Evolution or not?

[Valery]

The Bible does not contradict evolution. H

So you lied when you said:

A few creationists are honest enough to admit that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is irrelevant as far as they are concerned: as it contradicts the “Word of God”, it simply has to be wrong.

 

[zyzygy]

So you lied when you said:

I didn't say it, do try to keep up and have a go actually answering a question. Can you post some of these holes in the theory of evolution? You said that there were many of them. Be brave.

 

[zyzygy]

The five most common misunderstandings about evolution

Given its huge success in describing the natural world for the past 150 years, the theory of evolution is remarkably misunderstood. In a recent episode of the Australian series of "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here", former cricket star Shane Warne questioned the theory – asking "if humans...

phys.org

 

[ttwtt78640]

Really? So, how did Jesus view the creation account? You can find the answer in Matthew 19:4-6...what about Luke’s Gospel account which traces Jesus’ genealogy all the way back to Adam...Luke 3:23-38...if the root-stock of this family tree were mythological, how firm would that have made Jesus’ claim that he was the Messiah, born in the line of David?...Matthew 1:1...Luke said that he had “traced all things from the start with accuracy" so clearly, he believed the creation account in Genesis...Luke 1:3...to undermine belief in the creation account in Genesis is to undermine the very foundations of the Christian faith...evolutionary theory and the teachings of Christ are incompatible...

How, exactly, does evolutionary theory discount the possibility that anyone was a descendent of the first man? It seems that the only disconnect between evolution and biblical creation is the source (origin?) of the first human - not what genealogy may have followed.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Quote Originally Posted by Sherlock Holmes:
“Don't start trying to defend evolution now, Valery is absolutely justified in saying what he said, any honest person who's looked carefully into this will agree, its a sham, BS.

Most advocates for evolution that I've run into, know absolutely nothing about the many huge problems faced by the "theory" they always dwell on the stuff that reinforces their beliefs, they place a huge amount of trust too in authority.”



Yes, it is correct that we place a huge amount of trust in modern day science and its peer review methods because it allows any theory developed by any scientist to be examined by other scientists in a worldwide basis as to its accuracy. What else could you possibly ask for in terms of trying to find the facts of the natural world.
And you are welcome to delve into the “huge problems” that you claim in the well-developed SCIENTIFIC FACT of evolution as supported by in-depth theory based on a multitude of geologic and other evidence.
Come to think of it, this probably should be a thread of itself, and I will make it so.

The problem with evolution, creationism, and intelligent design is that it seems nobody who advocates on of those explanations for the development of earth, man, life etc is really serious about doing anything other than defending their opinion despite any holes in that philosophy. If you are a believer in evolution or intelligent design you must make assumptions to fill the holes or he blanks that exist. If you are a creationist you accept the biblical text and the biblical scholars interpretation of that text based on faith. I'm a Christian and I believe what the Bible tells me. I'm also a thinking human being with a relatively good education and an inquisitive mind. There are answers to questions we will never know and my faith rules over my decisions/opinions in those instances. I believe that much of what "science" says is easily explained as a part of God's plan, science being a gift of God. What science cannot explain, such as a person who miraculously finds their cancer gone without explanation, is evidence of a higher power. When I look at a tree or a flower I find it unlikely that that work of art happened by accident. I'm sure many will disagree but I'm fine with that. If I'm wrong and they are right I've lost nothing. If I'm correct and they are wrong, I'm in great shape and they, well....

 

[watsup]

The problem with evolution, creationism, and intelligent design is that it seems nobody who advocates on of those explanations for the development of earth, man, life etc is really serious about doing anything other than defending their opinion despite any holes in that philosophy. If you are a believer in evolution or intelligent design you must make assumptions to fill the holes or he blanks that exist. If you are a creationist you accept the biblical text and the biblical scholars interpretation of that text based on faith. I'm a Christian and I believe what the Bible tells me. I'm also a thinking human being with a relatively good education and an inquisitive mind. There are answers to questions we will never know and my faith rules over my decisions/opinions in those instances. I believe that much of what "science" says is easily explained as a part of God's plan, science being a gift of God. What science cannot explain, such as a person who miraculously finds their cancer gone without explanation, is evidence of a higher power. When I look at a tree or a flower I find it unlikely that that work of art happened by accident. I'm sure many will disagree but I'm fine with that. If I'm wrong and they are right I've lost nothing. If I'm correct and they are wrong, I'm in great shape and they, well....

"I believe......"
True. It's a belief. See the OP regarding conflation.

 

[zyzygy]

You use too many words to say nothing. I repeat, it's a theory — with a billion holes in it.

I'm not saying it isn't true, btw, I have no problem if it's true or if it's not true. I don't even care. I'm just saying, it's a theory with a billion holes in it.

What about these holes?

 

[Variant]

You have every right to be skeptical of my claim about "getting back to you" I did say I would.

I will though, do so, I can reply to some posts here almost immediately because they are so poorly thought out, your was not and so I need to study it more than I usually need to.

Rest assured I will reply, like many of us I'm busy, I work on computer software and this is an industry that's is incessant it its need for change, very tiring.

It seems my skepticism is entirely justified. It doesn't take weeks to answer a post that, while well informed by my background in the subject, took me about 20 minuets to write.

Didn't you claim some expertise in this field? So, if you know what you're talking about, and you knew what you were talking about before you started this discussion, It should be pretty easy to answer someone who also knows what they are talking about pretty quickly.

Now I see you've decided to branch off to a different thread on the subject... I'd say your credibility looks a bit thin here.

 

[zyzygy]

Evolution is a sham? It's BS?



How's this edit read to you?

Most advocates for creation that I've run into, know absolutely nothing about the many huge problems faced by the "theory" they always dwell on the stuff that reinforces their beliefs, they place a huge amount of trust too in authority.

Holds water too doesn't it?

Valery obviously knows nothing about evolution.

 

[Variant]

You have every right to be skeptical of my claim about "getting back to you" I did say I would.

I will though, do so, I can reply to some posts here almost immediately because they are so poorly thought out, your was not and so I need to study it more than I usually need to.

Rest assured I will reply, like many of us I'm busy, I work on computer software and this is an industry that's is incessant it its need for change, very tiring.

Other people on the forums seem to be engaging with you as if you have the capability to be honest and have a sincere dialog with them.

I'd like to point out to them that you are not. It Looks like you started a new post about flowering plants along exactly the same lines as this discussion.

An abominable mystery

Is how Charles Darwin referred to the sudden emergence of flowering plants, the fossil record indicates a very sudden emergence with no credible intermediates (akin to the Cambrian Explosion). Here's a recent BBC Science article about this. This is from the end of that article:

debatepolitics.com

 

[Rumpel]

Valery obviously knows nothing about evolution.

I agree!

 

[Rumpel]

Other people on the forums seem to be engaging with you as if you have the capability to be honest and have a sincere dialog with them.
I'd like to point out to them that you are not. It Looks like you started a new post about flowering plants along exactly the same lines as this discussion.

An abominable mystery

Is how Charles Darwin referred to the sudden emergence of flowering plants, the fossil record indicates a very sudden emergence with no credible intermediates (akin to the Cambrian Explosion). Here's a recent BBC Science article about this. This is from the end of that article:

debatepolitics.com

What's all this about flowering plants.

 

[Redress]

Other people on the forums seem to be engaging with you as if you have the capability to be honest and have a sincere dialog with them.

I'd like to point out to them that you are not. It Looks like you started a new post about flowering plants along exactly the same lines as this discussion.

An abominable mystery

Is how Charles Darwin referred to the sudden emergence of flowering plants, the fossil record indicates a very sudden emergence with no credible intermediates (akin to the Cambrian Explosion). Here's a recent BBC Science article about this. This is from the end of that article:

debatepolitics.com

Moderator's Warning:

Please do not necro threads that have been dead for multiple months.