Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[Scholar in training]

well that is a direct contradiction of evolution because according to evolution those that cannot reproduce naturally are a dieing and unevolved species therefore they are not humans and i can hunt them for food.

Kindly cite the source you received this information from.

I agree with you that evolution alone does not offer moral standards; that is, only if it is not supplemented with a consistant ethical system (e.g. Christian ethics). Evolution theory alone does not explain why we should be generous with our money, avoid certain behavior, follow God, etc. But that doesn't mean that the entire theory is worthless; don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[gluadys]

well that is a direct contradiction of evolution because according to evolution those that cannot reproduce naturally are a dieing and unevolved species therefore they are not humans and i can hunt them for food.

No, it is not a contradiction of evolution. In the first place, homosexuals can and do reproduce naturally. Many homosexuals are not exclusively so. They have or had heterosexual relations as well as homosexual relations (sometimes in an attempt to "cure" themselves) and they are parents of normal children. I know one gay man who has five children from his marriage.

Second, there are many heterosexual humans who cannot reproduce naturally e.g. men with low sperm count or women with blocked fallopian tubes and we do not count them as less than human or give ourselves permission to hunt them for food.

Finally, "species" refers to a population. An individual is not a species and does not evolve. A population evolves. There are always some members of a species who do not or cannot reproduce. That does no harm to the species as long as some members reproduce.

 

[stumpjumper]

Quantum Flux

What you have just put forth to defend YEC or defeat evolution was about as close to nonsense as I have ever been.

Are you joking when you say we should "hunt homosexuals for food" or have you suffered some sort of breakdown? That is insane dude. We are all God's children whether we emerged through evolution, panspermia, unique special creation, or from the bowels of the spider in the Lord of The Rings.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son" (some old dude named John)

You should at least do the same. Love God's creation whether they be gay or straight, greek or jew, or slave nor free. Love them all.

 

[artybloke]

Are you accusing me of being a liar or of being misguided by a lie? If its the former then thats a serious accusation.

The latter of course. Escept you have been told once before (because I told you) that Marxism in particular has nothing to do with evolution (and especially its soviet, Stalinist version: which used a more "idealogically correct" Lamarckian version of evolution for 50 years.*)There is nothing in what you said that was "caused by" or originated as a result of the theory of evolution. Including atheism. "Humanism" was around in the Rennaisance period, and I don't personally think it's evil either. I'd rather have a humanist than a fundamentalist in charge, frankly.

Has the theory of evolution encouraged people to treat others better? I don't know: has the theory of gravity encouraged people to treat people better? Scientific theories are not moral systems.

*In fact, you could compare the attitude of Lysenko to the theory of evolution to that of creation scientists: like them, he decided beforehand that science must support his ideology, so, like creationists, he made science support his ideology, not the other way around. Marxist (or rather Stalinist) ideology came before science, in just the same way that a literalist interpretation of scripture comes before science for the creation scientist. Come to think of it, that's how it always works whenever ideologies use science (or religion, for that matter: the Nazis not only misread Darwin, they also misread the Bible and their own pagan history to justify their ideology.) The ideology comes first and science is reinterpreted to justify the ideology.

 

[LightEagle]

I am wondering if Young Earth Creationists dismiss evolution on scientific grounds or solely because of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Let's look briefly at the five main claims of evolution and all of these claims are disputed by YEC.

1.) The universe and the earth is very old.
2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.
3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.
4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.
5.) Life originated via natural processes.

Now I as a TE only really disagree with number five. But, lets say for instance that God used natural processes to start life. We would probably be able to uncover the process that God used and then it would be natural even though it was initiated by the supernatural.

All of the above claims are disputed by YEC's. Yet most of them are very well supported by our scientific understanding of the world. So, this is my question to Young Earth Creationists:

Do you dispute that these criteria are well supported by scientific inquiry?
or
Do you believe that, even though these may be well supported by scientific inquiry, the only way to truly accept the Bible is through a literal reading?

If you follow the latter then I would also ask whether or not you have ever read a theological view of evolution such as John Haught's God After Darwin or Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Also, have you ever looked at a good guideline for a historical/critical Biblical exegesis?

Lot's of questions I know but I am a curious chap

Personally, I have no problem with the theory of evolution, bearing in mind that it is a theory. I am a geologist by profession and believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old. The evidence form different dating techniques certainly point in that direction. The Genesis account of the act of Creation nowhere stipulates HOW God created. There are profound spiritual truths locked up in the Genesis narative, but I do not believe that they can be taken as a literal account of the Creation process. All Genesis tells us is that God decided at some time in the past to elevate a part of His creation above the rest and to give it dominion and responsibility over His creation. He blew His Sprit into that part of creation which became us. In some or other way we succumed to Evil's temptations and dissappointed Him and Creation as it was then was thrown into turmoil. I am not so sure the curse in Genesis 3:14 - 20 was as much a curse as it was an account of the concequences of "Adam" and "Eve's" actions. My faith does not depend on the fact that the Earth is only 6000 years old and if an alien should land tomorrow it would not alter my faith in the least. I therefore see no reason to refute all the scientific evidence pointing towards an old universe and an old earth. Science does not disprove God. In fact more and more scientists are finding God in their search for the truth. It is generally the public that label scientists as heretics. Many athiests use the theory of evolution to argue against God's existence, but there is no substince in their arguments. Evolution as a process is not the problem, "evolutionism," however, is, because then it becomes a religion.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Then how about we do some field study and explain to me a few things in geology with me?

fine with me.

As for the homosexual reference, man you guys just can't understand analogies can you? Perhaps that is why you believe so avidly in scientific theories because you can't grasp anything that you can't put into a scientific theory.

I was giving a case of an extreme to prove a point. Jesus did this quite a bit when he says things like Love God and hate one else (Luke 14:26). You understand in that scripture that he didn't actually want us to hate them, but for some reason you seem to have the notion that I wish to canabalize homosexuals.... You people confound me.

Bring on your geological studies.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

You believe as you wish, I still think they are trying to save face.

So an auto mechanic who makes an honest mistake and has to replace the fuel pump after replacing the fuel filter is trying to save face? Or just doing her job?

Besides, you can't negate negative evidence by saying they don't have an alternative. Evidence against is evidence against.

OTOH when the weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a theory it is more likely that the theory is basically correct.

Talk about your wishful thinking. Just because it existed before doesnt mean that evolution doesn't support those ideals. In fact, according to the evolutionary theory homosexuals are a lesser species because they cannot reproduce.

The problem with evolution is that it not only allows but points out "lesser" species, "unevolved" species if you want to call them.

Where?

For at least the last 20 years it has almost been a mantra within the biological community that species are not "higher" or "better" than other species.

Going back to Darwin in expressing his belief* that there were other races who were less capable than Europeans and that they would inevitably die out expressed regret, he did not think this was a good thing, but just the result of reality.

Just because a sociologist predicts that a culture will die off does not mean either the sociologist or sociology in general thinks it is a good thing, or that sociology "justifies" or "supports" the destruction of cultures.

And stating that a culture is "inferior" is a major faux pas in most sociology circles.

* I believe this is from the book he published of the journal he kept during his journeys on the Beagle

 

[QuantumFlux]

OTOH when the weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a theory it is more likely that the theory is basically correct.

wrong, when you have evidence against it, you reform the theory to adapt to the new problems. If not your theory doesnt add up, you may have 50 things that say this works but if you have just one problem the whole equation is null

So an auto mechanic who makes an honest mistake and has to replace the fuel pump after replacing the fuel filter is trying to save face? Or just doing her job?

a mechanic works with solid problems with solid answers. Evolutionsists are trying to prove a theory, totally different scenario.

 

[The Lady Kate]

wrong, when you have evidence against it, you reform the theory to adapt to the new problems. If not your theory doesnt add up, you may have 50 things that say this works but if you have just one problem the whole equation is null

Or it's simply not what we thought it was.

if we found historical evidence that shows that the Declaration of Independence was actually signed on July 5th, do we throw all of American history out the window?

a mechanic works with solid problems with solid answers. Evolutionsists are trying to prove a theory, totally different scenario.

Theory: "I think the problem is in your transmission."

honest mistake: "My bad, it's the fuel pump."

The difference?

 

[QuantumFlux]

Theory: "I think the problem is in your transmission."

honest mistake: "My bad, it's the fuel pump."

The difference?

Theory: "I think birds evolved from dinosaurs"

honest mistake: "My bad, we really have no idea where they came from."

Difference: The mechanic has a solid answer to a solid problem, evolutionist is still trying to make sure his evolutionary theory is right even though he is completely guessing.

Evolutionists will forever guess. How solid of acceptance was it that birds came from dinosaurs? It was practically an evolutionary fact, now they are saying they totally screwed up and they are not related at all. What does this tell me? That whatever evidence they have really isnt solid evidence of anything, they are taking wild stabs in the dark because they can't come up with enough evidence to firmly say anything for sure.

The evolutionists blow every piece of evidence way out of purportion to say anything to explain what they found. A good example is those "hobbits" they found.

Theory "A whole culture of 3 feet tall protohumans with elongated arms lived in indonesea 12,000 years ago and fashioned tools to hunt and carve their food"

What they found: One skeleton without any arms, one arm that belonged to a different skeleton, a bench with other animals bones around it (how many is unclear) and a tool.

The problems:

-They some how magically created a whole civilation on the finding of one skeleton.
-They assume that it is a different species because its small and the other arm they found is long, even though the difference in size is not any different between a 3ft human and a 5ft human.
-If you take the bones as they are found, the 3ft skeleton is well within homosapien standards and the arm by itself is well within homosapien standards, its stupid to assume the skeletons should fit together anymore than going to a grave yard and picking two skeletons at random and switching their arms.

where do they get off passing this off like its a good theory? The sad thing is that most people will respond to the discovery much like the first person who put the link on the thread, they will see this drawing of this protohuman and read the article without looking at the actual evidence.

this isn't an honest mistake, this is saving face.

And you think this is an isolated incident? No, i honestly wonder how many times this happens. Here is another one. The Brontosaurus doesnt even exist!

Everyone know what a Brontosaurus is. It use to be one of the most famous and common dinosaurs. Now we know that it really doesn't even exist! Now how many times have we discovered bones and put them together only to realize that they don't go together at all. Now the real question is, how many fossils are put together wrong and we don't know it yet?

Have you looked at the fossils that we have actually found? most of the time its a small piece of a jaw bone and like two pieces of teh skull that might be 2 inches in diameter, then we estimate what it looked like. If you send the pieces to 3 different labs, each of the 3 different labs will come up with different versions of the skull.

And even the ones that we do find are well within the range of humans that exist today.

So again I laugh at your "well-founded" theory.

 

[Smidlee]

So again I laugh at your "well-founded" theory.

That's what makes evolution so interesting to me, all those laughs I get by listen to fairy tales spoken by those who have PHDs. It amazing how far they go to avoid creation and God. Often it reminds me of the proverb in Proverbs 26:12; "Seeth thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him."

 

[QuantumFlux]

It amazing how far they go to avoid creation.

I honestly cant tell if they are avoiding creation or if they just honestly think they are right. Fairy tales is a good way to put it, because they are these fantastic tales based of extremely small amounts of evidence and alot of imagination.

Reminds me of my ex-roommate. he was a compulsive liar, the thing is, I honestly think he believed his own lies.

 

[Silent Bob]

That's what makes evolution so interesting to me, all those laughs I get by listen to fairy tales spoken by those who have PHDs.

And what I love about Creationism is that you don't need a PhD to shoot it down.

It can make any half educated person feel like Einstein thats what draged me into the debate in the first place it was sooooo easy. But now I am hooked and trying to find a way out.

Hello my name is Jack and I am a crevoholic!

 

[Smidlee]

@ Quantumflux
Honestly I believe most scientist knows better as in " The Emperor's New Clothes." Yet the fear of being called a fool or going againest the flow for many of them wasn't worth the cost.

P.S. Cronic brought up another point: another reason for them to go along with evolution would be it would hurt their egos to admit creationist, who have been marked as fools/unlearned , was right all along.

 

[Scholar in training]

I honestly cant tell if they are avoiding creation or if they just honestly think they are right. Fairy tales is a good way to put it, because they are these fantastic tales based of extremely small amounts of evidence and alot of imagination.

I used to be a young earth creationist. But I could not defend it intellectually for long; it just does not match the facts we have in the geologic or fossil records. And worse, it created a false dichotomy that made it very difficult for me to accept evolution and still believe in Christianity. YECism threatened my entire faith because it does not make sense in reality.

BTW, Quantumflux, you didn't tell us where you are getting your source material from.

 

[Smidlee]

I used to be a young earth creationist. But I could not defend it intellectually for long; it just does not match the facts we have in the geologic or fossil records. And worse, it created a false dichotomy that made it very difficult for me to accept evolution and still believe in Christianity. YECism threatened my entire faith because it does not make sense in reality.

Evolutionists also has some serious problems when it comes to the geologic/fossil records. You know a millions years is a very long time yet even in my short lifetime I can see some results of erosion. There are a few scientists who admitted the high rate of erosion does questions our interpretion of the geologic record.(erosion in a hundred years is very small but it's huge when dealing with millions of years) Most just pretend the problem doesn't exist and continue preaching their gospel; evolution.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Evolutionists also has some serious problems when it comes to the geologic/fossil records. You know a millions years is a very long time yet even in my short lifetime I can see some results of erosion. There are a few scientists who admitted the high rate of erosion does questions our interpretion of the geologic record.(erosion in a hundred years is very small by it's huge when dealing with millions of years) Most just pretend the problem doesn't exist and continue preaching their gospel; evolution.

No kiddin, the problem is that most evolutionists see it as a contest. It's evolution vs. creationism. The problem with that is, their counter to any negative evidence to evolution is not a response to the evidence but rather "well, creation evidence is bad too" completely ignoring their own faults.

I don't need to defend creationism to show the flaws in evolution. Evolution has enough flaws on its own.

 

[QuantumFlux]

BTW, Quantumflux, you didn't tell us where you are getting your source material from.

source material for what?

the hobbits are here:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051010/hobbit.html?source=msn_cml_news

as for the brontosaurus, i thought that was common knowledge by now.

The birds dinosaur thing is here:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051010/birddino.html

As for the small pieces of fossils that we find, I have a Time magazine that shows the fossils. I'll scan it in for you upon request.

anything else you need?

 

[random_guy]

Evolutionists also has some serious problems when it comes to the geologic/fossil records. You know a millions years is a very long time yet even in my short lifetime I can see some results of erosion. There are a few scientists who admitted the high rate of erosion does questions our interpretion of the geologic record.(erosion in a hundred years is very small but it's huge when dealing with millions of years) Most just pretend the problem doesn't exist and continue preaching their gospel; evolution.

Wouldn't the geologists be more apt to recognize this problem? If this really was a problem, why does Google Scholar come back with 61000 hits searching geology erosion, all scientific peer reviewed journals, which just articles as

Mountain erosion over 10 yr, 10 k.y., and 10 m.y. time scales

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/7/591

which go into extreme depth about how much knowledge it takes to learn about erosion. Do high school geology courses preach the doctrine of subduction, or is it just sound science?

 

[stumpjumper]

source material for what?

the hobbits are here:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051010/hobbit.html?source=msn_cml_news

as for the brontosaurus, i thought that was common knowledge by now.

The birds dinosaur thing is here:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051010/birddino.html

As for the small pieces of fossils that we find, I have a Time magazine that shows the fossils. I'll scan it in for you upon request.

anything else you need?

The problem Quantum flux is that what you do to defend your worldview is take our accepted understanding of the world and look for holes.

Even this URL=http://eebweb.arizona.edu/PostDocs/Gilbert/tom_web/papers/Gilbert_TIG_2005_.pdf]webpage[/URL] will state that they are still testing the remains of the findings on flores to determine whether they are homo sapiens or different descendents of homo erectus. Your worldview cannot explain ANY other hominids regardless of the results of the homo floriensis studies.

Also, explain the error that led people to conclude that humans and chimpanzees descended from a common ancestor (NO we did not evolve from monkeys). Source= http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html. Happy refuting on that one.

What it comes down to is you don't have the age of the earth right, you don't have the literal history of Genesis right, you don't have special creation right, you don't have a proper exegesis on Genesis and I'm betting we differ on the NT as well, and you have absolutely no scientific findings that actually support young earth creation. ZIP, ZEDE, ZANA, ZULU, ZONO, nothing that we find in our world supports your view of our origin. That's a fact and its sad that people cannot move on.