can believers accept evolution?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Actually it what is observed and another atheist/evolutionist here on the boards has explained that the rapid deposition of sediment has been observed and happens all of the time.  Of course, he states that such is not evidence of a global flood.

 

We saw the rapid deposition of sediment and rapid fossilation that occurred after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in the 80s  and it was yet another example of how the claims that fossilization occurs over a span of millions of years simply isn't true espeically with the fossilization of delicate parts of plants and trees in the lake at the base of the volcano.  

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

Evolution is taught as proven fact in schools all over America.    The only "Evolution" that is observed is mirco-evolution and that is not sufficient enough to make a case for millions or billions of years of macro-evolution.  To say that Evolution on a macro level is not taught as proven fact is to either be completely out of touch with reality, or to be dishonest about reality.

[gray wolf]

What do you support being taught in public schools?  How do you keep religion out of the equation?  Intelligent design?  That one has fallen into disrepute recently.   I don't know how you have a curriculum free of a specific view of God to be fair to everyone.

My kids attended Catholic schools and universities.   Evolution is not anathema to the Church and it was in their curriculum.  Oddly enough, my daughter doubts the overall theory.  That's an example of someone learning about it, considering it and turning against it.

[Guest shiloh357]

What do you support being taught in public schools?  How do you keep religion out of the equation?  Intelligent design?  That one has fallen into disrepute recently.   I don't know how you have a curriculum free of a specific view of God to be fair to everyone.

My kids attended Catholic schools and universities.   Evolution is not anathema to the Church and it was in their curriculum.  Oddly enough, my daughter doubts the overall theory.  That's an example of someone learning about it, considering it and turning against it.

Simply present the two main models side by side.  That's the thing, It is the Evolutionists that their view and only their view be up for consideration.  Creationists, generally speaking, have no problem with both views being presented. 

 

There are only two models or views, so there is nothing unfair being done to anyone.   Simply present the two competing models and educate children on what each model proposes without advocating or indoctrinating kids into either one.

[Guest shiloh357]

And btw, the standard of measure for acceptance of evolution isn't whether or not it is accepted by the Church.  The standard is the Word of God. Does the Bible make any room for the Theory of Evolution.  Even atheists readily admit that a plain and sensible reading the text indicates that evolution isn't compatible with the Bible.   Many Christians are not intellectually honest about evolution and/or they are not theologically equipped to understand why its a problem.

 

Many preachers cave into the evolution theory so as not to offend their church members and keep the offering plates and the church coffers full.  They don't operate from a sincere acceptance of the theory, but they are willing to change their colors to suit others if it keeps the money rolling in.

[gray wolf]

The problem with teaching creation alongside evolution is that creationism doesn't really qualify as science. It is a theological exercise and there's nothing wrong with that. We can infer design in one sense, but we don't really have scientific evidence for creation, nor a workable hypothesis. As I've pointed out before, it is fine to believe in God, but when unexplained phenomena is discovered, we cannot say that God did it (God of the Gaps approach).

Don't get me wrong, I do believe God created the universe. We just do not have proof, rather faith.

Edited December 6, 2013 by gray wolf

[Guest shiloh357]

The problem with teaching creation alongside evolution is that creationism doesn't really qualify as science. It is a theological exercise and there's nothing wrong with that.  We can infer design in one sense, but we don't really have scientific evidence for creation, nor a workable hypothesis.  As I've pointed out before, it is fine to believe in God, but when unexplained phenomena is discovered, we cannot say that God did it (God of the Gaps approach).

That presumes that all creationists have to put on the table is, "God did it."   There is such oversimplification of the creationist view that views it as nothing but a religious view.

 

Creation scientists hold Ph.D.s  in physcics, molecular biology, chemistry, geology, marine biology, astronomy, astro-physics, etc.  Creationists deal with actual science and they view science through prism of an intelligent Creator.  

[HumbleThinker]

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).

 

Where in the Bible does it mention evolution? And in anticipation of your next question, where does the Bible say that being in 100% agreement with the Bible (ignoring that there are multiple readings because that is a different topic altogether) is a requirement of being a Christian?

[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.

 

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. 

 

Scientists, those who define, explain, and utilize evolution, have long known that evolution does not "indicate a direction" since at least the mid-20th century as I indicated. To state otherwise is to create a strawman of evolution. This would be like us discussing astronomy as if astronomers still proposed a geocentric solar system. They haven't done this for a while, and speaking as if they do is not only a strawman, but will cause a misunderstanding of many other aspects of astronomy. A straight tree of life, as opposed to the idea of a "bushed" or branching tree of life, as well as the Great Chain of Being, which is what you are talking about here, have long been out of vogue. The Great Chain of Being in particular is a holdover from Aristotelian thought that stuck for over a millenia.

 

A progression of organisms in either direction is contrary to modern biology. As I've stated earlier, I am interested in nothing but accurate representing both scientific concepts and the data which can be observed in God's Creation. Thus, stating that evolution is not direction is not "intellectual suicide." Accuracy is never intellectual suicide. I'm afraid that your understanding of evolution is date by at least 50 years. It has progressed as a concept since then.

[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.

 

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.

 

Why don't you tell me how you disagree with the verses I posted in the OP? Because I already explained there why it is I think I'm a Christian.

 

Yes it's a false dilemma because you are modeling things as 'be a Christian' OR 'accept evolution'. You aren't saying 'there are Christians who accept evolution but they are mistaken about that'. So long as continue to push the issue that way I don't think you are correct factually on the science or the theology.

 

And you once again absolutely insist on setting up a strawman character. I deny that evolution entails atheism, but you continue to state it as fact-- this is the *very* issue in dispute. Merely repeating your claim that "yes, it IS so" isn't going to actually establish your position any better. I simply deny all these supposed theological and philosophical results of evolution are actually required by the bare *scientific* theory itself.

 

By the way, evolution absolutely says nothing about things getting "better". It is a statement about the statistics of genetic material in populations.That's like saying Newton's law of gravity is all about things 'finding their home' or 'progressing'. How does this make any sense?