Biblical Stories that Support Evolutionary Science

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by The Thadman
Different human races are due to speciation, not Evolution (with a capital E).

Speciation ("Micro" evolution) is: When a human and a human have a child, the result will always be a human but have a combination of the genetic traits of it's mother and father. Same thing with all of the different breeds of dog, they're all genetically compatible.

...but that's not really what speciation is. Speciation is the development of new species through evolutionary processes. As with your dog example, different breeds are just groups within species. 

Evolution ("Macro" evolution) is: When a human and a human have a child, somewhere down the line the result will not be a human and not be able to reproduce with humans, sharing different genetic material than its species.

The key phrase here is "down the line". What you term "macroevolution" is simply microevolution across many generations, and it is probably closer to what speciation really is, which we have observed. There is no distinction in science between macro- and micro-evolution.

Evolution (macro) is a theory, unobservable, unrepeatable, speculation, and extrapolation.  

Evolution is not mere speculation. It is a scientific theory: one that is substantiated by facts. Speculation does not involve considering factual evidence.

Consider FAQs about the theory of evolution from http://www.talkorigins.org/ for information regarding how evolution is observed.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by The Thadman

So, yes I do think it can be explained by "Evolutionary Science," and that part of "Evolutionary Science" is well within the bounds of what the Bible laid down Shlomo! (Peace!)

So you agree with my premise...

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by Mechanical Bliss
...but that's not really what speciation is. Speciation is the development of new species through evolutionary processes. As with your dog example, different breeds are just groups within species. 

Ok, now we have a 3rd definition

Originally posted by Mechanical Bliss
The key phrase here is "down the line". What you term "macroevolution" is simply microevolution across many generations, and it is probably closer to what speciation really is, which we have observed. There is no distinction in science between macro- and micro-evolution.

Er, the fossil record does not support transitional forms. We'd have a gradual change if that were the case. Instead, there are abrupt changes and "descendants" appearing out of nowhere before their "ancestors" disappear

Originally posted by Mechanical Bliss
Evolution is not mere speculation. It is a scientific theory: one that is substantiated by facts. Speculation does not involve considering factual evidence.

Microevolution is a scientific fact It's repeatable, observable in a lab, and predictable.

Evolution on a macro scale has never been observed and it's not repeatable. Over 200 million generations of e coli bacteria have been grown in labs over the past, almost, century and have been encouraged to mutate. The results from this encouragement? Big e coli, small e coli, different-colored e coli: BUT still e coli

Originally posted by Mechanical Bliss
Consider FAQs about the theory of evolution from http://www.talkorigins.org/ for information regarding how evolution is observed.

I have been at this site MANY times over the past few years, and I find a lot of it to be interesting, but still lacking.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by Smilin
So you agree with my premise...

Isn't that what I just said?

You seem stunned. Given your definitions, I agree.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

 

[EPHRIAM777]

((((((((((quote:
Originally posted by EPHRIAM777
I believe the racial diversifications among humans would be microevolution. ))))))))))))


Right now there is only one race. There could have been more then one race in the past, but if there was they mated with each other to where science believes there is only one race today.

China does not agree, they are separatist. They believe they evolved from Peking man. But they do not have any evidence for this at all.




Eph writes...

Ahh..that lil "quote' you gave wasn't mine JR..

 

[EPHRIAM777]

Originally posted by LadyShea
Eph, I haven't needed to provide any sources because I haven't made any claims.

Eph says..

Then don't ask me to give any...! ( boy your too easy LS )

 

[EPHRIAM777]

Originally posted by LadyShea

"Attack the messenger"? What message am I attacking you for...you haven't PRESENTED anything, all you have done is make assertions with no basis...you are entitled to state your opinions of course, but please qualify them as opinions as you have also been asked to do.

Eph says...

Is this your opinion LS..? You failed to "qualify" it as such IF it is...!

Mext time use " IMO " before you post it..

.Also you base this statement on what..?

(( See I can play "chase the tail" games with YOUR posts too ))

Never ending questions...that only lead to more questions..and denoucements..!

I win...!!!

 

[EPHRIAM777]

Originally posted by Smilin [/i]
Eph:

1. Please take time to learn the QUOTE commands, your posts are hard to read, and respond to.  A simple, polite request.

Eph replies...

I know how to use it..I'm doing this on purpose...! Sorry if your having trouble with them...


Smilin says

...okay... are you gonna force me to drudge back through all your claims..(that we've consistently asked for sources/proofs of with) with only silence for you?  For example... list your scientists we've asked for a number of times.  Else conced you're merely stating an opinion and not facts.

Eph writes...

I see you STILL haven't had it sink in yet...So once again I'mm drudge through this for ya...For example...I said the dating systems used to date the age of the earth..or rocks...or bones are ALL FLAWED...I don't need a "scientist" to know that...Nor do you need a scientists name for a source...Your askig the wrong question here Smilin...Your next move on this "chess board"...Is to present evidence why you think they ARE good dating systems....Then we go from there....I'll blow you out of the water WHEN you make your next move..and DO that...

See I laid the foundation of a challenge to you and your EVO position...by making a statement..Now you gotta do one of two things...Either defend YOURSELF and what you DO believe about EVO....Or accept the "check mate"....and fold...!

The rest of this post was just more.."tap dancing"....Endless words that SOUND great...but avoid the issue...

Again.....The dating systems used in dating the age of the earth ect ect ect ..are FLAWED systems and NOT valid....! Therefore the LIFE that exists on this planet..didn't have the VAST amounts of TIME that Evolution says is required for things to have Evolved...!

Your move Smilin...!

 

[lithium.]

Eph writes...

I see you STILL haven't had it sink in yet...So once again I'mm drudge through this for ya...For example...I said the dating systems used to date the age of the earth..or rocks...or bones are ALL FLAWED...

Again.....The dating systems used in dating the age of the earth ect ect ect ..are FLAWED systems and NOT valid....!

How are they flawed? Could it be that you don't understand them? YES.

Again you have no idea what you are talking about. Don't you think if they were flawed they would stop using them? YES. And if you think there flawed prove it.

 

[EPHRIAM777]

Evolution says things took vast amounts of time to evolve...Geology says that the EARTH is very old...Science says the Cosmos is "billions" of years old...

So each (knowingly or unknowinly )... are working hand in hand to defend each others position...!

BASED on what..?

See I believe the Earth can be very old....BUT the animals that are on it now...haven't changed or "evolved" at all....They have gone through some variation changes..hight...color..weight...BUT they have NOT changed from what they originally were...a DOG is still a DOG...a CAT is still a CAT...ect ect..!

Evolution says they HAVE changed..and Evo People (lol)...claim they have proof that must be out there...somewhere..just around the next bend...over that next rise...around that next corner..under that next rock..

They are willing to follow their "carrot" anywhere it leads them..except to the Biblical record...!

Because THAT means someone MADE all this and He's in charge and NOT them...( or Steven Hawking )...

Did you know that Carl Sagan NOW knows Jesus Christ is really who he said he was....!

YEP.. I have proof of that.....AND you can dig that truth out of THE rock..that was on a hillside..

 

[lithium.]

Because THAT means someone MADE all this and He's in charge and NOT them...( or Steven Hawking )...

Did you know that Carl Sagan NOW knows Jesus Christ is really who he said he was....!

YEP.. I have proof of that.....AND you can dig that truth out of THE rock..that was on a hillside..

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by EPHRIAM777
....BUT the animals that are on it now...haven't changed or "evolved" at all....They have gone through some variation changes..hight...color..weight...BUT they have NOT changed from what they originally were...a DOG is still a DOG...a CAT is still a CAT...ect ect..!

Evolution says they HAVE changed..and Evo People (lol)...claim they have proof that must be out there...somewhere..just around the next bend...over that next rise...around that next corner..under that next rock..

They are willing to follow their "carrot" anywhere it leads them..except to the Biblical record...!

Or the fossil record (which doesn't support "evolution science" on a macro scale.

THAT's what I agree with 100%.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

 

[lithium.]

Or the fossil record (which doesn't support "evolution science" on a macro scale.

Last time I checked the fossil record does support evolution on a "macro scale".

Go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ I know people post this site a lot but it's one of the best sites that shows evidence for evolution.

 

[The Thadman]

Originally posted by seesaw
Last time I checked the fossil record does support evolution on a "macro scale".

Go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ I know people post this site a lot but it's one of the best sites that shows evidence for evolution.

And I need to repeat ( for the 15th time on this board it seems ) that I have been visiting that site almost since it was started (from what I remember). I used to be an advocate for it, and was a weekend-warrior evolutionist.

The site's nice, but it's still lacking.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

 

[lithium.]

The site's nice, but it's still lacking.

Alright then, what is it lacking?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by EPHRIAM777
Evolution says things took vast amounts of time to evolve...Geology says that the EARTH is very old...Science says the Cosmos is "billions" of years old...

So each (knowingly or unknowinly )... are working hand in hand to defend each others position...!

Their positions are defended by the evidence they have collected.

BASED on what..?

Radiometric age dating for geology, cosmologic study, and genetic study.

See I believe the Earth can be very old....BUT the animals that are on it now...haven't changed or "evolved" at all....

The fossil record clearly shows otherwise. The animals that are on it now aren't the animals that were on it 250 million years ago.

They have gone through some variation changes..hight...color..weight...BUT they have NOT changed from what they originally were...a DOG is still a DOG...a CAT is still a CAT...ect ect..!

Of course they are. A dog is a dog and a cat is a cat. However, if a dog evolved from a shared ancestor with a cat, you would see this common ancestor and not dogs and cats.

Evolution says they HAVE changed..and Evo People (lol)...claim they have proof that must be out there...somewhere..just around the next bend...over that next rise...around that next corner..under that next rock..

Scientists in acceptance of the theory of evolution do not claim to have proof. They claim to have evidence, and this explanation is the best one to fit the evidence.

They are willing to follow their "carrot" anywhere it leads them..except to the Biblical record...!

The Biblical record of creation is one involving the supernatural, which is outside the realm of science. Try again.

Because THAT means someone MADE all this and He's in charge and NOT them...( or Steven Hawking )...

Did you know that Carl Sagan NOW knows Jesus Christ is really who he said he was....!

YEP.. I have proof of that.....AND you can dig that truth out of THE rock..that was on a hillside..

This is one of the most absurd things I've read here.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by seesaw
Alright then, what is it lacking?

I think you already know the answer, seesaw: it's their God. If it doesn't mention their God, it must automatically be incorrect regardless of the evidence and the fact that science does not study the supernatural (for obvious reasons).

 

[The Thadman]

That is correct, Science can only be based upon what is observable.

There are just some things that go far beyond the realms of Science.

I mean, face it, trying to measure God's grandeur with Science is like trying to measure the circumference of the Earth with a tape measure. Trying to measure God's detail with Science is like trying to measure the thickness of a human hair with a yard stick.

It just doesn't work.

Shlomo! (Peace!)

 

[LadyShea]

Eph, you are side stepping and dancing around everything, or you are simply unable to comprehend what we are saying, and seriously think you are making valid points? Let me break it down for you.

1. The person making a positive claim is responsible for providing evidence
2. You have made positive claims
3. I have not made any claims
4. YOU are responsible for providing evidence, and I am not

Now is this so difficult,? Is your strategy to just talk in circles until everyone is dizzy then yell "I win"? If you are simply trying to bury us in strawmen and nonsense, then I think you will find yourself on many an ignore list.

I hate this phrase, but I have to use it here "Put up or shut up", you are not a credit to your faith.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Mechanical Bliss
I think you already know the answer, seesaw: it's their God. If it doesn't mention their God, it must automatically be incorrect regardless of the evidence and the fact that science does not study the supernatural (for obvious reasons).

LOL Yeah I knew the answer but I wanted to see what he was going to say.