Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[gluadys]

Thats not that accurate of a scenario. Change it so that the friend doesn't tell us where he is going and he brings back a ton of artifacts with different origins and culture types. Now it is up to us to figure out where he visited and which he visited first.

Sounds like you never went to kindergarten. This sort of thing is a standard excercise used to teach 5 year olds sequencing.

We might have alot of educated guesses

Well, that's the point. The guesses would be educated, and would fit the evidence of the artifacts.

That is the difference between scientific theories and sheer pull-it-out-of-thin-air speculation.

but unless he told us we would never know for sure.

That is why science makes no claim to know for sure.

 

[ebia]

If God told me he went to Rome instead of Paris, I'd believe God no matter what pictures he showed me.

If he told you he went to Rome, while showing you a picture of himself standing next to the Eiffel Tower, it wouldn't occur to you that you might be misunderstanding something?

 

[S Walch]

If he told you he went to Rome, while showing you a picture of himself standing next to the Eiffel Tower, it wouldn't occur to you that you might be misunderstanding something?

If God said "Look, here is a picture of when I was in Rome" and showed him a picture of him stood next to the Eiffel tower, that is known to be in Paris, then we would presume that therefore God lied.

But if God lied, then God isn't God and is a figment of our imagination.

Silly rhetorical question you put forth really.

 

[stumpjumper]

If God said "Look, here is a picture of when I was in Rome" and showed him a picture of him stood next to the Eiffel tower, that is known to be in Paris, then we would presume that therefore God lied.

But if God lied, then God isn't God and is a figment of our imagination.

Silly rhetorical question you put forth really.

Since when does God show us pictures of things?

I think Ebia was correct in saying that it would be our interpretation of the event that is in error not God.

If we interpret the Bible to say one thing than nature tells us something else then it is our interpretation of the Bible or nature that is in error.

In regards to evolution, I'm going with our interpretation of the Bible that is in error. Not the Bible, God, or the color blue.

 

[S Walch]

Since when does God show us pictures of things?

I think Ebia was correct in saying that it would be our interpretation of the event that is in error not God.

If we interpret the Bible to say one thing than nature tells us something else then it is our interpretation of the Bible or nature that is in error.

In regards to evolution, I'm going with our interpretation of the Bible that is in error. Not the Bible, God, or the color blue.

Then Ebia's rhetorical question isn't worthy either, as he has God showing us a picture in that.

Also, wouldn't you call "visions" - "pictures" of the future?

People have described visions like that before.

Perhaps you could give me a list of the htings I'm allowed to use/not allowed to use in rhetorical things, if it so pleases you.

 

[shernren]

You can't be serious... His statement only contradicts in your head. Didn't we already do this? I'll repeat my statement from the last time this was brought up. Day 6 of 2 million can easily be considered the beginning. however year 2.8 billion of 3 billion isn't the beginning of anything.

Is it just me, or is everyone here sick of having gone through this a gadzillion times?

Firstly, this is a clear extra-contextual inference. Jesus hadn't been asked by the Pharisees "Wait, what about these nuts who say we evolved from apes?" so to take His statement and say that Jesus is supporting YECism sounds an awful lot like saying Jesus told people to cheat and lie and perform CBT by telling the Parable of the Shrewd Manager, or condoned cursing figs on the way to Jerusalem, or advocated letting your kids run wild with their inheritance long before they deserve it in the Parable of the Prodigal Son ... if we choose our quotes carefully we can make Jesus say anything we want!

Secondly, it is only proper for Jesus to refer to the Torah and its description (prescription, really, being a "why" and not a "how") of creation in contact and discussion with the Pharisees. Jesus' making that statement does not equal His endorsing of it as historical truth. Ditto practically every other parable which begins "There was..."

Thirdly, it is a fallacy to assume that Jesus denounced evolutionism by making that statement because there was no evolutionism to denounce. We cannot assume that He would have said it the same way here and now; this is in the same manner that we cannot read a criticism of evolutionism into some of the Church Fathers' endorsements of creationism. In the same way, we cannot read an endorsement of slavery into Paul's statements regarding it because there was no viable alternative to slavery during Paul's time.

Fourthly, what was Jesus actually saying? He was saying that the proper created order of mankind is for faithful, monogamous marriage. Nowhere does evolution contradict this. Firstly, evolutionism does not make value statements. Even if murder is evolutionally propitious that does not make it right; ditto adultery. Secondly, since familial characteristics like loyalty and parent-child bonding seem to have biochemical precursors / encouragers (oxytocin etc.) this may in fact indicate that evolution was one way that God used to construct the family institution through biological mechanisms.

Fifthly, it is possible for us to interpret "the beginning" not as a chronological term, but an action term - i.e. the act of making the universe begin. This would mean that all of God's creative processes up to the point where the universe was ready for man and man entered the universe would constitute "the beginning". And it is true that since that beginning man has been male and female - indeed, life has been male and female from very, very, very far back. It is possible for us to say that there was sexuality perhaps as far back as the Cambrian Explosion, which would quite definitely count as the "beginning of creation" even in a chronological sense.

Could any OECs help me out with the Scripturality of these arguments?

 

[ebia]

If God said "Look, here is a picture of when I was in Rome" and showed him a picture of him stood next to the Eiffel tower, that is known to be in Paris, then we would presume that therefore God lied.

So it still wouldn't occur to you that you might have misunderstood what he said, or the significance of the picture, or both?

Of course earlier you said:

If God told me he went to Rome instead of Paris, I'd believe God no matter what pictures he showed me.

So you don't seem very consistant, but you do seem quick to jump to a conclusion.

 

[S Walch]

Of course earlier you said:

So you don't seem very consistant, but you do seem quick to jump to a conclusion.

Did I?*

Didn't realise I went under two different names at CF. Silly me. My personallity disorder's coming though.


*hint: Look at the name of the person who's post you quote. It not be me.

So it still wouldn't occur to you that you might have misunderstood what he said, or the significance of the picture, or both?

1. God cannot lie. God could therefore not say he was somewhere and then show evidence that he was actually somewhere else entirely.

2. Or the picture has nothing to do with God going to Rome, and is therefore just showing you a picture which is irrelevent to what you're talking to him about.

But then if he did that, then he would most certainly be confusing me, and then again he wouldn't be god, because God is not the author of confusion.

 

[ebia]

Did I?*

Didn't realise I went under two different names at CF. Silly me. My personallity disorder's coming though.

Sorry, my mistake.

1. God cannot lie. God could therefore not say he was somewhere and then show evidence that he was actually somewhere else entirely.

2. Or the picture has nothing to do with God going to Rome, and is therefore just showing you a picture which is irrelevent to what you're talking to him about.

These are not the only two possibilities. You might have misunderstood his point entirely, which might (for example) have nothing to do with Rome or Paris. Or maybe he went to both.

But then if he did that, then he would most certainly be confusing me, and then again he wouldn't be god, because God is not the author of confusion

This is never proof that any understanding is the correct one. God may not be the author of confusion, but we are very good at getting confused about what he said.


The point is that God is presenting us with two separate bits of information about the nature of creation - the Genesis story, and Creation itself. If they appear to conflict, then the chances are we have misunderstood one or both, not that God is lying or that one of them is not from God. Creation cannot be interpreted in such a way as to fit the literalist reading of Genesis, but Genesis interpreted as the most important story ever told fits perfectly with the resonable, scientific, intepretation of Creation. Take away that one, unhistoric and unjustified instance on taking Genesis as literal history and the whole thing works beautifully.

 

[john crawford]

The last speciation among humans is estimated to have occurred over 150,000 years ago. Therefore, no one living today observed it. However, there is observable, testable, demonstrable evidence consistent with the theory that such a speciation did occur.

So where is the "observable, testable, demonstrable evidence consistent with the theory that such a speciation did occur." The only observable, testable and demonstrable scientific evidence we have in support of any theory of human origins from other species is the observable fact of human raciation which Darwinists misconstrue and misinterpret to be evidence of human speciation.

 

[john crawford]

Do you consider all theories that fall into this category of phenomena (not directly observable, testable, or demontratable) as religoius?

Both quasi-religious and pseudoscientific.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

You can't be serious... His statement only contradicts in your head.

No, it only contradicts in a true literalist's head

Didn't we already do this? I'll repeat my statement from the last time this was brought up. Day 6 of 2 million can easily be considered the beginning.

It is near the beginning, certainly, but you are engaging in interpretation there, not being very literal.

however year 2.8 billion of 3 billion isn't the beginning of anything.

With conversion there is a new beginning (anybody know the verse from Paul off the top of their head?)

Imparting homo-whatever with a soul was most certainly a beginning.

and there is an equal amount of evidence against an old universe. As for the Grand Canyon, this is one of those follies of assumption. An earthquake happened in washinton some number of years back. After three years of erosion through this crack that developped because of it, using the same method as dating the Grand Canyon, this crack turned canyon was dated at multiple thousands of years old.

And which method was that?

The Grand Canyon has numerous geological features, e.g. sheer faces 1000s of feet in height, that simply don't get created quickly.

You have alot of assumptions built off of more assumptions.

The only untested and untestable assumption science makes is that what we perceive has a reasonable correlation to reality.

All other assumptions eventually come up for testing.

I'll stick with what Jesus said.

I would have to disagree, you are sticking to what your pastor told you Jesus meant.

That's almost laughable...what has evolution predicted?

Along with the 100s of other predictions that General Relativity has correctly it predicted the degree to which a star would appear to move when its light passed by the Sun, and during an eclipse that was measured and found to be true.

Stellar physics predicts certain short lived elements are produced in supernovas, these were observed in SN1987A with appropriate half-lives, which, unless Adam was created with a scar on his knee where he fell as a child, demonstrates that the universe is at least 167,000 years old.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/SN1987A.html
http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/missing.html

Evolution predicts that species evolve.
This has been observed in viruses, malaria, rats...
Evolution predicts that non-functional differences in DNA will generally agree with the morphological tree, which they do. (e.g. cytochrome c).
Evolution predicts that since we all descended from a common ancestor one can learn information that is useful for humans from other species, and we do.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

So where is the "observable, testable, demonstrable evidence consistent with the theory that such a speciation did occur." The only observable, testable and demonstrable scientific evidence we have in support of any theory of human origins from other species is the observable fact of human raciation which Darwinists misconstrue and misinterpret to be evidence of human speciation.

Non-functional differences in DNA should and do generally* map to the morphological tree.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

To revisit a response I made to your statement a couple of weeks ago that there was no broken DNA.

When something that worked, that produced something, that caused events to occur changes in such a way that it ceases to do anything it is commonly called broken.

We can observe DNA "break" in the laboratory.

By any reasonable definition the GLO producing sequence in monkeys [including humans] is broken DNA.

It is very similar to the working sequences in lemurs and other mammals, and the differences include a change in startup sequence that renders it non-starting.
​

To expand on that: if everybody on a block has a working lawnmower except one person who has a machine that is identical to those lawnmowers except that what looks like a spark plug is cracked in a way similar to cracks that have been observed to sideline working lawnmowers it seems pretty likely that the machine is a broken lawnmower.

Further: the break in the start codon is important in that it prevents anything from being produced as opposed to it producing something dangerous that would cause the mutation to be strongly selected against.

Other testable evidence is that we expect intermediates to have existed and if we find them that confirms the prediction. The lack of any particular intermediate is not falsifying given the rarity of fossil creation.

The intermediate I had in mind was the one between reptiles and mammals with a dual jaw hinge.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

*since mutations are random perfection is not expected, nor does it exist.

 

[john crawford]

Non-functional differences in DNA should and do generally* map to the morphological tree.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/





To revisit a response I made to your statement a couple of weeks ago that there was no broken DNA.

When something that worked, that produced something, that caused events to occur changes in such a way that it ceases to do anything it is commonly called broken.

We can observe DNA "break" in the laboratory.

By any reasonable definition the GLO producing sequence in monkeys [including humans] is broken DNA.

It is very similar to the working sequences in lemurs and other mammals, and the differences include a change in startup sequence that renders it non-starting.


​

To expand on that: if everybody on a block has a working lawnmower except one person who has a machine that is identical to those lawnmowers except that what looks like a spark plug is cracked in a way similar to cracks that have been observed to sideline working lawnmowers it seems pretty likely that the machine is a broken lawnmower.



Further: the break in the start codon is important in that it prevents anything from being produced as opposed to it producing something dangerous that would cause the mutation to be strongly selected against.

Other testable evidence is that we expect intermediates to have existed and if we find them that confirms the prediction. The lack of any particular intermediate is not falsifying given the rarity of fossil creation.

The intermediate I had in mind was the one between reptiles and mammals with a dual jaw hinge.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

*since mutations are random perfection is not expected, nor does it exist.

Nothing you posted is testable, demonstable or observable evidence of human speciation.

You may be confusing the observation of common structural design and shared traits with the assumption of common descent and shared ancestry.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Nothing you posted is testable, demonstable or observable evidence of human speciation.

The match of changes to cytochrome-c to the tree of classification based on morphology and originally put together by creationists and other similar matches is testable and observable evidence of speciation in general and human speciation in specific.

You may be confusing the observation of common structural design and shared traits with the assumption of common descent and shared ancestry.

This statement is exactly why I used shared broken and not functionally significant DNA sequences in my examples.

 

[john crawford]

The match of changes to cytochrome-c to the tree of classification based on morphology and originally put together by creationists and other similar matches is testable and observable evidence of speciation in general and human speciation in specific.

This statement is exactly why I used shared broken and not functionally significant DNA sequences in my examples.

Sorry. No comprende. If people don't know what you are talking about then you can't prove anything to them.

 

[gluadys]

So where is the "observable, testable, demonstrable evidence consistent with the theory that such a speciation did occur." The only observable, testable and demonstrable scientific evidence we have in support of any theory of human origins from other species is the observable fact of human raciation which Darwinists misconstrue and misinterpret to be evidence of human speciation.

Well for one thing we have the mDNA samplings that confirm H. sapiens did not inherit its genome from Neanderthals. So who did H. sapiens inherit its genome from?

 

[Numenor]

...raciation...

Raciation is a made up word...much like your arguments.

 

[stumpjumper]

bump

Just looking back on some of the funner threads...

 

[Mick116]

Only a divine revelation.

Haven't you heard? Charles Darwin was a prophet of God, and the doctrine of biological evolution is an inspired truth...