can believers accept evolution?

[alphaparticle]

 

I think the 'lack of directionality' in evolution is something I'd like to emphasize in this thread as a couple of people seem to have the fallacious notion that evolution promotes 'progress'. It does not at all. If it were the case that environmental pressures favored the passing on of genetic materials of brainless slug creatures more than others, then those would proliferate. It may be that some species would take on some of these features. It's a truly blind process (on it's own!) in that evolution alone just describes the statistics of genetic material in different environments and populations.

The very name "Evolution" idicates direction, as opposed to its opposite, "Devolution"   Things are alleged to evolve or devolve, so to say that Evolution is directionless is false. 

 

And the fact that you admit that it is a blind process defies it being used by a Creator who made our world with a purpose and plan.   That is why claiming that you can accept evolution as a believer is internally consistent, because it contradicts the biblical position that the world is not the product of a blind process, but of a Creator who operates with intention.  

 

You need to decide if you are a Christian or an Evolutionist becaue you can't be both.  Commit to something instead of trying to create some hybrid ideology that has no basis in reality.

 

If you persist in attacking a strawman version of what biological evolution is I'll continue to find your responses uninteresting. Biological evolution has no direction. It's commentary on how genetic information spreads in different environments. Maybe you'd like for the diagram of monkey-to-man to be how evolution is, but that is not what it is. I've provided plenty of information in this thread alone which demonstrate that.

 

Besides which, there are plenty of natural theories which tell you how things will behave without intervention that seem to cause you no theological issues. For instance, I doubt very much you'd have a problem if I say that gravity obeys a 1/r^2 rule, as does electromagnetism, if things are left to themselves without divine intervention. Likewise, my commentary about evolution follows the same caveat, as my parenthetical comment in my post which you quoted was intended to communicate. This is why evolution poses no threat to me as a believer. I've already told you in my last response to you what  my choices are, and you continue to pose false dilemmas. I'd be interested to know if you have any new ideas about defending your claims that evolution requires that you be atheistic to accept it, as a physical theory about the world.

[HumbleThinker]

 

 

 

The notion that there isn't much evidence for evolution and that people just believe in it to avoid God or to defend their personal theories is an ill founded one. Yes, people are fallible with biases, no question. However, there really is quite a bit of disparate lines of reasoning and evidence that lead to the evolutionary conclusion.

 

 

But the Evolution camp doesn't claim that there is evidence for Evolution.  They claim that Evolution is proven fact and indisputable.  They claim that to not accept Evolution is to not accept reality. They teach Evolution as proven, indisputable fact, not as simply have evidence.

 

The fact is that the evidence for Evolution is highly questionable and frankly,  the theory came about at a time when science was still pretty primitive.  The evolutionists have had to keep adding years to the age of the earth and universe in order to make room for evolution because of the growing understanding of the complexity of the cell.  The more we learn how complex living things are, the more time is needed  to make evolution more viable.  Had the theory been introduced today instead of the 19th century, it would not have gotten off the ground.   Evolution has been a theory long assumed true and evidence is being filtered through the assumption of evolution being true.  It is the assumption that is driving how people interpret the evidence.  Which has the cart before the horse.

 

The evidence for evolution is sparse. They need to produce far, far more evidence than they have produced so far.  Besides whales with four legs transisitioning into sea creatures isn't the right direction if one is trying to make a case for evolution.   Whales evolving into creatures that can walk on two legs would be correct direction.

 

Evolution is actually the most well supported theory in the history of science, not to mention the last 150 years that it has evolved, pun intended, since Darwin published Origin of Species.

It is not well supported at all.  It is neither intuitively observed nor is it empirically proven.  

 

So is that an invitation to discuss the evidence? Whether you accept it or not or believe that it is convincing, it is dishonest to say that there is no evidence or that it is not observed. Or perhaps it would be more appropriate at this phase to say that it would be dishonest to say that scientists do not provide myriad amounts of evidence that evolution occurs via the mechanisms proposed. "Proven" is a meaningless word here as science does not deal in proof because science doesn't deal in 100% certainty. 

[HumbleThinker]

 

 

 

I would further like to know what is the proposed model to explain what we see in nature, all the fossils of now extinct life forms, the results of the human genome?

Extinction is is best explained by a global flood as is the rapid deposits of sediment in the rock stratas. 

 

Well, for this to be true, the global flood would have to ignore all known effects and behaviors of floods, and not simply be being more extreme than any other flood. In fact, for the global flood to have happened, it would require that it be the calmest flood in recorded history, just to name one point.

 

Given the rapid deposition of sediment, it would call for a rather violent flood actually.

 

But the "rapid deposition of sediment" is not what is observed. Large slabs of limestone, for example, could not have formed in flood conditions or any time after the proposed timeframe of the flood, or before if you are a Young Earth Creationist.  Please point to what you are talking about when you speak of "rapid deposition." Also,, dead organisms and their remains would be disintegrated in such a violent flood, not preserved. If rapid deposition is supposed to be the explanation for why so many fossils were not disintegrated, then this would be presuming your conclusion instead of letting the evidence lead you to that conclusion.

[HumbleThinker]

 

I think the 'lack of directionality' in evolution is something I'd like to emphasize in this thread as a couple of people seem to have the fallacious notion that evolution promotes 'progress'. It does not at all. If it were the case that environmental pressures favored the passing on of genetic materials of brainless slug creatures more than others, then those would proliferate. It may be that some species would take on some of these features. It's a truly blind process (on it's own!) in that evolution alone just describes the statistics of genetic material in different environments and populations.

The very name "Evolution" idicates direction, as opposed to its opposite, "Devolution"

 

But devolution is not something modern scientists propose, therefore your reason for believing that evolution "dictates direction" is a false premise. Devolution is a creationist concept, not a scientific one. It hasn't been a scientific concept since people stopped believing evolution had a direction, which fell out of vogue in the mid-20th century at the latest when the modern synthesis was produced.

[gray wolf]

I think the 'lack of directionality' in evolution is something I'd like to emphasize in this thread as a couple of people seem to have the fallacious notion that evolution promotes 'progress'. It does not at all. If it were the case that environmental pressures favored the passing on of genetic materials of brainless slug creatures more than others, then those would proliferate. It may be that some species would take on some of these features. It's a truly blind process (on it's own!) in that evolution alone just describes the statistics of genetic material in different environments and populations.

The very name "Evolution" idicates direction, as opposed to its opposite, "Devolution" Things are alleged to evolve or devolve, so to say that Evolution is directionless is false.

And the fact that you admit that it is a blind process defies it being used by a Creator who made our world with a purpose and plan. That is why claiming that you can accept evolution as a believer is internally consistent, because it contradicts the biblical position that the world is not the product of a blind process, but of a Creator who operates with intention.

You need to decide if you are a Christian or an Evolutionist becaue you can't be both. Commit to something instead of trying to create some hybrid ideology that has no basis in reality.

[TheCurseOfTheRodain]

The Bible agrees with Shiloh here, you cannot be a Christian and say God used or did evolution. The two are 100% incompatible, because God already said in Genesis 1 and 2 that He didn't use any evolution at all, but rather that everything was good (and death and sickness and disease are not good, and you need these 3 to have evolution before Adam).

[alphaparticle]

The Bible agrees with Shiloh here, you cannot be a Christian and say God used or did evolution. The two are 100% incompatible, because God already said in Genesis 1 and 2 that He didn't use any evolution at all, but rather that everything was good (and death and sickness and disease are not good, and you need these 3 to have evolution before Adam).

As I posted in my OP, what makes me a Christian is my belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.Now you can try to argue that I am going to run up against incoherence at some point, but you can't really argue that it's a choice between 'being a Christian' or 'accepting evolution'. That's a false, non biblical (see the verses in the OP) dilemma.

[gray wolf]

I believe another post pointed out that God did not say anything about evolution. . .  you are just inferring that from the text.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

The Bible agrees with Shiloh here, you cannot be a Christian and say God used or did evolution. The two are 100% incompatible, because God already said in Genesis 1 and 2 that He didn't use any evolution at all, but rather that everything was good (and death and sickness and disease are not good, and you need these 3 to have evolution before Adam).

As I posted in my OP, what makes me a Christian is my belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus.Now you can try to argue that I am going to run up against incoherence at some point, but you can't really argue that it's a choice between 'being a Christian' or 'accepting evolution'. That's a false, non biblical (see the verses in the OP) dilemma.

 

No that is not what makes a person a Christian.  I know people who believe Jesus rose from the dead but they have never accepted Jesus.   Chrisitanity is not based on an acceptance of certain propositional claims. 

 

It is not a false dilemma at all.   The fact that evolutionists view Evolution as an alternative to Genesis 1 and not as a complimentary view of Genesis 1 should tell you something.  

 

Evolution is a blind and impersonal processes based on random mutations that is more or less based on what the environment determines.  That is not how the Bible describes the origins of life at all.   Evolution is impersonal; the Genesis account is personal.  Evolution is naural;  Genesis 1 is supernatural.  Evolution is unplanned, unguided.  Genesis 1 shows that God had both a plan and the aiblity sustain and guide creation.   

 

What makes Evolution so appealing to many people is that it has no intelligent causality, no God to which they are accountable.  Evolution removes the concept of sin because in evolutionary thought, "sin" is just part of humanity's genetic make up.   Evolution empowers racism and enables those who choose to dehumanize the unborn.  Evolution devalues humanity by claiming that man is just a higher animal.  There is no need of redemption in evolution because there is no sin to be redeemed from.  

 

There is no false dilemma here.   Evolution destroys the foundation of marriage which God instituted by eroding the concept of sin and allowing for homosexuality and gay marriage.

 

Evolutionary thought is the opposite of Chrisitanity and biblical values and a biblical worldview.  Genesis reveals Jesus as our sovereign Creator, righteous Redeemer and eternal Judge.   Evolution usurps Jesus of those roles by virtue of eroding the very concept of sin and an intelligent causality for the universe.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

I think the 'lack of directionality' in evolution is something I'd like to emphasize in this thread as a couple of people seem to have the fallacious notion that evolution promotes 'progress'. It does not at all. If it were the case that environmental pressures favored the passing on of genetic materials of brainless slug creatures more than others, then those would proliferate. It may be that some species would take on some of these features. It's a truly blind process (on it's own!) in that evolution alone just describes the statistics of genetic material in different environments and populations.

The very name "Evolution" idicates direction, as opposed to its opposite, "Devolution"

 

But devolution is not something modern scientists propose, therefore your reason for believing that evolution "dictates direction" is a false premise. Devolution is a creationist concept, not a scientific one. It hasn't been a scientific concept since people stopped believing evolution had a direction, which fell out of vogue in the mid-20th century at the latest when the modern synthesis was produced.

 

Evolution indicates direction with or without the use of the devolution.   The whole idea of Evolution is moving from one state upwards to a better one.   Even the silly charts that Evolutionists use to describe the evolution of man show a direction from something more primitive to modern man.  To argue that it is not directional is intelectual sucide.   Thus when you have mutations that  result in a loss of information, to call that "evolution" is simply not intellectualy honest.