I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[Thermos aquaticus]

I am getting even further behind, I can't catch up. So what I am going to do is this. You are the only one in this thread that is posting challenging responses. So what I am going to do is end my other debates in this thread and concentrate on you so I can find the time to sufficiently consider your claims.

So just hang on a bit until I can catch up and tell others that they can simply view our discussions if they want to follow the discussion. When I get caught up I will responding to your questions in detail. So, just hang on a bit.

You are the only one who decides how much time you want to commit to these threads, so fee free to respond as you like. I certainly won't judge you in any way if this is taking up too much of your time.

As a suggestion, you might want to look at several posts and see if you can't address them all in a more general post that tries to summarize your arguments.

 

[1robin]

The reason I focused in on "the" was because I was getting the impression you thought there was only one Christian view on the creation accounts and that it was a literalistic one.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes there are many interpretations of the Genesis creation passages.

Metis, I am getting so many replies at the moment I can't keep up. I would love to continue our discussion but I just don't have the time at the moment. However I have decided to continue my discussion with @Thermos aquaticus because they have posted the most challenging responses to me in this thread and if you want you can follow along with our discussion because your both making similar arguments.

 

[1robin]

You mean arbitrary terms like finches or dogs? How is mammal any less arbitrary than finches?

It isn't, all taxonomy terms are equally arbitrary.

You said that two breeding populations were finches, because you say so. How is that any different?

It isn't the terms I used were also arbitrary. However we must use labels to at least be able to know what the other person is talking about.

You are the one who said that a kind, according to the Bible, was a breeding population. I then showed that researchers directly observed the evolution of two breeding populations of birds on the Galapagos islands. You rejected that example because you arbitrarily grouped them as finches. Who is the one not using the biblical definition?

Yes, to be able to have a discussion we need to know what the other person is talking about so we need to know what the other person means when they use a specific term.

I have ended many of the other debates I have been having in order to have more time to concentrate on your claims. You have been trying to split hairs by using the examples you have provided which is fine. However if we are look into very detailed claims and definitions I need to go back and define exactly what the bible means by the term "kind". In other words I mentioned "breeding populations" as sort of a generalized definition to give a very course definition of what I was talking about but your referring to very exacting and details studies and examples which means I need to go back and formulate a much more detailed and exacting definition for "kind". Now that I have done what is necessary to gain myself some time I intend to (after a little research provide you with a much more detailed definition for the term kind. I will post it as soon as I satisfy myself exactly as to what the bible means by "kind". Then I plan to take your examples one at a time to see if they contradict what I believe the bible suggests about evolution.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It isn't, all taxonomy terms are equally arbitrary.



It isn't the terms I used were also arbitrary. However we must use labels to at least be able to know what the other person is talking about.



Yes, to be able to have a discussion we need to know what the other person is talking about so we need to know what the other person means when they use a specific term.

I have ended many of the other debates I have been having in order to have more time to concentrate on your claims. You have been trying to split hairs by using the examples you have provided which is fine. However if we are look into very detailed claims and definitions I need to go back and define exactly what the bible means by the term "kind". In other words I mentioned "breeding populations" as sort of a generalized definition to give a very course definition of what I was talking about but your referring to very exacting and details studies and examples which means I need to go back and formulate a much more detailed and exacting definition for "kind". Now that I have done what is necessary to gain myself some time I intend to (after a little research provide you with a much more detailed definition for the term kind. I will post it as soon as I satisfy myself exactly as to what the bible means by "kind". Then I plan to take your examples one at a time to see if they contradict what I believe the bible suggests about evolution.

Let's go back a few posts to 240:

Thermos aquaticus: There are different breeding populations of finches on the Galapagos, yet you claimed they were in the same kind. Therefore, that can't be one of your criteria. The only criteria I have seen you use is if you can use the same word to describe more than one species.

1robin: Yes they are the same kind, they are all finches.

Given our subsequent discussions I am sure that you can see the problems with this definition. Finches is an arbitrary grouping. Where humans draw lines between groups is largely an artifact of extinction, to be accurate. The only objective grouping we really have is gene pools, and even then there has to be a statistical definition of what separate gene pools are. Of course, we would expect this to be the case if evolution is true, but that probably takes us down a different road.

I will also add that biologists view this topic through a different lens than what you appear to be using. Biologists, and scientists in general, are interested in a much more pragmatic definition of species and not at all interested in an ideology or dogma with respect to species. The first thing that biologist's are interested in is how separate species have different genomes. What causes this to happen? From this question we get the biologists view of species. When there is a lack of genetic flow between two populations you get different mutations accumulating in each gene pool. It is the accumulation of these different mutations over time that causes species to be different from each other further down the road.

Within this biological definition of species, is it possible for different species to produce viable offspring? Absolutely, but that doesn't matter. The real question is DO they produce viable offspring. If not, then they are separate gene pools and they are accumulating different mutations over time. Biologists are much, much more interested in the effects that natural mechanism cause than some concrete, unbendable, universal definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It isn't, all taxonomy terms are equally arbitrary.



It isn't the terms I used were also arbitrary. However we must use labels to at least be able to know what the other person is talking about.



Yes, to be able to have a discussion we need to know what the other person is talking about so we need to know what the other person means when they use a specific term.

I have ended many of the other debates I have been having in order to have more time to concentrate on your claims. You have been trying to split hairs by using the examples you have provided which is fine. However if we are look into very detailed claims and definitions I need to go back and define exactly what the bible means by the term "kind". In other words I mentioned "breeding populations" as sort of a generalized definition to give a very course definition of what I was talking about but your referring to very exacting and details studies and examples which means I need to go back and formulate a much more detailed and exacting definition for "kind". Now that I have done what is necessary to gain myself some time I intend to (after a little research provide you with a much more detailed definition for the term kind. I will post it as soon as I satisfy myself exactly as to what the bible means by "kind". Then I plan to take your examples one at a time to see if they contradict what I believe the bible suggests about evolution.

One point. You keep claiming that terms are arbitrary but it appears that you cannot support that claim. You should try to find out why taxonomy is classified the way that it is. Since the current classification is based upon cladistics it is far from arbitrary.

Do you need some help on the concept? Here is a good primer:

Cladistics - Wikipedia

There are of course some basic assumptions involved. The question is does the evidence out there support cladistics and the answer is yes. In fact a serious violation of cladistics is one event that would refute the theory of evolution. So if you want to refute the theory of evolution understanding cladistics would be extremely helpful for you to understand this if you want to show that the theory is wrong.

 

[1robin]

One point. You keep claiming that terms are arbitrary but it appears that you cannot support that claim. You should try to find out why taxonomy is classified the way that it is. Since the current classification is based upon cladistics it is far from arbitrary.

Do you need some help on the concept? Here is a good primer:

Cladistics - Wikipedia

There are of course some basic assumptions involved. The question is does the evidence out there support cladistics and the answer is yes. In fact a serious violation of cladistics is one event that would refute the theory of evolution. So if you want to refute the theory of evolution understanding cladistics would be extremely helpful for you to understand this if you want to show that the theory is wrong.

Sorry, as I indicated in my last responses to you our discussion in this thread has been concluded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, as I indicated in my last responses to you our discussion in this thread has been concluded.

I am just here to correct your many errors. You can learn from your mistakes or continue to repeat them.

Or you could demonstrate that you are not afraid and try to ask some intelligent questions. Also you might start out by trying to learn what is and what is not evidence. I have yet to see a creationist that has a firm grasp on that topic. Most are too afraid to even begin to discuss the subject.

 

[1robin]

I am just here to correct your many errors. You can learn from your mistakes or continue to repeat them.

Or you could demonstrate that you are not afraid and try to ask some intelligent questions. Also you might start out by trying to learn what is and what is not evidence. I have yet to see a creationist that has a firm grasp on that topic. Most are too afraid to even begin to discuss the subject.

Again, for the moment we are done with this discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, for the moment we are done with this discussion.

If you run away every time you hit a snag you will never learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Both are wrong! Macroevolution is a fairy tale for post-puberty people and the WT teaches heresy,

You are demonstrably wrong about at least one of your claims. Do you think that you can figure out which one?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Both are wrong! Macroevolution is a fairy tale for post-puberty people and the WT teaches heresy,

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

 

[gnostic]

Now this is deceptive, saying "lawyers" are behind it, as if there are no scientists supporting it!

I wouldn’t know about lawyers, but most of the senior members are journalists, economists and politicians, who have no background in science, including the two cofounders of Discovery Institute, Bruce Chapman and George Gilder.

The only lawyers I found at DI, are Phillip E. Johnson and Wesley J. Smith.

Edward J. Larson has a law degree, but I don’t think Larson is with the bar, so he isn’t really a lawyer.

There are lot of journalists and politicians who are seniors of Discovery Institute, and only a couple of scientists, but none of them have submitted any scientific papers on Intelligent Design for peer review. And Discovery Institute isn’t a scientific organisation and Intelligent Design isn’t science.

 

[Bird123]

I've recently committed to rejoining my family's religion (the Jehovah's Witnesses). In doing so I'm obligated to give up my belief in evolution. This is hard for me because I find evolution so logical.

To combat my resistance to rejecting evolution, I've been researching all the objections to evolution and studying all the arguments for creation. It's not working. I can't seem to give up my belief in evolution, despite the fact that it goes against Jehovah's Witness theology.

What should i do?

How do I manipulate my logical facilities so that I can genuinely reject evolution and genuinely accept creation?

How about this: Creation is Reality, however Evolution is part of that Creation. God created the world to unfold in such a way that mankind would, in time, be able to figure it all out. It's like a seed grows into a giant tree.

Early mankind could understand no more than Poof-It's created. Surely, mankind must advance beyond the early mankind.

Science corrects for errors. Religion does not. AS I see it. given enough time, this will make religion obsolete.

Finally, God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than any one person could have. Everyone in your religion does not believe everything in your religion. Beliefs are never black and white. Grey exists all around.

Maybe this will be the opportunity for you to share your ideas with that group. If they get angry and hate, teach them Unconditional Love.

 

[Polymath257]

*** Moderation Post ***

Please be reminded of Rules 1 and 3:

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.

I've seen a number of possible violations in this thread. If it continues, it is likely this thread will be locked.

 

[Ratlover47]

I

I've recently committed to rejoining my family's religion (the Jehovah's Witnesses). In doing so I'm obligated to give up my belief in evolution. This is hard for me because I find evolution so logical.

To combat my resistance to rejecting evolution, I've been researching all the objections to evolution and studying all the arguments for creation. It's not working. I can't seem to give up my belief in evolution, despite the fact that it goes against Jehovah's Witness theology.

What should i do?

How do I manipulate my logical facilities so that I can genuinely reject evolution and genuinely accept creation?

have a neighbor who is a Jehovah witness and as a result it has cut her off from family functions and her grandchildren birthday's. Did Jesus celebrate his birthday who knows and why would that be in the bible? so unimportant yet it split families. you must do what you feel but Jesus never preached giving up family and enjoying a wedding etc. I go by the saying in today's worlds faith is good and needed but religion is useless except to separate us from each other. I don't think that is what Jesus wanted/

 

[1robin]

You are the only one who decides how much time you want to commit to these threads, so fee free to respond as you like. I certainly won't judge you in any way if this is taking up too much of your time.

As a suggestion, you might want to look at several posts and see if you can't address them all in a more general post that tries to summarize your arguments.

Sorry, my health is not what wish at the moment. I have been away for a week or two. I no longer can see alerts to your posts from over 3 days ago. So I have decided to pick up our discussion at this point but if you want me to respond to older posts of yours I need you to give me those specific post numbers. I appreciate your being patient with me.

 

[1robin]

First of all, you had time to respond to what I had posted so why didn't you have the time to even take a brief look at the link I posted?

Sorry my health has been pretty bad lately so I have been away for a while. It wasn't any specific post that I lacked the time to respond to. It was a whole discussion that was taking up my time. So while I had the time to respond to a single post I did not have time to carry on with every discussion I was engaged in.

Secondly, the above deals with "speciatation", which is a very slow process, relatively speaking. For an example, it's not like there was an early version of the horse, which was about the size of a current medium-sized dog with five toes, suddenly gave birth to a draft horse with hooves. Instead, that process took millions of years, obviously with stages in between.

I do not care what specific taxonomy term you wish to slap on any biological event you choose. I am defending what the bible states. You are right that evolution from one breeding population into another takes a long time if it even a occurs. That is exactly why I stated that it has never been observed. So we are in exactly the same position at this point as where I started. No one has ever observed anything that violates what the bible claimed 3000 years ago concerning biology.

Again, the evolution of life is just plain old common sense as all material items appear to change over time, and genes are material items. If you are right and I am wrong, then we should expect that geneticists would agree with you and not I, but the opposite is true.

I did not suggest anything that contradicts the evolution of life. I specifically said the bible affirms the existence of evolution, microevolution, but not macroevolution.

BTW, you didn't respond to my question that I asked you in my last post, so maybe revisit that and explain why you chose the word "the".

Can you restate that specific question or provide the post number where you asked it?

 

[1robin]

If you run away every time you hit a snag you will never learn.

What the heck are you talking about? It is very simple, I recently have lacked the time to continue all the discussions I was engaged in so I had to cull my nuts to have the time to carry on the more challenging discussions of which you were not one. However at the moment I have a little time on my hands so fire at will. You have had weeks to find at least one example which would prove my claims wrong. Where is it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@1robin evolution has been observed. The problem is that you have a false and artificially limited definition of "observed". By your standards your fingernails do not grow since you have never observed them growing.

In the sciences ideas are tested. And questions are asked and answered. One usually tests an idea by what one should observe if it was true, and even more important what one should observe if it was false. That is how an idea is tested. What we should see if evolution is correct would be a fossil record that clearly supports it. One key idea of evolution is that of nested hierarchies and we should see those everywhere, which is exactly what we see.

If creationism is true what should we see? More important what possible observation would refute the idea? A serious violation of nested hierarchies could falsify the theory of evolution. A fossil severely out of date could refute evolution. What reasonable test would refute creationism? If you can't think of one then your belief is merely religious and not based upon reality at all.

You probably believe the flood myth, and that is even easier to refute.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What the heck are you talking about? It is very simple, I recently have lacked the time to continue all the discussions I was engaged in so I had to cull my nuts to have the time to carry on the more challenging discussions of which you were not one. However at the moment I have a little time on my hands so fire at will. You have had weeks to find at least one example which would prove my claims wrong. Where is it?

That is fine. If health problem keep you from responding that is reasonable, but it appeared that you were simply refusing to learn from the posts that have been given to you here.


We could go over each idea and see what they predict and what we observe.