We’ve been reading Charles Darwin all wrong

[AV1611VET]

Certainly not the vast majority. Most Christians are Traditional Christians whose theology shows them that the theory of evolution does not challenge their faith.

Then explain their zero tolerance for those who interpret Genesis 1 & 2 literally.

They seem pretty sensitive about it, and I suspect it's because they indeed are sensitive to being challenged.

I've been called just about everything, but what's in my profile.

And I suspect it's because I dare have standards.

And I'll post my standards, along with my prime directive, any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

No one else will.

And I suspect it's because they don't have any to post.

Just saying.

ETA: Okay -- the Scientific Method. I'll give them credit for that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'd say that the vast majority of Christians who "accept the theory of evolution" actually know very little about it, and that they're victims of a belief system that filtered down from the scientific community into the education system and the mass media, then into the minds of the gullible masses.

Some of us "accept the theory of evolution" because we're educated and do know something about science. In fact, some of us who are wide-ranging topical researchers make it a point to survey, triangulate, compare and contrast the various view points on a topic in depth and are thus generally aware of the points and counterpoints, evidences and counterfactuals involved in issues inherent to the Theory of Evolution (or to the Biblical Literature, such as it is).

So, it can't be said that a number of us, however small (or large) a number we are, are merely "victims of a belief system that filtered down..."

If anything, the shoe that you're citing could also be placed on the foot of Biblical Fundamentalists and other ardent Dogmatists.

If you want to challenge my point of view, then realize I'm going to start here:

 

[The Barbarian]

Sterility isn't a boundary?

Time isn't a boundary?

Extinction isn't a boundary?

None of those are boundaries to evolution of new taxa. Indeed, some of that is required for such evolution. The point is that no one can show a boundary between (for example) mammals and reptiles that cannot be crossed by mutation and natural selection.

 

[The Barbarian]

Then explain their zero tolerance for those who interpret Genesis 1 & 2 literally.

Most Christians just challenge the revisions to Genesis by YECs. They seem pretty sensitive about it, and I suspect it's because they indeed are sensitive to being challenged.

And I suspect it's because I dare have standards.

You won't go to hell for being a YEC. God doesn't care if you approve of the way He does creation. But if you make YEC into an idol, that could be a problem for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

None of those are boundaries to evolution of new taxa.

-- solid aurum!

Post of the year, so far as I'm concerned.

SMH

 

[The Barbarian]

-- solid aurum!

Post of the year, so far as I'm concerned.

SMH

I notice you didn't answer my question.
What gap between reptiles and mammals do you think exists?

Your reluctance to answer the question is very telling.

 

[AV1611VET]

You won't go to hell for being a YEC. God doesn't care if you approve of the way He does creation. But if you make YEC into an idol, that could be a problem for you.

Who says I'm a YEC?

Like I said, I'm called everything but what's in my profile.

And are you disagreeing with those who call me a Last Thursdayist? or Apparent Ager? or other things?

 

[The Barbarian]

I notice you didn't answer my question.
What gap between reptiles and mammals do you think exists?
Your reluctance to answer the question is very telling.

 

[AV1611VET]

What gap between reptiles and mammals do you think exists?

There is no gap between reptiles and mammals.

They both appeared ex materia on the same day.

 

[Buzzard3]

By making correct predictions. For example, if said descent happened, then a transitional fish would be expected in a certain time period. Digging commenced in the appropriate layer and Lo and Behold, the Tiktaalik was found as predicted!

Validating ToE with predictions and other evidence don't prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process.

This is very strong evidence for mammals having descended from fish.

I'm not disputing that mammals descended from fish (however, neither do I accept that it's true). My point is that if mammals did indeed descend from fish, it can't be proven that a natural process was responsible for it.

Confirmation of predictions is very possible, as illustrated above. The TOE also predicts that we won't find a fossil mammal in the precambrian, and so far that's never happened.

The true history of life is unknowable, but it seems unlikely that a fossil mammal will ever be found in the preCambrian ... mainly bcoz it seems unlikely that mammals existed in the preCambrian.

A confirmed prediction is certainly very strong evidence, and definitely qualifies as science.

Agreed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Which biology book describes how mammals descended from fish via a natural process ... and then proves that its description is actually what happened and not just a theory?
I suggest no such book exists.

I think you misunderstand. It isn't that I think you should go out and read "the book" with the "proof" in it. My point is that you keep making wrong claims about biology and evolution. You don't know enough to make a proper argument for your own side. But...

If you want a book about fish to quadrapeds (a group that includes all mammals) I would suggest "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin. It is not long or hard to read.

 

[BCP1928]

Then explain their zero tolerance for those who interpret Genesis 1 & 2 literally.

Because they regard a literal interpretation of Genesis as shallow and theologically inadequate and based on the heresy of Sola Scriptura.

Because they reject the false claim that it is binding on all Christians.

Because they see it being represented as Christian doctrine for sectarian political purposes.

They seem pretty sensitive about it, and I suspect it's because they indeed are sensitive to being challenged.

I've been called just about everything, but what's in my profile.

And I suspect it's because I dare have standards.

And I'll post my standards, along with my prime directive, any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

No one else will.

And I suspect it's because they don't have any to post.

Because it doesn't do any good. A couple of days ago over in Politics I posted the Nicene Creed as a statement of my faith just for fun and sure enough, it was rejected out of hand by one of your biblical literalist colleagues.

Just saying.

ETA: Okay -- the Scientific Method. I'll give them credit for that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How about you answer his question and quit ignoring everyone?

Because I noticed a reply to you that was in a conversation relating to me, I checked what you actually said. I will reply now, but I will not be reading any reply you have:

I did reply and did so before I knew you or he was complaining about my timing.

I ignore you because you don't contribute anything to this board but annoyance. I have been sick of your repetitive set of "gotcha" claims that are all nonsense and I see no value in interacting with you. I wish other regulars would join me.

 

[BCP1928]

Validating ToE with predictions and other evidence don't prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process.

I'm not disputing that mammals descended from fish (however, neither do I accept that it's true). My point is that if mammals did indeed descend from fish, it can't be proven that a natural process was responsible for it.

However, there is a natural process described by the theory of evolution which is in principle capable of doing the job, all of the evidence found so far is consistent with it and there is no evidence of any other process at work.

The true history of life is unknowable, but it seems unlikely that a fossil mammal will ever be found in the preCambrian ... mainly bcoz it seems unlikely that mammals existed in the preCambrian.

Agreed.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is no gap between reptiles and mammals.

Few creationists will admit the fact. It makes no sense in terms of creationism, but it's completely consistent with evolution

They both appeared ex materia on the same day.

That's the YE revision of God's word. But it's false.

 

[BCP1928]

Who says I'm a YEC?

Like I said, I'm called everything but what's in my profile.

And are you disagreeing with those who call me a Last Thursdayist? or Apparent Ager? or other things?

Because the distinction you make between YECs and yourself seems vacuous.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” (1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address)
Dr. Provine

Provine is described in Wikipedia as:

William Ball Provine (February 19, 1942 – September 1, 2015) was an American historian of science and of evolutionary biology and population genetics.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species (my emphasis)

If I was going to characterize the thoughts of a famous scientist, I think I'd at least read his most famous work to be sure I got it right. But that's just me...

Either Wikipedia is wrong about Provine's speciality, or Provine was disturbingly incompetent, or Provine had a severe honesty deficit.

 

[The Barbarian]

Because they regard a literal interpretation of Genesis as shallow and theologically inadequate and based on the heresy of Sola Scriptura.

The Bible itself denies Sola Scriptura.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because it doesn't do any good. A couple of days ago over in Politics I posted the Nicene Creed as a statement of my faith just for fun and sure enough, it was rejected out of hand by one of your biblical literalist colleagues.

The Nicene Creed is accepted by the Western Church, including (most) Protestants, but there's a point of contention therein for the Eastern Church:

The term "Filioque" (Latin for "and the Son") refers to a clause added to the Nicene Creed, a statement of Christian belief, by the Western Church. It asserts that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, whereas the Eastern Orthodox Church maintains that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. This difference in interpretation has been a major point of contention between the two branches of Christianity, contributing to the Great Schism of 1054

Seems like an odd thing to argue about,but there it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because they regard a literal interpretation of Genesis as shallow and theologically inadequate and based on the heresy of Sola Scriptura.

Okay -- they regard a literal interpretation of Genesis as shallow and theologically inadequate, etc.

What about those who don't?

What's their excuse for ridiculing us and calling us things we aren't?

My pastor makes the point that those who preach diversity and inclusion, will accept anyone.

With one exception:

Independent Fundamental Baptists.

 

[The Barbarian]

My pastor makes the point that those who preach diversity and inclusion, will accept anyone.

With one exception:

Independent Fundamental Baptists.

Some religious people have a need to feel persecuted. Your pastor seems to be one of those. How sad.