Evolution and christanity.

[Dr.J0sh]

Do you believe that evolution is accurate and true yes or no and why? I for one see evolution as true because of scientific evidence.

 

[freezerman2000]

I'm a Theistic Evolutionist..
The Theory is correct,yet it seems that new discoveries are made every day.
The physical evidence that God has given us in the earth that He created leaves me with no other conclusion.
My faith does not falter because of this,it only grows stronger.
I refuse to put God between the covers of a Book..
The Bible is NOT a Science text book and should not be treated as such..it should be used as an "Owner's manual" about God's spiritual relationship with us and our's with Him.

 

[freezerman2000]

BTW,Welcome to CF!! We hope your visit with us will be a blessing to you!

 

[JonahRR]

I will just humbly say that I don't believe that my life's goals and work are going to be in the area of science, and hope to serve the Lord in my family, my church, and in my career(non-science). God is not here to prove atheists wrong, He lives in us and lives in the Church to save the lost, and to lead the saints to abundant life.

 

[oi_antz]

Do you believe that evolution is accurate and true yes or no and why? I for one see evolution as true because of scientific evidence.

I don't know. The story of creation in Genesis states the origins differently. I do not know yet whether Genesis account is eye witness information, or divine dictation, or official mythology. But it does demand serious belief. Evolution is a theory that we know is not based on eye witness accounts, but that does not necessarily invalidate it.

 

[dysert]

I don't accept evolution for a few reasons, but a big one is that it doesn't make sense from a continual, ongoing process. If, as evolutionists claim, fruit flies always come from fruit flies, then what was the predecessor to the first fruit fly? They weren't around forever.

(This is the point where select evolutionists will tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, impugn my education, and otherwise ignore the question.)

 

[graceandpeace]

Do you believe that evolution is accurate and true yes or no and why? I for one see evolution as true because of scientific evidence.

Yes, I generally accept evolution.

The Genesis creation accounts in the Bible don't convey scientific information, so this should not be problematic for Christians, but certainly some do take issue. It comes down to the difference in world views & theology in various groups, which covers much more than evolution.

 

[lesliedellow]

For some reason the creationists seem to have gone to ground, but yes evolution, or something like it, is true.

 

[Seeds On Good Soil]

I myself really really took a long hard look at the evidence vs creation and evolution and with all my heart and mind I believe that we were created by God as Humans and did not evolve. I am not a scientist, but let me share some of the things that got me to this point. I always thought that the rock formations indicated a steady line through the different periods, but this is not the case. Only 20% of the geological table matches up to what scientist predicted happened. DNA was another question I had, scientist seems to suggest humans came from the same mother some 100000 years ago, but very recently new discoveries in mitochondrial DNA shown what scientist thought were incorrect and pushed the dates to 6000 to 10000 years ago, lining up with the biblical time tables. Also the time periods between the different dinosaurs periods had some drastically different dinosaurs showing up roughly 10000 years later, this would be impossible for evolution to account for these new species. If you really want to dig into this subject more look up "Genesis week" on YouTube. Again I looked up a ton of information, referred to the Bible a lot, and prayed for wisdom concerning the matter, and the views of Ian Juby of Genesis Week fall in line with my beliefs. Here is a link to one of his videos, nut he has many more on a lot of topics

God Bless

 

[dcalling]

I am an atheist turned Christian, and one of the steps of the turn is I found there is almost 0 evidence of evolution

If anyone really take a hard look at evolution, they will find there is almost no evidence. If we can't even produce RNA that can self replicate under lab conditions (the second or third stage of evolution), how can anyone say evolution is absolute true with a straight face? Of course if you provide evidence, I am all ears

 

[lutherangerman]

Evolution describes the ways life has taken, but it does not describe how life began. In that I see our creator at work. Also, evolution may describe some of the ways of life, but not all of them. If you're on facebook much maybe you have also seen many images of birds and other animals behaving very unusually, ie they wag their paws, shake their head, etc. One spring I was privy to experience this with animals at a nearby farm. They behaved so intelligently and even creatively. So it's not all about genes and selection of the genetically fittest. There is much to say for modification and how God's spirit works on animals too. So evolution has its points, but they are not everything. Especially the creation of life is something that the theory of evolution cannot and does not explain.

 

[elopez]

Do you believe that evolution is accurate and true yes or no and why? I for one see evolution as true because of scientific evidence.

The arguments against evolution are untenable. The evidence for evolution is vast.

 

[Hawkins]

Do you believe that evolution is accurate and true yes or no and why? I for one see evolution as true because of scientific evidence.

First you may need to know what exactly it is scientifically speaking.

Science has limits. Scientists work under those limits to deliver an answer. What limits ToE is that we cannot establish an experiment to predictably go through the process of evolution from a single cell organism till a full grown, say, mammal.

Instead of building such a predictable model, scientists built another model to try to re-construct what happened. To put it another way, ToE is more about "the past" while other science are about the "future" (predictability of science).

Scientists adapted a completely different approach in the research of evolution instead of the traditional approach which relies on a 100% or nearly 100% predictability to identify a scientific truth.

For an example, water = hydrogen + oxygen, when given water you can always predict the result before any lab experiment, and your prediction will never fail (100%), or should it fail you deserve a Nobel Prize.

On the other hand, single cell organism + time/environment = mammal, when given a single cell organism you can never tell how the result can be delivered predictably.


A formal pseudo science is an attempt to set up a predictable model, such as weather forecast, earthquake, and so forth. A predictable model reflects a set of governing rules behind the scene. Science is the discovery of such a set of governing rules. Strictly speaking, ToE is not even a pseudo science as building a predictable model is not what it's intended to achieve.

 

[lesliedellow]

ToE is not even a pseudo science as building a predictable model is not what it's intended to achieve.

The Theory of Evolution, like all of science, relies upon making inferences from what can be observed. One prediction which could be made is that, if we belong to a family tree of species, there ought to be evidence of that in our genome, and there is.

 

[dysert]

The Theory of Evolution, like all of science, relies upon making inferences from what can be observed. One prediction which could be made is that, if we belong to a family tree of species, there ought to be evidence of that in our genome, and there is.

Observed? Fail! You haven't observed fish becoming birds. You haven't observed all life forms springing from a common ancestor. You haven't observed the supposed hundreds of thousands of years of changes.

If I'm not mistaken, the scientific method deals with observation, testability, and repeatability. ToE fails on all counts.

 

[Hawkins]

The Theory of Evolution, like all of science, relies upon making inferences from what can be observed. One prediction which could be made is that, if we belong to a family tree of species, there ought to be evidence of that in our genome, and there is.

A genome can be affected by many factors of which some are known to us some may not. ToE only assumes that it can be affected by evolution.

Recently scientists speculate that Neanderthal genes may be in humans as a result of interbreeding instead of evolution. Once interbreeding kicks in, we may lose track about what evolution as a whole is. Say, when we try to isolate A from other species to conclude that A evolved from B, however at the same time A can interbreed with B, and C with A, and C with D, and D with A..... This will never make the statement "A evolved from B" ever valid.

The problem here is, ToE itself is not a predictable model. Instead it's a study of the past by eliminating all other possible factors (such as interbreeding) as long as these factors can be taken out. This approach itself however is very much problematic even in a scientific perspective. Unlike any other science, this approach may have to go through an endless process of "establishing a theory -> theory falsified -> re-establishing the theory -> falsified again......."

The current 'truth' however is never a firmed 'truth'. No other scientific theory behaves this way.

(BTW, comparing this with the paradigm shift of Newtonian laws -> Relativity is a deceptive comparison of apples and oranges, as Newtonian laws can be proven repeatedly under a specified paradigm. They are never considered scientifically falsified. Or else humans can hardly land on the surface of the moon)

 

[lesliedellow]

A genome can be affected by many factors of which some are known to us some may not. ToE only assumes that it can be affected by evolution.

Genes mutate, and that is just a fact. It is why you look different to your brother, unless you are identical twins. Natural selection acting on those mutations is evolution.

 

[Hawkins]

Genes mutate, and that is just a fact. It is why you look different to your brother, unless you are identical twins. Natural selection acting on those mutations is evolution.

It's never can or cannot, it's about how far it can. It's more like to say that anyone can drive when put to the cockpit of plane in its stable state. Driving a plane is however about how you take off and land the plane besides flying it in its stable state.

That said, mutation caused the evolution of what and from what?

 

[lesliedellow]

It's never can or cannot, it's about how far it can. It's more like to say that anyone can drive when put to the cockpit of plane in its stable state. Driving a plane is however about how you take off and land the plane besides flying it in its stable state.

There is no need to wonder what natural selection can bring about, we can read it from the DNA of different species and from the fossil record.

That said, mutation caused the evolution of what and from what?

Evolution from the earliest life forms. That we don't know how life got under way in the first place is no argument against a theory which seeks only to delineate what happened subsequently.

 

[aiki]

Do you believe that evolution is accurate and true yes or no and why? I for one see evolution as true because of scientific evidence.

Macro-evolution, the "goo to you by way of the zoo" kind of evolution is fraught with serious problems. Genetic entropy, the problem of the genesis of DNA information, the near-utter absence of transitional fossils - these and other problems make the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution quite impossible. Now, micro-evolution does happen: adaptation, natural selection, mutation are all at work in biological systems, but they are demonstrably incapable of accomplishing the miraculous feat of taking inorganic and unorganized molecules and evolving them into present-day biological life.

Selah.