TSR Christian Society

Original post by Vanny17

I know about sequences of genes. Immunology, DNA comparisons, Amino acid sequences, Embryology etc. God making humans out of bacteria seems easier but it isn't in the Bible that humans were actually from bacteria. Surely if evolution was credible there wouldn't be any gaps. I don't any reasoning in natural selection in which the species become adapted to fit into it natural environment. Species without a link proves that Evolution is wrong. There are hundreds of species of extint monkeys and apes, evolutionists just present a gradual progression from monkey to man. It is simply just groupling similar species to prove evolution. Why don't they compare giraffes and elephants then, why only extint species? The cell is complex and scientists believe that the cell, being a simple life form evolved into a higer life form. The most modern day laboratory is unable to create a living cell. Scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule that is found in all animals.

I say that is must be 100% credible because without that, it didn't happen. A theory as trivial as evolution should be free from any errors. It should be completely true to base a strong belief in it. DNA can replicate as well which disrupts that normal cell cycle of any species. There could be a built in error in the DNA sequencing.

1) Lots of stuff isn't in the Bible, it doesn't mean it isn't true.
2) I don't think that's a fair conclusion to draw. Something can be credible and have gaps in it.
3) It doesn't prove that evolution is wrong. So we don't know what the 'missing link' is, and maybe we never will. Doesn't impact upon the credibility of evolutionary theory. Saying 'in order for x to be true, y must exist. We have no evidence of y therefore x is untrue', is very poor logic.
4) As with point 2, 100% certainty is not necessary for something to be true, or to form a belief on it.
5) In a similar vein, truth and certainty are connected, but the latter is not required for the former. If you need complete proof of the truth of something to believe in it, then what do you think about the resurrection of Jesus?

Also, I think in a sense it's a mistake to talk about evolution as a belief. A belief is personal, it's something that is generally based upon faith rather than hard evidence. For example, I believe in God. Then you have things like evolution, which you can think to be true, but I'm not sure whether the word belief is the correct word. To take another example of a scientific fact - gravity. Would you say that you believe in gravity? I'm not sure that you would, because the language isn't really relevant. I think I mentioned this distinction before - I'm not 100% sure and I might be talking nonsense, but my instinct tells me that belief is something distinct from acceptance of scientific fact.

Reply 2703

moomin-matt

11

hey all. wondered if anyone here does theology at uni?

Reply 2704

Original post by Vanny17

I do understand the evolution theory. I am currently studing biology and instend to study a Biomedical Science course ats Uni. Gosh, iI even went on a conference lecture on it. I do not accept any theory that isn't 100%. Stop generalising, you don't know what i believe in. I believe in the Bible 100%. I believe it to be valid. For there to be gaps in the fossil records in a vital theory as evolution proves my point. Unless you believe in ''God of the gaps'' that is. Unless you also believe in Anthropomorphism , you would believe in Thomas Aquinas, that a''vegetable grows of its own accord''? I suggest you look at William's Paley's argument from design and David Hume's critism of it.

I've studied Paley's argument from design, actually. I'm not really sure why you're bringing up a discredited theory like that - what point is it that you're trying to prove?

And I just think you're mistaken in not accepting any theory that isn't 100%. I may not know what you believe in, but, while I'm not a scientist, and so am willing to defer to anyone who can conclusively tell me otherwise, from my understanding there are many scientific theories and other generally accepted facts about the world that are not known 100%. Absolute certainty as a philosophical concept is very rare.

Reply 2705

Beneb

10

Original post by Vanny17

As I said I was tired and it was late at night. Evolution does suggest that humans share almost the same DNA with gorrillas though. A bacterium is not a living organism so cannot be compared to humans I believe. They juxtapose each other. There are gaps in the evolution theory so cannot be accepted because a theory is supposed to be 100% credible. I believe that religion and science shouldn't be mixed together, they contradict each other. Religion is based on faith not evidences.

If you are actually studying for a degree in biomedical science, then may the fates save you. Seriously, you'll be laughed out of the lecture hall. What are you going to do when the professor puts a scientific theorem up on the board? Obstinately shake your head and refuse to accept it 'because it defies the word of God'?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 2706

Calumcalum

14

Original post by d123

I've studied Paley's argument from design, actually. I'm not really sure why you're bringing up a discredited theory like that - what point is it that you're trying to prove?

And I just think you're mistaken in not accepting any theory that isn't 100%. I may not know what you believe in, but, while I'm not a scientist, and so am willing to defer to anyone who can conclusively tell me otherwise, from my understanding there are many scientific theories and other generally accepted facts about the world that are not known 100%. Absolute certainty as a philosophical concept is very rare.

*Scientist*

I confirm this.

Reply 2707

Calumcalum

14

Original post by moomin-matt

hey all. wondered if anyone here does theology at uni?

I had an offer - does that count? :frown:

Reply 2708

Original post by Calumcalum

*Scientist*

I confirm this.

Thank you

Reply 2709

Original post by Facticity

Wha? No it doesn't :s-smilie:

Evolution states we evolved side by side our cousins (gorillas) in our own evolutionary chains. We have a common ancestor dating back a very long time. Scientific explanations do not necessarily conflict with the Bible. Furthermore, how can one accept this part of the Bible literally but not all of it? I do not see how one can say, I will accept Genesis literally, however I will not accept that I have to stone someone when they commit a crime literally. Is that not consistent in itself? Why shouldn't Science and Christianity not be mixed? A lot of weight for Christianity rests in science, historical tracing of clothes, the Historicity of Jesus. I do not see why they have to be independent, nor even why you believe they have to be. Christianity is based on faith, however there is nothing wrong with solidifying the belief with science. Further, how can you say it is not founded in logic? Everything you believe is founded in a logical stance. You would not, for example, hold the belief that God doesn't exist or that God did not make the Earth. It would be illogical to hold a belief in something that you claim doesn't exist, and you believe the universe is designed by God because that is the only way it makes sense, no? Thus by this merit, your belief is founded in logic. I do not see how one can ignore logic and science even when it comes to faith. To deny you do, is like saying you are purposely talking about things that make no sense, is it not? You would not say your beliefs are nonsensical would you though?

A bacterium is a living organism..... If you mean something like a Virus (which doesn't even carry out the 7 life processes) even that is considered living (well, quasi-living). Everything else that carries of the 7 life processes (as all bacterium must otherwise would die) are living. In that manner then, they can be compared to humans. They do not juxtapose, I am confused where this came from... What gaps are there in the evolutionary theory which make you distrust it?
No one is saying you should believe in God due to evidence, neither does anyone here. Merely that, to actually continue the belief and to make the belief coherent, we need to be able to make it so. Furthermore, Evolution provides no evidence for God or Christianity so it is still 100% about faith and not science. I am confused as to what you so vehemently oppose about evolution then. It makes sense and has substantial evidence and does not clash with Christian core principles, so why do you not accept it?

EDIT: Have you never seen the experiment where they recreated early earth conditions and then the various elements of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen and Carbon spontaneously (as inorganic matter) moved and formed amino acids and peptide bonds (creating the basis for DNA and the basis for all life). This is proof evolution can occur and one could argue has been designed by God as such. It is called Abiogenesis. The spontaneous formation of peptides and DNA which intern allows single celled organisms to be created, from there they can multiply and evolve.... eventually into a whole species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

There are many factors as to why Evolution is false. Mutations for example. The Neo-Darwinists made random mutations the engine of evolution. They claim that many very small mutations are the basis hypothesis of evolution. For mutations to be the driver of massive amount of information there must be two things true of those mutations.
1. The mutations must be positive and allow the organism to procreate and pass them on.
2. The mutations must add information to the genome of the organism.
To date no evolutionist has pointed out such a mutation and if they exist they must be exceedingly rare/ infrequent. The smallness of the point mutation is also in question. Dawkins seems to think that the mutation can be as small as needed to make the hypothesis work, but it appears that one nucleotide base is as small as you can get. Another problem is that evolutionists confuse mutations with recombination and alleles. They are not the same. Some variant alleles in a genome are the result of mutation, but most are from recombination and were there at the beginning of that species. All alleles that arise from mutation are either neutral or excessively deleterious. There are not really any positive mutations in literature today, even evolution literature. In one instance the single nucleotide substation in a genome was responsible for the resistance to a weed herbicide. This herbicide was made to attach and deactivate a protein needed by the weed. A single change in the genetic code for this protein, in the sector used for defining the herbicide attachment, deprived the herbicide of its attachment point and nullified its effectiveness. According to the Darwin concept of evolution: One gene – One Protein – One Function. But as we learn about the genetic conssitution of genes, we find that the genetic structure of is resilent. The accelerated fruit fly experiments and the extraordinary resilience of the fruit fly genome. This is a great falsifiability test for evolution. Evolutionist believe that evolution is a theory that absorbs new data to make it part of the theory but it is merely a philosophy not a scientic theory as people believe. Evolution is not a positive correlation of links between one species to another the complexicity is far beyond that e.g the cell. Natural selection is not the opposite of chance, natural selection just makes sure the good alleles last and the bad ones disappear, that is all.

Up till date, there is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Humans cannot evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.

Reply 2710

Original post by moomin-matt

hey all. wondered if anyone here does theology at uni?

I don't, but I've done a lot of theological reading, an informal course in theology and having both of parents having studied it at some point and both of them being ordained, I've just absorbed a lot by osmosis/theological discussions around the table at mealtimes and stuff. Yes, my family is that cool. :tongue:

Reply 2711

Facticity

Original post by d123

I've studied Paley's argument from design, actually. I'm not really sure why you're bringing up a discredited theory like that - what point is it that you're trying to prove?

And I just think you're mistaken in not accepting any theory that isn't 100%. I may not know what you believe in, but, while I'm not a scientist, and so am willing to defer to anyone who can conclusively tell me otherwise, from my understanding there are many scientific theories and other generally accepted facts about the world that are not known 100%. Absolute certainty as a philosophical concept is very rare.

Ooo a philosophy enthusiast :teeth:

Nice to meet you, I do not think we have really spoken before. Quite agree with what you have said and thank you for the agreement :wink:

Anyway, I was wondering (on a completely unrelated issue) what do you think of this
I was talking about the claim "there is no absolute truth" , I said you could defend this claim and was presented with the classic "cut the branch you stand upon argument". What do you think of the presented response?
Not to say I actually hold the view, I was just saying one could hold that view. Would you say the response reconciles the problem?

Reply 2712

Facticity

Original post by Calumcalum

*Scientist*

I confirm this.

Its a sign surely :moon:

Reply 2713

Original post by Facticity

Ooo a philosophy enthusiast :teeth:

Nice to meet you, I do not think we have really spoken before. Quite agree with what you have said and thank you for the agreement :wink:

Anyway, I was wondering (on a completely unrelated issue) what do you think of this
I was talking about the claim "there is no absolute truth" , I said you could defend this claim and was presented with the classic "cut the branch you stand upon argument". What do you think of the presented response?
Not to say I actually hold the view, I was just saying one could hold that view. Would you say the response reconciles the problem?

I'm just about to head out, but I'll look at it when I get in or tomorrow!

And nice to meet you too :smile:

Reply 2714

Facticity

Original post by moomin-matt

hey all. wondered if anyone here does theology at uni?

No but I do try to make it a large part of my philosophical studies and my family are theologians so you can bet there is a lot of discussion here in the house :tongue:

Reply 2715

Original post by d123

1) Lots of stuff isn't in the Bible, it doesn't mean it isn't true.
2) I don't think that's a fair conclusion to draw. Something can be credible and have gaps in it.
3) It doesn't prove that evolution is wrong. So we don't know what the 'missing link' is, and maybe we never will. Doesn't impact upon the credibility of evolutionary theory. Saying 'in order for x to be true, y must exist. We have no evidence of y therefore x is untrue', is very poor logic.
4) As with point 2, 100% certainty is not necessary for something to be true, or to form a belief on it.
5) In a similar vein, truth and certainty are connected, but the latter is not required for the former. If you need complete proof of the truth of something to believe in it, then what do you think about the resurrection of Jesus?

Also, I think in a sense it's a mistake to talk about evolution as a belief. A belief is personal, it's something that is generally based upon faith rather than hard evidence. For example, I believe in God. Then you have things like evolution, which you can think to be true, but I'm not sure whether the word belief is the correct word. To take another example of a scientific fact - gravity. Would you say that you believe in gravity? I'm not sure that you would, because the language isn't really relevant. I think I mentioned this distinction before - I'm not 100% sure and I might be talking nonsense, but my instinct tells me that belief is something distinct from acceptance of scientific fact.

Belief could mean a lot of things as to how a person understands the hidden meanings to it. I will used the word faith then as it is the belief that something is credible. The NASA rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars.

The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found.

So do you believe in life in Mars as you hold belief of Evotlion being credible and true?

Reply 2716

marille

Original post by Vanny17

I do understand the evolution theory. I am currently studing biology and instend to study a Biomedical Science course ats Uni. Gosh, iI even went on a conference lecture on it. I do not accept any theory that isn't 100%. Stop generalising, you don't know what i believe in. I believe in the Bible 100%. I believe it to be valid. For there to be gaps in the fossil records in a vital theory as evolution proves my point. Unless you believe in ''God of the gaps'' that is. Unless you also believe in Anthropomorphism , you would believe in Thomas Aquinas, that a''vegetable grows of its own accord''? I suggest you look at William's Paley's argument from design and David Hume's critism of it.

I'm not a scientist, but as d123 said, no theory can be 100% - that's the nature of science. Let's stick with Hume - he wrote about the fact that, no matter how many times we experience something happening in the past, we can't be 100% sure that it will happen again in the future (although empiricism helps us establish practical truths). As I'm sure you're aware, everything in science is a "theory", and our models of the universe are constantly growing and rendering older models outdated. With regards to evolution, gaps in the fossil record do not damage the theory - it's something of a miracle (ha) that we have as much evidence for it as we do. Certainly, the theory of evolution on a large scale is by nature retrospective and therefore different to one that can be verified through experimentation, but that doesn't necessarily make it less valid than any other scientific model - we have to be retrospective when we consider other things like dating of materials, but that tends to be accepted. And whether we accept evolution or not is therefore not a matter of belief, or of objective criticism of the application of the scientific method in this case - it's a matter of whether or not we accept science full stop. And I think non-Christians are right to be alarmed if we don't do that.

Original post by moomin-matt

hey all. wondered if anyone here does theology at uni?

I do. I'm a second year undergrad. : )

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 2717

Calumcalum

14

Original post by Vanny17

I know about sequences of genes. Immunology, DNA comparisons, Amino acid sequences, Embryology etc. God making humans out of bacteria seems easier but it isn't in the Bible that humans were actually from bacteria. Surely if evolution was credible there wouldn't be any gaps. I don't any reasoning in natural selection in which the species become adapted to fit into it natural environment. Species without a link proves that Evolution is wrong. There are hundreds of species of extint monkeys and apes, evolutionists just present a gradual progression from monkey to man. It is simply just groupling similar species to prove evolution. Why don't they compare giraffes and elephants then, why only extint species? The cell is complex and scientists believe that the cell, being a simple life form evolved into a higer life form. The most modern day laboratory is unable to create a living cell. Scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule that is found in all animals.

I say that is must be 100% credible because without that, it didn't happen. A theory as trivial as evolution should be free from any errors. It should be completely true to base a strong belief in it. DNA can replicate as well which disrupts that normal cell cycle of any species. There could be a built in error in the DNA sequencing.

I mentioned God making humans out of bacteria/dust because you seemed to imply that the idea of something evolving from a non-living thing to a living thing (e.g. humans) seemed silly. But if our God is omnipotent, surely he's capable of it? If he can make humans out of dust, he can certainly make them from bacteria.
I don't know why you think there would be no gaps: evolution doesn't rely on us having found fossil evidence of absolutely ever species ever, and no evolutionists would disagree with me there.
I'm not sure what your point about elephants and giraffes are: some phylogeneticists have indeed compared elephants and giraffes, though clearly they are more distantly related than us and monkeys.
Who said there are errors in evolution? It's difficult to understand what you mean by a theory being 100% credible. Do you mean that it has to be proven to a certainty? If so, then no science actually works on that basis (nor does religion, for most people).

Reply 2718

Original post by d123

I've studied Paley's argument from design, actually. I'm not really sure why you're bringing up a discredited theory like that - what point is it that you're trying to prove?

And I just think you're mistaken in not accepting any theory that isn't 100%. I may not know what you believe in, but, while I'm not a scientist, and so am willing to defer to anyone who can conclusively tell me otherwise, from my understanding there are many scientific theories and other generally accepted facts about the world that are not known 100%. Absolute certainty as a philosophical concept is very rare.

I brought that up because you told me to look up on Thomas Aquinas work. I presented Paley's argument because it is based on argument from design. Paley argument was that God ''designed'' the world and the most insignificant of organisms''. He believed that God was the designed and creator of the world. Not the world evolving from matter as evolutionists believe. I am not a scientist either yet, but i do believe that everyone is entitled to theor won opinions and should believe whatever they choose to believe in. In your last quote, you sounded as though I didn't know what my argument was and that my argument was based on logic not understanding. This surely isn't the course, that was why I further proved my argument by the scientific conference I attended.

Reply 2719