A question to all Evolutionists- please answer

[fragmentsofdreams]

Im sorry i cant believe what evolution is saying, we all are here by chance not a purpose because earth was created as a fluke and we are just a higher form of animals???? that is not a Christian principle how can you believe in the Bible that there is a purpose in lie and creation and evolution in saying its all chance , one contrdicts the other, and if we are evolving then why isnt there half man half apes around

Evolution doesn't say that.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

maybe you should tell that to the schools who get taught this rubbish then

I've never found a school that did teach what you just said. I've met plenty of people whose prior beliefs about evolution led them to claim that their school did, though.

so your saying man didnt evolve from apes???

Man's last common ancestor with present apes, were it alive today, would most certainly be considered an ape, yes.

hence evolving at some point there should be halh/half around should they not?

There were plenty of intermediate forms. We have fossils of them. Doesn't mean they should be around now, as your previous post implied.

isnt the big bang theory and life created on earth dont by chance??

Big Bang is not part of evolution
Abiogenesis is not part of evolution.

Are you just lumping everything in mainstream science you disagree with under the label "evolution"?

Tell me something - are the following numbers a random sequence?

12
24
26
30
34
36
37
45

or has evoluyionists changed there scope on this?

It's never been within the scope of evolutionary biology.

what is the supposed "theory" that evolutionsits are saying is right this time?

Big Bang is still the best model of the origin of the physical universe. Lucaspa's the man to ask on abiogenesis. But neither are part of evolution.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Karl-

"There were plenty of intermediate forms. We have fossils of them."

Where?

 

[notto]

Karl-

"There were plenty of intermediate forms. We have fossils of them."

Where?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Can you not read the list? There may be an audio version.

This is the one thing that really bugs me about the Creationists, they are provided with an extensive list of what they asked for but then either go silent, scratch their heads or change the topic.

Which are you going to do?

 

[gluadys]

maybe you should tell that to the schools who get taught this rubbish then ,

If schools are teaching that the TOE says "we all are here by chance not a purpose because earth was created as a fluke" you are right. Because teachers or text-books which say this are giving the wrong impression of evolution.

so your saying man didnt evolve from apes??? hence evolving at some point there should be halh/half around should they not?

If by "ape" you mean a gorilla, chimpanzee or orangutan or any modern member of the group of species called apes, right, I am saying humans did not evolve from any of these.

But if you are speaking of the species which was ancestral to these and to humans, yes it would have been an ape as well, and there were many species which were intermediate in form between that ancestral species and modern humans.

isnt the big bang theory and life created on earth dont by chance??

In the first place, neither of these has anything to do with evolution. In the second place, unless you believe the laws of physics are laws of chance, no they are not chance events either.

what is the supposed "theory" that evolutionsits are saying is right this time?

Same one as Darwin proposed 150 years ago:

1. Species reproduce in larger numbers than can be sustained by available resources. Hence they compete for available resources. Some succeed and mature and reproduce. Others do not.

2. Species vary in many characteristics such as thickness of fur, speed, colour, choice of diet, ability to attract mates, etc. etc.

3. If one or more such natural variations provides a competitive advantage in survival, the members of the species which have those variations will be among the successful competitors in point 1. Hence a larger proportion of this group will pass their characteristics to the next generation than will those with less advantageous characteristics.

4. Over time, new variants appear, the process is repeated and bit by bit, over time, the characteristics of the species change.

The sum total of points 1-4 is called "natural selection" or "descent with modification". It is the principal mechanism of evolution.

And that's it. Now you know what the theory of evolution really says.

There is a lot more detail of course, but all of it comes back to this core process.

 

[Lee Fey]

A couple of things. One, if people here are not willing to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and completely accurate, than there's not much I can say to change their minds. The Bible is accurate, and is God's Word, that's the basis of all Christian belief. Christ himself referred to Adam and Eve as historical figures, very strong evidence supporting the original creation theory.

Pertaining to this fossil evidence everyone's talking about. We have very, very small, very few shards of these skeletons. So small in fact, that one could assume anything about what we have.

Finally, the Bible would not say it if it were not true. I depend on God to tell me the truth, so I depend on the Bible, for it makes the claim to be perfect, and everything that can check out, has, so I have no reason not to believe such a claim. However, man is flawed, naturally so, and I cannot take anyone's word as to what part of the Bible I can take literally and what I cannot.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

A couple of things. One, if people here are not willing to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and completely accurate, than there's not much I can say to change their minds. The Bible is accurate, and is God's Word, that's the basis of all Christian belief. Christ himself referred to Adam and Eve as historical figures, very strong evidence supporting the original creation theory.

Not true. There are incredible numbers of factual errors in the Bible and only blind theologians pretend otherwise. And the literal interpretation of the Bible is NOT the whole basis of Christian belief. If it was, huge numbers of Christians would quickly cease to be Christian.

Pertaining to this fossil evidence everyone's talking about. We have very, very small, very few shards of these skeletons. So small in fact, that one could assume anything about what we have.

Not only, not true - this shows remarkable ignorance of the facts.

Finally, the Bible would not say it if it were not true. I depend on God to tell me the truth, so I depend on the Bible, for it makes the claim to be perfect, and everything that can check out, has, so I have no reason not to believe such a claim. However, man is flawed, naturally so, and I cannot take anyone's word as to what part of the Bible I can take literally and what I cannot.

Again makes ridiculous assertions about the origin and subsequent (dare I say it) evolution of the Bible.

 

[Ron21647]

Yep, what Gluadys said.

And God said, "Let there be light", and the Big Bang happened. The entire universe unfolded over billions of years according to His plan.

Which is more elegant, a billiards player who can sink every ball during the break, calling out the order of the balls and which pockets they will go into, or one who doesn't break at all, just has the balls disappear and then reappear in the pockets?

I've been a Christian most of my life, but I can't turn my back on the physical evidence.

Ron

 

[artofwar]

Not true. There are incredible numbers of factual errors in the Bible and only blind theologians pretend otherwise. And the literal interpretation of the Bible is NOT the whole basis of Christian belief. If it was, huge numbers of Christians would quickly cease to be Christian.

I could say the same about Evolution anyone can manipulate science if they wanted too didnt even darwin say his was only a theory? dont evolutionists believe that we are still avolving and one day we wont even have a little toe cause we have no use for it?? cause this is the **** i have learnt at school, and i did learn the big bang was tyhe start of the "evolution cycle" so if this is not part of evolution you can see why i think it is ridiculous

 

[Chi_Cygni]

artofwar,

you have two complete misconceptions about evolution in your post and one non sequitor.

Why do Creationists argue against what science says and not what they think it says. They are most defintely not the same.

 

[Lee Fey]

There are large holes in the theory of evolution for example. Take for example irreducible complexity. How did, say, the coagulating mechanism evolve, since that takes a myriad of hormones and enzymes to function correctly, and single missing enzyme resulting in someone who's entire blood supply was coagulated, or blood that never coagulates. Also, say you find an organism that produces a mix of these enzymes that do not produce one of the two above effects. These enzymes are mostly only regulators of coagulation, so without the whole puzzle, would be useless. An organism that has to spend extra time trying to get food to produce enzymes that do not do anything for it is at a distinct disadvantage compared to one who only needs enough food to produce all the necessary enzymes already in the code. There are also codes in DNA itself that prevent mutations from occuring as much as they would had the codes not been there.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I could say the same about Evolution anyone can manipulate science if they wanted too didnt even darwin say his was only a theory? dont evolutionists believe that we are still avolving and one day we wont even have a little toe cause we have no use for it?? cause this is the **** i have learnt at school, and i did learn the big bang was tyhe start of the "evolution cycle" so if this is not part of evolution you can see why i think it is ridiculous

Anyone making predictions about human evolution is probably full of it. Humanity is reaching the point where food is relatively plentiful, children can live to reproduce, and genetic disorders can be treated. The only remaining selection pressures are accidental or cultural. Since we cannot predict historical accidents (such as a epidemic or catatrophe), we cannot make predictions based on that. We also cannot predict cultural pressures. Therefore, we have great difficulty making any predictions about human evolution.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I could say the same about Evolution anyone can manipulate science if they wanted too didnt even darwin say his was only a theory? dont evolutionists believe that we are still avolving and one day we wont even have a little toe cause we have no use for it?? cause this is the **** i have learnt at school, and i did learn the big bang was tyhe start of the "evolution cycle" so if this is not part of evolution you can see why i think it is ridiculous

Quantum theory is "only a theory," yet somehow electrons in semiconductors behave as predicted by quantum theory very reliably. So reliably, that in millions of computer components involving countless electrons, things work so that I can send this message to you. Just because it is a theory does not mean that it is not well founded and reliable.

Evolution is the change in frequency of traits in populations of organisms over time. Therefore, evolution is only concerned with biological organisms. It does depend on other theories, but these theories are not part of it. In the same way, the theory of gravity is not part of American history even though American history depended on the theory of gravity to work as it did.

 

[notto]

There are large holes in the theory of evolution for example. Take for example irreducible complexity. How did, say, the coagulating mechanism evolve, since that takes a myriad of hormones and enzymes to function correctly, and single missing enzyme resulting in someone who's entire blood supply was coagulated, or blood that never coagulates. Also, say you find an organism that produces a mix of these enzymes that do not produce one of the two above effects. These enzymes are mostly only regulators of coagulation, so without the whole puzzle, would be useless. An organism that has to spend extra time trying to get food to produce enzymes that do not do anything for it is at a distinct disadvantage compared to one who only needs enough food to produce all the necessary enzymes already in the code. There are also codes in DNA itself that prevent mutations from occuring as much as they would had the codes not been there.

There are several ideas on the evolution of coagulation. Here are a few.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2130927&dopt=Abstract
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12624623&dopt=Abstract

The idea that this system is 'irreducibly complex' has pretty much been shown to be false, or at least, at this point, it cannot be conclusively said that it is IC. Not much of a large hole in evolution, simply a minor point that is actively being researched and tenatively appears to not be much of a hole at all.

Out of curiosity, from a creationist standpoint, what is the point of coagulation? Was it there from the start, put into a human body and animals bodies in a world where there was no death and no carnivours? Why?

 

[hesalive]

Not true. There are incredible numbers of factual errors in the Bible and only blind theologians pretend otherwise.

This is an area of the discussion that I find very troubling. I will not paint all TE with a broad brush as holding to this notion, but it seems to come primarily from that side. It is one thing to put forward the argument that God created via evolution and to subsequently try and assert an interpretation of the Bible to validate it, It is quite another to say that the Bible is errant. If this is the case, who decides what is truth and what is a lie? Man? If that is the case then man now holds all the answers to life. My God is certainly able to tell me what he wants me to know and I trust Him. It is man that I don't trust.

There is a word that describes someone who places his own wisdom above God but I dare not mention it.

 

[hesalive]

Quantum theory is "only a theory," yet somehow electrons in semiconductors behave as predicted by quantum theory very reliably. So reliably, that in millions of computer components involving countless electrons, things work so that I can send this message to you. Just because it is a theory does not mean that it is not well founded and reliable.

Evolution is the change in frequency of traits in populations of organisms over time. Therefore, evolution is only concerned with biological organisms. It does depend on other theories, but these theories are not part of it. In the same way, the theory of gravity is not part of American history even though American history depended on the theory of gravity to work as it did.

Electron flow ( or ion flow if you choose) is testable and repeatable. Evolution is not.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

This is an area of the discussion that I find very troubling. I will not paint all TE with a broad brush as holding to this notion, but it seems to come primarily from that side. It is one thing to put forward the argument that God created via evolution and to subsequently try and assert an interpretation of the Bible to validate it, It is quite another to say that the Bible is errant. If this is the case, who decides what is truth and what is a lie? Man? If that is the case then man now holds all the answers to life. My God is certainly able to tell me what he wants me to know and I trust Him. It is man that I don't trust.

There is a word that describes someone who places his own wisdom above God but I dare not mention it.

But this is not what anyone is proposing doing. Acknowledging that there are factual errors in the bible is simply acknowledging it - the alternative is to say "God's right, man's wrong, grasshoppers have four legs and we can't count"

 

[notto]

Electron flow ( or ion flow if you choose) is testable and repeatable. Evolution is not.

The observations the theory is based on are testable and repeatable. The mechanisms have been observed and occur. Just like the observations that the theory of gravity or electron flow or plate techtonics are based on.

The testability and repeatability that science depends on are the observations or the evidence that lead to a theory, not necessarily the entire process the theory addresses. You seem to be mistating the scientific method.

Have you ever seen an electron?