TLK Valentine
Read the books that others would burn.
Question: What exactly is "the pinnacle of his creation"?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, why do you attack evolution?
- Thread starter vijeno
- Start date
Question: What exactly is "the pinnacle of his creation"?
Starise
Member
Honestly as a person who believes us along with the animals were initially created with adaptive capabilities within certain limitations to survive in various surroundings, I can't say I'm a staunch creationist given the above reasons because there is proof the adaptive abilities of many plants and animals are nothing short of amazing. To me though those are peripheral to the main ideas, however I felt it should bear mentioning that yes, God made things to adapt to some level of flexibility but not beyond it.
I most often feel the evolution side is on the offensive here, not me. Since evolution is often given as a reason some use for a deconstruction of their faith, I have studied it and my conclusion is it comes up painfully short as a total explanation for all things and especially for us. I generally only address it if it comes up and sometimes in the interest of a conversation that isn't pointed in that direction, I will ignore obvious comments that support it in order not to side track a discussion.
I believe evolution and christianty are like oil and water. There are plenty of well meaning Chrisians who daily attempt to shoe horn it into our bible, but for me to marry evolution is to deny the bible. If I thought evolution as in Ape to man had decent arguments I might be tempted to question my faith, but so far all I've found are hoaxes and commonalities i.e. some primate DNA with similarities. They often fail to mention the similarities in DNA to many other animals, some of which would not look like a fit. We could argue the amounts of common DNA strands with regard to primates, but I don't see it definitively proving anything other than they have some similar stuff, yet they lack much much more making them far different than us even as a close cousin. The box creation account, as in to each it's own kind still holds up for me and my studies have only reenforced my faith.
I will reiterate I don't rub that in to my theistic evolutionist brothers. I could have them over for dinner and we could be close friends. I will forever wonder how they can rationalize that we were made in the image of God but chimps were involved. Sorry that just doesn't cut it for me nor will it ever.
I most often feel the evolution side is on the offensive here, not me. Since evolution is often given as a reason some use for a deconstruction of their faith, I have studied it and my conclusion is it comes up painfully short as a total explanation for all things and especially for us. I generally only address it if it comes up and sometimes in the interest of a conversation that isn't pointed in that direction, I will ignore obvious comments that support it in order not to side track a discussion.
I believe evolution and christianty are like oil and water. There are plenty of well meaning Chrisians who daily attempt to shoe horn it into our bible, but for me to marry evolution is to deny the bible. If I thought evolution as in Ape to man had decent arguments I might be tempted to question my faith, but so far all I've found are hoaxes and commonalities i.e. some primate DNA with similarities. They often fail to mention the similarities in DNA to many other animals, some of which would not look like a fit. We could argue the amounts of common DNA strands with regard to primates, but I don't see it definitively proving anything other than they have some similar stuff, yet they lack much much more making them far different than us even as a close cousin. The box creation account, as in to each it's own kind still holds up for me and my studies have only reenforced my faith.
I will reiterate I don't rub that in to my theistic evolutionist brothers. I could have them over for dinner and we could be close friends. I will forever wonder how they can rationalize that we were made in the image of God but chimps were involved. Sorry that just doesn't cut it for me nor will it ever.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is not true. One learns religious ideas in churches, we learn scientific ideas in schools. They each have their place. It was creationists that attacked the scientific ideas that they did not like. And it is not "aggressive" to teach the the world is a sphere. That diseases are usually caused by microorganisms., and that the Earth is billions of years old and life as we know it is from evolution. That is what is called "honesty".
But you do not "know" that. You only believe that. There is a difference between knowledge and belief. A strong belief does not make an idea knowledge. It is when one can make a consistent and well supported argument for a concept that one has knowledge.
And all of that is refuted by the sciences if one makes the error of reading Genesis at all literally.
No, quite the contrary. You should try to make a rational argument for your beliefs on the creation vs. evolution threads. I can guarantee you that you will not do well.
And do you remember how others pointed out how creationists use strawman arguments? That is what you just did. The two trees are related if one goes back far enough in their history (as all life is) but one form of life did not become a massively different form. In fact, there is no "change of kind" in evolution. You share a common ancestor with other apes and you are an ape. You share a common ancestor with other simians (or monkeys if you prefer) and you are still a simian (or monkey if you prefer), you are still a mammal, you are still a tetrapod, you are still vertebrate, and you are still a eukaryote (that makes you related to a banana, but your not a banana just as you are not your cousin who you are related to as well). Nowhere in that long line of descent did any of your ancestors become another "kind".What did an apple tree have to adapt to survive, so that it had to become a banana plant?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay, you blame evolution as the reason that some gave up their faith, but evolution is just a fact. How strong can a religion be if it cannot stand up to verifiable facts?
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Curious, but why are you sure that adaptation has a point that prevents further mutation?
Audie
Veteran Member
As long as you just say what you believe
theres no offense against fact.
Reasons given may be a different story.
I personally feel its an error on many levels
to be reckless with facts.
First paragraph you state as fact that there are
(God- imposed) limits to "adaptation".
This a faith based belief with no known basis
in reality. All relevant known data indicates the
opposite.
" I most often feel...evolution..offensive side".
Sorry you feel that way, sorry about this unfortunate
limit in your perspectice. Science isnt out to get your
religion any more than your religion is out to get me...
misbehaviour of a few indiciduals notwithstandung.
Through science much has been learnrd that does not
match the myths, superstitions, traditiinal beliegs,
assumptions, religions, medical practices etcetc world
wide.
If someone takes note that findimg lightning is
not thrown by Zeus " deconstructs" their faith, it wasnt
because someone set out to wreck their faith.
Its a sign thatvsomeone read the skies wrong.
AND "evolution" is just about, evolution. If you found
its no " total explanation for all things", of course. What an
an odd misconception!
As to incompatibility of scienve and Christianoiy-
No.
Literal bible reading is incompatible with realiry.
Its an insult to intelligence to claim otherwise.
Your of "all you have found" about evolution....
I do believe that its all you have found.
But its a somewhat painful- to- read demonstration
that youve made nothing faintly resembling a good
fath effort at study or understandig.
Much as you will in all probability make zero
effort to think if i might just have a point somewhere.
Though I would be happy if wrong.
Right: it comes down to the ego of theists. There's no contradiction if we assume that God's goal was the universe in all its variety and splendor. Evolution only creates an issue if we assume that the whole exercise was only done to give rise to us.
Steven Jay Gould has some interesting essays about the "pedestal-smashing" nature of scientific discovery: Copernicus shattered the idea that the Earth is the centre of the universe. Halley shattered the idea thar our Sun is unique and not just another star. Likewise, Darwin shattered the idea that humanity is special and distinct from all the other animals.
All of these advancements come with a blow to human ego, so it makes sense that people would resist them and their implications.
But there are plenty of Christians who do accept evolution. This is a sign that they're compatible, even if you don't see how.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It largely depends on if one believes in scriptural inerrancy, which most Christian and Jewish theologians don't.
Starise
Member
I think you would be very surprised at how much data I have poured over on both sides of the issue. Yes certainly there are some things in the bible symbolic and sometimes we have a statement that something happened with no detailed scientific explanation as in many narratives intended to be stories, yet truthful disclosures. I will say up front I believe we were created and I don't believe creation used a chain improvement method. I DO believe similar designs and materials were employed.
The water and oil here in is science which doesn't acknowledge anything other than science. Science is pliable and often changes. Assertions are rountinely made which are later changed due to the inaccuracy of such assertions. In the case of evolution, there's a lot of persuasive lit out there on the scientific end making insistent claims that have never been specifically proven to lead to the conclusions they draw.
A literal bible reading in most cases is a progression sequence of events leading up to a main event which changed the course of mankind and will continue until the completion. There is the romatic thought that science and this book can potentially agree. I believe this as well happen eventually when science finally catches up.
Adaptation is a fact. Depending on the proper scientific terminology, there are 'new species' that have come about. Using their classification system, technically they would be correct, but it's a different kind of duck or snail now classified as a new species. Never a duck to a snake which was my point going into this.
I'm not afraid of science
I think many would agree science has it's limitations though. We never hear the word "prove" because due to the pliability of it, especially in regard to this subject, there are more empty holes than filled ones. Sure we have cell phones and computers because we have science, but all of it was solidly founded and provable in a lab. Neither does it delve into biology with those same credentials.In all my studies science only reenforces my God.. Like any other study there are leanings and biases in science and those who make the claims.
Best,
Tim
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, science changes. But do you think that means that rocks will suddenly on their own start to float? There is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for the theory of gravity. Common descent is as apt to be shown to be wrong as a rock is apt to float away on its own.I think you would be very surprised at how much data I have poured over on both sides of the issue. Yes certainly there are some things in the bible symbolic and sometimes we have a statement that something happened with no detailed scientific explanation as in many narratives intended to be stories, yet truthful disclosures. I will say up front I believe we were created and I don't believe creation used a chain improvement method. I DO believe similar designs and materials were employed.
The water and oil here in is science which doesn't acknowledge anything other than science. Science is pliable and often changes. Assertions are rountinely made which are later changed due to the inaccuracy of such assertions. In the case of evolution, there's a lot of persuasive lit out there on the scientific end making insistent claims that have never been specifically proven to lead to the conclusions they draw.
A literal bible reading in most cases is a progression sequence of events leading up to a main event which changed the course of mankind and will continue until the completion. There is the romatic thought that science and this book can potentially agree. I believe this as well happen eventually when science finally catches up.
Adaptation is a fact. Depending on the proper scientific terminology, there are 'new species' that have come about. Using their classification system, technically they would be correct, but it's a different kind of duck or snail now classified as a new species. Never a duck to a snake which was my point going into this.
I'm not afraid of science
In all my studies science only reenforces my God.. Like any other study there are leanings and biases in science and those who make the claims.
Best,
Tim
Starise
Member
I will respectfully disagree. What they call evidence isn't conclusive IMO if we are discussing we came from primates.
The differences between the DNA sequence of the human and the chimp are not distributed randomly throughout the genome. Rather, the differences are found in clusters. Actually, at those specific locations, the chimp’s genome is similar to that of other primates. It is the human that stands out from the rest. Scientists often refer to these "clusters" as human accelerated regions (HARs) because the human genome supposedly shared a common ancestor with chimps. These HARs are located in DNA segments that do not code for genes. But this requires us to believe that evolution just so happened to cause such rapid change to occur in sites where those changes make an important difference in an organism’s functioning necessary to ultimately create a human.
Such would be a whopper of a just-so story. But it gets better. Some HARs are found in DNA segments that do code for genes, and herein lies another multitude of difficulties. Evolution would predict that humans evolved from the chimp-human ancestor via natural selection acting on chance variations induced by mutations. However, recent research reveals just the opposite. The HARs that were found in protein coding genes showed evidence not of mutations that had been selected in view of their advantageous phenotype, but rather the exact opposite. The genetic changes showed evidence that they were, in point of fact, deleterious. They had become established in the population not because they provided some physiological advantage, but in spite of being deleterious. Such results make little sense within an evolutionary framework.
Clearly, the HARs show a trend in which the differences observed in the human DNA (as compared to similar species) typically increase the G-C content of that particular region of the DNA strand. Evolution would predict that the G-C content of the underlying gene should remain relatively constant, as natural selection picks out the DNA mutations that improve the protein. If evolution is true, therefore, we should not expect a consistent trend toward an increasing G-C content.
These HARs are not always limited simply to the protein coding part of the gene, but often extend beyond the border into the flanking sequences. This further suggests that these differences which are observed in the human DNA are not, in fact, consequences of natural selection enhancing the protein that the gene encodes. The HARs often tend to cluster in a single part of a gene, in and around a single exon (as opposed to across the entire gene), and they tend to correlate with male (but not female) recombination. Such observations make little sense in light of evolution.
In conclusion, as interesting as genetic similarities between chimpanzees and humans are, they are not evidence for Darwinism. Design is also able to explain them. Designers often make different products by utilization of similar parts, materials, and arrangements. The common percentage pertains to the regions of our DNA that result in proteins. It makes more sense of the data for the Designer of nature to have used the same proteins to perform the same function in a variety of organisms.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is because evolution is not random. Natural selection preserves certain parts of the genome. What you are describing is exactly what evolution predicts. Not all of the genome is of equal importance when it comes to survival. There are genes that if messed with almost always lead to deleterious results. Those genes change very little over the years.
If you want to oppose evolution you need evidence, not bad arguments that when analyzed properly support the theory. In other words you have to understand evolution to have a chance to refute it.
And even if you refute evolution that does not help you. The creation myths of the Bible have been rather thoroughly refuted. You need a testable hypothesis that supports your belief, and yet creationists appear to be afraid to form one.
And your last claim is clearly false. It shows that at best you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. Like it or not those similarities are evidence for evolution. Bad arguments where you demonstrate a lack of understanding of what the theory predicts is not evidence against it.
Starise
Member
This is exactly the opposite of that. In order to have an ape to a man we have nothing but random with a hope something unrandom will occur to cause organization.
I don't 'need' anything from you. I have my studied position. You are certainly free to disagree.
Oh, and if you guys aren't on the offensive because I have a view then what do you call it?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wrong again. Here is your error, you are treating man as a goal and not as a result. The odds of any specific goal happening can be said to be almost zero. We are likely the first and only species that is highly intelligent and has a body that can be able to harness that intelligence and use it to produce technology. Could you say that there was some luck in intelligence in that sort of ability first appearing in us? Yes, definitely. But that does not mean that the process was random, that was your argument. I explained to you why that was wrong.
The lottery is an excellent example that shows how evolution works to a degree. The odds of any one individual being the winner is almost zero. The odds of their being a winner eventually is almost one.
Starise
Member
Well I knew coming here I would always be wrong, so it comes as no surprise.
What I find to be really odd is that on a religious forum of all places where most religions are concerning a god, there is no hint of one. Why don't you all call this the atheist forum instead? Just an observation It has been argued to me here atheism is not a religion, so why are you here?
Do you guys all hang out and wait for someone like me to show up
What gives you the right to say I am in error when you are not in possession of all the info needed to make the SAWG you are making? You argue a theory is true and then present another theory. I'm impressed
The lottery? Are you kidding me man?
We are EXACTLY created.
What I find to be really odd is that on a religious forum of all places where most religions are concerning a god, there is no hint of one. Why don't you all call this the atheist forum instead? Just an observation
It has been argued to me here atheism is not a religion, so why are you here? Do you guys all hang out and wait for someone like me to show up
What gives you the right to say I am in error when you are not in possession of all the info needed to make the SAWG you are making? You argue a theory is true and then present another theory. I'm impressed
The lottery? Are you kidding me man?
We are EXACTLY created.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Why did you assume that RF is some kind of religious choir room forum?Well I knew coming here I would always be wrong, so it comes as no surprise.
What I find to be really odd is that on a religious forum of all places where most religions are concerning a god, there is no hint of one. Why don't you all call this the atheist forum instead? Just an observation
Do you guys all hang out and wait for someone like me to show up
What gives you the right to say I am in error when you are not in possession of all the info needed to make the SAWG you are making? You argue a theory is true and then present another theory. I'm impressed
The lottery? Are you kidding me man?
We are EXACTLY created.
Starise
Member
I didn't. Not in the least. In fact this was pretty much my expectation. Notice you said "religious"
What religion tries to downplay a god? Most of the religions I am familiar with worship a god. This would be my expectation on a RELIGIOUS forum.
So be honest. WHY are you even here?
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Seems to me you are counting the misses and ignoring the hits.
There are loads of threads about god.
There are also loads of threads with theists trying to disprove evolution.
Perhaps you should try looking at the ones about god?
Starise
Member
Could well be.
If you remember initially I simply said I don't attack evolution. I don't agree with it, that's all.
Then what happened?
Do you remember me saying that the offensive was most often directed at me in this thread?
It didn't take long for all of you to make my point for me. Thanks.