I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[Subduction Zone]

In general I think it suggests that evolution has limits and that common descent is untrue.

Okay, a literal interpretation of the Bible suggest this. That only means that a literal interpretation is wrong, not that God does not exist.

True, they actually do not contradict microevolution. However they do suggest that it has limits on the macroevolution scale. Let me clarify this again.

1. Both I and the bible suggests that microevolution within "kinds" occurs. This is all that has ever been observed.
2. Both I and the bible suggest that evolution has limits. This is also the only thing that has ever been observed.

You can't even define "kinds" that makes the claim rather worthless. And no, we can observe macro-evolution in several different ways. This is why you need to go over the basics of science first so that you can understand how #1 is wrong. And with #2 you put the burden of proof upon yourself. No one has observed a limit to evolution that I am aware of.

Your refreshingly reasonable. I agree with everything you said except for the common descent stuff.

In other words you may be making an error in interpreting the Bible literally. You do realize that we know other parts of the Bible are clearly wrong if interpreted literally, the Flood of Noah is one clear cut example.

Not interpreting Genesis literally does not mean that you can't be a Christian.

 

[metis]

I don't care whether you think it is convenient or inconvenient it is still just as true. After I respond to this post our discussion in this thread will be concluded. See post #542.

Once again your trying to confuse the burdens concerning our individual arguments come with.

1. I hold both the faith and the negative position. Those claims are valid unless you supply a defeater.
2. You hold the scientific and positive position. Your burden is to provide the defeater mentioned above.

Why is the subgroup "Christian theologian" relevant?

I do not have any problem with "micro-evolution" either. I only have a problem with common descent.

Cop-out-- but I knew you would because there simply is not one shred of evidence to support your claim, and then you can't even bring yourself to admit it, instead trying to deflect this all back to me when it was you who made the claim that micro cannot go as far as micro. It's a weakness that you can't even admit that, instead using a disingenuous tactic.

 

[exchemist]

In general I think it suggests that evolution has limits and that common descent is untrue.

True, they actually do not contradict microevolution. However they do suggest that it has limits on the macroevolution scale. Let me clarify this again.

1. Both I and the bible suggests that microevolution within "kinds" occurs. This is all that has ever been observed.
2. Both I and the bible suggest that evolution has limits. This is also the only thing that has ever been observed.

Your refreshingly reasonable. I agree with everything you said except for the common descent stuff.

I don't see how you get the idea of "limits" out of the bible. Where does the bible talk - at all - about whether or not created life can change its form?

It seems to me to be silent about that. In which case I can't see why anyone would think it excludes evolution of later species from earlier ones. Where in the bible do you think you see such an exclusion?

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

Simple in concept, impossible in practice......You would need a "theory of Creation" that would encompass roughly 200 years of accumulated evidence without doing damage to any of it. That is the underpinnings of evolution. Simply use the evidence available (no cherry-picking). Good luck.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Simple in concept, impossible in practice......You would need a "theory of Creation" that would encompass roughly 200 years of accumulated evidence without doing damage to any of it. That is the underpinnings of evolution. Simply use the evidence available (no cherry-picking). Good luck.

Off the top of my head, a theory of creation would need to explain:

1. The geographic distribution of species.

2. The temporal distribution of fossil species in the geologic record.

3. The correlation between the independent phylogenies of morphology and genetics.

4. Differences in sequence divergence between exons and introns between species within the same gene.

5. Distribution of orthologous endogenous retroviruses in primate species.

These are just a few off the top of my head, and I have yet to see a creationist satisfactorily explain any of them

 

[Audie]

Off the top of my head, a theory of creation would need to explain:

1. The geographic distribution of species.

2. The temporal distribution of fossil species in the geologic record.

3. The correlation between the independent phylogenies of morphology and genetics.

4. Differences in sequence divergence between exons and introns between species within the same gene.

5. Distribution of orthologous endogenous retroviruses in primate species.

These are just a few off the top of my head, and I have yet to see a creationist satisfactorily explain any of them

Oh, they are all explained.

Take the one in bold: Hydrostatic sorting.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Oh, they are all explained.

Take the one in bold: Hydrostatic sorting.

I have yet to see any creationist demonstrate that hydrostatic sorting would produce the fossil record we observe.

 

[1robin]

Eh? How are you managing to reply to them, then?

Because I copied and pasted my response to all their recent posts. Please don't start debating by proxy or I will have to bring our discussion to an end as well.

 

[Audie]

I have yet to see any creationist demonstrate that hydrostatic sorting would produce the fossil record we observe.

Or any of their other ideas

 

[1robin]

I don't see how you get the idea of "limits" out of the bible. Where does the bible talk - at all - about whether or not created life can change its form?

I know I posted some of the scriptures in question to another poster and I thought I provided them for you as well. I guess I will do so again.

New International Version
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21
God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
17 Bible verses about Living Things

Now from these and many others we can easily draw two conclusions. God created at least the archetype creatures within each biblical "kind' and it suggests that evolution has a limit. So you would need to counter them by showing that one "kind" of creature evolved into another.

It seems to me to be silent about that. In which case I can't see why anyone would think it excludes evolution of later species from earlier ones. Where in the bible do you think you see such an exclusion?

The bible contains the most profound 750,000 words ever written and even people who study it their whole lives find surprises in it from time to time. It is the most scrutinized book in human history (at least 3000 years) and new things are still discovered. Could it be that your biblical knowledge is incomplete?

 

[metis]

"Allegory", and even before we knew anything about evolution, the Jewish scholar Maimonides recognized that there is quite a bit of allegory found especially in the first dozen chapters of Genesis. Taken one verse at a time, the creation accounts (yes, there are two of them that have a slightly different order) don't match what we perceive with the emergence of our universe.

One of them would be who was there to see it happen? Not Abraham. Not Moshe. And as old-- er, mean mature-- as I am, even I wasn't there.

 

[Audie]

I know I posted some of the scriptures in question to another poster and I thought I provided them for you as well. I guess I will do so again.

New International Version
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21
God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
17 Bible verses about Living Things

Now from these and many others we can easily draw two conclusions. God created at least the archetype creatures within each biblical "kind' and it suggests that evolution has a limit. So you would need to counter them by showing that one "kind" of creature evolved into another.


The bible contains the most profound 750,000 words ever written and even people who study it their whole lives find surprises in it from time to time. It is the most scrutinized book in human history (at least 3000 years) and new things are still discovered. Could it be that your biblical knowledge is incomplete?

Would you say that the wild and the domestic camel
are different kinds?

 

[1robin]

Cop-out-- but I knew you would because there simply is not one shred of evidence to support your claim, and then you can't even bring yourself to admit it, instead trying to deflect this all back to me when it was you who made the claim that micro cannot go as far as micro.

How many commas did you use? Ever heard of a (period). This is just more color commentary and an intellectual punk.

It's a weakness that you can't even admit that, instead using a disingenuous tactic.

Of course I won't admit it, I don't even know what your talking about. You must be a stranger to professional philosophical debate, the burdens concerning our respective positions is inescapably factual.

 

[1robin]

I don't see how you get the idea of "limits" out of the bible. Where does the bible talk - at all - about whether or not created life can change its form?

I supplied at least 2 scriptures in a very recent post to you. Are you still confused.

It seems to me to be silent about that. In which case I can't see why anyone would think it excludes evolution of later species from earlier ones. Where in the bible do you think you see such an exclusion?

I swear your asking identical questions in various posts. I believe I answered what your asking in the last response I posted to you. Which of these questions do you still want responses to?

 

[Audie]

I supplied at least 2 scriptures in a very recent post to you. Are you still confused.

I swear your asking identical questions in various posts. I believe I answered what your asking in the last response I posted to you. Which of these questions do you still want responses to?

How many commas did you use? Ever heard of a (period).

respective positions is

Gracious, the things a would-be grammar Nazi will post!

 

[exchemist]

I supplied at least 2 scriptures in a very recent post to you. Are you still confused.

I swear your asking identical questions in various posts. I believe I answered what your asking in the last response I posted to you. Which of these questions do you still want responses to?

No, it's you that has got in a muddle and replied twice to the same post of mine (no. 623).

 

[exchemist]

I know I posted some of the scriptures in question to another poster and I thought I provided them for you as well. I guess I will do so again.

New International Version
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21
God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
17 Bible verses about Living Things

Now from these and many others we can easily draw two conclusions. God created at least the archetype creatures within each biblical "kind' and it suggests that evolution has a limit. So you would need to counter them by showing that one "kind" of creature evolved into another.


The bible contains the most profound 750,000 words ever written and even people who study it their whole lives find surprises in it from time to time. It is the most scrutinized book in human history (at least 3000 years) and new things are still discovered. Could it be that your biblical knowledge is incomplete?

But it doesn't say how God created all these creatures, except that He gave the command: "Let the waters be alive........ let the earth produce (or bring forth)......."etc. So the process by which creation took place would seem to be one of the waters and the earth producing all these different types of creature.

It seems to me this is entirely consistent with both the theory of evolution and the scientific idea of abiogenesis from the inorganic chemistry of the early Earth.

Do you object to construing Genesis in such a way?

 

[metis]

How many commas did you use? Ever heard of a (period).

Wow, what a slam! I feel so bad that I didn't meet your high standards on English usage.

This is just more color commentary and an intellectual punk.

OK, so now I'm a "punk". Does your church teach you that this kind of name-calling is right and proper? Heck, when I grew up this kind of behavior was considered wrong, but I guess we grew up in different circles.

Of course I won't admit it, I don't even know what your talking about. You must be a stranger to professional philosophical debate, the burdens concerning our respective positions is inescapably factual.

Again, your utter dishonesty is showing because I have repeatedly asked you for evidence that micro somehow miraculously stops before macro, and then you come back repeatedly saying you don't have the time to do that and yet you had time for these slams.

So, where is your "factual" scientific evidence? Maybe quote some geneticists on this instead of just deflecting again. This is probably around the sixth or so time I've asked this specific question of you, but you never answer it, always finding an excuse or resorting to deflecting.

So, why don't you try and do that this time instead of focusing in on my use of commas and your use of name-calling?

 

[1robin]

Would you say that the wild and the domestic camel
are different kinds?

I think I know what your driving at and I think there are two reasons why this won't work but your welcome to try. For my part I think these camels would be two different kinds of animals at least if it's the two types of camels I think your referring to.

 

[Audie]

I think I know what your driving at and I think there are two reasons why this won't work but your welcome to try. For my part I think these camels would be two different kinds of animals at least if it's the two types of camels I think your referring to.

There are 2 domestic old world camel species.

Genetically identical to their wild cousins.