Evolution Poll

[TheBear]

I am utterly amazed at this fixation by some, to pit science against God. This is usually perpetuated by well meaning, religious people, who's own personal beliefs, of how God created things, overrides intellectual honesty.
It's the old, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." syndrome. I'm not saying that everything presented is necessarily factual, but they would never even consider views that potentialy conflict with their own belief system. So, IMHO, when overwhelmed by evidence, or painted into an intellectual corner, their only defense is to make science an opponent of God. They will then default to using religious quotations and cliches, as trump cards to win the arguments.

There is no conflict between God and science. That doesn't even make sense.


John

 

[eldermike]

I would humbly suggest that that the evidence against evolution comes from the most reliable of all sources, the Bible.

 

[Messenger]

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God."--James Tour, PhD, Professor at Rice University's Department of Chemistry and Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by eldermike
I would humbly suggest that that the evidence against evolution comes from the most reliable of all sources, the Bible.

A perfect example of what I just posted.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by TheBear


Explain gravity, Shane. Can you fully define it? Does it exist? There is all kinds of evidence that it exists, but up until it was defined by science, it still existed. The apple did not suspend in mid-air until Newton and other scientists fully studied it and clarified what it is.
Likewise, you are saying that evolution does not exist, because the mechanism has not been fully studied and clarified.

Do a little homework before spouting cheap shots at another poster. Okay?

John

A little homework? I have a friend in microbiology, a Phd and devout atheist by the way, who assures me that evolution as the origin of species is only a theory, and not fact. That That the conclusion is based on observation that depends on the assumption that there is no God who might interfere with the scientific axioms involced in the particular theory.

I have quoted here and elsewhere pro-evolution scientists who admit that the one sure method of deciding whether ot not animals are of one species or another, that of interbreedability, is not scientifically possible to address. You amy discover that non interbreeding species do come about, though evidence for this is sketchy at best, but you cannot tell from looking at creatures today what the rates of change were in the past or whether or not that means that all creatures evolced from one parent.

You cannot prove that the 4 polymers common to live on earth indicate a common ancestor, or merely a common chemical pathway that existed at the time multiple lifeforms were created.

You can't use evolutionary teachings reagarding what they predict regarding the phylogenic tree because if they come up with something different, they can simply place it in a new branch of thephylogenic tree.

You can't prove that certain traits that morphologically define the phylogenic tree are consistent with present speciation. For instance, supposed lizards of the past may well have had warm blood. You can't tell for sure where the divergence began between one phylum or another, because obviously it is impossible to be sure whether a specimen of every animal that ever existed witll have been preserved in the fossil record. Indeed, such a thing is highly unlikely.

The differences between evolution and gravity are manifest and obvious. We can test gravity. We know it exists and we test it to see exactly what its qualities are mathematically. With evolution, we don't know it exists, we assume, and then we pretend to be able to piece together the mathematical relationships of a thing we cannot observe. This is patently bad science, from the applied science point of view. It is perfectly legitimate science from the point of view of sciences like psychology, sociaology, and so forth, whcih attempt to measure trends and approximations and proabilities, but to put evolution foreward as a science in the same terms as biology or physics, one must first understand the mathematiacl model of these studies, and the underlying mathematical fact is that even then, there is no way to prove them. Study chaos theory, fractal geometry, and the sensitivity of such thigns to even the slightest error in initial condicions, and how quickly a predictionbased on these types of equations breaks down.

Your comparison to gravity is the very crux of the problem. There IS no comparison between the type of science that limits itself to things that can be consistently seen and tested, and the kind of science one must use to make predictions about things that are not directly observable.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by TheBear
I am utterly amazed at this fixation by some, to pit science against God. This is usually perpetuated by well meaning, religious people, who's own personal beliefs, of how God created things, overrides intellectual honesty.
It's the old, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." syndrome. I'm not saying that everything presented is necessarily factual, but they would never even consider views that potentialy conflict with their own belief system. So, IMHO, when overwhelmed by evidence, or painted into an intellectual corner, their only defense is to make science an opponent of God. They will then default to using religious quotations and cliches, as trump cards to win the arguments.

There is no conflict between God and science. That doesn't even make sense.


John

There can never be a conflict between God and science, true, but your interpretation of the world coming to being thriough evolution directly contradicts the Biblical account and also leaves no room for the introduction of original sin. In effect, if you think the Bible is wrong about how sin came into the world, how in the world do you then decide it is perfectly reliable to tell you how to escape sin?

The conflict I am concerned with is between truth and falsehood. It is not possible to prove evolution, and yet it is continually put foreward as if it is qualitatively different theory about the beggining of the earth and life than the Bible. It is not. That simple truth is my concern. There is a fundamental difference between science that deals with the observable and science that attempts to identify patterns in the past or predict the future based on only limited information, and this process is the very same process that is used by theologians, historians, and sociologists.

Ultimately, all science is founded not on deductive fact, but on inductive suspicion, and the strength of ANY argument rests on the reliability of the observations made. Observations made about the past as extracted from the present are by definition not as reliable as observations of the present that are meant to be used for the present, or the near future.

Your theories have direct implications to the Christian religion, and your theories are not all that reliable. That is why I doubt them. I do not say disbelieve. I have said before, and will repeat until it is acknowledged by anyone trying to debunk my arguments, that I do not pretend to know for a fact that God created the universe in 6 days. I only believe it because it seems more likely to me in view of overall evidence, including, but not limited to, the scientifically gathered evidence and the character of the type of people who tend to gravitate to a completely mechanistic explanation for life, the universe, and everything else.

 

[eldermike]

I believe this will be my last post on this forum. I stated that the Bible was evidence. In fact Paul also stated that the Bible was useful in the same manner. If that is somehow a closed mind, then I am in the house of the enemy.

God Bless all

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by eldermike
I believe this will be my last post on this forum. I stated that the Bible was evidence. In fact Paul also stated that the Bible was useful in the same manner. If that is somehow a closed mind, then I am in the house of the enemy.

God Bless all

eldermike,

I am sorry you feel that way. In Christian Forums, there are several areas of discussion. There is a Christians Only posting area, as well. You will find, that in the Round Table - General Apologetics area, all kinds of things are being addressed, by both Christians and non-Christians. When discussing things scientific with non-Christians, quoting the Bible usually falls on deaf ears. Therefore, in this particular section of this website, quoting scripture is ineffective in making one's case.

I hope you understand.


John

 

[goseyn]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
Evolution is attacking the very foundation of the Christian life, and it must be opposed.

Um, how? Only the purely atheistic variety of evolution with it's adamant insistence that no miracles exist, including Jesus rising from the dead, is any sort of threat. And this formulation is more a case of a person who already has an anti-miracle bias than something that can be discerned through the theory itself. Atheism and theism are both concepts which can be philosophically juxtaposed with the scientific theory of evolution.

If you ask me (which you haven't, but my 2 cents anyway), the biggest threat to the Gospel in regards to evolution is CHRISTIANS who insist that a person cannot believe in evolution and still be a Christian! Many scientists refuse to give Christianity a fair hearing because they just can't stomach that attitude. If being a Christian means giving up their entire life's work, they don't want to be part of it! I know, I know, Christ calls us to a radical lifestyle and the fisherman disciples gave up their life's work to follow Christ. Even so, it is not our place to insist that people do this, it is more the guiding of the Holy Spirit in their own lives. To insist that evolutionists give up evolution in order to come to Christ is adding to the Gospel. Faith in Jesus atoning death on the cross.

I don't believe evolution is true, and I'll debate about the theory, but, darn it, I REFUSE to denigrate a fellow Christian who believes in it!

(Sorry, touched a nerve.)

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by goseyn


Um, how? Only the purely atheistic variety of evolution with it's adamant insistence that no miracles exist, including Jesus rising from the dead, is any sort of threat. And this formulation is more a case of a person who already has an anti-miracle bias than something that can be discerned through the theory itself. Atheism and theism are both concepts which can be philosophically juxtaposed with the scientific theory of evolution.

If you ask me (which you haven't, but my 2 cents anyway), the biggest threat to the Gospel in regards to evolution is CHRISTIANS who insist that a person cannot believe in evolution and still be a Christian! Many scientists refuse to give Christianity a fair hearing because they just can't stomach that attitude. If being a Christian means giving up their entire life's work, they don't want to be part of it! I know, I know, Christ calls us to a radical lifestyle and the fisherman disciples gave up their life's work to follow Christ. Even so, it is not our place to insist that people do this, it is more the guiding of the Holy Spirit in their own lives. To insist that evolutionists give up evolution in order to come to Christ is adding to the Gospel. Faith in Jesus atoning death on the cross.

I don't believe evolution is true, and I'll debate about the theory, but, darn it, I REFUSE to denigrate a fellow Christian who believes in it!

(Sorry, touched a nerve.)

BRAVO!!!

 

[Athlon4all]

I am utterly amazed at this fixation by some, to pit science against God.

I am just going to note, that Evolution is by no means "science", iot is nothing more than Pagan Religion. They claim it is science, but it is not. It's a bunch of philosophers making theorys that can never be proven by science because we can't obsever creation.

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
I am just going to note, that Evolution is by no means "science", iot is nothing more than Pagan Religion. They claim it is science, but it is not. It's a bunch of philosophers making theorys that can never be proven by science because we can't obsever creation.

The theory of evolution is not some kind of church, does not promote morals, good or bad, does not teach any kind of philosophy or spirituality, does not affirm or deny the existance of a Creator, and does not have any kind of doctrine or dogma. How can you possibly equate it to any kind of religion?

I admire your zeal for the adhearence to Christian principles and doctrine, as you believe, but these statements of yours are illogical.


John

 

[A Christian]

The THEORY of Evolution was a joy for
ALL ATHEISTS, as it gave them the false
hope that ANYTHING can happen without
a god given ENOUGH TIME.

The THEORY is based on an assumption that
the simple has become more complex. After
looking at dinosaur bones it is obvious that
the complex has been dwindling down to
the simple. I feel that there were once a
very wide variety of life forms that have been
going extinct since the Great Flood, if many
(such as certain water creatures) didn't die
as a direct result of the Flood.

I look with great wonder and joy at the two
old Pin Oak trees in my yard and realize that
only God can protect them from the blight that
is now decimating this species even now.
Soon they too will likely join the Chestnut and
Elm.

Do you look like your father? Maybe alittle?
Even exact twins are not exactly alike. No
two snowflakes are exactly alike in thousands of
years of winter storms world-wide. Why should
species of animals not show wide variation over
time or at any given time. I've seen some guys
today that look like apes and are very smart.
I've also seen beautiful people who don't seem
to have the brains they were born with---act like
animals...
So much for the THEORY of evolution.

 

[mac_philo]

And thus, unable to stand up to A_Christian's withering criticism, did the straw man fall to earth. Was it the arguments or the all-caps that felled him? We may never know.

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by mac_philo
And thus, unable to stand up to A_Christian's withering criticism, did the straw man fall to earth. Was it the arguments or the all-caps that felled him? We may never know.

LOL!!!

I love your wit, mac_philo.

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by A Christian
The THEORY of Evolution was a joy for
ALL ATHEISTS, as it gave them the false
hope that ANYTHING can happen without
a god given ENOUGH TIME.

Atheists, are but one group among many, including Christians, who accept that there is an extremely high probability of an evolutionary process.

I notice your all-caps of the word THEORY throughout your post. Tell us, A Christian, do you know anything about scientific THEORIES? Please indulge us. Please post your definition of a scientific THEORY, and how it ranks in the confidence levels.


John

 

[NoilTsorf]

It's a bunch of philosophers making theorys that can never be proven by science because we can't obsever creation.

Actually evolution has been observed in plants, insects and fishes, because they have a very short life cycle.
I agree that this by no means proves that evolution is the cause of creations. But at least it speaks in it's favor.
It is more than simply belief, just like Christianity which is also backed up with facts, historical accounts and the like. I think this by no means proves that God is the cause of creations. But at least it speaks in it's favor.

 

[A Christian]

The REAL thrust of the THEORY of EVOLUTION is
NOT that species seem to have a biological ability
to cope with the given environment over time,
BUT that one species or kind sprang from another
species or kind. Dinosaurs and birds being, as
it were, related through COMMON ancestry.
This is ANTI CREATOR & ANTI BIBLICAL.
(I use CAPITALS; by the way, for emphasis. I'm
not shouting----though some people feel only the
breeze passing over their heads).
The entire fossil
record is proof of a WORLD-WIDE catechism of
EPIC proportions. The distibution of the fossils
is evidence of HYDRODYNAMIC SELECTIVITY, coupled
with the fact that some land mammals were able
to hold out longer against the Flood --- birds & man
for example. They would have likely been among
the very last to die by drowning and they would
have searched for higher ground. Birds could fly,
but they do get tired---the rain lasted 40 days...

 

[TheBear]

A Christian,

I am still awaiting your definition of a THEORY, and it's probability and confidence level.

John

 

[LouisBooth]

wow...over half believe it wrong..and some believe it satanic..hmm...with 5 undecided..