What’s your problem?

[Tacticus]

Without Darwin, then Biology is based on Mendels work and it makes sense.

Mendel's work only dealt with how traits are passed on to further generations, not how mutations and natural selection figure in the evolution of new species. Therefore there would still be a large gap in understanding if TOE was falsified.

If you know anything at all about science, then perhaps you know what a standard is. When I was a carpenter, we had a standard. I had a level, a tape measure, and I knew what a 90 degree angle was. If you do not follow that standard, then you will be in trouble when you go to build something. Jesus is our standard:

Your example of a standard in carpentry would not be applied to, say, music. In the same way having Jesus as a standard for religion or a religious way of life cannot apply to science.

If you follow Jesus, His teaching, the standard that He sets, then you will never be put to shame. But if you disregard what you call "perceived theological grounds" then you are a boat without a anchor. When the storms of life come, you will have nothing to hold you steady. You will be cast about in the wind with no direction.

What if you follow Muhammad? What if you follow Buddha? What if you trust yourself enough to follow your own common sense and morality?

The Bible today is our standard, it remains consistant and true, you can not build a life without it.

It's a standard that is understood, by different people, to teach different things and therefore can't really be held as standard(as evidenced by Dad's posts).


To say you can't build a life without the bible is so patently absurd that I can't believe you actually posted it.

No scientific theory has any value if it does not measure up to the standard that we use. If the cornerstone is set proper, then everything in the building lines up and is true to the cornerstone.

Religious beliefs don't apply to science and neither does science apply to religious beliefs. They're two separate buildings on opposite sides of the street. The standard for one cannot be applied, with any accuracy, to the other.

If they were Christians then they would know that the Bible says that those who destory the Earth, God will destory.

I'm almost sure Baggins was just being a little facetious. Whether or not the industrialists are Christians who know and follow all the tennets of the bible is beside the point; the point is that industrialists are not all scientists.


Now even scientists can be swayed by the all mighty dollar but it is professional scientists not professional Christians that are bringing the problem of global warming in to the public arena.

 

[gluadys]

Now even scientists can be swayed by the all mighty dollar but it is professional scientists not professional Christians that are bringing the problem of global warming in to the public arena.

Some of us professional Christians are. The World Council of Churches has had people working on climate change since the late '80s. In 1997, the Presbyterian Church in Canada--and other Canadian denominations too--were encouraging members to sign a petition on climate change. Canadian churches have given massive support to Canada ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. The Canadian Council of Churches has had delegates at all the international consultations on climate change for two decades, including the most recent one in Montreal. A check of Canadian church periodicals over the last 5-8 years will turn up a number of articles on climate change for the information of parishioners. We also stock videos on climate change for use by congregations.

KAIROS, the inter-church body through which Canadian churches work together on ecological, economic, human rights and other justice issues, has a program on climate change. Just last week, KAIROS and church delegates met with provincial and federal politicians to press for more accessible programs for renovating old religious buildings to be more energy efficient and enable faith communities to contribute to reducing CO2 emissions just as other sectors of society are trying to do.

There are churches which don't push climate issues, even those who oppose them, but in Canada at least, these are a small minority.

 

[Tacticus]

Some of us professional Christians are...
...There are churches which don't push climate issues, even those who oppose them, but in Canada at least, these are a small minority.

In that case I entirely retract my final sentence. I really didn't mean to tar all Christians with the same brush.

However, it is an understanding of science and not an understanding of Christianity that is the motivation for these churches to speak out on the matter.

Perhaps my sentence would be more valid if it was phrased thusly:

"Now even scientists can be swayed by the all mighty dollar but it is an understanding of science not an unerstanding of Christianity that is bringing the problem of global warming in to the public arena."

 

[Apos]

I disagree. It's a matter of science + ethics that motivate people. Both scientists and Christians can be motivated by ethics, and in the case of Christians, their Christianity can be part of the motivating factor for ethics. Credit where credit is due, always.

 

[gluadys]

In that case I entirely retract my final sentence. I really didn't mean to tar all Christians with the same brush.

However, it is an understanding of science and not an understanding of Christianity that is the motivation for these churches to speak out on the matter.

Perhaps my sentence would be more valid if it was phrased thusly:

"Now even scientists can be swayed by the all mighty dollar but it is an understanding of science not an unerstanding of Christianity that is bringing the problem of global warming in to the public arena."

Yes, that would be correct.

You might be interested in this excerpt from one of our subordinate standards. (A sub-ordinate standard is a doctrinal statement which all ordained clergy and elders are required to support.)


2.4 Our Care for the World
2.4.1 Though life is a gift from God,
human life depends upon the created world.
Our care for the world must reflect God's care.
We are not owners, but stewards of God's good earth.
Concerned with the well-being of all of life
we welcome the truths and insights
of all human skill and science
about the world and the universe.

2.4.2 Our stewardship calls us
to explore ways of love and justice
in respecting God's creation
and in seeking its responsible use
for the common good.

(Emphasis added)

 

[RightWingGirl]

One of the many things that has made me consider evolution impossible is that I have never seen a logical explanation of how life began upon this earth in the first place. (Biogenesis) It seems to me to be physically impossible. Most people no longer consider biogenesis a part of evolution, but unless something has a begining it cannot continue on. Could you explain how biogenesis happened?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

One of the many things that has made me consider evolution impossible is that I have never seen a logical explanation of how life began upon this earth in the first place. (Biogenesis) It seems to me to be physically impossible. Most people no longer consider biogenesis a part of evolution, but unless something has a begining it cannot continue on. Could you explain how biogenesis happened?

you can't google unless you get the term right.
Abiogenesis.
"the beginning of life from not-life"

 

[gluadys]

One of the many things that has made me consider evolution impossible is that I have never seen a logical explanation of how life began upon this earth in the first place. (Biogenesis) It seems to me to be physically impossible. Most people no longer consider biogenesis a part of evolution, but unless something has a begining it cannot continue on. Could you explain how biogenesis happened?

I have never understood why people consider this an argument against evolution. To me it is like saying that if one doesn't understand the working of an internal combustion engine one cannot drive a car.

The philosopher Heidegger once observed that we are "thrown into" an existing world that was here long before we were part of it. Given that, we have to be able to figure out things from the middle. If we had to know the beginning from the outset, we couldn't learn anything.

Look at cosmology. Long before anything was written, people probably figured out that the sun rules the day and the moon the night. And over the millennia, they learned to use stars, planets, sun and moon as calendars. They worked out the correct shape of the earth, developed ephimerides to predict the correlations of planetary movements and predict conjunctions and eclipses, discovered the correct relationship of earth to sun and moon and of solar system to the rest of the galaxy and eventually discovered other galaxies. And all this without knowing that it all began in the big bang.

Why should we not be able to validate evolution without knowing for sure how life began?

After all, even if abiogenesis does turn out to be impossible, that doesn't prove life never began. It only proves that life began in some other fashion. And however life began it evolved.

Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis being physically possible. It only depends on life existing, no matter what caused it to exist.

That said, most biologists do think abiogenesis is possible and the research in this area is fascinating. But there is no theory that has fully explained how it could have occurred yet.

If you haven't done so yet check out Leslie Orgel's RNA world, Sidney Fox's thermal proteins, and also clay crystals.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

One of the many things that has made me consider evolution impossible is that I have never seen a logical explanation of how life began upon this earth in the first place. (Biogenesis) It seems to me to be physically impossible. Most people no longer consider biogenesis a part of evolution, but unless something has a begining it cannot continue on. Could you explain how biogenesis happened?

OK. God created the first life forms. Why is it impossible for those life forms to then evolve? This is, in fact, what Darwin originally proposed.

 

[kingzfan2000]

My problem is that most of my questions have not been scientifically and empirically answered. We ask about the origin of sex and reproduction and we get a billion possible scenarios for how it could have happened. Well guesses and conjecture are not facts. We ask about the origin of things and we get educated guesses but no facts. How did sex originate? How did reptiles evolve into mammals? Why do only male cows have horns and only male deer have antlers (usually)? What is the origin of bees hive and honey making behavior? What is the origin of spider web weaving behavior? How did the turles shell evolve? Why did kangaroos and other marsupials develop pouches? How did the chameleon evolve the ability to perfectly blend into so many different environments with no conscious thought? How did the octopus develop its camaflouge, suction cups, and ink systems? How did the elephant develop such a long nose and why are its ears so huge and why and how did its tusk get so long and why do only the males develop long tusk? How did the scorpion develop its poisonous tail? How and why did the archer fish develop the ability to shoot water at bugs out of the water? I could go on and on.

We are always hearing about how science has answered all the questions pertaining to evolution but the truth is that we have gotton more extrapolation and wild guessing presented as factual answers than actual factual answers. I have no problem accepting factual answers, but the problem is that there are very few actual factual answers given and we are expected to just accept as fact anything a "scientist" says.

 

[MewtwoX]

My problem is that most of my questions have not been scientifically and empirically answered. We ask about the origin of sex and reproduction and we get a billion possible scenarios for how it could have happened. Well guesses and conjecture are not facts. We ask about the origin of things and we get educated guesses but no facts. How did sex originate? How did reptiles evolve into mammals? Why do only male cows have horns and only male deer have antlers (usually)? What is the origin of bees hive and honey making behavior? What is the origin of spider web weaving behavior? How did the turles shell evolve? Why did kangaroos and other marsupials develop pouches? How did the chameleon evolve the ability to perfectly blend into so many different environments with no conscious thought? How did the octopus develop its camaflouge, suction cups, and ink systems? How did the elephant develop such a long nose and why are its ears so huge and why and how did its tusk get so long and why do only the males develop long tusk? How did the scorpion develop its poisonous tail? How and why did the archer fish develop the ability to shoot water at bugs out of the water? I could go on and on.

We are always hearing about how science has answered all the questions pertaining to evolution but the truth is that we have gotton more extrapolation and wild guessing presented as factual answers than actual factual answers. I have no problem accepting factual answers, but the problem is that there are very few actual factual answers given and we are expected to just accept as fact anything a "scientist" says.

The problem here is that you are demanding much more than is needed to determine the validity of a concept. What is needed is a proof of the mechanism. All other aspects related to Evolution are considered evidenced by logic and an adherence to Evolutionary models. To ask for the how of everything, is like asking scientists to find all the gravitational forces of each and every planet in our solar system before accepting gravity as existing.

Most of what you ask for is theory, and it's proof is (as I said above) based on two points:

1. It logically follows. There are no internal contradictions within its explanation.
2. It adheres to the accepted Evolutionary models.

From this we accept these theories as valid, until we find evidence that disproves them. Standard stuff for inductive claims...

 

[dad]

OK. God created the first life forms. Why is it impossible for those life forms to then evolve? This is, in fact, what Darwin originally proposed.

I have to agree completely here. God created the first lifeforms, and they then evolved!!!!!!! Those lifeforms were man, animals, sea creatures, etc. and He did it 6000 years ago.

 

[MewtwoX]

One of the many things that has made me consider evolution impossible is that I have never seen a logical explanation of how life began upon this earth in the first place. (Biogenesis) It seems to me to be physically impossible. Most people no longer consider biogenesis a part of evolution, but unless something has a begining it cannot continue on. Could you explain how biogenesis happened?

Is Abiogenesis necessary to explain to accept Evolutionary Theory?

Consider this analogy:

Does it make any sense to insist that Abiogenesis be proven to accept the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Not at all, they're two different subjects. They don't relate with each other at all.

Evolution appears to have a closer relationship, but its a false one, as Evolution makes no claims on the beginnings of life. It merely posits a natural mechanism for our observation of common ancestry and fluidity in species.

 

[TexasSky]

Sorry folks, but like John, I've seen the teachings of the theory of evolution change and change and change again.

It seems everyone who keeps saying it hasn't changed is at least 15 years younger than I am, and a lot younger than John is.

Maybe you young folks haven't seen it change, but I have, and John has.

And if you search deeply enough into encylopedias and textbooks you'll run across statements like "new evolutionary theory" or "modern evolutionists" which should be indication enough that it has changed.

I have had a few arguements on this forum with people who say the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. When we were young, it was the explanation for evolution offered in the majority of schools.

The old "theory of evolution" they taught us in school was that the universe was a cloud of gas. That exploded. The explosion caused a chemical reaction, that chemical reaction started a chain of reactions which resulted in various things like earth, water, and primordial soup, primordial soup became a cell, a cell became a multi-celled-organism, a multi-celled-organism became a form of sea life, sea life became reptile, reptile became bird, bird became mammel.

We were forced to memorize that little chain.
We were forced to memorize the cute little charts from cromagnum to homo sapien.
We were taught that Piltdown was real, and that Lucy was the oldest fossil of modern man.
We were also taught that everything we had been taught was wrong.

Now, you folks scream at us when we even discuss the fact that we were taught that nonsense because it is such utter nonsense you can't believe it was even taught.

And yet you insist that our issues are all about faith because you are 100% positive that the science you are being taught is infallible and perfect and right.

Well, WE thought what WE were taught was "right" too. After all, they wouldn't teach us anything that was wrong would they?

When I was in school they taught that evolution was simply mutated creation reproducing in its mutated state. They were also teaching that mutated creation couldn't reproduce itself. There were more than a few of us who went, "Huh?" on that one.

Of course now they don't teach it that way. Now its species adaptation.

 

[Dannager]

And yet you insist that our issues are all about faith because you are 100% positive that the science you are being taught is infallible and perfect and right.

None of us believe that the theory of evolution is 100% infallible and perfect and right. But it's better than it was 50 years ago, better than it was 10 years ago, better than it was a year ago, and it's getting better at explaining what it does every day.

 

[gluadys]

It seems everyone who keeps saying it hasn't changed is at least 15 years younger than I am, and a lot younger than John is.

Maybe you young folks haven't seen it change, but I have, and John has.

I am as old or older than both you and John and I have seen very little change in the theory of evolution. Some refinements that take new information into account, but little essential change.

The old "theory of evolution" they taught us in school was that the universe was a cloud of gas. That exploded. The explosion caused a chemical reaction, that chemical reaction started a chain of reactions which resulted in various things like earth, water, and primordial soup, primordial soup became a cell, a cell became a multi-celled-organism, a multi-celled-organism became a form of sea life, sea life became reptile, reptile became bird, bird became mammel.

Unfortunately, especially in American schools, evolution is often badly taught. If you were taught that birds evolved into mammals, you were taught a falsehood.

We were forced to memorize that little chain.
We were forced to memorize the cute little charts from cromagnum to homo sapien.
We were taught that Piltdown was real, and that Lucy was the oldest fossil of modern man.
We were also taught that everything we had been taught was wrong.

Then you were taught more falsehoods. You should have been taught that Cro-Magnons were Homo sapiens. And, no, this is not a change in the science. The Cro-Magnon culture has always been identified as a culture of modern humans.

Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax in 1953. Even when you went to school you should have been taught this.

And scientists have never presented Lucy as an example of modern man. Lucy is not even in the same genus. Her scientific name is Australopithecus afarensis. By the way, Lucy was discovered in the 1970s. Just when were you taking high-school science? In the 40s (before the Piltdown hoax was discovered) or in the 70s (after Lucy was discovered?)

Now, you folks scream at us when we even discuss the fact that we were taught that nonsense because it is such utter nonsense you can't believe it was even taught.

Unfortunately, I can believe it was taught, though I can understand the scepticism of the younger contingent.

But why get angry with people who are showing you how bad your education in science was? Shouldn't the anger be directed at a school system which presented such bad information? I graduated from high school in 1957. My texts already presented Piltdown as a hoax and correctly identified Cro-Magnons as a human culture, not a pre-human ancestor of our species. It said nothing about Lucy, because that discovery was still more than 15 years in the future.

Maybe your bad education is as much faulty memory as actual classroom explanations.

And yet you insist that our issues are all about faith because you are 100% positive that the science you are being taught is infallible and perfect and right.

If any student today is being taught that current science is infallible and perfect and right, they too are receiving a bad science education. Scientists do not believe this and science students should not be taught this.

 

[JohnR7]

I am as old or older than both you and John and I have seen very little change in the theory of evolution.

Are you trying to suggest that the work they did on DNA in the 50's has had little or no impact on the theory of Evolution? Perhaps if you want to see something, then you have to open your eyes and look.

 

[JohnR7]

I have to agree completely here. God created the first lifeforms, and they then evolved!!!!!!! Those lifeforms were man, animals, sea creatures, etc. and He did it 6000 years ago.

So your a theistic evolutionist and a YEC?

 

[TheInstant]

Sorry folks, but like John, I've seen the teachings of the theory of evolution change and change and change again.

It seems everyone who keeps saying it hasn't changed is at least 15 years younger than I am, and a lot younger than John is.

Maybe you young folks haven't seen it change, but I have, and John has.

And if you search deeply enough into encylopedias and textbooks you'll run across statements like "new evolutionary theory" or "modern evolutionists" which should be indication enough that it has changed.

No one has said that the theory hasn't changed at all. What we've questioned is that it's changed the way you've said it has.

I have had a few arguements on this forum with people who say the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. When we were young, it was the explanation for evolution offered in the majority of schools.

Are you telling me that the big bang was portrayed as the process by which organisms evolve?

The old "theory of evolution" they taught us in school was that the universe was a cloud of gas. That exploded. The explosion caused a chemical reaction, that chemical reaction started a chain of reactions which resulted in various things like earth, water, and primordial soup, primordial soup became a cell, a cell became a multi-celled-organism, a multi-celled-organism became a form of sea life, sea life became reptile, reptile became bird, bird became mammel.

If this is the theory of evolution you were taught, I'm wondering if your teachers knew what they were talking about. What I would like to see is some evidence that the actual scientific literature at the time portrayed evolution like this, so that it can be determined whether this was teacher error or what.

We were forced to memorize that little chain.
We were forced to memorize the cute little charts from cromagnum to homo sapien.
We were taught that Piltdown was real, and that Lucy was the oldest fossil of modern man.
We were also taught that everything we had been taught was wrong.

This is something that happens when new evidence arises. It seems you are critiquing science in general and not evolutionary theory in particular. The theory of gravity has changed as well. Does that make you question whether or not gravity exists?

Now, you folks scream at us when we even discuss the fact that we were taught that nonsense because it is such utter nonsense you can't believe it was even taught.

I don't know who's screaming at you. I would just like some evidence besides your personal testimony that this is indeed what was taught, and if it was I would like some evidence that what you were taught accurately reflected scientific opinion at the time.

And yet you insist that our issues are all about faith because you are 100% positive that the science you are being taught is infallible and perfect and right.

Where are you getting this from? Who has said that evolution is infallible and perfect? Do you not see the irony of a creationist accusing someone of forming their opinion based on something they perceive to be infallible?

Well, WE thought what WE were taught was "right" too. After all, they wouldn't teach us anything that was wrong would they?

When I was in school they taught that evolution was simply mutated creation reproducing in its mutated state. They were also teaching that mutated creation couldn't reproduce itself. There were more than a few of us who went, "Huh?" on that one.

Of course now they don't teach it that way. Now its species adaptation.

Even if it were true that the theory of evolution has changed as drastically as you've made it out to, I don't see how it is a problem. Yes, scientific theories change with new evidence. This is a strength of science, not a weakness. Evolution seems to be the best current explanation for the diversity of biological organisms. Pointing out that it has changed in the past doesn't affect that.

 

[gluadys]

Are you trying to suggest that the work they did on DNA in the 50's has had little or no impact on the theory of Evolution? Perhaps if you want to see something, then you have to open your eyes and look.

Right. It clarifies what is meant by "mutation". We now understand that mutations are alterations to the DNA "recipe" for a gene.

Earlier, in the 1930s, the development of the modern synthesis clarified the role of the mutating gene in generating variation.

When Darwin first presented his thesis, he knew variation was essential, but he had no idea how variation originated or was preserved.

Learning first about the gene and then about DNA has filled in that gap. But it has not changed the basic theory of evolution.

What you may be referring to is that the discovery of DNA has led to many changes and refinements in our understanding of particular relationships among species and groups of species which has led to the redrawing of parts of the phylogenetic tree.

But the particularities of any part of the phylogenetic tree does not change the theory of evolution. It just changes some of our conclusions about the historical path of evolution.

Variation + natural selection = descent with modification (aka evolution) is still the core theory. That has not changed.

What has changed is that we have much more information than Darwin did about the source and mechanism of variation, and about the mechanism of natural selection and other processes of selection.

We also have much more information about the history of evolution.