Confused about evolution

Originally posted by dj2becker
But if you are a Theist then I can't see why you would have a problem believing Creationism.

If you are a theist with the belief that G-d gave you a brain because he or she intended you to use it, you must reject absurd pseudo-science and struggle to reconcile your faith with your secular knowledge. Rejecting secular knowledge because it fails to accord with facile readings of sacred texts only reveals the weakness of your hermeneutical principles.

Evolution is not contrary to religious faith, not even Christianity. Evolution is perceived as contrary to the Bible by those who have failed to learn how to read well.

I believe in a Creator, but I reject Creationism. Creationism is weak faith rooted in literalist readings of wonderfully complex literary texts and propped up by dishonest caricatures of science and scientific methodolgy.

The assertions that evolutionists are athiests is absurd. Although some evolutionists are athiests, there is no logical relationship between scientific theory and religious theology (athiesm is the theology of non-existence).

Fundamentalists love to explain the tenets of Secular Humanism as if it were a coherent set of doctrines. However, if they would simply take a few minutes to read the Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III, they would see that the clearest tenet is disavowal of such:

"Those who sign Humanist Manifesto II disclaim that they are setting forth a binding credo; their individual views would be stated in widely varying ways." Humanist Manifesto II

"This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe." Humanist Manifesto III

Very few folks who recognize the reliability of evolutionary theory actually endorse the statements of the American Humanist Association--the Humanist Manifestos. A mere 34 individuals signed the original statement, the one most closely resembling a list of tenets, including a statement coming close to an assertion of atheism.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]There are no points in favor of creationism. None.

True, if your presuppositions are in favour of evolution then nothing will support anything other than evolution. I can understand if you are an atheist and you believe in evolution. Atheism and Evolution are both pillars of the Secular Huminism religion. But if you are a Theist then I can't see why you would have a problem believing Creationism.
[/b]

The percentage of people who call themselves "atheist" is still very small. Certainly less than 10% worldwide. By your line of reasoning, we would expect 90%, or more, of the people to be creationists. But this is clearly not the case. The reason, obviously, is that a majority of religious people thoughout the world accept evolution. Only the backward, fundamentalist lunatics, primarily in the US, still cling doggedly to creationism. The reason why most intelligent theists should have a problem with creationism is that the physical evidence points overwhelmingly toward the truth of evolution. No amount of burying your head in your bible can obscure that fact. So wake up and smell the coffee; creationism is for idiots.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]There are no points in favor of creationism. None.

True, if your presuppositions are in favour of evolution then nothing will support anything other than evolution. I can understand if you are an atheist and you believe in evolution. Atheism and Evolution are both pillars of the Secular Huminism religion. But if you are a Theist then I can't see why you would have a problem believing Creationism.
[/b]

the general argument has nothing to do with presuppositions. please see rwingett's excellent post above for clarification.

But if you are a Theist then I can't see why you would have a problem believing Creationism.

there are many sensible theists who acknowledge that their beliefs are arbitrary and have no grounding in reason or proof. agnostic theists, for example. it is not surprising to me that such theists would be more than willing to reject creationism, given that more signs (it only takes one to be 'more'😉 point to evolution.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I can consider biology a science while at the same time, not accept
evolution as a fact. If you cannot, I'd say we now see where the issue
is.
Kelly

Let me rephrase...if you do not accecpt evolution, you will have to reject a large part of modern biology, since evolution is the paradigm at the heart of most of it.

Originally posted by yousers
Let me rephrase...if you do not accecpt evolution, you will have to reject a large part of modern biology, since evolution is the paradigm at the heart of most of it.

For example, if I dispute evolution how do I explain to the students in my history class that salmon reared in hatcheries after a mere four generations increase the number of eggs they produce, while producing smaller eggs, and hence smaller fry. Not easily to be sure.

Hatchery fish undergo natural selection before our very eyes, traits develop that increase the passing on of their DNA in a controlled environment, but these same traits reduce their fitness for sub-species survival in the wild. When these hatchery fish have been introduced in substantial numbers into populations of wild fish, where they may interbreed, their increased egg production--resulting in smaller eggs--has become dominant in the population.

Maybe God wants the salmon to diminish, after all, he sent missionaries to the Pacific Northwest.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
For example, if I dispute evolution how do I explain to the students in my history class that salmon reared in hatcheries after a mere four generations increase the number of eggs they produce, while producing smaller eggs, and hence smaller fry. Not easily to be sure.

Hatchery fish undergo natural selection before our very eyes, traits develop that incre ...[text shortened]... aybe God wants the salmon to diminish, after all, he sent missionaries to the Pacific Northwest.

You call starting with salmon and ending with salmon evolution?
Okay, starting with big dogs breeding them into little dogs is
evolution too. If that is what you call evolution, I believe in
evolution as 'you' define it here. I just don't believe you can
say that you start with a simple single cell creature and change
through time into a rose bush, a frog, or you.
Kelly

Originally posted by Phledos
Hi, I have studied evolution through and through, and I think it is very illogical.

The idea is, something very complex, 'such as the eye' can be created by accidents, with a probabiltiy of 1 in (an uncountable amount.)

It seems crackers.

Ask yourself can you make a digital camera. Many people would find it very very difficult.
Now, can you creat ...[text shortened]... eate a much more simpler device.

Bye from Tim or Phledos, or whatever you want to call me. 🙂

Uh oh is another creationist trying to make probability statements again?

Watch yourself, boy. Better read up on your probability theory or leave that propaganda out of the discussion.

Originally posted by Conrau K
When I asked 'is evolution a scientific fact?' I was not trying to impugn the validity of evolution. I wanted to know whether it is fact or theory. Put is this way, i have heard many poeple critisize creation theories but what you failto realise is that originally creation was the only subject of science. It may eventually become know that evolution is de ...[text shortened]... he chances of this defy probablility.
I do not dispute evolution just question its importance!

The chances of this defy probablility.

Uh oh, you did it again. This statement already displays an ignorance of probabilities and there application to the natural world. I'll let it slide again, but if you choose the way of dj2becker, I will be forced to lay the smack down (unless of course one of the other non-mathematically challenged grows impatient faster than I)

Originally posted by Conrau K
Before i asked is evolution a scientific fact? my explanation for very rief. What i was trying to stimulate was a discussion on poeples faith in a thoery (that is valid). However is seems to only be used as a refutatin of God. It is so str ...[text shortened]... ciety. Question though, why are there so many stupid poeple then?

You cannot ignore the statistical anomoly of evolution just to promote an atheistic argument.

Yet again.

You keep insinuating an argument from likelihood or improbability. Would you care to present it formally? Also before you post it, check to ensure that it does not assume draws from a uniform probability mass function. If it does, then your offering it would be a waste of so many resources.

Originally posted by Phledos
Have you considered your own teachings as possible influences by those who 100% deteste God and creation.

How do you know that YOU are not just one who is being used, to spread theories?

That's silly. I learned evolution in college from a theist. His work was actually in evolutionary biology, and yet he also believed in God. Ideas like the one you present here are the kind of crackpot conspiracy theories that really undermine your credibility.

why hasn't the eye evelved in more than one form? Well it hass, compare the compound eyes of insects with the simple eyes of vertebrates.

But where in the fossil record have you seen an evolutionary link between insects and vertabrates?

Bye from Tim

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
HA HA HA HA (prat)

Ha Ha, thanks.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Because you lurk asking wise-crack questions that are so facile as to be idiotic

Ohh, rite. Thanks.

Kool.

(Your the only person up to now who has succesfully answered at least one of my questions sucessfully.)

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
No, I was taught biology including evolution by a devout christian. Most christians are fine about evolution. Its only the fundementalist bigots get worked up about it

Well in that case, im very sorry. Perhaps I was being harsh.

In the end its your view. Evolution doesnt work me up, but I love talking about it. (It starts conversions.)

Bye from Tim 🙂