Why Evolution and Christianity are Fundamentally Irreconcilable

[Thermos aquaticus]

Not sure what you mean by goal, but I would think that any creature that has at least 51% of what we currently consider human DNA should be considered more human than not.

Chimp DNA has >95% identity with human DNA.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Actually I supplied a quote

Let me guess... you think it's a fake link... see the link on Lucy Dethroned

see --> Lucy Dethroned

Apologetics Press is not a scientific source.

What you need to deal with are the facts, such as the similarities between the pelvises shown in one of my previous posts. A. afarensis was definitely not a chimp. A. afarensis has a mixture of human-like features not found in any living ape and ape-like features not found in any living human. If that isn't transitional, then you need to explain what would be.

"For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?"--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Think o



Think of it this way: from the neck up Lucy is very non human, from the neck down Lucy is very non human... that about covers it.

That statement is proven false when one looks at the pelvic girdle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why? Australopithicus afarensis has a mixture of ape and human features. There is absolutely no doubt about this. For example:



The human pelvis is on the left and the chimp pelvis is on the right. The two in the middle are A. afarensis and Ar. ramidus, two hominid transitionals. Those pelvises sure look more like that of a human than of a chimp. Do you disagree? It doesn't take a degree in medicine to see the obvious.

I did a Google image search and bookmarked the source. Something I should have done a while ago. Thanks again.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Dar·win·ism
ˈdärwəˌnizəm/
noun
the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.
​

Science is not marching away from Darwinism. Science is continually find new support for Darwinism.

How is it possible that you don't understand that.

There was little conflict between Darwinism and scientific understanding- as it stood in the 19th C when Darwin presented it, it was a perfectly logical extension of classical physics- a handful of simple rules + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in- would be bound to produce jolly interesting results eventually! With subatomic physics, quantum mechanics, we know better now.

 

[Audie]

There was little conflict between Darwinism and scientific understanding- as it stood in the 19th C when Darwin presented it, it was a perfectly logical extension of classical physics- a handful of simple rules + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in- would be bound to produce jolly interesting results eventually! With subatomic physics, quantum mechanics, we know better now.

So, "we" know better than to think the ToE is accurate.
Droll.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was little conflict between Darwinism and scientific understanding- as it stood in the 19th C when Darwin presented it, it was a perfectly logical extension of classical physics- a handful of simple rules + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in- would be bound to produce jolly interesting results eventually! With subatomic physics, quantum mechanics, we know better now.

How so? It is far more possible now than then. You have been shooting yourself in the foot again today Guy.

 

[ecco]

There was little conflict between Darwinism and scientific understanding- as it stood in the 19th C when Darwin presented it, it was a perfectly logical extension of classical physics- a handful of simple rules + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in- would be bound to produce jolly interesting results eventually! With subatomic physics, quantum mechanics, we know better now.

What? Care to elaborate?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What? Care to elaborate?

Darwinian evolution arose out of a classical understanding of reality, Darwin reasonably expected that life might have developed by the same general classical mechanisms as physics- which in his day meant a few simple laws over lots of time= lots of sophisticated emergent properties spontaneously arising

So I agree with the premise, but today it means by a vast array of specified information, predetermining exactly how, when, where things develop

 

[Milton Platt]

There is one thing (likely the only thing) that Answers in Genesis got right, but many other Christians refuse to accept. The theory of evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable. Here's why:

If evolution is true, then there is no actual distinction between humans and other animals. The line drawn between humans and our more primitive ape ancestors is completely arbitrary. In other words, if evolution is true, then there was no first human, and thus no Adam or Eve. If there was no Adam or Eve, then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then the entire belief system of Christianity fall like a house of cards, because the doctrine of original sin is the very foundation upon which all of Christianity is built.

Am I saying that it is impossible to be a Christian and accept evolution? No, because many people (perhaps the majority of people) hold inconsistent beliefs. However, I do believe strongly that evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable in that they both cannot be true. If Darwinian evolution is a fact (and it is as close to a fact as we can get outside of mathematics and logic), then the core metaphysical claims of Christianity cannot be true for the reasons given above.

That would make sense to someone looking in from the outside. But remember that the stories in the Bible can be cherry picked and twisted, tortured and reinterpreted countless ways to mean what one wants them to mean.

 

[metis]

So I agree with the premise, but today it means by a vast array of specified information, predetermining exactly how, when, where things develop

That depends on what's being considered as many such items are hypotheses, not axioms or theorems. For example, the concept of all life forms coming from a single source is a hypothesis. There are some indications that this hypothetically could be the case but it falls well short of going any further than that.

 

[Audie]

That depends on what's being considered as many such items are hypotheses, not axioms or theorems. For example, the concept of all life forms coming from a single source is a hypothesis. There are some indications that this hypothetically could be the case but it falls well short of going any further than that.

Kinda like how the talk of "specified information"
just kills ToE, to the satisfaction of creationists at least.

It seems to me, though, that if ToE were actually wrong,
then, what?

There really was a 6 day poof?

Things change but god has to tweak every last
detail?

What?

 

[ecco]

So I agree with the premise, but today it means by a vast array of specified information, predetermining exactly how, when, where things develop

What vast array of specified information predetermines anything?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Darwinian evolution arose out of a classical understanding of reality, Darwin reasonably expected that life might have developed by the same general classical mechanisms as physics- which in his day meant a few simple laws over lots of time= lots of sophisticated emergent properties spontaneously arising

Modern physics has only further explained the cause of random genetic changes, and it fits in just fine with Darwin's original conception of variation.

So I agree with the premise, but today it means by a vast array of specified information, predetermining exactly how, when, where things develop

"Specified information" is a meaningless term in genetics. What units is it measured in? How do you measure it? If I were to give you a DNA sequence, would you be able to measure the specified information in that sequence?

 

[magid]

I find evolution and Judaism perfectly compatible.

If you don't mind please explain in more details with reference for Judaism scriptures.

 

[metis]

If you don't mind please explain in more details with reference for Judaism scriptures.

I'm obviously not JS, but let me just say that it largely depends on how one views the creation accounts: actual history or allegorical. Jews are all over the place on this as there's no "official" interpretation, and I know the same is true within Islam as well on this.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you don't mind please explain in more details with reference for Judaism scriptures.

No thanks ...

 

[gnostic]

Although I do agree that science in general does not support a literal Adam and Eve event, with no genetic evidence of a human two person bottleneck anywhere in our history.

There are certainly no evidences of bottleneck in 4000 BCE, or 6000 years ago. And certainly no bottleneck occurring 13,000 or 12,000 years ago.

 

[sooda]

There is one thing (likely the only thing) that Answers in Genesis got right, but many other Christians refuse to accept. The theory of evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable. Here's why:

If evolution is true, then there is no actual distinction between humans and other animals. The line drawn between humans and our more primitive ape ancestors is completely arbitrary. In other words, if evolution is true, then there was no first human, and thus no Adam or Eve. If there was no Adam or Eve, then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then the entire belief system of Christianity fall like a house of cards, because the doctrine of original sin is the very foundation upon which all of Christianity is built.

Am I saying that it is impossible to be a Christian and accept evolution? No, because many people (perhaps the majority of people) hold inconsistent beliefs. However, I do believe strongly that evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable in that they both cannot be true. If Darwinian evolution is a fact (and it is as close to a fact as we can get outside of mathematics and logic), then the core metaphysical claims of Christianity cannot be true for the reasons given above.

Jews and Muslims don't believe in original sin and Christians didn't either until about 300 AD.

search
Not to be confused with Eternal sin.
For other uses, see Original Sin (disambiguation).

Depiction of the sin of Adam and Eve by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Pieter Paul Rubens.

Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is a Christian belief in the state of sin in which humanity has existed since the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.

The concept of original sin was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon in his controversy with certain dualist Gnostics. Other church fathers such as Augustine also shaped and developed the doctrine.

Original sin - Wikipedia

 

[MonkeyFire]

Maybe some people are monkeys and others are angel's. Or what about the possibility that mankind evolves wings to defend itself against evil dragons, as the humans become angels.