Resources on Evolution

[Speedwell]

No, I don't trust whatever said in favor of evolution by anyone. And I am able to argue against anyone of them. The point is whatever they said might be true, but it can not be applied to many other similar situations. A very limited truth is not a truth at all.

I don't see what's wrong with the statement begins with: "The theory of evolution requires...". What is the problem? Let me give you an example: "The theory of evolution requires an assumed classification scheme."

Any orderly science "requires an assumed classification scheme." Taxonomies are descriptive, man-made ad hoc categories designed to be useful. But the creatures classified and their behaviors, their evolution, remain the same regardless of the classification scheme imposed on them.

 

[Speedwell]

Wasn’t the Great Commission the instruction of the resurrected Jesus Christ to his disciples to spread his teachings to all the nations of the world. . . was the Old Testament in general and Genesis in particular not included?

Of course, but the Gospel always comes first. The Bible is for instructional purposes, as St. Paul tells us.

 

[46AND2]

Not suitable to you.

Not suitable for anybody. Why would someone look to non scientist apologists who don't understand the science themselves to learn about said science?

 

[46AND2]

No, I don't trust whatever said in favor of evolution by anyone. And I am able to argue against anyone of them. The point is whatever they said might be true, but it can not be applied to many other similar situations. A very limited truth is not a truth at all.

I don't see what's wrong with the statement begins with: "The theory of evolution requires...". What is the problem? Let me give you an example: "The theory of evolution requires an assumed classification scheme."

But the classification isn't assumed, it is observed.

For common ancestry to be true, it does have to follow a particular classification system; a nested hierarchy. And so, what we observe about dna, morphology, biodiversity, and many others should indicate that such a pattern exists if common ancestry is true...because, in reality, the observations dont HAVE to show that pattern. For example if common ancestry is false, those patterns could be, and probably would be, absent.

 

[Speedwell]

But the classification isn't assumed, it is observed.

For common ancestry to be true, it does have to follow a particular classification system; a nested hierarchy. And so, what we observe about dna, morphology, biodiversity, and many others should indicate that such a pattern exists if common ancestry is true...because, in reality, the observations dont HAVE to show that pattern. For example if common ancestry is false, those patterns could be, and probably would be, absent.

I would call nested hierarchy an observed pattern rather than a classification system. Patterns exist in the natural world; classification systems exist only inside our heads

 

[46AND2]

I would call nested hierarchy an observed pattern rather than a classification system. Patterns exist in the natural world; classification systems exist only inside our heads

Regardless, the classification, even if arbitrarily delineated, is based on observed patterns.

You can't just assume your classification is correct without the data to support it.

 

[juvenissun]

Any orderly science "requires an assumed classification scheme." Taxonomies are descriptive, man-made ad hoc categories designed to be useful. But the creatures classified and their behaviors, their evolution, remain the same regardless of the classification scheme imposed on them.

The classification is based on a morphological assumption. This is critical and everyone should be reminded on that again and again. This is the best human can do. Of course, we can not use this inferior criterion to deny God's wisdom. A clear example is that this classification scheme OBVIOUSLY does not apply to human.

 

[juvenissun]

Regardless, the classification, even if arbitrarily delineated, is based on observed patterns.
You can't just assume your classification is correct without the data to support it.

You can't just assume your classification is correct even with a lot of data to support it.

 

[juvenissun]

Not suitable for anybody. Why would someone look to non scientist apologists who don't understand the science themselves to learn about said science?

That is still arguable. Besides, there are many apologists who are scientists.

 

[juvenissun]

But the classification isn't assumed, it is observed.

That is exactly the problem. We do not have much to observe. So we grab the one we can and ASSUME the classification can address the origin. That is a very very shaky scientific method.

 

[Speedwell]

The classification is based on a morphological assumption.

Quite right. Creatures have traditionally been classified by morphology.

This is critical and everyone should be reminded on that again and again.

Why? It's a simple enough concept.

This is the best human can do. Of course, we can not use this inferior criterion to deny God's wisdom. A clear example is that this classification scheme OBVIOUSLY does not apply to human.

How so? Are we not vertebrates? Are we not mammals? Are we not primates? We certainly have the morphology for it. God, in his wisdom, gave us those morphological characteristics. Why should we deny it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

To me, the evolution model is NOT acceptable scientifically.

And since you aren't an evolutionary biologist, let alone a scientist, and instead just some religious fundamentalist, why should anyone care what you think about science topics that you are actually required to deny because of dogmatic adherence to religious doctrine?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can't just assume your classification is correct even with a lot of data to support it.

Says the guy who asserts his religious doctrine being correct with no supportive data whatsoever.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is exactly the problem. We do not have much to observe. So we grab the one we can and ASSUME the classification can address the origin. That is a very very shaky scientific method.

It is the only scientific method. You can only address the data you actually have.
Then you gather additional data and see if the models hold up. If they don't, you alter the models to make them hold up.

It's how every single natural science operates.

 

[46AND2]

You can't just assume your classification is correct even with a lot of data to support it.

A square is a:

Polygon
quadrilateral
parallelogram
rectangle

Each of those classifications has a distinct definition, and a square fits them all.

Likewise, a human is a:

Eukaryote
Vertebrate
Mammal
Primate

Each of those classifications has a distinct definition, and a human fits them all

I don't see where the assumption comes in.

 

[juvenissun]

Quite right. Creatures have traditionally been classified by morphology. Why? It's a simple enough concept. How so? Are we not vertebrates? Are we not mammals? Are we not primates? We certainly have the morphology for it. God, in his wisdom, gave us those morphological characteristics. Why should we deny it?

We look like chimp. So we are evolved.
That is what can go wrong with morphological classification.

 

[juvenissun]

A square is a:

Polygon
quadrilateral
parallelogram
rectangle

Each of those classifications has a distinct definition, and a square fits them all.

Likewise, a human is a:

Eukaryote
Vertebrate
Mammal
Primate

Each of those classifications has a distinct definition, and a human fits them all

I don't see where the assumption comes in.

The problem is, the conclusion: “so, evolution is right” jumped out.
Wrong classification leads to wrong conclusion.

 

[Job 33:6]

I am an Old Earth Creationist and do not believe in what I've learned is macro-evolution; micro-evolution from what I understand is about gene mutation and natural selection and definitely can be observed and documented. Admittedly I am no science expert!

With that said, I am desiring to read some "pro evolution" articles to give me an idea of what most scientists and non-Creationists believe. Right now I'm already in the middle of a few books but if any of you can suggest a layman's book about the topic I'd be open to reading it in the future. My strength is definitely not science so any resources that get real technical are going to be above my head.

This thread is definitely NOT about debate so please refrain from voicing such opinions.

Maybe Ken Millers "Finding Darwin's God". Ken Miller also being a Christian, takes time to argue for reasons why evolution is not by default, an atheistic theory, but rather he argues for reasons why people can believe that God used evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

Evolution: What the fossils say and why it matters

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Wh...231180640/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Oh Yes, this i bet is a good one.

 

[46AND2]

The problem is, the conclusion: “so, evolution is right” jumped out.
Wrong classification leads to wrong conclusion.

What is wrong about the classification? Humans fit the definition of each of those classes.

Whether you accept common ancestry or not, the classification is still valid.

If somebody used the the classification of the square to incorrectly conclude that all squares started out as lines, it doesn't change the fact that the square fits the classification.