God used Evolution to create man

[AV1611VET]

AV, modern evolutionary theory is based on evidence derived from chemistry, physics, geology, and other disciplines. Because of the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, it is recognized and endorsed as a key principle of science, on par with the atomic theory of matter, and as a central theme of science education by all major scientific societies.

Is that why punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are at odds with each other?

 

[pgardner2358]

Instead of copy/pasting that wall of text. Why don't you tell us what you think about it? You can sprinkle in a few quotes and links here and there; but posts like this are bad manners... especially since you didn't even take the time to correct the formatting.

The entire copy/paste was relevent. Would you have considered its merits moreso if I had instead inefficiently typed it? No. Sorry I did not edit the inconsequential formatting errors incurred by christian forums server. Will you please consider rationally the merits od the post, rather than quibble over formatting. that is pure pharasitical religiousity.

 

[Shemjaza]

Is that why punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are at odds with each other?

They aren't really. Both described systems happen in different circumstances.

PE was a theory introduced to describe outlying events because new evidence was discovered.

If evolution was all some lie, why would they have bothered? They could have just said: "Yes, just as sainted Darwin proclaimed! There is no god and evolution teaches us to destroy!" But that's not what happens, evolutionists are constantly trying to refine and improve the theory.

 

[madaz]

Is that why punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are at odds with each other?

They are not at odds with each other.

 

[Euler]

They aren't really. Both described systems happen in different circumstances.

PE was a theory introduced to describe outlying events because new evidence was discovered.

If evolution was all some lie, why would they have bothered? They could have just said: "Yes, just as sainted Darwin proclaimed! There is no god and evolution teaches us to destroy!" But that's not what happens, evolutionists are constantly trying to refine and improve the theory.

This is such an excellent point!

The religious view of the world is fixed, unchanging, uncompromising. It means that those who hold it, find themselves having to defend the ridiculous when their beliefs collide with reality - just ask Gallileo!

Scientific theories, by contrast, leave themselves completely open to review, even to complete rejection - because that's what science does! It offers the best available explanation, but then does its best to disprove that explanation. The honesty of such an approach is something that should be supported.

 

[EternalDragon]

You are describing your own position here.

Not really. The authors of the bible and the main author, Jesus, were there to see it. In fact he created everything. What better eyewitness could there be?

 

[Euler]

Not really. The authors of the bible and the main author, Jesus, were there to see it. In fact he created everything. What better eyewitness could there be?

Except they weren't. The people who wrote the books of the Bible didn't even get started in their writing until at least a generation AFTER Jesus is supposed to have died. They wrote on the basis of ORAL recollections of events which may or may not have occurred.

And there is enough evidence to doubt whether or not Jesus even existed.

 

[madaz]

Not really.

Yes really.

The authors of the bible and the main author, Jesus, were there to see it.

That is false and besides the point, your point was an eye witness must be alive today to verify something, otherwise its an assumption.

The authors of the bible are not around today, so according to your criteria, followers of the bible are just making assumptions.

In fact he created everything. What better eyewitness could there be?

Yea bro, and Maui fished up New Zealand's North Island, who is better than Maui to verify that?

You are just espousing your religious beliefs here ED, not facts, the hebrew creation story from the bronz age is not supported by any more evidence than the myriad of other creation stories written before and after.

 

[madaz]

Except they weren't. The people who wrote the books of the Bible didn't even get started in their writing until at least a generation AFTER Jesus is supposed to have died. They wrote on the basis of ORAL recollections of events which may or may not have occurred.

And there is enough evidence to doubt whether or not Jesus even existed.

I'm just astounded by the number of Christians here who need to be educated about their own holy book.

I'm even more astounded, that it is usually the atheist, who inevitably ends up teaching them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution is not observable

False. Evolution is very observable. Google "observed speciation", for just one way to observe it in practice.

, repeatable,

It is not repeatable in the sense a single species will not evolve twice independently, correct. That's due to the pseudo-random nature of the process.

However, it IS repeatable in the sense that we can take organism with a short life-span, put them in controlled conditions and observe them evolve.

or refutable

Evolution is extremely falsifiable. Which is one of the many reasons why it is such a solid theory. Because it is falsifiable in uncountable ways. Meaning that if it is wrong it should be fairly easy to demonstrate it being wrong.

2 simple examples:
- Finding a mammal fossil in the same rock formation as trilobites.
- Finding a non-primate with which we share more ERV's then primates.

so it doesn't qualify as a scientific fact or theory.

Clearly, as I've explained, it rather does.

Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers

Nope, as explained above.

many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator.

So.... the pope and catholic bishops, priests, pastors, nons, etc... they all "deny the existence or at least the power of the creator"?

You cannot see evolution taking place.

False: observed speciation.

You cannot say that "we are here, so it happened".

It's a good thing then that nobody says that.

The Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable either. Both are belief systems and rely on faith.

Nope. Evolution is based on the evidence of reality. Your beliefs are based on a bronze-age story which isn't even original to the culture that brought the abrahamic religion into existence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What you guys do is take a normal fact of nature (variety within species)

Dude, come on!!!
We know for a fact that genetic mutation + selection moves beyond "within species".

We have observed speciation happening in the lab, in breeding programs and in "the wild" (ie: in nature).

It is a FACT that species can split in several other distinct species.

You KNOW this, because it has been pointed out to you multiple times by me alone. You can easily look it up as well.

and then turn it into a frog becoming a human prince and imagining you can find evidence for it.

Lying about what evolution theory says is not a valid argument against the theory either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't know why you guys keep using crime scenes and courts as an analogy.

The fact that you don't know why, actually explains quite a lot about your complete ill-understanding of biological science.

It's a good analogy, because if we apply YOUR type of reasoning to crime scene investigation, then it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to EVER convict ANYONE of ANYTHING if there are no eyewitnesses.

And what makes the irony meter explode about that, is that eyewitnesses ("personal testimony") is not at all reliable when it isn't corroborated with actual evidence that you are trying to toss out the window.

Police detectives often get things wrong, some make things up and verdicts are often reached by the emotions of the jury and often not by the evidence presented, per say.

Wait, so your objection to crime scene investigation is that.... humans can make mistakes and lie?????

But when you only have "human testimony" to defend your bronze-age beliefs - then suddenly it is okay???

The hypocracy is mindblowing.

A lot of cases are solved by eyewitness testimony more so than by anything else.

Right, because eyewitnesses do not make mistakes, aren't guided by emotion and are unable to lie.

You could probably confirm all that from anyone that has taken a criminal justice course (as I have).

It's a very, very poor comparison.

Right, so let's look at a hypothetical scenario and apply your reasoning to it and see what happens.

A murder took place. A body is found with a knife sticking in the back. The knife has fingerprints of person A. On the body, DNA is found from person A. In the home of person A, a shirt is found with bloodstains of the victim. A speeding ticket is uncovered from person A, dating to half an hour after the murder close to where the murder took place. Person A has no alibi. The victim owed person A some money - so there is a possible motive.

However, a person claiming to be an eyewitness says that he saw person B kill the victim. Nothing else but this "testimony" points to B. Without the testimony, B's name wouldn't even have come up.

So YOU would discard all the evidence and convict B?

If you do, then you are unfit for jury duty.
If you don't, then you just contradicted your own nonsense.

Good day.

 

[freezerman2000]

The fact that you don't know why, actually explains quite a lot about your complete ill-understanding of biological science.

It's a good analogy, because if we apply YOUR type of reasoning to crime scene investigation, then it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to EVER convict ANYONE of ANYTHING if there are no eyewitnesses.

And what makes the irony meter explode about that, is that eyewitnesses ("personal testimony") is not at all reliable when it isn't corroborated with actual evidence that you are trying to toss out the window.



Wait, so your objection to crime scene investigation is that.... humans can make mistakes and lie?????

But when you only have "human testimony" to defend your bronze-age beliefs - then suddenly it is okay???

The hypocracy is mindblowing.



Right, because eyewitnesses do not make mistakes, aren't guided by emotion and are unable to lie.






Right, so let's look at a hypothetical scenario and apply your reasoning to it and see what happens.

A murder took place. A body is found with a knife sticking in the back. The knife has fingerprints of person A. On the body, DNA is found from person A. In the home of person A, a shirt is found with bloodstains of the victim. A speeding ticket is uncovered from person A, dating to half an hour after the murder close to where the murder took place. Person A has no alibi. The victim owed person A some money - so there is a possible motive.

However, a person claiming to be an eyewitness says that he saw person B kill the victim. Nothing else but this "testimony" points to B. Without the testimony, B's name wouldn't even have come up.

So YOU would discard all the evidence and convict B?

If you do, then you are unfit for jury duty.
If you don't, then you just contradicted your own nonsense.

Good day.

BRAVO!!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Again, comparing evolution evidence with crime scene evidence is just completely off. They are two entirely different things.

And I suppose police should not question anyone at the scene of a crime or accident? Really? I just recently had a motorcycle accident and guess what? The police officer asked me what happened and put it in his report!

So, what do you think the police officer would do if the evidence of the scene doesn't match with your "testimony"?

What gets priority in case of contradiction? Your testimony or the evidence at the scene?

I think you are confusing individual eyewitness testimony on the stand to multiple eyewitness questioning

Suppose 100 people testify that you came from the left with your motorcylce, but the actual tire tracks (that can be demonstrated to be from YOUR bike) on the road show that you came from the right instead...

What will the officer do? Believe the 100 "testimonies" or go with the actual evidence of the scene?

Yes, I know how important evidence is, that is why I comment about suspect scientific findings that are touted as fact.

What specifically do you think is touted as fact that you don't agree with?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not really. The authors of the bible and the main author, Jesus, were there to see it. In fact he created everything. What better eyewitness could there be?

Circular argument is circular.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is that why punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are at odds with each other?

No more so than wind erosion and water erosion are at odds with one another.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not really. The authors of the bible and the main author, Jesus, were there to see it.

The authors of the Gospels were not there to see it, nor was the author of Genesis.

In fact he created everything. What better eyewitness could there be?

Moses created everything?

 

[AV1611VET]

The authors of the Gospels were not there to see it,

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luke 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Except they weren't. The people who wrote the books of the Bible didn't even get started in their writing until at least a generation AFTER Jesus is supposed to have died. They wrote on the basis of ORAL recollections of events which may or may not have occurred.

And there is enough evidence to doubt whether or not Jesus even existed.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Jesus didn't exist, but years of the oral telephone game and the human tendency for exaggeration would have inevitably influenced the bible

 

[Loudmouth]

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luke 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

That was written by Luke, not God. Luke was not an eyewitness to anything.