100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Theists who believe in evolution. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Some people say that evolution has stopped with humans, other say it continues, and both are right. Its a semantic issue.
First, we have to clarify whether we mean (a) "evolution = change in qualities of a species" or (b) "evolution = development of a new species". It seems to me that scientists prefer (a). Second, we ask if we are (1) differentiating between selective pressures that are created by humans and those which aren't, or (2) considering all selective pressures to be part of 'evolution'. Humans are part of the whole system, and have been since we came into existence. And humans aren't the only creatures whose choices shape the selective pressures acting on themselves and on other creatures - so I see no reason to use approach (1). So if we are using (a) and (2), then yes humans are definitely continuing to evolve. Predators have no effective influence on our evolution, though bacteria and viruses may. Most of all our culture is shaping our evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was just recently in a conversation with someone who brought up the subject of evolution like this...."....if you believe in evolution...." and he paused, and waited for my agreement or some indication that I believed in evolution, before he continued.. but I just said nothing because I don't know much about it and I can't really have an opinion about it to declare that I "believe" in it (as if it is some kind of religion, which it is not.) I did not want to get into a discussion about it, or into any discussion about what I did believe (which would be too long of a conversation.)
So I just gave him a blank stare until he continued his discussion about what ever it was... I also don't consider "creationism" (of the Christian variety) to be a "theory." I have heard over and over what a "theory" is supposed to be, but I have seen the word "theory" used and abused a lot and I have abused it a lot myself until I think it has a acquired a new meaning. But still, it always seems to come down to .... do you believe in evolution or creationism? Neither. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Things evolve WITHIN a species, usually in order to
adapt to CHANGES in its environment.... but TO evolve into a WHOLE OTHER SPECIES never will happen. God made all things to reproduce AFTER ITS OWN KIND. And actually, everything is DEVOLVING, not evolving. Also, since God made man in His own image, then that would mean that man and ape could NOT have come from some common ancestor. (what can an ape do, compared to man ?) Man and ape or 2 different species ENTIRELY...and again..God made ALL things to reproduce AFTER ITS OWN KIND. ONLY.  One last thing.... true science and the bible AGREE.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
have scientists 'observed' human evolution? predicted and tested it? indeed they have. we're immune to viruses that once killed us. out skin pigmentation is changing as we come in from the sun. some people are born without adnoids which we no longer need. the average person is taller today than just one century ago. i could go on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
have scientists 'observed' human evolution? predicted and tested it? indeed they have. we're immune to viruses that once killed us. out skin pigmentation is changing as we come in from the sun. some people are born without adnoids which we no longer need. the average person is taller today than just one century ago. i could go on. That's not what I would consider "evolution" from one species to another. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 09/06/11 02:41 PM
|
|
David Wilcox tells about an experiment that was done where they projected an energy beam through a salamander onto a bunch of frogs eggs. He said the energy beam carried information from DNA from the salamander to the eggs. When the eggs hatched, they were not frogs but salamander's.
A similar experiment was done with a duck onto chicken (or chicken eggs, I can't remember which) The chickens hatched appeared to be half duck and half chicken. Some had flatter bills and were sporting webbing between their toes. There was no cross-breading done in these cases, just some kind of light or energy beam through one animal to the other. Now if that is true, then I think evolution from one species to another is altogether possible. I think it has to do with DNA information. I believe that DNA CAN TRANSFORM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Tue 09/06/11 03:40 PM
|
|
Those mentioned above in your post, are all still
WITHIN the SAME SPECIES, Jeannie. There are MANY DIFFERENT VARIETIES WITHIN Each Species.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those mentioned above in your post, are all still WITHIN the SAME SPECIES, Jeannie. There are MANY DIFFERENT VARIETIES WITHIN Each Species. Are you claiming that a chicken and a duck are within the same species because they are both birds? A frog and a salamander is the same "species?" What do you define as a species? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 09/06/11 04:03 PM
|
|
Reptilian love
"Oh give us a kiss sweetie!" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those mentioned above in your post, are all still WITHIN the SAME SPECIES, Jeannie. There are MANY DIFFERENT VARIETIES WITHIN Each Species. Are you claiming that a chicken and a duck are within the same species because they are both birds? A frog and a salamander is the same "species?" What do you define as a species? Correction: No..the chicken and the duck are NOT of the same species. Neither is the frog and the salamander of the same species. My mistake.  ONLY the many varieties WITHIN any species, can reproduce. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Wilcox tells about an experiment that was done where they projected an energy beam through a salamander onto a bunch of frogs eggs. He said the energy beam carried information from DNA from the salamander to the eggs. When the eggs hatched, they were not frogs but salamander's. A similar experiment was done with a duck onto chicken (or chicken eggs, I can't remember which) The chickens hatched appeared to be half duck and half chicken. Some had flatter bills and were sporting webbing between their toes. There was no cross-breading done in these cases, just some kind of light or energy beam through one animal to the other. Now if that is true, then I think evolution from one species to another is altogether possible. I think it has to do with DNA information. I believe that DNA CAN TRANSFORM. I quickly replied earlier, after only briefly scanning this article....was in a hurry...... but after reading it thoroughly thru now, I can see this article is not true. Be careful what you find on the internet ,Jeannie....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those mentioned above in your post, are all still WITHIN the SAME SPECIES, Jeannie. There are MANY DIFFERENT VARIETIES WITHIN Each Species. Are you claiming that a chicken and a duck are within the same species because they are both birds? A frog and a salamander is the same "species?" What do you define as a species? Correction: No..the chicken and the duck are NOT of the same species. Neither is the frog and the salamander of the same species. My mistake. ONLY the many varieties WITHIN any species, can reproduce. Okay, I was wondering if I had the wrong definition of "species." I have attempted to find more information about those two experiments but I have not found it yet. I think its extremely interesting. If it is true, I would like to try a salamander and a chicken and see what might happen... (If I were a scientist I would probably be one of those "mad scientists.") |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow at these responses. I'm not going to quote people because i'd be quoting multiple people. I think jrbogie and i forgot who else have it right. Evolution is stated to be factual. It's synonymous with the theory of gravity and the round earth theory. There are array of scientific data that shows evolution, there is countless research papers and books anyone can read. I mean we got a friggin' tail bone for crying out loud. I just find it very interesting that evolution is the only topic some people refuse to research thorough and accept, but everything else they don't care about that doesn't conflict with their religion. If the universe was static, i could see that being a problem, but once scientist propose the big bang was the start of "creation" for the observable universe, religious people was ecstatic.
The funny part is this very topic years ago would have got me beheaded, we as a species came a long way, i think that's why i sometimes get mad, because people don't even take the common courtesy to read what scientist put out. To me it's like this, I've read your Bible, now can you pick up a good book on evolution and consider it, or if you don't fine. You would never see a priest preaching about evolution in church, but creationism needs to find itself in science classrooms. OKAY DEEP BREATH. (this not to the people of this forum to be honest, just venting). TL;DR People really need to educate themselves on evolution, church would never teach evolution so science classes shouldn't teach creationism. @Abracadabra Well to be honest i think there is to many paradoxes with a God intervene universe. Also, i think the problem is a lot of people make the word God very ambiguous. One person will say he is the Christian God, someone else will say it is energy and someone else will say it is a supreme consciousness. Everybody want to feel a purpose in life, i mean that's just common human instinct, because we evolved to be very self aware. I mean, you was born into a world you have absolutely no knowledge of, i would want some meaning in my life too. The reason why i reject the Christian God is because the Bible is a horrid depiction of truth and rationalization, among other things and this is why i love this quote (this is not at you just saying): “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 09/06/11 07:02 PM
|
|
David Wilcox tells about an experiment that was done where they projected an energy beam through a salamander onto a bunch of frogs eggs. He said the energy beam carried information from DNA from the salamander to the eggs. When the eggs hatched, they were not frogs but salamander's. A similar experiment was done with a duck onto chicken (or chicken eggs, I can't remember which) The chickens hatched appeared to be half duck and half chicken. Some had flatter bills and were sporting webbing between their toes. There was no cross-breading done in these cases, just some kind of light or energy beam through one animal to the other. Now if that is true, then I think evolution from one species to another is altogether possible. I think it has to do with DNA information. I believe that DNA CAN TRANSFORM. I quickly replied earlier, after only briefly scanning this article....was in a hurry...... but after reading it thoroughly thru now, I can see this article is not true. Be careful what you find on the internet ,Jeannie.... I don't know what article you are referring to Morningsong. I did not find any article. Do you have a link? I did not link to any article. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 09/06/11 07:16 PM
|
|
Wow at these responses. I'm not going to quote people because i'd be quoting multiple people. I think jrbogie and i forgot who else have it right. Evolution is stated to be factual. It's synonymous with the theory of gravity and the round earth theory. There are array of scientific data that shows evolution, there is countless research papers and books anyone can read. I mean we got a friggin' tail bone for crying out loud. I just find it very interesting that evolution is the only topic some people refuse to research thorough and accept, but everything else they don't care about that doesn't conflict with their religion. If the universe was static, i could see that being a problem, but once scientist propose the big bang was the start of "creation" for the observable universe, religious people was ecstatic. The funny part is this very topic years ago would have got me beheaded, we as a species came a long way, i think that's why i sometimes get mad, because people don't even take the common courtesy to read what scientist put out. To me it's like this, I've read your Bible, now can you pick up a good book on evolution and consider it, or if you don't fine. You would never see a priest preaching about evolution in church, but creationism needs to find itself in science classrooms. OKAY DEEP BREATH. (this not to the people of this forum to be honest, just venting). TL;DR People really need to educate themselves on evolution, church would never teach evolution so science classes shouldn't teach creationism. @Abracadabra Well to be honest i think there is to many paradoxes with a God intervene universe. Also, i think the problem is a lot of people make the word God very ambiguous. One person will say he is the Christian God, someone else will say it is energy and someone else will say it is a supreme consciousness. Everybody want to feel a purpose in life, i mean that's just common human instinct, because we evolved to be very self aware. I mean, you was born into a world you have absolutely no knowledge of, i would want some meaning in my life too. The reason why i reject the Christian God is because the Bible is a horrid depiction of truth and rationalization, among other things and this is why i love this quote (this is not at you just saying): “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts >>>People really need to educate themselves on evolution, ...<<< Why? What gets me is seeing people push their scientific beliefs and theories at people as if there should be a law against not reading and agreeing with them. What if I just don't care?:  -- Why should that bother anyone? Same goes with people who tell me that I should "read the Bible and educate myself." Bah! Neither one of them have anything useful to say to me, both I'm sure have some facts and some truth, neither is the whole truth. Neither is my religion. Neither is necessary for me to live my life better. I don't really care. It is not a competition between evolution and creationism as far as I'm concerned. Non of that matters. When they get it all figured out completely, then I might be interested, but none of it rings completely true to me. Evolution does not disprove a creative intelligence and the Bible does not prove there is a creator God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mykesorrel
on
Tue 09/06/11 07:23 PM
|
|
Wow at these responses. I'm not going to quote people because i'd be quoting multiple people. I think jrbogie and i forgot who else have it right. Evolution is stated to be factual. It's synonymous with the theory of gravity and the round earth theory. There are array of scientific data that shows evolution, there is countless research papers and books anyone can read. I mean we got a friggin' tail bone for crying out loud. I just find it very interesting that evolution is the only topic some people refuse to research thorough and accept, but everything else they don't care about that doesn't conflict with their religion. If the universe was static, i could see that being a problem, but once scientist propose the big bang was the start of "creation" for the observable universe, religious people was ecstatic. The funny part is this very topic years ago would have got me beheaded, we as a species came a long way, i think that's why i sometimes get mad, because people don't even take the common courtesy to read what scientist put out. To me it's like this, I've read your Bible, now can you pick up a good book on evolution and consider it, or if you don't fine. You would never see a priest preaching about evolution in church, but creationism needs to find itself in science classrooms. OKAY DEEP BREATH. (this not to the people of this forum to be honest, just venting). TL;DR People really need to educate themselves on evolution, church would never teach evolution so science classes shouldn't teach creationism. @Abracadabra Well to be honest i think there is to many paradoxes with a God intervene universe. Also, i think the problem is a lot of people make the word God very ambiguous. One person will say he is the Christian God, someone else will say it is energy and someone else will say it is a supreme consciousness. Everybody want to feel a purpose in life, i mean that's just common human instinct, because we evolved to be very self aware. I mean, you was born into a world you have absolutely no knowledge of, i would want some meaning in my life too. The reason why i reject the Christian God is because the Bible is a horrid depiction of truth and rationalization, among other things and this is why i love this quote (this is not at you just saying): “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts >>>People really need to educate themselves on evolution, ...<<< Why? What gets me is seeing people push their scientific beliefs and theories at people as if there should be a law against not reading and agreeing with them. What if I just don't care?: -- Why should that bother anyone? Same goes with people who tell me that I should "read the Bible and educate myself." Bah! Neither one of them have anything useful to say to me, both I'm sure have some facts and some truth, neither is the whole truth. Neither is my religion. Neither is necessary for me to live my life better. I don't really care. It is not a competition between evolution ansd creationism as far as I'm concerned. Non of that matters. When they get it all figured out completely, then I might be interested, but none of it rings completely true to me. Evolution does not disprove a creative intelligence and the Bible does not prove there is a creator God Firstly your use of theories and beliefs is conforming it into some kind of religious principle. I will respond like this, education makes everything better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nxbd4cTgQ0 Not a compeition, really? What world are you living in? Like i said, it takes nothing read up on it fine, it's to the people WHO DON'T read up on it and reject it is my overall point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is easy for me to accept Creationism and Evolution. Jesus said there would be wars and rumors of wars. Wars have evolved a lot from the first wars when life originated. Back then a good rock or a sharp stick and maybe just mortal combat but wars have evolved a lot since then. The early crusaders had swords and spears. But look at us now as we have come a long way, baby. We now have heat seeking missiles and intelligent bombs. Our creativity has really evolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 09/06/11 08:12 PM
|
|
Not a compeition, really? What world are you living in? Like i said, it takes nothing read up on it fine, it's to the people WHO DON'T read up on it and reject it is my overall point. Why would you think I "reject" the theory of evolution? I never said I rejected it. I said that I'm sure it has lots of facts and merit. I might not agree with the conclusions some make about it, but I certainly don't reject it. I also don't "reject" God just because I am not a Christian. The only way a person can reject something is if some other person is trying to force it down their throat. The link you posted seems to be some kind of statement, not about evolution itself, but about "ignorance." Therefor what you seem to be implying is that if a person does not learn about (and accept) evolution as an alternative to religion then they are ignorant. What I am saying is that I don't think evolution is complete, and it does not rule out the idea of a creative intelligence in the universe. Basically it does not disprove or compete with the concept of "God." I think that is what so many people think it does. I will say the same to people who offer the Bible as proof of their beliefs or as proof (or evidence) of God. People try to make the theory of evolution and a belief in creationism competitors. Is this the same old argument about whether or not there is a God? That is not going to be proven or dis-proven by a theory of evolution. It is not a choice between believing in God or believing in a theory of evolution. Its just information to be considered. I will consider it for eternity... or until they get it all figured out, which ever comes first. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>>People really need to educate themselves on evolution, ...<<< Why? I'm pretty sure he means: "Those who attack evolution need to educate themselves on it". Why? Because to do otherwise is dishonest. What if I just don't care? I respect that you don't want people to push their worldview-agenda on you... and yet, you are evidently curious about the natural world, and interested in developing coherent theories to explain this. You do care. It would be sad if you didn't - if you had no interest in truth, no interest in evidence, no interest in understanding the natural world. Why should that bother anyone? I accept that some people are incurious and indifferent, that doesn't bother me. But when people make attacks against evolution without understanding it, they end up propagating lies. I feel that should bother people. It is not a competition between evolution and creationism as far as I'm concerned. I agree; that whole dichotomy is silly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mykesorrel
on
Wed 09/07/11 05:49 AM
|
|
Not a compeition, really? What world are you living in? Like i said, it takes nothing read up on it fine, it's to the people WHO DON'T read up on it and reject it is my overall point. Why would you think I "reject" the theory of evolution? I never said I rejected it. I said that I'm sure it has lots of facts and merit. I might not agree with the conclusions some make about it, but I certainly don't reject it. I also don't "reject" God just because I am not a Christian. The only way a person can reject something is if some other person is trying to force it down their throat. The link you posted seems to be some kind of statement, not about evolution itself, but about "ignorance." Therefor what you seem to be implying is that if a person does not learn about (and accept) evolution as an alternative to religion then they are ignorant. What I am saying is that I don't think evolution is complete, and it does not rule out the idea of a creative intelligence in the universe. Basically it does not disprove or compete with the concept of "God." I think that is what so many people think it does. I will say the same to people who offer the Bible as proof of their beliefs or as proof (or evidence) of God. People try to make the theory of evolution and a belief in creationism competitors. Is this the same old argument about whether or not there is a God? That is not going to be proven or dis-proven by a theory of evolution. It is not a choice between believing in God or believing in a theory of evolution. Its just information to be considered. I will consider it for eternity... or until they get it all figured out, which ever comes first. For one i did not say you yourself do not accept evolution, i said people who reject it and don't even research it is being dishonest, so don't put words into my statements. My point in the OP was if evolution by natural selection occurred and we're a common ancestor that evolved from a decedent of great apes, that would cancel out Adam and Eve, and that's the purpose of my OP. It's not about competition on science end, but on a religious end, i only wanted to ask honest Christians how can they reconcile with what i stated above. My link above is referring to your "what if i don't care" mentality. Furthermore if "what if i don't care" is what religious people spew, yet be the same ones fighting to get evolution out of classes is my problem, which seems to flew over your head and also seems you think my statements are a direct attack to you, for what reason i cannot fathom. I never said anything about a belief in God and evolution even in my OP, i stated evolution and scripture, how would they coincide with Christians, so again you're putting words into my statements. Also, curious question, what makes you think evolution is not complete? Have you researched and read up anything that made you feel it is not complete? If you did i would love to see citation, you can even PM me and if you did not, then everything i talked about is my point. |
|
|
|
|
