Teaching Evolution in the Church?

[AV1611VET]

What do creationists think of teaching evolution in their local church? I mean apparently we have to show both sides of the issue so it's only fair, right?

Wrong --- that's your job --- and you're doing a poor job of it, too.

Our job is to preach and teach the Gospel.

[bible]Matthew 28:19-20[/bible]

 

[theFijian]

Our job is to preach and teach the Gospel.

So why aren't you?

 

[Baggins]

You can't tell me that those quotes I just gave you were not personal attacks on my intelligence.

So, I feel the need to defend myself so that you all don't make me out to be some crazy idiot. Cuz I do know what I'm talking about.

To back myself up, here are some things that I know:

Let's see how well you do

Let's start with science. To put forth a theory, a scientist must do three things: have a theoretical speculation, make an accurate observation, and use precise experimentation. Famous scientists such as Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, and Galileo used these three things to determine if their theories were correct

.

Good if rather bland start

Scientists must test their theories. According to these scientists, if the testing of their theories fails to confirm that theory.....then the theory must be discarded. This ensures that scientific theories that contain errors are eliminated. Because no one can go back to the beginning of time, the theory of evolution must remain a theory.

Oh, bad luck, just when you looked like you knew what you were talking about.

All theories in science remain theories. There is no higher scientific explanation than a theory. The theory of evolution will always remain a theory as will the theories of gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, and germs.

You do not need to go back in time to test the theory of evolution because luckily there is plenty of evidence of the earth's history in its geological record.

According to evolutionists themselves, evolution is not repeatable. And even if it is occurring today, it's at such an extremely slow pace that you can't observe it

.

Wrong evolution has been observed in the lab and the wild, there are plenty of small creatures with fast reproduction rates where we can observe speciation.

The exact pathway of historical evolution is not repeatable, but it doesn't need to be the evidence is all there in the fossil record.

A scientist and evolutionist by the name of G. A. Kerkut says "...the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified.......whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature" (from Implications of Evolution Oxford: Pergomon Press, 1960) That is where I draw my conclusion that evolution is not a science. Even evolutionists agree with me.

So you draw your conclusions based on a quote mine from scientist. That's not very scientific is it?

[wiki] Kerkut's book The Implications of Evolution pointed out some existing unsolved problems and points of concern for evolutionary studies. He referred to seven evolutionary assumptions which he felt lacked sufficient evidenciary support. Creationists have taken these points as evidence against evolution and interpreted them to support their own claims (Demarest). They claim that he distinguished between the Special Theory of Evolution (often referred to as microevolution by creationists) and what he termed the General Theory of Evolution (often referred to as macroevolution by creationists) (Thompson).
[/wiki]

which appears to be your problem. You do not understand what he was writing about

Transitional forms could not exist because they would not live long enough to be able to procreate.

Whoa there horsey! what is this. This shows a complete lack of understanding of what evolution is and what a transitional fossil is.

Individuals do not evolve, we all die with the same genes we are born with, populations evolve.

Transitional forms are animals that show traits common to two diffrent lineages like archaeopteryx, that shows reptile features and bird features, ot Tiktaalik that shows fish features and amphibian features.

As an example: bats. Evolutionists have claimed that bats evolved from a small, rodentlike mammal similar to modern shrews. However, if that were true, then that mammal's forepaws would gradually stretch long enough to become a bat's wing. The process would make the animal's forepaws useless for running or grasping things LONG before they could ever have learned to fly with them. And that's just one example of a transitional form that could not survive long enough to spawn a new species.

So if we can show you a plausible route as to how bats evolved you would except evolution was true?

There was a comment made that nowhere did evolution claim that species could randomly spawn other species. Now I'll admit that my example of a dog spawning a cat was overstated

.

Not so much over stated as bizarre and strange, where on earth did you get such an idea? That is something that would falsify evolution on the spot.

But evolutionists DID suggest that some such thing could happen

.
I don't want to call you a liar, but I don't think you will be able to substantiate such a claim.

Because of the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record,

What lack? There are hundreds of transitional fossils found:
Here is an incomplete list:

[wiki] .

• Fish to Amphibians
  • Tiktaalik roseae
  • Osteolepis
  • Eusthenopteron
  • Panderichthys
  • Elginerpeton
  • Obruchevichthys
  • Hynerpeton
  • Tulerpeton
  • Acanthostega
  • Ichthyostega
  • Pederpes finneyae
  • Eryops

• Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
  • Proterogyrinus
  • Limnoscelis
  • Tseajaia
  • Solenodonsaurus
  • Hylonomus
  • Paleothyris

• Synapsid (mammal-like "reptiles") to mammals
  • Protoclepsydrops
  • Clepsydrops
  • Dimetrodon
  • Procynosuchus
  • Thrinaxodon

• Diapsid reptiles to birds
  • Yixianosaurus
  • Pedopenna
  • Archeopteryx
  • Changchengornis
  • Confuciusornis
  • Ichthyornis

• Evolution of whales
  • Pakicetus
  • Ambulocetus
  • Artiocetus
  • Dorudon
  • Basilosaurus
  • Eurhinodelphis
  • Mammalodon

• Evolution of the horse
  • Hyracotherium
  • Mesohippus
  • Parahippus
  • Merychippus
  • Pliohippus
  • Equus

• Non-human apes to modern humans
  • Pierolapithecus catalaunicus
  • Ardipithecus
  • Australopithecus
  • Homo rudolfensis
  • Homo habilis
  • Homo erectus

[/wiki]

scientists turned to other alternatives for how things evolved. One of the theories was the "punctuated equilibrium hypothesis" or the "hopeful monster" hypothesis.

These are not the same thing at all. Gould and Eldridge's Punctuated Equilibrium theory is not similar to Goldscmidt's opeful monster theory. The hopeful monster theory was discarded long ago but came back into fashion recently when more was discovered about the regulatory genome and the evolution of HOX genes. Puntuated equilibrium requires geologically little time but in human terms we are talking thousands of years for speciation to occur. It happens in times of high environmental stress, where as gradualism, which it doesn't replace but compliments, takes place in times/areas of low environmental stress.

This process calls for very dramatic rearrangements of the genetic code in order to produce a very different and yet fully functional organism within one generation.

No, that is saltation, and that isn't a scientific theory

That evolution occured in spurts or explosions with a very long period without change. Darwin himself contradicted this theory saying ".

No he didn't as it han't been postulated then, he rightly contradicted saltation.

here enderth part one

 

[Baggins]

Part two

Let's start with Java man.

Yes let's

A Dutch scientist named Eugene Dubois dug up some bones from a riverbank on an Indonesian Island in 1891. He dated the bones back a half million years and these bones became known as Java man, a transitional character between ape and man. However, if one were to look closely at the evidence, one would see that the only bones that Eugene Dubois dug up were nothing more than a skullcap, a femur, and three teeth. He found those bones and from them claimed he had found a missing link. There is no way that a person can construct a whole skeleton from those bones mentioned.

One scientist misidentified an ancient homonid, probably Homo erectus, skeleton and you think the entire world of evolutionary biology will come crashing down. Please!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_man

Next comes the "Coelacanth". It was a fish whose fins are attached to the body different from other fish, by fleshy lobes that would allow the fins to rotate easier. The fossils of this fish showed up in the rocks of the Devonian Period. These fish, because of their fins that slightly resembled appendages from which feet could have evolved, were thought by scientists to be a transitional form between sea dwelling creatures and land dwelling creatures

Lobed fin fish are the fish group that gave rise to amphibians. Coelocanths are not claimed to be part of that transition, see above for lobe finned fish that are

.

In 1938......a live coelacanth was caught in the Indian Ocean. Since then many live coelacanths have been found. People were surprised to find out that these fish live very very deep in the ocean and only very rarely do they ever come up within 500 feet of the surface!

So what, are you trying to tell us that no lobed finned fishes lived in the shallows. because I think I could find geological evidence that would contradict you.

If that's true then it's highly unlikely that these creatures would ever have crawled out onto land. Also, their internal organs are completely fishlike. There is no resemblance to amphibians. And the funny thing is....despite all these facts...some evolutionists still claim that these fish evolved into amphibians.

All scientists of ny standing claim that fish evolved into.

Your whole argeument rather falls apart because th efish to amphibian transition happened before Coelocanths even evolved

[wiki]
In Late Devonian vertebrate speciation, descendants of pelagic lobe-finned fish – like Eusthenopteron – exhibited a sequence of adaptations:

• Panderichthys, suited to muddy shallows;
• Tiktaalik with limb-like fins that could take it up onto land;
• Early tetrapods in weed-filled swamps, such as:
  • Acanthostega which had feet with eight digits,
  • Ichthyostega with limbs.

Descendants also included pelagic lobe-finned fish such as coelacanth species.
[/wiki]

Let's have another example of a missing link between apes and man. Nebraska man is a good example.

It's a very bad example, it was a pig tooth that was never even identified as a human tooth by a scientist in print.

Nebraska man was reconstructed from one single tooth found in Nebraska in 1922. How can one build an entire skeleton from a tooth and call it a transitional form? Ubsurd

It's absurd, and it would be if anyone had actually done that..

It was a tooth that was misidentified as human and then a couple of years later, back in 1925, correctly identified as a pig tooth.


.

But that's what happened. For years people accepted Nebraska man as a legitimate "ape-man".

For 3 years scientists questioned whether it was really a human tooth and then decided it wasn't

These are just a few examples of how scientists misled the public into believing something that wasn't true

No these are a few examples of how creationist web sites have mislead you


.

I never claimed that these scientists ever meant to mislead, just that they did mislead. And sadly, our schools from elementary school up to college teach these things as scientific facts.

I doubt you will be able to prove that any of these cases are in modern biological text books.

Now I'm assuming that most of you have read Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." That seems like a pretty strong reason to believe that the earth was created and didn't "just happen".

What because it is in a book of stories written by some bronze age nomads. That doesn't sound very scientific to me

From the previous verses one must conclude that God not only created all the creatures, but that He made sure they would only produce other creatures after their own kind.

If you believe the bible rather than reality perhaps

From these two verses, one can only conclude that God made man in His own image. It doesn't say that God made an organism that evolved into an ape that evolved into a man. He said that He created a man in His own image.

So you believe that god is an ape, interesting

If you deny any of these things, then you deny the Bible.

I deny it is to be taken seriously in matters of science, so do all scientists and a majority of christians.

One cannot simply take verses from the Bible and decide to believe only those and not the others. The Bible is either God's inerrant Word or it isn't.

In that case it isn't because the reality of the universe contradicts it.

If you want to argue.....argue with God. Hopefully now you can understand where I'm coming from.

Ok " oi! you, Deity, why have you left all this evidence lying around that flatly contradicts the bible?"

I understand where you are coming from, directly from a creationist website with a serious misunderstanding of what not only evolution is, but science in general.

 

[plindboe]

Gam3rG1rl4Chr1st,

Welcome to the forum.

You might have done research in your life, but I'm sorry to say, that you seem to have relied on some poor and deceiving material. Quote mining, straw men, non sequiturs, misunderstandings, conspiracy thinking, cherrypicking, lies, this is what creationism is today, and sadly many people find it appealing, possibly because it's alot easier to understand than studying the actual science.

I suggest to you to research the "other" side as well. Find out what a scientific theory actually is, learn about observed instances of speciation, realize why you should be embarrassed to use many of the most frequent creationist arguments, learn what 'transitional species' means, and about the many transitional fossils that have been discovered. For that, www.talkorigins.org is one of the most comprehensive sites you can use.

Peter

 

[Baggins]

Gam3rG1rl4Chr1st,

Welcome to the forum.

You might have done research in your life, but I'm sorry to say, that you seem to have relied on some poor and deceiving material. Quote mining, straw men, non sequiturs, misunderstandings, conspiracy thinking, cherrypicking, lies, this is what creationism is today, and sadly many people find it appealing, possibly because it's alot easier to understand than studying the actual science.

I suggest to you to research the "other" side as well. Find out what a scientific theory actually is, learn about observed instances of speciation, realize why you should be embarrassed to use many of the most frequent creationist arguments, learn what 'transitional species' means, and about the many transitional fossils that have been discovered. For that, www.talkorigins.org is one of the most comprehensive sites you can use.

Peter

In this spirit.

here is a piece about the lateset genetic research into bat evolution:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Did-Rats-Grow-Wings-and-Became-Bats-21804.shtml
and

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0509716103v1

It seems bat wings devolped dramatically quickly ( in geological terms ) due to a mutation thatcaused their arms to grown at the embryonic stage.

They harnessed that genetic spanner in th eworks and 50 My later they are own of the most succesful types of mammal around.
Go Bats!

 

[Upisoft]

I wasn't aware that I wasn't supposed to give my personal opinion. I didn't expect to be attacked and insulted on a Christian website, especially by a senior member. If I offended anyone I apologize.

Yes, this is Christian website, but this section is open for all members. It's not exclusivelly Christian. Yes, I was offended by your lies, especially that one marked with pink in my first response.
I admit I wanted to be rude and I was sarcastic to achieve that. Since, I'm not Christian and you can understand my unwillingness to turn the other cheek.

I accept you apology and since I was intentionally rude, I want to apologize too.

But I will not continue this discussion because it's obvious that whatever I say from here on out will be misconstrued and picked apart in a sarcastic way.

It has to be expected. This is science forum. If you have serious scientific data that is backe up with evidence, then we will gladlly discuss it.

I wasn't looking to make enemies.

Neither do I. I just don't like lies.

I thought the Creationist 7-day view would be something that most of us Christians would have agreed on.

Perhaps that's true in USA, but it's not true world-wide.

I could give you many examples of why the current theory of evolution is wrong, but because that would only lead to more argumentative posts, I don't think it's in any of our best interests for me to do so.

The purpose of D&D forums is to discuss, debate and have argument. If you don't like it, you better choose another forums and post there. However, if you wish to discuss your opinion about Evolution, then here is the right place.

Please forgive me if I made any of you mad, but I think I'm going to leave this conversation alone. As I said, I didn't come here to make enemies. Peace!

I already forgave you. It's not personal. I just hate lies. And I believe, you, as a Christian, should hate them too.

 

[uberd00b]

I thought the Creationist 7-day view would be something that most of us Christians would have agreed on.

The YEC/literal 7 day creation idea is very much a minority view within Christianity. The majority of Christians are quite happy to trust in what Gods creation tells us. The people who study Gods creation honestly are called scientists.

To me creationists are committing a basic idolatry when they worship a book over God itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

To me creationists are committing a basic idolatry when they worship a book over God itself.

Are we "worshipping a book" when we say God put His Words in writing?

Did Josiah commit idolatry when he rent his clothes after hearing the words in this book?

[bible]2 Chronicles 34:19[/bible]

If we meditate on this Book day and night, as both Joshua and David did, are we committing acts of idolatry?

[bible]Joshua 1:8[/bible]
[bible]Psalm 1:2[/bible]

Or was your point to say the words "God itself"?

 

[Upisoft]

You can't tell me that those quotes I just gave you were not personal attacks on my intelligence.

They were not. They were attacks on your lies or .your lack of knowledge that made you repeat lies of other people.

ex. the theory that a life form, say a dog, could give birth to a different life form, say a cat

This quote from your original post can be explained in two ways:

1. You know what you're talking about - then you know that you're lying. Otherwise you could back up your claim with reference to the scientific text that made such claim.
2. You don't know what you're talking about.

So, you see it is all about lies or lack of knowledge.

Let's start with science. ... According to these scientists, if the testing of their theories fails to confirm that theory.....then the theory must be discarded.

I agree, except that is according to the science.

This ensures that scientific theories that contain errors are eliminated.

That's right.

Because no one can go back to the beginning of time, the theory of evolution must remain a theory.

Even if we were able to go back in time it would reamain theory. That's because meaning of word "theory" in science and everyday use is different.

According to evolutionists themselves, evolution is not repeatable.

It is not repeatable, yes. But it can happen again, with different outcome on some other planet.

And even if it is occurring today, it's at such an extremely slow pace that you can't observe it.

Yes, you can. Hoever you need species with hight rate of generation change. Such as bacteria.

A scientist and evolutionist by the name of G. A. Kerkut says "...the philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified.......whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature" (from Implications of Evolution Oxford: Pergomon Press, 1960)

I didn't read his book, but the guy is right in general way. Everything is based on assumption, not only the Theory of Evoluton.

That is where I draw my conclusion that evolution is not a science. Even evolutionists agree with me.

If evolution is not science, then the same applies for everithing we call science. Because everything is based on assumption. For example, when you study gravity, you assume it will not suddenly start to behave in different way.

Transitional forms could not exist because they would not live long enough to be able to procreate. As an example: bats. Evolutionists have claimed that bats evolved from a small, rodentlike mammal similar to modern shrews. However, if that were true, then that mammal's forepaws would gradually stretch long enough to become a bat's wing. The process would make the animal's forepaws useless for running or grasping things LONG before they could ever have learned to fly with them. And that's just one example of a transitional form that could not survive long enough to spawn a new species.

Now you assume that these transitional forms had to run and grasp things to survive. That just could be not true.

There was a comment made that nowhere did evolution claim that species could randomly spawn other species. Now I'll admit that my example of a dog spawning a cat was overstated.

Thanks for admitting it.

But evolutionists DID suggest that some such thing could happen. Because of the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, scientists turned to other alternatives for how things evolved. One of the theories was the "punctuated equilibrium hypothesis" or the "hopeful monster" hypothesis. This process calls for very dramatic rearrangements of the genetic code in order to produce a very different and yet fully functional organism within one generation.

We're discussing theory of Evolution, not some hypotheses. Can you geve me a reference to the claim marked with pink? I wasn't to know who made that hypothesis.

That evolution occured in spurts or explosions with a very long period without change. Darwin himself contradicted this theory saying "....To admit all this, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of Science." (Origin of Species 6th edition.) However it was a real hypothesis for some time.

There is still hypothesis that Earth is flat. However, I don't call that science. If they find evidence for their claims and explain the mechanism that allows such thing, then the hypothesis will become theory. Until then it is not science.
You cna't blame people for having wild imagination. That is required for generation of new ideas. Some of them survive, like Einstein's Relativity.

Some of you wanted me to give you a number of how many times scientists claimed something was a transitional form only to retract their statement when it was proven wrong.

Since everything is transitional form, then how you can prove it wrong?

Let's start with Java man.

OK. Java man was a mistake. So, how that is evidence that theory of Evolution is in error?

In 1938......a live coelacanth was caught in the Indian Ocean.

Why that is surprising? There are still living bacteria. And in fact they're the most popular form of life.

If that's true then it's highly unlikely that these creatures would ever have crawled out onto land.

Why not?

Also, their internal organs are completely fishlike. There is no resemblance to amphibians. And the funny thing is....despite all these facts...some evolutionists still claim that these fish evolved into amphibians.

Given tha fact that ancient coelacanths were not the same as modern coelacanths, you can't say what their internal organs were. Anyway, that is not a problem. Nothing in the theory of evolution predicts extinction of the original species.

Let's have another example of a missing link between apes and man. Nebraska man is a good example. Nebraska man was reconstructed from one single tooth found in Nebraska in 1922. How can one build an entire skeleton from a tooth and call it a transitional form? Ubsurd. But that's what happened. For years people accepted Nebraska man as a legitimate "ape-man". But that's not the end of the story. A few years later it was revealed that the tooth didn't even come from a man......it was the tooth of an extinct pig.

Well, the scientists are people, right? They can make mistakes. You must give us evidence that theory of evolution is wrong, not that people make mistakes. We know the latter very well. All we make mistakes.

These are just a few examples of how scientists misled the public into believing something that wasn't true. I never claimed that these scientists ever meant to mislead, just that they did mislead.

Unfortunatelly that is how science works. It makes mistakes and learns from them. Anyway, that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

And sadly, our schools from elementary school up to college teach these things as scientific facts.

Well, evolution is a fact. I.e. evidence for the fossil record. There is noting in fossil record that contradicts it as fact. There was many mistakes, of course, and you mentioned some, but nothing was shown to contradict evolution.

Now I'm assuming that most of you have read Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." That seems like a pretty strong reason to believe that the earth was created and didn't "just happen".

........

If you deny any of these things, then you deny the Bible. One cannot simply take verses from the Bible and decide to believe only those and not the others. The Bible is either God's inerrant Word or it isn't.

The Bible is not scientific paper. And yes, I deny the Bible. Or at least your literal interpretation.

God is so specific about so many things in the Bible, down to the pathways of the seas! If He is so correct and specific about these things, then it's safe to conclude that He is being specific when it comes to creation. He said He made it in seven days. He didn't say 50 million years, He didn't say 50 billion years. He said seven days. I, for one, am going to take God at His Word, considering He is God after all.

Prove that the Bible is God's word, and I will believe you.

"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18

 

[Split Rock]

Personally I believe that evolution is not a science. I think evolution is a faith. Considering the lack of scientific evidence to prove that evolution is true, I have come to believe that it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God, if not more. (SNIP)

A few points seem clear to me:

1. You do not really understand science.

2. You do not understand the theory of evolution.

3. Your understanding of evolution is most likely based on highly questionable "Creation Ministry" websites and literature, such as Kent Hovind ("Dr. Dino") and Answers in Genesis.

If you want to learn what the theory of evolution really is, I would suggest visiting the following website. It is a very good place for non-scientists to learn the basics:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

 

[AV1611VET]

A few points seem clear to me:

1. You do not really understand science.

Neither do I.

2. You do not understand the theory of evolution.

Neither do I --- but I can say confidently that evolution does not belong in the Church.

The Body of Christ did not come from apes.

Here's our taxonomic background:

• Kingdom: Kingdom of Heaven
• Order: Dead in Christ first, then we which are alive and remain.
• Family: Family of God
• Genus: Christian
• Species: Saint

 

[Servant222]

I don't mind people disagreeing. But I do mind it when people are rude.

I agree with you- there is never any need for anyone to be unkind and use personal attacks to try and make a point.

I suggest you go the Christian discussion threads http://www.christianforums.com/f143-origins-theology.html on this topic and make your comments there- I hope you'll find a more polite audience.

Remember, Christian Forums does allow everyone to edit and remove comments that, upon reflection, might not be appropriate.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I agree with you- there is never any need for anyone to be unkind and use personal attacks to try and make a point.

I suggest you go the Christian discussion threads http://www.christianforums.com/f143-origins-theology.html on this topic and make your comments there- I hope you'll find a more polite audience.

Remember, Christian Forums does allow everyone to edit and remove comments that, upon reflection, might not be appropriate.

No one used personal attacks. They merely pointed out the obvious.

 

[Split Rock]

Neither do I --- but I can say confidently that evolution does not belong in the Church.

OK... I did not suggest otherwise. I do, however, suggest that "Creation Science" also does not belong in the Church either.

The Body of Christ did not come from apes.

Here's our taxonomic background:

• Kingdom: Kingdom of Heaven
• Order: Dead in Christ first, then we which are alive and remain.
• Family: Family of God
• Genus: Christian
• Species: Saint

Thats all nice (if bizzare). However, I was specifically responding to Gam3rG1rl4Chr1st's posts.

 

[Gam3rG1rl4Chr1st]

The geologic column is a hypothetical arrangement. I stand with my original statement......there is no place on earth were you could go to see the geologic column intact, except for in a textbook in school or in the library. The fossils found in the earth aren't arranged in the evolutionary progression.

And besides all that, if one were to use the geologic column as "evidence" to support evolution then one would be using circular reasoning. The modern geologic column is nothing more than some scientists proposed explanation for evolution. It doesn't prove anything. For an example: If a scientist were to find a fossil that supposedly evolved recently then he would assume that the rocks it was found in were young. But all that is assumption! There really is no objective way to prove that a sample of rock is young or old. And if you can't prove that, then you have to rely on the proposed geologic column (which is only a hypothesis) to tell you how old the rock is. And then to go one step further......let's say a scientist finds a fossil of a previously unknown creature. This scientist, not knowing when this creature was present, would look at the rock it was found in......then compare the rock to the geologic column (again only a hypothesis) and date the fossil according the rocks it was found in. Circular reasoning. The fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils based on the theory of the geologic column. Because of this circular reasoning, any "evidence" that comes from it must be completely discarded. It is not proof, it is speculation and should not be taught as fact.

Now, radiometric dating came along. Radiometric dating came from the fact that atoms of certain elements will break down into atoms of other elements at pretty much a constant rate. So scientists could use the decay of the naturally occuring radioactive elements to find out exact age of a certain rock or fossil. Sounds good in theory but breaks down in practice. You cannot use the decay of an element to calculate age unless you have both the original and then the final amounts of that element. So here comes the guessing. There is no way to know just exactly how much of the original and then the current elements were originally in the sample. So scientists have to assume. He bases his findings on assumptions, thus if you were to use radiometric dating then the ages of the fossils/rocks being dated are going to be determined by the assumptions and guesses of the scientist doing the dating. And if a fossil were to appear that doesn't fit with the proposed geologic column then it's quite easy to modify the geoligic column so that it fits. Does that mean it's fact? No. That just proves that it's still a theory! And that's my main problem with evolution. It's still a theory and yet it's been taught as a fact.

Many of you have stated then that things like gravity and quantum physics should be taught as theory then. Gravity explains itself. One only has to be present on earth to realize there is a force holding him or her down on the earth. So no matter what you call it it's still there. Quantum physics on the other hand should be taught as theory. I completely agree with that. It is a theory, everyone knows it, so let's present it as such. An extremely good theory to be sure, but still a theory.

I used those examples of Java man, Nebraska man etc as examples of how scientists are constantly having to recant their statements concerning evolution. I realize that this happens in many other areas of science as well, but the problem with evolution again is that it's being presented as fact when it is not.

I also understand that mutations occur within species. And I do understand that species will change slightly to reflect their current habitat or environment. This is called adaptation, not evolution. Yes there are thousands of different kinds of birds.....but they are all still birds. Yes there are thousands of types of dogs and cats and fish, but they are all still dogs, cats and fish are they not?

I understand that many of you are not Christians, and I respect that. I will not be so presumptuous as to assume that I'm going to change your mind on the subject of evolution. I am not a scientist. I am simply a girl who believes in the Word of God. No, it is not an idol. That's ubsurd. It is simply the tool that is used to better understand God. I don't understand why people say that science and God can't coexist. It's because of God that we have science! You can't use science to disprove God because He made it!

I will post some final words on this subject and then I'm not going to post anymore. My original problem is and always will be this: Evolution is not fact. It is someone's creative imagination working overtime to try to explain the origin of life without God. People have built on that imaginitive hypothesis and constructed models based on it and geologic columns based on it and they have twisted it and turned it so that it can fit. Have they proved it? No. It is based on faulty assumptions and a lot of exaggeration. Therefore it should not be taught as a scientific fact. That is my problem with evolution.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

I'll give you credit, you have a better understanding of the realities of the cr/evo argument than many, if you keep on studying and understand even to the level that you do, you will recognize the strawmen that you are posting. Something tells me if you are smart enough to be a good gamer, you will figure out which set of conclusions is more likely to lead you to a usable understanding of the world.

Reset the game from your last science course and play agian.

 

[Upisoft]

The geologic column is a hypothetical arrangement. I stand with my original statement......there is no place on earth were you could go to see the geologic column intact, except for in a textbook in school or in the library.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

The fossils found in the earth aren't arranged in the evolutionary progression.

Evidence?

--------------
More lies follow..
--------------

Therefore it should not be taught as a scientific fact. That is my problem with evolution.

No, your problem is that someone put in your head a heap of lies.

 

[Gam3rG1rl4Chr1st]

No, your problem is that someone put in your head a heap of lies.

Heh, that's funny cuz from my point of view, I could say the same thing about you. Upisoft and others, I respect your opinion and I am officially agreeing with you to disagree. Props, respect and peace to you all! TTYL!

 

[Upisoft]

Heh, that's funny cuz from my point of view, I could say the same thing about you. Upisoft and others, I respect your opinion and I am officially agreeing with you to disagree. Props, respect and peace to you all! TTYL!

At least my side doesn't tell you every 5 seconds that there is no God. That's perhaps, because I'm theist and there are also Christian that accept evolution.

And if you don't think that what you do is rude, then think what would happen if I come in a Christian only forum and say: "Jesus was gambler, wizard and dumb". Do you understand now?