[_ Old Earth _] myths of evolution

[cubedbee]

It is simply impossible for animals to breed creatures that turn into human beings.

Well, considering the fact that humans ARE animals, a fact that has been explained to you dozens of times, a fact that is not up for debate because the classification ‘animal’ is an artificial one that is defined by man, and that definition includes humans. End of story. So, animals, like your parents, do breed creatures, like you, that are human.

And none of us has evolved at all.

I also believe I have seen dozens of posts explaining to you that individuals can’t evolve, that it is nonsensical to refer to a person or an individual animal as “evolvingâ€Â, and that it is populations of individuals, over vast time periods, which evolve. Of course, you’ve either ignored or not understand any of these.

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.

How is the spiritual depravity and decay of humanity in the slightest bit related to our physical bodies? Evolution says zero, nothing, nada, zilch, absolutely nothing on the spiritual state of man.

 

[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.

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.

Well, this is a productive exchange. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Christians, throughout the world and throughout history, have not believed in a literal 6 day creation that took place a few thousand years ago. And moreover, the majority of Christians today accept evolution. The majority of conservative American Christians may be on your side, but they do not represent mainstream Christianity.

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.

Evolution is still not taught as a fact, it is stil taught as a theory. In science, a fact is a piece of data, a theory is an overarching predictive structure that accomodates all known facts, has the potential to be falsified, but can never be proved. This is the basic defintion of science, and that hasn't changed since you were in school. Evolution has nothing to do with disproving God, no part of the theory mentions God, and it saddens me to see you repeat that lie over and over and over and over.

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.

Another demonstratably false claims, since the number of believers in evolution far outnumbers the number of non-Christians in this country.

 

[bibleberean]

God believes in a literal 6 day creation...

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

God and His word are the criterion for truth.

Evolution is not biblical.

 

[Solo]

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.

Evolution has interpreted evidence as fitting into its philosophical underpinnings, and any evidence that shows evolution to be false is twisted, ridiculed, passed off as pseudo-science, and worship continues.

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:

[quote:c21fc]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.[/quote:c21fc]
Genetics and Micro-evolution(changes within an organism's kind) has made great strides in assisting different areas of society, but the philisophical worship of the false religion of macro-evolution hamper the truth of God's creation, hindering a promotion of true philisophical understanding of our origin and purpose. Without purpose we will continue as the flat-earthers did in their false religion, and will follow the mass deception of control placed on us by the god of this world.

 

[Guest]

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.

Even if it were true that humans are "decaying" that doesn't make the Theory of Evolution wrong. Evolution can include "decay" since it is still modification.

Since many here don't seem to know what the theory of evolution says, so here it is:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

 

[Guest]

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

And it could be allegorical and still be true in its meaning.

 

[Guest]

Evolution has interpreted evidence as fitting into its philosophical underpinnings, and any evidence that shows evolution to be false is twisted, ridiculed, passed off as pseudo-science, and worship continues.

What worship? Where are the evolution churches? What god are scientists (that includes Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhists) worshipping when they follow evolution? Are there denominations that include the Theory of Gravity or Germ Theory?
What part does the peer-review process play in the church of evolution?

So far there has been no evidence to show evolution to be false. But with so much to gain, why would any scientist hide it since he or she would likely receive a Nobel for disproving the Theory of Evolution.

From what I understand scientists love them discoveries and if they were to discover that the theory of evolution is false they would be elated.

Then they would try to find better explanations to the history of life using empirical evidence. After all, even if evolution were showed to be false that would not make creation true without enough empirical evidence to support it.

Anti-evolutionists have failed to disprove evolution because what they use is pseudo-science and package it with misinformation.

Genetics and Micro-evolution(changes within an organism's kind) has made great strides in assisting different areas of society, but the philisophical worship of the false religion of macro-evolution hamper the truth of God's creation, hindering a promotion of true philisophical understanding of our origin and purpose. Without purpose we will continue as the flat-earthers did in their false religion, and will follow the mass deception of control placed on us by the god of this world.

"Micro"-evolution and "macro"-evolution are the same thing just over different periods of time. Microevolution shows that the mechanisms explained in the Theory of Evolution are true.

The irony is that the flat-earthers used a similar brand of pseudo science as creationists do.

It is creationists who apparently want people to ignore evidence and return to the dark ages.

 

[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.

Even if it were true that humans are "decaying" that doesn't make the Theory of Evolution wrong. Evolution can include "decay" since it is still modification.

Since many here don't seem to know what the theory of evolution says, so here it is:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

So if evolution doesn't imply improvement, then where did theory of the "survival of the fittest" come from? :o It appears that evolutionists are changing their minds again once they see that we are not improving. The shifting sand of scientists is quite amusing. Yet the word "science" comes from the Latin verb "Scio" meaning "to know." Pretty arrogant and untruthful of scientists to say they know things which they later take back. :wink:

 

[Frost Giant]

So if evolution doesn't imply improvement, then where did theory of the "survival of the fittest" come from? :o

I don't recall "survival of the fittest" ever being a theory.

It appears that evolutionists are changing their minds again once they see that we are not improving.

It appears that Heidi is, once again, being intellectually dishonest.

The shifting sand of scientists is quite amusing. Yet the word "science" comes from the Latin verb "Scio" meaning "to know." Pretty arrogant and untruthful of scientists to say they know things which they later take back. :wink:

I wasn't aware science claims that all theories are 100% correct and proven. Thanks for enlightening me.

 

[Guest]

So if evolution doesn't imply improvement, then where did theory of the "survival of the fittest" come from? :o

The term "survival of the fittest" was invented by an English philosopher Herbert Spencer and it was later used in reference to evolution. However scientists have since soured on the term because the phrase is too simple among other reasons. :smt109

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

A species can "decay" and still survive if it is still better suited for an environment than others to fill a niche. The growing number of tusk-less elephants in Africa or an animal on island that becomes smaller could be considered "decay," but each may give the animal a better chance to maintain its niche.

It appears that evolutionists are changing their minds again once they see that we are not improving. The shifting sand of scientists is quite amusing. Yet the word "science" comes from the Latin verb "Scio" meaning "to know." Pretty arrogant and untruthful of scientists to say they know things which they later take back. :wink:

What is wrong with scientists developing better ideas if they discover better new information? :smt115 Science is a work-in-progress as scientists work to find better information and sometimes they find it. If scientists discovered information that made them change there minds about the Theory of Gravity would you not believe gravity exists? :smt017

 

[Heidi]

So if evolution doesn't imply improvement, then where did theory of the "survival of the fittest" come from? :o

I don't recall "survival of the fittest" ever being a theory.

It appears that evolutionists are changing their minds again once they see that we are not improving.

It appears that Heidi is, once again, being intellectually dishonest.
[quote:5df17]The shifting sand of scientists is quite amusing. Yet the word "science" comes from the Latin verb "Scio" meaning "to know." Pretty arrogant and untruthful of scientists to say they know things which they later take back. :wink:

I wasn't aware science claims that all theories are 100% correct and proven. Thanks for enlightening me.[/quote:5df17]

Then you either have not studied evolution as long as I have or you are ignorant about it. "The survival of the fittest" is how Darwin explained why the missing link is still missing and humans are not. Evolutionists say it died out when of course, they haven't even found it yet. :wink: It presupposes that only the strongest survive which is of course, arrogant and blatantly false.

Then why do they use the word "science" which comes from the Latin verb "to know", if they don't think their theories are correct? :o

 

[pfilmtech]

"Fittest" is an arbitrary term. Natural selection grooms a species to be better suited to its current enviroment. Better or worse is irrelevant.

 

[cubedbee]

Then why do they use the word "science" which comes from the Latin verb "to know", if they don't think their theories are correct? :o

Hedid, they do think their theories are correct. The thing is that scientific theories can never be proven. Not a single one of them. There is no way to prove a scientific theory. There is only ways to falsify it. This is like basic 6th grade intro to science material. It's in the 2nd chapter of my little brother's book.

 

[Heidi]

"Fittest" is an arbitrary term. Natural selection grooms a species to be better suited to its current enviroment. Better or worse is irrelevant.

And what makes a person better suited to his environment? The defective babies that are born everyday? Do evolutionists even think? :o

 

[pfilmtech]

"Fittest" is an arbitrary term. Natural selection grooms a species to be better suited to its current enviroment. Better or worse is irrelevant.

And what makes a person better suited to his environment? The defective babies that are born everyday? Do evolutionists even think? :o

Huh? I don't follow what you are saying.

Allow me to expand my statement a little and maybe you'll understand it better.

If you lived in the ocean having flippers would be great right? If you lived in the desert they wouldn't do you much good though. In fact you'd barely be able to move and would probably die.

If you lived in the trees being able to climb well would help. Wouldn't do you any good to be a good climber in the Great Plains would it?

It all depends on your enviroment which traits will give you a better chance of surviving. Naturally living things that possess superior traits for survival in thier enviroment will thrive. Those that are not well adapted to where they live will most lively die out. Hence "survival of the fittest"

 

[Frost Giant]

"Fittest" is an arbitrary term. Natural selection grooms a species to be better suited to its current enviroment. Better or worse is irrelevant.

And what makes a person better suited to his environment? The defective babies that are born everyday? Do evolutionists even think? :o

Do you even think? Beneficial mutations happen all the time.

 

[Heidi]

"Fittest" is an arbitrary term. Natural selection grooms a species to be better suited to its current enviroment. Better or worse is irrelevant.

And what makes a person better suited to his environment? The defective babies that are born everyday? Do evolutionists even think? :o

Do you even think? Beneficial mutations happen all the time.

Mutation is as random as defective babies. Therefore, there is no trend of evolution. The theory was invented to say that human beings "evolved" from primitive animals (which is why they are called primates) who are still in the jungles or zoos where man put them and tried to explain how the human being who has a a myriad more abilities than an ape, got those extra traits. So the theory of evolution does indeed presuppose that one becomes better over time, which is why the "survival of the fittest" theory even came about. But in order to avoid that fact, evolutionists like you have to redefine "is" in order to change the evolutionary theory into not meaning improvement. But there are just too many contradictions that show that the theory was based on the assumption that animals do improve.

 

[Frost Giant]

Wrong

Animals don't "improve". They only become more fit for their environment. Fish are pretty well suited for the water, but they don't do so well on land.

 

[hansbrix]

"Fittest" is an arbitrary term. Natural selection grooms a species to be better suited to its current enviroment. Better or worse is irrelevant.

And what makes a person better suited to his environment? The defective babies that are born everyday? Do evolutionists even think? :o

Do you even think? Beneficial mutations happen all the time.

Mutation is as random as defective babies. Therefore, there is no trend of evolution. The theory was invented to say that human beings "evolved" from primitive animals (which is why they are called primates) who are still in the jungles or zoos where man put them and tried to explain how the human being who has a a myriad more abilities than an ape, got those extra traits. So the theory of evolution does indeed presuppose that one becomes better over time, which is why the "survival of the fittest" theory even came about. But in order to avoid that fact, evolutionists like you have to redefine "is" in order to change the evolutionary theory into not meaning improvement. But there are just too many contradictions that show that the theory was based on the assumption that animals do improve.

Heidi, to quote you: :o

You quite clearly have not grasped the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. I suggest you read up on the basics, and make sure you understand them before posting in a debate concerning evolution. Seriously.

Seriously seriously.

Just for the sake of getting you over one of the hurdles you seem to be having trouble with, here's the general principle of natural selection:
- Mutations occur in a population (randomly)
- Those with beneficial mutations thrive, while those with detrimental mutations die out
- Greater proportions of those with the beneficial mutations survive, and so these mutations are propagated to future generations.

Or, more formally, as defined by Darwin:
1. IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
2. IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
3. IF there is variability of traits, and
4. IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
5. THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
6. THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

Hopefully this will make it clear to you how mutations can be random at the micro level, whilst being beneficial at the macro level.

 

[pfilmtech]

Msot mutation are not beneficial MSot are either negative or irrelevant. Only a very small poriton of our genetic code is actively used for msot of our lifetimes. We all probably have minute mutations in our genetic code that are never noticeable.

However like Frost said mutations that do help a species tend to survive and get passed on to the next generation. The others do not.