Another Evolution Question.

[Smidlee]

The problem I have with this argument is that you consider the bones as evidence.

Says who?

If the bones is not really evidence, even though you may think they are, then the evolution idea you develop will be flawed along with the theory.

You end up with a flawed theory that is based on a misinterpretation of the bones.

Bones themselves seem to evolve , it all depends who does the interpreting. Mary Leakey tried her life to prove this mythological creature that is suppose to be the ancestor of man and ape existed even though she didn't find it. Evolution is based on the idea the similarities are evidence of common decent except those similarities that didn't come from an common ancestor. Evolution is also what cause some animals to not evolve much for 100+ million years while others grew wings and flew.

What is comes down to it, it's faith. Evolutionist assumes that nature itself has the power to evolve creatures in all the forms seen today. Doubters like yourself believes nature (even natural selection) has it's limits.

Christianity itself also base on the idea Jesus Christ has risen from the dead. Christians have reason to believe this is true even though it's a miracle. Evolutionist also has reasons to believe in evolution. The reason I'm not so convince of evolution is I see another option. I'm not convince that Big Bang is true either even though it's suppose to be more "creation" friendly.

 

[Doveaman]

Bones themselves seem to evolve , it all depends who does the interpreting. Mary Leakey tried her life to prove this mythological creature that is suppose to be the ancestor of man and ape existed even though she didn't find it. Evolution is based on the idea the similarities are evidence of common decent except those similarities that didn't come from an common ancestor. Evolution is also what cause some animals to not evolve much for 100+ million years while others grew wings and flew.

What is comes down to it, it's faith. Evolutionist assumes that nature itself has the power to evolve creatures in all the forms seen today. Doubters like yourself believes nature (even natural selection) has it's limits.

Christianity itself also base on the idea Jesus Christ has risen from the dead. Christians have reason to believe this is true even though it's a miracle. Evolutionist also has reasons to believe in evolution. The reason I'm not so convince of evolution is I see another option. I'm not convince that Big Bang is true either even though it's suppose to be more "creation" friendly.

I don't believe in Big Bang either. I think it's silly. Big Bang from what?

Many scientist come up with big ideas based on big assumptions. Faith is indeed the correct term. But I prefer to call it blind faith.

 

[Mallon]

In your mind, what's the difference between blind faith and regular faith, Doveaman?

 

[gluadys]

The problem I have with this argument is that you consider the bones as evidence.

You do? Why? What is evidence if it is not the physical thing we are trying to understand---in this case fossilized bones.


We can make mistakes in what we think about the bones, but one way or another, they are evidence.

 

[Mallon]

Maybe Doveaman thinks Satan planted the fossils there to test our faith?

 

[Doveaman]

In your mind, what's the difference between blind faith and regular faith, Doveaman?

Real faith is putting your trust in things that are proven to be true.

Blind faith is putting your trust in assumptions and speculations.

 

[Doveaman]

You do? Why? What is evidence if it is not the physical thing we are trying to understand---in this case fossilized bones.


We can make mistakes in what we think about the bones, but one way or another, they are evidence.

Okay, I see your point.

But my point is that a mistake in explanation is not evidence. It proves nothing.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Real faith is putting your trust in things that are proven to be true.

Blind faith is putting your trust in assumptions and speculations.

.......Isn't the very definition of faith that there is no proof or an extreme lack of evidence?

That's why God takes faith. There -isn't- any empirical scientific evidence (that we know of) that absolutely shows the Christian God exists.

Evolution, on the other hand, has plenty of empirical evidence. We can know with reasonable certainty that it happened and continues to happen today.

 

[Doveaman]

I don't deny that mistakes are made in forensic science. Mistakes are made in all fields of science. Do feel that the field of forensic science is therefore a completely worthless tool and should not be used in the court of law? Neocreationists are very quick to point out when forensic science fails. But would you be willing to release every prisoner who has ever been convicted of murder on the basis of forensic evidence alone? Do you have that little confidence in it? Be honest.

I am not sure I agree. I do not compare evolution science with forensic science. I compare the use of evidence in forensic science with the use of evidence in evolution.

In forensic science there is evidence, some good, some bad; some interpreted correctly, some interpreted incorrectly.

The evidence that suggest that a person is guilty of a crime may be significant, but within the evidence there is also the slight possibility that the person might be innocent; the significant evidence does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what do you do?

Do you convict based on the significant amount of evidence that suggest guilt, or do you acquit based on the small amount of evidence that suggest innocence?

I think a good judge would acquit, not convict.

Evolution presents a significant amount of evidence, some good, some bad; some interpreted correctly, some interpreted incorrectly. The evidence for evolution is significant but does not prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what do you do?

Do you become convicted of evolution because of the significant evidence that suggest it is true, or do you leave open the possibility that it could be wrong because of the slight evidence that suggest otherwise?

One argument for evolution is that 98.5 percent of the human DNA is identical to that of chimps as proof of common decent and therefore the theory of evolution is true.

What about the other 1.5 percent? Doesn’t that leave open the possibility that it might not be true? Doesn’t 1.5 percent account for anything? Sure, ignore the small man.

What if 98.5 percent of the human race did not believe in God, does this mean atheism is true?

I think that 1.5 percent is the evidence against evolution. You cannot convict a man of a crime based on only 98.5 percent evidence when there is 1.5 percent evidence that suggest He is innocent.

 

[Mallon]

Real faith is putting your trust in things that are proven to be true.

That's not the biblical definition of faith:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1)

Like Dark_Lite said, if God were provable, we wouldn't need faith. And if there's one thing God pushes in Scripture, it's the need for faith. We are saved by faith, not by experimental proof of God's existence.

 

[Mallon]

One argument for evolution is that 98.5 percent of the human DNA is identical to that of chimps as proof of common decent and therefore the theory of evolution is true.

What about the other 1.5 percent? Doesn’t that leave open the possibility that it might not be true? Doesn’t 1.5 percent account for anything? Sure, ignore the small man.

What about the other 1.5 percent? If the DNA were 100% the same, we would be the same species! I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't make any sense.

 

[Doveaman]

.......Isn't the very definition of faith that there is no proof or an extreme lack of evidence?

That's why God takes faith. There -isn't- any empirical scientific evidence (that we know of) that absolutely shows the Christian God exists

This is probably why many scientists don't trust Him.

As for faith, the faith itself is the evidence.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen...Heb 11:1.

Evolution, on the other hand, has plenty of empirical evidence. We can know with reasonable certainty that it happened and continues to happen today.

That would depend on your interpretation of the evidence.

Human interpretations are often flawed because of the human imperfections.

I don't trust the human.

It is better to trust in the LORD than to trust in man...Ps 118:8.

 

[Dark_Lite]

That would depend on your interpretation of the evidence.

Human interpretations are often flawed because of our human imperfections.

"Interpretation of the evidence" can only go so far. And it doesn't go far enough to get YECism unless you feel like reconstructing most of modern science from the ground up.

 

[Doveaman]

"Interpretation of the evidence" can only go so far. And it doesn't go far enough to get YECism unless you feel like reconstructing most of modern science from the ground up.

I am not a YEC.

And I believe in science.

I just don't have much confidence in the men who practice it.

 

[pgp_protector]

I am not a YEC.

And I believe in science.

I just don't have much confidence in the men who practice it.

Ok, how old is the earth ?

 

[Doveaman]

BTW, all of your posts confirm my view of anti evolutionists. There are only 2 things to know about your type.

1: All of your arguments boil down to "God could have done it that way if He wanted."

2: All of your counter arguments boil down to "That doesn't prove anything!"

I think what they boil down to is the fact that the evolution theory is not a fact, but only a theory.

A theory is just an explanation of what is considered to be evidence for evolution. The big assumption is that the explanation is correct, because if it’s not, then the theory is flawed.

Take the Big Bang theory for example. The evidence presented and explained is that the redshift light of galaxies indicates the distances and velocities of the galaxies.

In more recent scientific observations and study redshift is viewed by some scientist as an indication of the age of the galaxies.

Distant/velocity is needed for the Big Bang theory to hold up, but with more recent observations of redshift galaxies being an indication of age rather than distant/velocity, the Big bang theory has been proven to be flawed.

But many scientists still hold on to this flawed theory. Why is that?

The problem is not with the evidence; it is with the explanation of the evidence, a flawed explanation. If the explanation is flawed then the theory is also flawed.

I believe evolution is such a flaw in explanation.

Bones that resembles each other is not evidence for the evolution of man from some ancient animal, isn't that what Darwin taught; they are evidence, however, of the fact that animals in the past resembled each other.

Why should I conclude that because they resembled each other that one evolved from the other? Isn't that a big assumption, a giant leap of faith?

I know you will say that there is more evidence than just bones, but all the evidence I have read, in my view, does not prove evolution to be true without a shadow of a doubt.

All you can do is explain the evidence, but there is no guarantee that the explanation is correct, all you can do is infer that it is. Well, inference is just not good enough, in my opinion.

 

[Doveaman]

Ok, how old is the earth ?

Some scientists say 4.5 billion years, but I'm thinking it could be older, or maybe younger.

I don't think anyone really knows.

What's your guess?

 

[Doveaman]

That's not the biblical definition of faith:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1)

I take this to mean that faith is trusting in the God who cannot be seen but in whom our hope rest.

Like Dark_Lite said, if God were provable, we wouldn't need faith.

He is provable, but not by science.

And if there's one thing God pushes in Scripture, it's the need for faith. We are saved by faith, not by experimental proof of God's existence.

I agree.

 

[pgp_protector]

I'd say around 4.55 Billion +/- .05 Billion Years.

 

[Doveaman]

What about the other 1.5 percent? If the DNA were 100% the same, we would be the same species! I'm sorry, but your argument doesn't make any sense.

The fact that we are not the same species is proof that we are not the same species.