What's the Deal with Evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm saying anything we see that functions like a map/ machine/ computer would have to be created. You would not suppose your smartphone was the result of random chance, and it's a lot less complicated design than the codes in your DNA.

I would say my smart phone is designed, because I have been educated on the history of the inventions of the telephone and computer. These had human designers that I can read about and see evidence for.

I grew up with these technologies. They did not magically appear in my home or hand. I remember the phone man installing a telephone in our house as a boy. I have not, in all my journeys, found natural forms of smart phones growing in the forest or rock formations. I do not expect to find them in that manner.

Aren't you just repeating that if something is complex it is therefore designed? What I want to know is the evidence and logic you come to reason that as the conclusion. We are no closer to that mark.

 

[Windwalker]

The way a see it,

There are both arguments for and against the existence of God, the truth of evolution counts as a “weak argument” against God which means that it makes you make a small step towards atheism.

I didn’t meant to imply that evolution forces you to become an atheist, just that it makes you make a tiny step towards atheism.

Why would it be any step at all away from God, small or otherwise? Why does evolution threaten the faith of certain Christians, while for other Christians they don't seem to see it as any argument against God, weak or otherwise. It doesn't seem that evolution is variable here, but the nature of their faith itself is. Is it a weak faith that sees it as a threat against belief in God?

 

[Windwalker]

In other words, if the earth would have been 6,000 years old with complex animals and humans since the beginning theism would be more likely to be true

Why? Do you mean theism is by definition only magical, and not connected with the natural world and natural processes? Didn't God create the natural world and all it's laws, or was that some other being? Where did the processes of evolution come from then? Is there two Gods, God and Nature, or are they ultimately one and the same, and separating them is strictly an issue of perception?

 

[leroy]

I've never once seem a creationist point out any flaws. All we tend to get is endless repetition of the same misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and falsehoods. People misrepresenting science and refusing to learn anything can indeed be rather irritating.
elf.

Really, from my experience when a YEC shows examples of say fossils that are not supposed to be there (land animals that predate tiktaalik for example) atheist tend to react with passion and favor.

They don’t say, “hey sure that is just a small nail in the coffin, “ but we wont drop the whole theory of evolution just because you found something unexpected

 

[leroy]

So you are basing this on hearsay and not taking personal bias into account?

What other option do I have? I don’t have sources other from my experience , I am willing to change my opinion if you provide sources or arguments against it.

 

[leroy]

Why would it be any step at all away from God, small or otherwise? Why does evolution threaten the faith of certain Christians, while for other Christians they don't seem to see it as any argument against God, weak or otherwise. It doesn't seem that evolution is variable here, but the nature of their faith itself is. Is it a weak faith that sees it as a threat against belief in God?

Speaking for myself, because this “weak argument” can easily be trumped by the arguments for the existence of God.

But evolution does imply that we are here do to a chaotic and indirect process, at least intrusively this is not what we would expect from a perfect being

 

[Wildswanderer]

If it's true of us, then it clearly is true of animals, as humans are an animal species

Not biblically.
Common biological forms just means we have a common Creator.
The Bible teaches the three parts of man – body, spirit and soul – in 1 Thessalonians 5:28.

Nowhere does the Bible speak of animals being saved or going to heaven. Solomon indicates that the soul of Man rises but animals return to the Earth.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Aren't you just repeating that if something is complex it is therefore designed? What I want to know is the evidence and logic you come to reason that as the conclusion. We are no closer to that mark.

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

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

I am just asking questions about your claim. I am avoiding nothing. What reasoning are you claiming for other branches of science that evolution gets a pass on? I have yet to see your reasoning. Hence my questions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What other option do I have? I don’t have sources other from my experience , I am willing to change my opinion if you provide sources or arguments against it.

But your experience can simply be ignored as too little or biased. One can always find a more experienced person with a different opinion. Experience is a start, but what you seek to do requires effort and data.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Really, from my experience when a YEC shows examples of say fossils that are not supposed to be there (land animals that predate tiktaalik for example) atheist tend to react with passion and favor.

They don’t say, “hey sure that is just a small nail in the coffin, “ but we wont drop the whole theory of evolution just because you found something unexpected

I am unfamiliar with these fossils you speak of. I am also unaware that tiktaalik is claimed to be the first tetrapods and no others preceded it or existed concurrently.

Your example doesn't even sound like a nail.

 

[leroy]

But your experience can simply be ignored as too little or biased. One can always find a more experienced person with a different opinion. Experience is a start, but what you seek to do requires effort and data.

then ignore it.

I was asked to give my opinion in the OP and I did that

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Speaking for myself, because this “weak argument” can easily be trumped by the arguments for the existence of God.

But evolution does imply that we are here do to a chaotic and indirect process, at least intrusively this is not what we would expect from a perfect being

I am having trouble understanding how the theory of evolution can be trumped by arguments for the existence of God. Where in the theory does it say anything about a reliance of the absence of God in order for the theory to explain or predict? Where in the theory does it say anything about any deity? That said, how would an argument for the existence of God have any impact on this theory?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

then ignore it.

I was asked to give my opinion in the OP and I did that

No need to get testy. I have simply been asking you questions about your claims. In making claims it is implied that you know the basis for those claims. I would like to know that basis too.

 

[leroy]

I am unfamiliar with these fossils you speak of. I am also unaware that tiktaalik is claimed to be the first tetrapods and no others preceded it or existed concurrently.

Your example doesn't even sound like a nail.

my dates are just aproximations

1 evolutionists cliam that land animals (fishapods) evovled 490My ago

2 the confirmed this prediction by finding a fishapod (tiktaalik) that was 490My old

3 then scientisst founda fully land animal that predates tiktaalik by 15M years.

that counts like a nail to me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

my dates are just aproximations

1 evolutionists cliam that land animals (fishapods) evovled 490My ago

2 the confirmed this prediction by finding a fishapod (tiktaalik) that was 490My old

3 then scientisst founda fully land animal that predates tiktaalik by 15M years.

that counts like a nail to me.

Are you sure about those dates?

Is this a nail or just an earlier example? Predicting a range for finding tetrapod ancestors does not mean the one that is found is the earliest to exist. It does not mean that there cannot be older examples. Finding an earlier lobe-finned fish is not a nail in the coffin for the theory. Doesn't that seem a little presumptuous and hasty?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

my dates are just aproximations

1 evolutionists cliam that land animals (fishapods) evovled 490My ago

2 the confirmed this prediction by finding a fishapod (tiktaalik) that was 490My old

3 then scientisst founda fully land animal that predates tiktaalik by 15M years.

that counts like a nail to me.

You wouldn't happen to have some references for this would you?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Thank you, @Heyo , for getting my attention. I’ve had some responsibilities to attend to...

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?

Aren't there better things to wrangle about? Healthier things to focus on?

Like what?

CD (Common descent) evolution is the only facet of evolution I take issue with. It is a philosophy which intends to ultimately relegate Jehovah God as being unnecessary. Not just to remove Him as Creator, but to make Him a non-entity. Like He’s only been a product of men’s minds.

You don’t consider that a threat?

Say you made many things....how would you like it if someone said “it all arose by itself”, denying you had any part in it?


And the ones here on RF, who support the idea of there being a Creator....I feel there’s a need to reinforce those rational beliefs by exposing common descent’s flawed and unproven suppositions.

The mechanisms of evolution are reality, but they have limits.

What do you think?

 

[Rival]

Thank you, @Heyo , for getting my attention. I’ve had some responsibilities to attend to...



Like what?

CD (Common descent) evolution is the only facet of evolution I take issue with. It is a philosophy which intends to ultimately relegate Jehovah God as being unnecessary. Not just to remove Him as Creator, but to make Him a non-entity. Like He’s only been a product of men’s minds.

You don’t consider that a threat?

Say you made many things....how would you like it if someone said “it all arose by itself”, denying you had any part in it?


And the ones here on RF, who support the idea of there being a Creator....I feel there’s a need to reinforce those rational beliefs by exposing common descent’s flawed and unproven suppositions.

The mechanisms of evolution are reality, but they have limits.

What do you think?

In Europe that boat has sailed. It's no longer a 'threat' but a reality and those who are Christians also generally subscribe to the ToE. It doesn't threaten my faith since my religion doesn't really have a focus on this and comes with at least 4 creation myths.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In Europe that boat has sailed. It's no longer a 'threat' but a reality and those who are Christians also generally subscribe to the ToE. It doesn't threaten my faith since my religion doesn't really have a focus on this and comes with at least 4 creation myths.

It doesn't threaten my faith either. As a Christian, I do not see it diminishing God or making God unnecessary.