Observed Speciation

[Arikay]

1) I would be careful with statistics, sometimes they can bite back.

2) If you think that has anything to do with evolution, then you need to do some reading about what evolution is.

3) Yes, when dealing with the real theory of evolution, and honest reporting of the evidence, it all fits with evolution.

Hmm........ so if you were shown a piece of data that contradicts the remotest possibily that life could come into being by chance all those years ago then you would reevaluate what you believe about evolution ?

And are you implying that science can fit EVERY piece of evidence into Evolution theory,.....that not one peice of data found would make life happening by chance seemingly impossible?

 

[Jet Black]

Hmm........ so if you were shown a piece of data that contradicts the remotest possibily that life could come into being by chance all those years ago then you would reevaluate what you believe about evolution ?

no, but only because abiogenesis is a separate theory to evolution. One could say that God or even an alien put the first cell there, and this is what evolved into all life as we see it.

And are you implying that science can fit EVERY piece of evidence into Evolution theory,.....that not one peice of data found would make life happening by chance seemingly impossible?

again, this is not evolution. You need to be careful as to how you specify evolution, as biological evolution only has a certain remit, namely that of biogenesis, in which life always comes from life. abiogenesis; life coming from non life is independent, and things that have nothing (directly) to do with life are even less relevant.

 

[jobob]

1) I would be careful with statistics, sometimes they can bite back.

2) If you think that has anything to do with evolution, then you need to do some reading about what evolution is.

3) Yes, when dealing with the real theory of evolution, and honest reporting of the evidence, it all fits with evolution.

Well, not evolution exactly....... more about life coming into existance to begin with.....

Myself, becuase of the fall and therefore mutations, I do believe that things can have an appearance of evolving or changing....

And I have and do study evolution.
I guess from a secular point of view it is a logical theory.....

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Hmm........ so if you were shown a piece of data that contradicts the remotest possibily that life could come into being by chance all those years ago then you would reevaluate what you believe about evolution ?

Leaving aside the fact that this isn't evolution, in principle, yes.

When a new finding comes up, there are three possibilities:

1) It confirms the existing theory
2) It requires a modification of the existing theory
3) It requires a complete dropping of the existing theory.

And are you implying that science can fit EVERY piece of evidence into Evolution theory,.....that not one peice of data found would make life happening by chance seemingly impossible?

Not one piece of data so far found. If it were, well, we would have to have a new theory. That's how science works.

The difference here between creationism and evolution is that creationism cannot change its theory - the theory's written in stone (literally, originally, apparently) . So all data must be shoehorned into 1) or a very limited 2), above.

 

[Arikay]

And again, if you think abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution in any way shape or form, you need to do more reading.

Well, not evolution exactly....... more about life coming into existance to begin with.....

Myself, becuase of the fall and therefore mutations, I do believe that things can have an appearance of evolving or changing....

And I have and do study evolution.
I guess from a secular point of view it is a logical theory.....

 

[Split Rock]

Myself, becuase of the fall and therefore mutations, I do believe that things can have an appearance of evolving or changing....
...

Please explain what you mean here about "an appearance of evolving."

Thanks

 

[ikester7579]

John 1:14 "The Word became a human being and, full of grace and truth, lived among us. We saw his glory, the glory which he received as the Father's only Son."

Joh 1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.(kjv)

This is why I do not like other translations. To take away or add to the word of God is to change it's meaning. I now see where your confusion comes from.

 

[JohnR7]

This is why I do not like other translations.

Even if we were to consider the KJV the best translation, I think there are still some problems and we need to go back to the origional language. Although there are people who consider the KJV to be inspired by God and without error.

 

[JohnR7]

the POINT I was making is that when one is defending a scientific model, such as the sphericity of the earth or evolution, one does not use Scripture to do so.

We should take everything to the word of God, to confirm if it is truth or error. If it conflicts with the written word of God, then it is error.

 

[JohnR7]

and the rest of us get left behind.

If you want to know what is going to happen, the best thing to study is what happened in Jerusalem in 70 ad, when 1.3 million Hebrews were killed. The rest of them were scattered throughout the world.

 

[Jet Black]

it's a bit different though itn't it? I mean, all the christians just vanishing like that.

 

[Arikay]

Then the round earth and heliocentric models are in error.

If you disagree its because you have reinterpreted the word of God to match these theories. Yet, any more reinterpretations are considered bad. So it basically comes down to what you grew up with as a couple hundred years ago and you would have been fighting against the reinterpretations that are held as the "correct" word of God today.

We should take everything to the word of God, to confirm if it is truth or error. If it conflicts with the written word of God, then it is error.

 

[JohnR7]

If you disagree its because you have reinterpreted the word of God to match these theories.

Not me, your the one that is trying to twist the word of God and claim that it is saying something that it does not say at all.

2 Peter 3:14-16
Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; [15] and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, [16] as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

 

[JohnR7]

it's a bit different though itn't it? I mean, all the christians just vanishing like that.

I think that there is going to be a all out nucular war and a lot of people are going to vanish or vaporize. There will be lots of people who had called themselves christians, that will still be around.

Science sooner or later will bring about the destruction of mankind as we now know it. Things are going to be different after that war. We will no longer be living in a age of grace, mankind will return to living under the law.

 

[Jet Black]

no john, politics and greed will bring about the destruction of mankind. science will merely make it ruthlessly efficient.

 

[lucaspa]

Joh 1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.(kjv)

This is why I do not like other translations. To take away or add to the word of God is to change it's meaning. I now see where your confusion comes from.

And how does KJV materially differ from ASV? It still makes the Word Jesus, not the Bible.

 

[lucaspa]

But that court has a bias for evolution anyway........

That wouldnt be permitted in a true court........

"True courts" have built in bias. Remember the bias of "innocent until proven guilty"? That's bias.

However, your complaint ignores history. Remember, creationism was the accepted theory up until 1831. So, if there is a bias then the bias was originally for creationism! Yet the peer-review let Darwin's papers thru. Remember, the papers (Darwin's and Wallace's) on evolution were put before the Linnean Society before Darwin started writing Origin. So, if science has the bias you claim, then the bias for creationism should have prevented evolution being accepted, shouldn't it?

So, Jobob, you can't have it both ways. Either the court is unbiased and could accept creationism now if it had merit or the court is biased in which case evolution should never have gotten accepted.

 

[lucaspa]

Sorry......... but are you truley asking me to believe that anyone of those scientist in that ''court'' would do anything to try to DISPROVE their theory of evolution?

That laughable at best........... they will all find someway to make it fit evolution .......
Just as we creationist do the same.

Don't project the faults of creationism onto science. Jobob, in science the only way you get famous is to disprove an accepted theory. Look at the history of science: Darwin gets famous falsifying special creation, Einstein gets famous showing Newtonian gravity is wrong, Hawking gets famous showing Einstein wrong.

The only way to test a theory is to try to disprove it. Now, think about Eldredge and Gould and Punctuated Equilibrium! Why was that such a big deal? Because they had shown part of evolution to be wrong. Just a part of it, and Gould is famous!

Think about Lynn Margulis. She shows that the neo-Darwinian concept of how organelles originated was wrong. What happened? She got a Nobel Prize!

I'm sorry you don't understand how science works, both philosophically and socially. But you are completely wrong. Trying to disprove theories is what we do all the time. Right now, we are very proud of one of our grad students. Why? Because she has just shown that an accepted idea about regulation of glutathione levels is wrong! She has just disproved a theory.

 

[lucaspa]

Hmm........ so if you were shown a piece of data that contradicts the remotest possibily that life could come into being by chance all those years ago then you would reevaluate what you believe about evolution ?

I'd reevaluate what I thought about abiogenesis. Since abiogenesis and evolution are different, it wouldn't affect evolution.

And are you implying that science can fit EVERY piece of evidence into Evolution theory,.....that not one peice of data found would make life happening by chance seemingly impossible?

Jobob, you aren't talking about evolution here. You are talking about showing the existence of God thru a god-of-the-gaps theology. You are talking about a "gap" between non-life and life and requiring God to directly zap the first life into existence. Life doesn't happen by chance; it happens by chemistry, and chemistry isn't chance.

But let's look at something, Jobob. Darwin set forth evidence that, if found, would completely falsify natural selection:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Origin, pg 501.

So, if you can find part of any species that is there exclusively for the good of another species (and not any good to the species that has it), then you have disproved natural selection.

In terms of common ancestry, finding fossils of mammals in pre-Cambrian strata would disprove common ancestry.

 

[lucaspa]

We should take everything to the word of God, to confirm if it is truth or error. If it conflicts with the written word of God, then it is error.

LOL! And here is the problem. Doing that denies that God is Creator. What you are doing is taking everything to fallible men, because "the word of God" is actually a human interpretation of the Bible!

So, I'm supposed to take everything to a man to confirm it and ignore God in His Creation. No thanks, John. You can ignore God if you want, but I'm not going to commit theological suicide with you.