Evolution is a Fact

[Nathan Poe]

Well, in my opinion, anyone who debates creationists for any length of time, then says they're "shocked", hasn't been debating creationists for any length of time.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

Just by means of example, I've been doing this for a while, and the first time I heard that dad believed that the star of Bethlehem was actually God hovering above the manger in his flying sapphire throne (mentioned in Ezekiel 1:26 and 10:1), I had to do a double-take.

Creationism is so much different than evolution, it's hard not to be shocked --- unless you're hearing something for the first time.

You mean especially if you're hearing somethnig for the first time.

(you're not the only one who can spot rookie mistakes. )

 

[Ursie]

All the leaders of creationism are con men, all they want is money, don't believe me? look at the books and DVD's on sale on all of the creationist web sites there are hundreds on each site.

But of course, the rest of the science community aren't after money. After all, they are all self-sacrificing. (uh-oh, don't look to see who's funding their research, it certainly isn't themselves.) anyone who wants to do research must find a funding source. The creationist have every right to sell the fruit of their labors in the same way the the rest of the world sells what it works for. How else are they going to do the work? Or are all creationist expected to produce a big bang to fund their ongoing efforts?

I guess one day we'll both know what is true and what isn't. I submit that you will wake up and see the lies of what you have believed, Darwin did. But believe what you want. I would ask a question though, to all of you. How many of you, ten years ago, firmly believed a thing, perhaps going so far as to rant and rave about it's truth, but today, you've learned that the thing in which you believed so readily was a hoax.

The one thing that has stood the test of time, thousands of years, is the Bible. Evolution will go out of style when enough of her proponents realize their error. They'll probably go looking for some other platform from which they can ignore God, but evolution will be debunked once and for all and the people who live at that time will scoff at you who buy it today. Just like we like to scoff at those who believed the world was flat.

 

[Sanguis]

I disagree, but I'm sure that lumps me into the moron pile. I submit that the belief system (and yes, evolution requires far more faith that creation ever will) is what is full of errors.

As to your recommendation, I will respectfully decline. I see no point in studying the arguments for evolution which are created by biased evolutionists. At least the creationist honestly tell you that they are not objective. We proudly tell you that the basis for our belief is the bible. Evolutionists rant and rave about their objectivity but never once look at the situation from the creation perspective. I have been educated in this country and have had as much evolution learning as I care to receive. Thank you.

Like it or not, evolution happens. It's happening now, every time a mother gives birth to a child.

The creationist perspective is based 100%, compltley and totally, on the biblical account of creation. That's about as unscientific as

Science follows the evidence, and draws conclusions from it. The conclusions are based on the evidence. Creationism starts out with the conclusion (Goddidit) for no other reason than it's what they've been raised to blindly believe. It then tries to mash all the evidence it can find together to fit the conclusion it wants. It's not afraid to lie, twist facts, fabricate information, or whatever it can to prevent itself from contradicting the conclusion it started out with.

Intellectually, creationism is stunted, dishonest and incredibly obsessive. It will never change its conclusion, regardless of what evidence presents itself, or how much that evidence contradicts the conclusion.

Essentially, science learns from its mistakes, creationism doesn't. It remains adamant that it can never make any mistakes.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Our student is "shocked" at this revelation, and I'm saying it is common knowledge.

"Common knowldge" carries no value without evidence. We've seen it all a million times.

Once again, you are avoiding answering the questions --- and I can't say as I blame you.

What good would it do to "answer" questions that are specifically put together to draw the wrong conclusion?

I don't get it!

Why would you even want someone to answer questions that will be guaranteed to provide meaningless answers?

You see, unfortunately, I see so much in creationism that is aimed at "maintaining ignorance supreme". This is the same sort of tactic.

Ignorance, no matter how deeply you pile it, will not make "truth".

You guys who act like you've never heard this before --- I'm not buying it.

I NEVER SAID ANYTHING EVEN REMOTELY LIKE THAT.

I am well aware that this is taught. However, as I clearly stated it does not make it so.

THAT is the error. Please, do pay attention. I know it's hard because it requires listening to others and that's bad. But please do try.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just by means of example, I've been doing this for a while, and the first time I heard that dad believed that the star of Bethlehem was actually God hovering above the manger in his flying sapphire throne (mentioned in Ezekiel 1:26 and 10:1), I had to do a double-take.

I'm not sure why you think you would have had to; but, for the record, I believe it was a hologram.

You guys needn't get surprised at this stuff so much.

I'm sure the Wise Men (not Magi, by the way) were just as surprised --- only pleasantly so.

That's the nature of miracles; they surprise you.

You mean especially if you're hearing somethnig for the first time.

I'll stick with unless, since especially makes it look like there are exceptions.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I guess one day we'll both know what is true and what isn't. I submit that you will wake up and see the lies of what you have believed, Darwin did.

So, you believe the lie that Darwin recanted on his deathbed?

 

[Sanguis]

But of course, the rest of the science community aren't after money. After all, they are all self-sacrificing. (uh-oh, don't look to see who's funding their research, it certainly isn't themselves.) anyone who wants to do research must find a funding source. The creationist have every right to sell the fruit of their labors in the same way the the rest of the world sells what it works for. How else are they going to do the work? Or are all creationist expected to produce a big bang to fund their ongoing efforts?

The difference is, science yields results, and results earn the scientists both more money, and respect within their field. Their work makes our lives easier, longer, safer and healthier. So long as they're accurate, don't falsify anything, and submit their work to peer review, so others in the field can attempt to falsify it.

I guess one day we'll both know what is true and what isn't. I submit that you will wake up and see the lies of what you have believed, Darwin did. But believe what you want. I would ask a question though, to all of you. How many of you, ten years ago, firmly believed a thing, perhaps going so far as to rant and rave about it's truth, but today, you've learned that the thing in which you believed so readily was a hoax.

Darwin did what, exactly?

I don't need to believe evolution. I accept it for what it is, an explanation as to the biodiversity on Earth. It's made predictions such as where to find Tiktaalik (One of the first amphibians) and the existence of Microraptor, all of which have pulled through and delivered. That's not even scratching the surface.

The one thing that has stood the test of time, thousands of years, is the Bible. Evolution will go out of style when enough of her proponents realize their error. They'll probably go looking for some other platform from which they can ignore God, but evolution will be debunked once and for all and the people who live at that time will scoff at you who buy it today. Just like we like to scoff at those who believed the world was flat.

If evolution will be debunked, then it'll be debunked by people that know what they're talking about. You clearly don't. No creationist does. If it gets debunked, it'll be debunked with evidence, and not blind belief (Which is all creationists have.).

If you so firmly believe that creation is true (Your hypothesis), then make a prediction.

"If creationism (The hypothesis) is true, then we'd expect to see this.... which can only be explained by creation. If creationism (The hypothesis) is false, then we'd expect to see this..."

Then devise an experiment to determine whether or not your prediction is correct.

Write up your results, and decide whether or not your results match your prediction.

If they do, then great, write a paper on everything you've just done and submit it to a respected scientific journal for peer review by others in the field, who know what they're talking about, who will repeat the experiment, to check for accuracy of the results, and attempt to verify or falsify your paper.

If not, then it's back to square 1, except that you've now gained the knowledge that your hypothesis is wrong. Alter your initial hypothesis, and repeat, until eventually, the results of the experiment match your prediction. Keep repeating until you have a working hypothesis that has been verified by your prediction, results and conclusion.

That's roughly what every single breakthrough in evolution has gone through. 150 odd years of science and peer review doing its best to falsify it.

 

[pgp_protector]

But of course, the rest of the science community aren't after money. After all, they are all self-sacrificing. (uh-oh, don't look to see who's funding their research, it certainly isn't themselves.) anyone who wants to do research must find a funding source. The creationist have every right to sell the fruit of their labors in the same way the the rest of the world sells what it works for. How else are they going to do the work? Or are all creationist expected to produce a big bang to fund their ongoing efforts?

I guess one day we'll both know what is true and what isn't. I submit that you will wake up and see the lies of what you have believed, Darwin did. But believe what you want. I would ask a question though, to all of you. How many of you, ten years ago, firmly believed a thing, perhaps going so far as to rant and rave about it's truth, but today, you've learned that the thing in which you believed so readily was a hoax.

The one thing that has stood the test of time, thousands of years, is the Bible. Evolution will go out of style when enough of her proponents realize their error. They'll probably go looking for some other platform from which they can ignore God, but evolution will be debunked once and for all and the people who live at that time will scoff at you who buy it today. Just like we like to scoff at those who believed the world was flat.

Psst. The Bible hasn't been around 1000s (More than 1 Thousand) of years.

 

[thaumaturgy]

As to your recommendation, I will respectfully decline. I see no point in studying the arguments for evolution which are created by biased evolutionists.

Again, a true value is placed on ignorance.

It is sad. At least most of us "evolutionists" have both read the bible and read and heard the "creation science".

In fact, our arguments are usually made stronger for the effort.

What I see in Creationism is a religion in which personal incredulity and ignorance are placed in a very high position. Nearly worshipped. Certainly protected against all onslaught.

If ones ideas cannot stand even your own scrutiny, then are they truly valuable?

You are free to believe as you wish. It is your right. However, please do not mistake your ignorance of the science with a valid critique of the science.

At least the creationist honestly tell you that they are not objective.

Well, perhaps you'd be interested in learning about the famed
"Cdesign Proponentsists"

(LINK)

We proudly tell you that the basis for our belief is the bible. Evolutionists rant and rave about their objectivity but never once look at the situation from the creation perspective. I have been educated in this country and have had as much evolution learning as I care to receive. Thank you.

"Look at the situation from the creation perspective"? So I assume you are equally uneducated about the history of the entire field of geology as well?

Geology started off as a study firmly grounded in a young earth. The data came in until it was unavoidable to draw other conclusions.

Please, I cannot beg creationists enough: learn, learn, learn.

Want to tell me my 11 years of university, my 3 degrees, the data I saw and handled the work I did was all fundamentally mistaken at it's root? Then show me where the error is. But that means you must first learn the field (and maybe more than just what you picked up in junior high bio.)

Just as you would laugh at an atheist who never read the Bible critiquing the Bible, scientists will repay you in kind according to Luke 6:31.

If you wish anyone to listen to you, you must be willing to listen to them.

 

[Sanguis]

Please, I cannot beg creationists enough: learn, learn, learn.

What you're begging for would be a miracle.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I guess one day we'll both know what is true and what isn't. I submit that you will wake up and see the lies of what you have believed, Darwin did.

Is that so?

The story of Darwin's recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin's death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin's illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views (Clark 1984, 199; Yates 1994)

Do you have some evidence for you contention?

The one thing that has stood the test of time, thousands of years, is the Bible. Evolution will go out of style when enough of her proponents realize their error.

Hope springs eternal!

Look, no scientist on this board will ever say evolution is a complete and perfect theory without any chance of modification. New data comes in all the time. Unless, of course, we accept that "God Did It" and there's no point to further research. Which is the death of all science.

(And not just the science you may not like.)

, but evolution will be debunked once and for all and the people who live at that time will scoff at you who buy it today.

Creationists "talk big". You may hypothesize that it will one day be "debunked". But so far that race is coming out strongly against that eventuality. So it looks to me like you hope it is debunked.

Just like we like to scoff at those who believed the world was flat.

Just like we scoff at those who believed little old ladies were in league with the devil in 1692 and who had to be hung until dead. Just like we scoff at those who put Galileo under house arrest for his cosmology.

 

[albomofo]

Hey, Allow me to join I believe that I can help in this discussion.

My belief regerding Evolution is that there are two types of Evolution. There is Micro evolution eg. The virus adapting to certain antibodies and immunisations also small genetic changes in already existing speies. Such as those fish that evolved not to have eyes as they dont use them.
Macro evolution in which Ape becaame Man. That Is a tough subject as I could clearly see howw it looks like Man came from ape. Was God Using a trial and Error approach to achieve his final product? Man! But I struggle with other exaples of evolution such as the transition from Reptiles to Birds. How does this sit with you?

Alan

 

[pgp_protector]

Hey, Allow me to join I believe that I can help in this discussion.

My belief regerding Evolution is that there are two types of Evolution. There is Micro evolution eg. The virus adapting to certain antibodies and immunisations also small genetic changes in already existing speies. Such as those fish that evolved not to have eyes as they dont use them.
Macro evolution in which Ape becaame Man. That Is a tough subject as I could clearly see howw it looks like Man came from ape. Was God Using a trial and Error approach to achieve his final product? Man! But I struggle with other exaples of evolution such as the transition from Reptiles to Birds. How does this sit with you?

Alan

What's the science for your dividing line between macro & micro evolution ?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, Allow me to join I believe that I can help in this discussion.

Nice to meet you, Al --- --- welcome to CF!

 

[albomofo]

I suppose I view the differnece as micro is when the subject stays withing its own species. Macro is where the species or the subject is changed. Virus stays virus. Fish stays fis vs. Ape is man and fish is amphibian.

 

[albomofo]

ps nice to meet you all to. than you for the welcome.

 

[Sanguis]

Hey, Allow me to join I believe that I can help in this discussion.

My belief regerding Evolution is that there are two types of Evolution. There is Micro evolution eg. The virus adapting to certain antibodies and immunisations also small genetic changes in already existing speies. Such as those fish that evolved not to have eyes as they dont use them.
Macro evolution in which Ape becaame Man. That Is a tough subject as I could clearly see howw it looks like Man came from ape. Was God Using a trial and Error approach to achieve his final product? Man! But I struggle with other exaples of evolution such as the transition from Reptiles to Birds. How does this sit with you?

Alan

If you're struggling with that, maybe I can help. Perhaps these pictures will help clear things up a bit.

This is Microraptor, a feathered, gliding theropod. The lines you see coming from its limbs are the imprint of feathers left in the rock. (Feel free to do more research on Microraptor.)

Look at a bird's feet, then look at the fossilised feet if another theropod. They're almost identical.

Also, note the scales on the owl's feet.

now, look at the fossilised remains of a theropod dinosaur, and compare it with the skeleton of a bird:

Eoraptor:

Pigeon:

Hope that makes things a bit easier to understand.

 

[Ursie]

Most of us don't start that way. But after seeing the debate now for nigh unto 30 years of my life I'd have to say that education in the specific area of discussion is not of top priority for many, many Creationists.

Within the first page of this debate, the accusations of ignorance began. These accusations are thrown because there are people who disagree with you. Not for any other reason. Within the science community, the same practice is used between disagreeing scientist, read the science journals (I'm sure you already do) and you will see that this is standard practice. It's practice among humans in general as far as I can tell and has been since the beginning of time.

I have personally on this board over the past couple of years asked if any of the various Creationists have ever even had one geology course. So far I don't recall any of them confessing to having darkened the door of a geology class.

Why would we waste our time and money on such a course when we know we will be fed evolution. How many creation seminars have you attended? How many creation led studies have you been a part of? How many times have you red the bible?

"Morons"? Usually not. "Uneducated"? Often.

Perhaps you are just as uneducated in the things of God as we are in the things of evolution?

Very little that I have seen is even marginally valuable or reasonable science. (I have a PhD in geology just for comparison's sake, so at least from the point of view of earth history I've seen a goodly bit of data).

And you can say this because you are completely unbiased? And does your PhD makes you incapable of error?

Multitudes? In the earth and biological sciences? I can tell you from experience in the earth sciences that I have met very, very few.

I would imagine you would not meet them in your circles as they are generally run out on their ear when they 'come out'. Have you seen Expelled? Check it out EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Official Site

Moving the goal posts. "Intelligent design", while a moderated "cover" to wedge creationism into mainstream thought, is a watered-down pseudo-a-religious concept. Certainly it's own debate.

No one argues that now precisely because evolutionists had to battle tooth and nail with the forces of ignorance just to get them to face that fact.

But actually there are numerous proofs of "macro evolution". Here's the "Classic" "29+ Proofs of Macroevolution" as has been posted before.

Nice drawings, but I don't see how those amount to proof. Have you studies these transitionary forms personally? Each one?

I can see you are new to the debate. Welcome. Now please do learn the difference between EVOLUTION, ABIOGENESIS and COSMOGENESIS.

Thanks for the warm welcome. I don't imagine I'll stay a terribly long time, not being a scientist or intending to consume my life by becoming one at this point in time. But thanks anyway.

These three distinct concepts will come in quite handy as you continue to engage the debate.

Many? Again, I'm a scientist, please quantify "many".

I'm married to an engineer and after 17 years, he has realized that logic is the only means by which we can learn. I haven't done a statistical count, but feel free to do so, make sure it's unbiased though! I would point out that if a scientist remains a creationist after experiencing modern intelligencia, that is a miracle in and of itself. That is a very strong person because in any modern respected institution, he would be ridiculed the entire time he was 'learning'.

Now granted cosmological origins is a big, big question. The "ultiamte origins" question. In fact some may think it "unanswerable". But just plopping the Judeo-Christian God into the "gap" doesn't necessarily solve anything. It merely brings up more questions. Where did God come from? Why that God and not this other one over here?

I submit that if you can't answer this question, you can't answer any of them. They all begin with the supposition that there had to be a beginning. You are doing science based on no foundation. This is why I can't listen to science because it ignores this foundational issue, or makes up crazy stories that have no basis in fact and make no rational sense to a thinking person.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but God doesn't need a beginning. He is GOD. He is eternal.

Actually it would be very helpful if you learned how scientists actually function. You'd see we are not some anti-religious monsters hell-bent on destruction of all that is holy just to spite God. We are merely trying to play the game by the rules that make sense. Interjecting religion into science serves nobody. It opens religion up to extremely uncomfortable scrutiny as to its claims and it ruins any value science can develop from its own claims.

Evidence would suggest something quite different. There are certainly scientist who do not seem to be intent on destruction of what is holy just to spite God, but more common are the sort you describe above. The rules makes sense from your POV, but this does not make them 'absolute truth'

In addition, I am not 'religous', I am follower of Christ. The two things are quite distinct.
Have you read:

I only thumb my nose at them when they start attacking science they have little interest in understanding themselves. At that point, when they wish to get their ignorance enshrined on equal footing with the hard work of countless scientists over the centuries then you can bet I will be fighting that.

I would argue that you are guilty of the same, having little interest in understanding the things of the bible. You are free to feel that way, so am I. But you are not free to indoctrinate my children and my family and the children and families of other believers in God with your insistance that your theories are fact. Unless this basic tenet has changed in science, a theory is NOT a fact.

theory is
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. 4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. 5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.6.contemplation or speculation.7.guess or conjecture.

I do so love it when Christians pull back their veils a bit and show their teeth. Their thirst for "vengeance". It shows you are all human. Just like the rest of us. No better, no worse. But for all your religious piety, you still harbor that little burning candle of vengeance.

I see it dripping from the lips of even the kindest people some times. "God will have the last word and you'll pay!" or "God will make you bend your knee!"

It is refreshing to see the raw, utter humanity. The base animalistic instinct that Creationists fear acknowldeging so much.

Jesus was both a lion and a lamb. I do certainly stand willingly for what I believe and I make no apology for doing so. It does not say in God's word that Christians are to lay down and never say boo. It does say that we are to be kind and I believe I have been so. It does say we are to love our enemy and I do my best at that. I don't think people who disagree with me are horrible people or refuse to associate myself with them. And please note, I did not say that you will 'pay'. I said you will bow, you will see truth. The bible is clear about the rest. There are consequences for sin for all of us who do not believe. Unbelievers will pay those consequence. However, that is not my wish for anyone, not even the most heinous of sinners. But I am not God. If you do not care for the Words of God, then on the day you bow, you can take it up with God yourself. I will bow too, and for that I will be thankful. None of what I said was said with a 'showing of teeth'. I stated my opinion, which differs greatly, while being kind, I think you'll see that if you look back over my questions. They were honest.

 

[albomofo]

I do not disagree that there are massive similarities and thaat is some evidence you have there. Thank you for showing me that. I had not come accross the Micro Raptor before. this I can only try to explain by saying I believe that this creature is bird and was always bird. This is because I have learnt that any transtion form is non viable. the stage between these creature would not survive according to natural selection. The transition would be feathered reptile with no ability to fly. Or maybe a scaled bird. These forms would hev had to exist to bridge the gap at some point along theway. Also the feather itself is a mechanical thing. it is irreducable complex. its either a feather or its not.

Alan

 

[AV1611VET]

If you're struggling with that, maybe I can help. Perhaps these pictures will help clear things up a bit.

Excuse me --- is this a picture, a drawing, or a painting?