Evidence for theistic evolution

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

Post by Audie »

Kurieuo wrote:PS. I just re-read your post to me before last and seriously somehow missed entirely your question to me at the start re: higher education mocking.
Maybe I just didn't understand where it was coming from as I wasn't involved in the discussion so just ignored it. I don't know. Sorry.

We've had a couple of outlandish accusations made against science teaching and universities.

One was that "higher education mocks bible belief". I never encountered anything like it, but then, I didnt take a theology course. :D

Another was that evolution is taught as proven fact. Like with the "mocking" thing, there may be isolated examples, but not the pervasive pattern falsely claimed, and not backed buy anything.

The "creoheroes' I spoke of would be the creationists who go forth to battle the evils of evolution and the educations systems, knowing naught of what t hey speak.
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

Post by RickD »

kenny wrote:
Really? I am going to ask you the same question again! How do you know in the example I gave you about insects and plants evolving to pesticides, that it was just variations of adapting and not actually evolution? Were you there during the experiment? They said it was evolution; how do you know they were lying? Do you even know the difference between evolution and adaption?
Try to answer the question this time; if you choose not to please don't return some other day claiming you did answer the question.
Ken,

Abel has been consistent on this point. Insects adapting to pesticides is not insects becoming something besides insects.

His point is that there is no proof that any life has evolved into another kind of life. There's no proof that dinosaurs evolved into birds. What Abel calls adaptation, is not shown that it leads to evolution(dinosaurs to birds, etc.)

Don't focus on the terms Abel is using. Focus on the point he's making.

In other words, Abel is saying that we see micro evolution. But we don't see macroevolution on the scale of dinosaurs evolving into birds.

As it is, you guys are just talking over each other.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5020
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

Post by abelcainsbrother »

Kenny wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote: I would like to know why you seem to trust them so much?I mean I already showed you what kind of evidence they present as evidence life evolves
No you did not! I asked you specific questions and you ignored my question and went on to something else. I am still waiting for that response.
abelcainsbrother wrote: and explained why it is just variations in reproduction or adaptation they are using as evidence.
Really? I am going to ask you the same question again! How do you know in the example I gave you about insects and plants evolving to pesticides, that it was just variations of adapting and not actually evolution? Were you there during the experiment? They said it was evolution; how do you know they were lying? Do you even know the difference between evolution and adaption?
Try to answer the question this time; if you choose not to please don't return some other day claiming you did answer the question.
I already told you but you seem to ignore it.First look up the scientific definition for evolution,natural selection,micro evolution and macro, reproduction and adaptation then look at your evidence and you'll see it did not evolve.Stop believing them when you can see yourself life does not evolve.If you want to accept their definition for micro-evolution you can but to me it should be called variations in reproduction and is obvious to everybody and was known and understood long before Charles Darwin but it makes no difference life does not evolve.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5020
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

Post by abelcainsbrother »

Kenny I cannot go on and on with you about this any longer.I have explained myself thoroughly and you may need to review but I am not going to keep answering you and explaining myself and backing up what I say and explaining to you how to look yourself and you just ignore it.You give scientific evidence that demonstrates life evolves like you believe or I'm not going to respond to you on this topic.You are playing dumb and I know you are smarter than you're letting on.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

Post by Kurieuo »

Audie wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:PS. I just re-read your post to me before last and seriously somehow missed entirely your question to me at the start re: higher education mocking.
Maybe I just didn't understand where it was coming from as I wasn't involved in the discussion so just ignored it. I don't know. Sorry.

We've had a couple of outlandish accusations made against science teaching and universities.

One was that "higher education mocks bible belief". I never encountered anything like it, but then, I didnt take a theology course. :D

Another was that evolution is taught as proven fact. Like with the "mocking" thing, there may be isolated examples, but not the pervasive pattern falsely claimed, and not backed buy anything.

The "creoheroes' I spoke of would be the creationists who go forth to battle the evils of evolution and the educations systems, knowing naught of what t hey speak.
Well considering I'd argue "creation" isn't incompatible with "evolution", and as you know even press further that "evolution" if true points to Theism... ;)
These "creoheroes" are a setting out to disprove issues that could be used in their favour. If only, such would relax the reigns a little on what is of primary importance -- getting creation mechanism right, or just getting creation.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

Post by Audie »

Kurieuo wrote:
Audie wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:PS. I just re-read your post to me before last and seriously somehow missed entirely your question to me at the start re: higher education mocking.
Maybe I just didn't understand where it was coming from as I wasn't involved in the discussion so just ignored it. I don't know. Sorry.

We've had a couple of outlandish accusations made against science teaching and universities.

One was that "higher education mocks bible belief". I never encountered anything like it, but then, I didnt take a theology course. :D

Another was that evolution is taught as proven fact. Like with the "mocking" thing, there may be isolated examples, but not the pervasive pattern falsely claimed, and not backed buy anything.

The "creoheroes' I spoke of would be the creationists who go forth to battle the evils of evolution and the educations systems, knowing naught of what t hey speak.
Well considering I'd argue "creation" isn't incompatible with "evolution", and as you know even press further that "evolution" if true points to Theism... ;)
These "creoheroes" are a setting out to disprove issues that could be used in their favour. If only, such would relax the reigns a little on what is of primary importance -- getting creation mechanism right, or just getting creation.
Was it your experience that ToE was taught as proven fact, never to be questioned?
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5020
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

Post by abelcainsbrother »

I could become a theistic evolutionist but I don't because of a lack of evidence life evolves.Plus the Gap theory I believe means evolution cannot be true because there is no way the life that perished when the former world perished evolved into the life in this world.I don't like it that the evidence that was first discovered by Christians who started modern science was hyjacked away and made to fit into evolution because Charles Darwin believed life evolved and made it fit into the scientific evidence of the time and evolutionists have had 150 years to demonstrate life evolves and never have.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

Post by neo-x »

abelcainsbrother wrote:I could become a theistic evolutionist but I don't because of a lack of evidence life evolves.Plus the Gap theory I believe means evolution cannot be true because there is no way the life that perished when the former world perished evolved into the life in this world.I don't like it that the evidence that was first discovered by Christians who started modern science was hyjacked away and made to fit into evolution because Charles Darwin believed life evolved and made it fit into the scientific evidence of the time and evolutionists have had 150 years to demonstrate life evolves and never have.
Abel, just because you aren't convinced doesn't mean evolution is falsified. Only saying this because you seem to be tooting your horn for the hundred time now to no effect. I just find it amusing that you keep repeating this as it was so obvious. It isn't and is far from convincing. I am absolutely convinced of the evidence.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

Post by neo-x »

abelcainsbrother wrote:I could become a theistic evolutionist but I don't because of a lack of evidence life evolves.Plus the Gap theory I believe means evolution cannot be true because there is no way the life that perished when the former world perished evolved into the life in this world.I don't like it that the evidence that was first discovered by Christians who started modern science was hyjacked away and made to fit into evolution because Charles Darwin believed life evolved and made it fit into the scientific evidence of the time and evolutionists have had 150 years to demonstrate life evolves and never have.
Abel, just because you aren't convinced doesn't mean evolution is falsified. Only saying this because you seem to be tooting your horn for the hundred time now to no effect. I just find it amusing that you keep repeating this as it was so obvious. It isn't and is far from convincing. I am absolutely convinced of the evidence.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

Post by Kurieuo »

Audie wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Audie wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:PS. I just re-read your post to me before last and seriously somehow missed entirely your question to me at the start re: higher education mocking.
Maybe I just didn't understand where it was coming from as I wasn't involved in the discussion so just ignored it. I don't know. Sorry.

We've had a couple of outlandish accusations made against science teaching and universities.

One was that "higher education mocks bible belief". I never encountered anything like it, but then, I didnt take a theology course. :D

Another was that evolution is taught as proven fact. Like with the "mocking" thing, there may be isolated examples, but not the pervasive pattern falsely claimed, and not backed buy anything.

The "creoheroes' I spoke of would be the creationists who go forth to battle the evils of evolution and the educations systems, knowing naught of what t hey speak.
Well considering I'd argue "creation" isn't incompatible with "evolution", and as you know even press further that "evolution" if true points to Theism... ;)
These "creoheroes" are a setting out to disprove issues that could be used in their favour. If only, such would relax the reigns a little on what is of primary importance -- getting creation mechanism right, or just getting creation.
Was it your experience that ToE was taught as proven fact, never to be questioned?
I know you don't believe that, in the sense the science doesn't prove things -- it just either confirms and invalidates.

ToE (as in evolution of all life) does appear to be sacrosanct to many.
Although I believe that's because one is entwining the science of evolution with their philosophical worldview.

Gould wrote a book, Evolution as Fact and Theory. Dawkins (sorry to invoke his name, but he is actually quite well-respected and popular), talks of the fact of evolution. Many do, so I don't think one can necessarily blame those who do not believe in ToE for any misconception here. It has also resulted in professional criticisms and ostracisation for some.

I'd be interested in your opinion of this article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

Post by Audie »

Kurieuo wrote:
Audie wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Audie wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:PS. I just re-read your post to me before last and seriously somehow missed entirely your question to me at the start re: higher education mocking.
Maybe I just didn't understand where it was coming from as I wasn't involved in the discussion so just ignored it. I don't know. Sorry.

We've had a couple of outlandish accusations made against science teaching and universities.

One was that "higher education mocks bible belief". I never encountered anything like it, but then, I didnt take a theology course. :D

Another was that evolution is taught as proven fact. Like with the "mocking" thing, there may be isolated examples, but not the pervasive pattern falsely claimed, and not backed buy anything.

The "creoheroes' I spoke of would be the creationists who go forth to battle the evils of evolution and the educations systems, knowing naught of what t hey speak.
Well considering I'd argue "creation" isn't incompatible with "evolution", and as you know even press further that "evolution" if true points to Theism... ;)
These "creoheroes" are a setting out to disprove issues that could be used in their favour. If only, such would relax the reigns a little on what is of primary importance -- getting creation mechanism right, or just getting creation.
Was it your experience that ToE was taught as proven fact, never to be questioned?
I know you don't believe that, in the sense the science doesn't prove things -- it just either confirms and invalidates.

ToE (as in evolution of all life) does appear to be sacrosanct to many.
Although I believe that's because one is entwining the science of evolution with their philosophical worldview.

Gould wrote a book, Evolution as Fact and Theory. Dawkins (sorry to invoke his name, but he is actually quite well-respected and popular), talks of the fact of evolution. Many do, so I don't think one can necessarily blame those who do not believe in ToE for any misconception here. It has also resulted in professional criticisms and ostracisation for some.

I'd be interested in your opinion of this article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
So has it been your experience to encounter any theory in any field of science being taught as proven fact?

Sacrosanct and worldview... out comes that ol' philammer again. Looking for nails.

As for criticism and ostracism, its no different in the biological sciences than it is elsewhere.

One of our currently foremost physicists was warned as a grad student that he was going off the reservation and risking his future, with ideas that are now finding wide acceptance.

As ToE is deeply integrated with all the 'hard" science, the disproof of the theory could come from chemistry, physics, etc.


Now, focus, on topic. The claim is made over and over that ToE is taught as proven fact. That it is not to be questioned.

Have you ever encountered anything like that?
I sure have not, and as noted previous.
that would be a very poor school indeed that taught science by teaching the opposite of science.
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

Post by RickD »

Audie wrote:
Now, focus, on topic. The claim is made over and over that ToE is taught as proven fact. That it is not to be questioned.

Have you ever encountered anything like that? I sure have not, and as noted previous.
that would be a very poor school indeed that taught science by teaching the opposite of science.
Audie,
We have encountered it here in this forum. I wish you were here when I had the argument regarding this very subject. Neox and PaulS were arguing that evolution is a fact. it started with the thread that Neo started. And the two underlined parts of his post here:
NOT JUST A THEORY

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!
********

Full article with footnotes here
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

Post by RickD »

And Audie, for reference, here's my objection regarding Neo's thread. pay attention to the underlined in this post by me.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... us#p144254
Keep in mind, you are posting in the forum of GodandScience.org, which is an OEC/Progressive Creationist website. You are free to post your beliefs and views on evolution here, but posting your belief that evolution is a fact, and people who don't believe in evolution as you believe, "have a twisted often wrong view of evolution" will not be brushed aside. In the same way, if a YEC came to this site and posted similar things about YEC, demanding that we adhere to his request that there be only his YEC references allowed in a thread, I'd say the same to him. Frankly, your insistence that what you believe about evolution, is a fact, reeks of the same stench that I have continually criticized Ken Ham for. Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana both know more about evolution than you and I do, and they don't believe it is quite the fact that you do. So, whether or not I or anyone else here understands evolution like you want us to, that doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand evolution.
I am not anti-evolution, as Neo said. My problem was that Neo was saying that evolution is fact. And if people don't believe it is a fact, they "have a twisted often wrong view of evolution".

This is the problem that Kurieuo was referring to when he asked you this:
Was it your experience that ToE was taught as proven fact, never to be questioned?
I have absolutely no problem as a moderator, allowing someone to believe in or talk about evolution here. My problem is in the assertion that evolution is a fact. And that anyone who doesn't believe it is a fact, somehow doesn't understand evolution.

Now don't get me wrong, there are probably many people who don't understand evolution. But there are others that do understand it, and don't believe it's a fact.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

Post by Audie »

RickD wrote:
Audie wrote:
Now, focus, on topic. The claim is made over and over that ToE is taught as proven fact. That it is not to be questioned.

Have you ever encountered anything like that? I sure have not, and as noted previous.
that would be a very poor school indeed that taught science by teaching the opposite of science.
Audie,
We have encountered it here in this forum. I wish you were here when I had the argument regarding this very subject. Neox and PaulS were arguing that evolution is a fact. it started with the thread that Neo started. And the two underlined parts of his post here:
NOT JUST A THEORY

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!
********

Full article with footnotes here
This is not so hard as to take all those words.

Nobody here denies that evolution is a fact. Do they? Some think it is limited to
"micro" but the word "evolution" is in there. Anyone here deny that some kind type sort amount degree or variety of evolution takes place?

The claim has been that the theory of evolution is a state religion, not to be questioned, and is taught as fact.

If it was your experience that ToE, or any other theory was taught as fact, then you went to a shabby excuse for a school, or at least, one with science teacher who should not have been there.

The claim is that it is the standard way it is taught, that people are indoctrinated with this idea that ToE is True, and unassailable.

Do you agree with that, or not?
Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

Post by Audie »

RickD wrote:And Audie, for reference, here's my objection regarding Neo's thread. pay attention to the underlined in this post by me.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... us#p144254
Keep in mind, you are posting in the forum of GodandScience.org, which is an OEC/Progressive Creationist website. You are free to post your beliefs and views on evolution here, but posting your belief that evolution is a fact, and people who don't believe in evolution as you believe, "have a twisted often wrong view of evolution" will not be brushed aside. In the same way, if a YEC came to this site and posted similar things about YEC, demanding that we adhere to his request that there be only his YEC references allowed in a thread, I'd say the same to him. Frankly, your insistence that what you believe about evolution, is a fact, reeks of the same stench that I have continually criticized Ken Ham for. Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana both know more about evolution than you and I do, and they don't believe it is quite the fact that you do. So, whether or not I or anyone else here understands evolution like you want us to, that doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand evolution.
I am not anti-evolution, as Neo said. My problem was that Neo was saying that evolution is fact. And if people don't believe it is a fact, they "have a twisted often wrong view of evolution".

This is the problem that Kurieuo was referring to when he asked you this:
Was it your experience that ToE was taught as proven fact, never to be questioned?
I have absolutely no problem as a moderator, allowing someone to believe in or talk about evolution here. My problem is in the assertion that evolution is a fact. And that anyone who doesn't believe it is a fact, somehow doesn't understand evolution.

Now don't get me wrong, there are probably many people who don't understand evolution. But there are others that do understand it, and don't believe it's a fact.

It seems to me the entire problem is with misunderstood vocabulary.

You do, I trust, understand that "evolution" and, " the theory of evolution" are NOT the same thing?
Post Reply