I assure you I know more about evolution than you do, and I don't need to look it up in a dictionary. In fact the dictionary definition is probably not a good place to start understanding what evolution really is. There are different ways evolution is used; biological evolution (what were talking about), stellar evolution (how stars go through their life stages), chemical evolution (also known as abiogenesis and not biological evolution). In biological evolution there is only one evolution, but it is broken into micro and macro. Micro as changes with in species while macro deals with speciation. Lots of micro equals macro.
Yes we have.
No it doesn't. How do you think evolutionary theory says dinosaurs evolved into birds? That a dino laid an egg and a blue jay popped out? Because that is not how it works. Over millions of years each generation changes slightly and over those millions of years we can see radical changes.
I think you missed the substance of that part in my post. If God created everything as said in Genesis (with the same natural laws) we would still see evolution because there would still be mutations, genetic drift and so on.
Despite I didn't say we came from fossils (I said that fossils were evidence), fossils are essentially minerals from the ground, and closer to dust than what we actually came from.
Do you just accept everything your pastor/minister says about the Bible? Or do you look into the Bible yourself and see if what they say aligns with what you read in the Bible? At some level, even if you do the later, you must realize that they know so much more than you do and you have to trust that what they are saying is true. It is the same way with science, the layman can look at a lot of the evidence themselves and see that what scientists are saying is correct. At the same time every layman, and even professionals, must admit that they don't and can't know everything and they must trust that other scientists will tell the truth of their findings.
And what is this knowledge you speak of? All I'm saying is that the YEC view of God is very restrictive and in many respects too small for our modern world.
YEC tries to fit the evidence into their view of a literal Genesis, but the evidence doesn't support that claim. Going into the specifics is probably not appropriate for this area, perhaps origins or the creo-evo debate under the life sciences forum would be better.
This is just not what the evidence presents.
The link isn't very well categorized, and I doubt I would be able to find anything specific if I looked. But if you have a link that shows how the evidence fits a global flood and it formed the grand canyon post it.
I find it amusing that I said that I can see why 2 Peter could be viewed as a prophesy, although I don't agree that is what is it, but instead of showing me how Romans 1 or 3 is prophesy you decide to post about 2 Peter instead.
As Dark Lite is trying to get you to understand, evolution doesn't say anything other than explain why there is diversity in life. To draw any other conclusions from evolutionary theory is not scientific but falls into realms such as philosophy and theology.
Good luck convincing the vast majority of Christians that they are willingly ignorant of God's word.
This has nothing to do with evolution.
If we assume this idea (uniformity of nature) is false, than we have very little to work with. To work under the assumption that it is correct than we open up new possibilities of research. If after we do some research and the evidence doesn't quite fit with that assumption, than we might have to conclude that the assumption is incorrect. However, since we have done reasearch related to this there is no reason to question this.
Some, but it is a very primitive form compared to ours.
For food, protection, territory (sort of like protection). However animals don't commit genocide or start wars with each other, humans on the other hand do. Perhaps we should learn from the simplicity of animal morality.
Well evolution doesn't teach that no afterlife exists, or that animals have no morality (in fact science would disagree there), nor does evolution teach that people have a choice in what they believe, it only explains the diversity of life.
Evolution says nothing about that (perhaps a little on homosexuality but that is another conversation all together).
Science can show how basic morality, as seen in some animals like dogs, could have been selected for and with our advanced frontal lobe and cerebral cortex we could create a higher sense of morality that could serve as a selected advantage to other animals (btw, we are animals). I would say that God ultimately decides what is right and what is wrong. However, I doubt He is unsympathetic to our individual circumstances. Meaning that the principles of what is right and wrong doesn't change, but how we express those principles can.
You yourself assume many things that are just wrong. Dark Lite already demonstrated how our senses can be mislead, and there are many more. Generally our senses are good enough; I'm positive I am seeing a computer screen in front of me, I'm positive I am feeling the keyboard on my fingertips, I'm positive I am hearing my dog barking at the mailman, I'm positive my dog smells really bad right now and needs a bath, I'm positive there's a blueberry jolly rancher in my mouth because I can taste it. But it has been shown that the senses are not always reliable.
You obviously don't know how memory works. It can be changed, corrupted and warped. If a bunch of people are in a room talking, nothing out of the ordinary, than a person dressed in a gorilla suit walked right in the middle of the room and out, almost no one would have seen it! Does that sound like a reliable memory? Other experiments have been done that show how the memory can be changed due to social pressures and just plain wrong. Memory is very unreliable.
Sure, but evolution says nothing about them.
You are adding things to what evolution says that clearly have nothing to do with evolution.
This is more of a psychology/sociology question rather than evolution. Many people felt that Michael Jackson did a lot to touch their lives and the lives of millions, and the sudden unexpected death of that person was a shock to millions and they felt sorrow because they were touched. While any life lost or radically changed due to war in the middle east is horrible, none of them are known throughout the world, and outside of their family and friends not many people will morn them. If everyone in the world was to morn everyone who had died nothing would get done, that's why most people only morn those who they feel connected to. While it can be troublesome at times to think about, it is not necessarily a bad thing to recognize.
The ToE doesn't teach anything other than the diversity of life. Anything passed that is not science. So how exactly does evolution harm families and make them suffer?
The reliability of the senses and memory is not an all or none side, the reality is somewhere in the middle. Dark Lite showed how your eyes can be deceived and I showed you how memory can be deceived.
Upvote
0
