Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[Texas Conservative]

lol awesome, now what does 'evasion' mean lol

Evasion is a video game company.

Now a question for you:

Please tell me the equation for radiometric dating.  Can you do the math?

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvf6W1HWpHI

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIOIlCQDNgg

[The Barbarian]

I thought you believe that the earth brought forth the plants, and that which you call the process as "evolution"

You're confusing abiogenesis and evolution.   Evolutionary theory doesn't say how life began.   Darwin, for example, in his book, just suggested that God created the first living things.

By the way, so computers were made from dirt.

Yep.

Is that dirt evolving into a computer?

Artifacts (things made by humans) aren't evolved.  They are just designed.    God created life to evolve.   Humans merely design things.   Design is the mark of an imperfect creature, not an omnipotent Creator.

(denies that man is made of dirt)
    Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.


Barbarian observes:
    Populations evolve.   Individuals do not.

So, you are saying that you don't evolve as an individual

Right.  Your alleles stay with you all your life, and don't change.

but together with the entire population of man, you all evolve?

Populations evolve.   Over time, the allele frequencies in a population change.   That's what evolution is.   Individuals don't change; the population does.

Interesting and confusing.

Not if you're clear on the difference between individual and populations.

Is not the theory of evolution (by natural selection),  the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.

Not organisms.   As you now realize.  An organism doesn't evolve.  Populations of organisms evolve.

Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring?

That would be great, if it happened, but as you see, evolution tends to produce new organisms that are better fitted to their environments.   An organism doesn't change alleles over time.  Populations do.

And of course, since this process of evolution takes millions of years

It can happen in one generation.   We observe it to do so.

and an individual ape for example only lives a relatively few years, no individual ape is said to have evolved into what we are today.

Remember, individuals don't evolve.

So, when we say man evolved from apes, we say it in the context of the millions of years time frame.

Yes.   The evidence for that is compelling.

But then, it is in the individual that change actually occur

No.   Whatever alleles an individual gets when gametes fuse to form an embyro, remain with it for life.  Natural selection tends to let those organisms with traits that allow them to live long enough to reproduce, contribute alleleles to the next generation.   That's how it works.   

Now, the verse does not say anything about mankind as having been created by evolution

Doesn't say anything about genes or DNA, either.   There's a lot of things that are true, that aren't found in scripture.

Well, the Christian scientist will say that, the process by which God formed the man of the dust of the ground is what you call evolution.

Some might, if they didn't understand evolution.   Fortunately, you don't have to understand evolution in order to be saved.

Interestingly, you cited Gen 3:19, which tells us, if we were to relate that to science's evolution theory, that from where man had evolved from, when he dies, he will come to be what he originally was, that is dust.

You're confusing evolution and abiogenesis again.   But living things were brought forth by the Earth.   Your only difference with God's creation is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

[tooldtocare]

Humans first walked on this planet 200,000 years ago and no,
they were not apes or monkey like.
They looked just like we look today.

in my view (:-

[The Barbarian]

"Humans first walked on this planet 200,000 years ago and no, they were not apes or monkey like.[/quote]

Technically, we are apes.   We and chimpanzees occupy a group within the larger ape clade.

They looked just like we look today.

Below the neck, the first humans looked pretty much like we today.   Above the neck, there were considerable differences.   Smaller crainia, bigger teeth, projecting faces, no chin.

[Alan]

"Humans first walked on this planet 200,000 years ago and no, they were not apes or monkey like.

Technically, we are apes.   We and chimpanzees occupy a group within the larger ape clade.

Below the neck, the first humans looked pretty much like we today.   Above the neck, there were considerable differences.   Smaller crainia, bigger teeth, projecting faces, no chin.

He believes we are seeded by aliens.

[KiwiChristian]

Humans first walked on this planet 200,000 years ago and no,
they were not apes or monkey like.
They looked just like we look today.

in my view (:-

prove the earth is at least 200,000 years old.

[Texas Conservative]

He believes we are seeded by aliens.

No crazier than apes that evolved into humans over time.

[The Barbarian]

No crazier than apes that evolved into humans over time.

It all comes down to evidence.    The evidence, from genetics, anatomy, fossil transitionals, and so on, make it clear that humans evolved from other primates.

[AVZ]

It all comes down to evidence.    The evidence, from genetics, anatomy, fossil transitionals, and so on, make it clear that humans evolved from other primates.

You mean the evidence from which never a logically certain conclusion can be drawn?

[The Barbarian]

You mean the evidence from which never a logically certain conclusion can be drawn?

I mean the evidence that is compelling enough to make it perverse to deny what it says.   In science, we can't be certain that all the molecules of oxygen in the room won't all go to one corner and suffocate you.   But we have sufficient evidence to be sure that it won't happen, even if we can't do a formal proof.

Evolution is like that.

[AVZ]

I mean the evidence that is compelling enough to make it perverse to deny what it says.   In science, we can't be certain that all the molecules of oxygen in the room won't all go to one corner and suffocate you.   But we have sufficient evidence to be sure that it won't happen, even if we can't do a formal proof.

Evolution is like that.

What you just posted is a contradiction:

- we can't be certain that all the molecules of oxygen in the room won't all go to one corner
- But we have sufficient evidence to be sure that it won't happen

So which one is it? Can you be sure, or can you not be sure?

[The Barbarian]

What you just posted is a contradiction:

Nope.  You're confusing logical certainty with overwhelming odds.

Barbarian demonstrates:
- we can't be certain that all the molecules of oxygen in the room won't all go to one corner
- But we have sufficient evidence to be sure that it won't happen

So which one is it?

Both.   "Truth is a stronger notion that provability."  Douglas Hoffstader

Can you be sure, or can you not be sure?

You can be sure of things you can't prove.   Almost everything you're sure of, you can't prove.

If this continues to puzzle you, get a decent text on epistemology and learn.

[AVZ]

Nope.  You're confusing logical certainty with overwhelming odds.

Barbarian demonstrates:
- we can't be certain that all the molecules of oxygen in the room won't all go to one corner
- But we have sufficient evidence to be sure that it won't happen

Both.   "Truth is a stronger notion that provability."  Douglas Hoffstader

You can be sure of things you can't prove.   Almost everything you're sure of, you can't prove.

If this continues to puzzle you, get a decent text on epistemology and learn.

Now you just start posting whole lot of unrelated rubbish, in order to defend an undefendable position.

Epistemology find it roots in philosophy and psychology, you can literally be 100% sure that the earth is square, or you are Superman but that has nothing to do with scientific proof.
It is you who claimed that there is no logical certainty in science, and you either stand by your claim or abandon it.

Ripping out some totally unrelated statement by Douglas Hoffstader doesn't help either.
"Truth is a stronger notion that provability" is a universal philosophical truth.
After all Hoffstader is a cognitive scientist, an area that has nothing to do with the science we are discussing in this topic.

Your claim that "Almost everything you're sure of, you can't prove." is utter rubbish.
I am sure my house is made of stone and concrete. I am also sure my wife is a female. I am also sure that my children are younger than I am. I am sure I am alive. And I can go on and on.
All these things I am sure off and I can prove as well.

But it is the standard tactics of an evolutionist. just because they think science provides the answer they tend to dump a whole lot of scientific information in the creationist, hoping the creationist will drown and has to admit science has merits beyond his understanding.
That's exactly what you are trying to do, but it is not going to work.

You have said a number of things that contradict your earlier claims. So are you going to back it up or are you going to try and wriggle yourself out of the situation your brought upon yourself?

[Michael2012]

Quote from: Michael2012 on Sat Dec 23, 2017 - 23:20:13

I said:

"The Christian and the scientist both are man and with a limited time and mind, sinful at that and of a corrupted nature. In anything and everything, he can't be absolutely certain of things. So that, with regards as to what it is that he accepts as truth, faith is involved. "

I know what you said.  And it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

I know that you take what I said as wrong, wrong, wrong. And we know that by saying that, it does not refute what I said.

"Faith" is involved in the scientist accepting what he and his fellow scientists have put forth based on their scientific study and work with all the things that they take as evidence, that the world was framed by what they call the theory of evolution, as truth.

NO !  One examines the evidence and is either convinced that it is true or not.  That is not based upon faith; that is based upon the evidence. If the evidence is convincing enough, then he believes it.  It does not work the other way.  And by the way, that should be true for the Christian as well.  He reads and studies the Scriptures.  God's word is sufficient in itself to convince one that it is truth.  Based upon that evidence one, having been convinced of its truth, has faith in God.

Let's say you examined the evidence you say of evolution and are convinced that it is true. So you take it as true. Not that it is the truth, but that you are convinced that it is true based on your examination. How certain are you that evolution is true and that the theory of evolution is true, that it is the truth? Are you absolutely certain? If not, then there goes faith.

Now, you said "God's word is sufficient in itself to convince one that it is truth.  Based upon that evidence one, having been convinced of its truth, has faith in God."

Well, now I learned that your faith in God is based upon evidence, the evidence of which you say is God's words. By "God's words", are you referring to the Bible?

On the other hand, I came to have faith in God and Christ, not on the basis of evidence, material that is, but simply because I accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ. I can't explain why I did then. The only thing I know is that I have an inner conviction in my heart that I am a sinner and have offended God and because of that, have the wrath of God upon me and am going to hell, and have a desire to  repent unto God and ask that He forgive my sins that I could be with Him and be saved. And I was convinced, after hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ is Him who can save me, and so I had faith. Reading scriptures thereafter strengthened my faith in God.

With the Christian, he accepts as true, that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Without question, "faith" is involved.

And again that is so completely wrong.  The word of God is the evidence of its truth. That is in fact the main purpose for most, if not all, of the prophecies in the OT.  Jesus, over and over, referred to the fulfilling of the Scriptures as the evidence of who He was.  Faith, believing in God and Christ, comes from being convinced of the truth of God's word, not the other way around.  Paul says in Romans 10, "Faith comes from hearing the word about Christ" (v.17).  Hearing doesn't come from faith; faith comes from hearing.  One believes what God says in the Scriptures, that is, one becomes convinced based upon the data and evidence presented in the Scriptures that it is true and that then is the basis for believing in God, i.e., for faith in God.

Not so Sir.

The word of God is not the evidence of its truth, rather the word of God is the truth. Also, though it may well be that the fulfilling of the Scriptures concerning the Messiah gives evidence of who Jesus was, more to it than that, is that such is the unfolding and revelation of the truth ~ the word of God.  Also, Faith does not come from being convinced of the truth of God's word, but that faith comes from hearing God's words. It is the Holy Spirit that convicts. And that happens in the heart of a person. Once convicted by the HS, of sin, of righteousness, and of judgement, only then can one have faith, which comes from hearing God's words ~ hearing God.

You said "one becomes convinced based upon the data and evidence presented in the Scriptures that it is true and that then is the basis for believing in God". I disagree, though that is how it is to many, mostly the ones considered wise in this world. As I have explained above, it is the HS who convicts and that happens in the heart. It is a spiritual matter. Besides, what we have in scriptures is the truth itself, more than are data and evidence as you and others take them. 

Consider this. What does it take for one to be able to study correctly the data and evidence you say are presented in scriptures, that he is convinced that the word of God is true? Consider the poor and those who are illiterate or have only had little schooling, can they study correctly the data and evidence you are saying? If not, then it seems to be that the rich literate and adequately schooled are the better capable to study correctly the data and evidence you are saying and be convinced that the word of God is true. Since you say that one is convinced based upon the data and evidence presented in the Scriptures, if scriptures is true, and is the basis for having faith in God, it appears then that the rich literate and adequately schooled is likely to have faith in God than the poor illiterate and inadequately schooled person, isn't it? But then this is what we learn in scriptures:

James 2:5 Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?   

[4WD]

You said "one becomes convinced based upon the data and evidence presented in the Scriptures that it is true and that then is the basis for believing in God". I disagree.....,

I know you disagree. But that is why you don't really understand what faith is.  And what is perhaps more important is you really have no understanding of why faith is important. 

Consider the poor and those who are illiterate or have only had little schooling, can they study correctly the data and evidence you are saying?  If not, then it seems to be that the rich literate and adequately schooled are the better capable to study correctly the data and evidence you are saying and be convinced that the word of God is true. 

Here again, since you do not understand what faith is you make a silly comment like that.

[Amo]

http://rationalfaith.com/2016/01/games-evolutionists-play/

Games evolutionists play: The Name Game

[The Barbarian]

Now you just start posting whole lot of unrelated rubbish, in order to defend an undefendable position.

You're just frustrated because you don't know what this is actually about. 

Epistemology find it roots in philosophy and psychology, you can literally be 100% sure that the earth is square, or you are Superman but that has nothing to do with scientific proof.

That's not what epistemology says.   And because science is inductive, not deductive, there can be no scientific proof in the sense logic defines "proof."

It is you who claimed that there is no logical certainty in science, and you either stand by your claim or abandon it.

You're missing the distinction between truth and proof.   Many things are true that aren't provable.

Ripping out some totally unrelated statement by Douglas Hoffstader doesn't help either.

When Hoffstader shows that truth is a stronger notion than proof, he's making the very point that you can't get your head around.

Your claim that "Almost everything you're sure of, you can't prove." is utter rubbish.

Are you sure of God?   There are no logical proofs for God.   You take Him on faith, and the evidence of His creation, or you don't get Him at all.   This was His message to Thomas, and to you as well.   

I am sure my house is made of stone and concrete. I am also sure my wife is a female. I am also sure that my children are younger than I am. I am sure I am alive. And I can go on and on.
All these things I am sure off and I can prove as well.

Are you sure that George Washington was our first president?   Are you sure that the sun will rise tomorrow?  There are countless things like this for which no logical proof is possible.   Only evidence and inductive reasoning.

But it is the standard tactics of an evolutionist.

Remember, science is inductive, so we don't do scientific proofs.   However, we can use proofs in mathematics, because we define the rules there.  And we can use faith to find God.  And scientists can do all of these things, even if science can't.   I am often unscientific myself.

just because they think science provides the answer they tend to dump a whole lot of scientific information in the creationist, hoping the creationist will drown and has to admit science has merits beyond his understanding.

I truly wish you could understand.   But the happy fact is, even if you never accept the way God created the diversity of life, it won't harm your salvation.    Unless you make an idol of creationism, and declare that all Christian must believe it, God doesn't care.    He will judge you, as Jesus says in Matthew, by other things.

You have said a number of things that contradict your earlier claims.

You are merely confused about the differences between knowing and proving.

We have always known much more than we can prove.   And that's the way God made things.  Let it be His way.    And may you have a joyful and holy Christmas.

[4WD]

size=10pt]http://rationalfaith.com/2016/01/games-evolutionists-play/

Games evolutionists play: The Name Game[/size]

The author is guilty of the very thing he is charging the evolutionist with doing.  He says, "The evolutionist has changed the type of evolution being discussed from molecules to man evolution to "changes in allele frequency" and thus has committed the fallacy of equivocation, '"the illegitimate switching of the meaning of a term during the reasoning.' "

But of course evolution is not and never was about molecules to man origin of humans.  He will of course dig around in the literature until he perhaps finds an "evolutionist" somewhere who has made such a statement at sometime.  But that of course is beside the point.

He says, "So while the evolutionist is technically correct about his definition of evolution, he is not speaking about the same thing that the creationist is."  But that again is beside the point.  Or perhaps that is in fact the point.  The Young Earth Creationist is not talking about evolution at all;   but instead blathers on and on about stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

[The Barbarian]

Games evolutionists play: The Name Game

Your blogger has been hornswoggled about that.   Here's the scientific definition:

"Change in allele frequency in a population over time."

What does it mean?

First, it means that evolution happens to populations, not individuals.   So, members of the population are born and die, the ratio of alleles (different versions of the same gene) changes as time goes on.   

That's it.   If the alleles tend to be useful or harmful (most of them are neutral) then we will see a directional change.   Mostly, in a well-adapted population in an unchanging environment, we will see the ratios fluctuate within a mean that doesn't change much.   If a useful new allele appears or if the environment changes, natural selection will then result in directional change, eventually arriving at a new mean.

Common descent is not evolution.   It's a consequence of evolution, in the sense that your family is not reproduction, but rather a consequence of reproduction.

The author of the site to which you linked is probably not intending to trick people with equivocation.  He's likely been the victim of equivocation and just passed it on.

   

[4WD]

The author of the site to which you linked is probably not intending to trick people with equivocation.  He's likely been the victim of equivocation and just passed it on.

You are being very kind, and perhaps too generous.  But God bless you for that.

[AVZ]

The author of the site to which you linked is probably not intending to trick people with equivocation.  He's likely been the victim of equivocation and just passed it on.

Love the link, you should read it.
Its exactly how you and other defenders of evolution have been behaving during this discussion, with exactly the same arguments and tricks.

[AVZ]

I truly wish you could understand.   But the happy fact is, even if you never accept the way God created the diversity of life, it won't harm your salvation.    Unless you make an idol of creationism, and declare that all Christian must believe it, God doesn't care.    He will judge you, as Jesus says in Matthew, by other things.

Of course you believe it doesn't harm your salvation. It would be rather strange for you to say it would. I am however not convinced what you hope is true and I already expressed this earlier in this thread. Every person who is involved in something that goes against God's will has some kind of excuse that it doesn't harm his salvation.

You have been teaching evolution to students, and if any of these students abandoned his or her belief because of you, then you are responsible.
Secondly, evolution leads people away from God. Its the tool every atheist uses to draw others away from God, it is also the #1 reason people bring forward as proof that there is no God.
As far as I am concerned you have bought into a lie, and you have found yourself fighting in the same camp as the God deniers.

You can try to make the whole thing look not so bad, but I am not convinced at all. I think you are doing God a huge disfavor by pushing the evolutionist agenda.
What I am convinced about however is that those who believe scripture as it is given to us, will never be disappointed.

You keep on telling me that I "don't understand", and you have that completely wrong. I do understand.
Most of all I do understand that the message you are promoting is not the same message Genesis gives us. What you teach is not what the Bible teaches.

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that even if you're a creationist, it won't harm your salvation.)

Of course you believe it doesn't harm your salvation. It would be rather strange for you to say it would.

The Bible makes it clear what you must do to be saved.   Approving or disapproving of evolution is not one of those things.

I am however not convinced what you hope is true

Doesn't matter.  What God says, matters.

and I already expressed this earlier in this thread. Every person who is involved in something that goes against God's will has some kind of excuse that it doesn't harm his salvation.

Denying what God did is not necessarily going against His will.   Even if you never accept evolution, you can still be saved.   It's not a salvation issue, unless you make an idol of your opinion, and insist that every Christian must accept what you think about it.

You have been teaching evolution to students, and if any of these students abandoned his or her belief because of you, then you are responsible.

The actual problem is the opposite.   Many people lose their faith, because they were falsely told that creationism is an essential part of Christianity.   YE creationism will have much to answer for at judgement.   But not necessarily anyone who believes that new doctrine. 

Secondly, evolution leads people away from God.

Christians say it has deepened and enriched their faith in God.   

As far as I am concerned you have bought into a lie

As you have seen, the evidence for evolution is compelling.   And the Bible doesn't deny anything in evolutionary theory.   The Bible does deny the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism, however, so you have found yourself fighting in the same camp as the God deniers.

You keep on telling me that I "don't understand", and you have that completely wrong. I do understand.

You want to understand, but you've been fed so many false doctrines that it's hard for you to see clearly.
What you teach is not what the Bible teaches.

[Ginger Rella]

(Barbarian notes that even if you're a creationist, it won't harm your salvation.)

The Bible makes it clear what you must do to be saved.   Approving or disapproving of evolution is not one of those things.

Agreed

As you have seen, the evidence for evolution is compelling.   And the Bible doesn't deny anything in evolutionary theory. 

Possibly because the Bibe does not talk of anything evolutionery.


The Bible does deny the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism, however, so you have found yourself fighting in the same camp as the God deniers.

The Bible denies life ex nihilo doctrine of YE creationism?

When I read Genesis I read.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Nowhere do I read that the Bible denies life ex nihilo doctrine of YE creationism.
Not to mention that being able to create just by "saying" is pretty much out of nothing.....


What you teach is not what the Bible teaches.

And you also could be grouped here.

[The Barbarian]

The Bible denies life ex nihilo doctrine of YE creationism?

Yes.  Genesis says that life was not created ex nihilo, but was brought forth by nature as God intended.

Barbarian to AVZ:
What you teach is not what the Bible teaches.

And you also could be grouped here.

I teach science, and yes, the Bible does not teach science.   On the other hand, I have also been a CCD teacher, and there I teach Christian doctrine, not science.  The important thing is that they are not contradictory.

[The Barbarian]

Its exactly how you and other defenders of evolution have been behaving during this discussion, with exactly the same arguments and tricks.

As you have seen, evolution in biology is "change in allele frequency in a population over time."   What your linked site does, is equivocate that with the consequences of evolution (such as common descent), and with the things that cause evolution, such as natural selection.

It's a dishonest argument, but I suspect that the person who put up that link had been deceived by others, and is not attempting to be deceive us.

[Alan]

One of the most common reasons that believers lose their faith is the line drawn in the sand between religious views and science, I know many people that are comforted to learn that science is simply the observation of God's handiwork. Science is not a lie, nor is there any practical reason for scientists to lie.

[Jaime]

If science can't explain or even contemplate the supernatural, what's the point of what you said Alan? If someone is going to take issue with the supernatural virgin birth or Christ's resurrection, someone's loyalty to science is moot. If everything must be explained by nature, the supernatural has no chance. In my opinion Someone arguing  a young earth does no more violence to science than someone holding to a virgin birth or resurrection from the dead.

[Alan]

Who is taking issue with the miracle birth of Christ? No one that I've seen, besides atheists, none of which are here or in my circle.

[Jaime]

What situations were you referring to for people losing their faith when science was challenged. A faith walk is ALL ABOUT challenging science at every turn. If a person can't tolerate science being challenged will likely NOT begin a faith walk it seems.

Maybe you could further expand on what you meant, if my scenario is foreign to that.

[Alan]

For many people, myself included, the evidence is abundantly clear for things that science has revealed, such as the age of the universe, the historical records of life on earth, and yes, evolution too. If we're told to forget all of that and believe that it's all "fake", we must make a choice. I wouldn't want to be the one telling a new believer that they either accept the YE creationist narrative, (to which there exists no scientific evidence) or denounce your faith since evolution does not fit into God's word.

[Jaime]

Ok, but I wouldn't want to be the one to tell a new believer that an awful lot of the stuff in your faith walk is not necessarily a ratification of everything scientific.

[The Barbarian]

If science can't explain or even contemplate the supernatural, what's the point of what you said Alan?

The point is, it's a big mistake to try to use science to understand the things of God.   If one's faith isn't enough, science won't be able to pick up the slack.

If someone is going to take issue with the supernatural virgin birth or Christ's resurrection, someone's loyalty to science is moot.

Very true. 

If everything must be explained by nature, the supernatural has no chance.

True again.   This is why science can't explain the supernatural.

In my opinion Someone arguing  a young earth does no more violence to science than someone holding to a virgin birth or resurrection from the dead.

There's no scientific data showing that there wasn't a miraculous virgin birth, or a resurrection.  But there is abundant scientific evidence showing that the Earth is billions of years old, a conclusion that is consistent with scripture.   Even creationists, prior to the 20th century, were good with an Earth many millions of years old.