Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[justlookinla]

It is true, Justalook, that many here fuss over the fact that Darwin did not specify the underlying mechanism, explain how the thing really works. However, that is largely a bogus criticism in terms of its scientific validity. Many things have a solid scientific validity even though their underlying mechanisms are not known. Gravity is certainly a solid scientific concept, yet Newton was never able to figure out the underlying mechanism and so said we should just forget about why it really works or what it really is and just focus on the math. Same with medical science. Many disease processes are well-documented, yet the underlying mechanism is unknown and so we have no cure.

If the process whereby humanity was 'created' isn't known, or supported by the scientific method, that incredibly important fact should be part of the claims of Darwinism. Instead, the claim that only naturalistic mechanisms 'created' humanity, as well as all life we observe today, is presented as a scientific conclusion without question.

This is an example of science at it's worse.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, Loudmouth, all endeavors entail faith. If you just sit down in a chair, that is an act of faith, you going on your faith in the chair.

That isn't faith. Massive numbers of experiments have gone into determining the tensile strength of the materials in the chair. We have independent evidence that the chair can hold a person's weight. No need for faith.

All knowledge, and this most especially includes science, requires some degree of speculating beyond the facts, hence, a kind of leap of faith. Matter of fact, there is no way to scientifically verify the verification principle, which underlies modern science.

A hypothesis is not a statement of faith. It is a question.

 

[lesliedellow]

As much as Darwinism is applied to science. Both are faith based systems.

No matter how many times creationists repeat nonsensical statements, they will forever remain nonsensical statements.

 

[justlookinla]

No matter how many times creationists repeat nonsensical statements, they will forever remain nonsensical statements.

What's nonsensical about them?

 

[lesliedellow]

What's nonsensical about them?

Evolution is believed to be true because all the evidence uncovered since 1859 points in that direction. Therefore it needs no more faith than the belief that somebody called Jesus of Nazareth lived 2,000 years ago. Not strictly 100% certain, but close enough thereto for few historians would dispute it, even if they are atheists.

 

[justlookinla]

Evolution is believed to be true because all the evidence uncovered since 1859 points in that direction. Therefore it needs no more faith than the belief that somebody called Jesus of Nazareth lived 2,000 years ago. Not strictly 100% certain, but close enough thereto for few historians would dispute it, even if they are atheists.

You know very well that there is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. It's a faith-based belief system.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution is believed to be true because all the evidence uncovered since 1859 points in that direction. Therefore it needs no more faith than the belief that somebody called Jesus of Nazareth lived 2,000 years ago. Not strictly 100% certain, but close enough thereto for few historians would dispute it, even if they are atheists.

No atheist denies that Joseph Smith existed, yet we remain atheists, and I would assume that you remain a non-Mormon.

 

[lesliedellow]

You know very well that there is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. It's a faith-based belief system.

I know no such thing.

 

[justlookinla]

I know no such thing.

Now you do.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

You know very well that there is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. It's a faith-based belief system.

How silly. New species are emerging, and other species are going extinct all the time. This happens from the introduction of genetic novelty filtered by natural selection. Modern genetics showed that selection is more complicated, and flexible than Darwin had imagined. Modern genetics has shown that genetic diversity is easier than anyone imagined. This is of course the opposite of what Intelligent Design Creationists have claimed.

 

[mickiio]

How silly. New species are emerging, and other species are going extinct all the time. This happens from the introduction of genetic novelty filtered by natural selection. Modern genetics showed that selection is more complicated, and flexible than Darwin had imagined. Modern genetics has shown that genetic diversity is easier than anyone imagined. This is of course the opposite of what Intelligent Design Creationists have claimed.

New species? Dogs are still dogs. Cats are still cats. Bacteria is still bacteria. Cross kinds and then we will talk.

No Creationist has a problem with Natural Selection. Micro evolution either. Don't combine good science with faith based science and say it's all good. That's like handing me a handful of medicine and saying , "Oh some is good , but some is bad...take them all, because it's all good for you!"

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

How appropriate

New species? Dogs are still dogs. Cats are still cats. Bacteria is still bacteria. Cross kinds and then we will talk.

How appropriately wrong you are. All evolution happens at the lowest possible level of classification.

Here is a gene specific example just published today, "Researchers Discover Gene in Fruit Files That Explains How One Species Evolved Into Two"

 

[justlookinla]

How silly. New species are emerging, and other species are going extinct all the time. This happens from the introduction of genetic novelty filtered by natural selection. Modern genetics showed that selection is more complicated, and flexible than Darwin had imagined. Modern genetics has shown that genetic diversity is easier than anyone imagined. This is of course the opposite of what Intelligent Design Creationists have claimed.

How evasive. The 'new species' are nothing more than a slight variation of the same life form.

Stop avoiding the issue. Actually offer evidence, based on the scientific method, that only natural selection produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

How appropriate


How appropriately wrong you are. All evolution happens at the lowest possible level of classification.

Here is a gene specific example just published today, "Researchers Discover Gene in Fruit Files That Explains How One Species Evolved Into Two"

And fruit flies are fruit flies are fruit flies.

 

[Loudmouth]

New species? Dogs are still dogs. Cats are still cats. Bacteria is still bacteria. Cross kinds and then we will talk.

Are apes a kind?

No Creationist has a problem with Natural Selection. Micro evolution either. Don't combine good science with faith based science and say it's all good.

We have evidence to back macroevolution. No need for faith.

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

That's like handing me a handful of medicine and saying , "Oh some is good , but some is bad...take them all, because it's all good for you!"

It's like you trying to claim that all medicines are based on faith, and then ignoring all of the science and evidence demonstrating that they work.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

How evasive. The 'new species' are nothing more than a slight variation of the same life form.

Stop avoiding the issue. Actually offer evidence, based on the scientific method, that only natural selection produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Here is were you start reading;
Layman list;
Dalrymple, G. Brent
2005 “Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The age of the earth and its cosmic surroundings” Berkley: University of California Press

Deamer, David W.
2011 “First Life: Discovering the Connections between Stars, Cells, and How Life Began” University of California Press

Carroll, Sean B.
2006 “The Making of the Fittest” New York: Norton

Shubin, Neal
2008 “Your Inner Fish” New York: Pantheon Books

Prothero, Donald.
2007 "Evolution: What The Fossils Say and Why It Matters" Colombia University Press.

Professional list;
Dickin, Alan P.
2000 “Radiogenic Isotope Geology” Cambridge University Press

Schopf, William (editor)
2002 "Life's Origin: The Beginnings of Biological Evolution" University of California Press
(in addition to Deamer's 2011 book)

Valentine, James W.
2005 “On the Origin of Phyla” University of Chicago Press

Erwin, Douglas H., James W. Valentine
2013 "The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Diversity" New York: Roberts and Company Publishers

Carroll, Robert L.
1998 “Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution” New York: Cambridge University Press

I am more than happy to walk you through these starting at the top of either the professional, or the layman versions. I selected layman books for readability, and those that avoid as much as possible pointing out the failure of creationism.

 

[lesliedellow]

And fruit flies are fruit flies are fruit flies.

But if they can't interbreed, they are two different species of fruit flies.

If creationists want to tell themselves lies, that's fine, but they could at least spare the rest of us their nonsense.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

But if they can't interbreed, they are two different species of fruit flies.

If creationists want to tell themselves lies, that's fine, but they could at least spare the rest of us their nonsense.

Yes. Few creationists have learned what a species is. And, they have trusted people who lie to them about nonsense like "Kinds" or barimology.

 

[mickiio]

It's like you trying to claim that all medicines are based on faith, and then ignoring all of the science and evidence demonstrating that they work.

Not at all. I prefer testable provable & verifiable sciences that DON'T go against the LAWS of sciences like the Laws of Physics, II Law of Thermodynamics and Laws of Mathematics and probabilities.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Not at all. I prefer testable provable & verifiable sciences that DON'T go against the LAWS of sciences like the Laws of Physics, II Law of Thermodynamics and Laws of Mathematics and probabilities.

Then you have no problem with evolutionary biology.