Alternate THEORIES of evolution:

Originally posted by HappyBunny
They are NOT an in-between or intermediary species. That's what I'm saying.

They adapted to life on land. Very few other species of fish can claim the same feat.
The fact is that they have developed abilities necessary to survive where similar species cannot.
They have characteristics of some amphibians, despite not being amphibians at all.

How exactly are you certain they cannot continue to adapt further?
Are you telling me that the Mudskipper is the final stage in it's evolutionary line?

No, that's called metamorphosis, a biological process by which an organism physically develops AFTER birth (or hatching) and involves cell differentiation and cell growth. And it's not restricted to amphibians. Molluscs, crustaceans, echinoderms, tunicates, and Cnidarians all undergo metamorphosis. How do butterflies start out? Are you saying they too are a halfway creature?

Metamorphosis is an evolutionary process. How else did the larva eventually become a butterfly?
The age old question of "which came first; the chicken or the egg?"

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by addygrace

 

Matthew 19:4, 5 and 8 can all be translated a little more accurately like this:

Now He, answering, said, "Did you not read that the Maker from the beginning makes them male and female,

and He said, "On this account a human man shall be leaving their father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh?


Besides, those two verses taken in context are simply Jesus talking to pharisees about divorce, it has nothing to do with origins or the Genesis account.....

Matthew 19:8 "Jesus said to them, that "Moses, in view of your hardheartedness, permits you to dismiss your wives. Yet from the beginning it has not come to be thus"

The Koine Greek word used for beginning is arche, which can be best translated as "beginning" or "original", I interpret this to be speaking of since the beginning of civilization, not literaly since the "first day and first man"....

I hope this answers the questions you raised......

I understand he was commenting on divorce, but he was confirming the existence of an original man and woman. If Adam and Eve are not real people, then what he said in Matthew 19 is confusion on his part, or he's lying. How can one's faith not crumble under these circumstances?

Originally posted by amnislupus

 

What does that have to do with Theistic Evolution?
Wasn't Jesus explaining to the Pharisees of Judea that divorce and adultery were sins in the eyes of God?

Seems pretty literal to me. No allegory here, nothing to see, move along.

The passages I quoted were literal. So if Jesus was literally commenting on something that is supposed by, theistic evolutionists, as allegorical, then it would seem Jesus didn't know what he was talking about.

There is one other possibilty. Genesis is literal.

Romans 5
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Am I to believe Paul was confused or lying, too? Is Moses an Allegory, too? Was Paul wrong? If Paul was wrong, how can the Bible be divinely inspired?

Luke 11
48Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.

49Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

50That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

51From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Why is Jesus speaking of Adam's son here if Adam isn't real?

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Iason321

 

I've seen the website you linked to before and I love it because it gives me a chance to play a little game called “Stop Reading When You Hit the Third Demonstrably Wrong Statement.” Let’s play!

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary.

I’ll give this one a pass because it’s a thesis statement that, hopefully, the author will back up at some point with evidence.

Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches.

Well, that’s the first one. Take, for example, cases where bacteria have mutated and gained the ability to utilize new food sources. My favorite case of this is where certain kinds of bacteria are now able to break down synthetic polyamides (aka Nylon), which have only existed for the last 80 years or so. This isn’t a trait that existed prior to the invention of Nylon and is now being expressed, this is a change in the genome of the bacteria.

Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species.

Here’s number two. Creationists used to believe that there species were immutable. It was only after decades of being shown irrefutable evidence of evolution within a species that they finally admitted there could be “variation” (which is their weasel word used as a means of avoiding the dreaded “e” word) within a species.

What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.

Which is just the weasel way of saying that “speciation (aka macroevolution) doesn’t happen”, which is also demonstrably wrong. Speciation has been observed countless times. And, just like with evolution below the species level, after decades of being presented with objective evidence of evolution at the species level, the creationists will eventually decide that “macroevolution” really does exist but will move the goalposts back to wanting to see evolution on the genus level. So that's number three.

You can't even get out of the first paragraph before finding three inaccurate statements. And "creation scientists" wonder why no one takes them seriously.

hmmmm, would like to hear a creationist define a species..... Heck, biologists have enough difficulties defining a species

So, creationists, please define what you consider to be a species....

reply to post by Iason321


"Proof that Bible believing creationists do not ALL believe the earth to be 6,000 years old and a literal Adam and Eve..."

Many who do not beleive the 6000 year theory hold to the gap theory and that is in Gen it say God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

If you will notice that it says God created and then the earth was voild without form. Many beleive that this gap is when Satan fell and God had to recreate the earth. In Gen God tells Adam and Eve to go forth and replenish the earth.

Originally posted by Hellhound604hmmmm, would like to hear a creationist define a species..... Heck, biologists have enough difficulties defining a species

So, creationists, please define what you consider to be a species....

Biologist's have a hard time defining species, because the definiton of species changes with the whim of the scientist.

Here are 11 different definitions of species.

Why would a creationist need to come up with a definition of species? I don't get it.

reply to post by Iason321

My alternate theory is based on a cosmological unity, wherein life evolves via a non-local, holographic interconnectedness, and is not localized exclusively within each system, whether environmental or planetary ie: there is information sharing through the zero point field or akashic field, which leads to the idea of morphic fields and even platonic forms. Within this context, the phenomenon of man as an evolved sentient, being the more recent development in the universe (within the last million years or so only) may at some level position us at the apex of cosmic evolutionary history, even in the midst of trilllons of other highly evolved species, whereby "the last are first, and the first, last."

The next phase then may involve, not the evolution of our phylos, but INvolution as increasingly self-realized and more fully actualized (individuated) spiritual/psychological beings, where "innerspace" is more important than outer space, and where emotional or intuitive intelligence is more important that brainpower or IQ.

reply to post by addygrace



Romans 5:12

The greek here is very mismashed and ambiguous, and the translation is really open to interpretation.

The greek literally reads like this "world entered and through the sin the death and thus into all humans
the death passed through on which all sinned"

Now, that reads MUCH differently to me than the KJV version, and leaves it open for a theistic evolution interpretation.

Luke 11:48-51, the Greek here is not so confusing, and can be translated a little easier....but here's an alternate to the KJV
"Consequently ye are being witnesses and ye are together endorsing the acts of your fathers, for they, indeed,
kill them, yet you are building their tombs.

Therefore, also, God's Wisdom said, 'I shall be dispatching to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will be
killing and banishing,'

that the blood of all the prophets which is shed from the disruption of the world may be exacted from this generation,

from the blood of-Abel (which btw, abel means breath, son, or breathing spirit)
to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house. Yea, I am saying to you, It will be exacted from this generation!


I blame this whole confusion and doubt about Theistic Evolution legitamacy on Conservative Christian paranoia and faulty translations (Yes, the KJV is not the best translation - it is the AV, but it is not perfect. There are many, many, many ,many areas that could be translated much better than they are in the KJV)


These verses in no way shape or form defeat Theistic Evolution or disprove it

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by Hellhound604hmmmm, would like to hear a creationist define a species..... Heck, biologists have enough difficulties defining a species

So, creationists, please define what you consider to be a species....

Biologist's have a hard time defining species, because the definiton of species changes with the whim of the scientist.

Here are 11 different definitions of species.

Why would a creationist need to come up with a definition of species? I don't get it.

OK, if it is the biologists that defines species on a whim, what do YOU define as to be species then??????

reply to post by addygrace


You're not seeing the whole picture.

Get yourself an interlinear Bible and then your eyes will be opened.

The KJV will leave you confused if that is all you have to study with.....

www.scripture4all.org... is the link to the tool I use

It is the most powerful study Bible I have ever come across.....and I'm currently learning Koine Greek through this program and on my own time, Hebrew is harder so I'm not currently trying to learn that, but I know some of the basics of it......

If you can see and examine the Original texts, the Westminster Leningrad Codex (The Masoretic text, the official Hebraic OT or Torah), and the Textus Receptus New Testament, you really get a different perspective on the scriptures.....

reply to post by NewAgeMan

For the record, I consider myself an evolutionary Christian mystic. Definltely not a literalist-fundamentalist, conservative evangelical, which seems to be an almost exclusively American thing.

Originally posted by iterationzero

 

I've seen the website you linked to before and I love it because it gives me a chance to play a little game called “Stop Reading When You Hit the Third Demonstrably Wrong Statement.” Let’s play!
I’ll give this one a pass because it’s a thesis statement that, hopefully, the author will back up at some point with evidence.

Belittling - Make (someone or something) seem unimportant. Yet it was important enough for you to reply.

Originally posted by iterationzero

 

Well, that’s the first one. Take, for example, cases where bacteria have mutated and gained the ability to utilize new food sources. My favorite case of this is where certain kinds of bacteria are now able to break down synthetic polyamides (aka Nylon), which have only existed for the last 80 years or so. This isn’t a trait that existed prior to the invention of Nylon and is now being expressed, this is a change in the genome of the bacteria.

This was given as a refutation to creationism. But this doesn't hurt the creation model at all.

As such, beneficial mutations of bacteria fit concisely within a creation model where (a) biological systems and functions were fully formed at creation, (b) subsequent mutations can provide conditional benefits that enable the organism to survive harsh post-Fall conditions even though the mutation is generally degenerative, and (c) most bacteria need the ability to rapidly adapt to ever changing environments and food sources.

Originally posted by iterationzero

 

Here’s number two. Creationists used to believe that there species were immutable. It was only after decades of being shown irrefutable evidence of evolution within a species that they finally admitted there could be “variation” (which is their weasel word used as a means of avoiding the dreaded “e” word) within a species.

This needs some sources to back your claim up. Why would creationists deny changes to a species, when they've been breeding certain animals for centuries. Matter of fact, I'm calling you out on this. It's a downright vicious lie. My four year old daughter pointed this out to me.

Originally posted by iterationzero

 

Which is just the weasel way of saying that “speciation (aka macroevolution) doesn’t happen”, which is also demonstrably wrong. Speciation has been observed countless times. And, just like with evolution below the species level, after decades of being presented with objective evidence of evolution at the species level, the creationists will eventually decide that “macroevolution” really does exist but will move the goalposts back to wanting to see evolution on the genus level. So that's number three.

Like I said, creationist's haven't changed their tune. People like you want to believe that so you can feel like your making some headway in getting rid of God.

Originally posted by iterationzero

 

You can't even get out of the first paragraph before finding three inaccurate statements. And "creation scientists" wonder why no one takes them seriously

Oh the irony.

reply to post by Iason321

The hebrew names Adam and Eve simply mean "mankind and womankind", they do not mean "a man named adam and a woman named eve", though they can be interpreted either way.....

Actually, they do:

GENESIS 3
20 And Adam called his wife's name EVE; because she was the mother of all living.

"Mankind" cannot call a singular woman his wife....much less name her.

reply to post by KJV1611


Genesis 3:20 fixed translation:

And calling are the humans the name of the women of him life-giver that she becomes mother of all of the living,

The next verse can also be rendered:

And making is YHVH Elohim for Mankind and for women of him tunics of skin and he is clothing them

I'm not gonna argue this too much with you KJV, but I will say this - the KJV is NOT the best translation of the Bible.....in fact, I can think off the top of my head atleast 30 or so verses that are worded in a very classical and (to modern interpretation) wrong ways.........

reply to post by Iason321


Rinoceros has it correct. If you cannot test or prove the hypothesis it is not a Theory. This has nothing to do with someone 'trolling' your threads. It has to do with what is real and actual - you, know, the hallmarks of true objectivity. Making things up from whole-cloth proves nothing. Instead of citing various websites that do nothing except 'cheer for god' wake up and find one that has at least a modicum of science behind it.

reply to post by addygrace

So you're claiming that creationists didn't espouse a "fixity of species" post-Darwin?

Originally posted by KJV1611
Actually, they do:

GENESIS 3
20 And Adam called his wife's name EVE; because she was the mother of all living.

"Mankind" cannot call a singular woman his wife....much less name her.

Adam means man or ground, not mankind. Eve means living. I agree with what you're saying. I just quoted you because it pertains to your small thread of quotes from Iason321.

Hi ops.

If there is no literal dude named Adam, and no chick named Eve, then there is no original sin
Then there is no need for Christ

You are atttempting to try and unite both science and religion...but in the process, you destroy the religion your trying to unite it to, and at the same time, dismantle some basic principles of science.


As far as your hypothesis is concerned though...sure...why not. If thats the case, then it would be interesting (intelligent designer working so subtly that pretty much no evidence is left), but it also means all judism/christianity/islam is flat out incorrect as their main themes is dismissed

Originally posted by addygrace
This was given as a refutation to creationism. But this doesn't hurt the creation model at all.

Thing is, nothing will ever refute creationists, because they simply will adapt into different angles. So long as there is still any question on any part, that is where a creationist will toss a deity in. a couple hundred years ago, God was responsible for it all..now it is shrinking more and more to where god is supposed to be involved..and as more and more tests and knowledge is gained, eventually it will be just the very beginning (maybe god started the big bang, or started the thing that started the thing that started the big bang, etc).

you cannot disprove a negative....so long as imagination exists, you can find a place to put a magical process.

Religion needs to give up explaining the how..leave it to science..back science...religion is good for the why, but they always blow up when they attempt the how.
If the morals. principles, and overall direction a religion or system of belief is good, people will adopt it...thats all that is needed. The bible should have simply said, for everything scientific, "figure it out yourself" verses God did it.