What's the Deal with Evolution?

[Wildswanderer]

So no true Christian considers the story to be allegory? None of that stuff about accepting Christ as their savior counts for anything otherwise?

Even if it was allegorical, God is still the creator.
And if it's allegorical, what is it an allegory for?

 

[ratiocinator]

But it does explain everything that's important. A being with no limits who cares about each individual person changes the worldview dramatically from: " I'm just another animal."

Changing a person's "worldview" isn't the same as an explanation. If you convince yourself of any fantasy that makes you feel important, it will change your "worldview"...

 

[Wildswanderer]

Can you show us all where the theory of evolution is not subjected to repeatable testing and is not "real science". You say it with authority, so it should be easy peasy cake for you to show us and explain it all away.

What is done is to take finds and plug them into an already assumed framework. If you take the same find and put it in another model, you don't come up with molecules to man evolution.
A few bone fragments are assumed to be a ancestor of man for example, because they are found in a certain strata assumed to be a certain age, which is assumed to fit into the theory.
Taken at face value, it is just a man with slightly different bone structure.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Animals have no rights according to you. We can beat a dog at our leisure because it is a chunk of meat without feeling.

Now you're just making stuff up...we should treat all of God's creation with respect. But yes, eating meat is perfectly permissible.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Wouldn't there be the relationship of being Created by God? Do you think God wants us to feel free to torture the squirrels wantonly if we choose because they are not one of us?

No, but they do not have the same value as humans.
Having dominion over the animals means we have a responsibility to manage them properly.
We don't kill for no reason. But for population control, meat, fur, ECT.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Human beings are apes.

In your fantasy world perhaps.

 

[ratiocinator]

What is done is to take finds and plug them into an already assumed framework. If you take the same find and put it in another model, you don't come up with molecules to man evolution.
A few bone fragments are assumed to be a ancestor of man for example, because they are found in a certain strata assumed to be a certain age, which is assumed to fit into the theory.

Sorry, but whoever told you this either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying. This is simply not how the science of evolution and its evidence is done at all. Go and look at any reputable source and get some sort of basic introduction, if only to "know your enemy".

There are multiple lines of evidence that confirm each other; the most recent and spectacular being genetics which confirmed so much of what had already been deduced from other evidence and added far more.

There are also multiple ways of dating samples that also confirm each other.

 

[ratiocinator]

In your fantasy world perhaps.

It's a simple, biological fact: Human - Wikipedia

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae (Great apes)
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And yet, billions of Hindus believe we live in mara, an illusion. Some people believe in the simulation hypothesis. And all theists, by definition, believe in magic.

I submit that they might say that, but they don't act like that. Or at least not for the most part.

Even if they really think it's an illusion, then it's the type of illusion that seems very real.
Nevertheless, they still -for the most mundane of activities- they must assume this universe / illusion is orderly, consistent, knowable, etc.

When they take a zip of water, they don't assume it might suddenly transform into cobra poison.
They assume it is water and stays water and will lessen their thirst.

 

[Heyo]

I submit that they might say that, but they don't act like that. Or at least not for the most part.

Even if they really think it's an illusion, then it's the type of illusion that seems very real.
Nevertheless, they still -for the most mundane of activities- they must assume this universe / illusion is orderly, consistent, knowable, etc.

When they take a zip of water, they don't assume it might suddenly transform into cobra poison.
They assume it is water and stays water and will lessen their thirst.

And they will find an excuse for doing so and believing in something else instead. We have to respect that we can't deduce their inner state of mind and take their word for it lest we risk they tell us we believe in a god.
(And the belief in magic is obvious in some. E.g. they state every day that Trump really is the Prez and believe that repeating that often enough will make it so.)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Such a kingdom has always been in existence. It's not new. We have long ruled over the animal kinds.

So you claim, yet you do not seem to be able to define it objectively.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now you're just making stuff up...we should treat all of God's creation with respect. But yes, eating meat is perfectly permissible.

No. That is what you implied. You implied animals have no rights and you attributed it to Darwin. You say it, but cannot seem to back it up. So far, your record on this is 100%.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Who said anything about no rules?
One follows from the other. Science cannot explain why matter exists, except it matter seems to come from energy. God provides the energy.
And then the life energy, also from himself.

That is just claims. If you know it so well, you should be able to explain it. And without just making more claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, homo sapiens don't have all the same DNA as apes.

According to science they do and there is the evidence in science to support that. I thought you were an expert in these things.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

More like you can't explain why the scientific exist laws that result in the possibility of creating such a machine

Can you repeat that without channeling Yoda?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Even if it was allegorical, God is still the creator.
And if it's allegorical, what is it an allegory for?

So a Christian doesn't have to believe that Genesis is a history lesson of events that occurred as written? Thank you for the confirmation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is done is to take finds and plug them into an already assumed framework. If you take the same find and put it in another model, you don't come up with molecules to man evolution.
A few bone fragments are assumed to be a ancestor of man for example, because they are found in a certain strata assumed to be a certain age, which is assumed to fit into the theory.
Taken at face value, it is just a man with slightly different bone structure.

Yet, you cannot demonstrate even one of these other models. Why do you think that is. And the theory of evolution is not a theory of molecules to man. That is a false conflation perpetuated endlessly by people that do not understand the science, but deny it all the same.

If the study of fossil remains were as trivial as you are fallaciously portraying it, your criticism might be true. But sadly you have failed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, but they do not have the same value as humans.
Having dominion over the animals means we have a responsibility to manage them properly.
We don't kill for no reason. But for population control, meat, fur, ECT.

Even though I generally agree with this, you are moving the goal posts from your previous claims. I did not see that coming.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now you're just making stuff up...we should treat all of God's creation with respect. But yes, eating meat is perfectly permissible.

There is a big difference between eating meat and what you implied before where it was all out carnage if we decided to go that way. And no, it does not arise out of the work of Darwin and the scientists that followed.

You claim a lot, but show nothing to back it up but more claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Even if it was allegorical, God is still the creator.
And if it's allegorical, what is it an allegory for?

Basically, all I have gotten is that you have chosen a belief, interpret it your way, deny science and make claims you do not have the ability to support.