Evolution is a true theory!

[random_guy]

Evolution is an unproven theory, with many gaps and constant modifications. It cannot be scientifically replicated. Where are the transitional fossils? Where are the missing links? There are too many questions unanswered.

Why would a Bible loving Christian support an incomplete, man-made theory under going constant revisions over the simple story of Creation laid out in Genesis? I think a lot of it has to do with avoiding "scorn" by peers who will think you ignorant for accepting something so simplistic as that. Yet the Bible easily explains our origins, while the infant theory of Evolution labors on, assimilating and casting out new aspects which just lead to more questions.

Hate to make your post prophetic, but from what you posted, you're ignorant of science. You don't prove things in science. Proofs are for math and alcohol. Next, evolution can be replicated (antibotic resistance trials). I'm guess you don't know this is because you don't know what evolution is. After that, all scientific theories are continually refined. Do you not accept gravity since new research shows that it's more complicated than what Newton thought? Finally, define what transitional fossil means because I know you don't know what the actual scientific definition is from your statements. If you can't do that, I think the silence speaks volumes.

Now, there's nothing wrong with being ignorant, if you're willing to fix it.

EDIT: My post may come off harsh, but I do it to challenge people. It may be the only way someone will learn. Prove me wrong. Show me that you aren't ignorant and you do know what the scientific definition of a transitional fossil is. I'll admit that I'm wrong if you can show me you know what the definition is and that you can remain consistant with your claim of no transitional fossils.

 

[Poke]

Hate to make your post prophetic, but from what you posted, you're ignorant of science.

Yeah, an Evolutionist uses the i-word directly!!!

evolution can be replicated (antibotic resistance trials).

See, that's why I can't be an Evolutionist. I'd be too embarrassed to have to resort to something as tiny and of a debatable nature as antibiotic resistance as a replication of Evolution.

Do you not accept gravity

Oh boy, you really do think that every thing in science hinges on the acceptance that nature turned "goo into you."

 

[random_guy]

Yeah, an Evolutionist uses the i-word directly!!!



See, that's why I can't be an Evolutionist. I'd be too embarrassed to have to resort to something as tiny and of a debatable nature as antibiotic resistance as a replication of Evolution.



Oh boy, you really do think that every thing in science hinges on the acceptance that nature turned "goo into you."

Say all you want, but not understanding science means you're ignorant of science. It's not a bad thing, the key is how you deal with it. The method you choose, to continue to avoid learning what evolution is, speaks volumes about your creditability.

I think the reason you can't be an evolutionists is because you don't accept science. When something as trivial as understanding the definition of evolution can not be comprehended, then obviously, that person won't be an evolutionist.

Of course, prove me wrong. Tell me what the scientific definition of evolution is. Show me you're not ignorant by this definition of evolution and antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Again, your silence on this will show what everyone expects.

 

[random_guy]

edited for consistency

So if we also accept that 1+1=2, does that mean we have greater zeal for math than Christianity? What if we accept gravity or germ theory, does that mean we have greater zeal for science than Christianity? I don't "suffer" those that are ignorant, I want to try to teach them. Again, I'll accept that you're not ignorant if you can give me the scientific definition of a transitional fossil and remain consistant with that definition and your posts. I have yet to see any Creationist take up this challenge because it's pretty obvious what the result will be. However, prove me wrong.

 

[Smidlee]

When it come down to it, everyone is ignorant about the "theory" of evolution. As Giuseppe Sermonti wrote

"There never really has been a scientific "theory" of evolution. "Divergent descent" is an evasive way of stating ancient relationships among living beings, but evolution is about the ways and the mechanisms whereby species emerged and differentiated, say, from the amoba to the elephant, from bacterium to man or, as the current fashion has it, from molecules to man."

 

[random_guy]

When it come down to it, everyone is ignorant about the "theory" of evolution. As Giuseppe Sermonti wrote

If you mean ignorant, as in there's still so much to learn, then yes. However, that quote seems very wrong. There is a theory of evolution. I have no idea what he could possibly mean by putting theory in quotations. Next, molecules to man seems more like abiogenesis than evolution. This is why I tend to take quotes with a grain of salt. Evidence matters in science, not quotes.

 

[steen]

When it come down to it, everyone is ignorant about the "theory" of evolution. As Giuseppe Sermonti wrote

This really isn't true. The Scientific Theory of Evolution is stable. there are sometimes questions about specific mechanisms, but the Scientific Theory itself is solid and known. At least among those who have learned what it actually is.

 

[gluadys]

That didn't mean it was true. And I looked at the evolutionary theory before I was a Christian. Look up ... I'm 54. I didn't become a Christian until I was almost 41. I believed the theory once, but no more.

And that's the problem. You believed it instead of learning it.

I came to realize that there is as much faith, if not more, involved in accepting the concept of uncontrolled, accidental evolution, than there is in accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, prior to your conversion did you understand evolution to be uncontrolled and accidental? Evidence that you never actually learned the theory. What you rejected was not evolution but a popularized caricature of evolution.

Caricatures of evolution should be rejected and replaced with a correct understanding of evolution.

And to think that God would start things in motion and remain hands-off is to completely miss the reality of Who God is. God has never remained hands-off in anything He has done,

Absolutely. That is why Christians who accept the science of evolution are referred to as Theistic Evolutionists, not Deistic Evolutionists.

and the Genesis creation story is an accurate and factual portrayal of how we got here.

Theologically it is. Scientifically it is not.

 

[gluadys]

Evolution is an unproven theory, with many gaps and constant modifications.

Just like most scientific theories. Theories are evaluated on how well they are supported by evidence and how well they predict further evidence. But no scientist expects that all the gaps are filled and no further modifications will be required. That could only happen when all evidence has been discovered, and that is not going to happen soon.

It cannot be scientifically replicated. Where are the transitional fossils? Where are the missing links? There are too many questions unanswered.

Actually, it has been replicated and is being replicated daily in biology labs. Transitional fossils can be readily found with a few google searches. How many questions is "too many"?

Why would a Bible loving Christian support an incomplete, man-made theory under going constant revisions over the simple story of Creation laid out in Genesis?

The fact is they don't. They hold both the science and the scripture to be true.

 

[shernren]

By the by, Sermonti isn't a disillusioned evolutionist or even an evolutionist being quote-mined. He's a leading Italian creationist, has written about the hermeneutics of fairy-tales, and has spoken at Hindu creationist (never heard of those ) conferences.

http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/?p=246

Taking a creationist at his word when he says evolution is nonsense is a little like taking an atheist at his word when he says Christianity is nonsense.

 

[Smidlee]

By the by, Sermonti isn't a disillusioned evolutionist or even an evolutionist being quote-mined. He's a leading Italian creationist, has written about the hermeneutics of fairy-tales, and has spoken at Hindu creationist (never heard of those ) conferences.

http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/?p=246

Taking a creationist at his word when he says evolution is nonsense is a little like taking an atheist at his word when he says Christianity is nonsense.

To me the title you give him isn't the important thing but his knowledge of genetics. He claims he's not a creationist though it's very clear he's not a Neo-Dawrinists and see flaws in their Central Dogma. Just because someone is a creationist/evolutionist (or even an atheist) doesn't automaticly mean they don't know what they are talking about or they are wrong. Of course since Sermonti isn't fond of Neo-Darwinism he's more welcome by those who oppose their dogma.

 

[shernren]

To me the title you give him isn't the important thing but his knowledge of genetics. He claims he's not a creationist though it's very clear he's not a Neo-Dawrinists and see flaws in their Central Dogma. Just because someone is a creationist/evolutionist (or even an atheist) doesn't automaticly mean they don't know what they are talking about or they are wrong. Of course since Sermonti isn't fond of Neo-Darwinism he's more welcome by those who oppose their dogma.

Well, you should go and correct Henry Morris, then. By the by, my link seems to be broken, you can access the Google cache here: http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache...nti&hl=en&gl=my&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a

 

[IisJustMe]

And that's the problem. You believed it instead of learning it.

... is not the way it is taught, in public school or elsewhere. TE is an effort to fit the Bible into science, and that wasn't God's purpose in His inspiration of it.

Caricatures of evolution should be rejected and replaced with a correct understanding of evolution.

I have a correct understanding of evolution, which is why I believe it a false religion, not a valid scientific theory.

Theologically it is. Scientifically it is not.

Refer to my first statement in this post.

 

[random_guy]

... is not the way it is taught, in public school or elsewhere. TE is an effort to fit the Bible into science, and that wasn't God's purpose in His inspiration of it.
I have a correct understanding of evolution, which is why I believe it a false religion, not a valid scientific theory.
Refer to my first statement in this post.

Wait, that sentence makes no sense. Could you explain how evolution is a religion instead of a scientific theory? If you understood evolution, you'd know that all evolution says is that allele frequencies change in a population over time. The theory explains what causes this and consequences of evolution. It isn't any more of a religion than gravity or germ theory. Something tells me Glaudys hit the nail right on the head.

EDIT: The only way I can see evolution being a religion is if you think we worship "Time" like Hovind says or if you think evolution denies God's existence (which still won't make it a religion any more than atheists having a religion). My guess is the latter. However, then by the same reasoning, people to accept gravity, math, or atoms would also be worshipping each subject as a religion (which also don't mention God). So does believing in 1+1=2 make me an idolater? What about accepting that gravity is the force between masses? What about accepting that germs cause disease?

 

[Willtor]

I agree. Most of us have been waiting for a refutation of evolution from a perspective that has correctly understood it for some time. If you could describe evolution in a way that an evolutionist could accept and then provide a refutation of that (or, as you say, show that it cannot be observed and tested), I think you would have the undivided attention of most of the TEs.

 

[gluadys]

TE is an effort to fit the Bible into science, and that wasn't God's purpose in His inspiration of it.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Your understanding of TE is as faulty as your understanding of evolution. This is not a correct description of TE.

I have a correct understanding of evolution, which is why I believe it a false religion, not a valid scientific theory.

So far, you have not shown any evidence that this is the case. In fact, the conclusion of the above sentence shows again that you do not have a correct understanding of evolution.

 

[steen]

... is not the way it is taught, in public school or elsewhere.

The poor scientific education received in school is not the fault of the Science itself.

TE is an effort to fit the Bible into science, and that wasn't God's purpose in His inspiration of it.

I have a correct understanding of evolution,

Evolution includes natural selection, mutations, speciation, genetic drift among others. In how many post have you denied these things as being evolution?

which is why I believe it a false religion, not a valid scientific theory.

Valid Scientific Theories are developed thorugh the application of the Scientific Method. The Scientific Theory of Evolution was developed through the Application of the Scientific Method. Your claim simply cannot be true on that fact alone.

 

[savedbygracebre]

It seems that very often creationists want to discount evolution, but generaly they no not understand the evolutionary theory. But also, they want to push creationism to be taught in schools, but many creationists do not understand that ultimatly so called 'facts' cannot disprove evolution. Creationism is something which requires faith. Science cannot accept that. Evolution is really the only credable scientific theory to address biologic history. It is vain to argue with someone over the interpritation of data and observations.

I Tim. 6:20
"O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and opposing arguments of what is falsely called 'knowledge'"

Or you could quote good ole Genesis ch. 1 (since you are using scripture) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.--so much for Darwinism.

 

[IisJustMe]

Evolution includes natural selection, mutations, speciation, genetic drift among others. In how many post have you denied these things as being evolution?

I repeat, I've denied none of these, although the only reason I haven't addressed genetic drift is that it hasn't come up in any of the threads I've participated in. Now, denying they are evolution? Absolutely. It is a giant leap from acknowledging these things are biological facts, and saying they "prove" evolution.

Natural selection is absolutely true, mutations occur and some are actually beneficial, and speciation is nothing more than a genetic grouping being divided by natural disaster or other means of separating one large gene pool into two smaller ones, and the result will be the two groups perhaps exhibiting a different set of dominant genes, due to the nature of those present in the original members of the groups.

If two members of the different groups interbreed, they will be as Darwin's pigeons. The differing traits the two parents exhibit will, within two generations, reintegrate to be as the original one large group, before the separation. Darwin bred his pigeons for crests, colors, and wing shape. But when allowed to interbreed, they returned to their original form. This proves this is not evolution, but selective breeding. Similarly, if all the dogs in the world were allowed to interbreed, within several generations, the differing traits creating tall dogs, short dogs, spotted dogs, black dogs, etc. would disappear and we would return to the basic dog that walked the earth before man domesticated it.

No new genetic material results. The dogs and Darwin's pigeons all had these genes present when nature or man intervened. Left to themselves, they return to the basic original animal. That's not evolution at all, but the differing "breeds" of dogs are really nothing more than man-initiated speciation and is easily reversed. If evolutionists want to call that proof of their theory, I'll let them, but its not what Darwin was talking about, or what Haeckel tried to prove with false data.

 

[random_guy]

Or you could quote good ole Genesis ch. 1 (since you are using scripture) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.--so much for Darwinism.

Neither of which has anything to do with evolution, and neither of which explain how Creation took place. Perhaps you should study about what evolution says rather than spout nonsense?