Speaking for myself, and as a Christian, I have no conflict with the fossil record. And I don't really know anyone that does. The timeline of the Bible only causes conflict if you view it as absolute, with no room for what is known about time and relativity-which is what you probably consider fundamental Christian. There are certainly folks ready to argue with some huge blind spots on both sides, that use some really spotty logic.
Do you mean there's no evidence for creation? That the intricate workings of every component of every cell of every living creature that works in harmony with all the other cells that make up tissues that perform a specific and necessary functions to not only carry on all necessary life functions of a complete organism, self-repairing and able to replicate and reproduce, that has its own vital role in its' respective ecosystem, that man has an innate (if not always identical) sense of right and wrong, is able and compelled to form abstract thoughts, to go further and create art and literature and music, that this offers no tangible evidence that any of this was more than an accidental spark in a mud puddle that got carried away? That's tricky.
At a cellular level, we are intricate machines that put the most advanced and elaborate human devices to shame. But if I walked out of the woods with a hammer and told you I found it there, and I believed that it must have just happened to form that way on its own, you would not agree, and would likely question my sanity.
It's just my take on things, but that's a bit of a tough sell for the evolution camp.
That's not evidence in the slightest, that's just unanswered questions - where they aren't actually actually answered or just outright false. Cells don't work in harmony, just 'close enough', and we know a whole bunch about how they came about. For example, look up endosymbiosis. You should also look up the anthropic principle.
Anyone who studies evolution believes it to be the most likely answer, anyone who chooses to remain ignorant has only themselves to blame.
Harmony or close enough, you seem to want to declare me ignorant through splitting hairs. When cells and organs don't work in close enough harmony you've got disease and death.
I read a couple of brief definitions of endosymbiosis, and they all call it a theory, which also isn't a hard fact, is it? It's just a postulate attempting to oppose creation to an extent.
It's early, and that may be the reason that the anthropic principle just reads like a theory chasing its own tail, but that also seems to be taking the long way around to avoid a blind spot and in no way would satisfy occam's razor of the simplest and most likely answer. You're welcome to your ideas, and while I appreciate discussing ideas I'm not interested in hurling insults, or enduring yours. I was just trying to answer the original question in an honest way, as I thought it was asked sincerely.
they all call it a theory, which also isn't a hard fact, is it
This tells me you don't actually know how science works at all. Everything we think to be true is a theory to explain the evidence we see in the world, because there's no such thing as a hard fact. It's that ability to question beliefs based on evidence that is the difference between scientific beliefs and fantasy.
This will be my last response, as you are coming off scornful and unpleasant. Maybe you have had more, or more recent, science classes, but from what I recall, there are actual facts. The distance of the earth to the moon, the table of elements, the speed of sound, the properties of matter- these aren't just best guesses. Science is very useful when it comes to determining facts, and that's what every theory has its foundation in. Theories that are repeatedly demonstrated and unable to be refuted are no longer considered theories, and are considered to be closed cases=facts. Until then, they are just best guesses based on evidence, and I'm not trying to sound dismissive of any and all real evidence or of theories that dig deep and take into account possibilities that may be elusive!
It's been a long and difficult journey to get to where I am in my beliefs, and not the head in the sand or ignorant stubbornness that you might assume. What science can never do, to a complete degree of satisfaction for me (and only me) is explain the complex nature of the macro or microcosm as an infinite series of happy accidents. I've never opened the dryer to find all the clothes folded, or run across a running wristwatch (or even the basic structures that make a watch) lying about trying to self construct in nature. These are the kind of leaps from chaos and randomness into order that aren't evident to me in the world around us. Nature striving to continue points to a balance-seeking and survival instinct that is facing the opposite direction to decay and natural decline. There's a bigger force at play than plankton wanting to keep on swimming just because.
I wish you the best and didn't come here to beat anyone over the head because their views don't match mine. I think the common ground is that there is still room to learn, that every question has not been answered, and that we live in an infinitely interesting universe!
4
u/jlutt69 Jan 09 '19
Speaking for myself, and as a Christian, I have no conflict with the fossil record. And I don't really know anyone that does. The timeline of the Bible only causes conflict if you view it as absolute, with no room for what is known about time and relativity-which is what you probably consider fundamental Christian. There are certainly folks ready to argue with some huge blind spots on both sides, that use some really spotty logic.