why can't you believe the evidence?

kaotic · #1 5th December 2002, 08:00 AM

I was wanting to know how some christiains can believe the story of Adam and Eve with out any evidence at all? But they will not believe evolution and it has a lot of evidence. So why don't you believe the evidence for evolution?

Nathan Poe · #2 5th December 2002, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by seesaw
I was wanting to know how some christiains can believe the story of Adam and Eve with out any evidence at all? But they will not believe evolution and it has a lot of evidence. So why don't you believe the evidence for evolution?

 

*Begin All-Purpose Excuse*

Because your so-called "evidence" is really just part of a secret Atheist/Communist/Occult/New World Order/Satanic/Harry Potter/New Age/Terrorist/Wiccan/Socialist conspiracy! No self-respecting person would believe a fairy tale as outlandish as evolution...

At least, that's what Iggy the Magic Elf tells me.

*DIRECTIONS FOR USE*

Step 1. Choose at least one of the adjectives in the first paragraph to describe the Conspiracy. For best results, choose one which has been in the news currently, with absolutely no proof to prove or disprove it. After all, it is a conspiracy!

Step 2. Replace "Iggy the Magic Elf" with one of the following terms:

a: the Bible, b: the Holy Spirit, c: the Voice of God, d: the blood of Christ

3. Repeat ad infinitum.

*Let the flames begin!*

sandyb · #3 5th December 2002, 11:00 AM

So do you enjoy trolling or do you just do it to pass the time?

What I fail to understand is how evolutionists just forget basic requirements for their theory to work. How you can't just get something from nothing, how life - not just the chemical constituents of living things, but actually alive things themselves - has never been shown to come from lifeless chemicals, and how things as complex as human eyes, other organs and brains developed seemingly at random.
I cannot see how you overlook the design of the universe, instead believing it to be an empty, pointless result of some explosion that still cannot be explained in line with actual proven rules of physics and chemistry.

And you deny there is nothing wrong with presenting a theory as truth to those who don't know any better, while ignoring any other possible explanations?

LiveFreeOrDie · #4 5th December 2002, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by sandyb
So do you enjoy trolling or do you just do it to pass the time?

What I fail to understand is how evolutionists just forget basic requirements for their theory to work. How you can't just get something from nothing, how life - not just the chemical constituents of living things, but actually alive things themselves - has never been shown to come from lifeless chemicals, and how things as complex as human eyes, other organs and brains developed seemingly at random.
I cannot see how you overlook the design of the universe, instead believing it to be an empty, pointless result of some explosion that still cannot be explained in line with actual proven rules of physics and chemistry.

And you deny there is nothing wrong with presenting a theory as truth to those who don't know any better, while ignoring any other possible explanations?

So do you enjoy trolling or do you just do it to pass the time?

What I fail to understand is how creationists just keep misunderstanding the basic fundamentals. Like how the theory of evolution and the origin of life are two different scientific domains. And how you complain about evolution being "random" while completely ignoring natural selection, which is definitely not random.

I cannot see how you overlook the mass of scientific evidence against your position, from geology to paleontology to genetics, and instead cling to the 3,000 year old writings of a pre-scientific middle eastern tribe of goat herders.

And you deny there is nothing wrong with presenting your religious teachings as an alternative scientific explanation when in fact there is not one scrap of scientific evidence to support it?

sandyb · #5 5th December 2002, 11:20 AM

I can't stand it and merely do it to pass the time, I think you for your maturity in asking.

I do not misunderstand any of evolutionary theory, having studied it without the problem of being blinkered in to believing it to be the only way. There was a time when I agreed with it, then I stared learning about it.
How can you say that evolution and the origin of life are different? Evolution is science's attempt to explain the origin of life and how it got to where it is today.
Natural selection simplifies the genetic pool, and does not develop it, requiring random mutations to develop life, according to the theory.
There is much in the way of scientific evidence to support the bible, if you bother to look and don't just assume it isn't there. The evidence of plagues happening when they did, the alternative non biblical historical accounts which concur with it, and the lack of any evidence to disprove it.

judy · #6 5th December 2002, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by sandyb
I can't stand it and merely do it to pass the time, I think you for your maturity in asking.

I do not misunderstand any of evolutionary theory, having studied it without the problem of being blinkered in to believing it to be the only way. There was a time when I agreed with it, then I stared learning about it.
How can you say that evolution and the origin of life are different? Evolution is science's attempt to explain the origin of life and how it got to where it is today.
Natural selection simplifies the genetic pool, and does not develop it, requiring random mutations to develop life, according to the theory.
There is much in the way of scientific evidence to support the bible, if you bother to look and don't just assume it isn't there. The evidence of plagues happening when they did, the alternative non biblical historical accounts which concur with it, and the lack of any evidence to disprove it.

 

How do you know the creation myth that you believe is the true one?  There have been many.

lucaspa · #7 5th December 2002, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by sandyb
What I fail to understand is how evolutionists just forget basic requirements for their theory to work. How you can't just get something from nothing, how life - not just the chemical constituents of living things, but actually alive things themselves - has never been shown to come from lifeless chemicals, and how things as complex as human eyes, other organs and brains developed seemingly at random.
I cannot see how you overlook the design of the universe, instead believing it to be an empty, pointless result of some explosion that still cannot be explained in line with actual proven rules of physics and chemistry.

And you deny there is nothing wrong with presenting a theory as truth to those who don't know any better, while ignoring any other possible explanations?

The people that gave you the arguments you used presented some falsehoods to you as truth and I'm afraid you didn't know any better. Of course, most of your arguments are against atheism and not evolution. Another untruth that people have perpetrated on you.  If science is being presented as atheism in schools, then let us know and the NCSE at www.ncseweb.org.  That is wrong.

Now, to the particular misinformation you have been given:
1.  Something from nothing describes what happens within the universe. It doesn't apply to formation of the universe itself.
2. See the thread "Protocells -- life from non-life" on this forum.  You can get life from non-living chemicals today.
3.  Complex organs did not arise "at random".  Natural selection is not random. 
4. Natural selection is also an algorithm to get design.  Follow the steps and design is guaranteed.  No intelligence required.  So yes, biological organisms are designed, but they are designed by natural selection.
5.  Some people look at the universe and see "design". Others look at the same universe and see no purpose or design by a deity.  It's in the eye of the beholder.  There is nothing conclusive in the universe to say that it is an artifact.
6. When you say "cannot be explained in line with actual proven rules of physics and chemistry" you are invoking god-of-the-gaps.  Have you considered that when you do this you are accepting the basic statement of faith of atheism?  Namely, that "rules of physics and chemistry means without God".  Why do you want to do that? What happens when the "gap" is filled?  What happens to God?  Don't you realize how dangerous these creationists are to Christianity?

LiveFreeOrDie · #8 5th December 2002, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by sandyb
I do not misunderstand any of evolutionary theory, having studied it without the problem of being blinkered in to believing it to be the only way. There was a time when I agreed with it, then I stared learning about it.
How can you say that evolution and the origin of life are different? Evolution is science's attempt to explain the origin of life and how it got to where it is today.

Evolution is not an attempt to explain the origin of life. It is a theory to explain the origin of species. (Hmm. Where have I heard that phrase before?)

Natural selection simplifies the genetic pool, and does not develop it, requiring random mutations to develop life, according to the theory.

Bingo! Mutation creates the raw material for selection to work with.

There is much in the way of scientific evidence to support the bible, if you bother to look and don't just assume it isn't there. The evidence of plagues happening when they did, the alternative non biblical historical accounts which concur with it, and the lack of any evidence to disprove it.

I'm not interested in scientific evidence to support the Bible in general(at least not in this forum). I am only interested in scientific evidence that supports the Biblical account of creation, of which there is none. Or would you like to prove me wrong?

lucaspa · #9 5th December 2002, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by sandyb How can you say that evolution and the origin of life are different?

Very simply. From the Origin.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."  C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Your "study" of evolution didn't include reading On the Origin of Species, did it?

Natural selection simplifies the genetic pool, and does not develop it, requiring random mutations to develop life, according to the theory.

Does this sound like 'simplifies the genetic pool'? If so, please show us how.

"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized.  This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.] 

The evidence of plagues happening when they did, the alternative non biblical historical accounts which concur with it, and the lack of any evidence to disprove it.

What other accounts about the plagues in Egypt?  Can you give us those sources?

I would agree that the theology of the Bible has not been disproved, but creationism has been disproved.

Late_Cretaceous · #10 5th December 2002, 11:51 AM

Accepting the validity of evolutionary theory is not a matter of belief.  It is a matter of regarding the evidence - with a skeptical mind - and choosing whether or  not to accept or dismiss the theory or the evidence for it. 

For example, a recent article appeared regarding the orgin of life.  The researches propose that life developed deep down in the oceans, associated with hydrothermal vents - and did not require sunlight at all.  Now personally, I don't know if that is a good theory or not. I just read the article and have not seen the original papers.  So, I cannot decide as of yet if that thoery is correct or not.  Beleif does not come into it.  This is abiogenesis and not evolution, but since you brought it up...  (besides even if the creation of life were magic, it would do nothing to the thoery of evolution).

 

Accepting evolutionary theory in general is decided by the great amount of evidence that has accumulated.  Oh, and BTW, it has NOTHING to do with denying the bible.  Evolutionary algorhythyms, which have been employed to design electronics, attest the the fact that random mutations and selective pressures can increase complexity.  Direct observations of continental drift have shown that continents do move as predicted.  Genetcis demonstrate that random mutations do occur, and are a source of variation.  Natural selection can be observed in a litter of barnyard kittens.

 

The evolution of something like the eye is quite readily explained in evolutionary terms.  From the light sensitive patches on jellyfish, to the simple eyes of nematodes and flatworms, to the slightly more complex eyes of slugs to the even more complex eyes of man.  All serve their purpose and are usefull.  The only random thing in the evolution of the eye was the mutations. THat and the huge reproductive capacity of organisms.  A snail may lay thousands and thousands of eggs in it's lifetime, but on average only one or two will survive to reproduce. 