Theists And Evolution

Not even remotely true, and not at all what I asked, but the kind of ignorant perfidy one has come to expect from creationists in particular, but theists in general. They are the same species, and their genetic mutations are the result of selective breeding by humans, as opposed to natural selection, where environmental pressures continuously ensure that only those mutations that are the fittest for their environment pass on their genes.

Straw man fallacy, since no one has said otherwise. Your perfidy is in what you omit to say. Species evolution through natural selection is an objective scientific fact, and adaption is part of that process.

Creationism in stark contrast, is a superstitious myth, unsupported by any objective evidence, as your perfidious posts are amply demonstrating.

Maybe some who are at least curious about evolution and obviously have questions should be given proper information.

  • evolution is and has been from the start, an attempt to disprove the bible. Darwin was part of a group that wanted to take science away from the influence of the church and move to establish a separate body focused on scientific research. However, Darwin did not invent evolution, he just brought it to our attention. Others came to the same conclusions as Darwin. There are many missing pieces of the evolutionary puzzle but it represents a solid foundation worthy of further study.

  • all living things are not evolving. Evolution is only necessary when a change in behavior is justified to demonstrate a survival component that might help prevent extinction of a species group. “Living fossils” are an example.

  • the definition of "species’ is troubling for science. Taxonomy makes life easier for humanity when separating living things into groups but we should not fool ourselves into thinking any living organisms can change into something else. A species may change over time but the taxonomic Class of that species will remain constant. A reptile can’t ever change into a mammal, for instance.

The mechanisms of evolutionary theory should be constantly challenged, this is the only way that progress can be made. If evolution is not able to withstand criticism or skepticism, it is not worthy of our attention. The fact that evolution has withstood constant attack and survives is evidence of its durability as a theory, but it’s far from an open and shut case.

That is ludicrous. There are dyed in the wool, bible thumping, snake handling, young Earth Christians that have a better understanding of the theory of evolution.

Didn’t bother to look up living fossils did you?

Take a look and then offer a sincere apology.

Rubbish, it has from the start been an open minded examination of the evidence, after 160 years of global scientific study that evidence all supports species evolution through natural selection. Though the lie that you are an atheist is being stripped away with each new post.

II look forward to you getting your work published in a worthy peer reviewed scientific journal, and winning a Nobel prize, until then I am pointing and laughing at the idea such news would break first in an internet forum, even one as good as Atheist Republic.

No it isn’t.

" The evolutionary lineage of the horse is among the best-documented in all palaeontology. The history of the horse [family] began during the Eocene Epoch, which lasted from about 56 million to 33.9 million years ago. During the early Eocene there appeared the first ancestral horse, a hoofed, browsing mammal, designated correctly as Hyracotherium, but more commonly called Eohippus, the Fossils of Eohippus, which have been found in both North America, and Europe, show an animal that stood 4.2 to 5 hands about 42.7 to 50.8 cm, or 16.8 to 20 inches high, diminutive by comparison with the modern horse, and had an arched back and raised hindquarters."

Facts established beyond any reasonable doubt with an overwhelming weight of objective evidence from global scientific study in multiple scientific fields, are not challenged by vapid hearsay in an internet forum, but nice try. I love it when creatards pretend to be atheist and try and pretend science involves bias because it won’t listen their imbecilic superstitious myths.

Evolution HAS been constantly challenged, as have all scientific facts, and it has withstood criticism and scepticism, else it would not remain a scientific fact, supported by all the objective scientific evidence from over 160 years of global scientific scrutiny. You creatards make me laugh, you really do… :laughing:

You don’t know what a scientific theory is do you? Nice straw man though, since no one has suggested scientific theories are open and shut cases, What’s hilarious is you think we won’t spot a lying creationist masquerading as an atheist, who only ONE scientific theory, the one that kills their unevidenced superstitious creationist myth stone dead.

Hilarious, fair play…

Evolutionary theory is not something you understand well Sheldon. Have you considered joining a church? Religion is much easier than science.

Another straw man fallacy, since I have not claimed otherwise, though given your imbecilic denials of scientific facts it’s pretty hilarious to hear you make that claim.

I hate to burst your ego, but you’re not the first lying trolling theist we’ve had on here, pretending to be an atheist just to peddle their creationist BS. If you’re hoping to provoke me, then you’re even dumber than your posts suggest, and that would be some achievement.

We can all note however you didn’t even attempt to address the facts in my post, but that’s creationists for you, all propaganda and no substance.

What facts would you like me to address?

Avoid ranting on and let’s take one at a time.

First fact…

Think about what that is saying. Somehow, something figures out that the species will somehow go extinct in the future, then somehow makes a change in the present to prevent that? Yeah, that isn’t the theory of evolution at all; not sure what to call that other than ludicrous.

1 Like

Evolution is not a process guided by a purpose or goal, we both know this.

All I was trying to say is that any living thing that changes it’s behavior to survive might undergo some evolutionary change as a result. Most species, as we know, are not able to adapt to change fast enough or become well suited to live in a changed environment and so will perish.

I think we can both agree that evolution is not a determined process but a natural one that describes the ways living things adapt and survive. If I made it seem like there is a purpose or a goal in evolutionary processes that was not my intention.

Scientific fact…

" The Third Law of Biology : all living organisms arose in an evolutionary process. … The laws of thermodynamics govern energy transformations and mass distributions. Cells that comprise living organisms (see The Second Law ) are open systems that allow both mass and energy to cross their membranes."

Then address the fact that the KKK is an white christian organisation in America that has a problem with race, thus your claim that in America “only blacks have a problem with race” is a racist lie.

Language is not your strong point perhaps, but purpose is synonymous with determination.

I agree that people should be given ‘proper information’. Your information is tainted and clouded with some very dubious claims. I deal here only with your assessment of Darwin, as it shows you think you know as much about Charles as you do evolutionary theory.

“evolution is and has been from the start, an attempt to disprove the bible.”

From the very earliest beginnings the writings of Greek and Roman natural philosophers of the ancient world, like Lucretius and Ovid propounded the rough outline of evolutionary development based on no more than their observations of domestic animal husbandry and the comparative assessments of animals in the wild. The proximity of their poetic works with the basic evolutionary tenets are striking. It is likely most had heard of the famed and revered Jewish Torah, but beyond similarities between it and other even older writings about the creation of the world I seriously doubt they had any designs in disproving them.

“Darwin was part of a group that wanted to take science away from the influence of the church and move to establish a separate body focused on scientific research.”

Firstly, this group you mention, I think you are referring to the Lunar Society which was a secular and enormously successful organisation of scientists, industrialists and free thinkers who actively sought to improve applications of scientific research and general modern studies for the improvement of living standards. It was a humanitarian organisation that brought revolutionary improvements to industry and society. It was not an organisation dedicated to proving the bible wrong.
Charles’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin was a founding member of the Lunar Society and as such, a leading figure in the anti-slavery movement and in the improvement of agriculture with the application of science.
Charles Darwin, born years after the Society faded, was never a member and initially he did not share his grandfather’s disdain for religion.
It’s my bet that creationists have ’ mixed these two up in a desire to further demonise Charles as the bogey man for fundamentalism.
Darwin associated with other like-minded students and researchers who he came into contact through his university studies, some of whom like Charles were self-professed Christians, who through their first-hand field work into such areas as geology, biology, anatomy, astronomy, and evolution, found disturbing conflicts with the mythical tales of both the biblical creation and general biblical taxonomy (ie bats are not birds)
Darwin did not lightly concede to the obvious ‘heresy’ of his theory of ‘transmutations’. From his personal writings it was largely his misgivings about the challenge posed by his theory of natural selection, to his religion that delayed the publication of his book by twelve years, despite the constant urgings of his fellows who recognised the importance of his findings. There were many times he struggled with the idea of giving up his theory.
Where is your evidence Darwin rushed his publication with the declaration he had disproved the bible?
I suggest you actually read ‘Origin of the Species’, ‘Descent of Man’ and ‘The Autobiography of Charles Darwin’, rather than swallow creationist gossip.

Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy, a century earlier than Darwin, in the first modern universal classification of the natural world, in light of his devout Christianity, had to defend, his ‘sacreligous’ placing of man amongst the apes as being an overwhelming requirement based his detailed research, not any desire to disprove the bible or to lessen Man’s spiritual ranking, nor to suggest that God’s image was that of an ape. He merely reported his findings with openness and dignity which should always be the manner in dealing with ‘truths’ no matter how disagreeable to established ‘wisdom’.

" However, Darwin did not invent evolution, he just brought it to our attention. Others came to the same conclusions as Darwin."

Evolution was a persistent challenge to biblical theology. Lamarck, Mendel, Wallace and countless others were pushing their own theories and ideas based on their research and not their prejudices. Even Erasmus Darwin had written a book, ‘Zoonomia’ on evolution based on his own observations in the field and on the farm well before Charles was born.
It would be truer to say that Darwin came to the same conclusions as everyone else, it was just that he suggested the very convincing and durable mechanism of natural selection, which in no way disproves any god, but only conflicts with the absolute wording of the first chapter of the bible, which has been copied from much earlier mythical depictions of creation of the world and of mankind.



Interesting post, thanks-=-put me in mind of Erasmus Darwin and his ideas.

Have you heard of the term ‘Jesuitical sophistry’? It pops into my head whenever using "catholic’ and ‘evolution’ together

Like all but the most ignorant literalists, the Catholic church has no problem with evolution. Indeedly doodly not. I was taught the party line on evolution in year 8. IE that we have no idea of the length of god’s days. Could be millions or billions of years for all we know. (truly, I swear),

The traditional Jewish view has been that the days of creation mentioned in Genesis are normal human days.

Trivia :Off to the side: Hindus have a very different notion of time as measured by the Gods. Hindu cosmology divides time in to four repeating ages, called Yugas. Each Yuga age lasts for 4,320,000 years.

Now I’m an advocate for creationism. This just keeps getting better. As soon as someone offers another perspective on a topic, a label is placed on them. You guys are flawless with your generalizations if a bit ruthless.

Jim, each of the three statements you made about Charles Darwin was blatantly incorrect and carried in their wordings a distinct unwarranted bias against Darwin himself and against evolutionary theory in general.

This is a debate forum. If you or I make sloppy, incorrect or unsupported claims, you need expect to be called out on them. You should know by now this is not a comfy folksy open forum where you can say any shit you want without question. We analyse and criticise each other here as well as the theists who come. No-one gets a free pass just because they carry the atheist badge.

You mentioned a ‘group’ with specific anti church aims of which you claim Darwin was a member. The only ‘group’ of which Darwin was a member was the Royal Society, that prestigious scientific research group, who honoured him for this work during his 5 year voyage. Darwin was a shy retiring good-natured man who purposely chose to live in a distant backwater near the Welsh border with his family, as far from London as he could manage in order to preserve his privacy.
Now if you have any references to any other public, openly anti-theist, organisation in England, in which he was an active participant, I would be delighted to hear, as I have no references at all for that and nor does it fit with what we know about his personality and nature, if not just accept you are wrong on that point.

I never claimed you were a creationist, but to suggest that the original intention of evolution was to disprove the bible sounds itself like pure evangelical propaganda and as I hope I have shown is just plain wrong.


I don’t remember what book I read about the group I claim Darwin to have been a member.

I think what I remember reading about the early pioneers of science were the conflicts between natural philosophy and theology. There existed a general sense of dissatisfaction among naturalists and philosophers with creationist explanations. This was justified because the church realized that theology was no longer a reliable source for explaining our world and resisted heavily any advancements in science that they could not control. When some information became available that directly contradicted scripture, things got dicey. I think Darwin, and others before him, knew religion was losing traction and moved to provide an alternative. Darwin got there first.

Evolutionary theory is, in my opinion, the single greatest discovery of our species. It’s not perfect but it’s good enough, a good starting point. My biggest concern is that scientist are following the path of creationism in trying to answer all questions when some findings seem almost silly. Sometimes this does more harm to the theory than good. An example is Gould with spontaneous equilibrium. A bad name for a good hypothesis but why it was necessary to publish volumes on this died with him.

I did, and in Wiki Living fossil - Wikipedia

The minimal superficial changes to living fossils are mistakenly declared the absence of evolution, but they are examples of stabilizing selection, which is an evolutionary process—and perhaps the dominant process of morphological evolution.

Now time for me to apologize.

I’m sorry, so very sorry, that I made you look like you don’t know what you are talking about.

Sorry Sorry Sorry Sorry Sorry Sorry Sorry Sorry


Living Fossil;


an organism that is a living example of an otherwise extinct group and that has remained virtually unchanged in structure and function over a long period of time, as the coelacanth and the horseshoe crab.

I guess results depend on the source. So now the big question is do living things stop evolving or does variation allow for a significant level of adaptation whereby a major change in phenotype is not expressed? Open for debate I suppose.

Just go to any FAQ page and DEBUNK yourself.

" |4. Is evolution happening now?||
| — | — |
||Evolution is always happening, though often at rates far too slow to be observed in a matter of days, weeks, or even years. The effects of evolution can be felt in almost every aspect of our daily lives, though, from medical and agricultural dilemmas to the process of choosing a good mate. In medicine, there’s the question of how long the antibiotics we take now will remain effective, given the relatively fast rate at which bacteria can evolve resistance to drugs. In agriculture, the need to protect this year’s crops is pitted against the concern that doing so will set the stage for insects to evolve pesticide resistance. For all of us, there is the issue of decreasing biodiversity, as most scientists believe that life on Earth is currently undergoing a mass extinction in which 50 percent or more of species will die out. These are just a few examples of ways in which evolutionary processes affect our daily lives.|"

1. How can one species “turn into” another?
One species does not “turn into” another or several other species – not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the “parent” population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won’t, or they won’t be successful if they try.

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions.

1 Like