Evolution? How?

I seem to find a lot more truth from the Bible and not what a bunch of scientists tell me. come on seriously how believable is all the "scientific" stuff they say is right. a monkey turning in to a man? A big bang and the world was formed? How did the stuff that collided get formed?

welcome vol fan. I must warn you though, there are people herein whose only desire is to spread lies and to practise deception.

Without wanting to get drawn into a long debate about Creation vs. Evolution, I would counter your...

"What makes Evolution so believable. Just because a bunch of scientists tell you it is. It is a theory, an idea, a guess."

with...

"What makes Creation so believable. Just because a bunch of stories in a very old book, copied thousands of times by hand and open to exageration, spelling & translation errors, tell you it is. It is a theory, an idea, a guess."

I will say that I almost envy you your Faith. I have none. I only believe what I can see, or what has been theorised by rigorous scientific testing and hard facts.

vol-fan,

For me, evolution is believable because it provides a good explanation of how nature works. It does not conflict with my appreciation of the Bible. The truths in the Bible transcend the natural world.

thanks for responding. Before anybody gets any ideas about my intents. I simply wanted to know and see what people believed in evolution. we are all entitled to what we believe.

Indeed we are all different. Life would be boring if everyone thought the same!

A word of caution, courtesy of smog

First of all I would like to say that a theory is just as good as faith. There is no "hard-fact" evidence. It is just what could happen do to a certain series of events that have to happen to make it occur. There are some former evolutionary scientist that converted to creationism b/c they have proved the idea of creation just by trying to prove it wrong.

vol_fan,

I will assume that you are asking with a truly open mind. I can answer this question as someone with a very religious background and a science education who was convinced. I started out believe in creationism and was very well trained in the arguments of both sides.

If you listen to the scientists (98% of life scientists accept evolution as proven fact and the remaining scientists are all religious), evolution has been overwhelmingly proven.

Scientists will tell you that there is hard-fact evidence. This evidence is in many forms (I am trained in physics so there are people more qualified to enumerate). It includes geology and fossil record, understanding of genetics, the observation of evolution in living species, analysis of natural history etc etc etc.

If you listen to creationists, they will tell you that evolution is just a theory. They will tell you that there are holes in the theory and make accusations that scientists are somehow distorting the evidence.

So the question is, do you believe the mainstream scientists or the creationists. These threads always attract fierce arguments from both sides.

But consider this, the scientists job is to do science. They have been trained to look at evidence objectively. More than that they are producing results. The life scientists who based their careers on evolution as a fact are producing new drugs, curing diseases and decoding the genomes.

You will note, if you look with open eyes, that almost all creationists are from a narrow set of religious views. This does not make them wrong, but it does mean that there is a reason for them to stick to their theory. There is certainly a strong desire for them to see evolution proven untrue.

On the other hand, it is illogical to argue that science has the same bias. Scientists come from a wide range of religious backgrounds. There motivation is to come up with models of nature that fit data and can make predictions. There are countless times where science has come up with new ideas, and there is a logical, pretty objective way for scientists to resolve disputes.

So, you of course will need to make up your own mind. But I would advise you to consider that evolution is a scientific question which is being answered by scientists using the scientific method.

There are several scientists here who have studied the field in some depth. I believe Farmerman is one of them. If you have specific questions you want answered, I hope you can get them answered outside of the inevitable debate that will be rehashed here.

I know how science works, and I find it very hard to believe that scientists are in a conspiracy against religion.

Scientists certainly will tell you there is hard-fact evidence. It is not just what could happen, evolution is the only way to explain what did happen. There is simply too much and there is no other possible way to explain the evidence in any kind of rational or scientific way.

I believe the Bible because it to has been proven to be accurate. but I believe on it by faith and by reading it and understanding. I know it to be true. and there is evolution within a species. but evolution outside of that seems ridiculous. a monkey turning into a man. why does it not happen now then? I dont know evolution just doesnt seem to work for me. Have you ever read Case for Christ. It is a very good book and I would recommend it.

The Facts surrounding evolution derive mostly from the collection and analysis of evidence, not experimental repeatability in a lab. Of course most of the methods used (such as the laws of sedimentation and hydraluics ,) are tested in the lab and used to support or refute the field evidence

For example, if someone commits a murder and were trying to find the killer, we dont recreate the murder in a lab, we go out and find evidence that the murderer left. This is analyzed in a scientific
fashion and brought together for a jury. Evolution is the same, except, in this case the jury doesnt have all the evidence available(or doesnt wish to look at the evidence available)
----------------------------------

As far as man arising from apes, the evidence supports that man and apes both came from a
common ancestor. Lets not confuse the point.

I like to give my patented mayonnaise/hollandaise/bernaise analogyon the common ancestor concept

--------------------------------------.

The Bible is a bit confusing in its scientific reference. For example
In Ecclesiastes, the concept of Unifomitarianism is introduced, then later in II Peter it is refuted.
The Bible hardly stands up as scientific reference since its primary teaching tool is legend and it celebrates the power of myth.Science tries not to do that
Admittedly,There are a few scientists who, like, the late Henry Morris, started in standard research and later went over to become spokesmen for Creationist .theology. Its been a very good business for them

-------------------------------------------.
Most of the arguments that are posed today, have nothing to do with the science behind evolution or Creationism per se .The materials that the Institute of Creation Science defend are pretty laughable in a scientific arena, even though they can sound real convincing in a slick web site or if delivered by a shiny suited huckster. No The real arguments ,at least in the US, are whether a special set of Constitutional Rights exist for those that wish their World View to be taught as science when it is derived from a single source, not open to scrutiny or debate, or is even science at all.

The modern scientists who profess to be followeres of either Creationism (sensu strictu) or Intelligent Design, usually have a long history of that set of beliefs even while they were in graduate school.(I include Michael Behe and Steve Austen, and R D Wise).
Whereas strict Creationists have a limited (irrational, might I add) world view that counters almost every finding of scientific law and theory, Intelligent Design proponents generally accept that the planet is Billions of years old, the laws of physics and chemitryREALLY DO WORK, and that evolution is the mechanism that the creative intelligence has selected to bring about the gathering of life that has existed, or presently exists on our planet. Where in that spectrum do you feel that you best fit in your own beliefs?

If you were bought up in an Islamic country you would be saying the same thing, but about the Koran, not the Bible. Also, the Bible has not been proven to be accurate, otherwise you wouldn't need faith.

For a thinking person, Christianity is a hard road. Now that you believe the Bible, what are your doctrinal views? You believe in the Trinity? Hell? Purgatory? Deity of Mary? The Saints? Miracles? Comunion? Christianity is divided on these issues and many more. How do you know for sure that YOU have the truth?

Scientifically speaking, the Bible has not been proven to be accurate. There are many statements in the Bible that, if taken literally, scientists will tell you are not correct.

For example, scientists will tell you that the creation story in Genesis could not have possibly happened the way it is related in the Bible. The order is wrong. The Earth is much more recent that the existance of light, etc. etc. etc. There are a bunch of places this story contradicts science that have nothing to do with evolution.

You have a few choices on how to deal with this.

1) You can decide that the Bible is true and that science is a crock. Of course, the problem with this is that in our science dependant society, science has been very effective at not only explaining our world and making predication, but at providing technology.

Some people have used this technique to isolate certain areas of science to call it a crock, while accepting other areas of science that don't contradict their understanding of the Bible. The problem with this is that scientists used the same method to prove that the earth revolves around the sun, and to develop quantum meachinics, to discover new medicines and to prove evolution.

Our scientific community uses the same methods, the same logic, the same education system and the same ways to resolve disputes. Rejecting some findings of science while accepting others is awkward to say the least. Either science works, or it doesn't.

2) You can decide that the Bible is true and that the problem is with your understanding of the Bible. This is a very reasonable way to look at things, and many Christians now accept evolution as a fact.

The Bible was clearly written to be a religious text, not a science guide. God could well have written the creation story as a allegory.

3) Of course you could decide the Bible is not true, and many people have done this. It doesn't sound like you want to do this.

To respond to your post directly....

You say "the Bible has been proven to be accurate". This may be true if you mean proven to mean that it has been proven to you personally. The Bible has not been proven accurate to the great majority of scientists (at least in a scientific sense).

As I said before, there is very strong evidence that we evolved from earlier primates that were a different species. The fact that this seems ridiculous to you is irrelevent, to scientists there is simply no other explanation that makes sense given the overwhelming evidence.

In conclusion, you get to decide what you will choose to believe. I would recommend that you do so with an open mind and reason that is not influenced by your religious beliefs... but again this is your choice.

The bible has been proven archaelogically and historically to be accurate. all of it. Josephus one of the better known historians of that time documented Jesus and his miracles. There have countless other things that have been documented elsewhere by different men. Read Case for Christ.
I am a thinking person and it is not difficult for me to grasp. In response to evolution being a fact. you said it can be repeated. I would put forth the argument that it cannot.

Evolution states that all different species evolve from a common ancestor. What we can observe indicates that the exact opposite occurs. Does the evolutionary process have a reverse gear? Put a male and female of 50 different species of dogs on an island - totally isolated from outside influence- and come back in 25 years. What you will find is a lot of dogs with very similar characteristics. They have gone from specific species to a similar species. Evolution in reverse.

"What makes Evolution so believable. Just because a bunch of scientists tell you it is. It is a theory, an idea, a guess. Why?"

So you got any better ideas vol fanny?

Gravity is a theory, an idea, a guess. Why don't you take a running jump...

Dont get brainwashed by all that creationist nonsense.
Use your god given brain.


There is only one way forward, and its not the koran or the bible or what your sundayschool teacher said it was...

You have the ability to think for yourself. DO IT

I am using my God given ability to think. Yes i do have a better idea, God. Gravity is a poor example because it can be proven time and time again. Evolution cannot. Bye Stevey

Vol,

Are you willing to have an open mind. This means being willing to honestly ask questions about your own beliefs and admit it when they don't square.

You forget that I come from a very religious Christian background. I am unfamiliar with Lee Strobel, but I am very familiar with the basic arguments. In my day, Josh McDowell (Evidence that Demands a verdict) was the popular example of these types of books.

One of the problems with Christians, and adherents to any religions for that matter, is that they start with their beliefs. Then they look for evidence to support what they already are certain is true. The result is that they ignore any evidence to the contrary.

Your argument about Josephus is a very old one. Even if Josephus ascribed miracles to Jesus (and this is doubted by most scholars) it proves nothing. Josephus was writing based on what he heard, far after the life of Jesus. If Josephus really believed in the miracles, why didn'tt he convert to Christianity? It is a fact that Jesus was mentioned in Josephus Antiquities, but there are only a couple references in all of his works.

I have no doubt you are a thinking person. But you must understand you are parroting the exact same argument that I was taught as a young teen in my conservative Baptist sunday school. They were repeated by McDowell, and by apologists before them.

Now as far as the science...

Forgive me for saying so, but your latest argument doesn't make any sense at all.

There are many processes in science that don't go backwards. Burning a candle, a volcano erupting, coal being pressurized into diamonds and light leaving a nuclear reaction in the Sun are just a few examples I came up with from the top of my head. Just because something happens doesn't mean that the reverse also happens.