With all of the evidence that exists to support the theory of evolution, do you accept it as fact or not?

Question

Yes, I know it is still a theory at this point, but so is gravity, my friends. Do you not believe that gravity?

Is it not possible to believe in God and accept evolution as fact?

For the record, I am an agnostic who completely accepts all aspects of evolution as fact.

Are there still people who really believe that the earth was created in 4004 B.C.?

Answer 1

I'd like to propose a new rule: Anyone making claims against evolution who does the following is disqualified. It's just too tiresome to point out, over and over, why they are mistaken.

1. Anything about the big bang. The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. You don't get to talk about the Spice Girls either, because they also have nothing to do with the subject.

2. X violates the second law of thermodynamics. No it doesn't. Look up the words "closed system." Now go away.

3. "It's only a theory." This one is particularly troublesome, because it's a mistake so common I begin to wonder if all creationists are mentally retarded. Hear me now:

A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS THE THEORY YOUR COUSIN BOB HAS ABOUT BASS FISHING.

It just isn't. It can get confusing because "THEORY" and "THEORY" look and sound alike, but no scientist ever has a problem with it. Why do you?

4. Macroevolution. If they say it they have to leave the table. The difference between micro and macroevolution is
the difference between 50 days and 50000 years. Evolution is evolution. But even by creationists' ridiculous definition, "macroevolution" has been observed. At least it was observed. Then creationists, not expecting a fossil to turn up so quickly, went and redefined the term again.

Ok. I'm done.

Answer 2

Actually I think it's a fact, not a theory and people who claim it's "just a theory" don't understand the difference. If a "theory" allows you to make predictions that are testable, and those predictions turn out to be correct, then it seems to be more than a theory and it has become a verified and useful -fact- and then it is added to the body of knowledge that is called science. The ones who say It's a theory seem to have forgotten that there is a body of evidence in every layer of sedimentary soil and rock on the planet and that these are consistent. This forensic evidence cannot simply be considered "inadmissible" just because it doesn't fit with our preconceived verdict...

If it doesn't it just means that 'people of faith' will have to transcend the limits of their own human imaginations. If you are going to stick to the idea that God is omnipotent and omniscient and created the universe then fine - you will have to accept that the book was just a book and that books can be wrong and God created the universe according to His/Her schedule not the one that humans tried to write about...

Personally while I do not believe in God I cannot see any logical problem with accepting that if a God did exist that the bible didn't accurately describe the actions of that God as they existed before anyone could write about what they did - or that the book's authors could get it wrong after the fact...

Answer 3

Your beloved evolution has so many unanswered questions. You say it is still a theory, and yet you accept it as fact? That makes little sense and is not very scientific. The problem is you have been indoctrinated into materialism, evolution, and Naturalism. You have blindly believed what those in an authority position have told you (teachers/mass media). You accept w/o question, because you have been taught that to question is a sign of ignorance and/or foolishness. So you have been convinced through indirect coersion to ask such a question to attempt ridicule of those who have questioned and found the answer.
If you truly seek you may actually find the answer. All it takes is open mindedness and the ability to ask questions. For instance: What happened before the Big Bang? What caused singularity of the Big Bang to occur? If you say two parallel universes collided to cause singularity (neglecting proof of the parallel universe theory). You are defying mathematical axioms. By Definition: Two parallel lines or planes have no intersection points.

Where has macroevolution ever been observed? What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead—by definition.) If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve? (a catepillar becomming a butterfly)

How could organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How could a bacterial motor evolve? How could such motors work until all components evolved completely and were precisely in place?

How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time.

Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4,000 books’ worth of encoded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source?

Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?

Did you know that the Big Bang theory violates two of the three Laws of Thermodynamics, and the Law of Cause and Effect? Furthermore, as retrograde motion is observed throughout the universe, even within our own solar system, the Big Bang violates the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum! Beyond these violations of natural law, the Big Bang is unable to explain uneven "voids" and "clumps" throughout the universe. Atheism, Naturalism, Materialism, and Evolution cannot answer these questions.
The most laughable thing is that many Evolutionary courses teach Random Mutation and Natural Selection as viable explanations of life's origins. While Natural selection has yet to be disproven, Random Mutation has been disproven via the Fruit fly experiment and the Random Mutation Game--the latter a computer simulation. And Yet MOST high school and some college courses still teach Random Mutation even though it has been disproven!!! The desparate attempt of some to explain away the existence of a benevolent Creator using any means (even outright falsehoods) is utterly ridiculous and sad. Stop following blindly and research it for yourself. "Follow the evidence, where-ever it leads."--Plato's Aristotle. Also try to remember this quote: "There is a principle which is a bar to all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation"--Herbert Spencer.

Answer 4

Im glad youve asked this question in a scientific manner without resorting to quotations from ancient theology. In science it already is. It should be considered as factual as existence itself. That may sound arrogant but everything within time and space evolves and to suggest that something can remain a constant defies our most fundamental understanding of time. Scientists and philosophers have independently reached the same conclusion. Time simply does not exist without an evolution or sequence of changing events of sorts. The idea that we cannot define a transitional species is flawed. Evolution tells us that all species are in a transitional state all the time, so pinpointing a moment when something occured for the first time is next to impossible. Also, the word species is often misinterpreted as if it was carved in stone. We define what is necessary to categorize a specific specie. Those definitions can change over time. I would like to point out that HIV for example evolved into being and was not always the same. If it was as old as the human race it simply would have wiped us out eons ago[or six thousand in the case of the creationist? ..HIV would have had to have been created during the first seven days!?!]. In fact HIV evolves so fast that new strains are detected annually. Some may describe this as 'micro evolution' but this too is flawed, again based on the definition of the particular specie in question. The only reason Darwin didnt call evolution a fact is unequivocally simple; he would have been killed by the church as many were before him for their 'threatening' beliefs. One more point is that evolution is known as the unifying theory of biology. There has never before or since been a unifying theory of any science, able to explain the reasoning for everything within the subject with a single line "survival of the fittest". This is very relevant. I have one question for you.. It is known[fact] for example that snakes possess the DNA for legs. If god created them as snakes, a) why would he waste his time doing such a thing? b) Doesnt this offer proof the the snakes ancestor wasnt always a 'snake' as we define it?

Answer 5

Why isn't it called the Law of evolution if it's a fact?

Considering that science has only examined perhaps 10 percent of all the species on earth, we have a limited knowledge of the last 6000 years of human history and only know the makeup of 5-10 percent of the universe, it's quite certain that we don't have the full picture of how the universe and life began nor how life forms came to be in the state we find them in.
The Law of Biogenesis states that all life comes from previous life...it is not a theory, it has been observed to be true in every case. For life to have begun on earth would require a point of abiogenesis or life from non-living matter which is what God did when He created us and all living creatures and plants. Science has yet to demonstrate that this is possible through purely natural means.
If we understand that God did indeed create everything, then it is up to us to consider "when" He did this. If you choose to believe that God of the Bible is the creator, then you have to accept His Word as the truth of creation for "God does not lie"...Titus 1:2 and other passages affirm this.
So if God's Word is true, then the Genesis account of creation is how we explain "when" God created everything and it states that God created everything in six literal days by stating for each day "the morning and the evening" were "the" first day or "the" second day etc... It does not state that God let things develope over millions of years or that He allowed death and suffering of millions of animals to be His creative force...He called everything "good" when He was done...how can death and suffering for millions of years be good? Sin and death did not enter the world until Adam and Eve first sinned. It also states that we were created in God's image....not from a common ancestor with apes.
An examination of all the lineages in the Old Testament gives us a rough idea of when the creation week occurred which was around 4004 B.C.

Gods Word can be trusted above man's infallible reason and knowledge.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Answer 6

Wow. When the Bible was written almost no one knew how to read. So here you have this text written by some of the most intelligent and wise people of the time so it wasn't hard to impress those of less intelligence that this was the answer to all their problems. Now today we have people trying to use a simple scientific theory to explain everything. (Technically Abiogenesis is a replacement for creationism, not Evolution. But real science has already discredited that. I know, I know science is never wrong because it is a creation of man) If you want one answer to the meaning of life this is it. "No one thing is ever going to make you truly happy".

Answer 7

I accept evolution as a solid, evidence-based theory for how natural selection and mutations operate in species. It's the proven explanation for how the diversity of species arose on earth over time.

Unfortunately, ignorance abounds in some of the Evangelical groups. Liberty University, the largest private school in Virginia, still teaches that the earth is 6,000 years old. Nauseating, isn't it? The twenty-first century, and some people want to drive it back to the fifthteenth.

Answer 8

Evolution is no longer "just a theory" -- it is a proven fact, and the proof details will be sent on request. (Please provide an e-mail address.) It is indeed possible to accept this and still believe in god; however, it is pointless to do so because it is provable that no such belief can have any consequence in real life -- all such beliefs are a waste of time.

Answer 9

Yes, with all the fossils that have been discovered to support the theory of evolution, I'm going to forgo logic so I can still believe in God.{{{sarcasm}}}

Answer 10

First, gravity isn't a theory. It is a phenomenon. There are actually several competing theories that attempt to explain gravity - but gravity itself is not a theory.

Second, I do not accept evolution as fact. I accept it as the most likely explanation for the origin of life on earth.