What Is Evolution

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 08:47 AM wblastyn said this in Post #20


So you're trying to protect them from the evil "evolutionists"? Just tell them to stay in their homes, don't read any science journals, or just tell them the devil did it and to ignore any evidence because it's "of the devil" and to self-delude themselves into thinking there is no such thing as evolution. It seems to work for you.

Sounds good to me........

 

[Freedom777]

Thanks Follower That busted me up. You just chased the anger right out of me::

 

[Taffsadar]

Today at 08:18 PM Freedom777 said this in Post #22

Thanks Follower That busted me up. You just chased the anger right out of me::

Angry for what? Us not letting a creationist define evolution or getting laughed at for attempting it?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:01 AM Freedom777 said this in Post #1

It is vitally important that words such as" evolution" be used accurately and consistently.The theory of "evolution" that the evolutionists are really promoting,and which creationists oppose,is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent designer. The evolutionist Kerkut accurately defined this "general theory of evolution" (GTE) as "the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form" ...
The main scientific objection to GTE is NOT that changes occur through time,and neither is it about the size of the change. The key issue is the type of change required.

You didn't give us a citation to the "evolutionist Kerkut".  Until you do that so we can check up on it ourselves, I won't consider it valid.

Now, the first part of the statement -- "the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source " -- is an accurate paraphrase of common ancestry.  And yes, evolution does say that all species share common ancestors.

Now, the next comment "which itself came from an inorganic form", is not part of biological evolution. That's a separate theory called "abiogenesis".

Darwin himself separated the two:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."  C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

What science does is look for material causes.  And the causes for the diversity of the species seen on the planet are sufficient, as MATERIAL causes, to explain the diversity.  Are there other causes? Science can't answer that.  Once again back to Darwin, this time in the Fontispiece:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."  Butler:  Analogy of Revealed Religion.

So where is "without any need for an intelligent designer"?  Butler is stating, and Darwin is supporting, the idea that natural selection won't work without being set up by and sustained by an "intelligence".

When you say "intelligent designer" you mean what naturalists meant in Darwin's day -- a deity that manufactures biological organisms directly like humans manufacture cars and airplanes.  That type of "intelligent designer" is falsified by the data.

And theologians were ecstatic that such a Designer was falsified. Because that type of Designer makes all kinds of problems for Christianity.  The designs in nature show, that if they were made by your Designer, then the Designer is stupid, cruel, and suffereing from Alzheimer's.  Science can stand such a Designer. Christianity cannot.  Which is one reason Christians looked upon evolution as rescuing Christianity from Intelligent Design.




 

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:34 AM Freedom777 said this in Post #6

Arikay in not talking about your def of evolution ,I am talking about the scientific community at large.Now do you understand that.

No, you aren't.  You just say you are.  What you are actually doing is trying to define evolution as atheism.  We are not going to let you do that.

Let's look at the National Academy of Sciences definition of evolution.  Will you concede that the National Academy of Sciences represent the scientific community at large?

 Appendix and Frequently Asked Questions Science and Creationism, A View from the NAS, the section "What is Evolution?" says:

"Evolution in its broadest sense explains that what we see today is different from what existed in the past.  Galaxies, stars, the solar system, and Earth have changed through time, and so has life on Earth.
"Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on Earth.  It explains that living things share common ancestors.  Over time, biological processes such as natural selection give rise to new species.  Darwin called this process "descent with modification," which remains a good definition of biological evolution today."  pg 27

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 06:03 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #18



I am doing a study to work out some general guidelines for a sunday school program for third world nations. Also an approach to help our students deal with some of the subject matter that they will find in the secular school systems.

You know, we want to show them when it is appropriate to laugh and when a polite smile would be sufficient.

That's your flavor of the week (to borrow your phrase).  You've also stated that you are here to bring people to Christ.

As to the guidelines, that's easy. They laugh outright whenever anyone talks of a 6,000 year old earth,  the Noachian Deluge accounts for all of geology, or species do not change.  They can smile politely when the Anthropic Principle, irreducible complexity, complex specified information, or change limited to "kinds".

Curriculum problems solved for you, John. Anything more I can help you with?

 

[Freedom777]

quote
And theologians were ecstatic that such a Designer was falsified. Because that type of Designer makes all kinds of problems for Christianity. The designs in nature show, that if they were made by your Designer, then the Designer is stupid, cruel, and suffereing from Alzheimer's. Science can stand such a Designer. Christianity cannot. Which is one reason Christians looked upon evolution as rescuing Christianity from Intelligent Design



Ahhh but you did not take the fall of man into account.

 

[troodon]

The fall of man involved debilitating genetic diseases being added into the human genome? You think God would do this horrifying thing to innocent people?

 

[Arikay]

Forget inoccent people. What about the inoccent animals that didnt create the first sin. They get sick too.

 

[Zadok001]

Freedom777:

Actually, lucaspa took everything nicely into account. The *theologians* to whom she refers, however, did not take your specific interpretation of the fall of man into account. Recognize that you're shooting your own people here - Lucaspa was stating the publically available positions of CHRISTIANS.

Second, why is your version of the Fall the 'correct' one? It seems like you're jamming an awful lot into the Bible, into a space where no such literal data is found...

 

[wblastyn]

Ahhh but you did not take the fall of man into account.

How could man sinning add the information for a tail into the humn genome, give bats eyes, etc?

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 01:09 AM Arikay said this in Post #2
What is evolution?

If you want to know what evolution is, May I suggect an encyclopedia.

Why do you keep saying "evolution" when you mean the theory of evolution? Does it bother you for some reason to have to admit that it is just a theory?




 

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 06:30 AM Arikay said this in Post #19

But again, if all this science stuff doesnt matter, why are you bothering to post on this board?

I may at times agree with your assessment and admission that this board is a waste of time. But every now and then someone, somewhere says something worth while, that is just a rare event.

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 04:50 PM lucaspa said this in Post #24 stupid, cruel, and suffereing from Alzheimer's.  

Well, you just told us what path your on and where you are headed. You really should be more careful about what you say.

Of course I realize you must think these thoughts before you say them. If you had the mind of Christ, then you would have the divine thoughts of God and you would not get yourself into trouble like this. Do you want us to bring you flowers when your in the nursing home?

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 08:57 AM wblastyn said this in Post #31


How could man sinning add the information for a tail into the humn genome, give bats eyes, etc?

That thing about the human tail is nonsense. It has not ever really been accepted by anyone, other than those who are really desperate to try and rescue a theory that has been proven time and again not to be true.

 

[The Barbarian]

That thing about the human tail is nonsense. It has not ever really been accepted by anyone, other than those who are really desperate to try and rescue a theory that has been proven time and again not to be true.

No, that's wrong. True tails, complete with vertebrae, nerves, muscles, etc. have been observed in humans.

However, that's only a tiny bit of the mountain of evidence for evolution. There are other human atavisms as well, such as persistent body hair. This explains the purpose of the tiny muscles that erect human hairs when we get scared or cold; they once increased the insulation on our bodies by holding more air, or made us look larger and more threatening.

Neither of those things can happen now with our sparse and tiny hairs, but the now-useless trait remains.

 

[Taffsadar]

Today at 07:20 AM Freedom777 said this in Post #27

quote
And theologians were ecstatic that such a Designer was falsified. Because that type of Designer makes all kinds of problems for Christianity. The designs in nature show, that if they were made by your Designer, then the Designer is stupid, cruel, and suffereing from Alzheimer's. Science can stand such a Designer. Christianity cannot. Which is one reason Christians looked upon evolution as rescuing Christianity from Intelligent Design



Ahhh but you did not take the fall of man into account.

And apparently the allmighty god failed to take that into account too... Or it's just that god is playing with us to see how things go. Or there is no god.

 

[wblastyn]

Why do you keep saying "evolution" when you mean the theory of evolution? Does it bother you for some reason to have to admit that it is just a theory?

I'm sure this is just a joke because you know by now that a theory in science isn't the same thing as the every day use of the word.

That thing about the human tail is nonsense. It has not ever really been accepted by anyone, other than those who are really desperate to try and rescue a theory that has been proven time and again not to be true.

No, there's actually an x-ray of one and I believe Smilin said on another thread that his wife is a nurse and she sees babies with tails a lot more common than you might think. Also, a relative of my chemistry teacher was born with a tail. Why would we be desperate to rescue evolution if it were truely dying, what would be the point?

Still, at one point in his/her life, every human being does have a tail. Human embryos have a tail that measures about one-sixth of the size of the embryo itself. As the embryo develops into a fetus, the tail is absorbed by the growing body, but some traces remain even in adults. Occasionally, a child is born with a "soft tail," described by one embryologist as containing "no vertebrae, but blood vessels, muscles, and nerves, of the same consistency as the short tail of the Barbary ape."  Modern procedures allow doctors to eliminate the tail at birth, but some children have had to learn to live with them. The longest human tail on record belonged to a twelve-year-old boy living in what was then Indochina; he boasted nine inches, which was probably enough to make him very, very popular.

From http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_077.html

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 11:23 AM The Barbarian said this in Post #36



No, that's wrong. True tails, complete with vertebrae, nerves, muscles, etc. have been observed in humans.

Oh yeah, Thats like a hit-and-run tactic.

SHOW ME THE MONEY (or the tail... )

 

[Doubting Thomas]

O.K. Here's a thread from a few months back dealing with human tails:

www.christianforums.com/threads/28690.html