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

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

Wyrdness on 06 January 2012
Jumpin said:
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....


It's not an absolute fact though it's just a really good thoery, the argument against christians and other religions is that evolution proves them wrong yet the are still holes, if we evolved from apes supposidely why are they still present, where did the initial creatures that evolved come from (probably the most importent one), what triggers evolution, if conditions were to drastically change tomorrow would evolution begin it's long process again etc... When it comes down to it's just a really logical thoery like I said I'm not religious but the's no reason for them to fully accept it.



Around the Network
osamanobama on 06 January 2012
bouzane said:
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.

and its something we actually have almost zero understanding about.



ithis on 06 January 2012
otislotus said:

Coincidence is a mathematical term and the possibility of an event's occurrence can be calculated using the mathematics of probability.

The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 1010123. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe this possibility.

THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM
 
  10000000000000000000000000000000
  00000000000000000000000000000000
  00000000000000000000000000000000
10 00000000000000000000000000000000
 

Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?

Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.

It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose's answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.

In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means "zero probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the 'accidental" or "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.

Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:

This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

In fact in order to recognize that the universe is not a "product of coincidences" one does not really need any of these calculations at all. Simply by looking around himself, a person can easily perceive the fact of creation in even the tiniest details of what he sees. How could a universe like this, perfect in its systems, the sun, the earth, people, houses, cars, trees, flowers, insects, and all the other things in it ever have come into existence as the result of atoms falling together by chance after an explosion? Every detail we peer at shows the evidence of God's existence and supreme power. Only people who reflect can grasp these signs.

References:* Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9

 

what takes more faith to believe?


I have to reply to this post by saying &$$$$$$$&!!!

This Universe is not as it is so we can exist in it, we are as we are so we can exist in this Universe.

Even if the above mathematician's number is true (but we still know very little about the universe to draw such conclusions), we could just argue that an infinite cycle of big bangs and big chrunches will inevitably produce (by chance) this perfect universe in which we can live. It could be that this universe is such perfectly balanced, neither expanding too rapidly, nor too slowly that it will eventually be the last one of all of the universes (not likely, even if the big bang/big chrunch theory is true), just so it makes the perfect universe for us to exist in, it still doesn't mean anything. If that means that there were a million times more universes than the odds against this one of being such as it is by chacne, it doesn't mean anything.

We make judgements about this universe because we exist in it and it is this one we can observe.

Whether a "GOD" created it all and the laws it is governed by, whether a fist of spores was thrown into the path of an exploding supernova's shockwave 12 billion years ago so that there was life, whether the soul was created to give us the vanity to claim that it is ALL for us, we can not possibly say at this time.

What we can say is that (it seams that) life addapts to fill all the niches of the earth it can (so far) and to consume all the sources of energy it can. It does this governed by some laws. Whether these laws were created or just are, noone can say.

Why some people are happy to dismiss the scientific method while using all it's fruits to spread missinformation I can't understand (LOL, plastic dinosaurs).



Pemalite on 06 January 2012
MaulerX said:

 

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.

I love this kind of argument.
The fact of the matter is... Their is more scientific backing of Evolution than any religion.

Religion is all about beleiving in some all-mystical, all-loving forgiving imaginary friend where the preachers take your money
to keep building their already rich and powerfull empire, which I might add tries to inflience government policies all around the world. - Sometimes for the worst. (Gay Marriage being one of them.)
Heck, even the founder of scientology stated that the quickest way to get rich is to start your own religion and he was right, it's the basis of making people beleive in something, real or not and getting them to hand over money.

Fact of the matter is... If their is a "God", I highly doubt they are going to care where and how you pray/preach/enlighten ones self.
No need to go to a church, hand your money over to another person and waste your time, you can do that in the comfort of your own home.

Those are all Human-created practices, if you knew of the Heinous crimes that people have done in the "Name of Religion" you would probably run away from it. (Christianity being no exception.) 

Which brings me to my next point about religion in general. Gods/Religions have been around since recorded history, where different civilisations have had different Gods, usually to explain something the people don't actually understand.
Take Ra, the sun god. The Egyptions had no idea the sun was a ball of gas sitting in outer space, so they created a God for it.
Same thing with Thor, the God of Lightning.

At-least with Evolution we have carbon dating and solid proof of macro and micro evolutionary steps.

Take the common flu for example, it's unable to be eradicated. Why? Because it keeps evolving so our vaccines are rendered ineffective.
This is a "Micro" evolution where just a small part is changed so that it survives as a whole, no we won't grow a 3rd arm because evolution dictates it.
It's usually a much slower change over the course of millions of years.

Is Evolution real? Well. Once we build a time machine we should be able to find out.
Is Religion/God real? Well. We will never know untill we either:
1) Die (Where we can't tell anyone anyway.)
2) Do the above and go back in time to watch evolution happen.

But I for one will place my bet where research has actually occured and has something solid. No the bible isn't good enough, it's been translated/re-translated and for all we know it was made by some looney cult leader thousands of years ago that tricked a bunch of people, because no one alive today actually saw the events that occured back then, if they ever happened.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

bouzane on 06 January 2012
Wyrdness said:
Jumpin said:
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....


It's not an absolute fact though it's just a really good thoery, the argument against christians and other religions is that evolution proves them wrong yet the are still holes, if we evolved from apes supposidely why are they still present, where did the initial creatures that evolved come from (probably the most importent one), what triggers evolution, if conditions were to drastically change tomorrow would evolution begin it's long process again etc... When it comes down to it's just a really logical thoery like I said I'm not religious but the's no reason for them to fully accept it.


No offense but you have some horrendous misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution. For example, we did not evolve from the apes present on Earth today. Homo Sapiens and the other species of apes evolved from a common ancestor which is now extinct.



Around the Network
ithis on 06 January 2012
Wyrdness said:
Jumpin said:
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....


It's not an absolute fact though it's just a really good thoery, the argument against christians and other religions is that evolution proves them wrong yet the are still holes, if we evolved from apes supposidely why are they still present, where did the initial creatures that evolved come from (probably the most importent one), what triggers evolution, if conditions were to drastically change tomorrow would evolution begin it's long process again etc... When it comes down to it's just a really logical thoery like I said I'm not religious but the's no reason for them to fully accept it.

We disn't evolve FROM apes. We avolved in parralel, from a common ancestor probably many many years ago (2 million?) Apes are still here because the environment alowed them to, and they adapted and were able tu survive (the ones that are here today, many died out in the meantime).

Evolution does NOT pretend to explain how life appeared.

Evolution happens all the time. It doesn't stop. The effects of it are (more) visible when the environment changes since usually that requires favorises adaptation and phisical adaptation is as good as any (one other being behavioral adaptation). If the change you got is benefic you will have many offsprings and carry on the blodline (something like this).

- If conditions were to drastically change tomorow, many of the living things would die. the resilient would live, and then would adapt to the new conditions, both fisically and other.

Evolution does not mean that all the living things UPGRADE all the time. It means that the living things adapt to their environment as best as they can. Ancient fish in the American rivers have no problems surviving, they don't require any upgrades (well, they didn't require them untill the asian carp arrived that is). The apparent stopping of the evolution is due to the fact that they are close to optimally upgraded for what they do and where they do it, and all variations that appear are not more successfull than the base moddel, so they don't have may offsprings and don't influence the specie's genepool much (if at all) (again, something like this).



Raido on 06 January 2012
Wyrdness said:
Jumpin said:
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....


It's not an absolute fact though it's just a really good thoery, the argument against christians and other religions is that evolution proves them wrong yet the are still holes, if we evolved from apes supposidely why are they still present, where did the initial creatures that evolved come from (probably the most importent one), what triggers evolution, if conditions were to drastically change tomorrow would evolution begin it's long process again etc... When it comes down to it's just a really logical thoery like I said I'm not religious but the's no reason for them to fully accept it.

Please... Pleeease tell me you are trolling... T_T You can't be that ignorant, can you?

 

@Topic

There are numerous things that are explained by Evolution, so many that Evolution just can't be wrong. You won't find better explanations...



Reasonable on 06 January 2012
highwaystar101 said:
YActually, I'm going to try and avoid getting involved in the evolution debate again. I'm out of this thread


Good iead.  I've got trapped trying to discuss with people "who don't know what they'd don't know" too many times in threads like this now.



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

BlkPaladin on 06 January 2012
bouzane said:

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.

It was the Catholic Church that caused the dark ages. But they also surpress knowledge of the bible also by keeping it in a laungage that could not be read by the common man.

The bible while it isn't a scientific book is very acurate about science when it does touch on the matter. The Mosaic Law coventant contains heath codes that serverly went against the grain of the times. Such as the removal of excurment from living areas. The egyptians of the time were using urine and excurment as medicines.

The word used to describe the shape of the earth in Job is the same word used for sphere. It also described the earth as hanging on nothing. In the book of Isaiah there is a poetic description of the Water Cycle.

 

And in my last post I sould of been a little clearer. Creationist isn't a person who believes in creation. It a person who believes in the literal (as oppose to figurative) interpetation of the bible's verses in spite of proff otherwise. They believe that the universe and earth where created in 7 24-hour days. As oppose to believing in a creator.



bouzane on 06 January 2012
BlkPaladin said:
bouzane said:

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.

It was the Catholic Church that caused the dark ages. But they also surpress knowledge of the bible also by keeping it in a laungage that could not be read by the common man.

The bible while it isn't a scientific book is very acurate about science when it does touch on the matter. The Mosaic Law coventant contains heath codes that serverly went against the grain of the times. Such as the removal of excurment from living areas. The egyptians of the time were using urine and excurment as medicines.

The word used to describe the shape of the earth in Job is the same word used for sphere. It also described the earth as hanging on nothing. In the book of Isaiah there is a poetic description of the Water Cycle.

 

And in my last post I sould of been a little clearer. Creationist isn't a person who believes in creation. It a person who believes in the literal (as oppose to figurative) interpetation of the bible's verses in spite of proff otherwise. They believe that the universe and earth where created in 7 24-hour days. As oppose to believing in a creator.


I wasn't expecting such an insightful post, thank you for the reading material.