alphaparticle

But the Evolution camp doesn't claim that there is evidence for Evolution. They claim that Evolution is proven fact and indisputable. They claim that to not accept Evolution is to not accept reality. They teach Evolution as proven, indisputable fact, not as simply have evidence. The fact is that the evidence for Evolution is highly questionable and frankly, the theory came about at a time when science was still pretty primitive. The evolutionists have had to keep adding years to the age of the earth and universe in order to make room for evolution because of the growing understanding of the complexity of the cell. The more we learn how complex living things are, the more time is needed to make evolution more viable. Had the theory been introduced today instead of the 19th century, it would not have gotten off the ground. Evolution has been a theory long assumed true and evidence is being filtered through the assumption of evolution being true. It is the assumption that is driving how people interpret the evidence. Which has the cart before the horse. The evidence for evolution is sparse. They need to produce far, far more evidence than they have produced so far. Besides whales with four legs transisitioning into sea creatures isn't the right direction if one is trying to make a case for evolution. Whales evolving into creatures that can walk on two legs would be correct direction. Why is that the "correct" direction? as far as the age of the earth goes, it correlates to the age of the sun so at the present time that part is well established. It is the correct direction because evolution is about a gain of information, not a loss of information. Going from having four legs to having no legs and haveing to go from living on land to living in the water is the opposite direction from what is being taught. The idea that is being taught is that evolution began in the water and advanced to to air and land, not the other way around. So can't see how a whale devolving from a land mammal to a ocean mammal fits the model. Actually, the age of the earth is independent of the age of the sun or any other star. The age of the earth is most likely fixed by the age of the sun insofar as we would not expect it to be older than the sun (unless you propose it was a rogue planet or some such which seems more unlikely). That it is about the age of the sun seems to fit the general understanding of solar system formation. As far as the whale, that is merely adaptation in the face of environmental pressures. The precursors to whales had more progeny the more they were around water, genes that promoted that and created greater efficiency in the water got selected for. I have a problem with this notion of 'direction' here. It's all about genetic material in populations getting passed on from generation to generation. What that will 'look' like depends on the environmental pressures.

But the Evolution camp doesn't claim that there is evidence for Evolution. They claim that Evolution is proven fact and indisputable. They claim that to not accept Evolution is to not accept reality. They teach Evolution as proven, indisputable fact, not as simply have evidence. The fact is that the evidence for Evolution is highly questionable and frankly, the theory came about at a time when science was still pretty primitive. The evolutionists have had to keep adding years to the age of the earth and universe in order to make room for evolution because of the growing understanding of the complexity of the cell. The more we learn how complex living things are, the more time is needed to make evolution more viable. Had the theory been introduced today instead of the 19th century, it would not have gotten off the ground. Evolution has been a theory long assumed true and evidence is being filtered through the assumption of evolution being true. It is the assumption that is driving how people interpret the evidence. Which has the cart before the horse. The evidence for evolution is sparse. They need to produce far, far more evidence than they have produced so far. Besides whales with four legs transisitioning into sea creatures isn't the right direction if one is trying to make a case for evolution. Whales evolving into creatures that can walk on two legs would be correct direction. Why is that the "correct" direction? as far as the age of the earth goes, it correlates to the age of the sun so at the present time that part is well established.

The notion that there isn't much evidence for evolution and that people just believe in it to avoid God or to defend their personal theories is an ill founded one. Yes, people are fallible with biases, no question. However, there really is quite a bit of disparate lines of reasoning and evidence that lead to the evolutionary conclusion. For those who want to look at that, here's one collection of sources that discusses the evidence for evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 Whether you agree with it or not in the end, it is helpful to at least be adequately addressing why biologists take it for granted that evolution is a biological fact. The sorts of dismissals that people make are one reason that creationists are, rightly or wrongly, dismissed as crackpots.

Explain the many more people that aren't allergic to both? They use animals all the time to test drugs on, and sometimes they are able to predict their safety to some degree based on those tests, but they don't always work. What a rat can handle, a human being cannot. In some instances they can, but in others they cannot. Humans can eat chocolate, but that is poison to dogs and cats. Dogs and cats can eat raw meat and not get sick, but human beings cannot. There are times where you can find common characteristics between humans and animals, but there are also many differences. And again, if both man and animal came from the ground, and are all flesh, they will have things in common. I just don't see anything here that would lead me to believe in evolution. I'm not asking you to believe it. I think you've missed the point of the exercise here. In this case, there is a particular statistically significant linkage between people having an uncommon reaction (to mangoes) and having a more common one to poison ivy, and this particular one was explained using phylogenetic trees. The more significant part of the page in my estimation was the use of such trees to create effective medication. These trees implicitly assume evolution and use them *to make predictions*. Whenever a theory starts making predictions, I start to become convinced there is something important going on. This is but a small example of what I have in mind. What I am explaining to you is that there is a lot of evidence for evolution, whether you find it convincing or not, which leads many, including the vast vast majority of biologists, to consider it having occurred as a biological fact about the world. I think some people are a little too easily dismissive. Not only that, but it seems that many creationists who get into these discussions have deep misunderstanding about what evolution is and what it claims in the first place. As a result, I do not think most creationists effectively communicate with evolutionists (and, I would think the opposite is also true).

butero - There is an example of a specific prediction made, *by evolution* that was then used to make a medication, in this case an antivenin. Phylogenetic trees, it goes on to say, can explain why some people who are allergic to poison ivy have other specific reactions to other things, including mango. The actual reason for this has been discovered, in this case, and is not random.

It's more than a bunch of DNA being shared- it's the specific DNA that is shared. Evolutionary phylogenetic trees are used to make predictions about this, successfully. Had God directly created each animal more or less as it is now I would not expect to see this pattern, which is most easily explained by looking at these sorts of trees. Here are some examples: http://archive.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/treeoflife/predictions.html

Who is the intelligence behind biology. Who is the origin of it's creation. God created all of the physical rules, and stuff. I have been pretty explicit about that, here and in other threads. So you're just using the word evolution to describe God's intelligence? DRS I've defined what I mean in the thread a couple of times now. I said something very specific about it. There is a theory of gravity. You could say, "who created physics?" and I'd say "God." and then you could say the same thing you just said. But, where would that get us?

Who is the intelligence behind biology. Who is the origin of it's creation. God created all of the physical rules, and stuff. I have been pretty explicit about that, here and in other threads.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense. Just a bit of a nitpick. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time, and the ToE is the theorized mechanisms by which this happens. This can occur without a population evolving into another species, such as a population of bears evolving a higher frequency of white fur vs. brown fur over multiple generations for various reasons. Speciation is more like a result of this action, usually over geologic time, but varies depending on the mutation rate and generation time. You are correct though that evolution has not been shown to apply to changes in such things, though the usage of morality itself could have evolved. I'm not familiar with what the current proposal for that is. Alpha, it's not nonsense if growth and development are words inside the definition of evolution. Evolution: man-made word/man-made definition/man-made website..http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Evolution?s=t - Again, why do people still kill, steal and destroy if we've grown and evolved so much. it's nonsense. Evolution as a physical process has no sense of promoting 'moral excellence' or 'wellbeing'. It's simply that organisms that survive long enough to reproduce have genetic material that continues on in the population. So if you disagree with a definition, that means it no longer exists in the dictionary of alpha's world? I wish I had that power, lol. ev·o·lu·tion http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution?s=t [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, esp. British, ee-vuh-] Show IPA noun 1.any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane. 2.a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research. 3.Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. 4.a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions. 5.a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine. Yes, I am not talking about non technical uses of the word evolution. I am talking about the word evolution as it is related to the theory of evolution in biology. That is what I have always been talking to in this thread. No, I am not interested in what the dictionary has to say about how a word is popularly used.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense. Just a bit of a nitpick. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time, and the ToE is the theorized mechanisms by which this happens. This can occur without a population evolving into another species, such as a population of bears evolving a higher frequency of white fur vs. brown fur over multiple generations for various reasons. Speciation is more like a result of this action, usually over geologic time, but varies depending on the mutation rate and generation time. You are correct though that evolution has not been shown to apply to changes in such things, though the usage of morality itself could have evolved. I'm not familiar with what the current proposal for that is. No, only if you agree to allow morality to be reduced to physical properties. Why would you give that ground? Giving or taking ground doesn't factor into my decision, so I'm not particularly sure how to answer that question. Personally, I just want to be accurate. We do have ethology, which is the study of animal behavior, and we have a strong basis for more than a few of our instinctual behaviors being evolutionary holdovers from our ancestors (think all of baby's instinctual behaviors/reflexes, fight or flight response, etc.). And we know that more animals than just us are social creatures with social norms, so if we look at morality from the perspective of societally handed down rules of behavior, it's not unthinkable to say that morality itself as a construct evolved even if our specific behaviors or specific morals fall outside the realm of evolution. But if morality did evolve, it certainly is a lot less clear cut than if we're talking about antibiotic resistance or limb evolution. I might suggest that you've given over too much ground to the materialists unwittingly here. That we share some common behaviors with animals doesn't seem to have much to do with what actually is right and wrong, good and bad. Categories seem to be a bit confused here, here the simple distinction between looking at what is, descriptive, and what ought to be, normative.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense. Do you believe that a monkey changed forms over the years and became a human being? Another nitpick, but this isn't actually what evolution predicts would happen, so if he did believe this he would not be believing in evolution. First, if by monkey you mean ape, then this hypothetical ape did not change into anything but an ape because humans are by definition apes. Second, individuals do not evolve, they only mutate and then have the potential to spread this mutation through the population if they reproduce. Third, speciation does not occur through mutation, which is what I am presuming you mean through the usage of "change" (forgive me if I am mistaken). If we're going to talk about evolution, I think we should go to great lengths to be sure we are speaking of it correctly. If we are just talking about strawmen, then we won't be talking about reality and thus not have a very meaningful discussion. I somehow missed the question from butero. Butero- I think monkeys and humans share a common ancestor. Monkeys that inhabit the earth now are just as modern as humans are.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense. Just a bit of a nitpick. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time, and the ToE is the theorized mechanisms by which this happens. This can occur without a population evolving into another species, such as a population of bears evolving a higher frequency of white fur vs. brown fur over multiple generations for various reasons. Speciation is more like a result of this action, usually over geologic time, but varies depending on the mutation rate and generation time. You are correct though that evolution has not been shown to apply to changes in such things, though the usage of morality itself could have evolved. I'm not familiar with what the current proposal for that is. Alpha, it's not nonsense if growth and development are words inside the definition of evolution. Evolution: man-made word/man-made definition/man-made website..http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Evolution?s=t - Again, why do people still kill, steal and destroy if we've grown and evolved so much. it's nonsense. Evolution as a physical process has no sense of promoting 'moral excellence' or 'wellbeing'. It's simply that organisms that survive long enough to reproduce have genetic material that continues on in the population.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense. Just a bit of a nitpick. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time, and the ToE is the theorized mechanisms by which this happens. This can occur without a population evolving into another species, such as a population of bears evolving a higher frequency of white fur vs. brown fur over multiple generations for various reasons. Speciation is more like a result of this action, usually over geologic time, but varies depending on the mutation rate and generation time. You are correct though that evolution has not been shown to apply to changes in such things, though the usage of morality itself could have evolved. I'm not familiar with what the current proposal for that is. No, only if you agree to allow morality to be reduced to physical properties. Why would you give that ground?

why do you think that?

Wrong. The Bible doesn't present them as merely historical person. It was through Adam that sin finds its orgin in our world. The Bible offers NO explanation for the origin and existence of sin apart from the fall of Adam. In fact, the Bible in more than one place links the origin of sin with Adam's disobedience. It links the sin of the entire human race and the need for mankind's recemption to the fall of Adam because the Bible teaches that it was Adam's sin that made Jesus' death on the cross necessary to satisfy God's justice against Adam's disobedience and mankinds resultant fallen state. So the issue here is not merely their historicity, but the clear link that the Bible makes bewteen their historicity and the redemptive work on the cross. The link the Bible makes is unavoidable and you simply cannot brush it aside because it doesn't agree with the notions that you are putting forth, here. The fact that you insist on trying to blend a godless theory with the pure Word of God is problematic for someone like yourself who claims to be a believer. You need to decide where you stand instead of trying to live with one foot in the Kingdom and one foot in the atheistic world of Evolution. Whom do you serve? You need to make decision. I serve the resurrected Lord of the universe. I already made that decision and I have no ambivalence there. Once again you insist on a dilemma that does not exist. Adam and Eve could have been historical, evolution be true, and Adam and Eve's downfall be the source of particular sin for our human existence. In all of our exchanges you haven't offered any truly compelling reasons I can't coherently think this is the case.

If Evolution is true, then there was no fall in the Garden, man is not a sinner and there would be no need for a Savior because what we call "sin" is not an issue of morality, but it part of the natural human make up. The classic error that people like you make is that you try to divorce Jesus' death, burial and resurrection from the rest of the Bible, and Genesis 1-11 in particular. If Jesus is truly raised, His resurrection stands the vindication of what Genesis 1 actually says, and shows Evolution is a lie. It was divorced, in my mind, when I first believed. I didn't really have to 'try' at that at all. Wrongness is wrongness, and that we are in fallen state, and in need of a savior, can be established evolution or no evolution. You are forcing a false dilemma. No, it is not a false dilemma. In fact, your position undermines the authority of the Word of God, which even the most ardent skeptic admits, presents us with a young earth and a created order that first appears in Genesis 1 and 2 as functionally mature and perfect. Even Jesus, in Mark 10:6, presents Adam and Eve as existing at the beginning of creation, not hundreds of millions of years after the beginning of creation. To hold to your view, you must come against Jesus' direct statement about Adam and Eve. In Luke 17:26, 27 Jesus confirms the historicity of Noah and by exstension the world-wide flood that evolutionists reject as having actually happened. Romans 5:12, and I Cor. 15:22 also make a case for the sin of man coming through Adam and that Jesus reversed the curse that Adam brought into the world. There is no biblical case to be made for sin apart from the fall of Adam in the Garden. The notion that man's need of a Savior can be established with or without evolution is not onl false, but demonstrates that you evidently don't have a very good theological base. You might be able to dream up some way to explain sin apart from Genesis 1, but it would be an explanation that exists in the realm of your imagination and not on the solid foundation of truth. 1. Evolution could be true and Adam and Eve be historical persons. 2. Evolution could be true, Adam and Eve not be historical persons, but still referred to point to certain theological truths, such as the fallen state of humanity and our need for a Savior.

No, evolution has no such direction. That is an incorrect understanding of the concepts which underlie the theory. Which, by the way Parker, before I started this thread I had just done a careful re-read of Genesis. The "Read your Bible" command is both insulting and not relevant here.

Not at all. Evolution, like the theory of gravity, is silent on the issue about how the rules and stuff which allow it to work come about. It merely gives us a model by which we can make predictions and explain some things in physical terms. Evolution in the sense that I've been discussing in this thread gives a framework by which we can understand how life, when left 'alone' (as alone as stuff is left in the world), tends to change. It is silent about where the fundamental physical rules actually come from which underlie it, where the chemicals come from, and so on.

Yes, that is what i mean.The reason I think that is the case has to do with the fact that I think the physical evidence suggests this sort of process. Actually it doesn't. Evolution is a slow gradual process. There is no physical evidence of this slow gradual physical change. All the evolutionist has is what it was and what it evolved into. There is no fossil evidence of that slow gradual transition. There actually is quite a bit of overwhelming evidence. Delving into specifics of this however takes us far afield of the theological question I posed in the OP. I think it's enough to point out that for many it seems as though there is *a lot* of evidence for evolution and that is why that position is compelling.

If Evolution is true, then there was no fall in the Garden, man is not a sinner and there would be no need for a Savior because what we call "sin" is not an issue of morality, but it part of the natural human make up. The classic error that people like you make is that you try to divorce Jesus' death, burial and resurrection from the rest of the Bible, and Genesis 1-11 in particular. If Jesus is truly raised, His resurrection stands the vindication of what Genesis 1 actually says, and shows Evolution is a lie. It was divorced, in my mind, when I first believed. I didn't really have to 'try' at that at all. Wrongness is wrongness, and that we are in fallen state, and in need of a savior, can be established evolution or no evolution. You are forcing a false dilemma.

Sure, but the amount of DNA, and the specific code that is similar,strongly suggests the truth of phylogenetic trees. God could have made it that way but at that point it seems He'd be making it to look like we came from the same original creature even though we don't.

Alright. What i mean for the purposes of this thread is something like this: evolution is the theory that living things on earth share a common ancestor. So, common ancestry. So you are saying that we can trace human beings back to one creature, and somehow this one creature split into all the creatures we have today? This one common ancestor became everything from fish to cats, dogs, elephants, giraffs, and of course, human beings? What makes that more believable to you than God creating everything as it is today? Yes, that is what i mean.The reason I think that is the case has to do with the fact that I think the physical evidence suggests this sort of process.

Alright. What i mean for the purposes of this thread is something like this: evolution is the theory that living things on earth share a common ancestor. So, common ancestry.

Evolution describes a process by which species come to be. It has nothing to do with 'moral development' or 'perfection' or 'creating harmony' or any other such nonsense.

Right. I would expect that someone who is a Creationist think that I am accepting a lie as an evolutionist insofar as obviously they are going to think I'm wrong. That in itself isn't surprising. That's why I wanted to address specifically the question about whether or not someone can be genuinely saved and accept evolution. We could expand it and ask how much this could possibly affect other areas of Christian life, if there isn't much to say about the salvation question itself. I started a thread sometime back showing how evolution is contrary to the Christian faith, and evolutionists wanted to debate it from a scientific standpoint. There is no way someone can believe the Bible and evolution. Can someone believe in Jesus and be saved and believe in evolution? I suppose it is possible. To believe in evolution, you can't believe in original sin as recorded in Genesis. You can't believe Adam and Eve are real people, and scripture shows we all come from Adam and Eve in the geneologies. You can't believe that sin and death came upon mankind because Adam ate of the forbidden fruit. You can't believe we need a savior because of Adam's transgression. A person that believes in evolution has to find creative ways to come up with an alternative version of the creation and why we need a savior. My question is why would someone who believes in evolution believe in Jesus? We know who Jesus is because of the witness of the authors of the Bible. If we can't believe what we are told about creation, why believe what they said about salvation? Part of my response to you is in my response to Parker, above. Second, it's entirely possible to accept evolution and think that Adam and Eve were historical people. On that particular matter I'm agnostic. Either way, I believe in the sinful condition of humanity and believe that is one key thing Genesis set out to show to us. How can you believe in evolution and believe we are all descendants of Adam and Eve? Well, it may be that Adam and Eve were historical people, the first ones that God gave a particular 'human' spirit to. Then, we are all literally descendents from these first two human beings.