What's the Deal with Evolution?

[tas8831]

Everything from DNA to black holes. To suppose any of it was accidental is absolutely absurd.

Almost as absurd as relying on fallacious arguments.

 

[tas8831]

DNA is far more complex than the computer you are using. It's like a computer code for your genes, and we still can't really understand it. Imagine a code that can be read backwards forwards and sideways and still makes sense and maybe you start to get a glimpse of it. But that's just the tip of the iceberg, it seems that the deeper we go the less we understand.

Still can't understand it? Weird - last fall semester I taught Genetics, We understand a lot of it. In graduate school, we had a 2 semester genetics class that relied on the use of a 4 volume set of textbooks.

When you say "we still can't really understand it", I do have to wonder you you are referring to.

 

[tas8831]

Pot and kettle.

Plagiarist says what?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes testimonies from people who became atheist due to evolution (Richard dawkins would be an example)

Very sad. And it shows flawed reasoning. Evolution does not disprove God at all.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sorry I’ve been late to reply....

Not sure what this passage has to do with Hebrews 11:1? Romans 1:20 is actually saying, even if they don't have faith, reason alone should be able to convince even the unfaithful that God exists, because just look at the fact of creation? He is making the case that even without faith, they are without excuse because their own eyes should convince them of the reality of God. But that's not faith.....

You’re right, it’s not faith. But it’s the evidence, that faith is based on.


I’m sure you keep in mind, that science is always looking for a materialistic / naturalistic answer (since they claim they can’t test for an Intelligent Designer). So IMO, while I agree that Jehovah God structured the physical universe and it all operates and is explained according to the Laws He established, some of science’s interpretation of the data will just not harmonize w/ the way that a Designer would do it. Because a Designer is needed.

For example, the Earth again... science knows that gravity alone will not set into a stable orbit, the mass of a planet. There are no physical mechanisms for such. So science, wedded to naturalism & desperate to avoid a designer, has to explain it by naturalistic means....it’s a major question that can’t just be ‘pushed under the rug.’

But the explanation is ridiculous! ...

Briefly:
Dust & debris ‘solidify’ through accretion, w/ heavier elements pulled to the center...first off, how does that work, w/ gravity from the Sun exerting it’s force? Was the gravitational pull from the Sun, somehow suspended?


Eventually, I think you’ll come to the same conclusion I did: undirected materialism can’t explain interacting, purposeful design on the scale we observe. And it’s everywhere.



Take care, my cousin.

 

[Muffled]

No theory is proven. That seems to be a basic point that many do no understand. No religion is proven either.

I believe I can have a lot more confidence in God who know everything than I have in scientists who do not know near as much.

 

[Muffled]

What is the evidence being used and how does it demonstrate creation? How are the probabilities calculated?

From what I have seen at a cursory level is the idea of interdependencies. I suppose the idea is that it seems exceptionally unlikely that they could happen by accident.

 

[Muffled]

Scientist do not think that. Are there more recent and better examples to support your claim about science. Remember it was using science that got the doctors to stop bleeding people to get rid of the bad humors.

The Bible says the life is in the blood. If they had listened to God they wouldn't have made that mistake but science does catch up to God eventually a little bit.

 

[Justanatheist]

I believe I can have a lot more confidence in God who know everything than I have in scientists who do not know near as much.

I would survive about 28 days in a world without science. That is how long it would take for the tablets which keep me a live to run out.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe I can have a lot more confidence in God who know everything than I have in scientists who do not know near as much.

The thing is, the purpose of the Bible is not to reveal scientific truths. If I want to know detailed information about the nature of the universe, I go to a science book. If I want to know about how to live my life, I go to the Torah, or bible in yur case.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe I can have a lot more confidence in God who know everything than I have in scientists who do not know near as much.

I have confidence in God and he gifted many with striking intellectual abilities and a thirst for knowledge. I am confident God wants us to look at His creation and understand it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

From what I have seen at a cursory level is the idea of interdependencies. I suppose the idea is that it seems exceptionally unlikely that they could happen by accident.

Some people have that idea, but what evidence that is based on seems to be more of personal want than anything objective.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible says the life is in the blood. If they had listened to God they wouldn't have made that mistake but science does catch up to God eventually a little bit.

I am sure there are a lot of interpretations to what that may mean. But the thing with science is that it needs objective evidence and observation of the natural to describe, explain and understand. Someone's claim about knowledge received from God is untestable and, unfortunately, unusable in that context.

How is any scientist able to validate a claim of revelation and apply the information of that claim? After all, anyone can make a claim about God and not every one of them is going to be correct.

 

[Magical Wand]

Disclaimer: I could myself be considered a kind of creationist, so I'm not here to rag on them!

But what is with this mostly Christian obsession (although I have seen it in the Muslim world too) with the theory of evolution? Aren't there better things to wrangle about? Healthier things to focus on?

That's so true! Agree completely.

 

[Jose Fly]

The obsession is, IMO, driven by two main factors.

First, the fundamental conflict between evolutionary theory saying that humans share a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates, and holy books (Bible, Quran) saying that humans are separate, unique creations of God. At a basic level, those two are mutually exclusive.

Second, there is (and has been) an industry of creationist organizations that make millions upon millions of dollars producing anti-evolution material for people who subscribe to the framework described above. Much of this material is presented as not only genuinely scientific, but also a slam-dunk, can't miss, irrefutable case against evolutionary biology.

So those two together create a situation where you have people who sincerely believe that evolution directly contradicts and undermines their faith, and they are equipped with what seems to be very good talking points, arguments, websites, and even professional-looking papers that they've been told no "evolutionist" can counter.

Of course it all hits the fan when they 1) encounter people from their own faith who don't subscribe to the framework described above, and/or 2) try and use the creationist material around people who actually know the science.

 

[metis]

Second, there is (and has been) an industry of creationist organizations that make millions upon millions of dollars producing anti-evolution material for people who subscribe to the framework described above. Much of this material is presented as not only genuinely scientific, but also a slam-dunk, can't miss, irrefutable case against evolutionary biology.

And this is very much likely, imo, because some of their "facts" can all so easily be proven wrong, which begs the question as to whether they actually believe in the nonsense that they publish or is it all about the "almighty $".

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think you're just avoiding the obvious. We apply this reasoning to other branches of science, but somehow Evolution gets a pass.

What branch(es) of science say that complex things must be designed?

In actuality, simplicity is the hallmark of design, not complexity.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Being similar biologically doesn't prove evolution.
And it matters because being spiritual beings separates us from animals.

Oh okay. So the DNA you share with your parents, siblings, and cousins does not demonstrate that you're all related to varying degrees?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Go get some DNA from an ape and send it to ancestor.com then. See if it's related to George Washington.

Okay ...

Comparing Chimp, Bonobo and Human DNA | AMNH
Genetics
New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level
Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives
The bonobo genome compared with the chimpanzee and human genomes | Nature

Hmm, turns out they're closely related.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lol, it's still full of assumptions.


The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted. F.M. Wuketits, an evolution theorist, writes:“We pre-suppose the essential correctness of biological evolution, yes, we assume that evolution is universally valid.”

Another assumption: One should not drag in a creator (or synonyms such as designer, planning spirit, or “demiurge”). Ernest Kahane, a French molecular biologist, formulates it as follows: “It is absurd and absolutely preposterous to believe that a living cell could come into existence by itself; but, notwithstanding, I do believe it, because I cannot imagine anything else.”

Mutation and selection are the driving forces of evolution” (K. Lorenz).
If there were only one single example (experiment or observation) of the origin of a new kind of organism or a new structure, then this would have been a derived theory. The mechanisms, mutation and selection, do occur, and the appearance of a new kind would imply new genetic information. Because of the lack of any evidence of new genetic information, it remains an assumption.

You're supposed to reference the site you took this material from, lest anyone thing you wrote it yourself.

1.2 The Basic Assumptions of Evolution