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?

miz1q2w3e on 08 January 2012

What's going on here?

ryan, if you need me to "take care" of someone in here just let me know >;)



Around the Network
thranx on 08 January 2012
bouzane said:
thranx said:
theprof00 said:
thranx said:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

 

Definition of THEORY

1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art theory>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena theory of light>
6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
So what part of what i said does not fall under those defintitons?
It is still just a theory. It proves some aspects of how some creautires came to be. It is not a fact of how humans came to be and can not be proved as such. So its a "theory" with all that implies. Do not try to make it more than it to be. We were talking on the evolution of humans, not on if evolution occurs or is possible. So please exaplin to me how the theory of human evoluiton is somehow a proven fact, and not a combination of ideas thought to be true but not proven so.

Explain to me how theory of gravity is unproven.

Explain to me how the theory of relativity is just a theory.

Explain how theory of flight implies anything more than the concrete facts of flight.

I never said every theory out there is unprooven. I have even agreed to evoltuion being a valid theory. All I said was that we can not proove with 100% certainty that humans are the way we are because of evolution. All of you supporters seem to take evolution theory as gospel when it has some very big holes in it. It does not fully explain how we came to be, and there are missing links and pieces to the chain. You can argue all you want what theory means, but i put the definition right there for you, it happens to have quite a few meanings and the way i used it was correct.


Sorry but at this point you have already been corrected on several points. There are no missing links per se, that is a gross misnomer. Please read the following article on transitional fossils:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Additionally, there is no simple evolutionary chain. This concept typically relates to the ''Great Chain of Being'', a concept that has long been abandoned by the scientific community:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being

You state that there are some very big holes in the Evolutionary Theory, I'm curious as to which one(s) are you referring to?

The big holes would be the steps taken between what we were before and what we are now. PLease show me the single cell organsim we evlovled from all the way through to humans. I have yet to see that. If we did evolve from other things were are the baby steps?



miz1q2w3e on 08 January 2012

Thread title changed again?



bouzane on 08 January 2012
thranx said:
bouzane said:
thranx said:
theprof00 said:
thranx said:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

 

Definition of THEORY

1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art theory>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena theory of light>
6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
So what part of what i said does not fall under those defintitons?
It is still just a theory. It proves some aspects of how some creautires came to be. It is not a fact of how humans came to be and can not be proved as such. So its a "theory" with all that implies. Do not try to make it more than it to be. We were talking on the evolution of humans, not on if evolution occurs or is possible. So please exaplin to me how the theory of human evoluiton is somehow a proven fact, and not a combination of ideas thought to be true but not proven so.

Explain to me how theory of gravity is unproven.

Explain to me how the theory of relativity is just a theory.

Explain how theory of flight implies anything more than the concrete facts of flight.

I never said every theory out there is unprooven. I have even agreed to evoltuion being a valid theory. All I said was that we can not proove with 100% certainty that humans are the way we are because of evolution. All of you supporters seem to take evolution theory as gospel when it has some very big holes in it. It does not fully explain how we came to be, and there are missing links and pieces to the chain. You can argue all you want what theory means, but i put the definition right there for you, it happens to have quite a few meanings and the way i used it was correct.


Sorry but at this point you have already been corrected on several points. There are no missing links per se, that is a gross misnomer. Please read the following article on transitional fossils:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Additionally, there is no simple evolutionary chain. This concept typically relates to the ''Great Chain of Being'', a concept that has long been abandoned by the scientific community:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being

You state that there are some very big holes in the Evolutionary Theory, I'm curious as to which one(s) are you referring to?

The big holes would be the steps taken between what we were before and what we are now. PLease show me the single cell organsim we evlovled from all the way through to humans. I have yet to see that. If we did evolve from other things were are the baby steps?

This encompasses just about the entire process but it is not very comprehensive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

 

This is much more comprehensive but limited in scope:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

 

I know it's not quite what you asked for but it's a start. I'll search for additional pieces of the puzzle tomorrow. Sorry but now it's time for me to finish Perseaus Mandate :P



thranx on 08 January 2012

You dont have to. You dont have to convince me, I am a believer in evoltuion. I just acknowledge that it can't really be proven at 100% certainty at this point in time that its how humans came to be, and that leaves a little room for doubt so i can understand how some people can not believe it. I think we were arguing over semantics and nothing more. I just think some believers in human evolution fail to see the other side sometimes. I was just trying to bring that to light. I personaly belive in evolution.



Around the Network
Homeroids on 09 January 2012
Andrespetmonkey said:
Evolution contradicts Adam & Eve.

If evolution is a fact that means no Adam & Eve, no Adam & Eve means no original sin, no original sin means no need for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

The evidence that supports evolution also contradicts Noahs ark and the world being under 10,000 years old.



Well not necessarily. For want of a better word, you are assuming a fundalmentalist view of the book of Genesis. My take - it's certainly not a book to be taken on "How" God created everything (the Universe). For if that was it's intent it would be a might bigger :). However, if one is to take a more holistic view of Genesis and not look at it as a purely "historically" themed book of the Bible, other avenues (that to me), make more sense suddenly appear. 

 

For example, if one looks at Genesis as a book for possibly "why" God created everything (the Universe), then one only needs to take the ground work it lays down for a possible plan that "God" has for mankind. The theological ideas of original sin, redemption etc can still apply. And that's not saying here that you or anyone need agree with that since the idea of free will and choice being as important as it is, is also given explanation in Genesis :).

Now as to whether there was a literal Adam and Eve, or if this is an allegory of 2 initially created beings (Home Sapiens), I don't know. To go down that path will digress to theology. 

Now as to "evolution" - it's a word that in a way simply means to progress. In most people's minds evolution will conjour the idea of biological evolution explained using Natural Selection. This is Darwinism and is an explanation for Biological evolution. However, The Big Bang was a term coined by a Belgian Priest and astronomer called Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) and he challenged the more accepted idea of an eternal universe (which Genesis does not agree with) that held sway for centuries, and which even Einstein at the time held (an Aristotle influence). Lemaitre made an application of Einstein's theory of relativity and in 1927 worked out a precursor to the Hubble constant regarding the fact of an expanding universe. Ironically, the Big Bang is a theory that brings a confirmation to Genesis in that the Universe is NOT eternal. 

Richard Dawkin's may argue that Genesis, in respect to the UNiverse being eternal or not had a 50% chance of getting this right, but the theology of Genesis (beginnings) goes a lot deepr than a 50% chance. It affects the whole, what you elude to, "no Adam & Eve, no Adam & Eve means no original sin, no original sin means no need for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. "

 

So, yeah, interesting :).



theprof00 on 09 January 2012

So you believe in evolution but not human evolution?

SO you think we are special.
Sorry, but we are not. We are unique, definitely, but not special.

I have no problem with you thinking that we are, but you should at least hear the truth. After all, it is only after we look despair in the face that we can truly ascend to higher levels. The idea that we are special is a crutch.



Runa216 on 09 January 2012

Not directly related, but worth a listen to anyone with an open mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Andrespetmonkey on 09 January 2012
Homeroids said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
Evolution contradicts Adam & Eve.

If evolution is a fact that means no Adam & Eve, no Adam & Eve means no original sin, no original sin means no need for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

The evidence that supports evolution also contradicts Noahs ark and the world being under 10,000 years old.



Well not necessarily. For want of a better word, you are assuming a fundalmentalist view of the book of Genesis. My take - it's certainly not a book to be taken on "How" God created everything (the Universe). For if that was it's intent it would be a might bigger :). However, if one is to take a more holistic view of Genesis and not look at it as a purely "historically" themed book of the Bible, other avenues (that to me), make more sense suddenly appear. 

 

For example, if one looks at Genesis as a book for possibly "why" God created everything (the Universe), then one only needs to take the ground work it lays down for a possible plan that "God" has for mankind. The theological ideas of original sin, redemption etc can still apply. And that's not saying here that you or anyone need agree with that since the idea of free will and choice being as important as it is, is also given explanation in Genesis :).

Now as to whether there was a literal Adam and Eve, or if this is an allegory of 2 initially created beings (Home Sapiens), I don't know. To go down that path will digress to theology. 

Now as to "evolution" - it's a word that in a way simply means to progress. In most people's minds evolution will conjour the idea of biological evolution explained using Natural Selection. This is Darwinism and is an explanation for Biological evolution. However, The Big Bang was a term coined by a Belgian Priest and astronomer called Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) and he challenged the more accepted idea of an eternal universe (which Genesis does not agree with) that held sway for centuries, and which even Einstein at the time held (an Aristotle influence). Lemaitre made an application of Einstein's theory of relativity and in 1927 worked out a precursor to the Hubble constant regarding the fact of an expanding universe. Ironically, the Big Bang is a theory that brings a confirmation to Genesis in that the Universe is NOT eternal. 

Richard Dawkin's may argue that Genesis, in respect to the UNiverse being eternal or not had a 50% chance of getting this right, but the theology of Genesis (beginnings) goes a lot deepr than a 50% chance. It affects the whole, what you elude to, "no Adam & Eve, no Adam & Eve means no original sin, no original sin means no need for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. "

 

So, yeah, interesting :).

Bloody hell xD I keep forgetting to go back and edit that post. I've explained this a few times now, those are reasons why a christian who literally believed in the creation story would reject evolution, I know plenty of christians believe in evolution and the big bang, I know plenty of christians see genesis as mostly metaphoric. 



My Music

Dr.Grass on 09 January 2012
thranx said:
bouzane said:
thranx said:
theprof00 said:
thranx said:
spurgeonryan said:
MrBubbles said:
plenty of christians believe in evolution and the big bang theory.


Come on now! Most kids growing up in a religous home get taught many things, one of them is that Evolution is wrong!

 

I am sure there are some Christians who believe that, but I assure you a majority refuse to!


If your talking about the US. I think you would be wrong. I think you are generalising christians all together when they should not be. There are many types with many different levels of belief. I think many non christians mistake the veiws of christians. I have personaly never met a single person who does not believe in some part of evolution. At the same time, evolution is still a theory and is not the end all be all explanation for life and how we came to be.

 

using the word theory as if it is just a guess until we have proof of something else is undermining the term quite a bit.

A theory is a carefully put together explanation of why things happen.

In terms of "speciation", which is what the theory of evolution attempts to explain, it is an explanation why speciation occurs.

Micro-evolution is a proven process. It is testable and repeatable and predictable. However, the main problem that people have with evolution is that scientists extrapolate this micro evolution across species into larger genera. There isn't much evidence to support this because there is simply no way to test it or show it within the short span of time we've been around.

However, the concept of evolution is 100% proven. Nothing will prove it wrong.

There is no, like, graduation from theory to law or fact etc etc, because they all mean different things. A theory in day to day conversation is not scientific theory.


as far as how humans came to be evolution is very much just a "theory." There are far too many missing pieces in the chain. That is all i said. I never said evolution does not happen, i said it is not the end be all explaniton for how things are today, and that is true. Its a theory that is missing pieces to explain it all. It explains some things, and does it rather well, but not everything.

 

edit: in retrospect i could of worded the last sentance slightly differently, but in the sense of what people where talking about in the thread as far as humans evolving it stands.


1. Never say ''just a theory'', theories are scrutinized, tested and supported by the scientific evidence currently available (which in this case is staggering).

2. The evolution of our species is not a simple chain, that is a gross oversimplification.

3. There is no such thing as missing links, transitional fossils map out an excellent picture of our species' evolutionary ancestry.

4. You have Internet access and enough free time to educate yourself with no cost other than a bit of effort, for the love of f**k do so please.


Wow condensiung much? Perhaps you should read that evidence and links. Show me the path of human evolution form a simple creature... oh wahts that you can't? I understand that, because it has not been verified to what has happeneded to the human species. So please save your educaate myself and please read up on some facts and not just accept things. I prefer acctual eveidence, not speculation and misssing peices.

While 'educated' people might simply dismiss what you're saying, you are in fact correct.

This is a very significant point that is largely ignored.