Dear Christian, why don't you ...?

lewiscalledhimmaster said:

... accept the theory of evolution as a scientific fact?

Click to expand...

first of all, there is a process that occurs to give rise to the differences we see in organisms.
this process happens, it's a fact.
the problem is defining that process, and that is where this "theory" comes into play.
darwin comes along and offers up a convincing arguement.
this arguement was soon challenged, like all theories, and it undergoes a revision, neodarwinism or "the modern synthesis".
all of the tenets of the modern synthesis has been disproved to various degrees (noble) and again darwinism is headed for a revision.
again from noble, this will likely be a new reintegration instead of an extension.
so, there is good reason not to believe the now current teachings of evolution.

so, while this "process" is indeed a fact, the theory that explains it is wrong.

lewis,
you are not critically studying the evidence in regards to evolution.
i offered you 2 links to respected sources on this topic and you responded with cartoon characters and by calling them "creation science".

again i offer them for your comments:
icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/1/148.full
www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211.html

how's this for "critical analysis":

I am unaware of even a single example of biological complexity which defies explanation within the modern Darwinian framework. Perhaps you could offer up such an example...?"

Click to expand...

in reply:

1. Multiple antibiotic resistance in bacteria;
2. Origin of the eukaryotic cell;
3. Origin of photosynthetic eukaryotic lineages;
4. The "abominable mystery" of rapid angiosperm evolution.
Ben's reply to my intervention illustrates how little some followers of TheWhyEvolutionIsTrue blog care about the molecular analysis of evolution. He seemed to have no idea that bacterial antibiotic resistance evolves by horizontal transfer of plasmids and the accumulation of multiple resistance determinants by transposition and site-specific recombination.

Click to expand...

the link for your "critical study":
Inconvenient Truths: Why Are Self-Styled Defenders of Evolution so Resistant to Lessons From Molecular Genetics? | James A. Shapiro

whois said:

first of all, there is a process that occurs to give rise to the differences we see in organisms.
this process happens, it's a fact.
the problem is defining that process, and that is where this "theory" comes into play.
darwin comes along and offers up a convincing arguement.
this arguement was soon challenged, like all theories, and it undergoes a revision, neodarwinism or "the modern synthesis".
all of the tenets of the modern synthesis has been disproved to various degrees (noble) and again darwinism is headed for a revision.
again from noble, this will likely be a new reintegration instead of an extension.
so, there is good reason not to believe the now current teachings of evolution.

so, while this "process" is indeed a fact, the theory that explains it is wrong.

Click to expand...

It's just a pity that the ToE is unaffected by any of those, they haven't stopped the people who use the ToE from using it.

Perhaps one day when we have all been a long time dead people will come to realise you were right all along, unfortunately it won't do you, me or us a blind bit of good.

lewiscalledhimmaster said:

What I said is that I am critically studying the evidence which relates to evolution.
I did not say 'creation science' -- what I said was Christian Science. There is a difference.

Click to expand...

my sources aren't "CHRISTIAN" science either

I am not really interested in any discussions with you, as you have shown yourself to be unreasonable and unwilling to engage in honest dialogue with others.
Until that changes I will continue to do my best to ignore your comments.

Click to expand...

where have i been unreasonable and dishonest lewis?
where?

sandybay said:

It's just a pity that the ToE is unaffected by any of those, they haven't stopped the people who use the ToE from using it.

Click to expand...

the theory is indeed affected by recent discoveries in genomics.
very much so.
do you disagree with noble or the sources i have provided?
if so then please point out how they are wrong.

like i pointed out before, the process itself is a fact.
it's the theory that explains it is wrong, and that's also a fact.

StephanieSomer said:

Because even scientists don't accept it as fact. That's why it's still called a theory. It seems to explain all the things which ARE facts. But, in itself, it is not factual, only a theory.

TBH, it cannot be sufficiently proven to a point of factuality; and, neither can the Scriptures. EITHER one must be accepted by faith.

So, in reality, there is little difference between those who believe the Bible and those who do not. The only difference is WHAT you choose to put your faith in.

Click to expand...

Faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen;" it's not the denial of overwhelming evidence such as that in support of evolution.

I have never written a research paper on God or had to learn about Him for a SAT Subject Test or final exam as I have with evolution. My brother wasn't tested on God when he took the MCAT for medical school, but he was required to have proficient knowledge in evolution because of the vital role it plays in modern medicine. Many Christians do not feel conflict or a need for restraint between their faith and their full pursuit of knowledge in science. For many of us, religion and science are in harmony. Rice University recently conducted a poll of evangelical Christians and nearly 70% did not view religion and science as being in conflict.

The Theory of Gravity is.......a theory, and yet most do not struggle to believe that it's factual. These links might be helpful: Misconceptions about evolution
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

Artemis97 said:

Misconceptions about evolution
"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words - Scientific American

Click to expand...

how do you relate the above to this:
The questions asked by George Gaylord Simpson in his 1944, “The Tempo and Mode of Evolution,” concerning the size of mutations, the pace of morphological change and the apparent discontinuous origins of taxa in the fossil record, are far from resolved. Indeed, they are being debated more strongly than ever, because of the growing conviction amongst many biologists that observations from developmental biology and palaeontology are inconsistent with the Neodarwinian hypothesis championed by Simpson. The origin of the animal phyla has been a key case study in the tempo and mode of evolution.

. . .

Such analyses have led to the suggestion that rather than a steady accumulation of biological diversity, the global biota has been fundamentally shaped by a series of major events, mass extinctions of taxa followed by explosive radiations of new taxa. The first explosive radiation—the Cambrian explosion—is particularly important, as it has been argued that the diversity of animal body plans was achieved soon after their origin, and that virtually no new body-plans have evolved since.
The origin of animal phyla (both their sudden appearance in the fossil record and the discontinuous variation in bodyplan traits between phyla) has also been the focus of research in the relatively young field of evolutionary development (Evo-Devo). The characterization of homeotic mutants, that alter the development of whole structures such as limbs or eyes, has led some researchers to suggest that the differences in body plan between animal phyla could have arisen through relatively few genetic changes. In particular, the Hox genes (and related genes) have been implicated as controllers of body plan characters, and the differences between phyla have been been attributed to variation in the number and expression of Hox-like genes.

--snip--

it's apparent that HOX genes arte indeed some kind of "master plan" for an organism that cannot be breached by a slow gradual process.
this is one of the primary reasons lamarkism wasn't included in darwins original theory.
it now seems lamarkism is a valid process.

this is where evolution theory is being revamped.
there are other things too that noble cites that call for an outright reintegration rather than an extension or an addendum.
noble presents his case in the cite i gave earlier in this thread.

lewiscalledhimmaster said:

wi,

I tried, I really tried -- anyone who's read my responses to you, will know that I've tried.
I've seen other do the same, with the same results.

You are now, officially on my ignore list.

Goodbye.

Click to expand...

is that it?
accuse and run?
depict my sources as cartoon characters and then hide?

meh.
see ya.

sandybay said:

It's just a pity that the ToE is unaffected by any of those, they haven't stopped the people who use the ToE from using it.

Perhaps one day when we have all been a long time dead people will come to realise you were right all along, unfortunately it won't do you, me or us a blind bit of good.

Click to expand...

you know, i can breed rabbits 24/7 knowing a little about mendel and his laws and never needing any "evolution theory".

to cast this theory in stone is wrong on so many levels.

man getting here by a series of slow gradual steps is simply wrong.
the evidence is coming from everywhere.

of course that means the world will end tomorrow and that everybody better get all crazy about it.

it's funny, "we can't trust science because it always changes"
belch, evolution needs to change, " I WILL DIE FIRST ! ! ! !".

i've been accused of being a creationist, told i've been unreasonable and dishonest, at least one poster has me on ignore.
i can only imagine the number of reports to my posts.

and so it goes.

FutureAndAHope said:

Why don't I accept evolution as fact, there is enough science in favour of creation. But for me I have see way to many miracles to believe anything else. Below are two recent examples from my life (from my website).

Click to expand...

lewiscalledhimmaster said:

(note my bold)

Please share some of this 'science' ?

Click to expand...

Future andHope: in your first statemnt you said to have "science in favour of creation". And that was what was aked for. Not somenthing against the ToE.

FutureAndAHope said:

For a start there is not any evidence of transitional forms,

Click to expand...

1) You claimed to have science in favour of creation. Not arguments that debunks Evolution. (And you are even failing at that.)


2) this is false there are quite a lot of transitional fossils. Tiktaalik Archeopterix, Lucy, to name just the most well known. More here
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I challenge you to get a true series changes for the species we have on the planet.

Click to expand...

No, you claimed to have evidence. so the onus is on you.

I bet you can only get one or two animals that look like a transition.

Click to expand...

Without any research I got three. And a link to miuch more. You bet wrong.

They just don't exist.

Click to expand...

Obviously.

At the molecular level, mutations are almost always destructive, damaging cellular information, not adding to it. etc.

Click to expand...

Almost. But not always. And the few benifial ones are driving evolution.

Do you believe in miracles?

Click to expand...

A miracle should be a creationist that delivers what he claims to have: evidence for creation. So long, no I don't believe in miracles.

whois said:

i've been accused of being a creationist

Click to expand...

You're not a creationist?

i can only imagine the number of reports to my posts.

Click to expand...

To be frank, most people don't bother reporting posters they think are a waste of space, they just ignore them.

sandybay said:

It's just a pity that the ToE is unaffected by any of those, they haven't stopped the people who use the ToE from using it.

Perhaps one day when we have all been a long time dead people will come to realise you were right all along, unfortunately it won't do you, me or us a blind bit of good.

Click to expand...

Would you give an example of how the view that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form is used today?

Mr Strawberry said:

You're not a creationist?

Click to expand...

noooooooooo.

To be frank, most people don't bother reporting posters they think are a waste of space, they just ignore them.

Click to expand...

this is what you think of the oxford journal piece i just cited?
a waste of space?

justlookinla said:

Would you give an example of how the view that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form is used today?

Click to expand...

No I think you should look it up for yourself, if you do the work you will feel the benefit.

sandybay said:

No I think you should look it up for yourself, if you do the work you will feel the benefit.

Click to expand...

You made the claim, shouldn't you back it up? In fact, I've seen this claim made many times, but no one ever supports it.