Why I do not accept evolution part one

[SkyWriting]

We haven't even observed all life on on earth as it is. By that rational, we should have already discovered all species.

We have discovered why there are species. Or at least we have some ideas on that. And we've discovered sex....and why we have it. And we've discovered eating, and why animals might do it. And the size of animals, and why some are larger and smaller. And why the males dance around. But not why dirt would want to live. Or why it would change.

 

[Aussie Pete]

What a cop-out. This is the sort of thing every cult leader has ever said and every acolyte has bobbed their head yes to.


I was a Christian for 44 years. I wept and cried as my faith waned asking God for something, anything. You know what I got? Nothing.

Such a god is not worth my time ... nor, anyone's.

I can't answer for you or anyone else. My experience is the opposite to yours.

 

[Aussie Pete]

You know that geocentrists and flat earthers make the exact same argument, right?

Some people justified treating Negroes as sub human from their distortion of the Bible. It does not make them right.

There is huge body of scientific knowledge about biological evolution which has been accumulated over hundreds of years. It has real world applications (yes, even common descent) and is foundational to modern biology.

Creationists are suggesting that some or possibly most of that knowledge is incorrect. Yet, when I look to creationists to see what they are proposing to replace that knowledge with, it's always a dead end.

To me this the contradiction of the creationist position: you're insisting that the knowledge we have about the origin of species is wrong. Yet you can't explain what is right.

------------------------------

As an analogy, imagine if someone kept telling you that everything you know about mathematics is wrong. But at the same time, they can't explain how math is otherwise supposed to work. They're effectively just asking you to forget everything you know about math and be done with it.

Does that seem reasonable to you?



Oh, I'm already quite comfortable in my own spiritual/philosophical beliefs. I myself went through a spiritual crisis when I was younger and I've arrived at my own beliefs that I am secure in. So I'm not specifically seeking out the Christian faith.

My path is my own, just like your path is your own.

My post was specifically directed to Christians. I will be explaining my doubts to non-believers separately. That will be part two.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Some people justified treating Negroes as sub human from their distortion of the Bible. It does not make them right.

I think the point was that you can use the Bible as authoritative source for lots of things whatever they happen to be true or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll address this as a Christian, primarily directed to Christians.
The theory of evolution is in direct opposition to what the Bible has to say about where life came from. I've heard different arguments from those who accept evolution as true. I understand this to be the official position of the Roman Catholic organisation.
From a Christian perspective, I am perplexed. How is it possible for a believer to reject God's word when it is so clear?

There is nothing in the Genesis account to suggest that life evolved. The opposite. I'll not quote scripture - most readers know where to find the account. Suffice to say that the Bible states that God created everything.

The Christian who rejects the Genesis account does not call God a liar. He/she makes it out to be a myth, a parable or a metaphor. Lord Jesus did not think so. In Matthew 19:4, He declares that God created man male and female. Since Lord Jesus is the Creator, it makes sense to accept His declaration.

Another problem I have is that of sin. If God dropped a blob of protoplasm into the primordial soup, which was already alive, then it is going to develop according to whatever genetic coding was introduced at the time.

How does that work? Did God just drop the blob and wander off to listen to the angel choirs and ignore the blob? Then, "Oh look. A man has evolved. Look at that! There is a female version!" How did this being gain a soul? How did he get a spirit? How did both male and female gain these attributes? Why did other animals not get them?

At what point did a man sin? How can he even be accused of sin? Since he has no knowledge of God (that's a problem with a bunch of cells that somehow form a highly complex life form), how does he know what the rules are?

Some say that God took this one being aside and inserted a soul and a spirit. Did God do this for every human being? It still does not answer the issue of sin. If one of these evolved beings sins, why should that effect every other human being who has ever lived? If this being evolved, how can the Bible say that man was created in God's image?

No, I do not buy theistic evolution. I do not claim to understand everything in God's word. I will say that if the world argues against the Bible, I stand by God's word every time.

I have to disagree with you. The scientific evidence against the Genesis stories is so strong and so clear that for anyone that understands the basics of science and looks for an answer instead of looking for excuses will see that their is no way that they can be true unless God planted false evidence. Not just once, but again and again and again. A claim that there was a Flood of Noah, that there were once only two people, that the Earth is young, all of those are claims that God is a liar. That is why most Christians do not take those parts of the Bible literally. They do not believe in a lying God.

Now I do not think that creationists believe that their God lies either. They merely will not allow themselves to learn. Look at how often I offer to go over the basics of science so that creationists can begin to understand their errors and look how take me up on my offer. It is almost as if they know that they are wrong, but they also realize that the only way they can keep fooling themselves is by keeping themselves ignorant of the basics.

A Christian with strong faith would not be afraid to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some people justified treating Negroes as sub human from their distortion of the Bible. It does not make them right.

The point is, and you just confirmed it in a sense, is that creationists are in the same camp as those that distorted the Bible.

My post was specifically directed to Christians. I will be explaining my doubts to non-believers separately. That will be part two.

Is there really a point? Can you support your beliefs even to Christians?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yes Aussie Pete I find it very depressing how many Christians on here hold firmly to secular evolution

What is "secular evolution"? Most Christians here that I come across hold to a form of theistic evolution. It would be extremely odd to find Christians denying that God was responsible for evolution, but that is what you are implying.

Or is this more of the usual strawman "evolution denies God" argument?

 

[Speedwell]

My post was specifically directed to Christians. I will be explaining my doubts to non-believers separately. That will be part two.

You did a good job outlining what your own views are, although as I explained in the "silt" thread over on the Science forum, most of us--Christians and otherwise--were familiar with them already. But it would help your case considerably if you would bother to learn what non-creationist Christians actually believed about the Bible instead of offering caricatures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is "secular evolution"? Most Christians here that I come across hold to a form of theistic evolution. It would be extremely odd to find Christians denying that God was responsible for evolution, but that is what you are implying.

Or is this more of the usual strawman "evolution denies God" argument?

It is a lot like "secular gravity".

 

[Aussie Pete]

What is "secular evolution"? Most Christians here that I come across hold to a form of theistic evolution. It would be extremely odd to find Christians denying that God was responsible for evolution, but that is what you are implying.

Or is this more of the usual strawman "evolution denies God" argument?

No. God could have used evolution as a process. I have good reasons to believe that He did not. Since those reasons are based on God's word, I'll not trouble you with them.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Yet speciation has been observed. How do you suppose it happens? The theory of evolution offers a satisfactory explanation. What is your explanation?

The theory of evolution does not satisfactorily explain how a microbe becomes a human being - except in the imagination of evolutionists.

 

[Speedwell]

The theory of evolution does not satisfactorily explain how a microbe becomes a human being - except in the imagination of evolutionists.

So you have no alternate explanation for speciation (which is what I asked you about)? I did not bring up "microbes to man" evolution. I pointed out an observed phenomenon--speciation--for which the theory of evolution offers a satisfactory explanation. You reject that explanation. What is your alternative explanation?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No. God could have used evolution as a process. I have good reasons to believe that He did not. Since those reasons are based on God's word, I'll not trouble you with them.

That does not tell me what "secular evolution" is.

 

[Speedwell]

Too many unanswered questions on the table and over in the silt department as well. It's midnight here, but only the middle of the afternoon in Oz. Perhaps we should give Pete time to catch up.

 

[Kylie]

I'll address this as a Christian, primarily directed to Christians.
The theory of evolution is in direct opposition to what the Bible has to say about where life came from. I've heard different arguments from those who accept evolution as true. I understand this to be the official position of the Roman Catholic organisation.
From a Christian perspective, I am perplexed. How is it possible for a believer to reject God's word when it is so clear?

There is nothing in the Genesis account to suggest that life evolved. The opposite. I'll not quote scripture - most readers know where to find the account. Suffice to say that the Bible states that God created everything.

The Christian who rejects the Genesis account does not call God a liar. He/she makes it out to be a myth, a parable or a metaphor. Lord Jesus did not think so. In Matthew 19:4, He declares that God created man male and female. Since Lord Jesus is the Creator, it makes sense to accept His declaration.

Another problem I have is that of sin. If God dropped a blob of protoplasm into the primordial soup, which was already alive, then it is going to develop according to whatever genetic coding was introduced at the time.

How does that work? Did God just drop the blob and wander off to listen to the angel choirs and ignore the blob? Then, "Oh look. A man has evolved. Look at that! There is a female version!" How did this being gain a soul? How did he get a spirit? How did both male and female gain these attributes? Why did other animals not get them?

At what point did a man sin? How can he even be accused of sin? Since he has no knowledge of God (that's a problem with a bunch of cells that somehow form a highly complex life form), how does he know what the rules are?

Some say that God took this one being aside and inserted a soul and a spirit. Did God do this for every human being? It still does not answer the issue of sin. If one of these evolved beings sins, why should that effect every other human being who has ever lived? If this being evolved, how can the Bible say that man was created in God's image?

No, I do not buy theistic evolution. I do not claim to understand everything in God's word. I will say that if the world argues against the Bible, I stand by God's word every time.

My husband interprets the "after their kind" bit as evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

My post was specifically directed to Christians. I will be explaining my doubts to non-believers separately. That will be part two.

I can hardly wait.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We have discovered why there are species.
...
But not why dirt would want to live. Or why it would change.

Dirt no more wants to live or change than a raindrop wants to fall. The teleological view is simply inapplicable to the how's and why's of things without brains.

Admittedly, that doesn't stop us projecting needs and wants onto things without brains, but that's a human weakness - we're primed to interpret the world in terms of the agency and intent we see in ourselves.

 

[pitabread]

The theory of evolution does not satisfactorily explain how a microbe becomes a human being - except in the imagination of evolutionists.

Once again, I'm noting an odd contradiction in the creationist position.

On the one hand you are criticizing science for not offering a satisfactory explanation in your view (although I would disagree that it's not satisfactory, but that's besides the point).

Yet you also admit that you've effectively given up on an equivalent explanation as to how God would have created life forms in lieu of biological evolution.

Why not levy the same criticism at creationism?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I will say that if the world argues against the Bible, I stand by God's word every time.

I think I see your problem.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

My problem with evolution was this: It will be hard to explain. Here is an example:

So they say that a certain type of animal is living in the sea millions of years ago and during the course of several millennia, crawls onto the land and develops legs. Okay, so this has been bugging me for years, at a time I still believed in Evolution. So did the initial animal live its life in the water, then gradually, its descendants also lived in the sea but swam near the surface, and then their descendants lived in the sea as well but suddenly swam and stuck their heads out of the water, then over time, their descendants start getting these little bumps on their bottoms, then their Descendents, with the bumps getting longer, starting swimming but hung out along the waterline/beach/where the waves crash area, then their Descendents (the bumps are now legs), start walking about on land.

So if a creature develops an extra finger, from the time the ancestor had four fingers, to the time the current creature has 5 (in between the millennia it took to develop that finger--the creatures in the in-between period had a little bump, then a half finger, and so on?)

Are you familiar with mudskippers? Or flying fish?