can believers accept evolution?

[Guest shiloh357]

The creatures in Job could have been a bit more. . .  mundane.  The fossil record does not seem to indicate that humans coexisted.  Richard Dawkins stated that if it could be proven man and dinosaurs coexisted, it would destroy evolution.

There are myths that an origin in reality.   Dragons that have been reported by ancient and even midieval sources provide evidence that dinosaurs probably didn't go extinct 65 million years ago.  

 

It makes sense that any ancient record of what might appear to be a dinosaur alive at that would have to be immediately rejected out of hand as myth in order to preserve the evolutionists' narrative of history.

 

I don't trust the scientific community to be completely honest about the evidence, frankly.  It would not surprise me at all, given the fact that evolution hasn't been actually proven to be true in the macro-evolutionary sense, that any evidence that might lead away from the narrative that evolutionists are promoting, would be buried, lost or destroyed.

[gray wolf]

You see?  Everyone disses evolution. . . what a pity!

[Guest shiloh357]

You see?  Everyone disses evolution. . . what a pity!

Yeah...  Creationists are made out to be crackpots, backwards and anti-intellectual and anti-Science and on and on.  Creationism is "dissed" all of the time, and I don't suppose that matters too much to you. What I said was absolutely true.  I stand by it all.

 

  Scientists are not automotons.  They are human beings with passionately held beliefs and they will fight tooth and nail to make sure that Evolution and nothing else is taught to children, despite the fact that most of what is taught isn't actually proven.

 

The history of Evolution is riddled with hoaxes.  

 

What little evidence they can present is overstated and its importance is exaggerated, such as claiming the finch beaks, peppered moths and  strains of bacteria suddenly prove that all of the claims of evolution are true.  Most claims made by evolutionists are yet to be proven.  

[alphaparticle]

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.

 

For those who want to look at that, here's one collection of sources that discusses the evidence for evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

 

Whether you agree with it or not in the end, it is helpful to at least be adequately addressing why biologists take it for granted that evolution is a biological fact. The sorts of dismissals that people make are one reason that creationists are, rightly or wrongly, dismissed as crackpots.

[gray wolf]

 

You see?  Everyone disses evolution. . . what a pity!

Yeah...  Creationists are made out to be crackpots, backwards and anti-intellectual and anti-Science and on and on.  Creationism is "dissed" all of the time, and I don't suppose that matters too much to you. What I said was absolutely true.  I stand by it all.

 

  Scientists are not automotons.  They are human beings with passionately held beliefs and they will fight tooth and nail to make sure that Evolution and nothing else is taught to children, despite the fact that most of what is taught isn't actually proven.

 

The history of Evolution is riddled with hoaxes.  

 

What little evidence they can present is overstated and its importance is exaggerated, such as claiming the finch beaks, peppered moths and  strains of bacteria suddenly prove that all of the claims of evolution are true.  Most claims made by evolutionists are yet to be proven.  

 

I was trying to be lighthearted.  I'm sorry to offend you.  I am a creationist as well, although I probably disagree with you on subcategories.  So I do not denigrate other's belief in special creation, but I will point out error, especially by radical young earthers.  The true scientist is not dogmatic about evolution, but realizes it to be a model and if something with better explanatory and predictive powers comes along, she is obligated to go with the better theory.

Edited December 3, 2013 by gray wolf

[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.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

You see?  Everyone disses evolution. . . what a pity!

Yeah...  Creationists are made out to be crackpots, backwards and anti-intellectual and anti-Science and on and on.  Creationism is "dissed" all of the time, and I don't suppose that matters too much to you. What I said was absolutely true.  I stand by it all.

 

  Scientists are not automotons.  They are human beings with passionately held beliefs and they will fight tooth and nail to make sure that Evolution and nothing else is taught to children, despite the fact that most of what is taught isn't actually proven.

 

The history of Evolution is riddled with hoaxes.  

 

What little evidence they can present is overstated and its importance is exaggerated, such as claiming the finch beaks, peppered moths and  strains of bacteria suddenly prove that all of the claims of evolution are true.  Most claims made by evolutionists are yet to be proven.  

 

I was trying to be lighthearted.  I'm sorry to offend you.  I am a creationist as well, although I probably disagree with you on subcategories.  So I do not denigrate other's belief in special creation, but I will point out error, especially by radical young earthers.  The true scientist is not dogmatic about evolution, but realizes it to be a model and if something with better explanatory and predictive powers comes along, she is obligated to go with the better theory.

 

Oh, okay.  I didn't get the humor.  I was not "offended."   But I do appreciate your fairness and honesty on the issue.

[alphaparticle]

 

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.

 

Why is that the "correct" direction?

 

as far as the age of the earth goes, it correlates to the age of the sun so at the present time that part is well established.

[gray wolf]

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?

Edited December 3, 2013 by gray wolf

[gray wolf]

If Christians cannot laugh at themselves , their faith is very impoverished indeed.