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

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

The genetic record holds massive amounts of undeniable evidence of such.
DNA is inherited by off spring. That allows us to establish biological relationships in terms of family ties.

 

[xianghua]

Are you saying evolution is a fact?

its not a fact but a belief. we need to assume that its true and we have many evidence against it like this motor:

the self replicating watch argument

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

It's not where I'm going.

The point is simply: why would you put yourself into a dogmatic faith based position where you are required to reject imperical evidence if it happens to contradict what you have decided to believe dogmatically on faith?

It's literally setting yourself up for having to stick your head in the sand at one point or another. Because yes, some of the stuff you believe at any point, is going to be wrong.
Especially those things you believe on faith.

And if your position right out the gates anyway, is that your god can do anything... then why not just let reality dictate how this god did what he supposedly did?

If all the evidence points to evolution, then why not just assume that god created things in such a way that humans would evolve eventually?

At least such a religious belief would force you to irrational beliefs about reality (irrational, being to hold beliefs that is actually contradicted by rational evidence...)

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.

I just go where the evidence takes me and I don't bother with a priori religious assumptions, because I have no reason to.

And sorry, no... when it comes to scientific analysis, there is no "subjective interpretation" of evidence. In science, the whole point is in fact to remove any human bias and to actively try to eliminate any a priori assumption that is not itself based on good evidence.

If you have a model that says that the world population was reduced to a few single pairs per species only a few thousand years ago, then that model makes predictions about what the current data should reflect. One of which, is that all these species' genetic record must include a bottleneck dating to the same period.

If upon analysis you find such bottlenecks in all species, then that is very strong evidence FOR your model. If on the other hand, you find no such bottleneck at all, then your model has just been falsified, because it can't be accurate if its predictions do not check out.

So, to give just one example, it's impossible to be a dogmatic 4000-years-ago-noah-flood believer while at the same time being rational in one's acceptance or rejection of genetic evidence.



I'll never understand people who will happily reject raw, rational, objective data in favor of a faith-based story which is actually objectively falsified by the very data that is being rejected - for no other reason then that data contradicting the story being believed.



That's my point.
Why put yourself in a position where your faith based belief trumps reality?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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".

No.

Evidence of reality = how things actually are.

Like there objectively being NO trace of a universal genetic bottleneck in species. That's an objective fact.

In context of a YEC's beliefs about Noah's Flood, then that objective fact becomes evidence against said flood. The flood story, as believed by the YEC, is objectively demonstrated false by that evidence.

It's not "how it looks like". It's "how it is".

The model makes a prediction.
"If this model is true, then we should see X"
Upon investigation, we don't see X. Instead, we see Y. Which is the exact opposite of X.

So how could the model, which requires X to be the case, ever be accurate, since objective reality says that Y is the case - not X.

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.

All of science is always "according to present knoweldge". It's the best we can do.

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.

You're talking nonsense.
No, it is most certainly not the case that the world is only 6000 years old - let alone the universe.

It seems like your previous comment about "we must admit that is according to present knowledge" is deeply fallacious.

First, there's the use of that word "admit". As if scientists have something to "confess" to. As if it is kept a secret that theories are always provisional and "only" according to what we know today; our current best shot at explaining the evidence.

Secondly, your next few paragraphes seems to be a dishonest extrapolation of that, hinting towards "so therefor we could be wrong about literally everything and the world could be only 6000 years old after all".

Well, sorry, but no, we most definatly aren't wrong about everything.

After all, you are reading this message, aren't you?
Think of all the technology involved to getting my words on your screen.
Many of these technologies are literally based on the SAME theories that deal with the very data you are talking about here: determining ages by measuring isotopes / atomic decay. How that works is covered by atomic theory. The same theory that provides the necessary knowledge to be able to build things like microprocessors.

If it's all wrong: why does my PC boot? Why do nukes explode? Why do GPS systems pretty accuratly pinpoint my position?

See?

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

My personal opinion is that you haven't got any rational foundations for any of these claims.
It's all just your opinion, indeed, and your religious beliefs.

 

[JCFantasy23]

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.

What do you think evolution is? It's not generally developing into a totally different species. It's a species evolving.

Source
Restricted ecological niches may have limited the creatures' evolutionary opportunities---but also may have saved them. Many croc species survived the massive K-T (Cretaceous-Tertiary) extinction 65 million years ago, when an asteroid dealt a death blow to the dinosaurs (except for birds, now viewed as latter-day dinosaurs) and a broad range of other life on land and in the oceans. No one knows why crocs lived when so much died, but their freshwater habitat is one explanation: Freshwater species generally did better during the K-T event than did marine animals, which lost extensive shallow habitat as sea level dropped. Their wide-ranging diet and cold-blooded ability to go long periods without food may have helped as well. With land-based dinosaurs and sea monsters gone, why didn't crocs take over the Earth once and for all? By then mammals had begun their evolutionary march toward world domination. Over time the most divergent lines of crocs died out, leaving the squat-bodied, short-legged forms we're familiar with.

And evolving from a 2-Legged Creature:

tThe reptile stood on its hind legs, keeping its tail erect. Its arms were tiny, its neck long, its eyes huge. It was toothless, and its jaws were covered in hard tissue, like a bird's beak. Although the 210-million-year-old fossil was more closely related to alligators and crocodiles, it bore an uncanny resemblance to a group of dinosaurs that evolved 80 million years later, known as ornithomimids, or ostrich-mimics. The similarity extends to subtle details, like air sacs in the vertebrae of both animals. Nesbitt and Norell named the fossil Effigia okeeffeae. Effigia means "ghost," referring to the decades that the fossil remained invisible to scientists. The species name honors the artist Georgia O'Keeffe, who lived not far from the fossil site. A paper describing their results will be published in The Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Effigia is a striking example of what biologists call convergence, when two lineages evolve the same body plan. Other examples of convergence include marsupials related to kangaroos and opossums that evolved into creatures resembling lions and wolves."When I first saw the skull, I thought this can't be related to crocs," said Christopher Brochu, an expert on crocodilian evolution at the University of Iowa. "But then I saw the ankle and said, 'Yep, it's a croc.' So ornithomimids were convergent on Effigia 80 million years later. There are only so many ways you can do something, and as a result you get this convergence."

 

[Speedwell]

you mean like this list?:

https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

Are you asserting that the people on that list support ID? That would be a bald-faced lie.

 

[inquiring mind]

That's my point.
Why put yourself in a position where your faith based belief trumps reality?

My personal opinion is that you haven't got any rational foundations for any of these claims.
It's all just your opinion, indeed, and your religious beliefs.

Just how much do any of us (put all the scientists in a pile if you like) really ‘know’ and ‘understand’ about our existence here in the entire scheme of things... and your answer is to trust in ‘chance’ and ‘our own interpretation of reality,’ and deny a Creator. Faith and religion aside, where’s the common sense in that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just how much do any of us (put all the scientists in a pile if you like) really ‘know’ and ‘understand’ about our existence here in the entire scheme of things... and your answer is to trust in ‘chance’ and ‘our own interpretation of reality,’ and deny a Creator. Faith and religion aside, where’s the common sense in that?

My answer is to go by the evidence when they contradict your beliefs - and the withold judgement if you have no evidence. There's no shame in acknowledging ignorance on subjects you are ignorant off. In fact, I'ld even say that it is highly respectable to acknowledge being ignorant on things one is ignorant about.

A claim is called "true" when it matches reality. That's what "true" means.
So if you believe claims that do NOT match the evidence of reality, and even are contradicted by the actual evidence of reality, then by definition you hold false beliefs.

I repeat my question.

Why would you put yourself in a position where you are actually dogmatically required to dissmiss the evidence of reality in favor of your a priori beliefs?

 

[Speedwell]

Just how much do any of us (put all the scientists in a pile if you like) really ‘know’ and ‘understand’ about our existence here in the entire scheme of things... and your answer is to trust in ‘chance’ and ‘our own interpretation of reality,’ and deny a Creator. Faith and religion aside, where’s the common sense in that?

Who is denying a creator? To my mind, your accusation is an example of the very worst feature of creationism. Namely, the assumption that anyone who rejects the literal inerrancy of Genesis is rejecting God's authorship of our being. Nobody cares what you believe. If you want to believe in "biblical" creationism," you're welcome. But not every theist believes it. Not every Christian sees the necessity of it. Be careful who you make false accusations about.

 

[inquiring mind]

My answer is to go by the evidence when they contradict your beliefs - and the withold judgement if you have no evidence. There's no shame in acknowledging ignorance on subjects you are ignorant off. In fact, I'ld even say that it is highly respectable to acknowledge being ignorant on things one is ignorant about.

A claim is called "true" when it matches reality. That's what "true" means.
So if you believe claims that do NOT match the evidence of reality, and even are contradicted by the actual evidence of reality, then by definition you hold false beliefs.

I repeat my question.

Why would you put yourself in a position where you are actually dogmatically required to dissmiss the evidence of reality in favor of your a priori beliefs?

What 'evidence of reality' are you referring to that should make me question a Creator?

 

[inquiring mind]

Who is denying a creator? To my mind, your accusation is an example of the very worst feature of creationism. Namely, the assumption that anyone who rejects the literal inerrancy of Genesis is rejecting God's authorship of our being. Nobody cares what you believe. If you want to believe in "biblical" creationism," you're welcome. But not every theist believes it. Not every Christian sees the necessity of it. Be careful who you make false accusations about.

Who did I address Speedwell?

 

[Speedwell]

Who did I address Speedwell?

It doesn't matter. Even if you addressed an atheist, you have no idea of his motivation, that it is to "deny a creator.". You have been snotty to me about it, too, and you know full well that I am a Christian.

But my remarks were about creationism generally, rather than just you or your proximate comments. Creationists don't own Christianity, or get to dictate to other Christian what they are supposed to believe. Creationism is just one more upstart 19th century Protestant novelty sect, like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses, and stands no closer than they to traditional Christianity.

Let me give you an example. Seventh-Day Adventists don't eat meat. They think the Bible tells them not to. And you know what? Nobody else cares. But what do you suppose would happen if they started getting ugly about it? Started demanding that meat not be served in public school cafeterias? Started denouncing and bullying other Christians who wouldn't go along with them?

 

[inquiring mind]

It doesn't matter. Even if you addressed an atheist, you have no idea of his motivation, that it is to "deny a creator.". You have been snotty to me about it, too, and you know full well that I am a Christian.

But my remarks were about creationism generally, rather than just you or your proximate comments. Creationists don't own Christianity, or get to dictate to other Christian what they are supposed to believe. Creationism is just one more upstart 19th century Protestant novelty sect, like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses, and stands no closer than they to traditional Christianity.

Let me give you an example. Seventh-Day Adventists don't eat meat. They think the Bible tells them not to. And you know what? Nobody else cares. But what do you suppose would happen if they started getting ugly about it? Started demanding that meat not be served in public school cafeterias? Started denouncing and bullying other Christians who wouldn't go along with them?

Maybe we can continue the discussion when you guys get out of your ‘broken arrow’ mode.

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe we can continue the discussion when you guys get out of your ‘broken arrow’ mode.

I don't get that reference. But the mode will not change until you climb down from your position that creationists are the only real theists, the only real Christians, that anyone who disagrees with you is trying to "deny a creator.".

 

[RDKirk]

I do believe evolution occurs and has occurred in different life forms. I'm still not convinced humans came from apes, but animals and other matter clearly have evolved over time, usually to adapt to change so they can survive.

According to the theory of evolution, humans did not evolve from apes.

Apes didn't even evolve from apes.

 

[pitabread]

I don't get that reference. But the mode will not change until you climb down from your position that creationists are the only real theists, the only real Christians, that anyone who disagrees with you is trying to "deny a creator.".

Good luck with that...

 

[Mark Quayle]

Evidence of reality = how things actually are.

Like there objectively being NO trace of a universal genetic bottleneck in species. That's an objective fact.

In context of a YEC's beliefs about Noah's Flood, then that objective fact becomes evidence against said flood. The flood story, as believed by the YEC, is objectively demonstrated false by that evidence.

It's not "how it looks like". It's "how it is".

The model makes a prediction.
"If this model is true, then we should see X"
Upon investigation, we don't see X. Instead, we see Y. Which is the exact opposite of X.

So how could the model, which requires X to be the case, ever be accurate, since objective reality says that Y is the case - not X.

Your logic is quite clear. The only problem is its suppositions.

I don't know if you are familiar with the concept of science never finally proving anything. Everything is subject to adjustment, correction, and even complete scrapping of assumptions. All science can say is, "at present it seems that...such and such". In other words, it is not an objective fact that there is no universal bottleneck in species. It only seems so.

Second, that your needed bottleneck is the only way the matter could be evident (as though the fossil history was the only indicator (or who knows what else God can do?)) is not provable.

 

[Mark Quayle]

All of science is always "according to present knoweldge". It's the best we can do.

Agreed

 

[Mark Quayle]

You're talking nonsense.
No, it is most certainly not the case that the world is only 6000 years old - let alone the universe.

How about 6000 years plus the one day that took 15 billion years to make. It is not nonsense. We have not finished the math to know how the big bang went. We have only done enough to speculate that there must have been one.

Neither one of us know what we are talking about, nor does anyone else, unless they begin with the disclaimer, "we don't know very much yet, but this is how it looks so far."

 

[Mark Quayle]

It seems like your previous comment about "we must admit that is according to present knowledge" is deeply fallacious.

First, there's the use of that word "admit". As if scientists have something to "confess" to. As if it is kept a secret that theories are always provisional and "only" according to what we know today; our current best shot at explaining the evidence.

Would it feel better to say, we must PROFFER that is according to present knowledge?