Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    There is nothing in nature that supports the idea that all life originated from a single relatively simple organism.
    The fact that all life on earth uses the same genetic code? The fact that mitochondria and chloroplasts have DNA like bacteria, reproduce like bacteria and have ribosomes like bacteria, and have double membranes like they were swallowed by another cell? (To name just a few.)
    “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


    • #62
      Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
      You are comparing the theory of Evolution to the "carbon dioxide" climate change hoax?

      Yes, both are examples of Big Lies repeated over and over and over.
      You reject science you don't like. The definition of not accepting evidence from the earth that God created. Also destroying the planet God gave to us . . .
      “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


      • #63
        Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
        so ... fake
        That's like asserting the Bible is fake because someone came up with a bad interpretation of Revelation . . .

        Soft Tissue (i.e., Science) Denier too ?
        The problem with the soft tissue issue (teehee) is that it comes from only one lab. The science actually comes from a Christian lab manager, who doesn't doubt evolution btw. I'm skeptical of anything in science that hasn't been repeated by other labs. And so far the "soft tissue" hasn't really. But it could be true. Doesn't disprove evolution either way though.
        “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


        • #64
          Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
          You reject science you don't like.
          I reject vain babblings that are falsely called science.

          1 Timothy 6:2-21
          20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
          21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.



          Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
          The definition of not accepting evidence from the earth that God created.
          You think interpretations are evidence, but they are not.
          The same evidence that geologists think show an ancient world also point to a young earth that suffered a great cataclysmic event.
          Which interpretation of the same evidence is right?

          Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
          Also destroying the planet God gave to us . . .
          The fake news spread by so-called Climate Scientists has no other goal than the transfer of wealth from the majority to enrich the 1%.
          This is proven by the insistence on a "carbon tax" that will have absolutely no effect on carbon emissions and has no chance of changing the climate to some preferred state.
          The so-called Climate Scientists can't even define a climate optimum would be to show whether we are moving away from the optimum or towards the optimum.

          Real scientists have identified a climate optimum, where the temperatures were 2–3°C warmer than present.

          Holocene climatic optimum

          The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP. It has also been known by many other names, such as Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Megathermal, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Hypsithermal, and Mid-Holocene Warm Period.

          This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about two millennia ago.

          Out of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for conditions warmer than now at 120 sites. At 16 sites, where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than now. Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, and the Laurentide Ice Sheet still chilled the continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3 °C warmer than present. Research indicates that the Arctic had less sea ice than the present.

          Learn to read what is written.

          _____
          The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
          ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Of course there is. A genome does not function outside a very limited range of designs. A random assignment of AGTC would produce noise, no butterflies, every time.
            You know you can assert this forever and still be wrong.

            I notice you didn't respond to my point about lactose tolerance in humans. Is it because it's an actual example of a clearly beneficial trait arising by mutation?

            Here's an educational video that explains it, for those interested.



            For example:
            "Barbarian explains: Actually, cheetahs likely don't have any greater 'load' than humans do. The real problem is a severe lack of genetic diversity. They are so alike that apparently, they can all serve as tissue donors for each other."

            That is what you believe, right?
            No, you could have a population with a very large amount of accumulated deleterious mutations, though that problem is exacerbated when said mutations are all the same (small population with low diversity). You can have a large population with lots of deleterious mutations (e.g. humans) but they are widely distributed enough that the odds of them meeting and actually causing disease are low (also humans).

            Lack of genetic diversity alone in the abstract isn't necessarily harmful, assuming deleterious alleles were absent. But the minute the environment changes, a new parasite, disease or climatic change etc.. A challenge to the population appears, lack of diversity becomes devastating.

            A species with a "perfect" genome and no diversity would go extinct with small changes in the environment because there would be nothing for selection to act on.

            Example from Botany:

            Castanea americana, the American Chestnut. Billions of trees spread across the Appalachian mountains. Very successful and dominant species on the landscape. Chestnut blight, a fungal disease, is accidentally brought over from China by humans around 1910. C. americana has little genetic diversity and was virtually wiped out by the disease. A related species, Ozark chinquapin, C. ozarakana has more genetic diversity, some of those trees survive the same blight. That species is now able to recover from the disease and slowly recolonize where the other trees died (currently being aided by humans).

            Also question for recent de-novo creationists, why did this disease have such a devastating impact on North American Chestnut species, and no impact on Chinese chestnut, Castanea mollisima?
            Last edited by Alate_One; September 16th, 2019, 06:51 PM.
            “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


            • #66
              Originally posted by Alate_One View Post

              I notice you didn't respond to my point about lactose tolerance in humans. Is it because it's an actual example of a clearly beneficial trait arising by mutation?
              Several reasons likely.
              1) In science discussions any new introduction needs homework more often than not.
              2) Such often becomes putting out fires rather than discussing the broader topic. I tend to try to avoid rabbit trails, myself.
              3) Seen as a distraction or not needing attention as an extra. It seems often yet another 'example' or 'proof' isn't necessary when the dialogue is already beyond it at that point. When we are talking whales and dorudons, the need to talk about dolphins or 'more' evidence doesn't need a lot of redress other than the mention for dialogue. While I may appreciate the extra material, it doesn't move debate/dialogue along in a good many cases.
              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


              • #67
                Originally posted by Lon View Post
                Just so I know where this is going, did you intend this to go snarky? If we are going to simply dismiss another based off of an imagined insult like 'assumption?' Okay. Your thread doesn't look as sincere or important when you are trying to say the Love of the Lord Jesus Christ is a commonality.
                Assumed wasn't intended as an insult. I am literally saying you are making assumptions about the text. Christians have interpreted Genesis in different ways down through the centuries.

                I believe in the idea of "two books". God has given us his word and his creation, each as a type of revelation. If there is an apparent conflict between the two books, we have likely interpreted something wrongly. Considering the very clear natural evidence about the age of the earth and the nature of life on it, I think it's fairly clear that using Genesis as a science textbook or news report is not the correct approach.

                "related" has a few meanings. All things are created by God, so I'm 'related' to Mars as well.
                I mean through common descent.

                Or a reptile becoming a bird or vise versa?
                Birds are still reptiles scientifically speaking. They never stop being one thing to become something else.

                See microraptor below. Feathered as a bird but with bones of a dinosaur. Today's birds are just more modified from the original.



                Awkward for me. Humans did 'breed' different kinds of dogs but did they 1) cause it and 2) have anything really to do with the DNA already there?
                Humans selected for the mutations they found to be beneficial.

                Colossians 1:17 Do things sustain or change independently of God?
                Nothing happens independently of God really so no.

                This is my argument against 'random chance and purposeless change.' Again, I don't know if you are being sincere at this point, but I've answered them as if they were though I've reservations about continuing so in thread.
                As an evolutionary creationist I don't see the changes as purposeless. And evolution, regardless of the teleology or lack thereof is never truly random. Natural selection is predictable and purposeful in the sense of preserving populations of organisms against changes in the environment.
                “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


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Lon View Post
                  Several reasons likely.
                  1) In science discussions any new introduction needs homework more often than not.
                  2) Such often becomes putting out fires rather than discussing the broader topic. I tend to try to avoid rabbit trails, myself.
                  3) Seen as a distraction or not needing attention as an extra. It seems often yet another 'example' or 'proof' isn't necessary when the dialogue is already beyond it at that point. When we are talking whales and dorudons, the need to talk about dolphins or 'more' evidence doesn't need a lot of redress other than the mention for dialogue. While I may appreciate the extra material, it doesn't move debate/dialogue along in a good many cases.
                  I'm simply offering more evidence. Evolutionary theory is supported by not one piece of evidence, but thousands, perhaps millions, maybe more depending on the counting.
                  “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


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    Assumed wasn't intended as an insult. I am literally saying you are making assumptions about the text. Christians have interpreted Genesis in different ways down through the centuries.

                    I believe in the idea of "two books". God has given us his word and his creation, each as a type of revelation. If there is an apparent conflict between the two books, we have likely interpreted something wrongly. Considering the very clear natural evidence about the age of the earth and the nature of life on it, I think it's fairly clear that using Genesis as a science textbook or news report is not the correct approach.
                    Problem: One of your books contradicts the other. You seem to think the writing of man is imperialized while the writing of God takes a second-seat and must be corrected/confronted by nothing more and nothing less than the 'thoughts' of men. Science is naught but the thoughts of men.
                    Somethings prove true, but there may be ANOTHER cure for polio. Science is not the definitive answer to all things living. That's putting it up on a pedestal (not sure where you are, just caution and warning here).

                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    I mean through common descent.

                    Birds are still reptiles scientifically speaking. They never stop being one thing to become something else.

                    See microraptor below. Feathered as a bird but with bones of a dinosaur. Today's birds are just more modified from the original.

                    I'm not sure what this is. Remember the Gap theory discussion? It'd mean God stopped and started over, not derivative. Next? We've seen, for monetary gain, some scientists without scruples or were inadequate scientists, gave us bones of one dinosaur connected to another dinosaur to create a whole other species. I've seen 'crocodileman' and 'mermaid' at the curiosity shop. Whatever this is, it needs more to be considered a transitional species.

                    Humans selected for the mutations they found to be beneficial.
                    It is awkward to call such a 'mutation.' It isn't as far as I understand science. It is rather a characteristic that is desired thus humans encouraged the duplication. It was already there. They didn't 'create' the gene.

                    Nothing happens independently of God really so no.
                    We'd both agree. That by itself, is enough for me not to have to get into a big argument with someone over evolution. Rather, the science observations that step all over God and His creation work, is the more troubling discussion.

                    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                    As an evolutionary creationist I don't see the changes as purposeless. And evolution, regardless of the teleology or lack thereof is never truly random. Natural selection is predictable and purposeful in the sense of preserving populations of organisms against changes in the environment.
                    To me, if you disagree with the scope of a word, you 'may' not be one. In this case, your divine-driven creation might make you a "Creationist where creation expresses by auto-efficient means provided and sustained" would be more appropriate and clearer than a force on a redefinition of 'evolution' which does carry 'on its own' and 'undirected' as its meaning (autonomous).
                    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


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                      I'm simply offering more evidence. Evolutionary theory is supported by not one piece of evidence, but thousands, perhaps millions, maybe more depending on the counting.
                      Yes. I'm simply saying it might be one of several reasons why it wasn't responded to. My brother carries a biology degree and has seen the bird/lizard fossil. He said it doesn't prove nor evidence what it is reported to have. His explanation is a bit above my pay-grade. Not everyone will respond to every evidence given in thread
                      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


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                        You know you can assert this forever and still be wrong.
                        That's why I provided evidence.
                        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


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                          Assumed wasn't intended as an insult. I am literally saying you are making assumptions about the text. Christians have interpreted Genesis in different ways down through the centuries.

                          I believe in the idea of "two books". God has given us his word and his creation, each as a type of revelation. If there is an apparent conflict between the two books, we have likely interpreted something wrongly. Considering the very clear natural evidence about the age of the earth and the nature of life on it, I think it's fairly clear that using Genesis as a science textbook or news report is not the correct approach.
                          This is reasonable. But Exodus 20:11 walks right into the middle of the conversation and says, "What about me?" Because with Exodus 20:11 in the mix, as it were, authoritatively interpreting the otherwise ambiguous Genesis, then the apparent conflict you mention, where you call the evidence of the earth's age "very clear," how clear is it really, compared with the clarity of Exodus 20:11?
                          "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                          @Nee_Nihilo

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                            This is reasonable. But Exodus 20:11 walks right into the middle of the conversation and says, "What about me?" Because with Exodus 20:11 in the mix, as it were, authoritatively interpreting the otherwise ambiguous Genesis, then the apparent conflict you mention, where you call the evidence of the earth's age "very clear," how clear is it really, compared with the clarity of Exodus 20:11?
                            In addition to this I would add Romans 1. Look at the values Alate and company advocate for in the political arena for this is the sure tell as to their real relationship towards God.

                            Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
                            19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed itunto them.
                            20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
                            21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
                            22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
                            23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
                            24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
                            25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
                            26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
                            27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
                            28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
                            29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
                            30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
                            31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
                            32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
                            Paul laid it out right here. We know whether someone loves God or not by that which they advocate for which God has said is a sin. We also know that the political ideology which Alate advocates for is the creation of a man who hated everything to do with God, therefore it is an anti-God ideology and leads it's followers and supporters directly away from God. Marx created his political ideology to destroy the influence of God and Christianity in the world. Alate accepts his reasoning and then claims to love God.

                            Jesus told us, by their fruits ye shall know them. Look at Alate's political fruits to understand the truth.
                            “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
                            ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

                            “One and God make a majority.”
                            ― Frederick Douglass

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              I believe in the idea of "two books". God has given us his word and his creation, each as a type of revelation. If there is an apparent conflict between the two books, we have likely interpreted something wrongly. Considering the very clear natural evidence about the age of the earth and the nature of life on it, I think it's fairly clear that using Genesis as a science textbook or news report is not the correct approach.
                              Let's look closely at this bit of reasoning. Alate's clear premise here is that God has two mutually exclusive books, nature and the Bible. Alate is saying that which is a clear contradiction of Jesus's following statement from Matthew chapter 12:
                              25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
                              Alate is claiming that God is warring against Himself by having two mutually exclusive ways of educating people about Himself that leads to two opposite conclusions. This right here is a clear revelation of Alate's agenda.
                              “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
                              ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

                              “One and God make a majority.”
                              ― Frederick Douglass

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                That's why I provided evidence.
                                Uhh you haven't posted any evidence in this thread. Just your repeated assertions about "genomic integrity" and genetic diversity being bad. You just ignored *all* of the evidence and questions I posted.

                                So you're really just trolling at this point (typical Stripe behavior anyway).
                                “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