I'm not sure what to do...

[Odale]

I don't think we came from apes either. The Bible says how we were made - quite clearly at that. It just isn't as clear with anything else.

 

[Brydon]

Skibabinz, I want to congratulate you for two things: 1) Actively thinking about what you're thinking about (critical thinking) and 2) doing that in connection with others.

One of the really important factors in this conversation is, no matter WHAT you believe, to maintain a humble posture both before God's world and before God's WORD.

This is practical: very few people have ever been argued into heaven. It is the LOVE of Christ that speaks volumes to a hurting world, not our creation model.

This is also right: the Bible did not set out to be a science textbook or history encyclopedia, it set out to be an account of God's love for man. This story is provided for the breaking and mending of the human heart, not the satisfaction of the human curiosity.

If we present ourselves as having a full and thorough understanding of the deep mysteries of creation of which God alone was witness based only on the first page of a whole book, we exhibit an unfortunate pride. And if we allow an argument about that first page to outshine our testimony about the love found on every other page, we are disobeying the express commands of Christ.

As a youth pastor who sees the growing divide between Christian teenagers and their unsaved peers, I feel like the American church is too often caught up in a "culture war" when we should be caught up in the rescue mission that Jesus sent us on.

I'm encouraged to have read this post and discussion and how "not crazy" it remained. You, Skibabinz (if that is your real name ), seem like someone who is not only going to think about what they believe but be careful in how they express those beliefs in their witness to others. Kudos.

 

[Skibabinz]

Skibabinz, I want to congratulate you for two things: 1) Actively thinking about what you're thinking about (critical thinking) and 2) doing that in connection with others.

One of the really important factors in this conversation is, no matter WHAT you believe, to maintain a humble posture both before God's world and before God's WORD.

This is practical: very few people have ever been argued into heaven. It is the LOVE of Christ that speaks volumes to a hurting world, not our creation model.

This is also right: the Bible did not set out to be a science textbook or history encyclopedia, it set out to be an account of God's love for man. This story is provided for the breaking and mending of the human heart, not the satisfaction of the human curiosity.

If we present ourselves as having a full and thorough understanding of the deep mysteries of creation of which God alone was witness based only on the first page of a whole book, we exhibit an unfortunate pride. And if we allow an argument about that first page to outshine our testimony about the love found on every other page, we are disobeying the express commands of Christ.

As a youth pastor who sees the growing divide between Christian teenagers and their unsaved peers, I feel like the American church is too often caught up in a "culture war" when we should be caught up in the rescue mission that Jesus sent us on.

I'm encouraged to have read this post and discussion and how "not crazy" it remained. You, Skibabinz (if that is your real name ), seem like someone who is not only going to think about what they believe but be careful in how they express those beliefs in their witness to others. Kudos.

Thanks . My actual name is Chris.

I fully agree with you man, I mean I've seen so many people take the Bible as just a book written by man, and forget the true author behind it. Its just like when I watched a few of my friends stop believing, which I suppose is what drove me to try and prove God's existence to them. Really though, everytime I've prayed God has told me prove it by Jesus and I know someday I'll learn exactly what he means by that fully, not partially.

I don't think we came from apes either. The Bible says how we were made - quite clearly at that. It just isn't as clear with anything else.

Oh I know. Its all good broski. I do gotta say though, tis quite the interesting conversation we have going on in here >.>

By the way, does anyone follow the debates of William Lane Craig?

 

[cc.slim]

Evolution has left the building and extiction is the replacement.

 

[Patriot]

Actually, that is the very definition of macro evolution (any evolutionary change at or above the level of species - Source).

Ah, yes. I wondered when talkorigins would show up.

My question is, what does that definition mean? If a change is "at" the level of a species does that mean "within" that species or creation of a new species? The link you provided seems to suggest that it is creation of a new species. However, this is further muddled by the fact that often the name of an animal will refer to a species (e.g. lion or walrus) but can also refer to an entire group of species (e.g. deer refers to a family of 34 species)(Source). Also, over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists (source).

So what are we really talking about in terms of macroevolution? My definition, which is apparently not official, is the change from one animal "kind" to another (as the Bible classifies them as kinds).

So you can get another type of fly from a certain type of fly, or dogs and wolves. But you won't get a fly turning into a butterfly.

That's how research works though. You aren't sure how something works, so you do some research, form hypotheses, run experiments and observe the outcomes. It very well could mean that giraffes are related to dogs (just an example), but thats just an implication of the research (it may or may not be, I don't know, just another example).

But saying one set of animals is related to another is quite an extrapolation of observable and quantifiable data. If I observe a fly adapt, over a series of lifetimes, into another type of fly then I can say that is what happened. But I cannot continue to extrapolate that the fly will eventually become a butterfly based on my small experiment. Additional experimentation needs to be done to show that this truly is the case. And as we know, that hasn't been done.

Additionally... giraffes, apes, and whales are related - they're all mammals.

According to man's classification. Just because man has grouped them together does not mean that they should be. . .
The classification system is not above reproach. If you study it, you'll find that the current classification system was created with evolution as it's primary motivator.

That is an over-generalization. Not all scientists apply to the atheist stereotype people ascribe them to. It isn't un-Christian to do research to find whether macro-evolution is possible. Also, science cannot study God. There is no direct way to measure God (we no longer have burning bushes or separations of the Red Sea, we have the Holy Spirit).

Which means that science automatically throws out a miraculous interpretation of the creation account. Science still wants to answer the question of "how" so it begins to look for alternative explanations because it cannot accept the account already given. That seems like a flawed system to me.

To my knowledge, the Bible doesn't mention anything about evolution, why not study it?

Study it, don't study. Doesn't matter. What does become a problem is when they describe theory as fact.

This is practical: very few people have ever been argued into heaven. It is the LOVE of Christ that speaks volumes to a hurting world, not our creation model.

On the other hand, if we sacrifice the creation model in the name of saving souls, what else will we be willing to sacrifice? At what point does the message get lost entirely?

As a youth pastor who sees the growing divide between Christian teenagers and their unsaved peers, I feel like the American church is too often caught up in a "culture war" when we should be caught up in the rescue mission that Jesus sent us on.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. As a parent, I hope there is a clear difference between my children and their unsaved peers.

 

[Odale]

Let me preface with this note: I do not know what or how many changes qualify an evolutionary change (it has been explained as lots of "tiny steps," but that's not clear enough for me).

With that having been said:

Ah, yes. I wondered when talkorigins would show up.

My question is, what does that definition mean? If a change is "at" the level of a species does that mean "within" that species or creation of a new species? The link you provided seems to suggest that it is creation of a new species. However, this is further muddled by the fact that often the name of an animal will refer to a species (e.g. lion or walrus) but can also refer to an entire group of species (e.g. deer refers to a family of 34 species)(Source). Also, over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists (source).

That definition is also here at dictionary.com.

The fact that one name (let's use deer as you did) represents many species of deer not entirely correct. It is true that the name "deer" is a common name which is representative of many species within the Cervidae family. However, there are not 34 species of "deer." (Source. I hate using Wikipedia as anyone can alter the information, but it does a nice job of defining the word "deer.")

Naming of the all of the species is the job of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

So what are we really talking about in terms of macroevolution? My definition, which is apparently not official, is the change from one animal "kind" to another (as the Bible classifies them as kinds).

So you can get another type of fly from a certain type of fly, or dogs and wolves. But you won't get a fly turning into a butterfly.

Your definition and the official definition are one in the same I believe. If animal A evolves into animal B, then animal B is the new “kind” as you say. I think you are correct in that statement too. Tomorrow your housecat won’t evolve into a mountain lion.

But saying one set of animals is related to another is quite an extrapolation of observable and quantifiable data. If I observe a fly adapt, over a series of lifetimes, into another type of fly then I can say that is what happened. But I cannot continue to extrapolate that the fly will eventually become a butterfly based on my small experiment. Additional experimentation needs to be done to show that this truly is the case. And as we know, that hasn't been done.

The source I provided showed us evidence that fly A evolved into fly B over a given amount of time. That is evolution and it happened in those studies.

According to man's classification. Just because man has grouped them together does not mean that they should be. . .
The classification system is not above reproach. If you study it, you'll find that the current classification system was created with evolution as it's primary motivator.


Which means that science automatically throws out a miraculous interpretation of the creation account. Science still wants to answer the question of "how" so it begins to look for alternative explanations because it cannot accept the account already given. That seems like a flawed system to me.

Science cannot quantifiably observe God. Science cannot analyze/study something that is non-empirical. This is how science works – through empirical observations. Science will never, EVER study religion (trust me) or try to prove or disprove God. How do I know this? Because science does not operate off of faith; it operates off of empirical observations.

Study it, don't study. Doesn't matter. What does become a problem is when they describe theory as fact.

It will never be fully known whether evolution is how we (or anything else) got here – that is unless we can see it happening… but we don’t have a time machine yet.

Evolution will always be a theory, and personally, I don't understand why evolution and Christianity always have to bump heads.

 

[Patriot]

That definition is also here at dictionary.com. I applaude you for using sources (many people don't) but perhaps you could find better ones than wikipedia, The Guardian.

You misunderstand. I accept the definition at talkorigins/dictionary.com (I had verified that definition at the webster site when I first read it at talkorigins). What I am saying it that even though this definition is standardized, the elements contained therein are not.

Basically, I'm saying you need a standardized definition for "species" before you can begin to unravel the definition for macro-evolution. The sources I gave (regardless of your opinion on their veracity) provide sufficient reason to question the absoluteness of the statement that macro-evolution has been proven because we don't know the definition of species so we don't know the meaning of the definition of macro-evolution.

If you wish to question the veracity of the sources I gave then please post the statements you are questioning and your reason for doing so. Simply saying that I need to find better sources does not advance your position at all, nor does it detract from mine.

Your definition and the official definition are one in the same I believe. If animal A evolves into animal B, then animal B is the new “kind” as you say. I think you are correct in that statement too. Tomorrow your housecat won’t evolve into a mountain lion.

Actually, I'm not sure if all cats are of the same "kind" or not. That is the problem with human classification systems.

The source I provided showed us evidence that fly A evolved into fly B over a given amount of time. That is evolution and it happened in those studies.

I don't question that. But is it micro or macro?

Science cannot quantifiably observe God. You cannot study something that is non-empirical. This is how science works – through empirical observations. Science will never, EVER study religion (trust me) or try to prove or disprove God. How do I know this? Because science does not operate off of faith; it operates off of empirical observations.

Well, that's the way it is supposed to work. My argument was not that science should try to prove God exists. My argument was that science is ultimately limited or lacking because it refuses to accept the miraculous. And because of that limitation, it will inevitably come to some incorrect conclusions.

It will never be fully known whether evolution is how we (or anything else) got here – that is unless we can see it happening… but we don’t have a time machine yet.

Yet evolution, in all it's forms, is still taught as fact along with the big bang, etc. . .

 

[Odale]

Basically, I'm saying you need a standardized definition for "species" before you can begin to unravel the definition for macro-evolution. The sources I gave (regardless of your opinion on their veracity) provide sufficient reason to question the absoluteness of the statement that macro-evolution has been proven because we don't know the definition of species so we don't know the meaning of the definition of macro-evolution.

The Guardian source you used listed seven definitions of the word species. The one thing these definitions have in common is similarity. Evolution is a change or a diversion from the similarity, regardless of the definition used.

Also, the flies in the source I provided satisfied five (if not more) of the seven definitions for species in your source.

If you wish to question the veracity of the sources I gave then please post the statements you are questioning and your reason for doing so. Simply saying that I need to find better sources does not advance your position at all, nor does it detract from mine.

I apologize for the misunderstanding in regards to the sources. In school, I am required to use scholarly, empirical articles for my sources. I wrote that (and removed it) without realizing that not everyone has access to the same level of resources that college students have. The Guardian article did appear to have reputable sources. Again, my apologies, I certainly did not mean to belittle your point of view or to detract from the validity of your argument.

I don't question that. But is it micro or macro?

By the definition, it is macroevolution. Again the definition is: "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa." (Source.)

I assume that a "major evolutionary transition" is a change that is significant enough as to where the organism is obviously from different its predecessors.

Well, that's the way it is supposed to work. My argument was not that science should try to prove God exists. My argument was that science is ultimately limited or lacking because it refuses to accept the miraculous. And because of that limitation, it will inevitably come to some incorrect conclusions.

I brought in the notion that science will never attempt to prove or disprove God to further reinforce how science operates - through empirical observations.

Again, I see no harm in doing research.

Yet evolution, in all it's forms, is still taught as fact along with the big bang, etc. . .

That statement is not true.

My school system was one of the first school systems to start teaching evolution (Cobb County, Georgia). In the front of ALL of our biology books, there was a huge sticker that stated that evolution is only a theory and is not fact. Additionally, the teachers drilled it into our heads that the details of evolution are not fully known nor are facts. That statement isn't entire true.

Here is what the sticker read verbatim:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

Approved by
Cobb County Board of Education
Thursday, March 28, 2002

Here is the source.

The stickers were found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause (which was then overridden), which I find to be very ironic because of our Separation of Church and State (not Separation of Science and State).

 

[silverleaf]

And that cell arose from a mix of chemicals found in the atmosphere. It's a THEORY and should be treated as such. Many of my christian erm... 'colleagues' or friends believe it, many don't. I wouldn't go so far as to pick a side, least I be wrong, and suffer condemnation, or be right, but still 'block the doorway to heaven'.

 

[Patriot]

The Guardian source you used listed seven definitions of the word species. The one thing these definitions have in common is similarity. Evolution is a change or a diversion from the similarity, regardless of the definition used.

Also, the flies in the source I provided satisfied five (if not more) of the seven definitions for species in your source.

Allow me to shorten this up a bit. The argument here, apparently, has to do with the all-inclusiveness of the term "macro-evolution." I accept that a subset of macro-evolution has been proven in a laboratory setting. However, due to the broadness of the term I reject that the observed changes can be applied to all that the term macro-evolution refers to.

I apologize for the misunderstanding in regards to the sources. In school, I am required to use scholarly, empirical articles for my sources. I wrote that (and removed it) without realizing that not everyone has access to the same level of resources that college students have. The Guardian article did appear to have reputable sources. Again, my apologies, I certainly did not mean to belittle your point of view or to detract from the validity of your argument.

I wasn't seeking an apology or really offended. I was merely pointing out that logical rules of debate require you to debate the argument rather than the sources. If the information that the sources put forth was bad then it is easy to reject. But if it is good, then casting doubt on the source is a poor form of defense as ultimately the source's reputation is not the argument.

By the definition, it is macroevolution. Again the definition is: "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa." (Source.)

I assume that a "major evolutionary transition" is a change that is significant enough as to where the organism is obviously from different its predecessors.

See my answer above. My issue is with the major changes.

I brought in the notion that science will never attempt to prove or disprove God to further reinforce how science operates - through empirical observations.

Again, I see no harm in doing research.

The harm is not in doing research by itself. It is in taking such a naturalistic view that when you perform an experiment you must find a naturalistic solution.

That statement is not true.

My school system was one of the first school systems to start teaching evolution (Cobb County, Georgia). In the front of ALL of our biology books, there was a huge sticker that stated that evolution is only a theory and is not fact. Additionally, the teachers drilled it into our heads that the details of evolution are not fully known nor are facts. That statement isn't entire true.

Here is what the sticker read verbatim:



Here is the source.

The stickers were found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause (which was then overridden), which I find to be very ironic because of our Separation of Church and State (not Separation of Science and State).

Those stickers weren't used till 2001 in Cobb County (Source). Evolution has been taught in the classroom for around 100 years. I graduated from college in 2002 and I never saw a single sticker in any of my textbooks through all my years in school. I had multiple teachers preach evolution as fact (although one college professor did, in fact, give a disclaimer on the first day of class). And consider almost any nature program on TV. All take evolution as a fact and present it as such (e.g. "this lizard has been surviving in the desert for umpteen bajillion years).

 

[Durruck]

My school system was one of the first school systems to start teaching evolution

I'm sorry to say, this simply isn't true. Natural Selection and Evolution theories were taught in my 9th grade Bio class in 1991, using 20+ year old textbooks.

By the definition, it is macroevolution. Again the definition is: "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."

Please quantify "major." Two flies of different size does not seem to indicate "major" to me (my father is a foot taller than my grandfather). Two flies with different diets does not seem major to me (a friend of mine is a vegan, and I eat little produce).

The two flies each have six legs, wings, bug-eyes, and fly. They are both classified in the same type - as flies. When a fly becomes an ant, bee, or flower... then you'll have my attention.

Until then, I just can't see the connecting lines between changes within a species and changes beyond that line. Just because I'm taller than my mom, faster than my sister, and eat different than my dad... does not make me a new type of anything. I'm still a human.

 

[Xandar]

On way to clarify - Micro evolution involves normal variance within a species, yet the organism's with differing traits may still theoretically breed and produce offspring. I use the term theoretically here, because while a male great dane can breed with a dachshund, the result would kill the mother (as an example).

In order for macro evolution to be true, one species would have to be able to 'evolve' into a species not compatible with the original species. In other words, creation of an entirely new species.

Of course everything in nature works against this possibility. For a simple example, more than 97% of biological mutations are negative or at least neutral (look it up ). The remaining can be said to have at least a negligible positive development. For a trait to breed true, the exact same mutation would have to be found in two compatible pairs. Given the odds of even having a mutation, let alone a positive one AND that trait being found in any two random mating pairs....It doesn't take much math for this to go south in a hurry.

Anyone with even the most rudimentary level of understanding of molecular biology cannot in good faith defend Macro evolution. Even some evolutionist now say that theirs is as much a religion as a 'science', they just KNOW it to be true.

 

[Skibabinz]

Have you guys noticed that with athiests, and at times agnostics as well, there seems to be this severe degree of arrogance on their part. For example, I told an agnostic friend of mine that I prayed for him, he started making fun of me for it, which I simply brushed off since I've known the guy going on 4 years now. I can remember when he was a Christian, but his parents where extremely strict (I forget what denomination they were) and told him that virtually anything he said or did was evil. He then started becoming a Richard Dawkins fan-boy, and now he "claims" to be a "pastaferian?" or whatever that following of the so called flying spaghetti monster is.

Another example is on youtube, where I was looking through various peoples profiles and one I came across was rather sad. He claimed that he was once a Christian, however his philosophy professor opened his eyes and now he will rip apart any religious person without any regard to their mental state there after, and will always prove he is right.

Either way, I suppose the only thing we can do for people such as that is pray for them.

 

[Abba San]

I enjoyed reading about the Pastaferians - it was a hoot. Hard to believe someone who doesn't believe would go to so much trouble to make fun of what they do not believe.

I think you are right - all you can do is pray for them.

The Scriptures are pretty clear about their position:

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. Psalm 14:1 (NIV)

So...yeah...keep praying for them.

 

[target45]

Please let me use an example...most organisms have a certain protein, cytochrome c. According to macro evolutionists, the cytochrome c in simpler organisms should be similar and the cytochrome c in complex organisms should be similar, but the cytochrome c of a complex creature should not be similar to that of a simple creature. However, that's NOT what we see! For example: these are the percent differences between a bacterium's cytochrome c and that of other organisms, horse...64%, pigeon...64%, tuna...65%, silkworm moth...65%, wheat...66%, yeast...69%. Get the trend? Bacteria have cytochrome c closer to that of a horse than to that of the second most simple organism...yeast. These were only a few animals. If you look all the other animals will notice the same trend...the cytochrome c is great evidence against evolutionists. This bugs macro evolutionists crazy! Thus they try to work their way around it. By being HIGHLY selective...they can somewhat "prove" that simple organisms' cytochrome c became more and more different as the evolved. But if you studied all the animals, the evidence is overwhelming against macro evolution. I hope that some of what I just said made sence. Lol. I'll pray for you man!