[_ Old Earth _] myths of evolution

[hansbrix]

I would say that your bias would be that of an agnostic evolutionist whereby any creation scientist's conclusion of the empirical evidence would be less believed than an evolutionist's conclusion of the same empirical evidence.

A fourth bias defined. Thank you.

Absolutely incorrect. Who are you to presume that I have a bias against certain philosophical groups?

Now with this bias, or your lack of one, where would you say that you derived this bias from?

If I have any "bias", it's a bias towards what I perceive to be the truth. I'm not sure where it was derived from, if anywhere; it seems to me to be an innate personality trait. Even still, it's not really a bias because I have no particular attachment to my current beliefs about the truth of things.

 

[Solo]

I would say that your bias would be that of an agnostic evolutionist whereby any creation scientist's conclusion of the empirical evidence would be less believed than an evolutionist's conclusion of the same empirical evidence.

A fourth bias defined. Thank you.

Absolutely incorrect. Who are you to presume that I have a bias against certain philosophical groups?

Now with this bias, or your lack of one, where would you say that you derived this bias from?

If I have any "bias", it's a bias towards what I perceive to be the truth. I'm not sure where it was derived from, if anywhere; it seems to me to be an innate personality trait. Even still, it's not really a bias because I have no particular attachment to my current beliefs about the truth of things.

I am making an assumption here, and strictly an assumption, so please do not get offended. I believe that you are not comfortable to explain to me what you believe, and the reason is that you will out yourself in a place that you are not comfortable in. I believe that your position in life is fairly new and you are still learning who you are and what you believe. The truth that you believe is guesswork right now if you haven't any strong convictions of what is right and wrong, true or false, and further learning is necessary whether from your environment, formal education, lifes experiences, etc.

 

[hansbrix]

I am making an assumption here, and strictly an assumption, so please do not get offended. I believe that you are not comfortable to explain to me what you believe, and the reason is that you will out yourself in a place that you are not comfortable in.

Not in the least; I'm quite happy to discuss anything, really!

I believe that your position in life is fairly new and you are still learning who you are and what you believe.

I've made, what, all of seven posts here and you're already trying to pigeonhole me? Well, ok, but don't expect to be anywhere close to the truth with your conclusions. ;)

The truth that you believe is guesswork right now if you haven't any strong convictions of what is right and wrong, true or false, and further learning is necessary whether from your environment, formal education, lifes experiences, etc.

It's always guesswork, which is why it's called "belief", and not "absolute knowledge". Also, "right and wrong" are separate issues from what we're discussing here.

Now, back on topic. Where we were up to: You're saying that the vast majority of scientists are wilfully disregarding evidence that would "throw their faith in evolution into the toilet", and I am saying that's absurd, for the reasons I've outlined. Your response?

 

[Solo]

I am making an assumption here, and strictly an assumption, so please do not get offended. I believe that you are not comfortable to explain to me what you believe, and the reason is that you will out yourself in a place that you are not comfortable in.

Not in the least; I'm quite happy to discuss anything, really!

I believe that your position in life is fairly new and you are still learning who you are and what you believe.

I've made, what, all of seven posts here and you're already trying to pigeonhole me? Well, ok, but don't expect to be anywhere close to the truth with your conclusions. ;)

The truth that you believe is guesswork right now if you haven't any strong convictions of what is right and wrong, true or false, and further learning is necessary whether from your environment, formal education, lifes experiences, etc.

It's always guesswork, which is why it's called "belief", and not "absolute knowledge". Also, "right and wrong" are separate issues from what we're discussing here.

Now, back on topic. Where we were up to: You're saying that the vast majority of scientists are wilfully disregarding evidence that would "throw their faith in evolution into the toilet", and I am saying that's absurd, for the reasons I've outlined. Your response?

I would say that as long as you do not know whether their is a God or not, you will believe whatever source sells you the best story. Until you are able to stand on your own convictions your perception of truth is in danger of pandering deceptions. You do not physically see the evidence or the experiments that the scientists perform, therefore, you must believe a man's writings or oral traditions. Your understanding of truth is that which you have determined is true, instead of that which God has revealed is true. There is only room for one God, God almighty or ourselves. I am not able to know the depths of the universe, so I depend on the Word of God. If you depend on another man's perception of truth, he is your God. If you depend on your own perception of truth, you are your god.

 

[hansbrix]

I would say that as long as you do not know whether their is a God or not, you will believe whatever source sells you the best story.

Well, kind of, but that's a simplification. More correctly, I believe whatever hypothesis appears, to the best of my perception, to be true. Of course, that doesn't mean that I blindly follow whichever scientist writes the most persuasively.

Until you are able to stand on your own convictions your perception of truth is in danger of pandering deceptions.

Of course, you must have gotten these convictions from somewhere, so it only makes sense to rigorously analyse them so that you're sure they're true. One would do the same thing to alternate hypotheses, to determine whether or not they are "deceptions". The true danger, in my opinion, is to shut yourself off to incoming evidence and become close-minded.

You do not physically see the evidence or the experiments that the scientists perform

You can if you like! Just depends how paranoid one is, really. Me, I put a certain amount of trust in the scientific community to keep itself honest. I think that trust is, generally speaking, justified.

Your understanding of truth is that which you have determined is true, instead of that which God has revealed is true.

You are quite correct here; God has revealed nothing to me, so all I have to go on to determine the truths of the physical world is the physical evidence that the universe provides. Science, you might call it.

*Ahem*

Now, back on topic. Where we were up to: You're saying that the vast majority of scientists are wilfully disregarding evidence that would "throw their faith in evolution into the toilet", and I am saying that's absurd, for the reasons I've outlined. Your response?

 

[Solo]

Creation scientists and Evolution scientists differ on their perceptions of the empirical data that they claim is evidence for their conclusions. Each is governed by an understanding of the physical world either created or evolved.

Many scientists exist today in the world and many of them deal in fields other than biology and geology. Some deal with genetics and are well equipped to understand the reproductive systems of lifeforms. Biologists and geologists are not; they must take the word from whomever they trust and go from there.

The education systems of the last 40 years has tilted toward an evolutionist mindset where a humanistic philosophy has invaded academia to the point that the Bible and prayer and God were removed from public schools. This occured in 1962. Madeline Murry O'Hare began the first Atheist organization in the United States in my lifetime.

So once again we come to the point where an understanding must be decided upon with the influence of a worldview upon each individual scientist. That worldview will determine whether a scientist evaluates the evidence in the light of creation or in the light of evolution.

 

[hansbrix]

Creation scientists and Evolution scientists differ on their perceptions of the empirical data that they claim is evidence for their conclusions.

I disagree; their perceptions of the data should not differ at all. All humans perceive things in essentially the same ways: Sight, touch, taste, smell, sound. Where individual scientists might differ is in their interpretation of the data.

Each is governed by an understanding of the physical world either created or evolved.

No, a good scientist will form their understanding of the physical world based upon their analysis of the empirical data. In no way shape or form are they governed by their conclusions.

Many scientists exist today in the world and many of them deal in fields other than biology and geology. Some deal with genetics and are well equipped to understand the reproductive systems of lifeforms. Biologists and geologists are not; they must take the word from whomever they trust and go from there.

Well, you're making some generalisations there, but ok. Sure. What was your point exactly?

When virtually the entire community of experts in a scientific field agree on a point, is that not justification for non-experts to assume it to be true?

The education systems of the last 40 years has tilted toward an evolutionist mindset where a humanistic philosophy has invaded academia to the point that the Bible and prayer and God were removed from public schools. This occured in 1962. Madeline Murry O'Hare began the first Atheist organization in the United States in my lifetime.

Totally irrelevant. Christianity, or indeed any religion, are belief systems that were not formed through analysis of empirical evidence, and so they have no relevance to science.

So once again we come to the point where an understanding must be decided upon with the influence of a worldview upon each individual scientist. That worldview will determine whether a scientist evaluates the evidence in the light of creation or in the light of evolution.

So what you're saying is that our initial assumptions might influence how we interpret empirical data. Ok, I agree with that - it is after all fairly obvious. The point is, we need to know what assumptions we are making, and we need to be well justified in making them. Virtually the entire community of experts in a scientific field being in agreement on a certain point would constitute (scientific) justification for assuming that point to be true.

 

[Guest]

Jesus took Genesis literal.

Please show me where he says this and where he says to be a Christian you have to view Genesis literally. Also please explain how his intolerance of other views of Genesis doesn't contradict his other more tolerant teachings.

God took the first woman from Adam's rib. That is the way it is.

Taken literally to some this might sound rather strange why God would need to take Adam's rib in the first place and not just create her the same way he did Adam. Taken metaphorically it might give a better answer and more truth in understanding God's plan.

Undermine Genesis and every Christian doctrine is invalid...

How does taking Genesis metaphorically undermine it if they still believe it helps them understand God.

Man did not evolve.

Man was created...

The evidence in what some might consider God's creation says otherwise.

 

[Guest]

Science is much more capable than evolutionists give it credit. Evolutionists hide their false belief system behind science while science is the actual observation tool within the realm of the physical creation. False philosophy fuels evolution, and it is conjectured by those of that faith to be backed with empirical data that can only be seen by their faith.

Study of Biological Evolution has benefited society as it has led to progress in areas such as agriculture and medicine. This would not be the case if evolution was faith based and required faith to see the evidence.

 

[Solo]

Science is much more capable than evolutionists give it credit. Evolutionists hide their false belief system behind science while science is the actual observation tool within the realm of the physical creation. False philosophy fuels evolution, and it is conjectured by those of that faith to be backed with empirical data that can only be seen by their faith.

Study of Biological Evolution has benefited society as it has led to progress in areas such as agriculture and medicine. This would not be the case if evolution was faith based and required faith to see the evidence.

Well your bias is certainly pronounced as is most all of those who believe that evolution is fact, but the truth remains that God created each living creature to reproduce after its kind, plant, animal, fish, insect, and man. Man's faulty naming system of species, genus, etc. does cause confusion for some in there understanding of truth, but the bottom line is, that no animals that were created as such have not reproduced another type of animal nor have the genetics of the original animal changed.

What does a dog have that no other animal has?
















PUPPIES

 

[Guest]

Well your bias is certainly pronounced as is most all of those who believe that evolution is fact,

If evolution is not a fact how do you account for the advances in agriculture and medicine?

but the truth remains that God created each living creature to reproduce after its kind, plant, animal, fish, insect, and man. Man's faulty naming system of species, genus, etc. does cause confusion for some in there understanding of truth, but the bottom line is, that no animals that were created as such have not reproduced another type of animal nor have the genetics of the original animal changed.

How is scientific classification faulty? Could it be because it doesn't agree with your bias toward creation?

Below is a copy of a nice post I saw at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/may03.html that sums up what humans are.

You are a metabolic organism.

As such, you are basically a collection of replicative proteins that function according to metabolic chemical reactions and processes. A virus is similar, in that it too is a replicative protein complete with mutable DNA and RNA, just as you have. But viruses lack metabolism, and so may not be considered to be alive in the same manner that you definitely are.

You are a eukaryote.

All remaining organic life is distinguished by structural differences at the cellular level between different groups of prokaryotes and the eukaryotes. Unlike the prokaryotes bacterial or viral cells, our cells have a nucleus. Hence, all non-viral / bacterial life forms, as we are, are eukaryotes.

You are an animal.

Unlike those of most other biological kingdoms, you are incapable of manufacturing your own food and must compensate for that by ingesting other organisms. Your most basic structure requires that you cause death to other living things in order to live yourself.

You are a chordate.

You have a spinal chord and every other minute physical distinction of this classification. You also have a skull, which classifies you as a craniate.

Not all chordates have skulls, or even bones of any kind. Once one of the chordates has enough calcium deposited around the brain to count as a skull, all of its descendants will share that. This is why absolutely all animals with skulls have spinal chords.

You are a vertebrate.

Like all mammals, birds, dinosaurs, reptiles, amphibians, and most fish, you have a spine. Not everything with a spinal cord has a spine to put it in, but everything with a spine has a spinal cord in it. Every animal that has a jaw and teeth (Gnathostomata) also has a backbone. And of course, you have both as well, implying common descent.

You are a tetrapod.

You have only four limbs. So you are like all other terrestrial vertebrates including frogs. Even snakes and whales are tetrapods in that both still retain vestigial or foetal evidence of all four limbs. This is yet another consistent commonality implying a genetic relationship.

You are synapsid.

Unlike turtles (which are anapsid) and "true" reptiles, dinosaurs and birds (which are all diapsid), your skull has only one temporal fenestra, a commonality between all of the vast collection of "mammal-like reptilesâ€Â.

You are a mammal.

You are homeothermic, follicle bearing and have lactal nipples. And of course, not all synapsids are or were mammals, but all mammals are synapsid, implying common descent.

You are eutherian.

Or more specifically, you are a placental mammal, like most other lactal animals from shrews to whales. All eutherians are mammals, but not all mammals are eutherian. There are six major divisions in mammalia, only three of which still exist; those that hatch out of eggs like reptiles (monotremes), marsupials, that are born in the fetal stage and complete their development inside the mother's pouch, and those that developed in a shell-like placenta and were born in the infant stage, as you were. Your own fetal development seems to reveal a similar track of development from a single cell to a tadpole-looking creature, then growing limbs and digits out of your finlike appendages, and finally outgrowing your own tail. Some would consider this an indication of ancestry. Especially since fetal snakes, for example, actually have legs, feet, and cute little toes, which are reabsorbed into the body before hatching, implying common descent.

You are a primate.

You have five fully developed fingers and five fully developed toes. Your toes are still prehensile and your hands can grasp with dexterity. You have only two lactal nipples and they are on your chest as opposed to your abdomen. These are pointless in males, which also have a pendulous penis and a well-developed ceacum or appendix, unlike all other mammals. Your fur is thin and relatively sparse over most of your body. And your claws have been reduced to flat chitinous fingernails. Your fingers themselves have distinctive print patterns. You are also susceptible to AIDS and are mortally allergic to the toxin of the male funnel web spider of Australia (which is deadly to all primates, but only dangerous to primates, which is why you'd better beware of these spiders). And unlike all but one unrelated animal in the entire world, your body cannot produce vitamin-C naturally and must have it supplemented in your diet, just as all other primates do. There is almost no other organism on Earth that matches any one of these descriptions separately, but absolutely all of the lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys, apes, you, and I match all of them at once perfectly, implying common descent.

You are an ape.

Your tail is merely a stub of bones that don't even protrude outside the skin. Your dentition includes, vestigial canines, but also incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, and distinctive molars that come to five points interrupted by a "Y" shaped crevasse. This, in addition to all of your other traits, like the dramatically increased range of motion in your shoulder, as well as a profound increase in cranial capacity and disposition toward a bipedal gait, indicates that you are not merely a vertebrate cranial chordate and a tetrapoidal placental mammalian primate, but you are more specifically an ape, and so was your mother before you.

Genetic similarity confirms morphological similarity rather conclusively, just as Charles Darwin himself predicted more than 140 years ago. While he knew nothing of DNA of course, he postulated that either parent must contribute inheritable units of information. He rather accurately predicted the discovery of DNA by illustrating the need for it. Our 98.4% to 99.4% identical genetic similarity explains why you have such social, behavioural, sexual, developmental, intellectual, and physical resemblance to a bonobo chimpanzee. Similarities that are not shared with any other organism on the planet. Hence you are both different species of the same literal family. In every respect, you are nearly identical.

 

[Solo]

Another case of you believe talk origin and I will be the Bible and real science. Simple. Your choice.

 

[cubedbee]

Actually, it's another case of you believing yourself, and talk origins presenting real science which is in perfect harmony with the Bible. You're choice to make. Please don't pretend that rejecting simple basic science is somehow an essential tenet of Christianity.

 

[Solo]

Actually, it's another case of you believing yourself, and talk origins presenting real science which is in perfect harmony with the Bible. You're choice to make. Please don't pretend that rejecting simple basic science is somehow an essential tenet of Christianity.

According to mainstream Christianity, evolution is a joke. I love science and have always done well in Biology, Chemistry, etc. The basics of evolution are a big laugh and unpardonable as scientific study by itself. Now if you were to explain evolution as the theory of those that deny God's creation of the heavens and the earth and the various lifeforms on earth as recorded in Genesis, you wouldn't have any complaints from me. But since the evolutionists like to parade their false beliefs as science instead of a philosophy, I will speak out against it. Tell me what part of evolution do you believe by faith since you haven't witnessed macro-evolution occuring?

 

[cubedbee]

No, according to mainstream Christianity, evolution is a joke.

According to fundamental evangelicals, evolution is a joke. These Christians do not represent mainstream Christianity. Mainstream Christianity has no problem accepting the truth of evolution.

I love science and have always done well in Biology, Chemistry, etc.

As have I.

The basics of evolution are a big laugh and unpardonable as scientific study by itself.

No, they are not, which makes me think you're not telling the truth about loving science and doing well in it.

Now if you were to explain evolution as the theory of those that deny God's creation of the heavens and the earth and the various lifeforms on earth as recorded in Genesis, you wouldn't have any complaints from me.

But if I were to describe it that way, I would be lying. Evolution isn't in the slightest minutest way the theory of those who deny God's creation--quite the opposite, it is a theory glorifying the magnficicent creation of God.

Tell me what part of evolution do you believe by faith since you haven't witnessed macro-evolution occuring

There is no part of evolution I believe by faith, since faith is not demanded to accept any scientific theory. I accept that literally thousands of scientific theories are true, and I haven't verified any of them myself What I have faith in is the scientific method---hundreds and thousands of people have independently verified the theories for me, and so I can trust that they are true.

 

[Solo]

No, according to mainstream Christianity, evolution is a joke.

According to fundamental evangelicals, evolution is a joke. These Christians do not represent mainstream Christianity. Mainstream Christianity has no problem accepting the truth of evolution.

Yes mainstream Christianity believes that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, six evenings and six mornings, and that each life form was created with its own kind's seed for reproducing after its kind.

I love science and have always done well in Biology, Chemistry, etc.

As have I.

The basics of evolution are a big laugh and unpardonable as scientific study by itself.

No, they are not, which makes me think you're not telling the truth about loving science and doing well in it.

Evolution was not taught as fact when I went to school, it was taught as a theory. Hardly any time was spent on evolution at all. In fact, the information that I have acquired over the years pertaining to evolution was all done on my own. Science is so much more than trying to disprove God's Word through evolution deception.

Now if you were to explain evolution as the theory of those that deny God's creation of the heavens and the earth and the various lifeforms on earth as recorded in Genesis, you wouldn't have any complaints from me.

But if I were to describe it that way, I would be lying. Evolution isn't in the slightest minutest way the theory of those who deny God's creation--quite the opposite, it is a theory glorifying the magnficicent creation of God.

There are more atheists and agnostics and non-Christians that believe in evolution than born again Christians.

Tell me what part of evolution do you believe by faith since you haven't witnessed macro-evolution occuring

There is no part of evolution I believe by faith, since faith is not demanded to accept any scientific theory. I accept that literally thousands of scientific theories are true, and I haven't verified any of them myself What I have faith in is the scientific method---hundreds and thousands of people have independently verified the theories for me, and so I can trust that they are true.

You accept other mens writings about evolution, and these men as well as you have a belief that your understanding of evolution is true, regardless of what the literal history recorded in Genesis says. That is faith. There are two scientific methods, those that believe in evolution and those that believe in creation. Those that believe in evolution and say that the Bible is truth are straddling the fence of truth.

You must one day share with me what the Genesis account of creation means. Not one so called Christian evolutionist has yet to do that. I would think that the Word of God would be more important than the theory of evolution.

 

[Guest]

According to mainstream Christianity, evolution is a joke.

I assure you, the views espoused on this board in no way represent mainstream Christianity.

 

[Guest]

Another case of you believe talk origin and I will be the Bible and real science. Simple. Your choice.

This is not a matter of me believing one Web site verse another this is a matter of me believing evidence, which is crucial to real science. Evolution has it a literal creation does not. That is as simple as it gets.

Again it is a fact that evolution benefits many elements of society.

From the Botanical Society of America on how evolution helps solve problems related to growing crops:

The theory of evolution so permeates botany that frequently it is not mentioned explicitly, but the overwhelming majority of published studies are based upon evolutionary hypotheses, each of which constitutes a test of an hypothesis. Evolution has been very successful as a scientific explanation because it has been useful in advancing our understanding of organisms and applying that knowledge to the solution of many human problems, e.g., host-pathogen interactions, origin of crop plants, herbicide resistance, disease susceptibility of crops, and invasive plants.

http://www.botany.org/newsite/announcements/evolution.php

From Oxford Journals on how evolution benefits genetic medicine:

Evolutionary genetic studies yield critical clues about the histories of human populations, and they provide substantial support for an African origin of modern humans. The analysis of genetic variation has formed a foundation for DNA-based forensic applications. And, as attention is focused on locating genes underlying complex diseases, it is becoming clear that a better understanding of genetic variation will help to guide gene-mapping efforts. Population genomics, the large-scale comparison of DNA sequences, is now beginning to provide new insights in these areas. We review some of the general patterns of human genetic variation, and we show how our knowledge of these patterns can aid in the mapping and cloning of disease-causing genes.

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/10/20/2199

An article from Medscape on Darwinian Medicine:

Darwinian Medicine seeks to provide an explanation for diseases based on the evolutionary process. This new discipline, in short, can undoubtedly help physicians in their medical practice, though further research is necessary to improve understanding of the range of its clinical application.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410697

If evolution were not fact the progress in those areas would not be possible. Evolution is at the core of biology and without evolution, biology is a much weaker science. And taking evolution out of classrooms would weaken the research being done in biology to bring more improvements.

 

[Heidi]

It is simply impossible for animals to breed creatures that turn into human beings. And none of us has evolved at all. In fact, we are decaying as the bible tells us. The bible tells us that sin will increase until the anti-Christ of all anti-Christs will deceive most of the people and entice them into sin. So no one who believes the bible can at the same time believe in the theory of evolution.

 

[bibleberean]

God created man from the "dust of the ground" and then breathed life into him. The first man and the first woman were created and they did not evolve.

If Genesis is not true then the rest of scripture is not true.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:21-22 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

I believe the bible. I have never seen one species evolve into another and there is no credible evidence that this has ever taken place.