The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[FJK]

1 minute ago, Tristen said:

Such people therefore (and ironically) assume that everyone who disagrees with them is suffering some form of intellectual compromise.

This is frequently the result of making their belief becoming a part of their personal self image, their sense of self, their justifying of themselves as valid, and in a sense seeing any disagreement as an attack on their personal identity and worth as a person.

It's difficult to get around that, but not impossible.  If God intends you to help change their thinking and see it differently he will show you how to do it if you ask him how to handle it and are willing to receive His answer the way He gives it to you.

We are not all called to do all things, some things we should do and some things we should leave to others.

[Tristen]

3 hours ago, FJK said:

This is frequently the result of making their belief becoming a part of their personal self image, their sense of self, their justifying of themselves as valid, and in a sense seeing any disagreement as an attack on their personal identity and worth as a person.

This is certainly true for many topics.

However, with regards to the origins debate, I think it is more the case that most people have only ever been exposed to one side of the argument (or at-least, overwhelmingly been exposed to only one side) - giving many the false impression that only one side of the argument is valid. The onus of "proof" is thus incorrectly placed on anyone daring to hold a different position. 

As such, this self-superior posture becomes their default position - alongside an insinuated obligation to accept this position, or else be subjected (justly - in their minds) to the false, unsupported accusation of intellectual compromise.

 

[Marathoner]

14 minutes ago, Tristen said:

This is certainly true for many topics.

However, with regards to the origins debate, I think it is more the case that most people have only ever been exposed to one side of the argument (or at-least, overwhelmingly been exposed to only one side) - giving many the false impression that only one side of the argument is valid. The onus of "proof" is thus incorrectly placed on anyone daring to hold a different position. 

As such, this self-superior posture becomes their default position - alongside an insinuated obligation to accept this position, or else be subjected (justly - in their minds) to the false, unsupported accusation of intellectual compromise.

 

I was hoping to add to this discussion by summarizing the perspective of relevant course material I studied in college. I sat and listened to professors articulate their arguments, and I participated in their labs. They focused exclusively upon genetic considerations which, as I learned while I weighed the value of continuing that education, forms the framework of the modern synthetic theory they espouse.

I've had some time to think about how that was received by the OP and what I might have done to guarantee such an outcome, and I believe you touch upon that in your post above. As a rule I refrain from arguing with others. It's simply not something I'm called to do. I was a sort who relished conflict when I was younger, and the Lord impressed upon me the need to change. 

I'm not about to return to where I was before. 

 

[Starise]

As I percieve things, I would agree with Tristen, that over the years there has been a concerted effort to lean in a biased way towards species to another species evolution, even in the face of opposing evidence to the contrary.

I don't enjoy arguments either @Marathoner. Species to new species evolution is a battleground of the devil. I think we need solidarity as believers that this isn't a correct teaching. I'm not saying I don't need to learn, and I'm open to learning which new lies developed in the scientific community concerning evolutionary species to new species false teaching, not that I'm a complete idiot on this.

If we seemingly support some of this false scientific teaching, we are shooting arrows at our own soldiers. This is why I was trying to ascertain what you were saying because it wasn't clear to me. I see this as an either/or kind of thing, and not a middle ground war. God created us separate from the animals period. Much to the contrary of popular teaching on the subject, none of what they are saying fits into any serious scientific endeavor.

I wanted to see what you were proposing and why my initial post was irrelevant to you. Hoaxes, numerous ones, are VERY relevant.No matter what 'updated' information you are familiar with. To me, this is a serious war. We are loosing young minds to these false ideas in schools across our nation, so any Christian who seems to be coming out in support of it, or doesn't come across as sure, I will question. I will even rake a good brother such as yourself over the coals to get clarity  To me it's worth it to have clarity to further the discussion. 

If the updated information you present brings more clarity then by all means we need it. I was interested to know what you were specifically referring to? 

[Marathoner]

6 hours ago, Starise said:

As I percieve things, I would agree with Tristen, that over the years there has been a concerted effort to lean in a biased way towards species to another species evolution, even in the face of opposing evidence to the contrary.

I don't enjoy arguments either @Marathoner. Species to new species evolution is a battleground of the devil. I think we need solidarity as believers that this isn't a correct teaching. I'm not saying I don't need to learn, and I'm open to learning which new lies developed in the scientific community concerning evolutionary species to new species false teaching, not that I'm a complete idiot on this.

If we seemingly support some of this false scientific teaching, we are shooting arrows at our own soldiers. This is why I was trying to ascertain what you were saying because it wasn't clear to me. I see this as an either/or kind of thing, and not a middle ground war. God created us separate from the animals period. Much to the contrary of popular teaching on the subject, none of what they are saying fits into any serious scientific endeavor.

I wanted to see what you were proposing and why my initial post was irrelevant to you. Hoaxes, numerous ones, are VERY relevant.No matter what 'updated' information you are familiar with. To me, this is a serious war. We are loosing young minds to these false ideas in schools across our nation, so any Christian who seems to be coming out in support of it, or doesn't come across as sure, I will question. I will even rake a good brother such as yourself over the coals to get clarity  To me it's worth it to have clarity to further the discussion. 

If the updated information you present brings more clarity then by all means we need it. I was interested to know what you were specifically referring to? 

It was a poor choice of words on my part, brother. I value you more than anything else. 

I certainly don't mind participating if I can manage to keep a foot out of my mouth, and I'll give this more thought tomorrow. It should be a slow day at work. Holidays usually are. 

[garee]

On 9/1/2023 at 9:15 PM, teddyv said:

This is all rather horrifically out of date. You would do well to look into the more recent evidence to date.

Also, to note, Piltdown man was a hoax, but the hoax was discovered by the scientists who study this stuff and realized there was a problem.

Yes scientist that insist on carbon dating . But have no standard for calibrating . 500,000,000 years 

If there is no writen history by which they could calibrate it they simply add what ever is needed to make the word of God without effect.

In the end of the matter chasing one's tail . We do not know Christ after the rudiments of this world (dust) after the philosophies of men .  Looking to thing made the temporal can in a hope lead a person to the source of Christin s faith as it is written. But God must do that work . 

Preach the gospel in season or out  

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

it would seem bottom line is  

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

It is astounding to me that so many people believe in evolution as there is a massive lack of evidence for it. I suppose it doesn't help that people are forced to endure evolution for 12 years in school and are never told the gaping holes and problems with the theory. There were actually a couple mathematicians that calculated that evolution is literally 100% IMPOSSIBLE. This is a subject that should be taught in the churches as the false teaching of evolution is the main reasons college students who were raised christian abandon their faith. Genesis 1 debunks evolution and if Genesis 1 cant be trusted, then neither can anything after it. This subject is far more important than most people seem to realize. 

[teddyv]

58 minutes ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

It is astounding to me that so many people believe in evolution as there is a massive lack of evidence for it. I suppose it doesn't help that people are forced to endure evolution for 12 years in school and are never told the gaping holes and problems with the theory. There were actually a couple mathematicians that calculated that evolution is literally 100% IMPOSSIBLE. This is a subject that should be taught in the churches as the false teaching of evolution is the main reasons college students who were raised christian abandon their faith. Genesis 1 debunks evolution and if Genesis 1 cant be trusted, then neither can anything after it. This subject is far more important than most people seem to realize. 

You were taught evolution over 12 years in school? I barely remember the subject being done in any detail. Certainly my elementary school being Christian, did not. Junior High spent maybe a third of the year on biology but mostly on other subjects. Senior High, I did not even take biology.

I suspect almost everyone here is the same so don't over exaggerate too much. It's clear many here cannot even properly define evolution so perhaps it should be taught more.

 

[Sparks]

30 minutes ago, teddyv said:

You were taught evolution over 12 years in school? I barely remember the subject being done in any detail. Certainly my elementary school being Christian, did not. Junior High spent maybe a third of the year on biology but mostly on other subjects. Senior High, I did not even take biology.

I suspect almost everyone here is the same so don't over exaggerate too much. It's clear many here cannot even properly define evolution so perhaps it should be taught more.

Keep going.  No one was taught much about evolution in college either.  The only 'evolution' that is seen is microevolution, which won't get you what evolutionists claim.  We see tiny variances within 'species,' not above them, which will get you a sibling that is different between the same DNA source (the same parents).  There are hard limits to microevolution.  Given a trillion years, you won't ever go 'above species' to get you a new kind because there is nothing in the DNA pool to allow it.

I cannot believe evolutionists carry on, as if Darwin was right.  Even Darwin knew better to wait on the evidence to make claims, but the evidence never showed up.

[JimmyB]

What is everyone going on about?  The theory of evolution describes the gradual variation in the phenotypic characteristics of organisms. These variations are genetic and are passed on to the next successive generation by an organism. These variations can have both positive and negative consequences on the organism.

According to the theory, individuals with traits that enable them to adapt to their environments will help them survive and have more offspring, which will inherit those traits. Individuals with less adaptive traits will not survive over time to pass them on.

Quite obviously organisms do change over time, both positively and negatively.  Some organisms change and adapt to a changing environment, as is true of most organisms that exist today, and some do not, for example, dinosaurs and mastodons.  Species that do not evolve to cope with environmental changes die.

There are species that are no longer on earth, the most obvious being dinosaurs.  Because they were unbale to sufficiently change to adapt to the changing physical environment they died off.  The same is true with animals such including the saber-tooth tiger, wooly mammoth, Tasmanian tiger, Steller's sea cow, Pyrenean ibex, dodo, Labrador duck, and others.  There are also many plant species that are extinct.

So what is the problem?

Edited September 4, 2023 by JimmyB