Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[fat wee robin]

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

Because there is no evidence for atheistic uncreated evolution it after all .Most of the
so called evidence was manufactured to fit into the atheist ,materialistic mindset of the 19 th /20 th century which was de rigeur, at that time .
.
Read a "The case for Creation" , by LEE STROBEL .
I do however think that the idea of being born more than once is a reality that has been ignored by Christians ,as God allows for the soul's evolution upwards, since we fell from 'heaven' downwards ,and YEC has muddied intellectual clarity and research on the part of christians ,who often are a serious problem when they are not 'seekers'.

 

[fat wee robin]

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

What kind of 'evolution 'do you believe in ?

 

[whois]

i think the most telling fact of evolution is the question "do you believe in evolution"?
isn't that like saying "do you believe in trigonometry". or "do you believe in pi"?

as far as "ignoring the evidence", what is there to ignore?
there isn't any empirical evidence of the major transitions of evolution
www.researchgate.net/publication/15314671_The_Major_Evolutionary_Transitions

 

[whois]

Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins . . .

i have no idea why evolutionists are distancing themselves from abiogenesis.
the formation and addition of genes to the germline are at the very heart of evolution.

 

[lesliedellow]

i have no idea why evolutionists are distancing themselves from abiogenesis.
the formation and addition of genes to the germline are at the very heart of evolution.

Not true.

 

[whois]

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)

actually "your thread" was highjacked and closed as a result of continued goading and flaming, of which i was not a part of.
furthermore, i request that you contact the moderation and get the names of those responsible and post them just like you have attempted to do with mine.

this is nothing short of attacking my character lewis.

 

[pat34lee]

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)

Because in order to replace God, the evolutionist must deny one
miracle (creation) for a long series of miracles in order to explain
what we see today. You have to begin with

something coming from nothing (the big bang),
order coming from disorder (stellar and planetary evolution),
life from non-life,
consciousness and intelligence from nowhere,
information collecting itself together in meaningful form,
life becoming more complex over time instead of breaking down.

None of the items in the list are seen in nature or real science.

 

[Davian]

Because in order to replace God, the evolutionist must deny one
miracle (creation) <snip>

...and remain unconvinced of a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old.

None of the items in the list are seen in nature or real science.

Indeed, none of that is seen in nature or real science.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't think you have a very accurate perception as to what an "evolutionist" is saying. I, for one, hold that evolution would be impossible without God. I see God as continually creative, so that just one creation won't do. Entropy occurs because the old must give way to the new, if there is to be any real creativity. If you are concerned about creation ex nihilo, that is generally attributed to the biblical account, not the Big Bang. The latter presupposes all matter was compressed down into something less than an atom in size. That is not a nothing. I do not believe that the universe consists of passive, inert, dad matter. I think all matter has a subjective , a mind, is alive. I base this on the fact of evolution; for, in evolution, what is at the top of the scale is what is at the bottom, though to a significantly lesser degree. So, as an "evolutionist, I thin you have no real understanding of evolution.

 

[Doveaman]

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.

Sure, but it is not understood as the evolution of the Hebrews from a barbaric disorganized bunch of apes, into a highly complex city-state.

Bible is a major example of how God works t evolution.

Yes it is, and it has nothing to do with humans evolving from apes. That's not biblical. That's fictional.

 

[Doveaman]

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

Well, to be fair, there are two competing forms of evolution, theistic evolution (God did it) and atheistic evolution (God did not do it).

But I do agree that neither of the two has anything to do with Christianity or the Bible.

 

[Doveaman]

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.

Germ theory, atomic theory, and semiconductor theory produce tangible results that affect our everyday lives. Evolution theory does not. It's nothing more than an imaginary idea.

 

[durangodawood]

"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.

By your standard, every myth in all of human culture reads like history. Same for most of fiction writing.

 

[Doveaman]

Because in order to replace God, the evolutionist must deny one
miracle (creation)

"They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator" -- (Romans 1:25).

 

[Doveaman]

By your standard, every myth in all of human culture reads like history. Same for most of fiction writing.

A historical record is only a myth to those who don't believe it.

A lack of belief in history does not alter history.

The Bible remains a record of history even if you don't believe the history.

 

[durangodawood]

....The Bible remains a record of history even if you don't believe the history.

Keep in mind that's a matter of faith.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You don't consult the historical record of origins either.

Mythology, you mean.

You have a bias approach to the subject. No reason to take you seriously when you cherry-pick the evidence.

I don't need people to take me seriously... in not a creationist.

 

[TLK Valentine]

A historical record is only a myth to those who don't believe it.

That's why the Bible contains mythology.

The Bible remains a record of history even if you don't believe the history.

The trick is separating the history from the myth...

 

[bhsmte]

"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.

It reads like a claim, not credible history.

Credible history, would pass the historical method test, much of the bible doesn't even come close.

 

[Davian]

...
That's not biblical. That's fictional.

One day you will need to explain the methodology by which you delineate these two.