I promised to open a new thread. Well, here it is ...
Originally posted by ivanhoe
IvanH: As a Christian I accept the scientific theorie of Evolution. The debate that's going on in the United States Evolution against Creationism has little to do with Christian faith or science, but more with right versus left in politics.
Reaper:
I cannot agree with this. I think that this does have A significant impact on Christianity. The Bible (Word of God) says that God created. To believe in microevolution is 100%, but to believe in macroevolution is to say Genesis is wrong, the Word of God is wrong, and God did not create by design, but allowed a process to create.
My earlier post of 26 Aug '03 17:35
To answer the original question of this thread: Yes, God does exist. God created everything that was needed for live on earth and then God created all living things. That is one piece of the proof I offer. Therefore I am saying that live did not start through evolution.
It is very important to define "evolution". Evolution very simply put means "change". I suggest that we be more specific and use microevolution (change within a species) and macroevolution (change between species).
Science has shown us many examples of microevolution (Darwin's Natural selection; the peppered moth example etc.) Christians believe that microevolution is a part of God's amazing programming that allows species to adapt to changing circumstances.
That leaves us with the question did live on earth start with macroevolution? This theory assumes that favorable characteristics somehow develop and allows one species to develop into another (dinosaur into bird).
Now there is no existing DNA programming for species change (A dog has only DNA to be a dog, there is no DNA to be anything else but a dog). Now to explain this, the macroevolution group developed the idea of mutation. They theorise that some input of energy like radiation could change DNA sufficiently to cause a series of favourable mutations to allow simpler live-forms to become more complex ones. And further that these mutations were passed on to offspring. Unfortunately, microbiology now proves that this is not possible.
So when I say I reject evolution, I refer to "macroevolution". What strikes me always when I read these supposed scientific "thruths", is that there are a large group of people who are trying everthing to disprove the Bible. And the pits is that our children are now taught evolution. That's a good win for satan.
Let me share another interesting thing, because I know some of you find the Bible an objectionable book. Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. It was God inspired. Moses wrote the first book, "Genesis" around 1450 b.C. In Genesis 1 the account of creation is found. Now if we break the account of creation down into 10 basic events, the odds ONLY that Moses could guess the correct order of those 10 events is 1:4000000, a little better than winning a lottery. Further if you look at all other holy books of other religions, they attest to vast misconceptions of creation.
Even further, how did Moses even know which events to pick in the first place?
So atheist are saying that they would rather believe Moses was a lottery winner of around 1450 b.C and not inspired by God.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI would have to agree w/ Ivanhoe on this one. Science method itself prevents Evolution from being accepted as fact. The "Science Method", as its called, requires 1. Original values 2. Documented / observed change 3. Reproducability. The first two require time travel and the last hasn't been successfully done.
I promised to open a new thread. Well, here it is ...
Originally posted by ivanhoe
IvanH: As a Christian I accept the scientific theorie of Evolution. The debate that's going on in the United States Evolution against Creationism has little to do with Christian faith or science, but more with right versus left in politics.
Reaper:
I cannot agree ...[text shortened]... ng, the Word of God is wrong, and God did not create by design, but allowed a process to create.
Some interesting books on this are : Darwin's leap of faith, Evolution on Trial, etc.
As it stands neither Creation (aka "instantaneous existance"😉, or Evolution can be proven (or disproven). This being said, I find it somewhat suprising that a Christian would accept Evolution.
Point to ponder: Counldn't God have created a world in seven days that looked old? How could we tell?
Hi Reaper,
In my view the Bible is not a book on biology. It's a collection of books that tells us among many other things about the relationship between God and man and the methods used by the authors in a lot of the books have more to do with literature rather than with science. However this does not mean that the contents are of a mythical nature, that does not mean that it isn't true ...
Genesis claims to tell us something about the relationship between God and man. It's definitely not a biology book.
IvanH.
As it stands neither Creation (aka "instantaneous existance", or Evolution can be proven (or disproven). This being said, I find it somewhat suprising that a Christian would accept Evolution. dwerkman.
Hi dwerkman,
I accept the theorie of evolution the same way I accept the theorie of relativity and the theorie of quantum mechanics, however the two latter ones are not (yet) compatible with each other ...
IvanH.
Originally posted by ReaperI'm not sure that variation through mutation is not possible as proven by microbiology. I'd like to see your definition of proof for this. To offer just one example, the process of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is known to occur through mutation on the scale of single genes. As a bacterium mutates and becomes genetically protected against an antibiotic, its offspring are also going to be resistant. Those offspring will be more successful than offspring of non-resistant bacteria, and so on, until the population of bacteria as a whole resists the antibiotic. I understand that this is again microevolution, but it does offer a way in which mutations serve to change the nature of the species, and that they're passed to offspring. It isn't such a stretch from here to see how further mutations will eventually cause the organisms carrying the mutations to be considered as a different species to those that do not,
My earlier post of 26 Aug '03 17:35
They theorise that some input of energy like radiation could change DNA sufficiently to cause a series of favourable mutations to allow simpler live-forms to become more complex ones. And further that these mutations were passed on to offspring. Unfortunately, microbiology now proves that this is not possible.
So whe ...[text shortened]... y would rather believe Moses was a lottery winner of around 1450 b.C and not inspired by God.
Joe
Originally posted by ivanhoeMy answer for reaper is....
I promised to open a new thread. Well, here it is ...
Originally posted by ivanhoe
IvanH: As a Christian I accept the scientific theorie of Evolution. The debate that's going on in the United States Evolution against Creationism has little to do with Christian faith or science, but more with right versus left in politics.
Reaper:
I cannot agree ...[text shortened]... ng, the Word of God is wrong, and God did not create by design, but allowed a process to create.
God wrote the bible? Couldn't the guys who wrote the bible have misunderstood what God was trying to tell them??
Phla-
Originally posted by PhlabibitI think this is a good point. Men are fallible!! Thus, it is easy to believe that 1) The Bible is incorrect in places; and, 2) There may also be trouble stemming from the various translations that it has gone through. I would also like to point out that, as an example of microevolution, there is a documented case in point referring to moths in England during the Industrial Revolution (changing from white to black.) As far as macroevolution goes, who is to say that god, if there is one, did not plan on change occuring through evolution?
My answer for reaper is....
God wrote the bible? Couldn't the guys who wrote the bible have misunderstood what God was trying to tell them??
Phla-
It seems to me that this is apointless argument. Whatever scientific argument anyone can come up with, anyone who is adamant enough about creationism just replies: "it was god's intention to allow such things", or, and my favourite, "the devil put them there to tempt us away from the true path...". Evolution is a perfectly sound scientific argument based upon the laws of nature [don't give me crap about god creating laws of nature blah blah..], whereas creationism is just another myth created by people in order to explain/justify their existence. It has as much credibility as Norse mythology, Native American mythology, Greek mythology, Roman mythology or religions such as Hinduism/Buddhism/Islam/Shintoism/Zoroastrianism/Mithraism.. owuld anyone like me to continue. How can Christianity claim to be the true creation theory
well, everything in the bible, save the first few chapters of genisis, have been proven to be true... problems with translations? well, the dead sea scrolls were extrairdinarilly accurate compared to recent translations.
mmanuel-you might not understand how people can belevie this stuff. personally, i can't understand why people cannot...
Originally posted by ivanhoeHi ivanhoe. Can I just ask you, when you say you believe in evolution, do you mean micro or macro?
I accept the theorie of evolution the same way I accept the theorie of relativity and the theorie of quantum mechanics, however the two latter ones are not (yet) compatible with each other ...
IvanH.
[/b]
Originally posted by kyngjHi kyngj. I agree that your example is one of microevolution. On your further question, just two things: DNA does not carry anything in it to allow macroeveolution, and I recently saw a documentary where the scientist showed some artifacts. A piece of rock with an oak tree leave fossil. Carbon 14 dating showed that the rock was approx 80 million years old. An examination of the oak tree leave showed 100% DNA correlation with today's oak tree leaves.
I understand that this is again microevolution, but it does offer a way in which mutations serve to change the nature of the species, and that they're passed to offspring. It isn't such a stretch from here to see how further mutations will eventually cause the organisms carrying the mutations to be considered as a different species to those that do not,
Joe[/b]
The problem here for macroevolutionists are that the older they clam an artifact is the deeper the hole of time they argue for macroevolution to take place.
Originally posted by Reaperif you read my previous post (something like "creation v's evolution"😉 you'll realise that I am not trying to bash religeon. I took a 'mission' from a Christian friend to study creation v's evolution from an unbiased (as far as possible) scientific point of view.
My earlier post of 26 Aug '03 17:35
To answer the original question of this thread: Yes, God does exist. God created everything that was needed for live on earth and then God created all living things. That is one piece of the proof I offer. Therefore I am saying that live did not start through evolution.
It is very important to define "evolution". ...[text shortened]... y would rather believe Moses was a lottery winner of around 1450 b.C and not inspired by God.
What you have termed 'micro evolution' is also known as 'survival of the fittest'. Noone disputes this as we can see it happening.
The argument that 'macro evolution' mens that 'dinosaurs turn into birds' is misleding. It suggests that there is a distinct leap from one to the other, leaning on the fact that people have a distinct idea of what a bird looks like and what a dinosaur looks like, and will think how different they are that they couldn't just jump one to the other. What macro evolutin actually states is, as you say, mutation takes place, which only 1 in 10,000 times is beneficial or benign (the rest of the time detremental, mostly so much so that the animal never is born). But when it is beneficial then natural selection (which no one denies) will mean that it's offspring will prosper. The dinosaur didn't intend to become the bird, it could ahve become anything else better suited to survive, but the bird was the end product of many many small changes. No body says that mutation doesn't happen because we see it happen. The only argument is that beneficial mutation can't happen, and if you take the "billions of years" theory then it's got to happen eventually.
What order did moses predict? - this one has left me a little confused.
Didn't he say "let there be light" before the sun or moon or start were created? What order did he predict that was so amazing?
The argument that "satan has won a great battle by getting Evolution taught in schools" is IMHO a cheep one. As was said by soem Nazi at the Neuremburg trials "tell a population that they are under attack, and they'll defend themslves", or words to that effect. That statement
demonises the 'opposition', instead of accepting them as others with adifferent (and possible wrong) point of view. Don't ask to be heard if you refuse to listen.
A couple of other responses to otehr posters in this thread: "Mutation" of bacteria to become resistant isn't the same as mutation of complex species. When bacteria mutate to become resistant it is due to the fact that they are so simple (one RNA ring) that they can incorporate an RNA segment form a different species of bacteria that already has the resistance. Therefore the new RNA isn't due to a mutation, but rather to gene swapping, in the same way as GM crops are produced. Or so my basic knowledge suggests.
Also, to those who say that 'man wrote the Bible, and man is falable, therefore the Bible is falable' - if there is a god, don't you think that he wouldbe able to make sure that they wrote it down correctly? Do you think that he would allow it to become corrupted by translation? in fact, the translation argument holds ;ess water than you'd think, as versions differ only mildly (from what I've read). Plus there is the argument that, if you read the bible and there is a God, God will let you hear what he means, errors and translations aside.
Check out the circular argument for evolution... Carbon dating (and the other radiation dating methods) were set by what we know. eg. we 'know' that this dinasaur bone must be 5,000,000 years old, therefore this radiation reading is from 5,000,000 years of decay. To then say that we know evolution to be true because radiation dating shows tat the bone is 5,000,000 years old is silly. A quote from a leading archeologist was "if radiation dating agrees with what we think, we quote it in the paper. If it;s close, we'll add it as a foot note. If it's way off, we ignore it".
Anyway, this as meant to be a neutral post and I've attacked both ides. Time to hide.
Originally posted by PhlabibitHi Phlabibit. The Bible was inspired by God. With this I mean the Holy Spirit came over the author and wrote through the person.
My answer for reaper is....
God wrote the bible? Couldn't the guys who wrote the bible have misunderstood what God was trying to tell them??
Phla-
To answer your next question, and I understand that this will be a very soft target for argument, but as you know until the printing press was invented, books were basically copied. Now the discovery of the dead sea scrolls was a very important event. The analysis shows that the copywork done was not wrong with a single letter, of all the manuscripts that was discovered.
Originally posted by Cheshire CatHi Cheshire Cat. Yes, you are refering to the peppered moth example. To take this a bit further, in this example (1850's) 98% moths in a village was white and 2% black. Birds could easily see and prey on the black moths. This was due to the trees that had white lichen covered bark. Polution eventually killed the lichen and the natural dark bark of the trees now made the white moths vulnerable. Within a few years 98% of the moth population was black. This is an example of microevolution. Adaption within a species. But genetic options within the species never changed, no new species macroevolved, it's still moths, they just adapted.
I would also like to point out that, as an example of microevolution, there is a documented case in point referring to moths in England during the Industrial Revolution (changing from white to black.) As far as macroevolution goes, who is to say that god, if there is one, did not plan on change occuring through evolution?[/b]
On your last question, the reason why God did not "create" through macroevolution? God created by design. There is no way that all the things required for life (can I just add that ONLY to have life, there are 60 criteria - have you any idea of the probability that this will happen trhough evolution?) could actually happen through macroevolution. DNA shows it's not possible. God created seasons, systems, hierarchies so that "life" would be maintained in equilibrium. Just look at what happened to the people of Easter Island. Man would not be able to sustain life if God did not put the mechanics in place.