Jump to content


Photo

What Would It Take For You To Believe In Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#41 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 11 May 2011 - 06:42 PM

The underlying premise at the outset is false, and a common evolutionist tactic.

Sorry what do you mean by evolutionist tactic? Are we a type of people?


Would anyone be interested in starting a new thread and going through your problems with evolution one by one?


Any interest? Im in my last year of high school and admittely have only really heard the argument for evolution. The most i hear on counter arguments are the ones you laugh at.

#42 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 11 May 2011 - 06:58 PM

Sorry what do you mean by evolutionist tactic? Are we a type of people?
Any interest? Im in my last year of high school and admittely have only really heard the argument for evolution. The most i hear on counter arguments are the ones you laugh at.

View Post


It is a term used to describe people who believe in evolution... Just as creationist is used to believe in Special Creation... Or IDist are those who believe in ID.


The facts are that the claims being put forth via the education system are either fundamentally flawed or are told in a way that exagerates them in a light that makes them seem more probable. This is not scientific, as there are many articles that have highlighted or brought to light logical problems against the theory, yet these problems are almost always ignored.

Don't worry this occurs around the globe, as I had it in my evolution class last year at University. What arguements / claims did you hear in school?

#43 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 11 May 2011 - 08:18 PM

When I (we) say "Observe" this doesn't necessary JUST mean to "See" something "physical" but includes observing the "Affects". For instance, we observe a magnet pulling on metal. We don't "See" some "physical" manifestation of the force that the magnet is exerting on the metal but we certainly observe its "affects" (influence) on the piece of metal, as in gravity. In gravity we don't "See" the force pulling matter but we certainly can observe the effects of the “force” of. So while observation most certainly includes SEEING, it is not limited by that.

However, where Evolution is concerned (Macro) we DO need to SEE as we do in Micro. Because in THIS case we aren’t just dealing with the "AFFECT" of FORCE, "energy" or "power", etc. The difference is SEEING the CAUSE verses just seeing the AFFECTS only. We need to see the “cause” or “mechanism” behind Macro.

View Post


It must have been a late night for me. I just want to clarify myself here. :blink:

Observations are not limited by seeing the "physical" in that we can observe the "forces" of nature acting upon it as well. In other words, I don't "see", "observe" some kind of "blue" light eminating from the ground that shows gravity pulling on objects above it or some "green" haze appearing when we apply a magnet near metal. We can only observe the "affects" of gravity and magnetism but not the actual "force" that is pulling objects down to earth from gravity or metal onto magnets. I hope that makes sense.

As far as seeing the "cause" for a macro occurrence, I mean to say that you can't just see a big tiger and see a house cat and make the conclusion that they were related based on that observation alone. Macro requires seeing the "mechanism" that is causing these changes in some way. You may not even have to observe the "mechanism" per se but certainly the affects of "some" mechanism should be observable. So if I see a dog giving birth to a puppy that seems to be growing something featherlike out of it's back, I may not see the "mechanism" that caused that but I certainly can see the affect of that mechanism. As far as macro is concerned, we don't ever observe either.

#44 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 12 May 2011 - 01:48 AM

It must have been a late night for me. I just want to clarify myself here. :blink:

Observations are not limited by seeing the "physical" in that we can observe the "forces" of nature acting upon it as well. In other words, I don't "see", "observe" some kind of "blue" light eminating from the ground that shows gravity pulling on objects above it or some "green" haze appearing when we apply a magnet near metal. We can only observe the "affects" of gravity and magnetism but not the actual "force" that is pulling objects down to earth from gravity or metal onto magnets. I hope that makes sense.

As far as seeing the "cause" for a macro occurrence, I mean to say that you can't just see a big tiger and see a house cat and make the conclusion that they were related based on that observation alone. Macro requires seeing the "mechanism" that is causing these changes in some way. You may not even have to observe the "mechanism" per se but certainly the affects of "some" mechanism should be observable. So if I see a dog giving birth to a puppy that seems to be growing something featherlike out of it's back, I may not see the "mechanism" that caused that but I certainly can see the affect of that mechanism. As far as macro is concerned, we don't ever observe either.

View Post



I think mushy has stopped posting.


What arguements / claims did you hear in school?


Its hard to state exact claims( like what are the claims about atoms). Basically this year(in the general evolution segment) we just retouched on how evolution works and then focused more on the types of speciation and what causes it( plus the difference between gradualism and PE). We have just finished the human evolution segment where we covered how humans evolved, how they work out how previous homo species lived and how the dating techniques work.

#45 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 12 May 2011 - 06:17 AM

I think mushy has stopped posting.
Its hard to state exact claims( like what are the claims about atoms). Basically this year(in the general evolution segment) we just retouched on how evolution works and then focused more on the types of speciation and what causes it( plus the difference between gradualism and PE). We have just finished the human evolution segment where we covered how humans evolved, how they work out how previous homo species lived and how the dating techniques work.

View Post


Hi zendra and welcome. The title of this thread is "What would it take for you to believe in evolution". Since this thread interested you, I am curious, why do you believe in evolution (molecules to man theories) and why don't you believe in Christ? I am assuming that your profile selection of "atheist" is correct of course. And finally, if you don't believe Christianity, then what would it take for you to believe?

#46 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 13 May 2011 - 12:55 AM

Hi zendra and welcome.  The title of this thread is "What would it take for you to believe in evolution".  Since this thread interested you, I am curious, why do you believe in evolution (molecules to man theories) and why don't you believe in Christ?


I suppose evolution made sense to me, kind of like physics. It depends what you mean by christ. I believe there was a man named Jesus and the bible may provide a rough outline of his life. I dont believe he was anything more than a man.

And finally, if you don't believe Christianity, then what would it take for you to believe?


Interesting, turning the question around. Hard to say, I'm somewhat less inclined to convert in too much of a hurry. I said before that i had only heard the evolution side of the argument and so this may sound arrogant. The thing is ill hear an argument for creationism, believe it, then later ill hear it refuted. Because of this i try to remain skeptical because often 'miracles' can actually be explained without the supernatural.

#47 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 May 2011 - 04:04 AM

Hi zendra and welcome.  The title of this thread is "What would it take for you to believe in evolution".  Since this thread interested you, I am curious, why do you believe in evolution (molecules to man theories) and why don't you believe in Christ?


I suppose evolution made sense to me, kind of like physics. It depends what you mean by christ. I believe there was a man named Jesus and the bible may provide a rough outline of his life. I dont believe he was anything more than a man.

View Post

If you were simply talking about micro in you analogy, then you would have some validity in your example, as you can show that micro (which is nothing more than adaption within a kind/species) can be shown to be true. But macro, on the other hand has no application in this analogy, as there is absolutely no evidence that is anything other than a hypothesis or model. So the correlation fails.

In as much as Jesus is concerned, the historical facts extant, the contemporaneous eyewitness testimonies, even the secular and hostile historical writings lend more credence to his life than any other ancient figure, let alone the heady weight supporting His ministry, philosophy, miracles, death, burial, resurrection, continued ministry and ascension, AND the life, ministry, miracles and martyrdom of his apostles and their students. I would suggest you take a look at the below link for further information on the subject:

http://www.evolution...topic=1957&st=0


And finally, if you don't believe Christianity, then what would it take for you to believe?


Interesting, turning the question around. Hard to say, I'm somewhat less inclined to convert in too much of a hurry. I said before that i had only heard the evolution side of the argument and so this may sound arrogant. The thing is ill hear an argument for creationism, believe it, then later ill hear it refuted. Because of this i try to remain skeptical because often 'miracles' can actually be explained without the supernatural.

View Post


I'm not aware of anyone who converts “in too much of a hurry”; in fact, it took me quite a while to convert from a hedonistic atheist to Christianity, so I would agree with you, and further stipulate that I doubt seriously that this was the intent of performedge during his post. Having said that, I would further request examples of these arguments for creationism that were refuted, and the miracles that were explained without the supernatural, as I have personally never seen evidence that refuted either. I have no doubt that there are many skeptics who will posit biased opinion, but this is hardly evidence or proof.

As famed agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To profess a disbelief in the existence of design or of the deity is essentially, in itself, a theological statement which a scientist cannot make on the structure or on the strength of his own discipline. He can only make it as a personal belief."

#48 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 14 May 2011 - 01:02 AM

Im having trouble using the quote or text format function sorry. So ill give space between quotes and my reply.


If you were simply talking about micro in you analogy, then you would have some validity in your example, as you can show that micro (which is nothing more than adaption within a kind/species) can be shown to be true. But macro, on the other hand has no application in this analogy, as there is absolutely no evidence that is anything other than a hypothesis or model. So the correlation fails.

View Post




I dont understand the difference people see between macro and micro. It sounds kind of like saying that even though a man can run 10 metres there's is no way he could run 100( given time). Macro is just checking the adaptations after a longer period, im sure if you searched google you would find the evidence your looking for. And what analogy were you referring to?

#49 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 14 May 2011 - 04:03 AM

I dont understand the difference people see between macro and micro.

View Post


What's so hard to understand?

We have evidence that organisms adapt to fluctuations in the environment.

Do we have any real evidence that these adaptions continue indefinitely? No.

Do we have evidence that organisms basically remain the same despite existing for "millions and millions" of years? Yes.

#50 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 14 May 2011 - 04:18 AM

We have evidence that organisms adapt to fluctuations in the environment.

Do we have any real evidence that these adaptions continue indefinitely? No.



Are you telling me that plants and animals will just suddenly stop adapting. That the fact we have observed them happening doesn't mean they will continue to happen.


Do we have evidence that organisms basically remain the same despite existing for "millions and millions" of years? Yes.


Sorry but iv seen many diligent requesting of evidence for evolution, I would like you to provide this evidence of organisms remaining the same over millions of years.

#51 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 May 2011 - 04:58 AM

Im having trouble using the quote or text format function sorry. So ill give space between quotes and my reply.


If you were simply talking about micro in you analogy, then you would have some validity in your example, as you can show that micro (which is nothing more than adaption within a kind/species) can be shown to be true. But macro, on the other hand has no application in this analogy, as there is absolutely no evidence that is anything other than a hypothesis or model. So the correlation fails.

View Post


I dont understand the difference people see between macro and micro. It sounds kind of like saying that even though a man can run 10 metres there's is no way he could run 100( given time). Macro is just checking the adaptations after a longer period, im sure if you searched google you would find the evidence your looking for. And what analogy were you referring to?

View Post


I fixed your post for you… You have to insure your quote boxes are correctly placed.

First – microevolution is nothing more than “adaptation” within a kind/species; or more succinctly the phenomena’s ability to adapt to inside and outside pressures. This is not at issue, as we see it every day. Further, it doesn’t need to be called ‘microevolution’, or even ‘evolution’ at all, as it was always called ‘adaptation’ before the evolution crowd came along and changed it, so as to make it support the model of ‘evolution’.

Second – macroevolution is the assertion that one species changes ‘evolves’ into another species. For example, an ape like creature ‘evolves’ into a man. Or in chain form; protozoa, to fish, to land mammal, to ape-like creature to man (oversimplified). The problem is that this is totally based upon assumption and supposition. There is absolutely NO empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. And the massive ‘gaps’ between the so-called evidence is so great that it creates an ‘evolution of the gaps’ problem for the evolutionists. But if you think you can simply “google” it for the evidence, please do so… Then we can discuss the presuppositions in your worldview.

Third – Your above analogy fails in it correlation between a ‘man running’ and ‘an ape-like creature evolving into a man’ scenario. First, we have seen (literally) tens of thousands of men who can run between 10 and 100 meters. Therefore, based upon these ‘empirical’ facts, we can deduce that given a healthy male running 10 meters, we can then extrapolate with reasonable certainty the same man can run 100 (or even 1,000) meters or more given the correct training regimen. Macroevolution, on the other hand, has NEVER been ‘empirically’ proven; therefore your analogy is a ‘non sequitur’ and fails. Further, whenever you make a statement like “macroevolution works because future evidence will support it” you are committing the logical fallacy of “Argumentum ad Futuris”. And since you are making the statement without firstly proving it (i.e. providing actual evidence for your assertions), you are committing the logical fallacy of “Assertum Non Est Demonstratum” or ‘to assert is not to demonstrate’.

Fourth – You had a couple of loosely based and false analogies, but well just look at the most blatant. You said “It depends what you mean by christ.” and “I believe there was a man named Jesus and the bible may provide a rough outline of his life. I dont believe he was anything more than a man.”… The first was a question; you then follow it up by two faith statements. Further, the plethora of historical evidence that supports the historicity of Jesus Christ AND that of His followers, further pushes your analogous statements into the faith realm. And to extend it out-and-out, there is far more evidence for Jesus Christ than there ever was for macroevolution.

As I mentioned earlier, you can take a look at the following link to get a better idea:
http://www.evolution...topic=1957&st=0

#52 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 14 May 2011 - 05:24 AM

Are you telling me that plants and animals will just suddenly stop adapting. 


No, of course not. Simply that the adaptions fluctuate in tact with the environment. Why wouldn't they?

And what environmental fluctuation continues in a particular direction for millions of years, singling out only one kind of animal, for example reptiles, and turns them into birds? It just doesn't make sense. The number of necessary changes is enormous and would require every tendency to adapt, to do so in that particular direction.

There has to be something concrete, that you as an evolutionist can point to to explain how evolution can determine a particular path of development. In some cases we have statis. In others we have enormous changes, and yet other cases we can see sea creatures turning into land animals and then back again, animals climbing up in trees, living there for a few million years, and then climbing down again. What is it that is pulling the strings? Fluctuations in the environment occur way too quickly to explain all this.

Sorry but iv seen many diligent requesting of evidence for evolution, I would like you to provide this evidence of organisms remaining the same over millions of years.


Here is an example of a thread discussing living fossils.

#53 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 14 May 2011 - 04:20 PM

I fixed your post for you… You have to insure your quote boxes are correctly placed.

Thanks for that.


First – microevolution is nothing more than “adaptation” within a kind/species; or more succinctly the phenomena’s ability to adapt to inside and outside pressures. This is not at issue, as we see it every day. Further, it doesn’t need to be called ‘microevolution’, or even ‘evolution’ at all, as it was always called ‘adaptation’ before the evolution crowd came along and changed it, so as to make it support the model of ‘evolution’.


Ok i agree with you on this point.


Second – macroevolution is the assertion that one species changes ‘evolves’ into another species. For example, an ape like creature ‘evolves’ into a man. Or in chain form; protozoa, to fish, to land mammal, to ape-like creature to man (oversimplified)


Right now im not sure how literally you meant this as you put (oversimplified) but why do you think a species evolves into another species. Heres another analogy. If you take a picture of multiple people everyyear from when they are born till when they are 30, then show the first and last photos to someone, they are often unable to match them up( they are completedly different), but if you show them every picture it is obvious who is who.


Further, whenever you make a statement like “macroevolution works because future evidence will support it” you are committing the logical fallacy of “Argumentum ad Futuris”. And since you are making the statement without firstly proving it (i.e. providing actual evidence for your assertions), you are committing the logical fallacy of “Assertum Non Est Demonstratum” or ‘to assert is not to demonstrate’. 


I see what you mean, i never meant to state that future evidence will support macroevolution and thus that is why it works. I meant more that if we agree on mircoevolution(or adaptation) as having happened and continuing to happen, why shouldn't macroevolution also be happening and have happened. Just so i know, what kind of evidence were you looking for, the most common that comes to mind is fossil but if you would like experiments on evolution i can probably find some of those.


Fourth – You had a couple of loosely based and false analogies, but well just look at the most blatant. You said “It depends what you mean by christ.” and “I believe there was a man named Jesus and the bible may provide a rough outline of his life. I dont believe he was anything more than a man.”… The first was a question; you then follow it up by two faith statements. Further, the plethora of historical evidence that supports the historicity of Jesus Christ AND that of His followers, further pushes your analogous statements into the faith realm. And to extend it out-and-out, there is far more evidence for Jesus Christ than there ever was for macroevolution.



Im unsure what you mean by false analogies, i use analogies to explain things. When i said “It depends what you mean by christ.”( not an analogy) what i meant was that if someone refers to christ they often mean jesus, however by saying christ they often also imply supernatural, which i dont believe. I also dont feel these are faith statements. In my life people dont write accounts of a fictional person's life and make them out to be true, so i can conclude it is likely Jesus was a real person. I also know that back in Jesus's time much was not understood about the world and people would have easily seen quite natural things as supernatural, therefore i feel its reasonable to be skepticle about any 'miracles' performed.


And what environmental fluctuation continues in a particular direction for millions of years, singling out only one kind of animal, for example reptiles, and turns them into birds? It just doesn't make sense. The number of necessary changes is enormous and would require every tendency to adapt, to do so in that particular direction.

There has to be something concrete, that you as an evolutionist can point to to explain how evolution can determine a particular path of development. In some cases we have statis. In others we have enormous changes, and yet other cases we can see sea creatures turning into land animals and then back again, animals climbing up in trees, living there for a few million years, and then climbing down again. What is it that is pulling the strings? Fluctuations in the environment occur way too quickly to explain all this.



The thing is, evolution( as far as i understand it) doesnt single out one kind of animal. If i may introduce analogous structures http://en.wikipedia....alogy_(biology) , basically what im saying is that while it may be true that reptiles evolved into what we call birds( i have no idea personally), around the globe, other mammalian animals may also evolved into birds. Also, yes the changes would be enormous, however there is almost no way( i never say for certain) that they would have happened at once. If the enviroment changed so rapidly that the selection pressure was for what we class as birds now, those reptiles would have died. Changes such lower temperature could have selected for a more spikey skin to hold in warmth, later different food availability may have selected for more beak like mouths, etc. There is no direct 'path' from one to the other.
It depends what you mean by changes in the enviroment, in terms of the seasons obviously they happen quickly and in evolutionary terms don't count as actual changes. In terms of the climbing up and down. I'v been taught that Africa was once much more covered in forest than it is now, thus it would have been more effecient to swing between the trees than walking. However as the climate warmed and the forest dwindled, trees became more spread apart and would require more land travel between them.



For the record i realize that i stated that species don't evolve into each other but later talked about reptiles evolving into birds. I did this for the sake of argument and would be happy to clarify if anyone wants.

#54 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 15 May 2011 - 12:02 AM

Just a foreword, Im going to have little access if any to a computer next for most of this week so ill be unable to reply to any posts for a while sorry.

#55 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 15 May 2011 - 03:40 AM

Just a foreword, Im going to have little access if any to a computer next for most of this week so ill be unable to reply to any posts for a while sorry.


Don't worry, we'll probably still be here when you get back! :blink:
Just reply when it is appropriate for you.

The thing is, evolution( as far as i understand it) doesnt single out one kind of animal.

View Post


I understand how evolution works. I simply used the words "Singles out" to get across a point that otherwise just gets blurred out by evolutionists who suggest that selection pressure magically evaporates every other survival path available to an animal. Every organism must constantly be exposed to a great flora of survival alternatives. The one that is closest at hand would dominate and therefore determine what kind of development an organism would adopt. That's OK, I guess. But if you are going to tell me that the gods of selection pressure would patiently and benevolently wait around for millions of years for a reptile to take flight before some other survival mechanism steps in to save the day, then you are just one more example of someone who sucks in fairytale fluff simply because that's what the "scientists" say. Atheism provides enough "selection pressure" to cause both you AND the scientific community to select evolution. That's the way it works.

Furthermore, the suggestion that the coverage of forest in a continent could possibly provide enough selection pressure to change one kind of animal to another is just plain ridiculous. When forrest areas are cut down today, what happens to the animals? They starve and die. In order for evolution to occur, it would require that the rate that the forest coverage disappears would have to be carefully balanced for millions of years. No sudden movements... in other words. Does it take millions of yeas for forrests to grow and shrink? If so then why? What fluctuations are we talking about and how do they fit into the concept of uniformitarianism?

#56 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 15 May 2011 - 05:41 AM

I suppose evolution made sense to me, kind of like physics. It depends what you mean by christ. I believe there was a man named Jesus and the bible may provide a rough outline of his life. I dont believe he was anything more than a man.
Interesting, turning the question around. Hard to say, I'm somewhat less inclined to convert in too much of a hurry. I said before that i had only heard the evolution side of the argument and so this may sound arrogant. The thing is ill hear an argument for creationism, believe it, then later ill hear it refuted. Because of this i try to remain skeptical because often 'miracles' can actually be explained without the supernatural.

View Post

Some miracles, and phenomena can not be explained by natural, logical explanations. I was a missionary in Africa, and if you want to get laughed at, just tell the Africans there are no demons. Why? Is it because they are uneducated? No, the educated ones will laugh at you too. Then why? Because the people there suffer from demonic powers reaking havoc on them. Now can their belief be exaggerated so that they are superstitious--yes. Demons work in fear, so their strategy is to bully and minipulate.

But it is based on true occurrances. I have seen conditions of demonic opression in Africa. Any missionary in Africa who has spent any time in the village has seen demonic activity. We once prayed for a man to be healed in Jesus Name, who suffered from a continual case of hiccups that would not go away. This was a commmonly known spell that a "fetisher" or "gueriseur" (witch doctor) would put on people for payment. Hold on before you shut me out.

I doubted these kinds of things at first, until the day we prayed that God would take away the hiccups from this man. The man could walk, until we prayed. As soon as we prayed he told the pastor I was with something in the Boule (Bowlay) tongue. He was showing discomfort, so I asked the pastor. He told me in French in a matter of fact manner, "L'esprit a bouge en bas, dans sa hanches." "The spirit has moved to his hips." The man could not walk after that. Several weeks later, after agreeing prayer (Matthew 18:19;Leviticus 26:8) of 10 pastors, the man was delivered of the spirit, and could walk again.

This agrees with "the spirit of infirmity" found in Luke 13:11-17. I would like to say the purpose of this miracle was to glorify God--not man. Exactly why you go preaching Jesus, and you pray in Jesus Name. So Jesus does the work, we just do it like he said.

11And there was a woman who had had(A) a disabling spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not fully straighten herself. 12When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said to her, "Woman, you are freed from your disability." 13And he laid his hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and she glorified God....all the people rejoiced at all the glorious things that were done by him.


I believe the OP asks, what would it take for me to believe in evolution. The fact is after 27 years of being a Christian, and having experienced the power of the Word of God, and the Spirit of God, there is nothing that can convince that God is not responsible for creation and that the miracles of the Bible aren't true.

#57 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 22 May 2011 - 02:40 AM

Every organism must constantly be exposed to a great flora of survival alternatives. The one that is closest at hand would dominate and therefore determine what kind of development an organism would adopt


Nothing really determines what path will be taken. This is where chance does come into it. Whatever mutation that occurs that benefits will be selected for but that doesn't decide the path.



But if you are going to tell me that the gods of selection pressure would patiently and benevolently wait around for millions of years for a reptile to take flight before some other survival mechanism steps in to save the day


Of course not. There is no predestined path. Flight just happened to be one of the things those reptiles evolved. Those that did we now call birds.



Furthermore, the suggestion that the coverage of forest in a continent could possibly provide enough selection pressure to change one kind of animal to another is just plain ridiculous


Not change from one kind of animal to another, change in the animal. Constant adaptation. After so many changes we call it macro evolution. And what do you find ridiculous about it?


When forest areas are cut down today, what happens to the animals? They starve and die. In order for evolution to occur, it would require that the rate that the forest coverage disappears would have to be carefully balanced for millions of years. No sudden movements... in other words.


Basically yes. Your right, when we cut down forests the animals starve and die. There is not really any time for animals to evolve. The difference is that back then trees weren't being cut down. It was just gradually became harder to grow and where in one location plants once sprung up, it may have been slightly too dry and no tree grew there.

What fluctuations are we talking about and how do they fit into the concept of uniformitarianism?


Sorry could you clarify?


I believe the OP asks, what would it take for me to believe in evolution. The fact is after 27 years of being a Christian, and having experienced the power of the Word of God, and the Spirit of God, there is nothing that can convince that God is not responsible for creation and that the miracles of the Bible aren't true.


I don't think I can really respond much to your post. I can imagine that seeing 'miracles' would be convincing and i wont bother debating them, I wasn't there so I cant judge how supernatural it was. I suppose perhaps I'll repeat a sort of mantra that given time most phenomena will be able to be explained. Also I noticed you didn't actually answer the OP's question. He didn't ask what would convince you that God didn't create the universe and cause miracles. he asked what it would take to believe in evolution. One can believe both.

#58 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 22 May 2011 - 09:47 AM

Nothing really determines what path will be taken.

View Post


That's my point. As long as any path would require more than one step there would have to be a reason why that organism did not surive through all the other paths available for that organism to survive. At any given point in time, the survival method of each and every organism on the face of this planet should constantly radiate into every possible survival method available - UNLESS there is something confining it to only one of those methods.

Why, for example, would the closest survival method for a reptile be to fly, which would require a HUGE number of steps, rather than to change diet if lack of a particular diet was threatening its existance, or develop longer and faster legs if predators were threatening its existence. There would have to be an incredibly broad range of other survival methods available within that animal's environment than something available outside of its environments.

#59 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 22 May 2011 - 11:25 AM

Also I noticed you didn't actually answer the OP's question. He didn't ask what would convince you that God didn't create the universe and cause miracles. he asked what it would take to believe in evolution. One can believe both.

View Post

Yes you can believe in 'a god,' and believe in evolution, and/or you can claim to be able to belive in the God of the Bible and belive in evolution. We have had several on here that have claimed just that. The problem is you can not believe in Genesis literally and believe in evolution.

Now you might say that it's no problem, because Genesis is only one book. But Genesis is actually the root of the tree. It is where sin and death originated, which is man's problem. If man does not know what his problem is, or that he has a sin problem, and the nature of that sin problem, then he will attribute his problems to other things, and will seek to cure them by other means than what God provided.

Genesis is also the birth of the nation of Israel via Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, through which the promise of God's salvation plan of righteousness by faith came--again via Abraham. If you don't take Abraham literally, then it's hard to take any Pauline writng (the New Testament epistles). It's kind of saying your an evolutionist, but you don't take Origin of Species literally. Charles Darwin was speaking symbollically.

And finally, Genesis is traditionally accepted to have been written by Moses, who was one who had one of the greatest revelations of Yahweh God. He received the 10 commandments while on Mt. Sinai for 40 days. He was so full of God's glory, his face would radiate, so that he would wear a veil. This was known as 'shikanah' and many have seen this glory. I myself, after times of prayer, have vaguely seen this glory in the room. It is very faint, but appears almost as a glowing yellow mist. I have seen it only a couple of times in my life--and others have seen it also. It has been seen thgouhout the ages, so it is not something out of line with the scriputures, nor corroborating Christian testimony.

At any rate, you can not truly believe the gospel as preached and taught by the apostles and evolution. They are completely contradictory.

#60 Phaedrus

Phaedrus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 92 posts
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Indianapolis

Posted 22 May 2011 - 04:10 PM

As an athiest, i accept evolution as the best understanding we have for the diversity of life. When i read about all the evidence that backs it up, it leaves little doubt that the theory of evolution is true.

I really think that the main reason people don't believe in it, is because they don't understand it. Anyway, i was wondering what it would take for you to accept evolution as a fact?

View Post


Evolution defined as what exactly? Creationism is actually a radical evolutionary scenario. From Ararat emerges the parental forms of all living species, a few thousand years ago? That's evolution in no uncertain terms.

However, I know what you mean, you are talking about all of life having descended from a population of primordial bacteria that lived 3.5 billion years ago, right?

Here would be the first thing I would have to have, I would have to know how bacteria can evolve into plant and animal cells and then differentiate and organize into plants and animals. At a species level or even a genus level I'm not really all that skeptical that evolution happens, only what the limits are. At the kingdom level you would have to demonstrate something very convincing to persuade me that evolution at the level of kingdom is even possible.

Also, the time and the means for the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. Time doesn't seem to be a problem since evolutionists have all the time in the world. What is needed is the means and changes in brain related genes, called mutations, are devastating.

That's pretty much it, get that much done and I could believe in evolution as a 'fact'. As a matter of fact, it probably wouldn't make a dimes worth of difference in my religious convictions.

Have a nice day <_<
Mark




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users