Refuting the claims of atheists.

[turnorburn]

: Your right, after all we're supposed to believe what the teacher says, so teach us something we don't know and we'll all go on about our business. And if you think I think hell is funny maybe you could teach me about that as well..

In His Service,
turnorburn

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Not trying to teach you anything. But continue the sarcasm. It doesn’t bother me.

As for taking the hell concept light (I didn’t say you thought it was funny. There is a difference between taking something light, and considering it funny.)

Here are some examples:
1. The name “Turnorburnâ€Â.
2. This whole thread (including the rat with his eyes popping out next to the “Be afraid, be very afraid.†Comment) viewtopic.php?f=20&t=30494&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

 

[GraceBwithU]

Not trying to teach you anything. But continue the sarcasm. It doesn’t bother me.

As for taking the hell concept light (I didn’t say you thought it was funny. There is a difference between taking something light, and considering it funny.)

Here are some examples:
1. The name “Turnorburnâ€Â.
2. This whole thread (including the rat with his eyes popping out next to the “Be afraid, be very afraid.†Comment) viewtopic.php?f=20&t=30494&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Actually the whole theory of man coming from apes is funny, not you. And you’re right I was being sarcastic. But I can’t help it when it comes to this subject. That is the reason I actually don’t want to discuss it much, nothing personal toward you.

However, I do have some questions if you would like to answer them.
:wink:

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Not trying to teach you anything. But continue the sarcasm. It doesn’t bother me.

As for taking the hell concept light (I didn’t say you thought it was funny. There is a difference between taking something light, and considering it funny.)

Here are some examples:
1. The name “Turnorburnâ€Â.
2. This whole thread (including the rat with his eyes popping out next to the “Be afraid, be very afraid.†Comment) viewtopic.php?f=20&t=30494&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Actually the whole theory of man coming from apes is funny, not you. And you’re right I was being sarcastic. But I can’t help it when it comes to this subject. That is the reason I actually don’t want to discuss it much, nothing personal toward you.

However, I do have some questions if you would like to answer them.
:wink:

I guess that is our roadblock to understanding each other. I do not see why it is funny or offensive to say that man and apes have common ancestry. I just don't understand that reaction. I find it highly interesting to learn about.

I will try to answer your questions, but again, I am no expert. I just read on the subject.

 

[francisdesales]

btw Grace, I do not understand why you act as if I came on the thread and spear headed a debate for evolution. My only point initially was for the poster to not use the toronadoe makes a 747 example. She wouldn't be taken seriously in her endeavor.

To be perfectly honest, NO "logical" argument will be taken seriously by someone who refuses to hear the other side of the argument. People who make comments about "Sky Daddy" and other such nonsense have it all figured out, apparently. It really is a pointless endeavor to speak with such people who cannot even agree on what is supposedly "proven" by evolution! That is why I generally steer clear of such conversations. Most Gallup polls on the subject show only some 20% of people actually believe the totally far-fetched idea of macro-evolution - not that this is some sort of proof against it - but it is an argument against your idea that it is "accepted everywhere but in Christian quarters". It is just poor science, if we look at the circumstantial evidence that "supports" it - and is more based on a priori metaphysical beliefs.

Darwin's theory came around at the right time - otherwise, it would have been laughed out of the science community for its massive presumptions and little evidence. It came around during the Victorian era when people just "knew" that God couldn't create the universe with imperfections - "God wouldn't create this or that" - and so, the idea of micro-evolution, extrapolated to the very beginning of time with no evidence, seemed to make sense of the mindless "survival of the fittest" force that replaced God. Now, deism would have its "scientific proof". None of which explains how it all began in the first place, of course...

Ah well. Take care and God bless.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Francis: Most Gallup polls on the subject show only some 20% of people actually believe the totally far-fetched idea of macro-evolution - not that this is some sort of proof against it - but it is an argument against your idea that it is "accepted everywhere but in Christian quarters".

I have read a poll that showed that only 28% believe in evolution. But, that is a gallop poll on the United States . That same poll showed that 83% believe in a virgin birth for Christ, suggesting that the majority sampled were indeed Christians. That actually supports the notion that it mainly Christian quarters that is a garner for the non-believers in evolution.

Compare that with the rest of the industrialized world.

National Geographic:
In European countries, including Denmark, Sweden, and France, more than 80 percent of adults surveyed said they accepted the concept of evolution.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html

Now, those countries are a bit more secular, so that may indicate, as Bible literalists within the population goes down, belief in evolution goes up. They certainly are positively correlated, as well as education.

Even the UK, which is has pretty strong ties to Christianity, had a much closer aligned belief in evolution than the US.

The US was the second lowest nation (out of 34 or so countries) in that study that accepts evolution. Only Turkey rated lower.

Francis: It is just poor science, if we look at the circumstantial evidence that "supports" it - and is more based on a priori metaphysical beliefs.

Again, I don’t really want to debate this with you, but you certainly should offer up some evidence for your claims when you make them. That is just proper form. Where is it so lacking at?

Darwin's theory came around at the right time - otherwise, it would have been laughed out of the science community for its massive presumptions and little evidence. It came around during the Victorian era when people just "knew" that God couldn't create the universe with imperfections - "God wouldn't create this or that" - and so, the idea of micro-evolution, extrapolated to the very beginning of time with no evidence, seemed to make sense of the mindless "survival of the fittest" force that replaced God. Now, deism would have its "scientific proof". None of which explains how it all began in the first place, of course...

Maybe it did lack empirical evidence in the beginning. What theory hasn’t in its infancy? Darwin didn’t have the advantage of micro biology nor genetics; plus, a lot fossil evidence which has been discovered in the last 100 years.

Also, evolution didn't just pop into his head one day. Natural selection, the mechanism, is what he developed. Many people had thought along the lines of us evolving from different organisms for a long time. No one really had a grasp on the mechanism that drove it.
I still have yet to see you cite where the theory is so lacking.

 

[GraceBwithU]

I guess that is our roadblock to understanding each other. I do not see why it is funny or offensive to say that man and apes have common ancestry. I just don't understand that reaction. I find it highly interesting to learn about.

I will try to answer your questions, but again, I am no expert. I just read on the subject.

Where did live first appear on earth and what was it?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I guess that is our roadblock to understanding each other. I do not see why it is funny or offensive to say that man and apes have common ancestry. I just don't understand that reaction. I find it highly interesting to learn about.

I will try to answer your questions, but again, I am no expert. I just read on the subject.

Where did live first appear on earth and what was it?

Dunno. No one does. Evolution isn't the mechanism that started it, it just took over once that spark ignited. Evolution describes everything after that point.

The transition from no-living matter (of course that definition varies) to life is abiogenesis, and probably really can be considered to be in the realm of metaphysics right now.

Evolution isn't about the creation of life, just its development after its start.

 

[francisdesales]

I have read a poll that showed that only 28% believe in evolution. But, that is a gallop poll on the United States . That same poll showed that 83% believe in a virgin birth for Christ, suggesting that the majority sampled were indeed Christians. That actually supports the notion that it mainly Christian quarters that is a garner for the non-believers in evolution.

That is certainly a mis-use of statistics. Those two unrelated polls have nothing to do with each other. We do not know if the SAME people who disbelief in evolution ALSO belief in the Virgin birth. This is just another example of how "evidence" is manipulated to say something that it cannot say anything about.

Yet again, you are comparing apples and oranges.

In European countries, including Denmark, Sweden, and France, more than 80 percent of adults surveyed said they accepted the concept of evolution.

Which concept of evolution? That mankind emerged from a planet that had absolutely no life on it based on random chemicals bumping into each other? Or the concept of a bird having a beak 4% larger during periods of drought?

Now, those countries are a bit more secular, so that may indicate, as Bible literalists within the population goes down, belief in evolution goes up. They certainly are positively correlated, as well as education.

Either you are not very good with statistics or your are purposely misleading other people. There are literally dozens of reasons why people may or may not believe in macro evolution. Thus, taking one variable and assigning it the all powerful "reason" is simply false. I have said, as a Christian, I am ready to accept either position. It does absolutely nothing to my belief in God. In the end, IF macro evolution was "true", rather than the "best guess", it does not discount a God directing evolution in how He sees fit. Many theists actively have taken that position. I choose not to because I do not find the evidence compelling enough, AND, I am concerned about the dishonest tactics used by the status quo "scientists" who feel the need to argue ad hominem and outright lie about particulars, such as Dawkins.

Again, I don’t really want to debate this with you, but you certainly should offer up some evidence for your claims when you make them. That is just proper form. Where is it so lacking at?

I believe the proof of burden is upon the macro evolutionists to prove their ideas. That is how science works - unless you believe that science is a priori theory, and then go out and "find" the "evidence" to support said theory. Science doesn't work that way. It observes FIRST, and THEN makes hypothesis. Not the other way around. The former is clearly the case in macro evolution. People, whatever their religious affiliation (which includes atheists, a religious affiliation), cannot accept that God would allow evil, or that God would allow children to die, or that God would allow a person to be born retarded, etc... Thus, since the world is not perfect, they conclude that there must be some "force of nature" that brings up these "anomolies". Again, it is presuming based on philosophy. We just cannot say we fullyl understand why God allows "x".

I have read enough for me, as a layman in the field, to know that evolution is not accepted for a number of reasons. Thus, in my mind, it is still a theory, nothing more. I wholeheartedly accept micro evolution. Macro evolution has not proven itself, in my opinion.

Also, evolution didn't just pop into his head one day. Natural selection, the mechanism, is what he developed.

Natural selection is a fancy word for "Mother Nature", when we are talking eons of years across a wide specturm of creatures. While natural selection (survival of the fittest) might be worthwhile to discuss on the micro level on an island subjected to some physical force such as drought, it is really a "pie in the sky" thinking. It is design without the designer, since there are numerous factors that would explain why one creature would continue the line and another would not. The "positive" anomoly may end up dying first...

The biggest problem for me, one you have ignored throughout, is WHY has evolution at the macro level stopped? Where are the CURRENT evolvers based on the old assumptions? Where are the 4 legged creatures who are yearning to become a whale and jumping into the ocean and evolving into one??? Where are the Cro-Mag's? Wouldn't there be current monkies CONTINOUSLY evolving into these lower humanoids? Why have monkeys stopped evolving into men? If macro evolution was true, we would see evidence of it TODAY in CURRENT creatures, at ALL levels - from worms to humans...

UNLESS, some designer has decided that the time was finished and monkeys would no longer evolve at the macro level.

Many people had thought along the lines of us evolving from different organisms for a long time. No one really had a grasp on the mechanism that drove it.
I still have yet to see you cite where the theory is so lacking.

I have tried before, but every person I pick will immediately be discredited by you for being "intellectually dishonest" or "proved false in court"... That, for me, sends up the signal flares. What OTHER science discussion finds it necessary to belittle other objective ideas? To take the other side to court to silence it? Evolution is a dictatorship claiming to be "science". Where else do we find scientists acting as such - even to the point of suing other scientists to keep it out of the classroom? Is that the state of affairs in this country? The theory of evolution has become a philosophical viewpoint being pushed onto the people. And anyone who doesn't accept it is labeled immediately by the thought police...

Oh, it is much more than a scientific discussion. As such, unless I see overwhelming proof, I will withhold my judgment on the incredible leap of faith needed to believe that life started from nothing and blindly came to this point today.

Regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

That is certainly a mis-use of statistics. Those two unrelated polls have nothing to do with each other. We do not know if the SAME people who disbelief in evolution ALSO belief in the Virgin birth. This is just another example of how "evidence" is manipulated to say something that it cannot say anything about

That certainly is not a misuse of statistics. Statistics is at least one area that I can say I have had formal training in.

It is simple. You poll a group of people. You ask them a series of questions. If 72% say that they do not believe in evolution, and 83% say they believe in the virgin mary, there has to be a great deal of over lap. There is no way around that.

Look at it this way, if 72 out of 100 people said they believe against evolution, and out of the same group, 83 say they believe in the virgin birth of Christ, would there not be a large proportion that say they believe against evolution and believe in the virgin birth?

How did I misuse that statistic? Now, I can’t say the EVERY body who disbelieves in evolution believes in virgin birth, but I certainly, and have to say, that a majority of the 100 believe in both.

Its not apple and oranges, It was the same sample. The sample group did not change in the study I cited.

Which concept of evolution? That mankind emerged from a planet that had absolutely no life on it based on random chemicals bumping into each other? Or the concept of a bird having a beak 4% larger during periods of drought?

Again you muddle two separate ideas. Evolution does not say life came from non life. That is abiogenesis. You can believe that God created life, and evolution guided it to its current state. There is only one evolutional theory, but there are different theories within it. Evolution just states life shares a common ancestor, not that life came from non-matter.

Either you are not very good with statistics or your are purposely misleading other people. There are literally dozens of reasons why people may or may not believe in macro evolution. Thus, taking one variable and assigning it the all powerful "reason" is simply false. I have said, as a Christian, I am ready to accept either position. It does absolutely nothing to my belief in God. In the end, IF macro evolution was "true", rather than the "best guess", it does not discount a God directing evolution in how He sees fit. Many theists actively have taken that position. I choose not to because I do not find the evidence compelling enough, AND, I am concerned about the dishonest tactics used by the status quo "scientists" who feel the need to argue ad hominem and outright lie about particulars, such as Dawkins.

Nice personal attack ;) A false dichotomy mixed with an Ad Hom.

1. I am either ignorant in statistical sampling -or -
2. I am dishonestly representing the facts.

Actually statistics is one of my strongest subjects. I made As in all my statistic classes in college. Nor am I trying to mislead anyone.

Statistical sampling does not really allow you to cite cause and effect. I did not do that. I said that it infers a relationship.

No where in my claim did I say that you can’t believe in God and evolution. I just said that from the sampling, it is indicative that the less Bible literalists you have in a sample, the more likely you are to have people who believe in evolution. That is an accurate reflection of the sample. Do you deny that?

I have read enough for me, as a layman in the field, to know that evolution is not accepted for a number of reasons. Thus, in my mind, it is still a theory, nothing more. I wholeheartedly accept micro evolution. Macro evolution has not proven itself, in my opinion

Of course it is a theory, but it is a highly supported one.

Gravity is just a theory. Thermodynamics is just a theory. Relativity is just a theory. Nuclear fusion is just a theory. Quantum mechanics is just a theory. Black holes are just a theory. The tides being affected by the moon is just a theory.

But all of those “theories†make predictions that we can test, and are based on evidence. The same for evolution. Evolution is in fact a highly supported theory.

They are all theories in everyone’s minds. No one said it is a fact. But it is evidentially supported to be correct as much and more as many of the above theories, yet I do not see countless threads citing how those other theories shouldn’t be accepted.

The biggest problem for me, one you have ignored throughout, is WHY has evolution at the macro level stopped?

Who said it has? Evolution is happening every day. We are all in transition. In fact if you terraformed Mars and shipped a colony of humans to it, and there is no breeding between earth humans and the new martian colony for millions of years, the two colonies would likely diverge enough to be two separate species. They would not be able to breed together any more. That is speciation.

Now, if you are asking why we can not watch “macro†evolution in a lab, it is because no one can live for that long of a time period. But it has not stopped. It hasn’t.

Where are the CURRENT evolvers based on the old assumptions? Where are the 4 legged creatures who are yearning to become a whale and jumping into the ocean and evolving into one??? Where are the Cro-Mag's? Wouldn't there be current monkies CONTINOUSLY evolving into these lower humanoids? Why have monkeys stopped evolving into men? If macro evolution was true, we would see evidence of it TODAY in CURRENT creatures, at ALL levels - from worms to humans...

We are the current evolvers……

I do not know what you mean about the “4 legged creatures†jumping into the ocean to become whales. I do not even know how to reply to that. That’s not evolution.

The Cro-Mags are extinct. You can go view their fossils in a museum if you wished.

Monkeys are continuously evolving.

You go about it all wrong. The current monkeys are not my ancestors. We are related. We share a common range of ancestor who are now extinct. We are cousins so to speak. Its not like evolution states that one day a monkey decided to be a human, so now humans exists.

UNLESS, some designer has decided that the time was finished and monkeys would no longer evolve at the macro level.

Again evolution has not stopped. You still see mutations do you not?

I have tried before, but every person I pick will immediately be discredited by you for being "intellectually dishonest" or "proved false in court"... That, for me, sends up the signal flares. What OTHER science discussion finds it necessary to belittle other objective ideas? To take the other side to court to silence it? Evolution is a dictatorship claiming to be "science". Where else do we find scientists acting as such - even to the point of suing other scientists to keep it out of the classroom? Is that the state of affairs in this country? The theory of evolution has become a philosophical viewpoint being pushed onto the people. And anyone who doesn't accept it is labeled immediately by the thought police...

ID was charged with not being science. It did not meet the criteria.

It makes no predictions, it is not testable, and it’s not based on empirical evidence. Show me where it meets those criteria and I will go with you to file a suite to instate it into my district.

Oh, it is much more than a scientific discussion. As such, unless I see overwhelming proof, I will withhold my judgment on the incredible leap of faith needed to believe that life started from nothing and blindly came to this point today.

Again, evolution claims neither.

It doesn’t state we came from nothing, nor does it state the processes are blind. They are adaptive.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Dunno. No one does. Evolution isn't the mechanism that started it, it just took over once that spark ignited. Evolution describes everything after that point.

Come on make a guess...land or sea? Forget what it was.

Gen 1:9
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
KJV

The transition from no-living matter (of course that definition varies) to life is abiogenesis, and probably really can be considered to be in the realm of metaphysics right now.

abiogenesis -

So I guess this is what the bible is really saying in the following verse.

Gen 2:7
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.
KJV

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Grace:
Just for the sake of discussion...let's say it was in the water. OK?

Ok. I will go with that for the sake of the discussion.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Grace:
Just for the sake of discussion...let's say it was in the water. OK?

Ok. I will go with that for the sake of the discussion.

Sorry, but I edited My post while you were answering. read it again.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Dunno. No one does. Evolution isn't the mechanism that started it, it just took over once that spark ignited. Evolution describes everything after that point.

Come on make a guess...land or sea? Forget what it was.

Gen 1:9
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
KJV

The transition from no-living matter (of course that definition varies) to life is abiogenesis, and probably really can be considered to be in the realm of metaphysics right now.

abiogenesis -

So I guess this is what the bible is really saying in the following verse.

Gen 2:7
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.
KJV

Again, there are different theories on where it started and how (foam from waves, in the clay, in the vents in the ocean, etc.) No one really knows.

I do not see any contradiction with those verses and evolution. God could not have possibly explained evolution to the writer of Genesis. The writer nor readers at that current time had no way to understand any of it, much less put it into words. How would they have written about dinosaurs and explained how geographically cutting off two population will likely eventually create a new species through mutations. It would have been nonsensical to that time period.

Evolution does not deny God. It is just a process that does not necessarily need a direct guiding hand. But again, if you believe that God created the world and everything in it, natural selection would be an indirect hand because he created all the conditions, laws of physics, and chemistry.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Again, there are different theories on where it started and how (foam from waves, in the clay, in the vents in the ocean, etc.) No one really knows.

I do not see any contradiction with those verses and evolution. God could not have possibly explained evolution to the writer of Genesis. The writer nor readers at that current time had no way to understand any of it, much less put it into words. How would they have written about dinosaurs and explained how geographically cutting off two population will likely eventually create a new species through mutations. It would have been nonsensical to that time period.

Evolution does not deny God. It is just a process that does not necessarily need a direct guiding hand. But again, if you believe that God created the world and everything in it, natural selection would be an indirect hand because he created all the conditions, laws of physics, and chemistry.

You didn't answer the question. I'd rather you answer it. You have read more about this than I probably have.

On contradiction That seems to be there is that Gen 2:7 says it happened in one day not millions of years.

 

[MarkT]

Again you muddle two separate ideas. Evolution does not say life came from non life. That is abiogenesis. You can believe that God created life, and evolution guided it to its current state.

I wouldn't say that. I would say God created the 'creatures' and he gave the creatures 'life'. I wouldn't call the creature 'life' any more than I would call a stove a form of 'hot' or a musical instrument a form of 'music'. Scientists say there are many forms of 'life'. Are there many forms of 'death' as well? See, it's all word play and it's created by definitions. Some fantasy novels create fantasy worlds by making up definitions and languages.

There is only one evolutional theory, but there are different theories within it. Evolution just states life shares a common ancestor, not that life came from non-matter.

Well again, each creature has it's own life. But you're right, 'life' doesn't come from non matter. It doesn't even come from matter. It doesn't come from organic chemistry. It doesn't come from inorganic chemistry. Life comes from God.

 

[francisdesales]

It is simple. You poll a group of people. You ask them a series of questions. If 72% say that they do not believe in evolution, and 83% say they believe in the virgin mary, there has to be a great deal of over lap. There is no way around that.

Well, first, assuming it is the SAME poll, we would have to analyze WHO said what. We would also have to be more extensive in our questions - since there are a number of factors that lead to belief or disbelief or evolution. I believe in the Virgin Birth, but that is not why I disbeleive materialistic macro evolution. YOUR "poll" would toss me into the "bible literalist" category, which is statistically unfounded.

Again you muddle two separate ideas. Evolution does not say life came from non life. That is abiogenesis. You can believe that God created life, and evolution guided it to its current state. There is only one evolutional theory, but there are different theories within it. Evolution just states life shares a common ancestor, not that life came from non-matter.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I'll try to be more careful with how YOU define evolution - there seems to be a lot of definitions...

Statistical sampling does not really allow you to cite cause and effect. I did not do that. I said that it infers a relationship.

Unless you are citing the cause from the statistics, apparently. Please refer to your coorelation between believers of the virgin birth and disbelief of evolution.

No where in my claim did I say that you can’t believe in God and evolution. I just said that from the sampling, it is indicative that the less Bible literalists you have in a sample, the more likely you are to have people who believe in evolution. That is an accurate reflection of the sample. Do you deny that?

I would presume that this is accurate - I am not a "bible literalist". Perhaps this is the other side of the coin - Strict materialistic macro-evolutionists have a tendency to be atheistic leaning, while bible literalists usually deny this scenario - BOTH based on philosophical a priori assumptions; for the former, that there is no God, for the later, that God HAD to create within a one week period. Both are based on NON-SCIENTIFIC assumptions that they bring to the table. As such, logical arguments have little force with such people on BOTH sides of that fence. This was the original topic and my conviction that there is NOT an "argument" that will "appeal" to atheists.

Gravity is just a theory. Thermodynamics is just a theory. Relativity is just a theory. Nuclear fusion is just a theory. Quantum mechanics is just a theory. Black holes are just a theory. The tides being affected by the moon is just a theory.

Many of those are scientific laws that are demonstrable today. Macro evolution is not demonstrable, it is based on philosphical presumptions that muddy the data from the beginning. If one has a set of data and the assumption that we have evolved from an ameoba, then one would tend to INTERPRET the data to show this to be the case. The above are seen TODAY. Macro evolution is not.

They are all theories in everyone’s minds. No one said it is a fact. But it is evidentially supported to be correct as much and more as many of the above theories, yet I do not see countless threads citing how those other theories shouldn’t be accepted.

Gravity is a fact. Entropy is fact. The extremes of the laws of motion, relativity and quantum mechanics respectively, are demonstrable facts. Now, I am relatively certain that scientists will redefine and fine tune these definitions. But evolution - on the scale we are talking - is not demonstrable today.

Who said it has (stopped)? Evolution is happening every day. We are all in transition. In fact if you terraformed Mars and shipped a colony of humans to it, and there is no breeding between earth humans and the new martian colony for millions of years, the two colonies would likely diverge enough to be two separate species. They would not be able to breed together any more. That is speciation.

You are speaking micro evolution. Not macro evolution. We are not changing into another species. We are not changing from warm blooded to cold blooded creatures, moving from air breathers to water breathers, or any such spectatular ideas. And yet, we are to believe that is what happened, by "accident" with reptiles becoming a warm blooded, feather spouting mammal? I am sorry, it is too amazing and unobserved to believe for me. Consider me an agnostic evolutionist.

I do not know what you mean about the “4 legged creatures†jumping into the ocean to become whales. I do not even know how to reply to that. That’s not evolution.

That is what "scientists" say how the whale evolved... That is how they explain little bone bumps in the hip bones of early whales. They claim they were once legs... Now, really, isn't that a wild assumption! The data is interpreted to fit the current mold, rather than looking at other possibilities of what might have happened or explained them. Science is so anxious to "prove" evolution that it presumes it first. Consider the Piltman man, or any of the other so-called "missing links" later proved to be false or invented.[/quote]

The Cro-Mags are extinct. You can go view their fossils in a museum if you wished.

Thanks, but if evolution was true, I should still be able to see monkeys climbing the evolution chain and becoming transitional homo sapiens.

Monkeys are continuously evolving.

Micro evolution...

ID was charged with not being science. It did not meet the criteria.

It makes no predictions, it is not testable, and it’s not based on empirical evidence. Show me where it meets those criteria and I will go with you to file a suite to instate it into my district.

Since when is materialistic macro evolution "testable", vs. intelligent design? The former claims "Mother nature", the later claims "Intelligent designer".

It is more a question of philosophy than science.

regards

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Again, there are different theories on where it started and how (foam from waves, in the clay, in the vents in the ocean, etc.) No one really knows.

I do not see any contradiction with those verses and evolution. God could not have possibly explained evolution to the writer of Genesis. The writer nor readers at that current time had no way to understand any of it, much less put it into words. How would they have written about dinosaurs and explained how geographically cutting off two population will likely eventually create a new species through mutations. It would have been nonsensical to that time period.

Evolution does not deny God. It is just a process that does not necessarily need a direct guiding hand. But again, if you believe that God created the world and everything in it, natural selection would be an indirect hand because he created all the conditions, laws of physics, and chemistry.

You didn't answer the question. I'd rather you answer it. You have read more about this than I probably have.

On contradiction That seems to be there is that Gen 2:7 says it happened in one day not millions of years.

I'm sorry, I must be missing the question. What is the question?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Well, first, assuming it is the SAME poll, we would have to analyze WHO said what. We would also have to be more extensive in our questions - since there are a number of factors that lead to belief or disbelief or evolution. I believe in the Virgin Birth, but that is not why I disbeleive materialistic macro evolution. YOUR "poll" would toss me into the "bible literalist" category, which is statistically unfounded.

It was the same sample. I stated that on the original post. Same sample, means the same group were asked both questions.

No, if you believe in the virgin birth, the poll would not group you as a literalists. The poll makes no such classification. My point about the European countries having more literalist, was based off of the secular nature of that country. Non literalist can believe in virgin birth. A non literalist just means that you believe where the bible conflicts with what we understand, it is to be taken metaphorically.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I'll try to be more careful with how YOU define evolution - there seems to be a lot of definitions...

That really is the way science understands evolution. Common ancestry. The other definitions come from misunderstandings.

it is based on philosphical presumptions that muddy the data from the beginning. If one has a set of data and the assumption that we have evolved from an ameoba, then one would tend to INTERPRET the data to show this to be the case. The above are seen TODAY. Macro evolution is not.

But you could claim that for all of the theories. You could say, if you believe black holes exist, when you see a star orbiting an unseen object, you will conclude it’s a black hole.

You are charging it not to be science. If that were true, why has not any ID person come up with a real challenge? If what you are stating is true, they should be able to knock down the theory with some knock out punches. They haven’t.

You are speaking micro evolution. Not macro evolution. We are not changing into another species. We are not changing from warm blooded to cold blooded creatures, moving from air breathers to water breathers, or any such spectatular ideas. And yet, we are to believe that is what happened, by "accident" with reptiles becoming a warm blooded, feather spouting mammal? I am sorry, it is too amazing and unobserved to believe for me. Consider me an agnostic evolutionist.

Ok, that is fine to be agnostic of evolution. But I did not get the implication of agnostic from you post. I get the impression that you feel it to be impossible.

Thanks, but if evolution was true, I should still be able to see monkeys climbing the evolution chain and becoming transitional homo sapiens.

Again, we did not evolve from the current apes or monkeys. We shared an ancestor. If you witnessed a monkey suddenly turning into a human that would effectively disprove evolution.

As you look back on the evolutionary tree (looking back in time) the two species will unite into a now extinct ancestor. Something that ERVs tend to show.

All creatures that exist today have adapted to their environment and are not ancestors of each other.

Since when is materialistic macro evolution "testable", vs. intelligent design? The former claims "Mother nature", the later claims "Intelligent designer".

Evolution claims that nature created forces that caused species to adapt, and some species to go extinct. It claims that over time, if two groups of a species are some how prevented from sharing genes, eventually the two groups will have enough genetic changes that will prevent them from producing offspring together.

That can be studied through fossil records, micro biology, and genetics.

ID claims a supernatural guiding hand. How can you scientifically study the supernatural?

That is tantamount to saying that a belief that a deity pushes two objects together is as much a science as saying that objects of mass warp space/time. Again, the latter is testable by viewing the path of light near an object of significant mass, for instance, studying the apparent change in the position of stars when viewed near the edge of the sun during an eclipse.

 

[francisdesales]

You are charging it not to be science. If that were true, why has not any ID person come up with a real challenge? If what you are stating is true, they should be able to knock down the theory with some knock out punches. They haven’t.

They have provided major doubts, "real challenges", but philosophical beliefs are not overturned by the arguments presented - as I have labored to mention. Do you think someone like Dawkins, even if presented with the evidence, would suddenly deny evolution as you define it? Hardly. It is part of his philosophical construct - it is the lense that he views the world through. Theists are the same way, by the way. We also view things through a particular set of paradigms. How many more times or ways can I say this so you understand that? Scientists, contrary to popular belief, ARE affected by pre-existing theories, ideas, concepts, or hypothesis, ESPECIALLY the status quo monopoly of evolution. They thus view evidence and data with a tendency of fitting it into the "puzzle" called evolution.

I do not have a major problem with that - science tends to favor the current models until disproven. What bothers me is the way "evolutionists" are so intent on squelching models or evidence that does NOT fit the "model". It raises my skepticism of the whole construct - as if someone may find out it is built on a house of cards or a grand assumption. I see the current groups in court as a struggle for the philosophical mindsets of the young, not an effort to teach "the truth"...

Intelligent design is no more unprovable than natural selection. Each are attempts to explain or theorize how this so-called evolution "works". By inferential knowledge, most people infer a designer. We do this every day - except when looking at evolution, I guess. THEN, it becomes 'natural' to presume such things happen without any designer.

Rather than admitting, "we don't really know", philosophy is the driving force that supports the science. And all else is squelched or taken to court or ridiculed in the public forum. Has science learned anything from Galileo, who was attacked by secular SCIENTISTS, calling upon the Church to squelch him by turning his theory into some heretical proposition?

Ok, that is fine to be agnostic of evolution. But I did not get the implication of agnostic from you post. I get the impression that you feel it to be impossible.

I said that the evidence does not prove macro evolution, in my opinion. Of course it is possible - that a designer would start from square one and guide life how "he" saw fit - rather than creating a numerous number of species that are not related. The bible does not rule out the possibility that God created from one common ancestor. The bible DOES rule out the idea that this evolution occured without design or guidance, though. Thus, again and again, I do not find the theory of common descent problematic to my faith - just the explanation of HOW by "natural selection". I find macro evolution far-fetched and unobserved today - but not impossible.

What seems to be obvious, is that ALL life is somehow related because they are all carbon-based building blocks and all possess DNA chemicals that determine their physical makeup. But how is materialistic evolution proven from this? By simply stacking the deck and saying "God" cannot be part of the equation because "He" is not scientifically provable? No doubt, if you rule out all possibilities but material evolution, you will end up with material evolution.

Again, we did not evolve from the current apes or monkeys.

I am not arguing that - I am arguing that the CURRENT monkeys would be evolving into something else - some mutation that would set it apart. Macro evolution has literally stopped. A bird with a bigger beak is still the same bird.

All creatures that exist today have adapted to their environment and are not ancestors of each other.

That is interesting. Today, all creatures have fully adapted to their environment... That is special pleading.

Evolution claims that nature created forces that caused species to adapt, and some species to go extinct. It claims that over time, if two groups of a species are some how prevented from sharing genes, eventually the two groups will have enough genetic changes that will prevent them from producing offspring together.

"Nature" created? Would that be "Mother Nature"? Natural selection is supposed to be the explanation? I do not agree with the concept of "natural selection" because we see it is NOT practiced over and over again. Marathon runners drop dead, smokers live to 90 years old, and ugly people have lots of kids... The "survival of the fittest" is not my experience of life. The bad get away with things, the good get screwed, and it often has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest", but some grand scheme beyond our comprehension.

.

ID claims a supernatural guiding hand. How can you scientifically study the supernatural?

ID doesn't claim a "supernatural" guiding hand, but an intelligent designer. I don't believe the term "God" is brought up in those arguments - although it can be implied.

That is tantamount to saying that a belief that a deity pushes two objects together is as much a science as saying that objects of mass warp space/time. Again, the latter is testable by viewing the path of light near an object of significant mass, for instance, studying the apparent change in the position of stars when viewed near the edge of the sun during an eclipse.

Even empirical data is subject to interpretation. Thus, theories come and go as later scientists learn earlier scientists interpreted the data incorrectly. Today's "sure thing" evolution, thus, is only the CURRENT model or explanation of Point A to Point B progression. There is no need to fall upon the "default" science because there is no other model readily available. Consider superconductivity. There is no current model that explains it at room temperature - and scientists live with that. But since there is very little philosophical garbage associated with superconductivity, we don't see the need to accept an explanation, ANY explanation. Evolution is philosophically charged. Thus, this "demand" to accept the model, even if it stands on shaky ground. I won't accept partial evidence just because it is the only game in town playing with a loaded deck (God taken a priori out of the equation to begin with).

Regards