What’s your problem?

[shinbits]

The issue at the core of this, is that there is no real reason to assume that any of the three sets of assumptions you are highlighting there didn't happen in the past.

At the same time, there's no reason to assume that they did happen, nor is there any reason to believe that they happened as evolution says it did---which is a way which is a huge shot in the dark. And if there's no real reason to believe this, there's no real reason to believe in evolution, which is full of many other speculative things.

 

[Oliver]

At the same time, there's no reason to assume that they did happen, nor is there any reason to believe that they happened as evolution says it did---

But there ARE reasons to believe they did happen.

 

[puresoul]

Well, things have certainly happened while I slept. No doubt you're all in different countries and in different time zones.

Well, enough about the time.

Guys, it was just a little pamplet I was posting on here. There are evan some thing in there that I might not completely agree with. It was written by a protestant, and I'm Catholic. (Yes, I know it doesn't say that in the religion things, but I can't figure out how to change it)

I believe that Genesis (in the Bible) is completely true. However, evolution and the Bible go hand-in-hand for me.

Bible stuff in blue, evolution theory kicking in in red.

Why we might look a bit like monkeys (Apes, whatever!):
After the fall, (Anyone who read the Bible or evan lives near a Christian should know what this is) Adam and Eve were cursed. They were no longer part of the magical world of Eden when they ate of the Forbidden Tree. They became mortals. They grew completely away from God. After they were kicked out of Eden...
The fall made them become lesser beings, and since it is proven that apes are just one step below humans, they became like apes. Just because they looked like normal humans wearing those fancy Islamic clothing in those Bible story books made for children doesn't mean that's how it was in the Bible. In the beginning of time, the first humans, Adam and Eve, were like apes. They fell from grace, they fell from God, they fell from humanity. That is when they evolved back into full humans during the beginning, after the fall. God made man to His likeness, they fell from Him, they fell from His likeness.
The Flood.
Everyone knows the story of Noah and the Ark. World bad, Noah and family good, God flood world but let Noah move himself, family, and friends into a huge ark and a bunch of animals, and then Noah re-populates the world. Note that this wasn't that far away from when the world fell, so direct contact to God as literal as it is displayed in the Bible was still possible. God helped to re-populate the world.
After the flood and re-population, everyone still looked a bit like the cave-men. The human species has re-started, so they grow more into human beings through evolution, a process that God has designed the world to do.
The tower of Babel (And evolution of the races)
Everyone spoke the same language after the flood. They all went to Babylonia and settled down. They decided to build a tower for themselves so they couldn't be scattered all over the world. It would reach up toward Heaven, apparently. God decided to change their languages and scatter them across the globe.
Now in different countries, these people spoke different languages and have adapted to where they were through evolution. Africans lived in a very hot place, so their skin turned very dark. Japanese changed into another race, so did Europeans, and the rest. God scattered the world, changed their language, and changed their race through evolution. If you can believe the whole world came through evolution, then you can believe that peoples skin can evolve, too. After everyone figured out how to get to these places God put them on, everyone knows how to get to these places now, so now we can mix the colors through evolution as well. But for a long time, these humans were stuck in these countries, so the sun and surroundings there had effected their skin.

So you see that I believe that evolution and the Bible go hand-in-hand. Anyone who believes in nothing but evolution, or nothing but the Bible world as it is displayed today, they are being too extreme. This is what I believe.
At least I came back, eh?

 

[Loudmouth]

The "observed mechanisms" are assumed and not seen in action to the degree of new specie fabrication.

Wrong again. Mutations, selection, and speciation have all been observed.

Mutations

Selection

Speciation

That means that the whole premise of evolution is made up.

Nope, it's observed in today's world unlike deities popping in new species out of thin air.

Observed, unique qualities within a species does not equate drifting towards the establishment of another specie.

The production of two isolated breeding populations from a previously interbreeding population does equate to speciation. This has been observed.

GOD is unique. HIS CREATION exhibits that attribute of HIS character. Creationism is based on the principle of GOD unique character which is seen throughout nature . . .

Prove it.

This is the lie of evolution and the lie that is being shoved down every public school student's throat to the spiritual harm of our children.

That's what the pope said about Galileo and heliocentrism. I'm afraid you are doomed to repeat the same errors.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I was making the point that a random, chaotic process is not a good example to support a belief that another random process results in the right type of mutations, under the right type of circumstances, (such as that they don't disapear over time, as you've already acknowledged it does.)

I think I may have a more down to earth analogy that may help you with your hang up about assuming random processes happened in the past. Car accidents are an “infrequent” random occurrence. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that car accidents happened in the past. Even though they are random and “infrequent” it is not a simple assumption to accept that they happened in the past. (It's the same exact concept with mutations)

 

[LittleNipper]

I think I may have a more down to earth analogy that may help you with your hang up about assuming random processes happened in the past. Car accidents are an “infrequent” random occurrence. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that car accidents happened in the past. Even though they are random and “infrequent” it is not a simple assumption to accept that they happened in the past. (It's the same exact concept with mutations)

Has a car accident ever been proven to bring about good results to those involved? I know of NONE. Enlighten me. If this is a proof of the benefit of mutations ----- it just killed the notion....

 

[puresoul]

What exactly are you two talking about? What does a car accident have to do with evolution?

 

[Garnett]

Has a car accident ever been proven to bring about good results to those involved? I know of NONE. Enlighten me. If this is a proof of the benefit of mutations ----- it just killed the notion....

LOL. Lucky that wasn't what the example was being used to prove then wasn't it? A Creationist moving the goalposts? Surely not?

Wilful misdirection or geniune ignorance: Creationism cazn only be one of two things in this day and age.

 

[TheInstant]

Guys, it was just a little pamplet I was posting on here. There are evan some thing in there that I might not completely agree with.

Well what about the parts you did agree with? Do you still agree with them? Do you have any questions or comments about any of the responses we've posted?

Bible stuff in blue, evolution theory kicking in in red.

Why we might look a bit like monkeys (Apes, whatever!):
After the fall, (Anyone who read the Bible or evan lives near a Christian should know what this is) Adam and Eve were cursed. They were no longer part of the magical world of Eden when they ate of the Forbidden Tree. They became mortals. They grew completely away from God. After they were kicked out of Eden...
The fall made them become lesser beings, and since it is proven that apes are just one step below humans, they became like apes. Just because they looked like normal humans wearing those fancy Islamic clothing in those Bible story books made for children doesn't mean that's how it was in the Bible. In the beginning of time, the first humans, Adam and Eve, were like apes. They fell from grace, they fell from God, they fell from humanity. That is when they evolved back into full humans during the beginning, after the fall. God made man to His likeness, they fell from Him, they fell from His likeness.
The Flood.
Everyone knows the story of Noah and the Ark. World bad, Noah and family good, God flood world but let Noah move himself, family, and friends into a huge ark and a bunch of animals, and then Noah re-populates the world. Note that this wasn't that far away from when the world fell, so direct contact to God as literal as it is displayed in the Bible was still possible. God helped to re-populate the world.
After the flood and re-population, everyone still looked a bit like the cave-men. The human species has re-started, so they grow more into human beings through evolution, a process that God has designed the world to do.
The tower of Babel (And evolution of the races)
Everyone spoke the same language after the flood. They all went to Babylonia and settled down. They decided to build a tower for themselves so they couldn't be scattered all over the world. It would reach up toward Heaven, apparently. God decided to change their languages and scatter them across the globe.
Now in different countries, these people spoke different languages and have adapted to where they were through evolution. Africans lived in a very hot place, so their skin turned very dark. Japanese changed into another race, so did Europeans, and the rest. God scattered the world, changed their language, and changed their race through evolution. If you can believe the whole world came through evolution, then you can believe that peoples skin can evolve, too. After everyone figured out how to get to these places God put them on, everyone knows how to get to these places now, so now we can mix the colors through evolution as well. But for a long time, these humans were stuck in these countries, so the sun and surroundings there had effected their skin.

So you see that I believe that evolution and the Bible go hand-in-hand. Anyone who believes in nothing but evolution, or nothing but the Bible world as it is displayed today, they are being too extreme. This is what I believe.

So basically are you saying that you accept what creationists refer to as microevolution, but reject a single common ancestor? Just trying to make sure I understand your position.

At least I came back, eh?

Sure, but where is the butt-kicking you promised?

 

[puresoul]

Well what about the parts you did agree with? Do you still agree with them? Do you have any questions or comments about any of the responses we've posted?

I admit that I still agree with most of it. I think that evolution exists, but everything in the Bible is also true. I think we were ape-like after the fall because the fall caused them to become like cave-men.
And no, I don't have any questions.

So basically are you saying that you accept what creationists refer to as microevolution, but reject a single common ancestor? Just trying to make sure I understand your position.

Basically... I have no clue what you said. Could you make it a little simpler, without so many big words?

Sure, but where is the butt-kicking you promised?

I thought this was a different kind of topic. It turns out you're all debating on wether evolution exists or not, not about God. I believe evolution exists, only it started after the fall of mankind.

 

[LittleNipper]

What exactly are you two talking about? What does a car accident have to do with evolution?

That is the question. What do accidents have to do with creation? NOTHING.

What do accidents have to do with evolution? It would seem that is exactly what evolutionists believe. Every specie that exists , exists because of a series of accidents.... Not a very logical theory---especially when the "accidents" cannot be either repeated or promoted by those who believe this. But that is the reality of mutation and survival, if that is all there is.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

That is the question. What do accidents have to do with creation? NOTHING.

What do accidents have to do with evolution? It would seem that is exactly what evolutionists believe. Every specie that exists , exists because of a series of accidents.... Not a very logical theory---especially when the "accidents" cannot be either repeated or promoted by those who believe this. But that is the reality of mutation and survival, if that is all there is.

What accidents are you talking about LittleNipper? Please be as specific as you are able to.

 

[OdwinOddball]

That is the question. What do accidents have to do with creation? NOTHING.

What do accidents have to do with evolution? It would seem that is exactly what evolutionists believe. Every specie that exists , exists because of a series of accidents.... Not a very logical theory---especially when the "accidents" cannot be either repeated or promoted by those who believe this. But that is the reality of mutation and survival, if that is all there is.

Seirously Nip, try actually reading the thread. He was making an ANALOGY. Not saying that this is what Evolution was about, just using it to try to demonstrate a point. A point which if you had bothered to read the entire thread instead of just latching on to one phrase you would have understood.

 

[LittleNipper]

Seirously Nip, try actually reading the thread. He was making an ANALOGY. Not saying that this is what Evolution was about, just using it to try to demonstrate a point. A point which if you had bothered to read the entire thread instead of just latching on to one phrase you would have understood.

SIEROUSLY.................. What makes his ANALOGY any better than my own. Accidents is what evolution IS all about -----unless you are thinking of throwing G O D in the mix. If you are going to accept GOD, you might as well just believe HE did what HE did pretty much as HE had recorded that HE did it in HIS WORD.

 

[LittleNipper]

What accidents are you talking about LittleNipper? Please be as specific as you are able to.

The accident that GOD would make a monkey out of HIS SON....

 

[LewisWildermuth]

The accident that GOD would make a monkey out of HIS SON....

So if God does not look like you and say that you are special you want nothing to do with God? Very shallow of you Nip, both in faith and basic humanity.

 

[LittleNipper]

So if God does not look like you and say that you are special you want nothing to do with God? Very shallow of you Nip, both in faith and basic humanity.

II Corinthians 4:4

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest light of the glorious gospel of CHRIST, who is the image of GOD, should shine unto them.


The fact is that those that slander the image of man, slander the image of GOD HIMSELF. It isn't about me or you-----it is about GOD and HIS IMAGE.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Has a car accident ever been proven to bring about good results to those involved? I know of NONE. Enlighten me. If this is a proof of the benefit of mutations ----- it just killed the notion....

The post was in response to the fact that shinbits accepts that the sun rose and set in the past because it is a regular occurrence but he denies knowing mutations happened in the past because they are an “infrequent” random occurrence. I simply gave an example of another “infrequent” random occurrence (car accidents) to help him wrap his mind around the fact that just because it’s an “infrequent” random occurrence doesn’t mean we can’t know it happened in the past. Both of these occurrences (mutations and car accidents) may be “infrequent” and random but they are reliably regular in the grand scheme of things.

 

[shinbits]

I think I may have a more down to earth analogy that may help you with your hang up about assuming random processes happened in the past. Car accidents are an “infrequent” random occurrence. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that car accidents happened in the past. Even though they are random and “infrequent” it is not a simple assumption to accept that they happened in the past. (It's the same exact concept with mutations)

It's the exact same concept? You mean that even though we know that mutations are rare and infrequent, there's no reason to believe it happened in the past? Just like with car accidents?

If u say so.

 

[gluadys]

Okay. But this all goes back to the assumptions that have to be made.

It must first be assumed that mutations even happened. There is no way at all to know this, it can only be assumed.

Mutations happen all the time. Almost every time a cell replicates. It is rational to assume they were happening at every point in the history of life.

That's because we can observe that that's how the sun appears to rise now.

Exactly the same basis for assuming that mutations happened in the past as they do in the present.

Then it must be assumed that the mutations were passed on and remained in the gene pool.

There is nowhere to keep them except in the gene pool. If they are lost to the gene pool, they are lost. So, if they still exist, they must have been passed on.

Then it must be assumed that enough mutations happened over millions of years, to cause enough change in a population to become a new species.

Again, mutations are happening all the time. Where is the problem?

We also must assume what adaptive pressures may have been there to adapt to. There is definately no way to know that.

Actually, we don't need to know what adaptive pressures there were. All we need to know is that an adaptation took place, and that is obvious from the changes that occurred. Adaptation shows that some adaptive pressure existed, but it doesn't spell out for sure what the adaptive pressure was.

We can speculate of course, and sometimes we can test out an idea of what the adaptive pressure was. For example, the idea that giraffes grew long necks to feed on tall trees is no longer seen to fit with the evidence that they eat at all levels. So why long necks? Possibly this is an example of sexual selection, since male giraffes engage in combat with their necks when seeking mates.

Of course, it could also be another reason no one has thought of yet. An adaptive change is evidence of adaptive pressure, but it does not identify a specific adaptive pressure.