Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    Humans were male and female from the beginning. Your point is?


    I'm not the one who gave up on science.
    We'll be the judge of that.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
      Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to believe His claims of Godhood. I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science. This creates a stumbling block for many Christians where there need not be one.

      Science is simply the study of the natural world that God has given us with the minds God has given us. Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:

      Fossils

      DNA evidence

      Biogeography

      Anatomy and Development (Evo-devo)



      So here's a piece of evidence here:



      A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?



      Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?





      Note that the title of this post is also the title of a book I have enjoyed:

      I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution: Paperback – March 4, 2009
      by Denis O. Lamoureux

      Also of interest: Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.
      I too am a Christian. I believe that evolution is part of what makes a universe mature, but I do not believe the universe is older than 10,000 years. It looks more mature than it is, as Adam and Eve looked more mature than they were too. I.e. I do not reject science.
      "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

      @Nee_Nihilo

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
        ... I believe God is in the creative process today and continues to support creation as a whole...
        Similar to a phrase in our Hebrew prayers:

        המחדש בטובו כל יום מעשה בראשית
        "And in His goodness renews the creation every day"

        Chair

        Comment


        • #34
          Evolution as proposed is a process of random change, leading more often to disease, degradation and destruction than to improvements

          And you two chuckleheads think that is the process by which God created man?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
            Falsifying requires evidence, and in the case of a theory, a LOT of evidence. Have you provided any in this thread? No. So you are rejecting without evidence, which means rejecting science without evidence.

            Rodhocetus admitted fake
            https://youtu.be/R7e6C6yUqck

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
              Rodhocetus admitted fake
              https://youtu.be/R7e6C6yUqck
              A. I didn't post anything about Rhodocetus. And rodhocetus is one fossil among a large variety of fossils plus the genetic, anatomical and developmental evidence.

              B. Rodhocetus isn't a fake. It was originally reconstructed with very fragmentary bones and was postulated to have features it was later shown to not have, wait for it, because of later discovered EVIDENCE. Those facts are even noted in your video!

              Scientists have updated their models. That is a normal thing in science, when an old idea is shown to be wrong it is adjusted to fit the evidence.
              “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



              - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                Evolution as proposed is a process of random change, leading more often to disease, degradation and destruction than to improvements
                Most mutations actually don't do anything. Even if a deleterious mutation occurs it is usually removed from the population by natural selection. This kind of selection is usually called purifying selection.
                “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                  Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to believe His claims of Godhood. I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science. This creates a stumbling block for many Christians where there need not be one.

                  Science is simply the study of the natural world that God has given us with the minds God has given us. Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:

                  Fossils

                  DNA evidence

                  Biogeography

                  Anatomy and Development (Evo-devo)



                  So here's a piece of evidence here:



                  A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?



                  Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?





                  Note that the title of this post is also the title of a book I have enjoyed:

                  I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution: Paperback – March 4, 2009
                  by Denis O. Lamoureux

                  Also of interest: Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.
                  No comment, obviously.
                  I know Him, correctly, as Messiah whom you call Christ. Yah Shua whom you call Jesus. Messianists who you call Christians.

                  "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm".

                  I refuse, point blank, to speak peace to the unregenerate, hypocrites, religious dogma lovers and those that oppose the following statement:
                  A regenerate man trusts in the evangelism of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed justness of Messiah alone.
                  If you are fully persuaded, by experience, of this delightful, beautiful and life giving doctrine then I love you as a brother.

                  Anyone who thinks that salvation is conditioned on anything a man thinks, does or says is atheist. I cannot and will not speak peace to him or her.

                  I don't make statements online that I wouldn't repeat in front of my Maker, my grandmother or a judge.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                    I too am a Christian. I believe that evolution is part of what makes a universe mature, but I do not believe the universe is older than 10,000 years. It looks more mature than it is, as Adam and Eve looked more mature than they were too. I.e. I do not reject science.
                    So you're willing to say that God has created false history?
                    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                    - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                      It all depends on how they are interpreted, and generally reading an ancient text with a lot of symbolic implications as if it's a news report is probably going to lead to misunderstandings.

                      That can happen, but even modern whales have the remnants of a pelvis which similarly floats (see the skeleton I posted). Also, a related species, Basilosaurus has also been found with tiny hind limbs (Basilosaurus is the larger skeleton on top).

                      Even more evidence along these lines is dolphins and other cetaceans are sometimes born with larger "hind fins".

                      Perhaps the more complex teeth in the back were lost during evolution.


                      Also, it's very clear the skull is a mammalian one based on the opening in the skull - the synapsid opening. Most reptiles have a second opening and are termed diapsids.
                      A lot of 'science' assumptions. Genesis doesn't allow 'loose' symbolism. The symbolism is specific and tightly defined. The "Serpent" is indeed symbolic of Satan, but the curse followed an actual serpent. So both Christians and scientists can and do observe leg indications in snakes, but we alternately apply 'curse' vs. 'evolution' to the phenomena. We don't disagree on the observations, we disagree on terms and derivative ideas not in common.


                      Continuing with a tight interpretation of Genesis: Gap theorists believe God created in 6 days, but they believe there may have been a large gap between the first part of creation because 'day' isn't mentioned until verse 4 and 5 (there are not many Gap Theorists).

                      If that's correct, then God had room to make the earth. Being Creator, and Creative, dinosaurs could have lived. Evolved? Not in this scenario. The building blocks of life God used/uses are cells and DNA etc. This does not mean by necessity, derivative species. I've 70% in common with onion according to DNA. This doesn't mean I evolved from an onion. The branching idea may allow for derivative species, but 'after their kind' from scripture may allow God to remold a species or even restart from scratch. God can do as He wills. What I rather question, is whether one species today, had or does become another because of the phrase "after its kind."
                      God can certainly do so, but after committing to an action, "after its kind" it must been seen as a truth.

                      The basics of argument are this:
                      1) "Evolutions." The term means 'on its own.' This is problematic because it'd suggest that Colossians 1:15,17 is wrong (see also John 15:5). Because God 'sustains' His creation, there is no room for something to 'evolve.'
                      2) Freewill autonomy, at least for my theology understanding is problematic. Yes the serpent has a will 'free' from God. Yes men have a will 'free' from God, but these are the result of the Fall, not according to design, thus any 'random' or 'chaotic' means for adaptation is part of the Fall.
                      3) Does it happen? If so, then all of creation groans Romans 8:20 being subjected to 'futility.' However, grace and the sustaining power of Christ must support the existence and continuation of any species. Therefore, evolution for survival of the fittest etc. cannot be seen as random undriven mechanics, but rather the hand and grace of God purposefully interacting to cause species to continue.
                      4) Macro-evolution - one species becoming an entirely different species, is yet science speculation. "After its kind" as well as Genesis 2:7 "from the dust (directly) indicate that men are special creations Genesis 1:27 "...in His image..." It is not said of any other creature BUT man.

                      5) Being 70% similar to an onion, doesn't mean related directly (cousins, according to the flesh, rather than siblings).

                      Cousins in only the sense that we each come from God (not too related) vs. siblings is the largest argument between Judeo/Christian understanding and current science thought.
                      My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                      Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                      Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                      Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                      No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                      Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                      ? Yep

                      Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                      ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                      Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                        Most mutations actually don't do anything.
                        Way to avoid the point I made

                        Even if a deleterious mutation occurs it is usually removed from the population by natural selection. This kind of selection is usually called purifying selection.
                        Right - disease, disability and destruction

                        This is your god - a god of disease, disability and destruction

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                          Right - disease, disability and destruction

                          This is your god - a god of disease, disability and destruction
                          No. There would be far more disease and destruction without mutation and evolutionary change. Organisms that are clonal suffer far more from all of the above.

                          What is the origin of infectious diseases then, according to you? Were they created by God or no?
                          “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                          - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Lon View Post
                            A lot of 'science' assumptions. Genesis doesn't allow 'loose' symbolism.
                            Why, because you say so? Talk about assumptions. :P
                            The "Serpent" is indeed symbolic of Satan, but the curse followed an actual serpent.
                            Okay so how do you know it's symbolic of Satan then?

                            So both Christians and scientists can and do observe leg indications in snakes, but we alternately apply 'curse' vs. 'evolution' to the phenomena. We don't disagree on the observations, we disagree on terms and derivative ideas not in common.
                            And when you see the same leg remnants in whales you say . . . ?

                            I've 70% in common with onion according to DNA. This doesn't mean I evolved from an onion.
                            No but it may mean you're distantly related to one.

                            The branching idea may allow for derivative species, but 'after their kind' from scripture may allow God to remold a species or even restart from scratch. God can do as He wills. What I rather question, is whether one species today, had or does become another because of the phrase "after its kind."
                            God can certainly do so, but after committing to an action, "after its kind" it must been seen as a truth.
                            Here's the thing. Species in evolution never stop reproducing after their "kind". It's just that the "kind" is not static, it changes over time. There is never a point in evolution where, for illustrative purposes, a cat produces a dog offspring.


                            1) "Evolutions." The term means 'on its own.'
                            No, it means change over time. Humans can cause evolution. Why can't God? Why isn't it possible that God designed the potential for evolution into life from the start? Understand again that if God is sovereign there is nothing that is truly random.
                            “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                            - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                              There would be far more disease and destruction without mutation and evolutionary change.
                              Mutations make people sick.

                              No two ways about it.

                              They never improve genetic integrity; they are always — 100 percent of them — bad for information.

                              Organisms that are clonal suffer far more.
                              Organisms that are clonal are evidence for the fact that mutations are always bad. Variation in the genome of a population — ie, within a kind — shows degradation. Genetic integrity is where a population has less genetic diversity.

                              We know, we know: Cheetahs. They do not represent the population that their DNA came from. Thus they are evidence that diversity leads to reduced "fitness."

                              What is the origin of infectious diseases then, according to you? Were they created by God or no?
                              Darwinists accused a YEC of this tactic, unfairly calling it a "Gish gallop." However, it is them who use it all the time.
                              Last edited by Stripe; September 17th, 2019, 08:34 AM.
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                Mutations make people sick.

                                No two ways about it.
                                Wrong. There are people immune to HIV infection because of a mutation.
                                There are others that require far less sleep due to a mutation.

                                Are you lactose tolerant? People that can drink milk as adults can do so because of a mutation.

                                And there are different mutations depending on which part of the world people are from.

                                They never improve genetic integrity; they are always — 100 percent of them — bad for information.
                                There's no such thing as "genetic integrity", there is only useful or not in a particular situation.

                                Organisms that are clonal are evidence for the fact that mutations are always bad. Variation in the genome of a population — ie, within a kind — shows degradation. Genetic integrity is where a population has less genetic diversity.
                                Are you saying genetic variation is BAD? If this is really what you're saying you do not understand biology at all.

                                We know, we know: Cheetahs. They do not represent the population that their DNA came from. Thus they are evidence that diversity leads to reduced "fitness."
                                Huh? They have virtually NO genetic diversity. Cheetahs can receive skin grafts from one another due to lack of diversity in their MHC genes. That same lack of diversity makes them vulnerable to disease.

                                Darwinists accused a YEC of this tactic, unfairly calling it a "Gish gallop." However, it is them who use it all the time.
                                Not at all. He says evolution causes more disease. If he's arguing creation wouldn't cause disease, how did infectious organisms and parasites arise. If they are created, then there's not much of a difference between the two. Thus the question is quite related.

                                A Gish gallop is where you simply bring up dozens of unrelated items to distract from the question.
                                “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                                - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X