How can you prove evolution?

[Jet Black]

That is seriously funny.

it is also a perfectly natural extension of the "we're not apes" argument

 

[awstar]

Humans are apes.

Creationists don't like this idea nd tend to get really defensive about it...

Wonder why? We seem to be comfortable with the idea that humans can be monsters, (indeed, some versions of Christianity insist on it) but really don't like the idea that we're part of the world, and not seperate from it.

Actually, it's the apes who should get defensive about it. Since they are the ones who glorify God in their natural state and it's man in his natural state who calls God a liar.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Humans are apes.

Creationists don't like this idea nd tend to get really defensive about it...

Wonder why? We seem to be comfortable with the idea that humans can be monsters, (indeed, some versions of Christianity insist on it) but really don't like the idea that we're part of the world, and not seperate from it.

I think you mean "...and not above it."

I've yet to see a "We are not apes" argument that didn't appeal to ego at some point.

 

[Magnus Vile]

I think you mean "...and not above it."

I've yet to see a "We are not apes" argument that didn't appeal to ego at some point.

I think you're probably right. I plead 3.30 in the morning, and not enough sleep the night before.

 

[yossarian]

bluejeans = kendal?
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25213&page=10

 

[Jet Black]

I get a 404

 

[funyun]

I take the creationist view of evolution judging by the evidence not assumption.

Alrighty then. Let's see it.

(This should be good.)

 

[NatJo]

?

 

[NatJo]

For instance, do mutations truly prove that evolution is true?

 

[Jet Black]

For instance, do mutations truly prove that evolution is true?

no. you need natural selection too. the two together prove that evolution is true.

 

[NatJo]

Evidence relating to biochemical genetics consists of theoretical models of little relevance to the real world.

 

[Ondoher]

For instance, do mutations truly prove that evolution is true?

Mutations provide the mechanism for increased variation within a population. Natural selection provides the mechanism for adaptation to the environment via the promotion of reproductively successful traits and the culling of traits detrimental to reproductive success.

 

[Ondoher]

Evidence relating to biochemical genetics consists of theoretical models of little relevance to the real world.

Except where they can be used to identify causes and cures for disease, of course.

 

[NatJo]

Yes, to some degree.

 

[Vance]

But see, you say that you accept Creationism based on the evidence. So this means you must be familiar with the evidence, and not just from Creationist sources. If it proves that you are not familiar with the evidence, then you can not have chosen Creationism based on the evidence, but must, instead have chosen it for some other reason, such as that your church believes it, you have heard convincing, but not substantive, Creationist arguments, etc.

 

[funyun]

?

For instance, do mutations truly prove that evolution is true?

?

For instance, do you have any evidence and can you answer my question by presenting it? Or are you just gonna continue to dodge by typing a question mark?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, to some degree.

Sounds extememly relevent to me.

 

[NatJo]

What's not relevant about that?

 

[NatJo]

Anyways, not to get into abiogenesis too much but how many mutations (positive ones) would have been needed to go from a non-living Atom to the first man?

 

[David Gould]

Evidence relating to biochemical genetics consists of theoretical models of little relevance to the real world.

Apart from the fact that we can use it to accurately predict what will happen in the real world ... and use it to deal with genetic problems ... and use it to help minimise genetic risks ... and soon we will be able to it to cure people of genetic diseases.

So, nah, it has just 'theoretical' and has 'little relevance'.


Man wilful ignorance annoys me.