Any other Christians in here interested in evolution? I mean genuinely wants to understand it.

[Skovand1075]

This post is not about debating with those who don’t believe it. Plenty of forums out there. This is a place for those , typically just in college, that is feeling conflicted.

 

[Dropship]

Any other Christians in here interested in evolution? I mean genuinely wants to understand it.

The survival of the cleverest and fittest in the animal world is perfectly logical because we can see it going on all around us, just as its been going on for millions of years..
For example I have fun by leaving peanuts around the room in seemingly unreachable places, yet the cleverest mice that visit my flat have no trouble finding them, whereas the not-so-clever sit looking fed up with rumbling tummies..
Below: Here's Henry, he climbs up the wire leading to my computer desk to hunt down a nut, play it fullscreen for maximum dramatic effect-

 

[Skovand1075]

Funny and cute. Natural selection over time definitely helps those best fitted for their environment to be more likely to spread their genetics through offspring. Over time compounded genetics results in speciation.

 

[michaelvpardo]

My bachelor's of Science degree was awarded by the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1980. This was well before the human genome project was completed, but my degree was in biological sciences and I had quite a few courses that included the theory of evolution and taught from that perspective, including the basic biology classes bio 101 and 102, physics for biology, comparative anatomy, animal physiology, adaption and evolution, and genetics. My test score for the graduate record examination advanced test in biology was in the top 5% nationwide, so I absorbed a bit of the teaching. However, my conclusion was that evolutionary theory was inadequate to explain the origin of life. Some time after I graduated, I also read Robert Ardrey's books African Genesis, the Territorial Imperative, and the Social contract, all about his research into the anthropological studies trying to explain how man could've evolved in such a (relatively) short period of geological time.

Evolutionary theory is in part dependent upon the concept that anything, regardless of how unlikely, will occur given sufficient time for totally random processes to accidentally combine and work together in a functional way.

What's more, Charles Darwin based his foundational work, the origin of species, on mistaken observation. He believed that the various phenotypes of finches that he observed on the Galapagos Islands were different species. However we know now that those various phenotypes are just normal morphological variations in one species, just like the various ethnicities of mankind.

Then there's the flawed logic of the theory regarding the fossil record. The similarities in morphology between "divergent" species was the original "evidence" of lineal relationship between them. However, the comparison of placental mammal to marsupials and nonplacental mammals that thrived in geographically isolated regions like Australia, lead to the "understanding" that similar morphology could evolve independently to fit similar environmental niches. So, the primary evolutionary evidence upon which the theory is based, similar morphology, is by the admission of evolutionary scientists, not actually proof of lineal relationship.

Molecular biology and genetics is also used as evidentiary by examining genetic similarity, but huge anomalies persist in the "evidence". For example, some pig proteins are closer to their human counterparts than those in apes, but no one is proposing that we evolved from pigs.

One of the very first experiments to prove the spontaneous generation of life was an attempt to generate something living inside a sealed jar that contained nothing but dirt and air. The experiment generated worms in the soil, but was flawed because the soil wasn't sterilized and contained eggs. Yet that experiment was still taught as support for the spontaneous generation of life in the 1970s, but with the note that it was flawed for the stated reasons.

Newer devised experiments utilizing a mixture of gases that might have existed in the primordial Earth were able to produce some simple hydrocarbons, the building blocks of more complex organic compounds, but not life.
To this date, no one has been able to create even the simplest form of life spontaneously under experiment.

Some biologist have given themselves over the study of cellular mechanisms in bacterium, single celled organisms, some with extremely complicated biological machines for locomotion and transport. Some of these (non-Christian) scientists arrived at the concept of irreducible complexity, the notion that the most basic definition of life includes the requirement for multiple interdependent processes which couldn't themselves evolve independently. (Evolution only occurs (theoretically) when the organism is living and capable of reproduction). Their conclusion was that life demonstrates intelligent design. This conclusion is unacceptable to a concept of "pure science" that excludes any kind of creator, so the field was labeled pseudo science, and the scientists in those endeavors, "quacks" and frauds.

The theory of evolution and the mechanisms that make it a possibility are easy to understand, but the end results are extremely improbable. However, the "scientific community " prefers a flawed theory, with flawed origin, built on flawed logic, with evidences as "proofs" that have alternative explanation, to the consideration of the supernatural, a God and Creator. This is why some evolutionary scientists turned to the newer hypothesis of "pangenesis", or that life originated "elsewhere" and somehow hitchhiked a ride to Earth. That allows them to rule out the problem of insufficient time for life to evolve here, and completely disregard its origin elsewhere.

Evolutionary science is a blind man trying to identify an elephant by its appendages.

 

[Matthias]

This post is not about debating with those who don’t believe it. Plenty of forums out there. This is a place for those , typically just in college, that is feeling conflicted.

I read a book earlier this year titled “Who Made the Moon?: A Father Explores How Faith and Science Agree.” The author of the book is Sigmund Brouwer (a trinitarian, if that matters to you.)

I thought it was very good, and he approaches the topic in the same manner you are. Are you by chance familiar with it?

 

[Skovand1075]

My bachelor's of Science degree was awarded by the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1980. This was well before the human genome project was completed, but my degree was in biological sciences and I had quite a few courses that included the theory of evolution and taught from that perspective, including the basic biology classes bio 101 and 102, physics for biology, comparative anatomy, animal physiology, adaption and evolution, and genetics. My test score for the graduate record examination advanced test in biology was in the top 5% nationwide, so I absorbed a bit of the teaching. However, my conclusion was that evolutionary theory was inadequate to explain the origin of life. Some time after I graduated, I also read Robert Ardrey's books African Genesis, the Territorial Imperative, and the Social contract, all about his research into the anthropological studies trying to explain how man could've evolved in such a (relatively) short period of geological time.

Evolutionary theory is in part dependent upon the concept that anything, regardless of how unlikely, will occur given sufficient time for totally random processes to accidentally combine and work together in a functional way.

What's more, Charles Darwin based his foundational work, the origin of species, on mistaken observation. He believed that the various phenotypes of finches that he observed on the Galapagos Islands were different species. However we know now that those various phenotypes are just normal morphological variations in one species, just like the various ethnicities of mankind.

Then there's the flawed logic of the theory regarding the fossil record. The similarities in morphology between "divergent" species was the original "evidence" of lineal relationship between them. However, the comparison of placental mammal to marsupials and nonplacental mammals that thrived in geographically isolated regions like Australia, lead to the "understanding" that similar morphology could evolve independently to fit similar environmental niches. So, the primary evolutionary evidence upon which the theory is based, similar morphology, is by the admission of evolutionary scientists, not actually proof of lineal relationship.

Molecular biology and genetics is also used as evidentiary by examining genetic similarity, but huge anomalies persist in the "evidence". For example, some pig proteins are closer to their human counterparts than those in apes, but no one is proposing that we evolved from pigs.

One of the very first experiments to prove the spontaneous generation of life was an attempt to generate something living inside a sealed jar that contained nothing but dirt and air. The experiment generated worms in the soil, but was flawed because the soil wasn't sterilized and contained eggs. Yet that experiment was still taught as support for the spontaneous generation of life in the 1970s, but with the note that it was flawed for the stated reasons.

Newer devised experiments utilizing a mixture of gases that might have existed in the primordial Earth were able to produce some simple hydrocarbons, the building blocks of more complex organic compounds, but not life.
To this date, no one has been able to create even the simplest form of life spontaneously under experiment.

Some biologist have given themselves over the study of cellular mechanisms in bacterium, single celled organisms, some with extremely complicated biological machines for locomotion and transport. Some of these (non-Christian) scientists arrived at the concept of irreducible complexity, the notion that the most basic definition of life includes the requirement for multiple interdependent processes which couldn't themselves evolve independently. (Evolution only occurs (theoretically) when the organism is living and capable of reproduction). Their conclusion was that life demonstrates intelligent design. This conclusion is unacceptable to a concept of "pure science" that excludes any kind of creator, so the field was labeled pseudo science, and the scientists in those endeavors, "quacks" and frauds.

The theory of evolution and the mechanisms that make it a possibility are easy to understand, but the end results are extremely improbable. However, the "scientific community " prefers a flawed theory, with flawed origin, built on flawed logic, with evidences as "proofs" that have alternative explanation, to the consideration of the supernatural, a God and Creator. This is why some evolutionary scientists turned to the newer hypothesis of "pangenesis", or that life originated "elsewhere" and somehow hitchhiked a ride to Earth. That allows them to rule out the problem of insufficient time for life to evolve here, and completely disregard its origin elsewhere.

Evolutionary science is a blind man trying to identify an elephant by its appendages.

Well if you could read better you would have learned more while in “college” and understood the statement that this is not a debate section. I suggest checking back in with your peers and 99.99% of scientists who can perhaps help you understand it.

 

[marks]

Well if you could read better you would have learned more while in “college” and understood the statement that this is not a debate section. I suggest checking back in with your peers and 99.99% of scientists who can perhaps help you understand it.

I can help you to understand the evolutionary theory should you care for me to, however, the first thing that needs to be understood is that a Scientific Theory is an eplanation of something made being based on observations, and repeatable experiments. Since evolution from one species to another has never been observed, and since there are no repeatable experiments that one species can change to another, the concept of evolution as an explanation for the diversity of species does not qualify as a Scientific Theory.

Evolution as the "origin of life" shares the same difficulty. A transition from nonliving to living has never been observed, and there are no repeatable experiments by which such a theory can be demonstrated.

So the "Theory of Evolution" is a misnomer, and sets the tone for the entire study of "evolution".

The question becomes, why is there such a widespread "blindness" to the shortfalls of "evolution" as a "Scientific Theory"? Why the profoundly widespread complicity that in this one and very important instance, the definitions which the scientific community itself originated and uses, why, in this one case, is that definition suspended? Why do the scientists lie? Or why are they deluded?

To get a better idea of what this is like, think of thousands and millions of trade house painters, all over the nation, over the world, and they say, We offer 20 year paint in the 15 most popular colors, defining their terms, but whenever someone orders the periwinkle, they use poster paint, and call it 20 year paint. Even believe that's what it is. Millions of painters all doing this. Why would that be?

Millions of scientists, educators, all deny and defy the meaning of what a Scientific Theory is, here, look at this:

Definition of scientific theory | Dictionary.com

noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution.

Dictionary.com gives the definition, and then uses that very example, "the scientific theory of evolution", as if that embodies the meaning. Where are the observations? No one has ever seen one species change to another, and no one has ever seen non-living become living. Where are the repeatable experiments? There are none. Why then is this universally called a "theory"??

So when we start to seek to understand this thing known as "evolution", should we attempt to correctly classify it?

What's the Difference Between a Fact, a Hypothesis, a Theory, and a Law in Science?

Which does this best fit, Fact, Hypothesis, Theory, or Law?

Much love!

 

[Skovand1075]

I can help you to understand the evolutionary theory should you care for me to, however, the first thing that needs to be understood is that a Scientific Theory is an eplanation of something made being based on observations, and repeatable experiments. Since evolution from one species to another has never been observed, and since there are no repeatable experiments that one species can change to another, the concept of evolution as an explanation for the diversity of species does not qualify as a Scientific Theory.

Evolution as the "origin of life" shares the same difficulty. A transition from nonliving to living has never been observed, and there are no repeatable experiments by which such a theory can be demonstrated.

So the "Theory of Evolution" is a misnomer, and sets the tone for the entire study of "evolution".

The question becomes, why is there such a widespread "blindness" to the shortfalls of "evolution" as a "Scientific Theory"? Why the profoundly widespread complicity that in this one and very important instance, the definitions which the scientific community itself originated and uses, why, in this one case, is that definition suspended? Why do the scientists lie? Or why are they deluded?

To get a better idea of what this is like, think of thousands and millions of trade house painters, all over the nation, over the world, and they say, We offer 20 year paint in the 15 most popular colors, defining their terms, but whenever someone orders the periwinkle, they use poster paint, and call it 20 year paint. Even believe that's what it is. Millions of painters all doing this. Why would that be?

Millions of scientists, educators, all deny and defy the meaning of what a Scientific Theory is, here, look at this:

Definition of scientific theory | Dictionary.com

noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution.

Dictionary.com gives the definition, and then uses that very example, "the scientific theory of evolution", as if that embodies the meaning. Where are the observations? No one has ever seen one species change to another, and no one has ever seen non-living become living. Where are the repeatable experiments? There are none. Why then is this universally called a "theory"??

So when we start to seek to understand this thing known as "evolution", should we attempt to correctly classify it?

What's the Difference Between a Fact, a Hypothesis, a Theory, and a Law in Science?

Which does this best fit, Fact, Hypothesis, Theory, or Law?

Much love!

I am not asking for myself. I understand the theory very well. What I mai it have studied and focus on is evolutionary ecology with a emphasis on the coevolution of plants and their hosted insects. That has primarily been focused on habitat systems within longleaf pine savannas and bogs within the costal plain south of the fall line of south eastern USA.

I was asking my question for those that are curious and I could dedicate some time to helping them.

That’s why I tried to separate the post from a debate with those that reject it vs a discussion with those that accept it but not sure how it fits within our faith.

 

[Skovand1075]

Evolution is a theory supported by thousands of facts across dozens of scientific field presented through the research of the experts who specialize in it.

You mentioned studying genetics. I’m a big fan of Francis Collins. One of the worlds most known and highly respected geneticist. He’s the director of NIH and was a lead scientist on the human genome project. He’s also a Christian and accepts evolution and founded Biologos.

The genetic “tree of life” correlates the story of the fossil record.

I made a post before but no one answered it.
Essentially the question was what other explanation besides evolution explains the positioning of fossils within the geological layer showcasing basal forms splitting from one another because of divergent traits?

for example, we don’t see birds predating dinosaurs. We don’t see tetrapods predating the earliest lunged fish. We don’t see bipedalism in primates predating walking on all fours. We don’t see our species predating the earliest primates.

 

[marks]

I am not asking for myself. I understand the theory very well. What I mai it have studied and focus on is evolutionary ecology with a emphasis on the coevolution of plants and their hosted insects. That has primarily been focused on habitat systems within longleaf pine savannas and bogs within the costal plain south of the fall line of south eastern USA.

I was asking my question for those that are curious and I could dedicate some time to helping them.

That’s why I tried to separate the post from a debate with those that reject it vs a discussion with those that accept it but not sure how it fits within our faith.

I think honesty about what is being discussed is a valuable thing. Beginning with false assertions is a poor way to start, isn't it?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Evolution is a theory supported by thousands of facts across dozens of scientific field

I believe this statement to be completely false. As previously explained, it is not a theory in substance, but in name only. Because there are not facts that support it, there are not observations, there are not repeatable experiments.

No one has observed nonliving matter become living matter, no one has observed one species become another species.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Evolution is a theory supported by thousands of facts across dozens of scientific field presented through the research of the experts who specialize in it.

You mentioned studying genetics. I’m a big fan of Francis Collins. One of the worlds most known and highly respected geneticist. He’s the director of NIH and was a lead scientist on the human genome project. He’s also a Christian and accepts evolution and founded Biologos.

The genetic “tree of life” correlates the story of the fossil record.

I made a post before but no one answered it.
Essentially the question was what other explanation besides evolution explains the positioning of fossils within the geological layer showcasing basal forms splitting from one another because of divergent traits?

for example, we don’t see birds predating dinosaurs. We don’t see tetrapods predating the earliest lunged fish. We don’t see bipedalism in primates predating walking on all fours. We don’t see our species predating the earliest primates.

You may want to present a fair - accurate - portrayal of how this "dating" works. The different methods, why particular methods are selected, and the presuppositions build into each method. Perhaps a discussion of anomalous results such as the Grand Canyon layers, and the Mount St. Helen rocks, just to name two?

You seem to want to present "Evolutionary Theory", can we do that we accuracy and completeness?

Much love!

 

[quietthinker]

Any other Christians in here interested in evolution? I mean genuinely wants to understand it.
I'm genuinely interested in evolution. Fifty years ago the photos of myself looked different than the photos I have of myself today.......Ohhhh, you mean EVolution, rats! I heard DEvolution!

 

[Skovand1075]

I think honesty about what is being discussed is a valuable thing. Beginning with false assertions is a poor way to start, isn't it?

Much love!

Nothing started out being fake… and there was not false assertions.

but like I said, this is not here as a debate. This is for those who accept reality. The fact is is simply that out of 8,000,000 scientists all but 5-10k accept evolution. The other 99.99% do. There is no alternative considered within the scientific community.

 

[Skovand1075]

You may want to present a fair - accurate - portrayal of how this "dating" works. The different methods, why particular methods are selected, and the presuppositions build into each method. Perhaps a discussion of anomalous results such as the Grand Canyon layers, and the Mount St. Helen rocks, just to name two?

You seem to want to present "Evolutionary Theory", can we do that we accuracy and completeness?

Much love!

Again. This will be the last time I say it.

I stated, I’m not here to debate with those who reject it. There are plenty of other forums to do that.

so those who read that statement and chose to disregard it are choosing to be jerks.
Those that read it and don’t understand it have bad reading comprehension.

If anyone wants to debate I suggest going to this free forum. I’m also there and I’ll debate there as well.
The BioLogos Forum

but this forum I’m not here to debate it. I don’t care that 0.01% of scientists reject evolution and I don’t care that a handful of predominantly Americans and others with westernized foundations don’t understand evolution. It’s not worth my time to debate it. Just like I don’t waste time to debate a flat earth.

 

[Skovand1075]

Any other Christians in here interested in evolution? I mean genuinely wants to understand it.
I'm genuinely interested in evolution. Fifty years ago the photos of myself looked different than the photos I have of myself today.......Ohhhh, you mean EVolution, rats! I heard DEvolution!

Well it’s good that you’re interested in evolution. A good place to start is that aging is not speciation.

 

[quietthinker]

Well it’s good that you’re interested in evolution. A good place to start is that aging is not speciation.

mushrooms come in all sizes.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Well if you could read better you would have learned more while in “college” and understood the statement that this is not a debate section. I suggest checking back in with your peers and 99.99% of scientists who can perhaps help you understand it.

What, I should know more than 100% of my peers in order to discuss a failed hypothesis.
Seek the stupid and the blind. I'll stick with a solid knowledge base, an IQ about two standard deviations above the mean, and a tight relationship with the Lord.

 

[Skovand1075]

What, I should know more than 100% of my peers in order to discuss a failed hypothesis.
Seek the stupid and the blind. I'll stick with a solid knowledge base, an IQ about two standard deviations above the mean, and a tight relationship with the Lord.

Well best luck to you.

Much love,

 

[dev553344]

This post is not about debating with those who don’t believe it. Plenty of forums out there. This is a place for those , typically just in college, that is feeling conflicted.

I used to be interested in evolution, then I watched a documentary on dinosaurs that threw doubt into current theories of carbon dating and that the flood could also explain their extinction. And they have a missing link. So no I'm no longer interested in evolution.