I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Alate_One

Well-known member
And this is a weasel term — an attempt to sneak past the criticism you face.

How about instead of rewording "theory" as "scientific idea" to cover up the fallacious opener you posed, that of begging the question, you just concede that it is incorrect to assert that your ideas are rejected only by those who also reject science. :up:
Evolution is a well supported scientific theory, among the best in biology and science in general. Rejecting it means rejecting science. Theories are the strongest scientific ideas we have.

Dictionary definition of scientific theory

scientific theory
noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
the scientific theory of evolution.



The National Academy of science defines a scientific theory as:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.



Other scientific theories:

Atomic Theory
Germ Theory of Disease
Cell Theory
The Big Bang Theory
Theory of General Relativity
Plate Tectonics Theory


All of the great scientific bodies of knowledge are founded on theories. If you think theory is, "stuff that's not really right", you're rejecting all of science.

Appeals to popularity are another Darwinist staple.
Expert opinion is not popularity. Do you go to the doctor and follow their advice?
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Also, theories have to be falsifiable. Your assertion makes evolution not scientific.

Congratulations.

Falsifying requires evidence, and in the case of a theory, a LOT of evidence. Have you provided any in this thread? No. So you are rejecting without evidence, which means rejecting science without evidence.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
For someone who loves Jesus, this is what was written about Him:

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
John 1:3 NKJV​

And this is what He said:

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’
Matthew 19:4 NKJV

As you've given up on the scientific approach, it's time to show that the Bible also explicitly denies evolution as a possibility.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
As you've given up on the scientific approach, it's time to show that the Bible also explicitly denies evolution as a possibility.
Do you not think that God is eternal?


He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.



Ecclesiastes 3:11

Also, humans were male and female from the beginning. Your point is?

And . . . I'm not the one who gave up on science. ;)
 

Lon

Well-known member
Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to believe His claims of Godhood. I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science. This creates a stumbling block for many Christians where there need not be one.

Science is simply the study of the natural world that God has given us with the minds God has given us. Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:

Fossils

DNA evidence

Biogeography

Anatomy and Development (Evo-devo)
I don't have a problem with those who love the Lord Jesus Christ who believe in Evolution. For the most part, it doesn't interfere with core doctrines but it does question the veracity of Genesis and a few other scriptures, at least as they are understood to mean.

So here's a piece of evidence here:

services_photos_4_large.jpg


A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?


dorudon.jpg

Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?





Note that the title of this post is also the title of a book I have enjoyed:

I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution: Paperback – March 4, 2009
by Denis O. Lamoureux

Also of interest: Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.
Noticed a few odd things about the dorudon: 1) The skeletal hindlegs are suspended rather than connected in all skeletons by a stick. It means its odd (often bones found in the same hole are from different species). 2) it's teeth do not look like a whale, not even a killer whale. It is more reptilian/crocodilian.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
I don't have a problem with those who love the Lord Jesus Christ who believe in Evolution. For the most part, it doesn't interfere with core doctrines but it does question the veracity of Genesis and a few other scriptures, at least as they are understood to mean.
It all depends on how they are interpreted, and generally reading an ancient text with a lot of symbolic implications as if it's a news report is probably going to lead to misunderstandings.

Noticed a few odd things about the dorudon: 1) The skeletal hindlegs are suspended rather than connected in all skeletons by a stick. It means its odd (often bones found in the same hole are from different species).
That can happen, but even modern whales have the remnants of a pelvis which similarly floats (see the skeleton I posted). Also, a related species, Basilosaurus has also been found with tiny hind limbs (Basilosaurus is the larger skeleton on top).

lossy-page1-1920px-Basilosaurus_and_Dorudon_skeletons_-_Voss_et_al_2019.tif.jpg


Even more evidence along these lines is dolphins and other cetaceans are sometimes born with larger "hind fins".

W020061221426460163135.jpg


2) it's teeth do not look like a whale, not even a killer whale. It is more reptilian/crocodilian.
Reptiles are typically homodonts - meaning all the teeth look the same. Most mammals are heterodonts, meaning the teeth are specialized. Modern whales have either lost teeth or acquired near homodonty.

Shown below is a closeup of the skull which shows the more primitive heterodont condition in Dorudon.
7282108220_a256c3456c_z.jpg


Killer whale skull below. I think the front teeth of Dorudon look more like the Orca's teeth. Perhaps the more complex teeth in the back were lost during evolution.
orcakopn.jpg


Also, it's very clear the skull is a mammalian one based on the opening in the skull - the synapsid opening. Most reptiles have a second opening and are termed diapsids.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to believe His claims of Godhood. I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science. This creates a stumbling block for many Christians where there need not be one.

Science is simply the study of the natural world that God has given us with the minds God has given us. Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:

Fossils

DNA evidence

Biogeography

Anatomy and Development (Evo-devo)



So here's a piece of evidence here:

services_photos_4_large.jpg


A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?


dorudon.jpg

Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?





Note that the title of this post is also the title of a book I have enjoyed:

I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution: Paperback – March 4, 2009
by Denis O. Lamoureux

Also of interest: Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.
I too am a Christian. I believe that evolution is part of what makes a universe mature, but I do not believe the universe is older than 10,000 years. It looks more mature than it is, as Adam and Eve looked more mature than they were too. I.e. I do not reject science.
 

chair

Well-known member
... I believe God is in the creative process today and continues to support creation as a whole...

Similar to a phrase in our Hebrew prayers:

המחדש בטובו כל יום מעשה בראשית
"And in His goodness renews the creation every day"

Chair
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
A. I didn't post anything about Rhodocetus. And rodhocetus is one fossil among a large variety of fossils plus the genetic, anatomical and developmental evidence.

B. Rodhocetus isn't a fake. It was originally reconstructed with very fragmentary bones and was postulated to have features it was later shown to not have, wait for it, because of later discovered EVIDENCE. Those facts are even noted in your video!

Scientists have updated their models. That is a normal thing in science, when an old idea is shown to be wrong it is adjusted to fit the evidence.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Evolution as proposed is a process of random change, leading more often to disease, degradation and destruction than to improvements
Most mutations actually don't do anything. Even if a deleterious mutation occurs it is usually removed from the population by natural selection. This kind of selection is usually called purifying selection.
 

Truster

New member
Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to believe His claims of Godhood. I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science. This creates a stumbling block for many Christians where there need not be one.

Science is simply the study of the natural world that God has given us with the minds God has given us. Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:

Fossils

DNA evidence

Biogeography

Anatomy and Development (Evo-devo)



So here's a piece of evidence here:

services_photos_4_large.jpg


A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?


dorudon.jpg

Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?





Note that the title of this post is also the title of a book I have enjoyed:

I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution: Paperback – March 4, 2009
by Denis O. Lamoureux

Also of interest: Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.

No comment, obviously.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
I too am a Christian. I believe that evolution is part of what makes a universe mature, but I do not believe the universe is older than 10,000 years. It looks more mature than it is, as Adam and Eve looked more mature than they were too. I.e. I do not reject science.
So you're willing to say that God has created false history?
 

Lon

Well-known member
It all depends on how they are interpreted, and generally reading an ancient text with a lot of symbolic implications as if it's a news report is probably going to lead to misunderstandings.

That can happen, but even modern whales have the remnants of a pelvis which similarly floats (see the skeleton I posted). Also, a related species, Basilosaurus has also been found with tiny hind limbs (Basilosaurus is the larger skeleton on top).

Even more evidence along these lines is dolphins and other cetaceans are sometimes born with larger "hind fins".

Perhaps the more complex teeth in the back were lost during evolution.


Also, it's very clear the skull is a mammalian one based on the opening in the skull - the synapsid opening. Most reptiles have a second opening and are termed diapsids.
A lot of 'science' assumptions. Genesis doesn't allow 'loose' symbolism. The symbolism is specific and tightly defined. The "Serpent" is indeed symbolic of Satan, but the curse followed an actual serpent. So both Christians and scientists can and do observe leg indications in snakes, but we alternately apply 'curse' vs. 'evolution' to the phenomena. We don't disagree on the observations, we disagree on terms and derivative ideas not in common.


Continuing with a tight interpretation of Genesis: Gap theorists believe God created in 6 days, but they believe there may have been a large gap between the first part of creation because 'day' isn't mentioned until verse 4 and 5 (there are not many Gap Theorists).

If that's correct, then God had room to make the earth. Being Creator, and Creative, dinosaurs could have lived. Evolved? :nono: Not in this scenario. The building blocks of life God used/uses are cells and DNA etc. This does not mean by necessity, derivative species. I've 70% in common with onion according to DNA. This doesn't mean I evolved from an onion. The branching idea may allow for derivative species, but 'after their kind' from scripture may allow God to remold a species or even restart from scratch. God can do as He wills. What I rather question, is whether one species today, had or does become another because of the phrase "after its kind."
God can certainly do so, but after committing to an action, "after its kind" it must been seen as a truth.

The basics of argument are this:
1) "Evolutions." The term means 'on its own.' This is problematic because it'd suggest that Colossians 1:15,17 is wrong (see also John 15:5). Because God 'sustains' His creation, there is no room for something to 'evolve.'
2) Freewill autonomy, at least for my theology understanding is problematic. Yes the serpent has a will 'free' from God. Yes men have a will 'free' from God, but these are the result of the Fall, not according to design, thus any 'random' or 'chaotic' means for adaptation is part of the Fall.
3) Does it happen? If so, then all of creation groans Romans 8:20 being subjected to 'futility.' However, grace and the sustaining power of Christ must support the existence and continuation of any species. Therefore, evolution for survival of the fittest etc. cannot be seen as random undriven mechanics, but rather the hand and grace of God purposefully interacting to cause species to continue.
4) Macro-evolution - one species becoming an entirely different species, is yet science speculation. "After its kind" as well as Genesis 2:7 "from the dust (directly) indicate that men are special creations Genesis 1:27 "...in His image..." It is not said of any other creature BUT man.

5) Being 70% similar to an onion, doesn't mean related directly (cousins, according to the flesh, rather than siblings).

Cousins in only the sense that we each come from God (not too related) vs. siblings is the largest argument between Judeo/Christian understanding and current science thought.
 
Top