Does Evolution and Science draw people away from God?

[RickD]

Abelcainsbrother,

You are against evolution. For the sake of discussion, could you please define "evolution", so readers can understand what exactly you are against? Evolution has one basic meaning: Change over time. I don't think you're against that. And there are all different kinds of evolution as well. For example, there's stellar evolution, evolution within the species, evolution which says a new species is made, etc.

For example, personally, I think many types of evolution are believable to me. At this time, I only have a problem with the kind of evolution that says all life evolved from one simple life form. I just don't believe it's warranted from the evidence. But I don't discard all other kinds of evolution(change) because of that.

I think it would go a long way if you could explain exactly which evolution you believe needs fighting against.

Thanks

[Audie]

Abelcainsbrother,

You are against evolution. For the sake of discussion, could you please define "evolution", so readers can understand what exactly you are against? Evolution has one basic meaning: Change over time. I don't think you're against that. And there are all different kinds of evolution as well. For example, there's stellar evolution, evolution within the species, evolution which says a new species is made, etc.

For example, personally, I think many types of evolution are believable to me. At this time, I only have a problem with the kind of evolution that says all life evolved from one simple life form. I just don't believe it's warranted from the evidence. But I don't discard all other kinds of evolution(change) because of that.

I think it would go a long way if you could explain exactly which evolution you believe needs fighting against.

Thanks

Curious..if not a "single" then how many?

[RickD]

Abelcainsbrother,

You are against evolution. For the sake of discussion, could you please define "evolution", so readers can understand what exactly you are against? Evolution has one basic meaning: Change over time. I don't think you're against that. And there are all different kinds of evolution as well. For example, there's stellar evolution, evolution within the species, evolution which says a new species is made, etc.

For example, personally, I think many types of evolution are believable to me. At this time, I only have a problem with the kind of evolution that says all life evolved from one simple life form. I just don't believe it's warranted from the evidence. But I don't discard all other kinds of evolution(change) because of that.

I think it would go a long way if you could explain exactly which evolution you believe needs fighting against.

Thanks

Curious..if not a "single" then how many?

I don't understand what you're asking. "Single" what? Where did I say single?

[Audie]

Abelcainsbrother,

You are against evolution. For the sake of discussion, could you please define "evolution", so readers can understand what exactly you are against? Evolution has one basic meaning: Change over time. I don't think you're against that. And there are all different kinds of evolution as well. For example, there's stellar evolution, evolution within the species, evolution which says a new species is made, etc.

For example, personally, I think many types of evolution are believable to me. At this time, I only have a problem with the kind of evolution that says all life evolved from one simple life form. I just don't believe it's warranted from the evidence. But I don't discard all other kinds of evolution(change) because of that.

I think it would go a long way if you could explain exactly which evolution you believe needs fighting against.

Thanks

Curious..if not a "single" then how many?

I don't understand what you're asking. "Single" what? Where did I say single?

one simple life form.

If not one simple life form, then what do you think..numerous simple, one complex, multiple complex?

[RickD]

Abelcainsbrother,

You are against evolution. For the sake of discussion, could you please define "evolution", so readers can understand what exactly you are against? Evolution has one basic meaning: Change over time. I don't think you're against that. And there are all different kinds of evolution as well. For example, there's stellar evolution, evolution within the species, evolution which says a new species is made, etc.

For example, personally, I think many types of evolution are believable to me. At this time, I only have a problem with the kind of evolution that says all life evolved from one simple life form. I just don't believe it's warranted from the evidence. But I don't discard all other kinds of evolution(change) because of that.

I think it would go a long way if you could explain exactly which evolution you believe needs fighting against.

Thanks

Curious..if not a "single" then how many?

I don't understand what you're asking. "Single" what? Where did I say single?

one simple life form.

If not one simple life form, then what do you think..numerous simple, one complex, multiple complex?

Audie,

For clarification only, and not to derail this thread, as I mentioned to you before, I lean towards Progressive Creationism.

In a nutshell, Progressive Creationism is:

Progressive creationism is the belief that God created new forms of life gradually over a period of hundreds of millions of years. As a form of old earth creationism, it accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, some tenets of biology such as microevolution as well as archaeology to make its case. In this view creation occurred in rapid bursts in which all "kinds" of plants and animals appear in stages lasting millions of years. The bursts are followed by periods of stasis or equilibrium to accommodate new arrivals. These bursts represent instances of God creating new types of organisms by divine intervention. As viewed from the archaeological record, progressive creationism holds that "species do not gradually appear by the steady transformation of its ancestors; [but] appear all at once and "fully formed."[1] The view rejects macroevolution because they believe it to be biologically untenable and not supported by the fossil record,[2] and they reject the concept of universal descent from a last universal common ancestor. Thus they attack the evidence for macroevolution, but affirm microevolution as a genetic parameter designed by the creator into the fabric of genetics to allow for environmental adaptations and survival.

If you're interested in learning more about PC, this site explains about all you could want to know:http://www.reasons.org/

[Starhunter]

In other words if you are a professing Christian and you want to believe in evolution, you can make up different versions of it to suit your own ideas of creation?

Is there any need to make one up with so many already circulated?
Can one believe in them all at once by introducing parallel universes?

Would these different theories draw people away from God?

It's just my opinion that God did things only one way and that He would not leave us in the dark about it, either through nature or revelation. But science seems to be in conflict with inspiration on some levels anyhow.

It seems like the different versions of evolution are coming from religious communities rather than from conventional science, which has more unity than Christendom by the sounds of it.

How many different ways can one sit on the fence? is the question.

[Morny]

I think it would go a long way if you could explain exactly which evolution you believe needs fighting against.

Hopefully not to steal what may be Audie's point, but creationism has multiple mutually contradicting versions (YEC, OEC, PC, TE, ...), while science has only one version of evolution.

That version is the one in science textbooks, and the one that almost all biologists accept.

That version makes the case for common descent, i.e., organizing organisms by a panoply of biological traits forms only one reasonable nested hierarchy. The leaves (organisms) on the tree (of life), grouped by branch and stem, form the nested hierarchy, which supports the idea of a common ancestor.

[Storyteller]

Could that common ancestor be God?

Evolution, for me, doesn't conflict with my faith. I'm still fairly new to reading the bible and need to look into the details but Genesis could be explaining a whole lot of things, evolution, even the big bang. (First there was light)
Could we not view our salvation as evolution?

[abelcainsbrother]

Abelcainsbrother,

You are against evolution. For the sake of discussion, could you please define "evolution", so readers can understand what exactly you are against? Evolution has one basic meaning: Change over time. I don't think you're against that. And there are all different kinds of evolution as well. For example, there's stellar evolution, evolution within the species, evolution which says a new species is made, etc.

For example, personally, I think many types of evolution are believable to me. At this time, I only have a problem with the kind of evolution that says all life evolved from one simple life form. I just don't believe it's warranted from the evidence. But I don't discard all other kinds of evolution(change) because of that.

I think it would go a long way if you could explain exactly which evolution you believe needs fighting against.

Thanks

First off let me say that I to the best of my human abilities try to go by evidence for what I accept or reject as man's truth and when it comes to evolution I pretty much reject all of it based on evidence.

But I mostly focus on life evolving and when I looked into evolution I looked up the scientific evidence for evolution,micro-evolution,macro-evolution and natural selection and I went through the evidence and looked for evidence that would scientifically prove or demonstrate them and I realized that there is not real evidence for any of them,especially when you examine there own evidence that is supposed to demonstrate their definitions and yet their own evidence does not back up their own definitions.

I also think macro -evolution is the key to evolution for which there is no evidence for,yet I can read scientific papers that tell me dinosaurs evolved into birds yet their evidence does not back up what they say,also you cannot have life evolving - one kind of life evolving over time and changing into another kind of life without macro-evolution.Now I would like to ask you what is micro evolution to you?

Because micro evolution should be called variations in reproduction and yet is called micro evolution.Even so reproduction is not life evolving or evidence for life evolving,we know dogs were bread from wolves long before Charles Darwin and we can see variation but it does not in Noway show or demonstrate life evolves all the evidence shows is variations in reproduction then to keep full blooded breeds of dogs man must control the breeding or we lose full blooded breeds of dogs.

.I'm trying to go by evidence instead of their beliefs about evolution and there is none that I can find.

[RickD]

But ACB,

Starting with wolves, and then having different kinds of dogs, IS evolution. Again, evolution is simple change over time. I think you're lumping all kinds of evolution into one big pile, and calling that evolution. And then you're saying "evolution" can't be proven.

[Audie]

But ACB,

Starting with wolves, and then having different kinds of dogs, IS evolution. Again, evolution is simple change over time. I think you're lumping all kinds of evolution into one big pile, and calling that evolution. And then you're saying "evolution" can't be proven.

The terms "micro / macro" evolution are not recognized by science for the simple reason that it is an artificial distinction
made by and for creationists.

"Micro" is about "variation within a kind" with "kind" as an undefined term.
Implied is that only recombination of existing genetic material is possible,
making for a limit to how much "evolution" is possible.

This also implies supernatural intervention to prevent any accumulation of mutations that combined with selective pressues
could add up to a change in species, let alone genera or family.

Else it might be that after a million years on some island,
we'd find, say, that dogs released there had no descendants except these obligate vegetarian tree climbers with retractile claws and a prehensile tail. Do we call them dogs anyway?

Where is the bright hard line in genetics that says, Halt! You are attempting to change beyond your kind!

That is a q. for those who want micro but no macro.

[RickD]

But ACB,

Starting with wolves, and then having different kinds of dogs, IS evolution. Again, evolution is simple change over time. I think you're lumping all kinds of evolution into one big pile, and calling that evolution. And then you're saying "evolution" can't be proven.

The terms "micro / macro" evolution are not recognized by science for the simple reason that it is an artificial distinction
made by and for creationists.

"Micro" is about "variation within a kind" with "kind" as an undefined term.
Implied is that only recombination of existing genetic material is possible,
making for a limit to how much "evolution" is possible.

This also implies supernatural intervention to prevent any accumulation of mutations that combined with selective pressues
could add up to a change in species, let alone genera or family.

Else it might be that after a million years on some island,
we'd find, say, that dogs released there had no descendants except these obligate vegetarian tree climbers with retractile claws and a prehensile tail. Do we call them dogs anyway?

Where is the bright hard line in genetics that says, Halt! You are attempting to change beyond your kind!

That is a q. for those who want micro but no macro.

On the other side of the argument lies the belief that since some kinds of evolution are provable or observable, that means all evolution is assumed to be true. Like simple life forms evolving into sentient humans.

Edit***
Audie,

Are you sure you believe macroevolution is not recognized by science, and the term was made by creationists?
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... oevolution

From the link:

Eminent evolutionist Ernst Mayr (2001) notes that one reason this controversy continues is because gradual transitions are not evident in the fossil record or even between living biota, but rather discontinuities are "overwhelmingly frequent." If evolution were gradual and continuous, one would expect to find transitions between taxa. Yet, there is no intermediary between whales and terrestrial mammals, nor between reptiles and mammals, nor reptiles and birds, nor flowering plants and their nearest relatives. Indeed, all phyla of animals are separated by a gap. Likewise, the fossil record shows striking discontinuities, with new species appearing suddenly. Evolutionists offer explanations for such phenomena, such as the incomplete sampling that results from the fossil record, but the very presence of such gaps is one reason for the controversy.
The second tenet inherent in the view that macroevolution is microevolution extended, the primacy of natural selection, has also been controversial since Darwin developed the theory. Concrete evidence for the theory of modification by natural selection is limited to microevolution, such as seen in the case of artificial selection, whereby various breeds of animals and varieties of plants have been produced that are different in some respect from their ancestors, or in the often-cited case of systematic color change in the peppered moth, Biston betularia, which was observed over a 50-year period in England. Microevolution can easily be demonstrated in the laboratory to the satisfaction of most observers. Large-scale changes, however, do not occur in directly observable time scales. The evidence that natural selection directs the major transitions between species and originates new designs is limited to extrapolation from these evidences on the microevolutionary level. This opens the possibility for other phenomena directing the evolutionary changes, such as species selection or even design by a supreme being.
In recent years, new models have been proposed that challenge the adequacy of gradualism and natural selection as models for macroevolution.

[Audie]

None of that actually addresses what i said tho.

[RickD]

None of that actually addresses what i said tho.

Ok. Try this link then. It's an evolution link that shows the term macroevolution was invented and first used by an evolutionist named Iuri'i Filipchenko.
And scientists do use the terms micro and macroevolution. There just seems to be no consensus on an accepted definition of macroevolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroev ... ml#concept

Evolutionists even admit there's still a question of whether micro equals macro:

Is Microevolution distinct from Macroevolution and vice versa? We concluded that this depends very much on what is meant by "distinct" and so forth. All phenomena of microevolution – evolution below the species level – must necessarily have some effect above the species level. But whether this is an additive effect or not depends on the complexity of the relationships between the two levels in each case. At least some macroevolution is the result of microevolutionary processes. So we are only asking now if all is. This is open to debate: the E (environmental) factors that affect macroevolution are not within-species (Mi) forces, but do microevolutionary processes like gene frequency changes necessarily mediate them? And this question is still unresolved amongst specialists. One thing we can say now, though, is that we cannot draw a simple equals sign between the two domains. It is an open question, one much argued within evolutionary biology and related disciplines, whether Mi = Ma in any sense.

[Philip]

There just seems to be no consensus on an accepted definition of macroevolution.

And I wonder why? And if everything is - or at least, WAS - in transition, how could you truly say when individuals of one species had transcended it's previous species?

Evolutionists even admit there's still a question of whether micro equals macro:

That's because they have no reliable ability to determine the difference between them. Macroevolution always sounds to me to merely show what MIGHT have been possible without being able to connect the dots with proof. And so evolutionary scientist always are playing the "ONE day, we'll have the answers" - or, their other favorites: "We may never truly know how this actually works, the details of it, but we can look at the (unconnected and unproven) evidences, and are at least certain that it, in fact, it DID happen." Or their bluffing hutzpah: "Evolution has overwhelming evidences that show it is a scientific fact." But none of that is truly conclusive science, as, instead, it's merely conjecture reveling in a scientific method that has rendered inconclusive, of often contradictory, evidences - which is why there are so many different schools of thought and arguments amongst evolutionary scientists as to actual mechanisms and processes.