How can you not believe in evolution?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Not at all. Creationists are the one saying their theory should be taught as science, alongside of or in place of evolution. If so, it has to be subjected to the same scientific standards as evolutionary theory. The fact that it ISN'T science is exactly the point!

You're taking the arguement everywhere. First about creationists demanding creationism in science class, thats wrong. Thats like telling a buddhists to include christianity sermon during their worship. It doesnt belong there.

Second, I thought the thread topic was about how can one not beleive in evolution.

[monkspider]

The account of Genesis creation recieves quite a deal of criticism from some people, and unfairly so. It is pretty clearly an allegorical account of the world's creation, and in that vein it is quite accurate. So long as you realize that it is, indeed an allegory. Ergo, the world wasn't created in seven literal days and so forth. It is the only account of the world's creations in any of the world's relgions, so for that it quite special. Just don't always take it literally.

[Robert]

If there were no 'broken' genes, and there is no mutation to cause evolution then how do you explain how the genes got 'broken'?

There is mutation.
I just don't believe mutation results in improvements on the long run. Not even with 'natural selection'.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Like what?

Like natural selection, and mechanisms of micro-evolution and so forth. There actually is quite a bit of good science in today's model of evolution, it is just unfortunate that there is so bad science as well.

[Zero]

Originally posted by monkspider
The account of Genesis creation recieves quite a deal of criticism from some people, and unfairly so. It is pretty clearly an allegorical account of the world's creation, and in that vein it is quite accurate. So long as you realize that it is, indeed an allegory. Ergo, the world wasn't created in seven literal days and so forth. It is the only account of the world's creations in any of the world's relgions, so for that it quite special. Just don't always take it literally.

Like I said. Written by a man. A man not as sophisticated as a modern man more likely. Man, I'm not a christian and even I can see that.

[ayronis]

from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
"There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.
If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists. "

[Aeson]

It is the only account of the world's creations in any of the world's relgions, so for that it quite special.

Um.. the creation myth is standard fair in every culture.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by monkspider

Like natural selection, and mechanisms of micro-evolution and so forth. There actually is quite a bit of good science in today's model of evolution, it is just unfortunate that there is so bad science as well.

I'd agree that mechanisms that could drive evolution exist. I'm not so sure about any evidence of it actually occuring. There's lots of pseudo-scientific speculation though.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Aeson

It is the only account of the world's creations in any of the world's relgions, so for that it quite special.

Um.. the creation myth is standard fair in every culture.

I was about to yell at him about this...

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Aeson

It is the only account of the world's creations in any of the world's relgions, so for that it quite special.

Um.. the creation myth is standard fair in every culture.

Well, it's the only one that is a serious account. It doesn't claim that the earth came out of the mouth of a goat or any such allegory. It is a mostly accurate account, with just a bit of allegory thrown in for good measure. Although my studies of hinduism, buddhism, taoism, etc aren't perfect, I don't recall them really offering any recollection of the Earth's creation.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I'd agree that mechanisms that could drive evolution exist. I'm not so sure about any evidence of it actually occuring. .

Fair enough.

[Aeson]

If the Bible can't be taken literally, then why should the God in the bible be taken literally?

[loinburger]

FNBrown: Any Google search for biblical contradictions will provide you with a whole slew of them. Specifically, I ran a search for bible + contradictions -- here are some excerpts from the first site that came up...

Are we saved through works?

Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
Romans 3:20,28 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."
Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."

vs.

James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
Matthew 19:16-21 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he [Jesus] said unto him . . . keep the commandments. . . . The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven."

The common defense here is that "we are saved by faith and works." But Paul said "not of works."

Does God change his mind?

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."
Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."
James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

vs.

Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."
Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

See also II Kings 20:1-7, Numbers 16:20-35, Numbers 16:44-50.

See Genesis 18:23-33, where Abraham gets God to change his mind about the minimum number of righteous people in Sodom required to avoid destruction, bargaining down from fifty to ten. (An omniscient God must have known that he was playing with Abraham's hopes for mercy--he destroyed the city anyway.)

Does God tempt people?

James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

vs.

Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

Etcetera, etcetera. I'll agree that the Bible has merit, but I don't see how you could possibly contend that it is infallible...

[Robert]

Boris: all of these things couldn't be here by chance, so it that proves God!"

it's one of the arguments, but you're free to laugh about it. laugh some more!

First, you have no evidence that the earth isn't here by chance

pathatic.
if you think it's here by change, you're the one who should prove it. And yes, I know people are trying to prove that. It's morely that I want to point out how silly it is that I have to prove that it's not by change

your relying on such a subjective notion of "the earth is so pretty" is silly, as that's an opinion. Certainly there is also a lot ugliness, imperfection and such in the world, which goes against your theory.

does it?
and, I know that my opinion about beauty doesn't have any importance to you. It does to me though, and the question was why I did not believe in evolution, remember.

but that was just a minute before you, some superior evolution fanatic fundamentalist, get in this thread just to use your modern jihad to spread your evolution gospel.

Go ahead, cut some troats. Your opinion is the only true one! All the others are idiots! Go and get them master Boris!

The mutation statement just shows you don't really know how evolution works.

silly silly silly.
evolution works through mutation.
I know how it works, that's why I don't believe it.

[Aeson]

Well, it's the only one that is a serious account. It doesn't claim that the earth came out of the mouth of a goat or any such allegory.

And God (Jehovah) is somehow more real and tangible than a supernatural goat in what manner?