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

[Doulos Iesou]

I already said, "Yes i know the bible is not a science book"

And we can't just say the above and continue as if scripture means nothing. If it carries no weight in our conclusions then it's a useless piece of text that only gets in the way.
Is scripture getting in the way?

Did I say Scripture means nothing? No, I said it is a theological book. Hence I will reference it in the context of a theological discussion. This is a scientific discussion.

 

[jasonc]

Biologists who are not evolutionists are extremely rare actually.

biologist that have jobs in that field are rare . 15 bucks an hour for that? I make that. I would stay home if I had that degree even now for that. I disagree.some don't care to debate it, they would rather work.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Yeah, see, I have a little more than a 6th grade education, so I understand the difference between a "scientific theory" and the everyday usage of the word "theory". Same with the term "Scientific law". Not all scientists agree with what you have posted here regarding the difference between a theory and a law, and many scientists disagree that evolution is a law. That includes many secular scientists, by the way, not just Christians. But then, I am remembering that you don't want to discuss anything like this in this thread, so I'll leave it alone.

Did you read what I posted regarding how scientists used the word Theory? No one is saying that Evolution is a law. These words are getting pretty mixed up now, here is what a law means:

"Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."
Source: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2

So it would be improper for anyone to refer to Evolution as a Law, as it is rather a Theory, as it is a well-substantiated explanation of the diversity of life on earth. Laws are incorporated within the Theory of Evolution, but Evolution itself is not a Law.

 

[Rick W]

Did I say Scripture means nothing? No, I said it is a theological book. Hence I will reference it in the context of a theological discussion. This is a scientific discussion.

What we are discussing is mentioned somewhat in scripture.
Putting the label of "science" on this discussion does not disqualify scripture.
This is a discussion about a conclusion drawn from observed data. That's all.

 

[jasonc]

then why do we have the theory of gravity?

What we are discussing is mentioned somewhat in scripture.
Putting the label of "science" on this discussion does not disqualify scripture.
This is a discussion about a conclusion drawn from observed data. That's all.

at one point he will have to say that the bible does have to address that god did make us and that kinda makes us have to see that. if all of its just a theological book that has no bearing on science , origin science is very much a faith. if god didn't make us and didn't intend for us to be what he wanted then the question is begged then why believe what is said in the bible at all? since its not for us at all to give us why we are here? I believe god did that on purpose as well if he started with a scientific definition of how he did it , it wouldn't be understood much and also we still wouldn't believe it.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

What we are discussing is mentioned somewhat in scripture.
Putting the label of "science" on this discussion does not disqualify scripture.
This is a discussion about a conclusion drawn from observed data. That's all.

I disagree on that, and when it comes to Scripture that is more subjectively divided, hence we will likely never come to agreement on how a certain text if we have strong convictions beneath our interpretations.

A fossil or DNA evidence, etc is more objective, since it is not subject to my personal preferences regarding how I observe that in that I can't just say it has any date, or that it resembles whatever I want it to.

 

[Gary]

Did I say Scripture means nothing? No, I said it is a theological book. Hence I will reference it in the context of a theological discussion. This is a scientific discussion.

It's a scientific discussion in a Christian setting. Scripture is bound to work it's way into the discussion. Since we all claim to be Christians, there should not be a problem with it.

Agree?
.

 

[Gary]

The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve that Giraffes have is a very peculiar thing. Humans also have this nerve, and as you can see from the picture below this is a branch of the vagus nerve that runs up to the brain from the area around your heart.

This is a simple picture, but it illustrates the massive detour that this nerve takes, 4.6 meters in total is the length of the detour in Giraffes, that's 15 feet! This seems to be best explained by evolution in that it is a strange design and doesn't serve any beneficial purpose. The length was likely extended via Natural selection as the necks of Giraffes extended, their hearts also lowered, catching the nerve on the wrong side of the heart and thus ended up with this strange detour of 15 feet within the Giraffe's nervous system.

This doesn't seem the product of design, in that a designer would just have the nerve take no detour, but we can observe in Giraffe's this imperfection within their anatomy, which is a result of evolution.

In addition to this, I recommend the below video.

After watching the video below, could you please provide an evolutionary alternative to the Giraffes obvious design w/documentation. Thanks.

.

 

[Gary]

Can you find an example of an organism that would be considered a living fossil that isn't suited to it's environment? If not, then I don't know how your argument makes any sense.

How long would you guess an organism must live in an environment it is not suited for before it evolves into something more suited for the environment?
.

 

[jay55]

Actually Evolution is a proven fact, it's constant denial on this forum does not change that.

Making statements like this don't do much for your credibility.

 

[jay55]

Biologists who are not evolutionists are extremely rare actually.

Not sure about that. My sample size may be a little small but the two real biologists (ie. Phd's in the discipline) who I know are both of the creationist persuasion. Where do you get your stats from or are you making an assumption.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I can answer a few questions that have come up, but I'm trying to avoid the cat fights that are going on.

In lab work Evolution is measured in populations based on allele frequencies. For instance, if a population sees a massive shift in allele frequencies, it shows that organisms are adapting to their surrounding and the genetic make up of the population is changing/evolving. Factors in this can be introduction of outside genetic influences, bottle necking from disease or over hunting, changes in the surroundings, change in climate, etc.

Speciation happens when a population breaks off from other surrounding populations of the same species. Meaning that the organisms have adapted and the allele frequencies are so out of sink that the organisms are now genetically isolated from each other.

Taxonomy separated organisms out based on physical structure, but with the advent and discovery of genetics, geneticists started work on decoding genomes and found that many of the organized groups shared very similar patterns, and with the modern understanding of genetics and with Darwin's theory of a common ancestor(s), phylogeny was dubbed a field of study that went out to categorize organisms by both genetics and morphology.

That is where we get the kingdoms of Animals, Plants, and Fungus. ( there are more but these are the main three that most people are aware of)

Taxonomy sorts organisms into taxa, kingdoms, orders, suborders, species, etc.

From the works of many geneticists organisms have been organized by both their genetic lineage and morphology to resemble the very tree Darwin theorized. This is why the theory is so well accepted in Genetics, ecology, and advanced biological fields of anatomy and taxonomy.

My position is that it doesn't matter if people accept if this is true, many people in the field do their work and help advance areas of medicine and agriculture every day.
I don't care if people accept it, but I am here if people have questions about basic concepts. This isn't a religion to me because its just like the theory of gravity or advanced calculus, they are findings and systems that work and when people in these industries find problems and demonstrate ways to fix the problems I learn about it. I'm not swayed by people telling me that its impossible because it makes no sense, because I've worked in this field and have seen it work.

 

[ezrider]

I have been reading through this forum and I must say many posts have just left me shaking my head at the lengths some will go to deny that which they choose not to believe. I do not desire to engage in a scientific debate, so I will not go down that road. What I will share is my opinion. I believe in the creation by the Word of God, but I also believe that evolution does have some merit to it, so I do not discount it out of hand; nor do I believe in a young earth.

The OP asked for a creationist to describe the theory of evolution. What I can tell you about the theory of evolution is that it is a theory. But if you want to debate the scientific theory of evolution against the creation account found in the Bible, then you must do so from the same frame of reference. When somebody defends the creation account, they do so from a perspective of belief, and belief alone. They can offer no evidence to prove creation, yet they discount science for the lack of apparent evidence in its behalf. So the question should not be whether the theory of evolution is factual, or scientifically provable; to accurately debate creation verses evolution the only question that one should ask: is the theory of evolution believable? To that question I say yes. Is it believable that God created all things? And to that I also say yes.

Some might say the theory of evolution has to do with the origin of species, with a creature that crawled out of the primordial mass and out of the water to walk upon the land. Some might argue over one species transforming into another. It does not matter whether it is true or not; it is a theory. What does matter is whether or not it is believable.

I grew up on a dairy farm in western New York. On each side of my Dad’s land were two smaller creeks that had some water in them much of the year. We had a pond, and a half mile further up the road was another larger creek. When I was young I used to love going down and playing in the creek. In the creek I found these little fish swimming around, though they weren’t fish, they were tadpoles. And day by day I would go down to the creek and watch the fish, I mean tadpoles, and something amazing was happening, they we're transforming. Over a period of time they began growing appendages, and their tails got shorter, and pretty soon they crawled up out of the pool of water in the creek and hopped along the bank as a frog. What I saw for myself as a kid does not prove or disprove the theory of evolution, but what it did do is make it believable.

As a kid I also saw these creatures that were a little large than a worm, crawling around the branches and eating the leaves and vegetation. They were called the caterpillars. But these creatures did something strange too. For after a while this caterpillar would spin itself into a cocoon and die, or did it die? For eventually out of that cocoon springs forth a butterfly that flies away. Did God create the caterpillar? Or did God create the butterfly? What I saw as a kid does not prove or disprove the theory of evolution, but what I did see was a creature that crawled upon its belly transform into a creature with wings that soars through the sky. Can anyone rightfully deny what I have seen for myself by saying its not in the Bible and therefor not believable?

And who says evolution is not in the Bible. The very act of salvation and being Born Again is itself a form of evolution: for you are sown in corruption, and raised in in-corruption; you are sown in dishonor, and raised in glory. You are sown a natural body, yet raised a spiritual body.

In the creation account in Genesis 1 we find it written that God created man and women. In the image of God created he them, man and woman. Yet in Genesis 2 we find that Adam was created and formed from the dust of the ground, and that some time later came the woman, who was not created in the same manner, but instead was taken from the man. For the Bible tells us that Eve was formed from the rib taken from Adam. Some might identify that act as a form of evolution. Now if it is so easy to believe God could create from the rib of Adam the woman Eve, transforming a piece of the man into a new creature called woman. Why is it then so difficult to accept that the theory of evolution is quite believable. One theory of evolution teaches that one species evolved or transformed into into an entirely new species. Fossil records and scientific study have demonstrated a significant amount of similarities between the species. So if the Bible tells us that the woman was created afterward from a rib taken from the man, who is to say then that the creation process of God couldn’t possibly have involved taking from one species to form another? I believe the creation account of Adam and Eve in the Bible may offer precedent therefore to justify the possibility that the creation account of God just might have employed processes that the scientific world has defined as evolution.

A creationist looks at a high rise building, and believes that God spoke it into existent, fully complete and furnished with lights and running water. The scientist on the other hand does not look at the builder, but instead studies the building. How was the foundation laid, how was the brick and mortar set. How was it reinforced to carry the load. They may look at a similar building, and yet see differences that make each building unique and yet fitted for its own purpose. The creationist admires the same building as does the scientist, and yet goes to great lengths do denounce or discredit those who study how the building was built, or why they may have been built differently. The Bible says that God is patient and long-suffering: If this is so, why then insist that creation happened in an instant?

I think that creationists and Christians who go to great lengths to denounce or discredit the theory of evolution out of hand or insist that the earth is only six thousand years old do more harm to the kingdom of heaven and to the gospel of the Christ than any scientific theory could ever possibly do. There is no proof or disproof to the theory of evolution; And there is no proof or disproof to the theory of creation. They are what they are, a belief, and the only way that we can honestly measure the two is from the platform of belief. For the sake of the gospel, it does not matter if the theory of evolution is right or wrong, true of false, it only matters if the theory is believable; and I tell you from my experiences and the things that I have seen for myself in this world, that the theory of evolution is very much believable whether it is real or not.

As a Christian we are called to make known the salvation of the Lord and to be a witness for the kingdom of heaven; A kingdom of Spirit. A kingdom many nonbelievers would label as make believe. But If you continue to deny those things that seem readily apparent and most likely believable in this world, or continue to try and discredit my beliefs, then why would I trust to listen to you concerning the kingdom of Heaven and the invisible things of God if you can not honestly acknowledge the beliefs concerning the visible things of this world?

 

[Gary]

When somebody defends the creation account, they do so from a perspective of belief, and belief alone. They can offer no evidence to prove creation, yet they discount science for the lack of apparent evidence in its behalf.

That's not true.

 

[jay55]

Some might say the theory of evolution has to do with the origin of species, with a creature that crawled out of the primordial mass and out of the water to walk upon the land. Some might argue over one species transforming into another. It does not matter whether it is true or not; it is a theory. What does matter is whether or not it is believable.

There are many different beliefs in this world many of which are deceitful. I am more interested in the truth.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

After watching the video below, could you please provide an evolutionary alternative to the Giraffes obvious design w/documentation. Thanks.

.

I've already posted the evolutionary evidence for Giraffes, and this guy attempts to create problems for evolution by looking at the modern Giraffe, which some form of this Giraffe has been around evolving and adapting for the past 8 million years. The neck hasn't always been this long.

This is the usual kind of Creationist "science," it basically goes like this: "this can't really be explained, it must be design."

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Making statements like this don't do much for your credibility.

I strive to only speak what is true, don't really care about credibility, check the facts I post from other reliable sources.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Not sure about that. My sample size may be a little small but the two real biologists (ie. Phd's in the discipline) who I know are both of the creationist persuasion. Where do you get your stats from or are you making an assumption.

There has been Project Steve, but that was almost a joke to mock the efforts of Creationists to try and show how many scientists oppose evolution. The fact is that this isn't a contested issue in the scientific circle, so there really isn't any drive to a do a full survey. However, pretty much every major scientific organization has stated their acceptance of Evolution, some estimates put support for Evolution among Biologists at 99%.

You see organizations, such as the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis, are more interested in trying to convince the uneducated masses with fallacies and pseudoscience, than actually publishing their work in peer-reviewed formats. The only danger it poses is political.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I have been reading through this forum and I must say many posts have just left me shaking my head at the lengths some will go to deny that which they choose not to believe. I do not desire to engage in a scientific debate, so I will not go down that road. What I will share is my opinion. I believe in the creation by the Word of God, but I also believe that evolution does have some merit to it, so I do not discount it out of hand; nor do I believe in a young earth.

The OP asked for a creationist to describe the theory of evolution. What I can tell you about the theory of evolution is that it is a theory. But if you want to debate the scientific theory of evolution against the creation account found in the Bible, then you must do so from the same frame of reference. When somebody defends the creation account, they do so from a perspective of belief, and belief alone. They can offer no evidence to prove creation, yet they discount science for the lack of apparent evidence in its behalf.

I would disagree with this, Creationist organizations attempt to come up with evidence, but it is always faulty.

1. They use a fallacy such as the argument from incredulity. i.e. I can't understand or explain this, therefore it is designed.
2. They also will represent false data, and then off of that false data present conclusions that support their hypothesis.
3. They use the straw man argument often, such as, "evolutionists have no answer for this..." or, "this is what evolutionists believe.." and then go on to misrepresent or present an outdated perspective.

The list goes on, but the tactics are generally the same.

So the question should not be whether the theory of evolution is factual, or scientifically provable; to accurately debate creation verses evolution the only question that one should ask: is the theory of evolution believable? To that question I say yes. Is it believable that God created all things? And to that I also say yes.

I would have to disagree here too, anything is believable, knowing mankind there is really nothing that has not been believed.

There is no proof or disproof to the theory of evolution; And there is no proof or disproof to the theory of creation. They are what they are, a belief, and the only way that we can honestly measure the two is from the platform of belief. For the sake of the gospel, it does not matter if the theory of evolution is right or wrong, true of false, it only matters if the theory is believable; and I tell you from my experiences and the things that I have seen for myself in this world, that the theory of evolution is very much believable whether it is real or not.

Why not evidence? Why measure it on whether or not it's believable?

 

[Edward]

I do not deny Fine Tuning of the universe, so I don't see how this is an argument against evolution.

I thought I said this already. If the fine tuning of the earht and universe was the littlest bit out of balance then life wouldn't be possible let alone evolve. Plus who maintains it? It's pretty obvious.