By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Why can't some Christians accept Evolution?

Reasonable on 06 January 2012

Not getting drawn into the "who does who doesn't" argument I'll just note that many Christians do believe in evolution and I think that for those that don't there are varied and in most cases pretty obvious reasons why not which you could argue physiologically or in terms of basic concept - i.e. to believe in evolution contradicts certain elements of the bible if you believe in them literally (which not all Christians now do).

Also, why is it that these threads, more than any other, seem to involve people talking about theories when they clearly don't actually understand what a scientific theory is or go on about evolution being random?

Actually scratch the question. I guess the answer is obvious.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Around the Network
MaulerX on 06 January 2012
Andrespetmonkey said:
MaulerX said:
But isn't the theory of evolution.....a theory? Until this very day scientists have not been able to prove with any type of certainty that evolution is what got us from ape to human, even though that's exactly what they're pitching. And to be honest, there are plenty of non Christians that don't believe in evolution for that very reason. A theory is a theory.


Please read: http://notjustatheory.com/ Don't worry, it's short and easy to digest.

 

And the fact still remains that science has not proven evolution with any type of certainty, as referenced in that very link you posted. IMO the different meanings of the word "theory" become irrelevent as long as that fact remains. Ironically, it is people in the scientific community that refuse to accept things that have not been proven to a certainty.

 

Personally I believe that some things have evolved, but that not everything has evolved. If certain things evolved from an origin, then how did the origin came to be?  I believe that there are questions that we may never know the answer to.



Porcupine_I on 06 January 2012

if i can breed a wolf into something that can be carried around by a girl in her purse, then i can't deny evolution.



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

highwaystar101 on 06 January 2012
MaulerX said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
MaulerX said:
But isn't the theory of evolution.....a theory? Until this very day scientists have not been able to prove with any type of certainty that evolution is what got us from ape to human, even though that's exactly what they're pitching. And to be honest, there are plenty of non Christians that don't believe in evolution for that very reason. A theory is a theory.


Please read: http://notjustatheory.com/ Don't worry, it's short and easy to digest.

 

And the fact still remains that science has not proven evolution with any type of certainty, as referenced in that very link you posted. IMO the different meanings of the word "theory" become irrelevent as long as that fact remains. Ironically, it is people in the scientific community that refuse to accept things that have not been proven to a certainty.

 

Personally I believe that some things have evolved, but that not everything has evolved. If certain things evolved from an origin, then how did the origin came to be?  I believe that there are questions that we may never know the answer to.

OK, that wasn't a fantastically written article by any means, but I think it's easy to see what the author's getting at. But reading your post I just have to ask, did you actually read it?

I mean, you ask that something has to be proven to a the point of being certain. In science, and the article hammers this home, nothing can be proven (to a certainty). Maybe in maths, but not in science.

A theory is something that can be tested, validated and adapted. If observations don't fit with the theory, then the theory must change. Simple as. Is this a guess, like you seem to think it is? No. It's a good method of determining an increasingly accurate description of a natural phenomenon. This fits the objective of science far better than "proving things" does.

So in that case, do we know everything about evolution? No.

Do we know enough about it that to be sure it happens? Yes, it's a well developed theory.

I hope this explaination helps.

...

By the way, I'm not here to argue evolution, I made a promise to myself over a year ago that I would never do that again. I haven't done so since. I'm only here to address more general misconceptions about science and the scientific method.



highwaystar101 on 06 January 2012

Actually, I'm going to try and avoid getting involved in the evolution debate again. I'm out of this thread.



Around the Network
bouzane on 06 January 2012

The same reason why they thought the Earth was a flat disc in the center of the Universe, because the Church is still trying to further the Dark Ages to harm the advancement of mankind. Remember that the greatest enemy humanity ever had has not changed over the centuries.



bouzane on 06 January 2012
MaulerX said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
MaulerX said:
But isn't the theory of evolution.....a theory? Until this very day scientists have not been able to prove with any type of certainty that evolution is what got us from ape to human, even though that's exactly what they're pitching. And to be honest, there are plenty of non Christians that don't believe in evolution for that very reason. A theory is a theory.


Please read: http://notjustatheory.com/ Don't worry, it's short and easy to digest.

 

And the fact still remains that science has not proven evolution with any type of certainty, as referenced in that very link you posted. IMO the different meanings of the word "theory" become irrelevent as long as that fact remains. Ironically, it is people in the scientific community that refuse to accept things that have not been proven to a certainty.

 

Personally I believe that some things have evolved, but that not everything has evolved. If certain things evolved from an origin, then how did the origin came to be?  I believe that there are questions that we may never know the answer to.


Gravity is just a theory genius.



Wyrdness on 06 January 2012

I'm not religious but Evolution although logical is still a theory and not an absolute fact so the's no real reason why they should accept it tbh.



Jumpin on 06 January 2012
Wyrdness said:
I'm not religious but Evolution although logical is still a theory and not an absolute fact so the's no real reason why they should accept it tbh.

You are describing a hunch theory, not a scientific theorem - a scientific theorem is an equation of scientific facts which has to be proven via the scienfific process. whereas a hunch theory is simply just a gut feeling (informed or uninformed) - two different things.

The theory of evolution (for example) does utilize the fact that creatures evolve, the fact of natural selection, the fact of sexual selection, the fact of genetic drift, the fact of maco and micro mutations, etc....



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Andrespetmonkey on 06 January 2012
Dr.Grass said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
Dr.Grass said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
mhsillen said:
I look at it that the creator is a powerful scientific being. He is not some mystical being. He uses scientific laws to create and if it was the big bang he used then so be it. But whatever you believe it is never wise to ignore other ideas contrary to your beliefs. It is not absurd to look at living things and think these are so complicated it must of been planned and built by a intelligent being.

It sounds like the sharks are adapting not turning into geese. Adaptation happens all the time.

Liked your post until I read that, makes you sound a little ignorant. You have to consider those small adaptions accumulating over the space of billions of years.  And even if you personally can't visualize it, it's been well supported by the fossil record and confirmed by DNA sequencing. Not specifically "sharks turning into geese" ofcourse but macro-evolution as a whole.

Everyone gets this point.

But sir, if science is so advanced then why won't a pumpkin ever go past a certain size (both ways) ? Why does artificial selection always hit a breaking point (fruit fly experiments etc.)? And don't tell me that in the future someone will come and breed a functional advantage... I want to see a new biological device built from the ground up through random changes - I really do.

No, not everyone gets this point actually.

The fact that you're on a computer shows you how incredibly advanced science is, but that's besides the point. "Always hit a breaking point", and you base this on the fruit fly experiments? Even with the rapidly evolving fruit flys macro-evolution would still take thousands of years instead of millions, and that's only if those severe and rapid adaptions are needed. So what is this breaking point? And it's also your job to now explain all the other evidence for macro-evolution, like the high shared similarity of DNA in all animals, the clear pattern shown in the fossil record (If your gonna give me "gaps in the fossil record" reply then I hope you know it's been rtt) of common decent between different species. Why do we share DNA with a banana? 

"I want to see a new biological device built form the ground up through randon changes" Urgh, another misconception about evolution is that it comes down to "random changes", while chance places a large role in it, this ignores the fundemental role of natural selection. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, and this is what natural selection works with; it sorts out certain variations... "Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different

variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go)."

''... the high shared similarity of DNA in all animals'',

Just because it's light doesn't mean the sun's shining...

A Volkswagen is sharing almost identical structure to a BMW, but does this reveal anything at all about their respective origins and relationship? Using this evidence just means that you are not willing to accept any alternative. 

... you have to admit that there is no proposeable theory that would satisfy the mental state of the current breed of scientists. I mean, do you really want to hear my explanation of the origins of life? Most probably not. More importantly, when I start explaining the typical response is, ''Is this Hindu, Buddhist, new-age blah blah etc.''. Ultimately the 'label' I give it has much more to do with your interpretation than the actual explanation.

 

''...the clear pattern shown in the fossil record...''

This is one of the poorests pieces of evidence and probably one of the few true scientific conspiracies. There are TONS of archives FILLED with finds that contradict the evolutionary viewpoint. Take an open mind to the literature and you will find mathematicians, archeologists, geologists, etc. that are shunned from scientific respectability due to simply presenting what they find... Mary Leaky? Forbidden Archeology...

This one is only beaten by the Aryan-invasion theory (clear proof how broken academia is) in the 'propaganda' category.

''Why do we share DNA with a banana?  ''

Common heritage.

''I want to see a new biological device built form the ground up through randon changes" Urgh, another misconception about evolution is that it comes down to "random changes''  ''

WUT. Please don't tell me I don't know how evolution works. The above mechanic is the integral part of building up new organisms.

(first 4 lines) Maybe I just don't get the analogies, but I don't see how they relate properly. Doesn't the fact that there is a high shared similarity of DNA in all organisms on earth, (which also accurately fits many predictions in the evolutionary tree that were made before our knowledge of DNA) strongly suggest that all these organisms came from a single point? And the only way to of got from point A (3.8 billion years ago) to point B (now) would involve macro-evolution, no? (whether you think that single point was God, abiogenesis etc. is irrelevant, could be either as far I'm concerned). "Using this evidence just means that you are not willing to accept any alternative" Err... not sure how you got to that conclusion, but despite what you may think I like to keep an open mind and would be willing to accept an alternative if it is better supported and effectively explains why my current belief in wrong.

(next para) Why do you make so many assumptions about me? I'm actually pretty interested in what your explanation may me, I get the impression that it'll be something I've never heard before, so if you have the time, I'd actually love to hear it. 

(fossil record conspiracies para) The one thing I don't understand is what could all these scientists possibly gain from this conspiracy? Why in the world would they? I've seen quite a few claims of fossils or whatever it may be that contradicts evolution, but then usually google the title of that article/author etc, write "refuted" on the end and find just as many hits. And the refutations are always a hell of a lot more convincing. But obviously I haven't heard nearly all of them if there really are "TONS", I'd like to hear some if you don't mind. Don't worry, I don't expect you to write and explain many yourself, links will do if you want.

"The term Aryan invasion theory (AIT) refers to invasional scenarios of prehistorical Aryans into India."  Don't know how this relates.

(last 5 lines) When I googled "common heritage" I didn't see anything that relates to the relationship in DNA between all organisms on earth, did I miss something?

Did you ignore the 3 paragraphs in which I explained to you how evolution is ultimately not random? If you think evolution occurs solely due to "random changes" than that my good sir, is a misconception.

 

Sorry if I don't reply to your next post, I will definitely read it but I have a lot of revision to do for school, and when I get in these debates it just eats up a lot of time. If I don't find time to reply soon I'll either reply to you at a later date, forget about replying or you would have changed my mind, in which case I'll thank you.



My Music