Evidence for theistic evolution

[neo-x]

Ah, the total pointlessness of endless arguing about evolution! It's making me, sleepy, verrrryyyyy.............. :sleep:snooze-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z

Just shows how far people go to negate it, in vain.

[Kurieuo]

Ah, the total pointlessness of endless arguing about evolution! It's making me, sleepy, verrrryyyyy.............. :sleep:snooze-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z

Is that what's happening? I didn't even realise.

[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.

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.

As I noted earlier, saying there is not evidence for "macro" evolution is akin to saying there is no evidence for the Roman Empire. It is equally false.

Id think a person who believes in the Christian god would feel it was incumbent upon them to avoid falsehoods of every sort, perhaps most especially those concerning the earth and what the purported creator thereof has done with it.

But maybe their God is so merciful that deliberate negligence is not considered any sort of sin.

You know there is no scientific evidence that demonstrates macroevolution.I know it and you know it.It is assumed based off of variations in reproduction and adaptation that life evolves.You overlook that reproduction and adaptation in no way demonstrates macroevolution.You cannot just assume but you must to believe life evolves.

I mean if you want to believe that two horses in the wild that produced a stronger horse means life evolves?You can, but it is just reproduction.

[abelcainsbrother]

Ah, the total pointlessness of endless arguing about evolution! It's making me, sleepy, verrrryyyyy.............. :sleep:snooze-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z

Just shows how far people go to negate it, in vain.

I'm just explaining why I reject the idea life evolves.You can believe it,but I don't.Why should I?

I have given those who believe life evolves a chance to show me I'm wrong and yet no one has.Nobody has presented evidence that demonstrates life evolves and even though Kenny tried to I explained why it is not evidence life evolves.I cannot make somebody change their mind but my mind would be changed if somebody showed me why I am wrong because the truth matters more to me than me being right.I live in reality.

[neo-x]

this is pure [nonsense].

[Audie]

Ah, the total pointlessness of endless arguing about evolution! It's making me, sleepy, verrrryyyyy.............. :sleep:snooze-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z

Now, splash-splash vs total immersion, that is deep.

[Philip]

The reason I see the evolution debate as being one ridiculous snoozefest is that, mostly, everyone here is entrenched in their personal view of whatever the truth of the matter is, and in the nearly five years I've been on the forum, rare is it that I've seen any minds being changed per the arguments typically floated. All we're seeing is the same-old, same-old. And, obviously, there are major camps, that evolution is either: An unguided (no God or gods), random and "self"-directed process; A God-caused and guided process; A God-INITIATED process that He did not micromanage; No evolution with a very long series of direct, God-orchestrated creations and extinctions over vast time (Progressive Creationism/OEC); Direct, God-orchestrated creations over a VERY short period (YEC).

But the far more interesting and important questions concerning evolution, should not be HOW it happened (while enormously fascinating to ponder, IF true) as that will forever remain unanswerable. But instead, DID it happen, does it really matter IF it did, and was it orchestrated by a Creator? And if one believes evolution was God's process, typically, they have a low view of key, foundational parts of Scripture, seeing it as either inaccurate or mostly allegorical. But, make no mistake, how one thinks about those questions are what is driving the vast majority of the evolution debate on this forum. Arguing redundantly about processes no one can prove or mere theories seems rather silly. As, the arguments I typically see here on the forum are, at their ROOT, more theologically motivated than scientifically so – and this goes pretty much across the board – whether one is a theist, deist, Christian, of another faith, agnostic, or atheist.

And the thinking that fuels most of the debate is how one views the No God necessary vs. God-caused points of view - which I think is the only thing that propels such exhaustive debate on this issue. IF God used evolution to create, what is that to me? Yes, I have some Scriptural questions related to it. But, I know, SOMEHOW, God created. I'm not too hung up upon the HOW. And that's enough for me. So, one of the questions about evolution answers goes far beyond mere assertions about processes, to origins (that it had to be GOD-caused), and the other has NO answer AT ALL concerning origins, as ALL its proponents can endlessly argue about are uncaused PROCESSES – which, to me, intellectually, is avoiding the BIG and most important question - which is about the origins of what made the processes possible and how they began functioning with mind-boggling precision and necessarily interactive mechanisms. Not being able to explain that is also the weakest part of the assertions of those insisting no God was necessary.

ALL of the universe's processes began with the necessary building blocks (dimensions, matter, energy, etc), mechanisms, and organized information content, from its very beginning. This is what those believing in Big Bang cosmology believe about these things. And yet a high percentage of them also believe these things either: 1) came into to existence by themselves; 2) Or, that their basics elements always existed; 3) And, (As incredible as the first two are), they believed these basic elements the universe is built upon, merely organized and began immediately functioning all by themselves. Even evolution requires vast amounts of time – obviously, not available to the universe's beginning. To me, this is intellectual suicide! And when one looks at the enormous and staggering improbability of such beliefs, you realize: 1) It takes great faith to believe this; 2) How completely hypocritical it is to ever assert or insinuate that those who have greater familiarity with science have a far better explanation of how the universe began that those who believe in a Creator – because they've got absolutely nothing but great faith in far-fetched theories and arguments about processes that are dependent upon elements that just magically appeared. At least theists arguing for evolution entertain no such fantasies as the non-theist does, as they clearly understand the impossibility of such things coming into existence and then magically operating all by themselves.

[Audie]

Good illustration of how knowing nothing about a subject makes it look boring.

I do agree with you to the extent that discussing it
with the know-zero-creo is senseless.

I guess we all do senseless thing, like argue Splash-Splash vs total immersion.

[Philip]

Good illustration of how knowing nothing about a subject makes it look boring. I do agree with you to the extent that discussing it
with the know-zero-creo is senseless.

Well, I'm glad you enjoy seeing endless posts about theorized processes is intellectually stimulating. And I also wonder why you think endless conjecture is so important?

So blinded by arrogance! Defiant, yet without answers to the root questions. Audie, you are immensely inconsistent! You love to deride others asserted lack of scientific knowledge and yet when called upon to answer important questions that you glaringly cannot answer, you attack with smugness. Or you go on about the limits of what science can know, while at the same time insinuating your thinking is the more intellectually honest and superior Why? Because of your scientific background, which you clearly hold in far higher regard than is reasonable - and, which you, yourself admit has no way of answering certain foundational questions. Or, you assert knowing the answers to the questions I submit aren't critical to the credibility of your position or are irrelevant. It's very obvious that what you don't know is key to what you THINK and assert that you DO know. And you well know scientific views about origins - especially evolution - are all over the map, with great, contentious debate amongst relevant scientists. Arguments have key components and building blocks, regardless of their nuances. So, regardless of the complexity of various nuances, there are inescapable gateways for the nuances to even be possible. Don't confuse the two! It's not nearly as impressive as you appear to think.

Audie, knowing about various theorized processes - which we all know are hotly debated by various academics - really doesn't prove very much - which you often admit. But then you are quick to act as if knowledge about various theorized processes matters far more than they actually do. You keep running into the brick wall of not being able to explain where the elemental building blocks (that provided so many unfathomably complex processes their necessary components) came from, and where their functionality and design, there at the VERY beginning, originated. So, as nothing you have argued has an answer to these critical questions, don't act as if you have a superior understanding or answers to them. As clearly, you do not! Also, as to those key questions, while inconvenient, they most certainly are key, no matter how prolifically you ignore or "cleverly" dismiss them. I truly believe that your unbelief is far more emotional and volitional than intellectual or evidence-based.

[abelcainsbrother]

The reason I see the evolution debate as being one ridiculous snoozefest is that, mostly, everyone here is entrenched in their personal view of whatever the truth of the matter is, and in the nearly five years I've been on the forum, rare is it that I've seen any minds being changed per the arguments typically floated. All we're seeing is the same-old, same-old. And, obviously, there are major camps, that evolution is either: An unguided (no God or gods), random and "self"-directed process; A God-caused and guided process; A God-INITIATED process that He did not micromanage; No evolution with a very long series of direct, God-orchestrated creations and extinctions over vast time (Progressive Creationism/OEC); Direct, God-orchestrated creations over a VERY short period (YEC).

But the far more interesting and important questions concerning evolution, should not be HOW it happened (while enormously fascinating to ponder, IF true) as that will forever remain unanswerable. But instead, DID it happen, does it really matter IF it did, and was it orchestrated by a Creator? And if one believes evolution was God's process, typically, they have a low view of key, foundational parts of Scripture, seeing it as either inaccurate or mostly allegorical. But, make no mistake, how one thinks about those questions are what is driving the vast majority of the evolution debate on this forum. Arguing redundantly about processes no one can prove or mere theories seems rather silly. As, the arguments I typically see here on the forum are, at their ROOT, more theologically motivated than scientifically so – and this goes pretty much across the board – whether one is a theist, deist, Christian, of another faith, agnostic, or atheist.

And the thinking that fuels most of the debate is how one views the No God necessary vs. God-caused points of view - which I think is the only thing that propels such exhaustive debate on this issue. IF God used evolution to create, what is that to me? Yes, I have some Scriptural questions related to it. But, I know, SOMEHOW, God created. I'm not too hung up upon the HOW. And that's enough for me. So, one of the questions about evolution answers goes far beyond mere assertions about processes, to origins (that it had to be GOD-caused), and the other has NO answer AT ALL concerning origins, as ALL its proponents can endlessly argue about are uncaused PROCESSES – which, to me, intellectually, is avoiding the BIG and most important question - which is about the origins of what made the processes possible and how they began functioning with mind-boggling precision and necessarily interactive mechanisms. Not being able to explain that is also the weakest part of the assertions of those insisting no God was necessary.

ALL of the universe's processes began with the necessary building blocks (dimensions, matter, energy, etc), mechanisms, and organized information content, from its very beginning. This is what those believing in Big Bang cosmology believe about these things. And yet a high percentage of them also believe these things either: 1) came into to existence by themselves; 2) Or, that their basics elements always existed; 3) And, (As incredible as the first two are), they believed these basic elements the universe is built upon, merely organized and began immediately functioning all by themselves. Even evolution requires vast amounts of time – obviously, not available to the universe's beginning. To me, this is intellectual suicide! And when one looks at the enormous and staggering improbability of such beliefs, you realize: 1) It takes great faith to believe this; 2) How completely hypocritical it is to ever assert or insinuate that those who have greater familiarity with science have a far better explanation of how the universe began that those who believe in a Creator – because they've got absolutely nothing but great faith in far-fetched theories and arguments about processes that are dependent upon elements that just magically appeared. At least theists arguing for evolution entertain no such fantasies as the non-theist does, as they clearly understand the impossibility of such things coming into existence and then magically operating all by themselves.

You make very good points but what if life does not evolve?This would mean pointing out a creator who guided it is still wrong and to a large degree you had to read Genesis as more allegorical than being divinely inspired.I think you even know and understand the flaws and limits of evolution science and so I'm just choosing to not let them off the hook about it and do not see how it can be good to say God guided evolution if it doesn't really happen.I prefer to make sure life evolves first.

[Philip]

AbleCain, of course, I do not believe man evolved from any other species. I, mostly, only challenge evolutionists (whatever evolutionary scenarios they accept) who insist the process could have been Godless, because WAY prior to any such processes, they have FAR more difficult things to explain. As their actual choices are only one of two possible "causes."

[Kurieuo]

I'd be interested to see a good Theistic Evolution debate versus Naturalistic Evolution.

I think ultimately the latter don't see their own philosophy that they call "science".
Regardless, the former are on much more solid grounds imho.

[bippy123]

The reason I see the evolution debate as being one ridiculous snoozefest is that, mostly, everyone here is entrenched in their personal view of whatever the truth of the matter is, and in the nearly five years I've been on the forum, rare is it that I've seen any minds being changed per the arguments typically floated. All we're seeing is the same-old, same-old. And, obviously, there are major camps, that evolution is either: An unguided (no God or gods), random and "self"-directed process; A God-caused and guided process; A God-INITIATED process that He did not micromanage; No evolution with a very long series of direct, God-orchestrated creations and extinctions over vast time (Progressive Creationism/OEC); Direct, God-orchestrated creations over a VERY short period (YEC).

But the far more interesting and important questions concerning evolution, should not be HOW it happened (while enormously fascinating to ponder, IF true) as that will forever remain unanswerable. But instead, DID it happen, does it really matter IF it did, and was it orchestrated by a Creator? And if one believes evolution was God's process, typically, they have a low view of key, foundational parts of Scripture, seeing it as either inaccurate or mostly allegorical. But, make no mistake, how one thinks about those questions are what is driving the vast majority of the evolution debate on this forum. Arguing redundantly about processes no one can prove or mere theories seems rather silly. As, the arguments I typically see here on the forum are, at their ROOT, more theologically motivated than scientifically so – and this goes pretty much across the board – whether one is a theist, deist, Christian, of another faith, agnostic, or atheist.

And the thinking that fuels most of the debate is how one views the No God necessary vs. God-caused points of view - which I think is the only thing that propels such exhaustive debate on this issue. IF God used evolution to create, what is that to me? Yes, I have some Scriptural questions related to it. But, I know, SOMEHOW, God created. I'm not too hung up upon the HOW. And that's enough for me. So, one of the questions about evolution answers goes far beyond mere assertions about processes, to origins (that it had to be GOD-caused), and the other has NO answer AT ALL concerning origins, as ALL its proponents can endlessly argue about are uncaused PROCESSES – which, to me, intellectually, is avoiding the BIG and most important question - which is about the origins of what made the processes possible and how they began functioning with mind-boggling precision and necessarily interactive mechanisms. Not being able to explain that is also the weakest part of the assertions of those insisting no God was necessary.

ALL of the universe's processes began with the necessary building blocks (dimensions, matter, energy, etc), mechanisms, and organized information content, from its very beginning. This is what those believing in Big Bang cosmology believe about these things. And yet a high percentage of them also believe these things either: 1) came into to existence by themselves; 2) Or, that their basics elements always existed; 3) And, (As incredible as the first two are), they believed these basic elements the universe is built upon, merely organized and began immediately functioning all by themselves. Even evolution requires vast amounts of time – obviously, not available to the universe's beginning. To me, this is intellectual suicide! And when one looks at the enormous and staggering improbability of such beliefs, you realize: 1) It takes great faith to believe this; 2) How completely hypocritical it is to ever assert or insinuate that those who have greater familiarity with science have a far better explanation of how the universe began that those who believe in a Creator – because they've got absolutely nothing but great faith in far-fetched theories and arguments about processes that are dependent upon elements that just magically appeared. At least theists arguing for evolution entertain no such fantasies as the non-theist does, as they clearly understand the impossibility of such things coming into existence and then magically operating all by themselves.

Very well said Philip , and this belief that science is the all purveyor of truth is called scientism and this is the position I am against as well.

And yes to think we could know fully how The creator created everything is a bit arrogant .
Kudos also to Rick fir showing me another possibility

[bippy123]

I'd be interested to see a good Theistic Evolution debate versus Naturalistic Evolution.

I think ultimately the latter don't see their own philosophy that they call "science".
Regardless, the former are on much more solid grounds imho.

Correct Kurieuo , and I believe this because of the specified complex info within DNA and the improbable odds of even a cell coming about through naturalistic evolution

But I think now that there are a few kinds of theistic evolutionists as well. Kenneth miller is the totally Darwinian Christian variety and then you have the hybrid theistic evolutionist/intelligent design michael behe who also believes in common descent as well as theistic evolutionists that believe that God only intervened when man was created .

Wow my heads spinning

[Audie]

AbleCain, of course, I do not believe man evolved from any other species. I, mostly, only challenge evolutionists (whatever evolutionary scenarios they accept) who insist the process could have been Godless, because WAY prior to any such processes, they have FAR more difficult things to explain. As their actual choices are only one of two possible "causes."

When you say "the process" what do you mean? And what by "godless"?

Seriously! It may be that a god made the universe, but is one needed, for example, to
supervise and direct every raindrop to its destination?

The raindrops pick up CO2, and sink into the ground. Moving underground
the water dissolves a bit of calcium carbonate and
thus are limestone caves made. That is the process,
thats how they form.

Would you call it godless, or what?