[_ Old Earth _] myths of evolution

[reznwerks]

"But the evidence is clear that no species, including humans, simply "popped up." Each life form has an evolutionary history, and those histories are ntricately intertwined."

"In examining how evolution is portrayed in the mass media, we found many problems; chief among them was the use of inaccurate expressions. In this article we examine the commonly-used phrases "evolution is only a theory," "the ladder of progress," "missing links," and "only the strong survive."

"In this sense the theory of evolution is as well supported as the theory of gravitation or other explanatory models in fields such as chemistry or physics. While it's true that much of the evidence for evolution is not obtained by laboratory experiments, as in chemistry and physics, the same can also be said for geology and cosmology."


"Moreover, Lamarck thought that the evolution of a new species could occur within a few generations or even one. His position was reasonable for its time, yet it happens to be incorrect."

http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-05/evolution.html

 

[Heidi]

"But the evidence is clear that no species, including humans, simply "popped up." Each life form has an evolutionary history, and those histories are ntricately intertwined."

"In examining how evolution is portrayed in the mass media, we found many problems; chief among them was the use of inaccurate expressions. In this article we examine the commonly-used phrases "evolution is only a theory," "the ladder of progress," "missing links," and "only the strong survive."

"In this sense the theory of evolution is as well supported as the theory of gravitation or other explanatory models in fields such as chemistry or physics. While it's true that much of the evidence for evolution is not obtained by laboratory experiments, as in chemistry and physics, the same can also be said for geology and cosmology."


"Moreover, Lamarck thought that the evolution of a new species could occur within a few generations or even one. His position was reasonable for its time, yet it happens to be incorrect."

http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-05/evolution.html

Of course it's incorrect as are many of the evolutionary theories when they first came out have been shown to be a myth. And in 50 years, today's theories will be replaced with new ones as they have always been. But some people can't see that. They blindly believe today's theories just like the people in the last century believed the theories of their day. That's the blindsightedness and arrogance of man; thinking he knows better than people who lived before him, which is exactly what spawned the theory of "survival of the fittest" and that man is "evolving" into a superior being. The belief that "We are superior today" is what has caused many enormous atrocities in the world. 8-)

 

[Guest]

And in 50 years, today's theories will be replaced with new ones as they have always been.

What is wrong with that? Scientific theories are based on the best evidence available and if better information comes along the theories may change or be replaced. Science is an open-ended process and is welcome to change. That is a good thing.

 

[bibleberean]

Man produces man. Monkeys produce monkeys.

There is no evolutionary evidence that has been produced that is even remotely close to conclusive.

What disturbing roadblocks are origin-of-life researchers discovering in attempting to prove evolutionary origins?
(a short summary)

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c004.html

 

[Guest]

Man produces man. Monkeys produce monkeys.

There is evidence however that Man and Monkeys share a common ancestor.

 

[bibleberean]

Man produces man. Monkeys produce monkeys.

There is evidence however that Man and Monkeys share a common ancestor.

No, there isn't. 8-)

If we resmble apes does that mean we evolved from apes?

David N. Menton, Ph.D

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4 ... 5-2000.asp

This belief, that similarities between animals can only be understood in terms of an evolutionary relationship, is the most fundamental axiom of evolutionâ€â€almost all arguments for evolution depend upon it. Evolutionists do not feel compelled to prove their claim that similarity necessarily means common evolutionary ancestryâ€â€they assume it. Indeed, evolutionists never question or investigate whether evolution is true or not, rather they ask which animal evolved into which, and their answer is generally based on similarity! No scientist would ever succeed in getting funding from major federal or private sources to investigate if evolution has really occurred or not

Making man out of monkeys
by David N. Menton, Ph.D.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4 ... 2-2000.asp

 

[Wertbag]

Of course it's incorrect as are many of the evolutionary theories when they first came out have been shown to be a myth. And in 50 years, today's theories will be replaced with new ones as they have always been. But some people can't see that. They blindly believe today's theories just like the people in the last century believed the theories of their day. That's the blindsightedness and arrogance of man; thinking he knows better than people who lived before him

Of course many of the creation stories have been proven wrong and fallen by the wayside. The pacific islands weren't fished up, the planet wasn't created by Zeus and we aren't on a flat disc on the back of elephants riding a giant turtle. Religions have often been wiped out (who would believe in the Greek gods? In the Aztec or Incan?) but in their day you can gaurantee they believed whole heartedly that they were right. That their religious texts were divinely inspired, that their religious leader was picked or was god, that their prayers were heard, and that every other religion was false leading to damnation. I see the exact same arrogance in some christians; "No need to test my beliefs, I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong. You're just too foolish to see I'm right"

What disturbing roadblocks are origin-of-life researchers discovering in attempting to prove evolutionary origins

I wish these creationist websites would stop believeing abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing. Evolution is change within an existing population, but it requires life to exist to evolve. Abiogenesis is the theory of life being created by combining chemicals in the right way.
There are christians who believe God created life and then used evolution to get the world to where it is. These people believe in evolution but not abiogenesis. The two processes are not necassarily linked.
Fossil evidence relates to evolution but not abiogenesis, while the Urey/Miller experiment relates to abiogenesis and not evolution.
Evolution has been around for a couple of centuries and has been looked at from every angle by generations of scientists but has not collasped under the intense investiagation as creationists would like to believe.
Abiogenesis on the other hand is quite a newly tested theory, and is openly admitted that the answers have not been found. The difference in thought is that believers in abiogenesis are saying "We don't know yet what the right answer is, so we will continue researching" while creationists are saying "Its impossible you'll never succeed".

 

[bibleberean]

The fact that there are "Christians" who believe God used evolution to evolve species is not evidence for evolution.

Creation scientists understand the difference between the formation of early life and the false theory that life "evolved" ( the false idea that man and monkeys have a common ancestor etc)

The fact is life started somewhere and it did not start with a chemical action.

That is part of evolutionary theory and it is impossible to believe one without the other.

Cut and dry plain and simple.

It really doesn't take a long a post to make a simple point.

God created life to produce after it's "kind".

What are the Genesis "kinds"?
Baraminology--classification of created organisms

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/baraminology.html

 

[Guest]

No, there isn't.

Yes there is, for example, DNA similarity and retroviruses along with taxonomy.

The sources you provided are filled with so many untruths it would take me forever to respond to all so here are a few.

From: "If we resemble apes does that mean we evolved from apes?"

Evolutionists do not feel compelled to prove their claim that similarity necessarily means common evolutionary ancestryâ€â€they assume it. Indeed, evolutionists never question or investigate whether evolution is true or not, rather they ask which animal evolved into which, and their answer is generally based on similarity!

This not true. Scientists thrive on asking questions and investigating the truthfulness of evolution. It is because evolution has survived peer review investigation that makes it strong.

With this motivation, Leaky soon found 40 specimens of the “human ancestor,†Australopithecus, whose very name, by the way, means “Southern APEâ€Â!

And I do believe his finds have stood up scrutiny.

Incredibly, evolutionists explain away amazing similarities between animals they consider to be only distantly related by simply invoking “convergent evolution.†Convergent evolution is the unobserved and unexplained process whereby two very different animals independently evolve into two very similar animals by an incredible run of countless lucky mutational coincidences extending over tens of millions of years!

Since the author merely hand waves convergent evolution here are some links to help explain it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_relay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_evolution

From: "Making man out of monkeys"

The first and most important thing we should understand is that evolutionists begin with the assumption that man has in fact evolved from apes. No paleoanthropologist (one who studies the fossil evidence for man’s origin) would dare to seriously raise the question “did man evolve from apes?†The only permissible question is “from which apes did man evolve?â€Â

No, scientists begin with evidence and then form a hypothesis. Scientists are free to ask any questions and again scientists thrive on challenges to evolution.

It is odd since the author is writing for a Web site in which people must start from the assumption of creation.

 

[Guest]

The fact that there are "Christians" who believe God used evolution to evolve species is not evidence for evolution.

Who are you to question whether others are Christians based on their view of Evolution?

That there are TEs helps disprove the notion that evolution=atheism

That is part of evolutionary theory and it is impossible to believe one without the other.

Not true, God could have created life and then evolution occured from that point on.

 

[bibleberean]

Does the DNA similarity between chimps and humans prove a common ancestry?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html

Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?

Similarity ('homology') is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen 'beetle' car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies'). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution...

...What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced..

There is no evidence for evolution just theory based on a biased interpretation of data.

The observable evidence gives little if any support that life evolved from a simple organism into a more complex one over time.

The bible gives the only true account of how life came into existance.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Evolution is an attempt to explain life and it's origins without God. That way man is not accountable to anything higher than himself.

Even thought there are alleged and confused Christians that buy into the evolutionary lie does not change what the bible teaches.

Romans 14:11-12 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

 

[Heidi]

The fact that there are "Christians" who believe God used evolution to evolve species is not evidence for evolution.

Who are you to question whether others are Christians based on their view of Evolution?

That there are TEs helps disprove the notion that evolution=atheism

That is part of evolutionary theory and it is impossible to believe one without the other.

Not true, God could have created life and then evolution occured from that point on.

Does evolution =creationism? If not, then it =atheism. Jesus said; "He who is not with me is against me." You cannot be both. And since Jesus is the Word, then you either believe he is telling the truth or is a liar. So which is it? :-?

So how could we have evolved from animals if we were created as our own separate species? :o

 

[bibleberean]

Good point Heidi.

Evolution is a religion which is in opposition to the word of God.

Either we believe Genesis and Jesus Christ who quotes from it or we believe men who wish to play at god rather than acknowledge Him.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

I think I will believe God and reject the Serpents lie about evolution.

 

[Wertbag]

Does evolution =creationism? If not, then it =atheism

Only if you have a different definition of atheism. Atheists do not believe in any god(s), this is opposed to all religions and not specific to christianity. Belief or disbelief in evolution does not make or break a christian, and does not automatically mean the person does not believe in a god.
You probably mean more that as evolution doesn't equal creationism it is unchristian. unchristian doesn't equal atheist.
Of course there are thousands of christians who do believe in evolution, and it is simply your opinion and interuptretation of the same bible verses that set you at odds with each other.
Its one of the big things that atheists point to, the disagreements between christians. All claim to have the holy spirit guiding them yet they can't agree on what the bible means. Christianity would be greatly strengthened if it presented a unified front, but after centuries of debate this seems further than ever from becoming fact.

Evolution is a religion which is in opposition to the word of God.

Again your definition of religion differs from the norm:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship

Evolution, science, atheism and agnostics do not meet the dictionary definition of religion. Atheism is in opposition to the word of god(s), but is not a religion.

 

[bibleberean]

Websters 1828 Dictionary

atheism

A'THEISM, n. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.

Atheism is a ferocious system that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us, to awaken tenderness.

Atheism is a religious belief system which does not acknowledge anything higher than self.

The bible refers to Atheists as fools that are in denial.

There is no such thing as an Atheist only fools who claim their is "no god".

The atheists who come to a Christian forum are "missionaries" of their belief system. No amount of rhetoric or excuse making changes the obvious.

Evolution is their doctrine and the worship of self is their creed.

 

[reznwerks]

dating

Websters 1828 Dictionary
Is this the most current copy of a dictionary you can find? Are you sure it was 1828? The earliest record I could find was 1847 of the first published Merriam Webster dictionary.

atheism

A'THEISM, n. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.
This part is correct.

Atheism is a ferocious system that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us, to awaken tenderness.
I didn't realize that only God was able to do this.

Atheism is a religious belief system which does not acknowledge anything higher than self.
It's not a religious system because it is not organized and does not have any set principles to live by.

The bible refers to Atheists as fools that are in denial.
Propaganda

There is no such thing as an Atheist only fools who claim their is "no god".

The atheists who come to a Christian forum are "missionaries" of their belief system. No amount of rhetoric or excuse making changes the obvious.

Evolution is their doctrine and the worship of self is their creed.
I wouldn't call it worship or a creed. Atheists get along better with their fellow man and stay out of jail more and stay married more than Christians. Thats a fact.

 

[reznwerks]

"But the evidence is clear that no species, including humans, simply "popped up." Each life form has an evolutionary history, and those histories are ntricately intertwined."

"In examining how evolution is portrayed in the mass media, we found many problems; chief among them was the use of inaccurate expressions. In this article we examine the commonly-used phrases "evolution is only a theory," "the ladder of progress," "missing links," and "only the strong survive."

"In this sense the theory of evolution is as well supported as the theory of gravitation or other explanatory models in fields such as chemistry or physics. While it's true that much of the evidence for evolution is not obtained by laboratory experiments, as in chemistry and physics, the same can also be said for geology and cosmology."


"Moreover, Lamarck thought that the evolution of a new species could occur within a few generations or even one. His position was reasonable for its time, yet it happens to be incorrect."

http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-05/evolution.html

Of course it's incorrect as are many of the evolutionary theories when they first came out have been shown to be a myth.
You need to read the article. It dealt with many misconceptions that those who oppose evolution cling too. You and others on this board don't fully understand what you are against. The quotes I used were supposed to arouse your interest. Your response was one of pure guesswork. ( I hope)

)

 

[Wertbag]

Please don't make up your own definitions, the dictionary is a much better place to learn the meanings of words.
Atheism
A : a disbelief in the existence of deity
B : the doctrine that there is no deity
This is from Websters online: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism
But is similar on http://www.dictionary.com

Also religion is defined as:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship

So by the dictionary definition atheism, science, and evolution are not religions. To believe otherwise you must be redefining the meanings of the words.

 

[bibleberean]

The belief that there is no God is the doctrine of the religion of Atheism.

There fundamental creed is evolution.

That is the way it is.

There is no such thing as a "true atheist".

They all know there is a God.

Romans 1:19-20 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

The bible is the criterion for Christians in a Christian forum.

Get used to it... 8-)

 

[Guest]

Does the DNA similarity between chimps and humans prove a common ancestry?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html

Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?

Similarity ('homology') is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen 'beetle' car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities ('homologies'). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological (appearance), or biochemical, is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution...

...What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced.

A bad analogy and bad information do not make a good article.

The poor analogy of comparing inorganic items to organic items is flawed to say the least. And the rest is just bad or irrelevant information.

The bible gives the only true account of how life came into existance.

And the biblical account is viewed by some as allegorical, which is a viable option considering the poetic structure used.

Evolution is a religion which is in opposition to the word of God.

Either we believe Genesis and Jesus Christ who quotes from it or we believe men who wish to play at god rather than acknowledge Him.

Evolution is neutral toward the word of God. Did Jesus say Christians should only people the bible completely literally as opposed to allegorical? If he did it would contradict the tolerant nature of other things he said.