• 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!

Evolution is a fact, and a theory

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I'll take serious to mean atheistic and naturalistic.

There's nothing "atheistic" about evolution. Evolution says nothing at all about the existence or nonexistence of God, and theists the world over - including the vast majority of religious Universities - accept evolution theory.

As for naturalistic - of course it's naturalistic. It' science.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Man of Faith said:
It’s no secret why a scientist, or anyone, whether Christian or not would want to accept the ToE and that is because of funding, legitimacy, acceptance among peers, getting a pay check, being taken seriously, etc… Matter of fact the whole ToE is propped up by lawsuits and the propaganda techniques of public ridicule and scorn, just no real data to present.

But before the 1800's, creationism had far more support among Christians than evolution did. There was no major funding for evolution, and the majority of ridicule was for evolutionists, not creationists. Acceptance of evolution grew in spite of considerable opposition. So, the equal playing field that you want now existed then, but acceptance of evolution grew anyway. Ken Miller has basically said that it is quite natural for some minority scientific arguments, regardless of which branch of science, to become ridiculed when it becomes obvious to most experts that the arguments are wrong. One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. If that many experts accepted creationism, you can bet that the majority of creationists would be quick to use that to support their arguments.

It is no secret that Christian inerrantists who have children often have siginificant influence over what their children believe, and that those of their children who accept creationism frequently do so without knowing very much about science.

I suspect that you do not personally know enough about biology to adequately question macro evolution based solely upon your own personal knowledge of biology. Ken Miller has an article on the flagellum, including discussing intelligent design, at The Flagellum Unspun. Do you understand the article well enough to critique it? Probably not, in which case you do not know enough about biology to question macro evolution, and are merely guessing that a relative handful of creationist experts are right.

Would you say that the Bible has influenced some of your opinions about evolution?

Do you believe that the earth is young?

Do you believe that a global flood occurred?
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
Message to Man of Faith: Consider the following by Ken Miller:

NOVA | In Defense of Evolution

We've known for a long time that we humans share common ancestry with the other great apes—gorillas, orangs, chimps, and bonobos. But there's an interesting problem here. We humans have 46 chromosomes; all the other great apes have 48. In a sense, we're missing a pair of chromosomes, two chromosomes. How did that happen?

Well, is it possible that in the line that led to us, a pair of chromosomes was simply lost, dropping us from 24 pairs to 23? Well, the answer to that is no. The loss of both members of a pair would actually be fatal in any primate. There is only one possibility, and that is that two chromosomes that were separate became fused to form a single chromosome. If that happened, it would drop us from 24 pairs to 23, and it would explain the data.

Here's the interesting point, and this is why evolution is a science. That possibility is testable. If we indeed were formed that way, then somewhere in our genome there has to be a chromosome that was formed by the fusion of two other chromosomes. Now, how would we find that? It's easier than you might think.

Every chromosome has a special DNA sequence at both ends called the telomere sequence. Near the middle it has another special sequence called the centromere. If one of our chromosomes was formed by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, what we should be able to see is that we possess a chromosome in which telomere DNA is found in the center where it actually doesn't belong, and that the chromosome has two centromeres. So all we have to do is to look at our own genome, look at our own DNA, and see, do we have a chromosome that fits these features?

We do. It's human chromosome number 2, and the evidence is unmistakable. We have two centromeres, we have telomere DNA near the center, and the genes even line up corresponding to primate chromosome numbers 12 and 13.

Is there any way that intelligent design or special creation could explain why we have a chromosome like this? The only way that I can think of is if you're willing to say that the intelligent designer rigged chromosome number 2 to fool us into thinking that we had evolved. The closer we look at our own DNA, the more detailed a glimpse we get of our own genome, the more powerful the evidence becomes for our common ancestry with other species.

Man of Faith said:
This has been addressed many times. It’s no secret why
a scientist, or anyone, whether Christian or not would want to accept the ToE and that is because of funding, legitimacy, acceptance among peers, getting a pay check, being taken seriously, etc… Matter of fact the whole ToE is propped up by lawsuits and the propaganda techniques of public ridicule and scorn, just no real data to present.

No, what Ken Miller said that I quoted has not been discussed at all in this thread. You do not understand what Miller said, so you are trying to avoid discussing it. Logically, it is impossible to adequately refute scientists' arguments like Miller's arguments by using your arguments. That certainly would not have worked at the Dover trial. At the Dover trial, discussing science was required. Why won't you discuss science?

By the way, the judge at the Dover trial is a Christian, and a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president.
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Message to Man of Faith:

Henry Morris, Ph.d., Institute for Creation Research, was an inerrantist. He once said that “the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.” (Henry Morris, ‘Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science,’ 1970, p. 32-33.

Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. They wrote a book about homosexuality that is titled 'Homosexuality, The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate.' Chapter 4 is titled 'Is homosexuality a psychopathology?' After discussing a lot of scientific issues in that chapter, the authors conclude with the following paragraph:

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero iit was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking."

What is your opinions of those comments? Morris was an inerrantist, and so are Jones and Yarhouse. All three men are, or were in Morris' case, scientists, but reject anything that science says that contradicts their literalist interpretations of the Bible.
 
Last edited:

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
This has been addressed many times. It’s no secret why a scientist, or anyone, whether Christian or not would want to accept the ToE and that is because of funding, legitimacy, acceptance among peers, getting a pay check, being taken seriously, etc… Matter of fact the whole ToE is propped up by lawsuits and the propaganda techniques of public ridicule and scorn, just no real data to present.

Yep, the same reason why any scientist would accept einstiens theory of relativity, it's what the facts support.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Man of Faith said:
When the acceptance of naturalism grew and now that the philosophy of naturalism has taken over, there is no room for any alternate view.

But no room for an alternate view is exactly what creationists enjoyed prior to the 1800's. Why did things change?

Evolution does not have anything to do with naturalism. That is quite obvious since millions of Christians accept macro evolution. It is true that all naturalists accept evolution, but millions of people who accept evolution are Christians.

The Britannica Online Encyclopedia says that evolution is a "theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations."

So evolution is about "change," not "origins," i.e. spontaneous generation, and abiogenesis.

If you cannot adequately critique Ken Miller's article on the flagellum that I posted, then you do not know enough about evolution to question it.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
When the acceptance of naturalism grew and now that the philosophy of naturalism has taken over, there is no room for any alternate view.

Do you feel the same way about the naturalistic explanations for electromagnetism, gravity, and nutrition?
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member

Man of Faith said:
.......the whole ToE is propped up by lawsuits and the propaganda techniques of public ridicule and scorn, just no real data to present.


Are you suggesting that you have the expertise to make scientific judgments about complex debates about evolution, and explain, based upon your own personal knowledge of biology?

How in the world can you bring up the issue of data when you have no idea what Ken Miller is talking about regarding his article about the flagellum?

If the data in favor of evolution is wrong, then show specifically how and why it is wrong. That is the way that science works. Debates about science are just that, debates about science.

Don't you believe that the Bible alone is sufficient reason for Christians to accept creationism, and reject macro evolution?
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Message to Man of Faith:


Henry Morris, Ph.d., Institute for Creation Research, was an inerrantist. He once said that “the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.” (Henry Morris, ‘Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science,’ 1970, p. 32-33.


Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. They wrote a book about homosexuality that is titled 'Homosexuality, The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate.' Chapter 4 is titled 'Is homosexuality a psychopathology?' After discussing a lot of scientific issues in that chapter, the authors conclude with the following paragraph:

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero iit was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking."


What is your opinions of those comments? Morris was an inerrantist, and so are Jones and Yarhouse. All three men are, or were in Morris' case, scientists, but reject anything that science says that contradicts their literalist interpretations of the Bible.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Man of Faith said:
When the acceptance of naturalism grew and now that the philosophy of naturalism has taken over, there is no room for any alternate view.

But no room for an alternate view is exactly what creationists enjoyed prior to the 1800's. There was not any major funding for evolution, and evolutionists were widely ridiculed. Why did things change anyway?

I find your comment to be quite odd considering the fact the the vast majority of people in the world believe in God(s). Naturalists do not believe in God(s).

If you are referring only to experts, there is always room for alternate views, i.e. peer reviewed articles in leading science journals. However, such articles have to meet certain scientific standards. How are you in a position to judge those standards from an entirely scientific perspective? Why should anyone pay any attention to your personal non-professional opinions?

Surely a large percentage of Christian creationists do not know enough about biology to adequately discredit macro evolution from an entirely scientific perspective.

Women are much more likely to become creationists than men are. How do you account for that?
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
Message to Man of Faith: Consider the following by Ken Miller:


NOVA | In Defense of Evolution


We've known for a long time that we humans share common ancestry with the other great apes—gorillas, orangs, chimps, and bonobos. But there's an interesting problem here. We humans have 46 chromosomes; all the other great apes have 48. In a sense, we're missing a pair of chromosomes, two chromosomes. How did that happen?


Well, is it possible that in the line that led to us, a pair of chromosomes was simply lost, dropping us from 24 pairs to 23? Well, the answer to that is no. The loss of both members of a pair would actually be fatal in any primate. There is only one possibility, and that is that two chromosomes that were separate became fused to form a single chromosome. If that happened, it would drop us from 24 pairs to 23, and it would explain the data.


Here's the interesting point, and this is why evolution is a science. That possibility is testable. If we indeed were formed that way, then somewhere in our genome there has to be a chromosome that was formed by the fusion of two other chromosomes. Now, how would we find that? It's easier than you might think.

Every chromosome has a special DNA sequence at both ends called the telomere sequence. Near the middle it has another special sequence called the centromere. If one of our chromosomes was formed by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes, what we should be able to see is that we possess a chromosome in which telomere DNA is found in the center where it actually doesn't belong, and that the chromosome has two centromeres. So all we have to do is to look at our own genome, look at our own DNA, and see, do we have a chromosome that fits these features?


We do. It's human chromosome number 2, and the evidence is unmistakable. We have two centromeres, we have telomere DNA near the center, and the genes even line up corresponding to primate chromosome numbers 12 and 13.


Is there any way that intelligent design or special creation could explain why we have a chromosome like this? The only way that I can think of is if you're willing to say that the intelligent designer rigged chromosome number 2 to fool us into thinking that we had evolved. The closer we look at our own DNA, the more detailed a glimpse we get of our own genome, the more powerful the evidence becomes for our common ancestry with other species.


Man of Faith said:
This has been addressed many times. It’s no secret why
a scientist, or anyone, whether Christian or not would want to accept the ToE and that is because of funding, legitimacy, acceptance among peers, getting a pay check, being taken seriously, etc… Matter of fact the whole ToE is propped up by lawsuits and the propaganda techniques of public ridicule and scorn, just no real data to present.


No, what Ken Miller said that I quoted has not been discussed at all in this thread. You do not understand what Miller said, so you are trying to avoid discussing it. Logically, it is impossible to adequately refute scientists' arguments like Miller's arguments by using your arguments. That certainly would not have worked at the Dover trial. At the Dover trial, discussing science was required. Why won't you discuss science?


By the way, the judge at the Dover trial is a Christian, and a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member

Man of Faith said:
It’s no secret why a scientist, or anyone, whether Christian or not would want to accept the ToE and that is because of funding, legitimacy, acceptance among peers, getting a pay check, being taken seriously, etc… Matter of fact the whole ToE is propped up by lawsuits and the propaganda techniques of public ridicule and scorn, just no real data to present.


Ok, you have proposed a theory that in order for scientific research to become widely accepted, it needs funding, legitimacy, acceptance among peers, getting a paycheck, and being taken seriously.

Your theory obviously does not work since prior to the 1800's, none of that was the case since evolution was widely rejected, but became popular anyway. Why was that?

Even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, the majority of people do not know enough about biology to adequately judge your arguments, and many among your non-professional audience would wonder why they should accept your opinions over the opinions of about 99.86% of experts.
 
Last edited:

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
To be fair, I never claimed that it couldn't happen in this thread, just that it isn't observable and that is enough to question if it did happen.
Yes, let us be fair:
The fact that observable, repeatable, change only happens within or below the family level is enough to question if common descent did happen.
We see here that you not only made the claim, you stated your claim was a fact..
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
This has been addressed many times. It’s no secret why a scientist, or anyone, whether Christian or not would want to accept the ToE and that is because of funding, legitimacy, acceptance among peers, getting a pay check, being taken seriously, etc… Matter of fact the whole ToE is propped up by lawsuits and the propaganda techniques of public ridicule and scorn, just no real data to present.
You fell for whole EXPELLED propaganda hook, line, and sinker, didn't you?
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
When the acceptance of naturalism grew and now that the philosophy of naturalism has taken over, there is no room for any alternate view.

The second that evidence is provided for a "alternative" view, maybe thats when scientists will actually look into a possible "alternative" view.
 
Top