You'll have to pick one or the other.  If you believe evolution is the equivelant of shaking a box of toaster parts and getting a toaster out of the deal then you don't understand evolution at an 8th grade level.  There is no shame in admitting you don't, better to learn and move on.    If you do though and don't actually believe what you said about the toaster box, then you're being intentionally obtuse and trying to derail an academic discussion for your own non-intellectual reasons.  

So which is it?  Ignorance or just dishonesty?

Yep!



And something is causing living organisms to change slowly over time, such that eventually, two separate branches or "paths" of development that once shared a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with one another. They are, at some point, "different". They're so different, we call each one it's own species. We've observed this phenomenon, and it's a fact that it happens.



We decided to call that "something" you observed gravity, and we have a theory that explains how it works. That other thing we've all observed, we decided to call evolution, and we have a theory that explains how that works, too.



And the thing is, both theories are really, really, really, good. When you understand either one, a lightbulb illuminates over your head, and you say "Wow, that actually makes a lot of sense. That's pretty cool".



 

Why do you still have cousins?





 

Best, most concise answer i've seen to this debate.


The idea that from complete randomness sprung all the different plants/animals/sponges/bacteria/birds/assholes/trees/fungus/fish/spores is ridiculous.

Well congratulations, because evolutionary biologists agree with you. It's not completely random. There are natural forces that (*gasp*, dare I even use the word for fear of what some will infer next) direct the process.



 

Im in late but Im in..

gorilla glue?

Well..........it's still called the THEORY of evolution for a reason now isn't it?

My huge penis is enough proof of evolution for me....

well maybe its retro-evolution?  

re: 'Dr' Dino.

Wow. Just... wow.

What a sham and a crook. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Dino#Property_taxes_and_zoning_ordinance

Wow, I love this answer.



Asking "why are there still monkeys" would be like asking "ok subnet, since you are so great with computers, and are doing very well in you career, how come your cousin, who is a certified welder still has a job?"

Obviously you and your cousin aren't competing for jobs because you both have vastly different skill sets.

Assuming that humans are "better" than animals is like assuming someone who works in IT is "better" than someone who works in a technical field...which is just not true.

Sure, one may have to jump through more hoops to get a degree to get a "white collar" job...but that for damned sure doesn't mean that the person in the technical field is any less, skilled, intelligent or less of a professional.

It is similar when comparing species in nature.

Just because we humans are specialized as ground dwelling tool using primates, doesn't mean we'd do well as a arboreal, omnivorous primates.  Or that we are "more evolved" than them.

Question: How do Christians explain evolution?

Answer: They don't. They lie and distort, bully and cry like babies; hoping to get their way.

Evolution is ONLY considered a "theory" because it can't be reproduced in a lab. Trust me - evolution is a fact.

*And that's coming from a guy who's SUPER CONSERVATIVE! But, I'll be damned if I'm going to compromise my either my intelligence nor my integrity so I'll "get along" with crazy fuckin', "religamites" who are only marginally better than whacko  Islamists. You know the ones I mean: the ones who say that Christ wants 'em to kill people who don't think like they do - and who think if you don't subscribe to their specific ideology, that you're going to burn in their mythical "hell" and that you can't get into Heaven w/o saying magical words: espousing Jesus as your Lord & Savior.

Being a conscientious and spiritual creature, I have no doubt that I'm a better "christian" than most ALL of those self-righteous sons o bitches! Walking the walk is what's important, people! Get over yourselves!

**This response is NOT directed at anyone who posted in this thread - nor to anyone belonging to ARFcom. I didn't bother reading any posts but the OP's question and if anyone is insulted . . . well, too bad I guess. If you're insulted, maybe you should take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask yourself some pretty probing questions!

not insulted...just amused.

Maybe you should learn what the word THEORY means.

Well why the fuck not .

I believe that there is a God, I think he/it is the reason, I also believe in evolution, and I think that is the how.  Other then that as long as you guys like guns then we will get along just fine.

Exactly. These people who make these moronic statements like "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" "It's called a THEORY for a reason!!" wave these statements around like some profound conversation ender. Far from it, more like a statement of ridiculous ignorance and lack of basic education. As to it being "just" a theory.....




There is not one shred of actual evidence to support the version of creation in Genesis.
And no, the Bible doesn't qualify as actual proof/evidence of anything. Authors simply claiming something, particularly the supernatural, is not something we take at face value in 2009 and certainly not something we take at face value written by ancient people who had no clue how their world worked on the most basic level.
The Genesis version of events is no more supported by "evidence" than the Aztecs Earth Mother story or the Hawaiians story of Pele. These myths do not represent facts. They represent ancient people assigning explanation through mythology. Quite literally, nothing more.





























 

What do you mean "still?"

Are you implying that there's a way for a theory to graduate to something more?

Because if so, you are wrong.

Electricity is "still" a theory.

The idea that planets revolve around the sun instead of the earth is called the Heliocentric Theory.  Yes, "still," all these years after Copernicus.

Thanks for playing.

False.  See my post before this one.

Evolution is more of a claim of what occurred in history than it is science.

There is no science endeavor that is impeded by not believing evolution, in spite of what most evolutionists claim in this regard.

The evidence that is presented claiming to support evolution is either anecdotal and/or based on grossly speculative assumptions.

Evolution cannot be reproduced, tested, experimented on or observed and hence the scientific method cannot be applied to it. This is not insignificant!! Evolution is the only area of science that gets a pass on the basic fundamentals of what is required to classify something as “scientific”.

Evolution is partially a belief system and partially an attempt to claim specific events occurred in history.

Experiments in microbiology that demonstrate adaptation or immunity are not “evidence” of evolution. The argument is routinely attempted to be made that if a bacteria specimen develops immunity to an antibiotic that such occurrence is an example of evolution and therefore qualifies as proof that a human being and a paramecium have a common ancestor if you go back far enough in history of their family trees. Such claims are common and insultingly absurd and unscientific on the most elementary level.

Dozens of creatures found fossilized over the last 200 years have been initially declared to be extinct for tens of millions of years upon discovery and then later have found to be living today. Yet, evolutionists can never be held accountable for these arrogant declarations of supposed “scientific fact” since they simply change their story to accommodate these inconsistencies. This chronic behavior is a display of the high level of arrogance of evolutionists and their need to claim anything new as “evidence of evolution” because they are so desperate to press new discoveries into their already-formed belief about what occurred in history.

Not one single verified “common ancestor” of a creature living today and a fossilized extinct creature has ever been identified. Not one.

Ever have anyone come to you and ask “Do you believe in physics?” or “Do you believe in biology?” or “Do you believe in geology?”. There is no evidence for evolution, otherwise, there would be no debate on the matter and no one would ever ask such a commonly-asked question as “Do you believe in evolution?”

Your grammar and vocabulary aside, that's just a bunch of hogwash. I'd say that qualifies as fact!

I have been meaning to tag this.

Yep. To put a crude point on it, life is like a rifle. The owner(God) gets an idea of something that might work out better so He changes it. About like you or me saving some money and buying a better stock, bipod and scope for a rifle we bought 10 years ago. It works, but would work better with some additions.

That's a very pretty fail-cake you've baked there.



 

Agreed. The assertions in that post are absolutely asinine.

To suggest modern science has less of a grip on this subject and is less compitent than the supernatural assertions in a single book written by ANCIENT PEOPLE...are you kidding?!?

One book. A single ancient book is somehow more credible than the collective of all modern science? Mmmmm k...gotcha.

Can an animal , human, etc...change its own DNA to adapt to the world around it?  Evolution seems to hinge on getting people to buy into this. Then once you've bought into it the next explanation is that has to take millions of years to acommodate/acomplish this feat of self-engineering.

You make it sound like you believe this is an act of concentration, will, and self determination.  There is no "self-engineering" involved.  An animal can't wish itself wings anymore than I can wish myself telekinetic powers. This is pretty basic stuff.

Nothing. It was the wrong answer.

We did not evolve from modern day monkeys.  Both monkeys, and humans evolved from a common ancestor LONG ago.  That ancestor is no longer here.

First off - they aren't the exact same species as the fossilized creatures - such as coelocanths(sp) and horseshoe crabs.

Second off - you aren't being honest with the issue if you focus on the handful of 'living fossils' and yet ignore the mountain of other evidence. There are many reasons these creatures are relatively unchanged for a long time.

There may be much much more 'living fossils'  if we haven't had 5 MASSIVE extinction events (and several smaller ones) that wiped out most of the life on earth at various times in its history. I would contend that many of the creatures living at the abyss in the sea are probably 'living fossils', but one is going to be hard pressed to find fossils of the abyss anywhere, with it constantly falling back into the magma. Too bad the Trilobite didn't make it. It was a hugely successful creature for the longest time.


Finally  how do any of you non-evolutionists  care to explain the resurgence of life after these extinction events? How were there early fish, then dinosaurs, then mammals etc - were there many creation events over time?.

I do not find it strange to come to the understanding that the world and the dynamics of the universe operate exactly as if there were no god. No god required. Extraordinary claims of a god require extraordinary evidence. As far as I am concerned, the god hypothesis has failed.

Me thinks objective reality, as experienced, would be much different if there was a god.

That's where I come down.

Even if all God did was write the laws of the universe (Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak Forces, the constants, etc.) and set the whole thing rolling, then the idea of Creation through evolution stands. If at some later point he decided to breathe Life (capital L) into man as a soul in His image, then I see no conflict with Genesis (no conflict that matters, at any rate), nor does it change the fact that man rebelled all on his own.

As for stories such as Noah, I just don't know what to tell you.

But even then, as with you, I had a knowledge of God - innately given to all His creatures who are made in His image and still retain some of that image, though naturally hostile to it.


Yes. It was given to me to savingly believe. It was a gift from God.




That is both experientially, and more importantly, theologically false.

Speaking first to the lesser of the two, by experience I was raised in a more-or-less Christian environment, but did not savingly believe until fairly late in life, when God, by a sovereign, supernatural work of His Spirit, regenerated my heart.

Theologically, I was dead in sin, aware of the True God of the Universe but haitng HIm, until, as said earlier, He changed me.




There's some merit to the idea that religion - in the natural sense - is a product of one's environment.

Saving Faith in the Triune God of Scripture, however, is the result of a supernatural work of the Spirit of God.




That is incorrect.

You didn't have sufficnet grounding in reason, and more importantly, you didn't have the authority to make yourself 'man the measure of all things'.

Therefore, you exceeded your authority as a creature, and your intellectualy ability as a fallen creature, to 'choose' not to believe God.




That, again, is absolutely false.

'Premise Y' was given to me as a gift, and thereby became my first presupposition.



 


Your question presupposes a misunderstanding of the nature of God (Theology, with a big 'T') and man (anthropology).

It is patently obvious - first and specially from Scripture, and to a lesser extent and generally, from nature, that man is fallen - in his intellect, his reasoning ability, and his moral ability to see and seek what is good. God has not told us to reject good reason - rather, He has told us that our reasoning is, by virtue of the Fall, fatally flawed. Graciously, He has given us Hiw Word by which we can correct ourselves.

Man's own reason, apart from God, can be thought of as 'Creatively constructive - with no external control, man uses his intellect to construct his own view of the world around him - in other words, man becomes the measure of all things.

God is gracious to show us our fallen error and invites us to be like Him, and to think 'receptively reconstructive' - where we think God's way and in doing so reconstruct a worldview that reflects His.







God didn't do that. He created a Universe, told us what we needed to know of it, and warned us rpeatedly that if we rejected Him and turned to our own, fallen (by our own hand) natures, we would arrive at false conclusions about the reality of the world we live in. He didn't 'trick' us - He warned us!





If your view of God was correct, I'd agree with you, however, your view is fatally flawed.

 

Me too.

 


You're describing a God, but you are NOT describing the Christian Theistic (Triune) God as revealed in Scripture.

 


Again, that is patently false. I have most certainly asked that question, and in its answer I found an unmoveable Rock on which I can and will stand.



That's not only wrong, but in direct opposition to the truth - it is YOUR worldview that will ultimately result, if lived consistently, in nihilistic destruction.

Unfortunately, lack of proof within the natural is not proof of the nonexistence of the supernatural.

Matter and energy don't just magically appear. Yes, one can convert to the other, but they don't "just happen".

Finally, How can you conclude that the universe operates "exactly as if there were no god" when you have nothing else to compare it to?

Your #1 demonstrates a false view of science's abilities. True science would start with the presupposition that the Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Knowledge. Humanistic science starts with man as the measure of all things, ignoring man's obviously fallen state, and while it can make some great attempts, is ultimately doomed to fail at some point.


#2 likewise starts with a bad presupposition - yes, the teachings of Scripture are unpalatable, but that's not the fault of Scripture, but, rather, the fault of man's sinful nature.

Actually, yes, it is.


It's actually the only viable scientific theory, because, there's this 800 pound gorilla that it addresses that no humanistic science dares address:

The sine qua non of true Science is the underlying tenet that nothing comes from nothing.

Evolutionists totally ignore this fact, relegate it to the separate (?) discipline of 'abiogenesis', and, having utterly, totally failed to deal with it in any semi-serious way, move on to build a theory of evolution.

Sadly, that theory is by nature built on nothing - in other words, for all its intricacies which man's fallen mind takes as evidence of its validity, evolution is, ultimately, built on a foundation of thin air - without a foundational understanding of abiogenesis, evolution utterly, totally falls and FAILS to give any meaningful answer to any meaningful question.


Again, this is the classic 800-pound gorilla no humanitsic scientist will deal with.


Give me an intelligent discussion on abiogenesis (after having the nerve to address epistemology) and then, if you come away with any decent answer, you'll have the semblance of an authority on which to found your views of evolution.

Of course, if you do this, you'll see - though you'll hate it and deny it - that you have nothing from which to build.

Amused and frightened at the same time  - it's truly worrisome that people can speak outright lies about 'Christian jihad' and get away with it here.

Wait....I didn't think an aerospace engineer could be so bold as to deny the god of evolution.....

Apparently I've been misinformed.

And that is somehow less plausable than ancient people claiming "Poof!" people were magically created in their modern form out of thin air by a "god"?

Ancient people said so, must be true, right?

Really?

Hmmmmm...... Let's see......

I'm a Christian, and I accept evolution as a well-supported scientific theory with no viable alternative yet presented.

Does that sound like I'm lying, distorting, bullying, or crying like a baby?

No, see we don't have to assume that something came from nothing.  We just assume that something always was.

Stop. Step away from the crack pipe.

mm - its not. You cannot measure God.

ID is not a viable scientific theory as it is not falsifiable.

Abiogenesis has - zero - to do with evolution, no matter how much creationists try to insist otherwise.

Lots of cultures refer to an anciet flood of epic proportion.  Something probably happened a long time ago that was quite serious with regards to lots of water.  As to Noah's involvement with saving all the animals...I also don't know what to tell you.

For those out there who claim to be some sort of Christian (maybe you are.....I don't know....if you are, I'm not trying to confront you as an unbeliever, but challenge you as a believer to take Scripture seriously, as did our Lord, as I will demonstrate...), yet insist on being able to interpret Scripture however they see fit so that it fits with what men have told them:


(disclaimer: in the interst of brevity I'm leaving out TONS of references similar to the ones I'll quote here. Suffice to say, the following is conclusive but not exhaustive)

Quotes from NASB:



Nobody is saying that Moses wrote a science book (though in a sense, he did....I'll revisit that towards the end of this post). But Jesus confronted people with their unbelief in the writings of Moses. It's illogical to say Jesus demanded that people belive prophetic passages of Moses (which were in many ways less than perfectly clear - the idea of progressive revelation) yet at the same time, would condone thier disbelief of what Moses did say clearly. Yes, the Genesis account is highly compressed, speaks in generalities, and so on - but if those generalities aren't essentially true, then Jesus would have been wrong to insist on their belief!



When He refers to Scripture 'speaking' He's presupposing that Scripture has the authority to speak. This isn't my interpretation - it is the clear teaching of the One you claim to follow (yet practically deny by ignoring His own teachings).



Again, Jesus recognizes that when Scripture speaks, it is with authority - so that (as we'll see more later) what Scripture says can be equivocated iwth God Himself speaking.



In Paul's magnum opus on justification by faith (not works), aka Romans, He ascribes to Scripture the authority to speak as though God was speaking.



The Scripture says to Pharoah that 'I' raised him up........in Paul's mind, Scripture carried the very authority of the words of God Himself.

Don't accuse me of making scripture a god! Paul himself (as did Christ) ascribes to Scripure the same authority that God had - in other words, we don't worship Scripture, but we do recognize that it is the authoratative word of God Himself. What Scripture says, God has said!



And yet again, Paul attributes to Scripture (and note that quite often, its the early parts of Genesis) the same authority as God - again, not that we worship a leather-and-paper book, but in Paul's mind, reading Scripture was the same as hearing the very word of God!



And we continue with Paul recognizing that Scripture has authority as the Word of God Himself.



This passage stands on its own - no need to even comment.




Another passage that needs little explanation - all Scripture was written by men, but was the very Word of God, which He has providentially preserved through the years.


And here's irony in its highest form:

While so many would deny Scripture, especially the early part of Genesis, which was clearly written as a history, it is in that very passage that we see a perfect picture of the folly of humanistic science:




We see Adam, in his pre-fallen state, performing good science - under the Lordship of his God, He delved into Taxonomy, naming the animals as they were brought to Him. As he performed this science - true science, as it was under God's direction, not man's - Adam made an importtant discovery about Himself:



For man, this was a monumental discovery, and in light of it, God was pleased once again to bless man by moving on his behalf:


At this point, as a result of Adam's scientific observations and the resultant discovery, Adam achieved a higher and more blessed state - the advancement of mankind, if you will - which is a supposed goal of science:



Man, completed by the woman, in a perfect union with her, and in perfect union with God. This was the pinnacle of human existence - and the result of science guided providentially by God Himself. Later, in this same narrative that humanists so quickly deny, we find out what this denial has brought:



The serpent tempted Eve to think 'creatively constructively', setting the creature above the Creator, making 'man the measure of all things', and encouraged her to test her scientific abilities - though God had clearly warned of the consequences. In other words....satan suggested humanistic, naturalistic science as an alternative to Theistic, True science. He then questions God's Word concerning the warning of death.

(As a side note, take care to notice that up until this time in Genesis, God has been referred to as the LORD God.....not mere deity, but properly recognized as LORD. Satan ignores this Lordship and refers merely to 'God' - not the Triune God of Scripture, but an offhand reference to a mere impersonal deity. This is the precise error made by those who would defend a mere 'God' that is not the God revealed to us in Scripture.....)



Already thinking as a rebel, Eve made observations of a humanistic/scientific nature - the fruit was good for food for man, it was aesthetically pleasing to man, it held the promise of human wisdom......man-centered observations, all of them....yet arguable true.





And so she began to live out a life consistent with her humanistic science.....



And the result of living consistently with her man-centered worldview was the utter ruin of the human race.



It was this very ruin that Christ came to reconcile. To say that you believe in Him, yet deny what He taught, is to head towards this same ruin........professing to be a Christian, yet living consistently with a secular worldview, will bring the same ruin.

Obviously, none of us - saved or lost - live in perfect consistency with our worldview. If we did so, Christians would be perfect, and non-Christians would be perfectly nihilistic - God providentially takes His time in perfecting the Christian, and graciously restrains the unbeliever from his nihilism.

When Paul lays out the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 15, he doesn't merely state a series of facts cocnerning the life of Christ - rather, he goes on to root those facts in a real historical context (those who deny the OT's veracity work against this, beleiving in a Gospel that has no root in reality...)

Paul says in that passage:



This is the Gospel - but Paul doesn't present it in a vacuum....he goes on to explain its historical context, and in doing so, he recognizes what has already been established - the validity of all Scripture:



Elsewhere, in Romans, Paul did the same thing - he didn't present a Gospel man could believe with no historical context; He presented it in its true, proper context:




Paul doesn't present a vacuous Gospel - he roots it right in the Genesis account of the Fall of Adam, a real man who committed real sin that deserved a real wrath and had earned man a real 'reward':



The upshot is this:

God is clear that His Word is historical, accurate, and, as the writers of the NT believed, it is the grounds for our faith, it is accurate, and we can NOT seek to explain it waay as an allegorical story. The wrietrs of the NT - including Jesus Himself - taught from Genesis as if it were literal. The spoke of the flood, they spoke of the fall, they never flinched in teaching as if it was real, true history. In doing so, they give us the only consistent framework from within which we can view Genesis.



The very account so many would deny - Genesis 1-11 - was taught as true by the Moses, by the prophets, by Christ, by the apostles....if we claim to follow them, we must align our beliefs with them. We must submit our minds to them in the same way we submit our morals to them. We must not claim Jesus as Lord for morality but not for Science. Scripture can be trusted, and moreso, must be trusted:

Follow Peter's thought here:





Follow Peter's thought - God has supplied us with all we need, by His Spirit, to grow in our faith, and, yes, our knowledge - and then he warns us to be sure that we posess these things - not because we claim Jesus as Lord, but because we have examined our lives (including our supposed knowledge...). He goes on to anchor this in our possession of a Word from God, knowing that it was not a mere collection of the whims of men, but the writings of men who were moved by God Hismelf to write what the wrote.


He continues again to provide examples and warnings not from fables, but from history:



And he does so right from Genesis, the very passages men would deny while claiming to follow Christ.

What ground do you have for this assumption?

Hint: you don't.

We don't have to. Science performed under His Lordship presupposes what He has revealed about Himself.

You're not talking about true science - you're talking about humanistic science. Apples and oranges.




If you insist on believing that, you are wrong, and no further discussion will be of any value until you recognize this.

Evolution that doesn't address abiogenesis is a house built on thin air. Period.

         


Metaphysical claims cannot be disproven, as they are logically unfalsifiable.

No one can prove that a flying golden teapot circling our galaxy does not govern the universe. And although our universe operates just like there was not a omnipotent flying orbital teapot, one would be hard pressed to imagine how the universe would behave if there was one. Of course we don't have a true comparison, but that is not needed to understand that it would be entirely different (who knows how?) than what we currently observe.

Fortunately the burden of proof would falls squarely on those who propose a flying teapot (or god) hypothesis, not on those denying the claim. I'm not stating a god does not exist. What I am saying is that apparently no god is required and that the god hypothesis is an unwarranted abstract contingency that raises more questions than it attempts to answer.

Personally, I find inserting "a god in the gaps" rather tempting, particularly when as a child. But it is for ignorant and superstitious minds.  

Then I presuppose he doesn't exist.  Whatcha gonna do now?