Milk-Drops
Member
Thank you for the clean up Sparrow and Free. 
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
-
[_ Old Earth _] Theory of Evolution crash course/Q&A
- Thread starter Milk-Drops
- Start date
S
Stone-yarder
Guest
Ok, I have a question for MBS. Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
Milk-Drops
Member
I can link you to a video that can explain the evolution of carnivores better then I could. It will show the different paths of Felines and Canines.
Mainly because "Information" is an overly vague concept that I'm not going to spend pages getting you to define. I'll just show you a video that shows the ancestors of modern day Felines and Cats, allow it to show the homology, and show the genetic tree and its explanations of when things went extinct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ-DawQKPr8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNrt90MJL08
S
Stone-yarder
Guest
For clarity, what do you beleive? Are you an atheist,agnostic, ets,etc. You know where I stand,Christian/six day creation. I think it would be fair for you to let me know where you stand.
Milk-Drops
Member
I am agnostic because I find myself apathetic to the entire debate of whether a god exists or not. My position is that if one exists, I'll figure it out along the way. I'm just fascinated by how things work and animals so that is why I ended up studying a lot about phylogeny and the theory of evolution. To me the theory is just a useful collection of data that helps understanding biology and even the medical industry. It barely had any impact on my religious views when I was younger and it wasn't until I was around 20 did I even think there was really that big of a deal about evoltuion. I had pastors that didn't like it, but I never really cared about that because it doesn't effect my ethics or ideals on there being a god.
Milk-Drops
Member
So what do ya profess????:dunno
That Perry the Platypus is awesome.
Last edited by a moderator:
Barbarian
Member
Here's how you can test that assumption:
As a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because Darwin said so", it's a religion. If he starts citing evidence, it's a science.
True humanism is a Christian doctrine. "There can be no humanism without the Gospels." - Karl Barth
You've been misled on that. Even Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.
Christianity is much, much more than creation. Evolution is just the way God did some of His creation.
If so, it's hard to see how so many Bible-believing Christians accept evolution.
Perhaps you don't know what the theory says. Just so we know, how about telling us the four basic premises of Darwinian theory, and the additional point that produced the Modern Synthesis?
There are many Christians here who accept evolution. It is, after all, no more than the way God did some of His creation.
Classik
Member
S
Stone-yarder
Guest
Based on your posts I would be willing to bet I know more about evolution than you do about christianity...
Grazer
Member
I really recommend reading the language of God by Francis Collins. Francis Collins was director of the human genome project when they released a full readout of the human genome. He's also a Christian. He gives a really good explanation of what the theory is, the evidence for it and how he believes the evidence and be a Christian.
Another great article is by Dr Alan Harvey. Now admittedly Dr Harvey is not a biologist but he makes some great points - http://steamdoc.s5.com/sci-nature/index.html
God and evolution are no more in conflict than Henry Ford is in conflict with laws of physics as an explanation for the car. Mechanisms and agents are not conflicting explanations. I don't mean to be rude but the 14 year olds I spoke to a couple of weeks ago grasped this. One of my favorite quotes on this issue is from the late Stephen Jay Gould. I normally only quote a couple of sentences but I'm going to put the full 3 paragraphs;
Johnson is not a "scientific creationist" of Duane Gish's ilk—the "young earth" Biblical literalists who have caused so much political trouble of late, but whom we beat in the Supreme Court in 1987. He accepts the earth's great age and allows that God may have chosen to work via natural selection and other evolutionary principles (though He may also operate by miraculous intervention if and when He chooses). Johnson encapsulates his major insistence by writing: "In the broadest sense, a creationist is simply a person who believes that the world (and especially mankind) was designed, and exists for a purpose." Darwinism, Johnson claims, inherently and explicitly denies such a belief and therefore constitutes a naturalistic philosophy intrinsically opposed to religion.
But this is the oldest canard and non sequitur in the debater's book. To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it (as long as she can equally treat those members of our crowd who have argued that Darwinism must be God's method of action). Science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example).
Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his religious beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G. G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic. Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_darwin-on-trial.html
Another great article is by Dr Alan Harvey. Now admittedly Dr Harvey is not a biologist but he makes some great points - http://steamdoc.s5.com/sci-nature/index.html
God and evolution are no more in conflict than Henry Ford is in conflict with laws of physics as an explanation for the car. Mechanisms and agents are not conflicting explanations. I don't mean to be rude but the 14 year olds I spoke to a couple of weeks ago grasped this. One of my favorite quotes on this issue is from the late Stephen Jay Gould. I normally only quote a couple of sentences but I'm going to put the full 3 paragraphs;
Johnson is not a "scientific creationist" of Duane Gish's ilk—the "young earth" Biblical literalists who have caused so much political trouble of late, but whom we beat in the Supreme Court in 1987. He accepts the earth's great age and allows that God may have chosen to work via natural selection and other evolutionary principles (though He may also operate by miraculous intervention if and when He chooses). Johnson encapsulates his major insistence by writing: "In the broadest sense, a creationist is simply a person who believes that the world (and especially mankind) was designed, and exists for a purpose." Darwinism, Johnson claims, inherently and explicitly denies such a belief and therefore constitutes a naturalistic philosophy intrinsically opposed to religion.
But this is the oldest canard and non sequitur in the debater's book. To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it (as long as she can equally treat those members of our crowd who have argued that Darwinism must be God's method of action). Science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example).
Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his religious beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G. G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic. Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_darwin-on-trial.html
Arch Angle
Member
agreed
it is utterly ridiculous to say evolution and god are opposites. When I see this I see people that do not understand that science is a process.
Science is not a scientist. No more than a priest, or pastor, is are a religion.
God did it threw evolution. If you believe in god that is.
Evolution without god? well, you will have to come up with some big time evidence that this information stored in DNA is not a subset of a larger data set. I just don't see that as a high probability. It is no more probable than a "poof there it is " type of god.
it is utterly ridiculous to say evolution and god are opposites. When I see this I see people that do not understand that science is a process.
Science is not a scientist. No more than a priest, or pastor, is are a religion.
God did it threw evolution. If you believe in god that is.
Evolution without god? well, you will have to come up with some big time evidence that this information stored in DNA is not a subset of a larger data set. I just don't see that as a high probability. It is no more probable than a "poof there it is " type of god.
Barbarian
Member
Sounds like a testable claim. Let's start at the easy level. Tell us the four points of Darwinian theory, and how genetics modified it to produce the Modern Synthesis.
Feel free to Google.
If you're O.K. with it, we'll focus on the basics of Trinitarian Christianity, next.
You're up. Good luck.
Arch Angle
Member
LMAO barb,
The ol' "you are not a real Christian".
"Christ" is a verb, not a thing. Butsome do not understand that
The ol' "you are not a real Christian".
"Christ" is a verb, not a thing. Butsome do not understand that
Quote, "We'll focus on the basics of Trinitarian Christianity, next." [But not in this thread. Forum choice left up to the OP].
Milk-Drops
Member
Actually, platypi don't have nipples.Platypuses are hypocrites - lay eggs but breastfeed their anograpicalises.
Milk-Drops
Member
What do you need help with my good sir? :DAnd I have an important question :dunno
Classik
Member
Of Course you could have used the German microscope to view those tiny minutonippluosea
Classik
Member
Actually the reason why Christians don't take evo seriously is the claim that we all evloved from apes. Did we truly evolve from those?
(a term paper isn't necessary. Just a sentecne or few should do).
If yes, then from how many apes, one or two or multiple apes???