There is no dispute on evolution.
It's one of the best understood, thoroughly tested scientific facts ever.
No aspect of it at all is based on anything but sound, evidence-based, science.
The current Pope accepts evolution, the previous Pope did, the one before him did. The current Bishop of Canterbury accepts evolutions, the previous one did, and the one before him did. Francis Collins, one of the leading scientists on DNA accepts evolution and he's a Christian. Ken Miller, one of the lead witnesses in the pro-evolution trials, is a devout Catholic.
The overwhelming majority of Christians, including several on this board, accept evolution.
The debate on Evolution is not one between atheists and theists. Most theists agree that evolution is true.
The debate on Evolution is one between the scientifically literate and the scientific illiterate.
It's not even a debate. It's the entire world trying to educate the last few people who haven't caught up with scientific facts.
Your children and your grandchildren are going to grow up in a world where evolution is thoroughly understood as irrefutable fact.
Deal with it.
Wow!! This is the first time I've read a comment from you that admits the overwhelming majority of Christians accept evolution. Good for you.
Incidently, what blew up your skirt and made you post this?
I don't think I ever said they didn't.
If I said it was you, do you promise not to publicly expose what you found there?
Not in so many words, no.
Even if it was me, I wouldn't publicly expose what I'd found. That wouldn't be nice.
You have. Then again it was primarily directed toward those who have argued against evolution.
I think I'm too young to be reading this exchange
Putting aside the creation theory i still cant get over these facts which still haven't been explained therefor my own personal conclusion is that evolution theory is still incomplete.
1. MOON DUST
Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated.
However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon.
Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to the belief in a young earth.
2. MAGNETIC FIELD
The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth.
3. FOSSIL RECORD
Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."
Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one "connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps."
Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let's take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird.
Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.
(The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching's book.)
1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.
In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.
One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.
2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.
However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.
3. It had teeth.
Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.
4. It had a shallow breastbone.
Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.
Recent examination of Archeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds.
5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.
This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.
6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.
This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.
This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.
This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, "It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."
And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.
In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:
"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"
Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils. So convincing I believe this quote to be that it will sum up this discussion on fossil evidence.
4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION
Darwin said that embryological evidence was "second to none in importance." The idea of embryonic recapitulation, or the theory that higher life forms go through the previous evolutionary chain before birth, was popularized by Ernst Haeckel in 1866. It was later found that Haeckel forged the diagrams which he used is evidence for the theory.
The main arguments for embryonic recapitulation are the supposed "gill slits" (left over from fish), "yolk sac" (left over from the reptile stage), and "tail" (from the monkeys) in the human embryo. The gill slits, so called, are never slits, nor do they ever function in respiration. They are actually four pairs of pharyngeal pouches: the first pair become germ-fighting organs; the second, the two middle ear canals; the third and fourth pairs become the important parathyroid and thymus glands.
The yolk sac does not store food because the mother's body provides this to the embryo. In fact, the "yolk sac" is not a yolk sac at all, but its true function is to produce the first blood cells.
The "tail" is just the tip of the spine extending beyond the muscles of the embryo. The end of this will eventually become the coccyx, which is instrumental in the ability to stand and sit as humans do.
Also arguing against recapitulation is the fact that different higher life forms experience different stages in different orders, and often contrary to the assumed evolutionary order.
The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge
"applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"
According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.
Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
As one can readily see, here is yet one more test that evolution theory has flunked.
6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.
Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.
1. The system must be an open system.
2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.
7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS
Vestigial organs are supposed organs in the body which are useless, left over from evolutionary development. The following arguments for vestigial organs are based on those taken from the "Bible Science Newsletter," August 1989, p. 16.
1. Just because we don't yet know the role of an organ does not mean it is useless and left over from previous stages of evolution.
2. This view is plain false. In the 1800's, evolutionists listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body. The functions for all have now been found. Some of these were the pituitary gland (oversees skeletal growth), the thymus (an endocrine gland), the pineal gland (affects the development of the sex glands), the tonsils, and appendix (both now known to fight disease.)
3. The fact that an organ must sometimes be removed does not make it vestigial.
4. The fact that one can live without an organ (appendix, tonsils) does not make it vestigial. You can survive without an arm or a kidney but these are not considered vestigial.
5. Organs are not vestigial based upon your need or use of them.
6. According to evolution, if an organ has lost its value, it should, over time, vanish completely. There has been enough time to lose these "vestigial" organs, but we still have them.
7. If organs do become useless, this would back up the second law of thermodynamics and the degenerative process, not evolution, which requires adaptation of organs for new purposes.
8. Vestigial organs prove loss, not evolutionary progression. Evolution theory requires new organs forming for useful purposes, not "old ones" dying out.
9. Evolutionists have, for the most part, given up the argument over vestigial organs.
8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.
Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.
9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA
Seeing the problem of gradual evolution with the fossil record, and the obvious abrupt appearances of species, Drs. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have formed the theory of punctuated equilibria. Punctuated equilibria, is, by example, a bird giving birth to a mammal, thus leaving no transitional fossils in the geological record.
Many top evolutionists disagree with this position. And punctuated equilibria has its problems, too. For instance, in the above case, of a bird bearing a mammal, another mammal of the same kind of the opposite sex must be born at the same approximate time in the same area in order for the new species to continue. The odds of just one organism appearing this way, let alone two fulfilling the circumstances above, are astronomical.
10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Homology is the similarity of structures between different types of organisms. Some have argued that these similarities are evidence of one common ancestor. However, as Sunderland points out, when the concentration of red blood cells is used, utilizing the ideas of homology, man is more closely related to frogs, fish, and birds than to sheep.
But now, with the development of molecular biology we are able to make a comparison of the same cells in different species, which adds a whole new dimension to homology. Unfortunately, for the evolutionists, molecular biology does as all other evidences do: presents greater argument against evolution theory.
In molecular biology, proteins of the same type in different organisms can be tested for difference in amino acid makeup. The figure resulting is converted into a percentage. The lower the percentage, the less difference there is between the proteins. Dr. Michael Denton, in experiments with Cytochrome C, a protein that converts food into energy, and hemoglobin, found the following.
Cytochrome C Differences Cytochrome C Differences
Bacterium to Six Organisms Silkmoth to Vertebrates
to yeast . . . . . . . 69% to lamprey . . . . .27%
to wheat . . . . . . . 66% to carp. . . . . . .25%
to silkmoth. . . . . . 65% to pigeon. . . . . .26%
to tuna. . . . . . . . 65% to turtle. . . . . .25%
to pigeon. . . . . . . 64% to horse . . . . . .30%
to horse . . . . . . . 64%
Cytochrome C Differences Hemoglobin Differences
Carp to Terrestrial Vertebrates Lamprey to Other Vertebrates
to bullfrog. . . . . . 13% to human . . . . . .73%
to turtle. . . . . . . 13% to kangaroo. . . . .76%
to chicken . . . . . . 14% to chicken . . . . .78%
to rabbit. . . . . . . 13% to frog. . . . . . .76%
to horse . . . . . . . 13% to carp. . . . . . .75%
Dr. Denton states, "There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish." The evidence is clear; evolution is struck another hard blow!
11. DATING METHODS
Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years.
Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years.
Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know:
1. how much of the parent material was in it at the start,
2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &
3. if there has been some type of contamination since.
In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.
I suppose scientists and science itself has to come up with something considering the huge budgets injected in to it by governments and individuals.
I could only read your first reason before I burst out laughing and I couldn't get any further. You do realize, don't you, that the Moondust argument is one that other christians are telling christians not to use because it makes them look stupid?
From answers in genesis - which is a CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST website. You might want to check out the other arguments NOT to use. It may help you out.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … e-dont-use
Too Little Moon Dust
Only a thin layer of dust covers the moon’s surface. However, this does not prove a young age for the moon. Before the Apollo lunar missions, a few scientists had predicted that a yards-thick layer of dust should have settled on the moon over billions of years.
Those predictions got a lot of press, yet further satellite measurements of dust in space indicated a much smaller rate of accumulation than previously assumed. This does not mean the moon is billions of years old; modern scientists cannot know the rate of dust accumulation in the past or the amount of dust originally on the moon. Therefore moon dust cannot be used as an age indicator one way or the other.
Without having to go through all of your examples, this one shows well beyond a doubt the illiteracy of believers who have obviously read nothing outside their bible in the past 30 years.
Don't worry, your grand kids will understand evolution.
The illiterate are people like you who don't question the evidence that blinkered scientists in their huge rush to disprove the god theory have come up with. Without fail some of their theories are quite laughable when you stand back and look at what they have decided what would have happened if the millionds of different conditions were right. And without doubt it is incomplete, as with the moon dust idea that you say has now become another thing they got wrong in the first place.
The whole evolutionary road show depends on a huge improbable time line, one that even scientists themselves cant agree on, it also seems to come up with a new missing link every 20 yrs or so and this indicates and incomplete ancestory.
The whole story of evolutionary theory is a contradictory one, an idea orchestrated by a bored traveller with a god complex 130 years ago.
I have to disagree. Simply because I consider the militant atheist stance to be scientifically illiterate. Science does nothing but supply us with more and more information. Simply because there are those among us (on both sides) with an agenda we shouldn't belittle the efforts and great strides we have made in understanding our world. The agendas are obvious and ignored.
Science simply looks for the truth and doesn't care about God. There are many scientist who believe in God but are able to separate truth form fiction.
Moon dust? The mirrors placed on the moon some 40 or 50 or so years ago are just now beginning to develop dust build up hampering the deflectors. Just a few sprinkles.
God is not a theory. God is a hypothesis, and a flawed one at that.
Hilarious. Your faith based conspiracy theory has been noted and provided a chuckle. Yes, I do understand the evidence and the theory, but we know you don't based on your own words. You are criticizing that which you have no understanding, the scientifically illiterate to which this thread is aimed.
But, we know you're being entirely dishonest in that you don't even understand the theories you refer, hence have nothing to say about them.
But, they eventually got it right, some time ago, contrary to your post.
That is a lie, scientists do agree.
Not by a long shot. It is actually helping to complete our ancestry.
Based on your comments, we can easily see a religious agenda in which you have decided to comment on theories you don't understand, so you regurgitate old and tired arguments that have no basis in fact, whatsoever.
@ Silverspeeder I only read the first few lines of your on going post about moon dust and other BS that wasted a lot of bandwidth. Oh, creation is NOT a theory. You need to look up the definition of a theory.Creation is a cute story made up by a group of superstitious Jewish nomads and sheep herders that never heard of an atom, thought the earth was flat and had no idea where the sun went every evening.
It may be time to get your information from other sources.
"‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’. " Thomas Chalkley
Several people "only read the first paragraph"
Hmmm. I wonder why?
What are they afraid of finding out?
They already know the flaws of evolution, it's outlandish claims and assertions, but "choose to ignore" them. It helps their cause not.
If the argument were not fundamentally an issue of faith, there would be no point in arguing.
It keeps people engaged. Three (+) yrs on this site, and the same stuff still keeps people talking.
See! Even I got suckered in, though I spend very little time here these days.
Have fun all!
Flaws in evolution? Or do you mean flaws in the silly bible stories that poorly educated and disillusioned people mistaken as historical fact and must believe without question.
I realize this will fall on deaf ears, but calling others poorly educated because they don't draw the same conclusions you do from the data available makes you look as if your own education is lacking. The dispute over evolution is larger than it needs to be simply because people, such as yourself and the 6000 year old earthers, insist on drawing conclusions that the data does not support. And then resort to calling names when the other side doesn't agree.
There are unanswered questions. No one who doesn't possess an emotional attachment to the topic disputes this. This tactic of attempting to discredit anyone who questions accepted theories is pointless. Personalizing it by insisting those who disagree are uneducated or somehow illiterate (although an effective tactic) shows a high degree of insecurity in the fact that questions do, in fact, remain unanswered.
Evolution CLEARLY has a HUGE flaw.
It is winding global populations downward.
Depletion of populations both in number, and extinction of species.
"Mother nature" has no new species evolving, nor replacing extinct species.
Given the current trend, the whole diversity of life forms will dwindle to irreversible levels.
It is probably beyond that point even now.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/prog … on_crisis/
I find it most fascinating that mass extinctions are RAPID, but emergence of new species, is, well, nonexistent. (Yes, yes, yes, I know, the "it's too gradual for us to observe" BS is the rote response to this).
Next point. Who cares ? Why care? It's all pointless anyway.
The voices of the scientifically illiterate are fading rapidly although it would appear they want to go out with a bang instead of a whimper.
We are indeed going out, but it will be in a flash.
I feel for those left behind. It need not be that way.
PS, Why bring the Bible into this thread?
I am responding to the op. Clearly not about Bible issue.
Ahhh so many claims without any facts to base them on.
Especially the claim that there is no debate.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but there will always be a debate as long as there are people who actually use their minds to sort out fact from fiction.
The ball's not in my corner yet.
I didn't make outlandish claims about evolution and the majority of Christians believing in bunk.
It is up to the thread author to prove his claims.
(Which are mostly wishful thinking on his part of course).
The majority of Christians. Are you kidding me. Even the Pope when given the facts understood evolution.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story … yukon.html
Yes, that is exactly the type of things the last remaining group of scientifically illiterate folks would say. The claims have already been shown to be valid in one of the most successful scientific theories to date. Again, you're free to belong to that group, but your children won't be no matter how much you deny or reject it.
Sorry Brenda, there is only the scientifically illiterate to educate. If you wish to be one of them, that is your prerogative, but most certainly, your children's children will grow up in a world that understands it, and they will too, accept it.
Aw now, don't be so negative.
You, as a science-lover I assume, should factor in the inheritance gene. LOLOL.
My kids may get drawn into some silly theories, etc., by some smooth-talkin' pseudo-scientist or forked tongue theorist, for a while, but this Mom didn't raise no dummies. ha. The search for truth, in religion and in natural life, has been exampled to them, and their aptitude of reasoning things out based on actual evidence and spiritual evidence is also most likely in their DNA. So please don't worry about me and mine. We're gonna be alright.
Why do you care if she lies to her offspring?
Look after your own.
Of course not.
Why would you even say that? Are you lying to yours?
There is much proof of the accuracy of the Bible's account of history. While there is no proof at all for evolution, especially biological evolution.
The only negative aspect here is how some folks deny or reject facts.
There's a joke there?
Are you saying that not knowing anything about evolution but rejecting it out of hand is smart?
Spiritual evidence in DNA?
Science is not a democracy, and you can't just vote on "facts" by saying everyone agrees that "this is right" or "that is wrong". It doesn't work like that. Science is about the observable world around you, what is physical, testable and demonstrable.
The truth of the matter is, science has no idea how life happened. No one has observed new life coming into existence from nothing, life is only observed as coming from something that was already living. Changes within species happens, but to say life came from nothing, well that sounds a lot like either magic, or, a miracle to me.
Natural selection can only select from what is available, and so natural selection as an explanation for origins of life itself is a folly one. You can't select from what isn't there, and life being selected from non-living matter is not natural. That's supernatural.
And, nowhere was that ever mentioned, those are YOUR words.
Who says life comes from nothing? It appears to be YOU, again.
Evolution never makes the claim for origins of life. Once again, those are YOUR words.
Every person I have read about which purports evolution as fact, also says that we somehow evolved from non-living matter. If that were so, wouldn't we see more life, and more abundantly? Why is it that so far as we know, we're the only living things in the universe? No alien life has contacted us claiming that they made us "long ago and far away", did they? Why would they if they did? What created the aliens, if that were true?
Science runs into the same problem Christians do when trying to prove something like this. Since life only comes from life, what is life and where did it come from?
But if evolution is true, then so too is the belief that if life happened here, then life happened elsewhere in the universe. It becomes the start of a spiritual journey, for those who at least recognize that there is some greater purpose or something in the universe, which is greater than the sum of its parts. So searching for extra-terrestrial life out in the great darkness of space, is really like a spiritual journey of sorts. Do they have religions? Do they have governments? Are they at war with one another?
Our universe is finely tuned with observable effects which we've dubbed, as an example, the 'laws of physics'. The same laws which apply here on earth, apply anywhere else in the universe as well. The fact that gravity acts the same no matter where in the universe you are, indicates that the same criteria which dictates life here on earth, can also be seen to dictate where else in the universe life could be found.
The implications of this is, however, that maybe there are spiritual laws which govern our existence as well as physical laws. But how would we know where to look, or even begin to search for answers, with regards to *spiritual laws*? For one, you have the problem of first asking, "what is truth"?
Science even says that life is miraculous, because they are without answers, only theories which have no supporting experimental data. It's a miracle we even exist, given the circumstances of the hostile universe that we live in, and even hostile solar system. We could all be wiped out in an instant if we get too close to a black hole. You have no certainties of this breath being your last, because there are no certainties in this life, only death.
So if you believe in evolution, but don't think that evolution answers the question of the origins of life, then where did life come from? Surely you have answers instead of ridicule?
Once again, evolution does not address the origin of life. You're talking about something completely different and don't seem to have a grasp on what evolution actually is.
That life came from a single cell, which is the precursor for all life? Yes I know absolutely what evolution is.
But for evolution to be true, you have to first admit where life originates from for the rest of it to be true. If life did come from a single cell, then maybe evolution is true; or, maybe God programmed everything's DNA to adapt to change? That is also a theory, on the same unprovable level that evolution is. You can't prove the first living cell is the cause of all that we see now, any more than I could prove that God created all plant and animal life.
That's untrue. Evolution doesn't talk about where the single cell originated from. That's a completely different theory. Evolution is only the adaptation and change of existing life. I still think that you're mixing the two theories and using them interchangeably, which is not the case.
So evolutionists have no ideas about where the simple form (which they believe everything evolved from) comes from then?
That's a separate field of study entirely. I'm not sure why that's so hard to realize.
So the question "where did we come from" can not be answered by evolutionists and their theory then?
This would imply they are using only a few pieces of the jigsaw puzzle to claim they have made a true picture from their interpretation only.
Evolution never deemed to presume to answer the question of where or when life began as a whole. They focus on life already here and how it evolved. Mixing the two just demonstrates ignorance of the actual theory of evolution and what it has proven.
Evolution only concerns itself with the diversification of living species, and does not (nor is it meant to) address other topics such as the origin of life itself, the Big Bang, the formation of planet Earth, and so on. These are each covered by different scientific fields of study, such as abiogenesis, cosmology, and physics. Creationists often misuse the term "evolution" to erroneously refer to pretty much any science that contradicts a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis (see the Jack Chick tract 'Big Daddy' for an example).
So, science is not the discipline to turn to if you want real, coherent answers to our origins.
Perhaps there's a real need for ID, to fill the gaps for you.
No, it shows that believers who are scientifically illiterate have no idea what they're talking about, but will dismiss it out of hand because their religion is jeopardized.
Scientifically illiterate? You don't have to be a scientist to know a theory is kit that, there is no conclusion to the question and therefor it is incomplete. The question of what I believe has nothing to do with a religious upbringing its more to do with what is believable and the evidence that is presented or even how it's presented.
Science tells us nothing, scientists do. Therefor it is their opinion on what they deem as evidence, anything outside their remit will remain unexplained or unanswered.
Science tells us that many things in the holy books are lies and it does that independent of any Religion. We know the age of the earth and the universe and it's nowhere near 6000 years.
Example: The Quran teaches the earth is shaped like an egg. We now know that was a lie.
Example: The Book or Mormon teaches that native the America's are descendants of Jews. Another lie.
Example: The Bibles says the earth doesn't move. Yet another lie.
Thanks for the lesson in religion, now can you answer the question of where we came from?
The debate was about evolutionary theory, what's religion got to do with it?
I suppose you are implying that I am incapable at even looking at the evidence because I haven't got a science degree, which is a little condescending really, implying that I don't understand the evidence when the evidence really doesn't tell us anything except what scientist educated by other scientists want us to believe.
Why would scientist purposely mislead us? I hear this argument often and it confuses me, science has no agenda, it doesn't care if it's findings confirm any religion or not. It's in search of the truth. Religion on the other hand has an agenda and that agenda is to preserve and keep it's followers and as I have just showed you they will lie to do it.
Perhaps, incapable of any rational thought when looking at the evidence. No, scientists don't want you to believe anything, they would prefer you understand things, instead.
That is pure baloney, your religious agenda is obvious.
That is pure nonsense. It shows a deep misunderstanding and misinformed opinion about science.
Pure garbage. Anyone with a brain in their heads who wants to actually understand things can look at the evidence themselves and agree or disagree, as opposed to simply dismissing out of hand that which you don't understand nor wish to understand because of the religious agenda.
I haven't got a religious agenda unlike you and your evolutionists agenda.
Funny the statement "science doesn't tell us anything scientist do" isn't mine its a scientists.
You keep on about an imaginary agenda that I have, I am not the one claiming anything except that evolution is hard to believe because of the obvious gaps. Take transitional fossils for instance, because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, transitional fossils cannot be assumed to be direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors. I suppose it could be explained by punctuated equilibrium however this would start the creationists blabbing about how it drops firmly on their doorstep and would be discounted by the Darwinists.
Considering the hypothesis there is very little fossil evidence, surely there would be masses and masses of fossils with evidence of change from one thing to another.
There's a reason they call it the Theory of Evolution - that means that even the people who believe in it 100% know it can't be proven.
This just gets sillier and sillier. An evolutionists agenda?
But, it's obvious you don't understand evolution, hence you are unable to comment intelligently.
Evolution is a verifiable fact without the fossil record at all.
Do you actually know anything about fossils and how difficult they are to find and how rare it is a fossil actually comes about?
But, the people who actually understand it know it to be 100% factual. That wouldn't be you, though.
Nice one, not presented one fact but attacked me for pointing out the obvious.
I am learning all the time but it seems you know it all. Very intelligent that isn't it.
Do you understand the definition of scientific hypothesis, theory and fact? Judging by your post, I rather think not.
Darwin came up with a hypothesis, Darwinian scientists made it into a theory and then espoused it as the truth.
A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".
The quality or state of being true: "the truth of her accusation".
That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality: "tell me the truth".
Agreed, he does not even understand those definitions.
Why don't you educate me to where I am going wrong then as you seem to know everything about everything.
It appears to be difficult to educate someone who doesn't want to learn.
I have learnt a lot since being on these forums, unfortunately not from those who purport to know it all.
Who purported that, exactly? Show us where they said that?
People aren't 'know-it-alls' simply because they understand a concept you don't understand.
You say I don't understand it but offer no evidence to what I don't understand.
I thought a concept was an abstract idea; a general notion. Not a statement of fact based evidence.
Sure, start reading this...
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwi … f-species/
here's the problem that I have for you. You expect us to believe that you've researched evolution enough to reject it - but when you don't understand that evolution says nothing about the origins of life, and you can't differentiate between a theory in layman's terms and scientific terms, it makes it nearly impossible to take your claims to intelligent research on the subject seriously. Answers in Genesis even says that the argument "it's just a theory" should be avoided, because a theory means something different in scientific fields than in others.
You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.
The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5
Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!
A theory is the highest point in science. It's the graduation point after facts, proof and evidence have been presented, tested and confirmed. A Law, by contrast, is found in physics.
The fact remains that me, rad, troubled and many others have posted these definitions over and over and over again - and you (and many others) just ignore them in favor of the definition that suites your position. That's the problem I see with people who reject evolution without even understanding it - and if you understand evolution, you know that it doesn't address the origins of life, which you seemed incredulous to learn just a few pages back. So no, I don't believe that you understand evolution. I think that you reject it because it doesn't fall in line with whatever beliefs that you have, and you've failed to dive deeper.
Religion seeks to prove a conclusion that it already has. It looks for confirmation of it's preexisting bias. Science, on the other hand, follows the evidence regardless of where it leads, and scientists actively work to try to DISPROVE their hypothesis before they ever make it to the stage of a theory.
The bottom line is that even if evolution were proven false (but it hasn't been - and if you can prove it wrong, you would have a nobel prize and be on the cover of newspapers world-wide, not writing on hubpages) it still doesn't prove creationism true. It is not either or. There are endless potential answers, and until someone can prove creationism factual by study, evidence and verification, there's no reason to accept it as fact.
The problem is that the premise that evolutionists use is that science tells them that genetic change over generations happens is a fact yet it offers very little evidence to what they purport to be that fact.
The evidence for the fact that gravity is real is that if you drop something it falls so it is an undeniable fact that it is still real and tests can be made by anyone to prove it happens.
However there is no test that can be made to check the fact that genetic change has ever happened as to produce one new species.
"It is good to keep in mind... that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micro mutations." Prof Richard Goldschmidt
If the fact that evolution happened and there is a definable linage (which there is not) where did the first life evolve, surely there was a start or do evolutionist just focus on a small part of the picture.
There is still a huge question mark over the statement of fact evolutionists would have us believe is fact,
I shall ask you the same question I was asked when I actually believed that scientists couldn't be wrong and that evolution explained everything I wanted to know.
"DNA and RNA are required to produce protein enzymes, but protein enzymes are required to produce DNA and RNA. Which, then, came first?"
As you were on about laws how does evolution sit with the second law of thermodynamics?
Anyway I am just an illiterate buffoon who knows nothing about anything in particular so I don't understand why you are bothering to try and educate me.
um...because you asked us to explain it to you?
Which one is it? Do you want to learn about evolution, in which case you should probably read up on it and study it and make an INFORMED decision and talk to (I don't know) maybe SCIENTISTS
or do you just want to sit there and be self-righteous and claim that evolution is wrong because you said so and debate with people with a working knowledge of science and evolution but are not professional scientists because you think you're accomplishing...what?
You just ignored everything that I posted (as predicted) and changed the subject. Not surprising. Disappointing, but not surprising.
Sorry where did I change the subject?
You posted an advert for evolution with the premise that it is fact, I disputed the premise and gave you a reason why, you then tell me you are not a scientist but have a working knowledge of science yet you still cant answer the question I asked.
If evolution is a proven fact why are they still looking for answers to substantiate the claims?
scientists never stop examining evidence. Science is based on trying as hard as possible to disprove a claim, and the evidence is followed regardless of where it may lead. Should scientists just stop examining evidence so creationists can then claim that they're not interested in examining other options, or they're steadfast in their position and they're not interested in continually seeking truth? it seems to me that from your side of the fence, scientists are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Speciation has been observed, demonstrated and tested in laboratory settings. Claiming otherwise is simply ignorant of the facts, the scientific background and the numerous studies that have been performed.
I don't know the answer to your question. I'm fine with saying that I don't know something. Then I can go look for answers and weigh the explanations and evidence for myself. No need to create a magical god of the gaps when something is unknown or unexplained. If we maintained that frame of mind, we'd still believe that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Needless to say, aside from a handful of flat-earthers still roaming around, we don't believe that anymore because of tested, demonstrable evidence that proves the opposite.
This is one possible answer. Have you ever browsed the TalkOrigins FAQ or Archive? Have you searched for the answer yourself, or do you just like to try to stump people who accept evolution?
DNA needs certain proteins in order to replicate. Proteins need DNA to form. Neither could have formed naturally without the other already in existence.
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 47-48.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 45.
DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).
Böhler, C., P. E. Nielsen, and L. E. Orgel. 1995. Template switching between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature 376: 578-581. See also: Piccirilli, J. A., 1995. RNA seeks its maker. Nature 376: 548-549.
Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole and D. Penny. 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 18-36.
Leipe, D. D., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Research 27: 3389-3401.
Levy, Matthew and Andrew D. Ellington. 2003. Exponential growth by cross-catalytic cleavage of deoxyribozymogens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(11): 6416-6421.
Poole, A. M., D. C. Jeffares, and D. Penny. 1998. The path from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17.
list of claims and responses: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc//list.html
Creationist's arguments have misconceptions about both evolution and thermodynamics. There is no problem at all.
"That's untrue. Evolution doesn't talk about where the single cell originated from."
Uhhh, Darwin was the one who posited the idea of life originating in a type of primordial nutrient-rich "soup" in earth's early history.. However, back then the study of biology was only beginning, and the prevalent theory on the structure of a cell was that it was a type of gelatinous material they couldn't identify.
Now, with electron microscopes, cells are vastly more complex than we first thought.
"That's a completely different theory."
So even evolutionists have denominations? Interesting.
"Evolution is only the adaptation and change of existing life. I still think that you're mixing the two theories and using them interchangeably, which is not the case."
But the explanation for *all* life is based primarily on evolutionary thought, which, by the way... Is of "eastern" religious origins! The idea of reincarnation spawned evolution, which is the idea that we get better or more complex over time.
But to separate the fields of study like that, is just you trying to "protect" the theory of evolution, because clearly there are many unanswered questions with evolution -- Primarily, the origin of life itself.
As I said earlier, with the advent of the electron microscope and our advances in understanding DNA, things get vastly more complex. I'm not going to pretend to know all the finer details, but what I do know is that the complexity in the structure of a cell goes way above and beyond anything we as humans have ever dreamed of creating. Just one living cell is more complex than the entire functioning of a car or even jet, and the information contained in DNA makes scientists' heads dizzy with information overload.
I'm not big on coincidences, obviously. The very fact that DNA contains instructions for a living thing, is amazing in and of itself.
I don't know what to tell you, dude. Evolution is:
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form
Abiogenesis, physics, cosmology etc talk about the big bang theory, etc. Not evolution. You just don't care what the actual definition is, and you seem completely closed-minded to even attempting to understand it, so I'm not sure what the point of discussing it with you is when you won't even look at the definition and get your terms right - intentionally, no less.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/m … eory.shtml
Misconception: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.”
Response: Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.
Clearly you don't.
No you don't.
Perhaps not the first living cell, but perhaps the 64th billion.
BTW, ever hear of Slime mold?
"When food is abundant a slime mold exists as a single-celled organism, but when food is in short supply, slime molds congregate and start moving as a single body. In this state they are sensitive to airborne chemicals and can detect food sources. They can readily change the shape and function of parts and may form stalks that produce fruiting bodies, releasing countless spores, light enough to be carried on the wind or hitch a ride on passing animals."
Imagine that, single-celled organisms combining and moving as a single body. Cool stuff.
"Clearly you don't.
No you don't.
Perhaps not the first living cell, but perhaps the 64th billion.
BTW, ever hear of Slime mold?
"When food is abundant a slime mold exists as a single-celled organism, but when food is in short supply, slime molds congregate and start moving as a single body. In this state they are sensitive to airborne chemicals and can detect food sources. They can readily change the shape and function of parts and may form stalks that produce fruiting bodies, releasing countless spores, light enough to be carried on the wind or hitch a ride on passing animals."
Imagine that, single-celled organisms combining and moving as a single body. Cool stuff."
Slime mold could just be that God programmed its DNA really well. But if you're just going to say I'm wrong or that I don't understand what I'm talking about, I have no reason to reply to that in kind, because it would be fruitless.
Instead, I'll just ask you a few questions: What is life? Are single-cells not "alive"? At what point is something "alive"?
That is not evolution, so it is evident you do not know.
No, there is no admittance to anything of the sort, it is entirely unrelated.
Could you be anymore dishonest? Gods are not theories, they are fantasies.
Evolution is a fact, your assertions are meaningless and irrelevant because you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
"Evolution is a fact, your assertions are meaningless and irrelevant because you simply have no idea what you're talking about."
Ahh yes, how could I forget. It's a "fact" because everyone thinks it is so? Yes life can adapt and change, but there are limits to what an organism can do. Life on this planet is very suited and specialized to live in specific environments, constrained by the programming in the DNA.
Did you know DNA contains instructions for when a cell "dies"? There are even error-correction functions in DNA, much like a few hard drives in a RAID configuration! DNA is quite literally the operating system of a cell that runs the hardware in the cell, because DNA by itself... Does absolutely nothing. It is only an information carrier; machine code.
Where did the information come from?
No, because facts reveal themselves as such.
Please explain to us in detail those limits?
That's like saying potholes form to fit the water contained within them.
Millions of years of evolution.
"No, because facts reveal themselves as such."
Plato's Republic. Ever read it? Pretty evil stuff really. It's basically a line of thought where everyone agrees on what is right and wrong, morality and such. Democratic morals, basically. License to do whatever your heart desires.
That is what "science" has become to most people, and is no less a religion, a set of beliefs on facts. Evolution is not a fact, sorry. Yeah sure, it's a really good theory. But my theory that God just programmed our DNA to adapt is just as valid, and unprovable.
It's based on faith that you're right. Why is my theory automatically wrong? Because it involves God? Doesn't sound very open-minded to me.
"Please explain to us in detail those limits?"
Care to list the plants native to the Tropic of Cancer that live in the Antarctic? Did you know there are bugs that live in the Arctic Tundra that, if they land on your hand, die from the heat from your body? Sudden changes in the environmental factors all around us kill off large populations of animals, even without the help of humans.
Plus, nothing has evolved to live forever. Everything still dies. Heck, we could get sucked into a black hole and all life would cease. "Virtual" immortality aside from genetic material being passed on to future generations, the ultimate fate of the universe is to grow cold and everything in it will die. If it just keeps expanding into the great dark, we have nowhere to hide from our eventual demise, and will completely cease to exist.
"That's like saying potholes form to fit the water contained within them."
Care to elaborate? I'm genuinely interested in knowing what you mean by that, exactly. I don't see it your way.
"Millions of years of evolution."
DNA is a dormant thing, it's just the database the computer reads from in order to perform functions. DNA is literally machine code for the many functions of molecular machines within the cell structure. Without DNA, the parts of a cell do nothing, because there is no function of a cell without DNA or some type of machine code.
Viruses are very small and self-replicating machines. The fact that they self-replicate indicates a function of information: Instructions for reproduction in some form or fashion. It doesn't matter if a virus isn't "alive" in the sense of what we think it means, it is self evident that information indicates intelligence. I don't even mean advanced or even divine intelligence, I just mean in a general sense of things. One's and zero's mean nothing to most people, but just a switch being on or off has made it possible for me to type this, and you at whatever your location is read it.
The study of information is very interesting, and DNA is chock full of information. That doesn't mean it took millions of years for it to get that complicated, it just means it's really complex. You are capable of drawing the wrong conclusions from the evidence provided, just as I can, but what we are in disagreement about are mostly opinions.
Yes Ceegen, you continue to exhibit no understanding of science and evolution, you should probably cut your loses at this point or at the very least, do some reading about it so you can actually make an informed opinion.
Sorry, but none of what you say has any bearing on whether evolution is correct or not.
But, that doesn't mean there is intelligence in ones and zeros, nor does it mean information indicates intelligence. Information is knowledge gained through study or research.
Complexity of life came from simple beginnings as a result of millions of years of evolution. Complexity does not arise with the snap of a gods fingers.
"But, that doesn't mean there is intelligence in ones and zeros, nor does it mean information indicates intelligence. Information is knowledge gained through study or research."
information denotes intelligence, because information is not something found in this physical world. Information is rather a message of some kind used to convey an idea, something unseen. The books you read and the letters on this web page, are not information. The information is what the message of the arranged letters, numbers and other symbols convey.
Since DNA is arranged in precisely the manner it needs to be in order to maintain cell functions, up to and including reproduction, it is information. The DNA is information, because it conveys a message, in the form of a set of instructions.
Viruses both in this physical world, and in the cyber world, are usually only a few lines of code. But when they are inserted into the computer/cell, it destroys or hijacks the computer/cell in some form or fashion.
Where did the information come from? Chemical evolution has never been proven to be true, and so abiogenesis can't be true; we can also say that life has only been observed as coming from other lifeforms.
And this leads to the "binary structure" of the universe. What I mean by that is, the universe is either in the "on" or "off" position. That is, it either exists or it doesn't exist. Clearly the universe exists, and so do we, but why? Shouldn't the natural state of the universe be entirely devoid of life, if life only comes from life? Eventually it will be, because there isn't any way to escape entropy.
"Complexity of life came from simple beginnings as a result of millions of years of evolution. Complexity does not arise with the snap of a gods fingers."
I don't believe it was gods that did it, I believe it was a singular all-powerful God, something above and beyond all human understanding, except by the character of Jesus who gave God a "face" among the people. Someone they could really talk to and interact with, and I truly believe God to be powerful enough to physically resurrect himself. If God is all-powerful, why wouldn't He be able to do just that? Who am I to say that it didn't happen?
Jesus tells us to be like little children when asking God for answers, because good little children trust what their fathers tell them. Being that God describes himself as our "heavenly father", it goes without saying that we should trust what he says.
So if I am to believe what God says about this world, looking into the pagan origins of evolution, it is of no surprise Darwin wasn't the first person to come up with these ideas. People like Anaximander and Pliny the Elder wrote about evolutionary ideals, based on the cultures and religions they grew up in, each of which claimed to have been around for thousands of years. They didn't necessarily believe in God or gods, but they were influenced by the references in their cultures' claims of having been around for thousands of years. They thought about how that could be possible without any religious thought attached to it, but the idea that we've been around for thousands of years is of pagan origin.
Now, it's just "millions of years" instead of thousands. That's all that has changed.
Sorry, that is false, by definition.
But, there is no intelligence behind that information, it is simply information, by definition.
The virus came from the person who inserted it into the computer. But, that isn't the same thing as the information contained in a cell.
That is a false statement.
It would appear you are just making this stuff as you go along.
Yes, those are your religious beliefs, which have nothing to do with evolution or even science. And, there is no real information contained in your beliefs, it is all based in faith from the imagination.
Are you one of those who believe that God created life, and then allowed evolution to sort the rest out?
Evolution does not address the origins of life. Evolution addresses the adaptations and changes of life AFTER it was created. Science does not currently (to my knowledge, which, admittedly, is limited) have the answer to those questions and to my understanding atheists are not concerned with those origins. they are focused on living here and now and doing the best they can here in every moment
"B-But Genesis contradicts evolution, and the Bible is never wrong!"
While the second clause has innumerable issues, my precious straw man, the first clause is similarly false as long as you read the story of Creation as the allegory that it is. If you have even the basest knowledge of what metaphor is, you'll find that evolution fits the Genesis 1 account like a glove, so long as you ignore the poor English translation(s).
The spirit of God moved across the face of the surface of the muk and goo (waters) and life abounds.
That sounds like the bible agrees what location life origionally came. And science agrees as to where it all started.
Now science ask ... (?) how and why?
This is going to be fun. ATM appears to want to look down on alternative views. We should accommodate
You say science agrees as to where. It can also be argued that, minus the spirit floating over the water, they uncomfortably agree with more. The Cambrian explosion is hotly debated, probably because the sudden burst of life has to be explained. This 'how' has to be resolved in order to clamp down on the Intelligent Designers. Evolutionists have been scratching their heads on this one since Darwin's time.
What alternative views?
Not sure if you have kids, but they will understand. Not to worry, Emile.
Honestly? I was attempting to give your thread a kick start. It appears to have worked.
Thank me now, or later.
I'll do it right now.
Thank you for showing me you're one of folks of whom the thread is aimed.
The Cambrian "explosion" is not hotly debated, it is yet simply another example of the illiteracy of those "Intelligent Designers" who make that claim.
It is certainly hotly debated. You get very irritated when someone questions it. I've seen it hotly debated on Hub Pages frequently. Now, we could agree that one side of the debate lacks merit, but it is still debated.
Gotta go with ATM here - while one side does indeed "hotly" declare that it is proof of God, the other treats it as an interesting anomaly. Something not quite understood yet and worthy of investigation. Nothing "hotly debated" except that the one side gets pretty hot that the other finds it interesting but not proof that species don't change. I don't think it is even "debated" except as to what might have caused evolution to speed up during the period.
Or, more accurately, I laugh at yet another illiterate believer who doesn't understand it.
The emotions generated by believers over their creationist fantasies does not equate to a "hotly debated" topic.
Let's clarify that post. Since it was in response to mine, are you calling me illiterate? Do you understand the definition of the word, illiterate? Because, seriously, you resemble that accusation at the moment.
Refer back to the OP since you appear to have forgotten...
"The debate on Evolution is one between the scientifically literate and the scientific illiterate."
You know ATM, attempting to trivialize your misunderstanding of the opinion of another person makes someone look bad. Someone with a blue haze over their avatar, at this juncture.
Can't possibly look as bad as someone who refuses to accept scientific facts in favor of an ancient collection of fairy tales.
I think, the problem I have is that sometimes, people are discussing apples and oranges. And neither side bothers to understand that. I don't know of anyone who argues that there is no evidence of evolution. I don't know many (although there are admittedly some) who deny the evidence we have. However, (and this is a big one) we have not reached the level of knowledge necessary to make some leaps some would like to be made.
I'm not afraid of answers, so I don't have a dog in the fight.
Most people that deny the evidence of evolution do so because they don't think It's sufficient evidence.. Your second premise actually is caused by the first
You've been here how long, now?
There are plenty of folks here arguing against evolution, the evidence, the facts..., where ya bin?
You don't? Have you met Brenda? BBerean? Not only does Brenda insist that evolution is a scientific conspiracy, she refuses to accept that human beings are part of the animal kingdom - or that we're mammals. She refuses to accept that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees. She won't read the evidence - she thinks that it's all a conspiracy to minimize and trivialize her religion.
Yes Jerami, it's all about trying to educate the last few illiterates. Don't worry, though, your grand kids will understand.
PS. I am making it a point to teach my grandkids about all the flaws in evolution "evidence". just in case they want to make an informed decision.
Those who teach the "truth" about evolution being 100% a "done deal", are just as biased as those who teach "fairy tales" as fact.
I dare you to tell your kids what the flaws are, just as fanatically as you do the, so called, "proven".
Interesting, especially considering that you teach a "fairy tale", the bible, as fact.
I think people get mixed up between scientific fact and scientific theory.
I think people don't understand scientific theory or how it doesn't care about religion.
Of course it doesn't care about religion, its an opposition viewpoint.
No, it's not an opposition viewpoint. It's just searches for the truth and when they find it they try to prove it a lie. What the faithful think is irrelevant to the process.
Its an unproven incomplete theory that's in opposition to a religious viewpoint.
They decide what their viewpoint is and then try to prove it using techniques they have designed to prove their point.
No, they try to disprove it, you clearly don't understand how science worlds. And so what if it's in opposition to your religious viewpoint. The universe is billions of years old, you better change your religious views if you think the bible is your only source of knowledge you are ignoring the truth.
What scientist works to disprove his theory? In the pursuit to prove the theory he may disprove it, however there maybe other scientist who work to disprove his theory.
The Large Hadron Collider was built to allow physicists to test the predictions of different theories of particle physics and high-energy physics.
Science is complicated so if you profess to know everything about science why are you not a scientist?
If indeed you are a scientist can you tell what the next evolutionary step is, natural progression and all that.
Mind you i suppose you think i will be to thick to understand it.
"What scientist works to disprove his theory?"
Every honest one. They know that others are going to do their absolute best to disprove it; if the theorist does his best to disprove his own theory and can't, hopefully no one else can either. It's how the peer review process works.
Libby didn't try to disprove his theory about carbon dating, does that make him a dishonest scientist then?
I like the way you associated evolution with adaptation, surely we evolved to adapt so what's the next evolutionary step?. Science must know as they say they have worked out the sequence and conditions as to why and how one animal becomes another.
The horse, donkey and zebra are perfect examples of evolution at work. As are the African and Asian elephants. Both these groups were once one species, but have adapted to a new environment. They are at this point genetically to dissimilar to produce viable offspring. The lion and tiger are similar but can produce viable offspring as could at one time humans and Neanderthals.
You stick with that book that tells you the universe is a few thousand years old and was created in 6 days though.
evolution IS adaptation. What about that don't you seem capable of grasping?
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
Actually, Silverspeeder, evolution IS adaptation. it is changing in an effort to adapt to changes in environment.
Adaptation does not cover changing into a whole new species altogether. Animals adapt even now but we haven't seen any adapt into a whole new species. Eskimos have a type of antifreeze in their blood which means their blood has adapted to the conditions but they are still very much human.
The eskimos are still human, true, but the fact that their blood now changed to suit the environment is a sign of evolution. as far as one species coming another, part of that evolution is covered by ring species.
No it's a sign of addaptation, if it was evolution they would also have very thick fur (logically).
Evolution is still the science of what might have happened not what actually did even if the scientists themselves keep touting it as fact it's just a theory.
The earth revolves around the sun is scientifically proven fact.
The sun is 4.5 billion years old is a scientific theory that can't be proven.
They do have very thick fur; fur produced by evolution over a million years of time.
That their evolved intelligence gives them ability to make that seal fur rather than grown themselves is immaterial; they have fur, fur produced by evolution of both intelligence and genetics.
So if I make a table out of an old tree stump it evolved did it?
And it must have been a very gradual ice age for the evolution of fur!
Don't know that the tree stump evolved, but you certainly did. Or at least your ancestors, evolving the intelligence to make that table. The same way the Eskimo ancestors evolved the intelligence to figure out to take that dead seal's nice fur coat and put it on themselves.
Intelligence is not proof of evolution man quite simply could have been created/made intelligent.
True. The available evidence (brain size, tool use, diet, etc.) says that our direct ancestors were NOT particularly intelligence, but that can always be ignored to claim that we were "created" already intelligent.
Works, too, if one is more concerned with maintaining fiction and mythology rather than truth and understanding.
But all to many tout theory as truth and understanding.
Evolution and its many missing links and unexplained interventions could also be called mythology.
The truth is up to about 7000 years of human history can be explained by contemporary writings anything before that period is just pure guess work.
1) You mistake the scientific meaning of the word "theory" as contemporary meaning of a "guess". It is not - "theory" in science refers to the best available knowledge. It has been researched extensively, tested as much as possible by the "theorist", and offered for peer review where other people do their best to both prove or disprove it. It is not a "guess".
2) You can call the theory of evolution nonsense, mythology, or even *%^&*^$# if you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that it is true to the best of our knowledge. Although there have been instances of fraud and lies, the basic theory that species evolve into other species has never been proven false. Or even specifically that mankind did not evolve from an earlier species that has since disappeared.
3) Guesswork based on enormous amounts of study in multiple disciplines, extensive testing and peer reviews, yes. Guesswork as in the type of rationalizations of creationism, no. "Guessing" that evolution is true is much like "guessing" that the sun rose yesterday - after all, it could have gone out and powerful but invisible ET's provided artificial light for the earth.
Best available guess.
Nothing is proven, the gaps have been filled to make it more plausible, still there is no reasoning behind why, why would something, many things evolve into something else all at the same time? The use of the timescale makes it impossible to prove.
You should already know the answer as to why things evolve; because their genetic structure mutates and because the environment changes. Those two basic concepts explain very nearly all of evolution.
As always, it depends on your standard of proof. Can you trust your senses to report accurately? Are you trying to project into the future or speaking of something from the past that you did not witness yourself? If so, and the standard of proof is extreme, nothing in either the future OR past is "provable", particularly as peoples memories "change" through time.
So we take our best knowledge as truth, and in the case of creationism vs evolution the evidence and all available data come down on the side of evolution. It might be false, but it is the best we have and has been proven to the extent of our ability to do so while not once has anyone been able to offer any evidence whatsoever that it isn't overall true. There is little (no) doubt that errors have been made concerning specific ancestry of specific species, but the overall theory is correct.
On balance the evidence comes down to belief.
You can choose not to believe in anything. But the more complete the evidence, the more dubious the choice.
The evidence is incomplete in all cases, therefor its a straight choice.
What out come could there be if I am wrong?
Very little of real importance. You will base your life on belief rather than truth, but that's about it. As long as you remain happy doing so, and refrain from demanding others share those beliefs, there are no significant repercussions.
There certainly will be if people continue to ignore science and teach there children to do the same.
But as I see it there is no truth in it, the evidence is based on theory and because of the time line is unprovable. The evidence you see is written and based on the teachings of man as the same as religion to state than as fact is denying the real truth that in both cases man could have gotten it all
There is without doubt scientific fact, facts that can be replicated time and time again. However the science of evolution is based on many assertions and measurements designed by man to prove he is right.
I understand that that's the way you see it, but the reason for that is that you insist it must fit into an existing belief system. A system that is completely unprovable to the point that exactly zero evidence is available to support the smallest part of it but which you still consider more "right" than literally tons of evidence showing differently.
Yes, the information is written; written by people with solid knowledge and study of the subject. Religious beliefs are not; they were written millennia ago by people that did zero confirmation of their belief. They made no corroborating observations, they did no testing. They just accepted it as truth because it easily answered their questions, not because it agreed with even their limited observations.
And no, the tests and observations done by man in the field of evolution are not done to prove he is right. I realize that is a popular assertion of those whose beliefs are being shaken, but it is untrue. The tests, research and observations are being done to discover truth.
Were that not true we would still have Piltdown Man and all the other fakes and frauds being accepted as truth. We don't (as far as we know) because we continue to test, continue to examine and continue to fine tune the theory just as we do with every other scientific theory. On the other hand religious beliefs are ONLY changed when noses are violently rubbed in the truth. When we KNOW that the sun does not travel around the earth, when we KNOW that the sun didn't form overnight. When we KNOW that it is not possible to form a complete woman from the rib of a man. Many believers have already accepted the precepts of evolution (although usually via the rationalization of deciding it is merely God's tool of creation) - such changes will continue until beliefs in general are overcome by knowledge.
So while foot dragging in the learning process can and does seriously harm mankind, it cannot seriously harm you personally. Your life will still be changed by discovered truths about our universe, and you will still benefit by those changes whether you think they are true or not. For instance, you might believe the earth is flat and the sun travels around it, but you would still have your food delivered using a GPS system that shows both to be false. You might believe that bacteria cannot mutate and change, but will still have antibiotics available that take that very thing into consideration. Some else will do the work and make the discoveries but you will still participate in the benefits.
But you are still getting mixed up with scientific fact and theory. It can be proven the earth goes around the sun, that the earth is an oblate spheroid and that many other planets circle the sun, these are scientific proven fact, the evidence can be seen and measured today with tried and tested instruments and math. There is no math or science that can prove that a fish decided to become a land creature. It's only a theory based on an assumption by someone looking to prove the theory. There are still not enough physical evidence to give an unbroken line.
You question the story of a woman from a mans rib bit you would have us believe we all evolved from a few cells which mutated by chemical reaction.
I have not once mentioned religion, my concern was not with proving my belief was better than evolution but whether evolution would be best to be believed. My conclusion is as it was when I started searching for the answers 30 years ago, man invented evolution and now it has evolved into the opposition to religion.
I'm not getting mixed up; you are. Regarding earths revolution - the only real way to prove it is to go into space and see it happen. Of course, that won't say it happened yesterday or tomorrow - anything actually unobserved is theory only.
However, there are lots of other methods to measure the rotation - they just aren't as factual. We could, for instance, watch the placement of other stars (they might be moving, too, though). Whatever we do it will always come back to a "theory" unless we actually watch it happen.
So it is with evolution. Lots of methods to learn about it and how it works. Lots of evidence showing that it is true. It's still "theory", but theory backed by literally tons of observations and facts over many disciplines. Every other possibility ever mentioned for the appearance of life or man has zero evidence.
You thus have a choice; best guess based on solid evidence (theory of evolution) or whatever other tale you wish to make up or accept based on what you would like to believe. You'll make your choice (sounds like you already have) and I'll make mine (I most definitely have). The only problem comes when you try to refute the evidence because it doesn't fit your choice - you pretend it isn't there because you don't understand it, but it's still very much there. You pretend it is a guess with no reasoning, but it's not. You can even pretend that you have evidence to the contrary, but cannot produce any. Whereupon no one that has actually approached the subject with an open mind, wanting to learn, will believe you.
I have approached it with an open mind and i do understand radiocarbon dating and all its little anomalies but of course science and scientists will come up with some fantastic little rule that proves them right every time however they will have no evidence except that which they have made up to prove their little theory.
The dating of fossilized material is the basis of the evolutionary theory and the method they chose to use is intrinsically flawed, most scientists will agree that RCD is only accurate between a few thousand years and 50 thousand years so where do they get the fantastic numbers of millions and billions, i suppose the lesser figure would put their theories into jeopardy.
My own personal belief has nothing to do with evidence its to do with belief however evolution is all to do with evidence and at the moment in time there simply isn't enough to prove the theory, if there was why are they still looking to fill in the gaps?
I understand the evidence completely. so much so that to me its not logical progression.
Since I've been watching this conversation without actively participating too much, I was wondering if I could ask you a question.
From what I've seen (this is common among creationists - especially young-earth creationists) you make a claim. That claim is refuted. Then you move on to another claim - without ever admitting that your first claim was refuted or acknowledging that you were in error.
you provided the long list at the beginning of the thread, and your first argument was moon dust. Not only has that argument been completely debunked, it's even on a list of arguments from fellow christians that shouldn't be used when debating evolution because it's been proven wrong so many times. I pointed that out to you, and gave you the link to the list of "arguments that shouldn't be used" at answersingenesis.com. You never acknowledged it. You never admitted that your first argument, the one that you lead of with in the beginning was completely false.
These are not honest debate tactics. You can't keep jumping subjects once your initial arguments are refuted. You need to either admit that you were incorrect, or nail it down until a conclusion is reached one way or the other.
My question is - how open ARE you, if this style of debating is all that you have going for you? there is no limit to the questions that you can ask or proof you can ignore, but nowhere is going to get anywhere if you keep changing the subject every time someone refutes one of your claims. You probably wouldn't let an atheist or evolutionist get away with that - so why do you think we will?
The bottom line for me is that evolution has nothing to do with my atheism. Even if evolution were proven wrong TOMORROW, there's no reason to just assume that it was a god. It means that we still have to go searching for answers. There are MOUNTAINS of proof for evolution available. Where are you getting your information from, and how biased are your sources?
Now that's funny.
This is a plain admission, that you are making a choice, not based on an open mind, or evidence, but on a personal bias.
Which, of course you are free to do.
Just don't be too upset, when others choose the opposite side of the argument.
Where did you get that from. I read her post and then yours and yours doesn't appear to be a response to hers at all. Perhaps you replied to the wrong post?
Here it is again.
Now that's funny.
This is a plain admission, that you are making a choice, not based on an open mind, or evidence, but on a personal bias.
Which, of course you are free to do.
Just don't be too upset, when others choose the opposite side of the argument.
She is able to separate the two. God and Evolution. You see, evolution has evidence, mountains of it while the theory of God has none. This is why your post make no sense. You assume people don't believe in God because of evolution, which is not the case. The majority of Christians can believe in evolution and God at the same time.
That's where you are wrong.
There are mountains of evidence, all right..
The problem is the interpretation of that evidence.
Having studied evolution for 30 years you are undoubtedly thoroughly familiar the the notion of geological dating as well as the other less common methods used. You know very well that C14 isn't the only method - why do you speak as if it is?
In the end, I think we understand each other in any case. "My own personal belief has nothing to do with evidence its to do with belief... " rather says it all; you aren't interested in evidence, except to find bogus reasons to refute it. Your belief is all that counts, and that has nothing to do with evidence, knowledge or truth. Just a belief that comforts you.
"...however evolution is all to do with evidence and at the moment in time there simply isn't enough to prove the theory, if there was why are they still looking to fill in the gaps" is just such a bogus refutation; ALL science has gaps and NO field of study is complete. We all recognize this, we all accept it, and some of us will keep looking even as we accept the best evidence we have as a tentative truth. Others, recognizing that man does not have infinite knowledge (or that they can't understand the knowledge the species DOES have), will stop dead in the search and make up their own belief system rather than put forth the effort to find truth.
I can accept that, to you, your beliefs are more important than knowledge. They just aren't to me, so when you attempt to discredit a thoroughly accepted field of study as completely false at it's root in favor of an unnamed personal belief that admittedly is not based on evidential facts, well, you won't find me biting much.
The demeaning frase "goat herders 4000 years ago" shows either your lack of respect, or ignorance of the history of The Bible.
I would suggest the former.
I'd hate to think it's the latter, from one who claims advanced education, knowledge and understanding.
It's like me saying all atheists are basically God haters.
The claim may be true, but certainly does not apply to ALL.
This is a very funny post. Thanks for the morning giggle.
You suggest he either lacks respect or is ignorant and then you claim some atheist hate God. How can you hate something that doesn't exist. We can in fact hate the people knocking on the door telling us we are going to hell, but we can't hate something that doesn't exist.
You are one that the statement doesn't apply to, then.
Happy giggling, then.
Find one that your statement does apply to. You see, by the very definition of Atheism, Atheists don't think there is any evidence to support the theory of a God. If you find one that hates God, well, he's not an Atheist is he?
Go ahead and continue calling others ignorant.
"Goat herders of 4,000 years ago" - does that not describe that people that made the tales of the OT? Approximately 4,000 years ago, a people that typically farmed and kept herds of goats and other animals? True, it is a simplification and not all families kept goats any more than all families today have a car, but it would seem fairly descriptive of the people and society of the times.
Respect - I find no particular reason to respect the Israelites then any more than any other people. They kept slaves, their morals were as barbaric as they were and it took them 40 years to walk a few hundred miles. They were an exceedingly cruel people by todays standards, with violence always just under the surface. Their sole contribution to mankind seems to be the roots of a bible known to be full of contradictions and falsehoods and the story of a god as cruel and vicious as they were. Unlike the Egyptians or Romans they produce no artwork, no new architecture and found no new knowledge to pass down through the years. They were not explorers, preferring to take the land from other peoples rather than find their own.
Not their real bio.
But I understand you don't like them.
Especially, since they were God's chosen people.
Chosen to reveal God to the world.
You know, the One you reject. Him.
THE One who sent a Savoir to deliver all humanity from certain destruction.
I'd say they contributed far more than the the Egyptians, Romas, or anyone else you care to name.
Sorry that makes you angry.
Especially considering the fact that you have no problem believing ancient people whose average life expectancy is 30(because they were ignorant and know next to nothing except warfare[they were not good at that either considering the prolonged periods of their slavery] and herding) and was irrational and was making a story for their benefit, while you find it very difficult to believe contemporary people whose average life expectancy is above sixty(because they know things, have technology and has studied and revealed most secretes of nature) that even your god didn't know.
It's obvious your evolutionary views havs skewed your perception of ancient peoples.
Unlike you, I don't see them as ignorant morons.
Uneducated in our modern technology, yes, but ignorant, no.
We all are in awe of some major accomplishments of ancient civilisations.
Do you know what the word ignorant means?
Ignorant - lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
Look at that, the word uneducated is right there in the definition. Which really makes your comment that they were uneducated by not ignorant, silly.
I'm saddened you give them so little credit.
I guess todays humans have evolved to be intellectual giants in comparison.
My statement stands, for the fact that, to live in their world, they must have had two traits.
Enough intelligence to live, and thrive.
Enough creativity to make advancements, which were the foundation upon all we know today stands.
I get the distinct impression, that according to you, if a human from several thousand years ago were to somehow, be miraculously transported into our day, they could not function, learn or live.
Look, I don't know I was merely commenting on how silly your post was. Which you didn't reply to.
I will tell you this humans are still evolving even as we speak. Taller, better looking and smarter. Every few years they have to move or change the IQ tests to average to 100.
You keep presenting this IQ argument. It is somewhat flawed to believe we are getting smarter. Adjusting the IQ scores is what is known as the Flynn effect. The need for adjustments is slowing in developed nations, but remains somewhat steady in developing nations. One possible explanation has to do with standardization of education coupled with a rise in the understanding of testing procedures. I don't think anyone thinks we are evolving to a more highly intelligent species.
Your beliefs in priests come in your way of rational and logical thinking .
Moron is what you say, not I. They were ignorant about the shape of the earth, no idea about medicine, technology, psychology, sociology, anatomy, brain function.......(not universally applicable, but applicable to the group of people you refer to). They didn't build anything nor wrote anything of literary value. They wrote a story about themselves mostly extolling themselves and a group of people were fooled into believing their myths as true story, but how does that make them knowledgeable? One should think that being god's chosen people at least they live in peace and have a long life expectancy and did some good other than attacking other people's and trying to steal their land, but didn't see any.
Yes, the Indians, Chinese, Assyrians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans all made great accomplishments in civilisation(and compared to present, barbaric), but none of these people were "your god's chosen people"(and when compared to these people your "chosen ones" are ignorant and barbaric) . Even at the height of their power not even their kings lived in as much luxury as a modern average American/European though.
Quick! Before Moses found the burning bush, what was his occupation?
Architect? Brain surgeon? Rocket scientist? Truck driver? Electrician?
Mechanic? Programmer? Metallurgist? Professor? Engineer? Ships captain?
C'mon, tell us! (Just don't let it be "farmer" - that's demeaning)
Always. Always it comes down to a choice as mankind has 100% knowledge about anything.
You can choose to invest time and study into learning or you can take the (much translated) word of goat herders 4,000 years ago that were ignorant of even the most basic information about our world we now teach to elementary students.
The choice will always be yours.
Sure it can, just as it can be proven that the light coming from other stars and galaxies has taken billions of years to get to us. You do understand that the further we look into space the further we are looking back in time?
Of course I understand that so how do you account for the evaluation of the age of our sun and can you prove your math to be accurate?
This age of the sun estimated using computer models of stellar evolution and through nucleocosmochronology. The result is consistent with the radiometric date of the oldest Solar System material, at 4.567 billion years ago. Do you have any information that disputes that?
You clearly have been lied to about how science works.
Evolution is always at play. Light skin is the adaptation/evolution from being exposed to less sun. The farther north you go the lighter the skin colour. The need for our bodies to extract vitamin D from less sunlight has resulted in lighter skin.
I've read recently that humans are becoming taller and better looking and of course smarter. The IQ tests have been adapting to this change for decades.
This whole statement proves completely that you are unaware of the scientific method and you are clueless about how science works - so what's the point of discussing science with you when do aren't even aware of the process it entails.
Dr. Richard Lewontin, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28).
Scientists discrediting other scientists is not allowed, scientists can only discredit those with alternative beliefs.
While evidence of design must be discredited at all costs scientist are able to undertake evidence design so that it fits their agenda.
That's right, because they are looking for the truth. Do you want to back to the middle ages?
But, they'll just laugh at you (or pity) and anyone else who makes ridiculous statements about that which they have no understanding.
Welcome back, ATM.. Been kinda quiet without ya!
Radman, I would suggest you get on the internet and look up Variable Speed of Light. There are proven studies being written in scientific journals as we speak. in these tests they have not only had light go faster than its " constant speed of light" but they have also been able to stop light. This throws out Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and changes 100 yrs. of science, but cuts considerably the age of the universe and earth. This makes possibility of evolution, which all ready has astronomical odds against it, impossible. Science debating science I love it, if it brings us to a clearer understanding of facts.
Call me when it's accepted by the majority of physicists.
The "majority" rarely ever make quantum leaps into any discipline.
In overwhelming number of cases, it's an individual, or a minuscule group that make the most startling advancements/discoveries.
If you wait for the majority to accept it, you will have missed the boat, by along shot.
I see you are a man of faith. A follower, and NOT a leader in your own right.
Yea, a leader like the IDers or the Creationists? People have been trying to prove Einstein wrong for years now and his math has help up so far. Pretty amazing isn't it. The one thing he thought he'd blundered on turned out to be right. Remember a while back when they thought they were making neutrinos go faster than light?
I don't see IDers, or creationists trying to prove Einstein wrong.
Didn't you say earlier that all theories are (supposed to be) scrutinised, tested, and if falsified, another method must be attempted?
If a new discovery challenges a currently held concept, what difference does it make which camp it comes from?
Or is that your objection? It wasn't evolutionists that made the discovery?
That's because they have no idea what he was talking about or how his math affected their beliefs.
If they hold up to scrutiny we will here about it.
Looks to me you are a very prejudiced person.
Now you are saying that ID proponents are incapable of mathematics, or understanding natural laws.
But, the IDers belong to the same scientifically illiterate group of folks who deny or reject facts, just like those who deny or reject Relativity.
Those who actually understand how light works and how relativity works also understand Einsteins Theory of Relativity was not thrown out at all, quite the contrary. The scientifically illiterate might agree with you, though.
I see you know more than those who have made the discovery.
Doesn't surprise me, though.
The world still has a lot of people who are either full of themselves, or are legends in their own lunchtimes.
Interesting how, the speed of light was calculated in 1676. No computers. People were no educated.
Yet, their work has not been questioned.
NOW, with all the knowledge, and technology, someone challenge the status quo, dares to publish
their findings and science buffs are trying to discredit it.
Good to see real harmony and unity in the camp.
I'd like to understand something. Why, in your opinion, is some knowledge perceived as a threat by the religious community? I realize some use facts to challenge the idea of God, but I don't see the problem being with those who challenge. I see the religious perceiving the information itself as a challenge. Do you think, if current conclusions hold firm once all facts are in that this will prove the nonexistence of God, by your understanding of the term?
Of course their work on the speed of light has been questioned. It has been verified and fine tuned as we have advanced technologically.
What creationists however fail to provide is any verification for their ideas. It seems rather bizarre that they go after evolution like a pit bull, looking for the tiniest chink in the armour in order to bring the whole thing crashing down yet they singularly fail to provide any credible evidence for creationism as if it does not require any degree of objective inquiry. Why do you think that is?
Please tell me what is the testable evidence for creation ex-nihilo? What is the evidence Eve was created from Adam's rib or that they existed in the first place. By the way if you accept the literal account of Eve's creation, then you must also accept she was a clone of Adam, yet women have X-X chromosomes and males X-Y. So how do you account for this contradiction?
I just asked my wife to confirm the chromosomal differences and she read out a piece she found on a creationist website. Apparently when God created Eve he swapped out her chromosomes. ??? But that's not what the bible says. A literal reading of Genesis says nothing about Eve's genetic manipulation so it can't be true. The creationists are making this stuff up with absolutely no foundation on the Word of God. Ironic that they accuse Evolutionists for making shit up because it's not found in Genesis. I* guess they don't think that the same standards of integrity apply to them.
Likewise, what's the evidence of abiogenesis?
What's the evidence of the Big Bang?
What's the real evidence for macro evolution?
What gets me is how emphatically you guys swallow, and regurgitate this stuff.
All these articles are full of words like, might, hypothesis, theory, could, probably, and phrases like, could have, may have, assume to have, etc.
So, based your best guess, we all came from a single life form, that may probably arose, we have no idea how. In essence then I'm related to a bacteria, a lizard, a tree, a bird, whale, mosquito, ad infinitum.
All this innumerable variety, and not to mention the myriad of species no extinct, ALL came about in such a short time as a few mere billion years.
And I'm accused of delusion.
"What gets me is how emphatically you guys swallow, and regurgitate this stuff."
We could say the same about you regarding creationism, a theory that has no scientific merit whatsoever.
Says so, by somebody who admitted just that!!
Lack of intelligence(or the unwillingness to use it) is delusion??
It used to be delusion, by your colleagues a year or so back.
Again, your accusation doesn't make it so, nor does it prove anything about your honesty.
Perhaps you ought to look at the evidence with an open mind.
I don't hold much hope of that happening any time soon.
But I suppose you've looked at the evidence with an open mind? Is it your religion that is clouding your view? I for one don't wear the same glasses and can see and understand without having to balance my beliefs with science.
what makes you think that just because we don't agree with your position that we haven't looked at the evidence with an open mind? We're supposed to believe that you reject evolution and accept creation because you've looked at things openly and rationally, but you're not willing to accept the same about the other side?
Is that a joke?
Why do you persist in this nonsense when we know you have no understanding of evolution, yet continue to just dismiss out of hand because you believe it jeopardizes your religious beliefs.
As JMF has posted, we could spend the whole day posting links from esteemed scientists in support of evolution, but just where are your links?
By asking those questions, you admit to knowing nothing about them. So, why are you rejecting things you don't understand?
Isn't that dishonest?
That's silly, I simply understand what they understand.
That's nice, do you have a point?
Yes, some people were educated, that's how they figured out how to measure the speed of light.
Yes, there work has been questioned, to the point where we now have a very accurate measurement for the speed of light.
What new baloney are you trying to feed us? What findings? Explain yourself.
I am just passing along latest findings from New Zealand and Australia, but the Variable Speed of light has been proven. In fact this group of scientists stopped light. I has all ready been verified by scientific community. All calculations figured with light as a constant will have to be recalculated. 100 years of data.
For all you who absolutely understand evolution, I have someone who REALLY, TRULY, wants you to explain it to him
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig … evolution/
Please let us all know how you go.
In the "Intelligent Design" section?
In a more recent talk, entitled, Nanotech and Jesus Christ?
And you are looking for a secular scientist?
Curiously, I can't find his full name. And one of the link with his partial name is entitled "Layman’s Reflections on Evolution and Creation. An Insider’s View of the Academy"
And, the reason why you don't bother to take the time to understand evolution is ...?
It's because there's nothing to understand.
It's a faith based system, telling everyone evolution happened.
the masses believe it, and here we are, arguing over two different faith based world views.
That part is easy to understand!
I know it bothers you that I don't believe science fiction, as fact, but I can't bring myself to say, I'm sorry about that.
Why do you say evolution is faith based when there is so much independent objective observation to support it. Is it because you cannot get past the "It's only a theory" old chestnut?
There is certainly more to your position than you let on. I can't believe you ignore the scientific papers on evolution because you have more interesting things to do like tidying the house or doing the dishes. What drives your position? Is there something fundamentally problematic with evolution as a concept that you cannot reconcile with your faith?
You wouldn't know that if you never made the attempt. Again, that is just being dishonest.
It's science and is based on facts and evidence. Those who understand evolution know that.
There is no argument, there are only those who have yet to become literate in science.
Don't flatter yourself. No one here cares that you are scientifically illiterate, most care more about the fact you're being totally dishonest, and that is what you should actually be apologizing.
Because evolution is false.
I thought by now you knew that.
Admitting that you will never take the time to understand evolution and then calling it false because it jeopardizes your religious beliefs only shows that your religion teaches you to be dishonest.
I thought by now you knew that.
Just how much time am I supposed to take?
I've heard, seen and read enough to be convinced it's science fiction.
If that bothers you, I'm not sorry.
As for jeopardising my faith (NOT religion), what a joke. I have not seen one shred of evidence to "rattle my cage".
You have no idea what my convictions are, where they came from, and why I still hold to them.
I am not even sure why evolution should threaten someones faith. Unless they are *very* literal about genesis. IMHO God (should He exist) would have inspired a Bible that explained things to the people of that time in their own frame of reference. If he was writing a Bible now it would probably have a chapter on evolution.
The truth is IMHO the writers had no knowledge of the universe that wasn't available at the time. They were writing for a very specific reason to a very specific people. The Quran is no different, however the Quran is a little more specific and as such it's errors are more evident.
That depends, you actually have to start, first.
You have not read anything about evolution, that is obvious to anyone who has.
The details of your conviction are irrelevant to the fact you are denying out of hand that which you have no understanding. You have already revealed your creationist position, so your convictions are already out in the open.
I cannot take you seriously anymore. Despite everything that is presented to you, despite individuals here asking you to clarify exactly why you refuse to even look at evolution, we just get flat statements such as 'evolution is false'. This is not what would be expected of someone thinking for themselves.
Being taken seriously is not my problem.
When I present serious comments, they are not taken seriously, so nothing changes.
None of you have ever explained evolution.
I suggest, that's because none of you ACTUALLy understand it either.
Anyone can make blanket statements like, adaptation and mutation over billions of years, and voila, here we are.
That just doesn't cut it!
To me, that sounds exactly like, "God made everything. No evolution required" sounds to you.
So, if that makes me a NON critical thinker, so be it.
We are not here to teach you scientific theories, it is YOUR responsibility to learn on your own. Many have already provided links, but you have refused to read them.
Not that it is difficult really.
Mutation causes living things to vary genetically
Variable genetics causes variable performance in the environment
Those that perform better in the environment have more offspring that perpetuate their genes
Thus over time the species become adapted to their environment
Everything else is specific examples and corollaries.
You seem to know so much.
Do you ever admit to getting anything wrong?
You can show some of his own post as explanation,
"I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there,"(from the link you provided where he acknowledge nature can make molecules)
[from his website]
"From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution"
"I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label"
He agree to micro evolution and what he says is that he cannot understand macroevolution[not evolution].
So tell him that saying that 'microevolution is a fact but I can't understand macroevolution', is like saying "I know how to go from Baltimore to Philadelphia or Philadelphia to New York, but I don't know how to go from Baltimore to New York".
But when will you be asking a teacher about drugs(instead of a chemist)?
by Richard Parr 7 years ago
“Evolutionary theory is not a slam-dunk. It is an exercise in storytelling that masquerades as a scientific theory” [William A. Dembski]In his article 'Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge', Dr Dembski asks five questions.I present only the first one here. What is the evolutionists...
by thetruthhurts2009 9 years ago
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You can stop reading and leave now, but if you seek the truth you are most welcome to...
by thetruthhurts2009 9 years ago
This is the religion of evolution. If you are a Christian find yourself debating an evolutionary atheist you will find all their tactics here, just compare this to everything mark says and you'll get a laugh. Evolutionary thinking did not start with Darwin, it started with Aristotle, who believed...
by heatblast92 6 years ago
http://www.understanding-creationism.co … hales.htmlStumbled across this article while researching about dolphins. One line caught my attention:' You can believe this creature just happened to have all the right DNA mistakes over millions of years in just the right step-by-step way to make...
by Eng.M 9 years ago
*I think the chances of the first cell to evolve into a fly or simpler being is one to infinite ..but not in the SimpsonsHomer Evolution*Richard Dawkin in responding to the author of 'Atlas of Creation' made fun of the view creationists have about the supposed intermediate creatures..but he didn't...
by Tricia Mason 6 years ago
Hello:)I have had discussions, on this site and elsewhere, with a number of Creationists.For those who have not been involved in such discussion, I should clarify a few things:I do not think that the Bible is the word of God.I do not believe that the Bible describe's our origins.I accept...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|