Ok Creationists, I'm about to prove to you that you believe in evolution even if you don't realize that you do:
[b]Answer Yes or No to the following questions.[/b]
[c=A69800][b]1.[/b] [i]Do you believe that all organisms are born with inherent variations like mutations? [/c] [c=359E00][b]2.[/b] [i]Do you believe that the effects of those variations can be either harmful, neutral or beneficial to their host?[/i] [/c] [c=009E4F][b]3.[/b] [i]Do you believe that there exists a limited amount of resources in any given environment and that animals compete for them?[/i]? [/c] [c=008099][b]4.[/b] [i]Do you believe that males and females choose each other based on physical or behavioral characteristics?[/i] [/c] [c=003BB2][b]5.[/b] [i]Do you believe that this process of competition for resources can lead to the fixation of particular variations within a population?[/i] [/c] [c=004A59][b]6.[/b] [i]Do you believe that the fixation and accumulation of variations in separate populations that share ancestry can lead to the population becoming unable to breed with each other?[/i] [/c] [b]If you answered 'No' to any of those questions then you're denying directly observed, experimental science of the kind even professional Creationists champion. If you answered 'Yes' to those questions then surprise: [i]you believe in evolution![/i][/b]
Creationists begin with a worldview and try to accommodate evidence to fit that worldview. Evolution is arrived at by examining the evidence because the theory has more explanatory power and importantly the ability to make [i]predictions[/i] which can and have been verified based upon the theory.
Sure, there could be some grand conspiracy just like the one that scientists are involved in to convince us the Earth is round lol
@jshm2 [quote]Evolution is not one simple rule, [/quote] Nice straw man fallacy!! Actually, if you go back and look, the OP never said Evolution was one simple rule.
Actually, if you go back and look, the OP clearly listed six premises of evolution. If you think you know more premises, please feel free to list them.
@Pikachu Keep them away from me. If I see one loose, I'm shooting it and claiming self-defense. They're not legal persons in my state so I can do that.
Close. I have no scientific evidence for or against god because the existence of god is a supernatural claim and therefor one which science is incompetent to address. I never try to argue whether or not god exists for that reason. I may have criticisms of the character of god and thoughts about the tellingly human descriptions of god but the "does god exist" debate is not one with which i engage.
[i]Creation[/i] on the other hand certainly can and [i]has[/i] been examined, weighed and measured scientifically and has been found wanting. At least creationism as defined in the most common context of life having been created over a short period of time as described in Genesis.
And this post is meant to highlight that fact. Each one of the above points is uncontentious and observable in the "real world" as you like to call it. There's nothing in there with which a creationist must take issue on the grounds of their faith. But taken together, those points add up to the science of evolution so the creationist must ask themselves why, if all parts of the theory are demonstrably, observably factual, that the conclusion is somehow unfounded....
@Pikachu [quote]I have no scientific evidence for or against god because the existence of god is a supernatural claim and therefor one which science is incompetent to address.[/quote]
Exactly, but you don't even know what a god is. A god isn't necessarily supernatural. That's a big mistake fundamentalist militant atheists almost always make. It warps your interpretation not to even know what a god is. Just as you would imagine my not knowing what being an ape means when contemplating evolution.
[quote]I never try to argue whether or not god exists for that reason. I may have criticisms of the character of god and thoughts about the tellingly human descriptions of god but the "does god exist" debate is not one with which i engage.[/quote]
But you evaluate that, not on your own personal examination, but as a critic of religion. That would be, in my opinion, like me forming my opinion on evolution through Answers in Genesis.
[quote]Creation on the other hand certainly can and has been examined, weighed and measured scientifically and has been found wanting. At least creationism as defined in the most common context of life having been created over a short period of time as described in Genesis.[/quote]
Well, let me check - AiG. I've never been, but maybe there's something to it. . .
[quote]And this post is meant to highlight that fact.[/quote]
I don't think so, because you are not going to have an actual discussion on creation as presented by an accurate understanding of the Biblical account. In fact, you would deny such a thing possible. There isn't a great deal there that isn't supernatural that you can go on in that account. You go by the YEC interpretation if anything, it seems, but mostly your argument is that the Bible believer with accurate knowledge doesn't know evolution. There isn't an argument, really. In order for the creationist to have an argument they have to adhere to the interpretation of evolutionists on how "reality" works. Like, saying to me that a discussion on the Biblical has to be in line with the Catholic church, or Watchtower. The problem is that most Bible believers aren't any more interested in evolution than the evolutionist is the Bible.
It is, as I pointed out, like a scientist from another field arguing with a molecular biologist about isolation of a virus. Pointless and embarrassing. I can say that from personal experience. Only the participants in the Creation vs Evolution debate don't seem to realize that because they never have an actual discussion. Here I'm talking about the sorts of debate and discussion on forums. I don't actually watch formal debates. I never have. Not one. I've seen bits and pieces and I can only say the ones representing creation are always traditional apostate Christians who don't know the Bible and try to tackle the debate by applying to science. Thus my disinterest.
Of course, you think that science is reality. Not a self correcting (usually wrong) investigation. We are just dumb if we don't agree with science. But the science my 7th grade science teacher agreed with isn't science today and the science you agree with today will be gone tomorrow. However, the Biblical criticisms he peppered his sermons with I now know are the same inaccurate ones you and other unbelievers offer. You can only comment on science based "reality" in hindsight and that will always reflect poorly on science. It's making science a belief system.
[quote]Each one of the above points is uncontentious and observable in the "real world" as you like to call it. There's nothing in there with which a creationist must take issue on the grounds of their faith.[/quote]
And the Bible's position on stealing, murder, adultery, lying etc. are compatible to your sense of morality. So what?
[quote]But taken together, those points add up to the science of evolution so the creationist must ask themselves why, if all parts of the theory are demonstrably, observably factual, that the conclusion is somehow unfounded....[/quote]
Why would they have to do that if there's nothing there to take issue on the grounds of their faith?
And you're argument is supposed to be the logical and reasonable one based upon the "real world?" In my world I see language simplifying and the Biblical kind. I don't see evolution. Except in the distant imaginary past or future of evolutionists. Can you see the harmful effects of stealing, lying, adultery, murder etc?
lol you talk so much and say so little. You don't understand what you're arguing against and that's why you keep skirting the actual topic. Transparent. Sorry...
[quote]. A god isn't necessarily supernatural.[/quote]
Can you prove or disprove the existence of a creator god using natural means? No? So then science cannot address that claim. That's all I'm saying there.
[quote]In order for the creationist to have an argument they have to adhere to the interpretation of evolutionists on how "reality" works[/quote]
Nope. They just have to be able to account for the evidence better than evolution can. They need to be able to make novel, testable predictions the way evolution can and has. Creationists stumble at the hurdle....which is rather telling. Evolution [i]predicts[/i] discoveries while creationism can at best [i]accommodate[/i] discoveries.
[quote]We are just dumb if we don't agree with science[/quote]
*sigh* I know you're not stupid. Don't say stupid things. Let me ask you this question: is faith a reliable way to know what is true about the world? Does Christian faith reliably tell the Chrsitian what is true about the world? Does Muslim faith reliably tell the Muslim what is true about the world? Science seems to be the most reliable tool yet devised for knowing what is true about the world. You accept the reliability of that tool in almost all aspects of your life and reject it only where it bucks against your faith-based conclusions. Think on that.
[quote]I don't see evolution[/quote]
You've not yet shown me that you even understand what evolution is. So make whatever ego-driven responses you feel are necessary here...but also respond to the OP, if you can.
These are the elements that drive evolution. Which ones do you deny as observable and factual?
But i think they do accept science where it doesn't conflict with their faith position and while the synthesis of these points conflict with that position, each individual point does not.
@Pikachu the Bible says God told the waters to bring forth life abundantly after it's kind
The Bible says God told the Earth to bring forth beast and cattle after it's kind
The Bible says and God formed man from the dust of the earth and placed him in the garden which he had prepared...... God did not tell the Earth to bring forth man God formed man with his own hands.
Three separate events........ The waters brought forth its form of life and the lands brought forth its form of life and God formed man and put him here ..... Which kind of puts a damper in evolution ""as it is taught"" from the Christian belief in creation.
Evolution - the process would start either from spontaneous life popping up on Earth or living organisms coming from space and from whichever science decides to use as fact all life would have evolved on a continual basis.......
The Bible says that Jacob show livestock some striped sticks when they mated and so they gave birth to striped offspring but we know that doesn't happen in real life. So we therefore know that the Bible isn't meant to be taken as literal history at all points.
All evolution is, is the process of diversification over successive generations. If god intended to make humans and implemented evolution as the tool to his end then there's nothing contradictory about the metaphor of breathing life into he clay of mankind.
