If evolution is true...

[OldWiseGuy]

So when all evidence points to at least some aspects of evolution being true, then perhaps faith in a literal six 24-hour days of creation is an incorrect focus of faith, putting focus of faith on the creation rather than on the Creator. Knowledge of evolution does not in any way diminish faith in God as Creator.

Knowledge of the theory of evolution hasn't hurt my faith.

 

[JackRT]

Posting a thread decrying creationists (thinly veiled as "someone") in a forum called "Creation And Evolution" on a site called "Christian Forums" and then declaring the Christian scriptures which literally begin with the words "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" off-limits seems a bit disingenuous, if not subversive, at least, effectively.

Science limits itself to data which is observable, verifyable and repeatable with the result that science is simply unable to say anything about the supernatural.

 

[expos4ever]

It really is that simple, yes.

I guarantee you will not be able to defend this claim of yours.

And I mean real, credible evidence based on legitimate peer-reviewed studies. The fact that you may know someone who ate well and exercised - and was never sick - is NOT legitimate evidence.

 

[pitabread]

It's a "no, really" thing. You actually have to do it, as in abstinence.

And how does that require or support divine revelation?

 

[pitabread]

Something like, "Any post starting with the phrase So, is inevitably going to strawman the post it's responding too."

Things like, "I think X about evolution is true." response, "So you think were just animals and we shouldn't be responsible for our own actions and rape should be fine." or simular things.

it seems to come from these forums :>

Ah, gotcha. I tried looking it up and couldn't find anything posted anywhere else.

You're right, that seem to be a common occurrence. Although I'd be tempted to call it the "Cathy Newman rebuttal" per her disastrous interview with Jordan Peterson.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Has anyone else noticed that when someone starts a question/argument with "if evolution is true..." that what follows invariably has nothing to do with how evolution actually works?

Why is that?

I know, right? When that happens I constantly try to get the evolutionist to prove it works by showing us how it works, problem is, it never works, it always falls apart, so I guess they just stopped trying.

Would you like to do that now, minus the usual excuses? Start with the first form of life if you would please, and bring us up to date. If you can't do that, I'd be willing to look at whatever the presentation.

Goody, I just know it'll happen this time!

 

[pitabread]

I know, right? When that happens I constantly try to get the evolutionist to prove it works by showing us how it works, problem is, it never works, it always falls apart, so I guess they just stopped trying.

Would you like to do that now, minus the usual excuses? Start with the first form of life if you would please, and bring us up to date. If you can't do that, I'd be willing to look at whatever the presentation.

Goody, I just know it'll happen this time!

Unless you have something relevant to say re: the OP, go find another thread to troll Kenny.

 

[Jonaitis]

I believed in the general idea of human evolution before I was a Christian, but the reason I don't consider it now is that it conflicts with the inspired account of creation in the Holy Scriptures. I must take the words of my Creator, who made us, over fallible, faulty, sinful man, whose opinions are always changing, to tell me about our origins. I mean, it makes sense to listen to the Maker, now doesn't it?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Unless you have something relevant to say re: the OP, go find another thread to troll Kenny.

How is answering your concern directly, irrelevant? You are aware of the meaning of the term, correct?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why aren't biotech companies flocking to creationism as a superior explanatory framework for application in biology?

That's easy... think about it for a moment.

 

[pitabread]

How is answering your concern directly, irrelevant? You are aware of the meaning of the term, correct?

You didn't address anything in the OP. You're just trolling Kenny, you can go away now.

 

[Occams Barber]

If you accept some things on faith you can use your brain for other things.

Can I please keep this quote OWG?
I'd like to frame it.

OB

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And how does that require or support divine revelation?

Mankind wouldn't know that we can't have our cake and eat it too if not for divine revelation.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Can I please keep this quote OWG?
I'd like to frame it.

OB

Sure, but I want attribution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's easy... think about it for a moment.

Creationism carries 'baggage' that evolutionists would rather not deal with.

 

[klutedavid]

Has anyone else noticed that when someone starts a question/argument with "if evolution is true..." that what follows invariably has nothing to do with how evolution actually works?

Why is that?

Is evolution the result of, so called, random mutations along the genome?

Are mutations truly random?

Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones.
Are mutations truly random?

 

[Kenny'sID]

You didn't address anything in the OP. You're just trolling Kenny, you can go away now.

If you'd rather not answer, that's fine.

 

[pitabread]

Mankind wouldn't know that we can't have our cake and eat it too if not for divine revelation.

Your response still doesn't get me any further to answering my question. But I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything else.

 

[pitabread]

Creationism carries 'baggage' that evolutionists would rather not deal with.

In terms of theism, that's not the case at all. There are many Christians who also accept biology evolution as the reality of how species diversity came to be. Clearly the implications of the Christian faith are not the sole providence of creationists.

Conversely, if there were evidence for design in nature, that by itself in no way implies there is any sort of theistic connotations. Especially given the thousands of disparate religious beliefs that have existed throughout history. We have no reason to accept Christian creationism as being correct in origins compared to any of the other multitude of origin stories humankind has been telling for thousands of years.

I have noticed though that a lot of creationists struggle with separation of the above concepts.

 

[sesquiterpene]

Is evolution the result of, so called, random mutations along the genome?

Are mutations truly random?

Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones.
Are mutations truly random?

The paper tries to explain something that's long been known: there seem to be mutation "hotspots" in areas of the genome. It proposes a model to account for this. It is interesting, but hardly likely to "shake things up majorly" as the author claims in an act of blatant self-promotion. It also doesn't address the issue of randomness of the mutations in regards to fitness.