Evolution: Christian on Christian action Commentary Thread

[UniversityPastor]

[modbreak]

Sorry for the interruption.  This thread was split off and made the commentary thread. 

All commentary of the "Evolution: Christian on Christian action" is to be made here.

Enjoy.

020
[/modbreak]

Me vs BS on Evolution? Sounds fun.

UP-  What is your position on this topic?

I agree with evolution.

I think it's a fantastic scientific theory, that we aught to keep using it and keep teaching it to our kids.

I don't think it's perfect, but I think it's at least as accurate as the Quantum Model of the atom. It's a scientific model that holds up impeccably and is wonderfully predictive of truth. We might one day find a model that describes the movement of electrons or how we got here better, but we don't have that theory yet, and when we get there, I expect it to be a refinement of evolution, not an abandonment of it.

And just to be clear... Yes I'm talking about "Macroevolution" too.

I do believe God created, I think he did it through evolution (just like i think he make Loihi trough volcanic eruptions)

I believe Genesis is the word of God, I believe it's first chapters are mostly figurative, and i believe that if you and I go through it together with an even keel and a sound mind, you'll realize you believe those chapters are mostly figurative too. We're arguing over a difference of about 10% of the language being figurative. You think It's about 40 or 50% figurative already, I think it's more like 50 or 60%

[Timo]

I'd definitely be interested in reading this debate.  Though, I have to wonder already, what exactly do you mean when you write that you believe that Genesis is the "word of God"?  You've acknowledged that you accept that its first few chapters are largely figurative but what do you make of the rest?  Were Judah and Israel flesh and blood people too?  I suppose this is tangential, but I'm curious.

[UniversityPastor]

I'd definitely be interested in reading this debate.  Though, I have to wonder already, what exactly do you mean when you write that you believe that Genesis is the "word of God"?  You've acknowledged that you accept that its first few chapters are largely figurative but what do you make of the rest?  Were Judah and Israel flesh and blood people too?  I suppose this is tangential, but I'm curious.

Real quick (and hopefully this won't merit a response and the mods won't have to relocate us) I think even Adam and Eve were flesh and blood people (as in..there was a first man, and a first woman)

I just think they evolved from monkeys

[Operator_020]

All discussion by non-participants is to be done in this thread.  Enjoy.

[William]

Can I say, before it begins or my microwave popcorn beeps, an advance big thankyou to University Pastor and BibleStudent for doing this.  I'm looking forward to observing a free flow of theist views on the topic of evolution without interfering (for a change  ).

[plethora]

xtian on xtian ... nice. I'm ready to read

[Timo]

I'd definitely be interested in reading this debate.  Though, I have to wonder already, what exactly do you mean when you write that you believe that Genesis is the "word of God"?  You've acknowledged that you accept that its first few chapters are largely figurative but what do you make of the rest?  Were Judah and Israel flesh and blood people too?  I suppose this is tangential, but I'm curious.

Real quick (and hopefully this won't merit a response and the mods won't have to relocate us) I think even Adam and Eve were flesh and blood people (as in..there was a first man, and a first woman)

I just think they evolved from monkeys

This is a commentary thread.  I think that side talk is allowed.  But I don't really know.  If not, I think the fault is only with me and not you.  You only answered my question.

Anyway, from an evolutionary standpoint, I don't think that your position makes any sense.  Individuals don't evolve, after all.  Populations do.  It's not as if there would be these two first individuals to cross some sort of imagined genetic threshold.  Rather, a population that we would have once considered to be something other than human became, at some point, something that we would consider human.  And the exact point at which we would draw that line would be somewhat arbitrary.

I don't know, I like that you, as a Christian, are okay with evolution.  I wish there were more like you.  But I just don't think your position is coherent.  And if I were a young earth creationist, I would hammer at this point mercilessly if I were in debate with you.  I don't think you can have it both ways.

[kin hell]

bm

[screwtape]

Timo,

In another thread you were talking about how you wished all xians were liberal and moderate and took the bible figuratively.  Here you are trying to push a liberal toward literalism and fundamentalism.  Will you please make up your mind?

This is the right place for commentary, by the way.  I am something of an authority on the matter.  I was mod of this area for 5 minutes.

[nogodsforme]

Hey there,  UP;
The TOE does not suggest that humans evolved from monkeys. It says that humans, apes and monkeys are all descended from an earlier primate-type critter. Present-day primates are all like cousins; monkeys are not our ancestors.

But be that as it may, do you think that god actually made the early primates, and then humans evolved from them? Or that god just started the first chemical reactions with amino acids or whatever that became the earliest life forms?

[Timo]

Timo,

In another thread you were talking about how you wished all xians were liberal and moderate and took the bible figuratively.  Here you are trying to push a liberal toward literalism and fundamentalism.  Will you please make up your mind?

I think you just need to read more carefully.

If you were to look back to that thread, the Science and Religion thread, you'd find that I was saying that I would like Christians to take the whole of Genesis and most of the Hebrew Bible as something other than factual history.  In fact, we were mostly talking about the Canaanite genocide and other horrific episodes in the Bible.  But if UP believes that Adam and Eve were actual people, my guess is that he also believes, among other things, that God told Moses to order the mass murder and sexual slavery of the Midionites.  If this is the case then he's not an adherent to the sort of liberal Christianity I was sketching out by any stretch of the imagination.

And no, I'm not trying to push UP towards fundamentalism.  If you'd care to read his posts, you'd find that he already rejects the young earthers out of hand.  (Hence the proposed debate.)  For example:

I believe in an old earth, evolution, and the legalization of same sex marriage, for instance. And I reject all notions that doubt is bad, science is the opposition, and you should stop thinking and "just have faith" as horrible misinterpretations of the teachings of Christ.

[snip]

Sometimes I'll be listening to some idiot talk about how you should "believe god to go to heaven because the bible says evolution is not science" and I'll really sincerely wish they weren't on my side, but Christianity is not an exclusive club, any idiot can join, there's nothing I can do about it.

Basically, I think he's already on the right track and I just wish he'd go a bit further.  The position that evolution is true, and at the same time Adam and Eve (and Lilith?) were flesh and blood people is a completely incoherent position.  I'd prefer that he reject the latter and not the former.  And I think that, if he changes his position, that's the way he'd go.  He already knows why the young earthers and anti-evolution folks are wrong.  I don't think that my claims are going to make their arguments more persuasive to him.


Peace

[velkyn]

Real quick (and hopefully this won't merit a response and the mods won't have to relocate us) I think even Adam and Eve were flesh and blood people (as in..there was a first man, and a first woman)

I just think they evolved from monkeys

this sounds like a claim I've heard Christians make that somehow God imbued A&E with the usual special snowflake serum whilst there were other hominids around.  It just allows for Christians to accept science that has been shown accurate and not be totally hypocritical but still keep the woo in their religion. 

[screwtape]

I think you just need to read more carefully.

Or write with my tongue more obviously in my cheek. 

[Gimpy]

Me vs BS on Evolution? Sounds fun.

Actually, I'd prefer to see you and Wootah discuss evolution.

[Timo]

I think you just need to read more carefully.

Or write with my tongue more obviously in my cheek. 

I think I can see how you meant that now.  But yeah, irony and sarcasm are sometimes hard to convey via text.

[screwtape]

I think I can see how you meant that now.  But yeah, irony and sarcasm are sometimes hard to convey via text.

It is a lesson I have to learn almost weekly.  You'd think I would get it by now.

[UniversityPastor]

I'd definitely be interested in reading this debate.  Though, I have to wonder already, what exactly do you mean when you write that you believe that Genesis is the "word of God"?  You've acknowledged that you accept that its first few chapters are largely figurative but what do you make of the rest?  Were Judah and Israel flesh and blood people too?  I suppose this is tangential, but I'm curious.

Real quick (and hopefully this won't merit a response and the mods won't have to relocate us) I think even Adam and Eve were flesh and blood people (as in..there was a first man, and a first woman)

I just think they evolved from monkeys

[snip]

Anyway, from an evolutionary standpoint, I don't think that your position makes any sense.  Individuals don't evolve, after all.  Populations do.  It's not as if there would be these two first individuals to cross some sort of imagined genetic threshold.  Rather, a population that we would have once considered to be something other than human became, at some point, something that we would consider human.  And the exact point at which we would draw that line would be somewhat arbitrary.

I don't know, I like that you, as a Christian, are okay with evolution.  I wish there were more like you.  But I just don't think your position is coherent.  And if I were a young earth creationist, I would hammer at this point mercilessly if I were in debate with you.  I don't think you can have it both ways.

There are lots of places to go with it, and I'm not sure which theory I like best (and certainty not which one is true)

One would be that Adam was a federal head of this first crop of Homo Sapiens, and none of the others were mentioned but his sin was still the first, and it was sufficient for all to fall. (i don't like this one terribly much, I think it tries to hard)

Certainty the entire story could be fabricated, as a means of conveying the central message of genesis (God made everything, he didn't have help, and humans were the pinnacle of his creation)

With BibleStudent I expect to defend the theory that there was an instance of punctuated equilibrium between the early hominids and the first humans resulting in the very first humans arising very suddenly, in a very small population (2ish) leaving few fossil ancestors of missing links. That way I sidestep the pigs tooth conversation, and hammer home the theistic aspect of my theistic evolution (God, the great punctuator of my equilibrium)

With you Timo, I'd rather say this. What you're describing is a bright line issue. It's true that we as scientists looking at a population would have to arbitrarily draw a line at some point. But that's nothing more than a statement about how much we know. There was a first human whether or not we can tell who it was simply because, there had to be. Whether or not there were a lot of other just barley not-humans-yet in the same community doesn't really matter.

[UniversityPastor]

Hey there,  UP;
The TOE does not suggest that humans evolved from monkeys. It says that humans, apes and monkeys are all descended from an earlier primate-type critter. Present-day primates are all like cousins; monkeys are not our ancestors.

Yes of course. I was just subtly poking at the rhetoric "I didn't come from no monkey" Yes you did.

But be that as it may, do you think that god actually made the early primates, and then humans evolved from them? Or that god just started the first chemical reactions with amino acids or whatever that became the earliest life forms?

I think that God made Adam from the dust. Which he made into an aqueous solution, which he made into the first amino acids, which he made into one celled organisms and so on all the way through apes. (or ape-like hominids)

[relativetruth]

DNA research suggests that 'Mitochrondrial Eve' existed about 200,000 years and 'Y-chromosomal Adam' existed between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago.

I suppose what UP is saying is that whatever was done to hominid 'Adam' to make him human was also done to Eve even though both hominid 'Adam' and hominid 'Eve' were biological desendants of a much earlier animal 'mitochrondrial Eve'.

[UniversityPastor]

DNA research suggests that 'Mitochrondrial Eve' existed about 200,000 years and 'Y-chromosomal Adam' existed between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago.

I suppose what UP is saying is that whatever was done to hominid 'Adam' to make him human was also done to Eve even though both hominid 'Adam' and hominid 'Eve' were biological desendants of a much earlier animal 'mitochrondrial Eve'.

I'm so glad you said that RT (can I call you Arty?) I had in my mind some information about genetic bottlenecking and the sources I read it in but I decided it would be better to leave my self a lot of ground than pick a fight on a topic that i read about in an article once.

but yes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
http://www.suite101.com/content/who-is-mitochondrial-eve-a127250

[relativetruth]

DNA research suggests that 'Mitochrondrial Eve' existed about 200,000 years and 'Y-chromosomal Adam' existed between 90,000 and 60,000 years ago.

I suppose what UP is saying is that whatever was done to hominid 'Adam' to make him human was also done to Eve even though both hominid 'Adam' and hominid 'Eve' were biological desendants of a much earlier animal 'mitochrondrial Eve'.

I'm so glad you said that RT (can I call you Arty?) I had in my mind some information about genetic bottlenecking and the sources I read it in but I decided it would be better to leave my self a lot of ground than pick a fight on a topic that i read about in an article once.

but yes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
http://www.suite101.com/content/who-is-mitochondrial-eve-a127250

I don't wish to derail any threads but I would be interested in reasons for believing that Adam was humanised (maybe by adding the soul?).

I will watch out to BM any future thread.

[velkyn]

With BibleStudent I expect to defend the theory that there was an instance of punctuated equilibrium between the early hominids and the first humans resulting in the very first humans arising very suddenly, in a very small population (2ish) leaving few fossil ancestors of missing links. That way I sidestep the pigs tooth conversation, and hammer home the theistic aspect of my theistic evolution (God, the great punctuator of my equilibrium)

that should prove entertaining since the evidence shows anything but.

[jetson]

It will very likely devolve into a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the actual theory.  This happens in almost every conversation with creationists.  I would love to see a complete acknowledgement and understanding of the actual theory demonstrated by both (although I know it's not required in this debate.)  Acknowledging and understanding the theory does NOT mean you have to agree with it. 

BS' first reply hints at the possibility that micro and macro will likely be abused.

[MockTurtle]

I gotta give props to UP.  After the style of his opening post I was getting all misty thinking about my High School debate team
And, as a lawyer, I'm always impressed any time someone works "Res" into a conversation.

[ParkingPlaces]

While I am interested in how this debate goes, but I'm not sure why since I don't agree with either side. To me, it's like debating about which member of Milli Vanilli was the best singer.

[godisimaginary]

I don't understand why the theory of Evolution is still even debated. It is not like a new taboo theory that came out. It is a agreed upon theory backed by supporting evidence. Evidence that continues to pile up.

am i rite ?

[xphobe]

The TOE does not suggest that humans evolved from monkeys. It says that humans, apes and monkeys are all descended from an earlier primate-type critter. Present-day primates are all like cousins; monkeys are not our ancestors.

IIRC, Aron-Ra made a youtube video in which he explained that we are not only descended from monkeys, we are monkeys, because what we call "new world monkeys" diverged from "old world monkeys" long before humans ever appeared, and if they were monkeys, then any line that diverged from them had to have been monkeys too.

Or something like that.  Aron-Ra talks so fast I sometimes have trouble following.



At any rate, I understand what UP is saying: Whether we can identify them or not, there had to have been a first man and a first woman, because there was a time when there were no humans, and now there are humans.

So Genesis taken allegorically is acknowledging that fact.  Its problem is, it takes the metaphor too far.  Remember, those folks didn't know anything about evolution.  It was a lucky guess for them to assume there was a time before humans.  They based that guess on most things they observed.  Houses don't exist until you build them.  Crops don't exist until you plant them.  In their world, things that didn't exist but then do exist all required a creator.  But then they apply that same logic to the Universe as a whole, and there's simply no justification for that.  They weren't aware of the Big Bang or quantum vacuum fluctuations or the possibility of a "finite but unbounded" spacetime.

[jetson]

At any rate, I understand what UP is saying: Whether we can identify them or not, there had to have been a first man population of men and a first woman population of women, because there was a time when there were no humans, and now there are humans.

Though, it was really a population of male and female men and women, collectively known today as humans.  I'm sure you weren't intending to say that there was once a single first man and a single first woman!

[xphobe]

Though, it was really a population of male and female men and women, collectively known today as humans.  I'm sure you weren't intending to say that there was once a single first man and a single first woman!

There was undoubtedly a small population of male and female "almost-humans".  But mathematically, there had to have been a single first male and a single first female that were what we would call human.  They didn't necessarily live together in a garden, nor did they necessarily know each other.  And I'm not talking about "mitochondrial Eve", who would have come later, and who happens through chance to be one of the common ancestors of us all.   When does "day" happen?  Hard to say exactly down to the second, but we know there must have been one single moment we call "sunrise" because we pass through it every 24 hours.