Any other Christians in here interested in evolution? I mean genuinely wants to understand it.

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
55
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That just isn't accurate. Almond shaped eyes aren't limited to Asians. One of my favorite actors, Keanu Reeves, has almond shaped eyes. He may have some Asian ancestors, but that's the point. Our physical traits aren't determined by a single gene, though a single gene can have a profound effect on any given recognizable trait.

A "breeding population" (some geographic area that is isolated from other areas by barriers to easy population mixing) has a broad mix of genetic material for any given trait (called a gene pool), but some environmental conditions may favor certain traits over others. That is, some traits may be more attractive to the opposite sex, some traits may help survive diseases, or favor an individual in hunting, gathering, warfare, etc.

These favorable traits will become , over generations, more dominant in that population, but since human beings have two genes for each function, with either one dominant over the other, or one partially dominant, the processes of miosis to produce gametes (reproductive cells with only 1 set of genes, half the normal genome) causes 4 possible genetic combinations in any fertilized egg for any given genetic traits.

A dominant gene can be expressed in 3 out of 4 combinations, but the subdominant (recessive) gene can be carried in 3 out of 4 combinations and will persist in a population, even if it leads to early morbidity and death in 1 of the 4 combinations. The gene pool retains the recessive trait, even if it isn't expressed.

There are about 20,500 genes in the human genome, each gene representing 4 possible gene combinations, and each trait expressed by 4 "genotypes" times the number of genes responsible for any given trait. That's a lot of potential variation in the gene pool of any given population.

Now the expression of the dominant and partially dominant genes is called phenotypic expression. Phenotypic expression is responsible for "breeds" or "races", the appearance of isolated groups in any given species, but the recessive genes persist in the population in healthy quantities (as much as three quarters of the population).

There are also environmental factors that effect the phenotypic or morphological expression of genes. Some genes (if not all) are "turned" on or off by environmental factors. Neither growth or maturation would be possible if this weren't true.

This gives us much greater variation in the morphological expression of any genotype. Eg. A baby looks different from an adolescent or adult, not just a smaller version of the same. Nutrition and exposure to biologically active substances in the environment alter phenotypic expression.

All this is to say that you never see all the genetic traits in a population, yet they persist. For example, a Caucasian may have (and does have) some of the genes that produce black skin coloration, but not the full set required to produce that phenotypic expression. In other words, Caucasian parents are capable of producing children with traits common in other races, but as a rare occasion when multiple genes are required to produce a given trait.

When "intermarriages" occur between "races", the children express phenotypes closer to the original model. The genetic combinations between the parents restore the genetic diversity suppressed by geographic isolation in a given breeding population.

This has been going on since the creation of man. We are all direct descendants of Adam as well as of Noah, and of their respective wives.

Stem cell programming have alot to do with things turning off and on as well. A caterpillar to butterfly is a good example of stem cells turning off and on at a predetermined interval.
 
  • Like
Reactions: michaelvpardo

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Belief in evolution has nothing to do with belief in God. Hence, roughly 1/3rd of American scientists who accept evolution are also Christians.
The problem here...is that by the providence of God (not men) we have His word to the contrary, thereby making belief in the theory of evolution against God by unbelief.

In this same way, Satan claimed to Eve that what God said, was not true...which resulted in both God's word, and Satan's word being somewhat true for a [short] time.

I submit that this is also true of the theory of evolution: That God is true, and for a [short] time so is evolution--because some believe it and therefore God made it manifest and has let it play out in the minds of those who have chosen the "lie" resulting in "strong delusion."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heart2Soul

Heart2Soul

Spiritual Warrior
Staff member
May 10, 2018
9,863
14,508
113
65
Tulsa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Green eyes are the most rarest only 2% of the world's population has the mutation.

Of regeneration the immortal jellyfish is pretty cool, it can revert back to the infant stage and start life all over again.

Yea humans can regenerate part of the liver or part of a lower rib can grow back if removed :)
The brain can regenerate also...and arteries and veins can grow new ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeyondET

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
55
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The problem here...is that by the providence of God (not men) we have His word to the contrary, thereby making belief in the theory of evolution against God by unbelief.

In this same way, Satan claimed to Eve that what God said, was not true...which resulted in both God's word, and Satan's word being somewhat true for a [short] time.

I submit that this is also true of the theory of evolution: That God is true, and for a [short] time so is evolution--because some believe it and therefore God made it manifest and has let it play out in the minds of those who have chosen the "lie" resulting in "strong delusion."
All in the stem cell libraries, actually what the serpent said was a truth and a lie, quite cunning
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
All in the stem cell libraries, actually what the serpent said was a truth and a lie, quite cunning
What is in the stem cell libraries, and what does that show you?
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
God is in control, what is in it, blueprints and all sorts of things.
I guess I should have specified if the stem cell libraries you mentioned showed any evidence for or against evolutionary theory?
 

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
55
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I guess I should have specified if the stem cell libraries you mentioned showed any evidence for or against evolutionary theory?
In my opinion the word evolution is used for something that is not fully understood by man nor do I think it will by man.
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In my opinion the word evolution is used for something that is not fully understood by man nor do I think it will by man.
Yeah, it is not good to trouble one's self over, when the point is that God can and does manifest according to His will, and looking under the hood of His creation does not fully explain it.
 

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
55
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yeah, it is not good to trouble one's self over, when the point is that God can and does manifest according to His will, and looking under the hood of His creation does not fully explain it.
Indeed though I'm certainly not one to believe a 6000 yr old earth, simple ground radiation takes 20,000 yrs to fully decay.
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Indeed though I'm certainly not one to believe a 6000 yr old earth, simple ground radiation takes 20,000 yrs to fully decay.
Based on what? (Rhetorical)

Based on our own findings...meaning based on our own understanding. But do you not believe that God has manifest angels appearing to be men and not infants? See the problem? That logic does not allow for God being God, and completely capable to manifest according to His will in spite of what men think they understand of it.

I know the truth of it, but will stop there...because there is no point in explaining to someone who does not accredit God as being God and fully capable in every way. It has to begin there, or there is no point.​
 

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
55
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Based on what? (Rhetorical)

Based on our own findings...meaning based on our own understanding. But do you not believe that God has manifest angels appearing to be men and not infants? See the problem? That logic does not allow for God being God, and completely capable to manifest according to His will in spite of what men think they understand of it.

I know the truth of it, but will stop there...because there is no point in explaining to someone who does not accredit God as being God and fully capable in every way. It has to begin there, or there is no point.​
Well I guess you are a young earth believer but I'm not, the Bible isn't a time book but earth isn't just a couple thousand years old.
 

Skovand1075

Active Member
Jul 13, 2022
331
79
28
35
Alabama.
www.instagram.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It’s amusing to repeatedly see this argument.


If I disagree with a young earth creationist interpretation of the Bible, and I disagree with their pseudoscience then that means I disagree with God or reject the Bible.

Again no.
It simply means i disagree with the young earth creationists integrations of the Bible and I don’t think their pseudoscientific thoughts carry any academic or intelligent weight.

so I still accept the Bible. I still accept genesis
1-2 as truth. I just don’t think it’s literal. There is a difference between truth and literal facts. A parable can be true, but not literally factual. Revelation is true. The book of revelation is true. But it’s not meant to be interpreted literally. Neither is genesis 1-11.
The delusional ones are those that ignore sound biblical hermeneutics because they reject the cultural identity of the text along with contextual analysis of its genre and they reject essentially all science. They reject geology. They reject chemistry. They reject paleontology. They reject botany. They reject biology. They reject astrophysics and things like the speed of light and the size of stars and so on. They disagree with genetics. They overlap disagree with the overwhelm in the majority of scientists and biblical scholars. They also can’t provide a single counter argument. They rely on gaps and even half the gaps have been closed to everyone but the most backward thinkers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeyondET

Heart2Soul

Spiritual Warrior
Staff member
May 10, 2018
9,863
14,508
113
65
Tulsa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gregor Mendel
It’s amusing to repeatedly see this argument.


If I disagree with a young earth creationist interpretation of the Bible, and I disagree with their pseudoscience then that means I disagree with God or reject the Bible.

Again no.
It simply means i disagree with the young earth creationists integrations of the Bible and I don’t think their pseudoscientific thoughts carry any academic or intelligent weight.

so I still accept the Bible. I still accept genesis
1-2 as truth. I just don’t think it’s literal. There is a difference between truth and literal facts. A parable can be true, but not literally factual. Revelation is true. The book of revelation is true. But it’s not meant to be interpreted literally. Neither is genesis 1-11.
The delusional ones are those that ignore sound biblical hermeneutics because they reject the cultural identity of the text along with contextual analysis of its genre and they reject essentially all science. They reject geology. They reject chemistry. They reject paleontology. They reject botany. They reject biology. They reject astrophysics and things like the speed of light and the size of stars and so on. They disagree with genetics. They overlap disagree with the overwhelm in the majority of scientists and biblical scholars. They also can’t provide a single counter argument. They rely on gaps and even half the gaps have been closed to everyone but the most backward thinkers.
Well you have certainly presented a very collegiate level reply here. I am sure everyone understood what you said perfectly.:rolleyes:
But your argument is invalid because you did not present both sides of the equation correctly.
The scriptures are meant to be taken literally even when metaphors are used to express a particular topic such as the use of parables. The parables had a "moral of the story" that was intended to be easy to comprehend for Christians but not for wise men who wants to logically reason everything with the carnal mind.
When the carnal mind tries to explain God's Word it can't. It's impossible to their logical reasoning to make sense of it.
And that my friend is the moral of the story.
Be spiritual minded not carnal...
Romans 8 (KJV)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
⁵ For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
⁶ For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
⁷ Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
⁸ So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
 

Skovand1075

Active Member
Jul 13, 2022
331
79
28
35
Alabama.
www.instagram.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No one uses literally really to mean anything than factual, or historical now days.

When someone says that they take genesis literally, they mean they take it as being historically and scientifically accurate and true. The movement is called “ biblical literalists”.

As far as presenting it in depth I already know this is not the place for it. If more responded because they legitimately wanted to know I could go really in-depth with it. My job involves imploring evolutionary ecology and habitat systems. But over the decade I’ve realized that what’s best is to use my time going in depth with those who can understand it and want to understand it. Or it’s with atheist. I’ve learned that most atheists who actually understand science are far more open to having a real dialogue about science and faith than the typical YECist. I mostly use these forums for very specific debates to try to eliminate all the weird rabbit holes they try to take me down and to lead those who are truly interested towards some places for more info.
 

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
55
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It’s amusing to repeatedly see this argument.


If I disagree with a young earth creationist interpretation of the Bible, and I disagree with their pseudoscience then that means I disagree with God or reject the Bible.

Again no.
It simply means i disagree with the young earth creationists integrations of the Bible and I don’t think their pseudoscientific thoughts carry any academic or intelligent weight.

so I still accept the Bible. I still accept genesis
1-2 as truth. I just don’t think it’s literal. There is a difference between truth and literal facts. A parable can be true, but not literally factual. Revelation is true. The book of revelation is true. But it’s not meant to be interpreted literally. Neither is genesis 1-11.
The delusional ones are those that ignore sound biblical hermeneutics because they reject the cultural identity of the text along with contextual analysis of its genre and they reject essentially all science. They reject geology. They reject chemistry. They reject paleontology. They reject botany. They reject biology. They reject astrophysics and things like the speed of light and the size of stars and so on. They disagree with genetics. They overlap disagree with the overwhelm in the majority of scientists and biblical scholars. They also can’t provide a single counter argument. They rely on gaps and even half the gaps have been closed to everyone but the most backward thinkers.
I read Genesis days as such, 1,2,4,3,5,6 it's rolls pretty flawless no need to wonder how plants grow without sunlight.
As well the chapters same order.
 

BeyondET

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2022
1,494
392
83
55
Hampton Roads
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No one uses literally really to mean anything than factual, or historical now days.

When someone says that they take genesis literally, they mean they take it as being historically and scientifically accurate and true. The movement is called “ biblical literalists”.

As far as presenting it in depth I already know this is not the place for it. If more responded because they legitimately wanted to know I could go really in-depth with it. My job involves imploring evolutionary ecology and habitat systems. But over the decade I’ve realized that what’s best is to use my time going in depth with those who can understand it and want to understand it. Or it’s with atheist. I’ve learned that most atheists who actually understand science are far more open to having a real dialogue about science and faith than the typical YECist. I mostly use these forums for very specific debates to try to eliminate all the weird rabbit holes they try to take me down and to lead those who are truly interested towards some places for more info.
Dirt is made of many things, decayed trees,plants,organism,rocks etc.