Evolution Enriches Christianity - Christian Advent Seminar Series

[Kaitlin08]

well for one the "THEORY" of evolution is not fact. evolution is fact but they are different things. the theory just uses evolution to make its points. though they dont do a very good job unless you add to it greatly with things that cannot be proven, which is why its a theory. Its never good to use the word evolution when you mean theory of evolution.

A theory is just a type of model used to describe, account for, and explain different kinds of evidence. The theory of evolution is comprehensive; even though you said evolution was a fact, it seems like you're trying to play this down.

 

[Schroeder]

CA201: Only a theory

yes like the theory of gravity. used often to push the fact of the theory. we cannot claim gravity as fact becasue we cannot physically prove it through certain tests. we have no gravity so to speak to investigate or disect ect. no matter or material or elements etc. it is just that what goes up comes down. doesnt matter how much or how often we throw something up it will come down. its proven fact through personal experience so to speak. But if i was to prove God through personal experience the same way gravity is It wouldnt stick would it. But the theory of evolution is based on facts about evolution and earth science. Throw in assumptions and you have the theory. the assumptions are ideas based on what we know now or so far and what we think i might have been in the far far past. No matter how much evidence you have assumption is in it. and the FACT is the assumptions could be wrong. So teaching it as fact is factualy wrong.

 

[Schroeder]

A theory is just a type of model used to describe, account for, and explain different kinds of evidence. The theory of evolution is comprehensive; even though you said evolution was a fact, it seems like you're trying to play this down.

no i am saying if your speaking of the theory of evolution say it. dont say evolution like it means the same thing. creationist believe in evolution just not the theory of evolution. Its is only stated this way to make creationist look stupid. Like we dont believe in evolution.

 

[Schroeder]

CA201: Only a theory

the link was wrong on its responce. simplistic to the point of thinking we are stupid. most of its points about the theory being fact are facts about evolution not the theory. its usefulness is based on simple evolution not the thoery of evolution.

 

[Mallon]

So teaching it as fact is factualy wrong.

Who's arguing otherwise?

 

[Kaitlin08]

no i am saying if your speaking of the theory of evolution say it. dont say evolution like it means the same thing. creationist believe in evolution just not the theory of evolution. Its is only stated this way to make creationist look stupid. Like we dont believe in evolution.

I don't think most people who accept that evolution is a fact would call themselves creationists. Creationist usually means someone who believes in young earth or old earth creationism, and they don't accept evolution.

 

[Schroeder]

I don't think most people who accept that evolution is a fact would call themselves creationists. Creationist usually means someone who believes in young earth or old earth creationism, and they don't accept evolution.

not many i know. this is what evolutionist say but its not true. Doesnt mattert he age of the earth. evolution does happen and creationist know this. all the facts about evolution are pushed to prove the theory when they only show the facts of what evolution does. such as speciation. The only way it shows the thoery is if we add earth sciences to it and assumptions we cannot completely prove. evolution in itself does not show the theory of evolution to be fact or even plausible except to strectch it into assumptions beyond any proof.

 

[Schroeder]

Who's arguing otherwise?

the OP said the fact of the theory of evolution. the only fact in the theory is facts about, and or strongly support assumptions, on earth sciences and evolution. they mesh the two and create the theory.

 

[Mallon]

the OP said the fact of the theory of evolution. the only fact in the theory is facts about, and or strongly support assumptions, on earth sciences and evolution. they mesh the two and create the theory.

What's a "strongly supported assumption"?

 

[Kaitlin08]

You don't seem to be thinking about this clearly. Speciation is a process, so I don't know what you mean by using the theory to prove speciation. Scientists use the theory to understand what a process like speciation does, how it happens, what the implications of its happening are, and what they can predict from it. The model works essentially the same way any other model does, and this larger problem of how-to-model is where you find yourself running into difficulties.

 

[Papias]

First, schroeder, to show that you are actually interested in the the topic of this thread, would you like to tell us how many of the interviews you listened to, and which ideas in them you found most and least inspiring? I'm sure you aren't just using their title as an excuse to rant about evolution.

Second, it's not at all clear that creationists accept the fact of evolution. What you or I heard from so and so is not relevant - that's just anecdotal (hearsay), which is pretty much worthless.

So (after answering the first question above), are you saying that many creationists accept the evolution of one species into another (speciation)? It sounds like that's what you are saying - that creationists don't deny that one species can evolve into another, perhaps because they say that "kinds" are larger groups, and that one "kind" cannot evolve into another. After all, we've seen many different cases, even in recent times, of one species evolving into another.

If not, I'm not sure how you are saying that creationists don't deny the fact of evolution.

Papias

 

[Schroeder]

First, schroeder, to show that you are actually interested in the the topic of this thread, would you like to tell us how many of the interviews you listened to, and which ideas in them you found most and least inspiring? I'm sure you aren't just using their title as an excuse to rant about evolution.

Second, it's not at all clear that creationists accept the fact of evolution. What you or I heard from so and so is not relevant - that's just anecdotal (hearsay), which is pretty much worthless.

So (after answering the first question above), are you saying that many creationists accept the evolution of one species into another (speciation)? It sounds like that's what you are saying - that creationists don't deny that one species can evolve into another, perhaps because they say that "kinds" are larger groups, and that one "kind" cannot evolve into another. After all, we've seen many different cases, even in recent times, of one species evolving into another.

If not, I'm not sure how you are saying that creationists don't deny the fact of evolution.

Papias

speciation isnt one species evolving into another class which is what the theory says not evolution which you keep saying. They dont deny speciation of species they are the same species. reptiles dont evolve by speciation into mammals.

 

[Schroeder]

your muddleing up the facts. nice try to discredit what i am saying. but i have to go to work and will not be back until monday. so have fun with the rest of the creationist quacks.

 

[Mallon]

reptiles dont evolve by speciation into mammals.

Again, no one said they did. Mammals evolved from basal amniotes. There's really good fossil evidence to support that theory, too. It's not simply an assumption, as you seem to think.

 

[Papias]

First Schroeder, you seemed to have missed my first question, which was:

*****
First, schroeder, to show that you are actually interested in the the topic of this thread, would you like to tell us how many of the interviews you listened to, and which ideas in them you found most and least inspiring? I'm sure you aren't just using their title as an excuse to rant about evolution.

******

Next, you wrote:

They dont deny speciation of species

Well, let's try to find some data about that, not your or my "things we heard". Here, I found this:

A plurality of Americans (48%) say that humans and other living things have evolved over time, but nearly as many (42%) say that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. The latter group is often called "creationist" because this view is seen as consistent with a literal reading of the Bible's account of creation.(1)

From: Religion A Strength And Weakness For Both Parties: Summary of Findings - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Around 45 to 50% of the population is creationist, so that's 42/50, or over 80% of creationists deny evolution, even microevolution (otherwise they would agree that species have changed over time).

So it seems that the data is clear that an overwhelming majority of creationists deny even the well-documented evolution we've seen today.

nice try to discredit what i am saying.

This doesn't have to be personal, I'm just investigating the topic, as you are. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you. If we Christians can't have a civil, evidence based discussion, they what does that say about Christianity to outsiders?

but i have to go to work and will not be back until monday.

I hope working isn't too much of a pain. See you then!

so have fun with the rest of the creationist quacks.

They can be funny - like when they deny gravity and such.

But, even then, hopefully we can have a good discussion,they are our sisters and brothers in Christ, too.


Papias

 

[crawfish]

I'm impressed. Let's see if the others will follow your lead.

As I've said before, we'd have better discussions if:

a) TE's didn't get defensive because they feel their faith is attacked, and
b) Creationists didn't get defensive because they feel their intelligence is attacked.

 

[crawfish]

yes like the theory of gravity. used often to push the fact of the theory. we cannot claim gravity as fact becasue we cannot physically prove it through certain tests. we have no gravity so to speak to investigate or disect ect. no matter or material or elements etc. it is just that what goes up comes down. doesnt matter how much or how often we throw something up it will come down. its proven fact through personal experience so to speak. But if i was to prove God through personal experience the same way gravity is It wouldnt stick would it. But the theory of evolution is based on facts about evolution and earth science. Throw in assumptions and you have the theory. the assumptions are ideas based on what we know now or so far and what we think i might have been in the far far past. No matter how much evidence you have assumption is in it. and the FACT is the assumptions could be wrong. So teaching it as fact is factualy wrong.

That's not always true. If you're in space, what goes up most definitely does not come down, and in fact there is no up or down. Why do differently-sized objects exert different levels of gravity? What force is it that causes gravity to exist in the first place?

Dropping a ball is only evidence that some force called gravity exists. It is not gravity itself. This is the same as looking at change in species as evidence that a force called "evolution" exists. Except, the sheer amount of evidence we have to turn to is so much greater for evolution than gravity we can be surer that we know more of it than we do of the latter.

 

[Schroeder]

First Schroeder, you seemed to have missed my first question, which was:

*****
First, schroeder, to show that you are actually interested in the the topic of this thread, would you like to tell us how many of the interviews you listened to, and which ideas in them you found most and least inspiring? I'm sure you aren't just using their title as an excuse to rant about evolution.

******

No i did not. dont have time to do it. just throwing in my two sense. did all this reading and such awhile ago. I dont rant about evolution just the theory of evolution.

Next, you wrote:


Well, let's try to find some data about that, not your or my "things we heard". Here, I found this:

A plurality of Americans (48%) say that humans and other living things have evolved over time, but nearly as many (42%) say that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. The latter group is often called "creationist" because this view is seen as consistent with a literal reading of the Bible's account of creation.(1)

From: Religion A Strength And Weakness For Both Parties: Summary of Findings - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Around 45 to 50% of the population is creationist, so that's 42/50, or over 80% of creationists deny evolution, even microevolution (otherwise they would agree that species have changed over time).

So it seems that the data is clear that an overwhelming majority of creationists deny even the well-documented evolution we've seen today.

So saying in a loose way that all animals have exsisted in their present form since the beginning means they dont believe in evolution or speciation. HARDLY. I know thats what you lkike to here. but i dont seet he guestion or how it was worded or how they actually answered it. Its a bit BROAD. and i cannot imagine why. If its worded in a way that evolution MEANS evolution theory i see how they answer that way. again al in how the guestion is asked etc. but in the end you hear what you want to hear. SO your PROOF is weak. just like the theory.

This doesn't have to be personal, I'm just investigating the topic, as you are. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you. If we Christians can't have a civil, evidence based discussion, they what does that say about Christianity to outsiders?

nice but your the one makeing it so. distorting polls which are weak anyways.

I hope working isn't too much of a pain. See you then!

i drive a school bus so it is at times, or at least some of the kids are a pain.

They can be funny - like when they deny gravity and such.

But, even then, hopefully we can have a good discussion,they are our sisters and brothers in Christ, too.


Papias

I am a creationist so i wasnt really saying they were funny. But we both hold certain things both sides find funny.

 

[Schroeder]

That's not always true. If you're in space, what goes up most definitely does not come down, and in fact there is no up or down. Why do differently-sized objects exert different levels of gravity? What force is it that causes gravity to exist in the first place?

Dropping a ball is only evidence that some force called gravity exists. It is not gravity itself. This is the same as looking at change in species as evidence that a force called "evolution" exists. Except, the sheer amount of evidence we have to turn to is so much greater for evolution than gravity we can be surer that we know more of it than we do of the latter.

yes speciation not evolving from one common ansector. their is no real evidence for the theory of evolution. their is evidence for evolution aplenty. thier may even be evidence of millions of years, at least in how we see things, but useing the two to create something else doesnt make it true or fact. just show how a reptile can change one aspect of itself which makes it a true reptile into something that makes a mammal a mammal like say scales to fur. And to save you effort saying they are the same essential thing doesnt work. God uses alot of the same things becasue he is limited to how the earth is. the whole he is God so he can do what he likes bla doesnt fly.

 

[Greg1234]

yes speciation not evolving from one common ansector. their is no real evidence for the theory of evolution.

Its also important to note the usage of the term speciation as an example of macro evolution. A process where organisms act like they are different species is considered an act of speciation, which is macro evolution. Polyploidy or genome duplication, is considered speciation, but more importantly, macro evolution. The section on talkorigins seems to uphold a special criteria and this has been outlined.

YouTube - There are no observed instances of speciation

"Speciations"