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

[Speedwell]

When a person is angry at someone, does it lead to his objective view of what that person says? When a person is prejudiced against a religion, does it not lead him to assume things about how the adherents of that religion behave? When a person disrespects another person's beliefs, does it not color everything he hears that person say?

It does. As a "Bible-hating, Christ-denying commie" (an Anglican) I know it full well. Even in this forum, which is heavily moderated, I am frequently accused of "denying a Creator" and only pretending to be a Christian in order to promote a hoax, etc. There is constant disrespect and hostility toward anyone who is not a right-wing fundamentalist evangelical. Such behavior does influence my responses--more than it should, undoubtedly.

 

[SinoBen]

It can not. Even only for the simple reason that there is no ID model. There are no testable predictions. There's no way to verify it. It's just an enormous argument from ignorance.
It's fallacious to boot and just religious creationism disguised in a lab coat.

There's no such thing as "evidence" in support of an unfalsifiable model, or a model that is infested with logical fallacies.

Actually, given the many things we observe like ERVs, pseudogenes, etc. falsify ID.

Which is it?
Now I know you guys are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

But be warned! Reject YWHW and he will reject you. I can and even willing to accept Evolution for your sakes, if that will lead you to believe God because that is the bottom line and not evolution.

If evolution is a way for you to reject God then that is your choice.

I am out of here.

 

[pitabread]

If evolution is a way for you to reject God then that is your choice.

Nobody thinks this.

 

[USincognito]

Which is it?

Certain claims of ID are unfalsifiable such as that some unnamed designer {wink wink} desoligned particular features to be a certain way. Since there's no way to discern between a feature occurring naturally and a designer "making" it, it's unfalsifiable. Other claims, like irreducible complexity and "common design" are falsifiable and have been.

I am out of here.

Why would you pose a question and then flounce?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

'Seeing and knowing' is the exact same thing as 'not seeing and not knowing,' now that makes a lot of sense.

Determining relationships between close and far relatives, is the exact same thing.
It would help if you could keep track of your own conversation.

Step 2 out of your evolutionist's playbook (the one for your argument is failing). It's quite clear that you have been sold on the "it can only be this way"... just make relevant, intelligent comments, I'll acknowledge them with appropriate answers.

When someone believes that macro evolution and micro evolution are two seperate theories, 2 different processes, then one knows that that person does not understand evolution theory.

It really is that simple.

In evolution theory, there is no difference in process/mechanism for micro on the one hand and macro on the other. The only difference is scale (in terms of amount of generations), and where the line is drawn is arbitrary at best and even differs depending on the context of the point being made.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I, per my own admission, admit bias. Yet you have taken that to mean I automatically assume science is wrong --which is plainly false.

That's not what I said, nore meant.

My point is that a priori religious beliefs, tend to influence acceptance rates of science.
A YEC will doubt / reject evolutionary biology, not because of any actually rational argument about the science, but ONLY because he has a priori dogmatic religious beliefs that contradict the conclusions of science.

There is absolutely no problem with questioning science. In fact, science wouldn't make any progress if it wasn't being questioned all the time. But you question science, with more and better science. You don't question science with mere a priori faith based beliefs.

When science disagrees with mere beliefs, it's not the science that is incorrect.

When a person is angry at someone, does it lead to his objective view of what that person says? When a person is prejudiced against a religion, does it not lead him to assume things about how the adherents of that religion behave? When a person disrespects another person's beliefs, does it not color everything he hears that person say?

When a person has a priori dogmatic religious beliefs that the world is only 6000 years old, would that affect his reaction to science concluding it's actually 4.5 billion years old?

The point. You're missing it.

I feel for your spouse. You must be really fun in an argument --you of pure thought.

Let's not get personal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which is it?
Now I know you guys are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

But be warned! Reject YWHW and he will reject you. I can and even willing to accept Evolution for your sakes, if that will lead you to believe God because that is the bottom line and not evolution.

If evolution is a way for you to reject God then that is your choice.

I am out of here.

One of the problems with ID, is that it has so many incarnations - from YEC/OEC versions all the way to "evolution is true, but an ID-er tinkered with mutations to make sure we exist".

Some of these versions are falsifiable and others aren't.
The "god can do anything" - version is unfalsifiable, for example.

 

[inquiring mind]

Determining relationships between close and far relatives, is the exact same thing.
It would help if you could keep track of your own conversation.

I don't believe I'm the one confused here. You provided a pretty general response, so I'll reply in kind. Determing relationships is not the same for the distant past when the conditions and subjects are unobservable. As far as lab work, similar DNA, similar this or that doesn't count. Close only counts in horseshoes and explosives; in everything else 'seeing is believing' seems to be the heralded foundation of the scientific method, so when you can't see it, observe it, or test it under normal conditions... you're assuming and speculating only. There is no convincing evidence of macro evolution.

The only difference is scale (in terms of amount of generations), and where the line is drawn is arbitrary at best and even differs depending on the context of the point being made.

The only difference is that macro evolution is biologically untenable and its not conclusively backed-up by the fossil record. In other words, it is only backed-up with healthy doses of assumptions and speculation, connecting-the-dots as it is often referred to.

 

[pitabread]

The only difference is that macro evolution is biologically untenable

How do you figure?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't believe I'm the one confused here. You provided a pretty general response, so I'll reply in kind. Determing relationships is not the same for the distant past when the conditions and subjects are unobservable. As far as lab work, similar DNA, similar this or that doesn't count. Close only counts in horseshoes and explosives; in everything else 'seeing is believing' seems to be the heralded foundation of the scientific method, so when you can't see it, observe it, or test it under normal conditions... you're assuming and speculating only. There is no convincing evidence of macro evolution.


The only difference is that macro evolution is biologically untenable and its not conclusively backed-up by the fossil record. In other words, it is only backed-up with healthy doses of assumptions and speculation, connecting-the-dots as it is often referred to.

Do you suppose that there are, somewhere, people who argue that there is still some chance for the Luminiferous Aether, because quantum vacuum theory is not yet completely worked out?

You are basically trying to make the point that evolution should be rejected because it is not exhaustively supported--even if it has not yet been falsified--and want to replace it with another theory which has already been falsified.

 

[inquiring mind]

How do you figure?

Basically what I said... in my opinion the archaeological record just doesn’t conclusively support that ‘Kinds’ gradually appear through long drawn out transformation from other 'Kinds,' despite the pretty picture biology paints in that regard. I just think there's more speculation there than they care to admit. My interpretation is that they seem to appear all at once, and in stages, vary and adapt some, and that’s it. I'm sure that's different from the traditional creationism you're used to arguing against. For me that stays in line with the bible and creation because I don't think we know anything about God's work or His timeframe (what a day represents in creation time or anything else). That's a little loose, but its not loose enough for me to see macro evolution taking place.

 

[inquiring mind]

You are basically trying to make the point that evolution should be rejected because it is not exhaustively supported--even if it has not yet been falsified--and want to replace it with another theory which has already been falsified.

No, macro evolution should be rejected. And what theory am I supporting that has been falsified?

 

[Speedwell]

Basically what I said... in my opinion the archaeological record just doesn’t conclusively support that ‘Kinds’ gradually appear through long drawn out transformation from other 'Kinds,' despite the pretty picture biology paints in that regard. I just think there's more speculation there than they care to admit. My interpretation is that they seem to appear all at once, and in stages, vary and adapt some, and that’s it. I'm sure that's different from the traditional creationism you're used to arguing against. For me that stays in line with the bible and creation because I don't think we know anything about God's work or His timeframe (what a day represents in creation time or anything else). That's a little loose, but its not loose enough for me to see macro evolution taking place.

That's a very good start. Now all you have to do to make it into a scientific proposition is to make it testable. What piece of physical evidence does your hypothesis explain which the theory of evolution does not?

 

[Speedwell]

No, macro evolution should be rejected. And what theory am I supporting that has been falsified?

Sorry--I was under the impression that your beliefs included YECism.

But macro-evolution will not be rejected until some evidence emerges which it cannot explain. That's how science works.

 

[inquiring mind]

But macro-evolution will not be rejected until some evidence emerges which it cannot explain. That's how science works.

Evidently so... but it doesn't work for me.

 

[Speedwell]

Evidently so... but it doesn't work for me.

It doesn't have to. Nobody expects it. All anybody expects is that you will keep a civil tongue in your head about it.

 

[pitabread]

You are basically trying to make the point that evolution should be rejected because it is not exhaustively supported--even if it has not yet been falsified--and want to replace it with another theory which has already been falsified.

I'm going to be less charitable: Creationists are trying to replace science with magic.

Not once in history has that ever worked out.

 

[inquiring mind]

It doesn't have to. Nobody expects it. All anybody expects is that you will keep a civil tongue in your head about it.

Saying what you don't want to hear... doesn't mean it's not civil.

 

[inquiring mind]

Creationists are trying to replace science with magic.

Now, where did that come from? I tried to talk to you in your terms... you guys are just too moody.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When science disagrees with mere beliefs, it's not the science that is incorrect.

(Not accepting your premise here, but for the sake of argument): When science disagrees with mere beliefs, it may well be that the science is incorrect. It cannot be proven either way, with only that information.