Why does everyone think Evolution contradicts Creationism?

[Armoured]

Actually if you read the Bible Moses and Peter indicate that a day is 1000 years. That means creation in the Bible began 13000 years ago at the end of the last glacier age. Science then can pretty much confirm the account in Genesis is accurate and true. OEC could also true when you look at the Bible as 'shadows and types'.

Moses was there at the beginning of the old testament, Peter was there at the beginning of the Church as he was preaching on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out. Even this is what apostolic succession is based on.

That's not the literal reading of the Bible YEC people insist on, though, is it?

 

[Armoured]

The so called Big Gang is a Kubbalah belief going back at least to Abraham.

I'm sure this is just an honest typo, which happens to the best of us.

I still giggled though.

 

[Holoman]

- evolutionary theory is THE most strongly supported theory in all of science. That it offends your particular superstitious views is YOUR problem, not science's.

You expect anyone to take you seriously when you come out with this drivel? I don't even need to address it, it is that absurd.

On the subject of macro and micro evolution I suggest you learn more about the subject as there is a clear distinction between the two. Here is a webpage to inform yourself http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Complex mechanical organisms have been found where the 'gradual change leads to large change' hypothesis completely falls down and so far no solution has been found. So yes, there are gaping holes in the evidence for macro-evolution, I suggest you actually read up on them, unless of course you wish to remain wilfully ignorant.

 

[lesliedellow]

You expect anyone to take you seriously when you come out with this drivel?

I don't even need to address it, it is that absurd.

Most strongly supported might be overstating it, but it is very strongly supported. That is why your fellow Catholics, like Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala, are signed up to it. The difference is that they are world famous biologists, and you probably know about as much about biology as I do.

 

[Armoured]

You expect anyone to take you seriously when you come out with this drivel? I don't even need to address it, it is that absurd.

On the subject of macro and micro evolution I suggest you learn more about the subject as there is a clear distinction between the two. Here is a webpage to inform yourself http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

It's not absurd, it's a basic scientific concept. Every discipline of every branch of science that has ever inquired into the origins of biodiversity has supported the theory of evolution. No other scientific theory has been as rigorously tested under scientific conditions. Not a single one of those literally billions of experimental data points suggests evolutionary theory is wrong.

 

[Armoured]

Most strongly supported might be overstating it, but it is very strongly supported. That is why your fellow Catholics, like Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala, are signed up to it.

And the Pope.

 

[Holoman]

It's not absurd, it's a basic scientific concept. Every discipline of every branch of science that has ever inquired into the origins of biodiversity has supported the theory of evolution. No other scientific theory has been as rigorously tested under scientific conditions. Not a single one of those literally billions of experimental data points suggests evolutionary theory is wrong.

This is just nonsense, you cannot test macro-evolution under scientific conditions, the concept is simply absurd. You seem to be confusing micro-evolution with macro-evolution when I was perfectly clear that I was referring to the evidence for macro-evolution.

And to suggest there is more evidence for this than for example the theory of relativity is quite comical.

 

[Holoman]

Most strongly supported might be overstating it, but it is very strongly supported. That is why your fellow Catholics, like Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala, are signed up to it. The difference is that they are world famous biologists, and you probably know about as much about biology as I do.

I don't deny it's supported by evidence, or that it could be true. I'm definitely not a YEC and don't have any problem with evolution from a Christian perspective, I simply see big questions at the macro level which the evidence hasn't addressed so I'm skeptical, and take exception to people treating it on the same level as the laws of physics which we can rigorously test.

 

[SteveB28]

You expect anyone to take you seriously when you come out with this drivel? I don't even need to address it, it is that absurd.

Yes, I imagine closing your mind to the facts works well in maintaining your illusion. Can I suggest that you do as I did and perform an Internet search, using the words "the most supported theory in science". You will find that an overwhelming majority of the world's scientists consider evolutionary theory to be the most robust of all scientific theories.

On the subject of macro and micro evolution I suggest you learn more about the subject as there is a clear distinction between the two. Here is a webpage to inform yourself http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Your source says EXACTLY what I did! That micro evolution is simply evolution "on the small scale", while macroevolution is the accumulation of these changes on the "grand scale" of a 3.4 billion year time scale! Did you bother to read your own source, before foolishly rushing to type?

Complex mechanical organisms have been found where the 'gradual change leads to large change' hypothesis completely falls down and so far no solution has been found. So yes, there are gaping holes in the evidence for macro-evolution, I suggest you actually read up on them, unless of course you wish to remain wilfully ignorant.

Before you rush off to collect your Nobel prize, please present your evidence for this "fall down."

 

[Holoman]

Yes, I imagine closing your mind to the facts works well in maintaining your illusion. Can I suggest that you do as I did and perform an Internet search, using the words "the most supported theory in science".

Why do people today think that by Googling things makes them an expert? Google does not rank by truth you know. Try reading some text books.

And like I said, I differentiate between micro and macro evolution.

You will find that an overwhelming majority of the world's scientists consider evolutionary theory to be the most robust of all scientific theories.

Your source says EXACTLY what I did! That micro evolution is simply evolution "on the small scale", while macroevolution is the accumulation of these changes on the "grand scale" of a 3.4 billion year time scale! Did you bother to read your own source, before foolishly rushing to type?

Before you rush off to collect your Nobel prize, please present your evidence for this "fall down."

I read my own source, I'm wondering why you are failing to grasp such a simple concept but I will try one more time before giving up. There is a difference between macro and micro evolution, even if they are just different 'scales' of the apparently same phenomenon. But I do not accept the evidence of micro automatically extends as evidence of macro, I think macro needs its own evidence and on that front I'm not convinced by what scientists currently have, and neither are all evolutionary scientists. Now compare that to how many physicists doubt the theory of relativity..

 

[whois]

So lets look at this differently.

yes, let's do that.
i would assume that the life of an omnipotent entity would be rather boring.
ANYTHING this entity would come up with would be "been there, done that".
the very first thing i would do would be to sacrifice my immortality for mortal beings and instill in those beings a sense of right, wrong, and an adventurous spirit.

my opinion.

 

[SteveB28]

Why do people today think that by Googling things makes them an expert? Google does not rank by truth you know. Try reading some text books.

The purpose of the search was not to confer 'expert' status. It was merely to confirm that evolutionary theory is, indeed, the most highly regarded theory in science. The evidence is plainly there for you to read.

Oh, and on the subject of reading, I assure you that, in my 86 years, I have read more textbooks than you have had hot dinners.

And like I said, I differentiate between micro and macro evolution.

Your differentiation is nothing more than a comparison of time scales. The mechanism employed is the same throughout, as YOUR source also makes clear!

I read my own source, I'm wondering why you are failing to grasp such a simple concept but I will try one more time before giving up. There is a difference between macro and micro evolution, even if they are just different 'scales' of the apparently same phenomenon. But I do not accept the evidence of micro automatically extends as evidence of macro, I think macro needs its own evidence and on that front I'm not convinced by what scientists currently have, and neither are all evolutionary scientists. Now compare that to how many physicists doubt the theory of relativity..

What "convinces" you is irrelevant to scientific enquiry. The facts and the evidence will be revealed regardless. And please present the work of the "evolutionary scientists" who claim that evolution on the grand scale is unsupported.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To me, Evolution is proof of creationism.

To me, it is proof of a supernatural chicken-chees sandwich.

Evolution does not disprove creationism, it is the mechanism. Science is how were discover God's universe. It is not the unholy tool by which we unravel God. It is God's tool by which we discover HIM!

You are assuming that this god exists and are excluding any possibility of being wrong about that.

You have no rational justification for this assumption.

This assumption, furthermore, has no merrit, no explanatory power and no use.
One could literally replace "god" in that quote above by anything and it wouldn't make any difference at all...

 

[Jimmy D]

Actually if you read the Bible Moses and Peter indicate that a day is 1000 years. That means creation in the Bible began 13000 years ago at the end of the last glacier age. Science then can pretty much confirm the account in Genesis is accurate and true.

The Bible can say pretty much anyone wants it to say to fit in with their own beliefs, Did Peter say that in Genesis a day is the equal to a thousand years?

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day"

I don't see it.

I think science has pretty much confirmed that the account in Genesis is not literally accurate and true (whether it was 600 or 1300 years ago). Have you got any evidence to back up your assertions?

 

[Armoured]

This is just nonsense, you cannot test macro-evolution under scientific conditions, the concept is simply absurd. You seem to be confusing micro-evolution with macro-evolution when I was perfectly clear that I was referring to the evidence for macro-evolution.

And to suggest there is more evidence for this than for example the theory of relativity is quite comical.

You seem to be confusing "macro and micro evolution" as meaningful, discrete scientific things. They aren't.

And there is indeed as much, if not more evidence for evolution as for the theory of relativity. Condescension not withstanding.

 

[Holoman]

The purpose of the search was not to confer 'expert' status. It was merely to confirm that evolutionary theory is, indeed, the most highly regarded theory in science. The evidence is plainly there for you to read.

Oh, and on the subject of reading, I assure you that, in my 86 years, I have read more textbooks than you have had hot dinners.



Your differentiation is nothing more than a comparison of time scales. The mechanism employed is the same throughout, as YOUR source also makes clear!



What "convinces" you is irrelevant to scientific enquiry. The facts and the evidence will be revealed regardless. And please present the work of the "evolutionary scientists" who claim that evolution on the grand scale is unsupported.

Have you not heard of this?

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

It is signed by hundreds of scientists, and no they aren't all theists.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you're deliberately misunderstanding how modern empiricism works. Its disingenuous, at best.

Ya ... just tack on the word "modern" to a philosophy and start over ... right?

That one word means that all errors of the past are not to be held accountable in a discussion on scientific failures, doesn't it?

Yet we are reminded frequently of the Crusades and Inquisition, aren't we?

Even though they were done in spite of the Bible; not with respect to It.

 

[SteveB28]

Have you not heard of this?

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf

It is signed by hundreds of scientists, and no they aren't all theists.

Now, please present the work of "evolutionary scientists" who claim that evolution on the grand scale is unsupported, as you claimed!

Stop dodging and present your evidence.

 

[Holoman]

You seem to be confusing "macro and micro evolution" as meaningful, discrete scientific things. They aren't.

And there is indeed as much, if not more evidence for evolution as for the theory of relativity. Condescension not withstanding.

I'm not confusing anything, they are discrete things.

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you saying Thalomide didn´t exist?

No.

Only it's label has changed.

It probably now reads: DON'T TAKE AS DIRECTED IN THE 60s.

Are you saying Pluto has disappeared?

No.

Being busted from Commander to Lieutenant Commander is not the same thing as being dishonorably discharged.