Should Christians embrace evolution ?

[StAnastasia]

Why should I stumble at so minor a feat as assembling representation all the major land animal groups into a massive multi-tiered freighter?

You first said there was no evolution of species, and now you say there would have been representatives of all the major land animal groups. In that case there wasa lot of evolution after the flood. Also, you forget the millions of species of insects that would have to be housed separately from each other, and you forget the plants which would need pots.

And you forget the need for 29,053 feet of water to cover the earth fifteen cubits higher than Mt. Everest. Magic is your best bet at this point if you still want a literal flood.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

You first said there was no evolution of species, and now you say there would have been representatives of all the major land animal groups. In that case there wasa lot of evolution after the flood. Also, you forget the millions of species of insects that would have to be housed separately from each other, and you forget the plants which would need pots.

And you forget the need for 29,053 feet of water to cover the earth fifteen cubits higher than Mt. Everest. Magic is your best bet at this point if you still want a literal flood.

Adaptations of species within their own kind is not equal to transmutation of species which I reject.

You somehow seem completely incredulous of God’s supernatural abilities. But I guess that’s what we ought to expect from an antisupernaturalist modernist. If you can’t figure it out, it can’t possibly be so.

“ For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD.
9 “ For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And ***My ***thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55)

3 Now prepare yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer Me.
4 “ Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 “Or who shut in the sea with doors,
When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
9 When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
10 When I fixed My limit for it,
And set bars and doors;
11 When I said,
‘This far you may come, but no farther,
And here your proud waves must stop!’
12 “Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
And caused the dawn to know its place, 13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth,
And the wicked be shaken out of it?
(Job 38)

 

[StAnastasia]

Adaptations of species within their own kind is not equal to transmutation of species which I reject.

How long does “adaptation” within a “kind” take? Do you have scientific studies of how long it took for the “cat kind” to “adapt” after the flood into lions, tigers, leopards, panthers, cheetahs, jaguars, etc.? There must be scientific studies that support your hypothesis.

 

[tjm190]

“Dr Scott Hahn and Dr B. Wiker in Answering The New Atheism, 2008, show very clearly that the odds against life “evolving” from inanimate chemicals are so high as to be impossible. “Dawkins believes that the odds against a propitious string of DNA arising by chance are 1,000,000,000 to one. But when we do the actual calculations we find that the odds against it are a bit over 1,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0 to one.””

I say the odds are 2:1. You probably want to see my calculations- I can relate.

 

[tjm190]

Adaptations of species within their own kind is not equal to transmutation of species which I reject.

Buffalo seems to claim that speciation can occur rather easily, so long as they remain within the same ‘kind.’ Would you disagree?

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

How long does “adaptation” within a “kind” take? Do you have scientific studies of how long it took for the “cat kind” to “adapt” after the flood into lions, tigers, leopards, panthers, cheetahs, jaguars, etc.? There must be scientific studies that support your hypothesis.

Who told you that only one kind of cat was on the ark? The burden of proof is on you to prove that the requirements for spawning our current population of felines was not on the ark. Me, I’ll go with Moses and Sacred Tradition.

Since when are ‘scientific studies’ the arbiter of Divine Writ?

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Buffalo seems to claim that speciation can occur rather easily, so long as they remain within the same ‘kind.’ Would you disagree?

Depends on what you mean by speciation. A Great Dane and a Chihuaha are of the same species but neither has a future as a horse or a lizard.

 

[tjm190]

Depends on what you mean by speciation. A Great Dane and a Chihuaha are of the same species but neither has a future as a horse or a lizard.

Speciation is well defined- for example, domesticated goats are different species from the wild goats they were domesticated from in that they can not produce viable offspring. So, speciation occurred- buffalo would not be surprised by thing because it doesn’t violate his ‘kinds’ rule.

The fact that the ‘kinds’ idea is complete nonsense is another issue.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Speciation is well defined- for example, domesticated goats are different species from the wild goats they were domesticated from in that they can not produce viable offspring. So, speciation occurred- buffalo would not be surprised by thing because it doesn’t violate his ‘kinds’ rule.

The fact that the ‘kinds’ idea is complete nonsense is another issue.

Divine creation and sustainment of the material universe by divine power and preroggative are not nonsense. I don’t know that a wild goat and a domesticated goat are really two different species, but those categories are man-made, so have at it.

 

[tjm190]

Divine creation and sustainment of the material universe by divine power and preroggative are not nonsense. I don’t know that a wild goat and a domesticated goat are really two different species, but those categories are man-made, so have at it.

Classification by ‘kinds’ is nonsense because such things are completely arbitrary- those searching for such kinds actively disregard any evidence that puts man in the same made up group as any other animal as well as anything that suggests universal common descent.
The categories are man made yes, but they represent a real phenomena- the two groups can no longer breed with each other and have therefore ‘macroevolved.’

 

[buffalo]

The categories are man made yes, but they represent a real phenomena- the two groups can no longer breed with each other and have therefore ‘macroevolved.’

Ouch - maybe we have a different idea of macro-evolution. The fact that two groups cannot breed any longer because of loss of information would be degenerative.

Isolated groups not being able to breed does not show morphological changes. The color of fur shows adaptation. They are still the same kind. Bacteria despite its capabilities still remains bacteria.

Are there any isolated groups of humans that cannot interbreed? Of course not. Your claim would be they weren’t isolated long enough. How long would it take?

 

[rossum]

Bacteria despite its capabilities still remains bacteria.

So you have no problem with us being descended from very primitive worms, despite our capabilities we still remain eukaryotes as were those worms.

You need to learn more about the classification of living organisms. Every living thing is in one of only four categories at that level: eubacteria, archaea, eukaryotes and viruses. Every multi-cellular organism is a eukaryote, as well as some of the single celled ones like amoebae.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

So you have no problem with us being descended from very primitive worms, despite our capabilities we still remain eukaryotes as were those worms.

You need to learn more about the classification of living organisms. Every living thing is in one of only four categories at that level: eubacteria, archaea, eukaryotes and viruses. Every multi-cellular organism is a eukaryote, as well as some of the single celled ones like amoebae.

rossum

Having commonality is not the same as descended from. It is what we would expect to see. If I create a super language that uses blocks of code to produce features or types why would it surprise anyone that basics and similarities abound. It does not hold that they are necessarily descended. I can simply run the program again with a few tweaks and voila I have a different creature. Pretty neat. In a way the language of DNA is limited but powerful enough to produce the diversity we see.

 

[tjm190]

Ouch - maybe we have a different idea of macro-evolution. The fact that two groups cannot breed any longer because of loss of information would be degenerative.

Loss of information? Not true- they have simply ‘drifted’ too far apart.

Isolated groups not being able to breed does not show morphological changes. The color of fur shows adaptation. They are still the same kind. Bacteria despite its capabilities still remains bacteria. ‘Kinds’ do not exist- macroevolution is any evolution that takes place above the species level. The creation of a new species occurs at the genus level. Bacteria remaining bacteria means there has been no change at the ‘domain’ level, the highest one- is that honestly a surprise?

Are there any isolated groups of humans that cannot interbreed? Of course not. Your claim would be they weren’t isolated long enough. How long would it take?

The more complex the organism, the slower the change- in excess of a few hundred thousand years would be my wager. (It happened more quickly with goats because they were subjected to selective breeding- there is also a relatively large gap between dogs and wolves, although I believe certain breeds can still produce ‘wolf dogs.’)

 

[buffalo]

Loss of information? Not true- they have simply ‘drifted’ too far apart.

Isolated groups not being able to breed does not show morphological changes. The color of fur shows adaptation. They are still the same kind. Bacteria despite its capabilities still remains bacteria. ‘Kinds’ do not exist- macroevolution is any evolution that takes place above the species level. The creation of a new species occurs at the genus level. Bacteria remaining bacteria means there has been no change at the ‘domain’ level, the highest one- is that honestly a surprise?

The more complex the organism, the slower the change- in excess of a few hundred thousand years would be my wager. (It happened more quickly with goats because they were subjected to selective breeding- there is also a relatively large gap between dogs and wolves, although I believe certain breeds can still produce ‘wolf dogs.’)

and drifting is a gain?

 

[tjm190]

and drifting is a gain?

A change- both groups are in flux. When one becomes isolated, they don’t share the same changes as the rest, so as these changes compile they eventually reach the point where hybrid of the two groups is impossible.

 

[tjm190]

Loss of information? Not true- they have simply ‘drifted’ too far apart.

Isolated groups not being able to breed does not show morphological changes. The color of fur shows adaptation. They are still the same kind. Bacteria despite its capabilities still remains bacteria.

 

[buffalo]

A change- both groups are in flux. When one becomes isolated, they don’t share the same changes as the rest, so as these changes compile they eventually reach the point where hybrid of the two groups is impossible.

It is a loss.

 

[tjm190]

It is a loss.

Change=loss?

 

[buffalo]

Change=loss?

Change can equal loss. You like the word change because it hides the fact that there is a loss of continuity.