[_ Old Earth _] How well do you actually know The Theory of Evolution?

[Rick W]

Now we see common sense means nothing?

Quantum mechanics and theory aren't so heavy that ordinary people who care to learn can't grasp. Algebra, geometry, calculus, statistics, probability all require a learning curve, familiarization with a differing set of variables/ideas and quantum is no different. Quantum must make sense otherwise the principles therein cannot be written, taught or accepted. The laws of mathematics must be obeyed or the whole thing falls apart. And here again is learning, becoming acquainted to an idea of the variables used or needed to make it work.

MD,
Here's the gist.

I post a response.
The response analysed.
The response is corrected because of a lack of knowledge, lack of understanding or lack of something. Therefore I must learn something wonderful.
I'm not new to science, I've had a formal education and continuing professional education throughout my career. I can read a paper, understand the principles therein, understand the reasons for the conclusions and have the liberty to make my own judgment. And there's the problem. If I don't agree then I must learn until I get my mind right, until I do agree. I must "get it right".

All was good while I was in the fold as a professing TE. There was acceptance, compliments on my understanding, agreement for my judgment. But stepping out of the circle I was ostracized for my education meant nothing, I lacked understanding and my judgment ignored/ridiculed. We see this occurring when an upstanding expert in his specialized field changes his/her mind of the accepted conclusions. And oftentimes publicly.

We get data from science. Science is not an entity of it's own right. Man's science develops the instruments, the methods by which data is collected. It's the man, the scientist, that makes the conclusions based upon the data gathered. And if I don't agree with those conclusions then I must learn, discuss, accept and ultimately agree.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I would like to see some transitional fossils for the time period between Homo Erectus and modern man. Thousands and thousands of changes took place between those two time periods. Surely there must be something in the fossil record.
.

Ok, Homo Erectus was an early ancestor, so I can link you to a page where you can find the fossils you seek.
H. cepranensis and H. antecessor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_antecessor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_cepranensis

H. heidelbergensis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._heidelbergensis

H. rhodesiensis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis

H. floresiensis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

Here is a start.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Now we see common sense means nothing?

Called it, you twisted what I said and now taking offense to something that I didn't mean. This is why I said I'm curt.

Quantum mechanics and theory aren't so heavy that ordinary people who care to learn can't grasp. Algebra, geometry, calculus, statistics, probability all require a learning curve, familiarization with a differing set of variables/ideas and quantum is no different. Quantum must make sense otherwise the principles therein cannot be written, taught or accepted. The laws of mathematics must be obeyed or the whole thing falls apart. And here again is learning, becoming acquainted to an idea of the variables used or needed to make it work.

Yeah, anyone can learn this stuff. However The problem is when laymen are used as experts, and when experts are brought in the layman is still accepted because the laymen is telling them what they want to hear.

For example video Gary posted was from a doctor claiming evolution is impossible because of a few fossil comparisons. My field, where I spent years studying, is exactly what the man talking about, since I was trained in that field I can see errors he is making, since its only his hobby. His specialty is psychology and human physiology. Mine is genetics and taxonomy, or phylogeny.

MD,
Here's the gist.

I post a response.
The response analysed.
The response is corrected because of a lack of knowledge, lack of understanding or lack of something. Therefore I must learn something wonderful.
I'm not new to science, I've had a formal education and continuing professional education throughout my career. I can read a paper, understand the principles therein, understand the reasons for the conclusions and have the liberty to make my own judgment. And there's the problem. If I don't agree then I must learn until I get my mind right, until I do agree. I must "get it right".

All was good while I was in the fold as a professing TE. There was acceptance, compliments on my understanding, agreement for my judgment. But stepping out of the circle I was ostracized for my education meant nothing, I lacked understanding and my judgment ignored/ridiculed. We see this occurring when an upstanding expert in his specialized field changes his/her mind of the accepted conclusions. And oftentimes publicly.

We get data from science. Science is not an entity of it's own right. Man's science develops the instruments, the methods by which data is collected. It's the man, the scientist, that makes the conclusions based upon the data gathered. And if I don't agree with those conclusions then I must learn, discuss, accept and ultimately agree.

RIck, can you just answer the question. What are you trying to get out of this? You have given us three posts where you are complaing about people judging you. WHO IS JUDGING YOU? WHO OSTRACIZING YOU.

If you think I'm a snob, then why are you even engaging me? What is the point?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Rick, I'm trying to have a conversation with you. Please try not to get offended by what I say. I responded because you seem offended by the OP. I took your bait and am trying to have a conversation, but you are getting antagonistic and defensive when asked questions.

Rick how do we approach this? How should we take your posts? Do you care what we think, or are you just sharing for the sake of it?

 

[Rick W]

"If you think I'm a snob, then why are you even engaging me?"

The IF/THEN clause presumes an assumption made and a decision based on that assumption.

Why do you assume I think you're a snob?


Anyway,

"and these responses will be open to correction and clarification."

The very first response never had a chance. There was no discussion of the ideas therein, no discussion of the evidence for the resulting conclusion. No worthy analysis. All that was posted was "As expected no dialogue, but one "go see this creationist video." then the author was determined as having no intellectual basis to make his claims in the first place and the member posting it possibly being "a tad bit politically motivated"



Who is going to trust their post will be treated any different?

 

[Milk-Drops]

"If you think I'm a snob, then why are you even engaging me?"

The IF/THEN clause presumes an assumption made and a decision based on that assumption.

Why do you assume I think you're a snob?

Mainly because you made some statements about scientits, and I was trained to be a scientist. That and you got offended when I pointed out that common sense isn't 100% reliable.

Anyway,

"and these responses will be open to correction and clarification."

The very first response never had a chance. There was no discussion of the ideas therein, no discussion of the evidence for the resulting conclusion. No worthy analysis. All that was posted was "As expected no dialogue, but one "go see this creationist video." then the author was determined as having no intellectual basis to make his claims in the first place and the member posting it possibly being "a tad bit politically motivated"



Who is going to trust their post will be treated any different?

Rick, I pointed out that one guy has no credibility because he doesn't. Before we even got to the video, the title itself was already wrong. The guy was held up as an ex Evolutionary Biologist, when the guy had zero credentials in Biology, and was actually a Physicist. The clossest thing the guy did was on Chemical Evolution, which has nothing to do with biological evolution.

The person also hasn't done any research since the 70s and has been part of an anti Evolution political organization ever since. To then add even more on top of this, the man is one of the authors behind the popular creation text book, of Pandas and People, that was banned as a science text book in public schools, because it was politically motivated. Then tried to get the book back in, by changing all the uses of the word creationism with the word intelligent design. The man was caught in the act trying to sneak in propaganda.

Why should we listen to this man?

 

[Edward]

Really? Again?

Ok I'll play.

A summation very succinct is first there was nothing...and then it exploded (I know, I know, that's cosmology but the evolutionists pretty much think that everything happened from normal processes, and then it led up to bio-genesis). Then we were all bacteria and amoebas in the sea and sfter millions or billions of years fish grew and at some point decided that they wanted to go out onto the land so they went back into the sea for another million years while they grew legs and then came out and kept evolving and differentiating into different species and multiplying. Then one day some monkeys wanted a mustang and realized that they needed ratchets and sockets to make it, so evolved into homo sapiens so they could learn to make the tools to make the car...and here we are.

That's the short version. I do have a serious question.

Entropy is...chaos, a...lack of information, right? Order is the opposite or, information, right? Do we agree on that?

 

[Rick W]

MD,
You're a trained scientist therefore I must agree with the conclusions you make?
Are you also the trained theologian versed in absolute truth in the interpretation of scripture or are we to ignore scripture and run only with what we see? Or must I agree with the trained theologian that his conclusion of creation is correct because of his expertise in scripture?
The theistic evolutionist, the creationist or any other belief system concerned with creation allow scripture to shape their conclusions as we do on this forum. The atheist has no interest in scripture or crediting God for anything relying solely on what is seen taking in faith that the conclusions of other men are truth.

I form my belief on both what is seen and faith in how I interpret God's Word. Don't we all who profess Christianity? I did so as a TE and I do now. The difference being how much weight I apply to the evidence of the data gathered and the scripture interpreted. No Christian is a better Christian than the other. I know what I believed before concerning Christ is just as intense as it is now. The difference being my beliefs on how the universe came to be or the beginning of man.

 

[Milk-Drops]

MD,
You're a trained scientist therefore I must agree with the conclusions you make?

Rick, me stating my opinion or me trying to point out some red flags to people isn't me forcing you to do anything. You could ignore me for all I care. Me opening my mouth or posting isn't forcing you to do anything. If we engage in conversation, there is no me forcing you to do anything. I don't have that kind of power. We probably would just come to an impasse and that is it.

Are you also the trained theologian versed in absolute truth in the interpretation of scripture or are we to ignore scripture and run only with what we see? Or must I agree with the trained theologian that his conclusion of creation is correct because of his expertise in scripture?
The theistic evolutionist, the creationist or any other belief system concerned with creation allow scripture to shape their conclusions as we do on this forum. The atheist has no interest in scripture or crediting God for anything relying solely on what is seen taking in faith that the conclusions of other men are truth.

Rick, no one is forcing anyone in here to do or accept anything. We are conversation and defending our own stances. I make recommendations on who I trust out of academic experience. I actually read most of what people post or watch the majority of a video someone provides. Usually I'll just skim it and if I start seeing some key lines or outright misinformation or mistakes I'll check the person's credentials. If its just a layman, it chock it up to the person either not being experienced in the field much, but if I start seeing political allegiances and such I tend to not trust the person.

Just like if I went and applied for a job in a tech or management field, my creds are going to be checked.

I form my belief on both what is seen and faith in how I interpret God's Word. Don't we all who profess Christianity? I did so as a TE and I do now. The difference being how much weight I apply to the evidence of the data gathered and the scripture interpreted. No Christian is a better Christian than the other. I know what I believed before concerning Christ is just as intense as it is now. The difference being my beliefs on how the universe came to be or the beginning of man.

I don't mind Rick. Do you think I'm trying to force you into believing something? You know I'm not able to do that right?

 

[Rick W]

I know you're not forcing me into anything. Nor could you.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Evolution is a theory stating that all life shares a common ancestor.

I'm a creationist, but a rather apathetic one. I don't care for how the church demonizes the existence of theistic evolution.

 

[Edward]

Evolution is a theory stating that all life shares a common ancestor.

I'm a creationist, but a rather apathetic one. I don't care for how the church demonizes the existence of theistic evolution.

Well, they can't both be true, can they?

It kind of doesn't make sense how both could be true. The resident TE here on the board, those who believe in evolution and call themselves Christians also...haven't really said anything about how they would fit together. Which is a pretty big question.

What do they believe? That God created man and the earth, and evolution did some things...or that natural processes made the earth and then God created man and/or the animals...or that Man and earth came about by natural processes and God is just watching? Or what? I'm really unclear on how TE works...

 

[evenifigoalone]

Well, they can't both be true, can they?

It kind of doesn't make sense how both could be true. The resident TE here on the board, those who believe in evolution and call themselves Christians also...haven't really said anything about how they would fit together. Which is a pretty big question.

What do they believe? That God created man and the earth, and evolution did some things...or that natural processes made the earth and then God created man and/or the animals...or that Man and earth came about by natural processes and God is just watching? Or what? I'm really unclear on how TE works...

True, but I don't feel that either way affects the gospel and core beliefs all that much. And I grew up hearing my entire life how evolution undermines the gospel...I just don't really buy that anymore.

 

[Edward]

True, but I don't feel that either way affects the gospel and core beliefs all that much. And I grew up hearing my entire life how evolution undermines the gospel...I just don't really buy that anymore.

I'm not sure if it would undermine the gospel or not. They never say how it fits together. Just...I'm Christian and believe in evolution, that's it.

Perhaps one of our resident TE's would be so kind to shed some light on this for us?

I'm not against considering it. I can think and like to learn. It would have to agree with scripture is all, that's pretty basic. Any Christian would think that way I think. That's not unreasonable.

 

[Rick W]

Perhaps one of our resident TE's would be so kind to shed some light on this for us?

In a nutshell God is the Creator who set things into motion by which the universe and man came to be. Under His direction man evolved. In short, God uses evolution as the tool for the creation of man as well as the universe as we know it. There's no conflict with scripture or science. Much of Genesis is allegorical and had to be. There's no way the ancients could possibly conceive of such things as black holes, stars, planets or the workings thereof. So it makes sense God in His wisdom inspired scripture that all could understand. Besides, the Bible is not a science book. The Bible is the story of God's pursuit of the hearts of men.

 

[Gary]

Evolution is a theory stating that all life shares a common ancestor.

A single cell ancestor.

 

[Gary]

I'm really unclear on how TE works...

It doesn't.

 

[Edward]

It doesn't.

Shhh, I'm baitin' 'em to talk brother and explain what their belief actually is!

Seriously, if they believe both then they should be able to explain why, ya' know?:yes

 

[Rick W]

Gary,
The same thing will be said about Creationism.

 

[Rick W]

Shhh, I'm baitin' 'em to talk brother and explain what their belief actually is!

Seriously, if they believe both then they should be able to explain why, ya' know?:yes

No baiting needed. I explained it. Briefly perhaps but none-the-less explained. I can take the position and you'll find my arguments won't fit your beliefs no matter what I say. Rejection of science when it's there for all to see is what's unexplainable.

See?