For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Bungle_Bear]

... and yet William Provine said "Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."

An atheist proponent of evolution is not the least biased person when it comes to that sort of pronouncement.

 

[Shemjaza]

... and yet William Provine said "Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."

Atheists and Christians who think Literalist Creationism is the only way to believe in any kind of God are equally wrong.

 

[Job 33:6]

??? I don't recall anyone describing how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced the steps involved in any macro-evolutionary transition in the fossil record.

Did you see the word "proof" in my post?

A mutation of genes that are different between the parent and daughter species would be a part of how a step occurs. Environmentally pressures would include many things, such as, whooly rhino's and mammoths having fur that was promoted by cold temperatures of arctic environments. Or food being present on land for tetrapodomorphs to take advantage of over fish.

Here is a link on discussion of mutations in the Sonic hedgehog gene and how this mutation can be the difference between a bird with reptilian teeth and a bird without:
For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

 

[Job 33:6]

A mutation of genes that are different between the parent and daughter species would be a part of how a step occurs. Environmentally pressures would include many things, such as, whooly rhino's and mammoths having fur that was promoted by cold temperatures of arctic environments. Or food being present on land for tetrapodomorphs to take advantage of over fish.

Here is a link on discussion of mutations in the Sonic hedgehog gene and how this mutation can be the difference between a bird with reptilian teeth and a bird without:
For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

And just to also reiterate, the difference between a reptile (dinosaur) and bird is a lot smaller than the difference between reptile (turtle) and reptile (dinosaur) in all instances. So if a reptile can evolve to be another species of reptile, then a reptile can certainly evolve to birds.

Dinosaurs (Reptiles) on the left, birds on the right. Another case of small or micro evolution variations between two major groups of animals.

.

 

[Job 33:6]

... and yet William Provine said "Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."

I'm a Christian scientist. Of course atheists will say things that support their agenda. Maybe you could quote a Christian, such as Francis Collins, Deborah Haarsma, or Kenneth Miller.

 

[ottawak]

I didn't say ToE is being represented as the truth.

Then why do you care that it's not "the truth?"

I'm not going to waste any more time and effort on that discussion. Been there, done that.

You haven't wasted any time and effort on it in this discussion. You have presented nothing.

 

[ottawak]

I am a generous and reasonable man, so I won't demand a generation-by-generation description.
To get the ball rolling, how about describing just some of the steps involved in the evolution of a whale's blowhole, including how natural selection and what environmental pressures produced those steps?

Then all you have to do is demonstrate that your description is factual and not simply a figment of your imagination.

I don't have to do anything of the kind. The information you are asking for is readily available and I am under no obligation to find it for you and defend it to you. You claim to have scientific evidence that the theory of evolution can't describe, yet you have not produced any nor even alluded to what it might be. You have not put forward any alternative explanation for it. It doesn't appear to me that you are holding up your end of the discussion so you can do your own research.

 

[Job 33:6]

I will attempt to clear up your confusion:

I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth began perhaps billions of years ago, after which more complex and diverse life-forms appeared.

I also accept that ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, but I don't accept ToE as the truth because I believe
(a) the truth cannot ever be known (not in this life time, at least) and
(b) ToE cannot explain all the evidence.

So you accept that life evolved. And you accept that the theory of evolution presents the best scientific explanation for this, but you don't actually accept the theory of evolution because you feel as though there are some evidences that it doesn't explain.

Someone else mentioned this before, but of course, theories are always developing over time. The theory of gravity by Isaac Newton was eventually consumed in Einstein's theory of relativity. Hutton's theory of the earth was later advanced by the theory of plate tectonics and things like geodynamo theory. The theory of evolution was later advanced by the fossil record, theories in genetics and concepts added as the modern synthesis.

Which means that, there's nothing wrong with agreeing with the theory of evolution, while simultaneously believing that there is still progress to be made. I imagine everyone would agree with this position.

 

[inquiring mind]

Fine ... now all you have to do is demonstrate HOW nature produced that transition. This is my whole point.

If you don't know HOW nature produced such a transition, how can you claim to how evolution works?

They do it through a TOE process known as speculation.

 

[ottawak]

They do it through a TOE process known as speculation.

You can call it what you like; the theory of evolution is still the only plausible explanation available.

 

[inquiring mind]

You can call it what you like; the theory of evolution is still the only plausible explanation available.

You either believe in the all-powerful God of creation and that the Bible is His inspired word to us, Genesis to Revelation, and that science is a useful tool and gift of the creator by which man can do many things within the capability of his understanding… or you believe that man and his capabilities have totally evolved on their own and self-elevated to the point that he can now correct God’s word through his speculations and even question God’s role in anything. That’s about as simple as it gets.

 

[ottawak]

You either believe in the all-powerful God of creation and that the Bible is His inspired word to us, Genesis to Revelation, and that science is a useful tool and gift of the creator by which man can do many things within the capability of his understanding… or you believe that man and his capabilities have totally evolved on their own and self-elevated to the point that he can now correct God’s word through his speculations and even question God’s role in anything. That’s about as simple as it gets.

An egregious false dichotomy, one that is especially offensive because it is directed at Christians and other theists as well as atheists.

 

[inquiring mind]

An egregious false dichotomy, one that is especially offensive because it is directed at Christians and other theists as well as atheists.

Well, Christians, other theists and atheists too just need to keep in mind that God didn't complicate the truth, man did.

 

[ruthiesea]

So you accept that life evolved. And you accept that the theory of evolution presents the best scientific explanation for this, but you don't actually accept the theory of evolution because you feel as though there are some evidences that it doesn't explain.

Someone else mentioned this before, but of course, theories are always developing over time. The theory of gravity by Isaac Newton was eventually consumed in Einstein's theory of relativity. Hutton's theory of the earth was later advanced by the theory of plate tectonics and things like geodynamo theory. The theory of evolution was later advanced by the fossil record, theories in genetics and concepts added as the modern synthesis.

Which means that, there's nothing wrong with agreeing with the theory of evolution, while simultaneously believing that there is still progress to be made. I imagine everyone would agree with this position.

Scientists certainly would.

 

[ottawak]

Well, Christians, other theists and atheists too just need to keep in mind that God didn't complicate the truth, man did.

And what is this "truth" you speak of? Your particular interpretation of scripture?

 

[inquiring mind]

And what is this "truth" you speak of? Your particular interpretation of scripture?

I will give you that, given man’s ability to complicate things, however, I don’t believe God would allow the wholeness of His message to be denigrated to the point that the simple truth (specifically here, His message of Creation in Genesis) would not stand.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, Christians, other theists and atheists too just need to keep in mind that God didn't complicate the truth, man did.

Keep in mind that if your god exists and if it created the world, the only direct first hand account it left is reality is self. Scripture is at best a second or third hand account of it.

So, yeah, man complicated the truth.

 

[ottawak]

I will give you that, given man’s ability to complicate things, however, I don’t believe God would allow the wholeness of His message to be denigrated to the point that the simple truth (specifically here, His message of Creation in Genesis) would not stand.

Which is a left-handed way of saying that those who don't believe in the literal inerrancy of scripture are not really Christians, or perhaps not even theists.

 

[inquiring mind]

Keep in mind that if your god exists and if it created the world, the only direct first hand account it left is reality is self. Scripture is at best a second or third hand account of it.

So, yeah, man complicated the truth.

Which is a left-handed way of saying that those who don't believe in the literal inerrancy of scripture are not really Christians, or perhaps not even theists.

And so we are back to my original statement:
You either believe in the all-powerful God of creation and that the Bible is His inspired word to us, Genesis to Revelation, and that science is a useful tool and gift of the creator by which man can do many things within the capability of his understanding… or you believe that man and his capabilities have totally evolved on their own and self-elevated to the point that he can now correct God’s word through his speculations and even question God’s role in anything. That’s about as simple as it gets.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And so we are back to my original statement:
You either believe in the all-powerful God of creation and that the Bible is His inspired word to us, Genesis to Revelation, and that science is a useful tool and gift of the creator by which man can do many things within the capability of his understanding… or you believe that man and his capabilities have totally evolved on their own and self-elevated to the point that he can now correct God’s word through his speculations and even question God’s role in anything. That’s about as simple as it gets.

Or your interpretation of scripture directly contradicts what God's only direct communication to us, reality, tells us.