Evolution Vs Not-evolution

[suitedinc 0]

You can classify and label it anyway you want. If you want to say that apes and humans are classified the same way, so be it. It is only a label. But to take the next step and say we came from the same thing (i guess you would say it was a gorilla) is where I think your off the ledge. Like I said before, MICRO evolution is something that happens. No doubt about it. MACRO evolution is another story. There are way to many assumptions that have to be made that never be verified. When the scientists have found some of these "transition fossils" they had built entire civiliations around, they found out later they were entirely wrong, because their intial assumption about what they found was wrong.By the way Tim. You believe in science but not the men who study it? How do you decide which scientist is coming up with correct results and which one is not? You must have a system of testing for truth. A standard by which all declartions of scietists is measured.

[Canada 0]

By the way Tim. You believe in science but not the men who study it? How do you decide which scientist is coming up with correct results and which one is not? You must have a system of testing for truth. A standard by which all declartions of scietists is measured.

A good scientist will spell out any assumptions and margins for error in their findings.The system for testing the truth is to repeat the process. Thats the great thing about science, its open for scrutiny and any scientist of worth will admit there are mistakes and inaccurate assumptions, but the fun is finding the flaws and refining.Where are the standards for testing the truth of religion?

[suitedinc 0]

Where are the standards for testing the truth of religion?

I would not say there is truth in "religion" as religion is a man made expression of beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be.

The system for testing the truth is to repeat the process.

Exactly. That is one of the three fundamental pillars of science, the result must be repeatable. Unfortunatley, evolution does not show anything to be repeatable. It can't because of all of the assumptions that have to happen. For example, there is literally no fossil evidence to support the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertabrate. There has not been since Darwin said it happened, however, scientists cling to this as a fact of evolution. How is it that nobody says this may be a mistake? At least admit that it may be totally wrong. That maybe the invertebrates and vertebrates coexisted from day 1. I guess they could not do that though, that would be to close to saying they were created and then the foundation of their lifes work falls apart. The scientist is human and is not going to let that happen. At some point the thing we devote our lives to becomes the reason for our existence, especially if you belive you are here by accident and are simply a fluke of nature.

[crowTrobot 2]

Are humans animals? If yes, then what's the big deal with being an ape? It's just a biological group that we share many traits with. Does it mean that we're soulless or sentient or not created in God's image? Definitely not.

it does mean that the biblical story of creation is a man-made fable, suggesting that the bible isn't necessarily the inspired word of a creator.

[crowTrobot 2]

Exactly. That is one of the three fundamental pillars of science, the result must be repeatable. Unfortunatley, evolution does not show anything to be repeatable.

since small scale natural selection can be directly observed, i assume you are saying we should be able to repeat radical speciation in the lab that took millenia to occur in nature. good luck with that logic.

For example, there is literally no fossil evidence to support the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertabrate.

i think there is some potential evidence. however that's irrelevant, since invertebrates don't fossilize well and transitional fossils would logically be expected to be extremely rare.

[crowTrobot 2]

ive argued against evolution but never for literal creation...

you've argued that scientific disproof of literal creationism is false - which is the same thing as arguing for it in my book. but i guess i'll let you off the hook on a technicality lol.you've certainly argued that evolution is false (god directed or not), which i'm glad to see you backing off of.

[Mattnxtc 0]

it does mean that the biblical story of creation is a man-made fable, suggesting that the bible isn't necessarily the inspired word of a creator.

nah...u missed the point of his thing...so what if we are part of a group..that doesnt point to evolution..we classify things all the time..doesnt mean anything.. What seperates us from animals is that we do have a soul.As for the DNA we share 99% of noncoding DNA with dogs so hmmm

[MDXS 0]

Like I said before, MICRO evolution is something that happens. No doubt about it. MACRO evolution is another story. There are way to many assumptions that have to be made that never be verified.

What's the bigger assumption, that macro evolution occurs knowing that micro does, or that the bible is the inerrant word of god?

[DonkSlayer 1]

Before you marry creation and evolution, you have answer a couple of questions and see how those answers fit into what you are attempting.1 When did sin enter the world?2 What was the result of sin?Answer the questions then follow the logic to its conclusion. I'll be interested in hearing what happens.

[timwakefield 68]

since small scale natural selection can be directly observed, i assume you are saying we should be able to repeat radical speciation in the lab that took millenia to occur in nature. good luck with that logic.

If it only took millenia then we WOULD be able to observe it directly. But it takes hundreds and thousands of millenia.

[timwakefield 68]

You can classify and label it anyway you want. If you want to say that apes and humans are classified the same way, so be it. It is only a label. But to take the next step and say we came from the same thing (i guess you would say it was a gorilla) is where I think your off the ledge.

Again you are missing the point. Men and apes are not classified the same way....men fall under the heading of apes. What you said is similar to saying, 'Ok ok you can say that fruit and oranges are the same thing, but it is only a label.' Oranges ARE a type of fruit, as men are a type of ape.

Like I said before, MICRO evolution is something that happens. No doubt about it. MACRO evolution is another story. There are way to many assumptions that have to be made that never be verified. When the scientists have found some of these "transition fossils" they had built entire civiliations around, they found out later they were entirely wrong, because their intial assumption about what they found was wrong.

Please go read the first post in this thread. I gave a long explanation of just some of the reasons that the fossil record is incomplete.

By the way Tim. You believe in science but not the men who study it? How do you decide which scientist is coming up with correct results and which one is not? You must have a system of testing for truth. A standard by which all declartions of scietists is measured.

You believe in Christianity, but do you trust every priest who has ever lived? God I hope not. There is always lots of debate among scientists about evolution....it is an ongoing process of understanding. But the existence of evolution is NOT debated within the scientific community, because it is proven fact.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Again you are missing the point. Men and apes are not classified the same way....men fall under the heading of apes. What you said is similar to saying, 'Ok ok you can say that fruit and oranges are the same thing, but it is only a label.' Oranges ARE a type of fruit, as men are a type of ape. Please go read the first post in this thread. I gave a long explanation of just some of the reasons that the fossil record is incomplete. You believe in Christianity, but do you trust every priest who has ever lived? God I hope not. There is always lots of debate among scientists about evolution....it is an ongoing process of understanding. But the existence of evolution is NOT debated within the scientific community, because it is proven fact.

Wanted to clear up a few things. 1. That the DNA is close between apes and man really means next to nothing. Yes a possibilty is that it is close b/c of evolution. Another is that it is close b/c there was one creator who added/subtracted DNA as necessary to produce different results. To say absolutely that it is b/c of evolution is not a correct statement. As far as I know our DNA is close to several animals but we dont say that we are related to them do we? 2. I would hope that nobody would blindly follow a priest. If so they could end up following a cult or mormonism (which coudl be classified as a cult). Is there debate between scholars? yes but its never over important facts. What i see is your holding the standards of the bible to that of science when in fact that is the wrong comparision. THe bible isnt a science book. Its a historical book written to detail the life and death of Jesus and the will of God. It is not meant to be treated as a science book, yet i see that comparison happen all to often. To play with yoru statement..No christian debates the existance of God. No christian debates the death and resurrection of Jesus. And no christian debates the necessity of Jesus for us to reach heaven.

[timwakefield 68]

Wanted to clear up a few things. 1. That the DNA is close between apes and man really means next to nothing. Yes a possibilty is that it is close b/c of evolution. Another is that it is close b/c there was one creator who added/subtracted DNA as necessary to produce different results. To say absolutely that it is b/c of evolution is not a correct statement. As far as I know our DNA is close to several animals but we dont say that we are related to them do we?

And you are also missing the point. You cannot consider the difference between apes and man. You CAN consider the difference between gorillas and man, chips and man, etc. Again, a man is exactly 100% completely an ape....he is not biologically similar to an ape, HE IS AN APE. It is like trying to consider the difference between oranges and fruit....it's impossible. edit: or to put it a better way, it's like trying to consider the difference between salmon and fish.

To play with yoru statement..No christian debates the existance of God. No christian debates the death and resurrection of Jesus. And no christian debates the necessity of Jesus for us to reach heaven.

Exactly....and no scientist debates the existence of evolution. If you believe in science you believe in evolution, unless you can somehow show, through scientific means, that there is an alternative. Nobody can.

[suitedinc 0]

You believe in Christianity, but do you trust every priest who has ever lived?

No I do not. That is because the preist is a human. I do however regard the bible as a standard by which I can compare what a pastor is saying to what i read there. It does not change, or ebb and flow with society standards.

Exactly....and no scientist debates the existence of evolution. If you believe in science you believe in evolution, unless you can somehow show, through scientific means, that there is an alternative. Nobody can.

I have had many biology professors who absolutely debated against evolution based on its missing pieces and the all of the assumptions that are made. To say evolution is a science is insulting to them. It is something to be discussed and is a theory. One that they did not believe in. Your broad brush is a little to broad.

[timwakefield 68]

No I do not. That is because the preist is a human. I do however regard the bible as a standard by which I can compare what a pastor is saying to what i read there. It does not change, or ebb and flow with society standards.

Neither does the scientific method. Scientists are only human, the process is not.

I have had many biology professors who absolutely debated against evolution based on its missing pieces and the all of the assumptions that are made. To say evolution is a science is insulting to them.

To say that evolution is not a science is insulting the the scientific community at large. I'm sorry, but your professors' views are not respected in the scientific community.

It is something to be discussed and is a theory.

It is something to be discussed, and you can call it a theory. You can also discuss the theory of planetary motion. And you can also discuss the fact of evolution, and the fact of planetary motion.Also, which professors were these and at which University? I have never heard of a biology professor questioning evolution, except for religious purposes.

[CobaltBlue 662]

it does mean that the biblical story of creation is a man-made fable, suggesting that the bible isn't necessarily the inspired word of a creator.

It doesn't mean that. God could've created the world in 7 days. God could've created the world in tens of billions of years. It doesn't much matter beyond that God created it.

[crowTrobot 2]

It doesn't mean that. God could've created the world in 7 days. God could've created the world in tens of billions of years. It doesn't much matter beyond that God created it.

it doesn't matter if you believe through faith that he created it. my point is if you're looking for physical (historically corroborating) evidence that he created it you won't find any in genesis.

[Mattnxtc 0]

it doesn't matter if you believe through faith that he created it. my point is if you're looking for physical (historically corroborating) evidence that he created it you won't find any in genesis.

haha..yet this is the same evidence that scientists search for? Clearly if you believe this then one day either christians or scientists will be correct when the answer is found...Youll likely be long dead before this..but i guess your a gambling man

[timwakefield 68]

From "The Blind Watchmaker," by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is a science professor at Oxford University, and is one of the most well-respected evolutionary theorists and general intellectuals in the world:"There are people in the world who desperately want not to have to believe in Darwinism. They seem to fall into three main classes. First, there are those who, for religious reasons, want evolution itself to be untrue. Second, there are those who have no reason to deny that evolution has happened but who, often for political or ideological reasons, find Darwin's theory of its mechanism distasteful. Of these, some find the idea of natural selection unacceptably harsh and ruthless; others confuse natural selection with randomness, and hence 'meaninglessness', which offends their dignity; yet others confuse Darwinism with Social Darwinism, which has racist and other disagreeable overtones. Third, there are people, including many working in what they call (often as a singular noun) 'the media', who just like seeing applecarts upset, perhaps because it makes good journalistic copy; and Darwinism has become sufficiently established and respectable to be a tempting applecart."Whatever the motive, the consequence is that if a reputable scholar breathes so much as a hint of criticism of some detail of current Darwinian theory, the fact is eagerly seized on and blown up out of all proportion. So strong is this eagerness, it is as though there were a powerful amplifier, with a finely tuned microphone selectively listening out for anything that sounds the tiniest bit like opposition to Darwinism. This is most unfortunate, for serious argument and criticism is a vitally important part of any science, and it would be tragic if scholars felt the need to muzzle themselves because of the microphones. Needless to say the amplifier, though powerful, is not hi-fi: there is plenty of distortion! A scientist who cautiously whispers some slight misgiving about a current nuance of Darwinism is liable to hear his distorted and barely recognizable words booming and echoing out through the eagerly awaiting loudspeakers."Eldredge and Gould don't whisper [in their critique of Darwinian theory]. They speak out, with eloquence and power! What they say is often pretty subtle, but the message that gets across is that something is wrong with Darwinism. Hallelujah, 'the scientists' said it themselves! The editor of Biblical Creation has written:it is undeniable that the credibility of our religious and scientific position has been greatly strengthened by the recent lapse in neo-Darwiniam morale. And this is something we must exploit to the full."Eldridge and Gould have both been doughty champions in the fight against redneck creationism. They have shouted their complaints at the misuse of their own words, only to find that, for this part of their message, the microphones suddenly went dead on them......"What needs to be said now, loud and clear, is the truth: that the theory of punctuated equilibrium lies firmly within the neo-Darwinian synthesis. It always did. It will take time to undo the damage wrought by the overblown rhetoric, but it will be undone. The theory of punctuated equilibrium will come to be seen in proportion, as an interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinian theory."Thoughts?P.S. The theory of punctuated equilibrium, put very simply, states that there are long periods of evolutionary stasis withing a given population, punctuated by periods of comparatively quick evolutionary change.

[crowTrobot 2]

haha..yet this is the same evidence that scientists search for? Clearly if you believe this then one day either christians or scientists will be correct when the answer is found...Youll likely be long dead before this..but i guess your a gambling man

you keep losing me. all i said was it's pointless to interpret genesis as symbolism rather than literal just so you can say it matches up to the modern scientific view of evolution.

[DerekTah 0]

haha..yet this is the same evidence that scientists search for? Clearly if you believe this then one day either christians or scientists will be correct when the answer is found...Youll likely be long dead before this..but i guess your a gambling man

Why either christians or scientists. Look I'm christian and I believe in evolution. I'm getting tired of this either/or crap.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Why either christians or scientists. Look I'm christian and I believe in evolution. I'm getting tired of this either/or crap.

when i said scientists i thought it was understood i meant evolutionary scientists...I agree that christians do believe in some forms of micro evolution...and that there is a growing number of scientists that are becoming believers...

[MDXS 0]

when i said scientists i thought it was understood i meant evolutionary scientists...I agree that christians do believe in some forms of micro evolution...and that there is a growing number of scientists that are becoming believers...

I think he meant that he believes evolution in toto, but I don't want to put words in his mouth.If such a growing number of scientists are becoming believers then how come no scientific journals have published *any* articles on intelligent design or creationism? Better yet, how come so few (single digits here) articles are even submitted?

[mrdannyg 274]

Why either christians or scientists. Look I'm christian and I believe in evolution. I'm getting tired of this either/or crap.

because God was the creator of Man, in His image. God did not create algae or whatever, which, over billions of years, formed humans.

[Mattnxtc 0]

I think he meant that he believes evolution in toto, but I don't want to put words in his mouth.If such a growing number of scientists are becoming believers then how come no scientific journals have published *any* articles on intelligent design or creationism? Better yet, how come so few (single digits here) articles are even submitted?

You know how many articles are submitted? Like I said, ID is new in terms of tryin to apply the advanced science to it...give it time...The evolution theory didnt get to the level its at right away did it? Its taken hundreds of years just to get to the point ur at now