Why don't you accept the evolution theory?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would expect to see some isolated non-human variant somewhere.

Why would you expect this?

 

[Brother Jeffrey]

The reason you find this hard to believe is because you have no idea how this could work. Lack of scientifical knowledge leads to not being able to understand some ideas, and thus not accepting them. If you would read some Biology, Biochemistry and Chemistry books your view on this idea would probably radically change. I wouldn't accept your oversimplified idea of slime to fish and plants etc... either if I didn't know all the intricate details and the mechanics of the process. It's when you gain insight in the process and a good knowledge that you come to see how evolution is a great and incredibly accurate description of how life we see today came to be.

[/font][/color][/font][/color]
Absolutely.


Wow, that's a serious misinterpretation of the text above. Science is definitely NOT just someone's opinion. Science is the development of accurate theories that explain what we can observe. Some theories can be more accurate than others, but that's the whole process of developing accurate theories, you have to start somewhere. You say you don't believe in any science at all? That must be one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read!


Sure, you could say that some god gave the spark that started the big bang (I don't believe that, but I can see why someone could believe that), but everything from that moment on occurred on its own, with no help needed from some spiritual being. Why wouldn't you put your trust in science, if just about everything that matters in a human life, can be explained by science?

You believe there is no spiritual being who sustains our lives, that is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read. Why wouldn't you put your trust in G-d, since everything that has ever happened, is happening and will ever happen be explained by the existence of G-dliness in the world. Perhaps your lack of knowledge of spiritual matters is the reason. Your lack of understanding means that you can't comprehend, and so you don't believe?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You believe there is no spiritual being who sustains our lives, that is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.

The quality of your literacy does little to warrant respect for your judgements.

 

[Brother Jeffrey]

The quality of your literacy does little to warrant respect for your judgements.

As J-hawkr has pointed out, I've been rude suggesting that Opethien's comments were rude, and that belief in my way would somehow enlighten him. It is I who have been ignorant aI apologize.

 

[waacman]

Recently I've been contemplating what evolutionists mean by "random" when refering to random mutations. Is it really random? Don't natural laws play a part/guide in that fact that the mutation/change happened in the first place? Can't everything be reduced to natural law? If it can, why is it called "random"? This is by no means the main reason why I reject evolutionary theory, but was rather on my mind at the time.

 

[waacman]

I think the main reason though that I reject the theory of evolution is that it derives me of ultimate purpose and is inconsistant with what the Bible says.

 

[Booko]

I think the main reason though that I reject the theory of evolution is that it derives me of ultimate purpose and is inconsistant with what the Bible says.

How would the theory of evolution deprive you of ultimate purpose?

 

[waacman]

I guess I'm talking more about mainstream evolution that rejects the supernatural of any sort, and in that way of thinking it deprives me of ultimate purpose in the fact that there wasn't a reason that I was created, it was just a bunch of laws bound by nature that I am here today.

 

[Booko]

I guess I'm talking more about mainstream evolution that rejects the supernatural of any sort, and in that way of thinking it deprives me of ultimate purpose in the fact that there wasn't a reason that I was created, it was just a bunch of laws bound by nature that I am here today.

Mainstream evolution doesn't reject the supernatural. It merely asserts that the supernatural is irrelevant to questions in science.

Which it is.

I figure if God wants to use DNA mutations to create us, who am I to tell Him He can't?

 

[Booko]

I think the main reason though that I reject the theory of evolution is that it derives me of ultimate purpose and is inconsistant with what the Bible says.

Oops, I should've asked this too:

How is any theory of evolution inconsistent with the Bible says?

 

[Runt]

The quality of your literacy does little to warrant respect for your judgements.

Are you who I think you are? If so, I was wondering where you went...

I believe in a God and I believe in evolution, I don't see why the two are incompatible to so many.

The theory of evolution offers an explanation to the question "How did life come to be?" that negates the need for a creator God. Obviously, many devoted theists hold the notion of a creator God as Ultimate Truth, and thus anything that contradicts this Ultimate Truth---such as the theory of evolution---is going to be false in their eyes no matter how much evidence there is to support it.

 

[scitsofreaky]

The theory of evolution offers an explanation to the question "How did life come to be?" that negates the need for a creator God.

Actually, evolution does no such thing. Evolution only says what happened after life came about. Abiogenesis deals with how life started.

 

[Opethian]

You believe there is no spiritual being who sustains our lives, that is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.

Why is this ignorant? There is no evidence whatsoever that points to a spiritual being sustaining our lives. If you would read some science books like I suggested you would probably find that out. A lot of things (concerning human body function and emotions etc...) that were thought to be (in the past) the result of a soul, or some spiritual being, have now been proven to be the result of chemical and biological processes, and a lot of things we don't understand yet now, will be explained in the future.

Why wouldn't you put your trust in G-d, since everything that has ever happened, is happening and will ever happen be explained by the existence of G-dliness in the world.

Nothing that has ever happened or is happening can be explained by the existence of godliness in the world, except for maybe that which triggered the big bang, but this too might be explained by science in the far future. If you have some suggestions as to what in this world needs a god to be explained, please let me know.

Perhaps your lack of knowledge of spiritual matters is the reason. Your lack of understanding means that you can't comprehend, and so you don't believe?

Knowledge of spiritual matters is useless in the real world. A good comprehension of science is all one needs to explain and understand reality.

 

[Opethian]

Recently I've been contemplating what evolutionists mean by "random" when refering to random mutations. Is it really random? Don't natural laws play a part/guide in that fact that the mutation/change happened in the first place? Can't everything be reduced to natural law? If it can, why is it called "random"?

By random, we mean that the traits that the mutation change, are random. For example, a mutation could just as well cause change in a necessary enzyme in the digestive system, so that the organism in which the mutation occurs, can no longer digest certain constituents of food, that it needs, and will probably die off quickly. But in the same way, a mutation could change an enzyme so that it changes in a beneficial way for the organism. The mutation itself is random, and natural selection makes sure that only the beneficial and neutral mutations are preserved, because bad mutations cause the organism to die off, or become less succesful in survival/reproduction, which will ultimately lead to the extinction of the population of mutants, even if the mutant would have succeeded to reproduce and get offspring leading to a population of the mutants.

This is by no means the main reason why I reject evolutionary theory, but was rather on my mind at the time.

So what are your main reasons of rejecting evolutionary theory, besides that it doesn't comply with your faith? (Btw, a lot of believers can reconcile their faith with evolutionary theory, unless of course they take their holy book completely literally, which is insanity imo)

 

[Runt]

Actually, evolution does no such thing. Evolution only says what happened after life came about. Abiogenesis deals with how life started.

Abiogenesis assumes that nonliving matter just suddenly---with no warning whatsoever---developed into living organisms. Any basic study of biology will reveal that the development of life was not a spontaneous occurrence but a gradual progression: the formation of lipid bubbles that eventually because cell membranes, the appearance of amino acids and their development into DNA and RNA, etc. For each occurrence of nonliving materials developing into parts of a living material, there is a theory that does not include---or require---a notion of God (unless we want to venture into that cycle of cause and effect that eventually will cause us to question the origin of matter itself... but that is to tango with Belial Point Theory, and who wants to do that?)

 

[cardero]

Why don't you accept the evolution theory?
Becasue I am still struggling with the theory of involution.

 

[waacman]

How is any theory of evolution inconsistent with the Bible says?

I hold to a literalist view of the Genesis account. There's no room for evolution to have taken place from a literalist viewpoint.

 

[waacman]

By random, we mean that the traits that the mutation change, are random. For example, a mutation could just as well cause change in a necessary enzyme in the digestive system, so that the organism in which the mutation occurs, can no longer digest certain constituents of food, that it needs, and will probably die off quickly. But in the same way, a mutation could change an enzyme so that it changes in a beneficial way for the organism. The mutation itself is random, and natural selection makes sure that only the beneficial and neutral mutations are preserved, because bad mutations cause the organism to die off, or become less succesful in survival/reproduction, which will ultimately lead to the extinction of the population of mutants, even if the mutant would have succeeded to reproduce and get offspring leading to a population of the mutants.

I was actually refering to reductionism when questioning the word "random". In the mindset of the scientist, can't everything be reduced to a mathematical formula/equation given the proper observation? Let me know if this is unclear, I just might be the one confused here (seriously).

So what are your main reasons of rejecting evolutionary theory, besides that it doesn't comply with your faith? (Btw, a lot of believers can reconcile their faith with evolutionary theory, unless of course they take their holy book completely literally, which is insanity imo)

I think one of my main gripes with the evolutionary theory is the lack of transitory fossils. Granted fossils are very rare and hard to come by, but you think there would at least be alot more of them out there if evolution had taken place.

If evolution has taken place this means that animals evolved very, very slowly over time. This would also mean that were thousands upon thousands of this type of animal throughout evolutionary history. Why is it that we have fossils all so similar to each other of the same animal if it has been evolving over such a long period of time?

I guess I'm guilty of being partly insane then.

 

[mr.guy]

...but you think there would at least be alot more of them out there if evolution had taken place.

Why would you think that?

 

[Opethian]

Why would you think that?

Exactly. That was the same question I was going to ask yesterday but my crappy laptop fell out while typing the post . If you're not a geologist or a paleontologist, how can you make statements like these concerning the number of fossils you would expect? Did you do any calculations for this? If not, you're just making a biased unfounded statement against evolution.

If evolution has taken place this means that animals evolved very, very slowly over time. This would also mean that were thousands upon thousands of this type of animal throughout evolutionary history. Why is it that we have fossils all so similar to each other of the same animal if it has been evolving over such a long period of time?

You say that the fossils are all quite similar to one another, but not identical. Wouldn't that be exactly what you would expect from a slow gradual process? Besides, fossils are usually just skeletons, and how can you see from a skeleton if any mutations that do not affect the skeletal structure have taken place? I'm pretty sure though that we have found series of fossils that show this slow evolution but I don't have any data on that and I don't have the time either to look them up, but I will later when I have time.