Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[Lon]

I'm curious....do you believe that God specifically and deliberately created all the pathogens, parasites, and pests that have haunted humanity and caused untold death and suffering? If not, how did they come to be, in your opinion?

Romans 8:20 What is your take? :think: (and thanks for asking, good questions).

 

[Jose Fly]

Romans 8:20 What is your take?

That it doesn't really answer my question. I'm asking what you believe regarding the origin of pathogens, parasites, and pests.

As we see above, [MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION] believes they were specifically and deliberately created by God. Do you agree?

 

[Stripe]

Evolution: Gradual change over time

There is no disagreement over the idea that things change (although organisms can adapt swiftly, which disproves "evolution" as you define it).

This is typical of Darwinists: They do not want their ideas put to the test, so they define the debate out of existence.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. This is what the debate is over.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Breakdown and loss of information. God designed, say, the mosquito, to only feed on plants, but built in a back up code for feeding on blood and meaty creatures in case something were to happen to his creation.

Since the Fall, mosquitos have lost the ability to feed on plants, and has defaulted to only feeding on other creatures.



That God built redundancy into His creation, and that the original genes would have coded for something beneficial, but that information has since been lost. Something that was perfect (and therefore would not harm any other part of creation) has broken down, and killed many millions of people. Perfectly in line with what creationists would expect if everything was created.

So, God, presumably well aware that something might go awry with His creation, aka human fallibility and weakness, purposely built a "back up plan" that would cause suffering not only to humans but also most of creation at large as well?

 

[Stripe]

So, God, presumably well aware that something might go awry with His creation, aka human fallibility and weakness, purposely built a "back up plan" that would cause suffering not only to humans but also most of creation at large as well?

Sounds like you have a point to make, but can't finish a coherent argument. :idunno:

 

[6days]

I'm curious....do you believe that God specifically and deliberately created all the pathogens, parasites, and pests that have haunted humanity and caused untold death and suffering? If not, how did they come to be, in your opinion?

A perfect creation has been subjected to entropy. EX... Most bacteria are beneficial and necessary for life. Mutations sometimes corrupt information.

 

[Lon]

That it doesn't really answer my question. I'm asking what you believe regarding the origin of pathogens, parasites, and pests.

As we see above, @JudgeRightly believes they were specifically and deliberately created by God. Do you agree?

Sure, but to do what they are doing now? I wouldn't think so. I wouldn't think their purpose would have been to do what they do. Scriptural examples: The wolf lying down with the lamb Isaiah 11:6 I can't think of a benefit of a mosquito biting, but males are nectar drinkers. I'd think there might have been a beneficial purpose. The suggestion is that we aren't evolving, but devolved yet sustained by harsher means as necessary suggested from Romans 8:20 imho. Again, thanks for asking.

See ▲ 6 days ▲ just above me as well.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Sounds like you have a point to make, but can't finish a coherent argument. :idunno:

Sounds like you disagree, but are unable to make any sort of cogent counter-argument

Par for the course from you, Stipe

 

[Stripe]

Sounds like you disagree, but are unable to make any sort of cogent counter-argument.

:idunno:

I wouldn't word it like Brain did, but it's not overtly incorrect. However, like a typical Darwinist, he forgot the therefore.

He went on a rant and it looks like he's relying on an unspoken narrative to create the illusion of a point.

He didn't make a point, so there's nothing to debate. It's just a disconnected opinion.

 

[Stripe]

One day, Darwinists will learn to engage rationally. :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

This is the position of rejecting the proposition as stated in the initial post.
Why should biological evolution be rejected

• Religious conviction
• The science is riddled with errors and everyone's a fraud

That list begins and ends with "evidence."

 

[popsthebuilder]

Intro

I have created this thread for the single purpose of settling the long-running discussions about the veracity of evolution in the scientific sense (yeah, very ambitious, I know).

I would like to keep this thread as concise as possible by providing a summary for all the arguments from both sides that I will be keeping up-to-date in the first few posts.


IMPORTANT:
The purpose here is solely to talk about science - not about faith, philosophy, theology or ethics or anything else unrelated.


Any feedback is appreciated and I'll try to adjust accordingly.




Proposition

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is an established scientific fact. It explains every observation concerning biodiversity on our planet and is not contradicted by anything in the natural world.

Acceptance of evolution and belief in God are NOT mutually exclusive!




Definitions

Evolution:
Gradual change over time

Biological evolution:
Evolution of populations of living organisms.
Commonly known as: "descent with modifications"
Formally known as: "changing of allele frequencies across generations"

Scientific method:
The process of systematic investigation of the properties and behaviour of any system by empirical means and inductive inference, which improves its own conclusions by repeated validation of predictions and deductive hypotheses.
a.k.a "methodological naturalism"
Formally: Ask a question --> design experiment/observation --> analyse data and draw tentative conclusion --> critically evaluate the conclusion by asking deeper questions and attempting to falsify the conclusion

Scientific theory:
A comprehensive body of knowledge corresponding to the current consensus about a particular scientific subject. A theory is comprised of all relevant facts, laws and explanations. A scientific theory is the highest degree of confidence available for any field of study.




Rules

• Be polite!
• Stay on point
• Address every argument and explain your position
• Don't assume that others know what you mean - provide references
• Keep an open mind
• Enjoy!

VERY IMPORTANT:
In order to guarantee a fair discussion and that everyone is on the same page here, I'd like to ask all of you to be patient and first let's establish a consensus regarding the format that I have proposed before we delve into the actual conversation.
So please, don't start arguing just yet, I'll announce in due course when the preparations are complete. Right now, I'd like to ask for feedback on what you think about this idea and the current setup.


I propose the following order:

STEP 1: Agree on terms

STEP 2: Agree on initial positions

STEP 3: fight!

Evolution( change over time) is most definitely observable and is not spoken against in the bible.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Evolution( change over time) is most definitely observable and is not spoken against in the bible.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

V

This thread / topic uses the fallacy of equivocation. Everyone agrees populations change. (Observational). Not everyone agrees with Darwinian beliefs about descent /common ancestry. (Non-Observational belief about the past)


That is true. However the belief that 'monkeys' evolved into humans contradicts God's Word.

Darwin was wrong about many things, and the thread is not about him (Or his beliefs).


The thread titled 'Why Evolution is real science...' suggests either a) the 'author' does not know what real science is... or b) is equivocating on terminogy. (Real science is not your beliefs about the past, nor mine)

God's Word tells us He formed man from the dust, and woman from mans rib. (That is not science). You seem to believe 'fish' evolved into philosophers. (That is not science).

Funny (sort of) that you abject to clarifying terminology before we start the discussion. Also funny (sort of) that you and the thread author only want to discuss "Why Evolution is real science" but don't want to discuss why 'evolution is NOT Real science.

In the 'religion' section? :noway:


:doh:

We haven't talked before. My problem with a thread 'without' faith or theology: Colossians 1:17 There is not 'compartmentalized' truth. All truth is God's truth.

Let's look at "Evolution" and then Colossians 1:17 for contrast.

First, definition of Evolution. EVERY definition of Evolution And this is important: INCLUDING YOUR discussion parameters ( :noway: ), removes God from creation. How? Because it is ALL against Colossians 1:17. "Without Him NOTHING exists that exists." That means Evolution is wrong. NO creation just 'does it.' It is EITHER God-did-it OR Evolution-did-it. Every atheist and/or evolutionist I've ever read or talked to has always maintained they have never said "evolution-did-it." Not true. They are saying that every life 'does-it' (evolves).

Second, Colossians 1:17 John 15:5 and Colossians 1:16-20. "...by Him, all things consist..." AND 'without Him, NOTHING exists that exists.'

In a nutshell, evolution not only leaves God out, as you've done, it also goes against God's revelation of Himself. No Christian anywhere who names the name of Christ, can EVER eschew Colossians 1:16-20. Not even for their biology lab. If so? They are accepting some form of the mark of the beast AND denying Christ. This thread? As gently as I know how to say: Is embracing that mark IN the religion section, by eschewing God. Read Colossians 1 a few times. "All things are made FOR Him! "IF" we eschew God from our discussions about all things made FOR God, we are pushing to divorce our conversation FROM Him, the very things made FOR Him! I don't want to be THAT guy!!

On a good note, even you refuse, in a sense, to accept that mark. There is no discussion of creation without God. Romans 1:18-20

 

[popsthebuilder]

V

Change over time in no way refutes creation.

Acknowledging such in no way refutes the Way, or that everything was formed by GOD.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

Change over time in no way refutes creation.

Acknowledging such in no way refutes the Way, or that everything was formed by GOD.

My children are a slight change from me... that in no way refutes God's word. However if you believe that change can result into monkey's... or visa versa... then that does contradict God's word

 

[popsthebuilder]

My children are a slight change from me... that in no way refutes God's word. However if you believe that change can result into monkey's... or visa versa... then that does contradict God's word

Yeah; I definitely didn't mean that. Change over time is what I mean; a very loose definition of evolution.

Change over time is quite scriptural actually; just not in the material sense.

GOD being all powerful and all knowing would have technically known and done exactly what was needed to put everything into motion for us to have literally evolved from red dirt, but that is not my opinion or argument; just a deduction.

peace

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sounds like you have a point to make, but can't finish a coherent argument. :idunno:

Given that it was a question with a rather obvious pointed aspect to it then you should learn the difference between a question and an argument.

 

[Arthur Brain]

:idunno:

I wouldn't word it like Brain did, but it's not overtly incorrect. However, like a typical Darwinist, he forgot the therefore.

He went on a rant and it looks like he's relying on an unspoken narrative to create the illusion of a point.

He didn't make a point, so there's nothing to debate. It's just a disconnected opinion.

You have a strange idea of what constitutes a "rant". What JR seemed to be suggesting is that God's back up plan involves all of creation suffering in the event of the fall of man. I'll wait and see if he addresses/clarifies his position on it.

 

[Jose Fly]

A perfect creation has been subjected to entropy. EX... Most bacteria are beneficial and necessary for life. Mutations sometimes corrupt information.

So wait.....are you actually agreeing that natural processes such as mutations can generate very complex biochemical pathways, biological structures, and life strategies?

 

[Jose Fly]

Sure, but to do what they are doing now? I wouldn't think so. I wouldn't think their purpose would have been to do what they do. Scriptural examples: The wolf lying down with the lamb Isaiah 11:6 I can't think of a benefit of a mosquito biting, but males are nectar drinkers. I'd think there might have been a beneficial purpose. The suggestion is that we aren't evolving, but devolved yet sustained by harsher means as necessary suggested from Romans 8:20 imho. Again, thanks for asking.

See ▲ 6 days ▲ just above me as well.

So same question....are you in agreement then that natural processes are fully capable of generating very complex biochemical pathways, biological structures, and life strategies?