[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] How can you not believe in Evolution?!

[Ryder]

We can observe evolution just like we can observe gravity. Therefore, that evolution occurs is a fact. Unless you want to deny that gravity is real.

All objections to creation have not been explained meaningfully. They are poor attempts at best. Take it from someone who used every creationist argument in the book.

We can 'observe' evolution can we? Anyone who could observe evolution must be long lived indeed.

 

[RichardT]

Almost all of which either don't do science in a relevant field, or haven't done any scientific research in decades. Kerr already went through every single "scientist" on AIG's list, and went through their credentials and their scientific achievements in Origins Theology. The only ones with any credentials aren't used by AIG.

AIG's statement of faith specifically contradicts the scientific method. Therefore, they are not a scientific source.

[FONT=verdana, helvetica] "NATURE" SURVEY -- LESS AND LESS BELIEF[/FONT]​

The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%.

SCIENTISTS ARE MOSLY ATHEISTS, YOU DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS SOME KIND OF BIAS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY?

 

[Jase]

We can 'observe' evolution can we? Anyone who could observe evolution must be long lived indeed.

Ever heard of antibiotics? Ever wonder why viruses and bacterial diseases are so difficult to treat? They evolve.

 

[TeddyKGB]

There are scientists at AiG...

Someone should remind them that taking potshots at evolution from behind their Bibles isn't science.

 

[RichardT]

Ever heard of antibiotics? Ever wonder why viruses and bacterial diseases are so difficult to treat? They evolve.

YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU USED TO BE A CREATIONIST.

Though it seems you've never heard of "micro evolution", or variations between kinds of animals?

 

[Ryder]

Ever heard of antibiotics? Ever wonder why viruses and bacterial diseases are so difficult to treat? They evolve.

That is not an observation of evolution, that's something far more modest. Variation within a kind hardly constitutes observation of macro evolution.

 

[Jase]

SCIENTISTS ARE MOSLY ATHEISTS, YOU DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS SOME KIND OF BIAS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY?

No I don't. Those are only members of the National Academy of sciences. Do you think 517 people is an accurate measurement of the entire scientific community around the world?

Are you aware of who disproved the Earth being 6,000 years old or a global flood occurring? It wasn't atheists. It was Christian Creationists trying to prove those accounts actually happened.

 

[RichardT]

No I don't. Those are only members of the National Academy of sciences. Do you think 517 people is an accurate measurement of the entire scientific community around the world?

Are you aware of who disproved the Earth being 6,000 years old or a global flood occurring? It wasn't atheists. It was Christian Creationists trying to prove those accounts actually happened.

really, can you show me the link?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm not going to BELIEVE you because my BIBLE says :

let GOD be TRUE, but every man a LIAR; Romans 3:4

So... you're abandoning the scientific argument in favor of dogma?

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

um, isochron dating is explained by YECs...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/radioactive.asp

Here is another Christian take on the subject with a lot more info and depth, read it and learn more about the subject before you jump to any conclusions.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

 

[RichardT]

So... you're abandoning the scientific argument in favor of dogma?

If you can explain to me in simple terms why creationism is false, then I will listen.

 

[Jase]

That is not an observation of evolution, that's something far more modest. Variation within a kind hardly constitutes observation of macro evolution.

Adaptation, natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, are all mechanisms of evolution. Antibiotics are an excellent example of evolution occurring. There is no difference between that and "macroevolution. Macroevolution is merely a series of "microevolutions". Once a population mutates or adapts to the point where they can no longer mate with members of the same species, macro evolution has occurred. And yes, "macroevolution" or speciation has been observed.

Here is an explanation of "macroevolution":

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Here are observed examples of macroevolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[TeddyKGB]

That is not an observation of evolution, that's something far more modest. Variation within a kind hardly constitutes observation of macro evolution.

You have that backwards. It's first, define "kind." Second, use kind-theory as an alternative model to evolution.

 

[Jase]

If you can explain to me in simple terms why creationism is false, then I will listen.

No you won't listen. You will stick your fingers in your ears and quote the Bible saying all of us are liars. Oh wait, you already did that...

 

[RichardT]

Adaptation, natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, are all mechanisms of evolution. Antibiotics are an excellent example of evolution occurring. There is no difference between that and "macroevolution. Macroevolution is merely a series of "microevolutions". Once a population mutates or adapts to the point where they can no longer mate with members of the same species, macro evolution has occurred. And yes, "macroevolution" or speciation has been observed.

Here is an explanation of "macroevolution":

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Here are observed examples of macroevolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

We know speciation has been observed, does that prove the ToE? No... And bacteria adaptation fits very well with creationism...

 

[TeddyKGB]

If you can explain to me in simple terms why creationism is false, then I will listen.

It's not so much that creationism is false, but that if it's true, it means God is trying to deceive everyone.

 

[random_guy]

really, can you show me the link?

from wiki

The idea that all geological strata were produced by a single flood was rejected in 1837 by the Reverend William Buckland, the first professor of geology at Oxford University, who wrote:

Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified rocks to the effects of the Mosaic Deluge; an opinion which is irreconcileable with the enormous thickness and almost infinite subdivisions of these strata, and with the numerous and regular successions which they contain of the remains of animals and vegetables, differing more and more widely from existing species, as the strata in which we find them are placed at greater depths. The fact that a large proportion of these remains belong to extinct genera, and almost all of them to extinct species, that lived and multiplied and died on or near the spots where they are now found, shows that the strata in which they occur were deposited slowly and gradually, during long periods of time, and at widely distant intervals. --(Buckland, Geology and Mineralogy Considered With Reference to Natural Theology, 1837)

Although Buckland continued for a while to insist that some geological layers related to the Great Flood, he was forced to abandon this idea as the evidence increasingly indicated multiple inundations which occurred well before humans existed. He was convinced by the Swiss geologist Louis Agassiz that much of the evidence on which he relied was in fact the product of ancient ice ages, and became one of the foremost champions of Agassiz's theory of glaciations. Mainstream science gave up on the idea of flood geology, which required major deviations from known physical processes.

 

[TeddyKGB]

We know speciation has been observed... But what bacteria adaptation fits very well with creationism...

Everything fits well with "God designed it that way." That's why creationism is unscientific.

 

[Jase]

YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU USED TO BE A CREATIONIST.

Though it seems you've never heard of "micro evolution", or variations between kinds of animals?

Yes, I used to be a Young Earth, anti-evolution, Biblical literalist creationist.

I've certainly heard of microevolution, despite it being rather meaningless. It's a creationist term. And can you define a "kind"?

 

[Soldier_For_Christ]

honestly, i do want to be a christian but there are a lot of obstacles in my mind keeping me from having complete faith. First of all i don't understand how people can not believe in evolution and that god just plopped adam and eve down on the earth and that was the beginning of people. First of all Evolution is proven and i know it is hard for people to grasp that concept mostly because people do not have a full understanding of it. Many of my friends just say they can't possibly believe that we came directly from monkeys.. Well we didn't! we didn't come from monkeys! We came from the same branch that monkeys came from. I just believe that Evolution is something that people do not fully comprehend. Honestly the only partake in creating living organisms i think god did was planting down a piece of bacterium (bacterium is where everything came from). I'm just wondering does anyone agree with me here??

(sorry god)

It's very simple: We are the only animal in existence with free will, with cognitive abilities that allow us to overcome our emotions, our fears, our instincts, and all of the things that we would be without this abilities. If Evolution held true, then we wouldn't be the only species that evolved cognitive abilities like that. I know that there are the different ethnic backgrounds present, but genetics show that there is no genetic difference between Caucassians, Asians, and all other different kinds of humans. Indeed, from my perspective, it's a greater leap of faith to believe in Evolution than it is to believe in Creationism and Intelligent Design.