Another Evolution Question.

[Doveaman]

Actually no. God gave the right to give names to all the animals to man. Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field

Yes, but man already had his name - Man.

Scientist came along after and called him animal.

I am very sorry, but I can't accept that.

You mean some old bones like these?
Can you tell which ones are human and which are really just apes? Because every stage look so similar to the ones before and after that Creationists can't even agree which skulls are clearly human and which are just an ape.

I am sure many scientist have this same disagreement too.

I mean, if you were not there to see the actual evolution process taking place, all you can do is guess.

Many scientist are good at that; guessing. Sometimes they guess right, sometimes they guess wrong. Evolution is a wrong guess, in my opinion.

But it's a nice collection of bones you have there.

If I was to guess I would say A is modern human, but, then again, I'm not a scientist.

You never did reply to post 9.

Okay.

Yes, the earth was once thought to be flat, but then proven by science to be a sphere by actual observation in real time.

The atom was talk about, but then scientifically proven by actual observation in real time.

But the problem with evolution is that it cannot be proven by actual observation in real time.

And since it cannot be observed in real time, then we are stuck with only a theory, with no conclusive real time proof.

DNA, bones, fossilized ear sockets, they are all use to form theories.

When scientist develop the equipment to observe evolution in real time as proof then I'll be convince. And I am not talking about butterflies and tadpoles.

 

[pgp_protector]

Come on...you can do better than that.

We are not talking about the evolution of diseases.

How about ape becoming man, how is that possible?

Or something easier, how about whales becoming elephants?

No evolution of diseases, please. That does not count.

(So you agree that evolution is happening ? )

Yes, but man already had his name - Man.

Scientist came along after and called him animal.

I am very sorry, but I can't accept that.

...snip image...

Can you tell which ones are human and which are really just apes? Because every stage look so similar to the ones before and after that Creationists can't even agree which skulls are clearly human and which are just an ape.[/

I am sure many scientist have this same disagreement too.

I mean, if you were not there to see the actual evolution process taking place, all you can do is guess.

Many scientist are good at that; guessing. Sometimes they guess right, sometimes they guess wrong. Evolution is a wrong guess, in my opinion.

But it's a nice collection of bones you have there.

If I was to guess I would say A is modern human, but, then again, I'm not a scientist.
Okay.

Yes, the earth was once thought to be flat, but then proven by science to be a sphere by actual observation in real time.

The atom was talk about, but then scientifically proven by observation in real time.

But the problem with evolution is that it cannot be proven by observation in real time.

And since it cannot be observed in real time, then we are stuck with only a theory, with no conclusive real time proof.

DNA, bones, fossilized ear sockets, they are all use to form theories.

When scientist develop the equipment to observe evolution in real time as proof then I'll be convince. And I am not talking about butterflies and tadpoles.

Butterflies & Tadpoles I'm guessing you're talking about metamorphosis, that's not evolution.

As for observing Evolution we've already shown you, you just didn't care for the evidence.

 

[Doveaman]

(So you agree that evolution is happening ? )

No, I do not.

Butterflies & Tadpoles I'm guessing you're talking about metamorphosis, that's not evolution.

That's good to know...supports my view.

As for observing Evolution we've already shown you, you just didn't care for the evidence.

Shown me what??

Have you ever watched a werewolf movie?

You know the part when the wolf becomes the man?

Well, that's proof...the kind of proof I need to see.

 

[pgp_protector]

No, I do not.
That's good to know...supports my view.
Shown me what??

Have you ever watched a werewolf movie?

You know the part when the wolf becomes the man?

Well, that's proof...the kind of proof I need to see.

Oh you want us to violate God's laws & Lie to you

Maybe you didn't know but in Movies, they're using stuff called special effects like makeup, computer animation, puppets, and such.
It's not real.

 

[Doveaman]

Oh you want us to violate God's laws & Lie to you

Maybe you didn't know but in Movies, they're using stuff called special effects like makeup, computer animation, puppets, and such.
It's not real.

And so is evolution.

 

[pgp_protector]

And so is evolution.

No it's not.
Evolution isn't a special effect.
This is -> HowStuffWorks Videos "The Science of Special Effects: Making Movie Magic"


Unless you've got a twisted view of Evolution, though at this point given you want to see a werewolf transform, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Mallon]

Not with science. Just bad science.

No problem with theories either. Theories are developed then they are demonstrated to be true.

With all due respect, Doveaman, you're hardly in a position to gauge what bad science is when you don't understand what good science is.
We do not speak of 'truth' in science because science is not in the business of making statements about truth. Science can only tell us what is not true via experimental falsification. In this sense, theories cannot ever be shown to be true, per se -- they can only pass the test of experimental falsification. Evolutionary theory has passed these tests for 150 years. It is about as "true" as science gets.

Evolution does not do this. All evolution has is what is considered to be 'evidence' and a speculative explanation of that 'evidence', but evolution is not observable in actual time.

Actually, we can observe evolution in real time. Speciation has been documented on many occasions.
If it's the entire evolutionary history of life you have a problem with, I'll again point out that this is inferred using the same robust forensic techniques that are used every day in the court of law.
Out of curiosity, do you reject all theories that cannot be observed with the naked eye? Do you reject atomic theory? Plate tectonics? Big Bang?

We can only assume what we think happened based on the 'evidence', but can never know for sure if man did evolve from some ancient animal.

You're right on the second count, but not on the first. A theory is not simply an assumption. It is an explanation that has been fully borne out by the evidence.

Biochemical similarity and bones does not prove this.

Right. Again, because there is no such thing as proof in science. Genetics and fossils do fully support the theory of evolution, however.

We cannot assume that because something resembles something that one evolved from the other, no matter how close the resemblance.

How do you personally explain the nested hierarchy into which all life fits, if not descent with modification? How do you account for the fact that you look more like your parents than your great grandparents?
I hope you never have to take a paternity test if you can't trust the results...

 

[sfs]

Jesus told us personally it did without a doubt. We could not help but to believe Him.

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your explanation. Do you mean that Jesus told you in person that Christianity was true? That hasn't happened to lots of other people (it's certainly hasn't happened to me) -- how would those people know that it was true. (Remember, you said that it had been proved beyond all doubt.) And if that's not what you mean, what do you mean?

That fact that they doubt means they are distracted by something that is causing the doubt.

It happens to me sometimes, but then I have to put away what is causing the distraction so as to get back my focus and remove the doubt.

Again, you didn't answer my question. I wanted to know how you know that doubt in other people comes from distraction. That you find doubt in yourself to be caused by distraction is interesting (sort of), but I'm asking how you know how doubt happens in other people. In case you hadn't noticed from this thread, lots of people think in different ways than you do.

It can happen very easily without us even being aware of it sometimes, so we have to be very careful.

It's probably happening to you now.

No, my doubts have nothing to do with being distracted.

 

[sfs]

Yes, but man already had his name - Man.
Scientist came along after and called him animal.

No, humans were called "animal" long before modern science, and long before English. It's Latin, and just means "having breath".

I am sure many scientist have this same disagreement too.

No, they don't have this disagreement, since scientists agree that humans are a branch of the ape family, and so don't expect any sharp break between humans and nonhuman ancestors.

I mean, if you were not there to see the actual evolution process taking place, all you can do is guess.

Many scientist are good at that; guessing. Sometimes they guess right, sometimes they guess wrong. Evolution is a wrong guess, in my opinion.

No, that's not how science works; the choices are not just "observe directly" and "guess". In fact, both parts are wrong. First, observing something directly doesn't prove that it's real: you can be wrong about what's really going on in something you observe directly as in something you don't. Second, science doesn't care whether you can observe something directly or not. What matters is whether you can test a proposed explanation with some kind of observation, direct or indirect. Thus the Greeks concluded that the earth was a sphere not by observing it directly, but by noticing that it always cast a circular shadow on the moon during eclipses, and reasoning that the only shape that always casts a circular shadow is a sphere.

Similarly, scientists have concluded that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor not by guessing, or by observing the process directly, but by noticing a vast array of chemical and anatomical similarities and differences, and reasoning that these were precisely the patterns that would be produced by common descent. No other model anyone has thought of (most certainly including special creation) predicts the same patterns, so they have concluded that common descent is the best explanation. If creationists could produce a better model (or even one remotely as good), that would also be seriously considered, but they can't.

 

[philadiddle]

I’ll probable read on it when it becomes a fact and not just a theory.
So the scientists say I’m an ape and I’m just to accept it because they said so. Only God has that right. Modern science is filled with much folly, evolution is just one of them
I find some old bones that resemble each other and I conclude they evolved from each other. I don’t think so.
Can any of these show me a man actually evolving from an ape or some kind of animal, or do they just assume we did?

LOL, I would love to see you as a defense lawyer. The prosecution would hold up the knife with the fingerprints, the footage of the defendant being at the scene, they would explain the motive, and have a multitude of other evidences. Then you would get up there and say "So? That doesn't prove anything, because we never saw the defendant do it, nor will we ever see it, so until the prosecution can conclude it's a fact instead of relying on indirect evidence, we should assume he is innocent!"

BTW, all of your posts confirm my view of anti evolutionists. There are only 2 things to know about your type.

1: All of your arguments boil down to "God could have done it that way if He wanted."

2: All of your counter arguments boil down to "That doesn't prove anything!"

 

[philadiddle]

Yes, but man already had his name - Man.

Scientist came along after and called him animal.

I am very sorry, but I can't accept that.

Not liking something isn't a valid argument.

Many scientist are good at that; guessing. Sometimes they guess right, sometimes they guess wrong. Evolution is a wrong guess, in my opinion.

Why do you keep calling it "guessing"? Are u just trolling?

The atom was talk about, but then scientifically proven by actual observation in real time.

The atom hasn't been observed directly. We use indirect evidence. Atomic theory is what explains the atom, which is a theory, and for some strange reason isn't called atomic fact. Why do you think that is?

But the problem with evolution is that it cannot be proven by actual observation in real time.

It can't be observed in mammals because evolution occurs with slight modification over successive generations. This means that no human will live long enough to see it happening in most modern mammals. But it can be directly observed in organisms with short lives, like maybe.....the new flu that's out? Of course, you've already dismissed that as evidence.

You want to directly observe change in something, but you'll only accept it if it takes longer than your life. Anything that can be observed in your lifetime you won't accept. What exactly are you hoping to find as evidence? Why is that the only acceptable evidence?

And since it cannot be observed in real time, then we are stuck with only a theory, with no conclusive real time proof.

So I assume you don't accept the theory of relativity either, it is after all, just a theory.

DNA, bones, fossilized ear sockets, they are all use to form theories.

You mean the evidence is examined and the best explanation becomes the current scientific theory? Now you're starting to catch on!!!

When scientist develop the equipment to observe evolution in real time as proof then I'll be convince. And I am not talking about butterflies and tadpoles.

As I asked earlier, please explain what you would expect to see.

 

[gluadys]

No, I do not.
That's good to know...supports my view.
Shown me what??

Have you ever watched a werewolf movie?

You know the part when the wolf becomes the man?

Well, that's proof...the kind of proof I need to see.

That is still metamorphosis, not evolution. Just fictional metamorphosis instead of the real kind like caterpillars becoming butterflies.

So you don't know what evolution is or what evidence would really be relevant.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, but man already had his name - Man.

Scientist came along after and called him animal.

I am very sorry, but I can't accept that.

He gave Eve a name too, called her 'Woman' and then changed her name to Eve, so it seem perfectly scriptural to give names to humans as well as animals and change their name as you find out more about them. Interesting isn't it. God creates all the animals and brings them to Adam so he can name them. Then God creates Eve, and what is the first thing Adam does? He gives her a name too.

Look at what the bible calls these creatures.
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
They are called living creatures, nephesh chay. Thing is, adam is a nephesh chay too.
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Our word 'animal' comes from the Latin animalis, "living being, being which breathes," from the Latin anima, "breath, soul". Since we are living beings who breath and have a soul, the claim we are not animals seems completely without foundation.

Of course the bible wasn't written in Latin, but neither is the English word 'animal' found in the Hebrew. But when we trace the roots of the word animal back to Latin, the Latin Vulgate translation of these two verses says:
Gen 2:7formavit igitur Dominus Deus hominem de limo terrae et inspiravit in faciem eius spiraculum vitae et factus est homo in animam viventem
Gen 2:19 formatis igitur Dominus Deus de humo cunctis animantibus terrae et universis volatilibus caeli adduxit ea ad Adam ut videret quid vocaret ea omne enim quod vocavit Adam animae viventis ipsum est nomen eius

Solomon agrees that we are animals too. Eccles 3:18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. Not only are humans animals, but God wants us to realise we are animals. It says we are more than animals because of what god has done for us, but in ourselves we are still animals.

I am sure many scientist have this same disagreement too.

There are some questions about the precise family relationship, who is a great grandfather and who is a fourth cousin or great great grand uncle, but there is no question of us not being closely related. Only creations try to claim that.

I mean, if you were not there to see the actual evolution process taking place, all you can do is guess.

Like we guess about the existence of electrons?

Many scientist are good at that; guessing. Sometimes they guess right, sometimes they guess wrong. Evolution is a wrong guess, in my opinion.

Scientists are good at guessing, and they are very good at testing their guesses to see which ones hold up and which don't. Evolution has been very well tested and has come out stronger each time. Pretty strange for such a 'wrong guess'.

But it's a nice collection of bones you have there.
If I was to guess I would say A is modern human, but, then again, I'm not a scientist.

A is a chimpanzee.

Okay.

Yes, the earth was once thought to be flat, but then proven by science to be a sphere by actual observation in real time.

It has been shown by indirect scientific experiment to be a sphere for over 2 millenia. It has only been actually observed for the last 50 years. There were Christians in the early church who claimed a round earth was a pagan theory, and that Christians who believed the earth was a sphere were 'partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils' and were 'unequally yoked together with unbelievers'. Should Christians have rejected the indirect experimental evidence until Neil Armstrong actually observed the earth as a sphere in real time? How do you think it would have affected the credibility of the gospel if Christians were still proclaiming a biblical flat earth when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon and saw that they were wrong?

The atom was talk about, but then scientifically proven by actual observation in real time.

The atom wasn't just talked about, science knew it they existed long before they were observed, in fact I am not even sure they have been actually observed. But we still know atoms exist. That is how science works. You test things you cannot see and if they pass the tests you know it is real.

But the problem with evolution is that it cannot be proven by actual observation in real time.
And since it cannot be observed in real time, then we are stuck with only a theory, with no conclusive real time proof.

What difference does real time make? It does not matter if can't observe things in real time or we just can't observe them. The issue is we can't observe it. We can still test them. Claiming 'real time' is a problem is simply looking for excuses to try to distinguish the mass of evidence we have testing evolution from any other scientific test of unobservable hypotheses. But in fact we can observe bacteria viruses and insects evolving in real time, and it works just like Evolution says it should.

DNA, bones, fossilized ear sockets, they are all use to form theories.

Actually they use them to test the theories, just like Eratosthenes used well to show the shape of the earth.

When scientist develop the equipment to observe evolution in real time as proof then I'll be convince. And I am not talking about butterflies and tadpoles.

I think that this argument says a lot about Creationism and how honestly and sincerely they are willing to examine the evidence for evolution. All the vast amount of evidence we do have for evolution is excluded of course. The only evidence you are willing to accept is real time observation of evolution in action, and of course it has to be in animals with long lifespans where evolution takes place over thousands or millions of years. Evolution in smaller animals with shorter lifespans that has been observed is excluded because, well simply because we do have this evidence.

What you are really saying is you would be convinced if scientists could invent a time machine and go back and watch australopithecenes evolve. Is this really a reasonable test for evolution? Should Christians in the 5th century have said lets wait until someone can figure out a way to fly and then travels to the moon to see if the earth really is a sphere? Science is about finding possible ways to test theories not looking for seemingly impossible tests as an excuse.

Edit: Reading down further I see the sort of evidence you demand is someone transforming like a werewolf. That says it all.

 

[Doveaman]

There are scientist who actually disagree with evolution as a whole. They recognize that there are organisms that simply cannot evolve based on their biological structure. They do not believe Darwin.

There is division in the scientific community on this matter. If scientist do not agree with scientist in this matter, why should anyone? Are not our convictions on this matter based on scientific observations and conclusions?

Well, you can say that I do believe in scientific observations and conclusions, but I believe in the scientific observations and conclusions that do not believe in Darwin.

 

[Mallon]

There are scientist who actually disagree with evolution as a whole. They recognize that there are organisms that simply cannot evolve based on their biological structure. They do not believe Darwin.

True. Some scientists also reject heliocentrism. This makes no difference in light of the fact that the evidence overwhelmingly supports both evolution and heliocentrism.
I will also point out that many of the so-called scientists you see on the lists put forth by the Discovery Institute are not actually scientists at all (they're usually engineers) and/or do not study biology. Heck, some of the scientists have been asked to be removed from the list as they were duped into signing it in the first place:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

There is division in the scientific community on this matter.

Not really. If we take a lesson from Project Steve, the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world -- somewhere on the order of 99% -- accept evolution. I would hardly call that division within the scientific community.

Well, you can say that I do believe in scientific observations and conclusions, but I believe in the scientific observations and conclusions that do not believe in Darwin.

At least you admit your confirmation bias.

BTW, you asked for evidence supporting the common ancestry of chimps and humans. Here's a video I just watched before I posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxL...er-video-on-ervs.html&feature=player_embedded

 

[mindlight]

Again, there's no such thing as proof in science, Doveaman. Science is only capable of disproving hypotheses, and the ones left standing are declared the winners (for the time being).

The forensic scientist who gets it wrong sends an innocent man to jail or worse.

How scientific is forensic science? / UCLA Today

Science over reaches itself when it discusses abbreviated evidences distorted by a multitude of variables over millennia. When it starts to cite examples of microevolutionary adaptations to environmental changes as macroevolutionary proofs.

To categorise and to observe is fine but as with the forensic expert who gets it wrong the stakes are too high to stake everzthing on unproven theories and partial observations.

 

[Mallon]

The forensic scientist who gets it wrong sends an innocent man to jail or worse.

How scientific is forensic science? / UCLA Today

Science over reaches itself when it discusses abbreviated evidences distorted by a multitude of variables over millennia. When it starts to cite examples of microevolutionary adaptations to environmental changes as macroevolutionary proofs.

To categorise and to observe is fine but as with the forensic expert who gets it wrong the stakes are too high to stake everzthing on unproven theories and partial observations.

I don't deny that mistakes are made in forensic science. Mistakes are made in all fields of science. Do feel that the field of forensic science is therefore a completely worthless tool and should not be used in the court of law? Neocreationists are very quick to point out when forensic science fails. But would you be willing to release every prisoner who has ever been convicted of murder on the basis of forensic evidence alone? Do you have that little confidence in it? Be honest.

 

[Melethiel]

Forensic science has also done the opposite - freed people who were wrongly convicted.

 

[Thomas The Atheist]

My problem with evolution is how is it that people believe in it without the actual observation of it taking place, something like our observation of a caterpillar changing into a butterfly.

They seem to be basing their conclusions on similarity of features in bones or whatever else.

It seem to me that evolution is just a big blind guess at what might be possible, but not what actually is, since there is no actual evidence for it.

Should a Christian put his or her trust in such blind faith?

Well, yes... we should try exploring the idea of evolution more..

if we dont, we might never know the answers to all these questions.

this is how most theories come to be:

first there has to be some kind of evidence, (bones)
then the idea comes, (evolution)
then we try to prove it, (evolution theory)

it would kind of dumb not to explore these matters just because you dont believe they could be true?

for example, Copernicus and the heliocentric theory...

the church has always condemned him because he said something that opposed their religion. they kinda made a fool out of themselves by doing so, because in the end it was proven that the earth isnt the centre of the universe. I mean, who does, these days, still believe the earth is the centre of the universe? Nobody... I think the evolution theory will be generally accepted in the future.

it's kinda like with the pope and condom matter these days... one day the church will have to admit that condoms aren't EVIL and then they will, once again, make a fool out of themselves...

kind regards,
~Thomas.

 

[Doveaman]

Well, yes... we should try exploring the idea of evolution more..

if we dont, we might never know the answers to all these questions.

this is how most theories come to be:

first there has to be some kind of evidence, (bones)
then the idea comes, (evolution)
then we try to prove it, (evolution theory)

it would kind of dumb not to explore these matters just because you dont believe they could be true?

The problem I have with this argument is that you consider the bones as evidence.

Says who?

If the bones is not really evidence, even though you may think they are, then the evolution idea you develop will be flawed along with the theory.

You end up with a flawed theory that is based on a misinterpretation of the bones.