Why Evolution is True

[bhsmte]

No.


No.

QV please:

How would you want creationism taught in schools then?

 

[AV1611VET]

How would you want creationism taught in schools then?

In history class, using Genesis 1 & 2 as the text.

 

[bhsmte]

In history class, using Genesis 1 & 2 as the text.

And how exactly would you want Genesis 1 and 2 taught?

Certainly, you would have no problem with other religious theology to be taught as well, correct?

 

[FredVB]

There is admitted retaliation, although involving believers who have nothing to do with any teaching going on at a school. From that perspective there is accusation of spreading ignorance, dismissive of any informed studies with that. The alleged ignorance is just any disagreement with the same positions. Who demonizes who? There is admission that the only reason the unbelievers post in this Christian forum to argue against believing God's presence is for humor for themselves, and no one is convincing anyone. Yet this is with calling those seeing intelligent design in all the great complexities around and such of even ourselves fools.
Weren't there rules to agree to when joining the forum? This is in Christian forums, and just about all believers see this design, to greater or lesser extent. And I raised a question, which is on some level a challenge, though I don't have expectations for it to happen. You have not yet asked God who made you, providing good things because of caring for you, to be shown God's real presence. Why not? I say there would then just be desire that God would not truly be existing, with nothing then to show God does exist, and it is that strong so nothing contrary is expected. I am not talking of making a sarcastic challenge for a miracle for your own benefit, as if God was something else if existing, other than sovereign God, and that you can just bargain the deals. God being truly God does not owe you that. It is your heart that must be ready to respond rightly to God.

Those who do not wish to see good science removed from the classroom because of unfounded religious beliefs are the ones who post here.
I asked my parents, and they said they were very involved in making me.

I see that if good science isn't removed from classrooms, for any reason, that is a good thing. Szechuan says it is something else, in our dialogue. Cute, as if any reading here didn't know you have a father and mother involved in you being here. If you think you really would have asked them and they answer you with that or any explanation for you, it suggests you were provided a good family for which to be very thankful. For all they did for you, they did not provide the world that has all the things available from which that could be done, for all they loved you when they were involved in bringing you into this world, they did not design you to be you from the beginning, and choose you as opposed to any other to be born into that family. They can be credited for what they did but there is evasiveness here with not recognizing God for what God is to be credited with doing.

Sorry I can't buy it any more than you can buy any other religious myth, you saying God is God means less than nothing.

There is basis for these perspectives which some scientists acknowledge as there are evidences consistent with it, this is not to be found with what are just myths, there is design all around with the great complexities. Christ who rose gave testimony to the creation account recognizing God the Creator. But really dismissal involves not wanting to give any response to God, even to really look at this perspective to give it any chance, and according to Christ, those who harden themselves will perish persisting with that.

Wrong, Creationists and Christians want Creation to be taught at schools.
Except one has evidence and the other Ignores them.
Who Demonizes who? Christians Demonizing Pagans and other religions such as Dad did.
Because Intelligent Design people are Fools you believe the world is 6thousand years old. This is why people laugh at Creationists.
No, these forums are open to everybody. Easily don't stop trying to spread ignorance at Schools and attacking Science than people might not have to respond or Defend so Extensively.

That is a broad paintbrush you use. Demonizing is going in all directions clearly. Seeing the design is not foolish, but it is not wise to dismiss the Creator, or anything with evidence. And still forums have rules.

Uh, no, I have tried for years to be a believer, sometimes praying for hours just for the slightest sign of something being out there. Belief isn't about what we want, I have no desire to believe that when I die, my existence just ends, but that is what I honestly think fits reality.

I rarely have such feelings, that is not the issue. It is about seeing evidence pertaining to Christ, and his resurrection with what he said, and believing him.

 

[Loudmouth]

"This new fish fossil doesn't seem to add much--if anything--to bridge the gap between fish fins and tetrapod limbs. In fact, if anything, the fin of Panderichthys appears closer to a true tetrapod limb than does the fin of Tiktaalik"

Complete poppycock.

a, Eusthenopteron; b, Panderichthys; and c, Tiktaalik. d, Limb of Acanthostega

In Tiktaalik we see the emergence of digits not seen in Pandericthys and a shorter ulna that is transitional between Pandericthys and Acanthostega. You can also see points of articulation between the humerus and the radius/ulna in Tiktaalik. On top of that, Tiktaalik has other transitional features outside of the limbs, such as a freer neck.

Pandericthys is a transitional as well, don't forget.

It is this sort of denial straight through all of Luskin's work that makes it ignorable. Denial is not science. Quote mines are not science. Creationist websites are not peer reviewed papers.

 

[bhsmte]

I see that if good science isn't removed from classrooms, for any reason, that is a good thing. Szechuan says it is something else, in our dialogue. Cute, as if any reading here didn't know you have a father and mother involved in you being here. If you think you really would have asked them and they answer you with that or any explanation for you, it suggests you were provided a good family for which to be very thankful. For all they did for you, they did not provide the world that has all the things available from which that could be done, for all they loved you when they were involved in bringing you into this world, they did not design you to be you from the beginning, and choose you as opposed to any other to be born into that family. They can be credited for what they did but there is evasiveness here with not recognizing God for what God is to be credited with doing.



There is basis for these perspectives which some scientists acknowledge as there are evidences consistent with it, this is not to be found with what are just myths, there is design all around with the great complexities. Christ who rose gave testimony to the creation account recognizing God the Creator. But really dismissal involves not wanting to give any response to God, even to really look at this perspective to give it any chance, and according to Christ, those who harden themselves will perish persisting with that.



That is a broad paintbrush you use. Demonizing is going in all directions clearly. Seeing the design is not foolish, but it is not wise to dismiss the Creator, or anything with evidence. And still forums have rules.



I rarely have such feelings, that is not the issue. It is about seeing evidence pertaining to Christ, and his resurrection with what he said, and believing him.

Some people don't see the evidence that you do in regards to Christ and provide reasons why they don't.

 

[AV1611VET]

How would you want creationism taught in schools then?

720 with less emphasis on science.

What's with the 3rd degree? or the fake curiosity?

You've been in history class before ... haven't you?

You know how it's taught.

Certainly, you would have no problem with other religious theology to be taught as well, correct?

Incorrect.

Religion can take a hike.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then we can go back and say where did those molecules come from and there will be an answer and we keep going back to first cause.

We can do that for every scientific theory. Do you reject the Germ Theory of Disease because it requires the universe to come from nothing, according to your strained logic? Wouldn't you have to reject every single theory in science with this type of logic, in order to be consistent?

I just find it hard to believe . . .

Argument from incredulity. I could care less what you can or can't believe. Scientists could care less what you can or can't believe. I am interested in what you can or can't evidence.

At the same time, I am not trying to belittle your beliefs. Just realize that reality does not conform to our beliefs.

But if you look at each and every important stage along the way to forming life if we calculated the odds of it happening , it would be astronomical.

This is called the Sharpshooter Fallacy.

"The fallacy is characterized by a lack of specific hypothesis prior to the gathering of data, or the formulation of a hypothesis only after data has already been gathered and examined.[4] Thus, it typically does not apply if one had an ex ante, or prior, expectation of the particular relationship in question before examining the data."
Texas sharpshooter fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you are ignoring is that something had to evolve. At any one time there are nearly an infinite number of ways that evolution could go. So yes, the odds of any particular pathway is very low, but the odds of a pathway being taken are extremely high. What you aren't factoring in is all of the species that didn't evolve, and all of the evolutionary pathways that were not taken.

According to your logic there should be a winner in the Powerball lottery 1 in every 150 million drawings because the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 150 million. What you don't figure in is all of the people who lose, which is why people win the Powerball lottery all of the time even though there are extreme odds of it not happening.

Yes I am finding that. But how much of that bio diversity does Darwinian evolution produce. There is evolution with creatures in a changing environment. All will be connected in some way as they depend on each other. So what happens in the environment and how it effects the creatures will have an effect on all and how they adapt to it. Esp those who live closer together or depend on each other.

The theory of evolution covers all of it. It would be more accurate to say that the Modern Synthesis covers all of it, or just the theory of evolution. Calling it Darwinian evolution carries the connotation of a theory as it existed at inception before the inclusion of genetics into the theory.

But what if its limited and the changes that we see are just a very wide scope for creatures to vary.

What if the Moon were made of cheese? What would the orbit of Earth be?

We could look at what if's all day. What I am more interested in is reality, not in what you can dream up. Our observations show that the entire genome is open to mutation, and that any mutation can take place. So where are the limits?

What if some of that similarity between creatures also comes from cross breeding or other HGT possibilities such as viruses or a more open and flowing network where genetics could be transferred through some channel.

If it was due to HGT it would have shown up as gross and numerous violations of the nested hierarchy. This isn't seen.

Besides evolution still can relate to chemical evolution.

No, it can't. Chemical evolution does not have genes, individual organisms, or reproduction. All of these are vital conditions for evolution.

So we should see a lot of stages in the fossil record showing those steps.

Why should we see fossil examples of every species that lived given the sporadic process of fossil formation, the destruction of fossils over time, and the fact that we have searched such a tiny portion of the fossil record?

I have gone into the transitional evidence and each time you can argue a case for both sides on how and why animals have certain features.

A fossil can be a variation within a species and still be a transitional. That is what you keep ignoring.

But there doesn't seem to be as Darwin himself once said why isn't there a mass of finely graded creatures in the earths crust showing the links from one species to another. Instead we keep seeing well formed and complete features everywhere.

Darwin also said that we don't see finely graded transition because of the imperfection of the geologic record. Also, a fossil can be well formed and complete while still being transitional.

So let's add this up. A fossil can be a variation of a species with well formed and complete features and still be transitional.

 

[bhsmte]

720 with less emphasis on science.

What's with the 3rd degree? or the fake curiosity?

You've been in history class before ... haven't you?

You know how it's taught.

Incorrect.

Yes, I have been in history class and history is typically not want you would want included. History teaches what likely happened in the past, based on the historical method and explaining the theology of Genesis, would be beyond the scope of a history class.

Now, if one wants to take a religious theology class, they are welcome to that.

 

[bhsmte]

720 with less emphasis on science.

What's with the 3rd degree? or the fake curiosity?

You've been in history class before ... haven't you?

You know how it's taught.

Incorrect.

Religion can take a hike.

In that case, so can Genesis, in history class.

 

[AV1611VET]

explaining the theology of Genesis, would be beyond the scope of a history class.

[speaking slowly again] Then don't explain the theology of Genesis. [/speaking slowly again]

Excuse me a sec, please, while I show the movie file in my profile:

[youtube]8Vx1BTBhg4c[/youtube]

This just seems appropriate here.

 

[AV1611VET]

In that case, so can Genesis, in history class.

Oh, I'm sure there's no place for Genesis 1 & 2 inside the halls of aceldama, is there?

Unless, of course, it's buried in a pile of diabolical mimicry, plagiarism, and religion.

Heaven forbid you guys could recognize the wheat from the chaff, let alone teach it.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, I'm sure there's no place for Genesis 1 & 2 inside the halls of aceldama, is there?

Unless, of course, it's buried in a pile of diabolical mimicry, plagiarism, and religion.

Heaven forbid you guys could recognize the wheat from the chaff, let alone teach it.

Teach it in theology class, where these types of things belong.

No one is stopping anyone from learning about Genesis, now are they?

 

[AV1611VET]

Teach it in theology class, where these types of things belong.

NO! 1k x NO!

No one is stopping anyone from learning about Genesis, now are they?

Ask your local history teacher.

 

[Naturalism]

This is called the Sharpshooter Fallacy.

What is also being ignored or neglected here is that for considerations of life existing and evolving we're only dealing with a single sample size (1) from Earth.

Taking a step back and reviewing how many 100's of billions of galaxies, and how many 100's of billions of stars in each galaxy, and how many innumerable planets & moons orbiting those stars for which life could have arisen, you have to figure the odds of some kind of life existing, over the whole lifespan of the universe (much of it still to be played out) to be almost a given & almost a certainty.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

NO! 1k x NO!

Why wouldn't you want genesis in theology class? It doesn't belong anywhere else.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why wouldn't you want genesis in theology class? It doesn't belong anywhere else.

Let's end this charade, shall we?

I don't need to explain my beliefs to an Inquisition.

This is America.

Just say something dumb and we'll call it quits, eh?

 

[bhsmte]

NO! 1k x NO!

Ask your local history teacher.

History teachers teach history, not theology.

Now, there are religious history classes, for this sort of thing, if it is something that appeals to someone.

Beyond that, has anyone prevented you or anyone else from reading Genesis? Has your church prevented you from learning about Genesis?

 

[TLK Valentine]

NO! 1k x NO!

Ask your local history teacher.

It's not history -- not as written in the literal sense, anyway.

I've taught Genesis many times over the years -- as literature, as mythology, as a part of the Hebrew religion (which in turn is the foundation of the Christian religion)...

Nobody's keeping Genesis out of the classroom -- they're just not worshiping it as you would like them to.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Let's end this charade, shall we?

I don't need to explain my beliefs to an Inquisition.

This is America.

Just say something dumb and we'll call it quits, eh?

Why are you so embarrassed at the thought of explaining your statement?