Evidence for theistic evolution

[bippy123]

I`ve been reading this with great interest as I`m undecided about ToE.

Abel, I don`t think that scientists would be put off disproving evolution, if they could, the whole point of science is to try and unearth the truth. A theory is proposed, evidence is looked for and put forward. So far, no one has found evidence that disproves ToE. I honestly think, if they did, they would expose it. It would be a monumental discovery.

I`ve been reading this with great interest as I`m undecided about ToE.

Abel, I don`t think that scientists would be put off disproving evolution, if they could, the whole point of science is to try and unearth the truth. A theory is proposed, evidence is looked for and put forward. So far, no one has found evidence that disproves ToE. I honestly think, if they did, they would expose it. It would be a monumental discovery.

Yes Annette, but the problem here is that the theory of evolution is taught as scientific fact and. It scientific theory , and not only this but it is being taught with a religious zeal that doesn't allow honest scientific inquiry to follow the eviden e to wherever it may lead.

Doctor stephen meyer once got a paper of hs published in the smithsonian and as soon as the editor published it he was taken out if hs position in the smithsonian,even though the editor is also an evolutionary biologist .

Them to follow this one if the talking mouth pieces for Darwinian evolution eugenie Scott got on cnn and blatantly lied on national tv saying that there were no peer reviewed papers on intelligent design.

In this video Scott clearly is caught in a lie and yet the interviewer dan a brahmas gets her off the hook and goes on the offensive against Scott .

http://youtu.be/TSkN_9k663U

Now Rick has given me a very plausible theory of evolution which is front loading or pre programming that could have taken place and i can see his point on this but I also see the point of ID as well.

Shutting off critique on evolution in our educational institutions despite a larger number of biologists accepting evolution is actually a science stopper not a science starter. I've never seen a theory so insulated from inquiry like evolution is , to the point here you better not ask any questions that are critical of it.

If it's such a powerful theory then why not allow people with alternate theories critique it ? I mean to demote an evolutionary biologist from his position because he passed an ID paper through peer review ?

Is that science of a cult ?


Annette the point shouldn't be that anyone should disprove it, the fact should be that the onus of proof is on the one making the positive claim and therefore the burden of proof is on them to show it to be a scientific fact .

[Storyteller]

Absolutely agree with you Bips.

I was taught ToE as scientific fact, not as a theory. I used to wonder, at school, why it was called a theory when it was presented as fact. Religion, especially Christianity, was taught as something that fools believed, a fairytale.

I am less and less convinced about ToE the more I look into it, I just don`t know what will take it`s place. I accept the idea that ID doesn`t necessarily clash with evolution and the Big Bang. In fact I am leaning towards Genesis describing the Big Bang. Let there be light. God is light is He not? So God could be, or could have caused the Big Bang and allowed for evolution. I just don`t know but it`s interesting stuff to pursue.

The DNA thing is the biggest stumbling block for ToE for me. How did such specified information get encoded into our DNA if not through some intelligent designer? Chance? Luck? It just seems that there are so many possibilities that are accepted yet the idea of God is ridiculed. Why?

Why do people find it easier to believe that all this happened by sheer coincidence than by planning?

Why does God scare people so much?

I suppose, if anything, I am currently leaning towards theistic evolution but again I`m not sure. The more I study, the more unsure of the details I become

I still hold on to I believe in God, and Christ, and that is enough. The rest is just details.

[Audie]

Absolutely agree with you Bips.

I was taught ToE as scientific fact, not as a theory. I used to wonder, at school, why it was called a theory when it was presented as fact. Religion, especially Christianity, was taught as something that fools believed, a fairytale.

I am less and less convinced about ToE the more I look into it, I just don`t know what will take it`s place. I accept the idea that ID doesn`t necessarily clash with evolution and the Big Bang. In fact I am leaning towards Genesis describing the Big Bang. Let there be light. God is light is He not? So God could be, or could have caused the Big Bang and allowed for evolution. I just don`t know but it`s interesting stuff to pursue.

The DNA thing is the biggest stumbling block for ToE for me. How did such specified information get encoded into our DNA if not through some intelligent designer? Chance? Luck? It just seems that there are so many possibilities that are accepted yet the idea of God is ridiculed. Why?

Why do people find it easier to believe that all this happened by sheer coincidence than by planning?

Why does God scare people so much?

I suppose, if anything, I am currently leaning towards theistic evolution but again I`m not sure. The more I study, the more unsure of the details I become

I still hold on to I believe in God, and Christ, and that is enough. The rest is just details.

Were you taught any other theory, or any scientific laws, as fact?

[Storyteller]

The Big Bang theory was taught as fact too.

[Audie]

The Big Bang theory was taught as fact too.

That is the point I unsuccessfully tried to make with the bip, its not something about
evolution, or "evolutionisrs".

I said it was a pity he went to such an appallingly poor school. I say the same to you and anyone else
who were not taught science, but to memorize, and were taught neither what science is / does/ how it
works, but the opposite.

No wonder people take the attitudes they do, being taught that way.

Some few may overcome it, most I suppose will only harden their distaste. Its no more an intelligent
reaction to bad teaching than it would be if I still hated Japanese, and seeing the emotional nonsense from
"antis" of either evolution or Japanese is discouraging. When you see it at the intensity you see it
there is no sense in talking, trying to pit the rational against the irrational.

They wont ever understand that the "science" they reject doesnt even exist

[Storyteller]

Personally I like debating this kind of thing. I like to think that I have an open mind. Do I fully understand science? Nope, not at all. Am I willing to learn? Absolutely.

The thing is, I think it`s difficult to see things from a different perspective when all you have known is yours. I am open to ToE being correct, I`m just not sure. I`m open to ID being correct, I am convinced of that because of how I feel. It doesn`t mean I am definitely right, just that, for me, I am. Does that make sense?

A question for you Audie.

In your opinion does evolution disprove the possibilty of God?

Do you agree that in science there seems very little room for God? Or am I missing the point again?

[Audie]

Personally I like debating this kind of thing. I like to think that I have an open mind. Do I fully understand science? Nope, not at all. Am I willing to learn? Absolutely.

The thing is, I think it`s difficult to see things from a different perspective when all you have known is yours. I am open to ToE being correct, I`m just not sure. I`m open to ID being correct, I am convinced of that because of how I feel. It doesn`t mean I am definitely right, just that, for me, I am. Does that make sense?

A question for you Audie.

In your opinion does evolution disprove the possibilty of God?

Do you agree that in science there seems very little room for God? Or am I missing the point again?

Missing the point big time.

Science and god is like math and god.

But thats nothing to do with what I said about science being badly taught.

[Storyteller]

Math and God make sense to me

I don`t understand science. Actually, that`s not true. I kinda get chemistry, physics is a little more confusing for me, quantum physics is just a jumble of words to me...

Am I missing the point again? I am honestly trying to understand this.

So does science only work with theories? Or does it, can it, deal with facts?

I get there are no absolutes in science and that every theory is only the best one there might be untill a better one is presented. Correct? (Please say yes!)

[Audie]

Sorta.

[Audie]

Math and God make sense to me

I don`t understand science. Actually, that`s not true. I kinda get chemistry, physics is a little more confusing for me, quantum physics is just a jumble of words to me...

Am I missing the point again? I am honestly trying to understand this.

So does science only work with theories? Or does it, can it, deal with facts?

I get there are no absolutes in science and that every theory is only the best one there might be untill a better one is presented. Correct? (Please say yes!)

IF you or anyone was just taught science as "facts" to memorize, that theories are fact and worst maybe, not to ever challenge,
doubt these facts, to trust "authority", then you've never even been exposed to science. No science was taught at those schools.

I have to go. When a scientist says " fact" its generally in a context like, "Its a fact that these are my data."

[bippy123]

Personally I like debating this kind of thing. I like to think that I have an open mind. Do I fully understand science? Nope, not at all. Am I willing to learn? Absolutely.

The thing is, I think it`s difficult to see things from a different perspective when all you have known is yours. I am open to ToE being correct, I`m just not sure. I`m open to ID being correct, I am convinced of that because of how I feel. It doesn`t mean I am definitely right, just that, for me, I am. Does that make sense?

A question for you Audie.

In your opinion does evolution disprove the possibilty of God?

Do you agree that in science there seems very little room for God? Or am I missing the point again?

Missing the point big time.

Science and god is like math and god.

But thats nothing to do with what I said about science being badly taught.

The problem with this statement Audie is that your making an accusation that simply is t true and your making a comparison that simply isnt true as well.

My school,taught evolution. As fact just as every college taught evolution as fact which deep down inside you know is true .
The smithsonian is a perfect example of it . If you had watched the movie expelled no intelligence allowed you would have seen that.

The difference between the Big Bang and the theory of Darwinian evolution is that the Big Bang was allowed to be critiqued at a list every university , without the cult like status that the theory of evolution was allowed . The problem here Audie is that you already knew this but for some reason you chose to make the 100% false comparison .

I have talked to biology professors who when trying to publish papers that were even slightly against evolution were told to change their papers views or risk nit getting published . I never saw anything remotely like this Audie.

The school I went to taught me that dropping a coke bottle on the ground and it shattering into a zillion pieces isn't an extremely poor example of specified complex information . In fact even the most ardent believers in evolution would never make such a comparison.

You never bothered to explain the complex specified information within DNA that cannot be explained by away by any evolutionary mechanism or dropping coke bottles .

Now Rick also brought a very good point when he said that the csi that resides within DNA could have been front loaded , and there is very little way to tell if it was preprogrammed or simply inserted during different periods of time and this is where ID and intelligent evolution can come together and meet, but sorry dropping coke bottles and shattering them into a zillion pieces shows me u simply don't understand what csi is .

[Kenny]

The love of money is the root of all evil.

No; the lack of money is the root of all evil. How much crime do you suppose is committed because criminals want more money?

I believe they believe it is true.

They believe it’s true because evidence supports it.

It would take a lot of them,not just one.

Why?

Right now anybody who comes out too harshly against evolution is considered a scientific heretic.

That’s because those coming out against it are not showing it flawed.

I don't think a scientist has the guts to do it because he risks losing his career in science.

If he could show it flawed, he would become a hero and world famous. But he would have to show it flawed first! Coming out against something because it conflicts your religious beliefs or because you don't like it will get you nowhere

Richard Dawkins is making it harder to oppose evolution.

If he were wrong, somebody would point it out

Ken

That is just talking points.Yes one has come out showing flaws in evolution,but why give evidence?when you're just going to explain it away.What would you say if I gave you an example of somebody coming out against evolution about the flaws in it?

If someone had evidence against Evolution, I would suggest they take their findings to a biologist, Paleontologist, or someone in the field with their findings. If they get ignored, go to another, and another until someone listens. Leave the USA and go to a foreign country if necessary; do whatever it takes to be listened to. I can't imagine every scientist on Earth is crooked. Can you imagine the headlines generated if an American had to go to Germany, Russia, or some other country to get his findings against evolution exposed, and it turned out to be legitimate? That person would be a hero, and the scientists in the USA would be vilified. I don't think scientists would take a chance of something like this happening, I think somebody would be willing to listen.


Ken

[Proinsias]

One could say, "i looked, but found no evidence that there ever was a Roman Empire."

Hardly something to take pride in, but, there's all types.

I agree wholeheartedly. Such is also the case with yet another well documented historical record, i.e the resurrection. But like you say, there are all types. Very sad, really.

Scholars debate the resurrection constantly. Huge swathes of humanity since the event dismiss it, don't believe it, or don't consider it overly important. You are unlikely to find scholars, historians, philosophers, theologians or laypeople denying the existence Roman Empire. The comparison is quite a stretch, they are two things claimed to have happened in the past.

[Audie]

One could say, "i looked, but found no evidence that there ever was a Roman Empire."

Hardly something to take pride in, but, there's all types.

I agree wholeheartedly. Such is also the case with yet another well documented historical record, i.e the resurrection. But like you say, there are all types. Very sad, really.

Scholars debate the resurrection constantly. Huge swathes of humanity since the event dismiss it, don't believe it, or don't consider it overly important. You are unlikely to find scholars, historians, philosophers, theologians or laypeople denying the existence Roman Empire. The comparison is quite a stretch, they are two things claimed to have happened in the past.

It would be an enormous stretch to suggest the resurrection could be verified the way the Roman Empire can.

But you missed the topic. Our hero of the so-called gap theory says he can find no evidence of evolution. I compared that
to saying one cannot find evidence for the Roman Empire.

Bragging on ignorance and disability is one of the worst arguments, ever.

[Audie]

-deleted-