Why creationists reject evolution

[Schroeder]

Although the ToE (Theory of Evolution) is supported my multiple lines of evidence stemming from various branches of science, I can’t see how anyone can objectively look at the genetic evidence alone and still deny it’s validity. Once I learned about ERVs I couldn’t see how the evidence could be interpreted any other way.

are they ot still looking into this ERV event to determine its actual function or cause or beginning. or have they learned it all already. most evidence given neither supports or denies the theory, so its is not usefull as evidence.

No offense, but this is exactly why religion hinders the advancement of mankind. We are dealing with a well substantiated scientific theory here and the main, if not only, reason it is a center of controversy is that religion has set itself up at odds with it. The correlation between the ToE and the heliocentric solar system is so acute that I am at a loss as to how anyone can’t realize it as history repeating itself.

Thats is funny. you do not no your history very well. if it was not for religion we all would be probably dead. the FACT that hitlor used science or this theory to promote or show it was ok, is prove that what you just said holds no wieght.

If taken literally the bible is chock full of errors. Once you realize this and start to interpret the text in order to reconcile it with the reality of a spherical earth and non geocentric universe then you must be reasonable and allow for the possibility that the origin of man is just another instance of this phenomenon and evaluate the ToE objectively.

wrong. you have no clue of scripture. its funny it ok for you to say we dont understand evotheory but are inclined to think you no all about the scriptures. this idea as been brought down so many times i find it hard to believe people still try to use this it would be a PRATT as you would say.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

are they ot still looking into this ERV event to determine its actual function or cause or beginning. or have they learned it all already. most evidence given neither supports or denies the theory, so its is not usefull as evidence.

Please read this:

(5) Endogenous retroviral infections from the ancient past and their role in confirming what is already painfully obvious.
Taken from here:
Retroviral infections can occasionally infect a germ line cell. The resulting offspring will have bits and pieces of the virus stuck in every cell in its body. We've observed this very rare process in the lab, and the odds of getting two independent infections to leave the same bit of viral DNA at the same exact locus are astronomically unlikely.

Like pseudogenes, the viral fragments can piggyback on the success of an individual and become established in the species. The chances of any particular viral fragment, even if inserted identically in two seperate cases, becoming established in two seperate populations (a rare event in and of itself) makes this not just improbable, but more or less impossible without divine intervention

Any offshoot species will have the same unlikely and easily identifiable ERV, enabling us to construct accurate phylogenies from an independent line of evidence.

Exhibit D; human endogenous retrovirii insertions in identical chromosomal locations in various primates. Notice just how well the standard evolutionary phylogeny (humans and chimps closest, then orangutans and gorillas, then gibbons, then old world monkeys, then new world monkeys) is represented by this line of evidence.

ERVs have also been used to reconstruct the relationships between dogs, jackals, wolves and foxes; various breeds of domestic cat and wild cat; and even to establish the shared ancestry of cows and whales. (In the last case, two independent viral infections accounting for the evidence is impossible - whales and cows do not even share the same environment, much less are exposed to the same diseases!)

Needless to say, this offers numerous falsification avenues for evolution. Any ERV shared between organisms farther on the phylogenetic relationship than humans and apes must *also* be found in both. For example, ERVs found in New World Monkeys and chimps MUST be present in humans (aside from a few very rare cases where they've been deleted, but we can tell when a deletion has occured) or evolution is falsified.

An ERV in dogs and humans but not chimps would put the theory on its deathbed; so would a phylogeny reconstructed from these viral fragments if it differed significantly from the accepted phylogeny based on morphological, fossil, pseudogene, anatomical, and other evidence. This is the strongest evidence for evolution I've ever come across; a truly powerful and damning smoking gun.

Thats is funny. you do not no your history very well. if it was not for religion we all would be probably dead. the FACT that hitlor used science or this theory to promote or show it was ok, is prove that what you just said holds no wieght.

And I think you’ve got blinders on if you believe this. Religion is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history and still is today. Crusade anyone? How about a suicide bomb?

"There once was a time when all people believed in God
and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages."
-- Richard Lederer

wrong. you have no clue of scripture. its funny it ok for you to say we dont understand evotheory but are inclined to think you no all about the scriptures. this idea as been brought down so many times i find it hard to believe people still try to use this it would be a PRATT as you would say.

A literal interpretation get’s you a 6000 year old universe, a flat earth, and a geo-centric solar system just for starts. If you don’t think so it’s only because you are interpreting it to make sense in light of knowledge science has brought us.

 

[Schroeder]

Please read this:

interesting.

And I think you’ve got blinders on if you believe this. Religion is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history and still is today. Crusade anyone? How about a suicide bomb?

yes religion has done bad things. but true christianity has never done such things. the roman catholic church is not christianity, it is very close but not. it is its own religion. True christians did not partisipate in the crusades or did not agree with it. i can not account for other religions, because christianity is not a religion it is a personal relationship not dealing with dogma or traditions, or at least shouldnt. it is personal. actually i would think abortion and drunkdrivers and drugs dictators ect. have killed at least 10 times as many innosent people.

A literal interpretation get’s you a 6000 year old universe, a flat earth, and a geo-centric solar system just for starts. If you don’t think so it’s only because you are interpreting it to make sense in light of knowledge science has brought us.

again have you studied it much. or look at books of those who have. it is explained well enough to show you are wrong on this idea.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

interesting.

Indeed it is. Somehow this information never seems to filter down to the theists that claim so fervently that evolution is false. They ignore it and wave it off under the vague assertion that evolutionists somehow misinterpret the data. Meanwhile irony meters are breaking everywhere due to the fact that they are not accepting the data objectively because of their preconceived religious bias.

yes religion has done bad things. but true christianity has never done such things. the roman catholic church is not christianity, it is very close but not. it is its own religion. True christians did not partisipate in the crusades or did not agree with it. i can not account for other religions, because christianity is not a religion it is a personal relationship not dealing with dogma or traditions, or at least shouldnt. it is personal.

Anytime people prefix something with “true” it’s a red flag. This is like saying that “true fire” never burned anyone. Christianity, like fire, is a tool wielded by people. How it is used varies from person to person each one trying to claim sole use of the “true” modifier.

actually i would think abortion and drunkdrivers and drugs dictators ect. have killed at least 10 times as many innosent people.

Statements like this always remind me that 97.625% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The common thread is people. People can do good things and people can do bad things. The people claiming whatever religion are not exempt. In fact, it justifies their behavior more times than not.

again have you studied it much. or look at books of those who have. it is explained well enough to show you are wrong on this idea.

There is plenty of apologetic work to interpret the words so that they do not conflict with scientific findings. What I am talking about is the LITERAL reading of the text. The kind that YECs cling to. It’s like a scale. On one end you have a 100% literal reading where everything means exactly what it says and on the other you have a 100% interpreted reading where nothing means exactly what it says. Every theist falls somewhere between the two depending on their own arbitrary choosing.

 

[Loudmouth]

es religion has done bad things. but true christianity has never done such things. the roman catholic church is not christianity, it is very close but not. it is its own religion. True christians did not partisipate in the crusades or did not agree with it. i can not account for other religions, because christianity is not a religion it is a personal relationship not dealing with dogma or traditions, or at least shouldnt. it is personal. actually i would think abortion and drunkdrivers and drugs dictators ect. have killed at least 10 times as many innosent people.

By definition, all you have to do to be a christian is to agree with the Nicean Creed. I believe that is even the definition that ChristianForums uses.

What can be said is that christians commit sin. I really don't see this as a reason to discount christianity. In fact, since christians are humans it is expected. Christians did participate in the Crusades, and I am sure even atheist mercenaries participated too. The point is that christians do contort and twist christian theology to bring about sin, just as fascists and anti-semites twisted the Theory of Evolution to commit atrocities. It is human nature, not religion or scientific findings, that leads to these problems.

 

[Dragar]

the roman catholic church is not christianity

You realise it's against forum rules to say this, don't you?

 

[Tomk80]

True christians did not partisipate in the crusades or did not agree with it.

Do you actually know anything about the crusades, except some general information? From this statement, I guess you do not. What do you know about the underlying societal circumstances motivating people for the crusades? What do you know about those going on the crusades to make such a sweeping statement? At this point, I don't think you really know anything about them and I'm quite certain that your knowledge on them in no way justifies such a sweeping statement.

 

[Schroeder]

By definition, all you have to do to be a christian is to agree with the Nicean Creed. I believe that is even the definition that ChristianForums uses.

christianity is all who accept Christ into there heart. period. which is what the nicean creed preety much says but with a lot of words. but you can believe in christ and not be a true christian or i should not be saved. Christ never said we would be christians if we believed in him it is just a name given us by others and we have used it. and again it is a INDIVIDUAL faith or belief. religion is a group belief or you MUST follow a standard set of rules or worship. christians do not al we must do is believe in our hearts and love one another. your actions in life show wether you truelly believe or follow christ or not.

What can be said is that christians commit sin. I really don't see this as a reason to discount christianity. In fact, since christians are humans it is expected. Christians did participate in the Crusades, and I am sure even atheist mercenaries participated too. The point is that christians do contort and twist christian theology to bring about sin, just as fascists and anti-semites twisted the Theory of Evolution to commit atrocities. It is human nature, not religion or scientific findings, that leads to these problems.

No sinners us the christian ideas to distort what they believe is right or what they are doing. that is were you all go very wrong. if you think like you just stated i see why you are strong against it. but the fact is your thinking is wrong. your right human nature is the problem, Christ is the answer. and i cant prove this to you only show it to you. which is why it is a individual faith and why you judge a person on wether he is a true christian on a individual bases and not on a group bases such as a denom or such.

 

[Schroeder]

You realise it's against forum rules to say this, don't you?

i dont think so here. if you can say christianity is not real or stupid then i think i can say Roman catholic church is not christian here.

 

[Grengor]

There should be a de-coder ring that comes with people like Shroeder.

 

[Schroeder]

Do you actually know anything about the crusades, except some general information? From this statement, I guess you do not. What do you know about the underlying societal circumstances motivating people for the crusades? What do you know about those going on the crusades to make such a sweeping statement? At this point, I don't think you really know anything about them and I'm quite certain that your knowledge on them in no way justifies such a sweeping statement.

i does not matter one little bit if i do or dont. Christians or those who say they are should NEVER have been invovled with what they did or what they believed.

 

[Schroeder]

Indeed it is. Somehow this information never seems to filter down to the theists that claim so fervently that evolution is false. They ignore it and wave it off under the vague assertion that evolutionists somehow misinterpret the data. Meanwhile irony meters are breaking everywhere due to the fact that they are not accepting the data objectively because of their preconceived religious bias.

i would have to study it in a little more depth to decide on what he stated is the whole picture or story.

Anytime people prefix something with “true” it’s a red flag. This is like saying that “true fire” never burned anyone. Christianity, like fire, is a tool wielded by people. How it is used varies from person to person each one trying to claim sole use of the “true” modifier.
Statements like this always remind me that 97.625% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The common thread is people. People can do good things and people can do bad things. The people claiming whatever religion are not exempt. In fact, it justifies their behavior more times than not.

not so. a true christian acts like it. if you new the scriptures you would understand this concept. we show we are true believers or just saying we believe by the way we conduct our lives over all. obviously we are going to sin or make mistakes but if there is no difference from who we was before salvation and after then chances are you are not saved. no those who are not saved use religion to justify themselves. or in this case christianity and what it teaches to justify what they do.

There is plenty of apologetic work to interpret the words so that they do not conflict with scientific findings. What I am talking about is the LITERAL reading of the text. The kind that YECs cling to. It’s like a scale. On one end you have a 100% literal reading where everything means exactly what it says and on the other you have a 100% interpreted reading where nothing means exactly what it says. Every theist falls somewhere between the two depending on their own arbitrary choosing.

again not so if you would study it. there is literale and none literale writings which are used symbolically, if you studied scripture you wuld now which is which, you have not done this. so yes if it is meant to be literale it is taken literale and when it is not you dont. you have to study to determine this. and i will say even here it may be interpreted differently by diferent people. but science is no different in or when it comes to interpratation.

 

[Tomk80]

i does not matter one little bit if i do or dont. Christians or those who say they are should NEVER have been invovled with what they did or what they believed.

Oh but it does. Whether they should have been involved and whether they were involved are very different things. And for you to decide on a whole group of people whether they were 'real christians' or not would at least require an in depth knowledge on these people. Else, you are not fit to make such a judgement on them. It's hard enough to see whether people are sincere christians when you do have all some information. To do so without knowing anything about these people in the first place really is incredibly arrogant and unjustified.

It's also horrifying, in my opinion. Christians have made mistakes in the past, and are going to make them in the future. To lock yourself from the lessons learned in the past, because you think you are above such acts because you are a 'true christian', makes you all the more likely to commit them yourself. Nothing frightens me more then people who don't refuse to see that the lessons learned in the past do not apply to them, and who think they are above human behavior because they are 'true christians'. Amongst all ignorance, that is the ignorance that should be truly feared.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

i would have to study it in a little more depth to decide on what he stated is the whole picture or story.

And for this I will sincerely compliment you. I only wish there were more opponents to the ToE willing to actually look at the evidence. I am also interested in your take on the subject when you finish studying it more in depth. Please post or PM me when you finish your study.

not so. a true christian acts like it.

You have to try and understand that this statement is relative. You are saying that a “True Christian™” acts like a “True Christian™”. This all depends on how a person thinks a “True Christian™” should act like in the first place. This in turn depends on each person’s interpretation of the scripture. See how much wiggle room there is? There are a veritable endless number of interpretations for how a “True Christian™” should act because there are a veritable endless number of interpretations for what “True Christian™” even means.

if you new the scriptures you would understand this concept.

I understand the scriptures enough to know that the interpretation has changed over the years. As the meaning of the text changes so too does what it means to be a “True Christian™”.

we show we are true believers or just saying we believe by the way we conduct our lives over all. obviously we are going to sin or make mistakes but if there is no difference from who we was before salvation and after then chances are you are not saved. no those who are not saved use religion to justify themselves. or in this case christianity and what it teaches to justify what they do.

I believe the religious leaders justify what they want their followers to do with their interpretation of the bible. Whether that’s war, peace, or recruiting more followers depends on the religious leaders. The followers will do what the religious leaders tell them to do because they think it is in accordance to what a “True Christian™” would do.

again not so if you would study it. there is literale and none literale writings which are used symbolically, if you studied scripture you wuld now which is which, you have not done this. so yes if it is meant to be literale it is taken literale and when it is not you dont. you have to study to determine this.

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar, I would submit to you that a good indication of when a particular part of the bible should not be taken literally is when it contradicts the evidence found in reality.

and i will say even here it may be interpreted differently by diferent people. but science is no different in or when it comes to interpratation.

It really is different Schroeder. Science is set up to be as objective as possible. The scientific method and the system of peer review help to ensure objective theories. Religion on the other hand is not shy about touting their bias. Just read AiG’s statement of faith to fully understand what I’m talking about.

 

[jonesdon]

--- RESPONSE to #173 (Thelnstant), #174 (Caravelair), and #174 (Dannager).

PROOF: Oh, yes, proof! What is proof? Well, this falls in with my multi-discipline "hypothesis". A mathematical proof is different than a scientific or philosophical proof. And, may explain the creation-evolution dichotomy.

Proof, in math, is coming to conclusions using a consistent set of rules. So, it is well defined. For example, 4+4=10 as we all know? ... in the octal system. In philosophy, we come to conclusions using logic. I'm surprised that the scientists haven't burst forth -- but, yes, we arrive at scientific "proof" by empirical investigation. It is said that such & such proves a hypothesis. It might not be as fixed as the defined math or logical conclusions, but, with time, data, concurrence, use of math, etc.. we come to a "warm fuzzy" conclusion (or conviction) that something is true.

In religion, the "proof" is the trust of an authoritative source -- that, I know, many of you will not accept. But, for the pragmatists -- how about the "proof" being -- it works! Psychologists & sociologists say that religion works.

So, "proof" in evolution as well as in creation can both be right -- but, are just using different criteria (or evidence) & systems. Those that can't cross the systems (outside of their box) will never understand.

ART & IDEAS: Now, then, what is proof that a work of art is really beautiful? And, who is to say that ideas need proof? Does no one believe in mind over matter? And, don't tell me that all needs to be proven by (only) scientific methods -- like evolution!

MENTAL PICTURES: And, I maintain that the physical mind can create an immaterial (but real) mental picture -- this is what we call metaphysical. If thoughts aren't beyond the material world -- then give me some quantifiable solid proof!

 

[Tomk80]

--- RESPONSE to #173 (Thelnstant), #174 (Caravelair), and #174 (Dannager).

PROOF: Oh, yes, proof! What is proof? Well, this falls in with my multi-discipline "hypothesis". A mathematical proof is different than a scientific or philosophical proof. And, may explain the creation-evolution dichotomy.

Proof, in math, is coming to conclusions using a consistent set of rules. So, it is well defined. For example, 4+4=10 as we all know? ... in the octal system. In philosophy, we come to conclusions using logic. I'm surprised that the scientists haven't burst forth -- but, yes, we arrive at scientific "proof" by empirical investigation. It is said that such & such proves a hypothesis. It might not be as fixed as the defined math or logical conclusions, but, with time, data, concurrence, use of math, etc.. we come to a "warm fuzzy" conclusion (or conviction) that something is true.

In religion, the "proof" is the trust of an authoritative source -- that, I know, many of you will not accept. But, for the pragmatists -- how about the "proof" being -- it works! Psychologists & sociologists say that religion works.

So, "proof" in evolution as well as in creation can both be right -- but, are just using different criteria (or evidence) & systems. Those that can't cross the systems (outside of their box) will never understand.

ART & IDEAS: Now, then, what is proof that a work of art is really beautiful? And, who is to say that ideas need proof? Does no one believe in mind over matter? And, don't tell me that all needs to be proven by (only) scientific methods -- like evolution!

MENTAL PICTURES: And, I maintain that the physical mind can create an immaterial (but real) mental picture -- this is what we call metaphysical. If thoughts aren't beyond the material world -- then give me some quantifiable solid proof!

I would answer that the proof that religion works, counts for all religions in some way. So it can't be a literal reading that makes it work. By that, I would say that a literal reading of Genesis is not proven pragmatically.

However, the scientific methodology is proven to work in the physical world. Aribitrarily rejecting certain conclusions reached by science because you have a literal interpretation of Genesis is not consistent if that literal reading of Genesis has not been shown to 'work'.

 

[TheInstant]

ART & IDEAS: Now, then, what is proof that a work of art is really beautiful? And, who is to say that ideas need proof? Does no one believe in mind over matter? And, don't tell me that all needs to be proven by (only) scientific methods -- like evolution!

The reason one would have difficulty proving whether or not a work of art is beautiful is because beauty is somewhat subjective. Does this mean that art is somehow "beyond" physical understanding? No, it just means that everyone has slightly different conscious/(mostly)subconscious criteria for what constitutes something that is interesting to look at (although a lot of these are generally very similar, are you familiar with Gestalt psychology?).

MENTAL PICTURES: And, I maintain that the physical mind can create an immaterial (but real) mental picture -- this is what we call metaphysical. If thoughts aren't beyond the material world -- then give me some quantifiable solid proof!

Ok, and I maintain that mental pictures are nothing more than neurons firing. What evidence supports the claim that thoughts are anything more than that? I don't see any need to provide solid proof that they are not if there is no evidence that they are.

 

[Schroeder]

Oh but it does. Whether they should have been involved and whether they were involved are very different things. And for you to decide on a whole group of people whether they were 'real christians' or not would at least require an in depth knowledge on these people. Else, you are not fit to make such a judgement on them. It's hard enough to see whether people are sincere christians when you do have all some information. To do so without knowing anything about these people in the first place really is incredibly arrogant and unjustified.

It's also horrifying, in my opinion. Christians have made mistakes in the past, and are going to make them in the future. To lock yourself from the lessons learned in the past, because you think you are above such acts because you are a 'true christian', makes you all the more likely to commit them yourself. Nothing frightens me more then people who don't refuse to see that the lessons learned in the past do not apply to them, and who think they are above human behavior because they are 'true christians'. Amongst all ignorance, that is the ignorance that should be truly feared.

youo do not get what i am saying. christians do NOT follow the Roman catholic church or what ever denom they are in and do what they say or teach. they follow what Christ and the Spirit in them tells them to do. which is two things to love they neighber and God. if they did these two things would they have gone and did such things. NO. you keep speaking of the roman catholic church and what they did not what christians did. AGAIN we are not a religion but it is a PERSONAL relationship wiht God through the Spirit of christ.

 

[Schroeder]

And for this I will sincerely compliment you. I only wish there were more opponents to the ToE willing to actually look at the evidence. I am also interested in your take on the subject when you finish studying it more in depth. Please post or PM me when you finish your study.

you will have to give me time on that one just started anew job and im working 11 hours a day.

You have to try and understand that this statement is relative. You are saying that a “True Christian™” acts like a “True Christian™”. This all depends on how a person thinks a “True Christian™” should act like in the first place. This in turn depends on each person’s interpretation of the scripture. See how much wiggle room there is? There are a veritable endless number of interpretations for how a “True Christian™” should act because there are a veritable endless number of interpretations for what “True Christian™” even means.

not really there are only two commands in scripture love thy neighbor and thy God. pretty simple. if you follow these two you could tell.

I understand the scriptures enough to know that the interpretation has changed over the years. As the meaning of the text changes so too does what it means to be a “True Christian™”.

the scripture NEVER change. again read above only two commands given. Love is the most spoken thing in scripture. it says you can have many things but if you do not have love you have nothing.

I believe the religious leaders justify what they want their followers to do with their interpretation of the bible. Whether that’s war, peace, or recruiting more followers depends on the religious leaders. The followers will do what the religious leaders tell them to do because they think it is in accordance to what a “True Christian™” would do.

again if they did this they would not be true christians because we do not follow what the "religious leader" tells us to do. this would make christianity a "religion" and not what irt is a personal relationship with God. you need to get this straight or you will never get the truth of what true christians teach or should teach. if they dont teach this ignore them.

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar, I would submit to you that a good indication of when a particular part of the bible should not be taken literally is when it contradicts the evidence found in reality.

not at all. you have to study scripture and the usages of certain words and how they are used and if they are anology sympolic ect. one good example is the word baptism. it means to dip under water. but it is used to to show or synpolise the Spirit and to be immersed into somethign or association and the favorite of many water baptism. which shows or sympolises Christ death and ressurection.

It really is different Schroeder. Science is set up to be as objective as possible. The scientific method and the system of peer review help to ensure objective theories. Religion on the other hand is not shy about touting their bias. Just read AiG’s statement of faith to fully understand what I’m talking about.

as you say "AS" possible. religion, but again true christianity is not a religion by deffinition. it can be made into one, but it is not.

 

[Tomk80]

youo do not get what i am saying. christians do NOT follow the Roman catholic church or what ever denom they are in and do what they say or teach. they follow what Christ and the Spirit in them tells them to do. which is two things to love they neighber and God. if they did these two things would they have gone and did such things. NO. you keep speaking of the roman catholic church and what they did not what christians did. AGAIN we are not a religion but it is a PERSONAL relationship wiht God through the Spirit of christ.

Oh no, Schroeder. Do not get me wrong one instant. I was not talking about the Roman Catholic church. I was speaking about the people participating in the crusades themselves, regardless of the church. I was telling you that you do not know anything about these people, about why they made the choices they did, about what their motives where, independent of the catholic church. You pass judgement on these people without knowing anything about the conditions they were in, what information they had and what led them to their decisions to go. Nothing. So your opinion on whether they were 'True Christians (C) (TM)' holds no water. And what is worse, is that in refusing to learn about them and their stories, you are all the more likely to make the same mistakes they did. And that last part, is the most frightening thing of all.

You pretend that because you are a "True Christian (C) (TM)", you are above them. That is already a sin in itself, pride and arrogance. But you're not above them. You're just as liable to make mistakes in judgement the way they did. Being a "True Christian (C) (TM)" does not all of a sudden make you not human. The only thing that would prevent you from not making the same mistakes, is knowledge. But you refuse to acquire that knowledge. For that, I not only pity you. I think the results of your refusal to do so in your arrogance can be potentially devastating. Because it is not just you. You are part of a larger group of "True Christians (C) (TM)", that refuse in their arrogance refuse to learn, and that makes you dangerous. It makes me regard you with a feeling of fear and of loathing.

added to add: on the positive side, it does give me the idea to change my quote.