Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[JacksBratt]

If the very first life form were created by a deity, and all life evolved from that universal ancestor, what in the theory of evolution would need to change?

Proof and motif.

If the very first life form were created, would you need evolution?
If there was a creator that created one life form, could it then have created all of them?
If there was a book of ancient writing that described just that, could it not be considered true?
If this book was true, is there anything, that you know of that would not make sense?
If something created us, would it have the right to ask us to answer to it for our actions?

 

[justlookinla]

Then explain why a designer would go out of their way to make life look like it evolved when it really didn't.

You'd have to ask the designer why He did what He did but I suspect you'd quickly be in over your head in understanding.

I just showed you the evidence for a universal common ancestor. I started with that evidence.

You haven't, using the scientific method, shown that humanity is the result of random/chance mutations acting on this alleged common ancestor....which incidentally hasn't yet been identified.

Ka/Ks ratios and the nested hierarchy are exactly that evidence, as already discussed.

Neither are evidence that only random/chance mutations were the creative impetus on the first life form which eventually resulted in the creation of humanity.

 

[JacksBratt]

Of course there is. Sequence conservation compared to unconserved sequence is just that evidence. It demonstrates that detrimental mutations have to be removed from DNA sequences through natural selection. If mutations are detrimental, neutral, and beneficial, then they are random with respect to fitness. Also, we see a nested hierarchy which is expected from random mutations.

So, looking at the highlighted text, are you saying that we are getting better and better?

Think now, about the amount of allergies, auto immune diseases, food intolerance, cancers, mental illnesses and other diseases that weren't around before.

Are we really getting better? Or is medical advances just keeping us alive longer?

 

[JacksBratt]

Then explain why a designer would go out of their way to make life look like it evolved when it really didn't.

The designer didn't. People don't want to believe there is a designer so they extrapolate and create the theory of evolution as the only alternative.

If there is a designer then there is no need to believe the theory of evolution.
It is not necessary. You can say the designer used evolution. I can say why bother?

The fossil record shows the creatures once existed. It does not prove they changed over time from an amoeba to a giraffe.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Proof and motif.

If the very first life form were created, would you need evolution?

Because evolution would explain how we got from one life form to the multitudes of different life forms we see today.

If there was a creator that created one life form, could it then have created all of them?

It could have -- is that the case?

If there was a book of ancient writing that described just that, could it not be considered true?

There are several such books of ancient writing -- why believe any one over the others?

If this book was true, is there anything, that you know of that would not make sense?

Depends on which book we're talking about -- but generally speaking, there would be plenty which didn't make sense.

If something created us, would it have the right to ask us to answer to it for our actions?

One always has the right to ask... we reserve the right to tell it to take a hike.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes, stratigraphy, where the fossil age is determined by the strata it is found in and then the stata age is determined by the type of fossil found in it. Very circular. Then you have a tree, fossilized, going right up through all of it.

Ya, very scientific.

No, that is not stratigraphy. I see I have to look it up for you.. here:
STENO'S PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY

THE PRINCIPLE OF SUPERPOSITION

* In a sequence of strata, any stratum is younger than the sequence of strata on which it rests, and is older than the strata that rest upon it.
"...at the time when any given stratum was being formed, all the matter resting upon it was fluid, and, therefore, at the time when the lower stratum was being formed, none of the upper strata existed." Steno, 1669.

PRINCIPLE OF INITIAL HORIZONTALITY

* Strata are deposited horizontally and then deformed to various attitudes later.
"Strata either perpendicular to the horizon or inclined to the horizon were at one time parallel to the horizon." Steno, 1669.

PRINCIPLE OF STRATA CONTINUITY

* Strata can be assumed to have continued laterally far from where they presently end.
"Material forming any stratum were continuous over the surface of the Earth unless some other solid bodies stood in the way." Steno, 1669

PRINCIPLE OF CROSS CUTTING RELATIONSHIPS

* Things that cross-cut layers probably postdate them.
"If a body or discontinuity cuts across a stratum, it must have formed after that stratum." Steno, 1669
STENO'S STRATIGRAPHY

Inference extrapolation, speculation and interpretation cannot prove transition or anything else. In fact, it is used to guess intelligently. I use it at work all the time. We extrapolate a tiny bit of data to get us in the ballpark. No client of mine will bank on the extrapolated data. It guides us for further study. Even if a hundred or a thousand doctors say so, it's not truth. It's someones guess.

Again, we do not prove in science. Proof is for alcohol and mathematics.. and "Truth" is for creationists. As long as evolution explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth better than anything else, it will continue to be used by scientists. Show us something better.

Evolution is someones guess and all the data is squished to fit into the mold. If something doesn't fit they stretch the mold, change the definition, through out the old part that used to be solid truth and splice on the new piece. Just stay as far away from ID as you can.

I.D. has no predictive ability and is not testable. There is no "theory of intelligent design."

No, I will never lose my faith in God. I am not worried in any way. I am also certain that evolution will never be proven to be true.

Good for you then.. other creationists are scared of losing their faith... like Juvie.

The more bullying it takes to keep a myth alive, the more of a fable it is.

I guess that's why creationist try to bully teachers into watering down the teaching of science in public schools and try to get legislation passed to ban it or get it taught with psuedo-science.

I stated that truth is not a democracy. Obviously science is. Just ask one scientist to state something that goes against the rest, the shenanigans that would take place next is like bringing a lit match into a powder keg. Whether the scientist is presenting truth never even matters. The masses will always protect their pre-orchestrated, pre-accepted, never to be disputed or contradicted scenario at all costs.

I explained already what happens if you propose a new idea... you have to defend it. If you cannot you will be ripped apart. If you can, even if many are not in agreement, it will win out in the end. That is how science is advanced. That is what happened with Barbara McClintock's research. Everyone accepts transposons now.

Thing is, if a scientist or professor stood up in his university and declared that he has decided that the truth points to evolution being a myth, hoax, farce.... he would be demoted fired and tossed out.

He would have to support his claim. So far none can. If he made slanderous claims about fraud and couldn't back it up, then yes, he should be fired.

This is more than the criticism of peer to peer discussion and debate that you call "tearing into each other. Everyone still goes home with their job, their funding, their accreditation etc. Unless of course you are mentioning the logic of creation.

Where is the "logic" of creation? Creation by divine fiat is logical? Where is the physical evidence?... that is the question. The "logic" of creation by divine fiat is fine for a seminary... but not for scientific research.

There are many discussions within creation. I don't believe there is a doctrine out there that has none.

And there will continue to be "discussion," and there will never by a consensus. No idea is testable, so none can be falsified.

I do like the dig about how "creationists would cry". This is because evolutionists are "no girly man"? Very mature.

In my experience, many creationist have a very thin skin. They cry "persecution," when anyone tells them they are wrong. If you did that in academia, you wouldn't last long.

Go ahead, stick your head in the sand and deny it. It is there and real. There is no crying just utter pity for the system that wants their status quo and don't muddle things with truth.

Deny what? The physical evidence? I'm not the one denying that.

Sorry don't see any scripture in my post. Can you explain how I've interpreted something that is not there?

Tell us then how you have arrived at "the truth," if not from scripture.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Exactly, evolution only "predicts" that's it. Then the bones fit the predictions. It's still predictions. Not fact. If bones are found that don't fit the prediction, then the prediction changes or the bones are lost, destroyed or dismissed as a hoax.

How do you know that to be true?


You talk about just making things up as if it was a bad thing, then you do it.

 

[lasthero]

Not knowing why people do things doesn't mean they don't do that particular thing. It means, to me, it is pointless but still happens.

But you don't evidence that they even do the particular thing.

The people that force evolution don't "have" creation. It's like a knife in their gut. Creation is what they are trying to kill.

Why? They know it's true. Why kill it? What's the motive?

Look at what you said. "Darwin goes back to the 1800's" followed by "people believed in a6000 year old book even 5800 years after it was written."

Yep, that's funny. People believed the Bible, even in the 1800's.

I'm guessing that they believed it in 600BC too. Wow Hilarious.

Actually, what I meant was there were people like you saying that evolution was a doomed belief system and saying it would die out soon, even back then. They were wrong. So are you.

Oh please. Just take a look. UFO sightings are on the increase all over the globe.

Really? I'd love to see that stastic.

The use of cell phones for video and camera's has greatly increased the phenomenon. The US government is coming clean and many retired military men are stepping out.

The US government is coming clean about UFO and aliens? Really? Are you sure you're not confusing reality with, like...Independence Day?

I bet this will be even more of a factor than creation due to the fact that it is everywhere, recorded, the objects are common to all reports, function the same and display the same characteristics.

I get the sinking feeling you will do nothing to back up this statement. Kooks rarely do.

I'm not saying they are aliens from another planet, but whatever they are, they are there, no doubt.

America's Stonehenge is an archaeological site consisting of a number of large rocks and stone structures scattered around roughly 30 acres within the town of Salem, New Hampshire in the northeast United States.

Draw a line through this site, lining up its keystone and the line goes precisely through stone henge in Wiltshire England. The line continues through a megalith in Lebanon.

That's three things a world apart perfectly aligned with no GPS, satellites, aerial capabilities....

While interesting, why must we automatically go to aliens as the explanation?

 

[lasthero]

Proteins are required, period. The DNA is an amazing storage system for reams and reams of data, it needed complex compounds called proteins to even exist let alone exist with all the data in all the right places.....

Plug your ears, I can hear the DNA screaming "Designer".

Do you hear these voices often? If so, it might explain a few things.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, looking at the highlighted text, are you saying that we are getting better and better?

I would say that our environment is changing at such a quick rate that evolution is having a tough time keeping up. The most deleterious mutations are still being eliminated, but alleles that would have been detrimental in the past are no longer as detrimental due to modern medicine.

In the end, there are still spontaneous mutations that are giving rise to very bad genetic diseases in the human population. Those are still being eliminated by the very fact that these individuals do not make it to adulthood to produce children.

More to the point, a comparison of the human genome to the genomes of other apes shows that orthologous protein coding regions show clear signs of constraint compared to pseudogenes. You can see the evidence of natural selection in the genomes.

Think now, about the amount of allergies, auto immune diseases, food intolerance, cancers, mental illnesses and other diseases that weren't around before.

They weren't around? How do you figure?

 

[Loudmouth]

Proof and motif.

Proof of what? What kind of motif? A middle eastern motif?

If the very first life form were created, would you need evolution?

I don't see why not. Simple RNA replicators probably don't fill God's grand vision of biodiversity. You need some way of producing biodiversity, and evolution would certainly fit that bill.

If there was a creator that created one life form, could it then have created all of them?

Could God create one simple life form and then allow the laws in his creation produce the biodiversity we see today?

If God were creating each species separately, why would we see a nested hierarchy? Why don't we see mammal/bird intermediates, or species with three middle ear bones and feathers? Why do we only see the pattern of homology that we would expect from evolution?

If there was a book of ancient writing that described just that, could it not be considered true?

If the evidence in the creation were consistent with evolution, could it be considered true?

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly, evolution only "predicts" that's it. Then the bones fit the predictions. It's still predictions. Not fact.

The bones are the facts, and they match the predictions.

If bones are found that don't fit the prediction, then the prediction changes or the bones are lost, destroyed or dismissed as a hoax.

In the real world, a nested hierarchy was predicted by Darwin 150 years ago, and the fossils continue to match that prediction. On top of that, the more recent discovery of DNA served as a very serious challenge since DNA should also match the tree produced by morphology. It does. This observations can not be explained by separate creation since not creator would be forced to make DNA match morphology.

One common objection is the assertion that anatomy is not independent of biochemistry, and thus anatomically similar organisms are likely to be similar biochemically (e.g. in their molecular sequences) simply for functional reasons. According to this argument, then, we should expect phylogenies based on molecular sequences to be similar to phylogenies based on morphology even if organisms are not related by common descent. This argument is very wrong. There is no known biological reason, besides common descent, to suppose that similar morphologies must have similar biochemistry. Though this logic may seem quite reasonable initially, all of molecular biology refutes this "common sense" correlation. In general, similar DNA and biochemistry give similar morphology and function, but the converse is not true—similar morphology and function is not necessarily the result of similar DNA or biochemistry. The reason is easily understood once explained; many very different DNA sequences or biochemical structures can result in the same functions and the same morphologies (see predictions 4.1 and 4.2 for a detailed explanation).

As a close analogy, consider computer programs. Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different. Computer programs that perform the same functions can be written in most any computer language—Basic, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. and identical programs can be compiled into binary code many different ways. Furthermore, even using the same computer language, there are many different ways to write any specific computer program, even using the same algorithms and subroutines. In the end, there is no reason to suspect that similar computer programs are written with similar code, based solely on the function of the program. This is the reason why software companies keep their source code secret, but they don't care that competitors can use their programs—it is essentially impossible to deduce the program code from the function and operation of the software. The same conclusion applies to biological organisms, for very similar reasons.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1​

Creation doesn't have to predict anything. It is observed exactly as it was created.

If "creation" is being put forth as an explanation, then yes, it does have to make predictions. If any conceivable observations is consistent with "creation" then it explains nothing.

What if someone proved that the ancestors and descendants were always all the same? Then evolution would be dead. So, yes, you do have to prove that they were different or they never evolved.

All we need to do is determine if the facts match the predictions, and they do.

 

[Loudmouth]

If these faithful people of the theory of evolution can swallow the faith that a single cell being, once formed somehow somewhere and gradually turned into all the creatures on the earth, cannot tell me where life came from or won't "go there". Then I gotta think that it's pretty far fetched.

So, then something must have produced it.

Why would we need faith when we have evidence?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

 

[Loudmouth]

Your saying they haven't?

I think you have proven just how damaging the evidence is for creationism. Your only viable strategy is to accuse scientists of directly changing the fossils. If the fossils weren't so obviously transitional and supportive of evolution, why would you have to use such an argument?

 

[Split Rock]

The designer didn't. People don't want to believe there is a designer so they extrapolate and create the theory of evolution as the only alternative.

You never read On the Origin of Species, did you? In it Darwin explained why what he actually observed in the real world did not make sense if species were created by a designer. For example, why there were distinct and unique species of finches on different islands in the Galapagos chain that resembled finches on the mainland, but are found no where else.

If there is a designer then there is no need to believe the theory of evolution.
It is not necessary. You can say the designer used evolution. I can say why bother?

Maybe he didn't want to sit there and make designs when he could create a universe that would do it for him?

The fossil record shows the creatures once existed. It does not prove they changed over time from an amoeba to a giraffe.

Yes, it does. You are ignoring stratigraphy. The geological column shows us that not only have species replaced each other over time, but entire ecological systems have replaced each other over time. Evolution explains how.

 

[Loudmouth]

You never read On the Origin of Species, did you? In it Darwin explained why what you actually observed in the real world did not make sense if species were created by a designer. For example, why there were distinct and unique species of finches on different islands in the Galapagos chain that resembled finches on the mainland, but are found no where else.


Maybe he didn't want to sit there and make designs when he could create a universe that would do it for him?


Yes, it does. You are ignoring stratigraphy. The geological column shows us that not only have species replaced each other over time, but entire ecological systems have replaced each other over time. Evolution explains how.

Speaking of reading Darwin, I often use this quote in these discussions.

It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers ... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."

—Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)​

 

[JacksBratt]

I guess that's why creationist try to bully teachers into watering down the teaching of science in public schools and try to get legislation passed to ban it or get it taught with psuedo-science.

I don't believe that creation should be taught in schools. However, I don't believe that evolution should be in schools either.

He would have to support his claim. So far none can. If he made slanderous claims about fraud and couldn't back it up, then yes, he should be fired.

I doubt if it would even get that far. They would not even be given the time or the venue to back their claim. They wouldn't even have to be in support of creation. Just stating that they believe evolution is not true would have them done in.

Where is the "logic" of creation? Creation by divine fiat is logical? Where is the physical evidence?... that is the question. The "logic" of creation by divine fiat is fine for a seminary... but not for scientific research.

It is logical that if you cannot show where life originated from you have a problem.
It is logical that if a grand designer created life, they would create it's final form. What artist starts with a blank canvas or lump of clay and then leaves it to time to create the work of art?
There is a bucket of evidence out there. Creationists come to their conclusions. Evolutionists come to their conclusions. There is no hard proof that either is true. However, the creationists have an eye witness account in the scriptures.
The DNA molecule stores so much data and in precise locations and is so complex, it screams logic, design and therefore designer.

And there will continue to be "discussion," and there will never by a consensus. No idea is testable, so none can be falsified.

As far as I'm concerned, all of these discussions belong in a philosophy class and not in the lab or any other classroom. There should also be no pressure to follow one belief or the other. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of where it all began and nobody has concrete factual evidence of what that is.
Evey class of importance can be taught and learned and progress made, without adding creation or evolution to the mix.

In my experience, many creationist have a very thin skin. They cry "persecution," when anyone tells them they are wrong. If you did that in academia, you wouldn't last long.

Well, in some areas, that would be called prejudice.

Deny what? The physical evidence? I'm not the one denying that.

I said that professional educators or scientists get bullied if they take any other view than evolution. You said that that was "bull". I said "go ahead, deny it".

Tell us then how you have arrived at "the truth," if not from scripture.

Your post:

Originally Posted by Split Rock

Bull once again. Your narrow-minded interpretation of scripture is not "Truth."
​

You attack my interpretation of scripture, yet I have not done such a thing in my post. You assume that I have misinterpreted something but cannot show what original scripture you are referring to and place it along side my interpretation to show my errors.

This is just a sucker punch. If you want to say someone has interpreted something wrongly, I suggest you have an example.

Of course I have arrived at my belief through scripture, but also through application of the scriptures in my life.

Science used to be something that was "knowledge of something that was observable, testable and repeatable". By this definiton, scripture is science.

 

[JacksBratt]

the fact still remains, her findings went against the current evolution dogma.
and they didn't want to hear it, even though it was backed by evidence.

conclusion:
if your work goes against what we think we know, even though it has proof, we don't want to see it.
read the above sentence until it is etched in your brain, because that is EXACTLY what happened.
and to top it all off, this was a monumental discovery.
this is only the tip of the iceberg concerning this type of thing.

if your paper has tons of evidence and it puts evolution in a bad light, it's a safe bet it won't get published.

 

[pgp_protector]

"I don't believe that creation should be taught in schools. However, I don't believe that evolution should be in schools either."

What should be taught is schools?

 

[JacksBratt]

How do you know that to be true?


You talk about just making things up as if it was a bad thing, then you do it.

You have the icon of a Baptist. I believe that your using the Holy Bible as your foundation. Check out the scriptures about giants. You believe the Bible. Do you believe what the Israeli spies said in numbers 13:33?

And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, who come of the giants. And we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”

So, if the Bible speaks of giants and then people start digging up skeletons of giants all over north and south America, where are the skeletons now?

There are numerous giant skulls around that did not get destroyed or hidden.

This is proof of scripture. Yet, in many cases, a lot of data, evidence and ancient artifacts and such has been hidden, destroyed and discounted as myth.

It you think that these so called experts are presenting everything found and presenting it as it was found, unaltered, unbiased, unchanged and doing so with integrity......you are wrong.