I am a Christian and I have something for you to listen to.

So here is an interesting thought for people out there.

Was Jesus real?
If you were to ask this question to people who study history, you will find that virtually all scholars of antiquity believe that Jesus was a real person (google it). So, the question then becomes, “Did he rise from the dead?”
If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then that would mean that the disciples made up the story of his resurrection. If the resurrection is only a made-up story, or a lie, why did eleven of the disciples die for this lie? Normally, you would be hard pushed to find one person who would die for a lie that they themselves had made up. Let alone eleven. So therefore, the disciples truly believed in what they saw. If all 11 of them fully believed right to death, then Jesus’s resurrection must have been real.

Leo Greer said:

I think Darwinian evolution has more issues than that. Most notably the big and simple one; no matter how long the wind blows that dust around, it’ll never turn into DNA…

Click to expand...

I've been watching this thread with interest, and I feel that I should note that this is not precisely true.

Obviously DNA didn't just spontaneously appear. This is undeniable - it is far too complex a molecule for this to occur. This is why the generally accepted scientific theory is that DNA is an evolutionary stage, that arose from much simpler molecules. This is known as the RNA world hypothesis.

To create a molecule like RNA, what one essentially needs are free floating nucleotides (a type of organic molecule), and these are believed to have been found in the 'primordial soup'. The likely origin of nucleotides are meteorites, since they can only form in conditions found in outer space.

Nucleotides which are free floating then polymerise (form long chains).


Some of these chains were stronger than others, and the optimum way for the Nucleotides to combine happened to be the structure of RNA.

The evolution of DNA from RNA is not too much of a stretch from there.


All of this is simply to point out that there is rigorous evidence for the formation of DNA a priori, not to insult or disparage anyone's beliefs.
I myself an no New Atheist, though I hold more with Chesterton and C.S. Lewis, than the New Earth Creationists etc.

It may be that the two sides here are not entirely incompatible. Archbishop Temple once suggested that God employs 'the slow working of natural causes', and Charles Kingsley once wrote that 'God does not just make the world, he does something much more wonderful, he makes the world make itself.'

1tonne said:

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then that would mean that the disciples made up the story of his resurrection. If the resurrection is only a made-up story, or lie, why did eleven of the disciples die for this lie?

Click to expand...

Karl Barth takes a very interesting view of the resurrection.

Welcome to the discussion Blackdog.

Personally, I struggle with the big bang mainly because an explosion never creates. It always destroys.
If we got all the men from WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War, and all the other wars and asked them if they ever saw something simple like a sandcastle be made after an explosion, they would all say no. Even though there would have been millions upon millions of explosions (Probably billions upon billions). But we are willing to accept that a big bang happened that it was able to make complex structures like DNA and intelligence and everything else we see. It also created things that we do not see like emotions and a feeling of justice. Logically, things do not add up.

Now, there are Christians out there that do believe or are willing to accept in the possibility of the Big Bang and many of them I like to watch on YouTube. Like Cliffe Knechtle. He rocks. But he does question, where did the energy for the Big Bang come from? If there was nothing in the beginning, then there would be nothing to make the energy for the big bang. And so, there is really only one answer if there was nothing to make the big bang. That is God. God spoke it into being and instantly it all exploded out.

This is a quote about DNA that I found interesting.
"DNA is an incredibly detailed language, revealing vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell—which could not have arisen by accidental, mindless chance. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer. Janet Folger reasons: “There is a mountain in South Dakota that proves what evolutionists have been saying all along: if you just have enough time, wind, rain, erosion, and pure chance, you can get a mountain with the faces of four U.S. presidents on it! If we can all admit that the faces of Mt. Rushmore didn’t just accidentally appear, how much more complex are the people standing behind the podiums who want to be president? …Which is more complex: a) The faces of Mt. Rushmore; b) a 747; c) your cell phone; d) a worm. If you guessed ‘worm,’ you are right. The DNA structures, digestive system, and reproductive system are far more complex than those other things that obviously had a designer. Maybe, just maybe, someone designed that worm, too.”

1tonne said:

Personally, I struggle with the big bang mainly because an explosion never creates. It always destroys.
If we got all the men from WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War, and all the other wars and asked them if they ever saw something simple like a sandcastle be made after an explosion, they would all say no.

Click to expand...

Certainly, but the thing is, the big bang was not truly an explosion.
It is more accurate to describe it as a 'enormous expansion'. The universe began in a state of high density and temperature and then expanded into the state it is today: low density and low temperature. In cosmology this is literally called inflation, so it might be helpful to imagine it more like a balloon inflating, rather than a balloon exploding.

Ironically enough, the name 'Big Bang' was originally used to ridicule the hypothesis, perhaps explaining some of your doubt in the idea.

1tonne said:

Like Cliffe Knechtle. He rocks. But he does question, where did the energy for the Big Bang come from? If there was nothing in the beginning, then there would be nothing to make the energy for the big bang. And so, there is really only one answer if there was nothing to make the big bang. That is God. God spoke it into being and instantly it all exploded out.

Click to expand...

This tends to be similar to the approach I take (God of the gaps). There are a number of possible theories about where the singularity came from, but so far, we have nothing concrete.
I don't believe that this should discredit the theory of the Big Bang however, as other parts of it are well supported by evidence. In particular, the presence of Background Radiation throughout the universe suggests that at one point, it was compressed.

1tonne said:

"DNA is an incredibly detailed language, revealing vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell—which could not have arisen by accidental, mindless chance. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer. Janet Folger reasons: “There is a mountain in South Dakota that proves what evolutionists have been saying all along: if you just have enough time, wind, rain, erosion, and pure chance, you can get a mountain with the faces of four U.S. presidents on it! If we can all admit that the faces of Mt. Rushmore didn’t just accidentally appear, how much more complex are the people standing behind the podiums who want to be president?

Click to expand...

I will respond to this in two parts:
The first is that wonderous things do occur by accident. For example Halldórsskora rock in Iceland is shaped very much like an Elephant, and it is likely to have occurred naturally.

The second is that we hypothesise that DNA formed in the way it did because this was the optimal way for it to form. The RNA sequences that I mentioned previously formed as such because it was it was more energetically efficient for them to take that form. This is why I believe in the 'natural occurrence' of DNA.

BlackDogAirsoft said:

Archbishop Temple once suggested that God employs 'the slow working of natural causes', and Charles Kingsley once wrote that 'God does not just make the world, he does something much more wonderful, he makes the world make itself.'

Click to expand...

Returning to what I mentioned previously, it might just be that this special 'sequence' that is the optimal form for nucleotides to take may have been some act of God. I do not believe that DNA was created directly by the hand of God, but maybe God acted as some kind of 'prime mover'.

BlackDogAirsoft said:

Certainly, but the thing is, the big bang was not truly an explosion.
It is more accurate to describe it as a 'enormous expansion'. The universe began in a state of high density and temperature and then expanded into the state it is today: low density and low temperature. In cosmology this is literally called inflation, so it might be helpful to imagine it more like a balloon inflating, rather than a balloon exploding.

Click to expand...

So, a scientific method is based on: “The collection of data through observation and experimentation”. The question could be asked, "How can the enormous expansion be observed?". Also, density of what material? Where did the heat which is energy come from?

BlackDogAirsoft said:

I don't believe that this should discredit the theory of the Big Bang however, as other parts of it are well supported by evidence. In particular, the presence of Background Radiation throughout the universe suggests that at one point, it was compressed.

Click to expand...

So, personally, I have not discounted the big bang. It may have possibly happened, but I believe I know the cause if it did happen. That is that God spoke it all into being and instantly it expanded into being

BlackDogAirsoft said:

I will respond to this in two parts:
The first is that wonderous things do occur by accident. For example Halldórsskora rock in Iceland is shaped very much like an Elephant, and it is likely to have occurred naturally.

Click to expand...

To be honest, I would not call that wonderous. It is just a natural formation that looks similar to an elephant. Cool, but it is far from close to what we are talking about. My guess is in another 2000-3000 years it will no longer look like an elephant. There is a similar thing in the bible. The place where Jesus was crucified was called "The place of the Scull" because there was a natural rock formation that looked like a scull. This has never been looked upon as miraculous or a wonder.
But I do get your point. There could be a pattern made naturally. I just don't believe that the pattern could ever become complex like DNA.
Watch this vid from 3:18 to 9:25. It makes a lot of sense. You should like it. It makes most people think differently to what they have been taught.
The Atheist Delusion Movie (2016) HD - YouTube
Then if you do like what you watched, continue watching it because it is a very compelling video.

RonSwanson said:

I can't change someone's mind with blind faith in a divine being, and you can't change my mind from placing my trust in science.

Click to expand...

Now just going back a little bit to RonSwansons comment about blind faith. I just found a short video. Watch it all and listen to the last words.
Creationist Stumps Evolutionary Professors with ONE Question! - YouTube
(I know I posted a longer version of this video earlier, but the short version is nice and quick)

I’m familiar with the popular scientific view of DNA’s original formation, I was mostly speaking generally. I appreciate the detailed reply though!

I’ll go ahead and point out that the amino acids that form RNA do not simply self generate in any ordinary circumstance, and in fact it’s never been effectively demonstrated that there exists a method by which the first amino acids could’ve formed.

The Miller-Urey experiment is very famous for having supposedly formed amino acids that could’ve led to the evolution of DNA, through the scenario of a lightning strike. However, like others of it’s kind, this experiment defeated itself—the test also produced copious quantities of carbolic acid and (I believe) tar, both of which quickly destroy amino acids.

This isn’t to say that there does not, in some way, exist a method of amino acid formation, but just to say that there hasn’t yet been found a viable method without some fatal caveat. Additionally this scenario would need to produce, not one, but multiple amino acids of the exact right typing, shape, and even left-right orientation, which (believe it or not) matters in how cells read DNA. These amino acids would then need to survive for copious periods of time despite their fragility.

Are you familiar with the Jupiter Brain postulations? The simple statement that Jupiter Brain makes, is that it’s inifitely (mathematically, not hyperbole) more likely that our entire perception of the universe is actually a mere moment in which a quantum field that’s believed to allow matter to travel between dimensions, pops out a naked human brain with the atoms in the exact position to create our memories of the world… than the Big Bang creating the right amount of matter to form our universe as a livable place.

It is also infinitely more likely that we are a simulation of reality run on a computer owned by aliens who are themselves a simulation, ad infinitum.

We often use the word “infinite” in jest, hyperbole, and just plain messing around, but when dealing with some of these topics, it suddenly becomes relevant. I find the evolution of DNA to be similar.

As always, we can postulate that if you have an infinite amount of time, the infinitely improbable will eventually happen. In fact, it must. However, the counter argument is that something is not actually infinitely improbable, but simply impossible.

One must also address the history going forward of one’s hypothetical newly minted DNA. Even assuming that there was, instantly created, an entire human genome, the whole code would rapidly decay and very quickly become unusable. It does this in dead animals and humans, who have numerous defenses and measures taken to prevent mutation, rot, and aberrance of DNA. In an open scenario with no cell to shield it, DNA would last an infinitely shorter time.

So, one must have not one, but two impossibilities (In the mathematical sense). You must have DNA, the right DNA for a living creature, and you must have a device to shield this DNA.

1tonne said:

So, a scientific method is based on: “The collection of data through observation and experimentation”. The question could be asked, "How can the enormous expansion be observed?"

Click to expand...

The way that the expansion is observed is actually pretty complicated, and I'll try to explain as best as I can, since I have not been in a Physics class for 2 years now.
The way we can tell this is because of a phenomenon known as the Doppler effect.
All of us will have experienced this when a fire engine/ambulance/police car passes us with its siren on. You will note that as a vehicle passes us, the pitch of its siren goes from high to low.

Because the vehicle is moving closer to you (relatively speaking), the source of the emission of the sound wave is closer to you with every new wave emitted. This means that each new sound wave emitted takes less time to reach you.



Now we can translate this effect to light: light is an electromagnetic wave, where the frequency of the wave determines the colour of the light.




The light of something moving towards you will be of a shorter wavelength (higher frequency), and hence will tend towards the left of this spectrum (this is called being blueshifted).

The light of something moving away from you will be of a higher wavelength (lower frequency), and hence will be towards the right of this spectrum (this is called being redshifted).

As scientists have observed objects in the visible universe, they have noted that almost every single one there is, is redshifted (they are moving away). This suggests that the universe is expanding.

1tonne said:

Also, density of what material? Where did the heat which is energy come from?

Click to expand...

We don't know. The theory is incomplete, which does not necessarily mean that it is untrue. Simply that we must work on it more (hence why I mentioned the God of the gaps).

1tonne said:

Creationist Stumps Evolutionary Professors with ONE Question! - YouTube
(I know I posted a longer version of this video earlier, but the short version is nice and quick)

Click to expand...

I watched the full version when you posted it. Not to be rude, but he is stumping them because his question is nonsense.
If you go to any reputable science website, or any paper on evolution, the words 'change of kind' are never mentioned.
There is no such thing in scientific literature (from what I can tell).

There are obvious examples of evolution (Darwin's finches etc.). A change is a change: no matter whether it is an elongation of a beak, or a fish changing to a reptile. It is simply a question of timescale.

Leo Greer said:

I’ll go ahead and point out that the amino acids that form RNA do not simply self generate in any ordinary circumstance, and in fact it’s never been effectively demonstrated that there exists a method by which the first amino acids could’ve formed.

The Miller-Urey experiment is very famous for having supposedly formed amino acids that could’ve led to the evolution of DNA, through the scenario of a lightning strike. However, like others of it’s kind, this experiment defeated itself—the test also produced copious quantities of carbolic acid and (I believe) tar, both of which quickly destroy amino acids.

Click to expand...

Except that is not what I was talking about at all. RNA is not formed of Amino Acids. It is formed of Nucleotides, which consist of a nitrogenous base, phosphate group and sugar. These can form under certain conditions in outer space, as identified by NASA.

Leo Greer said:

The scientific method is immediately irrelevant when applied to anything beyond the present, since it relies upon observation, and repeatability.

You cannot repeat the Big Bang, the building of the original pyramids, or Abraham Lincoln. In fact, by the scientific method, they do not exist, and have never existed.

Instead we must rely upon historical science, upon which the scientific method proper has no bearing.

Click to expand...

I believe this to be a conflation of fact and theory.
To quote Gould 'Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.'
There are certain facts which are especially conducive to the theory of evolution and the Big Bang being good explanations.

sniperinadiaper said:

RonSwanson, please don’t take this as a malicious response. But I’d like to tell you what the Bible says.

Everyone has heard or read some form of John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

Most people never hear the next two verses:
John 3:17-18 “For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God.”

To go to Hell when you die, absolutely nothing is required of you. You were born a sinner, as a member of Adam’s race. You can be a good guy, friendly, upstanding, but you’ll still die and go to Hell if you never get saved.

I’d like to invite you to read the book of Ecclesiasties. The man who wrote it was Solomon, and he tried it ALL. Richest, wisest man who ever lived, and at the end, he said:

”Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgement, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil.”

THIS is the purpose of life! If it’s not, then why am I so happy to live the wonderful life He’s given me?! I’ve seen those who spent their life in His service in His presence, and they are the kindest, sweetest people you’ll ever meet. They behave like Jesus because they are so close to Him.

Look at it this way, also: Let’s just say I’m wrong about this. That there is nothing after life, no God, no Heaven or Hell.

If I’m wrong, what have I lost? Nothing! But if you’re wrong, you will only realize it when it’s too late

And this is not an” I’m right and you’re wrong! Ha gotcha!” No, it’s just the grace of God that I am what I am. I’m a sinner saved by Grace! I just wanted to try to present a Biblical view on what has been said.

Click to expand...

The "god" you described sounds like a Narcissistic dictator who enjoys the forcing people to his will and I would rather not go to what he deems heaven if it means sucking up to him. Why should they get to cause that much suffering to for thier own enjoyment and ego, just the devil by another name really.

In response to what have you lost. In the grand scheme of all time and space nothing, but in the tiny blip you represent of the universe's story you could have lost very little to everything depending on how much time and effort you devoted in your life rather than spending doing what you wanted.

Let's flip it and imagine you get to the afterlife and the god you worship wasn't real but another was (out of the hundreds/thousands that have been claimed through history) how would you feel that you took a shot on one out of a thousand(s). what's the difference to not believing if the result is you end of not getting the "good ending". At least a non believer has enjoyed every moment and not felt they had life of wasted time and being deceived without the "correct" god giving them a clear sign.

@1tonne I wish I was rich. I do wonder how all of the wealthy pastors and the church as an organisation deals with that issue (besides paying of victims of the churches documented abuse of people and children) maybe the money helps them sleep at night and they just hope God takes bribes now days.

1tonne said:

As in the video, the finch still stayed a finch. So, no Darwinian evolution.

Click to expand...

One of the biggest problems that I witnessed in the video is that the question on 'change of kinds' is essentially a trap.
In Biology, generally species are classified using taxonomical classification (domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species).
Now, it is never mentioned which one of these must change for it to be consistent with what Comfort believes to be Darwinian evolution - the so called 'Change in Kinds', which is never mentioned in scientific literature.
In Darwin's finches, there was a change in species. A change in species occurs when an organism can no longer produce fertile offspring with other finches. This is what we witnessed. This is in fact an example of Darwinian evolution - as defined by Darwin. (please consult the literature if you do not believe me).
A change in Genus could be, for example, humans evolving out of an ape.
I believe that in the video, Comfort has straw-manned evolution, in order to win people over. Over the course of the video, you can see some of the professors getting angry, and I believe that this is why.
Unless there is a formal definition of 'kind' it is simply something used by creationists to move the goalposts.


I think it may be valuable to mention something that I noted previously.

"To quote Gould 'Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.'
There are certain facts which are especially conducive to the theory of evolution and the Big Bang being good explanations "

Evolution is not a fact. Evolution is a theory which is constantly changing and developing. It has flaws, but it is so far, very consistent with the facts.
As a theory, evolution is not something which must necessarily be tested by the traditional scientific method, as this is normally used to verify facts.
It is rather an interpretation of an extremely large number of facts, that are all conducive to evolution being a good explanation.


Edit: I have found one place where "change in kinds" was used (1939 paper by R.E. Coker). It is defined as a change in species, which has been observed through Darwin's finches.

RonSwanson said:

The "god" you described sounds like a Narcissistic dictator who enjoys the forcing people to his will and I would rather not go to what he deems heaven if it means sucking up to him. Why should they get to cause that much suffering to for thier own enjoyment and ego, just the devil by another name really.

Click to expand...

The Bible does not use the word Narcissistic but it does use the word "Jealous". So, he is a jealous God. And he should be.
If God created all the stars, the moon, the sun, the clouds, flowers, trees, birds, cats, dogs, cows and everything we see. If he was kind enough to create you and give you life and a family, and to provide food from the earth and meat from animals. If he was kind enough to send his son to take our punishment, then, really, we should show Him appreciation. We should not put other things before him. And so, God has a righteous jealousy.
How would you feel if you had given to someone abundantly, only to have them turn against you.
Hope that made sense.

RonSwanson said:

@1tonne I wish I was rich. I do wonder how all of the wealthy pastors and the church as an organisation deals with that issue (besides paying of victims of the churches documented abuse of people and children) maybe the money helps them sleep at night and they just hope God takes bribes now days.

Click to expand...

Maybe the money does help them sleep at night.
Personally myself, I also get frustrated by such things. Unfortunately, even within church organisations you can have people who love money. Money by itself is not bad but it is the love of money that is the issue. The church (people within the church) will be accountable for how they use the money.

SiliconeSword said:

Maybe church in New Zealand is different from the US, as from the churches I have been to they all seem to have ulterior motives and seem to use the Bible in whatever way will get them what they want.

Click to expand...

This is very interesting. I think it may partially come down to the history of Christianity in the US.
A lot of early pilgrims to the USA were kicked out of Europe because their religious beliefs deviated from the norm. Events such as the 'Great Awakening', were, near as I can tell, more significant in the US.
It may also come down to more 'consumerist' attitudes. 'Capitalistic' Christianity seems to be a phenomenon that is more frequent in the USA and Korea/Japan.

In Europe at least, the reason for the great split between Catholicism and Protestantism was because Martin Luther was upset about indulgencies. This may have left a tangible effect in the minds of the various churches.

That said, we have our fair share of arseholes and scammers, religious or otherwise here too.

1tonne said:

Kinds is roughly the equivalent to "Family"

Click to expand...

This is interesting.
I think one of your primary concerns over the theory of evolution is the time that it takes place over.

You, I think, will admit that there is at least some evidence of a kind of evolution (albeit one that takes place within the 'kinds'). After all, new species have been produced.
If one such small change can occur, I do not see why a great number of small changes cannot eventually become a single 'big change'. One sufficient that it would be considered a 'change in kinds'. If one looks at an evolutionary tree or cladogram, I for one can certainly imagine this happening.
It might help to consider the fact that the 'family' of a species is actually determined by consensus. Eventually, a species becomes so different that it can no longer be considered a different genus, and is simply moved to a different family.


Obviously because of the timescale, it is impossible for us to conduct a direct test of 'a change in kinds', but there are other tests and facts which provide the theory with strong backing.
Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf

Examples can be given where one family evolves out of another family, but, because of the slow nature of evolution, these are all in the fossil record.

Ultimately, what it comes to is which theory is more convincing? It seems to me that the evidence for the traditional scientific theories is more convincing than the evidence for young earth creationism.

I have been on the answersingenesis website, and quite a lot of what they have written is not particularly scientific, or a 'hah - gotcha' which is easily explainable. I'm not going to go through all of what they have in this message, however, their example on Carbon dating is one example of this.
They fail to mention the existence of other types of radiometric dating (rubidium-strontium etc.).

I for one do not wish to explain away the existence of God.
Indeed, the rapid acceptance of evolution among religious believers suggests that it is the intention of only a limited number of people to explain away God.

Christian belief need not interrupt the advancement of scientific theories. One thing I think you would enjoy very much is Dr John Lennox's speech at the Oxford Union on the existence of God. It is one of the things that gives me hope for the reconciliation between certain Christian groups and modern science. Lennox also has a number of good talks with the C.S. Lewis institute, about the synthesis of Christianity and Evolution (though I believe that we can go a bit further than he does before there is a role for God).

I thought I’d take a moment to bring (those of us that are professing Christians) back to the point that,
regardless of what you believe about creation, you are a Christian by faith professed in the one true Lord. This, I hope, frees us up to have a good solid, nontoxic discussion that won’t get us all banned . I haven’t read any toxic posts yet, but just a reminder here.

Going forward…

To put it very simply, the general idea behind what 1Tonne and I believe (and what Ray Comfort is attempting to say), is that despite the vast physiological differences between, say, a chihuahua and a Great Dane, they are at heart both dogs, along with wolves, dingoes and foxes, and if you wanted to you could take wolves and recreate Great Danes from scratch.

The interesting part about this is that speciation always involves a loss of available traits. People breeding Great Danes keep the tall dogs and get rid of the short ones (equivalent to dogs with certain traits dying in a natural setting due to lack of correct features). Then, eventually the population will never be able to produce short dogs ever again. Wolves have all the DNA necessary for both Danes and Chihuahuas, but Danes cannot ever become chihuahuas because they lack the DNA, and have less DNA information overall than wolves.

The base idea of evolution is that creatures speciate through the means of natural selection, becoming better suited to their environments and acquiring new features. The last part is important.

To get terms straight so that what I’m saying is not misinterpreted:

Natural selection: certain traits thrive and others die off, removing themselves from the gene pool. A net loss of genetic information. This theory was actually published in a scientific paper thirty years before Darwin’s time, by a young-earth creationist. Darwin also piggybacked off his own grandfather‘s work when he published “his own“ theory.

Evolution: through the engine of natural selection creatures lose some traits and acquire others through genetic mutation, becoming better suited to their environments over time. A net gain of genetic information. The original idea has been around since the Greeks, but has been popularized with immense success in modern days, starting with Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, and others.

Darwinist evolution: an old term, which describes the concepts Darwin briefly penned about on his trips to the Galapagos, fleshed out slightly more in his Origin of Species, and worked on extensively during his work on barnacles, which were actually the prime focus of his relative studies. Believe it or not, Darwin actually misidentified the so-called Darwin’s finches, and had to be corrected by a bird expert back in England. He also forgot to record where most of them came from, making them useless for study. Darwin also did not understand modern genetics, as evidenced by his writings in Origin of Species. In reality, very little of true darwinistic evolution survives today.

Darwinism: a modern term, used to describe the idea of evolution as a whole without meaning a specific part. This is confusing, as it can also mean a belief in the ideas of Darwin, which is not in line with how the term is used today.

Now, onto my summary and thesis.

Despite modern technology, a genetic mutation that creates new information has never been recorded. Although the human race experiences thousands of mutation collectively every year, they are exclusively negative or harmless, and always involve a net loss of DNA. So, if it cannot be proven that even one mutation has occurred which created a new gene, and not a clone or mangling of another, then the idea of evolution falls apart, because evolution requires a net gain of information. I.e. I have more genetic information than a sea urchin, and am general consisted to be a more “evolved creature”.

Observational science would mandate that humanity is indeed experiencing natural selection, but that we are actually devolving, as we lose genes every year and gain none. For example, every case of cancer is a genetic mutation gone horribly wrong, when certain cells self-replicating features are severely impaired, and the cancerous cells replicate uncontrollably. (There are a few other obscure typings of cancer, but this is by far the most common)

The reason behind this is that most mutations are caused by rogue toxins, poisons, and the various rays and waves literally scrambling DNA. An extremely small percentage are caused by cells mis-replicating DNA for the same effect, but this is relatively rare.

This leaves the big question: Where on earth are the positive mutations?

Also, I’ll throw this out there. In my experience living in Texas, which is one of the most ”Christian friendly” of the United States, most churches teach and propagate things that openly deny solid truth of the Bible, and there is absolutely money lust involved in many.

However, I think it’s a huge mistake to use the actions of some to stereotype and judge millions upon millions of people. The difference between Joel Osteen and the ordinary guy who pastors my church is insane! Yet both call themselves Christians, and many use Osteen to judge all of Christianity.

This is why it’s important to listen to people and find out exactly what they believe before trying to define them. Just because they swear allegiance to a certain book doesn’t mean there aren’t traitors in the crowd. In fact, some would say that traitors are the majority, and that may be true, but I don’t know people‘s hearts so it’s not my place to speculate further.

And, as a note, I believe hard jobs should be payed well. An active pastor is an extremely hard working man who is generally not “payed” enough and has to rely on personal donations to get by. Very few pastors are the Joel Osteens or the Creflo Dollars; most are more like the pastors I’ve known personally, who lived every month not being sure of their income. Money is arguably allergic to truth, and so when pastors tell hard truths, people get uncomfortable and leave. You can sometimes rate the “unchristianity“ of something by how comfortable you feel listening to it. The Bible is not comfortable, it‘s hard to read. When pastors make you feel cozy and comfortable it’s because they’re good liars.

Not to say that there isn’t comfort within truth, but that the aim of the Bible is to be a template for us to improve to be more like Christ, and since Christ is perfect, we’ll always have to work on fitting in that template.

BlackDogAirsoft said:

You, I think, will admit that there is at least some evidence of a kind of evolution (albeit one that takes place within the 'kinds'). After all, new species have been produced.
If one such small change can occur, I do not see why a great number of small changes cannot eventually become a single 'big change'. One sufficient that it would be considered a 'change in kinds'. If one looks at an evolutionary tree or cladogram, I for one can certainly imagine this happening.
It might help to consider the fact that the 'family' of a species is actually determined by consensus. Eventually, a species becomes so different that it can no longer be considered a different genus, and is simply moved to a different family.

Click to expand...

I can see your point there, but I don't think that there are any examples of this. (Though, maybe we would not be able to identify an example because it has changed so much)

BlackDogAirsoft said:

Ultimately, what it comes to is which theory is more convincing? It seems to me that the evidence for the traditional scientific theories is more convincing than the evidence for young earth creationism.

Click to expand...

Yes. You could say that. Personally, I think that Creation Science has more evidence. Each to their own.
Both theories have scientific answers to difficult questions. It just depends on which theory you start off with as to what answer you come out with.

BlackDogAirsoft said:

I for one do not wish to explain away the existence of God.

Click to expand...

This is good. Keep exploring. I know of other very intellectual people who were atheists and very much into the study of evolution, that have since changed their viewpoint. They can be amazing to talk to.

BlackDogAirsoft said:

Christian belief need not interrupt the advancement of scientific theories. One thing I think you would enjoy very much is Dr John Lennox's speech at the Oxford Union on the existence of God. It is one of the things that gives me hope for the reconciliation between certain Christian groups and modern science. Lennox also has a number of good talks with the C.S. Lewis institute, about the synthesis of Christianity and Evolution (though I believe that we can go a bit further than he does before there is a role for God).

Click to expand...

I have seen a bit of Dr John Lennox. But I will check him out some more.
I did watch a video a while back where science did confirm the accuracy of certain things in the bible. So, science and the bible can go hand in hand.

I must say BlacDog, you have impressed me with your ability to look at it from both angles. A lot of athiest are not willing to look at it both ways.
I pray that God does reveal himself to you.