Macro-Evolution

[Oliver]

Originally posted by NoilTsorf
If you speak Dutch I can post some links.

Unfortunately not, but if you still can post the links, I'd have a look. thanks.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by messenjah


Actually not true. Said a Hebrew Scholar

"There is not another Hebrew Scholar, that I know of, who does not believe that the writers in Genesis meant a literal six day creation."

There is a distinct difference between what the "writers in Genesis" meant and what "Hebrew scholars" believe.

David Koresh thought he was the Messiah. Do you?

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by NoilTsorf

"Can conventional science and Christian belief be combined?"

Answer: Yes, but only if the bible is not seen as a literal description of what happened. The idea that God created the world in six days is inconsistent with modern scientific theories. But the idea that God caused the beginning of the universe (Created the Big Bang/ first mass etc.) is not in conflict with modern theories of the creation of the universe.
So it can only be combined if the bible is not taken literally.

But what is meant by taking the Bible literally? Most of the people I have encountered who strongly advocate taking the Bible literally do not read or even consult the original languages for the text in question. Instead, what they want to take literally often seems to be either a particular English translation or some statement they have found on some website somewhere.

Before making a blanket statement that conventional (or mainstream) science can only be combined with Christian beliefs if the Bible is not taken literally, I suggest that you take a look at the thread that deals with the age of the universe (click here). Of the five major theories listed, it could be argued that four of them take the Bible's creation account rather literally--but three of the four also agree with conventional or mainstream science.

 

[NoilTsorf]

The best link I found was:
http://home-1.tiscali.nl/~knmg0130/examen.html#domein C

IT sums up all subjects that are discussed and all knowledge you should possess to complete ANW. I couldn't fian any literal tests online, I found two pages where they listed "exercise tests", but the links didn't work for some reason.

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by Cyclo Rider

Macro-evolution is not science. It's fantasy. And what direct observations? None have ever been "observed" that prove animals can change into completely different animals and produce off-spring accordingly.

You are quite incorrect in this case. Observed Instances of Speciation

Evolutionists have refused to debate Dr. Walt Brown unless religion is included in the debate. Dr. Brown will only debate on the grounds that religion is left out, but evolutionists insist that it be included. Gee, I wonder why?

Could you be any more specific with your claim? Perhaps a website which backs up your claim or something?

If the unscientific theory of evolution is true, evolutionists should be able to explain the origin of giraffes with documentation and illustrations that explain each pre-giraffe species on the evolutionary ladder leading up to the "completed" giraffe we see today. Alas, they cannot.

Stop moving the goalposts. You claimed that there were scientific laws against the origins of the giraffe. Please back up your claim or withdraw it.

Incidentally, I found this tidbit from Transitional Vertibrate Fossiles FAQ. If you'd care to do some research on the evolution of the Giraffe, this may be a good place to start.

Lophiomeryx, Gelocus (late Eocene, early Oligocene) -- The most advanced ruminants yet, called "gelocids", with a more compact and efficient ankle, still smaller side toes, more complex premolars and an almost completely covered mastoid bone. A slightly different lineage split off from this gelocid family in the late Eocene or early Oligocene, eventually giving rise to these four families:
.
.
.
Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


Having said that, the idea that Creation is not scientific is blatantly false.

Really? If it's scientific, describe a piece of evidence that you would take as compelling evidence that the theory is flawed.

Every scientific theory is subject to dispute and disproof. What would you consider to be "evidence" that would require you to revise a creationist viewpoint?

If there isn't any, it's not science.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by seebs
Really? If it's scientific, describe a piece of evidence that you would take as compelling evidence that the theory is flawed.
Every scientific theory is subject to dispute and disproof. What would you consider to be evidence that would require you to revise a creationist viewpoint?
If there isn't any, it's not science.

You first.

If you can come up with a "proof" about evolution I'll come up with why its not proof.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by messenjah
Do any Christians or non-christians believe that Macro-Evolution should be taught in schools. (By the way, macro-evolution is the idea that creatures evolved from other creatures. Micro-evolution is the idea that creatures or humans will adapt when put into a new enviroment.) I would really like to know.

I believe that it should be taught, just as any other branch of science is taught: As the best theory we currently have to explain our observations of the world. We should also be careful to teach people about some of the famous errors that have been made in the past, so they don't start getting dogmatic about today's best theory; we know that our theories change over time, and that's just fine, it's how science is supposed to work.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by seebs
we know that our theories change over time, and that's just fine, it's how science is supposed to work.

Science will always fail. It will prove nothing about existence, and it will always test(and fail). The true answer will never be known absent of a time-machine.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by unworthyone


You first.

If you can come up with a "proof" about evolution I'll come up with why its not proof.

No, that's not how science works. You pick your hypothesis, you make a prediction, and then you see whether the prediction is borne out.

If you want to say "this is pure faith, no science enters into it", fine... But as soon as you want to say "this is science", you have to play by the rules science plays by.

Obviously, the answer is simple: There's no proof of anything. There's no proof that God exists, there's no proof of evolution, there's no proof of Newtonian mechanics. The best we ever get is a substantial chunk of empirical data supporting a theory. For instance, we know of very very few cases where objects larger than atoms don't perform just as Newton's laws predict - but when we found them, we had to accept that relativity was a better theory for those cases.

Modern evolution is a very good theory. Of course it's not proof; if God were capricious, He could have planted all sorts of evidence to mislead us. However, it's very good evidence, and I don't think He lies.

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by seebs
Obviously, the answer is simple: There's no proof of anything. There's no proof that God exists, there's no proof of evolution, there's no proof of Newtonian mechanics. The best we ever get is a substantial chunk of empirical data supporting a theory. For instance, we know of very very few cases where objects larger than atoms don't perform just as Newton's laws predict - but when we found them, we had to accept that relativity was a better theory for those cases.

Its called love. Science is the love of man more then the One who created him. Love without proof.

 

[Oliver]

Thanks for the link, NoilTsorf. It can already give me a rough idea of the curriculum, which is what I was looking for.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by unworthyone


Its called love. Science is the love of man more then the One who created him. Love without proof.

Huh? This doesn't make sense at all. How is science "the love of man more than the One who created him"? Science is the study of the world; this seems to me like a very good way to show admiration and respect for it. This is in no way incompatible with Christianity.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by unworthyone


Science will always fail. It will prove nothing about existence, and it will always test(and fail). The true answer will never be known absent of a time-machine.

You really hate science, don't you. Why? Is it not right that we should study and learn from the world?

 

[Radical fringe]

Originally posted by Cyclo Rider

Evolutionists have refused to debate Dr. Walt Brown unless religion is included in the debate. Dr. Brown will only debate on the grounds that religion is left out, but evolutionists insist that it be included. Gee, I wonder why?

The first question has already been dealt with, so I snipped it, but I'll respond to the remainder.

You're incorrect about the debate. "Religion" wasn't to be discussed, merely the factual basis for the Noachian deluge, which is the basis for hydroplate hypothesis. Brown's book is called In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Evidently Brown thinks that such issues are germane to his hydroplate hypothesis, so it's odd that he'd balk about discussing it in debate. The only reason I can see is that he distrusts that the evidence will truly bear out the idea of a global flood and therefore doesn't want to subject it to critical, informed scrutiny.

See this site for more details: http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/walt_brown.htm

Brown has debated before, however I can understand his reasons for keeping his performance there a secret. He engaged in a written debate with Jim Lippard in the pages of Creation/Evolution magazine in 1989 through 1990 and didn't fare too well in it. Lippard had nothing more than a bachelor's at the time (as a graduate student) and yet demolished his arguments, which is perhaps one reason for the Ph.D. requirement in his debate now. It's less embarrassing to be eviscerated in print by a Ph.D. than a grad student.

See:
"An Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown" by Jim Lippard. Creation/Evolution Issue 25, Vol. 9, No. 1, Fall 1989, pp. 23-35.

"Brown Responds to Lippard" by Walter T. Brown, Jr. Creation/Evolution Issue 25, Vol. 9, No. 1, Fall 1989, pp. 35-48.

"A Further Examination of the Research of Walter Brown" by Jim Lippard. Creation/Evolution Issue 26, Vol. 9, No. 2, Winter 1989-1990, pp. 17-33.

"A Second Response to Jim Lippard" by Walter T. Brown, Jr. Creation/Evolution Issue 26, Vol. 9, No. 2, Winter 1989-1990, pp. 34-54.

"Letter to the Editor" by William H. Jefferys. Creation/Evolution Issue 26, Vol. 9, No. 2, Winter 1989-1990, pp. 55-56.

"A Final Response to Walter Brown" by Jim Lippard. Creation/Evolution Issue 27, Vol. 10, No. 1, Summer 1990, pp. 28-36.

"Letter to the Editor" by Edward E. Max, MD, PhD. Creation/Evolution Issue 27, Vol. 10, No. 1, Summer 1990, pp. 45-49.

If the unscientific theory of evolution is true, evolutionists should be able to explain the origin of giraffes with documentation and illustrations that explain each pre-giraffe species on the evolutionary ladder leading up to the "completed" giraffe we see today. Alas, they cannot.

You've already been provided a list of transitional fossils leading to the modern giraffes, so I won't argue that point. However, I am curious, would you accept the argument that if a creationist cannot provide a complete series of ancestors from them to Adam that it would invalidate creationism? If not, why?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Radical fringe

You've already been provided a list of transitional fossils leading to the modern giraffes, so I won't argue that point. However, I am curious, would you accept the argument that if a creationist cannot provide a complete series of ancestors from them to Adam that it would invalidate creationism? If not, why?

Because creationism isn't *science*, and as such, isn't subject to falsifiability tests. There's no need to be able to say "but if this happened, we'd have to change the theory".

 

[unworthyone]

Originally posted by seebs


You really hate science, don't you. Why? Is it not right that we should study and learn from the world?

No science is cool but should not be worshipped.. But not as cool as God as he should be worshipped.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by unworthyone


No science is cool but should not be worshipped.. But not as cool as God as he should be worshipped.

I don't recall anyone in this "worshipping" science. Using it as a good way to find out how the world works, maybe.

 

[ANITA]

SINCE THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN ANY INTERMEDIATE SPECIES FOUND TO PROVE MACRO-EVOLUTION, IT SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT. IT SIMPLY CAN'T BE PROVED.

 

[ANITA]

SCIENCE MEANS KNOWLEDGE. I PROPOSE THE TEACHERS IN SCHOOLS TEACH SCIENCE RATHER THAN RELIGION-HYPOTHOSIS. THERE IS SO MUCH REAL SCIENCE TO TEACH KIDS, ONE WOULD THINK THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TIME FOR ALL THE THEORIES THEY SPEND SO MUCH TIME SHOVING DOWN OUR KIDS THROATS.