A Question for those who Deny Evolution

[Key]

I agree fully with what you have said about the Creation/Evolution form, but some times you can meet nice people, it's rare, but it is possible. You also need to grasp that people go there to debate , not learn, because they feel that they already know, as such, the debate aspect of it.

I still don't see a good reason for making this distinction (and we may just have to agree to disagree on this.) While I agree that Theory is not Evidence (even though it's the theory that holds a wide body of evidence together) and while I agree that Evidence is not Theory (even though it points to the theory), these are still just words, and I don't think they have any bearing on what's true and what isn't.

I would like to take a moment to correct you one small thing. Because this is a very important aspect of all science.

Evidence, can not lie, it is by it's self evident, thus it must be true, or it is not evidence.

Any opinion, or speculation derived from the evidence, may or may not be true.

That is a very powerful line, and no matter how we draw it, or what we call it, it must exist, and we can not blur it, for if we blur that line, then we loose grasp on what it real, and what is purely fabrication.

If I could try to give an example of what I mean... all I'm saying is that without the scientific theory of evolution, the concept of evolution would be just as arbitrary as saying that the wide variety of life on earth rained down from meteors or something. It wouldn't make much sense to believe in the meteor concept independently of the scientific evidence for or against it.

But you see, the idea of the sky falling, or what have you, is still just a concept. The theory then needs to explain how the concept applies.

Now to explain your other point:

The Concept may be correct, but applied incorrectly. In this case, the Concept is sound (It is still not proof), but the Theory that is built off it, can be unsound.

In this case, I may and do give credit to the concept, but not the way it is applied.

I hope I have explained that to you.

Here's something interesting to share -- Go to Google and type in "liger." It's a hybrid produced from a male lion and a female tiger (and they're bloody huge -- the biggest cats in the world I think, even though they're not a pure breed). They weren't forcibly bred by humans -- the lions and tigers happened to be in the same enclosure, and ended up mating.

That could e viewed as "Forced" I mean, if I put a woman in a cell with a male, I did not force them to have sex, but I did force the situation, where if they were going to, or did have desire to, then it is only going to happen with each other.

But I will look at your link, and see what comes of it.

Tying the dogs example to the human skulls example -- what difference would it make if these two specimens would be better described as different "breeds" than different "species"? These are just words, arbitrary distinctions that we as humans make... I don't see how they have any bearing on whether the organism changed over time, or whether those changes could eventually amount to the difference between an ape-like creature and a human-like creature.

The idea is, we built the model off the Skulls, but, what if the skulls were just variants in a breed, both those dogs existed at the same time, despite the difference in skull.

That was all I was trying to show you. It was not progression, but co-existence.

If I have failed to explain that, then I am sorry, I hope I have explained what I was hoping to bring froth.

Thanks again, Key. Even though we may not necessarily agree, I'm glad we're able to have this exchange. There seems to be a common misconception (on both sides of the creation / evolution divide) that the other side is just stupid, or immune to reason, or some other such nonsense, and I hope that this thread is helping to allow both sides a better understanding of the reasoning behind the others' beliefs.

I fully grasp what you mean. I hope and pray that this will be an enjoyable exchange, no matter what we talk about.

God Bless

Key

 

[SandRose]

You also need to grasp that people go there to debate , not learn, because they feel that they already know, as such, the debate aspect of it.

That's very true, and I think that's kind of what I mean -- the people there seem to be already convinced that their side is right and the other side is stupid. Something about it just seems so circular and unproductive to me.

Evidence, can not lie, it is by it's self evident, thus it must be true, or it is not evidence.

Any opinion, or speculation derived from the evidence, may or may not be true.

Just to make a quick comment, I think this is a much clearer way of putting it than some of your previous posts... the concept vs. theory business was confusing (in part at least) because it's not a very common way of saying you disagree with the interpretation of the data.

But you see, the idea of the sky falling, or what have you, is still just a concept. The theory then needs to explain how the concept applies.

I don't think we disagree on this -- I said in my last post that it doesn't make much sense to believe in the concept without the theory to back it up. But you told me a few pages back, "You do not believe the "Theory of Evolution" you just accept the "Concept of Evolution"" -- and on this, I think we disagree. I want to make it clear that I believe the theory of evolution to the extent that it's possible to believe in any scientific theory. Even if we still have more to add to it, even if it's still being tweaked and refined, I'm convinced that the answers are there and that science will eventually uncover them.

The idea is, we built the model off the Skulls, but, what if the skulls were just variants in a breed, both those dogs existed at the same time, despite the difference in skull.

That was all I was trying to show you. It was not progression, but co-existence.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think the arbitrary nature of the lines between species that we were talking about still applies here -- How different do they have to be before they cease being "variants in a breed" and start being "different species"? Also, I don't think the fact that they coexist rather than progressing from one another is a problem -- experts on the matter would probably look at the skulls and, based on their dates and features and whatever else, conclude that these two creatures shared a common ancestor. (And since they're both types of dogs that we bred ourselves, we probably wouldn't disagree with that conclusion.)

I'm not sure what else to say in this post -- I apologize if I skipped over something or didn't answer one of your points that you wanted feedback on, but just let me know and I'll come back to it.

Also, just to keep this thread on track for anyone else who might be reading: I'm still interested in other peoples' responses to my original question, if anyone else wants to answer. This thread has gotten some fascinating replies thus far, but if you have something to add feel free to jump in.

 

[PenelopePitstop2]

Sandrose,
firstly I'd like tocommend you on your thread. It is refreshing to see different viewpoints treated with such respect rather thn the usual debating/flaming that can often happen when 2 sides disagree. So thankyou for keeping this thread so respectful.

Prior to being saved I did not believe in creation. I was taught through my studies of biology, physics and chemistry that the underlying explanation of all things scientific was linked in some way to evolution. However I never truly accepted evolution either. It never for me truly added up as a complete explanation to our origins as humans.

When I became a christian, the bible showed me creation, to be honest I struggled with that too and had to put certain bits of it to the back of my mind as I couldn't rationally explain them using scientific reasoning using the evidence available. However as time went on and I studied more scientific material in line with the bible, the more I could prove that the accounts in Genesis were indeed possible scientifically. I cannot categorically prove creation however any more than anyone else can catagorically prove evolution. I can say it is possible to do things as Genesis suggests, but can I prove God to you? no I cannot.

So in essence no one specific thing convinced me other than primarily my belief that the word of God is true, the reasoning or logic to accept what I first accepted by faith has been gradual and based on many sources of science geology, physics, genetics and so on. This has only helped me to reason intellectually in a rational sense what I knew in my heart and spirit to be true already because God said it.

 

[Key]

That's very true, and I think that's kind of what I mean -- the people there seem to be already convinced that their side is right and the other side is stupid. Something about it just seems so circular and unproductive to me.

I would have to agree with you there.

Just to make a quick comment, I think this is a much clearer way of putting it than some of your previous posts... the concept vs. theory business was confusing (in part at least) because it's not a very common way of saying you disagree with the interpretation of the data.

That is one way to put it. I do not believe in the Idea that Life Started and then progressed via though generations and posterity, into all the vast life we have today. Which is what I associate to be the "Theory of Evolution"

See, I am not trying to be rude, or nothing, and I respect yoru stand and what you believe, and I can see why you believe it, but just suffer with me for a moment as I explain why I just can not, well give it credit, that it might very well deserve.

To me, just a personal, thing to throw out, that is something hard to swallow. Every Biologist will admit, that a Dog can not give birth to anything that is not a dog, but, hey, I may be wrong here, I may have it all confused, but, if I am to say that we all came from a simple life, then, at some point, a Dog stopped giving birth to dogs. If you grasp my point. There had by this overall Theory, been some point, where the offspring, was not what it came from, and what will come from it, will not be it. To me, just, that is a hard pill to swallow, if you grasp my point. Maybe I might have said it wrong.

On a science front: This is what I have. I could be wrong, hey, we all could be wrong, but, that does not stop us from thinking about it, and thinking we are right, ya know. So that is all respected.

We know, Genetic material is not added (At least in any way we have seen) with out strong negative repercussions.

On that alone, I would have to say the Origin, or the whole of it, is wrong. To say that all derived from one, seems to as far as all we have, to be impossible. We can not even force this change. I mean, we can't make a dog be something other then a dog. No matter how much we change it, it still, is a dog.

Now the Trick here, and this is something I really don't know what inspired this, but people say "Well it takes time" but, from what I know, that is like a complete illusion, it does require time in some respect, but only because it hinges on generations, which we wrongly translate to time, but see, if something reproduced every 2 days, in 2 years, it has had 365 generations. Where humans would require 730 years for the same effect (Given a 20 years Generation).
So, change does not translate into Time directly, and more time, or less time is not really a factor when you are dealing with evolution. Just to put that out there.

I don't think we disagree on this -- I said in my last post that it doesn't make much sense to believe in the concept without the theory to back it up. But you told me a few pages back, "You do not believe the "Theory of Evolution" you just accept the "Concept of Evolution"" -- and on this, I think we disagree.

I said.. you may only accept the concept, thinking that it is the theory. IE: You believe in change over time, due to variants in reproduction.

However, you may or may not believe in the paths and progress chats that the Theory has placed out, for the "tree of life".

And you can Accept that there might be variants over time, even some great variants, but, still can not accept that all life started from a single simple life form.

I want to make it clear that I believe the theory of evolution to the extent that it's possible to believe in any scientific theory.

Ooo.. well, no offense to you, on any level, or any form, or nothing, pure respect and appreciation towards you, but I have seen people cling to this Theory as if it was irrefutable proof, that it was, Truth complete truth, and that is something, I really never wanted to see, when it comes to a Theory.

Just like, I mean some people put the Theory of Evolution out, and then say it's a Proven Fact. That is just scary, in my mind.

Even if we still have more to add to it, even if it's still being tweaked and refined, I'm convinced that the answers are there and that science will eventually uncover them.

That is one way to look at it, I hope that Science one day discovers, "God just has to be real"

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think the arbitrary nature of the lines between species that we were talking about still applies here -- How different do they have to be before they cease being "variants in a breed" and start being "different species"?

That would be the wonderful field of Taxonomic Classification of Life.

and people use that as Proof as well.

Also, I don't think the fact that they coexist rather than progressing from one another is a problem -- experts on the matter would probably look at the skulls and, based on their dates and features and whatever else, conclude that these two creatures shared a common ancestor. (And since they're both types of dogs that we bred ourselves, we probably wouldn't disagree with that conclusion.)

I would say so as well, but to tell me that a all Canines came from say, Rodents. Then, I might have an issue. and funny, that is where I have the issue to tell the truth.

I'm not sure what else to say in this post -- I apologize if I skipped over something or didn't answer one of your points that you wanted feedback on, but just let me know and I'll come back to it.

This has been a wonderful exchange, and I hope I have treated your words with respect and answered questions in more depth as you have asked them. That is the nature of QBNC, for you to seek and understand, and appreciate our Religion and maybe our outlook.

And I hope that is what has been provided, that being respect and enlightenment.

God Bless

Key

 

[SandRose]

I said.. you may only accept the concept, thinking that it is the theory. IE: You believe in change over time, due to variants in reproduction.

However, you may or may not believe in the paths and progress chats that the Theory has placed out, for the "tree of life".

And you can Accept that there might be variants over time, even some great variants, but, still can not accept that all life started from a single simple life form.

I appreciate that you're taking such great care to distinguish between these two things, and I think I can understand how you believe the concept but reject its explanation of the origin of life. However, I want to make it as clear as I can that I'm not the same way... I fully understand the implications of the scientific theory, and I accept them.

Every Biologist will admit, that a Dog can not give birth to anything that is not a dog, but, hey, I may be wrong here

No, you're right -- no biologist is claiming that a dog will give birth to anything other than a dog. (But then, that's the exact opposite of what the theory of evolution predicts.)

if I am to say that we all came from a simple life, then, at some point, a Dog stopped giving birth to dogs. If you grasp my point. There had by this overall Theory, been some point, where the offspring, was not what it came from, and what will come from it, will not be it. To me, just, that is a hard pill to swallow, if you grasp my point.

I understand what you're saying, but I guess it's just not as hard for me to accept. There's a large difference between saying that dogs will give birth to something other than dogs, and saying that dogs as a species will change over time. Given enough generations, maybe those changes will be significant enough that it would be more fitting for us to call them something else... but that doesn't imply that one day a dog must have given birth to something other than a dog.

I heard an interesting analogy to language not too long ago, which may be fitting here... It went something like, people never just stop speaking the language of the previous generation. But we may have some new slang that they didn't use, or a few words with subtly changed meanings. Over only one or two generations, these changes don't mean much -- we can still easily understand our parents and grandparents. But over longer time periods, these changes add up. If you read Shakespeare, written only 500 years ago, it certainly isn't easy for a casual reader to understand, even though it's still English. If you go back another 500 years, you have Old English and works like Beowulf -- things that require translation to be comprehensible to us.

Of course the analogy isn't perfect -- language and evolution operate very differently -- but I think it helps illustrate the sheer gradualness of the process. When did Old English turn into modern English? There was no precise moment... people didn't just wake up one day to a different language. The change happened so slowly that no one even noticed it.

This has been a wonderful exchange, and I hope I have treated your words with respect and answered questions in more depth as you have asked them.

You're right, this has been a wonderful exchange -- thanks again for your long and thoughtful responses, and for continuing to participate in this thread.

 

[Seekermeister]

I have not read this thread, because it is too long, and I have read too many like it before. Therefore, I may be repeating something already said, but to those who believe in evolution, I also have a question. Considering the fact that there is NO evidence to support this theory, why do you accept it as truth? If you really do believe in this, I would assume that you have done enough study to be able to outline the subject in a coherent fashion that would make sense. I have asked this question on many forums, some of which were quite intellectual, and no one has ever stepped forward to offer anything except alot of unfounded assertions, without anything to back them up.

Since the OP has raised this question, perhaps he will have an answer?

 

[MethodMan]

Thread re-opened sorry for the delay

 

[SandRose]

Seekermeister: I hope my PM's have answered your question and helped you to better understand where I'm coming from.

To anyone else who may be reading: I'm still interested in hearing your responses to the original question (that is, if there's anyone left on the QBNC board that hasn't already added their thoughts / input to this thread.) I'm not sure if it's already gotten so long as to have exceeded its lifespan, but I thought I'd post this quick message just to let people know I haven't lost interest. ^_~

 

[Seekermeister]

Seekermeister: I hope my PM's have answered your question and helped you to better understand where I'm coming from.

Although this statement implies otherwise, I believe that you know that our PMs resolved nothing regarding this topic. My last question above remains untouched, privately or publically.

 

[SandRose]

Although this statement implies otherwise, I believe that you know that our PMs resolved nothing regarding this topic. My last question above remains untouched, privately or publically.

By "better understand where I'm coming from," I was referring to the reasoning behind my views on this matter, which I think I adressed as clearly as I could -- I remember explaining that I disagreed about there being "NO evidence," and that my beliefs on the matter simply reflect what I have found to be the most convincing after everything I've read and researched over the years.

If this wasn't an acceptable resolution to your question, you're entitled to that -- but I honestly don't know what else you expect from me, or from anyone else whom you ask this question.

 

[Faith In God]

*reads OP*

My own main reasoning is rhetorical rather than "scientific" (For both creationists and evolutionists undermine the other):

Sin brought death.
If the Lord created using evolution, death was a reality innate in creation (not to mention its very ideology is the strong surviving over the weak, and that the more that die, the better your result will be).

 

[Seekermeister]

I ask this because, while I do have some preconceived ideas of what responses might be, I'm wondering if could improve my understanding of why some people reject this scientific theory. Thanks in advance.

Examine the alternatives...if evolution were true, it would mean not only that the Bible is not literally true, it would also place the authorship of the Scriptures in the hands of man, instead of God...as many people prefer to believe. It would also set a large question mark as to the nature of God, both in spirit and in abilities. If God needed or wanted to use evolution to creat man as He wanted him, then He would be little better than a very intelligent warlock stirring His kettle...bubble, bubble, toil and trouble.

 

[FriarErasmus]

Based on research over the span of almost a year, I came to believe a theory often termed the "Pre-Adam-ite Era."

Let me try to give you the short version (and I am trying to do all of this from memory, so forgive me if I misstate anything).

The concept is this: There was creation billions of years ago (big bang or not, we will never actually know). There was also "creation" (re-creation) 6000-10,000 years ago (depending on which scholar you trust). This belief is based on hundreds of scriptures (see Dake's annotated Bible for his insane number of cross-referenced scriptures pertaining to this belief), but the one that is easiest to point out is this: In the style in which Genesis 1 was written, the use of the word "And" in verses 2 through 31 (discluding verses directly referencing something in the previous verse, such as in verse 4 where God refers to the light in verse 3 without the "And") to emphasize that these were continuous actions. In that vein, take a look at verse one and two. No "And." In fact, there are distinctly two different times mentioned: "In the beginning" and "Now".

This point, combined with the equally valid translation of the word "was" in verse two ("Now the earth was formless and empty...") as "became", and that the Spirit of God "hovered over the waters" (waters from a flood that made the earth become formless and empty, which also can mean utterly useless, wasted, void, destroyed, etc.) , and that the word "let" used in these verses (such as "let there be light") can translate as meaning "to allow to it's original form or purpose" ie to allow light to return to the surface of the earth, and to allow the waters to recede to allow the land to come forth, are three of the four biggest points that make me believe in both an Old Earth an a New Earth. The other is the description of Lucifer (the Angel of Light, and the King of Tyr), as a ruler over many nations and also as the fallen star who then tempts Adam... if he ruled over nations and then fell and then tempted Adam, then that would require there to be a time before the Adam and Eve from which all of current day humanity has descended. (The descriptions of the fallen star are in the book of Daniel, though I cannot remember the specific passage off the top of my head).

This also allows for Cro-magnum man and all of the other fossil findings, as these were simply pre-adam-ite beings unrelated genetically to humans (just similar to us, as chimps are similar to us).

Add to this that God does things in threes, you find that there was an Earth, a recreated Earth, and a New Earth to come, and that there was two catastrophic floods followed by God's solemn promise to not round it off with a third (see the story of Noah... no mention of the specific #3, but with the other points laid out, this point becomes clear and makes his promise even more poignant)

But to your original question... why do I not believe in Evolution? Well, that is why I explained the above... I still have not seen any evidence given for Evolution that can in any way refute my above belief in Old/New Earth. In fact, all of the findings that have been presented to me or that I have read reinforce my beliefs. There is a big gap in the fossil records between the old fossils of "man" and the current species homo sapiens. This is simply the time period in which there was water flooding the entire world to rid it of Lucifer's kingdom and dominion. There is the mysterious disappearance of dinosaurs. This also takes place at approximately the same time as the fossil gap.

Add to that the Chaos Theory and Entropy (both highly regarded scientific theories) and you just don't get a species moving toward perfection.

All of this is just the logical reasoning/scientific reasons I do not believe in Evolution.

The faith based reasons that I do not believe in Evolution are that Evolution removes the need for a saving God and that Evolution removes the possibility of the God of the Bible.

Consider these thoughts:
If we are moving toward perfection as a species, then rather than try to be better, rather than seek the forgiveness and guidance of God, we should simply pick the best among us and kill the rest. Almost every person you ask would say this is a horrific thought, but it is the ultimate end to an Evolutionary concept of moving toward perfection.

Secondly, if God did not create us as the bible says he did, but rather as Evolution/Big Bang say, then (since the literary style is the same for the story of Adam and Eve), that would also place the rest of the story in Genesis as an analogy, and therefor Sin would not be real, but would just be an analogy for "wrong", which would then become an arbitrary concept. Without definite Sin and a need for redemption, Christ's sacrifice would be pointless. How can Christ be the Last Adam if there was never a First? (1 Cor. 15:45).

Basically put, until Evolutionists can first agree on how we came to be (no, they do not all agree even on some fundamental points), and until they can provide proof (not theories, but proof) that refutes my above beliefs will I be able to believe in Evolution. If that day comes, then it would be the day I cease to be a Christian, as that proof would deny the existence of my God and would require a complete shift to a non-belief in God.

As I don't see that happening within my lifetime (or, to be honest, ever) then I will not be changing my beliefs any time soon, and will continue to believe that Evolution (defined as the change via random mutation or other means from nothing/single cell to full man, not to be confused with Natural Selection which speaks of a pruning of existing species to less types and occasional splittings due to adaption) is a false teaching and should be put aside as the faulty theory that it is.

And, after all of that, I just want to say: I am not trying to convert anyone to my beliefs. Please continue to believe whatever God shows you to be the truth through His word. The only thing we really all need to know for certain and preach is Christ and Him crucified.

I hope my ramblings have answered your sincere question of why I do not believe in Evolution. Keep in mind that this is only my personal opinion.

May God's blessings be with you and yours as you live out this life.

 

[chibitofu]

Well,why don't you see half men and half monkies walking around?

 

[Key]

SandRose...

Shall we begin our dance again...?

All love and kindness.. no meanness... ya know...

God Bless

Key.

 

[SandRose]

Faith In God and Seekermeister: I found your responses fascinating because they offer a different outlook on something I've heard Christians say in the past -- something along the lines of, "evolution is the process by which God created us" as a way of accepting both Christianity and evolution. Thanks for adding your perspectives on that idea to this thread.

FriarErasmus: Before reading your post, I'd never heard of this Old Earth / New Earth concept, so I appreciate your taking the time to post all that. (Although I get the impression from your overall demeanor that it isn't a very common view in Christianity? I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts on the idea, as it sounds like something that had a lot of thought / research put into it.)

 

[Seekermeister]

FriarEramus,

I for one, do not consider you crazy. I posted a simplified version of the same line of thought a bit earlier in this thread. I have not spent as much time researching it, because it didn't seem worth the effort, because what I did find was sufficient. However, I'm glad to find that I'm not the only person on the forum to believe this way.

 

[Key]

Faith In God and Seekermeister: I found your responses fascinating because they offer a different outlook on something I've heard Christians say in the past -- something along the lines of, "evolution is the process by which God created us" as a way of accepting both Christianity and evolution. Thanks for adding your perspectives on that idea to this thread.

This is the idea of Theistic Evolutionist, I share many points on this subject with them, as it explains many of the problems of Naturalist Evolution. Many of the points I brought up to you, with God in the picture, How things came to be, is by design, things are they are, because a guiding force made them form and change in that direction, this removing that Evolution is just random haphazard changes, but directed changes for the betterment of the planet and it's habitation as whole. There is also the issue that Genesis is an Allegorical, it explains the process, IE: Plants, Fish, Birds, Mammals, but it is not to be taken a "Blow by Blow" of how God did it.

FriarErasmus: Before reading your post, I'd never heard of this Old Earth / New Earth concept, so I appreciate your taking the time to post all that. (Although I get the impression from your overall demeanor that it isn't a very common view in Christianity? I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts on the idea, as it sounds like something that had a lot of thought / research put into it.)

Their are two Schools.

Old Earth Centers on: That God made Everything, but God is not bound by our Solar Cycles, as such a Day, can be any length of time. This if the universe is 13.4 Billion Years, or 157.6 Trillion Years, makes no difference, as it is a "day" to God.

Young Earth: Centers on the Idea that a God meant a Day as per our Solar Cycle, or a Human Day. As such, the Earth is 6000 years old.

I hope I have explained some of this to you.

God Bless

Key.

 

[Key]

Oh, sorry, Missed the Post, point, yes FriarErasmus had some very good points, and I have heard this concept before, and I really have nothing bad to say about it. I leave my mind open to all things, and this is just a direction I never thought to go in, but with each new door I see, a new light shines.

God Bless

Key.

 

[Seekermeister]

SandRose,

I would appreciate it, if when you are referring to me, not to mingle it with someone else's response. It gives the impression that I said something supporting theistic evolution, and anyone that would believe that should clean their glasses.