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

[SinoBen]

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.

Here's the thing. Genetics (the study of and discoveries) can also be seen to be providing more and more evidence for Intelligent Design. This debate aint gonna end soon.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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?

I understand why you put that into quotes, as if it is me saying it, but I did not say that.

But to your argument: I did not say we could be wrong about literally everything (we could, but in a way unrelated to the argument) so your resulting logical conclusions are based upon a strawman. But we were talking about beginnings and biological evolution, not math and semiconductors. There is a lot we know, and in my opinion much of it, though mere structure, is strong and seems to uphold everything I believe about God.

There is a lot less we know, though what we do [supposedly] know is less [supposedly] theoretical and more directly evident about the evolution of the species. Just the bones we have extrapolated skeletons and related tissues from for the entire human story will barely fill a footlocker! Other species mostly fare about the same or much worse. The honest scientist --anthropologist, geologist, archaeologist-- will say, this is what it looks like so far. We have made many mistakes in the past and corrected what we have seen to be wrong, (and no doubt will make many in the future, also to be corrected,). So far all we have is theory, with some apparently supporting evidence."

BTW "the overwhelming numbers of pages of evidence" I hear so much about are still nowhere equal to the task of proving the Darwinian theory of evolution works for even one species, nevermind all the species. The chain of evidence is not made by an occasional link, placed in its spot by human speculation.

 

[pitabread]

Genetics (the study of and discoveries) can also be seen to be providing more and more evidence for Intelligent Design.

How do you figure?

 

[Speedwell]

BTW "the overwhelming numbers of pages of evidence" I hear so much about are still nowhere equal to the task of proving the Darwinian theory of evolution works for even one species, nevermind all the species. The chain of evidence is not made by an occasional link, placed in its spot by human speculation.

Actually, that's not quite true. Science is more like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle after you've lost the top of the box and aren't even sure all the pieces are there any more. As you work you will naturally begin to conjecture as to what the picture might be, based on what you have assembled so far. Sometimes you will be baffled, sometimes a single piece will change your theory radically. But after you get most of the pieces put together, you probably have a pretty good idea of what the picture is, even if you run out of pieces before you're quite finished.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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...)

Oh, good. I'm glad you weren't going there, then.

As for where you are going, then: If what I know about God is true (not referring to what I consider true, or hope is true, (both may tenets of the faith)), then all empirical FACT will support it. I do not by that mean that all empirical findings interpreted will support it. And that is the difference I think you and I talk about. You see these things as truth, and yes I do necessarily see the Self-existent Creator as truth. So yes, I agree, I do see everything biased, but then, admit (or proffer if you wish), so do you. There is not much science proposes that I reject outright. I don't even reject Evolution outright, though so far I just don't see good evidence for it.

What you see as evidence that necessarily contradicts my belief, has not happened yet, from what I see as evidence. I have rejected nothing, except claims that are based on patently false supposition. If you draw a long logical argument based on the idea that I will reject facts to maintain my unsupported belief, your logic might be the best, but supposes things not in evidence --namely, that I reject facts to maintain my unsupported belief. But even then, I have tried to show your argument falls on its own merits, ignoring even its false presuppositions.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually, that's not quite true. Science is more like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle after you've lost the top of the box and aren't even sure all the pieces are there any more. As you work you will naturally begin to conjecture as to what the picture might be, based on what you have assembled so far. Sometimes you will be baffled, sometimes a single piece will change your theory radically. But after you get most of the pieces put together, you probably have a pretty good idea of what the picture is, even if you run out of pieces before you're quite finished.

But if you so far have way too few pieces of this HUGE (admit it) jigsaw puzzle, you still don't know what the picture is.

It may even be possible the pieces we find aren't even pieces to the puzzle, or that there is no puzzle. Yet we have already named it and are saying we have enough pieces, and the rest are falling rapidly into place. But, yeah, it is good to be optimistic.

 

[inquiring mind]

But if you so far have way too few pieces of this HUGE (admit it) jigsaw puzzle, you still don't know what the picture is.

Now you're talking!

 

[pitabread]

But if you so far have way too few pieces of this HUGE (admit it) jigsaw puzzle, you still don't know what the picture is.

But we kinda do know what the picture is. And more importantly, what it isn't.

 

[RDKirk]

Well, I've been ID since 1964, before the term "Intelligent Design" was even coined, and that the design is from the quantum level (I was a kid, but I had already picked that up from the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. And I saw the Genesis account fitting quite neatly into how the cosmological concept would have been revealed in a dream.

But quantum ID is non-falsifiable. However it's discovered done, God still did it.

And we finally even have a song!

God of creation
There at the start
Before the beginning of time
With no point of reference
You spoke to the dark
And fleshed out the wonder of light
And as You speak
A hundred billion galaxies are born
In the vapour of Your breath the planets form
If the stars were made to worship so will I
I can see Your heart in everything You've made
Every burning star
A signal fire of grace
If creation sings Your praises so will I
God of Your promise
You don't speak in vain
No syllable empty or void
For once You have spoken
All nature and science
Follow the sound of Your voice
And as You speak
A hundred billion creatures catch Your breath
Evolving in pursuit of what You said
If it all reveals Your nature so will I
I can see Your heart in everything You say
Every painted sky
A canvas of Your grace
If creation still obeys You so will I
So will I
So will I
If the stars were made to worship so will I
If the mountains bow in reverence so will I
If the oceans roar Your greatness so will I
For if everything exists to lift You high so will I
If the wind goes where You send it so will I
If the rocks cry out in silence so will I
If the sum of all our praises still falls shy
Then we'll sing again a hundred billion times
God of salvation
You chased down my heart
Through all of my failure and pride
On a hill You created
The light of the world
Abandoned in darkness to die
And as You speak
A hundred billion failures disappear
Where You lost Your life so I could find it here
If You left the grave behind You so will I
I can see Your heart in everything You've done
Every part designed in a work of art called love
If You gladly chose surrender so will I
I can see Your heart
Eight billion different ways
Every precious one
A child You died to save
If You gave Your life to love them so will I
Like You would again a hundred billion times
But what measure could amount to Your desire
You're the One who never leaves the one behind

 

[Speedwell]

But if you so far have way too few pieces of this HUGE (admit it) jigsaw puzzle, you still don't know what the picture is.

It may even be possible the pieces we find aren't even pieces to the puzzle, or that there is no puzzle. Yet we have already named it and are saying we have enough pieces, and the rest are falling rapidly into place. But, yeah, it is good to be optimistic.

No, we're farther along than that. But as Pitabread pointed out, even though we may not yet be entirely sure of what the picture is, we can tell in many cases what it is not. And one of the things it is not is biblical creationism.

 

[Ronald]

Convenient definition of evolution for those unsure: Evolution is changes in a life form due to mutations in their genetic code, leading to the success or failure (or neither) of the mutation, leading to the mutated creature having more success mating, therefore passing on the improved gene or no success, leading to the gene not being passed on. Or to put it simply, changes in a life form over time. **

That's the nonsense about it. Mutations are defects. Even genealogists have said maybe 1/10,000 mutations could be beneficial to an organism. However, many mutations (defects0 are harmful to the organism or even deadly, that that this organism must go throw the 9,999 negative mutations (that would be futile and deadly) before it got a chance to use one good one. Chance would not have a chance. Chance btw, has no power, no knowledge, intelligence, direction ... chance is nothing. And to think the nature could select ... wait a minute, let's stop there. What is nature? Water, minerals, the sun, electromagnetic energy, etc. None of these has a mind nor collectively do they have intelligence to select anything. The organism itself (if it could possibly evolve) could not select it's own defects, log them and then pick and choose the good to pass them on to their offspring. Remember, mutations create distortions, weaknesses, deformities, not more complex or more advanced abilities or structures.
See how absurd it all sounds. It's a theory made by a bumbling fool who was not even aware of the complexities of a cell. Darwin thought a cells was a jelly-like substance, simple. No cell is simple. If you blew one up to 10mile radius, you would see thousands of intricately designed molecular machines and made up of 100 billion atoms. It is far more complicated than anything man has ever made and that's one cell. That does not even begin to discuss the complexities of organs within systems and all dependent on each other for life. Organs and systems can not be put together in a piece by piece order over millions of years. The eye for instance needs all it's components to function. All would have had to evolve simultaneously in one perfect moment for vision to work, be beneficial and then be passed down.
Besides that, there are no transitional forms, just imaginative hopeful candidates, illustrations that have be drawn to suggest how things evolved.
Your question is even flawed along with your theory. It should have been more specific, addressing only Macro-evolution, species turning into entirely different species. Micro-evolution is obvious, things change within the species. But these are adaptive mechanisms already programmed into the code. That's right programmed, by a Designer.
You wouldn't expect the iPhone in hands just appearing by chance, non-intelligent means over time???
Your theory is similar to an explosion happening in a print shop and the Encyclopedia Britannica appearing by chance as a result.
From slime to Marylyn Monroe -- all by chance, defects collected over time -- LOL.

 

[inquiring mind]

But we kinda do know what the picture is. And more importantly, what it isn't.

No, we're farther along than that. But as Pitabread pointed out, even though we may not yet be entirely sure of what the picture is, we can tell in many cases what it is not. And one of the things it is not is biblical creationism.

Ummm

 

[pitabread]

However, many mutations (defects0 are harmful to the organism or even deadly, that that this organism must go throw the 9,999 negative mutations (that would be futile and deadly) before it got a chance to use one good one.

That's not how statistics work.

 

[pitabread]

Ummm

It's the reality of things currently. Not something you want to hear, I know.

 

[_____a_____]

That's the nonsense about it. Mutations are defects. Even genealogists have said maybe 1/10,000 mutations could be beneficial to an organism. However, many mutations (defects0 are harmful to the organism or even deadly, that that this organism must go throw the 9,999 negative mutations (that would be futile and deadly) before it got a chance to use one good one. Chance would not have a chance. Chance btw, has no power, no knowledge, intelligence, direction ... chance is nothing. And to think the nature could select ... wait a minute, let's stop there. What is nature? Water, minerals, the sun, electromagnetic energy, etc. None of these has a mind nor collectively do they have intelligence to select anything. The organism itself (if it could possibly evolve) could not select it's own defects, log them and then pick and choose the good to pass them on to their offspring. Remember, mutations create distortions, weaknesses, deformities, not more complex or more advanced abilities or structures.
See how absurd it all sounds. It's a theory made by a bumbling fool who was not even aware of the complexities of a cell. Darwin thought a cells was a jelly-like substance, simple. No cell is simple. If you blew one up to 10mile radius, you would see thousands of intricately designed molecular machines and made up of 100 billion atoms. It is far more complicated than anything man has ever made and that's one cell. That does not even begin to discuss the complexities of organs within systems and all dependent on each other for life. Organs and systems can not be put together in a piece by piece order over millions of years. The eye for instance needs all it's components to function. All would have had to evolve simultaneously in one perfect moment for vision to work, be beneficial and then be passed down.
Besides that, there are no transitional forms, just imaginative hopeful candidates, illustrations that have be drawn to suggest how things evolved.
Your question is even flawed along with your theory. It should have been more specific, addressing only Macro-evolution, species turning into entirely different species. Micro-evolution is obvious, things change within the species. But these are adaptive mechanisms already programmed into the code. That's right programmed, by a Designer.
You wouldn't expect the iPhone in hands just appearing by chance, non-intelligent means over time???
Your theory is similar to an explosion happening in a print shop and the Encyclopedia Britannica appearing by chance as a result.
From slime to Marylyn Monroe -- all by chance, defects collected over time -- LOL.

That is a brutal misunderstanding of how it works. We even have evolution simulations. They work. Let me explain how it works, once again, if you have a detrimental mutation, you may die earlier, leading to you not breeding, and not passing on your genes. If you have a beneficial mutation, you will be more likely to breed and pass on your genes. Here is a link to an evolution simulator you can play with to see the evidence yourself of it working: Evolution Simulator [FIXED] - OpenProcessing.

 

[SinoBen]

How do you figure?

Plenty of info out there, I'm sure you can find them. Evolution is misdirection, away from God, and is therefore a negative enterprise.

Why don't you investigate where the original information encoded in DNA & RNA came from and how they "evolve". Behe posit the idea of "irreducible complexity" start there. Then explain dissimilarity of codes if we originated from a common ancient single cell (already a leap to understand how non life became life). Then ask how much time you will need for "evolution" to bring that ancient single cell to become a chimpanzee.

 

[pitabread]

Plenty of info out there, I'm sure you can find them.

Oh, I've read plenty on ID literature. But I'm asking you.

Evolution is misdirection, away from God, and is therefore a negative enterprise.

Evolution is foundational to modern biology and an applied science. Hardly a "negative" enterprise.

The real danger appears to be the shaky theology from those that create these religion versus science dichotomies. Historically speaking, religion has never done well in those.

Why don't you investigate where the original information encoded in DNA & RNA came from and how they "evolve". Behe posit the idea of "irreducible complexity" start there. Then explain dissimilarity of codes if we originated from a common ancient single cell (already a leap to understand how non life became life). Then ask how much time you will need for "evolution" to bring that ancient single cell to become a chimpanzee.

With proper definitions of information as applied to genomes, there is no barrier for its formation or evolution. The problem is that a lot of IDists play extremely loose with the definition of "information", often invoking definitions that don't apply to genomes in the first place.

Behe's irreducible complexity has been long refuted. Irreducible complexity is not a barrier to evolution. Here's an example (read the section titled "Molecular Complexity"): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-origins-of-evolutionary-complexity/

I'm not sure what you mean by dissimilarity of codes?

In terms of time to go from the first life to chimps, we already know that; it's taken approximately 4 billion years.

 

[inquiring mind]

Evolution is foundational to modern biology and an applied science.

micro evolution only

 

[pitabread]

micro evolution only

Nope, I'm talking about the theory of evolution as a whole including common descent.

And yes, ancestral relationships between species has real world application (e.g. in modern genomics).

 

[inquiring mind]

Nope, I'm talking about the theory of evolution as a whole including common descent.

And yes, ancestral relationships between species has real world application (e.g. in modern genomics).

You're not seriously calling Macro Evolution, based largely on inconclusive assumptions and speculation, an applied science?