[_ Old Earth _] teaching evolotion

[reznwerks]

Interested students now have more opportunities to study evolution and creation sciences than ever before. New proactive approaches to teaching the often touchy subject of evolution are now in effect.
K-State's new Center for the Understanding of Origins promotes....
http://www.kstatecollegian.com/article.php?a=4462

 

[serapha]

Hi there!




Well, now you can study evolution at a "christian" college.....

"What the designer designed is the random-design process," or Darwinian evolution, Colling says. "God devised these natural laws, and uses evolution to accomplish his goals."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib ... n4evo.html


I personally don't believe that God needs evolution to accomplish His goals...


~serapha~

 

[Asimov]

I personally don't believe that God needs evolution to accomplish His goals...

Obviously not, he doesn't need humans to accomplish his goals either, but we're here, and evolution happens.

 

[Blazin Bones]

In the Words of Asimov: Prove It! You have yet to convince me that evolution is not just more than adaptation.

 

[Pearly Gator]

I personally don't believe that God needs evolution to accomplish His goals...

Obviously not, he doesn't need humans to accomplish his goals either, but we're here, and evolution happens.

Macro evolution does not happen but, if you can provide irrefutable, verifiable evidence, you may persuade many.

Go for it, dude! :

PG

 

[Asimov]

I personally don't believe that God needs evolution to accomplish His goals...

Obviously not, he doesn't need humans to accomplish his goals either, but we're here, and evolution happens.

Macro evolution does not happen but, if you can provide irrefutable, verifiable evidence, you may persuade many.

Go for it, dude! :

PG

Tell me, Pearly Gator, what is macro evolution?

 

[Asimov]

In the Words of Asimov: Prove It! You have yet to convince me that evolution is not just more than adaptation.

Do you jokers understand that word "rhetorical"?

Evolution is a change in the alleles of a population over time. An allele is a member of a pair or series of specific genes on a specific chromosome. A gene is the hereditary unit that passes down for many generations, and can do so for many generations without being altered by mutation.

Any change in the gene pool of a population is evolution.

Biological evolution is not progressive in the sense that populations better themselves. Adaptation is merely populations selecting organisms best suited for an environment at any given time. Adaptation is merely the result of evolution, hence it is not a mechanism, nor does it replace evolution.

 

[huj05]

evolution # Biology.

1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

 

[reznwerks]

evolution

I personally don't believe that God needs evolution to accomplish His goals...


~serapha~

You mean God made man and all his shortcomings on purpose? Really to imply that God made man also implies that one greater than God must have created him and on and on and on. Even to admit that a God may in fact exist there is no evidence that it is the Christian God. All the things man can reference have physical attributes therefor whoever or whatever must have physical attributes as well.
Would you build a house and add amenities you would not use. Probably not. Then why would God make a man with wisdom teeth, nipples, occasional tail at birth and a jaw that shows increasingly becoming smaller over time with the number of teeth remaining the same? The fossil record and evolution explain this very well. The arguement from design does not unless you are willing to add sloppiness and carelessness to the character of God.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Still nothing that can't be explaned by just adaptation. A genetic change may occur in a creature, but why must that be evolution? Nowhere in the definition of adaptation does is require thought to adapt.

Adaptation

1 : the act or process of adapting : the state of being adapted
2 : adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment
3 : something that is adapted; specifically : a composition rewritten into a new form

 

[Asimov]

Still nothing that can't be explaned by just adaptation. A genetic change may occur in a creature, but why must that be evolution? Nowhere in the definition of adaptation does is require thought to adapt.

The truth has finally come out. Brutus is actually afraid of the term evolution.

Listen, you can call it Frankentation if you want to, Brutus. Adaptation is the result of evolution. A species may or may not adapt to the environment due to evolution. Natural Selection helps species adapt to their environment. But it's not called adaptation, brutus. There is more to evolution than adaptation.

Why can't you see this?? What difference does it make, brutus? Honestly. You argue the MOST semantical things that really mean nothing. They are just words. Nothing to be afraid of.

Let's say it: eh-voe-loo-shun

Was it that hard to say, Brutus? Say it a couple more times. Get over it. A genetic change that occurs in a creature IS evolution.

modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment

The problem with this definition, Brutus...is that evolution deals with populations, not individual organisms.

 

[jonteel]

Asimov interesting choice in names.

When Pat Robertson ran for president in 1986, Asimov sent me a letter.
It seems that he was worried that Christians would be taking over, and he wanted me to help in the fight against this plague. He should have just paid for it himself. Heaven knows he had enough money.

Anyway, he, Roddenberry, and a few other rich hollywood types creaeted people for the American way. For a peek at what they believe go to:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17727



I find it odd that anyone would assume Asimov's name.

If I am not mistaken, he also wrote his own version of the Bible. The man was a busy fellow.

 

[serapha]

Re: evolution

I personally don't believe that God needs evolution to accomplish His goals...


~serapha~

You mean God made man and all his shortcomings on purpose? Really to imply that God made man also implies that one greater than God must have created him and on and on and on.

au contraire.... the finite mind of man seems to be limiting the thought processes only to what one understands. Just because man was created doesn't indicate that the Creator of the creation was created.


Even to admit that a God may in fact exist there is no evidence that it is the Christian God.


but none of the other 'gods' fit the attributes of the biblical I AM THAT I AM.

All the things man can reference have physical attributes therefor whoever or whatever must have physical attributes as well.

and the physical attributes of vacuumed space are ?


Would you build a house and add amenities you would not use. Probably not.



<I did>



Then why would God make a man with wisdom teeth, nipples, occasional tail at birth and a jaw that shows increasingly becoming smaller over time with the number of teeth remaining the same?


Did God create Adam with a jaw that became smaller over time? Did God create Adam with a tail? As far as the nipples on men ... I think they might serve a purpose... if for nothing else then for sensual pleasure. (How old are you... I don't want to get into details that would get me in trouble for contributing to the delinquincy of a minor)



The fossil record and evolution explain this very well. The arguement from design does not unless you are willing to add sloppiness and carelessness to the character of God.

Do we have fossils of man? I didn't know that. Could you link me to some of these fossils of man, that would be interesting to read.


~serapha~

 

[huj05]

my nipples have never provided me with any interresting side effects except for "ARE U STUPID! NEVER EVER USE TONGS LIKE THAT AGAIN!"

I am acutally conflicted by the above post. it seems that some is pro creation, some pro evolution.

the part about nipples= pro creatioinism, the part about adams jaw bone = pro evolution.

I am confused.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: evolution

[

au contraire.... the finite mind of man seems to be limiting the thought processes only to what one understands. Just because man was created doesn't indicate that the Creator of the creation was created.
You mean you can reconcile with your finite brain that it makes perfect sense that a creator would not have a creator. If that is the case why not just say man always was. Just like that. You can't prove otherwise.


Even to admit that a God may in fact exist there is no evidence that it is the Christian God.


but none of the other 'gods' fit the attributes of the biblical I AM THAT I AM.
It doesn't have too, the bible is wrong. Just like that.

All the things man can reference have physical attributes therefor whoever or whatever must have physical attributes as well.

and the physical attributes of vacuumed space are ?
That IS what a vacuum is, the lack of anything. It does occur especially in space.


Would you build a house and add amenities you would not use. Probably not.



<I did>
I don't even want to go there on that one.LOL



Then why would God make a man with wisdom teeth, nipples, occasional tail at birth and a jaw that shows increasingly becoming smaller over time with the number of teeth remaining the same?


Did God create Adam with a jaw that became smaller over time? Did God create Adam with a tail? As far as the nipples on men ... I think they might serve a purpose... if for nothing else then for sensual pleasure. (How old are you... I don't want to get into details that would get me in trouble for contributing to the delinquincy of a minor)
How would God know what sensual pleasure was? As for contributing to the delinquency of a minor it sounds like you know far more than you should for a good Christian girl.



The fossil record and evolution explain this very well. The arguement from design does not unless you are willing to add sloppiness and carelessness to the character of God.

Do we have fossils of man? I didn't know that. Could you link me to some of these fossils of man, that would be interesting to read.
You're have got to be kidding? Did you ever look at any evidence of fossils or do any studying of evolution before you came to your convictions of biblical superiority? Remember theists keep complaining evolutions don't have this or enough of that but creationists don't have anything.Find my other post on Intelligent Design questions answered. It lists all the apologetic arguements and blows them out of the water.


~serapha~

[/quote]

 

[serapha]

Re: evolution

[

au contraire.... the finite mind of man seems to be limiting the thought processes only to what one understands. Just because man was created doesn't indicate that the Creator of the creation was created.
You mean you can reconcile with your finite brain that it makes perfect sense that a creator would not have a creator. If that is the case why not just say man always was. Just like that. You can't prove otherwise.

We differ in our thinking because I have no reason not to believe the Bible to be truth.


Even to admit that a God may in fact exist there is no evidence that it is the Christian God.


but none of the other 'gods' fit the attributes of the biblical I AM THAT I AM.
It doesn't have too, the bible is wrong. Just like that.

All the things man can reference have physical attributes therefor whoever or whatever must have physical attributes as well.

and the physical attributes of vacuumed space are ?
That IS what a vacuum is, the lack of anything. It does occur especially in space.

It wasn't me that said "all the things man can reference have physical attributes".... man can reference space and it doesn't have physical attributes.



Would you build a house and add amenities you would not use. Probably not.



<I did>
I don't even want to go there on that one.LOL



Then why would God make a man with wisdom teeth, nipples, occasional tail at birth and a jaw that shows increasingly becoming smaller over time with the number of teeth remaining the same?


Did God create Adam with a jaw that became smaller over time? Did God create Adam with a tail? As far as the nipples on men ... I think they might serve a purpose... if for nothing else then for sensual pleasure. (How old are you... I don't want to get into details that would get me in trouble for contributing to the delinquincy of a minor)
How would God know what sensual pleasure was? As for contributing to the delinquency of a minor it sounds like you know far more than you should for a good Christian girl.

But the point that you didn't address... Did God create Adam with a jaw that became smaller over time? No. Or, at least you cannot prove a thing about Adam's jaw.



The fossil record and evolution explain this very well. The arguement from design does not unless you are willing to add sloppiness and carelessness to the character of God.

Do we have fossils of man? I didn't know that. Could you link me to some of these fossils of man, that would be interesting to read.
You're have got to be kidding? Did you ever look at any evidence of fossils or do any studying of evolution before you came to your convictions of biblical superiority? Remember theists keep complaining evolutions don't have this or enough of that but creationists don't have anything.Find my other post on Intelligent Design questions answered. It lists all the apologetic arguements and blows them out of the water.


I haven't studied paleontology, just archaeology, anthropology, biology, and chemistry.

Okay, I looked up a definition of fossil... and it says...


What is a fossil?
A fossil is the representation of ancient life. What remains after a plant, animal, or insect dies might be the original remains like teeth, bone, shell, or plant tissue. In other cases over long periods of time, the original material may be chemically replaced and we see the structure of what once was.


that certainly isn't what I would define as fossils... by that definition, I've excavated "fossils" of man that were representations of ancient life, and they weren't millions of years old... I call them "relics" I have never once thought that I was excavating "fossils"

~serapha~

[/quote]

 

[reznwerks]

Re: evolution

[

But the point that you didn't address... Did God create Adam with a jaw that became smaller over time? No. Or, at least you cannot prove a thing about Adam's jaw.
NO , God did not create Adam with a jaw that became smaller over time.Evolution did that. That is the point that YOU missed. Where did you do your studying?



The fossil record and evolution explain this very well. The arguement from design does not unless you are willing to add sloppiness and carelessness to the character of God.

Do we have fossils of man? I didn't know that. Could you link me to some of these fossils of man, that would be interesting to read.
You're have got to be kidding? Did you ever look at any evidence of fossils or do any studying of evolution before you came to your convictions of biblical superiority? Remember theists keep complaining evolutions don't have this or enough of that but creationists don't have anything.Find my other post on Intelligent Design questions answered. It lists all the apologetic arguements and blows them out of the water.


I haven't studied paleontology, just archaeology, anthropology, biology, and chemistry.

Okay, I looked up a definition of fossil... and it says...


What is a fossil?
A fossil is the representation of ancient life. What remains after a plant, animal, or insect dies might be the original remains like teeth, bone, shell, or plant tissue. In other cases over long periods of time, the original material may be chemically replaced and we see the structure of what once was.


that certainly isn't what I would define as fossils... by that definition, I've excavated "fossils" of man that were representations of ancient life, and they weren't millions of years old... I call them "relics" I have never once thought that I was excavating "fossils"
I'm sorry , when I read that part you posted of the absense of fossilized evidence for man I thought you made an error. I should have known you were serious. I guess it's just too bad that all we have is the next best thing, WE HAVE THE ACTUAL BONES! The reason we don't have fossils of man is that man has only been recognized on the planet for about a million years. The fossils commonly associated with other animals lived MILLIONS of years ago. Secondly do you realize just how sparse the population for man would have been? You really need to check out my post on Intelligent Design questions answered. If you really studied this subject in college and you based your convictions on what you studied you might want to ask for a refund.

~serapha~

[/quote][/quote][/quote]
--------------------------------------------------

 

[Barbarian]

There are a very large number of human fossils. We even have some of our present species. Cro-Magnon man was essentially the same as Homo sapiens, and aside from being a little bigger, (but well within the range of modern human variation) they are identical to us.

Would you like to hear about some of them?