Do you believe in evolution?

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by itom37
I'm gonna go ahead and call BS on this micro/macro evolution. It sounds like a distinction drawn by Bill O'Riley to further deny logic and evidence. It seems painfully clear to me that "micro"evolution leads to "macro"evolution.
Call it what you will. Scientists distinguish between the two.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by itom37
I can imagine where you're intending to go with that. But to me, it seems that if god knows what exactly what I'll be doing at some point in the future, in addition to knowing every intricate detail about how I arrived to that point, my free will is severely compromised if not completely absent. How can I say that I have any sort of power over making any decision if the entire course of my life is laid out for me? Free will, to me, is the idea that I can make any decision at any point in time. If there is a god who knows what my decision will be, I can hardly say that that is true.
If "God" knows what you are going to decide, that in know way affects what you decide. It simply means "God" knows the decisions you will make.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by itom37
Microevolution results in macroevolution... even if you don't believe that macroevolution occurs, this relationship is clearly implicit in the idea of macroevolution.
...
Not at all. That's a leap, that to the best of my knowledge, has not been proven anywhere.
Take for example the Peppered moth of England. Classic example of adaptation. They come in dark and light varieties. Before the industrial revolution the bulk of the moths were lightly colored. AS pollution killed off the lichens that camoflauged the moths, the black variety began to dominate the species.
This is "Micro-evolution" or Adaptation. The light phenotype of the species gave way to the dark variety.
Now, had the moth grown teeth and started eating the birds that were preying on it; that would be Macro-evolution.
As I have said, Adaptation has been witnessed and scientifically proven. Macro evolution involves species changing species. To the best of my knowledge this has not been observed.
 

itom37

Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Not at all. That's a leap, that to the best of my knowledge, has not been proven anywhere.
Take for example the Peppered moth of England. Classic example of adaptation. They come in dark and light varieties. Before the industrial revolution the bulk of the moths were lightly colored. AS pollution killed off the lichens that camoflauged the moths, the black variety began to dominate the species.
This is "Micro-evolution" or Adaptation. The light phenotype of the species gave way to the dark variety.
Now, had the moth grown teeth and started eating the birds that were preying on it; that would be Macro-evolution.
As I have said, Adaptation has been witnessed and scientifically proven. Macro evolution involves species changing species. To the best of my knowledge this has not been observed.
Your knowledge is incomplete. Speciation is observed all the time. It's not as grand as a fish giving birth to a snake (that sort of diversification obviously does not occur in an observable number of generations), but the basic step of "macroevolution" occurs often. Look up "examples of speciation" if you like.
 

b bauer

Member
where in the old testament does it say Adam and Eve are perfect?not that it doesnt I would like to know I read that they are in Gods image.Also after the floods Noah's family had sin they are far from perfect what about i sest then and gene mutation.By the way I do believe in God
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by TexasMetal
Snakes once had legs. This is proven by fossils. Matter of fact, male Boa Constrictors still have remnants of legs in their skeleton.
Happy debating.
The Bible talks about this....in the Garden of Eden...
 

rylan1

Active Member
I have a couple thoughts... I believe that humans and species are able to adapt, but I do not believe in Evolution. As mentioned there are no intermediate species, Animals discard their babies if they are mutated or something is wrong, as did humans in ancient times. So I don't believe that mutations over a long period would occur. As for

[hr]
in the Bible is was allowable to populate the world and then God outlawed it because it after a certain point it would allow for the mutation of genes.
But as far as theroies go, they are simply that... the best way at a given time to explain something. As far as another theory that relates to this is the Big Bang theory. Many scientists believed that the universe always was, and even Eienstein sided with this theory, even though his own research suggested something different. We now see the evidence of an expanding universe that began. I beleive the evidence is looking at us right in the face, and that the theory of evolution is a false theory.
Another point is if Dinosaurs were all wiped out by one event- which is the common and most accepted theory, how can different species evolve from animals that have succumed to extinction by an event that killed them over a span of seconds to maybe 2 years. It doesn't make sense.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by b bauer
where in the old testament does it say Adam and Eve are perfect?not that it doesnt I would like to know I read that they are in Gods image.Also after the floods Noah's family had sin they are far from perfect what about i sest then and gene mutation.By the way I do believe in God
It really doesn't have to say... but if they were the 1st human beings it is easy to assume they were perfect and void of any mutation, bad genes, etc, etc... The were the orginals... think of it as a recording or anything that starts from an orginal version... as you make more copies of it it degrades..
Or take a baby for example... Its cells are perfect, but every 10 years you have a new face( meaning that all the bones and tissues of your face have died and been replaced by new cells) so by the time you are 70 years old your faced has copied its self 7 times, which is why you have wrinkles and your bones and skin or in the shape that its in.
 

clown boy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
I completely agree with this.

Christians can believe in both evolution and God.
I just see more evidence to disprove evolution than to prove it. We should be seeing fossils of intermediate species all over, yet none has been found. That seems crucial to me for evolution.
You couldn't without calling God a liar at some point...
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by itom37
Your knowledge is incomplete. Speciation is observed all the time. It's not as grand as a fish giving birth to a snake (that sort of diversification obviously does not occur in an observable number of generations), but the basic step of "macroevolution" occurs often. Look up "examples of speciation" if you like.
I did take some time to look it up. And you are correct, there are several examples I was not aware of.
These examples I've seen, however, (plant hybrids becoming fertile, insect developing taste for other fruit, and "rign" species, etc.) all have a couple of things in common. They are all still a plant or animal, and behavior is what has likely been modified.
Show me a feather evolving, or an eye evolving, or a 4 chambered heart evolving, or midochondria evolving in a single celled organism.
The examples, while compelling, show lateral changes in species. Certainly no "next step".
Again, however, you were correct in pointing out speciation.
Now, show me how that leads to macro-evolution?
Let me make one thing very clear; Evolution being proven or disprovan doesn't affect my belief system in any way. I simply argue against evolution because I hate bad/lazy science. As someone on this thread has already said "I believe in evolution because what's the alternative". That's the prevailing thinking among most evolutionists I've talked to, and it's shameful.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
You couldn't without calling God a liar at some point...
Careful.
As much as Christians want it to be, Genesis is not a Biology textbook. When you read the Creation account carefully you see that God wasn't particularly interested in "how" He created things.
Could God have created life through evolution? Sure. Is there any evidence of this? Not that I've seen. Still, Genesis does not go into any kind of explanation as to how God created life, only that He did it.
 

clown boy

Active Member
It does indeed explain how. He spoke. It existed. You don't expect to get a biological explanation from God, do you?
 

clown boy

Active Member
In 1990, a team from the Montana State University Museum found an almost complete T-rex
skeleton. Later, a team lead by Dr. Mary Schweitzer found red blood cells in the unfossilized
long bone of the leg.
Recounting her story in the June 1997 edition of Earth magazine (which
has since gone out of business), Dr. Schweitzer said:
When the team brought the dinosaur into the lab, we noticed that some
parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized.
Earlier in the article she reports:
The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something
inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny
round objects, translucent red with a dark center.
Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, "You’ve got red
blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!"
In 1990, a team from the Montana State University Museum found an almost complete T-rex
skeleton. Later, a team lead by Dr. Mary Schweitzer found red blood cells in the unfossilized
long bone of the leg.
While evolutionists believe that dinosaurs
became extinct almost 65 million years ago,
this discovery of red blood cells in a
dinosaur bone fits perfectly with the Biblical
timeline that indicates that God created all
animals only 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. It
seems hard to imagine that a bone buried
for 65 million years would never have been
exposed to the minerals and conditions
needed for fossilization to take place.
Secondly, since it was not fossilized, how
could it stay in the ground for that long
without decaying? Even more amazing are
the red blood cells. It seems that there is no
possible way for something as extremely
delicate as red blood cells to survive for 65
million years! This evidence really seems to
support the idea that dinosaurs lived thousands
of years ago, instead of millions and
millions of years ago!
When evolutionists found out that creationists
were claiming that this discovery indicates
that dinosaurs did not live millions of years
ago, they claimed that only heme and not
globin (which is needed to form red blood
cells) was found in the bones. They said
that this distinction was important, because
they felt that heme could last millions of
years in an unfossilized bone, even if globin
could not.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
It does indeed explain how. He spoke. It existed. You don't expect to get a biological explanation from God, do you?
You're correct, but that doesn't neccessarily imply an immediate species. God could have spoke and unicorns could have ridden out of Heaven and sprinlked fairy dust on the earth, giving rise to large eggs popping out of the ground, which hatched into goghers whivh began to mate and create new life.
A goofy example, but... you get the point.
As much as I hate bad science, I also hate bad theology. A careful reading of the Creation account shows the point ot the story is "God". Reading too much more into it tends to muddle what's important.
Take "time" for instance. The account measures things in "days", yet "days" as we know them were created on day 4.
 

clown boy

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Take "time" for instance. The account measures things in "days", yet "days" as we know them were created on day 4.
But if this meant "long periods of time", than you are saying that it was millions of years between the day that plants were created and the Sun was created.
So much for veggies.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
But if this meant "long periods of time", than you are saying that it was millions of years between the day that plants were created and the Sun was created.
So much for veggies.

Exactly... although light was already created.
 

clown boy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
In 1990, a team from the Montana State University Museum found an almost complete T-rex
skeleton. Later, a team lead by Dr. Mary Schweitzer found red blood cells in the unfossilized
long bone of the leg.......... CONTINUATION
Dr. Schweitzer’s team became convinced that the T-rex bone contained heme.
The big question was whether or not it also contained globin, which would
indicate the presence of red blood cells.
To answer the question, scientists under Dr. Schweitzer’s direction injected lab
rats with the substance from the T-rex bone. If the bone contained only heme,
the rats immune system would not react to it. However, if the substance also
contained globin, the rats would show a reaction.
What happened? After being injected, the lab rats did have a reaction, showing
that both heme and globin were present. That result indicates that Dr.
Schweitzer and her team did indeed find hemoglobin, which means red blood
cells, in an unfossilized T-rex bone!
 

ozmar

Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
A belief in God or Evolution does not seem to preclude a belief in the other. I suppose if you believed that the two beliefs cannot both coexist then you might have an agenda to disprove what you feel is a threat to your belief.
Agreed. I think the controversy is created by absolutists on both sides who feel that evolution is inimical to faith in a creator deity. Absolutists see evolution as providing a reason to discard the concept of any God to which we must be beholden. If our current state can be shown to be caused by non-divine forces, then we have no "need" of God, and he can be set aside for an atheist world view. On one side, that's desirable, on the other, it is threatening.
I suspect that, for most of us, the two concepts can coexist peacefully. We may be agnostic about one or the other, or we may accept both, but we don't accept the implied dichotomy promoted by the absolutists.
Personally, I am a bit agnostic about evolution - I simply don't know enough to be certain, but it seems somewhat reasonable. I am certainly not against teaching the scientific theories or evidence. And I am not at all agnostic about God. I know He's got my back. :)
Ozmar the Christian
 
Top