What evolutionists have to say

[PaladinValer]

What has evolution been proven as? Don't say it is fact because not all of evolution is considered a fact by scientists.

What scientists? Those that count or those who don't? You do realize that, of those scientists who have PhDs in relevent fields, 99.85% believe evolution as a fact? And of the .15% that don't, 100% of them don't because of religious beliefs, not due to scientific process.

Let me ask you, do you think Christ ought to be taught to all people?

Sure

By your statement above, I can conlude that you believe there are times when one must be quiet and ashamed of Christ.

You can conclude it, but since it is a logical fallacy, it doesn't count. Nor does it make it make it true. You've got some false ideas on what evolution is and isn't.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Well at least you make this cut and dry. Which do you choose, science or the Bible?

Speaking for myself...
Since I don't read the Bible like a YEC, and I don't approach science like a materialist, I don't have to choose one over the other.

Quite cut and dry...

 

[SBG]

Speaking for myself...
Since I don't read the Bible like a YEC, and I don't approach science like a materialist, I don't have to choose one over the other.

Quite cut and dry...

well the conclusion of what i quoted was an either or issue. That is why I phrased my question as I did. You of course can take the Bible and science as equals, no one is gonna stop ya.

 

[SBG]

What scientists? Those that count or those who don't? You do realize that, of those scientists who have PhDs in relevent fields, 99.85% believe evolution as a fact? And of the .15% that don't, 100% of them don't because of religious beliefs, not due to scientific process.

Let me guess you got the numbers from an evolution site? So I guess the numbers really matter to ya, huh?

Well check out these numbers:

There are 1049 different sequences (combinations) of the different instructions for a particular protein, cytochrome c. Evolution teaches that random accidents produced the correct sequence. The chance of producing the correct sequence by random chance is 1 in:

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Assuming that every ape had a different cytochrome c, then out of

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

apes, one would have the correct sequence and that one ape would have to out-live all the others in order to propagate the one correct protein.

By evolutionary standards this is great odds.

Sure

Love those non-commital answers!!

You can conclude it, but since it is a logical fallacy, it doesn't count. Nor does it make it make it true. You've got some false ideas on what evolution is and isn't.

So do you agree that in the schools Christ shouldn't be talked about?

 

[Vance]

You dodged the question about "preaching the controversy". I would suppose that you would like Creationism given equal time in the classroom, with no derogatory statements from the science teacher, no conclusions that it is not correct, no obvious bias in favor or evolution. Better yet, each position presented by someone who believes in that approach. Just an equal presentation of both models with no official position and then just let the students make up their own mind. Correct?

So, what about this same approach in our evangelical churches? Both approaches given equal time in the pulpit, giving straightforward assessments of the pros and cons of each by someone who actually believes each position, and then NOT giving any statement by the church leaders about which is correct, just letting the folks in the pews decide. Would you think this would be the best approach?

 

[SBG]

You dodged the question about "preaching the controversy". I would suppose that you would like Creationism given equal time in the classroom, with no derogatory statements from the science teacher, no conclusions that it is not correct, no obvious bias in favor or evolution. Better yet, each position presented by someone who believes in that approach. Just an equal presentation of both models with no official position and then just let the students make up their own mind. Correct?

So, what about this same approach in our evangelical churches? Both approaches given equal time in the pulpit, giving straightforward assessments of the pros and cons of each by someone who actually believes each position, and then NOT giving any statement by the church leaders about which is correct, just letting the folks in the pews decide. Would you think this would be the best approach?

I don't believe I dodged the question Vance. Look over my post as it does address your concerns.

I take it, that if schools are allowed to teach two theories, one with God, than you would demand the churches to do the same, one without God?

You know my favorite thing about Darwin? He failed all of his classes and he was a misfit. His wife (cousin) wasn't going to marry him because she was a Christian and he was not. His father told him before he was made to go become a priest that he doesn't have to believe anything about God because many didn't at the time.

 

[Vance]

I don't believe I dodged the question Vance. Look over my post as it does address your concerns.

I take it, that if schools are allowed to teach two theories, one with God, than you would demand the churches to do the same, one without God?

You know my favorite thing about Darwin? He failed all of his classes and he was a misfit. His wife (cousin) wasn't going to marry him because she was a Christian and he was not. His father told him before he was made to go become a priest that he doesn't have to believe anything about God because many didn't at the time.

No, you did not answer the question of whether you would accept equal presentations in our churches. All you did was say that evolution already gets time. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about equal treatment, just as you would like for Creationism in our schools.

And, no, I am not talking about any presentation of anything without God in the church. I am talking about the two competing theories within Christianity. You would claim that there are two competing theories within science (since I would assume you would agree that only the scientific evidence for Creationism should be presented, not a religious manifesto).

In the church, this equivalent would mean that Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution, all of which describe God's method of Creation, would be given equal time and equal treatment. No bias, no 'and here is which one is correct', just giving a full presentation and letting each Christian decide for themselves.

Would you go for that? My pastor sure wouldn't!

 

[gluadys]

Well check out these numbers:

There are 1049 different sequences (combinations) of the different instructions for a particular protein, cytochrome c. Evolution teaches that random accidents produced the correct sequence. The chance of producing the correct sequence by random chance is 1 in:

What correct sequence? The one found in a moth or the one found in yeast or the one found in a kangaroo or the one found in a tuna or the one found in a bacterium?

All the cyctochrome c sequences are correct.

Assuming that every ape had a different cytochrome c,

incorrect assumption. They don't and didn't.

one would have the correct sequence and that one ape would have to out-live all the others in order to propagate the one correct protein.

That is not how evolution works. That "one ape" only needs to have children. And it is not about finding a "correct" protein anyway.

 

[PaladinValer]

Let me guess you got the numbers from an evolution site?

Nope, so the rest of your argument is null and void.

Well check out these numbers:

There are 1049 different sequences (combinations) of the different instructions for a particular protein, cytochrome c. Evolution teaches that random accidents produced the correct sequence. The chance of producing the correct sequence by random chance is 1 in:

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Assuming that every ape had a different cytochrome c, then out of

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

apes, one would have the correct sequence and that one ape would have to out-live all the others in order to propagate the one correct protein.

By evolutionary standards this is great odds.

Somehow, I get the feeling that your "data" is inaccurate.

Love those non-commital answers!!

**Refrains to reply**

So do you agree that in the schools Christ shouldn't be talked about?

It can and it always was possible. You need to learn what Engle vs. Vitale actually stated. It ended school-sponcered religious support of any theological opinion. It did not end private practice, be it personal devotions or a club.

 

[Vance]

The latest Scientific American has an article on how the Big Bang Theory came to replace the steady state theory. I would suggest picking it up. It seems it was given a full hearing but just came up empty. When those two guys figured out what was causing their hissing noise, it was the clincher for the Big Bang. That theory was actually able to make a prediction which could be empirically tested. If it was true, something should exist, and it does.

Why should they provide more funding for steady state now? Might as well provide chunks of that scarce funding money to support studies the the ether, or to reconsider geocentrism. After all, there are still people who insist that the sun and stars revolve around the earth, and have the Scripture to prove it. If one of them petitioned for funding of research for this notion, should we give it to them. After all, if we are confident about the truth of the earth revolving around the sun, we should not be afraid to let them to pursue this alternate theory. After all, it was believed by the everyone for thousands of years, and the new theory has only been around for a few hundred.

But what I still don't understand is why ANY creationist would be opposed to the Big Bang. The only major problem it had from the beginning was that it was an "out of nothing" event, which seemed so . . . supernatural. It fits perfectly with God's Creation, and why any Christian would argue against it just baffles me. But many do.

 

[tryptophan]

I am not surprised that you have conviently missed what I have said repeatedly. That these people were not disproving evolution, nor were they saying they don't believe in it. They were pointing out the problems with it, even though they believe it to be true.

One really has to wonder if you are interested in what I said, or you just want to argue against me. I never said these quotes were to be against evolution and to show that the ones being quoted don't believe in evolution for the quoted reasons.

I have been trying to point out simple fact - one that many here cannot seem to grasp - that evolution does have problems with the theory. Even the most respected scientist will tell you it is not perfect. Yet!!!! So many of the people here - which I believe are just followers - are adament about evolution not having any problems and is the perfect solution.

At least those scientists who still believe in evolution are HONEST enough about the theory. You cannot get anyone here to even be honest about it. And yet you all acuse me of being dishonest.

I really shouldn't have been surprised that this would become name calling so quickly. Again Vance, theistic evolutionists are proving to be what you claim YEC's are.

I apologize for misrepresenting you. I'm used to seeing these quote lists being used to make scientists say things that they didn't intend to say. However, that didn't excuse me. Yes, I'll concede that there are some problems and unknowns within evolutionary theory and scientists are currently trying to explain these. But that didn't excuse me. I'm sorry.

 

[The Lady Kate]

well the conclusion of what i quoted was an either or issue. That is why I phrased my question as I did. You of course can take the Bible and science as equals, no one is gonna stop ya.

What you quoted was two examples of opposite extremes. One cannot be a YEC and a strict materialist... which would explain why you don't see too many of them around.

But not all evolutionists are strict materialists, just as not all Christians are literalists, so the issue is moot.

 

[Remus]

But what I still don't understand is why ANY creationist would be opposed to the Big Bang. The only major problem it had from the beginning was that it was an "out of nothing" event, which seemed so . . . supernatural. It fits perfectly with God's Creation, and why any Christian would argue against it just baffles me. But many do.

First, who is opposing the Big Bang? All I've seen so far is proof that those that are in control aren’t as unbiased as we are often told.

Second, are you suggesting that we should accept any theory that supports our origins beliefs?

 

[Vance]

First, who is opposing the Big Bang? All I've seen so far is proof that those that are in control aren’t as unbiased as we are often told.

Second, are you suggesting that we should accept any theory that supports our origins beliefs?

No, this was more of an aside about the Big Bang since it was brought up. It is one of the mysteries of YEC'ism to me that so many reject the Big Bang. I do not think that they accept any theory because it supports our view of origins any more than should we automatically reject a view just because it contradicts our view (since we should then take a look once again at our view). My bafflement is that many YEC's have a knee jerk reaction against the Big Bang, possibly because it is accepted by modern science and can be explained without referring to God. This seems to be enough to reject it out of hand, since very rarely do they provide any scientific opposition to it. And this is the irony, since they are rejecting one of the scientific theories about origins that seems tailor-made for Creationists! It is as if someone took Genesis 1:3 and attempted to describe it in scientific terms. In fact, that is what many atheists thought was going on when it was first presented by a Christian, and were wary of it for that reason.

When properly considered, the fact that such a God-like explanation (they still do not have a naturalistic explanation for the trigger, other then some vague concepts of density) was not rejected outright, and has come to be the dominant theory is evidence that the scientific community WILL consider any new idea if it is scientifically sound and supportable, even if it bucks the system entirely and even seems to support Scripture. These don't seem to be factors that lead to automatic rejection. You just have to "bring it" as they say, have your stuff together, have a theory that works with the data, and is not falsified. If it works, it will be accepted.

 

[SBG]

I apologize for misrepresenting you. I'm used to seeing these quote lists being used to make scientists say things that they didn't intend to say. However, that didn't excuse me. Yes, I'll concede that there are some problems and unknowns within evolutionary theory and scientists are currently trying to explain these. But that didn't excuse me. I'm sorry.

No worries, friend. If I were to hold something against you, then God should hold my sins against me. Lord knows I need forgiveness and I cannot get that unless I forgive.

It is refreshing to see that you are honest about what you believe of evolution.

 

[Remus]

No, this was more of an aside about the Big Bang since it was brought up. It is one of the mysteries of YEC'ism to me that so many reject the Big Bang.

What remains a mystery to me is why you single out YEC's. I've seen people in many different areas of the debate reject the Big Bang. I've also seen that most of the popular appologists that hold to YEC use the Big Bang as evidence for a creator. I've also seen some YEC's reject it on a theological basis, but I'd hardly call that a "knee jerk reaction".

...is evidence that the scientific community WILL consider any new idea if it is scientifically sound and supportable...

I'm afraid that I don't share your faith.

 

[Vance]

Honestly, since the Big Bang became fully accepted upon the two students noise discovery, I have not heard any but YEC's seriously argue against the Big Bang. True, not all YEC's do this, but many do and this is the mystery. Why?

 

[Remus]

...I have not heard any but YEC's seriously argue against the Big Bang.

What about this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1189972-scientists-covet.html
that I also provided a link to:
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

It looks to me that these people are serious.

 

[Vance]

I stand corrected, there are some, but you would have to admit that it is a very tiny minority of the scientific community. My main point is that I just can't see why ANY YEC's would oppose it on theological grounds.

 

[Remus]

I stand corrected, there are some, but you would have to admit that it is a very tiny minority of the scientific community. My main point is that I just can't see why ANY YEC's would oppose it on theological grounds.

One reason that I've seen is that the order of events differ from what is in Genesis (ie. sun first, then earth). This sounds to me that these people have thought about it and disagreed with it. This wasn't hard to find either. So I'm baffled as to why you would characterize this as "a knee jerk reaction".