• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why don't you accept the evolution theory?

Opethian

Active Member
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).
I'm not an expert, but I assume that it is possible to reduce just about anything to a mathematical equation given an insane amount of accurate and complete information, a hyperpowerful computer and a very large number of mathematicians researching this for many many years. In theory it's always possible, but for grand things like for example predicting what a human will do during his life, the practical side is just about impossible I think.
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
I still wonder at the fact that many choose not to accept evolution theory, yet will readily accept gravitational theory.

Neither theory posits supernatural cause/effect explanations.

Gravitational theory is more equivocal, and more scientifically contentious than evolution theory. Yet implementation of this "flawed" and "questionable" theory permits insertion of a robotic probe into an exacting orbit around a remote moon after a multi-billion mile journey through the solar system. How can this be?

Where is the faith-based abject denial of gravitational theory, and the conspicuously absent outcry for any "truthful", and divinely manifested alternate "intelligent falling" theory?

Instead of posing the question of why evolution theory is unacceptable to some, I would instead inquire:
"What [lacking] evidence (if any) would/do you require to accept evolution theory as the best available explanation of biological speciation? Is there any "proof" that would provide you sufficient reason to accept evolution theory as valid and merited "fact", whilst maintaining your faith-based beliefs/conclusions"?

If yes, please specify.

If no, then please explain why not.

I can enumerate at least 50 prospectively immediate fasifications of evolution theory just off the top of my head.

"Can you (as a detractor) name just one (absent/lacking) validation/verification of evolution theory that would lead you to accept it's fact-based conclusions?"
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
waacman said:
I hold to a literalist view of the Genesis account. There's no room for evolution to have taken place from a literalist viewpoint.

Would you dispute carbon dating and other "age" identifying methods which prove (beyond doubt) that the Earth cannot be young?
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Runt said:
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:
I had no idea abiogenesis requires sudden transformation from non-living to living systems and almost all I've read has been from biology textbooks. Are you sure you've got that right?
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Jaiket said:
I had no idea abiogenesis requires sudden transformation from non-living to living systems and almost all I've read has been from biology textbooks. Are you sure you've got that right?

From Merriam-Webster:-

Main Entry: abio·gen·e·sis
Pronunciation: "A-"bI-O-'je-n&-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from 2a- + bio- + Latin genesis
: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter
- abi·og·e·nist /"A-(")bI-'ä-j&-nist/ noun
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
cardero said:
Why don't you accept the evolution theory?
Becasue I am still struggling with the theory of involution.

Does that mean you have solved the problem of convolution?
Inquiring minds want to know! :bounce
 

Booko

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

If you hold to a literalist view of the Genesis account, then you have a problem with internal conflicts in your own text. Starting with...which account? There are two of them and they do not match.

Ah, but that's probably fodder for another thread. Maybe "A literal Genesis?" or something.
 

lamb of God

New Member
first of all i am new at this so forgive me if i don't do this right the first time. secondly, It is impossible that this world happened by chance. take for instance nature around us. everything working in perfect harmony and complete intricacy that there is not a single chance that it would all work jsut by chance. Evolution leads one to believe that they are nothing more than an evolved monkey accidentally made to walk the earth. We have a purpose here, we are not just some mistake by "Mother Nature"
 

waacman

Restoration of everything
mr.guy said:
Why would you think that?

Isn't only logical to conclude that if there are alot of a certain type of species compared to one with very little, you would find more fossils of one as opposed to the other? This would apply to transitory fossils as well. Why would you need to be a paleontologist or geologist to conclude this? If evolutionist did have some credible transitional link you would know about it, it would be in museums and the news. Every major scientific journal and science publication would be shouting it at the top of their lungs declaring evolution is king. This really hasn't happened (of course many would argue with this).

michel said:
Would you dispute carbon dating and other "age" identifying methods which prove (beyond doubt) that the Earth cannot be young?

Yes I would dispute carbon dating, except for that fact that I really don't much about it being a layperson in that field. That being said, I don't think that you can ever prove beyond a doubt about something, but can only provide the facts and the evidence. From my understanding, current radio carbon dating and other age identifying methods make assumptions about the rate of decay. If there were some way to know that these rates have been constant throughout the eons of time that evolution proposes, I would certainly change my perspective. But since we don't know if these rates were quicker or slower (that would be bad) in the past you come to a fork in the road of science that you could choose the "old earth" view or the "young earth" view depending on wether or not you believe the one or the other.
 

waacman

Restoration of everything
Booko said:
If you hold to a literalist view of the Genesis account, then you have a problem with internal conflicts in your own text. Starting with...which account? There are two of them and they do not match.

Ah, but that's probably fodder for another thread. Maybe "A literal Genesis?" or something.

Internal conflicts? Two accounts of Genesis? Yes, please clarify in a new thread entitled "A literal Genesis".
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
lamb of God said:
first of all i am new at this so forgive me if i don't do this right the first time. secondly, It is impossible that this world happened by chance. take for instance nature around us. everything working in perfect harmony and complete intricacy that there is not a single chance that it would all work jsut by chance. Evolution leads one to believe that they are nothing more than an evolved monkey accidentally made to walk the earth. We have a purpose here, we are not just some mistake by "Mother Nature"

A *misunderstanding* of evolution might lead one to believe they are nothing more than evolved monkey.

Evolution actually makes no judgements on the matter at all.

Some people who are fond of evolutionary theory may make such an argument that evolution implies no God, but they are 1) wrong, and 2) only reacting to theists who try to twist science for their own religious ends.

Frankly, I think if anti-evolutionary theists would tone down their rhetoric and spend more time in conversation finding out what evolutionary theories do and do not imply, and what they actually say about the physical world, the anti-theistic evolutionists would calm down and let you worship your God with no comment from them.

Who knows, maybe some of them might even feel free to examine the idea that maybe there is a God, since they wouldn't be laboring under the false assumption that one must turn off one's God-given mind and reason in order to believe in God.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Booko said:
Some people who are fond of evolutionary theory may make such an argument that evolution implies no God, but they are 1) wrong, and 2) only reacting to theists who try to twist science for their own religious ends.
Who are these "some people", Booko? Identify them. Quote them.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
Jayhawker Soule said:
Who are these "some people", Booko? Identify them. Quote them.

Jayhawker, I know very well you read this forum yourself and that you pay attention to what you read.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Booko said:
Jayhawker, I know very well you read this forum yourself and that you pay attention to what you read.
I do, which is precisely why I asked the question - a question which you've yet to answer.
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
Jaiket said:
I had no idea abiogenesis requires sudden transformation from non-living to living systems and almost all I've read has been from biology textbooks. Are you sure you've got that right?
Is this going to devolve into a "my biology textbook is better than your biology textbook" type of argument? Because if so, I think I'm done.
 

sparc872

Active Member
Alright, I think I might give this one a go.

Starting with the issue of transitory fossils and lack of living species of the same evolutionary branch.

Go out into your backyard or an open field or park, and think of how many animals have died there. Now think back, if you are a young earther or an old earther, to the beginning of life. How many animals would have died there from then until now? How many deer have you seen dead on the side of the road, or squirrels or birds? And how many skeletons do you see? Now dig down several feet and tell me how many you see.

My point is, most skeletons do not survive the natural breakdown of biological materials. It requires a special situation for a skeleton to be preserved for long periods of times. I am almost more surprised that we have as many fossils as we do from the prehuman species of australopithecus.

Now to address the issue of two subspecies of humans existing at the same time.

The most prominent theory for the origin of humans is the out-of-Africa theory. If all humans got their start in Africa, one would not expect to find much outside of Africa until the circumstances were right. A primate in Africa would be adapted to warmer weather, it would require the development of substantial brain power before a primate would be able to move north into colder climates due to the lack of ways to stay warm. This severely limited the range for prehuman primates. By the time a primate would be developed far enough to move out of the region, it would already be mostly human. This is why you don't see chimpanzees, gorillas, or bamboons outside of Africa except in zoos, they are not adapted for bordering climates.

Now consider the fact that human beings, once they began to spread out, would still be mostly in the same gene pool. Until humans crossed over into the Americas, there was ample opportunity for exchange between different human groups. This would have prevented much further change because the requirements for survival had already been fulfilled and all the groups were sharing the same genes.

Also, look up Homo floresiensis. I think you will be surprised to find out just how recently this species lived alongside human beings without ever being destroyed.


Feel free to critique this or raise questions, I am more than willing to answer questions.
 

sparc872

Active Member
On another note, I want to know how someone explains the shift in fossils from one layer to the next in the earths surface. I have heard the idea that the Flood caused all of the animal fossils to be deposited in layers of sediment after the rain had come.

But how does this account for the progressing change of fossil types from one layer to the next? Did the flood deposit simpler animals on lower levels, then dinosaurs, then simple mammals, then larger and more diversified species of mammals by chance? I would think that everything that got mixed up in the flood wouldn't follow the pattern of distinct layers, but would be spread out throughout a mixture, more homogenous.

And what about fossilized forests that have been destroyed and then grown over for several generations?

I find it hard to ignore all the evidence that suggests a successive change in species over time. I am not denying the existence of God based on evolution alone either. I know plenty of Christians, Catholics, and Jews who have no problem fitting evolution into their world view.

I do have a problem with people who ignore observation because they are blinded by what an ancient book says. When I was a Christian, I could not believe in a God that decieved me, I could not believe in a God that created humans with the ability to reason, to observe the world around them, and then denied them those same abilities. I believed God gave us the ability to observe, to see his creation in all of its glory. By ignoring what God put there plainly for me to see, I would have been denying my God-given ability to reason.

-Chris
 

lunamoth

Will to love
waacman said:
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.

It's called random muation because mutation is a random process. Like crushing a boulder will result in lots of randomly sized pieces. But, pour those pieces in a rapidly moving stream and they will seperate non-randomly, the smaller ones being swept further, to increased order by size. So it is with descent with modification by natural selection. Two processes: random mutation plus selective environmental pressure sorting out the beneficial mutations.
 

lunamoth

Will to love
I don't see any benefit in filling in the gaps of my understanding about the natural world with 'God did it.' And even though I might have some understanding of the workings of the natural world there's no reason I then must say 'God did not do it.'

added in edit: Oh yeah *ahem* I do accept the ToE and I am a theist.
 
Top