-
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!
Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?
- Thread starter reddogs
- Start date
Good point ;-)
Ask again . . . please cite scientific references.
It is quite the opposite. The theory of evolution is supported by each new piece of related evidence that is discovered.
Scientific investigation has revealed a number of mechanisms that drive the evolution of living things. Chief among these is natural selection.
The theory of evolution has progressed over the last 150 years since Darwin formulated his version. There is no Darwinism to speak of anymore. The theory has been updated to include knowledge of genetics, molecular biology and population biology that were unavailable to Darwin when he first formulated his original version. His theory of natural selection has held up over time too.
You are conflating the origin of life in chemistry with the evolution of life. These are not the same thing and represent two different fields of study.
There is plenty of evidence. Masses of it really. The fossil record, the genetic record in the genome, ERV's, highly conserved genes all point to common descent and biological evolution.
You talk about gradualism, demand some instantaneous change that is not gradualism and when that instantaneous change is not seen, you say gradual evolution has failed. That is a straw man argument.
The fossil record shows the relationships. Related living organisms show relationships. Genes show relationships. Morphology shows relationships. Molecular biology shows relationships. The evidence is there and in many fields of science.
Now you are conflating biological evolution with cosmological origins of the universe. These are not dependent concepts.
Who, besides, creationists say it did?
No idea what you are talking about here.
Scientist scramble to come up with another way or adjustment to the theory. but the more they try, the more convoluted it becomes.[/QUOTE]Which theory are you talking about? So far, you have conflated hypotheses of the origin of life, the theory of evolution and the Big Bang. There are at least two different theories so far and they are independent and cover different domains of existence.
No scientists are scrambling to shore up the theory of evolution. It is the most well-supported theory in science and has held up for 150 years and counting.
They are supported, continue to be supported and remain valid.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wow! You got that backwards. The more people know the more likely they are to accept the theory of evolution.
Also if you study these ideas there is no "belief" there is knowledge. The myths of Genesis were refuted over 100 years ago and the evidence has only become stronger and stronger over the years.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, faith is not needed to accept gradualism. The concepts of science can be tested. Gradualism has been tested. It is more than well supported. Creationist sites tend to be very dishonest. They know that the burden of proof is upon them since they cannot support their claims with any scientific evidence. Right now if you want to make a claim against the findings of scientists the burden of proof lies very heavily upon the creationists.
It is another example of a person that has found information that fits a personal belief, but has not bothered to vet that information or find out what is known and reported in science. I wonder if any of the responses will be examined or if they will be dismisses outright without further review.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Probably not. The goal is confirmation bias, not learning.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Still waiting...
reddogs
Active Member
Its everywhere, no one believes you get a whale from a bear, what happened to evolving from the ocean to land mammals. It just didn't happen...
"Evolutionist Michael Denton described the problem of such a fantastic transition by saying: ". . . we must suppose the existence of innumerable collateral branches leading to many unknown types . . . one is inclined to think in terms of possibly hundreds, even thousands of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales . . . we are forced to admit with Darwin that in terms of gradual evolution, considering all the collateral branches that must have existed in the crossing of such gaps, the number of transitional species must have been inconceivably great.4
It is no wonder that ". . . the evolutionary origin of whales remains controversial among zoologists."5 "Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/from-bears-to-whales-a-difficult-transition/
No matter what they try they cant find any gradualism to the species, and if the species just show up fully formed and with eyes and mouths and fully formed organs and working fins and tails, how can that happen. Hmm
reddogs
Active Member
So Darwin didn't know what he was talking about then...How Did Whales Evolve? | Science | Smithsonian
ecco
Veteran Member
It is a wonder that Jesus' appearance after his death remains controversial among Gospel writers
- Mark 16:14-15 - Jesus appears to Mary Magdalena, but it’s not clear where (in older endings of Mark, he didn’t appear at all)
- Matthew 28:8-9 - Jesus first appears near his tomb
- Luke 24:13-15 - Jesus first appears near Emmaus, several miles from Jerusalem
- John 20:13-14 - Jesus first appears at his tomb
To paraphrase your OP:
Does anyone believe in the Bible anymore?
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Those scientists should have taken the easy way out instead of all of that education and silly stuff like that.
Evolution is both a theory and a fact, and is well documented scientifically. It is accepted as the only reasonable explanation for what we see around us. But have you ever looked seriously at the idea of a 'god' creating this world?
Have you noticed that in our world every living creature is required to eat some other living creature, plant or animal, usually alive until recently, in order to survive? And have you watched 'god's' creation, the cat, play with butterflies and birds until they are dead and destroyed? But not eat them? 'God' allows killing for pleasure?
Why? Why would an omnipotent, omnibenevolent 'god' violently kill so many of his own creations? Does 'god' have no control over the weather storms that kill many infants and old people? And 'god' admits at least 3 times in the bible that he creates both good and evil. Why? And why would 'god' not simply 'show up'.
The evidence instead suggests an anthropological answer. Humans create gods, not the opposite. Humans write 'bibles' and holy books. It's an anachronistic cultural artifact, yet still part of each member's indoctrination into his group, to learn of and accept a deity that was created and encouraged by the group itself.
reddogs
Active Member
So is that why you reject anything that is of God, and come up with unsupportable theories, that something came out of nothing and spread out and created life. Here is a statement that gets to the heart of the matter:
“The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is ‘the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,’ according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give ‘no satisfactory answer’ to why no fossils had been discovered. Today’s scientists are none the wiser” (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).
Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world’s continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true....
Scientist have tried but cannot to this day, find the start of lineage of the species, it just doesn't have the gradualism that evolution claims happen. They are stumped how sea life as well as those on land suddenly appear in the fossil record, all fully formed and having what is needed to eat, hear, and move, to say nothing of their DNA and other internal functions that they had.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
There's a difference between direct relationships with one form evolving into another, versus an indirect relationship whereas two animals may be related through a "web" of forms. Your wording implied the former, whereas the real relationship based on the fossil evidence with whales and bears is with the latter.
ecco
Veteran Member
I know you didn't address this to me. Nevertheless...
Science in general and evolution in particular, are not why I
That's wrong on several levels and really hypocritical. You believe, and don't understand why we don't believe, that an Omni-all entity has always existed, did nothing for 99.999999999999999999999999999999+% of its existence, created a vast universe for just a few people on a small planet on the outskirts of just one of billions of galaxies.
This Francis Hitching?
Francis Hitching - RationalWiki.
Francis Hitching (born 1933) is a British television journalist and author. He is notable not least because creationists have extensively quotemined his 1983 book The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong and some other works. His other books are on dowsing, ley lines, and pseudohistory.
“”His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years.
—Richard Dawkins[1]
Francis Hitching (born 1933) is a British television journalist and author. He is notable not least because creationists have extensively quotemined his 1983 book The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong and some other works. His other books are on dowsing, ley lines, and pseudohistory.
“”His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years.
—Richard Dawkins[1]
Do you, like Hitching, believe in ley lines and dowsing?
What a silly, uninformed comment.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Still waiting for you to answer the actual question...