I give up: I'd rather go backwards, than forwards (in Evolution)

[Speedwell]

I actually do agree with you. There is no evidence for a short time frame. But does an absence of evidence mean evidence of absence (sorry, I know that’s a facile response)?

In this case there is evidence of a long time frame. the modern science of geology was founded in the 18th and early 19th century by scholars--most of them clergymen--who had set out to to find evidence of the flood. Finally they had to give it up because the evidence was unequivocal--the Earth was old and there had been no flood.

What am I really saying?

Hebrew 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I have faith that we have ToE at least somewhat wrong. Wishful thinking? Perhaps, possibly, definitely?

But belief in Him has it’s very foundation in Hope.

YIC

Why would you wish the ToE to be "at least somewhat wrong?" What about it do you dislike?

 

[driewerf]

Yes but assuming G2, G3 and G4 see G1 reaching zero, without help, by the third generation, G2 is able to adopt an adaptation that reverts to G1 with some of its offspring and not with others, G3 and G4 are able to mate with the reverted G1 and G1 will be 33% by the fourth generation.

So it is a question of foresight, not terminality - by which you confuse yourself, that the absence is the end.

If you were committed to adopting the greatest strength you could, for the human race, you would focus on adding to the gene pool, that which is most strategically an honouring of the difference the human race makes, not the similitude.

Not judging by the similitude, strengthens the spirit, not just the testimony.

From the text above it is very obvious that you don't know anything about the Theory of Evolution.
Here are two resources to learn about it.
Welcome to Evolution 101!

 

[driewerf]

I think the problem here is that you are claiming populations know something that individuals do not.

If Evolution cannot be applied by the individual, it cannot be a prerogative.

I have faith. If I believe that faith is important, I treat it as a prerogative - that means I try to treat it consistently, from one instance of believing it, to the next.

If Evolution is not a prerogative, you can generalise it all you like, but it will not ultimately bear any fruit.

From the text above it is very obvious that you don't know anything about the Theory of Evolution.
Here are two resources to learn about it.
Welcome to Evolution 101!

 

[driewerf]

I have identified, that throwbacks and innovation are a different phenomenon, than Evolution.

Evolution, requires capitulation to taller and taller orders - whereas throwing back and innovating can appear with a commitment of "one".

Wanting to make Evolution something great, then, is a furphy - whereas lots of little Evolutions confirm what has already become instinct.

This is phenomenologically hard.

In future, don't bother communicating Evolution to other individuals, that can't evolve; don't bother keeping a history of Evolution that never changes, without testing not changing on something that believes in Evolution; don't bother adapting to something better than Evolution, when you make everything that evolves, more like a difference that doesn't matter.

From the text above it is very obvious that you don't know anything about the Theory of Evolution.
Here are two resources to learn about it.
Welcome to Evolution 101!

 

[driewerf]

Hi there,

So I don't know whether to make this long or short, I just want to say that whatever Evolution is, I am not going to chase it. I just don't want to. I would rather be backwards and have faith; than go forwards and "evolve". It's not that I am not capable of intellectual denial of my desire to have faith, its just that "faith" to me, is everything: I cannot simply give up faith, for something that is poorly explained as "an imaginary past, with self-contradictory roots). I have tried, believe me I have tried.

You say "just let a mutation, dictate what you adapt" that to me, makes no sense at all - it is a deception of half measures "you won't loose your stand, you will just begin not to make one" when that is the very thing that God asks us to do: make a stand. That's what it says in the gospels "be able to stand". There is comfort in that, actually, because I realize that fundamentally, no one who believes in Evolution, is able to make a stand themselves - I am not in competition with people, who excel at understanding the word; I am at rest on the foundation that I have understood what Jesus said, that what He said will stand, within me, even if I pass over, to the other side.

So thanks for all the arguments, all the cheap shots - like that I don't understand something that is basically an unconcealed paradox - all the jokes that my attempts to understand Evolution have destroyed my sense of reasoning: I can cope with all that. I can cope with it because my Evolution is better than anything you could force on me, it is a failed Evolution, one that will never be forwards, until that time, when I strengthen it again in Heaven and do not have to come back, to explain myself, and why my Evolution is different to everyone else's. Not that I have tried to leave you with no explanation, but that the only answer to being able to continue to serve the Lord, is to do without the "progress" that Evolution offers (and nothing else, that it might be said Evolution fixed the problem).

I am the Lion, that doesn't want it's teeth; I am the giraffe, that hangs its head in thirst; I am the monkey, that is dissatisfied with more bananas. I am all these things because I cannot be anything other than what I am: a human being, who no longer functions in the realm of reason, because Evolution has called it into doubt. All of nature is with me, in rejection of Evolution, because it cannot follow it in strength, that the Lord may bless. Jesus Himself, hangs His Head in shame, because the Devil is naked and trumpets Evolution in every direction, without any sense, in how it might take an honourable stance on the life of its constituent believers.

It just gets easier from here: the more backward I stay, the less I have to think about Evolution; the less I have to think about Evolution, the more confident I will become, because I don't have to question it; the more confident I become, the more quiet I will be able to stay, having to use the concept of Evolution less, reducing my ambiguity, increasing the chance that I will just do what is normal for something God has created, as He has created me. In the end it will be unmistakeable, I will have made the backward backward, and my focus, the predator coming for my sense, to make me looseningly witless - that I may resist him, and still make the sense needed, to be at peace with God.

It is not too late, to be backwards with me; to defend nature, from becoming a lawless mess.

From the text above it is very obvious that you don't know anything about the Theory of Evolution.
Here are two resources to learn about it.
Welcome to Evolution 101!

 

[Speedwell]

I think of my self as a man of faith. I see the evidence that is present and I have to say ‘yup, that does make sense’. But my faith in His Word makes me think ‘that can’t be right’.

I see the evidence for deep time, the evidence for speciation (nylon eating bacteria), etc but if faith is important to Him it is important to me.

YIC

I'm still not sure I see the point you are trying to make. Faith in God really has little or nothing to do with the question of whether the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory.

 

[Speedwell]

I guess what I’m saying is that it is shame that more scientist don’t look into alternatives to the current ToE.

What makes you think they don't?

I understand why it is the case an I lament it.

Can you share with us why you think that is the case?

 

[driewerf]

I guess what I’m saying is that it is shame that more scientist don’t look into alternatives to the current ToE.

What scientific alternatives are there? And how would these be supported by more or better evidence than the ToE

 

[driewerf]

I think of my self as a man of faith. I see the evidence that is present and I have to say ‘yup, that does make sense’. But my faith in His Word makes me think ‘that can’t be right’.

I see the evidence for deep time, the evidence for speciation (nylon eating bacteria), etc but if faith is important to Him it is important to me.

YIC

And why would faith conflict with the ToE. Millions of christians world wide combine their christianity with the acceptance of science harmoniously. What do they know more/less than you?

 

[driewerf]

All I ever see in terms of ‘research’ is the Discovery Institute who are perhaps the worst examples of why ideas that query ToE are lampooned.

As for why? Science clearly does not agree with the Bible (without the kind of laughable mental gymnastics I’ve seen in forums) and this makes my walk with Christ challenging.

But whenever I think that I am in conflict with myself I remember

Matthew 16:24 - Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me

Science does not agree with a literal reading of the bible. But millions of christians world wide combine their christianity with the acceptance of science harmoniously. What do they know more/less than you?

 

[Speedwell]

All I ever see in terms of ‘research’ is the Discovery Institute who are perhaps the worst examples of why ideas that query ToE are lampooned.

As for why? Science clearly does not agree with the Bible (without the kind of laughable mental gymnastics I’ve seen in forums) and this makes my walk with Christ challenging.

But whenever I think that I am in conflict with myself I remember

Matthew 16:24 - Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me

Well, stick with it. I've been a Christian all my life, but I wasn't aware that people seriously took Genesis as literal history until I was quite an adult. My response on hearing it was "They believe what??? about the Bible??? Why?" I still don't know why. I hang around places like this hoping that some creationist will provide a sensible answer, but so far it hasn't happened.

 

[ForHimbyHim]

From the text above it is very obvious that you don't know anything about the Theory of Evolution.
Here are two resources to learn about it.
Welcome to Evolution 101!

Thank you for this video, it was a good refresher. I was agreeing with the video, until we got to common ancestor for all of us. How can that be if they are clearly very distinct differences between a rat and I, is it not possible to have similar DNA and still be totally different things? Why do we have to conclude, because of that we have a common ancestor.
Plus where are all the middle men?

And secondly that an elephant evolved from a shrew. Surely that should mean an elephant and shrew can mate to form another species? Why do elephants then only mate with elephants.
It also doesn't explain the difference between humans and other animals, regardless of how different they are.

Please note that I am asking. Don't come on me with a ton of bricks.

 

[driewerf]

Thank you for this video, it was a good refresher. I was agreeing with the video, until we got to common ancestor for all of us.

In other words, you don't agree with the video at all. For that is one of the essential conclusion of the ToE.

How can that be if they are clearly very distinct differences between a rat and I, is it not possible to have similar DNA and still be totally different things?

You should be amazed how many features you (and I) share with rats

• we 're eukaryotes
• we 're multicellular
• we have an internal skeleton
• we have all our body covered with hair
• we have differentiated teeth
• we have a constant body temperature
• we feed our offspring with maternal milk
• etc

Why do we have to conclude, because of that we have a common ancestor.
Plus where are all the middle men?

There are thousands and thousands of fossils and living species "in between".

And secondly that an elephant evolved from a shrew.

No, elephants and shrews share a common ancestor. But one doesn't descend from the other.

Surely that should mean an elephant and shrew can mate to form another species?

No, for first, speciation means prodructive isolation, if elephants and shrews could mate and have fertile offspring they would be the same species. This is very very basic.

Why do elephants then only mate with elephants.

Because the reproductive isolation I mentioned can be obtained through many different ways; different territories, the "mechanics" don't fit, being fertile in different periods of the year, being aroused by different signals like sound, mating dances, pheromones etc.

It also doesn't explain the difference between humans and other animals, regardless of how different they are.

Indeed, the evolution of elephants doesn't explain the origin of humans. It just explains the origin of...elephants.

Please note that I am asking. Don't come on me with a ton of bricks.

If you 're really interested here are some extra sources:
This is a 30 pages introductional chapter to the ToE
https://www.springtownisd.net/cms/l...ain/101/Bio_Ch_10_Principles_Of_Evolution.pdf

This is a much more elaborated full textbook:
http://www.biologia.buap.mx/Evolution__3rd_Edition.pdf

kind regards

 

[Semper-Fi]

The word theory, according to the Oxford English Dictionary,
is “a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by
observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted
as accounting for the known facts.”

To be considered a theory, something must be “confirmed”
and account for the “known facts.” Evolution has been
neither. Evolution, it seems, is a theory based upon
the evidence of things not seen.

The phrase “theory of evolution” confuses many people
since scientists specifically refer to it as fact.

Why then is it not called the “fact of evolution”?

At best, evolution is a hypothesis. Unproven and without
“correspondence with fact,” it stands as an idea scientists
seem desperate to substantiate, though they remain
unable to do so.


The theory part of it is how it happens they say.
And this “natural selection” has become there
“answer to everything.”

“Natural selection may explain the survival of
the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival
of the fittest.”

Mutations do not spontaneously create new and better
physical traits; they destroy the fine-tuned intricacy of
the genes God originally created.

The probability of life originating from accident is comparable
to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from
an explosion in a printing factory.

Kind Reproduces Kind

God gave humanity a mind that transcends the
abilities of any creature in the physical realm.
A mind even capable of questioning its own existence.

It would take more blind faith to believe my mind could
have developed from a tiny subatomic particle.

 

[Speedwell]

The word theory, according to the Oxford English Dictionary,
is “a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by
observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted
as accounting for the known facts.”

To be considered a theory, something must be “confirmed”
and account for the “known facts.” Evolution has been
neither. Evolution, it seems, is a theory based upon
the evidence of things not seen.

Just because you haven't seen or will not acknowledge the evidence doesn't mean there isn't any.

The phrase “theory of evolution” confuses many people
since scientists specifically refer to it as fact.

Why then is it not called the “fact of evolution”?

It is. Evolution is a fact. Life has developed and diversified since it began. The theory of evolution is an explanation for that fact--all in accord with the definition of 'theory' you posted.

At best, evolution is a hypothesis. Unproven and without
“correspondence with fact,” it stands as an idea scientists
seem desperate to substantiate, though they remain
unable to do so.

It is substantiated. Too bad you are not interested in finding out how.

The theory part of it is how it happens they say.
And this “natural selection” has become there
“answer to everything.”

“Natural selection may explain the survival of
the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival
of the fittest.”

Mutations do not spontaneously create new and better
physical traits; they destroy the fine-tuned intricacy of
the genes God originally created.

The probability of life originating from accident is comparable
to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from
an explosion in a printing factory.

We really don't need these creationist one-liners. they all misrepresent what the theory of evolution claims.

Kind Reproduces Kind

God gave humanity a mind that transcends the
abilities of any creature in the physical realm.
A mind even capable of questioning its own existence.

It would take more blind faith to believe my mind could
have developed from a tiny subatomic particle.

Yet you have no trouble believing that your mind developed from a handful of dust.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Yet you have no trouble believing that your mind developed from a handful of dust.

I believe God said he put "the spirt in man" into all Humans.
This is what makes mans brains far superior to any animal ever.

This is something science book will never tell you.
God said we where made in His image, in his likeness.

 

[Speedwell]

I believe God said he put "the spirt in man" into all Humans.
This is what makes mans brains far superior to any animal ever.

This is something science book will never tell you.
God said we where made in His image, in his likeness.

That's because a science book can only tell us how our physical bodies came about. Not where our immortal soul comes from.

 

[Semper-Fi]

That's because a science book can only tell us how our physical bodies came about. Not where our immortal soul comes from.

How do they explain the vast difference between
man and animals brain output ?

 

[VirOptimus]

How do they explain the vast difference between
man and animals brain output ?

Humans are animals.

 

[Speedwell]

How do they explain the vast difference between
man and animals brain output ?

Evolution. Check it out. What has that to do with our immortal souls?