RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[RickD]

That is untrue. Creationism is a belief, evolution is not.

Let's let Neo explain what he means. I'd like to give him a chance to explain. I'm trying really hard not to just read it plainly, as he wrote it.

[Philip]

K: Seriously, what is this bias against belief, like believing in something is bad. I don't understand it.

Of course Creationism is belief that cannot be PROVEN. It's when someone asserts evolution to be PROVEN fact and that it operates with any facts that are not also available or explainable by a Creator - that's just false hype. It's the very same evidences - it depends upon how one applies them. All kinds of crimes can be explained circumstantially - but, obviously, such circumstantial correlations don't necessarily indicated the truth of a matter. And so BOTH sides of the evolution debates can apply and interpret various aspects of individual evidences wrongly. Redundantly, I see Christians as obsessed with evolution MOSTLY not nearly as respectful of Scripture - as not having a high view of its inspiration and accuracy. Oh, they might say they believe Scripture, but most have huge doubts about it - due primarily to their evolution beliefs. And such typically have considerably over confidence in their interpretation of current scientific understandings of the evidences. Course, that's not true of ALL Christian evolutionists.

[neo-x]

Phil, K, Rick. I have nothing against belief. Unreasonable belief may be. But even I believe that God is the source of all there is. However, it is a belief. What else is it?

If you think that creationism is a science then you can believe that. Its ok. We disagree.

If you think evolution is not science and is a belief then we disagree again.

Edit.

The thing with belief is it can be logically shown to be sound and consistent. And we all do that and see that from time to time. Science may be shown to be logically unsound and that is fine but you need empirical evidence for either way.

Belief simply doesn't have that type of evidence required. Who among us saw jesus empty tomb? yet we all believe it give logical and historical reasons which make sense to us as to why its most likely true. And that's fine but you can't apply the same to evolution. It is not a belief.

Phil. I see that you took offense by my words that whatever you hold is not just a belief. But to be honest I am ok with saying I believe. Even if it's not scientific. I see that as a weakness in your whole position that you are not comfortable saying so...you need scientific justification for it. Just like you skirted on the sun moon stopping thing etc. You do believe the seas parted, a man walked on water, a woman came out of man's rib, and a girl got pregnant without knowing a man but its harder for you to believe that the sun and moon stopped? How do you differentiate between these? I am just trying to understand as I don't want to do word wars with you.

[Philip]

Course it's belief. And yet the question all those self-identifying themselves as Christians must ask themselves: Is our belief in Christ to the point of faith, trust and commitment? It's the difference between knowing intellectual facts about a non-living thing, and in having a relationship with God. Seems obvious, but so many don't get it.

[neo-x]

Phil i edited my post and added a section.

[RickD]

K, Rick. I have nothing against belief. Unreasonable belief may be. But even I believe that God is the source of all there is. However, it is a belief. What else is it?

Creationism is a belief. I agree. Young Earth Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Evolutionary Creationism, etc. are all beliefs.

But evolution is not a belief? If you believe God is the source of all there is, and you believe, yes BELIEVE in evolution, then you believe in a form of Theistic Evolution. Which is also called Evolutionary CREATIONISM.

Therefore, this statement makes no sense:

That is untrue. Creationism is a belief, evolution is not.

Belief-1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief




Even if you are talking about non Theistic Evolution, it's still a belief.

I don't see how you don't understand that.

You take the evidence in nature, and come to the conclusion that Evolution(whatever you mean by that) is true. Or, you have a belief that evolution is true.

[neo-x]

K, Rick. I have nothing against belief. Unreasonable belief may be. But even I believe that God is the source of all there is. However, it is a belief. What else is it?

Creationism is a belief. I agree. Young Earth Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Evolutionary Creationism, etc. are all beliefs.

But evolution is not a belief? If you believe God is the source of all there is, and you believe, yes BELIEVE in evolution, then you believe in a form of Theistic Evolution. Which is also called Evolutionary CREATIONISM.

Therefore, this statement makes no sense:

That is untrue. Creationism is a belief, evolution is not.

Belief-1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief




Even if you are talking about non Theistic Evolution, it's still a belief.

I don't see how you don't understand that.

You take the evidence in nature, and come to the conclusion that Evolution(whatever you mean by that) is true. Or, you have a belief that evolution is true.

Rick, when I divide 6/2. I always get the answer 3. Do you think it is also belief?

The reason I ask is that the evidence leads to evolution. I don't make believe it.

Edit:
I said God is the source of all things. I believe in God. But I don't believe in evolution, Rick. That is misrepresentation. I don't believe God guided evolution or anything either.

Maybe you can say that I believe in evolution if that makes sense to you, I don't agree but I can see why you say it however, I still fail to see that as the same as saying evolution itself is a belief.

[abelcainsbrother]

All of that evidence behind evolution is based on assumption,speculation,imagination,etc when scientists only have normal variation amongst a population for evidence life evolves. Evolution is faith science hidden behind peer review.You will never know life evolves by only proving that there is variation amongst the different populations of life,it is just stating the obvious.. There are former evolutionists who figured this out and no longer accept evolution and there are other evolutionists who realize how weak the evidence is and have tried to come up with better theories for explaining how life evolves but they have been ignored. But the truth will find them out and their credibility will be hurt by those who blindly defend evolution and help to push this fraud science on to society.

[neo-x]

There are former Christians who are atheists now...what kind of poor argument is that Acb?

[RickD]

Neo wrote:


Rick, when I divide 6/2. I always get the answer 3. Do you think it is also belief?

The reason I ask is that the evidence leads to evolution. I don't make believe it.

Sorry, you lost me. I have no idea what this means. "I don't make believe it"?

I said God is the source of all things. I believe in God. But I don't believe in evolution, Rick. That is misrepresentation. I don't believe God guided evolution or anything either.

I have no idea what this means. To me it's a contradiction. How can you believe God is the source, but He didn't guide evolution?

Edit:maybe "guide" is not the correct word in your case. You would agree that God put in place, whatever was needed for evolution to happen, correct?

Maybe you can say that I believe in evolution if that makes sense to you, I don't agree but I can see why you say it however, I still fail to see that as the same as saying evolution itself is a belief.

Maybe if you reread the definitions of belief, you can see how evolution is a belief.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

[hughfarey]

We can’t really discuss the proposition that “creationism is a belief, evolution is not” without defining our terms. I very much doubt if Neo-X would say that he doesn’t believe in evolution, even though he says evolution is not a belief. If the same word can mean two different things in the same sentence, we need to make sure which one we mean before we all start justifying our convictions.

So I’m going to suggest that a conviction of the truth of creationism occurs in spite of the absence of material evidence to support it, while conviction of the truth of evolution comes because of the abundance of supportive material evidence. Sadly, although the word ‘belief’ will serve very well for the first, there doesn’t seem to be a single simple word to encompass the second. Anyway, I think that's the gist of the argument, and there's no point in quoting dictionaries just for the sake of confusing the issue.

In order to agree with Neo-X, then, I must assert there there is no material evidence for creationism, but there is for evolution; and in order to assert the opposite, I would have to claim that there is material evidence for creationism, but not for evolution. Note that we should avoid the P-word absolutely! There is no suggestion that either creationism or evolutionism is, or can be, absolutely proved. One might carry this relativism a little further, by claiming that there is material evidence for both opinions, but that the evidence for one or the other is sufficiently stronger for the alternative to be rejected.

We must also distinguish between the terms ‘creation’ and ‘evolution’. If anybody who thinks the universe originated 15 billion years ago from some kind of ‘nothing’ is a creationist, or anybody who thinks that the development of any new species is a form of 'creation', then I doubt if there is much to disagree about. I think there is a fundamental difference, however, which might be expressed thus; that evolution proposes that all living things share a common ancestor, while creationism proposes that all living things derive from a number of ancestral forms that were not genetically related. There is also ‘creation-lite’, or Intelligent Design, which proposes that some aspects of some living things were spontaneously generated, but since it appears impossible to distinguish this from evolution, and relies on identical material evidence, in this case the credibility of creation or evolution depends not on the evidence itself, but on the arguments subsequently built upon it. Let’s leave that for now.

As it happens, I think there is abundant material evidence that all living things share a common ancestor, and no material evidence at all for the idea that they derive from a number of different, unrelated, original ‘kinds’. I think that’s what Neo-X means by “creationism is a belief, evolution is not”, and in that sense, I agree with him. Does anybody disagree?

[neo-x]

Well said, Hugh, I do mean that exactly. Just didn't have the time to explain much. Thanks.

[neo-x]

I said God is the source of all things. I believe in God. But I don't believe in evolution, Rick. That is misrepresentation. I don't believe God guided evolution or anything either.

I have no idea what this means. To me it's a contradiction. How can you believe God is the source, but He didn't guide evolution?

Edit:maybe "guide" is not the correct word in your case. You would agree that God put in place, whatever was needed for evolution to happen, correct?

Actually, yes in my view as long as we maintain that evolution happens randomly and God doesn't micromanage. I can say that.

Rick, my broader point was that we can't mix God and evolution together. That is contradictory to me. I think, K, also understood that in a post a couple of pages back.

[Stu]

I said God is the source of all things. I believe in God. But I don't believe in evolution, Rick. That is misrepresentation. I don't believe God guided evolution or anything either.

I have no idea what this means. To me it's a contradiction. How can you believe God is the source, but He didn't guide evolution?

Edit:maybe "guide" is not the correct word in your case. You would agree that God put in place, whatever was needed for evolution to happen, correct?

Actually, yes in my view as long as we maintain that evolution happens randomly and God doesn't micromanage. I can say that.

Rick, my broader point was that we can't mix God and evolution together. That is contradictory to me. I think, K, also understood that in a post a couple of pages back.

How do you reconcile what you just said with "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

[neo-x]

I said God is the source of all things. I believe in God. But I don't believe in evolution, Rick. That is misrepresentation. I don't believe God guided evolution or anything either.

I have no idea what this means. To me it's a contradiction. How can you believe God is the source, but He didn't guide evolution?

Edit:maybe "guide" is not the correct word in your case. You would agree that God put in place, whatever was needed for evolution to happen, correct?

Actually, yes in my view as long as we maintain that evolution happens randomly and God doesn't micromanage. I can say that.

Rick, my broader point was that we can't mix God and evolution together. That is contradictory to me. I think, K, also understood that in a post a couple of pages back.

How do you reconcile what you just said with "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

I don't.