How Do Christians Reconcile Evolution?

[Gary4Liberty]

macro evolution states that human beings evolved from primordial soup regardless of which branches of the evolutionary tree we are on. Ive seen this kind of rationale before. Since a poster doesnt know which branches go where somehow that invalidates what he is really trying to say which is that evolution is ridiculous because there are too many random things that would have had to happen over too short a time period.(yes even billions and billions of years is too short for that kind of change to happen). and scientists are agreeing now too, thats why they are saying that the junk dna is where the answer is. That whole systems already existed and only needed activation by mutatiions or enivironmental conditions.... . duh.. where did the systems come from. .. thats why they are theorizing that extra terrestrials had something to do with the programming of the DNA. which is exactly what it is. Computer programming. DNA reads like software. accident my ass!

 

[mosquitobite]

You have the premise wrong. Man didn't evolve from modern apes. Modern apes and man evolved from a common ancestor.

What common ancestor and where did that ancestor come from? amoebas? My question remains about blood clots.

 

[onlyrp]

Vatican supports evoltion.

yeah, but Catholicism isn't REAL Christianity, because they allow child rapists in their membership and collaborated with Nazis. So there you have it.

 

[otherone]

more and more scientists are realizing how ridiculous evolution is now and thats why you see so much hypothesis that our ancestors came here long ago from other planets. More and more I have noticed theories being advanced by scientists for extra terrestrial life and pre historic visits.

et suppositio nil ponit in esse
Only if one is watching the "scientists' on the History Channel. Science doesn't have a need to discredit Creationism.

 

[otherone]

yeah, but Catholicism isn't REAL Christianity, because they allow child rapists in their membership and collaborated with Nazis. So there you have it.

Is this necessary?

 

[gunnysmith]

macro evolution is not compatible with biblical christianity. more and more scientists are realizing how ridiculous evolution is now and thats why you see so much hypothesis that our ancestors came here long ago from other planets. More and more I have noticed theories being advanced by scientists for extra terrestrial life and pre historic visits. Of course they havent proved anything but they are desperately trying to come up with something else because they are realizing that macro evolution makes no sense and is impossible considering the short time earth has existed.

So did that intelligent life form come from macro evolution?
It all started some where.
The accidental formation of amino acids had to begin somewhere, otherwise there would be no ET's to "seed" the planet.

 

[trey4sports]

this is the chart i've been looking at. Some other charts have slight variations.

 

[trey4sports]

yeah, but Catholicism isn't REAL Christianity, because they allow child rapists in their membership and collaborated with Nazis. So there you have it.

bad form.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

 

[onlyrp]

Is this necessary?

ask a creationist
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/religioncatholic.php
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/evolutionseed.php

 

[onlyrp]

He didn't admit it, he says "I suppose it's possible" but there is no evidence of it.
Here's him actually responding and explaining the Michael Moore edit job of Ben Stein.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XpP5jsg5kM (skip to 3:30) Or you can read the transcript of the original interview

 

[onlyrp]

So did that intelligent life form come from macro evolution?
It all started some where.
The accidental formation of amino acids had to begin somewhere, otherwise there would be no ET's to "seed" the planet.

This is a meaningless question, people who start by asking macro/micro evolution are people who don't know what those terms mean.
I know, you're going to tell me "micro is variation within kinds, while macro is introducing new kinds, new information" but you can't tell me what "new information" or "new kinds" are, so you are always free to shift the burden of proof whatever the response is. Not playing this game.

 

[onlyrp]

macro evolution states that human beings evolved from primordial soup regardless of which branches of the evolutionary tree we are on.

No, it absolutely matters what branch we are on, nice strawman though.
How much of evolution do you actually accept? Do you accept that all humans living today share a common ancestor?
Do you accept that all humans living today share a common ancestor with chimpanzees? If so, tell me why, if not, then let's not get ahead about what happened prior to that.

 

[TheViper]

What common ancestor and where did that ancestor come from? amoebas? My question remains about blood clots.

It's referred to as the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor or CHLCA (a scientific name for it doesn't exist yet).


Well, to be fair. If we're going to mock science for not having all the answers to make evolution a perfect solution, then at least answer me how did Noah handled viruses, bacteria and other microbes on his famous voyage. And what of subterranean animal species? How did all the plants survive? If you flood the Earth for 40 days, you'd kill all the plants and there goes our whole oxygen/Co2 cycle.

And of course the odds of everything happening at they did are astronomical. If they weren't, we'd have life popping up from nothing all the time. Or in extraterrestrial form perhaps. Yes, the odds are huge. But there are 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone (making for several trillion plants a plausibility) and over 100 billion other galaxies. If the odds are a quadrillion to 1 and there are a quadrillion planets.....

 

[gunnysmith]

This is a meaningless question, people who start by asking macro/micro evolution are people who don't know what those terms mean.
I know, you're going to tell me "micro is variation within kinds, while macro is introducing new kinds, new information" but you can't tell me what "new information" or "new kinds" are, so you are always free to shift the burden of proof whatever the response is. Not playing this game.

Evolution in it's intention to get things right did see fit to place more rear ends of horses on the planet than it did front ends, some may think it cruel and inhumane I on the otherhand find it humorous. They will always show at the most in-opertune times and try to insult, when they have no answer.

That being settled, the reply was to ponder the question of where the Intelligent life form came from that seeded the planet.
I didn't need quips from the majority half of the equestrian species.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

I love these threads.

Who F-ing cares. If we get the Federal Government out of education, it becomes a moot point in regards to the liberty movement.

 

[Gary4Liberty]

So did that intelligent life form come from macro evolution?
It all started some where.
The accidental formation of amino acids had to begin somewhere, otherwise there would be no ET's to "seed" the planet.

Im not advancing the idea of extra terrestrials designing living things or trying to explain their origin. Im only saying that Ive noticed that more and more people of the academia are proposing theories of extra terrestrials starting life at least human life on this planet. This is due the the increasing realization by them that evolution is mathematically impossible. These are not my thoughts only my observations.

 

[mosquitobite]

It's referred to as the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor or CHLCA (a scientific name for it doesn't exist yet).


Well, to be fair. If we're going to mock science for not having all the answers to make evolution a perfect solution, then at least answer me how did Noah handled viruses, bacteria and other microbes on his famous voyage. And what of subterranean animal species? How did all the plants survive? If you flood the Earth for 40 days, you'd kill all the plants and there goes our whole oxygen/Co2 cycle.

And of course the odds of everything happening at they did are astronomical. If they weren't, we'd have life popping up from nothing all the time. Or in extraterrestrial form perhaps. Yes, the odds are huge. But there are 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone (making for several trillion plants a plausibility) and over 100 billion other galaxies. If the odds are a quadrillion to 1 and there are a quadrillion planets.....

I believe the first sentence of the bible. Therefore, the rest is easy to swallow. If He created everything - why couldn't he do it again after the flood? Why couldn't He create a new species tomorrow?

Do you also know the astronomical odds of the earth's placement at *just* the right orbit from the sun?

 

[Gary4Liberty]

et suppositio nil ponit in esse
Only if one is watching the "scientists' on the History Channel. Science doesn't have a need to discredit Creationism.

haha ya love the circular reasoning there. Basically you are saying that if a scientist does not accept macro evolution then it proves they are not a scientist. By this logic it is impossible for any scientist to disagree with macro evolution. Many things scientists once thought were true have been proved by further examination to be false. By your logic, this could never have happend. A scientist questions a scientific theory and he is invalidated because he questions it. Thats the opposite of science.

 

[onlyrp]

Im not advancing the idea of extra terrestrials designing living things or trying to explain their origin. Im only saying that Ive noticed that more and more people of the academia are proposing theories of extra terrestrials starting life at least human life on this planet. This is due the the increasing realization by them that evolution is mathematically impossible. These are not my thoughts only my observations.

you noticed? source please?