"Evolution is a theory, not a fact..."

[Vance]

I never claimed to be an expert in evolution. It has far more gaps than the alternative.

But how can you make the first statement, and then make the second statement? Where have you been getting your information about evolution? Evolution is not fully understood in its details, but it definitely is not a theory that is weak or unsopportable in any sense. And, there definitely is NOT an alternative which fits the evidence we have better than the current theory.

(Please don't try to label me a Creationist just because I believe the universe is the product of a divine act of Creation. I have no idea what Creationists believe).

We all believe the universe is the product of a divine act of God.

 

[statrei]

But how can you make the first statement, and then make the second statement? Where have you been getting your information about evolution? Evolution is not fully understood in its details, but it definitely is not a theory that is weak or unsopportable in any sense. And, there definitely is NOT an alternative which fits the evidence we have better than the current theory.

The words of a believer. What can I say?

 

[Vance]

The words of a believer. What can I say?

No, really the words of one who has reviewed all the evidence.

Here is what National Geographic says in it's most recent issue, calling it a deeply persuasive theory, one that you can "take to the bank":

"The essential points are slightly more complicated than most people assume, but not so complicated that they can't be comprehended by by any attentive person. Furthermore, the supporting evidence is abundant, various, ever increasing, solidly interconnected, and easily available in museums, popular books, textbooks and a mountainous accumulation of peer-reviewed scientific studies. No one needs to, and no one should, accept evolution merely as a matter of faith."

This really is where the state of the theory is.

 

[statrei]

No, really the words of one who has reviewed all the evidence.

Here is what National Geographic says in it's most recent issue, calling it a deeply persuasive theory, one that you can "take to the bank":

"The essential points are slightly more complicated than most people assume, but not so complicated that they can't be comprehended by by any attentive person. Furthermore, the supporting evidence is abundant, various, ever increasing, solidly interconnected, and easily available in museums, popular books, textbooks and a mountainous accumulation of peer-reviewed scientific studies. No one needs to, and no one should, accept evolution merely as a matter of faith."

This really is where the state of the theory is.

OK. Here is the problem for me. I don't deny the evidence of the rocks and the bones. I have no problems with adaptation. Something is lacking in a theory that says that the Creator of the Universe is powerful and astute enough to give man the gift of morality, for that is outside of the realm of evolution, but He chose to leave it to chance for man to arise out of a simple beginning.

 

[Vance]

OK. Here is the problem for me. I don't deny the evidence of the rocks and the bones. I have no problems with adaptation. Something is lacking in a theory that says that the Creator of the Universe is powerful and astute enough to give man the gift of morality, for that is outside of the realm of evolution, but He chose to leave it to chance for man to arise out of a simple beginning.

Evolution says nothing at all about whether God was involved in the process. It can't do so, you are right that it is outside the realm of scientific analysis to determine whether God instituted it, designed it, or even nudged it here and there. They just can't say one way or the other.

As for leaving it to chance, if God created a process which would eventually result in homo sapiens at the time and place He so chose, this would not be mere chance. This is the part science can not theorize about.

 

[artybloke]

have no problems with adaptation. Something is lacking in a theory that says that the Creator of the Universe is powerful and astute enough to give man the gift of morality, for that is outside of the realm of evolution, but He chose to leave it to chance for man to arise out of a simple beginning.

What has chance to do with the theory of evolution? God is as responsible for natural selection as anything else in the universe, to the eyes of faith. But only to the eyes of faith; you don't find God under a microscope or at the far end of a telescope.

 

[statrei]

Given what Vance and Artybloke have posted, and after observing that all of the creatures on earth that are supposed to have evolved into other forms all exist on this earth with no evidence that this evolutionary process continues I find it easier to believe that this God created all creatures as they now are. That does not mean I believe it happened exactly in the sequence revealed in Gen. or that it happened only 6,000 years ago.

 

[artybloke]

with no evidence that this evolutionary process continues

No evidence? What about the nylon eating bugs?

I'm sure there's others can come with evidence that evolution continues. But that's one for starters.

The problem is that, like a lot of people it seems, you're looking for science to confirm your belief in God. It won't do that, any more than plumbing will. It is descriptive of processes that have been observed to occur, only; it is not a form of metaphysics.

I believe in God. I believe that God created the world and everything in it. I also am perfectly willing and able to accept all that science throws at me about how God did it, does it, will do it in the future.

 

[statrei]

No evidence? What about the nylon eating bugs?

I'm sure there's others can come with evidence that evolution continues. But that's one for starters.

The problem is that, like a lot of people it seems, you're looking for science to confirm your belief in God. It won't do that, any more than plumbing will. It is descriptive of processes that have been observed to occur, only; it is not a form of metaphysics.

I believe in God. I believe that God created the world and everything in it. I also am perfectly willing and able to accept all that science throws at me about how God did it, does it, will do it in the future.

Nylon eating bugs? When did they invent nylon?

Please desist from erecting strawmen for the purpose of knocking them down. Science encompasses the rules that govern God's creation. Study in that are helps me understand the creation. It tells me nothing about how that creation occurred but it also helps me understand the Creator better.

 

[artybloke]

Nylon eating bugs? When did they invent nylon?

Nylon is an artificial thread that didn't exist before the beginning of the 20th century. Some bugs have evolved to independently to eat it.

 

[statrei]

Nylon is an artificial thread that didn't exist before the beginning of the 20th century. Some bugs have evolved to independently to eat it.

And you think that this is support for the fabric of the evolution theory? Come on!

Darius

 

[rmwilliamsll]

regarding the nylon bug.

And you think that this is support for the fabric of the evolution theory? Come on!

Darius

yes.
read the data at:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
persuasive, it is a frame shift mutation, that uses a feedstock that didnt exist 75 years ago. very interesting, very significant and accessible piece of the puzzle.

i am surprised that you don't see that.
is the use of the word fabric a tongue in cheek play on the nylon bug?

 

[statrei]

regarding the nylon bug.


yes.
read the data at:
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
persuasive, it is a frame shift mutation, that uses a feedstock that didnt exist 75 years ago. very interesting, very significant and accessible piece of the puzzle.

i am surprised that you don't see that.
is the use of the word fabric a tongue in cheek play on the nylon bug?

I am not prepared to say that evidence of adaptation within species is evidence of what is being claimed to be the theory of evolution. All things evolve. This is how we get used to our environment.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I am not prepared to say that evidence of adaptation within species is evidence of what is being claimed to be the theory of evolution. All things evolve. This is how we get used to our environment.

what is speaks so strongly towards is mechanism.
we are not going to be able to see, or capture most mutations, the way we are going to see them is historical.

well, here is one captured for everyone to ponder.
gene duplication.
point mutation.
frameshift produces a unique-never-seen-before protein
that in the presense of nylon has some survival value.

hence why it is such a good example.

it is confirming data for the mechanism of mutation in the TofE.
as such it is extraordinarily persuasive.

....

 

[Vance]

I am not prepared to say that evidence of adaptation within species is evidence of what is being claimed to be the theory of evolution. All things evolve. This is how we get used to our environment.

Statrei, you really need to read up on the theory of evolution. Maybe start with the current National Geographic article.

 

[statrei]

Statrei, you really need to read up on the theory of evolution. Maybe start with the current National Geographic article.

There are many other things in life I do not have the time to read up on. What I have been told is sufficient for me to make a decision. I have always been suspicious of the claim among evolutionists that while evolution is responsible for the emergence of homo sapiens it is only responsible for a single aspect of what is required for successful evolution.

 

[statrei]

what is speaks so strongly towards is mechanism.
we are not going to be able to see, or capture most mutations, the way we are going to see them is historical.

well, here is one captured for everyone to ponder.
gene duplication.
point mutation.
frameshift produces a unique-never-seen-before protein
that in the presense of nylon has some survival value.

hence why it is such a good example.

it is confirming data for the mechanism of mutation in the TofE.
as such it is extraordinarily persuasive.

....

I would expect that argument where man is attempting to replicate a natural phenomenon. He would have to start with a very simple example and then become more and more precise. This nylon bug is supposed to be a natural demonstration of a successful natural process. Why is it not observable in the other areas where it has been successful?

 

[Vance]

There are many other things in life I do not have the time to read up on. What I have been told is sufficient for me to make a decision. I have always been suspicious of the claim among evolutionists that while evolution is responsible for the emergence of homo sapiens it is only responsible for a single aspect of what is required for successful evolution.

But that is just it, you are making statements and drawing conclusions about something you know little or nothing about. Yes, you can not know about everything, but if there is something that you have not had the time to read up on, why would you then make any decisions or conclusions about it.

Many of the things we accept in life are necessarily tentative, since we have not had the time to delve into it ourselves. But the degree to which we can feel certain about something, or come to firm decisions about it, should be based on the degree to which we HAVE read up on it. If you have not had time to read up on evolution, then while you could have a tentative opinion on the subject, that opinion would have to be VERY tentative and not one that you could assert with any conviction.

 

[statrei]

Many of the things we accept in life are necessarily tentative, since we have not had the time to delve into it ourselves. But the degree to which we can feel certain about something, or come to firm decisions about it, should be based on the degree to which we HAVE read up on it. If you have not had time to read up on evolution, then while you could have a tentative opinion on the subject, that opinion would have to be VERY tentative and not one that you could assert with any conviction.

The difference here is that I find no conflict between the idea that the diversity of the earth is attributable to the unique creative act of a Supreme Being without reference to evolutionary processes and the vast body of data that has been collected over the years. I have no need to seek an alternative explanation given that the present one has not been shown to be inadequate.

 

[Vance]

The difference here is that I find no conflict between the idea that the diversity of the earth is attributable to the unique creative act of a Supreme Being without reference to evolutionary processes and the vast body of data that has been collected over the years. I have no need to seek an alternative explanation given that the present one has not been shown to be inadequate.

So, what you believe is that God uniquely created a long series of species over the last couple of billion years, with the later being very much like the earlier ones, just slightly changed,etc, etc, down to our current mix of species? We have this double-nested heirarchy and we know that the large majority of all the species that ever lived has gone extinct.

We have, right now, our current mix of species. We have 50,000 years ago, and a different mix of species. We have 1,000,000 years ago and a different mix of species. We have 60,000,000 years ago and yet a different mix of species, going on back and back. We then see that we can trace through the fossil record for a LOT of these species very clear progressions of development.

We have the DNA evidence showing this same progression.

We have seen new species arise through the very mechanisms of the theory of evolution.

We have . . . well, the list goes on and on.

None of this is adequately explained by any Creationist theory I have seen. And I believe I have seen them all.