Should A True Christian Teach Evolution In School?

[Martin W.]

free thinker

I keep my bible closed and use only science and intelligent thinking to discount evolution.

And if you think of it , that is not even required.

The evolution based researcher changes disguises on a regular basis. They are always discovering "something new" which dismantles previous claims. This will continue until they corner themselves and must admit intelligent design. There is no other possible outcome.

If creation came about by a creator , science can only lead to that conclusion. There can be no other possible conclusion.

Privately 70% to 80% of scientists will confess intelligent design because they see it is so apparent. But funding and jobs and careers require publicly towing the evolution ship.

Best regards
Martin.

 

[Paul]

free thinker

I keep my bible closed and use only science and intelligent thinking to discount evolution.

...

Martin, That is the most foolish advice I have ever heard from a "Christian."

 

[Martin W.]

Martin, That is the most foolish advice I have ever heard from a "Christian."

I think you missed my point Paul.

A person can discredit evolution theory using secular science. The bible is not required for that.

 

[free thinker]

You are partially correct with your first statement. I do not believe the “Theory” of evolution. Your statement on the Scriptures is incorrect though. It is also obvious to me that you have not read much of this forum. You see there are some Christians that incorrectly think that the Bible states that creation took place in 6 days. That assumption is incorrect because Scripture does not say creation took place in 6 days.

If you have a Bible, open it to Genesis 1: 1-2: This is what you will read (KJV)

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was* without form (H8414), and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now if you have a KJV you might see a period (.) at the end of verse one, and an asterisk (*) by the word “was” in verse 2. Between verses 1 and 2 there are millions of years. God did not create the earth “without form and void.” The asterisk might have the word “became.” You see the earth “became without form (H8414), and void;

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain (H8414), he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

H8414
תּהוּ
tôhû
to'-hoo
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

And as for the days of creation, Peter tells us that for God, each days is as 1000 years, so 7 days, remember God worked for 6 days and rested on the 7th.



Most if not all of those fossils are real and they are fro the time period between Genesis 1: 1 and 2.

Very well, I was mistaken and the Bible was written by God through Moses, and I was also mistaken on the views of the people on this forum. However, my main problem is with Genisis 1: 20-31 (correct me if I am wrong), which directly contradicts evolution; all before that is the creation of the Earth and the universe, which I am still unsure of. See, there isn't enough time for the 3.5 billon years of evolution that it took to create use (look at the timeline I linked). I basically understand Genisis, but I don't understand refuting solid scientific evidence to believe in it.

I have to say that speaking in such percentages is a little misleading for the reason that the article states
"Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome"
When they start talking about individual DNA molecules, then it becomes numbers on a huge scale.

Also did you realise that the on the same page there is another article about our dna which sates
"Using a new, more sophisticated method to measure the similarities between human and chimp DNA, the two species may share only 95 percent genetic material. The result is surprising, said David Nelson, a geneticist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, "in that it's more than twice as much difference as we thought" existed."

And again from the same journal in another article we are told that our genes are also very similar to dog genes.
"Scientists have completed a rough sketch of the canine genome. The results may explain why dogs are humans' best friend: Their genes are similar."

From one scientist to the next we get different results and conclusions...what does that tell us about the scientific method? And the fact is that we all have dna...we are all made up of the same matter with similar bodily functions and organs. But these similarities are certainly not proof that we evolved from existing animals any more then one building of similar nature to another is no evidence that it is an extension of that building. The similarities speak more of evidence of one designer using the same materials to create various subjects....just as a builder can use the same materials to create different structures.


I certainly do not view the similarities in dna as any indication that we have evolved from other species. If you think of a piano, every piano ever created contains a repetition of the same notes. Those notes can be played in so many different ways that a different song can be produced indefinately....i believe dna is similar and i dont believe it proves that we have evolved from other creatures. Rather i see evidence of a creator who is able to modify the dna in such ways so as to produce as many or as few differences as he likes in order to create a variety of species.

The article that you linked about human and chimp dna was written before the article I posted, just showing that, as I said, data will change as experimental methods improve. As far as dog's dna to human's, this simply suggests that we had a common ancestor relatively close in the Earth's history. See, the conclusions between scientists will change if something gets disproved. The scientific method will replace false data and facts, which evolution is not. But dna isn't the only evidence towards evolution. The amount of evidence is overwhelming, and there is no evidence against it.

free thinker

I keep my bible closed and use only science and intelligent thinking to discount evolution.

And if you think of it , that is not even required.

The evolution based researcher changes disguises on a regular basis. They are always discovering "something new" which dismantles previous claims. This will continue until they corner themselves and must admit intelligent design. There is no other possible outcome.

If creation came about by a creator , science can only lead to that conclusion. There can be no other possible conclusion.

Privately 70% to 80% of scientists will confess intelligent design because they see it is so apparent. But funding and jobs and careers require publicly towing the evolution ship.

Best regards
Martin.

What you are saying is simply false. Like I said, data changes as experimental methods improves. There is still absolutely no evidence that contradicts evolution. You are essentially suggesting that the entire scientific community is working fraudulently to find false data for evolution. This would require the up most coordination to ensure that their false data didn't collide. It is near impossible. And if they were working to prove evolution, why would they find false data that contradicted their previous ideas? You can believe what you want to believe about the scientific community, but that doesn't make it true.
As far as disproving evolution without the Bible, good luck. There is no scientifically rigorous evidence against evolution, and if there was, the theory would be disproven.

 

[Paul]

I think you missed my point Paul.

A person can discredit evolution theory using secular science. The bible is not required for that.

So word your comment in a better way, don't tell someone to keep their Bible closed. You gave the same advize to another member recently. Scripture is the primary way to build our trust in God.

 

[Paul]

Very well, I was mistaken and the Bible was written by God through Moses, and I was also mistaken on the views of the people on this forum. However, my main problem is with Genisis 1: 20-31 (correct me if I am wrong), which directly contradicts evolution; all before that is the creation of the Earth and the universe, which I am still unsure of. See, there isn't enough time for the 3.5 billon years of evolution that it took to create use (look at the timeline I linked). I basically understand Genisis, but I don't understand refuting solid scientific evidence to believe in it.
….

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

If God can speak the heavens and earth into existence what is the problem with his creating man and animals, etc into existence?

I see the theory of evolution as being far less believable than creation because of the complexity of even the simplest of creatures. To even try to believe that a man somehow evolved out of so, something in a pond is unimaginable. There isn't enough time in billions of billion years for evolution to create a cow.

One more thing for now, ft. If evolution were correct, why are we not still seeing new types of man evolving? Why do we see species that existed billions of years ago still existing in their same form?

 

[free thinker]

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

If God can speak the heavens and earth into existence what is the problem with his creating man and animals, etc into existence?

I see the theory of evolution as being far less believable than creation because of the complexity of even the simplest of creatures. To even try to believe that a man somehow evolved out of so, something in a pond is unimaginable. There isn't enough time in billions of billion years for evolution to create a cow.

One more thing for now, ft. If evolution were correct, why are we not still seeing new types of man evolving? Why do we see species that existed billions of years ago still existing in their same form?

You misunderstood what I said, I was saying that I am unsure of how the heavens and the earth came into existence. One of my current theories is that God started the Big Bang, but I don't want to get into that.

I find evolution far more believable because of all of the evidence for it. The fossils the dna, it all clearly shows evolution, and evolution is close enough to irrefutable fact that textbooks, government funded science museums, and other such things state it as fact. Once again, I suggest that you look at this timeline. If you look, it took 3.5 of the 4 billion years since the start of the Archean Era for us to get to decent multi-celled life (think trilobites). It only took about 500 million years to come to us from those multi-celled life forms. Evolution doesn't take as long as you would think.

We don't see new types of humans evolving because of medicine. We have made it possible for every human to reproduce, so natural selection cannot take its place.

 

[Paul]

You misunderstood what I said, I was saying that I am unsure of how the heavens and the earth came into existence. One of my current theories is that God started the Big Bang, but I don't want to get into that.

I find evolution far more believable because of all of the evidence for it. The fossils the dna, it all clearly shows evolution, and evolution is close enough to irrefutable fact that textbooks, government funded science museums, and other such things state it as fact. Once again, I suggest that you look at this timeline. If you look, it took 3.5 of the 4 billion years since the start of the Archean Era for us to get to decent multi-celled life (think trilobites). It only took about 500 million years to come to us from those multi-celled life forms. Evolution doesn't take as long as you would think.

We don't see new types of humans evolving because of medicine. We have made it possible for every human to reproduce, so natural selection cannot take its place.

So how many hundreds or thousands of years has medicine interfered with "natural selection." I thought medicine only really started in this century. I don’t need to look at your time line, I’ve seen more than enough timelines. Natural selection should still be taking place. There should still be humans evolving from monkeys, but there isn’t even fish walking out of the water or flying out of the water.

 

[HammerStone]

I find evolution far more believable because of all of the evidence for it. The fossils the dna, it all clearly shows evolution, and evolution is close enough to irrefutable fact that textbooks, government funded science museums, and other such things state it as fact. Once again, I suggest that you look at this timeline. If you look, it took 3.5 of the 4 billion years since the start of the Archean Era for us to get to decent multi-celled life (think trilobites). It only took about 500 million years to come to us from those multi-celled life forms. Evolution doesn't take as long as you would think.

Right, but let's get back to Evolution as an origin. At what point (and how long) does the living spring from the nonliving? We don't have a timeline for that and given that it has almost definitively not occurred elsewhere based on what we know, the odds are beyond immense. Otherwise, one is left with the notion that regardless of time, there was a Creator involved that laid out an intelligent design/map/etc. for creation. Evolution to an extent may be part of that plan - I don't think anyone here can say that no species/animal has changed somewhat over time - but evolution as an origin is an entirely different matter to which you will find unified disagreement with amongst the Christian faith.

The problem with trying to use Evolution as the antithesis to refute Genesis is that Genesis does not provide a timeline - outside of a very "fundamentalist" view of the book which inserts the ~6,000 year old date as "the beginning." I'm not going to touch the debate on days vs years and so on and so forth, but I don't see how one could argue the Genesis account is wrong and base it on science. Apples and oranges because God (or Moses and his scribe - or Moses as God's scribe) didn't write Genesis to be a scientific account of creation. Instead, it's clearly recounting why we are here and why we are where we are.

I actually find myself in reasonable agreement with Martin on the science part - real science does not discredit Genesis in any way. It only becomes an issue when an ulterior motive is read into the book.

 

[free thinker]

So how many hundreds or thousands of years has medicine interfered with "natural selection." I thought medicine only really started in this century. I don’t need to look at your time line, I’ve seen more than enough timelines. Natural selection should still be taking place. There should still be humans evolving from monkeys, but there isn’t even fish walking out of the water or flying out of the water.

Basic medicine has been around for much longer than 100 years, and perhaps there was a little human evolution before that, but once you get to the point where everyone can reproduce, natural selection stops completely. As far as other animals, we have interfered with their evolution to by killing them, saving them, and changing their ecosystems. There has still been some animal evolution, but remember that it happens in the smallest of steps.

Right, but let's get back to Evolution as an origin. At what point (and how long) does the living spring from the nonliving? We don't have a timeline for that and given that it has almost definitively not occurred elsewhere based on what we know, the odds are beyond immense. Otherwise, one is left with the notion that regardless of time, there was a Creator involved that laid out an intelligent design/map/etc. for creation. Evolution to an extent may be part of that plan - I don't think anyone here can say that no species/animal has changed somewhat over time - but evolution as an origin is an entirely different matter to which you will find unified disagreement with amongst the Christian faith.

The problem with trying to use Evolution as the antithesis to refute Genesis is that Genesis does not provide a timeline - outside of a very "fundamentalist" view of the book which inserts the ~6,000 year old date as "the beginning." I'm not going to touch the debate on days vs years and so on and so forth, but I don't see how one could argue the Genesis account is wrong and base it on science. Apples and oranges because God (or Moses and his scribe - or Moses as God's scribe) didn't write Genesis to be a scientific account of creation. Instead, it's clearly recounting why we are here and why we are where we are.

I actually find myself in reasonable agreement with Martin on the science part - real science does not discredit Genesis in any way. It only becomes an issue when an ulterior motive is read into the book.

No, evolution does not account for the beginning of all life, scientists are still debating that. The favorite theory seems to be the primordial soup theory, where basically, molecules began to connect to form the simplest strands of dna, or something similar. This eventually built up into simple single celled life forms, where natural selection can start to work. And, in fact, we do have a timeline of when life on Earth began. This happened from 4 billion years ago to 2.5 billion years ago. As far as life on other planets the odds are unimaginably strong for it. I have some basic odds calculations on this which I will find and edit into this post.

Edit: Ok, it is a conservative estimate that there are about a billion billion planets in our universe. Say that life is an extremely improbable event for life to occur on these planets, so maybe only a billion start life. It could also be fairly improbable for intelligent life to evolve, so maybe less than a million of those get life forms like us. That is still almost a million other planets which could have life evolved or evolving to something like us.

Well here is the thing. The theory (idea, myth, concept, etc.) of creation and the theory of evolution collide, and so only one (or neither) can be correct. The scientific evidence that goes against creationism is the scientific evidence that goes for evolution.

 

[Paul]

Basic medicine has been around for much longer than 100 years, and perhaps there was a little human evolution before that, but once you get to the point where everyone can reproduce, natural selection stops completely. As far as other animals, we have interfered with their evolution to by killing them, saving them, and changing their ecosystems. There has still been some animal evolution, but remember that it happens in the smallest of steps.



No, evolution does not account for the beginning of all life, scientists are still debating that. The favorite theory seems to be the primordial soup theory, where basically, molecules began to connect to form the simplest strands of dna, or something similar. This eventually built up into simple single celled life forms, where natural selection can start to work. And, in fact, we do have a timeline of when life on Earth began. ....

evolution does not account for the beginning of anything.

So where did your "the primordial soup" come from? No, the theory of evolution leave far more questions than it answers.

 

[free thinker]

evolution does not account for the beginning of anything.

So where did your "the primordial soup" come from? No, the theory of evolution leave far more questions than it answers.

I never said that evolution would account for the beginning of anything and no evolutionist in their right mind would either.

The primordial soup theory is still an issue of great dispute since there is not much evidence remaining from 3.5-3.8 billion years ago. The theory itself was written by Alexander Oparin in his book The Origin of Life.

I have yet to see any significant question that the theory of evolution has left other than the origin of life, which evolution was never meant to explain. Creationism is far from answering the questions posed against it the biggest and most important of which is; how do you explain the fossils, all of which clearly point to evolution?

 

[Paul]

I never said that evolution would account for the beginning of anything and no evolutionist in their right mind would either.

The primordial soup theory is still an issue of great dispute since there is not much evidence remaining from 3.5-3.8 billion years ago. The theory itself was written by Alexander Oparin in his book The Origin of Life.

I have yet to see any significant question that the theory of evolution has left other than the origin of life, which evolution was never meant to explain. Creationism is far from answering the questions posed against it the biggest and most important of which is; how do you explain the fossils, all of which clearly point to evolution?

ft, you need to re-read my post #39. The fossils are from the first earth age. God knows there were dinosaurs, they are recorded in His Word.

 

[free thinker]

...Between verses 1 and 2 there are millions of years....

Most if not all of those fossils are real and they are fro the time period between Genesis 1: 1 and 2.

ft, you need to re-read my post #39. The fossils are from the first earth age. God knows there were dinosaurs, they are recorded in His Word.

Ok, so if you are saying that all of these animals lived and were fossilized in those millions of years, what is the problem with evolution?

 

[brionne]

The article that you linked about human and chimp dna was written before the article I posted, just showing that, as I said, data will change as experimental methods improve. As far as dog's dna to human's, this simply suggests that we had a common ancestor relatively close in the Earth's history. See, the conclusions between scientists will change if something gets disproved. The scientific method will replace false data and facts, which evolution is not. But dna isn't the only evidence towards evolution. The amount of evidence is overwhelming, and there is no evidence against it.

im aware that it was written earlier...and i used it to back up my comment that some years ago they believed our dna was even more similar then they think now....in another 5 years they'll likely discover it to be even less similar then their current understanding.

Now about evolution has no evidence against it, that stands to reason considering true evolution is merely the passing on of genes from one generation to the next ....of course that is provable. What is not provable is how these complex organisms got thier start...and that is something that scientists are yet to understand because they remove God from the picture. Life only comes from existing life, that we know is a fact.

all livings organisms came from existing living organisms...we dont need to try and disprove that... We know it.

 

[brionne]

Very well, I was mistaken and the Bible was written by God through Moses, and I was also mistaken on the views of the people on this forum. However, my main problem is with Genisis 1: 20-31 (correct me if I am wrong), which directly contradicts evolution; all before that is the creation of the Earth and the universe, which I am still unsure of. See, there isn't enough time for the 3.5 billon years of evolution that it took to create use (look at the timeline I linked). I basically understand Genisis, but I don't understand refuting solid scientific evidence to believe in it.

the earth and universe were already in existence before God began to prepare this planet for habitation.
Gen 1:1 "God created the heavens and the earth"
This could have been billions of years ago....the earth was an existing planet created along with the universe at some point in the ancient past.

Gen 1:2 "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness..."
This is not speaking about the creation of the earth, but rather an existing planet that God began to work on in order to make it ready for habitation.


And with regard to God creating the great sea monsters and the flying creatures, what makes you think that it is not in harmony with evolution?
Abiogenesis is the greatest part of the evolutionary puzzle because life doesnt spring from non living matter or groups of chemicals all swirling around a primordial soup. Life only comes from existing life as we know. So whats so hard to believe that those first primative life forms appeared on earth at Gods creation?

Keep in mind that the creation of these animals were not instantaneous but would have happened over a very long period of time. The hebrew word YOM, translated as 'day' in our bibles, can mean many hundreds of years or many thousands or even millions....its a word signifying a 'length of time' and NOT a 'specific' length of time.

 

[free thinker]

im aware that it was written earlier...and i used it to back up my comment that some years ago they believed our dna was even more similar then they think now....in another 5 years they'll likely discover it to be even less similar then their current understanding.

Now about evolution has no evidence against it, that stands to reason considering true evolution is merely the passing on of genes from one generation to the next ....of course that is provable. What is not provable is how these complex organisms got thier start...and that is something that scientists are yet to understand because they remove God from the picture. Life only comes from existing life, that we know is a fact.

all livings organisms came from existing living organisms...we dont need to try and disprove that... We know it.

Well it may or may not change as we are able to look even closer and more precisely at dna.

Evolution is more than passing on genes, it is that sometimes genes will have mutations in them, and if these mutations are helpful, it will spread through generations until the whole species has the mutation (generally, there are always exceptions). And yes, the beginning of life is still the big question for evolutionary biologists. There are many theories but it is hard because there is so little evidence from 3.5-3.8 billion years ago. But, unlike gene mutations, this can be an extremely improbable event, because it only had to happen once.

the earth and universe were already in existence before God began to prepare this planet for habitation.
Gen 1:1 "God created the heavens and the earth"
This could have been billions of years ago....the earth was an existing planet created along with the universe at some point in the ancient past.

Gen 1:2 "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness..."
This is not speaking about the creation of the earth, but rather an existing planet that God began to work on in order to make it ready for habitation.


And with regard to God creating the great sea monsters and the flying creatures, what makes you think that it is not in harmony with evolution?
Abiogenesis is the greatest part of the evolutionary puzzle because life doesnt spring from non living matter or groups of chemicals all swirling around a primordial soup. Life only comes from existing life as we know. So whats so hard to believe that those first primative life forms appeared on earth at Gods creation?

Keep in mind that the creation of these animals were not instantaneous but would have happened over a very long period of time. The hebrew word YOM, translated as 'day' in our bibles, can mean many hundreds of years or many thousands or even millions....its a word signifying a 'length of time' and NOT a 'specific' length of time.

Well yes, I suppose that all of this can work with evolution. That would make Genisis 1:1 about 6 billion years ago and Genisis 1:2 about 4 billion years ago. And then the period of the creation of all other creatures would have started about 665 million years ago, not counting the fairly simple life forms that came before then. Like I said earlier, Abiogenisis is still such a great mystery because there is such little evidence remaining from 3.5-3.8 billion years ago. It is quite possible that God created the first life on Earth, and it is also quite possible that He created the circumstances for life to come about. But then, if all of this works with evolution, then what is the problem with evolution?

 

[brionne]

It is quite possible that God created the first life on Earth, and it is also quite possible that He created the circumstances for life to come about. But then, if all of this works with evolution, then what is the problem with evolution?

the problem with evolution is that scientists claim that humans are decended from a common ancestor which implies that we were not created in the way that God said he created us

according to science, no living creature was specially created....it decended from other existing lifeforms.

thats why evolution and creation are not in harmony but its not creationists who create the incompatibility...its science who do that because they refuse to accept that the first of the various life forms were created by God.

Have a look at what Richard Dawkins says in his book 'the greatest show on earth'

On page 25 pg 3
"Various things must be said about this thought experiment. first, we happen to have chosen to walk from rabbit to leopard, but i'lI repeat that we could have chosen porcupine to dolphin, wallaby to giraffe or human to haddock. The point is that for any two animals there has to be a haripin path linking them, for the simple reason that every species shares an ancestor with every other species: all we have to do is walk backwards from one species to the shared ancestor, then turn through a hairpin bend and walk forwards to the other species."

Yes, its scientists who have decided that all the many species on earth were not created by any intelligent life form. Rather they have all decended from another. According to evolution, very minor mutations have slowly created new species entirely. Its interesting what Dawkins admits regarding the 'intermediaries' between the rabbit and the leopard on Page 25 pg 2

"We dont know exactly what it looked like, but we know that it MUST have existed"

In other words, we have no evidence of such a creature, but because this is what the theory of evolution states, it must have existed. This is similar to what he said in the 'Selfish Gene' about the primordial soup..."we dont know how the first replicators came to life but it must have happened"

That is just bad science in my opinion.

 

[free thinker]

the problem with evolution is that scientists claim that humans are decended from a common ancestor which implies that we were not created in the way that God said he created us

according to science, no living creature was specially created....it decended from other existing lifeforms.

thats why evolution and creation are not in harmony but its not creationists who create the incompatibility...its science who do that because they refuse to accept that the first of the various life forms were created by God.

Have a look at what Richard Dawkins says in his book 'the greatest show on earth'

On page 25 pg 3
"Various things must be said about this thought experiment. first, we happen to have chosen to walk from rabbit to leopard, but i'lI repeat that we could have chosen porcupine to dolphin, wallaby to giraffe or human to haddock. The point is that for any two animals there has to be a haripin path linking them, for the simple reason that every species shares an ancestor with every other species: all we have to do is walk backwards from one species to the shared ancestor, then turn through a hairpin bend and walk forwards to the other species."

Yes, its scientists who have decided that all the many species on earth were not created by any intelligent life form. Rather they have all decended from another. According to evolution, very minor mutations have slowly created new species entirely. Its interesting what Dawkins admits regarding the 'intermediaries' between the rabbit and the leopard on Page 25 pg 2

"We dont know exactly what it looked like, but we know that it MUST have existed"

In other words, we have no evidence of such a creature, but because this is what the theory of evolution states, it must have existed. This is similar to what he said in the 'Selfish Gene' about the primordial soup..."we dont know how the first replicators came to life but it must have happened"

That is just bad science in my opinion.

It is still possible to have evolution and Genesis be compatible. God could have set the Earth to have the primordial soup (or however it happened) ready to start life, with the intention it would eventually evolve to us. God did not need to directly create the first life on Earth, and much of Genesis could be seen as God assisting the mutations of a few animals that weren't going how He wanted them to

Now your second Dawkins quote(s) is him using the Anthropic Principle, which I believe he discusses more in "The God Delusion" (I have not read "The Greatest Show on Earth"), Basically, he provides a set of arguments that is more than enough to almost prove to him and his atheistic audience that God doesn't exist. Then, since (from his point of view) there is no God, we are here, and evolution is clearly the best theory regarding life, then it is obvious that "the first replicators" had to come to life. The same principle applies to "We dont know exactly what it looked like, but we know that it must have existed," just in a slightly different way.

 

[Paul]

I think everything that needs to be said on evolution has been said.