Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (280) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: TwinDeltaTandem Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 196048  
Subject: Evolution Date: 1/3/2001 10:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Hey, we haven't stirred this one up for awhile. What's wrong with you guys???

Today's Breakpoint brought up some interesting points that I thought ya'll might (or might not) enjoy...

http://www.christianity.com/CC_Content_Page/1,1182,PTID2228|CHID100569|CIID,00.html

TDT
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jennycats Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38703 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/3/2001 10:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Evolution

Nnnnoooooooooooooo!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TwinDeltaTandem Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38705 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/3/2001 10:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
LOL! Sorry! There's no need for anyone to comment on the article. We can just read it, and go on with our lives!

TDT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DisplacedTexan Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38707 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/3/2001 10:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Well, this is certainly a subject we haven't covered enough lately. Don't you think?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Pixieboy Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38710 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/3/2001 10:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Interesting article. I wondered about the following though:

A Chinese biologist at the meeting said that no theory of evolution "can explain these kinds of phenomena." And the Chinese Communist newspaper, Guang Ming Daily, observed, "evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge."

Too often people selectively quote comments from experts to prove their case. I am somewhat sceptical that the Chinese commentators made these comments in this context.

I believe in evolution but if I made a passing comment that the theory of evolution doesn't explain the existence of red toed tree sloths, I am not really supporting creationism. I just can't find an explanation for one particular species.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cragboy Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38714 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/3/2001 11:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
I believe in evolution but if I made a passing comment that the theory of evolution doesn't explain the existence of red toed tree sloths, I am not really supporting creationism. I just can't find an explanation for one particular species.

Via Pixieboy


Arguing the "theory" of evolution is the same as arguing the "theory" of electro-magnetism or the "theory" of relativity. True, there is a lot awaiting discovery, but the lack of complete knowledge does not render the existing knowledge moot, not does it automatically prove true any opposing theories.

Creationism is an interesting idea but it was designed with the intent of enforcing a value system (Christian-Judeo religions)--itself not a bad goal--rather than explain why we are 99.9% similar in our DNA to chimps. I have heard many arguments against evolution, but in my mind it's like arguing that the earth is flat or the moon landings were faked. What difference does it make to the above referenced belief system if your god created the earth in 6 days or in 4 billion years?

Having never posted on this board before I am not sure if I should expect no response, a flaming response, or some throught-provoking comments from tolerant, learned persons. I'm hoping for the latter.

Happy New Year from Shanghai, China.

--crag

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Pixieboy Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38720 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/3/2001 11:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Cragboy

"Having never posted on this board before I am not sure if I should expect no response, a flaming response, or some throught-provoking comments from tolerant, learned persons. I'm hoping for the latter."

Hopefully the later. I have noticed that the board seems to be more tolerant recently. So I am sure you won't get flamed.

I am guessing that you are an athiest as you use small g for God?









Print the post Back To Top
Author: Pixieboy Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38723 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/3/2001 11:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I actually think it is a shame that the athiests who have come across from the athiest boards, haven't stuck around for long. Also I haven't seen any Mormon posters for a while. A diversity of opinions is interesting - although perhaps we can do without the Satanists.





Print the post Back To Top
Author: spud1910 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38728 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 12:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
True, there is a lot awaiting discovery, but the lack of complete knowledge does not render the existing knowledge moot, not does it automatically prove true any opposing theories.

I agree with this statement Crag. But, until our knowledge is complete, we cannot see the whole picture so to speak. And thus our assumptions must be considered guesses, albeit educated ones. Until we have all of the facts, our knowledge, whether on a biblical or secular subject, is basically our interpretation of those facts. And thus subject to change as our knowledge becomes more complete. Does that mean we should not act on those assumptions? No. But I think it means we should not be bulldogmatic til we get all the facts.

Besides, with our respective lines of reasoning, I will someday know the true answer, but you will just stop caring(gentle dig in case you can't see my smile thru cyberspace :))

Jim


Print the post Back To Top
Author: DisplacedTexan Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38735 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 12:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Well, if we're going to review evolution as a scientific theory, then perhaps it might be useful to really talk about what that means. A theory is just that, something unproven, but suspected to be true, perhaps based on a preponderance of evidence or perhaps based on phenomena that can be measured and explained by the theory or perhaps just based on deductive reasoning. The problem, of course, is that of the actual proof. Newtonian physics was quite well accepted and "believed" to be true, unfortunately, as knowledge got more...advanced, it became more and more apparent that Newtonian physics could not explain phenomena measured on a smaller and smaller scale. Hence, the development of a newer, better theory - currently relativity, I suppose. This is the scientific method in action, if you consider technological advancement a kind of natural experiment. While the theory of relativity is one developed basically through a somewhat iterative process in which an older, obviously incomplete model was inadequate, the theory of evolution does not have that benefit. Relativity predicts certain phenomena that can be measured. While measuring those phenomena does not prove relativity, the more of them that conform to the predicted measures, the more likely the theory is "correct."
The theory of evolution is really just based on one man's deductive reasoning. While you might argue that DNA and similarity between species are similar to measured physical phenomena, that's really not true. The theory of evolution is a post-hoc explanation of observations made before DNA was even remotely described and was an attempt to explain those observations. That theory does not predict any measurable phenomena (while you may say it predicts DNA similarity, there are a number of other post-hoc explanations that serve equally well - creation or alien intervention for example) and cannot be tested. Hence, the true scientific method - that is, attempting to DISPROVE an hyphothesis, as opposed to accepting it as true and then explaining why you believe that - cannot be applied. So, while words and logic will not convince you or anyone of God's existence, do not try to claim a truly unassailable foundation for this rather flimsy theory. Your faith is misplaced, don't try to act as though you have a rock on which to stand, you do not, not even by the standards of science.

As a brief post script, I do not want anyone to think that I am remotely anti-science, as nothing could be further from the truth. I just want science (that is, the way of testing hypotheses which is all that science really is) not to be allowed to stand in the way of admitting what we do not know through our limited human means.

PPS Yes, I know it's a darn long post from an ordinarily terse Texan, but hey, what else is there to do at Midnight?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TwinDeltaTandem Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38751 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 8:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Creationism is an interesting idea but it was designed with the intent of enforcing a value system (Christian-Judeo religions)--itself not a bad goal--rather than explain why we are 99.9% similar in our DNA to chimps.

We Christians (not that I'm speaking for ALL Christians, but surely for MOST Christians) would disagree with your basic assumption that creationism was designed. Rather, we believe that the universe was created. The implication of this reality is not so much the imposition of a value system, but the acknowlegment of He who created. What one does with this acknowlegment has relational and behavioral implications, which is where values come to play.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38755 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 8:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
cragboy said:

Arguing the "theory" of evolution is the same as arguing the "theory" of electro-magnetism or the "theory" of relativity. True, there is a lot awaiting discovery, but the lack of complete knowledge does not render the existing knowledge moot, not does it automatically prove true any opposing theories.

Creationism is an interesting idea but it was designed with the intent of enforcing a value system (Christian-Judeo religions)--itself not a bad goal--rather than explain why we are 99.9% similar in our DNA to chimps. I have heard many arguments against evolution, but in my mind it's like arguing that the earth is flat or the moon landings were faked. What difference does it make to the above referenced belief system if your god created the earth in 6 days or in 4 billion years?


cragboy,

One reason it makes a difference whether God "created the earth in 6 days or in 4 billion years" is that the latter time frame (6 days) is clearly stated in the Christian Bible. As Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, that makes a difference.

As for science backing up one point of view or another (creationism vs. evolution), I think we can see that there are some big holes and gaps in the "theory of evolution". Creationism teaches that God created the universe and all that is in it in 6 days. Looking at the complexity of everything around us, I find the "intelegent design" belief much more plausable than the "theory of evolution" (which we must remember is ONLY a THEORY and not scientifically proven).

The "theory of evolution" teaches that the universe began with a "big bang". I fail to see how one minute there could be absolutely nothing (a void), and the next minute there is a violent explosion that "creates" a universe. Science teaches that there is a cause to every effect, so what could have caused a "big bang"? Additionally, science teaches of the "law of conservation of matter and energy". Matter is neither created nor destroyed, it is changed into different forms. (A loose paraphrase). For example, when we burn wood, the wood doesn't just magically disappear. As wood burns there is heat given off (energy), carbon is left behind, water vapor is released etc. Basically, the wood is broken down into many of its different components.

Because of science's law of conservation of matter and energy, there is a large hole shot in the "big bang" theory, in which something (the universe) came out of nothing (a cosmic void). There has to be a cause, and at least the Bible tells us that cause is God.

A second problem with evolution is the beginning of life. How can inanimate objects become alive? Science has not been able to show that gathering elements, compounds, mixtures and chemicals together will "create" life. I'm not talking complex, multi-celled organisms, but merely single celled organisms. IF that were possible (which as I stated I don't believe), the chances that a single celled organism would be able to somehow "evolve" into all the varied species is at BEST a long reach.

I could go on and on, but this post is already long. Suffice it to say that there are far more holes in the "theory of evolution" than science wants to believe. There are no eye-witness accounts to the beginning of things (unless we include the Biblical account of creation), so anything other than the Biblical account is merely a theory, a "best guess" if you will.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38758 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 8:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
TDT,

I think you opened a can of worms here with the "Evolution" chain, but it's welcomed. I'm looking forward to seeing where this chain goes.

I hope our friends who believe in evolution stick around.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TwinDeltaTandem Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38760 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 8:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
One reason it makes a difference whether God "created the earth in 6 days or in 4 billion years" is that the latter time frame (6 days) is clearly stated in the Christian Bible.

Not so clearly in the opinion of most Christians.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38762 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 9:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
TDT,

Not so clearly in the opinion of most Christians.

Are you referring to the "gap theory"? Or perhaps that the six days were possibly a euphemism for "periods of time" and not literal days?

Just wondering of what you were referring.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TwinDeltaTandem Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38764 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 9:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Are you referring to the "gap theory"? Or perhaps that the six days were possibly a euphemism for "periods of time" and not literal days?

Just wondering of what you were referring.


Both, and also the theory that the entire story is symbolic and not intended to be taken as any sort of sequentially accurate depiction of the act of creation.

I think that area in which most Christians are in agreement is the fact that God created. Beyond this, I think there's alot of disagreement. Personally, beyond the fact that God created I'm not that concerned. I'm very curious, and have my own strong opinions, but I'm not concerned with whether I'm right or wrong.

As far as a literal read of the creation account goes, I don't even see many serious evangelical organizations holding to this, at least not dogmatically. For example, Lee Strobel ("The Case for Faith") seems to accept the scientific view of an old universe. I think Hank Haanegraf (Christian Research Institute) does as well.

TDT


Print the post Back To Top
Author: LLNunn Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38765 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 9:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What is the gap theory? In my Scofield Reference ed of the Authorized Version (Oxford Press) there is a footnote between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 that talks about how those two verses are describing 2 different creations... is that what you are talking about?

Not to get off on a tangent but I have wondered, if all the Bible is literally true and its meaning so clear, why Scofield had to provide so many convoluted explanations... the footnote mentioned above is a good example...

--LL

Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38766 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 9:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Agreed.

I have my own opinions as well, and I lean more toward a literal interpretation of the Biblical account in Genesis.

Dr. Ken Ham has a site www.answersingenesis.org that is pretty good. I have heard him speak and read a couple of his books. A lot of his arguments make sense. I also listen to Hank Haanegraf and have read "The Case for Christ", (havn't read "The Case for Faith" yet.

Wonder if Frecs is gonna get involved in this thread.

Hope everything is going well with your family. Didn't you make an emergency trip to the hospital recently?

Thanks for the work you're doing in the military. You probably don't hear that enough.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38769 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 9:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Not to get off on a tangent but I have wondered, if all the Bible is literally true and its meaning so clear, why Scofield had to provide so many convoluted explanations... the footnote mentioned above is a good example...

I don't know that the meaning of the Bible is "so clear". There are illustrations and stories used that are sometimes hard to discern. There are also cultural differences between Biblical times and now. Not to mention, the prophecy in the Bible was written hundreds and hundreds of years ago, so what a prophet was seeing and describing from his point of view and reference may be different if someone of todays time saw the same things. One thing to remember is that scripture says that the Bible will be confusing and not make sense to unbelievers. The Holy Spirit aids us in interpretation of scripture. Even believers struggle with certain portions of scripture. That is why we need to read, study, pray and seek when it comes to studying the Bible.

As to the gap theory, my best understanding of it is that there are SOME people who believe there is a gap of time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. I believe the site I listed earlier www.answersingenesis.org has some information on the gap theory.

Hope this helps.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)



Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jennycats Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38778 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 11:07 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Or perhaps that the six days were possibly a euphemism for "periods of time" and not literal days?

I'm mostly going to watch this time around, but just for the record, I'm a "period of time" person. I hold to a fairly conservative view of scripture, but I read the early parts of Genesis symbolically.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dcarper Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38785 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 11:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
The "theory of evolution" teaches that the universe began with a "big bang".

No, it doesn't. The theory of evolution explains how a multitude of species developed from the beginnings of life. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

I fail to see how one minute there could be
absolutely nothing (a void), and the next minute there is a violent explosion that "creates" a universe.


So then, the only explanation that gets around this is that the universe always existed. In that case, there is no creation.

A second problem with evolution is the beginning of life. How can inanimate objects become alive?

Again, this is not a problem with evolution, as evolution covers how life changed, not how it was first created. You are correct that science has not been able to create life, or even to explain how it started. But the theory of evolution does not even attempt to do this.

There are no eye-witness accounts to the beginning of things (unless we include the Biblical account of
creation), so anything other than the Biblical account is merely a theory, a "best guess" if you will.


Here you are correct. There are no eye-witness accounts to the beginning of things. We will never be 100% sure of the answers. Everything is a theory, a "best guess", but some of them are very good, IMO. The Biblical account, OTOH, is a nice story told to explain things in a simple manner.

David

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38787 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 11:53 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I fail to see how one minute there could be
absolutely nothing (a void), and the next minute there is a violent explosion that "creates" a universe.

So then, the only explanation that gets around this is that the universe always existed. In that case, there is no creation.


Not at all. God has always existed. His creation, the universe has not. Because God has always been, he is behind the "intellegent creation" of the universe. Sorry if I didn't make this point clear earlier.

No, it doesn't. The theory of evolution explains how a multitude of species developed from the beginnings of life. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

It is all tied together. One has to take a theory to it's logical conclusions, and look at it's beginnings. The theory of evolution HAS to attempt to explain the beginnings of life, which it cannot do under the scientific method. Besides, why do we not see any evidence of macro-evolution (changes from one species to another) presently? I know there are arguments that viruses adapt to antibodies and become more resistant, but that is adaptation NOT evolution. One virus (say a cold virus) cannot evolve into another virus (say the AIDs virus).

You are correct that science has not been able to create life, or even to explain how it started. But the theory of evolution does not even attempt to do this.

If what you say is true then there are a lot of mixed-up professors and science teachers because the science classes I've attended tied evolution and the "big bang" together. Other scientists I've listened to have done the same thing. Again, the beginning of life is a HUGE hole in the agrument FOR evolution. Species have to start somewhere. With the Biblical account, we have a cause (God), in evolution, there is no cause.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Kazim Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38788 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 12:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Interesting article. I wondered about the following though:

A Chinese biologist at the meeting said that no theory of evolution "can explain these kinds of phenomena." And the Chinese Communist newspaper, Guang Ming Daily, observed, "evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge."

Too often people selectively quote comments from experts to prove their case. I am somewhat sceptical that the Chinese commentators made these comments in this context.


Given the reputation of "scientific" creationists, I would be very surprised if those quotes ARE in context. At any rate, there's no way to tell, because the article conveniently forgets to supply a source or title. I am extremely suspicious of tiny sentence fragments, as in A Chinese biologist at the meeting said that no theory of evolution "can explain these kinds of phenomena." All we really know is that some unnamed biologist uttered the phrase "can explain these kinds of phenomena". The rest is Colson's interpretation. What phenomena was he talking about? What actual words did he use in place of "no theory of evolution"?

And for all we know, the second quote may have read "Charles Colson mistakenly thinks that evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge." or "...evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge. Mostly from scientifically illiterate people who pretend to know what they're talking about."

If you think I'm being paranoid, there are copious examples of these sort of shenanigans at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part5.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html

I believe in evolution but if I made a passing comment that the theory of evolution doesn't explain the existence of red toed tree sloths, I am not really supporting creationism. I just can't find an explanation for one particular species.

While I appreciate the main point you're making here, I humbly suggest that you ought not to "believe in" evolution. As a scientific theory, it should either be something you accept as factual based on the prevailing evidence, or not. If somebody "believes in" evolution, in the same faith-based sense that you believe in God, then the chances are good that they don't really understand it.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sumstew Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38789 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 12:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Also check out www.drdino.com - Dr. Kent Hovine's website.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dcarper Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38790 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 12:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The theory of evolution
HAS to attempt to explain the beginnings of life,


Why does it HAVE to explain something that it makes no claims of explaining? You might as well say that the theory of gravity HAS to explain why we see red and blue as different colors. Evolution only covers the changes in life after life itself is created.

Besides, why do we not see any evidence of macro-evolution (changes from one species to another) presently?
Because evolution happens very slowly. I don't mean slowly as in taking several years, but slowly as in taking many thousands of years. Using this as an argument would be like someone going to the Grand Canyon as a child, then going as an adult, and concluding that since it looked the same, nothing had changed, therefore nothing had ever changed, and the canyon had always been there.


If what you say is true then there are a lot of mixed-up professors and science teachers because the science classes I've
attended tied evolution and the "big bang" together.


If by "tying them together" you mean that they said they were one theory, they were wrong. If however, the teachers said that these two seperate theories work well together in explaining various aspects of what we see, well that's a different story. It is probably true that most people who believe in one also believe in the other, but the theories are quite seperate.

David


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38791 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 12:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Surely you didn't expect to have an evolution party without inviting me!

azpacking: God has always existed. His creation, the universe has not.

Logically it is just as justifiable to say that the universe has always existed as it is to say God has always existed. There is no a priori reason why the universe should have a creator or have a cause. It could be its own cause. Keep in mind that the notion of cause and effect is based on our own observations of the physical universe and is dependent on time moving in a single direction (from past to future). Take away time, and the distinction between cause and effect goes away. From my (admittedly limited) understanding of big bang theory, time began at the big bang so it is only after that instant that effects had causes.

The theory of evolution HAS to attempt to explain the beginnings of life, which it cannot do under the scientific method.

Well Darwin did not attempt to explain the beginning of life with his theory, just the origin of different species as dcarper correctly noted. Let's try to be as accurate as possible. The theory of evolution specifically addresses only the origin of species.

Now it is true that science attempts to explain the physical universe, including the origin of life and the universe, by natural laws. Does this mean science is incompatible with God? No, science is silent on the existence of God. All science suggests is that if God exists and acts, these actions occur via natural laws which are potentially understandable by man. So far, all our experiences suggest this to be the case. The heavenly bodies move according to natural, not supernatural, forces. Diseases are caused by physical agents understandable by science, not by supernatural demons. Even the basic processes fundamental to life work by the natural laws of the physical universe.

In short, a Christian can believe that God created life and did so using natural processes understandable by scientific inquiry. The alternative is to believe as the creationist do, that God acted like a magician to create life by some supernatural method that is completely inexplicable to the human mind. I prefer the former.

Besides, why do we not see any evidence of macro-evolution (changes from one species to another) presently? I know there are arguments that viruses adapt to antibodies and become more resistant, but that is adaptation NOT evolution.

The simple answer is because macroevolution takes a lot of time. But one does see speciation occurring even over short periods with microorganisms (that have rapid generation times) and with plants (that can undergo large changes in their genetic makeup without dying). I would also point out that macroevolution is based on a lot of adaptations occurring over time until one population becomes sufficiently different from another to prevent interbreeding. So evidence of adaptation is evidence supporting the mechanism of evolution.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ericjh Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38792 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 12:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
One other aspect of the Bible is that it is an accurate account of historical events. We are to learn from the 'sins'and triumphs of those whose lives are recorded.

EJ

Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38795 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 12:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Evolution only covers the changes in life after life itself is created.

And that's one of the big problems with evolution. It attempts to explain the inexplainable.

You said it correctly, life is created. The Bible teaches that it is created by God. What some people confuse is the difference between evolution and adaptation. Species adapt to a variety of envoronments, but species do not become different species. This is why we don't see thousands of "transitional" species in the fossil records. You can't find what does not exist.

Again, there HAS to be an origin of life. There HAS to be a beginning. The Bible clearly states what that beginning is. It further tells us that God created the animals and man (see Genesis 1). Evolution offers no support for the beginning of life other than recognizing that there IS life.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38796 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 1:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 19
DisplacedTexan said: The theory of evolution is a post-hoc explanation of observations made before DNA was even remotely described and was an attempt to explain those observations. That theory does not predict any measurable phenomena (while you may say it predicts DNA similarity, there are a number of other post-hoc explanations that serve equally well - creation or alien intervention for example) and cannot be tested. Hence, the true scientific method - that is, attempting to DISPROVE an hyphothesis, as opposed to accepting it as true and then explaining why you believe that - cannot be applied.

You are correct in that the theory of evolution was developed prior to discovery of DNA as the genetic material. This is important. Once the importance of DNA to genes was uncovered, then evolutionary theory made an important prediction. It predicted that closely related species (as defined by evolutionary criteria) should share substantial similarities at the level of DNA sequence. Furthermore, it predicted that the degree of differences in DNA sequence should be consistent with the evolutionary trees developed by other criteria. All of these have turned out to be correct. Evolutionary theory also predicted that when two populations of the same species become reproductively separated, it should result in changes in gene frequency that reflect changes in the average morphology of the populations (because of natural selection, genetic drift, etc.). These genetic changes are the driving force of speciation. This has also turned out to be correct.

So the fact is that evolutionary theory has made predictions, which if wrong would have largely disproved the theory. Therefore, the theory of evolution is testable and has been tested and will continue to be tested and is therefore a scientific theory. It is also the only theory that can explain the diversity of biological observations (which are voluminous) in a coherent way, which is why it is so widely accepted. The validity of the theory of evolution is at least as solid as the theory of gravity.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ericjh Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38799 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 1:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Not to mention that evolution is not supported by the principle of survival of the fittest. The individual mutations make the intermediate species weaker and less able to win the fight for survival. This aspect along adds more time to the equation than even the oldest theorized age of the universe.

Not to mention that evolution opposes the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). The universe is increasingly more chaotic not moving towards higher order.

In time frame of current evolution, there should be sufficient time for intermediate species to be developing and accounted.

IMO it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than specific creation by God.

EJ


Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38800 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 1:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Not to mention that evolution opposes the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). The universe is increasingly more chaotic not moving towards higher order.

This is an important point. Try this link for some more information.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html

Dan (azpackrfn)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38801 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 1:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
sumstew,

www.drdino.com

Welcome to the board. Thanks for that link.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ericjh Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38804 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 1:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Just for fun:

Upon evaluating the data and historical records one must come to the conclusion that evolution is true and creation is true.
Some people most definitely descended from apes. You can explain their actions in no other terms.
Some people descended from the first man and woman that God created. How else can their actions be explained when compared to the ape people?

I am a descendant of Adam and Eve, specially created by the God revealed to us in the Bible.
Who are your ancestors?

EJ



Print the post Back To Top
Author: dcarper Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38805 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 1:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
evolution is not supported by the principle of survival of the fittest. The individual mutations make the
intermediate species weaker and less able to win the fight for survival.


You are suffering the common misconception that all mutations are bad. While it is true that most are, a few mutations are beneficial; these are the ones that continue on, eventually accumulating to the point of forming a new species.

evolution opposes the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy).

This is so absurd that I'm not quite sure how to reply. First of all, evolution is not a thermodynamic situation. Secondly, the second law of thermodynamics applies to a closed system. The only truly closed system is the universe. Since before life began, the Sun has been burning(not really, but close enough). The amount of entropy from the Sun, which supplies all energy to Earth, is far greater than any amount of higher order movement that has occured on the Earth. The system as a whole continues to move towards entropy.

IMO it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than specific creation by God.
And IMO, the two are not contradictory. The Bible explains why God created man, evolution explains how God worked.

David

Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38806 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 1:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
ericjh: Not to mention that evolution opposes the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). The universe is increasingly more chaotic not moving towards higher order.

This is the net effect within a closed system. The presence of pockets of higher order within that system is not a violation of this law. Here is an example.

Sexually reproducing animals begin with a single fertilized egg that then develops into this enormously complex, multicellular organism capable of complex behavior. Clearly a case of higher order arising from something much simpler. Are you suggesting that every case of organismal development, from earthworms to humans, is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and therefore requires supernatural intervention?



Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38808 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 1:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
coralville,

Logically it is just as justifiable to say that the universe has always existed as it is to say God has always existed. There is no a priori reason why the universe should have a creator or have a cause. It could be its own cause.

The difference between God always existing and the universe always existing is that Biblically speaking, the former is supported while the latter isn't. As far as the universe being it's "own cause" I would challenge anyone to name one thing that is it's "own cause". John 1: 1-3 says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." Translation: God and his son Jesus Christ (the Word) were the cause of all that was made. In other words, the universe did not cause itself.

Well Darwin did not attempt to explain the beginning of life with his theory, just the origin of different species as dcarper correctly noted. Let's try to be as accurate as possible. The theory of evolution specifically addresses only the origin of species.

I agree in striving for accuracy. But let's look at the fact that the universe tends toward chaos and not order (as is evidenced by my desk at work throughout the week) ;-). Evolution defies this principle.

The simple answer is because macroevolution takes a lot of time. But one does see speciation occurring even over short periods with microorganisms (that have rapid generation times) and with plants (that can undergo large changes in their genetic makeup without dying). I would also point out that macroevolution is based on a lot of adaptations occurring over time until one population becomes sufficiently different from another to prevent interbreeding. So evidence of adaptation is evidence supporting the mechanism of evolution.

Adaption is NOT support for evolution, it is support for adaption. If I lift weights, my muscles are stressed, and they are forced to grow stronger (adapt). This has nothing to do with me, the human race, or other species changing from one species to another. Similarly, Flu viruses adapt causing us to keep up with their makeup and the different strains of the virus. New strains of the virus are still the flu virus, it does not and can not change to the AIDs virus.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ericjh Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38809 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 1:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
David:
I am not suffering from anything. You like most evolutionists like to use only the nice little pieces that fit your portion of the picture. You cannot leave anything out.
Also the transition from scales to feathers although good for the bird would be bad for the reptile.

Hollowing of the bones to transform into a bird also would be negative for the intermediate species.
How did a reptile transform into a bird? Neither you nor any evolutionist can explain this.
Equally impossible to explain is how the 32 little muscles in a fly developed so that it can fly. Nor can it be explained from whence it came.

EJ


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ericjh Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38810 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 1:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No I am not suggesting.
EJ

Print the post Back To Top
Author: madorko One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38812 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 1:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I humbly suggest that you ought not to "believe in" evolution. As a scientific theory, it should either be something you accept as factual based on the prevailing evidence, or not. If somebody "believes in" evolution, in the same faith-based sense that you believe in God, then the chances are good that they don't really understand it.

Depending on how you meant this determines on whether I agree or disagree with it. Since evolution is only a theory, one cannot accept it as fact without some faith (if were completely provable at this time it would be considered a Scientific Law, not theory). If, on the other hand, you simply mean to accept it or not as a factually based, plausible explanation of what has occurred based on the physical evidence currently available, then I would concur with your statement. One of my main issues with evolution is that I have not heard of any concrete evidence/documentation of one species actually evolving into another species. Evolution/adaptation within a species, definitely (I'm fairly sure this is what Darwin observed), but not an actual change of one species to another. Granted, I am by no means an expert on this and do not even attempt to stay up-to-date on the issue so if anyone knows of any verifiable information to the contrary I'd be more than willing to hear about it.

In my opinion however, the specifics of creation are a red herring in terms of it making or breaking someone's faith in Christ. The most important aspect of this issue as it pertains to the Christian faith is to acknowledge that GOD created. I mean, is the main truth of the creation story that it took six literal days, or that God is our maker and all powerful, that he speaks and that which was not comes into being? (Or perhaps even something else?) "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Hebrews 11:3)

Personally, I hold to a more literal interpretation of the creation story (I tend to view all passages literally unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, such as a parable. I believe that if I'm going to err regarding a passage of scripture, I'm probably safer erring on the conservative side of the more literal interpretation). However, I reserve the right to be wrong. For me, the truth of the passage is maintained regardless. What I find interesting is folks who staunchly insist that the creation story (including the six days) has to be literal, but readily accept other passages/statements as allegorical (with similar or even less evidence to indicate so) when the literal interpretation in these other cases does not mesh with their own ideas.

IMHO however, the real question isn't about evolution or how to interpret the creation story, but is summed up in the recent Christmas message at my church: "What are you going to do with the baby of Bethlehem?" I feel that most people who use the creation/evolution argument as an excuse to reject the baby Jesus only use it as a smokescreen.

MikeyD

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38813 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 1:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 38
ericjh: I am a descendant of Adam and Eve, specially created by the God revealed to us in the Bible. Who are your ancestors?

Hmmm...my simian brain thinks this might have been an insult.

Okay, I admit it. I am a chimpanzee communicating to you from my wireless Palm V from the San Diego Zoo. I can trace my pedigree on my fathers side to Fred, the sea cucumber, who immigrated here during the Jurassic era. I have records of my maternal geneology all the way to a Silurian trilobite named Ethel, who came to this country to escape religious persecution.

By the way, as I recall Adam and Eve's first born murdered his brother. Adam and Eve's direct descendants were so bad God wiped virtually all of them off the face of the earth. Yours is not all that admirable a family history.

Well, its lunchtime. Gotta go pick fleas off my mate.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: ericjh Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38814 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 2:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Coralville:
Hmmm...my simian brain thinks this might have been an insult.

Okay, I admit it. I am a chimpanzee communicating to you from my wireless Palm V from the San Diego Zoo. I can trace my
pedigree on my fathers side to Fred, the sea cucumber, who immigrated here during the Jurassic era. I have records of my
maternal geneology all the way to a Silurian trilobite named Ethel, who came to this country to escape religious persecution.

By the way, as I recall Adam and Eve's first born murdered his brother. Adam and Eve's direct descendants were so bad
God wiped virtually all of them off the face of the earth. Yours is not all that admirable a family history.

Well, its lunchtime. Gotta go pick fleas off my mate.


Apes and chimps are different species, and theoretically speaking you did not descend from a chimp.

No insult intended. My ancestors are either man specially created by God or apes.

But in keeping with my JFF maybe just maybe Able was Adam's son and Cain descended from an ape.

No fault is recorded in Seth, he was of Adam. Nimrod probably descended from apes.

EJ


Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38815 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 2:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
azpackrfn: The difference between God always existing and the universe always existing is that Biblically speaking, the former is supported while the latter isn't.

If your belief in creationism is based purely on faith, then I have no argument with you. Where I will disagree is with assertions that evolution is not scientific, not supported by the available evidence, or is illogical. I will similarly argue against any suggestion that creationism is more than a religious doctrine. IMO, it is not a scientific theory, nor is it supported by the available data, nor can it be proven by some exercise in logic.

Adaption is NOT support for evolution, it is support for adaption. If I lift weights, my muscles are stressed, and they are forced to grow stronger (adapt).

Since we were discussing evolution I was defining adaptation as evolutionists do, which are heritable changes (i.e. involving genes) that increase reproductive fitness. In this case, adaptation occurs at the level of populations as certain subgroups (who express an advantageous trait because they share the same gene) are selected over others. For example, faster cheetahs (carrying genes contributing to fast running) are selected over slow cheetahs. Over time, the genetic constitution of the population of cheetahs will change so that most are now fast. The cheetah species has thus adapted to its environment in a heritable way.

If you are using the term adapatation in a more general way (to include any kind of nongenetic change occurring in individuals), then I stand corrected.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dcarper Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38820 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 2:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You like most evolutionists like to use only the nice little pieces that fit your portion of the
picture. You cannot leave anything out.


I'm sorry EJ, I have to leave some things out. I, unlike some people on this board, do not claim to know everything. I can comment on the things that I know; on things where I do not know, I either remain silent or ask questions. Since I have not made evolution my life's study, there are many details that I do not know enough about to be able to talk about them.

Hollowing of the bones to transform into a bird also would be negative for the intermediate species.

Maybe, maybe not. Certainly it is possible that the first few times a reptile had hollow bones, it did not survive. And just because some reptiles had hollow bones, which started them on the way to being birds, does not mean that the reptiles with solid bones were in any way made weaker. Of course, as you are probably aware, most of them did die out about 65 million years ago.


How did a reptile transform into a bird? Neither you nor any evolutionist can explain this.


You are correct that I can't explain it. As far as details, I suspect that you may be correct that no one can explain it. However, I don't know that for sure.

David


Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFSelena Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38824 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 3:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
<<Well, its lunchtime. Gotta go pick fleas off my mate. >>

What a gift God has given us, in Coralville! :)

Selena

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ericjh Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38825 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 3:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
coralville
Where I will disagree is with
assertions that evolution is not scientific, not supported by the available evidence, or is illogical.


There is not scientific evidence that evolution as a process exists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your examples are of natural selection. not of evolution. A faster cheetah is still a cheetah
To use your own words.
The cheetah species has thus adapted to its environment in a heritable way.
The cheetah species did not transmute to a different species. If you are going to talk evolution talk evolution! What species turned into a cheetah?
What evolved into a fly?
What evidence is there that a reptile evolved into a bird?
NONE.. It is only because if the is not special creation then these transmutations must have happened. BUT there is no scientific evidence showing that any reptile turned into a bird!

Evolution is not supported by any consistent evidence, there is no scientific method that can be applied, There is no proof of a logical sequence for any current species. It is all in the mind of the fabricator and different fabricators have different theories.
The fossil record changes the theory with each discovery, and the 'science' must be adapted to fit the new information.

I seriously and honestly tried to believe in and prove evolution before coming to Christ. It did not work then and it does not work now 27 years later.
If evolution happened it hasn't been proven, it is accepted by faith. And accepted because the alternative is God did it. And God could not have done it. Especially since there is no God.

EJ


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38828 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 3:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
coralville said:

If your belief in creationism is based purely on faith, then I have no argument with you. Where I will disagree is with assertions that evolution is not scientific, not supported by the available evidence, or is illogical. I will similarly argue against any suggestion that creationism is more than a religious doctrine. IMO, it is not a scientific theory, nor is it supported by the available data, nor can it be proven by some exercise in logic.

I did not say that evolution is not "scientific". I DID say that there are many holes in the theory. Furthermore, as you have stated in your own posts, it is merely a theory. As much as many evolutionists would like to convince people that evolution is factual.

I do not assert that creationism is merely a religious doctrine. I believe there is much in science to support the creationism view. IMO, there are far more holes in the theory of evolution than in creationism. As far as creationism not being supported by an exercise in logic, I believe the creationist view is supported logically far easier than the evolutionist view. Again, there are too many holes in the evolution theory for me to find it a plausable explaination for the origins of species.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)


Print the post Back To Top
Author: dcarper Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38833 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 4:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I believe there is much in science to support the creationism view.

Dan,
Do you have any source other than the bible that supports creation as told in Genisis? If so, why don't you share that with us.

Please note, a source that only quotes the bible or religious leaders does not count. What I am asking for is something "in science to support the creationism view."

David

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DisplacedTexan Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38834 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 4:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Coralville: Once the importance of DNA to genes was uncovered, then evolutionary theory made an important prediction. It predicted that closely related species (as defined by evolutionary criteria) should share substantial similarities at the level of DNA sequence. Furthermore, it predicted that the degree of differences in DNA sequence should be consistent with the evolutionary trees developed by other criteria. All of these have turned out to be correct. Evolutionary theory also predicted that when two populations of the same species become reproductively separated, it should result in changes in gene frequency that reflect changes in the average morphology of the populations (because of natural selection, genetic drift, etc.). These genetic changes are the driving force of speciation. This has also turned out to be correct.

So the fact is that evolutionary theory has made predictions, which if wrong would have largely disproved the theory. Therefore, the theory of evolution is testable and has been tested and will continue to be tested and is therefore a scientific theory.


Actually, you have proven my real point, which is that proponents of evolution fail to apply true scientific principles when discussing this particular theory. While the theory of evolution would suggest that species should have DNA differences proportional to their difference along the evolutionary pathway, proving that to be true (i.e., actually evaluating DNA and weighting differences and establishing a correlation of those differences to some "measure" of evolutionary difference) would still serve only as one single experiment. To suggest that evolution is the only theory that can possibly explain those similarities and differences is not only a poor way of thinking, it demonstrates a remarkable degree of "knowledge egotism," if you will all me to coin a phrase. Just because you or your colleagues cannot think of other explanations does not mean there aren't others. After all, spontaneous generation was actually believed at a certain point, blood flow was presumed to happen by liver function, phlebotomy was thought be therapeutic (ok, I will admit we haven come very far in the treatment of hemachromatosis) and there are countless others.
I am not suggesting that you discount the scientific method, or even attempting to convince you that that theory of evolution is provably wrong (to be honest, I do not consider evolution versus creation to be a definitive issue, though I know many do). I am reminding you that the true scientist knows that he or she really does not know and will always keep an open mind. To do otherwise is to fail in the application of science. Remember, the point of any experiment is to disprove an hypothesis in order to develop another or refine the current one.

PS I really hope I got those italics and bold things right, I'm still a novice at that.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dcarper Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38837 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 4:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
the true scientist knows that he or she really does not know and will always keep an open mind.

Exactly. And that is why it is called a theory.

But keeping an open mind does not mean disregarding evidence because it doesn't agree with what someone wrote several thousand years ago.

David

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DisplacedTexan Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38838 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 4:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Nope, nor does it mean accepting what someone right just a few years ago, just because to believe something else is uncomfortable and might have a profound impact on your life.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DisplacedTexan Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38839 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 4:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dang, what someone wrote...WROTE....
Yes, I really am educated...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TwinDeltaTandem Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38841 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 4:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
And for all we know, the second quote may have read "Charles Colson mistakenly thinks that evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge." or "...evolution is facing an extremely harsh challenge. Mostly from scientifically illiterate people who pretend to know what they're talking about."

Colson wouldn't do that.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38843 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 5:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 16
DisplacedTexan: While the theory of evolution would suggest that species should have DNA differences proportional to their difference along the evolutionary pathway, proving that to be true...would still serve only as one single experiment.

This experiment has been performed on a large number of different species and even larger number of different genes. I see it more of many, many experiments all consistent with an evolutionary mechanism.

To suggest that evolution is the only theory that can possibly explain those similarities and differences is not only a poor way of thinking, it demonstrates a remarkable degree of "knowledge egotism," if you will all me to coin a phrase. Just because you or your colleagues cannot think of other explanations does not mean there aren't others.

No one here is suggesting that, certainly not me. What I stated was that the theory of evolution predicted the results of DNA analysis, and that if this prediction had been proven false it would be a strong argument against evolution. Therefore, it is possible to test the theory. Does it prove the theory by itself. No. But it does provide strong support in favor of it.

Here is an analogy. I have a theory that Iowa has gravity. I will test this by letting go of an apple in Iowa and I predict the apple will fall downward. I consider this a valid test of the theory even though I can come up with a number of other explanations, including that some supernatural being exerted magical forces on the apple to push it down. Does it prove Iowa has gravity? No. But it provides support that when combined with other evidence makes a convincing case.

The evidence for evolution is enormous. It includes anatomical and physiological comparisons between organisms. It includes an extensive fossil record, including the finding of transitional forms. It includes extensive DNA and protein structural analyses. It includes laboratory and field studies of the behavior of gene frequencies in populations under natural selection. Let me be clear about this. The scientific evidence is such that it is the consensus of the scientific community that evolutionary change is a FACT. What is a theory is the explanation of how that change took place. Controversies and disagreement within the scientific community have to do with the method of evolution. That evolution occurred is not in dispute.

I am reminding you that the true scientist knows that he or she really does not know and will always keep an open mind. To do otherwise is to fail in the application of science. Remember, the point of any experiment is to disprove an hypothesis in order to develop another or refine the current one.

I appreciate the reminder. We may disagree but I do believe that the great majority of people in my field have an open mind on the subject of evolution and are convinced by the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of it.

In contrast, I know of no nonbiblical data that support a creationist viewpoint. All the arguments I've heard have to do with perceived inconsistencies or inadequacies in the evolution theory. I would point out that disproving Darwin does not provide any positive support for a creationist model.

I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again. Is there any scientific evidence that would cause any of the creationist here to say creationism is wrong? I suspect not. So much for keeping an open mind. In contrast, I can give you several findings that would make me question evolution, including convincing proof that the universe is only a few thousand years old, evidence that humans existed concurrent with dinosaurs, evidence that the DNA sequencing data is incompatible with known evolutionary trees, or evidence that a belief in creationism will cause stock prices to rise (I'm not proud of it but I admit that I can be bought).

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38844 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 5:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
David,

Do you have any source other than the bible that supports creation as told in Genisis? If so, why don't you share that with us.

How about the complexity of creation itself. What more "evidence" do you need. It is unfathomable to me that the complexity of the human eye, the workings of the ear, the precise makeup of our atmosphere, the way the universe works together in harmony all could have happened by "chance". Again I ask, what explaination can you give for the origins of life itself.

I will again submit that the lack of proof of macro-evolution in the fossil record not only shoots a hole in the evolutionary theory, but it supports the premise that the species have not evolved.

I would ask for scientific support to back up the theory of macro-evolution. I have seen none. It seems to me that if macro-evolution were true, there would be literally thousands and thousands of fossils to help support the theory. This, however, is not the case.

I have posted two different links to web sites that contain information supporting the creationist view. If you could provide similar links that support the evolutionist view, I'd be interested in viewing the information.

More later.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)


Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38849 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 6:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
azpackrfn: I would ask for scientific support to back up the theory of macro-evolution.

I'm not an evolutionary biologist but a couple examples come to mind.

A detailed fossil record has been developed for the evolution of elephants. (J. Shoshani (1997) Natural History, 106: 36-45)

Several intermediate fossil stages have been found for the ancestors of modern cetaceans (who evolved from terrestrial mammals) (Thewissen et al., Science 263: 210-212).

The evolution of the human ear has been worked out (Crompton and Jenkins from Mesozoic Mammals, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1979.

I also posted this along time ago about transitional fossils.

For summary of transitional fossil finds, go to:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Finally, for those who really want to deal seriously with the debate between creationists and evolution, I would strongly recommend the book by Kenneth Miller called Finding Darwin's God. Dr. Miller is a Christian and a biologist who convincingly dismisses the standard creationist arguments (including those by Gish and Behe) while asserting that evolution and Christianity are compatible beliefs. I was listening to an interview of Desmond Morris (an outspoken evolutionist and atheist) who stated that this was the only book that provided a reasonable defence of Christianity with respect to modern science. Morris tends to overstate things but it is a good and very readable book.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jpbailey Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38855 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 7:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
This is the net effect within a closed system. The presence of pockets of higher order within that system is not a violation of this law

This is apparently being discussed in A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1579550088/o/qid=978652942/sr=8-9/ref=aps_sr_b_4_1/102-0948198-8244941

I've included some descriptions below or you can check out his website:
http://www.stephenwolfram.com/

Sounds interesting!
--John


This long-awaited work from one of the world's most respected scientists presents a series of dramatic discoveries never before made public. Starting from a collection of simple computer experiments---illustrated in the book by striking computer graphics---Wolfram shows how their unexpected results force a whole new way of looking at the operation of our universe.
Wolfram uses his approach to tackle a remarkable array of fundamental problems in science: from the origin of the Second Law of thermodynamics, to the development of complexity in biology, the computational limitations of mathematics, the possibility of a truly fundamental theory of physics, and the interplay between free will and determinism.

Written with exceptional clarity, and illustrated by more than a thousand original pictures, this seminal book allows scientists and non-scientists alike to participate in what promises to be a major intellectual revolution.

About the Author
Stephen Wolfram was born in London and educated at Eton, Oxford and Caltech. He received his PhD in theoretical physics in 1979 at the age of 20, and in the early 1980s made a series of discoveries which launched the field of complex systems research. Starting in 1986 he created Mathematica, the primary software system now used for technical computing worldwide, and the tool which made A New Kind of Science possible. Wolfram is the founder and CEO of Wolfram Research, Inc.---the world's leading...



Almost all the science that's been done for the past three hundred or so years has been based in the end on the idea that things in our universe somehow follow rules that can be represented by traditional mathematical equations. The basic idea that underlies A New Kind of Science is that that's much too restrictive, and that in fact one should consider the vastly more general kinds of rules that can be embodied, for example, in computer programs.

What started my work on A New Kind of Science are the discoveries I made about what simple computer programs can do. One might have thought that if a program was simple it should only do simple things. But amazingly enough, that isn't even close to correct. And in fact what I've discovered is that some of the very simplest imaginable computer programs can do things as complex as anything in our whole universe. It's this point that seems to be the secret that's used all over nature to produce the complex and intricate things we see. And understanding this point seems to be the key to a whole new way of thinking about a lot of very fundamental questions in science and elsewhere. And that's what I develop in A New Kind of Science






Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jpbailey Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38857 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 7:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Is there any scientific evidence that would cause any of the creationist here to say creationism is wrong? I suspect not. So much for keeping an open mind.

Great point. There's a quote I can't recall that says something like every once in a while it is a good thing to take what we believe to be true and to add a question mark to it.

I'm also reminded of two other quotes which express similar thoughts:
"Doubt everything or believe everything: these are two equally convenient strategies. With either we dispense with the need for reflection." - Henri Poincare

"Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers." - Bernhard Haisch, astrophysicist

--John



Print the post Back To Top
Author: DisplacedTexan Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38866 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 8:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If you think that your belief is based upon reason, you will support it by argument, rather than by persecution, and will abandon it if the argument goes against you. But if your belief is based on faith, you will realize that argument is useless, and will therefore resort to force either in the form of persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young in what is called 'education.'

Anyone know who said that? And to what it refers?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38868 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 8:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Finally able to "get back at it".

I'm not an evolutionary biologist...

Nor am I and I am sure there are other people far more qualified and educated than I who could do the creationist view far more justice.

I too would also suggest a couple of books.

1. Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

2. The Answers Book by Ham, Sarfati and Wieland

A couple of problems with evolution and an "old" universe that come to mind are:

The moon is receding away from the earth at about an inch and a half a year (doesn't seem like much). At that rate, however, even if the moon had started from a point touching the earth, the OLDEST the moon could possibly be in it's current position is 1.37 billion years old. (This is much younger than scientists actually believe).

The rate at which salt is pouring into the sea is faster than the rate at which it escapes. Because of this, the oldest the seas could be is 62 million years old.

Helium levels in the atmosphere are only approximately 1/2000th the levels that would be expected if the earth were actually "billions of years old". (L Vardiman, The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere (El Cajon, CA: Insitute for Creation Research, 1990)

The earth's magnetic field is decaying so fast that it can't be more than 10,000 years old. (D R Humphreys, "Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field During the Genesis Flood" Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol 2. (Pittsburg, PA Creation Science Fellowship, 1986) p. 113-126

The reason these time frames are crucial is that evolutionists rely on "billions of years" to explain the transitions of species.

3. The FACE That Demonstrates the FARCE of Evolution by Hank Hanegraaff.

I will look for Finding Darwin's God the next time I visit the book store. (Thanks for the recommendation).

IMO, If we look at the order and complexity of the world around us, it is impossible to be convinced that everything happened by chance, through evolution. The marvels of design and complexity of things such as DNA, genetic code and the like are far too complex to explain away by randomness over time.

Creation design is no less "scientific" than evolutionary theory. (Neither is 100 percent proveable using the "scientific method). Both seem to have at least some "science" supporting them. Although as I stated earlier I believe that there are large holes in the evolution theory. Belief in creationism DOES have one prerequisite, however. One must first believe in a Creator. That is the most critical point of the whole debate.

I am here today and gone tomorrow. My beliefs and opinions mean squat compared to those of the all powerful Creator.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dcarper Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38869 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 9:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

How about the complexity of creation itself. What more "evidence" do you need. It is unfathomable to me that the complexity of the human eye, the workings of the ear, the precise makeup of our atmosphere, the way the universe works together in harmony all could have happened by "chance".


So your "Proof" of the literal Genesis version of Creation is that you find evolution "unfathomable." Maybe you should do some research as to what constitutes scientific evidence before you state your thoughts as such.

Furthermore, you will note that nowhere in my postings have I stated that we evolved by chance. In fact, I have stated that evolution is simply the method used by God to create us.



I would ask for scientific support to back up the theory of macro-evolution.

The terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not terms used by the scientific community; they are terms created by people such as yourself so that they can look at evidence for evolution and state "but that only shows micro-evolution; show me evidence of macro-evolution." The standard scientific viewpoint (not to say it is universal, just most common) is that species evolved out of common ancestors. Big changes are nothing more that lots of little changes added together. While it is possible that a big change could happen suddenly, therefore creating a new species, that individual would be unique, and therefore unable to breed.

I have to admit that I do not have any links handy for evolution sites, as I don't do much of my scientific reading online. I will try to find some for you, meanwhile, check out Scientific American magazine at the library. There is usually an issue about once a year that deals mainly with current news about evolution, and there are quite often articles in other issues.
I checked out http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html
it fails the test, as every point it makes is a quote from the bible. There is absolutly no coraborating information.
the drdino site first offended me with the "Hitler's Hit List" banner. Then the quote "We have seen thousands of changes within the created kinds but that is not evolution" seems laughable. If the changes are not evolution, then what are they? (of course, if you want the full explanation, just order video #4!). I will admit that in other points of the site, he brings up valid scientific points that make some scientific findings questionable (such as the acuraccy of C-14 dating), but these points only work as evidence that the basic scientific assumptions are possibly slightly off; they offer no evidence for the Genesis version of creation. Other points, such as the world being 70% land pre-flood, are close to preposterous.

Lastly, www.answersingenesis.org had no evidence whatsoever that I could find that indicated there was any evidence for a Genesis style creation. In fact, their debunking of evolution was so weak as to not even be followable.

David

ps. If you're ever in the NYC area, let me know. We can go to the Museum of Natural History together. That should be an interesting field trip!

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dcarper Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38871 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 9:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The moon is receding away from the earth at about an inch and a half a year (doesn't seem like much). At that rate, however...

I find it interesting that you use data such as this when most creationists argue against scientific theories with lines such as "How do you know the speed of light never changes" or "How do you know that C-14 has always decayed at this rate."

There is actually orbital math that explains why the rate of the moon receding is not a constant. I have to admit, I have seen the formulas, but do not understand them.

Again, while you are raising valid points, they only serve to disprove current scientific theories. They do nothing to prove a Genesis style creation.

David

Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38883 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 10:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
There is actually orbital math that explains why the rate of the moon receding is not a constant. I have to admit, I have seen the formulas, but do not understand them.

Again, while you are raising valid points, they only serve to disprove current scientific theories. They do nothing to prove a Genesis style creation.


I will ask again, since no one on this board has given an answer HOW CAN THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY EXPLAIN THE BEGINNING OF LIFE? I can read in Genesis exactly how life began, and that man was created "in the image of God" from Genesis 1:27. (BTW I don't believe that God is a giant cosmic "King Kong" which is one reason why we couldn't have evolved from apes).

While there is evidence that can lend support to creationism, the Bible is the ultimate support for this view. If one chooses not to believe the Bible, that is their choice.

If you are looking for absolute concrete rock solid proof of creation by using the scientific method, I am sorry to disappoint you, but neither I nor any other person can supply that. On the other hand, no evolutionist can prove that theory either. I can shoot holes in evolutionary theory and give SOME support to creationist view points (whether you want to accept the evidence presented or not is not up to me).

D.M.S. Watson (an evolutionist) said, "Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. (D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, 124:233, 1929.

I'd be very interested to hear an explaination of the beginning of life explained without divine intervention.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TwinDeltaTandem Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38886 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 10:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
David,

I'm reading through this thread and think you're missing a fundamental point here. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't really think Dan is trying to prove that the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account is true. When Christ was visited by Nicodemus the following exchange took place:

John 3:1-13
3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
[Notice that even among His critics, His miracles were accepted as fact]

3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

9 "How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.

10 "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11 I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
NIV


I believe that God created because I know God. When I say this, I speak of what I know. I can tell you that I can see God at work in this world like I can see the wind blowing the trees, but I can't prove His existence to you. If I can't prove God's existence to you, I certainly can't prove that He created all that exists.

However, I can tell you that my belief in Him is rational. Again, this is not to say that it is provable, but rather that it is logical. Part of why it is rational to believe in God is that none of the theories that attempt to disprove Him can.

TDT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38892 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 10:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
TDT,

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't really think Dan is trying to prove that the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account is true.

Your assumption was correct. Although I do believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, I don't believe anyone can PROVE that interpretation through science.

I liked your choice of verses. You explained things more eloquently than I have.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frecs Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38894 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 10:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If you think that your belief is based upon reason, you will support it by argument, rather than by persecution, and will abandon it if the argument goes against you. But if your belief is based on faith, you will realize that argument is useless, and will therefore resort to force either in the form of persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young in what is called 'education.'

Anyone know who said that? And to what it refers?


Let me guess....Marx?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DisplacedTexan Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38900 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 10:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Nope

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bfontes Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38905 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 10:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The individual mutations make the intermediate species weaker and less able to win the fight for survival

I don't see why this would be true.

Not to mention that evolution opposes the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). The universe is increasingly more chaotic not moving towards higher order.

Completely wrong. The law states that in a closed system, total entropy can only increase. The only truly closed system that exists is the entire universe. The entropy increase caused by the overall expansion of the universe totally overwhelms any local decreases such as the formation of a planet or star, or the growth of a living creature.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bfontes Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38910 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 11:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I believe there is much in science to support the creationism view

This I would like to hear. Keeping in mind that statements against one theory do not constitute proof of any other theory.

Nor is the statement "there is no other explanation" proof of any theory.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bfontes Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38914 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 11:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
To suggest that evolution is the only theory that can possibly explain those similarities and differences is not only a poor way of thinking, it demonstrates a remarkable degree of "knowledge egotism," if you will all me to coin a phrase.

No scientist ever claims that his discovery is the end-all of any further scientific pursuit. Every single theory or "law" is doomed to be eventually overturned by new knowledge. Even the most modern "laws" of physics are known to be lacking, since they cannot explain everything that is observed, for instance the behavior of matter near a singularity (black holes, big bang, etc.) No real scientist will claim that his theory is the only possibility. But he must be careful not to start invoking magic as the cause of things that are as yet unexplained.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bfontes Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38916 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 11:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
How about the complexity of creation itself. What more "evidence" do you need. It is unfathomable to me that the complexity of the human eye, the workings of the ear, the precise makeup of our atmosphere, the way the universe works together in harmony all could have happened by "chance". Again I ask, what explaination can you give for the origins of life itself.

"It must be magic since I can not imagine any other possible way." The creationist will always fall back on this argument, which is actually no argument at all. Many, many things in nature seemed like unexplainable magic before the secrets were discovered by science. You only need to look at something as simple as rain, which was once thought to be the result of direct divine intervention.

I will again submit that the lack of proof of macro-evolution in the fossil record not only shoots a hole in the evolutionary theory, but it supports the premise that the species have not evolved.

I submit that most non-scientists don't even know what the definition of a "species" is, never mind being able to use the term in an argument. Most livings were categorized into groups such as families and species long before anything was known about DNA. This was done mostly according to what the animal looked like, where it lived, and how it survived, and at one point was a fairly arbitrary system. So using the argument that evolution couldn't have happened because we can't see one species changing into another doesn't hold any water.




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bfontes Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38917 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/4/2001 11:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
The moon is receding away from the earth at about an inch and a half a year (doesn't seem like much). At that rate, however, even if the moon had started from a point touching the earth, the OLDEST the moon could possibly be in it's current position is 1.37 billion years old.

Is there any reason to believe that the moon has always been receding at its present rate? It seems to me that some simple math would show that is not even possible. Never mind the fact that we don't even know how long the moon has been orbiting the earth.

The rate at which salt is pouring into the sea is faster than the rate at which it escapes. Because of this, the oldest the seas could be is 62 million years old.

Once again we are asked to assume that things have always been as they are now (i.e. the rates of salt entering and leaving the sea) and this assumption is completely ludicrous.

Helium levels in the atmosphere are only approximately 1/2000th the levels that would be expected if the earth were actually "billions of years old".

Sigh.

The earth's magnetic field is decaying so fast that it can't be more than 10,000 years old.

Not even entertaining anymore.

This is the type of garbage that is fed to people who want to believe so badly that they scarcly need any convincing at all. And it is only accepted by those who are not willing to show the slightest skepticism or independent thought.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: fivesolas Two stars, 250 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38919 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/5/2001 12:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<The terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not terms used by the scientific community; they are terms created by people such as yourself so that they can look at evidence for evolution and state "but that only shows micro-evolution; show me evidence of macro-evolution.">

David

What kind of rebuttal argumentation is the above? It sounds like you are saying: “The words with which you describe the lack of evidence for my position are not what I use, so you can't use them.”

God bless,

John

Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38933 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/5/2001 8:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Not even entertaining anymore.

This is the type of garbage that is fed to people who want to believe so badly that they scarcly need any convincing at all. And it is only accepted by those who are not willing to show the slightest skepticism or independent thought.


And this is the type of statement that someone without an expalaination makes. Why not just say "Oh Yeah?"

Once again, and I have asked NUMEROUS times, please do tell how life began if it was not through intellegent design.

The problem with evolution is that it has to assume that life was already in existence, since it can not explain how life began WITHOUT intellegent design.

You can refute creation all you want. I do not purport to have all the answers. I have looked at "evidence" for evolution and find enough problems in the alleged "logic" behind it that I can not at this time believe the story.

The important thing is not what we do with creation. The important thing is what we do with the Creator.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)


Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38935 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/5/2001 8:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Furthermore, you will note that nowhere in my postings have I stated that we evolved by chance. In fact, I have stated that evolution is simply the method used by God to create us.

I am curious how you would explain the beginnings of life. If God really did use evolution to create us, then the Bible is wrong in it's explaination of creation.

There either has to be intellegent design or chance to explain the beginning of life. I know of no other way (if you have another explaination I'd love to hear it).

Other points, such as the world being 70% land pre-flood, are close to preposterous.

I won't attempt to prove or disprove this theory. I wasn't there back then, so I can't argue either way. I have heard it said (and I apologize for not remembering the source) that prior the the flood of Noah, rain as we know it did not exist. Instead, there was a light mist that kept everything living. Once again, I am not making a factual statement here, It's just one possibility. I have no idea how much water vapor is in the air and in cloud form. I can't day weather a 70% land mass number could be accurate pre-flood or not.

I have heard of fossils of fish being found in mountainous areas where scientists cannot explain their presence (other than a massive worldwide flood), but that is not imperical evidence.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: azpackrfn Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38939 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/5/2001 9:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Is there any reason to believe that the moon has always been receding at its present rate? It seems to me that some simple math would show that is not even possible. Never mind the fact that we don't even know how long the moon has been orbiting the earth.

So what are you saying? You don't have ALL the answers? Wow! Join the club. I can say without any hesitation that I do not have all the answers, nor have I ever claimed to. Belief in creationism and evolution BOTH require faith because there ARE unanswered questions.

I would submit that we don't know if the moon could have been moving away from the earth at a faster rate than it currently is, either. If you have any facts to support your theory I'd like to see them.

Once again we are asked to assume that things have always been as they are now (i.e. the rates of salt entering and leaving the sea) and this assumption is completely ludicrous.

What makes this assumption ludicrous to you is that it doesn't support your beliefs. There is nothing to say that salt couldn't have been entering the seas at an even GREATER rate previously than it is now. In fact, it would make sense that the consentrations of salt entering the sea would have been higher the further back in time we go.

The earth's magnetic field is decaying so fast that it can't be more than 10,000 years old.

Not even entertaining anymore.


I did not enter into this "debate" to be "entertaining", rather to discuss some of the inconsistencies I have observed with the theory of evolution, and to see if anyone could give examples of evidence that support life without divine intervention. As of yet, no one has supplied one shred of evidence that life could have begun by chance, and without intellegent creation. Or, is it that it is "not even entertaining anymore" because you cannot refute the statement?

I will again state that the important thing is not so much how creation is explained, but rather what we do with the information presented about the Creator, and our only chance at salvation, Jesus Christ.

God bless,

Dan (azpackrfn)





Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dcarper Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38946 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/5/2001 10:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
I'm reading through this thread and think you're missing a fundamental point here.

TDT, I think you are missing a fundamental point. I am not trying to say that God is not responsible for creation. I am just pointing out that the evidence points to evolution as a tool that he used.

If this doesn't make sense, imagine two boys arguing about a model ship in a bottle.

Boy one: My Dad made this.

Boy two: No, this ship was made by cutting down a tree, sawing it into lumber. The lumber was then whittled down into small pieces. The pieces were then place next to each other, and afixed to each other with glue, which was made separatly by mixing together several seperate components. Then threads were attached to the rigging, again with the glue. The boat was then placed into the bottle, and the rigging pulled tight with a string.

Kind of an absurd argument, isn't it. These ideas are not contradictory. The first idea states what was done, and by whom. The second idea explains the details of how it was done.


Creation explains what was done, and by whom.

Evolution explains the details of how it was done.

These are only contradictory if you feel that creation occured literally as stated in Genesis, ie. in a time period of 518,400 seconds.

David

Print the post Back To Top
Author: albaby1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38947 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/5/2001 10:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Dan wrote:

The problem with evolution is that it has to assume that life was already in existence, since it can not explain how life began WITHOUT intellegent design.

I've been following the thread from afar (okay, just lurking), but I am puzzled by this assertion. Why is an inability to explain the origin of life a problem with evolution?

As I understand it, evolution deals with the origin and adaption of species, not of life itself. I am sure that those working in the field are fascinated by the question of how life began, as are most people. No doubt many are keenly interested in the answer. In addition to being an immensely important intellectual and philosophical issue, discovering the mechanism by which life arose from inanimate matter would be the crowning achievement of any scientific career.

But that doesn't mean that the origin of life, as opposed to the origin of species, is integral to the theory of evolution. Suppose that we were somehow able to prove that G-d created the first living organism(s) - directly through miraculous intervention on Earth, through suspension of ordinary physical laws, or however one would define a miraculous intervention to distinguish from "ordinary" physical occurences that can also be attributed to G-d as the prime cause of all things. But suppose also that from that moment onward, all descendants of those first organisms proceeded to evolve and adapt in accordance with evolutionary theory. Would you say, then, that evolution has been disproven?

Evolution does not explain the origin of life or the universe, even though there are lots of disciplines in science that are searching for explanations for both.

Albaby

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dcarper Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38948 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/5/2001 10:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

<The terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not terms used by the scientific
community; they are terms created by people such as yourself so that they can look at
evidence for evolution and state "but that only shows micro-evolution; show me evidence
of macro-evolution.">

David

What kind of rebuttal argumentation is the above?


John,
The only reason I know of to use the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution is if you accept one but not the other. People that use these terms tend to say that small changes happen all the time, but there have never been big changes.

The truth is that evolution is made up of small changes, multiplied over a very long time. There is no change so small that it is not considered to be part of evolution.

Hope this clears it up.

David

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dcarper Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38949 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/5/2001 10:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The problem with evolution is that it has to assume that life was already in existence,
since it can not explain how life began WITHOUT intellegent design.


az, why do you keep insisting that the problem with evolution is that it doesn't explain something that it makes no claims of being an explaination for?


<sarcasm>The problem with creation is that it doesn't tell me if I should put grape jam or apple jelly on my toast in the morning. I have done a lot of research on creation, and nowhere have I seen an indication as to if I should use grape jam or apple jelly. Creation is therefore incorrect.</sarcasm>

David

Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38951 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/5/2001 10:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
azpackrfn: I did not enter into this "debate" to be "entertaining", rather to discuss some of the inconsistencies I have observed with the theory of evolution, and to see if anyone could give examples of evidence that support life without divine intervention. As of yet, no one has supplied one shred of evidence that life could have begun by chance, and without intellegent creation.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here. Let me first say that I do believe God created the universe and created life and did so in a way that is being uncovered by scientific study. If we find that these were done by a big bang and an evolutionary process extending over billions of years, then that's the way creation occurred. My believe that God is the underlying cause of creation is based on faith and faith alone. I have no scientific proof of God as Creator nor do I have some clever logical argument demonstrating His existence. My belief in God is faith based.

Having said this, I find your challenge "As of yet, no one has supplied one shred of evidence that life could have begun by chance, and without intelligent creation" to be specious. There is no more physical evidence for intelligent design than there is that life began by chance. In terms of the physical evidence, both are equally supported (or unsupported as the case may be). In other words, the argument could be turned around and you would be at an equal loss to find a single unambiguous example of life created by God.

I would also point out that everything we know about biology today indicate that biological processes and life itself can be explained by natural laws that are understandable through scientific study. We have no need to evoke the supernatural in explaining why children resemble their parents, how a lizard regenerates a limb, or how diseases are transmitted. An egg filled with goopy yolk and whites will suddenly become a highly organized and complex chick. We understand a great deal about how this process of development occurs and it doesn't involve supernatural forces (nor is it an exception to the laws of thermodynamics). It seems reasonable therefore to assume that the same natural laws working now would also apply at the time of the origin of life. I see no reason why the origin of life wouldn't be governed by quantum mechanics, the laws of thermodynamics, strong and weak nuclear attractions, etc. I don't see any reason why God couldn't or wouldn't act through the natural laws that He embedded in the universe He created, so I don't see any inherent conflict between science and God.

Now I do see conflict between modern scientific theories and those who take a strictly literal interpretation of the bible. This does not mean that science is in conflict with Christianity. Bible literalists do not represent all or even a majority of Christians.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bfontes Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38955 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/5/2001 11:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
please do tell how life began if it was not through intellegent design

I have no idea how life began. However, that fact that the answer is unknown in no way implies intelligent design.

The problem with evolution is that it has to assume that life was already in existence, since it can not explain how life began WITHOUT intellegent design.

I don't see why this is a problem. Quantum physics does not explain the beginning of life, neither does the theory of gravity, but that does not invalidate those theories. The theory of evolution is presented as a possible explanation of how simple life forms evolved into more complex ones. It does not try to explain how life arose from lifelessness.




Print the post Back To Top
Author: bfontes Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38958 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: 1/5/2001 11:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
I have heard of fossils of fish being found in mountainous areas where scientists cannot explain their presence (other than a massive worldwide flood), but that is not imperical evidence

I have noticed that some creationists will embrace certain scientific data when it suits their needs, and then refute the same techniques when the evidence turns against them. Fossil records are a perfect example. You, as well as others, are willing to quote fossil data when trying to poke holes in evolution theory, but then you will reject the fossil data when it shows the earth to be billions of years old.

So I would like to ask, do you or do you not believe that the fossil record presented by mainstream science is an accurate representation of the history of life on earth?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: kristanmaddox Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 38961 of 196048
Subject: Re: Evolution Date: