Teaching Evolution in the Church?

[Dal M.]

......there is no place on earth were you could go to see the geologic column intact...

False.

(taken from here)

Now, radiometric dating came along.

And given that radiometric dating is an absolute dating method, you've just invalidated the entire preceding paragraph about how fossil dating relies on circular reasoning. Strange.

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.

Untrue. Isochron dating doesn't require scientists to know the starting amount of the daughter element in the sample. Why don't you read about it?

I used those examples of Java man, Nebraska man etc as examples of how scientists are constantly having to recant their statements concerning evolution.

What do you mean, "recant"? Nebraska Man was never widely accepted among scientists, and Java Man is still considered to be a legitimate H. erectus fossil.

Yes there are thousands of types of dogs and cats and fish, but they are all still dogs, cats and fish are they not?

You tell me. Is this a fish? Or is it an amphibian?

 

[Nitron]

Denying the geological column is like denying the periodic table of elements. It's a GRAPHIC, used to organize ideas.

I am agnostic (though I WANT to be Christian), and I can safely say that evolution and God can coexist. GEOLOGY and God can certainly coexist, and geology supports evolution. MtDNA supports common descent. If you have never heard of MtDNA, that's not your fault, Answers in Genesis and Hovind don't WANT you to. Accelerated decay would have been forgotten by now had it not been created in a YEC worldview, and now it still has its proponents even though RATE didn't even use proper equipment.

Transitional forms DO exist. The problem with "tiktaalik is just a fish, it still has fins" or "archaeopteryx is just a bird" statements is that they are using definition as argumentation. Transitional fish/ tetrapod forms are classed by whether or not they have limbs with distinct digits. If an animal identical in all ways to tiktaalik was discovered, except it had digits, it would be considered a tetrapod even though there are so little differences.

Same deal with archaeopteryx. It DEFINES birds. Even without the feathers, animals like Microraptor and "Morrisornithoides", its possible ancestor, are much closer to Archaeopteryx than it is to birds. (In the case of Microraptor, their skulls are so similar I am surprised they are in the same family) But Archie was the first found, and so any animal more birdlike is a bird, just as anyone less birdlike is a reptile. And no, Archie did not have a reversed hallux like AiG claims, it was like any other dinosaur.

What makes you think evolution is based on faulty assumptions? And please stay on these forums, you are one of the smartest YECs I have seen.

 

[DrkSdBls]

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.

You're assuming that, for a small Mammal to evolve into a Bat, that they must first evolve the Wing before they learn to fly. There is another way.

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. 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. 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.

Yet, it was never more then a Hypothesis and through Scientific Discovery, it was never included into the Theory. That Is Fantasy and not Evolution.
What Scientists now except in Place of it is that certain Random Mutations occur in Individuals, when passed into successive Generations, cause the Descending Generations to be excluded from their Parent Species as a result of these Mutations.

Next comes the "Coelacanth".

The Coelacanth is a Living Fossil. A Relict of the pass. The reason they were found alive is because they Survived this long without being noticed. They lived Millions of Years ago and they are still living today. Just Like Sharks, although Sharks have certainly Changed quite a bit since then.
Even if they were an ancestor of the Amphibians, that doesn’t mean that they automatically become extinct!
You’ll need to do a lot better then this to counter years of Scientifically proven Facts.

 

[Gam3rG1rl4Chr1st]

And please stay on these forums, you are one of the smartest YECs I have seen.

Thanks for the compliment, Nitron and if you want me to stay, I'll stay.

First I'll need to go back to Dal M.'s statement that Java man is still considered to be a legitimate H. Erectus fossil. And there's where my whole argument comes from. Java man was a mistake. Just a fossilized skull fragment and a leg bone. Not to mention the fact that they were found 50 feet apart. But let's go with that anyways and assume that they were part of the same individual. Even if that is true, how could one erect an entire skeleton only looking at two bones? And then how could one tell people that these bones were a missing link between apes and man? If I went out into the Indonesian Islands and dug up a couple bones fifty feet apart, claimed they were part of the same skeleton, then put together an entire skeleton using only those two bones for reference, I would be laughed out of the scientific community so fast my head would spin. But because a scientist was the one who claimed that.....then it's automatically true? Because that's basically what Eugene Dubois did. And now Java man is widely accepted as a legitimate H. Erectus fossil. See wherein my problem with evolution lies?

I can give you other examples of ape-men who are not reall ape-men and yet are accepted today by the scientific community as legitimate fossils. Homo habilis and australopithicus.

Homo Habilis. This guy was announced as a missing link in 1964. He looked like a small, chimpanzeelike creature with a pretty small brain. There was some controversy over whether these shattered fossils should be classified in the Homo genus (man) or whether they were actually a type of australopithecine. Because more complete skeletons have shown that a lot of these creatures were only 3 and 1/2 feet tall as adults and really not humanlike at all. Further research (along with the discovery of much larger skulls and leg bones in 1972) seemed to portray that Homo Habilis is actually really a mixture of both human fossils and ape fossils. Quite a number of evolutionists even agree with this position and yet it's still a legitimate ape-man fossil. Why?

Australopithecus. There are two examples of Australopithecines that stand out. A. africanus and Australopithecus boisei. A. africanus was the first fossil to be discovered and labeled as an australopithecine fossil. It was constructed from a small ape skull discovered in 1924. The skull was discovered by a professor of anatomy named Raymond Dart. A. africanus was actually the skull of a juvenile ape and fossils of the adults were later found. In the early 1970's it was dismissed as merely an extinct ape. So if this was the first fossil on which all the later australopithecines were based and it was discarded, how then can we continue to say that australopithecines even existed? And yet I have another example. Australopithecus boisei. The fossil of this ape-man was discovered by a Dr. Louis Leakey and his wife in the Olduvai Gorge in Kenya in 1959. Leakey found a skull there that was broken into 400 different pieces and even before it was dug up all the way, he was convinced that it represented a human ancestor. It was originally named Zinjanthropus and were marked as "almost human". But.....as the skull was being put together it became clear that Zinjanthropus was fully ape and not humanlike at all. After that, it was reclassified as A. boisei and is considered an extinct ape. But is that what scientists teach us? Nope, they still give Australopithecus as an example of the ape-man.

There's something I don't understand about evolutionist scientists. Just because they unearth a fossil that has characteristics of two different species (ex. archaeopteryx and the above mentioned tiktaalik) why do they automatically assume they are missing links? Why can't they simply be an extinct species? That's another problem I have with evolutionist scientists. Just because something looks different doesn't mean it's a missing link. I mean look at the modern whale. It sure does look like a fish doesn't it? But it gives birth to live young and is warmblooded among other things that makes it a mammal. Does that mean that it's some kind of missing link between mammals and fish? No. But that's exactly what scientists assume about archaeopteryx and tiktaalik. Scientists are assuming way too much. They assume that the geologic column is true. They assume that every creature that looks similar to two different creatures must be some kind of missing link. It's simply not logical.

As for Baggins' statement: Individuals do not evolve, we all die with the same genes we are born with, populations evolve.

I quite agree. However, if there were a transitional form between a rodent and a bat (given that example was stated before) tell me how that transitional form could have survived with it's mutations long enough to spawn young who could carry on those traits? It's not possible. In science, we have observed time and time again that those creatures with mutations are generally more prohibited by them than made better by them. And that would certainly be true for this transitional form. How could a rodent function with long spindly fingers? And not only function, but survive long enough to give birth to more rodents with long spindly fingers who gave birth to more and so on and so forth until finally there came a bat? No logic to that either.

 

[Gam3rG1rl4Chr1st]

Oh by the way, a few of you have mentioned a man named Hovind. I personally haven't heard of the man and if I have said anything that seems to reflect what he says then it's purely coincidental. So please don't associate me with him because I haven't read his works and I'm not sure exactly what he stands for. So I don't know if I agree with him or not. Just thought I should say that in case anyone is associating what I say with his writings.

 

[Baggins]

The geologic column is a hypothetical arrangement.

As a geologist with 2 degrees and 19 years experience in the oil industry I can assure you that whoever told you this was lying to you.

You would do well not to repeat the lie but to find out for yourself why this isn't true.

I stand with my original statement......there is no place on earth were you could go to see the geologic column intact,

Why would you expect to see the whole geological record intact in one place, the very idea would strike any geologist as absurd. To get the whole geological record in one place you would need a basin that gradually subsided over the whole of the earth's history, such and idea is fanciful in the extreme.

It appears we can add geology to the list of things you know nothing about.

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

Again, who ever told you this was lying to you.

rather than just repeating lies you have read wouldn't it be better to educate yourself in these thing

And besides all that, if one were to use the geologic column as "evidence" to support evolution then one would be using circular reasoning.

How so, care to support that ?

The modern geologic column is nothing more than some scientists proposed explanation for evolution.

Complete and utter tosh. The geological column is an explanation of the depositional history of the earth's crust. It was discovered named and charted 50 years before Charles Darwin wrote " On the Origin of Species".

I mean, where are you getting this stuff?!?

I find it pretty disheartening to see that the subject that I have studied for so many years is just a subset of evolutionary theory to you. That is ludicrous.

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.

Wrong, rocks can be dated absolutely using radio dating.

You would provisionally accept a young age for the rock until an absolute age was discovered.

And it is a fairly safe provisional dating method, as "yound" fossils have consistently been found in "young" rocks.

Unless you can tell us differently.

But all that is assumption!

Everybody makes assumptions, even the religious assume the bible is the word of god. Why because the bible says so, that is real circular reasoning.

In science the assumptions are tested-

There really is no objective way to prove that a sample of rock is young or old

So you have never heard to dating rocks by radioactive decay.

Your education is sorely lacking in matters geological

.

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.

Thank goodness we have absolute methods of dating igneous rocks then!

And then to go one step further..SNIP... It is not proof, it is speculation and should not be taught as fact.

Good job we have got absolute methods of dating rock now isn't it? Means that all this is completely beside the point

Now, radiometric dating came along.

So you have heard of it! What's the betting you don't understand how it works?

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.

Correct

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

Not that I know of, enlighten me

.

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.

You haven't heard of Isochron dating then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochron_dating

[WIKI]The advantage of isochron dating as compared to simple radiometric dating techniques is that no assumptions about the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the radioactive decay sequence are needed. Indeed the initial amount of the daughter product can be determined using isochron dating. This technique can be applied if the daughter element has at least one stable isotope other than the daughter isotope into which the parent nuclide decays.[/WIKI]

So here comes the guessing.

No guessing needed, see above

There is no way to know just exactly how much of the original and then the current elements were originally in the sample

Doesn't need to be for isochron dating

.

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.

So according to you all palaeontologists are corrupt dissemblers.

That's nice

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.

So all this is so much hooey.

The age of rocks is a fact. The method by which we date them is a fact.

Evolution is a fact, allele frequency in a population ( evolution ) changes over time that is a fact. Why it does is a theory.

You really know practically nothing about science

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.

So, despite being told, you still haven't managed to grasp the fact that a theory is the highest order of explanation in science.

I used those examples of Java man, Nebraska man etc as examples of how scientists are constantly having to recant their statements concerning evolution.

So 3 examples of scientists changing their minds means that all evolutionary theory is wrong. Isn't that a bit of a leap to make

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.

Already explained how evolution is a fact unless you believe you are a clone of your mother

I also understand that mutations occur within species. And I do understand that species will change slightly to reflect their current habitat or environment.

That is evolution

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?

True, though why you would think that evolution would say anything different is beyond me.

I am not a scientist.

That much is painfully obvious

You can't use science to disprove God

Now there is a statement I can agree with. Science cannot disprove god.

Or Pink flying unicorns, or iggy the magic elf.

My original problem is and always will be this: Evolution is not fact

Yes it is

.

It is someone's creative imagination working overtime to try to explain the origin of life without God.

No it isn't. The theory of evolution says nothing about where life came from just how it developes into the diversity we see today.

Evolution doesn't care whether god , aliens or Iggy the Magic Elf created life.

I think what you are grasping for here is Abiogenesis, the theory that life started from non living chemical reactions.

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.

So we all lie just to try and shake your faith in god do we?

What a strange idea.

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.

The major problem you have with evolution is that you don't undertand it.

You have practically no idea of what science is and how it works, and you get everything you think you know about it on what you read on creationist web sites.

Why don't you try learning from a simple unbiased source like wikipedia?

 

[Baggins]

And still the ignorance flies!

First I'll need to go back to Dal M.'s statement that Java man is still considered to be a legitimate H. Erectus fossil. And there's where my whole argument comes from. Java man was a mistake. Just a fossilized skull fragment and a leg bone. Not to mention the fact that they were found 50 feet apart. But let's go with that anyways and assume that they were part of the same individual. Even if that is true, how could one erect an entire skeleton only looking at two bones? And then how could one tell people that these bones were a missing link between apes and man? If I went out into the Indonesian Islands and dug up a couple bones fifty feet apart, claimed they were part of the same skeleton, then put together an entire skeleton using only those two bones for reference, I would be laughed out of the scientific community so fast my head would spin.

People would laugh at you because you are not a trained palaeontologist and you don't know what you are talking about, not for any other reason.

Why do you presume that you know what Java man is, but the Anthropologists and Palaeontologists who have studied it don't. Isn't that immense arrogance and hubris on your part?

But because a scientist was the one who claimed that.....then it's automatically true? Because that's basically what Eugene Dubois did. And now Java man is widely accepted as a legitimate H. Erectus fossil. See wherein my problem with evolution lies?

Not really, apart from in conflicts with your reading of christianity.

I can give you other examples of ape-men who are not reall ape-men and yet are accepted today by the scientific community as legitimate fossils. Homo habilis and australopithicus.

So again, you with absolutely no training can assure us that the emminent scientists who have worked on these specimens are wrong.

That's nice.

Homo Habilis.

Some truth about Homo habilis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

The h in habilis is species so it is lower case as you would know if you had any scientific training at all.

Australopithecus.

Some truth about Australopithicines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithicus

There's something I don't understand about evolutionist scientists. Just because they unearth a fossil that has characteristics of two different species (ex. archaeopteryx and the above mentioned tiktaalik) why do they automatically assume they are missing links?

Missing link has no scintific meaning. Scientists call these forms transitional fossils

Why can't they simply be an extinct species?

Thet are

That's another problem I have with evolutionist scientists. Just because something looks different doesn't mean it's a missing link. I mean look at the modern whale. It sure does look like a fish doesn't it? But it gives birth to live young and is warmblooded among other things that makes it a mammal. Does that mean that it's some kind of missing link between mammals and fish? No. But that's exactly what scientists assume about archaeopteryx and tiktaalik.

Because they know whatthey are talking about and you don't. Whales can not evolve into fish, but animals like archaeopteryx did evolve into birds

As for Baggins' statement: Individuals do not evolve, we all die with the same genes we are born with, populations evolve.

I quite agree.

You could hardly disagree could you?

However, if there were a transitional form between a rodent and a bat (given that example was stated before) tell me how that transitional form could have survived with it's mutations long enough to spawn young who could carry on those traits?

By eating food, finding a mate and having sex.

It's not possible.

Seems not only possible but probable to me

In science, we have observed time and time again that those creatures with mutations are generally more prohibited by them than made better by them.

Another true statement, they shine out like diamonds in a mine and are as rare

And that would certainly be true for this transitional form. How could a rodent function with long spindly fingers?

Have a look ant an Ayeaye:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayeaye

And not only function, but survive long enough to give birth to more rodents with long spindly fingers who gave birth to more and so on and so forth until finally there came a bat? No logic to that either.

What is illogical is your reasoning, you appear to give little thought to what you rattle off.

 

[Gam3rG1rl4Chr1st]

Well ouch! Thanks for reminding me why I didn't want to post here anymore and for proving what I said is true: that whatever I say here will be distorted and mocked and torn to shreds simply because these ideas are different from your own. I'm done. If you can't talk about this in a peaceful respectful manner than I'm not going to sit here and listen to insults and lies. And I'll ask the people who claimed I wasn't getting blasted to read the last two posts by Baggins and still say that. That is not how a debate is handled. A debate is something that people should be able to have and talk about rationally without resorting to insults and personal attacks. Since you all can't seem to do that then I'm gone. It isn't worth "debating" you anymore. Oh and if you're to look closely at some of the things you guys are saying? You're actually proving a few of my points. Not all of them, but some. Just thought you should know.

 

[Split Rock]

Well ouch! Thanks for reminding me why I didn't want to post here anymore and for proving what I said is true: that whatever I say here will be distorted and mocked and torn to shreds simply because these ideas are different from your own.

What you said here was torn to shreds because it was wrong.

I'm done. If you can't talk about this in a peaceful respectful manner than I'm not going to sit here and listen to insults and lies.

Is it OK to listen to lies when "Creation Scientists" tell them to you?

And I'll ask the people who claimed I wasn't getting blasted to read the last two posts by Baggins and still say that. That is not how a debate is handled. A debate is something that people should be able to have and talk about rationally without resorting to insults and personal attacks.

Baggins was a bit short with you, but for someone who came here to claim that scientists are a bunch of dumb liars who hate God, you have a pretty thin skin.

Since you all can't seem to do that then I'm gone. It isn't worth "debating" you anymore.

OK, if that's what you want. I will suggest one more time that you visit the website I recommended earlier... if you really want to learn the truth about what the theory of evolution is all about. Here it is again:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Oh and if you're to look closely at some of the things you guys are saying? You're actually proving a few of my points. Not all of them, but some. Just thought you should know.

Certainly not any of the following:
There are no ape-men
Geologists cannot date strata
Scientists want to disprove God's existance
Scientists usually lie about their findings
Scientists cannot tell a mammal from a fish, etc.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Well ouch! Thanks for reminding me why I didn't want to post here anymore and for proving what I said is true: that whatever I say here will be distorted and mocked and torn to shreds simply because these ideas are different from your own. I'm done. If you can't talk about this in a peaceful respectful manner than I'm not going to sit here and listen to insults and lies. And I'll ask the people who claimed I wasn't getting blasted to read the last two posts by Baggins and still say that. That is not how a debate is handled. A debate is something that people should be able to have and talk about rationally without resorting to insults and personal attacks. Since you all can't seem to do that then I'm gone. It isn't worth "debating" you anymore. Oh and if you're to look closely at some of the things you guys are saying? You're actually proving a few of my points. Not all of them, but some. Just thought you should know.

You will have to excuse us if we say we have seen it all before. You claim not to know who Hovind is, but by the same token, we can honestly say that your beliefs are not your own. They are to far from original for anyone to buy that.
Sorry, but you have 35 posts on this board, and yet you are probably the 3500th to post the same arguments. You believe they are correct, and you post them as fact not something you wish to discuss and learn about. At the same time you are not being entirely honest in your presentation, so don't be surprised when you don't get love and affection back.

If you actually want to discuss evolution and not just spam the strawmen you have been reading on the internet recently, we will be glad to oblige, but drop the innocent attitude, it doesn't suit you.

 

[Baggins]

Well ouch! Thanks for reminding me why I didn't want to post here anymore and for proving what I said is true: that whatever I say here will be distorted and mocked and torn to shreds simply because these ideas are different from your own.

Not only different, but demonstrobly wrong.

You are obviously getting all you ideas direct from a creationist website, which is it ICR, AIG ?, have you never looked to see whether the information you were reading is factual in any way?

I know it is probably hard for you to understand but you have been lied to by people you obviously trust because they are fellow christians.

That is sad but is par for the course. If you stick around and watch the debates on this site for a few weeks you will see that a person likes you turns up every couple of weeks or so full of the joys of knowledge and proceeds to tell scientists, often with decades of experience in their field, where they are going wrong.

I implore you to look at some impartial websites like wikipedia where the information is as unbiased as possible and there are links to rimary data sources, you ay find it interesting and you will find that, outside of the USA, the majority of Christians have no problem at all with an old earth and evolution.

But can you imagine how I feel as someone who has studied and worked in geology for 25 years to see you pop up and inform me that the geological record is an illusion and that radiometric dating is a sham?

I mean what qualifications do you have to make such assertions and where is your evidence to backk them up.

It makes me very sad indeed to see someone who can contruct an argument and present it in well written English parroting a creationist website instead of actually investigating the data that is used in science.

I'm done. If you can't talk about this in a peaceful respectful manner than I'm not going to sit here and listen to insults and lies.

I'm afraid it is we who are listening to lies. We have posted links to sites with primary data, unbiased sites like wikipedia.

All you have done is parroted a creationist webste at us.

Well colour me not impressed, we see this thing everyday.

No one has insulted you personally, all we have said is that you obviously don't have the scientific education to make the statements you are making. You are ignorent of science, you admitted as much yourself, but instead of educating yourself you rather prate at us who do actually know of which we speak.

And I'll ask the people who claimed I wasn't getting blasted to read the last two posts by Baggins and still say that.

I could have corrected your gross errors more politely I suppose, but you see I get tired of people dragging science through the muck, insinuating that scientists are crooks and liars, it makes me angry and rather snappish.

But I dare say that you would be the same if soemone started parroting gross distorytions of christianity at you and claiming that they were true wouldn't you?

That is not how a debate is handled. A debate is something that people should be able to have and talk about rationally without resorting to insults and personal attacks.

You have not been attacked, you lack of scientific education, and evidence has.

You should look to the way you arrived on this thread sure that you were correct dispite having no knowledge about the things yoou wrote beyond reading a creationist web site.

Can you see how you may have upset people.

I can assure you I have been relatively gentle with you compared to how some who frequent this board may have handled your posts.

Since you all can't seem to do that then I'm gone.

I think that's the third or fourth time you've said that, and each time you have come back with more rubbish from creationist websites.

It isn't worth "debating" you anymore. Oh and if you're to look closely at some of the things you guys are saying? You're actually proving a few of my points. Not all of them, but some. Just thought you should know.

Anything in particular because I can't see a single point that you have attempted to make that held water.


Why don't you go away and learn something about science? Then you find you are better equipped to debate evolution on a scientific discussion board.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Maybe you ought to go over to origins theology and talk to Kerr-Metric, there is a good Christian who knows his science, I think you and he would have a fun time.

On second thought, I just flipped back a little, if you are having problems with the agnostics and deists you have encountered thus far, you aren't ready for any real debate.

 

[Gam3rG1rl4Chr1st]

Well since you guys already think I'm a complete idiot I guess I might as well tell you that I didn't get any of my ideas from any website. Period. I got my information from a book called "Case for a Creator" by Lee Stroebel and an unbiased biology textbook that contained writings from many scientists, Christian and non-Christian, that actually told the facts instead of evolutionism. Plus my own thoughts. So there ya go. There's something else you can tear apart and critisize me for. I'm very insulted to hear you insinuate that I'm "parroting" and can't think for myself. Thanks a lot. I guess because I'm a Christian and don't believe at all in evolution that I must be some kind of moron. Well let me tell you there are a lot of scientists out there who agree with me. But it seems that just because I don't have a degree then I'm not to be thought of as smart enough to come up with my own logic and think for myself. And THAT is exactly how you all have been treating me whether you admit to it or not. Your posts speak for themselves every time you say that I'm "quoting" or "parroting" and especially "lying". I don't even know why I'm saying all this because I'm never coming into this section of the forums again. Good luck you guys.

 

[Dal M.]

Your posts speak for themselves every time you say that I'm "quoting" or "parroting" and especially "lying".

Sorry to hear you don't like being accused of lying, but you can't blame anyone but yourself. Just a sample of the lies you've told in this thread:

• The geological column doesn't exist in its entirety anywhere.
• Evolution is the idea that a dog can give birth to a cat.
• Punctuated equilibrium predicts that enormous genetic change occurs within a single generation.
• Fossil dating relies on circular reasoning.
• Radiometric dating requires scientists to know the starting amount of the daughter nuclide.

An honest person would retract those claims which have been demonstrated to be false. I note that you've decided to a.) complain that the educated professionals who have legitimate training in the fields you're trying to discredit aren't taking you seriously for some reason, and b.) pack up and leave.

Don't let the door etc.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Please stop feeling so persecuted. People here aren't trying to say that you're stupid. You're not.
But you have been misinformed. Until you stop mistaking corrections and discussion of the facts for personal attacks, you're not going to learn anything here.

A lot of creationists come here and say virtually the same things you've said in virtualyl the same manner. That doesn't mean your parrotting. It does mean you've been given the same misinformation that they have.

Imagine if I came to a message board and starting claiming that Christianity was absurd because it believed in flying purple pumpkins.
What would you think? You'd think that I had a completely wrong view of Christianity and would try to correct me. Likewise, you appear to have a skewed version of what the theory of evolution says.
But there are plenty of people on this board who are willing to teach you.

If you end up with a comprehensive understanding of the scientific theory of evoultion and still disagree with it, then that is your choice. But consider this, on my time here at these boards I have NEVER seen a creationist who understood the theory of evolution properly. They always understood it in some flawed form, a strawman, a flying purple pumpkin form. Please try and learn what the theory of evolution really says.

And yes, some people on this board probably will be short with you and you may take offence. But there are plenty of others who will go to great, polite lengths to explain things to you.

Start with a single question you have. Start a thread on that single point, rather than a large list. I for one will do my best to explain things, if your'e willing to learn. (I'm a English/Drama major so don't expect too much science from me )

 

[Morcova]

This is like the third or fourth time she said she's not coming back.

Nobody called you a moron. They said you were wrong. You said they were wrong, but they are accusing you of calling them a moron.


I guess because I'm a Christian and don't believe at all in evolution that I must be some kind of moron.

Nobody has said that, many of people here who believe in evolution are christians.

 

[Baggins]

Well since you guys already think I'm a complete idiot I guess I might as well tell you that I didn't get any of my ideas from any website. Period. I got my information from a book called "Case for a Creator" by Lee Stroebel and an unbiased biology textbook that contained writings from many scientists, Christian and non-Christian, that actually told the facts instead of evolutionism

.

What the heck is evolutionism?

Lee Strobel's book will not give you and unbiased view of what the Theory of Evolution states:

[WIKI] Critics also point out that, although the book purports to investigate scientific evidence for a creator, of the experts interviewed, only Wells, Gonzalez, and Behe possess graduate degrees in a scientific field. The remainder have graduate qualifications in theology and philosophy. All of the experts interviewed are or have been in some way affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, the main Intelligent Design hub.[2]
[/WIKI]

There's something else you can tear apart and critisize me for. I'm very insulted to hear you insinuate that I'm "parroting" and can't think for myself. Thanks a lot. I guess because I'm a Christian and don't believe at all in evolution that I must be some kind of moron.

No one has called you a moron. We just questioned how much science you actually knew because of the strange ideas you have about science in general and the Theory of Evolution in particular.

You seem to have some sort of persecution complex, We are not attacking you personally, we are attacking your ideas, which misrepresent evolution and science.

I am sorry if you took offence at the accusation that you were parroting creationist web sites at us, but believe me we see many posts like yours.

As others have said you are a better creationist than most because you don't cut and paste long sections of nonsense from websites, you read some books and wrote out what you gleaned in your own words.

Well done, that makes you exceptional for a creationist.

It doesn't stop your ideas being wrong. Some of them were complete lies , but you were not to know that because you trusted your sources, perhaps in future you will be a bit more skeptical.

Well let me tell you there are a lot of scientists out there who agree with me.

Can you name any and give us their scientific qulifications?

AIG has managed to cobble a list of a few hundred "scientists" together who question evolution. hardly any of them are biologists, many aren't even scientists but engineers and the like.

Project Steve has managed to get a longer list of Biologists called Steve who accept Evolution.

99.86% of biologists accept evolution ( from gallup figures ) and so do th evast majority of all scientists.

If you are going to try and play a numbers game you will lose everytime because evolution is a well supported scientific theory accepted by th eoverwhelming majority of scientists.

Have you ever wondered why? In Western countries th emajority that accept evolution are Christians, up to an including the head of the Human Genome project Francis Collins.

But it seems that just because I don't have a degree then I'm not to be thought of as smart enough to come up with my own logic and think for myself.

You obviously are, but you came to the wrong conclusions because you chose your source material poorly, it was biased.

And THAT is exactly how you all have been treating me whether you admit to it or not. Your posts speak for themselves every time you say that I'm "quoting" or "parroting" and especially "lying". I don't even know why I'm saying all this because I'm never coming into this section of the forums again. Good luck you guys.

Is that the fourth or fifth time she's said that?

I suppose I should have been a bit gentler because there was some hope of making that creationist see sense.

She could write out her own ideas cogently and without resorting to cut and pastes.

Yogi says:

Better than the average creationist Booboo

 

[Baggins]

Francis Collins' definition of Theist Evolution:

[WIKI]His own belief system is Theistic Evolution (TE) which he defines as: (1) The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago, (2) Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life, (3) While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time, (4) Once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required, (5) Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes, (6) But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.[/WIKI]

I don't agree with it, but it is not substantially unscientific.

 

[AngryWomble]

My Church had a Bible study on origins.

It did not cover Evolution or YEC but simply focused on what the Bible actually says in regards to linguistics.

Most young earth creationsists would not be happy to know what the Bible actually says in this regards...

Actually that would be something interesting to read about.

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]

Then stop trying to get science teachers to peddle your belief in a creator!

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.

Baggins has already replied to this but as another Geologist i have to say that this is irritating. Can you imagine how thick a section of rock with the entire geological column in would be? Not to mention that some sections would be missing as he earth is always recycling material. Although we don't have a complete column we do have many locations throught the globe with good sections through it and some are known as the section to best show said layer/boundary etc.

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.

The only relationship that the geological column has with evolutionary theory is to provide a timeline to place fossils on. Charles Lyell was the guy that proposed the geological column and although he was contemporaneous with Darwin it wasn’t because of Darwin.

The age of a rock can be determined by a number of ways, radiometric dating works for igneous rocks, and if there are sedimentary rocks near by their age relationships can be determined. Radiometric dating also works for giving the age of the metamorphic event. But if you really want to get a full understanding of dating rocks then you’ll need to go do a degree in Geology as there’s too much to explain on a message board.

Also you need to read up on Index Fossils, these are the things you seem to be confused about. In short these are fossils that existed for only a brief window geologically so if you find rocks with them in you can date the rock easy enough.

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.

Again as I said above you’ll need to go study some Geology. Radiometric dating is absolute and it works. End of.

SNIP

Other people dealt with this and I don’t think I’ve got much to add

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!

If you think that science is about trying to disprove god then you’re unfortunately very mistaken. Science does not care if god is real or not, science deals only with the physical/natural world, god by nature (if real) is a supernatural entity so would not be testable by science.

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.

Evolution is as fact as we can determine it. We have a number of lines of evidence that all come to a similer conclusion, and to explain this a theory was constructed….which is the theory of evolution. It’s not a guess, in science that has it’s own word (hypothesis), please try and remember that.

Well since you guys already think I'm a complete idiot I guess I might as well tell you that I didn't get any of my ideas from any website. Period. I got my information from a book called "Case for a Creator" by Lee Stroebel and an unbiased biology textbook that contained writings from many scientists, Christian and non-Christian, that actually told the facts instead of evolutionism. Plus my own thoughts. So there ya go. There's something else you can tear apart and critisize me for. I'm very insulted to hear you insinuate that I'm "parroting" and can't think for myself. Thanks a lot. I guess because I'm a Christian and don't believe at all in evolution that I must be some kind of moron. Well let me tell you there are a lot of scientists out there who agree with me. But it seems that just because I don't have a degree then I'm not to be thought of as smart enough to come up with my own logic and think for myself. And THAT is exactly how you all have been treating me whether you admit to it or not. Your posts speak for themselves every time you say that I'm "quoting" or "parroting" and especially "lying". I don't even know why I'm saying all this because I'm never coming into this section of the forums again. Good luck you guys.

No one said that you’re an idiot, all that has been said is that the information that you take to be correct is wrong. And Mr Stroebel’s book has been picked apart by many people. I’m also going to guess that the text book you’ve read might be the pandas thumb or of pandas and people (I forget the exact title). What you need to consider is how many text books like that are published compared to all the other text books, and which type are used in schools, not just in the states but else where.

Well you come in here and spout off concepts/ideas long known to be a load of twoddle like they’re fact, so it’s only natural that we would take the arguments to pieces. As has already been said you’d do the same if we spouted twoddle about Christianity. We can see that you’re intelligent by the standard in which you write, and as has already been stated it’s nice to see an intelligent post by someone arguing the creationist view point. So your intelligence is not in question, just your source material.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Hi Gamergirl,

Although some people in this thread have been a little short to you, you have to realise that, as has been pointed out, they have been hearing this for a long time. I won't argue with you about the issues you've raised, there are others who have done it much better already. But think about it for a moment. Do you think scientists haven't already heard these arguments? Do you think that they are refusing to look facts in the face? Or is it possible that they have good reasons for rejecting creationist arguments? You may have seen impressive lists of dozens of scientists who accepti young earth creationism. Well, have you looked up Project Steve? It was mentioned earlier in this thread. It's an endorsement of evolution, signed by over seven hundred scientists. All called Steve. This gives you an idea of just how many scientists have no problem with evolution - the overwhelming majority of them.

I'm afraid it really is you who are in the wrong. Sorry, I know it's not nice, personally I hate being in the wrong - but in this case you'll have to take it on the chin. Remember that the majority of Christians in the world have no trouble at all with evolution.