Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[AV1611VET]

And since everyone knows Christians are infallible it is impossible for you to be wrong in your interpretation of your holy book so why bother with things like evidence?

Evidence can be compelling and misleading.

 

[Belk]

Evidence can be compelling and misleading.

While pretending to be infallible never ever lead people in the wrong direction.

 

[Renee Tahass]

What's to prove?
The Bible says it, that settles it ... case closed.
I think when Jesus comes back, one of the things He could do is take evolutionists back to the year 4004 BC and let them see for themselves what transpired during the Creation week.

As I said, crazy talk.

 

[rjs330]

It is both. That evolution occurs is a fact. This is the 'what'. The theory provides the explanation. This is the 'how'.


.

Here's what bothers me about this subject. As a broad term evolution can be shown as a fact. Such as a moth changing its color in order to survive. Or perhaps a virus changing to survive. I take no issue with that sort of thing. It is an observed phenomenon. I'd say that would be a fact. We saw it happen and even can often test that in a laboratory.

Evolution on the large scale however is not a fact but a theory since it cannot be tested or observed. It's a guess and mostly assumptive in nature. A theory NOT a fact. The above fact dies NOT automatically make the large scale evolutionary theory a fact. Because it cannot, has not been observable and cannot be tested. Therefore it is not fact but theory.



Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

 

[Speedwell]

Here's what bothers me about this subject. As a broad term evolution can be shown as a fact. Such as a moth changing its color in order to survive. Or perhaps a virus changing to survive. I take no issue with that sort of thing. It is an observed phenomenon. I'd say that would be a fact. We saw it happen and even can often test that in a laboratory.

Evolution on the large scale however is not a fact but a theory since it cannot be tested or observed. It's a guess and mostly assumptive in nature. A theory NOT a fact. The above fact dies NOT automatically make the large scale evolutionary theory a fact. Because it cannot, has not been observable and cannot be tested. Therefore it is not fact but theory.

The theory is a theory, but the facts still remain to be explained. Take for example, a fossil "lineage." What do you make of a series of dated fossils exhibiting gradual change from a small, dog-like creature to a modern horse? Were they a series of creatures which came into existence and then became extinct which just by chance resembled species which came into existence and became extinct just before and just after? How do you explain that apparent progression?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's what bothers me about this subject. As a broad term evolution can be shown as a fact. Such as a moth changing its color in order to survive. Or perhaps a virus changing to survive. I take no issue with that sort of thing. It is an observed phenomenon. I'd say that would be a fact. We saw it happen and even can often test that in a laboratory.

Evolution on the large scale however is not a fact but a theory since it cannot be tested or observed. It's a guess and mostly assumptive in nature. A theory NOT a fact. The above fact dies NOT automatically make the large scale evolutionary theory a fact. Because it cannot, has not been observable and cannot be tested. Therefore it is not fact but theory.



Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

The theory can be tested on a large scale. I appears that you do not understand how theories are tested. Theories will make predictions on what we will observe. That theory can be tested based upon those predictions. Just earlier this year the last prediction that Einstein made regarding his General Relativity was confirmed. That is a positive test.

It appears that you do not understand how the theory is tested and then incorrectly conclude that it cannot be tested. Instead of doing that you should be asking questions. When one is lacking in understanding it is always wiser to ask questions than to jump to conclusions. I have been guilty of that myself and to my later chagrin have found that I was wrong.

 

[Astrophile]

Also, for atheists: If it was completely proven to you that the ToE was false and everything we knew about modern biology was wrong, I bet you probably wouldn't start believing in God (at least not the Christian God), am I right?

No, I wouldn't. To be convinced that Christianity is true, I should need compelling evidence that the Bible is inerrant and inspired, that its moral precepts are sound, and that Jesus really was the son of God.

So when you get down to it, the ToE really has nothing to do with religion or belief in God. They are separate issues.

I completely agree with you on this point. When I was a Christian, I did not see any conflict between my Christian belief and my understanding of science. Even now, if I were convinced that Christianity was true I should go back to being a theistic evolutionist rather than becoming a young Earth creationist.

 

[Astrophile]

Oh they have, ask the most eminent pseudoscientist that ever lived: Dawkins!

That noise you can hear is Hanns Hörbiger (1860-1931) turning in his grave.

 

[rjs330]

The theory can be tested on a large scale. I appears that you do not understand how theories are tested. Theories will make predictions on what we will observe. That theory can be tested based upon those predictions. Just earlier this year the last prediction that Einstein made regarding his General Relativity was confirmed. That is a positive test.

It appears that you do not understand how the theory is tested and then incorrectly conclude that it cannot be tested. Instead of doing that you should be asking questions. When one is lacking in understanding it is always wiser to ask questions than to jump to conclusions. I have been guilty of that myself and to my later chagrin have found that I was wrong.

How do you test a theory of a single common ancestor turning into millions of different things? You can't. That shown by the evolutionary theory itself because the claim is millions of years for this to occur. Not only millions of years but in unknown environments and under unknown influences. It's just not possible.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

 

[Gene2memE]

How do you test a theory of a single common ancestor turning into millions of different things? You can't.

Ahem:

A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry

 

[AV1611VET]

A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry

Wow!

I even recognized some of the words in that link!

 

[Strathos]

The analogy between the mustard seed and evolution statement that we come from lower animals is a false analogy because they are dissimilar in a very essential way. They evolution Genesis creation concepts are clear contradictions that cannot be reconciled in the manner that the mustard seed illustration can.

Is the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds? | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

500 years ago, it was considered heresy to claim that the earth revolved around the sun, because the Bible clearly stated otherwise.

Nowadays, the vast majority of Christians agree that the Bible doesn't really make that claim.

 

[Strathos]

What's to prove?

The Bible says it, that settles it ... case closed.

I think when Jesus comes back, one of the things He could do is take evolutionists back to the year 4004 BC and let them see for themselves what transpired during the Creation week.

And if He did that for me, I'd believe Him. I might have a few questions, but I wouldn't doubt Him.

So here's a hypothetical for you: If Jesus came back and took you back 3 billion years and made several other stops along the way to show you how He caused life to evolve on Earth, would you trust Him?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you test a theory of a single common ancestor turning into millions of different things? You can't. That shown by the evolutionary theory itself because the claim is millions of years for this to occur. Not only millions of years but in unknown environments and under unknown influences. It's just not possible.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

Actually you can. Just because you can't think of a test or a reasonable series of tests does not mean that the idea is untestable.

Perhaps you should try again.

ETA: I just noticed that you moved the goalposts to all life being related. I guess that means that you accept the obvious fact that people are great apes.

 

[AV1611VET]

So here's a hypothetical for you: If Jesus came back and took you back 3 billion years and made several other stops along the way to show you how He caused life to evolve on Earth, would you trust Him?

No.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.

You have to be kidding. That only shows that you have made a false idol of the Bible. You trust the Bible more than the deity that you claim to believe in.

 

[Strathos]

No.

At least you're honest about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

At least you're honest about it.

Thank you.

If I would have answered YES, would I have been just as honest, in your opinion?

 

[Strathos]

Thank you.

If I would have answered YES, would I have been just as honest, in your opinion?

Probably not.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Being a theistic evolutionist, I obviously believe in both God and evolution (or rather, accept evolution based on the evidence, just because I know some people will nitpick my wording on that).

But I have a question for creationists: If biological evolution (not talking abiogenesis here, just evolution) was proven to your satisfaction, would it cause you to lose your faith in God? I'm guessing probably not. So then why do so many people take this particular scientific theory as an affront to Christianity?

Also, for atheists: If it was completely proven to you that the ToE was false and everything we knew about modern biology was wrong, I bet you probably wouldn't start believing in God (at least not the Christian God), am I right?

So when you get down to it, the ToE really has nothing to do with religion or belief in God. They are separate issues.

That is you saying the Bible lies...see the problem now? And to try to convince others it's not a big deal to disagree with the Biblical account of creation, as you seem to at least be trying to do, is a big deal.