Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[Arthur Brain]

A theory that doesn't have any problems is probably being held together by religious fanaticism.

Science is independent of religion or bias and any theory that becomes established does so after continual testing, stringent processing, scrutiny and ongoing peer review. The fact that evolution is globally accepted has nothing to do with "religious fanaticism" and that's an absurd thing to even posit.

 

[glassjester]

Do you think that the Bible cannot be understood without interpretation? If so, why?

If it could, then every man-made, sola scriptura sect would agree 100% on doctrine. Yet there are literally thousands of denominations with contradicting doctrine, all claiming to base their teaching on only the Bible. How does that happen?

 

[ok doser]

Science is independent of ... bias....

Speaking as a professional scientist, I can tell you that you are wrong wrong wrong

 

[Arthur Brain]

Speaking as a professional scientist, I can tell you that you are wrong wrong wrong

Well, no. Science itself is not interested in bias, religion, belief or whatever. Gravity exists whether someone believes they'll float if they jump off a cliff by way of. Evolution is established globally because the evidence supports it.

 

[ok doser]

Well, no. Science itself is not interested in bias, religion, belief or whatever. Gravity exists whether someone believes they'll float if they jump off a cliff by way of. Evolution is established globally because the evidence supports it.

right, you have the layman's understanding, given to kids from third grade on



i have the actual experience, having been educated and trained in the field and having worked for decades as a professional scientist, having been published while working as a research scientist

 

[Arthur Brain]

right, you have the layman's understanding, given to kids from third grade on



i have the actual experience, having been educated and trained in the field and having worked for decades as a professional scientist, having been published while working as a research scientist

Well, no. I won't make claim to be a professional scientist as I'm not although I have more than a layman's understanding having known and read people thoroughly versed in the biological field of the sciences and how the scientific process works. Nobody even needs to be an expert in "the field" to understand that scientific theories don't come about through whims or flights of fancy. Evolution is accepted because of the evidence that supports it, it really is as simple as that.

Plus, anyone can make claim to be something on the internet so how about linking to one of these publications? You've certainly not made such a claim as I recall on here.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If it could, then every man-made,

There's your problem.

"Man-made."

You should let scripture speak for itself sometime. You'd be surprised at how many issues are resolved simply by taking God at His Word.

sola scriptura sect would agree 100% on doctrine. Yet there are literally thousands of denominations with contradicting doctrine, all claiming to base their teaching on only the Bible. How does that happen?

It happens by people taking things out of context, and by not paying attention to what is being said.

Instead of that, they force their preconceived notions on the Bible, rather than letting the Bible correct their preconceived notions.

 

[ok doser]

Well, no.

:chuckle:

:nono:

not gonna squabble with a child, sorry :wave2:

 

[Arthur Brain]

There's your problem.

"Man-made."

You should let scripture speak for itself sometime. You'd be surprised at how many issues are resolved simply by taking God at His Word.



It happens by people taking things out of context, and by not paying attention to what is being said.

Instead of that, they force their preconceived notions on the Bible, rather than letting the Bible correct their preconceived notions.

But then who decides what's being taken out of context and which version of the Bible is the most accurately translated from the original texts? There's more than one reason why there's so many differing denominational sects. You discard evolution as a possibility because of a literal reading of Genesis, is that correct? There seems to be an obvious allegorical narrative going on where it's not supposed to be taken literally word for word, much like Revelation in some respects.

 

[Arthur Brain]

:chuckle:

:nono:

not gonna squabble with a child, sorry :wave2:

You'd only be squabbling with yourself if you were. Without verification, I'm under no obligation to take your claims to be a professional scientist seriously and especially as I don't recall you ever imparting such knowledge on the plethora of "evolution" threads around here as it is.

The fact remains, scientific theories do not become established through bias and whim.

 

[glassjester]

You should let scripture speak for itself sometime. You'd be surprised at how many issues are resolved simply by taking God at His Word.

But every one of those denominations claims to be doing exactly that: taking God at His Word, letting Scripture speak for itself. And they all really believe that.

So if thousands of denominations of Christianity can all truly believe that they're taking God at His Word, and still all be wrong, then how do you know you're interpretation is the right one? Remember, all the people you say are wrong feel like they're just as right (and just as guided by the Holy Spirit) as you are.

There's your problem.

"Man-made."

I don't have that problem, though.

 

[glassjester]

But then who decides what's being taken out of context and which version of the Bible is the most accurately translated from the original texts?

It's almost as if God should have provided a teaching and interpretive authority, like some kind of a "pillar of truth" or something. Hm...

 

[ok doser]

It's almost as if God should have provided a teaching and interpretive authority, like some kind of a "pillar of truth" or something. Hm...

He did

John 14:26

 

[Hobie]

I believe in selected elements of evolution.
I believe that Young Earthers are insane, and I believe that atheists are nuts.

I believe that God created the universe and all things and that he created ma in his own image. Beyond that, the timeline for all this and how it was accomplished is not what it appears to be in the Bible.

I don't think that real history, as in factual historical facts, begins in the Bible until the story of Abraham. Taking the Genesis creation account literally is not a proper reading of it in my opinion.

In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words. In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current.

The fact is, Genesis 1 is meant to teach one thing and one thing only: That God created everything out of nothing, that he created man in his own image, that man separated himself from God through disobedience, and that God immediately set about the long - or at least it seems long to us - process of healing that rift, a process which culminated with the death and resurrection of Christ. That is ALL it teaches.

Everything in Genesis is meant to convey that truth, but it is done in the ancient Semitic style of writing, using allegories, fantastic imagery, and all based on traditions that were handed down for centuries. I do not believe there was a serpent, or a tree, or a garden, etc. These are all images & allegories, in a certain style of writing, meant to convey the fundamental truth I stated above.

But even the 'Big Bang' is now being found out to be wrong as the Universe is way too big to have started that way.

 

[chair]

But even the 'Big Bang' is now being found out to be wrong as the Universe is way too big to have started that way.

1. How about a source for the above
2. "Big Bang" is not Evolution. Please don't confuse the two.

 

[The Barbarian]

It seems that the more we learn as scientific and archaeological finds come to light, the less people believe in Evolution.

That's a testable belief. Let's take a look...

In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of U.S. adults who believe that God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years or so -- the strict creationist view -- has reached a new low. Thirty-eight percent of U.S. adults now accept creationism, while 57% believe in some form of evolution -- either God-guided or not -- saying man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx

Clearly false. Even among the general public, awareness that evolution is the only way to explain the evidence is growing.

Last time I checked (using the "scientists who doubt Darwin" list compared to Project Steve, it turned out that about 0.3% of scientists with a doctorate in biology or a related discipline, don't accept evolutionary theory.

That's not 3%; it's 0.3 percent.

Again, massively false.

 

[The Barbarian]

1. How about a source for the above
2. "Big Bang" is not Evolution. Please don't confuse the two.

People who hate science generally don't know very much about it.

 

[Stripe]

That's a testable belief. Let's take a look...In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low That's not 3%; it's 0.3 percent.Again, massively false.

Darwinists love it when the discussion is over who believes what and how many of them there are.

They think it's evidence.

People who hate science generally don't know how to do it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Darwinists love it when the discussion is over who believes what and how many of them there are.

They think it's evidence.

People who hate science generally don't know how to do it.

Yeah, a bit like people who conflate evolution with the origin of life and the big bang etc...

lain:

 

[chair]

Darwinists love it when the discussion is over who believes what and how many of them there are.

They think it's evidence.

People who hate science generally don't know how to do it.

Hobie, who brought this up in the first place, is a Darwinist?

It seems that the more we learn as scientific and archaeological finds come to light, the less people believe in Evolution.