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

[inquiring mind]

You're profile says you are male, but you just said you were not.

Ha, I see... I was answering your statement and not the question. I certainly am male.

 

[pitabread]

Ha, I see... I was answering your statement and not the question. I certainly am male.

This is so confusing.

 

[pitabread]

Though the method that God chose to create and the timing of those creative events, is another matter altogether.

And yet some have inexplicably tied their religious beliefs to that method and timing.

 

[klutedavid]

And yet some have inexplicably tied their religious beliefs to that method and timing.

Unfortunately that is true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

IDeterming relationships is not the same for the distant past when the conditions and subjects are unobservable.

You're not making any sense.
Family ties are drawn between living individuals.

When we establish that you are my distant cousin, then that means that we share ancestors (we have the same great, great, great, great, great,... grandparents).

These people lived in the past and are "unobservable".
Your and my DNA however, are very observable.
And that's all we need to determine that we share ancestry.

As far as lab work, similar DNA, similar this or that doesn't count.

It certaintly counts to determine that your siblings are your actual biological siblings.
Just like it counts to establish any other familial ties. Because it's pretty much the same kind of test. You could say that it's literally the tracking of gene flow.

Close only counts in horseshoes and explosives; in everything else 'seeing is believing' seems to be the heralded foundation of the scientific method

That's extremely demonstrably false.
We knew about atoms, including their inner workings, LOOOONG before we were able to build microscopes capable of observing them. We had nuclear technology, which is directly based on atomic theory, before we could see atoms.

Clearly, you could not be more wrong.
And this seems to be your main argument.... Myeah.

, so when you can't see it, observe it, or test it under normal conditions...

FYI: we can see, observe and test all evolution.

you're assuming and speculating only.

Like Nuclear physicists did before having access to microscopes powerfull enough to observe atoms?

There is no convincing evidence of macro evolution.

[quoted]
The only difference is that macro evolution is biologically untenable[/quote]

Except that in reality, it is the only thing that makes biological sense of the facts.

and its not conclusively backed-up by the fossil record

Nothing in science is "conclusively" backed-up.

In science, data is only ever consistent with / supportive of ideas.
And the fossil record is absolutely consistent with / in support of evolution.

Stubborn religious denial, or just honest ignorance, will not change that.

In other words, it is only backed-up with healthy doses of assumptions and speculation, connecting-the-dots as it is often referred to.

It is backed up by literally all data that is currently available to us and contradicted by none.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

All fossils (including those not found yet) could disappear today and the case for evolution (all of evolution), would be as strong as ever.

You are obsessed with this fossil record and for the life of me I don't know why.
The entire fossil record is consistent with evolution, but it really isn't the strongest evidence.

Try genetics, distribution of species, comparative anatomy, the nested hierarchy consistent with all 3 (and the fossil record),....

THAT'S explanatory power.

The fossil record is extremely nice off course, and very interesting, but it really isn't that "crucial important piece of evidence" that you make it out to be.

When I read your post, it's as if you believe that if all fossils were destroyed, "evolutionists" would have no more evidence or something.

You couldn't be further from the truth if you tried.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, macro evolution should be rejected.

There is no seperate "macro evolution" theory that is not simply "evolution theory".

Your statement makes no sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

(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.

You are welcome to share with us one instance where science and religious beliefs were on opposite sides of the fence and where it turned out that the religious beliefs were actually correct.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I hope you aren't assuming that the remarkable numbers of Christians, Theists and Deists among published, notable, scientists are all stupid.

Why would I assume that and why would you even suggest that I do?

ps: notable scientists, no matter their personal beliefs, are notable because of their scientific work - not because of their personal beliefs.

Mere a priori faith based beliefs, whatever that means to you, may well notice an apparent contradiction that will raise the eyebrow and prompt further investigation, instead as is the case with pseudo-scientists who without critical eye accept statements that seem to them to be true, merely because the statements support their worldview.

"statements support their worldview" = a priori beliefs influencing your acceptance of science.
"apparant contradiction with a priori faith based beliefs causing to not accept science" = a priori beliefs influencing your acceptance of science.

There's nothing wrong with a priori beliefs / worldviews. The problem only arrises once you clinge to those views / beliefs dogmatically.

When the reason for rejecting a scientific theory amounts to no more then "I already believe something else", then clearly there is a problem, wouldn't you agree?

None of the notable scientists who happen to also be theists, have this problem. They wouldn't be notable scientists, if they did.....

"As long as it promotes Evolution" is good enough reason for them.

You seem to be suffering from this problem though.
I have never met someone who argued against evolution to one extent or another, who actually had a scientific reason to do so. Every single time, the need for arguing was triggered by a priori religious beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For a self-proclaimed scientist your assumptions are sure off target.

"self-proclaimed"?? You have no idea who you are talking to, it seems.
Ow my.....

First, why do you assume I'm trying to get somewhere in science? Second, why would you assume my comments are attempts to lecture anyone?

Errrr.....................
You're telling thousands, if not millions, of evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, etc... that they are wrong about the backbone theory of their field. And not just a little wrong, but completely wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not lame... Jesus quoted and must have read Genesis. Matthew 19:4-5

This is the science forum.
What Jesus did or didn't say in anyone's opinion or bible, is completely irrelevant here.

 

[inquiring mind]

Except that in reality, it is the only thing that makes biological sense of the facts.

Nothing in science is "conclusively" backed-up.
In science, data is only ever consistent with / supportive of ideas.

Stubborn religious denial, or just honest ignorance, will not change that. It is backed up by literally all data that is currently available to us and contradicted by none.

This is all you needed to say.

The fossil record is extremely nice off course, and very interesting, but it really isn't that "crucial important piece of evidence" that you make it out to be.

I can see why you think that. Our legal system has to battle that all the time... ignore the concrete evidence and listen to an expert's theory on the matter.

There is no seperate "macro evolution" theory that is not simply "evolution theory".
Your statement makes no sense.

It is your statement that makes no sense, the former has no convincing evidence (for those who are not wishing for it anyway) and the latter does... beyond that is speculation.

"self-proclaimed"?? You have no idea who you are talking to, it seems.
Ow my.....

And, you do?

Errrr.....................
You're telling thousands, if not millions, of evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, etc... that they are wrong about the backbone theory of their field. And not just a little wrong, but completely wrong.

Uhhh... No. I'm saying when they let a 'system of thought' take them beyond what they can ascertain and know for certain, and allow themselves to be intimidated if they question a specific line of assumptions and speculation, then they are... well, why don't you finish the sentence.

This is the science forum.
What Jesus did or didn't say in anyone's opinion or bible, is completely irrelevant here.

I'll remind you, like I have to do others here occassionally... this is a Creation & Evolution forum. And, what Jesus has to say is not irrelevent anywhere.

 

[Speedwell]

I'll remind you, like I have to do others here occassionally... this is a Creation & Evolution forum. And, what Jesus has to say is not irrelevent anywhere.

But your misrepresentation of what Jesus had to say is relevant nowhere. Jesus made very clear that He believed Genesis to be the authoritative word of God. Jesus never gave us any indication that it had to be literal and inerrant to be the authoritative word of God.

 

[inquiring mind]

But your misrepresentation of what Jesus had to say is relevant nowhere.

I certainly haven't intended such a thing... is that more scientific assuming?

 

[Speedwell]

I certainly haven't intended such a thing... is that more scientific assuming?

No, just reading your posts.

Oh it is quite clear what Jesus thought about Genesis. He made it very clear he believed in a literal translation.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, just reading your posts.

Well now, in all fairness you're not quoting me.

 

[Speedwell]

Well now, in all fairness you're not quoting me.

LOL! You got me fair and square.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is all you needed to say.

Point?

I can see why you think that. Our legal system has to battle that all the time... ignore the concrete evidence and listen to an expert's theory on the matter.

Huh?
No idea what you are saying here.
Until you clarify and demonstrate otherwise, I'm going to assume that it's just another strawman argument, like we usually get from you.

It is your statement that makes no sense, the former has no convincing evidence (for those who are not wishing for it anyway) and the latter does... beyond that is speculation.

Please learn the basics of evolution theory.

Note: "evolution theory". Not "micro evolution theory" and/or "macro evolution theory".

It's just "evolution theory", because in actual biology, we don't make a distinction between both, since they are one and the same process.

I've told you this before. This is how we know that your knowledge on evolutionary biology is extremely lacking. Because you firmly believe that micro and macro are two seperate processes / ideas / theories / models / what-have-you. It just isn't the case.

You can scream and repeat it all you want, it won't change the fact that it's wrong.

And, you do?

Yes. A fundamentalist christian who thinks his religious beliefs trump scientific discovery.

@sfs on the other hand, is an actual professional geneticist. Doing science in the field of genetics, is what he does for a living.

Uhhh... No

Dude.... you flat out called evolution / common ancestry of species a hoax.

I'm saying when they let a 'system of thought' take them beyond what they can ascertain and know for certain, and allow themselves to be intimidated if they question a specific line of assumptions and speculation, then they are... well, why don't you finish the sentence.

Creationists?
They are the only ones I know of where the "system of thought" causes them to question a specific line of scientific facts (not just assumption / speculation).

I know of no scientist, worthy of the name, who stubbornly rejects scientific research for the sole reason that it conflicts with their a priori beliefs.

I'll remind you, like I have to do others here occassionally... this is a Creation & Evolution forum. And, what Jesus has to say is not irrelevent anywhere.

It is in science. In science, only evidence matters.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Careful, you "civility" is slipping. Jesus made very clear that He believed Genesis to be the authoritative word of God. So do I. Jesus never gave us any indication that it had to be literal and inerrant to be the authoritative word of God. Paul didn't either.

My civility extends as far as Jesus’ civility did when it comes to truth. He called them Vipers and hypocrites, not very civil, hey?

Jesus made it very clear he believed in a literal translation. As did Paul.

Kind after Kind. All that’s ever been observed, which is why they have to insert all those missing common ancestors to bridge the gap between Kinds. Because the data sure doesn’t support it.

 

[pitabread]

Kind after Kind.

I'm still wondering when creationists will agree on what a "kind" even is...