How Can Evolution Destroy Faith In God?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see, it takes a billion years for a new kingdom life to emerge, says who, this is noting more than a hypothesis,how convenient that we just happen to be between such dramatic stages of evolutionary change.

WoW !!!! 9,999,999,900, how percise

I pulled that number out of the air; evolution doesn't proceed according to some set schedule. I'm just trying to get a sense for what newspaper headlines you would expect to see.

 

[Autodidact]

I see, it takes a billion years for a new kingdom life to emerge, says who, this is noting more than a hypothesis,how convenient that we just happen to be between such dramatic stages of evolutionary change.

WoW !!!! 9,999,999,900, how percise

Well, evolution is a slow process, as I explained.
I don't think we would ever see any new kingdoms evolving. Picture the scheme of all living things like a tree with a single trunk and 5 large limbs at the bottom. That all happened billions of years ago. Now we're all the way out at the tiny twigs at the top of the tree. Eventually that twig might be a branch with its own twigs, but we can't go back and regrow those original limbs.

 

[roli]

Well, evolution is a slow process, as I explained.
I don't think we would ever see any new kingdoms evolving. Picture the scheme of all living things like a tree with a single trunk and 5 large limbs at the bottom. That all happened billions of years ago. Now we're all the way out at the tiny twigs at the top of the tree. Eventually that twig might be a branch with its own twigs, but we can't go back and regrow those original limbs.

What came first, the tree of the seed, please tell me how the seed formed and are you saying we and all life came from that seed.
That our atmosphere existed on it's own so perfectly by chance to accomodate that seed ,which by chance just happened to hold the key to all life.

Where did the seed come from, the perfect conditions that were required for it to grow, the amount of sunlight and water that came about through the hydrological cycle ,how did all that come about.

 

[roli]

It's a demonstration of what you wouldn't see (because they wouldn't bother printing it) in the newspapers.

(Species) Evolution is not news. If all goes well, we shouldn't notice it at all in our life-times.

This line of reasoning to me ,is nothing more than a convenient and safe position to take for evolutionists and evolutionary biologists .
We just don't have, nor will we see any indication of such dramatic stages of macro evultionary change, all we have are micro stages of evolutionary .
We just missed all the real critical stages in the evolutionary process and when the next one takes place, it just so happens we won't be here. LOL!!!!!

How absurd to even use such illogical reasoning, but what a brilliant position to take.
I guess what your saying is, the really truth and proof of evolution is between these stages and that we will never personally witness them.

 

[roli]

I pulled that number out of the air; evolution doesn't proceed according to some set schedule. I'm just trying to get a sense for what newspaper headlines you would expect to see.

It seems more and more that the schedule for this evolutionary chain of events happens the way evolutionists seem to want to piece it together, according to their schedule
I see that many evolutionists seem to pull alot of things our of the air.

I'm never suprised !!!!

 

[McBell]

What came first, the tree of the seed, please tell me how the seed formed and are you saying we and all life came from that seed.
That our atmosphere existed on it's own so perfectly by chance to accomodate that seed ,which by chance just happened to hold the key to all life.

Where did the seed come from, the perfect conditions that were required for it to grow, the amount of sunlight and water that came about through the hydrological cycle ,how did all that come about.

How about you take AND PASS an introductory course in evolution, then try again applying the information your should have learned from said class?

 

[camanintx]

What came first, the tree of the seed, please tell me how the seed formed and are you saying we and all life came from that seed.
That our atmosphere existed on it's own so perfectly by chance to accomodate that seed ,which by chance just happened to hold the key to all life.

Where did the seed come from, the perfect conditions that were required for it to grow, the amount of sunlight and water that came about through the hydrological cycle ,how did all that come about.

Since the seed and the tree (or the egg and the chicken) are the same organism, how does this question make any sense? You might as well be asking what came first, the child or the man.

The evolutionary path to the tree from whatever came before it was not traversed in a single step but in a series of small, almost indistinguishable steps. Until you clearly define what makes a tree a tree, you will never be able to say exactly when it evolved, but that doesn't mean they didn't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems more and more that the schedule for this evolutionary chain of events happens the way evolutionists seem to want to piece it together, according to their schedule
I see that many evolutionists seem to pull alot of things our of the air.

I'm never suprised !!!!

That didn't answer my question. And if you read my previous post, you'll see that I presented the question as a hypothetical scenario.

Would something like this be the sort of headline you'd expect to see if evolution were true?

Scientists Say Human Evolution Appears To Speed Up

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID | Associated Press December 11, 2007

[...]

"I was raised with the belief that modern humans showed up 40,000 to 50,000 years ago and haven't changed," explained Henry C. Harpending, an anthropologist at the University of Utah. "The opposite seems to be true."

"Our species is not static," Harpending added in a telephone interview.

That doesn't mean we should expect major changes in a few generations, though, as evolution occurs over thousands of years.

[...]

"Rapid population growth has been coupled with vast changes in cultures and ecology, creating new opportunities for adaptation," the study says. "The past 10,000 years have seen rapid skeletal and dental evolution in human populations, as well as the appearance of many new genetic responses to diet and disease."

 

[Willamena]

This line of reasoning to me ,is nothing more than a convenient and safe position to take for evolutionists and evolutionary biologists .
We just don't have, nor will we see any indication of such dramatic stages of macro evultionary change, all we have are micro stages of evolutionary.

Why would one position dictated by the data, rather than by what you (apparently) want to see occur, be the "convenient" position?

That it's not news-worthy doesn't mean we missed anything.

 

[Autodidact]

What came first, the tree of the seed, please tell me how the seed formed and are you saying we and all life came from that seed.

I'm not talking about a real tree, roli. It's a metaphor, an image. Picture a tree in your mind--that's the "tree" of life. All species can be placed somewhere on this "tree", and that is the objective way to categorize them by multiple methods that return the same results. There is no seed.

That our atmosphere existed on it's own so perfectly by chance to accomodate that seed ,which by chance just happened to hold the key to all life.

This a kind of a complicated idea to get. If you have a certain environment, and life evolves in that environment, then they're going to fit perfectly. But it's not (necessarily) because the environment was designed for that life; it can happen because life evolved to fit that environment.
Puddle: "Wow, check out this hole I'm in. Doesn't it fit me perfectly? Look, it's just the right size for me, and it goes up and down exactly where I do just to fit me. Someone must have made it just for me."

Where did the seed come from, the perfect conditions that were required for it to grow, the amount of sunlight and water that came about through the hydrological cycle ,how did all that come about.

No seed, it's just a metaphor. If you're trying to drive the conversation back to abiogenesis, please take it to that thread. This one is about evolution.

 

[Autodidact]

This line of reasoning to me ,is nothing more than a convenient and safe position to take for evolutionists and evolutionary biologists .
We just don't have, nor will we see any indication of such dramatic stages of macro evultionary change, all we have are micro stages of evolutionary .

What we have is what science is all about: evidence, evidence, evidence. I'm in the process of laying it out in another thread, so let's not duplicate. Stand by, I'm going through it one piece at a time.

We just missed all the real critical stages in the evolutionary process and when the next one takes place, it just so happens we won't be here. LOL!!!!!

Oh no, as I've told you repeatedly, it's going on all around you all the time.

How absurd to even use such illogical reasoning, but what a brilliant position to take.
I guess what your saying is, the really truth and proof of evolution is between these stages and that we will never personally witness them.

No, I'm saying there is an enormous amount of evidence for ToE that you can witness yourself. I'm setting it out, bit by bit. It's because of this overwhelming evidence that Biology accepted this theory a hundred years ago.

 

[Autodidact]

It seems more and more that the schedule for this evolutionary chain of events happens the way evolutionists seem to want to piece it together, according to their schedule
I see that many evolutionists seem to pull alot of things our of the air.

No, it's all survived the gauntlet of scrutiny from their fellow scientists.

 

[roli]

Since the seed and the tree (or the egg and the chicken) are the same organism, how does this question make any sense? You might as well be asking what came first, the child or the man.

The evolutionary path to the tree from whatever came before it was not traversed in a single step but in a series of small, almost indistinguishable steps. Until you clearly define what makes a tree a tree, you will never be able to say exactly when it evolved, but that doesn't mean they didn't.

Are you an evolutionist who just remains in the micro evolutionary process theory.
I mean do you agree that evolutionists somewhere at one time believed that we came from inorganic matter and that all things came from the big bang.

I mean is that totally phased out now or are evolutionists just in denial

 

[roli]

No, it's all survived the gauntlet of scrutiny from their fellow scientists.

Let me ask you a question, do you beleive in more than one theory of evolution.
I mean where did the big bang theory orginate, if not from evolutionists.
I understand that you are more of an micro evolutionists, but evolution is so more than what you seem to always allude to.
I understand that micro is more easily studied and findings are more vastly provable, to some degree than the other evolution theories, but you seem to stay clear of the indocrtinations of evolution that is taught in schools ,why is that.

I truly understand the whole ToE ,at least where your coming from, variations of species etc.but what about the remaining theories that evolutionists ,at least on this site seem to stay clear of, that being,cosmic,chemical, stellar&planetary, organic,macro, things like that.

The big bang theory and origin of the universe is never mentioned much on this site by evolutionists and it seems they remain only in the micro aspect of evolution

 

[Sunstone]

You'll never understand the Theory of Evolution from reading the Discovery Institute's website.

 

[camanintx]

Are you an evolutionist who just remains in the micro evolutionary process theory.
I mean do you agree that evolutionists somewhere at one time believed that we came from inorganic matter and that all things came from the big bang.

I mean is that totally phased out now or are evolutionists just in denial

Micro and macro evolution are terms used by people who don't understand evolution.

Evolution is simply [SIZE=-1]any process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage[/SIZE]. The process by which a star undergoes a sequence of radical changes during its lifetime is called stellar evolution. The process through which personal computers progressed from DOS 1.0 to Windows Vista is called software evolution. Since the title of this thread mentions Darwin, we must be talking about biological evolution or how changes in organisms are passed from one generation to another, resulting in the diversity of life we see today.

What you call "micro evolution" is simply the change we see from one moment to another. What you call "macro evolution" is simply the sum total of change over a longer period of time.

Until you can explain what limits something from evolving, how can you say you believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution?

 

[Autodidact]

Are you an evolutionist who just remains in the micro evolutionary process theory.
I mean do you agree that evolutionists somewhere at one time believed that we came from inorganic matter and that all things came from the big bang.

I mean is that totally phased out now or are evolutionists just in denial

No, and at this point I cannot understand why you keep repeating things that have been corrected over and over AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. It's so tedious. I beg of you, please try to read and understand this:
1. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN EVOLUTIONIST IN THE SENSE IN WHICH YOU ARE USING IT. THERE IS NO PHILOSOPHY OR WORLDVIEW CALLED EVOLUTIONISM. THERE IS ONLY A SPECIFIC THEORY IN A SPECIFIC FIELD OF SCIENCE, AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIG BANG. roli: Every time you post this crap you make yourself look like an idiot. You wouldn't want people to think that people who support creationism are idiots, do you? O.K., stop making the same mistake. You are arguing against a non-existent theory. You may win, but you will have done nothing about the actual theory of actual evolution, which is what you want to fight. The word for this fallacy is "straw man."
2. If you want to know what the actual theory of evolution (and I don't want to throw you off completely, but we abbreviate that ToE) says, go back to the "resemblance" thread, where I explained it in very simple terms. If they're not simple enough, let me know, and I'll make it even simpler for you.

 

[Autodidact]

Let me ask you a question, do you beleive in more than one theory of evolution.

Theories aren't something you believe in. No, I only accept one ToE, the modern synthesis of Darwin's theory with genetics.

I mean where did the big bang theory orginate, if not from evolutionists.

FROM COSMOLOGISTS. I'm sorry to shout, roli, but this is at least the 5th time I've told you this very simple thing. You have different fields of science: geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. Evolution is Biology. Big Bang is Cosmology. They are entirely separate. And frankly, I don't really understand Big Bang, do you?

I understand that you are more of an micro evolutionists, but evolution is so more than what you seem to always allude to.

No, I'm not, and no, it isn't. If you think I have mis-represented the theory, visit any of several websites that explain it--I can provide you the links--and show that I am wrong.

There is something that you are fighting, roli, but it's not evolution. It may be metaphysical naturalism, or atheism, or possibly all of science, but it's not evolution. EVOLUTION IS A BIOLOGICAL THEORY. EVOLUTION IS A BIOLOGICAL THEORY. EVOLUTION IS A BIOLOGICAL THEORY.

I understand that micro is more easily studied and findings are more vastly provable, to some degree than the other evolution theories, but you seem to stay clear of the indocrtinations of evolution that is taught in schools ,why is that.

I don't. What I have presented to you is the actual ToE that is actually taught in actual schools. Here's your problem: you've been reading creationist propaganda, such as AIG, ICR, Jonathan Wells, Ken Hamm, Kent Hovind, etc. And they are all liars. They have lied to you. You have been lied to. I can prove it to you, would you like me to? You should be angry at them for lying to you. Don't be like them--now that you know the truth, don't lie to others.

I truly understand the whole ToE ,at least where your coming from, variations of species etc.but what about the remaining theories that evolutionists ,at least on this site seem to stay clear of, that being,cosmic,chemical, stellar&planetary, organic,macro, things like that.

*sigh* Is there any hope for you? Those things have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with evolution. You need to start a thread arguing against Big Bang, a thread about how much you hate Atomic Theory, why all of modern astronomy is wrong, etc. etc. Or, just anti-science in general--I'm not sure. Maybe it's atheism you want to argue against, roli, the theory that there is no God. Maybe you should put your energy there. But it's not evolution, which you don't actually seem to have a problem with, now that you understand it.

The big bang theory and origin of the universe is never mentioned much on this site by evolutionists and it seems they remain only in the micro aspect of evolution

THEY'RE NOT ANY ASPECT OF EVOLUTION. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. What's wrong with you, roli? How many times do we have to tell you the same thing? Is it that you don't believe me? Do you want me to quote and cite science books and cites, would that help?

 

[Autodidact]

It came to me last night, an answer to the OP--why evolution undermines religious belief.

IMO one of the strongest arguments for some kind of God is the argument from design/watchmaker type thing. The universe/world/life is so amazing, so complex and intricate, orderly and beautiful, that it could not have come about randomly or by chance; there must have been a correspondingly brilliant designer behind it all. I find this argument compelling, and I think that as a factual matter, not just apologetics but in terms of actual subjective persuasiveness, is probably the reason that many or most people do believe in God.

ToE says that, at least as far as living organisms go, this apparent design

can be explained on the basis of purely natural laws, with no divine intervention. Thus, it undercuts the strongest argument not just for YEC, but for the existence of any God other than the most remote, Deist one, and thereby threatens religious faith.

In fact, speaking for myself, if it were not for science providing explanations and the possibility of future explanations for many natural phenomena, I might have hesitated to conclude that there is no God.

And, in fact, the more one knows about science, the more likely not to believe in God.

 

[crystalonyx]

Why do some people believe that accepting evolution as a fact destroys belief in the God of the Bible?

Read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

"Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence"