Why do you believe in the evolution theory? (2)

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

This is generally non-informative. I was looking for specifics.

You are within your rights, to choose not to answer my question.

I have explained my position elsewhere on this forum and don't intend to burden it with more of the same.

In short, I did not start out as a Young Earth Creationist and secondly I am studying Evolution -- both here and through part-time University courses.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are within your rights, to choose not to answer my question.

I have explained my position elsewhere on this forum and don't intend to burden it with more of the same.

In short, I did not start out as a Young Earth Creationist and secondly I am studying Evolution -- both here and through part-time University courses.

What have I chosen not to answer?

Perhaps you can link me to that post that you explained your position.

I am sorry I must have mixed you up with someone else, my apologies sir.

You did however, claim you didn't know much about evolution at one point and I was sincerely wondering about your position. I am sorry if I inadvertently angered you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are within your rights, to choose not to answer my question.

I have explained my position elsewhere on this forum and don't intend to burden it with more of the same.

In short, I did not start out as a Young Earth Creationist and secondly I am studying Evolution -- both here and through part-time University courses.

Actually my question is very much in keeping with the thread. Why do you not want to be specific?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

What have I chosen not to answer?

Perhaps you can link me to that post that you explained your position.

I am sorry I must have mixed you up with someone else, my apologies sir.

You did however, claim you didn't know much about evolution at one point and I was sincerely wondering about your position. I am sorry if I inadvertently angered you.

My question ( link to follow : here )

No.

It's perfectly understandable.

I see no reason to go through it again.

 

[dad]

So God is a god, or not a god?

He is the God that created all things. Small g gods are either created fallen angels, or inventions of man. In any case they cannot be compared to God.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Very good, but still a comfort blanket.

said the dead critter.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The above claim that it is perfectly reasonable to discount the scientific evidence for evolution was written by a human with vestigial digits on his feet; in addition he has vestigial ear wiggling muscles; he has an internal vestige of a tail (the coccyx); he has vestigial hair raising muscles on the hairs of his arms; all of which is evidence that in his evolutionary past he is descended from species that could grasp with the hind limbs, had a tail, had fur, and could turn the ears towards sound.

But he still denies evolution.

Yes, he does. However, my question is the same one which Eugenie Scott asked -- What is a theory?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I hope you are not referring to Lewis. He is not the OP and to my understanding he has a pretty good grasp of evolution and he accepts it.

Yes, I'm getting there.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

He is the God that created all things. Small g gods are either created fallen angels, or inventions of man. In any case they cannot be compared to God.

Perhaps it might help to clarify it to Davian, the way that it was clarified to Abraham. I think our lonely Christian Forum surfer is in need of a friend.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes, he does. However, my question is the same one which Eugenie Scott asked -- What is a theory?

Here's what Eugene Scott wrote about that in Evolution Vs Creation, 2005, University of California Press, page 14:

The word "theory" is perhaps the most misunderstood word in science. In every day usage, the synonym of theory is "guess" or "hunch". Yet according to the National Academy of Science, a theory is defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and hypotheses" (National Academy of Sciences 1998). To explain something scientifically requires an interconnected combination of laws, tested hypotheses, and other theories. This reliance upon inferential reasoning is the hallmark of theorizing.
Many high school (and even , unfortunately, some college) textbooks describe theories as tested hypotheses, as if a hypothesis that is confirmed is somehow promoted to a theory, and a really, really good theory gets crowned as a law. Unfortunately, this is not how scientists use these terms, but most people are not scientists and scientists have not done a very good job of communicating the meanings of these to students and the general public.

The way folks talk about evolution as if it were "only" a theory makes one suspect they are attempting to do away with evolution by analysis of the word "theory" instead of analysis of evolution itself. Surely nobody in this forum will do such a silly thing . . . right?

 

[JacksBratt]

I have thought a lot about this in the night...lucky me has caught a stomach bug ugh.
I prayed a lot as well...I have often wondered why so many people are here who are not Christians. This forum is called Christian forums. I do not know the answer but I can speculate. Of course my speculations may be wrong as well.
I often wonder how many people lose faith by spending too much time here. (Which is probably a sad reality.).
However, if one person ...JUST ONE is given hope and seeks out God and is saved then it is worth it.
I don't like to get in senseless debates on this forum. I used to try to earnestly convince others of what is True. I have come to realize that it a useless pursuit. I have grown up in a Christian home and I have seen miracles...unbelievable ones...things I have seen with my own eyes...I could tell you stories and you wouldn't even believe me.
God is real. His Word is alive. There is a heaven. There is a hell. Life on this earth is short...each one of us have been created with a purpose.
My heart truely aches.
My purpose is to reach out to as many people as I can. I want people who meet me to see the sunshine and the hope I have. I want them to ask me...what gives you such hope? How do you live in this world with all its pain? What give you your hope and happiness? Why do you smile through your tears? I strive to be different. To be kind.
I strive to be like Jesus. I fail miserably everyday but I get up, dust myself off and keep trying.
My faith is strong, my hope is eternal.
I once heard it said...if a Christian is wrong, he will cease to exist and it won't matter. He would have lived a purposeful life and a life with honour. If an unbeliever is wrong, he will live forever regretting he didn't listen. Who has more to lose?
I would rather live my life in faith.

Great post. Thanks Jennae. Keep on doing what your doing.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Here's what Eugene Scott wrote about that in Evolution Vs Creation, 2005, University of California Press, page 14:

'The word "theory" is perhaps the most misunderstood word in science. In every day usage, the synonym of theory is "guess" or "hunch". Yet according to the National Academy of Science, a theory is defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and hypotheses" (National Academy of Sciences 1998). To explain something scientifically requires an interconnected combination of laws, tested hypotheses, and other theories. This reliance upon inferential reasoning is the hallmark of theorizing.
Many high school (and even , unfortunately, some college) textbooks describe theories as tested hypotheses, as if a hypothesis that is confirmed is somehow promoted to a theory, and a really, really good theory gets crowned as a law. Unfortunately, this is not how scientists use these terms, but most people are not scientists and scientists have not done a very good job of communicating the meanings of these to students and the general public.'

The way folks talk about evolution as if it were "only" a theory makes one suspect they are attempting to do away with evolution by analysis of the word "theory" instead of analysis of evolution itself. Surely nobody in this forum will do such a silly thing . . . right?

She's such a great educator!

 

[JacksBratt]

On what would you base that confidence?

I was being sarcastic.

The word "probably" doesn't instill the confidence that I would want as I walked through a door into any unknown state of permanency.

 

[JacksBratt]

Of course.



NDE* is as close as we'll get to someone appearing to die, but then reviving. It's however generally viewed by scientists as a pseudoscience. (refer, my prior links)

I think that "Consciousness" is a far more interesting subject -- perhaps I shall make it a subject of a future thread.

~~~
* What Christians Should Think About Near-Death Experiences: Radio interview with Dr. Gary Habermas. (audio)

There was a doctor, an atheist as a matter of fact, that refuted the NDE and argued them to be the lack of O2 to the brain and all that scientific explanations.... that was, until he had one himself.

Since then, he has changed his tune. Wrote a book and is a very strong believer now.....

Is this what everyone here who is so strong against an spirit world, should or has to have happen to open their eyes.

If so, it's a shame because those odds are way to low.

 

[DerelictJunction]

There was a doctor, an atheist as a matter of fact, that refuted the NDE and argued them to be the lack of O2 to the brain and all that scientific explanations.... that was, until he had one himself.

Since then, he has changed his tune. Wrote a book and is a very strong believer now.....

Is this what everyone here who is so strong against an spirit world, should or has to have happen to open their eyes.

If so, it's a shame because those odds are way to low.

I think that even if I were a follower of Christ as God's son, I would still accept that evolution occurred and common ancestry is true.
I don't have a high threshold of belief. Still waiting for someone to write or utter six particular words.

 

[lasthero]

There was a doctor, an atheist as a matter of fact, that refuted the NDE and argued them to be the lack of O2 to the brain and all that scientific explanations.... that was, until he had one himself.

Since then, he has changed his tune. Wrote a book and is a very strong believer now.....

What was his name?

 

[Davian]

said the dead critter.

...to the other one.

 

[Davian]

He is the God that created all things. Small g gods are either created fallen angels, or inventions of man. In any case they cannot be compared to God.

Indeed. We wouldn't want to be comparing gods to gods. That would be crazy.

 

[JacksBratt]

That's a pretty insulting way to look down on the people that don't belong to your particular group.

If that post insults you, you may want to try a different forum.

That's pretty mild, even to the extent to being non existent, compared to the norm around here.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As I've spent most of my time on this forum, examining the evidence which relates to Evolution : (a) Lines of Evidence, (b) Flood Geology, (c) Lines of Evidence (2) and currently (d) The Scientific Method & Macroevolution, I'd be interested to know what evidence of life evolving you don't find the most convincing?

This is generally non-informative. I was looking for specifics.

I've always accepted evolution. When I became a Christian my worldview merged and I could see design in the process where I didn't see it before. Science has always been integral part of my life and biological studies a passion.

My question ( link to follow : here )

No.

It's perfectly understandable.

I see no reason to go through it again.

I did answer as you can see above.

I don't understand why you wouldn't want to link to the post where you explain your position. I guess that is your right but it seems rather strange to me. Oh well.