Evolution is a Fact

albomofo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Except "virus," "fish," and "ape" aren't species.

pgp_protector said:

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

Click to expand...

Moses wrote Genesis at approximately 1445 B.C., and there is every reason to believe that Moses used documents existing well before then, especially the historical and genealogy information. Regardless, it was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. So, many parts of the Holy Bible have been around for thousands of years. We've had the complete New Testament for nearly 2,000 years. The Holy Bible is much more than just an amazing literary masterpiece. The Holy Bible is a Supernatural Masterpiece given to us by God Himself. He simply used men to record it. God said that His Word would be preserved and stand forever - it has - it will.



Good News! -- The Holy Bible is the WORD OF GOD! -- God The Father, God The Son, God The Holy Spirit - The Creator Of All Things! -- "GOD'S GRACE" and "OUR WORKS" -- Thanksgiving Proclamations ( 1623 to 1863 ) -- Thanksgiving Proclamations ( 1961 to 2001 ) -- JESUS CHRIST - VERY GOD - LORD - SAVIOUR - MESSIAH - KING

albomofo said:

This is because I have learnt that any transtion form is non viable.

Click to expand...

Where did you learn this? It is false. Transitional forms exist and are viable. You yourself are a transitional form, just as we all are, between the morphologies of our ancestors and the future morphologies of our species.

the stage between these creature would not survive according to natural selection.

Click to expand...

What does natural selection say about this, exactly?

The transition would be feathered reptile with no ability to fly.

Click to expand...

How would this creature have any disadvantage to a reptile with no feathers? Paleontologists now think that some dinosaurs, like Velociraptor, had 'feathers', or the early equivalent of feathers. They seem to have done just fine.

These forms would hev had to exist to bridge the gap at some point along theway.

Click to expand...

Quite true, and they did.

Also the feather itself is a mechanical thing. it is irreducable complex. its either a feather or its not.

Click to expand...

You make the assumption here that the feather has always been for flight. It is very likely that the feather evolved for some other purpose, such as insulation, or as a means of attracting mates, and flight was a secondary benefit that became a primary function later on. So show me why a feather is irreducibly complex. I think if i took one barb away from a feather, it would still function. I think if I took 25% of the barbs away from a feather, it would retain at least some of its functional capacity. So why, exactly, is it irreducibly complex?

AV1611VET said:

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

Click to expand...

Any Haeckels out here wanna answer this?

Looks like an artist's rendering. Whether that is a painting, a drawing, or a computer representation, I cannot tell.

AintNoMonkey said:

Looks like an artist's rendering. Whether that is a painting, a drawing, or a computer representation, I cannot tell.

Click to expand...

Either way --- it's a fake.

Ursie said:

These accusations are thrown because there are people who disagree with you. Not for any other reason.

Click to expand...

Well, be fair, most of us are quite familiar with the debate and have seen it all before. People tend to jump to the end of the line.

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.

Click to expand...

I'll go you a few better:

1. I've published in science journals
2. I've been a peer reviewer for several science journals

So I think you characterize the debate process as someone who is ignorant of how scientists debate. No one is going to say scientists don't get nasty. They do. But usually not simply because someone disagrees with them. Usually there is a reason.

But again, I'm speaking from experience and not just a straw man mischaracterization abut something I know nothing about.

It's practice among humans in general as far as I can tell and has been since the beginning of time.

Click to expand...

That is, indeed true. Religious wars have taught us that far better than the most vituperative scientific battles.

Why would we waste our time and money on such a course when we know we will be fed evolution.

Click to expand...

Again, I recognize that science is not your "thing", so you can't be expected to understand that indeed scientists do try to have a reason for believing a point. That's part of the ideal.

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?

Click to expand...

I spent 30+ years as a believing Christian. While I was not part of fundamentalist sect I have read extensively in the creationist studies available. I have been quite familiar with the creationist points for about 30 years now. I have read the bible cover to cover sans apocrypha straight through just once, but I've read parts of the bible repeatedly and over many times. I've got a bookshelf here at home dedicated to church history and have spent years trying to learn and understand church thought.

How many geology classes have you taken? How many paleontology journal articles have you read?

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

Click to expand...

Not likely. Not that I am particularly well educated in theology, but I have certainly spent more time learning about God than just about any creationist I've met has spent learning about geology.

So there's that.

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

Click to expand...

Did I say it made me incapable of error? I don't think so. It does, however, give you a glimpse into how much of the geologic data I've seen, as opposed to say a random creationist on this board, none of whom I've heard ever even took one geology class.

Have you seen Expelled? Check it out EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Official Site

Click to expand...

Yes I saw that load of loose "facts". Want to see the other side of the various stories told in that "gem"? (I bet you don't) but here you go:

EXPELLED EXPOSED

If the makers of this program had a legitimate point one would think they wouldn't have had to play so loosely with the facts involved. I have virtually no respect for the filmmakers. I am even peeved at Ben Stein and I used to really like him.

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.

Click to expand...

No one expects Creationists to have anything like academic discipline or interest. Usually they come on, plop out a few PRATTS and when met with scientists (after telling the scientists how science is flawed) they usually do go away. Which is sad. I suppose it reads more effectively on how much you actually care about the ideas you take to heart.

I like it when someone mounts a defense of their claims.

I submit that if you can't answer this question, you can't answer any of them.

Click to expand...

Why not? I will point out that people did chemistry for quite a long time, really good chemistry, without understanding how the electron functions. People did good physics using Newtonian laws without nary a need for Relativity until it became apparent that relativity was a better, more thorough description.

So I submit that a broader knowledge of how science operates would be a good tool to have in this discussion.

They all begin with the supposition that there had to be a beginning.

Click to expand...

So you can't watch a movie and understand it unless you saw the production process?

You are doing science based on no foundation.

Click to expand...

I keep coming back to chemistry because that is where I work now and what I teach in the evenings. Please bear with while I point out that some of the greatest chemistry was done before anyone ever even knew about quantum mechanics.

But quantum lies at the heart of how atoms behave and electrons. Electrons are one of the key players in chemical interactions. Ergo, by your metric, the great chemists that laid the foundations before quantum were unable to do chemistry?

This is why I can't listen to science because it ignores this foundational issue,

Click to expand...

Hmmm.

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

Click to expand...

"Special Pleading". How do you know this? Why? Because it is an "origins question" you don't want to address or you wish to "make up crazy stories that have no basis in fact and make no rational sense to a thinking person"

I would argue that you are guilty of the same, having little interest in understanding the things of the bible.

Click to expand...

Very funny! If you knew the amount of time I've spent in my life obsessing (literally, I mean literally) over trying to understand God you'd know how erroneous that claim is. Sorry.

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.

Click to expand...

You are attempting to hit all the PRATTS in just a few posts, I see.

Please read how scientists use the technical term THEORY first. That will be very helpful to you.

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.

Click to expand...

And which do you think scientists are using? Try this one, it's closer to how science deals with the term:

Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. (SOURCE)

Click to expand...

(Emphasis added)

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.

Click to expand...

I was merely pointing out how vengeful many Christians get. Sounds pretty human and "animal" to me. And it's not like you are actually defending your point, you are merely telling us how God is going to come and make us bend our knees. That sounds more like a "threat", than a "defense".

But clearly I misunderstood you. My apologies.

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.

Click to expand...

Good, then you and I are much alike! I have a good friend who is a creationist, and I have on more than one occasion written letters of reference for him for jobs in science. (The science he does has nothing to do with creation or geology).

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'.

Click to expand...

Except you want me to assume your way of thinking. You want me to not be me, but be you. And the only way you can get to that point is resort to "God will show you."

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd be happy as a clam if God "showed" me. But I cannot really seriously take that statement as anything as "friendly" as that. Perhaps it is merely a miscommunication. I apologize.

Someday Richard Dawkins will make you bend your knee to him.

Does that sound "friendly"? I hope it does. It is intended to be. Because Dawkins will come to your home and convince you of his correctness. You will lovingly bow to him.

Friendly? Yup.

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.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt your questions were "honest". I truly believe you truly believe science is wrong. But you did ask why we "start" from assuming craetionists are uneducated. That's because they usually are. Certainly undereducated.

If you wish to debate a scientist the worst possible thing you can do is blankly say "you're wrong" and mount a weak and vaccilating defense of your stance.

That is why learning the science side is often just as important to the debate. (And don't just get your science from Creationist sites.)

Click to expand...

Ok. Point taken. I cannot argue these poiunts as well as the sources from which they have come from as I am not a scientist. But review the works of, Norman Geisler, Frank Turek or Joh Lennox.

So talk to me about The origin of Life? Now thats a tough subject evem for science no?

Alan

Ursie said:

Furthermore, there is not a single viable or provable explantion for where everything came from in the first place, besides God.

Click to expand...

You can prove God? Sans Bible? Within the constraints of science?

Impress me.

That would be something special no? I canot do as you say. Prove God with No bible talk. But I do know that scientist have for soo many years tried to make amino acids, protiens etc form life under what they consider to be the right condition and it just does not happen. It will never happen. God Created life. Wheather we came from that creation directly or whether we evolved to how we are. The origin is such a mystery.

Who created God I hear you all scream! He did not need creation. Sorry to talk bible speak but God is Infinite. No begining, no end.

Alan.

AV1611VET said:

Either way --- it's a fake.

Click to expand...

Then so's your bible. It's not the original, is it? Just a printer's rendition.

albomofo said:

He did not need creation.

Alan.

Click to expand...

Why? And how?

He is beyond the explaination of physics. He is nothing that can be explained by science. He just was. scientists will hopefully come closer to this conclusion when the LHC raises more questions about the begining of the universe than it answers.

Alan

Stock answers there. It's amazing, though, that god can be 'beyond the explaination of physics', yet you consider it to be perfectly within your ability to explain in a simple, 4-sentence post. Incredible.

albomofo said:

That would be something special no? I canot do as you say. Prove God with No bible talk. But I do know that scientist have for soo many years tried to make amino acids, protiens etc form life under what they consider to be the right condition and it just does not happen.

Click to expand...

But it did happen. Those saying that it didn't are lying creationists.

albomofo said:

It will never happen.

Click to expand...

It already has. It happened more than 50 years ago, and it has happened again and again in repeated experiments.

albomofo said:

God Created life.

Click to expand...

Evidence please.

albomofo said:

Wheather we came from that creation directly or whether we evolved to how we are. The origin is such a mystery.

Click to expand...

Not as much as you seem to believe.

albomofo said:

Who created God I hear you all scream! He did not need creation.

Click to expand...

Why? What makes him special? If you try to argue cause and effect (like, the universe had to start, life had to start), you can't just make an exception for your preferred magic-man. Either everything needs a beginning, or everything doesn't. If it does, who made God? If it doesn't, the universe just as well be infinite through time, as could life itself. Your argument is illogical.

albomofo said:

Sorry to talk bible speak but God is Infinite. No begining, no end.

Click to expand...

The need for special pleading is exactly why nobody will ever take creationists seriously.

My recommendation? Start learning. It will challenge your faith, and it will open your mind up to the idea that your preconceived conclusions may be wrong, but once you get through the hard part, you will see the universe open up before you, and you will be awed.

I would not consider what I did there anysort of explaination. I would never try to explain that as it is out of my reach.

"But it did happen. Those saying that it didn't are lying creationists. "

When?? To my kwonledge it has never happened. The latest journal on this subject says scientists hope to do this within the next ten years. I am Not a creationist either!! Do not take me for a simpleton you can shout down. You ask me for evidence, I ask the same of you!

Sorry you wont like this at all but:

Originally Posted by Evidence please.

Jesus came and told us this is what happened. The new testament is a historical document. thats My evidence.

albomofo said:

That would be something special no? I canot do as you say. Prove God with No bible talk. But I do know that scientist have for soo many years tried to make amino acids, protiens etc form life under what they consider to be the right condition and it just does not happen. It will never happen. God Created life. Wheather we came from that creation directly or whether we evolved to how we are. The origin is such a mystery.

Who created God I hear you all scream! He did not need creation. Sorry to talk bible speak but God is Infinite. No begining, no end.

Alan.

Click to expand...

I strongly suggest you look up the work of Dr. Jack Szostak.

I forget the exact chemicals needed for DNA/RNA that can be produced under these conditions, but most of the chemicals needed for RNA/DNA can be formed when certain other chemicals (I forget which, but I'm sure if you really cared enough you could research it.) are frozen together in ice.

The origin is a mystery, yes, but science aims to unravel that mystery, and is still making huge advancements towards achieving that goal, creationism, however, claims to already have solved the mystery, and spouts a load of bronze age mythology. Yet it can provide no evidence, no logic behind its reasoning, or no possible way to falsify, or verify, their beliefs.

I'm pretty sure if you looked up "Illogical" in a thesaurus, you'd find "Creationism" under it.

When science answers that mystery, it'll have evidence, it'll have arrived at that conclusion through that evidence and logic.

Allow me to say again. I am not a creationist.

also rna/dna are not life. They are the building blocks of life.

albomofo said:

"But it did happen. Those saying that it didn't are lying creationists. "

When?? To my kwonledge it has never happened. The latest journal on this subject says scientists hope to do this within the next ten years. I am Not a creationist either!! Do not take me for a simpleton you can shout down. You ask me for evidence, I ask the same of you!

Sorry you wont like this at all but:

Originally Posted by

God Created life.
​

Evidence please.

Jesus came and told us this is what happened. The new testament is a historical document. thats My evidence.

Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjOqWkV1_tk

CDK FTW!