What is the evidence for evolution?

[hankroberts]

"Evolution doesn't say anything about non-life becoming anything. Only about what happens when there is life."

Um, you might want to rethink that statement, in light of the examples already provided...

 

[ebia]

(Just realised that this is exploring christianity, where debate is forbidden)

 

[ViaCrucis]

"Evolution doesn't say anything about non-life becoming anything. Only about what happens when there is life."

Um, you might want to rethink that statement, in light of the examples already provided...

No examples have been provided.

Abiogenesis is the theory concerning the arising of life from non-life. That's not evolution, evolution requires life to already exist because it is a biological process.

A continued problem among Creationists is the insistence on using false definitions and reliance on false information in order to obscure the facts as they are.

Evolution describes the processes by which life evolves--changes--as a response to external stimuli, e.g. environmental pressures. As a scientific process evolution is well defined in the modern scientific and academic literature, and any other definition is unworthy of valid discussion.

Since all science deals with purely naturalistic processes and mechanisms it should not be at all surprising that evolution is, likewise, entirely explained naturalistically. But naturalistic explanations of natural phenomenon is not a rejection of Divine activity, otherwise we would need to reject all readily observed science from gravitation to germ theory, and that includes our understanding of sexual reproduction.

Can the entire process from fertilization to birth be explained naturally and in entirely naturalistic language? Yes. And that explanation is true. This however does not remove the activity of God in the process of human embryonic development. Nature and God are not at odds, as God is the author of nature all that is in and of nature is the handiwork of God.

Those who insist on removing God from the natural sphere by introducing an artificial distinction and drawing arbitrary lines are not on the side of faith, are not on the side of defending the Christian religion, but are actively working against the faith "once and forever delivered to the saints". By doing so they introduce idols, they deny the good creator God of whom the Scripture are our inspired witness, and deny the saving, redemptive, and sanctifying power of God that has come into the world in and through Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, who being both God and man has united the Uncreated with the created in order to redeem the created and deliver all creation into the life and hope of God in the age to come--which is the very promise of the Gospel and for which reason Christ was born, lived, suffered, died, rose, ascended, and is coming again.

The anti-science proponents of modern Creationism are not allies to Christianity. But promote ideas which are fundamentally detrimental to the ancient, catholic, and apostolic faith.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hankroberts]

"No examples have been provided."

Well, actually, yes, several have been provided. Direct quotes from Darwin, Simpson, a UC Berkeley website, and others.

"A continued problem among Creationists is the insistence on using false definitions and reliance on false information in order to obscure the facts as they are."

Except no one here has done that.

"evolution requires life to already exist because it is a biological process."

Unless, of course, you are Charles Darwin, G. G. Simpson (one of the leading paleontologists of his time and one of the most ardent evolutionists), or a professor at Berkeley (just to mention a few)... But don't let those folks interfere with your arguments.

 

[Joshua260]

...and creationists are not "anti-science". That is a false characterization of our view.

 

[hankroberts]

...and creationists are not "anti-science". That is a false characterization of our view.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. A Strawman, you might say.

The truth is that the foundations of Scientific methods are to be found in the Creationist worldview, if you bother to look at your history.

 

[hankroberts]

Joshua260 ...and creationists are not "anti-science". That is a false characterization of our view.


Indeed. A Strawman, you might say.

The truth is that the foundations of Scientific methods are to be found in the Creationist worldview, if you bother to look at your history.

 

[Hawkins]

Since more and more Christians are leaning towards evolution, can someone briefly tell me what scientists have discovered that has made everyone so certain that we came from apes?

I have absolutely no knowledge on the matter. I have only ever attended a Christian school and their science textbooks were from a biblical perspective so I know next to nothing about evolution. This semester I am also taking a physical anthropology course so I will learn more of the details there.

Thanks.

Evolution is based on the speculation that nature can drive progressive changes of living organisms. However, no one ever speculated that whether it can drive across all the boarders to reach a high end living organism such as a monkey, so to speak.

We can speculate discrete and small changes. We actually can't tell clearly (and scientifically) how critical organs are formed. We may have a hypothesis as an explanation yet it's far from saying that we already mastered how organs such as heart, liver, kidney and so forth are formed from primitive organisms through evolution.

An analogy is, you try to do a lab to see how water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen, yet you don't have the equipment capable of measuring the transparent gases. So start you study whatever residues remain in the test tube instead of quantitatively analyze the gases produced. And you draw a conclusion based on your study of the residues, that's pretty much what evolution is.

It is because that we cannot directly measure how far this driving force can drive, that we have to "study the residues" indirectly using several approaches.

First is the fossil samples in the different layers of earth, and try to conclude that similar bones structures may be a result of evolution. This approach is very inaccurate, and it never tells you crucial evolution steps such as the forming of critical organs. It just try to keep track of bone shape change along the timeline.

Second is the more genetic approach. Such as the study of common ancestry to try to address the lineage of different organisms by the similarity of their genetic pattern (spots of certain junk DNAs or whatever characteristic DNAs common among species. It is logical only under the assumption that extinct species didn't inter-breed with each other. The fallacy evolutionists usually use is that there's no evidence that they inter-breed. That is, what they can apply is absence of evidence as the evidence of absence.

Both approaches have problems. That's why they falsify there explanations very often. The valid fossil today may no longer support what they said yesterday, or tomorrow. Even the junk DNA they found today may no longer by junk DNA at all tomorrow. And both approaches is the "study of the residues". As a result, these approaches don't have the predictability and falsifiability as characteristic in other science.

 

[dcalling]

Alien44, Hankroberts already provided the answer.

Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in his book Origin of Species in 1859. In this theory he proposed that unintended, undirected completely natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes were sufficient to explain the existence and great diversity of life. Modern evolution theory has expanded to include several other issues, and currently asserts that purely natural and undirected causes are sufficient to explain the existence of all we know, including the physical universe, the existence of life and the wide diversity of life that we see.
The Journey - AllAboutTheJourney.org

“All the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic factors; …on the basis of differential reproduction and mainly random processes of heredity … Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” (George Gaylord Simpson)

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
(UC Berkeley course materials on Understanding Evolution)

Those are the ones I had most handy. It has always been my goal to not tell Evolutionists what they believe, but to let them speak for themselves: the elements in the first post are directly from Evolutionists. I began my study of this subject as a convinced Evolutionist who clearly understood the teachings of Evolution. and I've been studying it now for more than thirty years; intensely since the mid-70's.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

Since more and more Christians are leaning towards evolution, can someone briefly tell me what scientists have discovered that has made everyone so certain that we came from apes?

I have absolutely no knowledge on the matter. I have only ever attended a Christian school and their science textbooks were from a biblical perspective so I know next to nothing about evolution. This semester I am also taking a physical anthropology course so I will learn more of the details there.

Thanks.

Christians can begin to believe in evolution or they can believe in creationism.

The idea that Creationism normally poses that says the earth is only a few thousand years old (we have trees older than that).

 

[hankroberts]

Christians can begin to believe in evolution or they can believe in creationism.

The idea that Creationism normally poses that says the earth is only a few thousand years old (we have trees older than that).

Just as a point of interest, there are different Creationist schools, and only Young Earth Creationists (YEC) assert that the biblical record can be used to accurately indicate an earth only a few thousand years old.

Many of us Creationists mean by our title that we merely believe that what exists is the product of Creative Intent rather than the notion that something came from nothing, without intent or purpose.

Oh, and incidentally, I don't think "we have trees older
than that" is accurate: to the best of my knowledge the oldest tree known is estimated to be about 5000 years old by core aging.

 

[hankroberts]

Christianity and evolution are not compatible.

The only explaination for me is that there is an intelligent designer, God, who purposed life on Earth.

Sorry for the rant...

You might enjoy Randall Niles' website, The Journey. While anyone has to summarize the overwhelming amount of information on the subject, he does a pretty good job.

The Journey - AllAboutTheJourney.org