It occurs to me: Theism and evolution have nothing to do with each other!

[Audacious]

There is no overlap between evolution and Judeo-Christian theism. Neither contradicts the other at any meaningful point.

I mean, yes, if you go by Kent Hovind's definition where 'evolution is the idea that life created itself' of course it contradicts the Bible -- but thankfully, Kent Hovind, along with the Discovery Institute, does not define evolution in the same way that science does.

Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe; the Big Bang doesn't either, but sadly I have to say that evolution and the big bang theory are completely unrelated things (something Kent Hovind and I also disagree on).

All evolution states is that traits possessed among multicellular organisms change over time. It doesn't imply progress, and it doesn't imply that there 'is no God'. All it says is that species change over time thanks to genetic mutation, new introductions into the gene pool, et cetera. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe - it's a theory all about the continuation of the living things on earth and how they adapt over time. It makes no overarching statements that are attempted to be disproven.

The Discovery Institute, of course, disagrees with me, but they're not very smart. If you look at their 'Dissent from Darwin' page, they don't quote someone like a professional biologist, but a pediatric neurosurgery professional. And why don't they quote a real professional?

Because their claims aren't true.

The Discovery Institute actually had the chance to testify in Kitzmiller V. Dover Area School District but refused to, instead deciding to slander the judge, making a stink about something which she had every right to be doing.

Do you know why the Discovery Institute makes its outrageously unscientific claims (considering that evolution is every bit as factual as gravity)? Because they make lots of money doing it. And I'd say the same thing about Kent Hovind, considering that he cashes in at least a million dollars a year and is obviously not a scientist, having a PhD in 'Christian Education' from a diploma mill.

Also, the idea of 'micro-evolution but not macro-evolution' is ridiculous, because macro evolution is just macro evolution making large changes over time in small iterations. If micro evolution exists than, by definition, so does macro evolution.

Before responding to this thread, please at least read Wikipedia's page on evolution so you don't come back here with pseudoscience like 'there's no such thing as macro-evolution' or acting like the discovery institute knows what evolution is. Oh yeah, and read 'Objections to Evolution' if you still think it must not be scientific, because Wikipedia does a good job of refuting all of those opinions.

I swear if anyone responds to this thread with 'well lol we have no evidence of evolution because the fossil record doesn't mean anything because it can't literally speak to us!' I will bash my head through a wall.

I am a theist; I am merely not a theistic evolutionist, if only because there isn't anything to reconcile when it comes to evolution vs Judeo-Christian theism.

James

 

[mark kennedy]

There is no overlap between evolution and Judeo-Christian theism. Neither contradicts the other at any meaningful point.

No, TOE and Creationism have no meaningful conflicts. Unless you include Universal Common Descent in your definition of evolution there is no real contradiction there.

I mean, yes, if you go by Kent Hovind's definition where 'evolution is the idea that life created itself' of course it contradicts the Bible -- but thankfully, Kent Hovind, along with the Discovery Institute, does not define evolution in the same way that science does.

Hang on a minute, don't lump Kent Hovind with the Discovery Institute. Kent Hovind has never enjoyed any kind of endorsement from Creationists and certainly not packing the credibility the philosophers, scientists and mathematicians at Discovery bring to the table.

Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe; the Big Bang doesn't either, but sadly I have to say that evolution and the big bang theory are completely unrelated things (something Kent Hovind and I also disagree on).

Dude, I'm a young earth creationist, I can tell you from years of experience Hovind is a bottom feeder. I don't know why this guy gets so much attention on here, I've gotten better information from Chic tracks then I ever got from this guy.

All evolution states is that traits possessed among multicellular organisms change over time. It doesn't imply progress, and it doesn't imply that there 'is no God'. All it says is that species change over time thanks to genetic mutation, new introductions into the gene pool, et cetera. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe - it's a theory all about the continuation of the living things on earth and how they adapt over time. It makes no overarching statements that are attempted to be disproven.

Cosmology and evolutionary biology are different disciplines with different issue, gotta give you that one. TOE doesn't make statements about single celled organisms becoming multi-cellular, that's something science has never observed or demonstrated, it's just something evolutionists think happened. Yea, species change over time, no problem.

The Discovery Institute, of course, disagrees with me, but they're not very smart. If you look at their 'Dissent from Darwin' page, they don't quote someone like a professional biologist, but a pediatric neurosurgery professional. And why don't they quote a real professional?

Because their claims aren't true.

"Life as revealed by new technologies is more complicated than the Darwinian viewpoint anticipated. Thus evolutionary theory, which was considered to be a key foundation of biology in 1959, today has a more peripheral role. … modern science makes it possible to be a scientifically informed doubter of Darwinian theories of evolution."
Dr. Roland Hirsch, Chemistry​

The man has a PHD in chemistry. Michael Behe is a Biochemistry Professor, he is a professional. Why don't you come up with a real issue because this is a little pedantic for my taste.

The Discovery Institute actually had the chance to testify in Kitzmiller V. Dover Area School District but refused to, instead deciding to slander the judge, making a stink about something which she had every right to be doing.

I'm over the Dover case, I agree with the Lemon test and really don't care to rehash the whole convoluted mess. I have never supported teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design in the public schools because ignorance of religion abounds. The public schools are not qualified to teach the doctrinal issues of Creationism or the sophisticated philosophical descent from Darwinism in ID. Enough said on that matter.

Do you know why the Discovery Institute makes its outrageously unscientific claims (considering that evolution is every bit as factual as gravity)? Because they make lots of money doing it. And I'd say the same thing about Kent Hovind, considering that he cashes in at least a million dollars a year and is obviously not a scientist, having a PhD in 'Christian Education' from a diploma mill.

He was convicted on the tax evasion charges in November 2006 and is now serving a 10-year sentence. His son, Eric, now runs the Dinosaur Adventure Land and the Creation Science Evangelism. Kent Hovind​

Still think he makes a million dollars a year?

Also, the idea of 'micro-evolution but not macro-evolution' is ridiculous, because macro evolution is just macro evolution making large changes over time in small iterations. If micro evolution exists than, by definition, so does macro evolution.

They are bogus terms.

Before responding to this thread, please at least read Wikipedia's page on evolution so you don't come back here with pseudoscience like 'there's no such thing as macro-evolution' or acting like the discovery institute knows what evolution is. Oh yeah, and read 'Objections to Evolution' if you still think it must not be scientific, because Wikipedia does a good job of refuting all of those opinions.

I'm not reading the article, you can't make me. I will make all the pseudo-scientific arguments I please and I really don't think you learned anything from the article because if you had you would have discussed it in the OP.

I swear if anyone responds to this thread with 'well lol we have no evidence of evolution because the fossil record doesn't mean anything because it can't literally speak to us!' I will bash my head through a wall.

As much as I would love for you to bash your head against the wall that argument never occurred to me. I have a paleontology question for you, where are the chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record?

I am a theist; I am merely not a theistic evolutionist, if only because there isn't anything to reconcile when it comes to evolution vs Judeo-Christian theism.

James

Ok fine.

Have a nice day James
Mark

 

[Keachian]

Mark, maybe you can enlighten me on how UCD is in contradiction to creationism, surely the detailed description of God creating all nephesh (2:7,19) from the ground is reconcilable to the idea that there is one place from which all diversity of life came from?

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

I have a paleontology question for you, where are the chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record?

mark, out of courtesy to audacious, we should let him know that you and I have discussed this often, such as when I listed many chimpanzee ancestors for you in post #52, here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7651905-6/#post60521358

Where I list these:

mark, we have tons of chimp ancestors in the fossil record. You seem to think that it's somehow significant that we don't have any in the past 6 million years, but in the scale of 4,600 million years, a mere 6 is nothing. We have plenty of likely fossil chimp ancestors like Pierolapithecus, Proconsul, Notharctus, Eomaia, and so on. #8 Do you admit now that we have plenty of fossils of chimp ancestors?

mark, as I recall, you ask about the chimp ancestors because you previously claimed that fossil hominid ancestors of humans are actually chimp ancestors, and that the modern chimps "devolved" from hominids with larger brains. audacious, would it help your participation in the discusision on your thread if we knew if mark still held that position? If so, would you (mark) like to specify which of these you consider chimp ancestors?


Here it is again for your reference:

Papias

 

[Smidlee]

Also, the idea of 'micro-evolution but not macro-evolution' is ridiculous, because macro evolution is just macro evolution making large changes over time in small iterations. If micro evolution exists than, by definition, so does macro evolution.

Then you haven't read much from Discovery Institute. For example Ann Gauger and Douglas Axe:
"My colleague Douglas Axe and I took two bacterial proteins that look a great deal alike but have distinctly different functions. They were thought to be evolutionary cousins... proteins called Kbl and BioF... We found that it would take at least 7 mutations to evolve one enzyme into the other.... The waiting time for 7 coordinated neutral mutations to arise in a bacterial population is on the order of 10 (27 zeroes)years." --Science & Human Origins page 19-20

Thus the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is like the difference between man going to the moon and going to another galaxy. The engine that took man to the moon is totally useless to take man to the another solar system let along another galaxy. Micro- evolution is simply "trial and error" but it's not good enough to leap across large neutral gaps.

 

[Gottservant]

for something that is "completely factual" people sure spend a lot of time telling you it is "completely factual"...

compare: "that species change over time is completely factual"

with: "that I am the way, the truth and the life is completely factual"

Do you give as much credence to both as you should? Not in sin you don't. In fact, just the opposite, you think that when its you espousing a theory, you are completely entitled to call it "completely factual", but when it is something you may or may not want to believe is true of a person, who actually said believable things, the possibility that they may have tried to call themselves "completely factual" makes them all the more questionable, even when they may have a right to do so...

The first thing humanity needs is correction, not a theory of adjustment.