If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[pitabread]

The problem with this is, most people who are creationists go to schools that teach evolution. We see both sides of it. It's really the atheists and evolutionists who have NEVER stopped and looked at something with an open mind. I have. I used to be an atheist until I had an experience that told me God is real. You could easily discount that experience as a hallucination, but I know it was real. From there, I went on a journey to discover who God is.

That's fine. But I fail to see how your personal experience finding religion suddenly means whole swaths of science is false.

On top of that this really isn't an atheism versus theism debate, given the number of theists that happily accept scientific findings including those who are practicing scientists themselves.

 

[Saucy]

Because science is constantly changing. The thing that evolves more than nature is the textbooks. Stuff I was taught in high school is already wrong and obsolete. You find something in the dirt and put your own spin and bias on it based upon what others have told you. All creationism does, in terms of AIG, is offers an alternative explanation.

 

[xianghua]

Species that have children pass on their genes. Species that don't have children disappear from the Earth. That's all evolution is.

its not evolution. evolution its about a common descent between many different creatures. a bannan and a cat shared a common descent according to evolution. there is no scientific evidence to support this claim (check also my signature link).

 

[xianghua]

You mention all these other "scientific journals." Did you know that if you go to the "Fiction" section of a library, you will find more than one book?

there are also many scientific papers that support creation rather then evolution. as you can find here:


http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141

do you believe in id now?

 

[xianghua]

Greg and the other anti-evolutionists posting on this thread lack the integrity and love of Truth to watch and then comment on these 2 YouTube lectures by Roman Catholic cell biologist and evolution text book writer, Dr. Kenneth. Prove me wrong

can you choose one of miller evidence that is your favorite and we will discuss about it? what if i will show you that he is wrong?

 

[Greg Merrill]

there are also many scientific papers that support creation rather then evolution. as you can find here:


http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141

do you believe in id now?

That is a long list indeed. Thanks for the link. Meyers, Dembski, Behe, and others are familiar from the video "Where Does the Evidence Lead?" which I have on disk and enjoy watching every once in a while.

 

[Greg Merrill]

can you choose one of miller evidence that is your favorite and we will discuss about it? what if i will show you that he is wrong?

I don't let J.W.s, Mormons, or telemarketers waste my time either. Half the time I hit the mute button on the commercials on the little amount of T.V. that I watch as well. Am I closed minded to all of these? You betcha. I guard my mind, and the time I have left on this planet. I grew up under the teaching of evolution. I have studied it plenty. I have studied the Bible a heck of a lot more. Evolution and the Bible (which doesn't even teach Theistic Evolution) are diametrically opposed. They don't mix, and both suffer when people try to force them together. The serious student of both must come to a choice. I choose to believe God.

 

[Deadworm]

Greg: "Am I closed minded to all of these? You betcha."

Readers, I posted my integrity challenge because I knew Greg and his ilk are not intellectually honest enough to consider both sides of the burning questions of our day. I was confident that they would find any excuse not to watch videos of the man who, more than anyone, can be considered the spokesman for the teaching of evolution in our public schools. It was this closed-minded attitude that drove me away from the evangelical church of my youth in search of honest truth seekers. I had doubts about apparent biblical errors and contradictions and sought help for these issues which arose after long periods of fasting and prayer. I was a devout young Christian who attended church 3 times a week and actively witnessed to my faith and my life-changing relationship with Jesus Christ.

Greg: "Evolution and the Bible (which doesn't even teach Theistic Evolution) are diametrically opposed. They don't mix, and both suffer when people try to force them together. The serious student of both must come to a choice. I choose to believe God."

I was desperate to love God with all my mind as well as all my heart, as the Bible requires. This meant that I couldn't just make an insipid choice to embrace a literal interpretation of Genesis. I asked those to whom I witnessed to be honest and consider the possibility that they were wrong; so I realized that I needed to do the same. Then Gord Edmonds, a kind lay leader, sympathized with my quest and made this honest confession: "You don't have to be stupid to be a Christian, Don, but sometimes I think it surely helps." What I wanted most of all was to be an honest evangelical apologist to help me become a more effective witness to young seekers like myself. In college I found intelligent agnostic friends who breathed the fresh air of honest and open inquiry. They somehow struck me as more human than closed-minded evangelicals.

I hope some of you will watch Ken Miller's videos. He is a devout Catholic, celebrated author of school textbooks on evolution and, in my view, a more compelling speaker than most preachers I have heard. If you watch his videos, you have the chance to escape the charge that you read only evangelical propaganda, authors who support you bias, to create a strawman that gives you a rationalization for failing to love God with all you mind, as well as your heart.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Secular scientist are trained with a bias against God to begin with.

Ken Miller.
Francis Collins.

Both well known evolutionary biologists.
Both widely recognised in their field for their expertise.

Both devout christians.

And let's not even talk about the fact that the Vatican (and the vast majority of christians along with them) accepts mainstream biology without any religious objection.

There goes your "against god" argument.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When God shows us that the material universe is only 6-10,000 years old

First of all, it is not shown to be that age, it is claimed to be that age. To show and to claim are 2 very different things.

Secondly, you don't have a god saying that.... you have a book claiming that. A book, written by humans claiming to be speaking for a god.

, and men say that it is millions of years old, then that is "distorted."

First of all, it's billions not millions.

Secondly, it's not "men" saying that... It's evidence demonstrating that.
It's objective measurements demonstrating that.

And old earth in an even older universe, is established by the facts of reality.
Your claims, are established by claims in a bronze age book.


I'll stick to the facts of reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You mention all these other "scientific journals." Did you know that if you go to the "Fiction" section of a library, you will find more than one book?

Did you know that if you go to the religion section of a library, you will find many scriptures of other religions?

The difference is that the science journals roughly all tell the same story and complement eachother, while the different religions are all mutually exclusive and contradict eachother at every turn, while all of them claim to be holding the "Truth and nothing but the Truth", captial "T". Most of them will also go on to claim that all those who don't accept it as "Truth", will receive (and deserve) some kind of harsh punishment.

Then there's also all those religions that have died out by now. You can find their scriptures in the fiction section today. I predict that that is the destiny of all religions, eventually.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because science is constantly changing.

It's called "learning".

All creationism does, in terms of AIG, is offers an alternative explanation.

Creationism "explains" nothing at all.
It just asserts. Religiously. In ways that fly in the face of reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

its not evolution. evolution its about a common descent between many different creatures. a bannan and a cat shared a common descent according to evolution. there is no scientific evidence to support this claim

Except that it's a genetic fact that species share ancestry, off course.

 

[DogmaHunter]

there are also many scientific papers that support creation rather then evolution. as you can find here:


http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141

do you believe in id now?

The discovery institute is a propaganda organization with a religious agenda. Not a scientific journal.

 

[[z]]

.

 

[[z]]

Greg: "Am I closed minded to all of these? You betcha."

Readers, I posted my integrity challenge because I knew Greg and his ilk are not intellectually honest enough to consider both sides of the burning questions of our day. I was confident that they would find any excuse not to watch videos of the man who, more than anyone, can be considered the spokesman for the teaching of evolution in our public schools. It was this closed-minded attitude that drove me away from the evangelical church of my youth in search of honest truth seekers. I had doubts about apparent biblical errors and contradictions and sought help for these issues which arose after long periods of fasting and prayer. I was a devout young Christian who attended church 3 times a week and actively witnessed to my faith and my life-changing relationship with Jesus Christ.

Greg: "Evolution and the Bible (which doesn't even teach Theistic Evolution) are diametrically opposed. They don't mix, and both suffer when people try to force them together. The serious student of both must come to a choice. I choose to believe God."

I was desperate to love God with all my mind as well as all my heart, as the Bible requires. This meant that I couldn't just make an insipid choice to embrace a literal interpretation of Genesis. I asked those to whom I witnessed to be honest and consider the possibility that they were wrong; so I realized that I needed to do the same. Then Gord Edmonds, a kind lay leader, sympathized with my quest and made this honest confession: "You don't have to be stupid to be a Christian, Don, but sometimes I think it surely helps." What I wanted most of all was to be an honest evangelical apologist to help me become a more effective witness to young seekers like myself. In college I found intelligent agnostic friends who breathed the fresh air of honest and open inquiry. They somehow struck me as more human than closed-minded evangelicals.

I hope some of you will watch Ken Miller's videos. He is a devout Catholic, celebrated author of school textbooks on evolution and, in my view, a more compelling speaker than most preachers I have heard. If you watch his videos, you have the chance to escape the charge that you read only evangelical propaganda, authors who support you bias, to create a strawman that gives you a rationalization for failing to love God with all you mind, as well as your heart.

Say, what do you make of the gospel? I'd like to understand some of what your saying that I am missing but it makes me curious about this. At your leisure of course.

 

[[z]]

It's called "learning".


Lol which suggest adaptation to a truth and thus reflects a process of change in state interestingly enough.
Whereas God is seen firmly as foundation-al truth and as such unchanging.

 

[Jimmy D]

Lol which suggest adaptation to a truth and thus reflects a process of change in state interestingly enough.
Whereas God is seen firmly as foundation-al truth and as such unchanging.

God might be unchanging (although I'm not convinced when comparing the wrathful God of the OT with the forgiving God of the NT, and the dropping of the unpalatable laws of the OT) but religion certainly is not unchanging - It constantly changes to reflect the current social or moral standards of the day.

 

[Larniavc]

... then what have they been publishing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology all these years?

(Not to mention other scientific journals like Evolution, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Genome Biology and Evolution, and so on...)

Pure propaganda. It’s a web of lies to stop people believing in God.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Lol which suggest adaptation to a truth and thus reflects a process of change in state interestingly enough.

Huh?

You don't like progress / learning?

Whereas God is seen firmly as foundation-al truth and as such unchanging

If you like to think so....
Off course, it's not really true as the ways people see / believe their religious scriptures, also changes throughout time. Ironically, that change is oftenly motivated by actual progress in science.