• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The Theory of Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

BloodwashedPilgrim

Regular Member
Jul 18, 2007
179
12
California
✟22,855.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Creation...?
Evolution...?

Back and forth we go...

So, I just want to hear some thoughts out there from those who prescribe to the belief in evolution, in whatever form that may exist (i.e. Theistic, "Big Bang", etc.). What are some thoughts about how the world, first organism and, finally, human beings actually came into existence? I would be most interested in the theories believed in by those who claim that a "god" wasn't involved. Thanks for any responses.
 

SNPete

Psalm 53:1
Jul 20, 2005
814
66
Sierra Nevada Mountains
✟1,319.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I personally don't see a problem with theistic evolution. Science has uncovered many things that point to specie change and an earth that is over 6000 years old. IMO science has given us a good discrption of how things work (subject to change, of course).

The Big Bang is fascinating when you consider that the entire universe was the size of a pinhead which then "exploded". The first manifestation according to science was light. As to the first modern man and woman. I think God made it happen, on purpose. Genesis says that.

I view the first part of the book of Genesis as basically saying that God created everything. It should be noted that Genesis was written for the Hebrew mindset. We (westerners) are of the Greek mindset. By Greek I mean we follow the Greek way of thinking and looking at the world. We want precise answers, facts, figures order of occurrence and dates.

The Hebrew mindset is primarily interested in concepts, with facts and figures being secondary. What mattered to the Hebrews is that God created the Universe. The order and time of the events were not important to the Hebrew mind.

As I see it you run into problems applying Greek thinking to a Hebrew document. That is why the creation story does not make sense to the scientific mind. Of course we always must bear in mind that God is not limited to obey the laws of nature. So, if God wanted to create the universe in six, 24 hour days He could.
 
Upvote 0

Rasta

Senior Veteran
Jun 20, 2007
6,274
184
42
✟29,944.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Creation...?
Evolution...?

Back and forth we go...

So, I just want to hear some thoughts out there from those who prescribe to the belief in evolution, in whatever form that may exist (i.e. Theistic, "Big Bang", etc.). What are some thoughts about how the world, first organism and, finally, human beings actually came into existence? I would be most interested in the theories believed in by those who claim that a "god" wasn't involved. Thanks for any responses.
It took a long, long time. I'm guessing that you are not reffering to the proven facts of evolution, but rather the theory.

I would also add that scientist do not believe in a theory in the same way you believe in a god. Theory treads the ground of speculation with little to no verification. Verification as science is concerned that is.

What do we have to go off of? Only fossilized records that we've discovered.

The remains of homo sapiens have only been found with in the last 250,000 years or so. What do you conclude from this fact?

Homo erectus was around before homo sapien. Homo erectus is not around any more. The remains of homo erectus have been found to date back to 300,000 years or so. What conclusion do you make of this fact?

Homo habilus was around before homo erectus. Homo habilus is not around anymore. The remains of homo habilus date back to 1.5 million years or so. What conclusion do you make of this fact?

Homo sapiens (humans) are aproximately 98% genetically identical to Chimpanzees. What conclusion do you make of this fact?

Here is a news article taken from BBC

Humans and chimpanzees may have split away from a common ancestor far more recently than was previously thought.

A detailed analysis of human and chimp DNA suggests the lines finally diverged less than 5.4 million years ago.
The finding, published in the journal Nature, is about 1-2 million years later than the fossils have indicated.
A US team says its results hint at the possibility that interbreeding occurred between the two lines for thousands, even millions, of years.
This hybridisation would have been important in swapping genes for traits that allowed the emerging species to survive in their environments, explain the scientists affiliated to the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and the Harvard Medical School.
And it underlines, they believe, just how complex human evolution has been.
"This is a hypothesis; we haven't proved it but it would explain multiple features of our data," said David Reich, assistant professor of genetics at the Harvard Medical School and an author on the Nature paper.
"The hypothesis is that there was gene flow between the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees after their original divergence.
"So, there might have been an original divergence and a separation for long enough that the species became differentiated - for example, we might have adapted features such as upright walking - and then there was a re-mixture event quite a while after; a hybridisation event," he told the Science in Action programme on the BBC World Service.
Gene swapping
Humans and chimps contain DNA sequences that are very similar to each other; the differences are due to mutations, or errors, in the genetic code that have occurred since these animals diverged on to separate evolutionary paths.
By analysing where these differences occur in the animals' genomes, it is possible to get an insight into the two species' histories - the timing of key events in their evolution.
Scientists have been able to do this for some time but the recent projects to fully decode the two primates' genomes have provided details that have taken this type of study to a more advanced level.
The US investigation indicates the human and chimp lines split no more than 6.3 million years ago and probably less than 5.4 million years ago.
It is a problematic finding because of our current understanding of early fossils, such as the famous Toumai specimen uncovered in Chad.
Toumai (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) was thought to be right at the foot of the human family tree. It dates to between 6.5 and 7.4 million years ago. In other words, it is older than the point of human-chimp divergence seen in the genetic data.
"It is possible that the Toumai fossil is more recent than previously thought," said Nick Patterson, a senior research scientist and statistician at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and lead author on the Nature paper.
"But if the dating is correct, the Toumai fossil would precede the human-chimp split. The fact that it has human-like features suggests that human-chimp speciation may have occurred over a long period with episodes of hybridisation between the emerging species." Commenting on the research, Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard, told the Associated Press: "It's a totally cool and extremely clever analysis.

It might be tough to digest, if you believe you were created in the image of a god. What conclusion do you make of the study?

Well scientist have come to the conclusion that these are from the phenomenon know as evolution. If apes change into different apes, what were they before the change? What about before that? How about before even that?

The answers to these questions comprise the theory of evolution. All is merely speculation. Educated speculation though.
 
Upvote 0

Key

The Opener of Locks
Apr 10, 2004
1,946
177
Visit site
✟26,507.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The answers to these questions comprise the theory of evolution. All is merely speculation. Educated speculation though.

Rasta I must say, with out a doubt that you are one of the few people that I have ever seen on this forum, that truly grasps what the Theory of Evolution is.

Thank you for this post.

God Bless

Key
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The theory of evolution is a product of over-educated people with way too much time on their hands (pun intended). ;)

It's interesting that creationists and scientists construct elaborate explanations to support beliefs. Christians are explaining all the details of the ark, while paleontologists are building a whole skeleton around a piece of bone.
 
Upvote 0

JGL53

Senior Veteran
Dec 25, 2005
5,013
299
Mississippi
✟29,306.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
The theory of evolution is a product of over-educated people with way too much time on their hands (pun intended)…

So basically what you are saying is that the tens of thousands of extant scientists who are far, FAR more educated and learned than you will ever be, well, are just making stuff up, and THAT is why scientific thinking and methodology is so incomprehensible to you.

Now THAT is one freaky “theory”.

…It's interesting that creationists and scientists construct elaborate explanations to support beliefs. Christians are explaining all the details of the ark, while paleontologists are building a whole skeleton around a piece of bone.

Creationists can’t even agree on whether the thousands of species of dinosaurs and other now extinct species made it on the ark or not, what Noah did with all the feces generated, how eight people could feed all those animals, make sure they get the right food, don’t eat each other, etc. – yet you are impressed by the believability of this story? Yet paleontologists, who study bones for decades and know which is which, something that you and I are ignorant of, you think these “over-educated” brainiacs are just using their imagination to construct imaginary skeletons and are thus either all fools or charlatans?

It is at this point that I must ask you “What color is the sky in your world?”

At some point, owg, you need to start considering that it may be best to stop believing in what you WANT to be true and start accepting what is scientifically and empirically proved and thus true beyond all reasonable doubt.
 
Upvote 0

Key

The Opener of Locks
Apr 10, 2004
1,946
177
Visit site
✟26,507.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So basically what you are saying is that the tens of thousands of extant scientists who are far, FAR more educated and learned than you will ever be, well, are just making stuff up, and THAT is why scientific thinking and methodology is so incomprehensible to you.


Wow.. talk about about an appeal to authority.

Now, if you had something of worth to say, this plea would not have been necessary.

Creationists can’t even agree on whether the thousands of species of dinosaurs and other now extinct species made it on the ark or not,

This is lame, on any scale. And has no point, or validity.

what Noah did with all the feces generated, how eight people could feed all those animals, make sure they get the right food, don’t eat each other, etc. –

In case you missed this, the Bible does not say how he did it, only that he did do it.

Yet paleontologists, who study bones for decades and know which is which, something that you and I are ignorant of, you think these “over-educated” brainiacs are just using their imagination to construct imaginary skeletons and are thus either all fools or charlatans?

Well that have time and time again proven that they make mistakes, as such, anything they provide, needs to be taken with a grain of salt, may very well not be reliable in any fashion.

Now, if I was to entertain your appeal to authority.. (AGAIN), this would be a laughing matter to me, as given ALL their VAST.. EDUCATION.. they still can not be depended on to be accurate.

It is at this point that I must ask you “What color is the sky in your world?”

Wow, and now an ad-hominem attack, can't say this was not expected, or that I expected better from this type of post, sadly it seems that this would be the limit of what your post can provide. Again, if you had anything of value to add, you would not have needed to degrade to this level of posting.

At some point, owg, you need to start considering that it may be best to stop believing in what you WANT to be true and start accepting what is scientifically and empirically proved and thus true beyond all reasonable doubt.

The same could be asked of you.

God Bless

Key.
 
Upvote 0

MewtwoX

Veteran
Dec 11, 2005
1,402
73
38
Ontario, Canada
✟17,246.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
It took a long, long time. I'm guessing that you are not reffering to the proven facts of evolution, but rather the theory.

I would also add that scientist do not believe in a theory in the same way you believe in a god.

You were doing alright there, until...

Theory treads the ground of speculation with little to no verification. Verification as science is concerned that is.

What do we have to go off of? Only fossilized records that we've discovered.

No.

1. Your describing a Hypothesis, not a Theory. A Theory is an explanation of the world data that has been repeatedly and substantially verified, such that it becomes almost universally accepted by the scientific community.

Scientific theories should be considered trustworthy. Scientific Hypotheses should be taken with a grain of salt.

2. We do not only have fossilized records to go off of for demonstrating the validity of Evolution.

Analysis of current and ancestral species in a variety of methods allow for multiple lines of evidence to come fourth in Evolution.

Summed up quite nicely here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The remains of homo sapiens have only been found with in the last 250,000 years or so. What do you conclude from this fact?

Homo erectus was around before homo sapien. Homo erectus is not around any more. The remains of homo erectus have been found to date back to 300,000 years or so. What conclusion do you make of this fact?

Homo habilus was around before homo erectus. Homo habilus is not around anymore. The remains of homo habilus date back to 1.5 million years or so. What conclusion do you make of this fact?... *snipped rest*

Given the proper scientific methodology and investigation by professionals in the field of genetics and paleontology. Some very strong evidence in favour of Evolution By Natural Selection with Common Ancestry.


It might be tough to digest, if you believe you were created in the image of a god. What conclusion do you make of the study?

I fail to see what belief in gods has to do with this study or its conclusion.

Well scientist have come to the conclusion that these are from the phenomenon know as evolution. If apes change into different apes, what were they before the change? What about before that? How about before even that?

How about not using such broad based taxonomic classifications to suggest there has been no change within "kinds".

If you are interested in the full Evolutionary pathway of organisms, you can take a look at the site I gave you above, or other Prominent Science websites for this.

The answers to these questions comprise the theory of evolution. All is merely speculation. Educated speculation though.

Again, not speculation. Proposition well backed by evidence ( aplying at least to the main tenets of Evolution by Natural Selection with Common Descent).
 
Upvote 0

MewtwoX

Veteran
Dec 11, 2005
1,402
73
38
Ontario, Canada
✟17,246.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Liberals
2 things Key:

1. You're not using the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy correctly. Its not irrational to appeal to the authority of those who have the credentials to make claims in this area. Its a fallacy to use an authority period (IE. An authority with no base in the field you are using them in) for a claim.

The fallacy is here:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html (Number 2)

2. The fact that some conclusions of Scientists turn up to be wrong does not give merit to a person to reject claims that Scientists make left, right and center.

Again, conceptualizing gravity has been a tricky task for a long while, but that does not mean people have merit to doubt the existence of gravity.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So basically what you are saying is that the tens of thousands of extant scientists who are far, FAR more educated and learned than you will ever be, well, are just making stuff up, and THAT is why scientific thinking and methodology is so incomprehensible to you.

Now THAT is one freaky “theory”..

You seem to be making a value judgement here. Do you think the world would be a better place if there were more scientists and fewer Christians? How is it that God can mysteriously change a persons life for the better, but science cannot. How has the promulgation of the theory of evolution improved the moral quality of people? Which is more valuable or important in todays world; more educated people, or more moral people? THis is a valid question. The more educated a people become the more liberal and amoral (halfway to immoral) they become. We are destroying ourselves because of amorality and immorality, not a lack of higher education.
 
Upvote 0

theQuestionist

Senior Member
May 29, 2007
684
10
✟23,397.00
Faith
Seeker
You seem to be making a value judgement here. Do you think the world would be a better place if there were more scientists and fewer Christians?

So long as religion keeps its nose in its own business (ie, out of schools, science and politics), I don't think anyone would say the world would be better off with or without it. Personally, I think it adds character to a lot of cultures.

How is it that God can mysteriously change a persons life for the betterment of the whole community, but science cannot.

Science doesn't try to.

How has the promulgation of the theory of evolution improved the moral quality of people?


Apples and oranges.
 
Upvote 0

fated

The White Hart
Jul 22, 2007
8,617
520
46
Illinois (non-Chicago)
✟33,723.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I personally don't see a problem with theistic evolution. Science has uncovered many things that point to specie change and an earth that is over 6000 years old. IMO science has given us a good discrption of how things work (subject to change, of course).

The Big Bang is fascinating when you consider that the entire universe was the size of a pinhead which then "exploded". The first manifestation according to science was light. As to the first modern man and woman. I think God made it happen, on purpose. Genesis says that.

I view the first part of the book of Genesis as basically saying that God created everything. It should be noted that Genesis was written for the Hebrew mindset. We (westerners) are of the Greek mindset. By Greek I mean we follow the Greek way of thinking and looking at the world. We want precise answers, facts, figures order of occurrence and dates.

The Hebrew mindset is primarily interested in concepts, with facts and figures being secondary. What mattered to the Hebrews is that God created the Universe. The order and time of the events were not important to the Hebrew mind.

As I see it you run into problems applying Greek thinking to a Hebrew document. That is why the creation story does not make sense to the scientific mind. Of course we always must bear in mind that God is not limited to obey the laws of nature. So, if God wanted to create the universe in six, 24 hour days He could.

Exceptionally well said.

I would like to point out, though, that Genesis creation also follows many other "life cycle" events. The perfect account for the atheist in an agrarian society. A reflection of the basic order in life itself.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So long as religion keeps its nose in its own business (ie, out of schools, science and politics), I don't think anyone would say the world would be better off with or without it. Personally, I think it adds character to a lot of cultures.



Science doesn't try to.




Apples and oranges.

Except that society calls upon the educated to propose solutions to problems that have a moral (read spiritual) nature. A task that they gladly accept (along with the money), knowing that they do not have any solutions.

The problems being identified by politicians, and educators, are those same spiritual (read behavioral) problems referred to above. Neither politicians nor educators have the solutions (enter religion/only God can save us now?).

My first post mentioned 'too much time on their hands'. This is a reference to the billions of years that religion doesn't address. Because of this science has 'dibs' on it and can do what they wish with it. As it is clear that the earth is very old I am disappointed that the church pretty much leaves it for science to play with. It is my belief that God created the earth to be inhabited by living creatures from the very beginning. The fossil record affirms this. Every critter He made was perfectly suited to it's environment during the time that it lived, with no need to change. Man, and the animals here now, are God's latest effort.
 
Upvote 0

Key

The Opener of Locks
Apr 10, 2004
1,946
177
Visit site
✟26,507.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
2 things Key:

Umm first off...

I am sure the Theory of the Inverse Universe had believers just like you at one time.

Secondly, An Appeal to Authority, Section 1 of the Site you provided, supports exactly what I said, and how I applied it.

I so hope this is not the all I can expect from you, or that this is what will be setting the pace for your responses.

God Bless

Key.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Moral != spiritual...
Moral=spiritual principles=nonphysical (nonscientific) solutions to social problems that have no physical solutions. (You can't mend a broken heart with needle and thread.)
 
Upvote 0

JGL53

Senior Veteran
Dec 25, 2005
5,013
299
Mississippi
✟29,306.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
…Do you think the world would be a better place if there were more scientists and fewer Christians?...


If you are speaking of literalist Christians, my answer is “yes”.

… How is it that God can mysteriously change a persons life for the better, but science cannot...


A vivid imagination? – I.e., talking to oneself in one’s head and imagining it is god talking to you?

…How has the promulgation of the theory of evolution improved the moral quality of people?...


I think this is a case of apples and oranges. Has the promulgation of Einstein’s theories improved morals? If such is seen as not to have done so, are such theories ipso facto amoral and useless to the human race?

…Which is more valuable or important in todays world; more educated people, or more moral people? ...


Apples and oranges – i.e., which is more valuable in today’s world, a clean water supply, or traffic laws, or infrastructure improvements?

…THis is a valid question. The more educated a people become the more liberal and amoral (halfway to immoral) they become...


I doubt that. But if you have references, please share.

… We are destroying ourselves because of amorality and immorality, not a lack of higher education ...

If true, what does such have to do with the acceptance of a well-founded scientific theory like evolution – or atomic structure of matter theory - or quantum field theory – or the big bang theory – or the concept of Krebs cycle - or any number of a thousand other well-established scientific theories?

If we are in the dilemma of chooses between education and a moral life, then the human race is so doomed even an imagined omnipotent god couldn’t save us from ourselves. But, like I said, apples and oranges.

 
Upvote 0

Key

The Opener of Locks
Apr 10, 2004
1,946
177
Visit site
✟26,507.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If you are speaking of literalist Christians, my answer is “yes”.


Funny, my answer was "no".. I would rather a world of people that were moral and valued life, and followed the teachings of Christ to their fellow Human, then people that spend their days in labs developing news ways to kill each other, or torture animals, or just hypothesis about how we all came to be.

Apples and oranges – i.e., which is more valuable in today’s world, a clean water supply, or traffic laws, or infrastructure improvements?

Clean water, trumps all.

If we are in the dilemma of chooses between education and a moral life, then the human race is so doomed even an imagined omnipotent god couldn’t save us from ourselves. But, like I said, apples and oranges.

It is the "educated" that would believe such, but the others of us know that if we removed those that spent too much time thinking, and replaced them with people that spent their days following the teachings of Christ, the world as a whole would be a better place.

God Bless

Key
 
Upvote 0

JGL53

Senior Veteran
Dec 25, 2005
5,013
299
Mississippi
✟29,306.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Funny, my answer was "no".. I would rather a world of people that were moral and valued life, and followed the teachings of Christ to their fellow Human, then people that spend their days in labs developing news ways to kill each other, or torture animals, or just hypothesis about how we all came to be…

So you are saying that the world would be better off if there were MORE people who followed the personal morality of Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim and Tammy Baker, and the thousands of preachers and deacons priests who we know are convicted murderers, rapists, and child molesters, not to mention the ungodly number of church-going adulterers, liars, thieves, etc. and LESS people on earth like Carl Sagan, Stephen J. Gould, Isaac Asimov, Niels Bohr, Schrödinger, Oppenheimer, Einstein, and all the Nobel prize winners in science, not to mention the millions of Buddhists and Taoists and Shintos, etc., in the world?

Wow. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I can only say you seem to have a slanted and one-sided view of the TOTAL affect of Christians on society in the last two millennia that they’ve been around. But one can cherry pick in one direction as easily as in the other – as I demonstrated above.

Clean water, trumps all.…

Disingenuous much?

It is the "educated" that would believe such, but the others of us know that if we removed those that spent too much time thinking, and replaced them with people that spent their days following the teachings of Christ, the world as a whole would be a better place…

Anti-intellectual much?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.