Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I started a perfectly good thread entitled: Why Are You An Evolutionist? and by page 7 it had been hijacked by something I see in everyday life. People who ignore the evidence. (refer post 123)

In legal proceedings the object is to present evidence and in the case of Evolution the evidence in favor of it is already piled to the ceiling.

I am not a biologist but I do love the good old fashioned who-dun-nit.

So let's try this in reverse: Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

(please let's not start with an argument about whether the word 'evolutionist' is relevant, as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould (rip) and others have used the name to describe themselves)

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Because mankind has established that they do not want God as their divine maker and, in their search for a natural cause, have stumbled upon evidence only conclusive in a worldview commensurate to a godless reality. Gravity is god and life is an accident.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Because mankind has established that they do not want God as their divine maker and, in their search for a natural cause, have stumbled upon evidence only conclusive in a worldview commensurate to a godless reality. Gravity is god and life is an accident.

As far as I understand it, evolution doesn't have anything to do with origins nor is it an accident. (refer the bold in your sentences)

Misconceptions about Evolution : http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

 

[Winken]

Misconceptions about Evolution : http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

That opening item says a lot; however, it leaves open a number of questions. The use of does, ideas, whether or not, but, regardless, not the central focus, most studies, really narrow the scope of any inquiry.

The rest of the items also require one to fine tune interpretation in view of the difficulties (if, and, but) associated with the explantions.

Perhaps others (not me) will have the time to devote to the discussion.

Gotta go......... Good Night.

 

[Davian]

Because mankind has established that they do not want God as their divine maker and, in their search for a natural cause, have stumbled upon evidence only conclusive in a worldview commensurate to a godless reality. Gravity is god and life is an accident.

"Accident" implies "unfortunate", "unexpected" and "unintentional". It is my understanding that the process of life began on this planet as soon as it had cooled sufficiently to allow it.

By "accident", what do you think was supposed to happen?

 

[crjmurray]

Aaaayyy Lewis!!!!!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The whole thing is too wondrous to have simply evolved. The more science discovers the more wondrous it becomes. Science leads us into the woods and attempts to show us the 'forest', which of course we can't see because of all the trees. I want to see the whole forest first, so I consult GoogleEarth.

 

[lesliedellow]

(please let's not start with an argument about whether the word 'evolutionist' is relevant, as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould (rip) and others have used the name to describe themselves)

Not to mention no lesser person than Charles Darwin. Maybe you've heard of him.

 

[Doveaman]

As far as I understand it, evolution doesn't have anything to do with origins nor is it an accident.

It does include human origin, which contradicts biblical origin of humans.

 

[Doveaman]

I started a perfectly good thread entitled: Why Are You An Evolutionist? and by page 7 it had been hijacked by something I see in everyday life. People who ignore the evidence. (refer post 123)

In legal proceedings the object is to present evidence and in the case of Evolution the evidence in favor of it is already piled to the ceiling.

I am not a biologist but I do love the good old fashioned who-dun-nit.

So let's try this in reverse: Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

Because evolution theory ignores the historical evidence recorded in Scripture. You cannot cherry-pick the evidence.

 

[lesliedellow]

Because evolution theory ignores the historical evidence recorded in Scripture. You cannot cherry-pick the evidence.

You don't have to be a liberal to notice that Genesis 1 is highly stylised, and doesn't read like history. You only have to be Timothy Keller, or Bruce Waltke.

 

[Doveaman]

You don't have to be a liberal to notice that Genesis 1 is highly stylised, and doesn't read like history. You only have to be Timothy Keller, or Bruce Waltke.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" reads like history to me.

"Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground" reads like history to me.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, Doveaman, I beg to disagree you comment that evolution does not square with the history given in the Bible. As far as am concerned of the best testimonies is the Bible itself. The OT is best understood as the evolution of the Hebrews from a barbaric disorganized bunch of nomads, into a highly complex city-state. Bible is a major example of how God works t evolution. It is also a major example of devolution or extinction, as the Hebrews lose their proud status of being a mighty nation and get scattered to the winds.

 

[stevevw]

As far as I understand it, evolution doesn't have anything to do with origins nor is it an accident. (refer the bold in your sentences)

Misconceptions about Evolution : http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

Evolution states that it has nothing to do with the origins of life ie life from non life. But when do you start to have evolution. Is it when a fundamental one cell life form came into existence. Or when basic genetics such as RNA began to replicate itself which is really a bunch of chemicals that that have some function to replicate. It still doesn't account for where all the information came from for life. So even if we go from this very basic form of life we have to go from that to what we see today. To do that evolution has to create a lot of new genetic info along the way.

Evolution states this is done by a very slow and gradual process that adds small bits of new features and functions. In the old days people use to think life was simple. Today we know it is massively complex. The fossil records shows the sudden appearance of complex creatures without any trace of where they came from. Tests have been done on the evolution of proteins to see if they can add new functional ability. These tests so far have found that they either cant do this even with small changes which involve taking out an existing function and then replacing it with a new one that is viable. It will either be non functional or take to long to do.

So if we started with a simple single celled organism and end with what we are now discovering with the vast complexity of our DNA how is it possible for evolution to create all of life. If we say there are billions of bits of information to create and it takes millions of years to create even simple steps there isn't enough time. What the evidence is showing is the opposite. Evolution through mutations actually takes info away and makes things less fit. To get even a simple benefit a creature has to go through a lot of harmful stages that make it unfit overall. This would cause it to reject any so called beneficial mutations. Evolution has made a theory that looks good on the surface but breaks down in its detail.

 

[SkyWriting]

I am not a biologist but I do love the good old fashioned who-dun-nit.

Yes, those are fiction as well.

"It is tempting for the scientist to deduce the events of a crime from the crime scene findings. This activity, known as scenario building, is not only useless but also harmful. A person who does this will frequently find himself to be wrong when he learns more facts at a later date."

 

[Deidre32]

Is it not possible for a Christian to also be an evolutionist? I ''believe'' in evolution.

 

[PapaZoom]

To agree with Darwinian Evolution I would have to first fully understand it and its implications. I don't. I'm not a biologist or scientist of any kind. But I can read and what I like to read about leads me to believe there are many flaws in the theory itself. It can't answer many questions and some of the predictions DE makes simply don't happen. Or as we find out new information, old DE beliefs become weaker.

Is there something to evolution? I have to say yes. But what that is exactly I don't know. And I won't simply believe something just because a bunch of scientists say so. Especially when other scientists say something else. Perhaps I've read too much Stephen Meyer but his ideas make a lot of sense to me and he asks very good questions. I suspect there is much more to discover. Until we can know much, much more, I will remain very skeptical of DE.

 

[Paul K]

Well, truth be told, This discussion is pretty much moot. evolutionist will debate this topic with christians until they are blue in the face, and christians will debate this topic until they are blue in the face. Regardless of evidence presented either way, it still wouldn't change each other's mind to either become evolutionist, or become literal christians. Evolution is the theory that life evolved from nothing. (theory: scientific hypothesis yet proven) Darwin observed the difference between animals on the Islands compared to the larger landmass and deduced that life must evolve to suit the environment around them. But there is no evidence. There is no transitional evidence of evolution. all science have is an organism that used to be like that kind, and the next organism that suddenly looks different than the previous one. no slow transition into a newer form of life. Like I said in the beginning of this post, It doesn't matter what evidence I present, or sources where I got, the evolutionist will never change their mind and start to believe in an Intelligent Creator that created everything at one like the Bible says in Genesis.

P

 

[Dirk1540]

People should stop arguing about 'Evolution.' Evolution is a fact. Can people PLEASE refer to it as a 'Common Descent' argument. So...I am not a 'Common Descentist' because there is no evidence for it. The supposed missing links are weak conjecture, they are terrible. I once listened to a professor do a lecture on 'Proof' for common descent and he was talking about some type of squirrel that lived near a canyon that eventually split the squirrel population apart and within 100 years or so (it was so long ago I can't exactly remember) it formed a totally new species. His argument being that geographical separation will cause a species change. My instant reaction was 'Umm...then why is it that for AT LEAST thousands of years humans have been geographically separated on different continents YET every human on Earth can still visit the same physician because we are all physiologically the same?

To this objection a 'Common Decsentist' argued something about some Bottle Neck theory to me, something about how a population has to be severely depleted for a species jump to occur (we were also arguing the fact that the world population decreases as you go back in time). I started getting the feeling that they just look at all the data and then just redefine what evolution means, they are always saying 'You don't understand the proper definition of evolution theory!!' Uh yeah, evolution theory means adapting the definition of the 'theory' to new evidence as it comes in and then saying "Yeah Yeah THAT is how evolution takes place!!" Seems very circular to me.

I am not a Common Descentist because common descent is impressive from a bird's eye view but it is a joke under a microscope. Get down into the nitty gritty details and the physiological differences between ape and man is stunning and off the charts. Apes don't even have sweat glands for one, an ape nose presents evolution problems when compared to a human nose, there are so many physiological aspects of apes that are completely baffling as to how those organs would have possibly been a predecessor to human organs. The idea of gills turning into lungs is baffling physiologically, again the explanation can sound great from a bird's eye view, it seems like the explanation seems credible when explained with fake artistic pictures in a 4th grade science book, but the argument sounds impossible at the detailed micro level. In other words, if you believe common descent you may as well abandon any attempt to link 'Close' species together, because they are not close at all on a micro level, the changes that would have to take place are drastic. Gills turning into lungs is so drastic of a change that you may as well equally believe that the human ancestor could have been the earth worm instead of the ape.

I am not a Common Descentist because there is ZERO evolution of human intelligence. Our absolute earliest records of humans were equally as smart as we are, I can name 100 people right now who would not be able understand some of the things that ancient Egyptians or Mesopotamians figured out. And then right before that time...we were ignorant apes?? No way. Where is the intellectual evolution? A huge part of the common descent of man theory revolves around before and after humans possessed the ability to communicate with language. Isn't it funny that English is a simple language compared to some of the most ancient languages in recorded history. Some of the oldest most primitive languages are SO complicated and complex that they can have up to 20 different words to describe a word that English has only one word for. Hebrew dominates our 'Evolved' English language in complexity that's why translations are tough in some places.

The only thing that can survive for thousands and thousands of years are stone structures. The entire world is teeming with ancient structures that have architects today saying 'I couldn't build that!' Nor would it make any sense to build these things, why on Earth are there ancient walls where each rock weighs 8 tons, what sense does that make? And all these massive stones are connected, and you can not even fit a piece of paper thru any contact points. This one guy had a professional leveling table that cost an insane amount of money, it was precise down to an insanely accurate point, he studied ancient structures (like tombs in the pyramids) that were level down to the thickness of 1/10th of the width of a human hair! I totally believe that there was a time in the past were technology was very advanced. The idea that men with chisels built this stuff is very hard to believe, moreover the idea is in many architect's minds literally impossible. There is zero evidence of human evolution of intelligence.

I am not a common descentist because humans are a complete enigma unlike ANY species. From an evolution stand point we make no sense. Think about this statement...'The natural order has given rise to a species that does nothing but destroy the natural order.' That makes no sense why would evolution produce such a self destructive organism? We relocate species all around the world and totally destroy the balance, we take a specie out of it's designed habitat relocate it to an area with no natural predator and it completely wreaks havoc . My friend can never replace his hard wood floors because the tree doesn't exist anymore, compliments of us importing a foreign tree that completely wiped out the prior specie of tree. We've destroyed marchy buffer zones that reduce the impact of hurricanes on land...obviously I can go on and on and on. NO species brought forth from the natural order destroys the natural order (except us) because it doesn't make sense.

I am not a Common Decsentist because humans completely undermine the theory. We have a monopoly on innovative intelligence and evolution should be arming other species with innovative intelligence to cope with our onslaught. The monopoly makes no evolutionary sense. Over time species will evolve and develop attributes that give them defenses, such as the peppered moth that evolved to a different color during the industrial revolution because the soot was causing them to be too visible on trees and they were being wiped out by their natural predators. How many species have we destroyed? How many species do we eat? We clearly go outside of our 'Natural prey' zone and indulge in every exotic food we want to. Where is the evolutionary processes of intelligence for other species to fight back? For the love of God we can have a nuclear holocaust and wipe out nearly every species on Earth!

The peppered moth, and the professor's alleged evolved squirrel took place rapidly. Darwin's finches evolved their beaks rapidly (or else they would starve). So please don't respond with the dreadful platitude that an intelligence evolution would take 10,000,000 years. Let me repeat my nuclear holocaust point again, there are millions of species who's existence is in immediate danger and they do not have 10,000,000 years (just like the finches didn't have 10,000,000 years).

 

[Davian]

...(theory: scientific hypothesis yet proven)

What other theories do you reject, besides evolutionary theory? Germ theory, atomic theory? And don't forget semiconductor theory. Computers don't actually work, they are another scam by NASA to take your money, to fund the Mars hoax. Better turn yours off right now.