How do Christians explain the evolution of man?

[smiling_bandit]

by Samarm

I feel the onus is on Christianity to prove itself.

I feel no onus to prove anything to you at all, nor does my faith need justify itself to another.

all following quoted posts are by webman

A simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup has a chance of 1:10(113) [1 followed by 113 zeros].

Aside from the fact that you earlier insulted me and about half of Christianity with your inane comments, I point out that mankind has, in fact, created simple proteins in the lab by simulating such random events: all it took was an “organic soup” and a little lightening bolt. I’m afraid I forgot the name the of the researcher. Therefore, I call your evidence into question.

If memory serves me, that mind boggling number that I could share had to do with the probability of all the necessary amino acids and proteins coming together at the right time to form a one celled organism.

Yes, that might possibly be a problem if science said that it simply happened all at once. Your unwritten assumption is in error; science currently theorizes that simple self-replicating molecules formed. They are not too difficult to imagine as we know of several like that. Eventually, they “grew” into single celled-organisms. You are like Wile E Coyote, standing on empty air and not falling only because you haven’t realized it yet.

I’m very confused by your comment here. Where out of thin air did you pull this one out of??

The fact that you were,in fact, arguing for a miracle and not considering that science does, in fact, have a logical series of steps by which evolution is proved as much as it is possible to prove anything.

Now you are just speaking into the air and pushing around absolute ignorance on your part to help solidify your standing. You do not know me so how can you even claim such things about me—very arrogant of you.

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black! You’ve been spouting nonsense about what other people believe and think throughout the whole post!

No matter how much I reasoned, many of the evolutionists here would balk at all the overwhelming evidence and statistics I could provide.

Empty statistics without any logically applicability are very easy to dump. I’ve seen many such instances of creationists dropping a cartload of useless figures and then challenging people to “disprove” them. Its like hitting a ball of silly putty - their just isn’t anything there to break.

Actually the bible says that each living creature was made according to its kind. It didn’t say that one kind made another kind. Then God proceeded to create man in his image with God-like qualities of reason, love, kindness, and so forth. God created each living creature uniquely.

And in fact, since evolution happens on a geological time scale usually, individual creatures are creating others of their own kind. From their point of view, there is no real significance to the fact (a fact they could hardly notice) that sonny bear’s toes are .2 millimeters longer. Evolution is gradual alteration of the population’s outer boundaries for form and average form.

About 12 years ago, I actually did timely studying over a year’s time on the topic. After that, I was solidly convinced that there had to be a creator of all this. It takes some faith too I must admit, but creation just makes more logical sense.

Thats fine, it does not, however, prove you have any clue what you are talking about. Aside from politeness, you don’t have any clue what evolution is about. You keep talking about erroneous arguments and keep ignoring the inconenient fact that evolution theory does not argue those things. I have knews for you, too: God does not like liars.

Here you go again, guessing at what I have studied. You do not know this.

Words are cheap. Your ideas do not present any logical coherence save on the basis of extreme faith. Moreover, you have repeatedly ignored valid arguments entirely, and continue to espouse a strawman attack. Can you at least be intellectually honest?

Go ahead and believe in that impossible miracle. The beginnings of evolution is quite random. So yes, evolution is about random acts somehow coming together. That is the foundation of evolution. What man is doing is not evolution, but deliberate actions and creation, not evolution.

Yes, pretty much. So what? With a little luck and some decent odds (and a lot of time) evolution can theoretically create almost anything.

How did the earth provide the right conditions for all living things? By accident? If it’s not accident, then what made this all happen or should I say who made this happen? It does require intelligence. If not then it’s all by accident hence evolution, but evolution is illogical. It doesn’t take years of study to see the absurdity of the view that all things came about as a result of accidents (aka evolution).

Errr…? This right here proves you don’t understand evolution. Heres a tiny little clue: Evolution is about creatures fitting the circumstances, not the other way around. This planet is not perfect for life, but it is pretty good because we are adapted to it!

I’m surprised that you evolutionists don’t already know about those figures already. You should not need me to prove them which tells me that some of you are not as knowledgeable as you let on or you’d already know about it. There are holes also in your own knowledge of evolution. If you really knew what you were talking about, you’d know the facts and figures of what I speak of already. After all, some of you are supposedly superior to me in the knowledge of evolution.

Wait one minute here! You claim some sort of gnostic knowledge and then accuse us of ignorance when we demand you show it? We are under no compulsion or onus to provide you with arguments. It has become clear you do not believe in a fair, free, and honest debate. You shame the title “Christian”.

Look, if you want to get out of the argument then do so. I don’t care. But you DO NOT have the right to come in and screw around here and then run to complain when other people call you on it.

[DrFidelius]

From webman:

Actually the bible says that each living creature was made according to its kind. It didn’t say that one kind made another kind. Then God proceeded to create man in his image with God-like qualities of reason, love, kindness, and so forth. God created each living creature uniquely.

Please define “kind” and give us the parameters by which we can tell if any two creatures are of the same “kind”.

Are dogs, wolves, and jackels of the same kind? Are tree frogs, marine toads, and bullfrogs of the same kind? How about bacteria? By what measurement can dogs and jackels be lumped together as one kind but humans and chimps kept as seperate kinds? Or did God create all umpty-million species individually, made some of them look like they were related to others, and placed them out across the world as if they wandered there and differentiated on their own?

[scotandrsn]

Great thread!

I’ve placed the following concepts on this site before, but this is a more appropriate area:

Scientists do not (on the whole, anyway) seek to disprove the existence of God, and there are many, even evolutionary biologists, who believe God created the world and all the life on it. Darwin was a Christian, and Mendel, the man who laid the foundations of genetic theory (which explains how evolution happens) was a monk, for crying out loud.

In Darwin’s time, it was well known that species could change over time. This has never been debated by anyone. New breeds of dog can be created, as can new crops (broccoli comes to mind), etc. And anyone can look at any species and notice that each generation exhibits a great range of variability (i.e., all children don’t look alike, neither do all kittens).

When Darwin traveled on the HMS Beagle to the Galapogos Islands as the ship’s naturalist, he noticed that the finches on the various islands were similar, yet distinct, in particular each type with a beak perfectly suited to eating the fruit of that island. It was almost as if someone had bred them from a single stock, but there was obviously no human breeder around.

Not knowing much about breeding, or what was possible through it, he took to breeding things himself: pigeons, gooseberries, etc. He discovered that with guided breeding, he could create very distinct strains of a species, and of course, once you develop two things that can not breed together, you’ve created two new species.

To explain instances such as the Galapogos finches, he developed the idea of natural selection: Each generation had a range of variability, and the ones best adapted to their surroundings lived to generate their own offspring (who inherited the same traits), a concept otherwise known as survival of the fittest.

Darwin would have been the first to attribute the whole thing to God, but many churchmen of his day did not see it that way. See, the whole train of thought up to that point was that the more closely you looked at nature, the more it showed the deliberate hand of an active deity. Now here was Chuck D., derailing the train by saying “here’s a way the world could work, but the existence of God is not a necessary assumption for it to work”. Oops.

They looked for holes in Darwin’s theory, and they found the same ones that webman likes. Given the incremental nature of generational variability, how could we possibly have all these species? At that point, the only age of the world that anyone knew was the one put together by adding the numbers in Bible passages together to show that God created the world in 4004 B.C. Darwin admitted that this was not enough time, even to the point of re-writing later editions of his works to try to explain away the discrepancy. After he died, advances in geology showed the world to be in fact several billion years old, plenty of time.

As for the idea that cells can’t form at random: nonsense, sure they can. The phospholipids that make up their membranes form globs all by themselves, automatically, by their own chemical tendency. Let this happen thousands of times a day for a billion years in the organic soup of the early Earth, and eventually you’ll get combinations of stuff inside those membranes that work together, no matter how small the likelihood.

Then there’s the lingering idea that that the world sure looks like someone made it on purpose. But really, what do any of us know about the nature of intelligence yet that we can declare what can or can not be done without its intervention? Not science.

And guess what: none of this (or any of current science) disproves God’s existence. It simply says (so far) you do not need to assume his existence for the world to work the way it does, thus relegating the question of God from a “proven” scientific fact back to a matter of faith.

Sure, the scientific record (otherwise known as a careful examination of Creation) disagrees with some Bible details. Which is more likely tro be wrong, the observed facts, or a human writer? I think this underlies the vehemence with which fundamentalism attacks science: if men claiming to be filled with divine inspiration can STILL get things wrong, there are several holy wars to answer for in the afterlife.

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by scotandrsn *
Darwin was a Christian

My understanding was that, due to a combination of his studies, his daughter’s death and the way in which his work was received by his peers, Darwin lost whatever faith he had…

[Ben]

*Originally posted by webman *
**Ben, when you can prove that this all got here by accident, come back and post your findings. Until then, don’t stick your foot into your mouth

You are just upset because my reasonings are bullet proof **

I already have posted my proof. Retrogenes.

I await your rebuttal.

[JerseyDiamond]

*Originally posted by samarm *
JerseyDiamond: Thanks for your contribution. **

I guess I cannot contibute because evolution doesn’t mean anything to me/non existent.
I really shouldn’t have posted. I’m sorry, samarm, carry on…

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I hope we didn’t lose him already.

As to Darwin’s religious views, he started out as a Christian, and expected to find eveidence of ID in nature, but the more he learned about it, the more agnostic he became. He claimed that he never became an atheist, but he definitely came to doubt Christianity, or at least Biblical literalism. His wife was a devout Christian, and this caused some friction in his marriage. here’s an illustration from a great Skeptical Inquirer article on the religious views of Darwin and Gould:

Darwin married his cousin Emma Wedgwood, who bore him ten children. They loved each other deeply, but throughout their otherwise happy marriage each agonized over their irreconcilable religious differences. Janet Browne, in her splendid biography Charles Darwin (1995), reprints one of Emma’s letters to Charles, written before they married, in which she implores him to give up his habit of “believing nothing until it is proved.” Darwin called it a “beautiful letter,” and wrote on its envelope, “When I am dead, know how many times I have kissed and cried over this.”

The fact that he would “believe nothing until was proved” shows that Darwin was, first and foremost a scientist. If you read the whole SI article, you’ll see that Darwin agonized over the existence of God his whole life.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

webman: can you also direct me to the parts in the Bible where Jesus taught that misdirection, deception and lying are virtues to strive for? It seems curious that as a self-professed Christian you would have to resort to such tactics in a debate in which you claim not to even really be interested.

See, I can simply claim that it has been calculated that there is exactly a 97.6201% chance that life would evolve on Earth and that your calculations are simply incorrect. Maybe someone forgot to carry a one or something. I could go on to claim that, yeah, I could provide my own calculations, but you wouldn’t understand them. Besides, it’s too much trouble to go look them up, then actually post them. So, I’m afraid you’ll just have to take my word for it.

That is exactly the sort of argument you are attempting to sway us with. And you are honestly surprised that we don’t immediately give up our wicked, wicked ways and “belief” in “evilutionism”?!

[webman]

Some of You people are professional debaters and probably do not know much than I do. You keep trying to belittle my knowledge. You do not know what I know.

Comments like this:

Errr…? This right here proves you don’t understand evolution.

… are simply bate in an attempt to draw me back in. Furthermore, you are not telling the truth because, I say again, YOU do not know me and do not know what I know. How could you know what I know.

I’m not wasting my time going around and around. I’ve been through this before with people like some of you and I know your methods well. You don’t wish to think on things, you wish to win an argument anyway you can. You rehearse your reasonings and then post them over and over in different orders but the arguments you use are the same old tired ones.

I posted to get perhaps some people to think about the impossibilities of the idea that something can come from nothing, but people simply choose to be illogical about it. I really believe that no matter what I said, there will be the hardcore people here to twist logic and make illogical statements.

Bottom line… evolution makes no logical sense and that’s that (for me). You cannot prove evolution is correct. The numbers stack up so high against it that it’s stupid for me to consider evolution as plausible. Some people are ignoring the horrendous odds and the impossibility of it all.

Evolution = impossible

[Aro]

Originally By Smiling Bandit
I point out that mankind has, in fact, created simple proteins in the lab by simulating such random events: all it took was an “organic soup” and a little lightening bolt. I’m afraid I forgot the name the of the researcher. Therefore, I call your evidence into question.

I think you are talking about Stanley Millers Experiemnt back in 1953. There may have been others since, I’m not sure.

[tomndebb]

I posted to get perhaps some people to think about the impossibilities of the idea that something can come from nothing, but people simply choose to be illogical about it. I really believe that no matter what I said, there will be the hardcore people here to twist logic and make illogical statements.

Actually, by lying about what evolutionary theory posits and then ignoring the evidence that shows that your claim is false, I think we are forced to lay the charge of “twisting” on your keyboard.

[Ben]

*Originally posted by webman *
**I’m not wasting my time going around and around. I’ve been through this before with people like some of you and I know your methods well. You don’t wish to think on things, you wish to win an argument anyway you can. You rehearse your reasonings and then post them over and over in different orders but the arguments you use are the same old tired ones. **

Webman, I’m calling you on this. Prove to me that retrogenes are the “same tired old” argument that evolutionists present time and again.

Personally, I’ve never, ever heard a scientific explanation of retrogenes from a creationist perspective, and I would be very interested to hear one.

As is, it sounds to me like you’re trying to declare victory while beating a hasty retreat. But maybe I’m wrong, and retrogenes have already been talked to death.

[webman]

Darwin’s Finch, I don’t have anything more to say because I know where this is going. It goes like this:[ul][li]I will dig up facts[/li]
[li]you will dig up some unrelated facts or perhaps some related facts[/li]
[li]you argue what I put up[/li]
[li]I counter argue[/li]
[li]this goes back and forth over a course of several days each has wasted 10, 15, 30 hours or more in posts and research.[/li]
[li]Neither of us gives in because the other feels the opponent is wrong.[/ul][/li]
Am I right? You pretty much know this is where it’s headed and I do too. So why talk anymore on it? I am once again reminded that I must not post to such topics especially with people who live for debates. At one time I would have debated long and hard and in the end it would not be worth it. It was a mistake to post anything of this sort.

We have a stale-mate before it gets very far. Do you see???

---

I actually came here to post something else. I thought perhaps there was a section here to post information to people about important issues to alert the people. I find that this forum, although popular, does not really have such a section or perhaps I’m over-looking the obvious place to post about it.

The topic that I wanted to mention about is that SBC Ameritech (now just SBC) wants to take away Illinois resident’s choice in local phone service and basically force all the current customers of Z-Tel to go back with SBC so they can once again sock us with high prices. But it wasn’t obvious to me last night where this sort of forum topic would be appropriate. It was going to be a heads up for people in Illinois about Senate Bill 1518 and what it really means for SBC competitors. The bill needs voting down to save our choices.

[webman]

Ben, tomndebb, as was stated…

We are at a stale-mate before this gets very far. I know where it’s headed and that’s where it’s going.

No more bate please

[Lissa]

*Originally posted by webman *
**Some of You people are professional debaters and probably do not know much than I do. You keep trying to belittle my knowledge. You do not know what I know.

Comments like this:… are simply bate in an attempt to draw me back in. Furthermore, you are not telling the truth because, I say again, YOU do not know me and do not know what I know. How could you know what I know.

**

Then please tell us what you know. You claim to have studied this matter. What books did you read? Have you read anything by Gould? Have you actually read anything by Darwin?

My main problem with Creationists is that they may claim to be “educated” on evolution, but usually their information comes from Creationist sources. Having read quite a few books on Creation while in Christian school, I can personally attest to the fact that they are grossly inaccurate on the true theories involved, used completely debunked examples of “flaws” in evolutionary theory, and in some cases, flat-out lie.

Dismiss evolution if you will, but to do so without a true education in it is the height of ignorance. Know thine enemy, my friend. How can you intelligently argue against a theory unless you are deeply familiar with it?

**I’m not wasting my time going around and around. I’ve been through this before with people like some of you and I know your methods well. You don’t wish to think on things, you wish to win an argument anyway you can. You rehearse your reasonings and then post them over and over in different orders but the arguments you use are the same old tired ones.

**

And you are not the first Creationist ever to trod this path. Creationists are the ones who spout the “tired arguments.” Do a search if you like. You’ll see them in countless other threads. If the debators here are “professionals” it’s because they’ve seen all of this before.

**Bottom line… evolution makes no logical sense and that’s that (for me). You cannot prove evolution is correct. The numbers stack up so high against it that it’s stupid for me to consider evolution as plausible. Some people are ignoring the horrendous odds and the impossibility of it all.

Evolution = impossible **

Since you have given no evidence to the contrary, I feel safe in saying that it’s because you are not sufficiently educated in it.

I had five years of Creationist teaching, thus I feel educated enough in its arguments to debate against it. If you don’t truly know what you’re discussing, how can you hope to convince others?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

webman this has been mentioned before in this thread, but maybe you weren’t listening:

Abiogeneis and evolution are two different things. Even if you could prove that God zapped the waters and created the first proto-life forms, evolution would have occurred exactly the same way.

Do you have any sort of argument against evolution, per se, or do you just want to talk about abiogenesis?

And speaking of ‘illogical’ assumptions, how about those two Genesis stories? Which on is true and which one is false?

[Guinastasia]

*Originally posted by webman *
**Ben, tomndebb, as was stated…

We are at a stale-mate before this gets very far. I know where it’s headed and that’s where it’s going.

No more bate please **

Um, webman, if you don’t want to debate, then just don’t post in this thread. Other people want to.

[Ben]

Actually, since webman seems to have stated outright that he’s posted in great debates even though he has zero intention of debating, and is just going to stamp his foot and declare that he’s right, could the moderators ban him? They’ve banned other people for making very similar statements of their intentions.

[webman]

Ben, There’s no need to get nasty with me and wishing to get me banned over something stupid. I’m not debating this any longer.

Why would I be banned for posting? As I said, I came here to post on another topic and I got sucked in this area. I’m sorry that I allowed myself to get sucked in by the topic underway. Is there a place to post about what I mentioned above? (regarding SBC) If so please point the way. If not C U Later.

[Ben]

*Originally posted by webman *
**Ben, There’s no need to get nasty with me and wishing to get me banned over something stupid. I’m not debating this any longer.

**

You weren’t exactly debating it in the first place…

**
Why would I be banned for posting?

**

I believe I explained that already.

** Is there a place to post about what I mentioned above? (regarding SBC) If so please point the way. If not C U Later. **

If you want to debate it, post it in Great Debates. If you want to rant about it, post it in the Pit. If you don’t want to do either, I think MPSIMS would probably be the right place.