Macroevolution:

[Non sequitur]

Sure. I've read a lot of evolution stuff. It doesn't make sense to me. I can't put the pieces together and come up with the same conclusions that science does. Special creation makes more sense to me.

There's more involved in rejecting evolution than meets the eye.

Wouldn't the best thing to do be to talk to an evolutionary scientist?

I sure hope Christians would want me to say atheism makes more sense to me, because I can't reach the same conclusions, and call it a day on the idea.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... evolution is an effect.

Evolution is a process.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure. I've read a lot of evolution stuff. It doesn't make sense to me. I can't put the pieces together and come up with the same conclusions that science does. Special creation makes more sense to me.

There's more involved in rejecting evolution than meets the eye.

Which scientific theories do you understand and make sense to you?

 

[Obliquinaut]

It doesn't make sense to me. I can't put the pieces together and come up with the same conclusions that science does. Special creation makes more sense to me.

And if you were to go out and for years crawl over giant formations of rock and see the life forms that come from radically different time horizons in the rock would you then think God undertook special creation every few years for millions of years?

There's more involved in rejecting evolution than meets the eye.

Not really. Rejecting evolution is usually done in a vacuum of knowledge or experience. This isn't bad because not everyone is cut out to study these sorts of things, but incredulity is seldom the most robust method of critiquing science.

Everyone is free to their "opinions", but it would probably be better for most creationists to say "Look, it's all sciencey and it takes too much time and effort to really learn the topic and besides, our concept of our immortal souls are threatened by it because of how we read the Bible, so we're all gonna take a pass on it."

That's how I view most YEC and Creationist critiques of science. (With the exception of those people who got science degrees and are YEC or Creationist at which point I shorten it to a fear for their immortal souls because the data doesn't really support creationism or YEC.)

 

[Obliquinaut]

Evolution cannot be observed.

Really? That's surprising. There are many examples of observational data for evolution.

Guess you'd have to understand a bit more about science, biology, and paleontology.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is an interesting little presentation.
I found it quite informative.

Thanks for the video! I'll check it out later!

Not that I needed any reason to believe, as I do, in YEC.

Good for you!

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution theory and Christianity aren´t at odds with each other.

Evolution has:

1. Death before the Fall; yet God calls death an "enemy."

2. Mutant copy errors made in the image & likeness of God.

3. A glorified ape dying on the Cross for our redemption.

 

[AV1611VET]

Next time you visit your doctor, ask them how the theory has helped them practice medicine.

I just visited my ophthalmologist and while there, I asked him if he believes in evolution, and he said NO.

He is a YEC.

And he has a very successful practice.

In fact, I used to be legally blind; now I have 20/20 vision.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why not?

Doctors don't need evolution to be successful.

 

[AV1611VET]

So by all means do NOT, repeat, DO NOT read this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent)

Too late.

 

[quatona]

Evolution has:

1. Death before the Fall; yet God calls death an "enemy."

2. Mutant copy errors made in the image & likeness of God.

3. A glorified ape dying on the Cross for our redemption.

Nobody said that your personal idea of evolution theory and your personal idea of Christianity aren´t at odds.

 

[JacksBratt]

Really? That's surprising. There are many examples of observational data for evolution.

Guess you'd have to understand a bit more about science, biology, and paleontology.

Can you give an example.

 

[kepha31]

Evolution is the science of the fossil record. Period. Human origins gets into philosophy, which is not science.

 

[bhsmte]

Evolution is the science of the fossil record. Period. Human origins gets into philosophy, which is not science.

What does the fossil record tell you, along with DNA as well?

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is the science of the fossil record.

No, it isn't.

Here’s the thing, at this point the fossil record is one of the weakest pieces of evidence we have for evolution. The best evidence we have for evolution comes from genetics and direct observation. Even if we had no fossil record, if we had never dug up a single fossil, we still would have come to the logical conclusion that organisms evolved via natural selection from completely different looking organisms, and I’m going to show you why.

SOURCE

 

[dmmesdale]

What does the fossil record tell you, along with DNA as well?

Soft tissue in Dino bones means they are not 50 mil years old.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not a complete mystery - How Does A Caterpillar Turn Into a Butterfly?

Pretty much a complete mystery.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which scientific theories do you understand and make sense to you?

The ones I understand make sense to me. My problem with evolution is that I believe everything was created by an outside force, not an inside force.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not really. Rejecting evolution is usually done in a vacuum of knowledge or experience. This isn't bad because not everyone is cut out to study these sorts of things, but incredulity is seldom the most robust method of critiquing science.

Beside believing that evolution is "voodoo science" accepting it means rejecting creation, and thus rejecting God.

 

[bhsmte]

The ones I understand make sense to me. My problem with evolution is that I believe everything was created by an outside force, not an inside force.

And no evidence will change your desire to believe this outside source is responsible. Would the be correct?