[_ Old Earth _] Things evolve

[paulo75]

Evolution is a controversial topic, no question. While I do find it a bit hard to comprehend actually evolving from apes, evoloution is present in everyday life.

For example, Microsoft once ran and ad that said "64K is all you'll ever need". Well, computers have evolved since then. Look at movies. They've gone from black and white, to colour, to HD... an evolutionary process. And even look at The Simpsons. From crude drawings on the Tracy Ullman Show to where they are now.

Are these few examples not living proof that things evolve? That the human brain naturally has to get to a pinnacle of excellence?

 

[freeway]

you say you can see where things evolve, but your logic is nothing more than "man, artist, musicians, teachers just adding knowledge to what is already known, this is not evolution at all.. let me ask, if evolution is true (which I, in no way believe it is) at what point does "man" evolving from ape or what ever the flavor is this year, get a redemming soul " christian evolutioist" when, per say the monkey in question falls from a tree a realizes damm that hurt! Or after he "ape" gets that opposing thumb.. there is so many hole in evolution I don't see how it is still taught in our schools.. "evolution is nothing more than a religion for non believers"

 

[Jayls5]

you say you can see where things evolve, but your logic is nothing more than "man, artist, musicians, teachers just adding knowledge to what is already known, this is not evolution at all.. let me ask, if evolution is true (which I, in no way believe it is) at what point does "man" evolving from ape or what ever the flavor is this year, get a redemming soul " christian evolutioist" when, per say the monkey in question falls from a tree a realizes damm that hurt! Or after he "ape" gets that opposing thumb.. there is so many hole in evolution I don't see how it is still taught in our schools.. "evolution is nothing more than a religion for non believers"

The beginning post is really just a series of false analogies. Specifically, he's using the informal fallacy of equivocation. Evolution in biology is different than "evolutionary" changes in technological industry.

Asking at what point an ape became a human can't be specifically established except by an agreed definition. Similarly (for example), when viewing a complete color spectrum, you cannot definitively tell me when orange turns to red. There are "organish reds" in between the two. We establish the name of a color based on convention and/or definition. If we define red as a color spectrum between "625nm and 665nm" then anything outside of that range will not be red. So the question becomes, where do you want to define the first human? It doesn't really matter that much even based on your theological views. If you accept that certain distinguishing characteristics make someone a human, then that is when "God" gave them a soul - or however your belief on souls works.

So, I think you're arguing from social convention against a scientific definition of humanity. Sure, we might scientifically categorize a certain species as human once they meet certain physical criteria - and they would be justified in doing this. If you want to interject a personal opinion that humanity requires self consciousness (or other) in order to be categorized as human, then you can go ahead and differentiate your definition of humanity from the scientific one and leave it at that. We do this all of the time for moral dilemmas. For example, my father has personally pulled the plug on people declared legally brain dead; this is not a problem for many because we generally assert that they are no longer "human" in a conventional sense when we let their body die. Yet, in this same situation, my dad has literally killed a "human" based on the scientific definition. Whether or not you agree with the case, I was merely illustrating a point. You can legitimately call the first human, based on your personal view, one who was self conscious and had a soul. At the same time, science can legitimately call their species classification a human without an issue. This is because the phrase "human" is vague, and this vagueness is exposed in cases like yours here and others such as the discussions on abortion.

Science doesn't tell you that your definition of a human is wrong. They just say that you don't use a scientific definition of a human. However, you seem to be implying that because your definition of a human does not correspond with science's, that they must be wrong. I find that to be a bit unfair.

 

[paulo75]

Points taken, thank you.

Do you think that both evolution and creationism should be taught in schools? Here in Ontario, there was a bit of controversy when a politician wanted to fund faith-based schools. Personally, I think that we can only teach what is best supported by evidence at the time, and no matter what our opinion of the Bible is, there are a lot of Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists out there who would be irate off if you taught Christianity alongside Evolution (Toronto is very multi-cultural).

So, you would have to teach the creation stories of every religion as well as evolution, leading to much confusion and fighting between religions to get their opinion across more fervently. This is not a good way to teach children. I think it is best to teach children the things that are provable and observable in nature, whether they are 100% correct or not, and leave it up to the parents to decide which faith to override this with.

 

[Jayls5]

Points taken, thank you.

Do you think that both evolution and creationism should be taught in schools? Here in Ontario, there was a bit of controversy when a politician wanted to fund faith-based schools. Personally, I think that we can only teach what is best supported by evidence at the time, and no matter what our opinion of the Bible is, there are a lot of Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists out there who would be irate off if you taught Christianity alongside Evolution (Toronto is very multi-cultural).

So, you would have to teach the creation stories of every religion as well as evolution, leading to much confusion and fighting between religions to get their opinion across more fervently. This is not a good way to teach children. I think it is best to teach children the things that are provable and observable in nature, whether they are 100% correct or not, and leave it up to the parents to decide which faith to override this with.

Creationism can be taught in schools with no problems, as long as it's not in a science classroom. I.D. and creationism is not science.

 

[freeway]

Yes, I think creation should be taught in the classroom. Why would you limit teaching about earth, mankind, apes, and just life in general just to one specific source, Jay5, you say creationism is not a science ( ID) Why do you think or believe that, after all is not evolution a religion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "because you or someone believe in evolution are dimwits. Its just a question.. I was a atheist from 15 years old to almost thirty. now I'm a Christian and more I study Christianty and creation "personally" I can't see how I believe and I mean "BELIEVE" that evolution has the answers that I expected...Again not trying to stir the pot,

 

[paulo75]

Creationism can be taught in schools with no problems, as long as it's not in a science classroom. I.D. and creationism is not science.

I disagree. I don't think that science and religion are at odds; I think that science is simply too young to understand. Science will someday be able to explain creationism, making it the science of God... which everything already is.

Yes, I think creation should be taught in the classroom. Why would you limit teaching about earth, mankind, apes, and just life in general just to one specific source=

Then you would have to teach the creation stories of all religions, at least in my city.

 

[TanNinety]

Hi paulo75 - Creationism as presented today for an alternative to evolution has been falsified. Science cannot build on falsified theories. It becomes counter productive. I agree with you that science and religion do not have to be at odds unless you tend to interpret religion in a literal way. You have to understand that "creation" and "creationism" are two entirely different things. One is a concept of how the Universe came to be and the other is a falsified scientific claim if I can even call it that. If you revise your statement to say, "science will one day be able to explain creation", then it would probably convey more accurately what you are trying to say.

I do not see how teaching creationism is useful in an academic setting even as non-science. Some concepts of I.D may be taught, but not creationism.

 

[Slevin]

Yes, I think creation should be taught in the classroom. Why would you limit teaching about earth, mankind, apes, and just life in general just to one specific source,

Because preaching religion in schools is unconstitutional. What one specific source?

Jay5, you say creationism is not a science ( ID) Why do you think or believe that, after all is not evolution a religion.

It isn't science. Evolution is not a religion.

I can't see how I believe and I mean "BELIEVE" that evolution has the answers that I expected...Again not trying to stir the pot,

What answers did you expect from science?

 

[Imagican]

While I would certainly deny that we 'evolved' from apes, evolution is apparent in EVERYTHING around us. The earth HAS EVOLVED into it's present state. We can literally WATCH single celled organisms EVOLVE. The discoveries of Darwin of certain species present on the Gallapagos offer PROOF that animals can and DO evolve.

The problem is NOT evolution, the problem is it's PROPER PLACE.

We have NO IDEA how long God spent in 'creation'. The figurative usage of 'days' means NOTHING so far as TRUTH is concerned. God is NOT confined to a '24' hour day/night cycle. This was CREATED by HIM. He is CERTAINLY not subject to IT.

While we did NOT come from apes, (IMO), mankind itself IS evolving right this very second. What conditions we are exposed to has a MAJOR effect on our evolution. Those that live in TROPICAL cliimates have DARKER skin. Those in colder climates USUALLY have 'lighter skin', (depends on whether they live INSIDE or OUTSIDE). Those that live in SUPER densely populated areas with LITTLE food end up being SMALLER in stature, (USUALLY). The list goes ON and on.

So, you see, evolution DOES exist. It's just a matter of finding it's proper PLACE in the scope of 'science' verses 'religion'. Science CANNOT refute God. Not and BE true 'science' For ALL science IS is the discovery of that which has been created by God.

MEC

 

[paulo75]

Because preaching religion in schools is unconstitutional. What one specific source?

It never used to be, at least here in Canada. The Lords prayer used to be spoken at the start of each school day, but no longer. In the last 15 years, Canadians have somehow conformed to the culture of immigrants... so backwards and so wrong.

 

[Jayls5]

Creationism can be taught in schools with no problems, as long as it's not in a science classroom. I.D. and creationism is not science.

I disagree. I don't think that science and religion are at odds; I think that science is simply too young to understand. Science will someday be able to explain creationism, making it the science of God... which everything already is.

There's nothing to disagree with here. Creationism avoids evidence that doesn't support their "theory" (aka conclusion) and jumps on anything that does. It is neither a viable theory, nor is it science at all. They do not follow the scientific method, and this is why the scientific community rejects them.

Creationists have argued that their "theory" deserves equal consideration to the theory of evolution in the classroom. Yet, the way it was cleverly turned down by opponents, was by introducing the flying spaghetti monster with the same logic used by creationists. In order to grant equal time to creationist theory in a science classroom, one would logically have to add in equal time to the spaghetti monster. The board of education turned creationism down as an alternative science for this reason. There is something inherently wrong with your argument if the same logic leads to teaching of obvious mythical creatures in a science classroom.

Yes, I think creation should be taught in the classroom. Why would you limit teaching about earth, mankind, apes, and just life in general just to one specific source=

I don't care if creation is taught in a classroom. That's not the issue. I care if creation is taught in a science classroom. There's a fairly large difference there.

 

[Radlad72]

We have NO IDEA how long God spent in 'creation'. The figurative usage of 'days' means NOTHING so far as TRUTH is concerned. God is NOT confined to a '24' hour day/night cycle. This was CREATED by HIM. He is CERTAINLY not subject to IT.

The days are NOT figurative. The Hebrew word 'yom' is a definite 24 hour time frame. The usage of evening and morning also voids your aguement here.

Micro-evolution does definitely happen. It is the idea of billions of years of macro-evolution that should be anathema to all Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.

There is no evolution between different genera of organisms,only between some species at best. This is why macro can not exist.

Rad.

 

[Dunzo]

There is no evolution between different genera of organisms,only between some species at best. This is why macro can not exist.

Evolution cannot happen, therefore evolution cannot happen? You'll have to do better than that, I'm afraid.