If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[Skreeper]

No. That's it. I am not hear to debate those stuck in their erroneous thinking, and caste the pearls before the ..... Have a good night sleeping in the bed you are making for yourself.

Don't hurt yourself should you fall off that high horse of yours.

Maybe you should go back to your safe zone known as the Christian-only section if you can't deal with different opinions.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Since I believe that the Bible is the Word of God and expect to face judgement like everybody else, I don't think I could answer your question. I take the position that such a question, directed to a fellow Christian, is nothing but a considered insult.
So I am going to Hell for not agreeing with your reading of Genesis? You might want to remember that such a statement about another Christian is a reportable offense under the rules of this forum, and such an attitude is one of the main reasons you are getting pushback here from more than just the atheists.

I apologize for you taking that I was insulting you. I was not. I just posted to another that one doesn't have to believe in the truth of the literalness of Genesis to still have a relationship with God. You might ask yourself why I may have mistaken you for not even being a Christian. You then threaten me with being reported. John 13:35. You may be a Christian, but just reading these posts and arguments of yours through me off. Why should I insult anyone that Jesus died for to try to give them an opportunity to be delivered from error, spiritual blindness, and hell, being all non-Christians. Why are we arguing at all. There are better things to do, like praying for those on the prayer wall.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Don't hurt yourself should you fall off that high horse of yours.

Maybe you should go back to your safe zone known as the Christian-only section if you can't deal with different opinions.

Typical. One hears reasonable answers, and then they stoop to insults rather than reasonable discussion.

 

[Skreeper]

Typical. One hears reasonable answers, and then they stoop to insults rather than reasonable discussion.

Your answers are not reasonable that's the problem. Just by invoking Pascal's wager you have already lost. Maybe use an argument that is not fallacious.

 

[Speedwell]

I apologize for you taking that I was insulting you. I was not. I just posted to another that one doesn't have to believe in the truth of the literalness of Genesis to still have a relationship with God. You might ask yourself why I may have mistaken you for not even being a Christian. You then threaten me with being reported. John 13:35. You may be a Christian, but just reading these posts and arguments of yours through me off. Why should I insult anyone that Jesus died for to try to give them an opportunity to be delivered from error, spiritual blindness, and hell, being all non-Christians. Why are we arguing at all. There are better things to do, like praying for those on the prayer wall.

Well, what do you expect? I don't belong to the NRA either, and think the South deserved to lose the war.

 

[Gene2memE]

True science is true, factual, actual "knowledge" of nature and it's laws, such as centrifugal force, gravity, etc. It is not man's opinion or theory or hope, and has 0% chance of being incorrect.

By that definition, Evolutionary Biology is "true science" - being based on a well substantiated, repeatable body of observation from nature and experimentation - and Creationism - being based on ad hoc reinterpretations of a borrowed creation mythos - is not.

Good to know.

 

[Greg Merrill]

By that definition, Evolutionary Biology is "true science" - being based on a well substantiated, repeatable body of observation from nature and experimentation - and Creationism - being based on ad hoc reinterpretations of a borrowed creation mythos - is not.

Good to know.

There is no evolutionary biology that is true science. Darwins finches did not evolve, they adapted different size beaks, but they all were still finches. Different size horses and dogs is not evolution, because they all are still horses and dogs. Different sizes and shapes of humans is not evolution, because they are all still... well you should get the idea. Adaption is not evolution. Nothing has evolved. They all continue to stay the same or have missing links in their supposed evolution.

"well substantiated, repeatable body of observation from nature and experimentation" This sounds nice to you, it just doesn't exist for "true evolution."

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

That quote belongs in the flat-earth threads.

Lol - the irony...

 

[Skreeper]

There is no evolutionary biology that is true science. Darwins finches did not evolve, they adapted different size beaks, but they all were still finches. Different size horses and dogs is not evolution, because they all are still horses and dogs. Different sizes and shapes of humans is not evolution, because they are all still... well you should get the idea. Adaption is not evolution. Nothing has evolved. They all continue to stay the same or have missing links in their supposed evolution.

Maybe you should inform the scientific community about your shocking revelation that they are all wrong and evolution doesn't happen. Don't be surprised though when they all laugh at you.

 

[Gene2memE]

There is no evolutionary biology that is true science. Darwins finches did not evolve, they adapted different size beaks, but they all were still finches. Different size horses and dogs is not evolution, because they all are still horses and dogs.

Ah, the cartoon version of evolutionary biology.

Yes, horses are still horses. And dogs are still dogs. But horses are no longer Eohippus, Miohippus,
Plesippus or Dinohippus. And Canis familiaris is no longer Canis lupus, or Canis lepophagus. I wonder why that is? What word could we use to describe the observed fact that descendant populations accumulate changes that make them better adapted to survival in their local environment than their parent populations?

Different sizes and shapes of humans is not evolution, because they are all still... well you should get the idea.

How about genetic resistance to malaria in malaria prone areas? Or adaptation to living at altitudes higher than 4000m? Or an ability to tolerate lactose, which has evolved multiple times in geographically separate human populations?

Guess what? These are all evolution. You don't need macro-scale morphological changes, all you need is for a beneficial trait to become fixed in a population.

Adaption is not evolution. Nothing has evolved. They all continue to stay the same or have missing links in their supposed evolution.

Adaptation is a part of evolution. Going all the way back to Darwin and Wallace, who both described adaptation as a part of the process.

And yes, the development of different sizes in horses and dog IS evolution (at least, it is when humans aren't selectively breeding organisms for traits we find desirable). Getting bigger or smaller is a MAJOR morphological change. What's more, its even a PREDICTABLE change. Give an evolutionary biologist enough information about an animal, its environment and the fitness landscape, and they'll be reasonably accurate in being able to predict whether the fossil record will show that lineage getting larger, smaller or staying about the same size.

"well substantiated, repeatable body of observation from nature and experimentation" This sounds nice to you, it just doesn't exist for "true evolution."

It does sound nice doesn't it - probably because its accurate and correct. I'd like to ask you though, what is "true evolution"? Is it something like a "true Scotsman"?

 

[Greg Merrill]

Maybe you should inform the scientific community about your shocking revelation that they are all wrong and evolution doesn't happen. Don't be surprised though when they all laugh at you.

He who laughs last laughs best. The scientific community said the ceolacanth was extinct, until fishermen pulled a live one out of the sea. "They all" laughed at Trump when he ran for president, and then "they all" cried when he won.

 

[Skreeper]

He who laughs last laughs best. The scientific community said the ceolacanth was extinct, until fishermen pulled a live one out of the sea. "They all" laughed at Trump when he ran for president, and then "they all" cried when he won.

When it comes to scientific questions I think I'll stick with the actual scientists rather than random old guy without any scientific training.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Ah, the cartoon version of evolutionary biology.

Yes, horses are still horses. And dogs are still dogs. But horses are no longer Eohippus, Miohippus,
Plesippus or Dinohippus. And Canis familiaris is no longer Canis lupus, or Canis lepophagus. I wonder why that is? What word could we use to describe the observed fact that descendant populations accumulate changes that make them better adapted to survival in their local environment than their parent populations?



How about genetic resistance to malaria in malaria prone areas? Or adaptation to living at altitudes higher than 4000m? Or an ability to tolerate lactose, which has evolved multiple times in geographically separate human populations?

Guess what? These are all evolution. You don't need macro-scale morphological changes, all you need is for a beneficial trait to become fixed in a population.



Adaptation is a part of evolution. Going all the way back to Darwin and Wallace, who both described adaptation as a part of the process.

And yes, the development of different sizes in horses and dog IS evolution (at least, it is when humans aren't selectively breeding organisms for traits we find desirable). Getting bigger or smaller is a MAJOR morphological change. What's more, its even a PREDICTABLE change. Give an evolutionary biologist enough information about an animal, its environment and the fitness landscape, and they'll be reasonably accurate in being able to predict whether the fossil record will show that lineage getting larger, smaller or staying about the same size.



It does sound nice doesn't it - probably because its accurate and correct. I'd like to ask you though, what is "true evolution"? Is it something like a "true Scotsman"?

True evolution is macro, going from one species to another, the classic "non-living to one cell animal, eventually to fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal." Just because one says adaption is evolution doesn't make it so.
Evolutionist couldn't prove evolution so they just declared it a fact. It's like "fake news." Fake science out of not proof, but desire for it to be true.

 

[Greg Merrill]

When it comes to scientific questions I think I'll stick with the actual scientists rather than random old guy without any scientific training.

In other words "Don't confuse me with the facts. I will go with the majority that says the Titantic is unsinkable."

 

[Gene2memE]

True evolution is macro, going from one species to another, the classic "non-living to one cell animal, eventually to fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal." Just because one says adaption is evolution doesn't make it so.

As I said, the cartoon version of evolutionary biology.

If all you've got is barefaced assertions and faulty category quibble, then I don't think there's much to discuss with you.

Adaptation is an integral part of evolution. It has been so from the initial formulations of the theory. Arguing that it isn't part of evolution makes about as much sense as arguing that baking isn't a part of cake making.

Here's a little quote from the first edition of On the Origin of Species:

As the individuals of the same species come in all respects into the closest competition with each other, the struggle will generally be most severe between them; it will be almost equally severe between the varieties of the same species, and next in severity between the species of the same genus. But the struggle will often be very severe between beings most remote in the scale of nature. The slightest advantage in one being, at any age or during any season, over those with which it comes into competition, or better adaptation in however slight a degree to the surrounding physical conditions, will turn the balance.
​

And one from a few chapters prior

But the mere existence of individual variability and of some few well-marked varieties, though necessary as the foundation for the work, helps us but little in understanding how species arise in nature. How have all those exquisite adaptations of one part of the organisation to another part, and to the conditions of life, and of one distinct organic being to another being, been perfected? We see these beautiful co-adaptations most plainly in the woodpecker and missletoe; and only a little less plainly in the humblest parasite which clings to the hairs of a quadruped or feathers of a bird; in the structure of the beetle which dives through the water; in the plumed seed which is wafted by the gentlest breeze; in short, we see beautiful adaptations everywhere and in every part of the organic world.​

'Adaptation' or 'Co-adaptation' is mentioned 30 times in the first edition of Origin of Species, 'Adapt' or 'Adapted' is mentioned another 91 times. By the time the sixth edition was published, total mentions of adaptation or some variation are up to 160.

Evolutionist couldn't prove evolution so they just declared it a fact. It's like "fake news." Fake science out of not proof, but desire for it to be true.

Evolution is a fact. An exceptionally well evidentially supported one. Descent with modification producing differential survival rates is observed time and time again. In the lab and in nature, as well as through our observation of the fossil record and through comparative genetics.

Arguing it's not an observed fact is just plain old reality denial.

Evolution is also a theory - the Theory of Evolution describes the observed fact of evolutionary changes in population.

The fundamentals really aren't that hard to understand, provided you're actually willing to do the intellectual legwork to understand it, rather than just raising nonsensical objections.

 

[Skreeper]

In other words "Don't confuse me with the facts. I will go with the majority that says the Titantic is unsinkable."

The facts support evolution. Unless you have evidence against the theory of evolution your case is dismissed.

 

[Jimmy D]

Adaption is not evolution

Evolution
noun
mass noun

• The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
  
  The idea of organic evolution was proposed by some ancient Greek thinkers but was long rejected in Europe as contrary to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Lamarck proposed a theory that organisms became transformed by their efforts to respond to the demands of their environment. Lyell demonstrated that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages. This helped Darwin towards a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin's theory of evolution has, with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology.
  
  

 

[doubtingmerle]

"C. Science is the best way to learn about reality." The flaw with that is that so many times scientist in history have said so many erroneous things;

Got it. You want nothing to do with a field in which someone in the past was wrong so you chose religion.

Wait, what?

 

[tas8831]

Scientific background: The public school system from 1959-1971. I was a zoology major in Jr. College, and also took Psychology.

Better than most creationists, but it appears that you did not finish up a zoology degree. Yes?

My point is: a lot of what is taught is not true science. It is a wrong conclusion based on an incorrect bias.

That is an assertion.

Sure, there is bias - such as the bias of a biblical literalist that rejects facts that do not comport with their interpretation of Scripture. Now THAT is bias.

May I ask what you consider to be "true science"?

 

[tas8831]

On what basis did you determine their claims are not accurate.

In general, I can look at the papers they cite. Very frequently, I find that they cherry-picked data or totally misrepresented their sources. I have found creationists 'rigging' analyses to get the answers they want. I have found creationists knowingly using problematic programs, getting informed of the problems, and refusing to correct their claims. I have caught creationists totally misrepresenting publications - I have even documented several of these on this very forum. In addition, since I have done evolutionary biology research and teach several college classes on pertinent subjects, I can easily spot when creationists are making iffy claims.

THAT is how I determine that creationist claims are not accurate.

You?

They had no agenda. They were not even orthodox Christians. They simply looked at the evidence and let it speak for itself without bias for a change, and without preconceived ideas and preconceived agendas. Their research actually went against what they previously had been taught, taught themselves, and believed and had written books and papers on. That took some humility to say they had proved themselves wrong in the past.

WHAAAATTT?????

"Meyers, Dembski, Behe, and others are familiar from the video "Where Does the Evidence Lead?" which I have on disk and enjoy watching every once in a while.


You actually think Meyers, Dembski, and Behe HAD NO AGENDA????

Are you really unaware that 2 of them all but helped create the Discovery Institute, an organization dedicated to Christianizing America by defeating 'Darwinism'?

My goodness - if you were that easily hoodwinked by people whose stated GOAL is to 'disprove' evolution, I have to say that I am doubtful that you have put much thought into this whole issue.

Evolutionary scientists make money at what they do as well, so that is beside the point, and irrelevant.

No, it is very relevant. As you are apparently completely unaware of the goals and antics of people like Dembski, I suggest you read some of the criticisms of his many books. One constant theme is that his books are nearly always just re-packaged parts of his previous books and online essays. It looks like whenever he needs some cash, he just slaps together another book and creationists plunk down the bucks. Every time.

Amazing...

Even God said the ox that plowed should be allowed to eat of the grain, and that ministers should be allowed to be paid for their ministry.

Good for God. We are talking about charlatans and snake-oil peddlers here - people that you. amazingly, believe had no agenda.... That is just truly shocking to me...