Evidence For Evolution - Top Ten Reasons

Which is from a relatively recent post. You continue to assert what other people are saying or doing. Where did you get your "average" paleontologist from? Of those that are not believers of one sort or another I suggest that you will find that very few would say that come to any conclusions at all about a Creator. You'll have to come up with something to demonstrate that your assertions are based on anything but your own rather restricted worldview.Now that is all off topic in any case. We are, in this thread talking about evidence for evolution.------------------
Common sense isn't

WILLOWTREE,Your evasion is becoming tiresome.You HAVE to address these scientists who are also believers. They are living proof that evolutionary theory does not presuppose atheism. If you want to pretend these people either do not exist or do not threaten your metaphysical attack on evolution-as-denial-of-God, please give us reasons why we should accept your opinion over theirs.I assert that empirical evidence does not have the twin meaning you claim. Believers and nonbelievers alike, given the same extensive data set, have arrived at the same scientific conclusion: that all life on Earth shares ancestry. If you can offer a better scientific explanation for the vast amount of molecular, morphological, geologic, and paleological data, please offer it. I'm fed up with the metaphysical runaround.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

MrHambre,You said that:Believers and nonbelievers alike, given the same extensive data set, have arrived at the same scientific conclusion: that all life on Earth shares ancestry.I would question the validity of this statement. Let me throw out this idea: common ancestor, or common designer?And when you say believer, what do you mean by that? The word is thrown around lightly, and can be interpreted a dozen different ways. I would argue that people who believe in evolution generally have an idea that God is just some maker who created the world, and sat back and watched it go; so you have your pick: deism or atheism.

Servus Dei,I don't know what to make of your suggestion of 'common designer.' The hypothesis of common ancestry depends on well-understood mechanisms like DNA recombination and natural selection. It proposes a consistent timeline and has generated progress through research by scientists of various philosophical backgrounds. Can the same be said for common design?How presumptuous of you to assert that any religious believer who accepts the validity of evolution may as well be an atheist. I think that statement speaks for itself.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

quote:

---

And when you say believer, what do you mean by that? The word is thrown around lightly, and can be interpreted a dozen different ways. I would argue that people who believe in evolution generally have an idea that God is just some maker who created the world, and sat back and watched it go; so you have your pick: deism or atheism.

---

Well, you could argue that, but so far you haven't -- you've asserted it, which isn't the same thing. The reality is that people who accept evolution include atheists, agnostics, deists and believers in a personal, interactive God. Here's one member of the last category:The Genome Doctor | Christianity TodayThose of us who accept evolution and who do believe in God are not likely to be impressed by your claim that we don't exist.

I want to apologize to you for not recognizing this post of yours to be what it really is : An extremely well written, well reasoned and solid attack on ID.My response to the post I am speaking of was flimsy at best. The purpose of this post is to acknowledge that you did indeed record an
argument that is comprehensive. You deserve major props and until I or someone else adequately refutes this post of yours it is the current winner in this subject.If I didn't know for absolute certainty that Jesus is real and alive I might of been persuaded.....well you get my point.

I am equally tired having to say over and over that I am addressing the scientists of scientism, which is the branch of science that excludes God from the creation table arbitrarily regardless of what they claim.And you completely ignore what I say is the only issue that creationists of my ilk are proclaiming : God wants ultimate credit as the Creator and a genuine word of thanks (2things).I have no quarrel with so called theistic evolution (cowards that they are) or any other that recognizes God to be the Creator.Scientism cannot have it both ways; hiding behind the claim of rational enquiry (takes no position on the supernatural) while offering their scientific evidence under the umbrella of their worldview (atheism).RM&NS according to neo-Darwinism/scientism is a purposeless and mindless process. This ALSO says that a Divine Creator was not involved and regardless of what you might say a religious message is surreptitiously contained therein.The only thing unique that I bring to these age-old debates is the master interpretation of Romans 1:20-25 recently taught by Dr.Gene Scott, which said, that the reason any given person (scientist) does not recognize God to be the ultimate Creator is because God has removed their ability to ascertain His invisible attributes as a penalty for that " a priori " , arbitrary decision to exclude Him from the creation table.

I want you to know I read this post of yours thoroughly.No matter how you slice it, trust is involved (which you acknowledged and explained). I maintain that unless a specific disclaimer is stipulated one's worldview comes with the evidence offered.

Your characterization equating "mature" believers to be persons who agree with you is a spin job. Then you assume that species have evolved because you call it a fact, no that is a theory.I have never asserted that if evolution is true then God doesn't exist. I have only challenged persons who accept evolution as true to explain how this evidences the non existence of a Creator.And EVERYTHING you say in paragraph number 2 must be a mistake as it was meant for someone else. This paragraph flat out accuses me of things I never said or even insinuated which tells me you are reading my posts non chalantly.Then you associate belief/faith with non intelligence as if I somehow have mouthed idiotic fundementalist nonsense. The only precondition for attending the church I belong to is that a person must not check their brain in at the coat rack. You could not possibly be referring to me here either. I think you have me confused with someone else.

I think there has been a bit too much of going around the same stuff in circles. Let's see if we can get somethings put to one side. You have your down definition of what "scientism" is. Ok, it is not the same as most of the literature which discusses it. But we will give you WT-scientism as some select way of thinking that is working against God. How prevalent it is remains to be determined. We see some of something like your idea in a small part of Dawkins writtings. It is absent in a great deal of scientific writing. I'd guess 99+ % is devoid of this. You might guess at some other number. You have read less than I have so your guess is not as likely to be right. When you have evidence for a different number then we can discuss it again. Yes, it is possible to take a specific "message" from this. The message for the majority of believers is that God works as the grand architect of all existance. The message you want is that he is the mechanic tinkering at the detailed level. You believe in a small God, most believe in a grander one.RM&NS does NOT say a devine creator was NOT involved. It simply says that there are someways that He may have been involved and some that he was not involved. Good. Then almost everyone involved here agrees. I don't remember anyone else answering your original request but I did. I accept evolution and don't think it evidence the non-existance of a Creator as long as you don't define the Creator in some very specific ways. That's up to you not me. Others can voice their opinion if they want. However, the involvment of worldviews is NOT symmetrical! That is, the fundamentalist view ALWAYS has a supernatural, religious view attached. The scientific view does NOT always exclude the supernatural, religious view. Many scientists and laymen who accept the findings of modern science are religious. From his we might conclude that one of the two views is more biased than the other. One allows the inclusion of the religious and the scientific and one rejects the scientific.So where are we:1) Individuals have individual beliefs and draw different conclusions from things we learn about the world. Some, as you say, take this to conclusions about the existance of God that may not be scientifically justifable. (We will agree to disagree on what label to attach to this ).2)Evolution is not evidence for the non-existance of God.3)The practitioners of science include a wide range of worldviews. There doesn't seem to be more than a statistical connection between a grasp of science and any kind of disbelief. (That is, there may be more atheism or agnosticism in the scientific community than in the general population but that by no means tells us that any particular scientist is an unbeliever)------------------
Common sense isn't{Fixed first quote box - added closing / - AM}

​

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-28-2003]

Willow, you can't seem to get over (or even acknowledge) the issue that belief in evolution is independent of the vast majority of religious beliefs. World views, as you call them, don't come into deciding the whether the data gathered from many scientific fields proves the validity of evolution. The fact that people from many philosophical beliefs from many different races around the world believe in evolution attests to this.I am a born again Christian, and have had a personal experience with the Holy Spirit for 17 years. I credit God for his creation (the universe and everything in it), although we differ on how we believe this was acheived. I thank God for my life, and the eternal one to follow.What is the point of merely addressing your "arguments" towards, what you call the "scientists of scientism" and atheists? Why don't you try directing your arguments towards myself and my kin, if it will help you separate your philosophical theories from the actual evolutionary issues. My knowledge of science is only that of a well read and versed layman, but after reading the content of this forum for a few weeks I can (with cautious reservation) state that I, to date, endorse the evolutionary arguments produced by the likes of: NosyNed, world, -mooseus, Rei, Darwinsterrier, crashfrog, Zhimbo, to name just a few off the top of my head. This support is offered independent of their religious views, or "world views".

---

I have no quarrel with so called theistic evolution (cowards that they are) or any other that recognizes God to be the Creator.

---

Your quarrel is very much with us, not only because we support the same evidence, rationale inquiry and logic behind evolution as the atheists do, but also because you label us cowards.Cowards?
For using the brain that God gave us.
For adapting our belief in the light of the knowledge of the universe in which we live.
For realising that we may be mistaken about some of our religious interpretations and being prepared to admit that.
For being prepared to disagree with consevative church elders when it is obvious they are mistaken.I have my faith as a Christian, and I have my intellectual integrity intact. I don't have to bang my head against a wall everytime I worship (or read the Bible) and I don't have to smile with mute supplication before the mistaken preachings of Creationist fundamentalists.One parting note for fellow Christians surfing this forum. Don't fear for your faith on these issues! I strongly encourage you to follow the threads through systematically with care and attention (take notes of what is raised by both parties and compare: particularly take note to what is ignored). Then appraise for yourself, not only the logic and validity of the arguments within, but also the personal integrity of the posters. Many posters from the Creationist camp merely re-iterate the same arguments after they have been shot down, and contunually refuse to address questions that they cannot answer (Example: Willow has been asked twice to provide a definition of "Intelligent Design" in this thread, and has failed to reply). Further research will not only attest to the validity of the evolutionary arguments, it will also demostrate the intellectual bankruptness of Creationism.Don't believe that your salvation depends on the belief of the irrational. God will never find you wanting for using the greatest gift that he gave you: your mind. Use it, use it well.[This message has been edited by Light, 12-28-2003]

28 Days later I still cant read this thread.

First off, the definition of ID is forthcoming and it will be in a post directed at the person who asked for it. That person posted a very lengthy comprehensive response that deserves a like manner reply.In previous posts I have admitted and apologized for my snail pace, although the issue you cite is much too current to justify your hasty remarks here.The next thing you need to do is to demonstrate that you have a brain enlightened by the Holy Spirit instead of claiming it and then proceeding to offer nothing of substance to back it up. What you have done is debut yourself as this Spirit-filled intellectual armed with the ahteist explanation of the origin of species (big deal - dime a dozen). I can't find one solitary thing of uniqueness in this post of yours that warrants your religious admission deserving the theistic dimension of truth.TE is in bed with a philosophy (evolution) because of some twisted out of context interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. Nobody is against using their God-given brain and intellect to determine scientific truth which makes your argument a straw man.If you had actually carefully read my posts (like you claimed) then you would understand that I repeatedly said over and over that the unique thing I brought to these debates was the indictment of Romans which declares that God demands two things (credit as the Creator/thanks) and if He doesn't get it He will remove violators ability to recognize Him (penalty that has eternal ramifications).
Obviously this argument does not apply to someone like you who is in compliance with these two requirements.You see, it doesn't matter what you say/claim, Darwinism/evolution is offered as the explantion of life in place of creationism. Nobody can separate their worldview from the evidence despite the claim of rational enquiry which invokes an supernatural neutrality that doesn't exist. My crusade is to get the obvious admitted but this will not happen because to do so is to admit that a religious determination is being assumed without evidence.My ultimate point/conclusion is that of Romans, which is, if God punishes via removal of "God sight/sense" for excluding Him arbitrarily from the creation table, then persons suffering this punishment will never be able to comply with the two-fold demand of God, which in turn explains their denial of the existence of a Creator, which renders every claim of certainty defective.Now here comes you theistic evolutionists to anoint yourselves umpire and mediate for God that which He has already decided. This decision separates everyone into two camps - those who credit Him and those who don't, He isn't fooled by some crafty definition contained in rational enquiry. In fact that defintion is the "a priori" decision that triggers His response of punishment.Your kind just aint man enough to wrestle away the scientific truth discovered by the atheists of neo-Darwinism (brilliant discoveries at that) and claim them for God without qualification. You're in bed with a whore that God turned out long ago. Neo-Darwinism doesn't respect you - they tolerate and use you as a buffer between them and anyone who opposes their claim of supernatural neutrality.Now tell me Light, what does your theism bring to this debate that isn't already espoused by the evolutionists in this discussion ?Source of Theology Information : Dr.Gene Scott

And you, Willowtree, are privy to the Big Guy's romantic affairs? I'm impressed!

Scratch scratch scratch...And Quetzal said I couldn't get laid if I walked into God's whorehouse with a fistful of fifties.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall