Evolution

[Bravo Year]

But my point here is that evolution doesn't 'care' whether or not your beliefs are true. All it 'cares' about is that your ancestors' behaviors were conducive to survival and reproduction. From an evolutionary perspective, all that matters is the usefulness of beliefs--i.e. that they get the organisms that hold them to behave so as to survive and propagate their genes.

As for such epistemically foundational beliefs as the law of identity, it is certainly true that we can't begin to imagine what a 'mind' would be like that did not hold them, but all this serves to show is that our minds are hardwired to think that way. It does not show that we ought to believe them because they're true. In order for it to be the case that a belief ought to be held because it is true, it must be the case that our minds are for the production of true beliefs, in that forming true beliefs is their proper function. If naturalistic evolution is responsible for forming our minds, then our minds cannot be for the production of true beliefs, but rather merely for accomplishing behaviors that are conducive to our survival and reproduction. That our beliefs might also just happen to be true would be nothing more than a fortuitous coincidence.

Ought we, though? Truly? Now it seems you're smuggling in agency where it needn't be. Sometimes it is beneficial to believe things that aren't true (type A cognition errors for example), just as there are things that are harmful to believe are true, yet we survive and reproduce just fine. Rather than say that we ought or ought not grasp something as true, I'd probably say that we either do so, or fail to do so. And I fail to see how grasping the validity of things like axioms and logical syllogisms could not possibly come about from an evolved, functioning brain.

By “set of prior beliefs” I'm referring to premises from which a conclusion is drawn. But leave that aside. The salient point is that in order for us to 'see' that propositions (as e.g. 2+2=4) are true, it is necessary that truth enter the causal picture. You know that e.g. 2+2=4 is true because you can just 'see' that it's true, but this requires two things:

(1) that the proposition that 2+2=4 actually be true,

Accept.

and

(2) that its being true be what causes you to form the belief that 2+2=4 is true.

Mmmm.... okay, accept. I don't know why I feel the weight of some unnecessary baggage, but... accept.

The point to see here is that in order for minds to be truly rational--in order for them to properly form and think according to true beliefs--it is necessary that propositions cause beliefs to form by virtue of their being true, and not by virtue any other properties they might have (e.g. their exhibiting certain non-alethic patterns, or their causing certain feelings). But I submit that this requires that they be entertained by a mind whose proper function is to form true beliefs, and that this proper function be assumed as axiomatic in order for rational thought to even get off the ground. Thus, it is because we assume as axiomatic that our minds ought to form the belief that 2+2=4 is true that we might say that we just 'see,' or 'recognize,' that it's true. And by the same token, we would say of some mind that did not form the belief that 2+2=4 is true by virtue of 'seeing' its truth that that mind is not functioning properly.

Even beliefs, such as the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction, that form our epistemic bedrock and whose negation is incoherent are still, technically, beliefs. Whether or not we can properly be said to know them depends on whether or not they're actually true, as the truth of a belief is pretty much universally accepted as a necessary condition for that belief's counting as knowledge. But there are certain beliefs that we just have to accept on a sort of faith if we're to have any hope of knowing anything at all, and one of these beliefs, I believe, is that the proper function of our minds is to give us true (or at least mostly true) beliefs. I don't think it's possible to go about justifying this belief, as any attempt to justify it would have to assume the very thing that it would be trying to demonstrate, viz. the reliability of our rational faculties for producing true beliefs. Nor do I think that naturalistic evolution can select for minds whose proper functionality is to form true beliefs, for (as I've said previously) evolution only 'cares' about utility toward an organism's survival and reproduction, and it would select for true beliefs only if such beliefs were useful to accomplish behaviors requisite thereto.

You'll have to define the term proper, and demonstrate its distinction from currently evolved. I now can't help but see your posts through the lens of agency attribution, and you seem to have this idea that this was always the end goal of the brain. Our brains are still evolving, just as they are quite a bit more evolved than they were 250,000 years ago when we were a different species.

I don't think I'm a fan of the term evolution does or doesn't care, so if you don't mind, I'll rephrase it: While it's true that natural selection rewards utility and reproduction, the beings that successfully reproduce do care about things being true. At least the ones who survive seem to have a better grasp of reality than the ones who do not survive. In that sense natural selection does reward the truth of a proposition through the species who tend to grasp that truth.

I heard a phrase once that I liked: "The purpose of logic is to make tautologies." I haven't thought about it enough to determine to what degree I agree with it, but I like it. We are a species that wants more and more things to be able to go without saying. That's utilitarian and beneficial for reproduction, but also purposeful in our minds. Natural selection rewarded the ones who tended to get it right more often than not.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Evidence please!

First, you're going to have to make sure you don't have a misconception of how evolution works. A common problem is in imagining that there are concrete sets of organisms (e.g. fish and amphibians) and then talking about "transitional fossils" of organisms between concrete set -fish- and -amphibians-.

It's not like that. The concept of "fish" and "amphibian" are fluid, dynamic concepts to describe organisms more like one or the other. So, for example, ray-finned fishes such as tuna, carp, or salmon as well as lobe-finned fishes such as lungfish are classified as -fish-.

But then, what do we do with this guy, tiktaalik?

Fish or amphibian? Well, yes. It's technically a lobe-finned fish, but has all the features of a basal tetrapod, a "transition" from "fish" to "amphibian", existing between something like panderichthys and acanthostega,

Likewise, fossil evidence shows that at least some therapod dinosaurs--especially those belonging to the raptor family--had feathers:

So feathers on dinosaurs, preserved in the fossil record, confirm the hypothesis that birds are, in fact, dinosaurs. This is confirmed more and more in the fossil record such as our friend microraptor here:

This guy didn't just have feathers, but wings.

Then there's primitive birds, such as archeopteryx,

So who's a cute dinosaur? This guy:

Bird or dinosaur? Answer: Yes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bravo Year]

Bird or dinosaur? Answer: Yes.

-CryptoLutheran

Just like - tiger or cat? Yes. Horse or zebra? Yes. And, of course, ape or man?


Yep.

 

[morningstar2651]

If macro evolution cannot be observed, then it doesn't pass as true science. First of all, you are taking the word of scientists as fact. Scientists who are brave enough to admit that macro evolution is a hoax are often bullied out of their jobs by their work colleagues. You first need to prove that the majority of scientists are being truthful, and then you need to prove that their interpretation of evidence can be proven as being accurate. So far no atheist has been able to do so.

 

[LoveNeverDies]

First, you're going to have to make sure you don't have a misconception of how evolution works. A common problem is in imagining that there are concrete sets of organisms (e.g. fish and amphibians) and then talking about "transitional fossils" of organisms between concrete set -fish- and -amphibians-.

It's not like that. The concept of "fish" and "amphibian" are fluid, dynamic concepts to describe organisms more like one or the other. So, for example, ray-finned fishes such as tuna, carp, or salmon as well as lobe-finned fishes such as lungfish are classified as -fish-.

But then, what do we do with this guy, tiktaalik?



Fish or amphibian? Well, yes. It's technically a lobe-finned fish, but has all the features of a basal tetrapod, a "transition" from "fish" to "amphibian", existing between something like and acanthostega,



Likewise, fossil evidence shows that at least some therapod dinosaurs--especially those belonging to the raptor family--had feathers:



So feathers on dinosaurs, preserved in the fossil record, confirm the hypothesis that birds are, in fact, dinosaurs. This is confirmed more and more in the fossil record such as our friend microraptor here:


Then there's primitive birds, such as archeopteryx,



Bird or dinosaur? Answer: Yes.


And this is what you class as evidence for macro evolution? I really hope your not being serious?

 

[ViaCrucis]

And this is what you class as evidence for macro evolution? I really hope your not being serious?

There's no such thing as "macro evolution", just as there's no such thing as "micro evolution". There's just evolution. And what I offered were examples of "transitional" fossils, which I believe is what you were asking evidence for.

Now if you would like to point out the errors that you think I've made in presenting visual fossil evidence, or if you'd like to move the goal posts, you're welcome to do so, though the latter would seem rather disingenuous.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LoveNeverDies]

There's no such thing as "macro evolution", just as there's no such thing as "micro evolution". There's just evolution. And what I offered were examples of "transitional" fossils, which I believe is what you were asking evidence for.

Now if you would like to point out the errors that you think I've made in presenting visual fossil evidence, or if you'd like to move the goal posts, you're welcome to do so, though the latter would seem rather disingenuous.

-CryptoLutheran

Macro evolution has never been proven. Sure, I believe in evolution, but not the way it's taught. There is nothing scientific about one species evolving into another species over millions of years. For example, what species did a dog evolve from? What species did a gorilla evolve from? What species did a mouse evolve from? Each animal was made after its own kind, just as the Bible tells us. Macro evolution is for dummies.

 

[Bravo Year]

Macro evolution has never been proven. Sure, I believe in evolution, but not the way it's taught. There is nothing scientific about one species evolving into another species over millions of years. For example, what species did a dog evolve from? What species did a gorilla evolve from? What species did a mouse evolve from? Each animal was made after its own kind, just as the Bible tells us. Macro evolution is for dummies.

You seem to be a bit of an expert on the subject. I'd like to know your opinion on the standards of sampling and classification used in taxonomy and phylogeny, specifically paleontological taxonomy and phylogenetics. I'll admit I don't know that much about it myself. Where are they going wrong? Be specific, please.

 

[LoveNeverDies]

You seem to be a bit of an expert on the subject. I'd like to know your opinion on the standards of sampling and classification used in taxonomy and phylogeny, specifically paleontological taxonomy and phylogenetics. I'll admit I don't know that much about it myself. Where are they going wrong? Be specific, please.

You're using complex words. Either you have hard evidence or you don't. Not all scientists agree. Many make mistakes, while many just tell blatant lies. The theory of evolution, the way it's taught in public schools, is a multi billion dollar a year industry. These mad scientists have no intention of allowing the theory of evolution to be exposed as a hoax. If you have some hard evidence then please give it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Macro evolution has never been proven. Sure, I believe in evolution, but not the way it's taught. There is nothing scientific about one species evolving into another species over millions of years. For example, what species did a dog evolve from? What species did a gorilla evolve from? What species did a mouse evolve from? Each animal was made after its own kind, just as the Bible tells us. Macro evolution is for dummies.

Domestic dogs are descended from the wolf. In that case we are responsible for this. Wolves are canines, and share a common ancestor with other canines, such as foxes and jackals. Hesperocyon is regarded as a basal canid, representative of the ancient ancestors of todays canids, which diverged from earlier caniforms that were ancestral to both canids and today's bears.

Gorillas are great apes in the family Hominidae, which also includes orangutans, chimps, and ourselves. This lineage split from the common ancestor of all apes (great apes and the lesser apes).

True mice are rodents in the family Muridae, which also includes rats and gerbils. Thus mice share a common ancestor with rats and gerbils.

Though that's probably not quite what you meant. As you seem to be under the impression that evolution says that monkeys became apes and apes became humans, or something like that. That's not what evolution is. Evolution has nothing to do with something like "cats becoming dogs", it has to do with living populations of organisms adapting to their environment in order to pass down their genetic information to the next generation.

Overly Simplistic Example:

If a population of Purple Widgets live in a purple forest, they camouflage better, and are less likely to be eaten by the terrifying Widget-Eater. What happens, however, if the purple forest burns to the ground leaving a wasteland of coal-black ash? The Purple Widget's natural defense is now useless.

Well, since mutations happen all the time in living organisms, let's say that occasionally some Purple Widgets were born black instead of purple, this wouldn't have been beneficial in the purple forest, but it's probably really handy in the black wasteland. So black mutations means, actually, a higher chance of survival, now the Widget Eaters eat the purple Widgets, but the black Widgets survive, meet Mrs. Widget and have lots of Widget babies. Over time, the genes responsible for the black mutation are going to become dominant, and it's quite likely that the purple Widgets are going to go extinct while the black Widgets thrive.

Here's another really simplistic example:

A large population of Widgets inhabit a large area, a massive disaster comes and separates one smaller population from the bigger population. Now the two populations cannot meet, come together, and breed. What happens? Well let's say that Widgets aren't big swimmers, they prefer to avoid water, but what happens if the Isolated Widgets are now living in an area with a lot of water?

Well a Widget might, desperate enough, try going to the edge of the water to eat, it's successful. The grass that grows on the shoreline is really nutritious, and this new food source becomes a boon to the Isolated Widgets. Over time mutations may arise which makes digesting this new food source more beneficial.

--It happens, it happened in human beings, some human populations began to consume milk and other dairy products, the addition of dairy to the diet of some human beings led to these human populations retaining the enzyme lactase, present in infants, into adulthood. Lactase-retaining humans can better digest dairy products, the lack of the enzyme results in what we call being lactose intolerant.--

Back to the widgets. So the Isolated Widgets now are able to use this new food source to their advantage. And what's more, now when Widgets are born with a mutation that causes webbing between their fingers and toes, it actually makes getting into the water a bit less clumsy, the webbing--as it turns out--works well to help the Widget maneuver in the water. That can be really helpful, especially as the shore grass they eat is plentiful in the water, and it could be helpful to navigate the water more. There's a good chance web-fingered Widgets could become more common, as it's a mutation that is successful in the environment, and means passing on those genes to the next generation. What happens when some Swimming Widgets can hold their breath longer?

So now not only do we have the Isolated Widgets and the General Widgets speciating into distinct populations, even among the Isolated Widgets we're finding speciation between Swimming Widgets and Shore Widgets.

If a Swimming Widget and a General Widget meet again, millions of years later, they no longer can produce fertile offspring.

Two distinct species of Widget.

Evolution.

That's not a load of hot gas either, all the basic processes described above are pretty well understood, they are well observed, and when the scientific method is applied, the results consistently turn up positive. This isn't simply empty hypothesis, this is functioning, working, actual theory. Just like gravitation is a working theory, germ theory is a working theory, and general relativity is a working theory.

Speciation happens, and it's been observed by human beings.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bravo Year]

You're using complex words. Either you have hard evidence or you don't. Not all scientists agree. Many make mistakes, while many just tell blatant lies. The theory of evolution, the way it's taught in public schools, is a multi billion dollar a year industry. These mad scientists have no intention of allowing the theory of evolution to be exposed as a hoax. If you have some hard evidence then please give it.

We could ask the same to you - present your hard evidence that there's this massive conspiracy going on. There has been plenty of hard evidence provided to you, now kindly present some to us.

Against my better judgment, I'm going to post this video. I say "against my better judgment" because I don't think you're real. I don't think you actually believe what you're claiming, but if you do...

He talks pretty fast, so try to keep up - if you're actually interested in learning:

11th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube

 

[LoveNeverDies]

Domestic dogs are descended from the wolf. In that case we are responsible for this. Wolves are canines, and share a common ancestor with other canines, such as foxes and jackals. Hesperocyon is regarded as a basal canid, representative of the ancient ancestors of todays canids, which diverged from earlier caniforms that were ancestral to both canids and today's bears.

Gorillas are great apes in the family Hominidae, which also includes orangutans, chimps, and ourselves. This lineage split from the common ancestor of all apes (great apes and the lesser apes).

True mice are rodents in the family Muridae, which also includes rats and gerbils. Thus mice share a common ancestor with rats and gerbils.

Though that's probably not quite what you meant. As you seem to be under the impression that evolution says that monkeys became apes and apes became humans, or something like that. That's not what evolution is. Evolution has nothing to do with something like "cats becoming dogs", it has to do with living populations of organisms adapting to their environment in order to pass down their genetic information to the next generation.

Overly Simplistic Example:

If a population of Purple Widgets live in a purple forest, they camouflage better, and are less likely to be eaten by the terrifying Widget-Eater. What happens, however, if the purple forest burns to the ground leaving a wasteland of coal-black ash? The Purple Widget's natural defense is now useless.

Well, since mutations happen all the time in living organisms, let's say that occasionally some Purple Widgets were born black instead of purple, this wouldn't have been beneficial in the purple forest, but it's probably really handy in the black wasteland. So black mutations means, actually, a higher chance of survival, now the Widget Eaters eat the purple Widgets, but the black Widgets survive, meet Mrs. Widget and have lots of Widget babies. Over time, the genes responsible for the black mutation are going to become dominant, and it's quite likely that the purple Widgets are going to go extinct while the black Widgets thrive.

Here's another really simplistic example:

A large population of Widgets inhabit a large area, a massive disaster comes and separates one smaller population from the bigger population. Now the two populations cannot meet, come together, and breed. What happens? Well let's say that Widgets aren't big swimmers, they prefer to avoid water, but what happens if the Isolated Widgets are now living in an area with a lot of water?

Well a Widget might, desperate enough, try going to the edge of the water to eat, it's successful. The grass that grows on the shoreline is really nutritious, and this new food source becomes a boon to the Isolated Widgets. Over time mutations may arise which makes digesting this new food source more beneficial.

--It happens, it happened in human beings, some human populations began to consume milk and other dairy products, the addition of dairy to the diet of some human beings led to these human populations retaining the enzyme lactase, present in infants, into adulthood. Lactase-retaining humans can better digest dairy products, the lack of the enzyme results in what we call being lactose intolerant.--

Back to the widgets. So the Isolated Widgets now are able to use this new food source to their advantage. And what's more, now when Widgets are born with a mutation that causes webbing between their fingers and toes, it actually makes getting into the water a bit less clumsy, the webbing--as it turns out--works well to help the Widget maneuver in the water. That can be really helpful, especially as the shore grass they eat is plentiful in the water, and it could be helpful to navigate the water more. There's a good chance web-fingered Widgets could become more common, as it's a mutation that is successful in the environment, and means passing on those genes to the next generation. What happens when some Swimming Widgets can hold their breath longer?

So now not only do we have the Isolated Widgets and the General Widgets speciating into distinct populations, even among the Isolated Widgets we're finding speciation between Swimming Widgets and Shore Widgets.

If a Swimming Widget and a General Widget meet again, millions of years later, they no longer can produce fertile offspring.

Two distinct species of Widget.

Evolution.

That's not a load of hot gas either, all the basic processes described above are pretty well understood, they are well observed, and when the scientific method is applied, the results consistently turn up positive. This isn't simply empty hypothesis, this is functioning, working, actual theory. Just like gravitation is a working theory, germ theory is a working theory, and general relativity is a working theory.

Speciation happens, and it's been observed by human beings.

-CryptoLutheran

What you're describing is micro evolution. There are many different kind of dogs, yet they are still dogs who come from their own species. Macro evolution, or evolution the way it's taught, teaches people that a frog can turn into a prince over millions of years. For example, can you tell us what land creature evolved from a fish? Can you tell us what species an elephant was 1 million years ago? Don't confuse mirco with macro. Macro evolution is a fairy tale, yet this is the kind of evolution that's being taught.

 

[LoveNeverDies]

We could ask the same to you - present your hard evidence that there's this massive conspiracy going on. There has been plenty of hard evidence provided to you, now kindly present some to us.

Against my better judgment, I'm going to post this video. I say "against my better judgment" because I don't think you're real. I don't think you actually believe what you're claiming, but if you do...

He talks pretty fast, so try to keep up - if you're actually interested in learning:

I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on you. You haven't given any evidence whatsoever, only speculation and assumption. You have to prove that scientists are truthful and trustworthy. You have to prove that most scientists agree with the interpretation of evidence. If you can't do this then I cannot take the theory of evolution seriously.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What you're describing is micro evolution. There are many different kind of dogs, yet they are still dogs who come from their own species. Macro evolution, or evolution the way it's taught, teaches people that a frog can turn into a prince over millions of years. For example, can you tell us what land creature evolved from a fish? Can you tell us what species an elephant was 1 million years ago? Don't confuse mirco with macro. Macro evolution is a fairy tale, yet this is the kind of evolution that's being taught.

I described evolution. Very simplistically mind you, and that's mostly because I'm not a biologist, I'm sure an expert in the field could give you a far better explanation.

What you're arguing against isn't "macro evolution", which isn't a thing anyway, but a straw man Young Earth Creationists typically prop up because they lack a fundamental grasp of what the theory actually says. I've attempted to counter-act this straw man by explaining, and I thought it was fairly clear, by pointing out that evolution doesn't say something like a dog becomes a cat, or in your example "a frog becomes a prince".

I explained the basic processes of evolution, you're "macro evolution" isn't a thing, it doesn't happen and no scientist thinks it does. What the science does address is just regular evolution, the only difference between "micro" and "macro" (to YEC rhetoric) is a matter of scale.

You can argue that a poodle and a beagle are both dogs and thus the same "kind". I'd agree.

You can argue that a dog and a wolf are both canids, and thus the same "kind". I'd agree.

But, see, dogs and bears are both caniforms, so they're the same "kind" too, in the sense that they are both caniforms.

And also dogs and whales are both mammals, so they're the same "kind" as well.

What's the difference between a chimpanzee and a human being? About five million years of divergent evolution.

Evolution does not say that humans evolved from chimps, or that a chimpanzee can become a human being. Though it does describe the processes of how a lineage of primates diverged to become today's chimpanzees and humans. The same way that a lineage of canines diverged to become wolves and coyotes.

I believe you intelligent enough to grasp this concept. Which is why I believe that if you decide to construct the straw man it is due not to an attempt to tackle the idea itself, but to ignore it out of a purely ideological basis.

Your rejection of evolution, no matter how cloaked it is in a quasi-scientific looking garb, is rooted solely on the premise that you believe that if evolution is true then the Bible is false, and therefore your entire faith will collapse like a deck of cards.

I'm here to inform you that's not the case. It can be difficult to let go of something like thinking Genesis 1 must and has to be a strict, literal, journalistic account of material origins, because I'm sure like me it's what you have had pounded into your head for a very long time. It took me a long time to really let go of that, and what really helped wasn't arguments or debates over whether evolution is true or not (because none of that is actually what matters here), but a willingness to really pour myself into Scripture. If you are willing to allow that Scripture doesn't have to conform to our modern 21st century biases on how a text like Genesis 1 ought to read like, we can start to let ourselves let the text speak openly and honestly from the context of a people and culture three thousand years ago who weren't interested in giving a play-by-play of how things happened in the act of creation, but the why and Who of the act of creation.

And the why and Who of creation is a far more interesting. Genesis didn't become less true when I gave up my Young Earth Creationism, believe it or not it became far more important, far more valuable, far more true than it had been before. Because I was no longer forcing it to say something I thought it had to say.

I believe in God.
I believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.
I believe Jesus is the Christ.
I believe Jesus Christ is Lord.
I believe Jesus Christ died for our sins on the cross.
I believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead, bodily.
I believe Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father.
I believe Jesus Christ will come again, one day, to judge the living and the dead.
I believe there will be a resurrection of the dead, bodily, on that day He comes.
I believe there will be life everlasting.

I also believe evolution is an accurate and profoundly wonderful way of describing the natural diversity of life on this planet.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LoveNeverDies]

I described evolution. Very simplistically mind you, and that's mostly because I'm not a biologist, I'm sure an expert in the field could give you a far better explanation.

What you're arguing against isn't "macro evolution", which isn't a thing anyway, but a straw man Young Earth Creationists typically prop up because they lack a fundamental grasp of what the theory actually says. I've attempted to counter-act this straw man by explaining, and I thought it was fairly clear, by pointing out that evolution doesn't say something like a dog becomes a cat, or in your example "a frog becomes a prince".

I explained the basic processes of evolution, you're "macro evolution" isn't a thing, it doesn't happen and no scientist thinks it does. What the science does address is just regular evolution, the only difference between "micro" and "macro" (to YEC rhetoric) is a matter of scale.

You can argue that a poodle and a beagle are both dogs and thus the same "kind". I'd agree.

You can argue that a dog and a wolf are both canids, and thus the same "kind". I'd agree.

But, see, dogs and bears are both caniforms, so they're the same "kind" too, in the sense that they are both caniforms.

And also dogs and whales are both mammals, so they're the same "kind" as well.

What's the difference between a chimpanzee and a human being? About five million years of divergent evolution.

Evolution does not say that humans evolved from chimps, or that a chimpanzee can become a human being. Though it does describe the processes of how a lineage of primates diverged to become today's chimpanzees and humans. The same way that a lineage of canines diverged to become wolves and coyotes.

I believe you intelligent enough to grasp this concept. Which is why I believe that if you decide to construct the straw man it is due not to an attempt to tackle the idea itself, but to ignore it out of a purely ideological basis.

Your rejection of evolution, no matter how cloaked it is in a quasi-scientific looking garb, is rooted solely on the premise that you believe that if evolution is true then the Bible is false, and therefore your entire faith will collapse like a deck of cards.

I'm here to inform you that's not the case. It can be difficult to let go of something like thinking Genesis 1 must and has to be a strict, literal, journalistic account of material origins, because I'm sure like me it's what you have had pounded into your head for a very long time. It took me a long time to really let go of that, and what really helped wasn't arguments or debates over whether evolution is true or not (because none of that is actually what matters here), but a willingness to really pour myself into Scripture. If you are willing to allow that Scripture doesn't have to conform to our modern 21st century biases on how a text like Genesis 1 ought to read like, we can start to let ourselves let the text speak openly and honestly from the context of a people and culture three thousand years ago who weren't interested in giving a play-by-play of how things happened in the act of creation, but the why and Who of the act of creation.

And the why and Who of creation is a far more interesting. Genesis didn't become less true when I gave up my Young Earth Creationism, believe it or not it became far more important, far more valuable, far more true than it had been before. Because I was no longer forcing it to say something I thought it had to say.

I believe in God.
I believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.
I believe Jesus is the Christ.
I believe Jesus Christ is Lord.
I believe Jesus Christ died for our sins on the cross.
I believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead, bodily.
I believe Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father.
I believe Jesus Christ will come again, one day, to judge the living and the dead.
I believe there will be a resurrection of the dead, bodily, on that day He comes.
I believe there will be life everlasting.

I also believe evolution is an accurate and profoundly wonderful way of describing the natural diversity of life on this planet.

-CryptoLutheran

It's not that I don't understand evolution, which is always the allegation that is thrown at me, it's just I've never seen any convincing evidence for it. We can disagree until the cows come home regarding macro evolution, but macro evolution is totally different than micro evolution. Also, it was Jesus himself in the gospel of Mark that confirms the creation of Adam and Eve. So will you believe Jesus or not? Jesus believed that Adam and Eve were created. He didn't believe they evolved from a primate. To believe in evolution, the way it's taught in public schools, is blasphemy. Christians who hold to such beliefs should think very carefully about what they are supporting.

 

[morningstar2651]

It's not that I don't understand evolution, which is always the allegation that is thrown at me...

Maybe there is a reason that everyone says you don't understand evolution.

• Reason: You don't understand evolution.
• You claim that evolution states that a frog can evolve into a prince. Evolution states no such thing.
• Your incorrect statements about evolution reveal to us that you either don't understand it, or are intentionally misrepresenting it (See also Straw Man Fallacy).
• Since you are Christian, I will assume that you would not willingly give false testimony, so I must conclude that you simply do not understand how evolution works.

I've never seen any convincing evidence for it.

Maybe there is a reason you've never seen any convincing evidence for evolution.

• Reason: You won't be convinced by evidence due to fear of going to Hell.
• You have set up a conflict between evolution and your belief in Jesus. In your mind, you cannot accept evolution without rejecting the omnipotence of Jesus.

It was Jesus himself in the gospel of Mark that confirms the creation of Adam and Eve. So will you believe Jesus or not?

• You believe that evolution is blasphemy against God, and imply that any Christians that disagree with you are going to Hell.

To believe in evolution, the way it's taught in public schools, is blasphemy. Christians who hold to such beliefs should think very carefully about what they are supporting.

• If we follow this chain of reasoning as you have, to accept evidence of evolution is to accept evolution, to accept evolution is to blaspheme, and to blaspheme is to be hellbound. Therefore, to accept evidence of evolution is to be hellbound.

 

[Bravo Year]

I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on you. You haven't given any evidence whatsoever, only speculation and assumption. You have to prove that scientists are truthful and trustworthy. You have to prove that most scientists agree with the interpretation of evidence. If you can't do this then I cannot take the theory of evolution seriously.

You've made a positive claim:

These mad scientists have no intention of allowing the theory of evolution to be exposed as a hoax.

Here the burden of proof is on you. Demonstrate your claim. If I wanted to use your ridiculous standards I could ask you to prove that these scientists are "mad" and to prove that their inner motives are malicious. But I'm fair and reasonable, so I'll just ask you to prove the hoax. We've met our burden of proof. Just because you haven't looked at the evidence doesn't mean it hasn't been provided. We're not going to spoon-feed it to you.

If you haven't seen any convincing evidence for evolution, you don't understand it. You don't make such claims about germ theory, or atomic theory, or gravity so why evolution? Evolution is just as established as those. Could it be because you have an assumption that evolution would destroy your religion? You assume that if evolution is true, that means the Bible is false, even though many people have demonstrated that that's not the case.

So you study one side - the side that agrees with you and your religion - and dismiss all else without seriously considering it. Is that honest? By the way, all Jesus says is that God made us male and female, he never mentions Adam and Eve as literal people (I think you're getting a little big for your britches questioning people's Christianity for believing evolution).

Dr. Francis Collins (an evangelical Christian) says that, even if we had never found a single fossil, the DNA evidence alone is enough to establish evolution as an absolute fact.

I'll issue to you this challenge: We can provide an army of religious people who accept evolution. Find us one [1] informed, non-religious person who disagrees with the theory of evolution.

Until you do this I cannot take you seriously.

P.S. - Speaking of the percentage of scientists who accept evolution...

 

[morningstar2651]

I think the "Evolution is a conspiracy by evil mad scientists" argument is entertaining.

That wasn't a compliment, btw.

 

[Strathos]

I said in the physical sciences forum, I'm a theistic evolutionist. I believe in deep time and common descent, but that it is all part of God's plan. I take an allegorical view of most of the creation story in Genesis.

 

[LoveNeverDies]

Maybe there is a reason that everyone says you don't understand evolution.

• Reason: You don't understand evolution.
• You claim that evolution states that a frog can evolve into a prince. Evolution states no such thing.
• Your incorrect statements about evolution reveal to us that you either don't understand it, or are intentionally misrepresenting it
• Since you are Christian, I will assume that you would not willingly give false testimony, so I must conclude that you simply do not understand how evolution works.

Maybe there is a reason you've never seen any convincing evidence for evolution.

• Reason: You won't be convinced by evidence due to fear of going to Hell.
• You have set up a conflict between evolution and your belief in Jesus. In your mind, you cannot accept evolution without rejecting the omnipotence of Jesus.

• You believe that evolution is blasphemy against God, and imply that any Christians that disagree with you are going to Hell.

• If we follow this chain of reasoning as you have, to accept evidence of evolution is to accept evolution, to accept evolution is to blaspheme, and to blaspheme is to be hellbound. Therefore, to accept evidence of evolution is to be hellbound.

Well thanks for the long reply. By the way, do you have any evidence for evolution? Just wondering.