Evolution My ToE

[SkepticThinker]

I used to believe in evolution. I certainly do not know everything, but I have come to not only question evolution, but realize that it's conjecture based on appearance and fossils. I'd love to know how they figure homo sapiens have "Neanderthal dna" in them, perhaps you know more about that and can offer an explanation. I used to believe everything they said. Now I do not.
What's with me and Neanderthals? A couple of things. Scientists and others (artists and comic writers, even dictionaries) have depicted for a LONG TIME Neanderthals as being real dumb, not all, of course, using the term dumb, but it takes me back to eugenics and scientists expositions that some races of current mankind inferior to others. Want to go over that again?
The more I examine the ToE here and in scientific journals, the more I see opinion. The Bible makes sense. Pure, unintelligent morphing does not. With or without contaminants.

I (and others) have shown to you how we test for Neanderthal DNA in humans. More than once.
Why are you acting as though this has never been presented to you? Are you actively trying NOT to learn anything?

Interbreeding
Neanderthal DNA in Modern Human Genomes Is Not Silent

TIme to get serious already.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm beginning to think you really don't understand what I am saying. I am saying what evolutionists believe (not what I believe any longer). You don't claim to be a Christian, do you? Someone here does and also claims to believe in evolution. THAT is what I am discussing. It's almost like an election, who you gonna vote for? I haven't heard so far that in a election here in the U.S., one can vote for two or more candidates running for the same office. It's one or the other, no combination of candidates for the same position.
Jesus did not combine evolution with creation. If some want to think or believe he spoke of myths and believed and taught them, that's up to them. But it doesn't jibe with evolution.
"“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’" That's what Jesus said. (Mark chapter 10.)

You have no idea what "evolutionists" believe.

 

[McBell]

My position is that there is a Creator with intelligence that caused life to be as we know it. Jesus believed in the Creator. I believe Jesus. If I believed in the ToE I'd literally be saying that Jesus was misled. If I went further than that to say I am a Christian but believed he was misled and mistaken, then it would be as you say, propounding bad fruit.

What specifically about the ToE leads you to believe its being true means Jesus was misled?

 

[dad]

Asking dishonestly unjustified loaded questions, is not going to accomplish anything either.

The issue is what nature existed in the past. Science uses an assumption that this current one reflects the past. Indeed it uses the present to model the past. No model is any better than that belief.

You have no choice but the deal with it.

 

[dad]

You have no idea what "evolutionists" believe.

Hey, still beats you, as you have no idea what 'evolutionists' even are.

 

[SkepticThinker]

While not an expert, I understand the basic concept of the theory, although some here might say I don't. I do not accept or believe that the evidence demonstrates that life evolved. What fossils demonstrate is that those forms of life existed. I don't have faith in the concept of evolution by natural selection, and I do not believe it.

I'm sorry, but you don't.
You're still talking about creatures "morphing into" other creatures when it has been pointed out to you umpteen times that not only is that not how evolution works, but such an observation would falsify evolution.
And here you are again completely ignoring the existence of comparative genomics and nested hierarchies.
Honestly, it appears as though you do not want to learn.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ya want to share the prize with Dam?

Only if it's something fancy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Speaking of accepting science, I'm not sure what you mean. I go to doctors, take vaccinations when I deem it proper to do so, I drive a car. Etc. I am still trying to understand Einstein's theories and how he figured them.

Ah, so you pick and choose what science you want to accept.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hey, still beats you, as you have no idea what 'evolutionists' even are.

I'd love for you to enlighten me.
I absolutely cannot wait.

 

[dad]

I'd love for you to enlighten me.
I absolutely cannot wait.

Well, if you know what an 'evolutionist' is tell us. Sounds funny.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, if you know what an 'evolutionist' is tell us. Sounds funny.

Ah, what a let down.

 

[dad]

Ah, what a let down.

For a Christian an evolutionist might be considered someone that denies creation and instead believes that man and animals came to exist by a long process of evolving. Not sure what you would call them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

For a Christian an evolutionist might be considered someone that denies creation and instead believes that man and animals came to exist by a long process of evolving. Not sure what you would call them.

I don't call people "evolutionists" any more than I refer to people as "gravitationalists" or "germists."

But thanks for giving me an actual answer to the question.

 

[dad]

I don't call people "evolutionists" any more than I refer to people as "gravitationalists" or "germists."

But thanks for giving me an actual answer to the question.

I saw you used the term.
"You have no idea what "evolutionists" believe."

That seemed to indicate you have some idea what they believe and what they are.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, most Christian denominations see no conflict between science and Christianity. But that is because the idea of taking everything in the Old Testament literally is a recent - and retrograde - idea, only adopted by certain fundamentalist sects. You are wrong to believe all Christians think like you: they don't at all.

I wasn't thinking of the Old Testament, but of what Jesus said about creation. If he believed in the Old Testament, and then we say he believed in myths, it makes Jesus into someone that doesn't understand or know the truth, and that would mean he is a liar, because he spoke of creation, the flood of Noah's time, and other things from the Old Testament. If we think he just didn't understand, then we're saying we know more than Jesus does about his conviction regarding creation, marriage, Noah, Daniel, and others written about, including Moses.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then you haven't been paying attention.
You are simply being wilfully ignorant at this point. That's not a good look for you.

So you have videos of the insides of these animals (fish that are not landcrawlers) evolving into landcrawling fish and then more?

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't call people "evolutionists" any more than I refer to people as "gravitationalists" or "germists."

If you want to call people 'apes,' because you believe they are, that's your choice.

 

[Bear Wild]

If you want to call people 'apes,' because you believe they are, that's your choice.

You cannot be that ignorant of biology not to see us as a member of the ape family. The similarities are just to great in genetics to deny. I know you want to feel special but ignoring the truth will not really help you. It was not that long ago that Europeans so other indigenous people as different (savages) and most of us become wiser to see there is no real difference (excluding the president of the United States). The same is true for our relation to the other great apes. We are more similar than different.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you accept the scientific view of:
- the age of the universe?
- the age of the Earth?
- the stratigraphic record of the rocks?
- the evidence for continental drift?
- fossils being the chemically altered remains of long-dead organisms
- the shape of the Earth?
- experiments that show evolution taking place in the laboratory?
- the development of drug resistance in bacteria and in cancers?

Or do you close your eyes and ears to these findings of science?

Findings of science are not definite, or using another expression, written in stone. They are open to change, and sometimes radical change at that. Scientists are often coming up with new findings that overturn the older ways of looking at things. Yes, things like the polio vaccine have greatly helped the human population as far as I am concerned.
To respond to your points:
I can't figure how scientists figure the age of the universe.
Or the earth.
I realize there is a record in rock formation showing drifts and extreme changes and shifting soil.
I think there has been continental drift. I haven't really gone into it, though.
I realize fossils are chemically altered remains.
I believe the earth is spherical, as in roundish, meaning it is not a flat earth type thing.
I don't believe that evolution as shown in laboratories is representative of Darwinian type evolution, it does not depict evolution as some believe.
I believe that people of science have developed resistance to bacterias and other illnesses.
I don't believe that evolution caused the eventual existence of homo sapiens after billions of years stemming from a unicell.

 

[exchemist]

I wasn't thinking of the Old Testament, but of what Jesus said about creation. If he believed in the Old Testament, and then we say he believed in myths, it makes Jesus into someone that doesn't understand or know the truth, and that would mean he is a liar, because he spoke of creation, the flood of Noah's time, and other things from the Old Testament. If we think he just didn't understand, then we're saying we know more than Jesus does about his conviction regarding creation, marriage, Noah, Daniel, and others written about, including Moses.

Not at all. Jesus would have obviously have had to speak to his disciples in terms of their own culture - i.e. the OT accounts, in order for them to understand what he was really trying to say. This was a totally pre-scientific era, don't forget. One needs to read what Jesus said about it context and look for the meaning of his words, rather than taking sentences out of context. Which passage are you thinking of?

He could hardly have told people 2000 years ago the OT was an allegory, and the real method of creation was a lot more complicated and indirect, working through something called the "laws of nature" - which were yet to be discovered by Man for another 1,500 years. He would have lost his audience and his mission would have failed.

Think about it: God Himself descends to Earth in human form and has to reduce Himself to the puny body and mind of a human being and communicate through this feeble instrument we call "speech", which is unable - most likely - to express 90% of what God knows and feels. The whole exercise of the Incarnation involves severe limitations, compromises and gross simplifications, just to get onto a human wavelength at all.