Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[DogmaHunter]

Faith is based on evidence,

That makes no sense.

 

[stevevw]

You're wrong. The only people who think the evidence is open to that kind of interpretation are the same people who can't accept anything that contradicts their religious beliefs, it is nothing to do with science or evidence.

Francisco Ayala says it better than I could.....

The overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution. Those who know professionally the evidence for evolution cannot deny it. Scientists agree that the evolutionary origin of animals and plants is a scientific conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence is compelling and all-encompassing because it comes from all biological disciplines including those that did not exist in Darwin's time. In the second half of the nineteenth century, Darwin and other biologists obtained convincing evidence from a variety of disciplines, which had reached early maturity during the nineteenth century: anatomy, embryology, biogeography, geology, and paleontology. Since Darwin's time, the evidence for evolution has become much stronger and more comprehensive, coming not only from traditional sources but also from recent disciplines such as genetics, biochemistry, ecology, ethology, neurobiology, and molecular biology. ... Because the evidence is so overwhelming, ... evidence for evolution no longer engages the interest of biologists except when explaining evolution to the public or arguing with those who refuse to accept evolution. Although not sought and no longer needed, the evidence for the fact of evolution continues to accumulate.

You only have to read through the threads on this forum to realize that Creationist arguments are so weak they're laughable and they have to resort to repeating the same nonsense ad infinitum despite being shown it's wrong.

If you want to credit your particular version of God with creation, go for it, but please stop imagining that with nothing more than a casual interest in science and firm religious beliefs you can overturn a century established scientific research and endeavor.

I tend to disagree. I dont know how old that quote is from but modern opinion is that there is a lot of contradictory evidence which is showing that the traditional theory of Darwinian evolution does not have over whelming evidence. A lot of discoveries have shown that it is non adaptive process that contribute to how creatures change from things such as horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements. HGT may have contributed genetic material to living things including more complex creatures way more than we have thought. Many genomic trees are showing contradictory histories to darwinian evolution.

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Comparative genomics and systems biology offer unprecedented opportunities for testing central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Darwin in the Origin of Species in 1859 and expanded in the Modern Synthesis 100 years later. Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/
Scientists at the University of Liverpool have provided the first experimental evidence that shows that evolution is driven most powerfully by interactions between species, rather than adaptation to the environment.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100225091344.htm


Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...he_Origin_of_Metazoa_Thoughts_About_Evolution

The protein folds as Platonic forms: New support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law
" The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419661

Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors1
Contrary to the prevalent view, then, enzyme function places severe constraints on residue identities at positions showing evolutionary variability, and at exterior non-active-site positions, in particular. Homologues sharing less than about two-thirds sequence identity should probably be viewed as distinct designs with their own sets of optimising features.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283600939974

Threshold robustness is inherently epistatic—once the stability threshold is exhausted, the deleterious effects of mutations become fully pronounced, thereby making proteins far less robust than generally assumed.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7121/full/nature05385.htm

Other fields and sources for contributing to the changes in living organisms that are now being seen as playing a more dominate role for changes in living things is symbiosis, epigentics, cross breeding, developmental biology.

So natural selection is not a dominate force and to explain the complexity of life and we need to refer to non adaptive processes and not random mutations and natural selection to find the real mechanisms for change in creatures. Scientists are finding it harder to explain the evidence for changes in living things by a non adaptive Darwinian process. In other words life is too complex to have evolved from a random and chance process such as Darwinian evolution. Complex variety has had to come from existing genetic material that is either activated or is obtained from other creatures and organisms that share the environments.

What scientists are finding is that there may be a set of pre existing pathways and pre set mechanisms that were there very early on in the history of life that has created life's complexity and variety. Too early and similar for evolution to have evolved through a gradual chance and random process that takes millions of years.

Darwinian evolution is limited and mutations actually do the opposite of what is claimed. They take info away and make living things less fit. What many people do is not clarify what they mean by evolution. The evidence is out there for smaller evolutionary changes within species and that has been backed by scientific tests. But there is not the same evidence for larger macro changes beyond species. That has no scientific backing through tests and that is the falsifiable evidence that is needed to prove a hypothesis. It is based on observational evidence and assumption which is not science.

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds
Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis
We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. . We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the "creative factor" in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems. ...
http://ge.tt/8zEY5DM/v/0

 

[Jimmy D]

I tend to disagree. I dont know how old that quote is from but modern opinion is that there is a lot of contradictory evidence which is showing that the traditional theory of Darwinian evolution does not have over whelming evidence. A lot of discoveries have shown that it is non adaptive process that contribute to how creatures change from things such as horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements. HGT may have contributed genetic material to living things including more complex creatures way more than we have thought. Many genomic trees are showing contradictory histories to darwinian evolution.

I'm not the most scientifically literate but do any of those links dispute the fact of evolution? No.

Are they written by scientists who accept common descent? Yes.

There might be debate about the mechanisms, no one is pretending that we know everything there is to know, or that we can't discover more and improve our understanding.

As you've presented some scientific links can we assume that you accept what said biologists are saying? Maybe you just accept what you can shoehorn into your beliefs and the rest is wrong?

Incidentally, I didn't see anything in those links about 'common design' or 'kinds'.

 

[durangodawood]

This is all pretty fascinating.
But rather than not-an-evolutionist ideas, we're seeing better and more accurate explanations for ongoing long term biological evolution.
Right?

 

[Loudmouth]

I tend to disagree. I dont know how old that quote is from but modern opinion is that there is a lot of contradictory evidence which is showing that the traditional theory of Darwinian evolution does not have over whelming evidence. A lot of discoveries have shown that it is non adaptive process that contribute to how creatures change from things such as horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements. HGT may have contributed genetic material to living things including more complex creatures way more than we have thought. Many genomic trees are showing contradictory histories to darwinian evolution.

HGT is a part of the modern theory of evolution. It is evolution.

What you have are religious beliefs that are impervious to evidence. This isn't a matter of us having different interpretations of the evidence. You don't interpret the evidence. Before looking at a single fossil or single DNA sequence, you have already come to the conclusion that a deity created them separately. No fossil nor any DNA sequence will budge you from that dogmatic faith-based conclusion because none of that evidence was used to lead you to that conclusion.

The theory of evolution predicts which fossils we should see and which we should not see. Common creation doesn't make those predictions. The common creator position can no more predict a fossil with a mixture of ape and human features than it can a fossil with ape and canine features. It does not predict a nested hierarchy. Evolution does predict a nested hierarchy, and that is exactly what we observe in those fossils. That is why evolution is the proper interpretation. It correctly predicts observations in a testable and falsifiable manner.

 

[Loudmouth]

The trouble with a much of the evidence is that its open for interpretation. What may seem like common decent can be also seem as common design. What is seen as a transitional can also be seen as natural variation with a species.

A transitional fossil will be a variation within a species. Why you can't understand that is beyond me.

What you can't explain is why we only see the transitional fossils that evolution predicts we should see, and none of the transitional fossils that evolution predicts we shouldn't see. How is that?

Let's look at the common creator claim. You claim that because humans and apes have a common creator that it is possible for there to be other species with a mixture of those two species groups. The problem is that you claim all life has a common creator. Therefore, the possibility of a human-ape transitional should be the same as a human-canine transitional, a mammal-bird transitional, a dinosaur-mammal transitional, or a fish-bird transitional. The common creator claim does not predict a nested hierarchy. Any combination of features is possible.

This isn't the case with the theory of evolution. Due to the near absence of HGT in complex eukaryotes and the dominance of vertical inheritance, we expect to see a nested hierarchy for this group of organisms. If evolution is true, we should not see a bird to mammal transitional, or an ape to canine transitional. Instead, we should only see the transitionals for the proposed evolutionary lineages: reptile to mammal and ape to human. That's the difference.

If you want to claim that you are interpreting the evidence, then you need to actually interpret it. Simply throwing out a faith based explanation is not an interpretation.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not the most scientifically literate but do any of those links dispute the fact of evolution? No.

No one is disputing that there is some evolution in life. We see it in dog breeds and birds and other variations of species. We see it in micro organisms like bacteria in the lab. Things change and adapt to their environments otherwise they would not survive. The question is what role does evolution play in the overall scheme of things. How far can it go in changing a living thing.

There is evidence for small scale evolutionary change but not for large scale change of one creature morphing into a completely different one. Darwin's finches changed their beaks with the changing environment to find food. But they also reverted back to their nature state when things changed back. They didn't go on to become a lizard or some other different creature. Mutations are errors in copying what is already good. The further a creature moves away from their natural state the less fit they become. Darwinian evolution takes what is true micro evolution and expands that into something that has not been verified through scientific tests. It is based on assumption.

There might be debate about the mechanisms, no one is pretending that we know everything there is to know, or that we can't discover more and improve our understanding.

The problem is these other mechanisms are not Darwinian evolution through adaptations from random mutations and natural selection. So if they are more responsible for how living things change then Darwinian evolution is the reason they change.

As you've presented some scientific links can we assume that you accept what said biologists are saying? Maybe you just accept what you can shoehorn into your beliefs and the rest is wrong?

I am not letting my beliefs cloud the evidence. I am merely looking at what scientists are showing about the evidence. But dont assume that supporters of Darwinian evolution dont have a faith in the theory of evolution.

Incidentally, I didn't see anything in those links about 'common design' or 'kinds'.

Some of them talk about life having a common set of pre existing genetic info and pathways for how changes occur. Too much so to be random and through a naturalistic process. They talk about the basic proteins of life being like pre existing set forms like the laws of physics or nature and are the same for all life. That complex genetic info had to be present even in the earliest of life forms because they had complexity that we see today. The Cambrian explosion is an example of this and there is no trace of where this complexity came from.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is evidence for small scale evolutionary change but not for large scale change of one creature morphing into a completely different one.

There is evidence.

There is also genetic evidence demonstrating that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/endogenous-retroviruses-and-human-evolution-v-2.7911273/

Mutations are errors in copying what is already good. The further a creature moves away from their natural state the less fit they become.

Then how can chimps and humans both be fit species while differing by 40 million mutations?

The facts prove you wrong.

 

[Jimmy D]

No one is disputing that there is some evolution in life. We see it in dog breeds and birds and other variations of species. We see it in micro organisms like bacteria in the lab. Things change and adapt to their environments otherwise they would not survive. The question is what role does evolution play in the overall scheme of things. How far can it go in changing a living thing.

There is evidence for small scale evolutionary change but not for large scale change of one creature morphing into a completely different one. Darwin's finches changed their beaks with the changing environment to find food. But they also reverted back to their nature state when things changed back. They didn't go on to become a lizard or some other different creature. Mutations are errors in copying what is already good. The further a creature moves away from their natural state the less fit they become. Darwinian evolution takes what is true micro evolution and expands that into something that has not been verified through scientific tests. It is based on assumption.

The problem is these other mechanisms are not Darwinian evolution through adaptations from random mutations and natural selection. So if they are more responsible for how living things change then Darwinian evolution is the reason they change.

I am not letting my beliefs cloud the evidence. I am merely looking at what scientists are showing about the evidence. But dont assume that supporters of Darwinian evolution dont have a faith in the theory of evolution.

Some of them talk about life having a common set of pre existing genetic info and pathways for how changes occur. Too much so to be random and through a naturalistic process. They talk about the basic proteins of life being like pre existing set forms like the laws of physics or nature and are the same for all life. That complex genetic info had to be present even in the earliest of life forms because they had complexity that we see today. The Cambrian explosion is an example of this and there is no trace of where this complexity came from.

As you've presented some scientific links can we assume that you accept what said biologists are saying? Maybe you just accept what you can shoehorn into your beliefs and the rest is wrong?

Thought so.

 

[stevevw]

HGT is a part of the modern theory of evolution. It is evolution.

I thought evolution was the descent with modification through random mutations and natural selection. HGT is the gaining of new genetic info by the transference of existing genetic material from one living thing to another. IE (transfer of genes between organisms in a manner other than traditional reproduction).

What you have are religious beliefs that are impervious to evidence. This isn't a matter of us having different interpretations of the evidence. You don't interpret the evidence. Before looking at a single fossil or single DNA sequence, you have already come to the conclusion that a deity created them separately. No fossil nor any DNA sequence will budge you from that dogmatic faith-based conclusion because none of that evidence was used to lead you to that conclusion.

I disagree, as I believe in a form of evolution. I am not so dogmatic to believe in extreme terms of things being so black and white. At the end of the day I could believe in theistic evolution which still allows for my faith but incorporates many aspects of Darwinian evolution. So I dont have any agenda because my beliefs can be maintained either way. I think its more about a strict evolutionists who believes in the Darwinian theory as being more blinkered and not willing to consider that it may not be the driving force for changes in life.

This is seen by the fact that many non religious scientists are questioning the evidence in the light of new discoveries and many traditionalist are balking at the changes. So there's not only disputes among religious believers and Darwinian evolutionists but also evolutionist themselves. You only say that I am biased because its your only way to dispute what I am saying. You would rather attack my position than deal with the evidence.

The theory of evolution predicts which fossils we should see and which we should not see. Common creation doesn't make those predictions. The common creator position can no more predict a fossil with a mixture of ape and human features than it can a fossil with ape and canine features. It does not predict a nested hierarchy. Evolution does predict a nested hierarchy, and that is exactly what we observe in those fossils. That is why evolution is the proper interpretation. It correctly predicts observations in a testable and falsifiable manner.

No it hasn't predicted things. Its made a theory up according to the fossils. Darwin himself predicted that if we couldn't find a blurring of all the fossils showing a gradual transformation of life then his theory would be in trouble. He put it down to lack of fossils. But 150 years later we still dont see this in the fossil records. The tree of life has been contradicted many times over. It doesn't show a trunk evolving into many branches. It shows a forest of life where there are many complex varieties all there at the same time growing into their own groups and sharing genetic info with each other.

Even the evolution of the eukaryote cell came from symbiosis. So living things can benefit from each other and work together to support each other with their environments. They depend on a mutual relationship and can shared genetic material. This is how life was made so that it can grow as one big organism. If micro organisms make up 95% of all life and can share genetic material immensely then why cant much of the genetic info for life have been pre existing and easily shared between living things through symbiosis and HGT. If most of life is micro then complex life will only make up a small branch on a bigger tree. That bigger tree is mostly formed by the sharing of existing genetic material. But more complex life also has the ability to share genetic material. So the biggest driving force for change is from non adaptive processes seen in Darwinian evolution.

The role of symbiosis in cell evolution was revived partly by Joshua Lederberg, and finally brought to light by Lynn Margulis in a series of papers and books. It turns out that some cell organelles are of microbial origin: mitochondria and chloroplasts definitely, cilia, flagella and centrioles possibly, and perhaps the nuclear membrane and much of the chromosome structure as well. What is now clear is that the evolution of eukaryote cells is either caused by, or at least profoundly influenced by, symbiosis with bacterial and archaean cells in the Proterozoic.
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/db/margulis.pdf

 

[Loudmouth]

I thought evolution was the descent with modification through random mutations and natural selection. HGT is the gaining of new genetic info by the transference of existing genetic material from one living thing to another. IE (transfer of genes between organisms in a manner other than traditional reproduction).

HGT is a mechanism that produces random mutations with respect to fitness.

I disagree, as I believe in a form of evolution. I am not so dogmatic to believe in extreme terms of things being so black and white. At the end of the day I could believe in theistic evolution which still allows for my faith but incorporates many aspects of Darwinian evolution. So I dont have any agenda because my beliefs can be maintained either way. I think its more about a strict evolutionists who believes in the Darwinian theory as being more blinkered and not willing to consider that it may not be the driving force for changes in life. This is seen by the fact that many non religious scientists are questioning the evidence in the light of new discoveries and many traditionalist are balking at the changes. So there's not only disputes among religious believers and Darwinian evolutionists but also evolutionist themselves. You only say that I am biased because its your only way to dispute what I am saying. You would rather attack my position than deal with the evidence.

You are misrepresenting what those scientists are saying. Plain and simple. Those scientists accept evolution. What they are calling for is the addition of new mechanisms into the theory. Nothing more, nothing less. None of those scientists think that any deity did anything. They all propose natural evolutionary mechanisms.

You try to claim that we are ignoring evidence, yet you can't present that evidence. Who is the blind one?

No it hasn't predicted things.

Yes it has. You are flat out wrong on this point. Due to the near absence of HGT in complex eukaryotes, the theory predicts a nested hierarchy, and that includes fossils.

Darwin himself predicted that if we couldn't find a blurring of all the fossils showing a gradual transformation of life then his theory would be in trouble.

No, he didn't. You are telling fibs again.

The tree of life has been contradicted many times over. It doesn't show a trunk evolving into many branches. It shows a forest of life where there are many complex varieties all there at the same time growing into their own groups and sharing genetic info with each other.

The tree still applies to complex eukaryotes, right where we should see it if evolution is true.

Even the evolution of eukaryote cell came from symbiosis.So living things can benefit form each other and work together to support each other. They depend on a mutual relationship and can shared genetic material with each other. This is how life was made so that it can grow as one big organism. If micro organisms make up 95% of all life and can share genetic material immensely then why cant much of the genetic info for life have been pre existing and easily shared between living things through symbiosis and HGT. If most of life is micro then complex life will only make up a small branch on a bigger tree. That bigger tree is mostly formed by the sharing of existing genetic material.

You are the one who said that this can't be the case. You won't even accept common ancestry between chimps and humans.

The role of symbiosis in cell evolution was revived partly by Joshua Lederberg, and finally brought to light by Lynn Margulis in a series of papers and books. It turns out that some cell organelles are of microbial origin: mitochondria and chloroplasts definitely, cilia, flagella and centrioles possibly, and perhaps the nuclear membrane and much of the chromosome structure as well. What is now clear is that the evolution of eukaryote cells is either caused by, or at least profoundly influenced by, symbiosis with bacterial and archaean cells in the Proterozoic.
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/db/margulis.pdf

All of which is completely natural and has nothing to do with special creation, the thing you are pushing.

 

[Loudmouth]

The theory of evolution does predict a nested hierarchy for complex eukaryotes. People who claim otherwise are just trying to ignore the evidence.

As seen from the phylogeny in Figure 1, the predicted pattern of organisms at any given point in time can be described as "groups within groups", otherwise known as a nested hierarchy. The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. Common descent is a genetic process in which the state of the present generation/individual is dependent only upon genetic changes that have occurred since the most recent ancestral population/individual. Therefore, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains. Using Markovian mathematics, it can be rigorously proven that branching Markovian replicating systems produce nested hierarchies (Givnish and Sytsma 1997; Harris 1989; Norris 1997). For these reasons, biologists routinely use branching Markov chains to effectively model evolutionary processes, including complex genetic processes, the temporal distributions of surnames in populations (Galton and Watson 1874), and the behavior of pathogens in epidemics.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy
​

The following quote is from 1965. They mistakenly use protein sequences when they should refer to DNA differences, but that can be forgiven since molecular biology was in its infancy in 1965.

It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life.

Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, discussing the possibility of the twin nested hierarchy before the first molecular phylogenies had been made.
(1965) "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins." in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101.​

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Oh no......don't mention Ayala

I remember when I started learning about Evolution (in the Christian context) his name came up quite a lot.

A very interesting and intelligent person, who won the Templeton Prize too:

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

That makes no sense.

I believe that Doveman is giving half-truths (or rather less than what has actually been said about the connection between 'faith' and 'evidence')

Using the KING JAMES BIBLE: (in the Biblical context)

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. ....'*

Pulpit Commentary:

Verse 1. - Now faith is the substance (so A.V., with marginal readings, "or ground, or, confidence") of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. On the senses in which the word ὑπόστασις (translated "substance") may be used, see under Hebrews 1:2 . As to the sense intended here, views differ. There are three possible ones, expressed in the text and margin of the A.V., substance, ground, and confidence. The first is understood by the Fathers generally, the idea being supposed to be that, inasmuch as things not yet experienced, but only hoped for, become real to us by faith, faith is metaphysically their substance, as substantiating them to us. So Theophilus: Οὐσίωσις τῶν μήπω ὄντων ὑπόστασις τῶν μὴ ὑφεστηκότων: and/ Chrysostom, who illustrates thus: "The resurrection has not yet taken place, but faith substantiates (ὑφίστησιν) it in our souls." So also Dante, following St. Thomas Aquinas, in a striking passage quoted by Delitzsch ('Paradise,' 24:70-75) - ... Faith is further said to be the evidence of things not seen; ἔλεγχος meaning, not as some take it, inward conviction of their existence, but in itself a demonstration, serving the purpose of argument to induce conviction. So Dante, in continuation of the passage quoted above ... In some minds, as is well known, and these of the highest order, such faith may amount to certitude, rendering the "things unseen" more real to them than "the things that do appear." It cannot be said that to accept such faith as evidence is contrary to reason; our not doing so would be to put aside as meaning nothing the deepest, the most spiritual, the most elevating faculties of our mysterious nature, by means of which, no less than by our other faculties, we are constituted so as to apprehend the truth. And we may observe, lastly, that even to those who have not themselves this "fullness of faith," its very existence in others, including so many of the great and good, may surely be rationally accepted as evidence of realities corresponding to it. ....'**

*/**- http://biblehub.com/commentaries/hebrews/11-1.htm

 

[1213]

Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

Because I don’t see any good and reasonable reason to be evolutionist. Evolution, if understood as the cause of all species, is like ancient Mother Earth religion. In my opinion that is just not reasonable religion.

 

[bhsmte]

Because I don’t see any good and reasonable reason to be evolutionist. Evolution, if understood as the cause of all species, is like ancient Mother Earth religion. In my opinion that is just not reasonable religion.

Do you believe all of the other scientific theories (besides evolution) that you rely on everyday of your life, to be a religion also?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because I don’t see any good and reasonable reason to be evolutionist. Evolution, if understood as the cause of all species, is like ancient Mother Earth religion. In my opinion that is just not reasonable religion.

What next? Are you going to reject the theory of nuclear fusion because it is too much like Sun worshiping religions?

Why don't you find mountains of scientific evidence to be a reasonable reason for accepting the theory of evolution?

 

[Smidlee]

I've just been having a look at what he was doing with nano-machines - they're fascinating things. He's obviously got no interest in trying to understand the TOE though, as his quote implies, but he's still prepared to be a 'rent-a-mouth' 'scientist' for creation websites. Anyway, it's neither here nor there, it's just one man's opinion, not scientific research or evidence.

He claims he is not interested getting into the creation/ evolution debate. But he did claim he spoke to other chemist/scientist and learn they didn't have a clue either how it was suppose to happen. They just went alone with it. He even recommend his students not to make their doubts about Darwin public unless you want to focus your career in the creation/evolution debate. In his opinion it's not worth losing your career over.

All arguments against Common Descent boil down to not being prepared to believe it (because it conflicts with religious views), or not understanding it, nothing more, nothing less, however you try to dress it up.

Of course this is your belief and not necessary fact. I've noticed evolutionist loves to speak for everyone who doesn't agree with their world view and are dogmatic about knowing people's motives. There are probably some evolutionist that wouldn't agree with your statement.

Do you believe all of the other scientific theories (besides evolution) that you rely on everyday of your life, to be a religion also?

Are you referring to technology?

 

[Loudmouth]

He claims he is not interested getting into the creation/ evolution debate. But he did claim he spoke to other chemist/scientist and learn they didn't have a clue either how it was suppose to happen. They just went alone with it. He even recommend his students not to make their doubts about Darwin public unless you want to focus your career in the creation/evolution debate. In his opinion it's not worth losing your career over.

Sorry, but fake stories of persecution are nothing but propaganda to cover up for the fact that creationists are ignoring the evidence.

Of course this is your belief and not necessary fact. I've noticed evolutionist loves to speak for everyone who doesn't agree with their world view and are dogmatic about knowing people's motives. There are probably some evolutionist that wouldn't agree with your statement.

Are you referring to technology?

So says the person who still won't deal with the evidence.

 

[Dirk1540]

OK. So we need evidence AND faith.
But if faith is based on evidence, as we've just been told, then its really just about evidence and..... more evidence.
Faith must be based on something else besides evidence.

Well maybe I would word it like this 'Faith is confirmed with some corroborating evidence.' Some confirmation that you are not jumping in blind. I like how Josh McDowell words it 'Your heart can not delight in what your mind rejects as false.' We can all agree that it is intellectual open season on all faiths in the friendly or not so friendly public arena of debate (on atheism, theism, deism, or agnosticism), so you would be in trouble without any evidence. I'm pretty far from a born & bred Christian I spent many years making objections to Christians...although I disagreed with my well educated Christian friend I understood he had his reasoning, as opposed to a different Christian that I knew (who had a sort of loop hole rebuttal along the lines of 'Will you please just submit your life to Jesus!!).

I would often argue that the term 'Narrow minded' has nothing to do with what you believe but instead how you came to believe what you believe. You can have an open or closed minded atheist, or theist...if they examined their reasoning thoroughly, and did not run and hide from objections but rather considered them, then they are open minded no matter where they land in their conclusions. So open mindedness in general is an evidence/faith mixture, and closed mindedness is a purely faith based stance.

(As for archaeology, no amount of verification of biblical places can provide reasonable evidence for supernatural events. It just verifies that the Bible authors/editors were making stories about their own history. You know, I've seen the actual 4 mountains named in the Navajo creation myth.)

Well on one level what it is doing is simply boosting up the credibility of the author, so that you might say to yourself "He is accurate HERE, and HERE...hmm but HERE i would have to give him the benefit of the doubt! Has he validated himself as being credible?" IMO the best example of this is Luke. Luke and Acts are the ultimate examples of an author who was doubted on a whole laundry list of objections that were later vindicated by archaeology.
(Maybe the best recommendation would be 'The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History' by Colin Hemer)

On a different level it is not about being able to point to this or that and saying 'There it is, proof of the supernatural!' It's about building a big picture, just heaping on all the fine details you can get, getting to know contexts, customs, historical patterns, messianic beliefs, a broad knowledge of ANE, etc. It's like a battle of 'How is that possible' vs 'That can be explained away.' It's about saying to yourself 'Ok, Jesus was just mortal, Israel was just your typical superstitious ancient nation, and miracle beliefs are ludacris.' Now, with that frame of mind some archaeologists/historians (and laypeople) start running into things that don't add up. For some the amount of details that don't add up start to compile and they get to a point where they start to have doubts that the naturalistic frame of mind can fit the details. What happens is they start to actually see that the supernatural explanation actually starts to explain the details like a glove, whereas natural explanations seem forced. There is also a strange overarching history of Israel that has weird coherence with their fate as foretold in the Bible (that they even still exist for one).

When you run into a person who does reach that point, the events of Jesus definitely tends to be the most convincing to them. Now a lot of lay people are intellectually lopsided towards the NT and lazy in terms of the OT. Jesus loved quoting Isaiah, the Psalms, the Torah, etc, and he places his stamp of approval on 'The scriptures.' So...here would be an example of faith and evidence, a lot of people use their evidence (in their opinion) of the historical truth of the NT to use as justification to pay no mind to tough objections that may be raised about the OT. They use their evidence of Jesus to take the OT on faith. But of course even if you are a super genius and know everything there is to know you'd still have unanswered questions that would cause you to take a leap of faith. Nobody can reach belief without faith. For any belief system as a matter of fact.