Why is Evolution feared by many Christians?

[Edx]

I am impressed by your responses, but you fail to list any authority to back them up other than your own 2 cents. At least I provide you with information that you can take and research. And what better information than the Bible.

You dont provide anything at all. if you would start making some kind sence we can have a discussion. But im not going to spend so much time on you when you can hardly string a coherent sentence together. Sorry.

I think what you fail to realize is the extreme historical accuracy in the Bible.
In fact, many people use it as a source of history!

And they are wrong. There is very little evidence for anything in the Bible.

Whether or not you believe it's Message is one thing, but you cannot deny is orgin nor it's historical context.

Of course it has a historical context, but that does not mean its unique. Did you see Troy? Do you believe in their Gods too since the Greek myths were set in a historical place, with historical places and geology. Of course not.

Just keep in mind the Bible has been around and will continue to be around longer than evolution, because as far as I know there is no such belief in evolution before _____

Evolution doesnt depend on belief, why is this so hard for you to grasp. It is based on science, on evidence. They dont just disappear in a puff of smoke just because some twits made up a few myths before they had a chance to discover it.

<- the date I am waiting for you to tell me and the rest of the readers of the forum.

Well dont you sound smug. The cake is on you im afraid.

You can continue to disagree with any thing that I say, but as long as you dodge My questions then it only makes your answers look more foolish and less authentic because again your not backing anything up with EVIDENCE that you so strongly hold on to.

I dont dodge anything. Explain what you mean by evolution and we can address this monumental fantasy of yours and show you what evolution really is so if you really must disgree with it you dont do so on some strawman.

Ed

Ps; really am leaving now. later.

 

[paulrob]

I can't answer the specific questions very well, because I am not Christian. However, it is disappointing that many Christians and their congregations reject science and evolution, because it takes away their credibility, losses converts, dissipates their message, and lends to the unfortunate "All Christians are Idiots" stereotype. I think if Christians would embrace change more readily, they wouldn't be backed into the scientific corner that they are today.

Really, I don't know what they are fearing, Christianity and evolution seem to work well enough, all you lose in translation is your literal interperitation.

First, let me assure you that evolution is not science. It IS the current pop science - just as spontaneous generation was the pop science of the 1800's. It was proven to be totally false by a creationist - Louis Pasteur.

The worst thing the church could possibly do is to ignore what the Bible says (it hasn't changed throughout the ages - with their myriad of origins fairy tales) and espouse pop science. in 50 years Pop science will not agree with todays pop science. If God told us the truth about origins, why should we call Him a liar. If God was lying to us about origins why should we believe anything else he states?

All Christians are not idiots. Please read my post where I list all the different branches of science that were founded by Christians who believed creation. Modern medicine, mechanics and other sciences were discovered, and developed by Christians.

The characatures of creationists is a spin to block people from really discovering just how much they bring to science.

Evolution as a belief, has done nothing but lead science up blind alleys.

There is no possibility of creation and evolution ever being compatible. Almost every christian writer, and Jesus (who after all is the founder of Christianity) all speak of a creation by God and refer to the Genesis account of it.

It is a Biblical principle that there was no death before the sin of Adam, and evolution is based on billions of generations of death.

The two are imcompatible. And evolution is as much a religious belief as creationism. If evolution is true, there is no need for God in the universe. It could get along quite nicely by itself thank you.

But God is necessary. Science has no idea of how life formed, how one kind of animal could possibly become another, how the universe came to be. You are asked to take all that on faith that they (the evolutionary scientists) know more than you do and certainly more than that outdatesd book.

Both require faith - I just don't have enough faith to believe all the impossibilities of evolution, but I do have enough faith to believe God

 

[paulrob]

i have a hypothesis on the matter...

people need justification for their beliefs. perhaps some people (knowingly or not) justify their belief in god/christianity (at least in part) by saying "well i can't see how else everything got here!" any alternative explanation thus presents a threat. it doesn't prove them wrong, but it takes away one of their crutches of justification. of course that's gonna make people uncomfortable.

of course, i could be totally wrong, or perhaps this applies to some people and not others. just an idea i thought i'd contribute.

Let me ask you how much faith it requires to believe evolution?

First, there's the question of ultimate origins. Assuming the current big bang theory, where did the cosmic egg come from?

If there was a big bang, how come it isn't uniform?

How did we get granite - the mantle of our earth? the three minerals that form granite condense at different temperatures, and solidify at different temperatures. Yet all round the world we see these three minerals mixed together as granite.

What us gravity? how does it work? there is no explanation for this.

Although every science discipline argues against it, let suppose there were chemicals on earth suitable for the origin of life. How did all the data get into the DNA for the first cell? Nova stated in their TV program on evolution that the cirst cell l;ived off other cells. Stupid? yes, but what did the first cel live on? where did it get the RNA to duplicate itself?

How did we go from cell division - a very effecient reproduction to sexual reproduction, and how did a male and female just happen to evolve in the same place at the same time with all the chromosomes properly distributed?

How did water become the only (ok one of 2) element that expands when it gets colder - without which life would be impossible?

What process allows evolution? we have only evidence of fixity of kinds - not of evolution.

The Wistar conferences, attended by evolutionists only, spent several years on the mathematical possibility of life happening by chance. To their dismay, the concensus was that it was totally impossible for life to have happened by chance.

So you see, you need an awful lot of faith to believe in evolution. It's "missing links" exist everywhere you look. It is not a scientifically supportable theory - it is a belief system. It is a belief system that replaces God in out mindsets - and that's its most dangerous aspect.

Read some of the posts I've places about the huge frauds that have carried on for up to a century in evolution, simply because there was no other theory to take its place. These frauds have been mainstays of the evolutionary "facts".

Evolution has to rethink itself every few years because it is not true. the Bible has never changed its story because it is true. Its easier to have fath in something that is true and doesn't need to change than something that will look quite different tomorrow yet still demand your belief.

 

[Army of Juan]

First, let me assure you that evolution is not science.

You might as well said yellow is not a color. That single statement shows you don't have a clue about what evolution is.

 

[paulrob]

i have read many posts here about the "great" debate of Evolution vs. Creationism. it just seems the more and more i read, the more and more i see Christians being afraid of the idea of Evolution being correct.

so if this is true, i would like to know the reasons why.

1. If Evolution is true, what does that mean to a Christian's spiritual life?
my opinion, it doesn't mean a thing.


You are correct. It would mean nothing.


Define nothing?

Seems to me that a Christian who accepts evolution is an oxymoron. Jesus stated that every letter in Genesis was true. Was Jesus a Liar? Paul state that in the beginning God made them male and female - was Paul a liar.

If the central figure of Christianity and the major writer of Christianity taught that the Genesis account of origins was accurate, how can we call ourselves Christians and reject truth? Pray to a God whoi is a liar? What else has he lied to me about? It does make a great difference!

. If Evolution is true, why would that threaten the idea of there being a Higher power?
my opinion, how would it threaten it. just because science cannot prove "super"natural things, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means it is not modern science's place to prove the supernatural with theories and rationalizations. and wouldn't this mean that the verse in the Bible that says, "Faith is the evidence of things unseen" is actually true?





Again....correct.

Evolution replaces God. There is no need for God if evolution is true. Every philosophical evolutionist will tell you that. If man was an evolutionary product, then he couldn't have sinned, and without sin there is no need for a saviour. Therefore Jesus was redundant. If he was redundant, why did he live on earth and offer himself as a sacrifice for sin?


now to the Creationism side and this is my crux problem with Creationism, so the science issue of it is something i need to research more, but this here is my main problem with Creationism and which is the reason why i see it as nothing but a failed attempt to put mysteries of God into logical/rational explainable measures.

Evolution is an attempt to remove the necessity of God for our existance. By doing that, there is no moral accountability, no sin, and no need of salvation.

Theistic evolution is an attempt to maintain a belief in God while accomodating the supposed facts of evolution. Its like mixing steel and mud.

There is more empirical evidence for creation than for evolution, but the popular mindset, which is opposed to God by nature, has to have an alternative religion so that man will not feel the need for a relationship with his creator




1. If Creationism is true, with the reasoning to prove God behind all of it nevertheless, and using scientific evidence as its source, wouldn't that damage the Christian faith more than Evolution?
my reasoning for asking such a question is, to say there is evidence of God's existence basically nullifys the way to salvation in Christianity, which is FAITH, thus puts the trustworthiness of this "science" into question to me
Well first off science can neither prove or disprove anything about God, but it can help explain his creation, and secondly, science has nothing to do with faith.

Not at all. faith has to be placed in something, and faith isn't a blind leap into the dark. Christian faith, apart from many others is a rational faith supported by all the evidence around us. That shouldn't be surprising because if God created the universe, and we believe in Him, we should see his handiwork all around us. In fact, it was creationist scientists who founded most of the scientific disciplines we rely on today. You don't have to kiss your brains goodbye and take a blind leap to be a creationist. The evidence is all around you.

Why does the majority seem to run the other direction? well the majority are seldom right about anything. The majority crucified Christ. The majority taught the earth was flat the - majority taught spontaneous generation (the fairy tale of origins before evolution)

Creation is a credible belief system that has stood fast through the changing whims of "science". Observable and known science always agrees with the Bible, as one would expect since the author of the Bible made the universe. Where there are opposing opinions is when the inferences drawn from the evidence are made - people always see what they want to see in the evidence.

Eg. the Grand canyon - was it a small river over millions of years, or a huge river for 100 years. the more they discover abouyt the grand canyon, the more it approaches the creationist viewpoint.

Did you know that there are thousands of dino footprints on one large hill in the Grand Canyon Park - and they all go up to the top? Not one goes down. Do you know what the official evolutionist answer is? they slid dowm. There are no evidences of skid marks, but that those dinos went up is unquestionable. Can you imagine T rex sliding a mile or two down a steep hill?

The biblical account is much more in keeping with the evidence - that they ran to the high hills to avoid the approaching flood waters, and were carried off the hill by the deluge.

 

[flashwizard]

Please explain what evolution is. Then explain why evolution is a Theory. Then the difference in the belief in Evolution and the belief in Creationism. Then explain why the concept of evolution is "new" compared to that of Creationism. Then someone please explain why there is no written truth of evolution before the written context of the historical documents that we have today (Mosaic Manuscripts). Then someone please explain how Theory can be a fact.

Evolutionist base there authority on Science. But, yet not one of them can tell me when the first belief in this Theory came about. Why should we believe you if you aren't even educated in your own beliefs. People are constantly changing and beliefs are constantly changing yet there is no proof for evolution. Hence "T-H-E-O-R-Y" So you can't justify that evolution (origin of man) must exist because of Science if even Science calls it theory.

Ed:
All you have been doing is breaking up my sentences one by one and making little uneducated comments as to what I am saying. That is a form of dogding my questions. All you are doing is discriminating my "claims" and you fail to make your own. You said earlier that you DONT know when evolution came about as a belief so why should I believe anything that you say? Put the evidence on the table and stop nit picking mine and then lets see how it measures up. And please explain YOUR definition of what you think evolution is and stop asking me to. I don't believe that human beings are the result of evolution. Also, the bible is historically accurate whether you think so or not. If you take the time to study history during that time period it lines up with any other historically accepted manuscripts. You keep refering back to whether or not he MESSAGE of the bible is true. That's not the debate here. The debate is whether or not YOUR belief in evolution is any different then MY belief in creation. It's your turn to back up your claim. Lay out the evidence.

 

[Edx]

First, let me assure you that evolution is not science. It IS the current pop science - just as spontaneous generation was the pop science of the 1800's. It was proven to be totally false by a creationist - Louis Pasteur.

First it was never a complete theory by any means, and Pasteur certainly wasnt the first scientist to have a problem with it - scientifically. He also wasnt completly accurate and there were problems with his experiment and ideas, but he was still correct.

Secondly neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution so he was hardly a Creationist, mearly a theist and Christian.

""Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases - which does not seem very likely."
- Louis (Louis Pasteur: the man and his theories)

Thirdly, Pasteur didnt prove that no life could arise from non-living matter, and he had no theory of molecular biology in order to make the claim. What he did show was it was highly unlikely that modern animals and organisms formed spontaneously from non-living organic matter. Darwin also didnt accept spontaneous generation, but Creationists feel the need to strawman it as meaning abiogenesis.

The worst thing the church could possibly do is to ignore what the Bible says (it hasn't changed throughout the ages - with their myriad of origins fairy tales) and espouse pop science. in 50 years Pop science will not agree with todays pop science.

The church hasnt changed? Are you crazy? Its changed so much there are more different denominations that didnt agree with the chuches interpretation to possibily list here.

If God told us the truth about origins, why should we call Him a liar. If God was lying to us about origins why should we believe anything else he states?

If it actually did happen the way the Bible says, then he has created the largest possible cosmic delusion.

And you dont know its Gods word. There are very many Creation myths, Genesis is just one of them and its just a version of an earlier Sumarian myth. Its not even original. Since you dont know Genesis is an accurate literal account you should just conclude it isnt and realise your interpretation must be the one at fault if it disagrees with scientific evidence just like every other non-Creationist Christian.

All Christians are not idiots. Please read my post where I list all the different branches of science that were founded by Christians who believed creation. Modern medicine, mechanics and other sciences were discovered, and developed by Christians.

While that may be true that doesnt mean they are like todays Creationists. And many Creationists do appear to be willfull-idiots, when they refuse to correct their misconceptions and live in a fantasy world where evolution is some variation of where this thing they call "macroevolution" is where a dove hatches out of the lizards egg and the majority of science and government is involved in some kind of conspiracy to indoctrinate kids with atheism in schools. And then refuse to let anything change their minds. Then sign a statement to that effect.

The characatures of creationists is a spin to block people from really discovering just how much they bring to science.

What characatures of creationts/ism? Be sure to point out if I have done that here.

Evolution as a belief, has done nothing but lead science up blind alleys.

How can someone be so devoid of reality? Why do you have to convince yourself its a science issue, when its just because you cant accept your beliefs arent scientific. If that wasnt accurate explain why they have to sign a sworn statement that no evidence will ever change their minds - the very antithesis of science. Science doesnt require faith, the obstinate refusal to change your mind.

There is no possibility of creation and evolution ever being compatible. Almost every christian writer, and Jesus (who after all is the founder of Christianity) all speak of a creation by God and refer to the Genesis account of it.

First Jesus didnt write anything personally, unless you are talking about the Apocrypha which was the Apocrypha for a reason - ie. even most Christians thought it was bunk.

Secondly, why is there no possibility of creation and evolution ever being compatible? Explain why most theists disagree with you who, by definition, think the universe was created? Explain how most scientists are theists, disagree with you. Explain how Christian scientists like the world famous paleontologist expert Robert Bakker can manage to be an "evolutionist" while also a firey bible believing pentecostal preacher, and disagree with you. Explain how others, even on this very forum disagree with you.

It is a Biblical principle that there was no death before the sin of Adam, and evolution is based on billions of generations of death.

Death is a fact of life, but in your Bible death and bloodshed its supposed to necessary for some kind of apparent redemption and forgiveness. This isnt relevant though since most others disgaree with you and have a perfectly valid interpretations but they dont lack the intellectual integrity to desperatly try and fit science around their primitive literal interpretation.

The two are imcompatible. And evolution is as much a religious belief as creationism. If evolution is true, there is no need for God in the universe. It could get along quite nicely by itself thank you.

Yes it could. But the majority of theists dont and didnt seem to have a problem with it, including Pasteur.

But God is necessary. Science has no idea of how life formed, how one kind of animal could possibly become another, how the universe came to be. You are asked to take all that on faith that they (the evolutionary scientists) know more than you do and certainly more than that outdatesd book.

Like I ask everyone that says this; tell us exactly what you think evolution is and I guarantee its some strawman. Creationists never argue on a level playing field, they always have to oversimplify everything and create strawmen in order to convince the ignorent congregation they preach to that dont know any better. This why their position is a charade.

(disclaimer to moderaters: "ignorent" of how science works, and how evolution works)

Both require faith - I just don't have enough faith to believe all the impossibilities of evolution, but I do have enough faith to believe God

You dont need faith in evolution or any science, but you need faith in Creationism. If it werent that way Creationists wouldnt admidt that no evidence would ever change their minds. Whats absurd is they wear it like a badge of honour.

Ed

 

[corvus_corax]

Please explain what evolution is. Then explain why evolution is a Theory.

A theory is a model that best explains the evidence to date.

Then the difference in the belief in Evolution and the belief in Creationism.

Creationism generally states that the animals were created "as is" according to their "kind" (whatever that is)

Then explain why the concept of evolution is "new" compared to that of Creationism.

The theories of gravity are "new" in that comparison as well. Your request has no point.

Then someone please explain why there is no written truth of evolution before the written context of the historical documents that we have today (Mosaic Manuscripts).

Please explain to me why there is no written truth of quantum physics before the Mosaic Manuscripts. Again, your request has no point.

Then someone please explain how Theory can be a fact.

Things fall when you drop them. That is a fact.
The theories of Gravity are the theories (models) that, based on the evidence at hand, explain WHY things fall.
THAT is the difference.



Edited for spelling

 

[Army of Juan]

Please explain what evolution is. Then explain why evolution is a Theory. Then the difference in the belief in Evolution and the belief in Creationism. Then explain why the concept of evolution is "new" compared to that of Creationism. Then someone please explain why there is no written truth of evolution before the written context of the historical documents that we have today (Mosaic Manuscripts). Then someone please explain how Theory can be a fact.

Evolutionist base there authority on Science. But, yet not one of them can tell me when the first belief in this Theory came about. Why should we believe you if you aren't even educated in your own beliefs. People are constantly changing and beliefs are constantly changing yet there is no proof for evolution. Hence "T-H-E-O-R-Y" So you can't justify that evolution (origin of man) must exist because of Science if even Science calls it theory.

Ed:
All you have been doing is breaking up my sentences one by one and making little uneducated comments as to what I am saying. That is a form of dogding my questions. All you are doing is discriminating my "claims" and you fail to make your own. You said earlier that you DONT know when evolution came about as a belief so why should I believe anything that you say? Put the evidence on the table and stop nit picking mine and then lets see how it measures up. And please explain YOUR definition of what you think evolution is and stop asking me to. I don't believe that human beings are the result of evolution. Also, the bible is historically accurate whether you think so or not. If you take the time to study history during that time period it lines up with any other historically accepted manuscripts. You keep refering back to whether or not he MESSAGE of the bible is true. That's not the debate here. The debate is whether or not YOUR belief in evolution is any different then MY belief in creation. It's your turn to back up your claim. Lay out the evidence.

Here's something I found with Google about what (scientific) Theories are.


Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology. The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

 

[flashwizard]

To understand the root of the topic of the forum:

Why is Evolution feared by many Christians?

-before you ask that-

Does evolution deny the existence of God?

-and-

Does evolution deny and disagree with the authority of the Biblical claim of creation?

-from those-

Why is Evolution rejected by Christians?

We don't fear anything that can be discerned as "belief." And a christian can not logically accept evolution as the answer to creation without obviously contradicting.

Lets get answers to the second two questions, from an evolutionists standpoint.

 

[Lonnie]

I do not fear evolution, and if evolution where true, then it would not effect my spiritual beliefs.

But, I do believe that evolution is rather, unreasonable. Until there is further evidence to support evolution, I will believe that God created the universe and every thing in it, in 7 days(well the 7th day he rested).

What is this evidence that needs to support evolution(so that I would think it would be a reasonable belief)? Evidence of evolution on a molecular level. I want to know things evolved on a biochemicaly(I have an intrest in biochemistry).

Such as how blood clotting would evolve, the eye, blood cells, reproductive systems evolve, ect. Explained on a molecular level.

And I have yet to see any published materials that even attempt to explain the evolution of any thing, on a molecular level.

Mabey if you would please be so kind as to give a link, or recommend a book that would do so. Thank you.

 

[corvus_corax]

To understand the root of the topic of the forum:
Why is Evolution feared by many Christians?
-before you ask that-
Does evolution deny the existence of God?
-and-
Does evolution deny and disagree with the authority of the Biblical claim of creation?
-from those-
Why is Evolution rejected by Christians?
We don't fear anything that can be discerned as "belief." And a christian can not logically accept evolution as the answer to creation without obviously contradicting.
Lets get answers to the second two questions, from an evolutionists standpoint.

" Does evolution deny the existence of God?"
No
" Does evolution deny and disagree with the authority of the Biblical claim of creation?"
Evolutionary theory does appear to disagree with a literal reading of Genesis. I say "does appear to", because even literal readings of Genesis vary from one group to another.

And you might want to be careful with phrases like "And a christian can not logically accept evolution as the answer to creation without obviously contradicting."

 

[flashwizard]

The creation account in Genesis: Can an evolutionist agree with it and still be an evolutionist then?

-basically- there are different forms of Evolution. But the only form of evolution I seek to argue against is the theory that Humans evolved from nothing and creation came from nothing. For a christian to believe that they would contradict the "truth" of the Biblical claims. See what I mean?

 

[Lonnie]

I agree with your post, flash wizard.

 

[corvus_corax]

The creation account in Genesis: Can an evolutionist agree with it and still be an evolutionist then?

From a literal reading of Genesis?
Most likely not.
I say "likely not" due to the same reason as I posted above.

-basically- there are different forms of Evolution. But the only form of evolution I seek to argue against if the theory that Humans evolved from nothing and creation came from nothing. For a christian to believe that they would contradict the "truth" of the Biblical claims. See what I mean?

Where does evolution state that humans came from nothing?
And, as I think it's been pointed out, evolution doesnt claim ANYTHING about "creation" or where the universe came from. Please dont confuse evolution with other scientific theories.

 

[flashwizard]

Thanks for you answers corvus_corax.

The only evolution I see fit to argue in a Christian Forum or in light of christian belief is an Evolution that disagree's with the origin of man (creation). Any other forms of evolution are really insignificant in this discussion.

I only want to understand what KIND of evolution disagrees with Biblical claims. Know what I mean?

Did life evolve? Hence evolution? Biblically it did not evolve. It was created. Thoughts?
-hopefully you see what i see evolution to be-

 

[corvus_corax]

Thanks for you answers corvus_corax.
The only evolution I see fit to argue in a Christian Forum or in light of christian belief is an Evolution that disagree's with the origin of man (creation). Any other forms of evolution are really insignificant in this discussion.

So you're unconcerned with the evolution of other animals and plants?
Even though Creationism and evolution address them?

 

[Edx]

Please explain what evolution is. Then explain why evolution is a Theory. Then the difference in the belief in Evolution and the belief in Creationism. .

Holy Cow! Its like an endless loop with you. I already told you what a theory was. You didnt listen. Go back and read it and reply directly and explain exactly how I was not clear. Im not going to repeat myself ad nauseum for your own amusment.

Then explain why the concept of evolution is "new" compared to that of Creationism

Because Creationism is neither science nor theology? Because evolution and Creationism arent comparable? Because Creationism isnt science and evolution is?

Then someone please explain why there is no written truth of evolution before the written context of the historical documents that we have today (Mosaic Manuscripts).

Because you are talking about religious documents and they are not scientific evidence?

Then someone please explain how Theory can be a fact.

I already did, go back and read it. But if you did I'll try to jog your memory. A scientific theory is a MODEL, it does not mean a fact or an imperfect fact because the theory emcompasses the facts and explains them. Evolution is a fact AND a theory. Gravity is a fact AND and theory. Aerodynamics is a fact AND a theory. Theories dont get proven thats not how they work, they are only more or less supported by the evidence.

This is the last time I will tell you this.

Evolutionist base there authority on Science. But, yet not one of them can tell me when the first belief in this Theory came about.

Evolution is not based on science, it IS science. And boy have you just asked a huge question to answer. Ever heard of Origin of the Species? Darwin? Do you know what he did and did not say? Did you know that it was Christian scientists that disproved YEC beliefs in a literal interpretation before Darwin ever wrote his book?

And I have no idea why you seem to think that if someone in the past thought the world was burped out from a giant cosmic frog, its more valid than anything science can find out today or the future because the cosmic frog story is older. Just how does your mind work this into logical consistency?

Why should we believe you if you aren't even educated in your own beliefs.

I understand evolution up to a point, but Im not going to pretend I know everything. I do however know more than most Creationists, which do talk as if they know what they are talking about when they know they dont know and refuse to know. If a lay person like myself can spot the nonsence in "qualified Creationists" arguments and in the Creationist position it doesnt say much for it.

People are constantly changing and beliefs are constantly changing yet there is no proof for evolution.

You need to explain what your view of evolution is. I guarantee its not the real theory, but some strawman you invented. And you do not "prove" theories, they only become more supported by the evidence.

Hence "T-H-E-O-R-Y" So you can't justify that evolution (origin of man) must exist because of Science if even Science calls it theory.

In science EVERYTHING A THEORY. Gravity, Aerodynamics and Atomic Theory etc, and they cant be proved either because thats not how theories work. You have no idea what a theory is. But since I have explained it many times now and here, there is no excuse for you to say this again.

Ed:
All you have been doing is breaking up my sentences one by one and making little uneducated comments as to what I am saying. That is a form of dogding my questions. All you are doing is discriminating my "claims" and you fail to make your own.

Where have I made "uneducated comments"? You dont even know what a scientific theory is, yet speak as if you do. We need to nail that before we can move on to anything else. I am splitting up your comments so I can respond to every point you make. I dont ignore anything.

But if I have missed your "questions", please state them clearly. And state your view of evolution so we can correct it, because its undoubtably wrong.

You said earlier that you DONT know when evolution came about as a belief so why should I believe anything that you say?

Yes I do know. The idea of Evolution had been around for hundreds even thousands of years, but obviously not nearly as complete and scientific as when Darwin published Origin of the Species. Its well documented, yet you seem to think that because it wasnt discovered before someone wrote Genesis that Genesis has more truth to it.

Put the evidence on the table and stop nit picking mine and then lets see how it measures up. And please explain YOUR definition of what you think evolution is and stop asking me to. I don't believe that human beings are the result of evolution.

Im not nitpicking, Im trying to save myself a lot of leg work. Why should I spend so much time making detailed scientifically referenced posts for you if all you are going to do is come back and ask me where you can find the photo of a dove hatching out of a lizards egg.

Also, the bible is historically accurate whether you think so or not. If you take the time to study history during that time period it lines up with any other historically accepted manuscripts.

There is no evidence of a flood, there is no evidence of the exodus. In the NT there is no evidence of an eclipse and earthqake so great it caused graves to open and for the dead to walk the earth. I could go on, but whats the point? We are talking about science, not religious books.

You keep refering back to whether or not he MESSAGE of the bible is true. That's not the debate here. The debate is whether or not YOUR belief in evolution is any different then MY belief in creation. It's your turn to back up your claim. Lay out the evidence.

Its not that I keep referring to your Bible, you keep bringing it up. Your belief in creation is nothing to do with this. The obstinent refusal to accept your literal interpretion of Genesis is wrong, is.

And I will not waste my time with someone unless you can first tell me what they think Evolution is. But why ask for evidence if you wont change your mind anyway, why do you even care? I dont think you care, you just want to see us dance.

Ed

 

[Edx]

But the only form of evolution I seek to argue against is the theory that Humans evolved from nothing and creation came from nothing.

You'll have a hard time since there is no such theory,

Ed

 

[flashwizard]

Honestly you are correct, in the context of Evolution and Bible and this discussion, what is more discernable? Evolution of a human or of a plant or animal? To understand the point of whether a human evolved is a far more important issue because according to the bible humans were created in God's image not plants and animals (Gen 1:26-27), and this really should be the one discussed. Because plants and animals according to the Bible are to be ruled by Man (Gen 1:26), and there role is less significant, obviously an oxen cannot participate in christianity and worship like man.