Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[keithprosser3]

I'm a little disappointed by the lack of response from anti-evolutionists.

[DanieltheDragon]

I'm a little disappointed by the lack of response from anti-evolutionists.

go talk to jamesjah for that

[olavisjo]

.

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 8 by keithprosser3]

keithprosser3 wrote:

I suppose its because we think evolution true and we think the truth matters.

I think evolution is true as well, but it's certainly not worth arguing with someone over. I'm quite certain that if you could just provide some substantial evidence for evolution, that you would convince a lot of people that evolution is true. But there will still be those who deny that evolution is true. What is your reason for not allowing them to believe what they want to believe? Why do you try to smash their belief in God when you attempt to convince them of evolution? Perhaps, if you could incorporate a possibility of God into the evolution equation, you will find a lot more Creationists believing in evolution.

While I might agree with you that truth matters, I think that many atheists are more concerned that their evolution adversaries believe in God. Their frothing at the mouth is less a result of their adversaries non-belief in evolution, but rather a result of their belief and faith in God. But that's just me and my very small opinion.

I don't want to have to guess why theists reject evolution. I think that 'amateur psychology' fro the sidelines is not going the help. I'd only want to hear why theists reject evolution in their own words.

I am a Christian. It is not apparent to me that evolution absolutely occurs, however it seems to be a reasonable theory. Evolution and Creation are not mutually exclusive. They are completely compatible theories.

[keithprosser3]

What is your reason for not allowing them to believe what they want to believe? Why do you try to smash their belief in God when you attempt to convince them of evolution? Perhaps, if you could incorporate a possibility of God into the evolution equation, you will find a lot more Creationists believing in evolution.

I don't think you will find any post of mine that attacks anyone for their rejection of evolution. But I must comment on the line: "What is my reason for not allowing them to believe what they want to believe?". I can only think that you were careless in writing that, because surely it matters a great deal whether what people believe is true or not. Whether evolution is true or not, the basis of which to believe surely shouldn't be its the one you want to believe, which is what you implied.

So why does this matter? Well, evolution is the basis of biological theory. The timescales of evolution are the timescales of geology and the tools of geology are such things as radio-carbon dating. Should evolution be mis-understood and mis-taught, then you'll have to do the same for geology (which is how we find our oil) and physics.

Just as some believers won't give up genesis because it leads to having to give up the whole bible, science can't afford to give up on evolution.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 14 by keithprosser3]

Sonofason wrote:

What is your reason for not allowing them to believe what they want to believe? Why do you try to smash their belief in God when you attempt to convince them of evolution? Perhaps, if you could incorporate a possibility of God into the evolution equation, you will find a lot more Creationists believing in evolution.

keithprosser3 wrote:

I can only think that you were careless in writing that, because surely it matters a great deal whether what people believe is true or not.

I suppose I may have been a little careless. I had originally intended to ask my question along these lines: Why do you feel the need to crush one's belief in God while you try to convince them of evolution? And if you are going to suggest it's either one or the other, then I too would say evolution is false. I will believe in God regardless if evolution is true or not. I really don't care if it's true or not. Evolution has absolutely no bearing on my life. It never will. So then, why do you care if I believe in evolution or not; even if I am wrong. Why do you care? Why do you think it's important that everyone believe the truth? You can't even prove that evolution is true. Or am I wrong? If I am, then by all means prove it to me. I'm all ears.

keithprosser3 wrote:

evolution is the basis of biological theory.

Please tell me what you mean by biological theory. And why is it a theory?

keithprosser3 wrote:

The timescales of evolution are the timescales of geology and the tools of geology are such things as radio-carbon dating.

Can you show me that over millions of years carbon dating is accurate? Can you please show me some valid evidence that carbon -14 decays at the same rate today as it did 1 million years ago? Please show me your evidence.

keithprosser3 wrote:

Should evolution be mis-understood and mis-taught

Are you really quite sure it isn't being mis-understood and mis-taught already?

keithprosser3 wrote:
Just as some believers won't give up genesis because it leads to having to give up the whole bible, science can't afford to give up on evolution.

I know. You have great faith in your science and in your evolution.

[bernee51]

evolution is the basis of biological theory.

Please tell me what you mean by biological theory. And why is it a theory?

Do you understand the meaning of the word theory as it applies to science as opposed to the religious interpretation of the word?

keithprosser3 wrote:

The timescales of evolution are the timescales of geology and the tools of geology are such things as radio-carbon dating.

Can you show me that over millions of years carbon dating is accurate? Can you please show me some valid evidence that carbon -14 decays at the same rate today as it did 1 million years ago? Please show me your evidence.

Your ignorance explains your misunderstandings.

Carbon dating is only used to estimate the age of organic materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.

Other methods are used for longer time frames.

keithprosser3 wrote:

Should evolution be mis-understood and mis-taught

Are you really quite sure it isn't being mis-understood and mis-taught already?

It certainly isprimarily on sites such as Answers in Genesis and such like.

keithprosser3 wrote:

Just as some believers won't give up genesis because it leads to having to give up the whole bible, science can't afford to give up on evolution.

I know. You have great faith in your science and in your evolution.

I find it not only interesting but instructive that you should use the word faith as a pejorative.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 16 by bernee51]

Sonofason asks:

Please tell me what you mean by biological theory. And why is it a theory?

Bernie tries to answer a question with a question:

Do you understand the meaning of the word theory as it applies to science as opposed to the religious interpretation of the word?

Do you? Please tell me how I ("the religious"), as well a bachelor of science, interpret the word "theory." Please tell me what my interpretation of the word is.

Bernie writes:

Carbon dating is only used to estimate the age of organic materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.

Other methods are used for longer time frames.

Do you care name those other methods, and prove that those methods are accurate?

Sonofason wrote:

You have great faith in your science and in your evolution.

No, not at all. I see faith as a good thing. I only wish that while you express your faith in science you had some degree of respect for the faith others have in God.

Faith is faith. It's wonderful when you can have faith in people. You've probably never have seen an electron. You don't know if they exist for sure. But you have faith in scientists, and the mathematical results they present. I think it's great. I trust them too. Why would they lie?

[Nickman]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

I guess my question would be. Who cares? Why is it so important for atheists to prove that evolution is true or not? It really has no bearing on anything. If species actually do evolve over time, who cares? It has no bearing on the existence of God. It has no bearing on the story of Genesis. Genesis, and evolution are completely compatible. So why are atheists so bent on proving evolution to the world?

"God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."
(Genesis 1:11)

"God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
(Genesis 1:20)

Scientists hypothesize that the life (the animal kingdom) began in the oceans. Here, we have God saying let the waters bring forth the moving creatures that have life. He had said, let the waters bring forth fowl that fly above the earth.

How indeed does would water bring forth birds that fly through the air had birds not evolved from ocean dwelling creatures?

God created all creatures "after their kind". There is no denying the truth of this statement. No creature is born to a creature that is not of it's own kind.

Species evolve. So what?

Except that is not what Genesis says

20 And God said, Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky. 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth. 23 And there was evening, and there was morning"the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind. And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

It also attributes the vault, or raqia (solid dome over Earth) to God's creation. This is something that doesn't even exist. So yes it does matter. The two are not compatible.

[Nickman]

Sonofason
And here is Young's Literal Translation

20 And God saith, Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'

21 And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.

Im not sure which version you used.