As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[Speedwell]

Do you really believe that?

I do. And I have enough experience with the science curricula of the public schools to know it.

Sure... I hear you. Macro Evolution, not micro evolution, concepts piggy-back science for the very reason of being accepted as truth.

But not as "absolute" truth. Only as provisional pending new evidence. All scientific theories are held that way. That's how science works; the history of science is littered with old theories which have been overthrown by new evidence and replaced by new ones, equally provisional.

By understanding, you mean accepting it of course.

No, I just mean understanding it.

 

[_____a_____]

It amuses me when the creationists here say there is no evidence for evolution and ignore any evidence for evolution that is presented to them.

 

[inquiring mind]

It amuses me when the creationists here say there is no evidence for evolution and ignore any evidence for evolution that is presented to them.

I didn't say there was no evidence for evolution (or didn't mean to). I said there was no undeniable evidence for macro evolution.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It amuses me when the creationists here say there is no evidence for evolution and ignore any evidence for evolution that is presented to them.

HA! N00b!

 

[pitabread]

If by faith only we know the Creator... how can you be absolute about anything else?

This is about science, though.

If you're thinking about science is absolutist terms, then you're doing it wrong.

This discussion isn't about me.

You're the one making the claims, though. I just want to see if you can back them up.

Then you have missed it for what it is... communication.

Pretty sure "communication" is the point of written words.

 

[inquiring mind]

This is about science, though.
If you're thinking about science is absolutist terms, then you're doing it wrong.

Here is my answer again, "If by faith only we know the Creator... how can you be absolute about anything else?"

You're the one making the claims, though. I just want to see if you can back them up.

Fair enough. Look, I have long considered the possibility that ‘God creating Adam from the dust of the ground’ (Genesis 2:7) could mean by way of single celled organisms up, and that His creation of everything else could have been by the same process (Genesis 2:19). But, scripture also seems to favor ‘everything being created according to their kind’ (Genesis 1), and so I just don’t see a way around that... evolving yes, but no evolving from one kind to another (no macro evolution). Can you back-up your claims in three or four sentences?

Pretty sure "communication" is the point of written words.

Yes, but this is one form of God's communication to us. If you don't understand that you still missed it for what it is.

 

[pitabread]

Here is my answer again, "If by faith only we know the Creator... how can you be absolute about anything else?"

But who is being absolute about anything else?

I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate here.

Fair enough. Look, I have long considered the possibility that ‘God creating Adam from the dust of the ground’ (Genesis 2:7) could mean by way of single celled organisms up, and that His creation of everything else could have been by the same process (Genesis 2:19). But, scripture also seems to favor ‘everything being created according to their kind’ (Genesis 1), and so I just don’t see a way around that... evolving yes, but no evolving from one kind to another (no macro evolution).

You're welcome to your interpretations or beliefs regarding the Bible. But that's a far cry from claiming an entire field in science is a "hoax".

Can you back-up your claims in three or four sentences?

Condensing something in a few sentences has nothing to do with whether it's valid.

(You are kidding, right? I trust you are kidding.)

Yes, but this is one form of God's communication to us. If you don't understand that you still missed it for what it is.

Lots of people feel that way about a lot of different religious scriptures. Do you feel that way about the Vedas or the Quran?

 

[inquiring mind]

But who is being absolute about anything else?

I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate here.



You're welcome to your interpretations or beliefs regarding the Bible. But that's a far cry from claiming an entire field in science is a "hoax".



Condensing something in a few sentences has nothing to do with whether it's valid.



Lots of people feel that way about a lot of different religious scriptures. Do you feel that way about the Vedas or the Quran?

No, but I hope you find what you're looking for.

 

[_____a_____]

Here is my answer again, "If by faith only we know the Creator... how can you be absolute about anything else?"


Fair enough. Look, I have long considered the possibility that ‘God creating Adam from the dust of the ground’ (Genesis 2:7) could mean by way of single celled organisms up, and that His creation of everything else could have been by the same process (Genesis 2:19). But, scripture also seems to favor ‘everything being created according to their kind’ (Genesis 1), and so I just don’t see a way around that... evolving yes, but no evolving from one kind to another (no macro evolution). Can you back-up your claims in three or four sentences?


Yes, but this is one form of God's communication to us. If you don't understand that you still missed it for what it is.

Why do people believe in God? That is simple, they don't want to die. Understandable, I don't want to die either. Nobody wants their loved ones or themselves to die. And wouldn't choosing to live a long kind and meaningful life without the incentive of a reward be much more meaningful than doing it because you are afraid of non-existence? Trying to escape you and your loved ones demise is understandable, and wouldn't making your mark on history be a better way to be immortalised? In the end, it is up to you, but I choose to try to live for the sake of living, rather than because I am being told I will be rewarded, I choose to change history, not to be changed by it. That's just my opinion though, I've decided it's not worth trying to change those who don't want to change with science that is inevitably unimportant to them. So I leave this in case they decide to change.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's all nice.

But if god can do anything anyway, you might just as well accept the evidence of reality. Since by very definition, whatever that evidence suggests, is something your god can do, right?

Your comment seems to heading toward some point.

I can guess it is probably like many who seem to think the matter of predestination and sovereignty is ludicrous on its face, because what would be the point of this whole production, if God is omnipotent and omniscient --why not just make a people for himself right off the bat?

Am I wrong, or is that where you were going?

But I'm not sure where you are going, so I will deal with what I read you saying: what makes you think I'm not accepting the evidence of reality? By the way, what the evidence may suggest to YOUR mind, is not necessarily something God has any inclination to do, so why would he? Our view of the evidence is good enough to leave us without excuse, but silly enough we mostly take it places it has no use for.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's all nice.

But if god can do anything anyway, you might just as well accept the evidence of reality. Since by very definition, whatever that evidence suggests, is something your god can do, right?

Let me answer this differently, now that I've read back through the conversation. You are not specific but I think I can assume you mean by "evidence of reality" = "what things look like".

I'm not sure you followed what I said: God obviously did whatever he did. It can be described two different ways that may well not be contradictory, because they were stated from two different perspectives.

That's pretty much all I said.

I have heard that the stresses of falling into the event horizon of a black hole would rip a space ship apart. I disagree. "Reality" as you would probably call it, distorts according to wherever the region of the ship inhabits the region of the even horizon. So, and perhaps even more markedly, with the big bang. Sometime into the expansion, time moves "extremely rapidly" because it is relative to size of expansion, much more so than later. We really don't know at what point in the expansion the farthest away star coagulated and became what we only now receive light from. From here, (looking down that "funnel" of expansion), it looks like maybe 13 or 14 billion years ago, but we must admit that is according to present knowledge.

But indulge me a bit more: If somewhere during that expansion another star coalesces and planets accrue, and an amoeba-like creature makes its way into the life of one of the planets, it may well appear (would that amoeba live long enough to see it) it had by now been around for 4 or 5 billion years. Why not?

We have no idea of the forces exhibited that ripped the "singularity" apart, nor do we even yet understand what gravity IS, yet we know it plays into the formulae necessary to describe these activities of time and space. It may well, from the point of the view of the one who made it all happen, have happened in about 6000 years, or if you wish to mean only the simple creation in Genesis, in 6 days, or even 1 day, going with perhaps the rate of our present march through time, looking at that expansion from outside the funnel.

My personal opinion is that God may well see it as a single point, come into being and already finished by his very edict.

 

[SinoBen]

Those are not separate theories, and in fact natural selection isn't a theory. You also appear confused as to the meaning of theory in science.

Are you saying evolution is a fact?
Are you saying that Darwin's evolution through natural selection is the fact you are espousing? Nothing to do with mutation? The now called Neo-darwinian theory?

 

[pitabread]

No, but I hope you find what you're looking for.

What I was looking for was support for the idea that evolution is a "hoax". I guess I won't be finding that today...

 

[USincognito]

Are you saying evolution is a fact?
Are you saying that Darwin's evolution through natural selection is the fact you are espousing? Nothing to do with mutation? The now called Neo-darwinian theory?

I guess I wasn't clear.
1. Evolution is a fact. A fact supported by an enormous amount of evidence.
2. The basic process by which evolution, as proposed by Darwin, happened is the environment acts as a natural filter selecting traits that lead to the most reproductive success.
3. Neo-Darwinism and later the Extended Synthesis incorporated mutations and genetics into the process.
4. Stripped of all scientific terminology evolution could accurately be described as "a change in the characteristics of an entire population over time".

 

[USincognito]

How about you explain to us using which ever theory of evolution you are defending to explain the origin of life.

There is only one theory of evolution and it only deals with extant life reproducing and passing on genetic material to offspring. The origin of life is a different area of study and evolution in not dependent on any particular source for the origin of life.

 

[USincognito]

Ah, so it's a conspiracy that you are claiming exists but it's hidden so you can't point to anything specific.

Makes perfect sense.

"It's a hoax!"
How do we know it's a hoax?
"It just is!"

 

[USincognito]

i think that many genetics will disagree with you.

Do you have anything of substance to support your thinking that?

 

[pitabread]

It amuses me when the creationists here say there is no evidence for evolution and ignore any evidence for evolution that is presented to them.

That's essentially where the majority of modern creationists are stuck. They can't address the science, so they have to pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[xianghua]

The crocodile started in a different form with a different diet, and keeps changing as it had to keep evolving and adapting to new needs and environment

yes. but its still a crocodile. right? according to evolution a crocodile can evolve into something else in millions of years. so its just a belief that a crocodile can change into something elese then a crocodile. think about my analogy again: a car that can add small changes to it may evolve into a bit different c ar. but it cant evolve into a fighter jet. so why do you think it will be different when we are talking about living things that are no less complex? check also my signature link for evidence for design in nature.

 

[xianghua]

Do you have anything of substance to support your thinking that?

you mean like this list?:

https://dissentfromdarwin.org/