Evolution

I am not here to cause any trouble. I am here out of curiosity. I am atheist. Please before some damn and condemn me to hell which I do not believe in could one please answer a question.

Do any of you believe in evolution? If yes then why? If no then why not? I am just curious and do not want to cause a fight.

 

For the most part, yes. I believe in evolutionary adaptation, and that some species evolved from other species. Where I get a little confused is where we went from "no life" to all of a sudden..."life." I've heard the theory of how, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I believe in most of evolution because it makes sense, there's considerable evidence for it, and it doesn't conflict with my beliefs on god. The creation story in the bible is meant to show the philosophical meaning behind creation--i.e, god created everything, man was made in his image, was given free will, etc. It is not a scientific account of earths creation, because the Bible is not a science book. I see no reason to literally believe in a talking snake and women being made of ribs...the meaning and value of the story isn't lost if you take it metaphorically.

 

I can write a very long answer, but basically I agree with the gist of your post SFF and I accept evolution.

I can expound if someone wishes.

 

I'll give you three reasons why I don't believe in evolution;
Bird's wings
Bi-sexual reproduction
Honey bees

 

interesting. could you explain further?

 

Okay but to keep it short, I’ll just start with the first one.

Bird’s wings.
A basic premise of evolution is survival of the fittest.

Yet for “millions” of years while birds were evolving the wings that would make them fit for survival, those very wings were a detriment to survival. It just seems these “proto-birds” would have been easy pickings for predators and would not have survived hundreds of years let alone “millions” in order to evolve wings.

Usually I hear; well we have birds, so it must have happened but I don’t know, it just doesn’t sound very reasonable to me.

 

Okay, It’ a bit longer but let’s look at:
Bi-sexual reproduction

First, I’m not really sure how bi-sexual reproduction is suppose to be an improvement over asexual reproduction. It would seem that those who can reproduce by themselves would have an advantage over those who have to go find a mate and may or may not be successful.

But let’s say that there is some sort of advantage to bi-sexual reproduction. That means that every step up the ladder means that, not just one but two mutations have to take place at the same time, male and female, because generally different kinds can not mate successfully with other kinds. Now what are the chances that after the “millions” of years it took to mutate one of the new kind, let’s say male, that a female would mutate in the same time period, within the same life span and that they would be within “walking” distance and not on the other side of the planet.

This must happen, not just once but every step up the ladder. Even given billions of years it just doesn’t seem like there has been enough time for this to ever happen.

But again I usually I hear; well we are here, so it must have happened but I don’t know, it just doesn’t sound very reasonable to me.

 

Ok, I'm assuming by "bisexual" reproduction, you mean sexual reproduction...that is, the opposite of asexual. There IS a distinct advantage to sexual reproduction: GENETIC DIVERSITY. You know how incest between people can lead to physical and mental health problems in offspring? Same idea--you want your kids to have a fresh set of DNA to make use of as many different beneficial genes as possible. Asexual reproduction can kind of be compared to mono-cropping, where farmers only plant on kind of crop for an entire season (something that is warned against in the Bible). This is a bad idea, not only because of soil depletion, but also because if a disease hits the crop (or a species), the entire crop (species) is wiped out. While there are some benefits to asexual reproduction, in order for a species to spread to different environments (thus increasing its probability of survival) it needs to be able to change and adapt to its surroundings, which is only possible when the offspring have their own set of genes separate from their parents.

Something tells me you have never officially studied evolutionary biology. Reproduction does not have to be one or the other--there are certain species (and probably were more way back when) that can reproduce BOTH sexually and asexually, depending on what their environment allows for at any given time. Also, certain species are hermaphrodites, allowing them to exchange and release genetic information in the same body. Male and female would not necessarily have to mutate into their given sexes at the same time if their species were hermaphroditic or simultaneously asexual and sexual.

You are forgetting that the life span of an amoeba is incredibly short compared to that of a human. Smaller organisms, which tend to be older, also tend to live for only a few weeks, sometimes only a few hours. Thus, you wouldn't need as much time for evolution to occur. As for human evolution...well, I would argue that we aren't as "evolved" as we think.

And just wondering, why do you put "millions" in quotation marks? Do you feel it is against God to believe that the earth is more than 10,000 years old? How do you explain radiometric dating?

I'm only asking because I feel that it is unfortunate that Christians have a reputation for being anti-intellectual, and this reputation arises from many Christians immediately rejecting anything that seems even remotely incompatible with the Bible as though it were a personal offense against God. The Bible was never meant as a science book. It makes no mention of cells or DNA, but this doesn't discredit their existence. God gave us brains, and one of the purposes of our brains is to learn more about the world that he gave us. So what if the dates are off? It doesn't negate the meaning of the Bible. Ideally speaking, one's faith should be stronger than that.

 

Actually, birds can trace their ancestry back to the dinosaur era (assuming you believe that dinosaurs existed, and the fossils weren't put there by the devil to confuse us). Mammals did not exist yet, so their predators were likely large reptiles, rather than the many different types of animals birds have to look out for today, so they weren't as likely to be hunted to extinction. The earliest birds were very large, and likely did not have the ability to fly, but this did not mean they were easy prey. Ostriches and emus do not have the ability to fly, but they compensate by being large, fast runners with a powerful kick. As birds became smaller, they gained the ability to fly little by little, but they were still able to compensate. Chickens, for example, cannot fly long distances, but they can fly up into trees where predators can't get to them as easily.

 

I think for the most part, the majority of Christians have no problem with microevolution, which is observable and well-documented, but also has limits. To extrapolate the theory of macroevolution from microevolution is sort of a leap of faith, and to raise concerns about such an extrapolation is perfectly legitimate.

 

I didn't mean to imply that it was illegitimate; I myself have reservations with certain aspects of evolution. I was addressing OWB use of quotation marks around the term "millions," which to me (correct me if I'm wrong) implied skepticism that the Earth has been around for millions/billions of years, which seems to me a very basic, scientific fact, provable by radiometric dating. Not that we know the exact age of the Earth down to the exact year, but I don't see how, if this is true, it should conflict with a person's beliefs on God, since the Bible was never written as a science book.

I was also addressing the larger issue of Christians rejecting all scientific theories regarding earth's origin...To give a perfect example (and this part is not addressed to OWB, as I don't know how he feels about it) have you ever heard of the Creation Museum in Kentucky? They have displays of dinosaurs and humans walking side by side, even though there is no evidence of this, as if by making a museum about it it makes it a scientific fact! This degree of anti-intellectualism I find needless and embarrassing.

Even if scientists somehow someday prove that the Bible was right all along and the Earth is only 10,000 years old, I can't imagine God getting pissed off at the scientists for an incorrect calculation. So how does it harm one's faith to believe in science and the Bible simultaneously?

 

To be utterly honest, it's the installation of fear that is the harm. Fear is the destroyer of the mind, and most people are too afraid to abandon beliefs they have attached to and build their entire lives upon, because there is always the unseen prescence of the Great Deceiver, Satan, who could always be tricking you, always be lurking.
It's this sort of attitude and blind paranoi that used to haunt me as a child, and kept me from developing as an intelligent, self-aware person long after I was overdue, and I'm quite sure I was not alone in that department.
Christianity needs to pass through a revolution and return to it's basic tenets. Only after this has happened can it become congruent with new and outside perspectives.

 

Some videos I like:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTxXU9wgYxQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI6iHDRAVSQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkvV-jNUsDw (Sometimes the guy interrupts, which I don't like, but he does makes great points).


Also, think about this: Our entire origins is determined by very small samples of fossils. We base our history on a number of fossils that can fit into the back of a pick-up truck. That's a very small sample to base our entire history on.

We have more qualities in common with dogs than we do Chimpanzee's.

I personally don't believe in Micro-evolution.

As for the Warblers:

1) They never considered the possibility that these birds may be able to tell the difference between a recording of bird sounds versus an actual bird call happening in real time.

2) They are pretty much saying that just because two Warblers of different locations sings a different song, then this is proof that they are different species. But isn't that the same as saying that Asians and Native Americans are separate species? It doesn't make sense.

3) Even if these species split off, which I doubt, I would say that's a far stretch to believe that these are 'mutations'. Simple because mutations are actually detrimental to the survival of the species. This is a sign of a designer, not evolution. To have one species to split off to a new one... pretty amazing.

Also, think back to the whole IDA thing. Why were evolutionists so excited over it? Apparently there is so much evidence for evolution, and many evolutionists would say that the evidence for evolution is in the same category as the proof of gravity... yet they were excited over this? Apparently there is so much fossil records, et al, yet what ends up not being what it thought it was to be, is turned into this sort of victory dance. It was all very odd considering how the theory is made out to be iron-clad, or at least a stronger theory than creationism, which it isn't.

But no matter how much you break it down, you CANNOT, CANNOT, deny the FACT that we went from a void planet to life forms that we are now. Grapes do not grow on thorns. Rocks, inevitably, are not dead. From non-living material becomes living. Ultimately we came from the ground.

(Romans 1:21)

 

How could I have been so mistaken, thanks for the correction.

Thanks, now I can see how genetic diversity has been a big problem for amebas, who use asexual reproduction. Makes one wonder how they’ve even survived all these years without more genetic diversity.

Arrogance perhaps?

Once again thanks for showing me that when I try to simplify, someone is going to try and use it against me.

I think you may have forgotten that we are talking about, what did you call it? Oh yeah sexual reproduction, not asexual.

I put “millions” in quotation marks because most accounts of evolution use “millions of years” to describe how long it took the next step in evolution to occur.

As for the age of the Earth the Bible says nothing about the age of the Earth or the universe both of which could be billions of years old.

How do I explain radiometric dating? I didn’t know I had to, you’re the one who considers it so important why don’t you explain it?

Actually, before I even became a “Christian” I thought evolution was wrong. Becoming a “Christian” didn’t change my mind one way or another.




PS I couldn’t help but notice that, what with all your denigration of my terminology, education and brain usage; you failed to address the core of my reasoning on the matter, that with sexual reproduction, each step up the ladder of evolution, two mutations, one male and one female would have to happen at the same time and place. Evolution seems to say that it took “millions” of years for just the one to arrive but now is saying it only takes “80 years” or less (a lifetime of the one) for the other one to arrive and that same coincidence takes place time after time.

 

What? You mean they weren‘t? Oh well, so much for that theory

Are you telling me that only mammals make good predators? I’ll have to remember to tell that to the next snake, alligator or crocodile I run into.

I’ll give you that, ostriches and emus can take care of themselves but then again they don’t fly either, do they?

It’s that very little by little that I’m talking about, it’s that very change that makes them more and more vulnerable to predation.

Also chickens are a bad example, even though they can, as you say fly, they are very vulnerable to predation and some times I wonder, that if it weren’t for man’s help if they wouldn’t be extinct.

 

There are two main theories: ground-up and tree-down.

Ground up theorists use the flapping, leaping biped to escape predators and catch prey. Tree down theorists say that feathered reptiles used wings and wing like structures to glide from tree to tree (or to the ground) and eventually into flying.

And interesting specimen is the Microraptor, or the 4-Winged Dinosaur. It's hind legs have wing like feathers and when positioned in a certain way, give the animal significant lift. It is also interesting that a lot of dinosaurs did have feathers, which is today a distinctly a bird trait.

A great book, and quick book, is "Darwinism Defeated?" which is a written debate between Phil Johnson and Denis Lamoureaux with commentary by other noted anti-evolutionists and pro-evolutionists (I do not use the term Creationist because Denis is a creationist and evolutionist). Another great book by Denis is called Evolutionary Creation (aka I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution in a much shorter form). he uses theological, scientific and philosophical arguments and holds 3 PhDs (Bio, Theo, Dentistry).

One interesting argument from a commentator in "Darwinism Defeated?" is by someone who's name escapes me. In it he hypothetically gets someone to describe what a bird is (this is an argument against the argument of immovable kinds). When they say feathers, we can show dinosaurs that have feathers. When someone says no teeth in a beak, we can show a modern bird that has such...and so on and so forth. The boundaries are all become blurred.

 

Best video concerning evolution (lol):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtDY-WirVCc

 

Just to repeat what I’ve already said; the quotation marks implied no skepticism that the Earth has been around for millions/billions of years but implied a skepticism about evolution’s estimates about evolutionary time periods.

The idea that the Earth is only 10,000 years old comes from a misreading of the Bible. The Bible does not say what the age of the Earth is and so I do not expect the Earth ever to be proved to be only 10,000 years old, not to say that God could not make the Earth look much older than it really is, he just doesn’t have to do it to make the Bible true.

 

FYI, the guy in the last film--the "cars and trucks have 4 wheels because of a common designer" guy is Kent Hovind. Kent believes that according to Genesis, there was a canopy of ice and/or vapour above the earth (this is what separates the waters from the waters...right?). But, if he takes this step (and he leaves this next bit out), the sun and moon and stars are places in the midst of the firmamant (hard, hammered out plate of metal from the Hebrew). So apparently for Kent the sun and moon are in Earths atmosphere... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind#The_Hovind_Theory Kent has also no real biological training

The Richard Dawkins thing is also a hoax. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoXzF9zDy_k read the info on the video, it gives Dawkins' account.

Finding a fossil that is a "missing link" is exciting for a number of reasons. 1) Fossils are exceedingly rare. Think of the number of creatures that actually have lived, now think of the number of fossils we have discovered. It is incredibly rare. 2) The fossil record as one person in my Creationism class said is "bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad". What she meant was that there are gaps, however there is more than enough to see the changes within and between Biblical "kinds".

Just for the record, I am an evolutionary creationist. I believe that all life has evolved, but I do believe that it is through a natural ordained and sustained process by God. I don't have a strong opinion on the origin of life, amino acids, cells, dna or whatever...there is not enough evidence to suggest a certain way, but I hesitate to say "God did it" because then if we do find a way, I have to say God did something else.

In the grand scheme of the universe though. If you love God, lets say as well and as much as it is written Job did, but believe in evolution, and get punished for it...God maybe has his priorities out of whack.

Out of Curiosity--what do we have more in common with dogs than chimps?