Humm..... Sounds like you are just "parroting" a bunch of misinformation you've heard someone else spread.
Ken
Upvote
0
-
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.
What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?
- Thread starter Tree of Life
- Start date
- Status
Ken
Ya, you're still not getting it. I don't know what I'm saying wrong.
From day one to day one million or so, yes, I should expect to see an increase in living species. One makes two makes three, etc. Get it? A fish has sex with a frog and makes a weird fish frog that has butt sex with another weird fish frog and makes a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] rat. Lol, species coming into existence, when did that happen, in the fossil record?
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,524
- 1,877
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I just wanted you to give a brief outline of what you think evolution claims as fact. Thats because many people are not sure themselves. They think that evolution is fact but when they go to describe what those facts are they start to waver. Sometimes they dont really understand what they believe and are just repeating something they have heard.
Its not as black and white as that. Some believe in the old school theory and are pretty set in their ways. Some believe in some of the old school but are willing to accept some adjustments but maintain that the old school Darwinian theory is still valid. Some accept some aspect of Darwinian theory but have updated things with the new discoveries and keep an open mind. Some support the Neo darwinian idea of evolution, some believe in theism evolution and then there are others who think the Darwinian theory should be thrown out and a new theory replace it. Then there are many other versions in between these.
Thats why I say its not a fact like some think as there are so many different views out there. But new discoveries in Genetics is what is driving most of the scientists to challenge the traditional theory of evolution. And its not a small movement either. In fact as time goes by its the old school that is looking more and more on the outer. Thats because they cant deny the evidence anymore.
Because some of the new findings go against what evolution has said for years and many scientists want to stick to the traditional beliefs. These new discoveries are coming out bit by bit and the old school are attributing the findings to the back burners and making out that it hasn't proved anything at the moment. Its sometimes about degrees of change and it takes time for them to find out what the full implications for these new discoveries are.
Like the ENCODE program which is slowly but surely mapping the genome of animals and humans. The new discoveries are showing there there is much more going on in the genome than many scientist thought. This is adding complexity to things and therefor the simpler ideas about how evolution worked with genes and mutations is coming under question. But basically these new discoveries are pointing towards the Darwinian theory of evolution needing to be revised or possibly downgraded a lot, maybe even scrapped. At the least there are no facts about how evolution works at the moment as you and others say.
Its also about reputations, funding, the status qua and keeping the consensus of opinion. Its harder for any new and contradictory info to be accepted into the mainstream thinking. But as time has been going by and more and more evidence is coming out its beginning to be recognized. The old heads cant keep fobbing off the evidence any more.
Then you are denying that scientists are human. They are also subject to the same weaknesses. That has been the problem, many people have made them gods and dont question them. If a scientists said it it must be true. But in reality they are the same as anyone else. Especially when it comes to evolution. Because there has always been this evolution and religion debate which often goes beyond the facts. It becomes personal and dogmatic.
We know that you have all said that many times. Unfortunately as I have said it is hard for evolutionists to admit they also do it. There in lies the problem with evolution at the moment. It is heading towards a revolution in evolution. Anyway here are some more supports about how scientists are challenging the old school beliefs of evolution.
Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.
According to evolutionary biologist Patrick Phillips at the University of Oregon in Eugene, projects such as ENCODE are showing scientists that they don't really understand how genotypes map to phenotypes, or how exactly evolutionary forces shape any given genome.
ENCODE is just one of several projects that are "unsettling old assumptions," Ball says. The new science of epigenetics, too, has added more layers of complexity. The methylation of histone tags on DNA bases, for instance, can affect activity of a gene without altering its sequence. Other epigenetic tags affect the structure of chromosomes, or the accessibility of DNA sequences. The linear "central dogma" of the 1960s (gene DNA -> messenger RNA -> protein) is long gone; it has become clear that multiple players -- DNA, RNA, proteins, splicers, epigenetic factors, post-transcriptional modifiers -- interact in complex networks we can barely fathom.
[FONT="]It gets worse. What if natural selection is less a force for innovation, and more a messy salvage operation[/FONT][FONT="]?
[/FONT]
[FONT="]While some evolutionists or evolution skeptics might quibble with Ball's assertion that selection operates at all levels, few could dismiss his overall message. Darwinian evolutionists need to abandon their sentimentality and affection for old ways, because those "[/FONT][FONT="]old arguments[/FONT][FONT="], for instance about the importance of [/FONT][FONT="]natural selection[/FONT][FONT="] and random drift in driving genetic change[/FONT][FONT="], are now colliding with questions about non-coding RNA, epigenetics and genomic network theory."[/FONT]
A Circuitous Route to Noncoding RNA
[FONT="]Sixty years on, the very definition of 'gene' is hotly debated. We do not know what most of our [/FONT][FONT="]DNA[/FONT][FONT="] does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level.
[/FONT]
Instead of occasional, muted confessions from genomics boosters and popularizers of evolution that the story has turned out to be a little more complex, there should be a bolder admission -- indeed a celebration -- of the known unknowns.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7446/full/496419a.html
Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? : Nature News & Comment
This is just some of the data on the new discoveries which are challenging the traditional theory of evolution. There are so many new discoveries which can influence how creatures get their genetic info from that its hard to tell what causes evolutionary changes. Is it something that has always been within a creatures Genome and we are now discovering that there is a lot more to animals and our own Genetic capabilities. Scientists kept saying most of the DNA was junk and they tried to make out that the coding for life was basically simple so that it could be explained by a naturalistic method. But now they are discovering that it has function and maybe vital function and its a lot more complex than they ever imagined. Maybe the early organisms and animals had all the necessary genetics to build many different creatures and this was all passed down through different mechanisms such as HGT and cross breeding.
Maybe individual creatures have so much complexity that it will create major divides between many animals that would be impossible to link them together back to a common ancestor. Maybe that complexity will be impossible to explain how random mutations could build that by a naturalistic chance process. So evolution according to Darwin's Theory is far from fact. It may well end up showing that there had to be a creator. Afterall the more complex and detailed the design of our genome is the more it points to a designer just like how humans design complex computer programs. It all just doesn't come from nothing and somehow self create itself by a random and non directional process. That defies logic.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
"fish frog having butt sex with another weird fish frog"?
Sorry, I missed your point. How did you take from my statement that I don't have a choice in what I believe?
My life's experiences, the facts, haven't changed. I used to interpret those facts as proof that God didn't exist.
I choose to see things differently at one point and all those things I thought proved Gods non-existence, became evidence of the contrary.
This choice to review my past circumstances in a new light was totally a choice. My beliefs are now different because of that choice. I chose to alter my perceptions which in turn altered my beliefs.
We absolutely do choose what we perceive from any given circumstance. Your perception dictates what you believe.
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
But how do we get to the point, to feel we have this illusion of choice in regards to our beliefs?
We get there because of the many variable going on inside our minds, that get us to the point, of thinking it was a choice to believe, but it was really a lot of factors that have developed over time in our minds.
If I asked you what your favorite color was, would you have the ability to choose to change your favorite color, simply by choosing a new color today?
Upvote
0
I don't think you read all the posts concerning this matter. I stated that laws are necessary in a society. I was simply saying that Love is the fulfillment of all law, mans and Gods.
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
The theory of evolution has only strengthened in the 150+ years it has been examined, by folks who know a bit more about science than you.
And you are claiming here, you can destroy the work of science over that time period in one step?
Have you submitted this "one step" to receive your Noble Prize?
Upvote
0
Davian
fallible
- May 30, 2011
- 14,100
- 1,181
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Ignostic
- Marital Status
- Married
Did you not say, "As to your question, I cannot just believe that all gods are fictional."
You claim to be able to make this choice, to alter your perceptions. How do you do that? Can you choose to perceive green as red?
Upvote
0
Yes, I know this to be true. Many religions throughout history and presently have used and do use fear as a means of control. Our government does this as well.
I truly find it sad that people allow fear to dictate their lives and beliefs.
Upvote
0
Steve vw has a much better position in this matter. However, I will say that common sense and reason dictate that the theory of evolution, as it stands, is not feasible. Every bit of proof that is blasted across the front page is later recounted on the back of page 19.
People used to be convinced that the earth was flat.
Any reasonable scientist could tell you that we really know nothing. Our scientific beliefs as a society are constantly changing and evolving with new information. For every person that makes a claim supporting evolution there is another that disputes that claim.
I used to think radio carbon dating was 100% accurate. Now even that is coming under fire.
I am a logical person. I am fully aware that the common Christian theory of creation is just as flawed as the theory of evolution. That's why I don't subscribe to either. I believe that we really don't know anything for sure and anyone that thinks they do is only lying to themselves.
Upvote
0
Our government uses fear campaigns consistently to justify their actions.
The easiest example is 'terrorism'.
Do you remember 9/11? After the attacks (to the present) the gov has been on a fear campaign. They blast scary images of radicals that want to kill Americans at all costs. They then used that propagated fear to pass the ' patriot act' which has taken away many of our constitutional rights. Without that campaign of fear, Americans would have never given up these rights.
There are many many examples of this in our history as a country but this should suffice for the moment.
Your thoughts?
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
Would it be fair then for me to conclude the following in regards to your beliefs about scientists and evolution:
-Scientists misinterpret the evidence found in the fossil record that strongly supports evolution?
-Scientists misinterpret the DNA evidence, that strongly supports the theory of evolution?
-Scientists, for over 150 years and much testing, are simply not seeing the problems with evolution, but you are able to see these problems, which they are missing?
What do you think of Francis Collins take on the evidence for evolution? He happens to be a devout Christian, who is a physician and former head of the human genome project. Do you think you are more qualified to have an opinion on the evidence than him?
Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.
Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?
Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics
Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
