Theists: What is your stance on evolution?

[Mister Agenda]

When scientists speak of evolution, they are speaking of how man evolved over time from a primate to modern man.  I remember being taught this in school. The question that always comes up is “If we slowly changed from apes to man, why do we still have apes?”

There are other theories around the origin of humanity such as Creation Theory, comprised of old-earth creationists and young earth creationists, and Intelligent Design Theory. More recently, there is another theory called Dual Revelation Theory. You heard of it?

Welcome, COSM500, I don't believe I've had the pleasure. Did you do an intro thread? If not, it's never too late.

The question you raise about apes, often phrased as 'if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?', is like asking why there are Europeans in Europe if Europeans came to the Americas. Some ancient monkeys evolved into apes, others evolved into other kinds of monkeys. Some ancient apes evolved into humans, others evolved into bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

I haven't heard of Dual Revelation Theory. If you want to start a thread about it, I'd be interested.

[Nay_Sayer]

Hello,

 I am a believer in the Big Bang and in evolution. Maybe this question has been asked (many times?) before, but I am new. I have watched tons and tons of TV shows and YouTube videos on evolution and read many books. It is accepted as fact by many (most) scientists. What do you believe with regards to evolution? Do you believe that modern humans have only been on the planet for a few thousand years? That all animals on the earth have only been here a few thousand years? What about dinosaurs? Do you believe that the Earth has only been here a few thousand years? To me, it is impossible to dispute the age of the earth (billions of years) or the reality of evolution but, again, I want to hear what you have to say. Thanks, in advance.

When scientists speak of evolution, they are speaking of how man evolved over time from a primate to modern man.  I remember being taught this in school. The question that always comes up is “If we slowly changed from apes to man, why do we still have apes?”

There are other theories around the origin of humanity such as Creation Theory, comprised of old-earth creationists and young earth creationists, and Intelligent Design Theory. More recently, there is another theory called Dual Revelation Theory. You heard of it?

 Those are more commonly known as absolute horseshit.

FSM forgives you for being misguided. RAmen

---

When scientists speak of evolution, they are speaking of how man evolved over time from a primate to modern man.  I remember being taught this in school. The question that always comes up is “If we slowly changed from apes to man, why do we still have apes?”

There are other theories around the origin of humanity such as Creation Theory, comprised of old-earth creationists and young earth creationists, and Intelligent Design Theory. More recently, there is another theory called Dual Revelation Theory. You heard of it?

Welcome, COSM500, I don't believe I've had the pleasure. Did you do an intro thread? If not, it's never too late.

The question you raise about apes, often phrased as 'if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?', is like asking why there are Europeans in Europe if Europeans came to the Americas. Some ancient monkeys evolved into apes, others evolved into other kinds of monkeys. Some ancient apes evolved into humans, others evolved into bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

I haven't heard of Dual Revelation Theory. If you want to start a thread about it, I'd be interested.

A quick google of the username reveals a rabbit hole of sloppy apologetics. Good luck with that.

[Abaddon_ire]

Who knows what is going on in their head.

This still puzzles me. Santa vs god. Both reward you if you are "good" and punish you if you are "not good"? And that was how I started my atheist journey.

What puts me to shame is how much faster my kids were at it. But there we go.

[Silver]

The irony is how theists can recognize mythology elsewhere, yet be incapable of perceiving it in regard to their personal beliefs.

[Ferrocyanide]

Why not? The god or alien or whatever you want to call it is free to do whatever he wants and maybe he has no one to answer to.

Why? Because they can't call him perfect then. If you heard about let's say "perfect architect" and saw that over 50% of his buildings have fatal flaws, would you call him perfect architect?

Or could a student whose work is mostly below average be called a "perfect student"?

The theists response would be something like this:
According to who’s standard he isn’t perfect? You.
The only standard that matters is that of god and he is perfect. We don’t know everything about his plans.

I have talked to enough theists, mostly christian, that I can emulate them.
I could probably have a conversation with myself

In the above response, the theist demonstrates an unquestioning loyalty to his god.
Some of them have told me that if there was no god, life would be pointless and have no purpose. They prefer to think that they have a purpose. The idea that their god has some special plan is part of that notion that they have a purpose. If the god is planless, then there is no purpose.
They are willing to accept that god keeps his plans a secret but that plan is perfect.


To you and me, it doesn’t make sense that a god would want to make extinct ~95% of life forms.
The YEC type believes that dinosaurs were a problem so humans killed them off. I have asked them how did they kill the dinosaurs in the oceans and why did they also kill the plants from that time period but they don’t answer.

Try this:
Ask the christian, does the jewish god want to save us? Is that why he sent Jesus?
So, why doesn’t Jesus or his father show up and give us evidence that he is real?
He will probably say “Because he wants us to come to him.”
How can people come to him if he doesn’t show up?
The christian will probably say “He gave us evidence in the form of witnesses and the Bible.”
Are you saying that the jewish god wants to give us evidence? So why doesn’t he show up and give us some solid evidence?
If Jesus’s/god’s goal is to save people, wouldn’t the most efficient way to do that be to give the best evidence?
Why does Jesus/god use inefficient means to bring people to him?

Heinz, Pepsi and many other companies are always working to optimize their processes, for example, they make lightweight bottles. They don’t rest. They go for efficiency and they keep on optimizing. Is there a reason why your god uses inefficient means?

[Fake Messiah]

Why? Because they can't call him perfect then. If you heard about let's say "perfect architect" and saw that over 50% of his buildings have fatal flaws, would you call him perfect architect?

Or could a student whose work is mostly below average be called a "perfect student"?

The theists response would be something like this:
According to who’s standard he isn’t perfect? You.
The only standard that matters is that of god and he is perfect. We don’t know everything about his plans.

I have talked to enough theists, mostly christian, that I can emulate them.
I could probably have a conversation with myself

Then they would be ignoring what I just said because perfection has its standards.

And I am aware that theists like to give nonsense responses, so you don't have to necessarily emulate it.

[Paleophyte]

When scientists speak of evolution, they are speaking of how man evolved over time from a primate to modern man.  I remember being taught this in school. The question that always comes up is “If we slowly changed from apes to man, why do we still have apes?”

Your school was horrible. All living apes, including humans, have evolved from a common ancestor. The apes that you see today are evolutionary "cousins" and you aren't descended from them.

There are other theories around the origin of humanity such as Creation Theory, comprised of old-earth creationists and young earth creationists, and Intelligent Design Theory. More recently, there is another theory called Dual Revelation Theory. You heard of it?

Those aren't theories, they're mythology. I can explain why if you're interested.

Like you, I learned nothing of evolution from Christians. I only heard of it in grade school. My mother taught me how to be a critical thinker, so I questioned it even then. Most of the scriptures I know of that mention what could be dinosaurs are in the Book of Job. Chapters 40 and 41 reference a Behemoth and a Leviathan (Job 40:15, 41:1). There are also a few others sprinkled in Psalm 104 and Revelation 13.

Could you tell us what you think a "critical thinker" is? This statement of yours leaves a lot of doubt.

There's an interesting book on each of these theories called Four Views on Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design. Each theorist offers his or her perspective, followed by responses from each of the opposing theorists, followed by a rejoinder. The format of the book makes it a provoking read. It explains the nuances of each theory and allows the reader to understand how they each became popular enough to become "a thing." Unreservedly, science and scripture can work in tandem.

Just so I don't start sounding like a broken record, I'll explain why these aren't theories. All proper theories must be testable, falsifiable, and predictive, amongst other traits. By definition, any statement containing and all-powerful, unknowable, undetectable deity immediately removes the possibility of testability, falsifiability, or predictability. As such, these are properly viewed as statements of faith and are the opposite of theories in many of the basic ways that matter. If you would be so kind as to make the distinction I will return the favour and not quote the Book of Phylogenies as scripture.

[Ferrocyanide]

Just so I don't start sounding like a broken record, I'll explain why these aren't theories. All proper theories must be testable, falsifiable, and predictive, amongst other traits. By definition, any statement containing and all-powerful, unknowable, undetectable deity immediately removes the possibility of testability, falsifiability, or predictability. As such, these are properly viewed as statements of faith and are the opposite of theories in many of the basic ways that matter. If you would be so kind as to make the distinction I will return the favour and not quote the Book of Phylogenies as scripture.

Stories about gods and what they do are called Just-so stories or just so stories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

It just means that it is a story. The only thing you can do is listen to it. There isn't anything to verify.

That poster mentioned Ken Ham which is a YEC. Modern science has blown away YEC during the 19 th century. And I think MichaelAngelo was also someone who claimed that the layers you find in the ground, the rocks, is evidence of an ancient Earth but there wasn't a large science community during his time so science doing advance much during his time.

[Paleophyte]

Just so I don't start sounding like a broken record, I'll explain why these aren't theories. All proper theories must be testable, falsifiable, and predictive, amongst other traits. By definition, any statement containing and all-powerful, unknowable, undetectable deity immediately removes the possibility of testability, falsifiability, or predictability. As such, these are properly viewed as statements of faith and are the opposite of theories in many of the basic ways that matter. If you would be so kind as to make the distinction I will return the favour and not quote the Book of Phylogenies as scripture.

Stories about gods and what they do are called Just-so stories or just so stories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

It just means that it is a story. The only thing you can do is listen to it. There isn't anything to verify.

That poster mentioned Ken Ham which is a YEC. Modern science has blown away YEC during the 19 th century. And I think MichaelAngelo was also someone who claimed that the layers you find in the ground, the rocks, is evidence of an ancient Earth but there wasn't a large science community during his time so science doing advance much during his time.

I prefer to think of them as just bad stories. It's clear that they're woefully out of date (stoning people is no longer morally acceptable) and have never seen a marginally competent editor. If there had been dinosaurs in Job it would have been an improvement. Seriously though, Ken Ham and the YEC were what got you? Once he started mentioning dinosaurs in the Bible those fools were just icing on the cake.

[Disagreeable]

“If we slowly changed from apes to man, why do we still have apes?”

That's like asking "If branches grow out from a tree then how come trees have more than one branch?".