My fellow Nigerian christians and muslims, this is a very simple and important question. Why don't you accept the theory of evolution as true?
I am asking this question because it seems to me like it's only in sub saharan africa that people staunchly reject evolution, maybe because we are deeply religious and evolution directly contradicts creationism(biblical description of the origin of man).

Evolution is a theory backed by an overwhelming body of scientific evidence pointing to it's validity. In fact, it's a widely accepted fact, in all fields of science. There is enough anthropological and archaeological evidence that suggests it's factuality.

When I was a christian, I used to violently reject evolution because it was directly negating the bible's doctrines. Whenever I heard about it, I thought that it definitely had to be a strong tool devised by the devil to prevent the expansion of the kingdom of God. I never cared to read about it, or try to explore it as a subject, because I already believed it was a lie.

I don't know why you reject evolution, and I would really like to. That's why I created this thread. Maybe your reason is similar to the one I had, or maybe you have evidence that disproves and debunks the other evidences used to back evolution. Maybe you have your own unique insight into the origin of mankind, that's different from both creationism and evolution. Or maybe it's something else. Please whatever reason it is, post it here. Maybe you have issues with the theory and you feel it has loop holes, you can post it here, or even frame it as a question. Perhaps you might even use it to convince people like me who accept evolution, and show us that we have been wrong all along.

GrizzlyBear:
My fellow Nigerian christians and muslims, this is a very simple and important question. Why don't you accept the theory of evolution as true?
I am asking this question because it seems to me like it's only in sub saharan africa that people staunchly reject evolution, maybe because we are deeply religious and evolution directly contradicts creationism(biblical description of the origin of man).

Evolution is a theory backed by an overwhelming body of scientific evidence pointing to it's validity. In fact, it's a widely accepted fact, in all fields of science. There is enough anthropological and archaeological evidence that suggests it's factuality.

When I was a christian, I used to violently reject evolution because it was directly negating the bible's doctrines. Whenever I heard about it, I thought that it definitely had to be a strong tool devised by the devil to prevent the expansion of the kingdom of God. I never cared to read about it, or try to explore it as a subject, because I already believed it was a lie.

I don't know why you reject evolution, and I would really like to. That's why I created this thread. Maybe your reason is similar to the one I had, or maybe you have evidence that disproves and debunks the other evidences used to back evolution. Maybe you have your own unique insight into the origin of mankind, that's different from both creationism and evolution. Or maybe it's something else. Please whatever reason it is, post it here. Maybe you have issues with the theory and you feel it has loop holes, you can post it here, or even frame it as a question. Perhaps you might even use it to convince people like me who accept evolution, and show us that we have been wrong all along.

There is no proof for Macro-evolution and stop appealing to authority and majority - its fallacious

KingEbukasBlog:


There is no proof for Macro-evolution and stop appealing to authority and majority - its fallacious

Is this your reason for rejecting evolution? I hope you understand the definition of macro-evolution? If proof for macro-evolution is stated, which there is definitely abundance of, would you accept evolution?

There is evidence of adaptation (micro-evolution). But there is absolutely no proof for macro-evolution. The fossils needed to validate macro evolution are missing in all the important places. There are just several inconsistencies rocking macro-evolution.
Also evolution does not account reasonably for the ecistence of life.

KingEbukasBlog:


There is no proof for Macro-evolution and stop appealing to authority and majority - its fallacious

ebukaaa...e si asi ka riam...
No proof ?

GrizzlyBear:


Is this your reason for rejecting evolution? I hope you understand the definition of macro-evolution? If proof for macro-evolution is stated, which there is definitely abundance of, would you accept evolution?

If it being observed is part of the evidence then I will accept . No observation , no proof anything otherwise is nugatory . Plus putative ancestors are used to link so many fossils to make the theory work . These putative ancestors keep getting modified till it seems believable . So much falsehood in that crap .

MrMontella:

ebukaaa...e si asi ka riam...
No proof ?

Lol bro . It depends on what you see as proof .

MrMontella:

ebukaaa...e si asi ka riam...
No proof ?

There are also theistic evolutionists , so not every Christian or Muslim rejects it .

Evolution is proven to be true...
These are Macro evolutions Proof's

the above is well detailed...analysed...and easy to understand...
Evolution is true and we aint seen the last of it...

KingEbukasBlog:

There are also theistic evolutionists , so not every Christian or Muslim rejects it .

ye..true tho..

KingEbukasBlog:


If it being observed is part of the evidence then I will accept . No observation , no proof anything otherwise is nugatory . Plus putative ancestors are used to link so many fossils to make the theory work . These putative ancestors keep getting modified till it seems believable . So much falsehood in that crap .

the piltdown man hoax was even discovered by an atheist
so atheists aint gullible

Micro evolution is mere adaptation.
Macro evolution is fantasy ridden. Fossils which are meant to serve as proof to validate it are non existent. Cartoons and pure fantasy have crept into textbooks and are paraded as proofs.

To me, evolution and creationism are interwoven.

The theory of evolution talks about the Big bang, the point the "Creator of Creators" became conscious or came into existence and Created the universes (manifest and unmanifest), which is continued by creationism to talk about the creation of the Earth by the Creators (...and God said let us...)

Is it possible to create something out of nothing? Yes, an idea.

Is it possible to create something new out something? Yes, a pot of soup.

If the Bible says that "God created man out of the dust of the earth," how is that different from "God creating man from the genetic materials already found on earth; which amounts to remodeling that material into something he wants?
This is where Evolution talks about the missing link, because the evolutionary line was tinkered with.

Take a look at the phone device in your hands, is that the original phone as conceived and designed by Billy Graham Bell? No.

It has evolved into what it is today because many people over many years have tinkered with the design and added other functions Bell didn't even imagine.

Same with man.

Since we Know that God is a title, the question is who are those entities that bore that Title?

If evolution is true..... then explain to me how it all began..... what happened in the very beginning... if there was a big bang.... what collided?...and where did that matter come from? I am waiting.

Christians/muslim/ or religious people. need proofs to accept , evolution, bug bang theory, gravity, oxygen.. Even if you bring a mountain of proof, its still a fallacy.
They want you to come to their house and give them substantial proof.

But then, they don't need proof for god, they just know it existed from eternal nothingness to create the giant "infinite" universe from ...wait for it......... NOTHING ... Hahahahaha



Funny people.

GrizzlyBear:
My fellow Nigerian christians and muslims, this is a very simple and important question. Why don't you accept the theory of evolution as true?
I am asking this question because it seems to me like it's only in sub saharan africa that people staunchly reject evolution, maybe because we are deeply religious and evolution directly contradicts creationism(biblical description of the origin of man).

Evolution is a theory backed by an overwhelming body of scientific evidence pointing to it's validity. In fact, it's a widely accepted fact, in all fields of science. There is enough anthropological and archaeological evidence that suggests it's factuality.

When I was a christian, I used to violently reject evolution because it was directly negating the bible's doctrines. Whenever I heard about it, I thought that it definitely had to be a strong tool devised by the devil to prevent the expansion of the kingdom of God. I never cared to read about it, or try to explore it as a subject, because I already believed it was a lie.

I don't know why you reject evolution, and I would really like to. That's why I created this thread. Maybe your reason is similar to the one I had, or maybe you have evidence that disproves and debunks the other evidences used to back evolution. Maybe you have your own unique insight into the origin of mankind, that's different from both creationism and evolution. Or maybe it's something else. Please whatever reason it is, post it here. Maybe you have issues with the theory and you feel it has loop holes, you can post it here, or even frame it as a question. Perhaps you might even use it to convince people like me who accept evolution, and show us that we have been wrong all along.

I believe going by the bolded you already know the answer to the question. .

It is assumed that a scientifically-minded person would pick “evolution” and that
a religious person would pick “creation.”But not always.
The fact is, many educated people,including a number of scientists—question the validity of the theory.
Me for example,during my university days did psychology and philosophy ...during classes I'll argue my breath out but during exams I give them what they want ...but I did not believe it.
Few of my reasons(amongst many) are:

Scientists know more about the chemistry
and molecular structure of life than ever before, yet they still cannot define with certainty just what life is. A wide gulf separates non-living matter from even the simplest living cell.

Scientists can only speculate about what conditions on earth were like billions of years ago. They have differing views about where life began—for instance,whether within a volcano or under the ocean floor. Another belief is that life’s building blocks first formed elsewhere in the universe and arrived here embedded in meteors. But that does not answer the question of how life began; it just pushes the issue farther into space.

Scientists speculate about the existence of molecules that preceded genetic material as
we know it today. These molecules are supposedly more likely to arise spontaneously from inert material and are self-replicating.
Yet, science has found no evidence that such molecules ever existed, nor have scientists been able to create any such molecule in a
laboratory.

Living things are unique in the way they store and process information. Cells convey,interpret, and carry out instructions contained within their genetic code. Some scientists liken the genetic code to computer software and the chemical structure of the cell to computer hardware. But evolution cannot explain the source of the information.
Protein molecules are necessary for the function of a cell. A typical protein molecule consists of hundreds of amino acids strung
together in a specific sequence. Additionally, the protein molecule must fold into a specific three-dimensional shape for it to be useful.
Some scientists conclude that the odds of even one protein molecule forming spontaneously are extremely improbable. “Since a functioning cell requires thousands of different proteins,”
writes physicist Paul Davies, “it is not credible to suppose they formed by chance alone.”

Concerning the origin of life,animals and humans develop from a single fertilised egg. Inside the embryo, cells multiply
and eventually specialize, taking on different shapes and functions to form distinct parts of the body. Evolution cannot explain how each cell “knows” what to become and where it should move within the organism.
Scientists now realize that for one kind of animal to develop into another kind of animal would require that changes take place within the cell, at the molecular level. Since scientists cannot demonstrate how evolution can produce even the “simplest” cell, is it plausible that random mutations and natural selection could be responsible for the different kinds of animals on the planet? Regarding the structure
of animals, Michael Behe, professor of biological sciences, says that while research “has revealed unexpected, stunning complexity,no progress at all has been made in understanding how that complexity could evolve by un intelligent processes.”
Human beings are conscious and self-aware,have the ability to think and reason, and possess moral qualities such as generosity, self-sacrifice, and a sense of right and wrong.
Random mutations and natural selection cannot explain the existence of these unique qualities of the human mind.

johnydon22:


I believe going by the bolded you already know the answer to the question. .

Yes, I supposed that this was the case, but still, I silently hoped that maybe, there are theists in Nigeria, that have a different reason for opposing evolution, other than it's contradiction to the bible.

Evolution is something anyone with an above average knowledge of biology accepts as true. There is enough evidence that supports it, and it makes far much better sense than creationism, but yet, Nigerians still choose not to accept it or try to understand it, because it contradicts the words of some ancient Jewish book that was passed to their ancestors by white men who took the families and friends of those ancestors as slaves.

Nigerians accept everything else science has said, most of which they don't even ask for prove. Nigerians benefit from science everyday. We utilize various gadgets which were inventions made by scientists. When we are sick, we take drugs, which were made by scientists. We are now very selective about the food we eat because science has helped us recognize the food that are detrimental to our health as well as the ones that are beneficial to our health.
When cosmologists tell us that there will be an eclipse at a certain time in a certain day, you will still see these same Nigerians, outside, waiting for the eclipse to happen, despite not being shown any evidence that this would happen.

But when these same scientists try to explain to us our own origin, in the face of overwhelming evidence, which would help us better understand ourselves and the world around us, we reject it, just because it's in direct opposition with the words of our Bible. It's quite depressing, to be honest.

Dynamite02:
It is assumed that a scientifically-minded person would pick “evolution” and that
a religious person would pick “creation.”But not always.
The fact is, many educated people,including a number of scientists—question the validity of the theory.
Me for example,during my university days did psychology and philosophy ...during classes I'll argue my breath out but during exams I give them what they want ...but I did not believe it.
Few of my reasons(amongst many) are:

Scientists know more about the chemistry
and molecular structure of life than ever before, yet they still cannot define with certainty just what life is. A wide gulf separates non-living matter from even the simplest living cell.

Scientists can only speculate about what conditions on earth were like billions of years ago. They have differing views about where life began—for instance,whether within a volcano or under the ocean floor. Another belief is that life’s building blocks first formed elsewhere in the universe and arrived here embedded in meteors. But that does not answer the question of how life began; it just pushes the issue farther into space.

Scientists speculate about the existence of molecules that preceded genetic material as
we know it today. These molecules are supposedly more likely to arise spontaneously from inert material and are self-replicating.
Yet, science has found no evidence that such molecules ever existed, nor have scientists been able to create any such molecule in a
laboratory.

Living things are unique in the way they store and process information. Cells convey,interpret, and carry out instructions contained within their genetic code. Some scientists liken the genetic code to computer software and the chemical structure of the cell to computer hardware. But evolution cannot explain the source of the information.
Protein molecules are necessary for the function of a cell. A typical protein molecule consists of hundreds of amino acids strung
together in a specific sequence. Additionally, the protein molecule must fold into a specific three-dimensional shape for it to be useful.
Some scientists conclude that the odds of even one protein molecule forming spontaneously are extremely improbable. “Since a functioning cell requires thousands of different proteins,”
writes physicist Paul Davies, “it is not credible to suppose they formed by chance alone.”

Concerning the origin of life,animals and humans develop from a single fertilised egg. Inside the embryo, cells multiply
and eventually specialize, taking on different shapes and functions to form distinct parts of the body. Evolution cannot explain how each cell “knows” what to become and where it should move within the organism.
Scientists now realize that for one kind of animal to develop into another kind of animal would require that changes take place within the cell, at the molecular level. Since scientists cannot demonstrate how evolution can produce even the “simplest” cell, is it plausible that random mutations and natural selection could be responsible for the different kinds of animals on the planet? Regarding the structure
of animals, Michael Behe, professor of biological sciences, says that while research “has revealed unexpected, stunning complexity,no progress at all has been made in understanding how that complexity could evolve by un intelligent processes.”

Science doesn't claim to know everything. There are still some gaps in the theory which biologists are working hard to fill, but, there is enough evidence supporting evolution & speciation through random mutation and natural selection, and the fact hat all living species evolved from a common ancestor.

Your argument is framed against abiogenesis. I am not a biologist, but from what I have read, biologists are making daily strides at explaining exactly how exactly it occurred at the beginning. The fact that science doesn't know this now, doesn't mean they won't later on. That's why research and experiments are being made everyday to arrive at these answers. There are a lot of things were just speculations 50 years ago, that are now facts. There are a lot of things science couldn't tell us 50 years ago, but now it can.
But your argument against abiogenesis doesn't disprove the fact that humans and other animals evolved from earlier species. There is prove for that.

Dynamite02:
Human beings are conscious and self-aware,have the ability to think and reason, and possess moral qualities such as generosity, self-sacrifice, and a sense of right and wrong.
Random mutations and natural selection cannot explain the existence of these unique qualities of the human mind.

Wrong. I can't go into details, cause I am at work, but just do a little research and you will how wrong you are.

GrizzlyBear:


Yes, I supposed that this was the case, but still, I silently hoped that maybe, there are theists in Nigeria, that have a different reason for opposing evolution, other than it's contradiction to the bible.

Evolution is something anyone with an above average knowledge of biology accepts as true. There is enough evidence that supports it, and it makes far much better sense than creationism, but yet, Nigerians still choose not to accept it or try to understand it, because it contradicts the words of some ancient Jewish book that was passed to their ancestors by white men who took the families and friends of those ancestors as slaves.

Nigerians accept everything else science has said, most of which they don't even ask for prove. Nigerians benefit from science everyday. We utilize various gadgets which were inventions made by scientists. When we are sick, we take drugs, which were made by scientists. We are now very selective about the food we eat because science has helped us recognize the food that are detrimental to our health as well as the ones that are beneficial to our health.
When cosmologists tell us that there will be an eclipse at a certain time in a certain day, you will still see these same Nigerians, outside, waiting for the eclipse to happen, despite not being shown any evidence that this would happen.

But when these same scientists try to explain to us our own origin, in the face of overwhelming evidence, which would help us better understand ourselves and the world around us, we reject it, just because it's in direct opposition with the words of our Bible. It's quite depressing, to be honest.

Such disagreement is based on a dishonest ground because it doesn't come from a critical objective evaluation of the subject but rather just a clutch to protect your own indoctrinated personal beliefs.

I see people here saying [Micro-evolution is true but macro evolution] that is a subtle way of agreeing with evolution but still making some very laughable remarks with Macro and micro.

Macro is made up of Micro bits, so if the micro bits can evolve - certainly accumulation of this micro evolution leads to macro changes.

Saying "micro evolution is true but macro is not" is like saying " water is dropping on this bucket but it can never fill it up"

I do believe such examples are clear shows of cognitive dissonance or laziness or maybe the sad effect that comes with dire need to protect one's belief even if it means employing such dishonesty.

Science is open to doubt and scrutiny, it does not aim at establishing immutable knowledge or claim to be an infallible source, it is a human enterprise that involves systematic and consistent approach through observation and empirical probes and using mathematics and logic as tool to arrive at a truthful approximation.

if you'd hope to challange science and you go on religious ground then you are just wasting your time - because the discipline of science is above 'gut feelings' and 'personal beliefs'

KingEbukasBlog:


If it being observed is part of the evidence then I will accept . No observation , no proof anything otherwise is nugatory . Plus putative ancestors are used to link so many fossils to make the theory work . These putative ancestors keep getting modified till it seems believable . So much falsehood in that crap .

You accept microevolution but not macroevolution? That's like saying you accept centimetres but not kilometres.

What happens when a specie 'microevolves' a million times?

CoolUsername:


You accept microevolution but not macroevolution? That's like saying you accept centimetres but not kilometres.

[size=14pt]What happens when a specie 'microevolves' a million times[/size]?

Exactly ! There is where the belief strongly lies - that if micro evolution occurs so many times , microbes can become conscious intelligent man over eons .

Its not observed so its more like a rational belief .

KingEbukasBlog:


Exactly ! There is where the belief strongly lies - that if micro evolution occurs so many times , microbes can become conscious intelligent man over eons .

Its not observed so its more like a rational belief .

We've seen bacteria develop new traits, lizards change their diet (including jaw size and developing a rudimentary caecum), we've seen foxes that were selected for friendliness develop dog-like traits (droopy ears, patterned fur, etc). All in less than 50 years.

So, at what point does microevolution stop?

johnydon22:


Such disagreement is based on a dishonest ground because it doesn't come from a critical objective evaluation of the subject but rather just a clutch to protect your own indoctrinated personal beliefs.

I see people here saying [Micro-evolution is true but macro evolution] that is a subtle way of agreeing with evolution but still making some very laughable remarks with Macro and micro.

Macro is made up of Micro bits, so if the micro bits can evolve - certainly accumulation of this micro evolution leads to macro changes.

Saying "micro evolution is true but macro is not" is like saying " water is dropping on this bucket but it can never fill it up"

I do believe such examples are clear shows of cognitive dissonance or laziness or maybe the sad effect that comes with dire need to protect one's belief even if it means employing such dishonesty.

Science is open to doubt and scrutiny, it does not aim at establishing immutable knowledge or claim to be an infallible source, it is a human enterprise that involves systematic and consistent approach through observation and empirical probes and using mathematics and logic as tool to arrive at a truthful approximation.

if you'd hope to challange science and you go on religious ground then you are just wasting your time - because the discipline of science is above 'gut feelings' and 'personal beliefs'

What's the point of this rigmarole , you openly said you don't support evolution before . So did you do it to protect your belief .

CoolUsername:


We've seen bacteria develop new traits, lizards change their diet (including jaw size and developing a rudimentary caecum), we've seen foxes that were selected for friendliness develop dog-like traits (droopy ears, patterned fur, etc). All in less than 50 years.

So, at what point does microevolution stop?

And how does serve as an evidence for macro-evolution ? Like I said , I won't accept it because its not observed .

KingEbukasBlog:


What's the point of this rigmarole , you openly said you don't support evolution before . So did you do it to protect your belief .

k

Dynamite02:
It is assumed that a scientifically-minded person would pick “evolution” and that
a religious person would pick “creation.”But not always.
The fact is, many educated people,including a number of scientists—question the validity of the theory.
Me for example,during my university days did psychology and philosophy ...during classes I'll argue my breath out but during exams I give them what they want ...but I did not believe it.

Exactly ! In sec school , I was told to give my teachers what they want and retain the truth . Because someone has a knowledge of the theory does not mean he supports the theory .

johnydon22:

k

Answer me , why do you reject evolution as an atheist ? And don't evade this question . There is also dalaman , he has overtly said he does not support the theory .

You talk like every atheist supports the theory and Christians who reject do so because they are "protecting their beliefs " . Its seems you are a very dishonest young man . There are also numerous evolutionists who believe in God and have worked on the theory for years , what about them?

Now answer me , why do you reject the theory as an atheist ?

KingEbukasBlog:


And how does serve as an evidence for macro-evolution ? Like I said , I won't accept it because its not observed .

Define the end point of microevolution.

menxer:
To me, evolution and creationism are interwoven.

The theory of evolution talks about the Big bang, the point the "Creator of Creators" became conscious or came into existence and Created the universes (manifest and unmanifest), which is continued by creationism to talk about the creation of the Earth by the Creators (...and God said let us...)

Is it possible to create something out of nothing? Yes, an idea.

Is it possible to create something new out something? Yes, a pot of soup.

If the Bible says that "God created man out of the dust of the earth," how is that different from "God creating man from the genetic materials already found on earth; which amounts to remodeling that material into something he wants?
This is where Evolution talks about the missing link, because the evolutionary line was tinkered with.

Take a look at the phone device in your hands, is that the original phone as conceived and designed by Billy Graham Bell? No.

It has evolved into what it is today because many people over many years have tinkered with the design and added other functions Bell didn't even imagine.

Same with man.

Since we Know that God is a title, the question is who are those entities that bore that Title?

I just want to clarify, The theory of Evolution(by natural selection) has absolutely nothing to do with the Big bang theory...please i hope you study more about it...

donnffd:


I just want to clarify, The theory of Evolution(by natural selection) has absolutely nothing to do with the Big bang theory...please i hope you study more about it...

I was clear about what I said.
is the big bang theory parallel to theory of evolution?

You can correlate all these the way you understand for us to learn from.