignorant that God would know about germs and invisible contagions.

The point is, Paul didn't unless he was up on an obscure Roman scientist (who speculated that they existed).

I know that God delights in teaching us about the world that he made for us and that God does not want to keep anything secret from us.

Took a long time for Him to let us know about viruses. And electrons. And lots of other things.

Sorry I got confused about who wrote about the earth hanging on nothing.

It's O.K. I've been reading Scripture for over a half-century.

And clearly Paul didn't know about evolution, viruses, electrons and so on. Why would he? We can't assume his opinions on anything he didn't know about.

What he didn't say, is not evidence of anything. We can only depend on what he actually said, not things he might or not might think.

To disagree with that would be to provide the basis to invalidate the entire word of God. Think about it. It's important for you.

 

[Barbarian]

I am afraid that you would be wasting your time with a conversation on this thread. My friend barbarian believes that Dr tour does not know anything because dr tour disagrees with his belief of macro-evolution. He says it is because understanding the basic building blocks needed to create and sustain life still does not qualify dr tour to be able to make any statements about evolution. However, if dr tour had happened to agree with the belief of macro-evolution then you best believe that barabarian would have found him more than qualified.

I'm sure Tour is quite competent in field for which he studied. I'm just pointing out that confusing abiogenesis with evolution (as Tour does), is a very basic mistake which tells me he knows very little of evolutionary theory.

The book I suggested to Wondering is a compilation of the most recent discoveries regarding the way life came to be on Earth. It is entirely consistent with God's word that the earth brought forth living things. But it's not about evolution which is about how existing populations of organisms change over time.

If Tour were to use the same faulty assumptions to support evolutionary theory, I'd object to that also. I hate it when someone uses a bad argument to support something that's true.

You see micro-evolution has been observed and verified.

As has macroevolution. You have redefined the terms to fit your assumptions. Years ago, creationists agreed with the scientific definition of "macroevolution", that is, speciation. They did so, because they denied that speciation occurs. Then as we observed more and more of them, they changed definitions to avoid accepting the fact. Now, they consider the evolution of new species, genera, and (usually) families of organisms to be "microevolution." If they back up a little more, we won't have anything to argue about.

Since macroevolution has been repeatedly observed, and since creationists have realized that without evolution of new taxa, the Ark could not have held all modern species, they've retreated a bit.

Let me show you an example. He brought up where the bible says the land brought forth life (plants) genesis 1:11 to make it seem as if life came from something unliving. But he doesnt mention that in a few verses down it also says that the waters also brought forth life in the form of sea creatures and birds genesis 1:20.

All of these are part of the earth. Scientists are now realizing that minerals, air, and water were all necessary for the earth to bring forth life. You've switched definitions again. Now why did you do that when it appears to also strengthen the case for life from the earth? [/quote]

Because you are so focused on your modern revision of Genesis, you aren't paying attention to what He's actually saying to you.

 

[Barbarian]

I would also like to comment about when he said that according to some list somewhere only 0.3 percent of biologists disagree with evolution. Read this.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

It's always funny that creationists first try the "lots of scientists don't agree with evolution" and then when they are refuted, they fall back on "well it's not a popularity contest."

This is why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for creationism.

Bottom line, the vast majority of scientists accept evolution because of the evidence. Most of us who are Christians accept it, because of the evidence, just as those who are of other faiths, or of no faith at all.

 

[Moseme]

The point is, Paul didn't unless he was up on an obscure Roman scientist (who speculated that they existed).



Took a long time for Him to let us know about viruses. And electrons. And lots of other things.

It's O.K. I've been reading Scripture for over a half-century.

And clearly Paul didn't know about evolution, viruses, electrons and so on. Why would he? We can't assume his opinions on anything he didn't know about.

What he didn't say, is not evidence of anything. We can only depend on what he actually said, not things he might or not might think.

To disagree with that would be to provide the basis to invalidate the entire word of God. Think about it. It's important for you.

You say it took God a long time to teach us about viruses and electrons but that's not the case. Humanity decided to progress without God. That is why it took us so long to learn about these things despite a loving God telling us about them. Imagine how quickly we could have discovered these things if our thinkers had not forsook a relationship with God.

And Paul also could very well have been keeping up with the scientific community of his day. I mean he spent a good amount of time in Rome and he kept up with secular sports and poetry. But the thing is that it's not that Paul was unaware of evolution, but that from his intense study and a very intimate relationship with God, he came to the conclusion that life was created by God. Looking at the natural world that reflects the invisible aspect of its creator, Paul saw that the evidence was in favor of creation. If not he would have been the father of evolution and not Darwin. Now I know you disagree but it's very dangerous to disagree with the bible.

 

[Moseme]

I'm sure Tour is quite competent in field for which he studied. I'm just pointing out that confusing abiogenesis with evolution (as Tour does), is a very basic mistake which tells me he knows very little of evolutionary theory.

The book I suggested to Wondering is a compilation of the most recent discoveries regarding the way life came to be on Earth. It is entirely consistent with God's word that the earth brought forth living things. But it's not about evolution which is about how existing populations of organisms change over time.

If Tour were to use the same faulty assumptions to support evolutionary theory, I'd object to that also. I hate it when someone uses a bad argument to support something that's true.



As has macroevolution. You have redefined the terms to fit your assumptions. Years ago, creationists agreed with the scientific definition of "macroevolution", that is, speciation. They did so, because they denied that speciation occurs. Then as we observed more and more of them, they changed definitions to avoid accepting the fact. Now, they consider the evolution of new species, genera, and (usually) families of organisms to be "microevolution." If they back up a little more, we won't have anything to argue about.

Since macroevolution has been repeatedly observed, and since creationists have realized that without evolution of new taxa, the Ark could not have held all modern species, they've retreated a bit.



All of these are part of the earth. Scientists are now realizing that minerals, air, and water were all necessary for the earth to bring forth life. You've switched definitions again. Now why did you do that when it appears to also strengthen the case for life from the earth?

Because you are so focused on your modern revision of Genesis, you aren't paying attention to what He's actually saying to you.
[/QUOTE]
My "version" of genesis I got directly from the bible. Not from some misguided scientist's research. But I would have to say that from your confusion of micro and macro-evolution that you know little about evolution since you want to discredit someone else. And the problem isnt that you are trying to credit the guy but that you are trying to discredit him on the sole basis that he disagrees with you.

But lets be honest species, genus, family all of these divisions are man made and will never present an accurate picture of God's creation because any system of division that is not the system that God used will be inaccurate. Now God divided life into kinds and he commanded that creatures within that kind can only produce offspring of the same kind. And since a creature can only reproduce after there own kind evolution would be impossible according to the bible. I would say that the boundaries of kinds would be somewhere around the family/genus level in most cases. Because human divisions are inaccurate compared to God's divisions we can't pinpoint a clear boundary in our system. But tell me how life could have evolved into all of these different kinds when God commanded that they only produce their own kind. Or will you try to reinterpret what god says so that you can render that passage of scripture meaningless?

 

[Moseme]

It's always funny that creationists first try the "lots of scientists don't agree with evolution" and then when they are refuted, they fall back on "well it's not a popularity contest."

This is why the bandwagon argument is such a loser for creationism.

Bottom line, the vast majority of scientists accept evolution because of the evidence. Most of us who are Christians accept it, because of the evidence, just as those who are of other faiths, or of no faith at all.

also I have never said that alot of scientists support creation. I am well aware that most scientists support evolution despite their inability to actually test macro-evolution. I am also aware that most scientists do not believe in God. And that most people would rather continue their sin than to surrender to God.

 

[Barbarian]

also I have never said that alot of scientists support creation. I am well aware that most scientists support evolution despite their inability to actually test macro-evolution.

As you learned, it's easy to test macroevolution. It's been occasionally observed. Remember the scientific definition of evolution. At this time, most creationists admit more than that; they admit new species, genera, and families evolve. Sometimes, they go beyond that.

I am also aware that most scientists do not believe in God.

Actually, the last polls I saw showed that most of them believe in God, mostly Christian, but also Jewish, Islamic, deist, or others.

You won't got to hell for not accepting His creation. Creationists are no less Christians than the rest of us. God doesn't care whether or not you accept the way He managed creation.

 

[Barbarian]

My "version" of genesis I got directly from the bible.

Nope. YE creation is a man-made doctrine, no older than the last century. That's why most of the world's Christians belong to denominations that accept that evolution is consistent with God's word.

You've confused macroevolution and microevolution. Here's the scientific definitions:

Macroevolution Definition​

Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above.

Macroevolution - Definition, Examples and Quiz | Biology Dictionary

Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above. Macroevolution can be used to describe the differences between two closely related but distinct species, such as the Asian Elephant and the African Elephant, which cannot mate due to the...

biologydictionary.net

And the problem isnt that you are trying to credit the guy but that you are trying to discredit him on the sole basis that he disagrees with you.

As you have seen, he doesn't know what "evolution" means in science. It's not surprising; chemists don't learn that stuff. And because he doesn't think God is powerful enough to create a world that will produce life as He intended, he won't accept God's word that the earth brought forth living things. We all see that. And remember, evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

Darwin, for example, just assumed 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

Now God divided life into kinds and he commanded that creatures within that kind can only produce offspring of the same kind

That's your revision of God's word. He never said that. Will you insert that into His word to make it fit your new doctrine?

 

[Barbarian]

You say it took God a long time to teach us about viruses and electrons but that's not the case.

[/QUOTE]
Thousands of years by anyone's count.

Humanity decided to progress without God.

[/QUOTE]
No, that's wrong. Many of the scientists who discovered these things were theists, most of the Christian.

And Paul also could very well have been keeping up with the scientific community of his day.

Maybe so. But they didn't know about evolution, or viruses, or electrons, either.

But the thing is that it's not that Paul was unaware of evolution, but that from his intense study and a very intimate relationship with God, he came to the conclusion that life was created by God.

So did Darwin. The problem is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

 

[Moseme]

As you learned, it's easy to test macroevolution. It's been occasionally observed. Remember the scientific definition of evolution. At this time, most creationists admit more than that; they admit new species, genera, and families evolve. Sometimes, they go beyond that.


Actually, the last polls I saw showed that most of them believe in God, mostly Christian, but also Jewish, Islamic, deist, or others.

You won't got to hell for not accepting His creation. Creationists are no less Christians than the rest of us. God doesn't care whether or not you accept the way He managed creation.

lol you are amusing. I agree that the origin of life is not a damnable subject as ive said this multiple times. But it is amusing that you say creationists are no less christian as if that was ever a worry and also as if you're trying to establish that your belief is the "official" belief when it obviously isn't.

 

[Moseme]

Nope. YE creation is a man-made doctrine, no older than the last century. That's why most of the world's Christians belong to denominations that accept that evolution is consistent with God's word.

You've confused macroevolution and microevolution. Here's the scientific definitions:

Macroevolution Definition​

Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above.

Macroevolution - Definition, Examples and Quiz | Biology Dictionary

Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above. Macroevolution can be used to describe the differences between two closely related but distinct species, such as the Asian Elephant and the African Elephant, which cannot mate due to the...

biologydictionary.net

As you have seen, he doesn't know what "evolution" means in science. It's not surprising; chemists don't learn that stuff. And because he doesn't think God is powerful enough to create a world that will produce life as He intended, he won't accept God's word that the earth brought forth living things. We all see that. And remember, evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

Darwin, for example, just assumed 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


That's your revision of God's word. He never said that. Will you insert that into His word to make it fit your new doctrine?

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN YOUNG EARTH. I keep telling you this and you keep ignoring it just so you can tell me that I'm wrong when ive already said that I dont believe in that.

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, I'm more interested in HOW life began.
Evolution is secondary to me.

Some IDers have a non-Darwinian idea of that, which is still consistent with a teleological view of creation, while being consistent with scientific discoveries. Michael Denton, a fellow of the Discovery Institute, writes in his forward to Nature's Destiny:

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

Denton is onto something here. There's nothing in this that is contrary to Darwinism. It is, at the bottom, a religious belief, which is very close to mine, except that Denton is unwilling to attribute it all the the God Who spoke to Abraham.