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

[inquiring mind]

I am curious if any Christians believe that evolution occurs (take careful note of the phrase, "evolution occurs" it means if it has happened or will happen, regardless of whether or not humans evolved from other primates). Please take the time to answer, thanks for any responses.


(For full disclosure I am atheist)

** 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. **

Micro Evolution - Yes, in the form of genetic parameters designed by God for adaptation and survival.

Macro Evolution - No, the biggest orchestrated hoax ever pulled on mankind. Universal descent from a common ancestor is only speculation passed off as scientific fact, and there is no evididence of one kind changing into another kind in the fossil record.

 

[pitabread]

No, the biggest orchestrated hoax ever pulled on mankind.

Hoax?

 

[inquiring mind]

Hoax?

Yes

 

[pitabread]

Yes

Do you believe that the world's biologists are in on this hoax?

 

[inquiring mind]

Do you believe that the world's biologists are in on this hoax?

They are willingly deceived, accepting scientific speculation above God's word.

 

[pitabread]

They are willingly deceived, accepting scientific speculation above God's word.

Deceived by who? Who determines what is "scientific speculation"?

Who else besides biologists would determine what is valid science regarding biology?

 

[Speedwell]

They are willingly deceived, accepting scientific speculation above God's word.

No, only above your interpretation of God's word--so it's not as bad as you think.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

micro evolution, yes.

macro evolution, no.

 

[inquiring mind]

Deceived by who?

They are deceived by the establishment that promotes macro evolution above God's word.

Who determines what is "scientific speculation"?

Science determines 'speculation' itself, when it can't back it up with evidence.

Who else besides biologists would determine what is valid science regarding biology?

Valid science is determined by valid scientists... with evidence, not speculation.

 

[pitabread]

They are deceived by the establishment that promotes macro evolution above God's word.

But who is this "establishment"?

Science determines 'speculation' itself, when it can't back it up with evidence.

Science is not a person. Again, who is determining what is speculation and what isn't?

Valid science is determined by valid scientists... with evidence, not speculation.

And who determines who are the valid scientists? Who determines what is evidence and what is speculation?

 

[inquiring mind]

But who is this "establishment"?

Oh, come on... are you serious?

Science is not a person. Again, who is determining what is speculation and what isn't?

Anyone who looks close enough to see whether there is evidence or not.

And who determines who are the valid scientists?

It's 'what' determines valid scientists... proof, not speculation.

 

[pitabread]

Oh, come on... are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious. You're making the claims here, I'm asking you to explain who or what you are referring to.

So again, who is this "establishment" which is deceiving scientists?

Anyone who looks close enough to see whether there is evidence or not.

Okay. So why would biologists not be in the best position to determine what is valid with respect to biology? After all, they are the individuals that are the trained professionals in that field.

Why would you not accept their findings with respect to biology?

It's 'what' determines valid scientists... proof, not speculation.

Proof is for math, not science.

Going back to the question: who determines who is a valid scientists or not? What is the criteria for making that determination?

 

[inquiring mind]

Proof is for math, not science.

Nough said!

 

[pitabread]

Nough said!

Do you know what that means though?

(I noticed you've avoided my other questions.)

 

[inquiring mind]

Do you know what that means though?

The question is... do you?

 

[pitabread]

The question is... do you?

Answering a question with a question isn't an answer.

But yes, I do know. The question is... do you?

For example, if you had to define the difference between a theorem and a theory, could you do it (without cheating by looking up the answer on Google)?

(And you're still avoiding my other questions.)

 

[Speedwell]

The question is... do you?

"Proof" is a discourse carried out in an axiomatic formal system leading to a conclusion. It is a deductive discourse, as contrasted to the inductive discourse of science. There is no proof in science.

However, "proof" is sometimes used in layman's speech to describe the evidence which confirms an assertion. If that's what you mean, then say so. But keep in mind that confirming evidence does not prove an assertion "conclusively" as it does in deductive discourse.

 

[inquiring mind]

Answering a question with a question isn't an answer.
But yes, I do know. The question is... do you?

Must be contagious.

For example, if you had to define the difference between a theorem and a theory, could you do it (without cheating by looking up the answer on Google)?

Now, what does that have to do with comparing speculation (in your words: "Proof is for math, not science.) to God's word?

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Evolution is a myth that robs from the glory and creativity of God .
Evolution is a figment.

 

[inquiring mind]

"Proof" is a discourse carried out in an axiomatic formal system leading to a conclusion. It is a deductive discourse, as contrasted to the inductive discourse of science.

In other words, science is based on faith too.