Why Most Evolutionists Don’t BELIEVE in Evolution?

Yes... I BELIEVE in evolution

I also don't think Christianity and Evolution and the big bang are mutually exclusive.

I was raised Catholic... However.. liberal Catholic seeing as how I grew up in the city.

I went to Catholic high school, where they taught Theology and Science, including evolution.

We learned in Theology the difference between historical truth and biblical truth.

They don't have to contradict one another.

Now.. I'm not religious.. really.. but at the same time I can say..

I believe in the big bang, I believe in evolution and adaptation... I also believe that in Newton's Laws (an object at rest will remain at rest, an object in motion will remain in motion.. both continuously unless another force acts upon them) and that matter cannot be created not destroyed...

Therefore.. what was the initial "mover" .. where did matter come from?

These questions you can define with a higher power.. it doesn't have to tear down your belief system to think that maybe the higher power set evolution in motion

As much as facts exist, there are facts that some subsets of evolution exist. For instance, various rodents evolve to be less susceptible to man's attempts to kill them, bacteria evolve to become resistant to penicillin. So certainly you couldn't believe that no living thing evolves whatsoever. Could you?

a reply to: MRinder

Have you seen a rodent evolve into a higher being? Your speaking of adaptation not evolution.

a reply to: edmc^2

My next thread is going to be 'Do those who reject evolution do so because circular arguements revolve instead of evolve?'.

You're never going to believe it. You've done the same thing before. You make a statement like 'they don't believe in evolution' and then put your fingers in your ears while person after person comes and demonstrates that you're wrong. Your response is to rearrange the goalposts just a little bit or argue semantics.

How about this. Everybody agrees with you. Pretend everybody decides you were right all along. So what next? If we just agree with you what is the next step in our new age of enlightenment?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: edmc^2

Believe is only something for things you can't know. Like you have to believe in a creator because there is no evidence so it's the opposite of knowing.
There is plenty of evidence for evolution so I don't have to believe because I know.

What if belief or knowledge of a creator is part of our genetic makeup and those who have not acknowledged what is built in simply are fighting this truth.
There is nothing that says we cannot evolve that things do not evolve after creation. Interesting they took a bacteria or virus and had it in a petri dish, they fed it the only thing it eats (can't remember the details) lets say sugar.

They then changed the diet of this creature to something that previously was poison to it, slowly and within a short time it lived off this new food.
We are meant to change as this environment is not the perfect one we had been meant for and we would not survive in this ruin if it were not for the ability to change.

originally posted by: edmc^2
...
First off, I'm not comparing evolution with creation. I'm just trying to figure out why evolutionists can't or refuse to use the word "believe" when it comes to evolution.

Easy, they like to do their ridicule-routine that conflates the concepts of 'blind belief' (believing without evidence) with 'rational belief based on evidence as it is applied to God's existence by some people'. They can't do that anymore when they admit to their own blind and irrational beliefs regarding unverified evolutionary philosophies, some of which have already been sufficiently demonstrated (proven) to be impossible*, and regarding philosophical naturalism and general or conveniently selective agnosticism.

*: by applying the rules of logic and mathematics properly and effectively on the facts/certainties/realities/truths observed in the sciences, such as the reality of entropy and decay and the matching longterm effect of mutations acted upon by what is called "natural selection".

But to be clear, not all do so (avoiding the verb "believe" in relation to their evolutionary philosophies/ideas/opinions/thoughts/beliefs; all synonyms):

“It is not a matter of personal taste whether or not we believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is compelling.”​—“Evolution, Genetics, and Man,” p. 319, Dobzhansky (a prominent evolutionist, one of the bigshots, theistic evolution is his particular cup of tea, like MRinder).

The myths/false stories described in evolutionary philosophies, like all myths, combine very well with general or conveniently selective agnosticism. Best way to promote the notion that they first need to be proven impossible before you can dismiss them (shifting the burden of proof while arguing it can't be proven conclusively, with certainty; like a double-edged sword to poke around with in people's minds). As if one even needs to refute the possibility of the existence of pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, the unspecified apelike common ancestor to humans and chimps or unspecified single-celled common ancestor(s) of all living organisms, or the unspecified RNA based lifeform imagined in the so-called "RNA World hypothesis", to dismiss nonsense for which no valid evidence is provided (usually just lame arguments and storylines designed to sound plausible or even likely in the eyes of biased beholders).

The ultimate technique to keep people ignorant and in the dark about the facts/truths/certainties/realities that matter most. Vagueness rules supreme in some circles.

“What Is Truth?”

THAT question was cynically posed to Jesus by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. He was not interested in an answer, and Jesus did not give him one. Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.​—John 18:38.

This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth​—especially moral and spiritual truth—​is not absolute but relative and ever changing. ...

The statement that prompted Pilate’s question is worth noting. Jesus had said: “For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth.” (John 18:37) Truth to Jesus was no vague, incomprehensible concept. He promised his disciples: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”​—John 8:32.
...

From the article in my signature (between brackets is mine):

Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us.

But it is far better for each individual personally to choose what he will feed his mind. It is said that we are what we eat, and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind. No matter what you are reading or watching or listening to, test to see whether it has propagandistic overtones or is truthful.

Moreover, if we want to be fair-minded, we must be willing to subject our own opinions to continual testing as we take in new information. We must realize that they are, after all, opinions. [such as the opinion/belief expressed as supposedly being factual/absolute/certain that "there is no evidence" of a Creator. Expressed earlier in this thread by someone demonstrating to be affected by the routine I described at the start of this comment] Their trustworthiness depends on the validity of our facts, on the quality of our reasoning, and on the standards or values that we choose to apply.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

A creator is just a stupid thing to believe in. Where did it come from? If everything needs a creator aren't you just moving the problem without ever finding a solution? An endless reverse Russian nesting doll.

a reply to: edmc^2

oh joh - another cultist demonstrates thier utter scientiffic illiteracy

how mind numbingly predictable

i do not " believe " in eveolution - as it does not require belief

i accept the veracity of evolutionary theories [ just as i do thousands of other scientific theories ]

the OP is a troll - end off

i know what a theory is - and why they should be accepted

the op PRETENDS not to - its been explaned to it - in scores of previous thread - but here we are again

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: SeaWorthy

A creator is just a stupid thing to believe in. Where did it come from? If everything needs a creator aren't you just moving the problem without ever finding a solution? An endless reverse Russian nesting doll.

No it is actually all very simple. A creator with the help of others he had already created, made everything we know.
WE have only the understanding of things that are not permanent and we see through the veil of our small understanding.

Now how we are is not something we know, are we virtual, are we a matrix? Who knows we have not been told yet it could be anything but it is and was designed.

If you believe that everything popped into being on its own and continues to do so with new species you have a very hard time explaining what actually is very simple.

Honestly if you believe it all came from the "big Bang" where did that come from? Russian nesting dolls?

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
As much as facts exist, there are facts that some subsets of evolution exist. For instance, various rodents evolve to be less susceptible to man's attempts to kill them, bacteria evolve to become resistant to penicillin. So certainly you couldn't believe that no living thing evolves whatsoever. Could you?

a reply to: MRinder

Have you seen a rodent evolve into a higher being? Your speaking of adaptation not evolution.

Of course not, but that's because I haven't been alive for millions of years. It seems a lot more viable to me that things evolved from less complex to more complex than it does that God just said abracadabra. Plus the whole chronological order of events in Genesis seems a little hard to believe.

Certainly is a species can "adapt" it's DNA to survive environmental changes then that is a form of DNA evolving.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: edmc^2

You seem to be a bit hung up on Evolution. You are free to believe what you want, so if you don't want to believe in Evolution then feel free not to. You can chose to be a creationist, an evolutionist, any ..ist you want to be.

I happen to think/guess/assume that maybe its possible that God created evolution. It makes me really appreciate him if he did. It's like he is a great artist/creator. He created the mechanism for life, dna/evolution, unleashed it and sat back and watched his creation create unlimited combinations. It's much like the universe.. random actions under the laws of physics creates unlimited variations of outcomes.. each one different and beautiful in its own way.

The cycle of creation, destruction, replacement is magnificent. I can imagine God sitting back and watching his creation unfold before his eyes as he sees it through the eye of the great artist that he is.

And he is just a word. I doubt God has a pronoun, but its easier for this mere human to say he/him.

I got what you're saying, so what word should be used then instead of "belief"?

Knowledge

a reply to: SeaWorthy

No, that's not what I was asking, let me try again:

How came the creator into existence?
where does it live when it existed before it created the universe?
If it's all designed what's the purpose?

Personally I have no problem admitting what I can't possibly know. But also a creator is not making any sense, or at least not more than big bang.

a reply to: Peeple

How came the creator into existence?

It (god) says it always existed and always will, now I am willing to believe that this is so and we have no ability to get that than a fruit fly could understand our lives. We are told we will get to know all of the things that are hidden from us and I personally think that time is getting near.

originally posted by: MRinder
Certainly is a species can "adapt" it's DNA to survive environmental changes then that is a form of DNA evolving.

It was Darwin who said...

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, not the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change."

Hence humanity sits where it does.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

God may have always existed that doesn't mean it created anything

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: SeaWorthy

God may have always existed that doesn't mean it created anything

Imagine for a moment it did create you and there is a reason for everything. All we have to do is ask and repent. be humble and be forgiven.

We are promised Revelation, a knowing the reality of everything a lot of the things they have found with the new science has led some scientists to say this is all a possibility to have created itself. It will be seen I am hoping soon.

I don't care if it is virtual or whatever the way it is made I like knowing there is purpose to everything, we are loved and important I love that we are told (written in a time period where i don't think man would even dream up such a thing) that man did not eat animals, we are told that this place he created, the garden was meant to spread across the planet and be like heaven, where nothing sufferers or is in pain and animals are the friends of their caretakers, we was supposed to take care of the garden too and spread it in return the fruit nuts and veggies grew without work year round.

We failed but we are not unimportant and he (it) says there is nothing we have done he cannot forgive if we make a choice, a choice that undoes the choice of our ancestors who chose the path of science handed them by angels our big Brother's led us astray! And still are!

originally posted by: Peeple
God may have always existed that doesn't mean it created anything

Umm. Maybe God is a product of evolution.

a reply to: edmc^2

you know gravity is a "theory" do you believe in gravity?

originally posted by: whereislogic

Easy, they like to do their ridicule-routine that conflates the concepts of 'blind belief' (believing without evidence) with 'rational belief based on evidence as it is applied to God's existence by some people'. ...

Maybe someone feels like doing a count on that in this thread as to how many people have demonstrated to have been affected with this conflation-routine (part of a massive propaganda campaign to support the phony claim that anyone who expresses to believe in the existence of God does so without evidence, or by misinterpreting the evidence, not applying logic appropiately to the facts at hand concerning this subject; or to support the promotion of the notion that there is no evidence of God's existence, another claim often left unsupported and in utter denial of the evidence that is available for the conclusion that God exists, coming back to convenient selective agnosticism as one of the tools for denial of reality).

I don't feel like it, but reading through the comments it feels like I noticed it quite a lot.

Machinery and technology originally* requires creation and engineering which in turn require a corresponding level of intelligence, knowledge and technological know-how as part of the attributes of whoever created and engineered it.

Molecular Machinery of Life

* that's my way of reminding people that pointing to machines building machines based on a code (blueprint) that allows for automatic assembly (not to be confused with "self-assembly") does not negate or refute the earlier mentioned causal explanation for the initial machinery or the code that runs this automated process. This video has a clue though regarding the causal explanation of such a system of machinery:


"Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Isaac Newton on the proper methodology to make factual discoveries in the sciences and evaluate people's opinions or whether or not they applied inductive reasoning properly and effectively; I'll keep it short this time cause I've already quoted the rest many times)

Bonusvideo because I mentioned the term "self-assembly" (compare with the term "Self-Organization" at 1:40).

a reply to: edmc^2

Oy Vey...

Do you believe in math? Or just accept it because you can count. The fact that math is used to investigate things, and it's methods can change with new information adding to a theory, doesn't refute the fact that math is.. a fact.

Same with evolution. You don't believe in the things that give it credibility, you accept them, and if they change, you change your thinking to accommodate. It's not a law, or a rule. It's scientific understanding.

If you believe in it, then you cannot fundamentally investigate it... or god will smite you, or something...

Belief is having an answer and despite things disproving that answer, sticking to it without changing your mind.

originally posted by: Peeple
Plenty of evidence (evolution)
vs
ZERO (creation)

That's not true mang, you heard of the banana?

It is shaped perfectly to fit a human man's hand, it has a rip top on it for man's ease of access to the fruit inside, and it tastes delicious.

God made them for us.

RIP kirk cameron.