I may give evolution a shot.

[Cantuar]

I have heard evolutionists lie, never a creationist. Truethfully!

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_dialog.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

Now, which evolutionists have you heard lie, and what about?

 

[Just]

Since when was Kent Hovind an evolutionist?

 

[dctalkexp]

Okay.

I am assuming that you disagree with the following:

1.) that all life has a common ancestor;
2.) that all life developed by small changes;
3.) that there has been millions of years for the changes to take place in; and
4.) that the fossil record is evidence, concrete or otherwise, for the theory.

Am I correct?

Correct.

Evidence is always subject to interpretation, and I find that creation is a better explanation than evolution. I find evolution lacking in many fundamental ways to explain how all life, from rain forests to man, could have developed from mistakes in one, single cell that some how assembled itself (unless you take a theistic evolutionary stance) over billions of years ago. What faith you must have to believe that life is created by death, suffering and mistakes in DNA.

God bless.

 

[Charles Darwin]

Life created by death, suffering and mistakes in DNA? taking a little artistic liscence are we?

Besides, doesnt that sound just a little bit familiar? Ya know, maybe someone who DIED to give everyone else life. Now thats life from death. But evolution, thats life through change.

 

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa,

You are saying either evolution is right, or God is a liar.

No. Listen carefully. The idea that God created a universe that only looks old makes God into a liar. It is this part of creationism that has God be a liar. But I agree with you, this idea of creationism's is very stupid.

You did not even figure that evolution could be wrong. God created every thing for us to explore. If scientists make false theorys, then they did.

How do scientists tell that their theories are false? By comparing them to the universe! What is the universe? God's Creation. If the theory is wrong, then God tells us so. This is what happened to creationism. Scientists made a theory based on 1) Greek philosophy, 2) a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-8, and 3) initial observations of the universe. That's creationism in the period 1750-1831 when it was the accepted scientific theory. But God thru the universe told the scientists this theory was wrong. So they abandoned the theory. Before Darwin published Origin. And the scientists involved were all theists and many of them were ministers. So there goes the "atheist conspiracy" idea.

Now, what we have is that the data shows the universe to be very old. That falsifies YEC. What YECers have done is what is called in science "making an ad hoc hypothesis". In this hypothesis God made things look old but God really created the universe only 6,000 years ago. Now, from the pov of science, this could really have happened. An omnipotent deity could fool us this way. But the problem with the ad hoc hypothesis is what it does to God. The unavoidable conclusion from this ad hoc hypothesis is that God is a liar.

So yup, you must be mistaken, cause I dont think God would lie. But then, what would lead you to think he is lieing? Your false theorys.

Not the theories, but the data! There are facts out there that just can't be there if the earth is really young.

Lonnie, do you have any idea how hypotheses/theories are tested?

1. Assume the theory is correct. That is, you assume that the statements are correct. This was done (and I keep doing it when I test creationism) for creastionism.
2. Deduce what you should see in the universe from this hypothesis. The facts you should see.
3. Test the deductions by going to look at the facts and see if they are what you should see. Since true statements can't have false facts, if the facts don't match the statements of the hypothesis/theory, then you know the hypothesis/theory is wrong.

This was done for creationism. The facts showed creationism to be wrong. Evolution was devised as another hypothesis to explain the facts. We have been testing it ever since to see if we can show it to be false. We have failed.

Lucaspa, Do you know what generations mean? It could mean ones off spring. But it also means the forming of something, or the way it was created, or came to be. There fore it does not support evolution, any more than creation.

A literal reading of the Bible does not support evolution. So I wasn't trying to get support for evolution by pointing out the contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:4. The point of the contradiction is that the BIBLE contradicts itself here. The only way to get out of that is to realize that neither creation story is supposed to be read literally.

And uh, your reasons 1 and 2. The first one contradicts its self which means that it was proorly wrighten.

"The climates and geographies of the Cape St. Verde Islands and the Galapagos Islands are nearly identical."

And then it goes and says that they are Identical. How odd, went from being nearly identical, to being identical. So it seems that Darwin had alot of errors.

The error is mine, not Darwin's.Those were my words, not Darwin's. I was summarizing his argument, not quoting it. And it is nitpicking on your part, not contradiction. "nearly identical" is "identical enough" that the differences are not important.

And secondly, evolution was not though up by Darwin, it was though up by people before him.(please tell me the people that came up with evolution, as I dont know there names)

The idea that species can change was indeed thought up by other people. Lamarck is the one usually thought of, but Robert Chambers published Vestiges of Creation that argued this. All were rejected by the scientific community of the time. Darwin, however, is the one that collected the evidence and discovered the mechanism to get the designs in organisms. Therefore he is rightly given credit for coming up with the first valid theory of evolutoin.

"If a perfect God is creating plants and animals to fit where they live, then why separate plants and animals for these two identical groups of islands?"

Duh, that is simple, he never said he created a perfect earth, he said it was good. And God is perfect, there is no if.

Now here is a contradiction. You say God is perfect. But say He created an imperfect earth. Isn't there one perfect design for a situation? Then why create more than one design? Why would a perfect God create an imperfect earth and put imperfect designs in it? You are digging your theological hole even deeper.

Particularly answer this question in regard to mice and the crickets in New Zealand. Why create mice for that ecological niched everywhere but New Zealand? Why create a woodpecker hundreds of miles from trees? These last two don't even qualify as "good". At best they are incomprehensible. At worst they are stupid things to do. See, these are just two of the theological problems evolution got God out of that creationists made for God with their wrong theory.

"You now have a deceptive god who makes a young earth but has it look old."

Or people who have came to a theory that the world is old. Cause God is prefect. While people, are not so perfect, to say the least.

If God is perfect, then the facts He left in Creation also has to be perfect. And true. Those facts show that the earth cannot possibly be young. unless God lied. Since you say God doesn't lie, then the world must be old.

And the thing about the day, please, repost which versus contradict eachother.

I did. All of Genesis 1 says it took 6 yom (days). Genesis 2:4 says "in the day (beyom) God created the heavens and the earth."

BTW, since I've done this at least 3 times already in this thread, I am starting to lose patience now.

 

[lucaspa]

Correct.

Evidence is always subject to interpretation, and I find that creation is a better explanation than evolution. I find evolution lacking in many fundamental ways to explain how all life, from rain forests to man, could have developed from mistakes in one, single cell that some how assembled itself (unless you take a theistic evolutionary stance) over billions of years ago. What faith you must have to believe that life is created by death, suffering and mistakes in DNA.

God bless.

How to get a cell from non-living chemicals (and yes, it does assemble itself)
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

Be sure to read the second site. And you can do this in your kitchen. Want the recipe?

I suggest you read Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma. Do that and then come back and tell us what "fundamental ways" you think are missing.

Have you even read Origin of the Species?

Since you explained evolution, please explain natural selection to us.

dctalkexp, I have news for you, mistakes are an essential part of making all designs.

But let's consider what happens with those errors in copying DNA. Since DNA codes for the appearance, inner workings, and behavior of the organism, when errors are made in copying DNA in the sex cells, the new DNA changes that organism. Right? It is the changes that are important.

Now, you cannot imagine that some changes are not better ways of doing things than the original? That the changes are actually beneficial to the organism? Especially if the environment is changing and the old ways don't work anymore? Well, the individual lucky enough to have those changes will do better in the environment and will pass down that changed DNA to his/her own offspring, won't it? And they will do better than the other individuals in their generation not lucky enough to have that changed DNA.

This is how you get design from "mistakes". The errors in copying may be "mistakes" in that they did not make an exact copy of the DNA, but they are not mistakes to the organism because that changed DNA gives the organism a better way of earning a living..

 

[lucaspa]

You all say creation is false, yet you dont post why.

Lonnie, let's get this straight. Please pay attention. We are all saying creationism is false. Creationism is a scientific theory about how God created.

Creation is a statement that God created. None of us, not even the atheists here, are saying that God didn't create.

You say God evolved things right? Well we said that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything in em. (dont you)

Yes, that is what theistic evolutionists say. We just say that God created by evolution.

And one more thing, Lucaspa. Would you be willing to help in a theard that I would start, that would help prove to evolutionists that do not believe in God, that evolution would be impossible without God?

As we all know well, (atleast Lucaspa should, as long with some others) that Evolution, and creation would be impossible, without God.

I'll look at the thread, but I don't know any way to "prove" this. Christians believe this.

But I will test your various "proofs" and see if they can withstand testing to show them to be false.

And I think it realy matters little wether or not you believe God evolved things, or just created things.

Aslong as you believe that you are saved.

AH, now you are starting to get it. How God created is not a salvation issue. I would say that believing you are saved has little to do with believing in God. After all, whether or not you are saved is ultimately up to God. So it doesn't matter one way or the other if you believe you are saved.

 

[lucaspa]

"Conclusion: the earth cannot be merely a few thousand years old if there are millions of varve couplets present. Young earth creationism is false"

Pff, do you know what many creationists believe in? If you do, then you know that proves nothing, or it would actualy suppor creationism. Cause creationism(or alteast what me and many other people believe) think that when God created the earth, and everything in it.

Now you are twisting the definition of creationism. Lonnie, you can't do that. In order for us to communicate with each other, we have to use common definitions and not change them at whim.

Creationism is not just that God created the earth and everything in it. Theistic evolutionists believe that but every professional creationists rejects theistic evolutionists as creationists. In fact, Phillip Johnson, who is one of the most outspoken advocates of using "creationism" like you are using it, saves his harshest words for theistic evolutionists.

So ... creationism is at least the idea that God directly manufactured parts of species or whole species and placed those parts or species on the planet in their present form. IDers do think the earth is old, and think the fossil record is accurate. YECs of course think the earth is young and that the fossil record is the result of a world-wide Flood. OECers are somewhere between the two.

Then we think he created, everything in it. Just like the bible says. We think God created the layers. why not? Pff...

See? Creationism is not just that God created. You threw in "Just like the bible says". Now you also throw in that God created the layers. You are now making God a liar. We can see the layers form every year in modern lakes. That's a fact: one varve is formed every year. Now, if God made every varve all at the same time, then He lied to us. He made the earth just look old. Why are you trying to make God a liar?

 

[lucaspa]

"You can't believe God's Creation? What, you don't really believe God created?"
I believe in Gods creation, its the theorys about them you cant trust.
I believe God created. Just how he did it does not matter, all we can do is come up with theorys.Not in every theory that people make. Dont get that confused with facts.

It is the facts that we base theories on. And it is the facts that showed creationism to be false.

That's why you don't really believe God created. You don't trust His Creation.

I think the bible is trust worthy, but not word for word, cause it was transalated.

You can read it in the original languages, you know. But you do realize, don't you, that you are trusting a man-made theory about how it ought to be read? Yes, a theory that says Genesis 1-8 is literal history. So, if you don't trust theories about God's Creation, why do you trust this theory about the Bible?

You see, I believe in God, and Jesus. Scientific law are eventualy proved wrong (Look at past science over the last 2000+ years). But not all science is wrong. But much is proved wrong later.

Nice contradiction. "Scientific laws are eventually proved wrong ...but not all science is wrong." WOW, contradicted yourself in the same sentence! That may be a new world's record!

Has the theory that the earth is round been proved wrong? Has the theory that DNA is the hereditary material been proved wrong? Do you really think they will be?

Lonnie, the only difference between these two theories and evolution is that you don't want evolution to be right. But what we want has nothing to do with how the universe really is.

 

[lucaspa]

Real Science teaches that all Life comes from Life

Sorry, that's not true. What you are referring to is Spontaneous Generation. This is a theory that contemporary multicelled organisms come from non-living matter. That is, flies from dead meat. This theory was indeed falsified.

However, there is a different theory called Abiogenesis which says primitive cells can be made thru chemical reactions.

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
"Tonight we are going to explore one of the more fascinating aspects of the subject of where do we come from, from the point of view of how life on this planet originated--how life came into being from non-life; how inanimate organic molecules self-organized into animate cells. One thing that will make tonight so exciting is a video tape that you will see, ... in which you will see the phenomenon of living cells forming before your eyes. "

"Also, he was the first to show that these new thermal proteins, when placed in water, would self-organize into a living cell. More recently, he has demonstrated that this first protocell is also a protonerve cell.
As a result of this historic work, people like Linus Pauling and Albert Szent Gyorgyi, both Nobel Laureates, gave credit to Sid for pioneering the field of molecular evolution. As a result of his monumental discovery of thermal proteins and their self-organization into protocells and that these protocells exhibit virtually all of the properties associated with life, Sid was invited to lecture widely throughout the world. Even Pope John Paul II and his advisors, on at least three separate occasions, invited Sid to the Vatican to explain his work on the synthesis of cellular life in a test tube."

Jaci, you are doing god-of-the-gaps theology. Making a "gap" in what you view as science and sticking God into it. This is very, very bad religion. It's not Christian.

"There are profound biblical objections to such a "God-of-the-gaps," as this understanding of God's relation to the universe has come to be called. By "gap" it is meant that no member or members of the universe can be found to account for regularly occurring phenomana in nature. God is inserted in the gaps which could be occupied by members of the universe. This is theologically improper because God, as creator of the universe, is not a member of the universe. God can never properly be used in scientific accounts, which are formulated in terms of the relations between members of the universe, because that would reduce God to the status of a creature. According to a Christian conception of God as creator of a universe that is rational through and through, there are no missing relations between the members of nature. If, in our study of nature, we run into what seems to be an instance of a connection missing between members of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation implies that we should keep looking for one. ...But, according to the doctrine of creation, we are never to postulate God as the *immediate* cause of any *regular* [emphases in original] occurrence in nature. In time, a "God of the gaps" was seen to be bad science as well as bad theology. Science now is programamatically committed to a view of nature in which there are no gaps between members of the universe."
Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, pp. 45-46.

Look, if you want to use non-Christian ideas, that's your business. But please don't expect Christians to commit spiritual suicide with you!

 

[lucaspa]

[/i]
Geocentrism was never taught by the Bible. It talks about the appearance of the sun rising, etc., however, many scientists do the same thing today. Unless they are also teaching geocentrism, you have no case to say that the Bible teaches it.

The Bible says in plain Hebrew that the earth does not move. Job 26:7, I Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Psalm 104:5

The only way for this to be true is for the sun to go around the earth. So yes, the Bible does teach geocentrism. This was the prevailing scientific theory when the Bible was written, and the authors of the Bible set the theological messages in the science that they knew.

Creationism is different, the Bible clearly teaches that God created the universe by His powerful Word.

Creationism is far more than this. Theistic evolutionists believe this much.

It is written in historical narrative, and to further prove its literalism Jesus Christ talked about the beginning in Genesis as literal history.

Jesus talked about the theology in Genesis. He also used the Flood story as a story everyone knew to illustrate his own theological point. Genesis 1-8 does not have to be literal for either. And Jesus did not teach it as literal.

Creationism hasn't been done away with, only by ignorant dreamers, maybe,

""There is another way to be a Creationist. One might offer Creationism as a scientific theory: Life did not evolve over millions of years; rather all forms were created at one time by a particular Creator. Although pure versions of Creationism were no longer in vogue among scientists by the end of the eighteenth century, they had flourished earlier (in the writings of Thomas Bumet, William Whiston, and others). Moreover, variants of Creationism were supported by a number of eminent nineteenth-century scientists-William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, and Louis Agassiz, for example. These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way. However, that fact does not affect the scientific status of those theories. Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobservable particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about the catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation. In 1831, in his presidential address to the Geological Society, Adam Sedgwick publicly announced that his own variant of Creationism had been refuted:
Having, been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.
We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of a former world entombed in these ancient deposits. In classing together distant unknown formations under one name; in simultaneous origin, and in determining their date, not by the organic remains we have discovered, but by those we expected, hypothetically hereafter to discover, in them; we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths. (Sedgwick, 1831, 313-314; all but the last sentence quoted in Gillispie 1951, 142-143)" Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp125-126

BTW, Sedgwick was Reverend Adam Sedgwick. So this is not an atheist conspiracy.

 

[lucaspa]

But many bull headed biologists et al. refuse to accept the mere possibility of Biblical truth, and thus their science is eroded by philosophical naturalism.

This is what Johnson states. I'll put Gould's reply here:
"But this is the oldest canard and non sequitor in the debater's book. To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. ... "Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G.G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic, Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs -- and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap."
SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992.

I think you have this twisted. It is evolutionists who refuse falsifiable evidence, because they refuse a Creator. Nothing will convince them.

God bless.

That's a nice myth, but it doesn't match with the facts. It doesn't even match with what science is!

What is "falsifiable evidence"?

Anyway, from Origin of the Species
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

Look at that, "Creator" right out there!

"We would be very foolish to maintain that our advancing understanding of the cosmos and the bilogical world in any way argues against the existence of God. I, like many other scientists, therefore see no conflict between my religious beliefs and the work of science. " KR Miller, "Scientific creationism versus evolution: the mislabeled debate" in Science and Creationism edited by Ashley Montagu, 1984, p.58-59

http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives/dobzhan.shtml One of the great evolutionists of this century.

EJ Larson and L Witham, Scientists are still keeping the faith, Nature, 286: 435-436, 1997 (April 3)
This article recreates a survey done 80 years ago of scientists. 1000 scientists at random were chosen from American Men and Women of Science, and about 600 responded. They were half biologists and a quarter each in math and physics/astronomy. The key question was: "1. I believe in a God in intellectual and effective communication with humankind, i.e. a God to whom one may pray in expectation of receiving an answer. By answer I mean more that the subjective, psychological effect of prayer. 2. I do not believe in a God as defined above. 3. I have no definite belief regarding this question."
39.3% answered with 1., 45.3% with 2., and 14.5% with 3. Within the limits of experimental error, this is the same proportion of responses that was given 80 years ago.
In 1969 the Carnegie Commission asked 60,000 professors in the U.S. such questions as "how religious do you consider yourself?" The commission found that 34% of physical scientists were "religiously conservative" and 43% of all physical and life scientists attended church 2 or 3 times a month --on a par with the general population.

 

[lucaspa]

I am sorry, but this post is totally absurd. There is simply no other way to put it. Learn about abiogenesis before you post non-sense about it. "An experiment you can do at home that does just that." LOL! Please give me directions!

God bless.

I think you have some learning to do. Start here:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

As to the recipe, here it is. Try it yourself.

Call Sigma Chemical Co. at 800-325-3010 and order 1 bottle of catalog number M 7020 MEM amino acids solution. it will cost you $11.95 plus shipping for a 100 ml. bottle. Empty the bottle into a fying pan, turn the heat on low and heat until all the water is evaporated. Then heat for 15 more minutes. Add water. You will have protocells in the solution. They are alive. If this is too "artificial" for you, then put the solution out on a hot rock for the afternoon and let it evaporate. Then add water (rain).

 

[lucaspa]

Darwin wrote in his autobiography that he was not much of a Christian when His theory was written and published.

Darwin never wrote an autobiography.

Desmond and Moore's biography Darwin has a letter Darwin wrote to a petitioner late in his life. The correspondent had been listening to a Rev. Dr. Pusey say that evolution and Christianity were incompatible. Darwin responded that when he wrote Origin, his own "belief in a personal God was as firm as that of Dr. Pusey himself." It's in the chapter entitled "Never an Atheist" in the biography.

Thruout his life Darwin remained a member of the Anglican Church and his pastor of 30 years, Brodie Innes, considerd Darwin a good Christian.

 

[lucaspa]

christians can believe in millions of years but when a christian believes that way.. they are basicly saying God, I dont believe you created the world how you said so in the bible.

I know you said you created the world in 6 days but God i'm calling you a liar!
sorry God!!

Thank you, Jaci, for so clearly showing how Biblical literalism has become a false idol!

Jaci, we are talking here about a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. And in those chapters, the Bible says God created the world two different ways. That should have given you the tip-off that a literal interpretation is incorrect. But it didn't because literalists have set their interpretation itself up to be worshipped and nothing can get them away from the false idol. Not even God.

Jaci, you say God created in 6 days. Then why in Genesis 2:4 does it say "in the day (beyom) that God created the heavens and the earth."? That's not 6 days, but one day.

Jaci, if God created, what did He create. The world, right? Well, what does science study? The world. So science is studying GOD! But literalists ignore this message from God becaues it contradicts the false idol.

I hope you can find your way back to God. But from this post I have my sincere doubts.

 

[Lonnie]

Lucaspa,

You should know, in my high school, and grammer shcool science books it says Dr. Fox theorys have been wrong, and falsified, the site you provided must be false. Look it up if you dont believe me.

And wow, there are a ton more posts scince yesterday...

PS Post a link for Proto-cell definition, from a neutral source that mentions neither evolution, or creation. As that way, it will be believable, and not just some ones Lies. Or falsified theorys.

Also what does Proto-cell stand for? Please provide a link. As I have done High school biology, and have never heard of a Proto-Cell, but I have heard of some other ones that have a simular name.

PS How do you know if you created life with such a stupid way of trying to create life? As of course every body knows that there are is life that float in the air. And as I would imagine could live off very easily amino acids, as many things need amino acids.

So that test, means nothing. Why? Cause it has been falsified, and has been provided wrong in basic 6th grade science books.

If you dont believe that Dr. Fox's theorys have been falsified, Then do 6th Grade science! And/or High school science!

Now Lucaspa, why would you post a falsified theory, that is even taugh in 6th grade that it has been falsified?



""But this is the oldest canard and non sequitor in the debater's book. To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. ... "Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G.G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic, Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs -- and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap."
SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992."

And they say that it is compatible with the bible, but yet the bible clearly states(unless you are rather missunderstaning the bible) that the World and every thing in it was created in 7 Days.

One more thing. So, either everyone fore the last 6,000+ years(more than 10,000,000,000+ people) , or his class is wrong with a silly theory, that there is lack of evidence for...

Hmm... that is not to hard to awnser. And there is nothing that appears to contradict my view of creation, or all of my friends views. If you do then post in more forums, where I will have some more time to read your posts, at http://infinitevgs.phpbbhost.info/ .

Later

 

[lucaspa]

Thank you for your visual aid, but it does little to help your case. You calim that the changes are so minute, that it is impossible to see evolution on a big-scale in our life time. Well, in order to suppoert this theory, you have to show at least some examples of how anamolies in the DNA can produce at least a slightly new and improved anatomical structure. Can you?

Yes. A better bone.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1513
More controlled muscles for better speech and language.
31. Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language. Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo Nature 418, 869 - 872 (22 Aug 2002)
The ability to live off in an acidic environment
3. Sequence of favorable mutations in E. coli http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/7/3807
The ability to germinate on a new substrate
5: J Bacteriol 1999 Jun;181(11):3341-50. Isolation and characterization of mutations in Bacillus subtilis that allow spore germination in the novel germinant D-alanine. Paidhungat M, Setlow P
Bacillus subtilis spores break their metabolic dormancy through a process called germination. Spore germination is triggered by specific molecules called germinants, which are thought to act by binding to and stimulating spore receptors. Three homologous operons, gerA, gerB, and gerK, were previously proposed to encode germinant receptors because inactivating mutations in those genes confer a germinant-specific defect in germination. To more definitely identify genes that encode germinant receptors, we isolated mutants whose spores germinated in the novel germinant D-alanine, because such mutants would likely contain gain-of-function mutations in genes that encoded preexisting germinant receptors. Three independent mutants were isolated, and in each case the mutant phenotype was shown to result from a single dominant mutation in the gerB operon. Two of the mutations altered the gerBA gene, whereas the third affected the gerBB gene. These results suggest that gerBA and gerBB encode components of the germinant receptor. Furthermore, genetic interactions between the wild-type gerB and the mutant gerBA and gerBB alleles suggested that the germinant receptor might be a complex containing GerBA, GerBB, and probably other proteins. Thus, we propose that the gerB operon encodes at least two components of a multicomponent germinant receptor.

Almost all of the minute changes we see in organisms are detrimental to it.

The small changes are almost all neutral or beneficial. Only the large changes, induced by nearly lethal doses of radiation, are harmful.

Observation shows that things devolve, more or less.

What observations are those? Citations, please.

 

[Lonnie]

"Thank you, Jaci, for so clearly showing how Biblical literalism has become a false idol!"
Or mabey showing that you should not take the bible theorleticly.
Lucaspa, Do you know what theorectic means?

1. Of, relating to, or based on theory.
2. Restricted to theory; not practical: theoretical physics.
3. Given to theorizing; speculative.

So you are reading the bible, based on the theory of evolution? Intresting, that seems to be warping the bible to your theory. As that is what theoretic means.

So either believe what the bible says based on evolution, or have the bible be read the way it was written. Hmm... Lucaspa, some how, your way seem very, illogical, and many people agree with me.

So if you know what the word theorectic means, then you know you should never read the bible that way.

Later

 

[lucaspa]

Genetics has done little in terms of proving evolutionary theory, and the fossil record is a bigger problem than it is a help for you. Over millions of years, you guys claim that massive changes took place. But many examples in the fossil record don't help your claims. One such example can be found at:

Spot the difference
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/difference.asp

LOL! This is supposed to show anything. Did you see the numbers?

3 million years. What's the average lifetime of a species? 4 million years. Punctuated equilibria notes that large populations of species are in stasis for the lifetime of a species. That's because 1) it takes a lot of time for new alleles to be fixed in large populations and 2) the species is well-adapted to its environment and thus isn't going to change.

The false witness of AiG here is that all species are always changing. Evolution says that change is dependent on the environment. If the environment the species is in remains constant then natural selection will actually prevent change. Because the species will be at a "fitness peak" in that environment -- very adapted -- and any changes will move it off the fitness peak, be deleterious, and thus be eliminated by natural selection.

This is a standard AiG trick: set up a strawman, tear the strawman apart, and then declare that the strawman was really evolution. You can't get to truth by bearing false witness.

 

[pureone]

Lonnie, click on the links he provided. What has falsified evolution? You keep saying things are falsified, but never provide that proof.