Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?

[McBell]

I don't need to look it up. A creationist is someone who adheres to creationism. Since we know what creationism means, we know what a creationist is.

Fair enough

 

[Audie]

That largely is based on how one defines "creationists".

six day poof believers

 

[anotherneil]

That depends on the particular creationists "attitude" and training.
Genesis in scripture actually clearly implies an evolving creation. And that was written 3000 +- years ago. You shouldn't lump all creationist viewpoints into one pot. Evolution makes perfect sense to some creationists.

Ok, if you say so.

 

[anotherneil]

That largely is based on how one defines "creationists".

Yes - this can be true for any word.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That depends on the particular creationists "attitude" and training.
Genesis in scripture actually clearly implies an evolving creation. And that was written 3000 +- years ago. You shouldn't lump all creationist viewpoints into one pot. Evolution makes perfect sense to some creationists.

I'd love to hear why you think Genesis 1 teaches that all life evolved from single cell organisms.

 

[Audie]

I'd love to hear why you think Genesis 1 teaches that all life evolved from single cell organisms.

Thev bible is popular coz it says anything you want.

 

[McBell]

Thev bible is popular coz it says anything you want.

even when it doesn't actually say what you want...

 

[metis]

Yes - this can be true for any word.

Which is why we sometimes have to explain better what we mean. In science, we especially have to be careful when doing this, and it can be a pain in the butt at times.

 

[setarcos]

Ok, if you say so.

You disagree?

 

[setarcos]

I'd love to hear why you think Genesis 1 teaches that all life evolved from single cell organisms.

Did I say the bible teaches that? I said Genesis implies - from a human perspective - that creation evolved in steps. It doesn't say...day 1 God created everything we see. Do you disagree with that assessment?
Genesis is a synopsis of the evolving creation. It was not meant to detail that process.
That would have been a gift to mans intellect to discover in my opinion.

 

[setarcos]

even when it doesn't actually say what you want...

The bible says what was intended for it to say. Yes biblical revelation is interpretable. But only at the expense of revealing what kind of person you are. You either recognized truth or you do not. And when you recognize the truth you either acknowledge that truth or you do not. All fields of human endeavor are subject to such things in the absents of certainty.

 

[McBell]

The bible says what was intended for it to say. Yes biblical revelation is interpretable. But only at the expense of revealing what kind of person you are. You either recognized truth or you do not. And when you recognize the truth you either acknowledge that truth or you do not. All fields of human endeavor are subject to such things in the absents of certainty.

I have lost count the number of times someone, on this very forum, has claimed "The Bible clearly states..." or "It is clear the Bible teaches..." or some other variation only to find out when the verse(s) are revealed, they have absolutely nothing to do with they are supposedly "clear" about.

And then there are the times when it is claimed the Bible is clear about something but they are completely unable to present even a single verse from the Bible...

 

[setarcos]

I have lost count the number of times someone, on this very forum, has claimed "The Bible clearly states..." or "It is clear the Bible teaches..." or some other variation only to find out when the verse(s) are revealed, they have absolutely nothing to do with they are supposedly "clear" about.

And then there are the times when it is claimed the Bible is clear about something but they are completely unable to present even a single verse from the Bible...

Might that be because of the failure of the person to clearly and accurately present what the scriptures are saying rather than being the fault of the scriptures?
I myself cannot count the number of times that secularists have misrepresented Christianity with their presumptive conclusions. So I guess we're even on that exhausting front.
But why complain to me about others opinions. Since you're communicating with me now has there been something questionable that I've said that we may civilly debate?

 

[McBell]

Might that be because of the failure of the person to clearly and accurately present what the scriptures are saying rather than being the fault of the scriptures?

When did I claim it was a problem with the scriptures?
That is your assumption to deal with.

I myself cannot count the number of times that secularists have misrepresented Christianity with their presumptive conclusions. So I guess we're even on that exhausting front.

Interesting you felt the need to make a distinction where I did not.
I made no distinction simply because I have seen both atheists and theists doing it.

But why complain to me about others opinions.

You started this interaction between us.
Not me.

Since you're communicating with me now has there been something questionable that I've said that we may civilly debate?

I am merely replying to your posts to me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Did I say the bible teaches that? I said Genesis implies - from a human perspective - that creation evolved in steps. It doesn't say...day 1 God created everything we see. Do you disagree with that assessment?
Genesis is a synopsis of the evolving creation. It was not meant to detail that process.
That would have been a gift to mans intellect to discover in my opinion.

You wrote, and I quote, "Genesis in scripture actually clearly implies an evolving creation." Evolving means slow genetic alterations passed on via natural selection that begin with single cell organisms, and end with the gazillions of species we have today. There is nothing in Genesis 1 that presents this. Maybe you are simply redefining the word "evolve" to mean something else.

I absolutely do believe God is Creator. I think he brought the universe into being as a singularity, and was responsible for the laws of nature that govern it. Then he simply let those laws do their thing. Everything from the expansion of the universe, to the formation of galaxies, to life coming from non-life, to life evolving to more complex life are all due to those original natural laws. It was not necessary for God to continue intervening for the universe to exist as it is today.

 

[anotherneil]

You disagree?

I'm far more interested in science than in quibbling over "creationist", and I don't care what religious texts say; religious text are not my go-to place for referencing definitions, science, truth, or anything else that has any bearing or impact on my life. I'm not religious, for real not religious (not "not religious" like evangelical zealot types).

 

[setarcos]

When did I claim it was a problem with the scriptures?

I never said you did. I asked you a question.

That is your assumption to deal with.

What assumption? Asking a question is not making an assumption. Its trying to avoid making assumptions.

Interesting you felt the need to make a distinction where I did not.

You made a distinction by presenting one viewpoint without contradistinction where more than one viewpoint is relevant to the whole. Interesting you felt the need to point out my distinction when I merely mirrored your reply with another viewpoint.

I made no distinction simply because I have seen both atheists and theists doing it.

If you've seen both atheists and theists doing it but only felt compelled to point out a problem with theists then you have implied a qualitative distinction. Your audience don't know your personal experiences. We rely on what you state about what. After all it would make little sense to point out one sides errors if opposing viewpoints suffer the same errors. Might as well complain about someone else being in jail while incarcerated yourself. What would be the point?

You started this interaction between us.
Not me.

And? You answered my statement with one of your own which I couldn't see as relevant to me, the one you are replying to, since it references others. So I asked a question to clarify. The question still stands.

I am merely replying to your posts to me.

Yes and I appreciate your replies, but you replied to me about your grievances with how others have answered.
So I asked you a question concerning me. Care to answer my question to you? Civilly.

 

[McBell]

Care to answer my question to you?

Nope.
At least not until you start replying to what I actually post and not to your assumptions of what you think my posts mean.

 

[setarcos]

Evolving means slow genetic alterations passed on via natural selection that begin with single cell organisms, and end with the gazillions of species we have today.

This is a similar definition I am implying.
From Oxford languages...
"the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."
That developing entity is the universe from high entropy to low.
The word evolution has become somewhat synonymous with how changes in living organisms has been accomplished because of all the "hoopla" surrounding the theory that everyone is drawn into.
The definition you quote is dealing with the specific theory of how only living organisms changed over time. However evolution can mean simply : a change over time in a system.
Consider these examples...again from Oxford...
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
"the evolution of oxygen occurs rapidly in this process"
"silk ribbons waving in fanciful evolutions"

Consider the etymology of the words origin:

early 17th century: from Latin evolutio(n- ) ‘unrolling’, from the verb evolvere (see evolve). Early senses related to movement, first recorded in describing a ‘wheeling’ maneuver in the realignment of troops or ships. Current senses stem from a notion of ‘opening out’, giving rise to the sense ‘development’.

There is nothing in Genesis 1 that presents this. Maybe you are simply redefining the word "evolve" to mean something else.

Hopefully the above clarifies the meaning I am using. I haven't redefined anything. I'm using the original meaning of the word before it became coopted by evolutionists to mean only their limiting definition as applied to living organisms.
Now you were talking specifically about "changes in living organisms" and I understand that. I've simply expanded that to include the universe in general.

In genesis we have an evolving universe. Things came in steps. They weren't all created in time as if in the same moment and that includes the living things mentioned. There is an "unrolling" movement towards a more complicated system from a less complicated system written in the language available at the time.
The specific definition you mentioned with its specific mention of specific organisms and specific language conveying specific ideations didn't exist in the language Genesis was written in at the time. Your not going to find a verbatim, equivalence of a 19th century definition in Genesis and it would be ridiculous of you to expect as much.
Does that make sense from the reading of Genesis now?

I also said Genesis was a synopsis and not a detailed account of how each step happened.
Genesis implies a specific beginning to the universe - in line with current scientific understanding - and it implies a stepped process to the formation of the earth - again in line with current scientific understanding - and then a stepped process to the formation of the living inhabitants of that earth - again in line with current scientific understanding. And again, it speaks in generalities (sometimes metaphorically) but not in specifics. The limitations of the language used at the time would be something to consider as well.

I absolutely do believe God is Creator. I think he brought the universe into being as a singularity, and was responsible for the laws of nature that govern it.

Why do you believe God is Creator? What led you to that conclusion? What do you mean by "as a singularity"?

Then he simply let those laws do their thing. Everything from the expansion of the universe, to the formation of galaxies, to life coming from non-life, to life evolving to more complex life are all due to those original natural laws. It was not necessary for God to continue intervening for the universe to exist as it is today.

Perhaps. I don't know how much credence you put in scripture, - your obviously not a Christian or Jew - I'm presuming you're a deist of sorts by how you speak but Genesis clearly indicates different creative moments in time and therefore different points of interaction after the beginning of creation. So I lean towards Christianity religiously since it seems to generally align with current scientific discovery where scientific discovery is a factor.
I also think some amount of purposeful intervention is implied according to what we now know about the complexities involved in this creation.
For example:
The complexities of such structures as Cilia and flagella as arising through natural purposeless processes has still not been adequately explained to my knowledge.
Nor has the purposeless development of the complex specific information content contained within the DNA molecule, and the creation of the structure of the molecule itself an extremely low probability event if only natural unintentional processes are considered as shown by Stephen C. Meyer and others…
Quoted from same:
“So, what is the probability that DNA would naturally accumulate not only the Shannon information but also specified complexity information?
Physicist Ilya Prigogine and his colleagues calculated, "vanishingly small...even on the scale of...billions of years."
Stephen C. Meyer, PhD University of Cambridge calculated that for even a single functional protein or corresponding functional gene to happen by chance alone..."of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance alone in a prebiotic environment stands at no better than a "vanishing small" 1 chance in 10^164, an inconceivably small probability."”

And that’s just one protein. A single cell has hundreds of specialized proteins.

 

[setarcos]

Nope.
At least not until you start replying to what I actually post and not to your assumptions of what you think my posts mean.

No you won't answer civilly or?
How am I supposed to answer your posts if I don't answer them in accordance to what I think they mean?
Should I answer them according to what I think they don't mean?
You'll have to give me an example of what you actually posted that you think I incorrectly assumed what it meant and then tell me what you actually meant so I might be able to rectify my mistake.