Evolution

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
18,197
10,083
113
#61
Ok, let me go back and take a look.


With all due respect, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the example given in the original post, not to provide a lesson on elementary biology.
If you wish to expand your understanding of evolution, invest in a book from Amazon.
I have no need to expand my understanding of man-made fantasies.
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
1,622
284
83
#62
Moderators: do feel free to not publish this post if you feel it would cause unwanted negative responses from CC membership :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

A simple thought experiment for those who believe the Earth is of the order of 5,000 years old and who do not believe in evolution:

If the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, then when only Adam and Eve existed there could have been a maximum of 4 different human eye colours.
This would be the case if the 4 human eyes (Adam had two, Eve had two) were all different colours.
However, there are now more than 25 human eye colours.

Many people who do not believe in evolution hold this position because they reason that a living thing could not possibly have some feature that its ancestors did not have - e.g. how could a sea creature evolve into a bird over millions of years...
If you take this position, how do you explain the development of human eye colours, as described above?
Engineered DNA from God that allows for variations within kinds
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
18,197
10,083
113
#63
I don't even know why many like-minded Christians choose not to believe that evolution is a fact.
Firstly, the fact that you are convinced of something does not make that something a fact. Secondly, let's be clear about terms: most Christians do accept the reality of microevolution, but reject macroevolution.

But the same is true for evolution - nothing in the Bible actually goes against it, and yet some religious folk shun it for no reason.
You're wrong. The Bible states that each "kind" of creature is to reproduce after its kind. Dogs produce dogs. Bacteria produce bacteria. Humans produce humans.
 

ResidentAlien

Active member
Apr 21, 2021
384
131
43
#64
Moderators: do feel free to not publish this post if you feel it would cause unwanted negative responses from CC membership :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

A simple thought experiment for those who believe the Earth is of the order of 5,000 years old and who do not believe in evolution:

If the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, then when only Adam and Eve existed there could have been a maximum of 4 different human eye colours.
This would be the case if the 4 human eyes (Adam had two, Eve had two) were all different colours.
However, there are now more than 25 human eye colours.

Many people who do not believe in evolution hold this position because they reason that a living thing could not possibly have some feature that its ancestors did not have - e.g. how could a sea creature evolve into a bird over millions of years...
If you take this position, how do you explain the development of human eye colours, as described above?
Unearthed, random variations are normal, but a random variation cannot produce a new species. Case closed.
 

Jocund

Active member
Jan 14, 2021
340
103
43
#66
Young earth creationism is the idea that God setup a pool table and took 20 shots to sink 20 billiard balls. Evolution and big-bang models are the idea that God took 1 shot to sink 20 balls.

1) An endorsement of evolution is not to say that the human form happened by mistake, nor to deny Colossians 1:15.

2) There are two aspects to evolution, the ability to predict past events and the ability to predict future events. Even if a concession was made that applying the theory to past events is incorrect, applying the theory to future events is still correct.

Therefore: a Christian can endorse evolution without denying a literal interpretation of Genesis scripture. There is perhaps no conflict at all if the Genesis creation story is not literal. In either case, a Christian may safely endorse evolution without conflict.
 
Apr 26, 2021
495
148
43
#68
This is not true, and is a misunderstanding of evolution.



Evolution does not seek to explain the big bang theory, the origin of the universe, or how life started.
They're different topics entirely.



As above, evolution is not an explanation of the origin of life.
1000 years ago humans could not explain magnetism, and believed that the elements were fire, earth, wind and water....
If it can't explain the origin of life, how can it explain variartions/iterations of life?
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
8,051
2,375
113
#70
Oh, so you think that a theory has to be able to explain absolutely everything in order to be valid?
no, it doesn't but doesn't make it true when it is just a theory.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
8,051
2,375
113
#72
What do you mean when you use the term "just a theory".
Can you tell me exactly what you think a theory is.
sure it is a supposition which is an uncertain belief. an example would be Darwinian Evolution.


Truth is the state of being true. And it is the truth even if it is denied or believed not to be true. Truth and Law stands. The only way truth doesn't stand is when it is a lie, unproven, or if one is seeking the truth and performs analysis, gathers data, and form a hypothesis which leads to a theory that has to still be proven the truth or a LAW.


Darwinian Evolution is not true. it is a belief system founded in error. the error was a man tried to prove the non-existence of God and became a FOOL>. Yet he was able to deceive many and they too became utter fools.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
18,197
10,083
113
#73
Oh, so you think that a theory has to be able to explain absolutely everything in order to be valid?
A theory that can’t explain everything is inadequate at best and likely incorrect.
 

Unearthed

Active member
May 18, 2021
195
63
28
#74
sure it is a supposition which is an uncertain belief. an example would be Darwinian Evolution.


Truth is the state of being true. And it is the truth even if it is denied or believed not to be true. Truth and Law stands. The only way truth doesn't stand is when it is a lie, unproven, or if one is seeking the truth and performs analysis, gathers data, and form a hypothesis which leads to a theory that has to still be proven the truth or a LAW.


Darwinian Evolution is not true. it is a belief system founded in error. the error was a man tried to prove the non-existence of God and became a FOOL>. Yet he was able to deceive many and they too became utter fools.
OK, let's work with this.

Going back to the example of Newton's laws of motion, were they true before Newton came up with them? Are they considered true now....?
 

Unearthed

Active member
May 18, 2021
195
63
28
#75
A theory that can’t explain everything is inadequate at best and likely incorrect.
Interesting. By all means a theory can be incomplete, however the reason you have the lifestyle you have today is because of science.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
18,197
10,083
113
#76
Interesting. By all means a theory can be incomplete, however the reason you have the lifestyle you have today is because of science.
Which has nothing to do with evolution. ;)
 

soberxp

Senior Member
May 3, 2018
1,039
157
63
#77
I've heard a saying that Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't say that man evolved from apes. Those are the conclusions guessed by those who read his book.
 
Jun 15, 2021
90
3
8
#78
I wouldn't say Jesus is a fact and I wouldn't say I believe in evolution.
I believe in Jesus and evolution is a fact. There is no conflict in my mind between those two statements.
God made Adam and Eve long after the first humans. Adam was the first man and Eve became the mother of all living. Before them, humans were just special animals that God decided to make in His image.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
18,197
10,083
113
#79
I wouldn't say Jesus is a fact and I wouldn't say I believe in evolution.
I believe in Jesus and evolution is a fact. There is no conflict in my mind between those two statements.
God made Adam and Eve long after the first humans. Adam was the first man and Eve became the mother of all living. Before them, humans were just special animals that God decided to make in His image.
On what evidence do you make these claims (bolded)?
 

Jocund

Active member
Jan 14, 2021
340
103
43
#80
I get the feeling that in many cases detractors to modern evolutionary theory don't understand how science works. Or how theories are handled. Or what the current model of evolutionary theory is (hint: it's not Darwin's model). Ignorance is a sign of hardened heart (Ephesians 4:18).

The purpose of scientific theories is to help make predictions. It must have observational utility. For those that interpret evolutionary theory as being at odds with Genesis, the question is why do you feel this way? It is not necessary to interpret Genesis literally, and to do so is at the expense of other valid interpretations of the creation story.

Ultimately, whether it contradicts the creation story or not is irrelevant. If the creation story is literal, evolutionary theory still has utility for future events. It is an observation of "this is the way things have been set in motion". No different than looking at the orbits of stars and projecting forward or backward in time to calculate a star's position. If 10,000 BC didn't exist, it doesn't mean that calculations of star movements are suddenly invalid, it just means that there is a limitation in how the model can be applied. Likewise with modern evolutionary theory! If 10,000 BC didn't exist, it just means that the model can't be applied backward to that time. It doesn't render calculations for the future incorrect.

Use scripture, use modern scientific theory. Demonstrate logically why it is necessarily the case that modern evolutionary theory is false.