Why Theistic Evolution Does not "fit".

[rmwilliamsll]

Anyone who thinks about and decides it is not true will be excluded from higher education since answering false on any test would be the "incorrect" answer. They will also be denied employment if they "change their minds."

this is not true. i finished a degree in biology, yes i had problems in graduate school because i was an outspoken creationist, but i got good jobs based on my ability, not my assent to particular theories. you appear to be making a gross generalisation with no scientific data, nor even personal experience to back it up.

did you fail a biology class because you answered the wrong way on a TofE exam? have you taken university level classes on either the science or the philosophy of evolution?

Noet that when I call a statement false or a lie, I am referring to the statement and not the person.
the problem is that this is not the common meaning of the terms and everyone else is using another definition, to wit: to lie is to knowingly tell a falsehood. propositions do not lie, they merely have true values.

 

[KerrMetric]

Also, don't promote the other false statement that science doesn't "prove" anything. Of course it does! "Your honor, I have the 'mountains of evidence' for evolution and will prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that it has occurred." Followed by, "Members of the jury, what say you?"

"In the matter of did evolution happen or did it not, we, the jury, after examining the evidence, find that it did."

It's a lie to say science does not prove anything.

You are wrong here. You might have people who use the word proof colloquially and say that science proves but strictly speaking this is incorrect.
This is usually drilled into people in graduate school if not earlier in the pure sciences.

 

[eddieJ]

I apologize then to whoever I offended with my comments. Please forgive me.

Anyone who does not follow the dogma of science will be ridiculed. There is plenty of evidence that man existed in the "wrong" time period, but evolution is also linked to a worldview that promotes the idea that the entire universe came from nothing (I've read the relevant Science textbook), life came from nothing, and man came from a (presumed but not observed) single celled organism. There is no (zero) room for God in this worldview. None. Go to any atheist web site. Examine what they are talking about. What are their foundational beliefs?


God bless,
Eddie

 

[KerrMetric]

Then answer the following question: human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." True or false?

That question comes from the National Science Foundation web site. The correct answer is True and the NSF cites the lack of people knowing the correct answer as a problem. Here's the link (scroll down a bit to the heading: Evolution and the "Big Bang"):

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm

When I learn something from a teacher, I'm expected to BELIEVE it is either true or flase. Get it?


Evolution never happened. That is what I believe and there is evidence for that. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc07.htm


I'm not here to give anyone a hard time, just to present the truth. Jesus Christ died for all men so that sins would be forgiven. You have a choice. You have a soul. And yes, God does love you.



God bless,
Eddie

Please - don't try to sell us this when you link to the Glen Rose tracks hogwash. I know all about Carl Baugh's idiocy - even AIG does as well.

 

[Melethiel]

A distinction must be made between the philosophical and metaphysical ideas based on science, and a scientific theory itself. Just because some atheists twist evolution to further their own ends, doesn't make it incorrect in itself. Pure science, without any metaphysical baggage, does not say anything about God because it deals with the natural world. By definition, it cannot say anything about the supernatural.

 

[KerrMetric]

Anyone who does not follow the dogma of science will be ridiculed. There is plenty of evidence that man existed in the "wrong" time period, but evolution is also linked to a worldview that promotes the idea that the entire universe came from nothing (I've read the relevant Science textbook), life came from nothing, and man came from a (presumed but not observed) single celled organism. There is no (zero) room for God in this worldview. None. Go to any atheist web site. Examine what they are talking about. What are their foundational beliefs?

Now you are just peddling a personal nonsense to us.

There is absolutely and utterly no evidence that man lived in the "wrong" time period as you put it. Nada - zilch - zip - zero.

I think you should look inward for the dogma not outward.

 

[Parmenio]

I would go so far as to say that if you don't have some significant background in the sciences, you might not be adequately equipped to fully understand certain scientific theories. I say this of teenagers as well as adults. Regardless as to their position on evolution, misunderstandings abound.

 

[eddieJ]

The evidence I linked to is false? It mentions more than the Glen Rose tracks.

As a human being, I am affected by whatever fact or explanation or belief that is being promoted out there. Evolution never happened. There is evidence against it. Yes, physical evidence. Unless you want to expose a conspiracy to support that all of this evidence is fake or made by people, go ahead.

The theory of evolution was quickly adopted by people to use against other people for their own gain. The theory of evolution is false. It is being used on this forum to convince people that man came from nothing, the entire universe came from nothing, and that life is simply about passing along your genes. That's it.

Human beings consider science in its application. Not, "Oh, that's a nice theory" and just walk away. I know that Christians see the theory of evolution's implications for everyday life and they are: no God, you came from impersonal, unintelligent, "natural" forces. Your life was not created with any meaning in mind. You are simply a carrier of genes designed for reproduction. Your life has no meaning outside of that. Your other purpose in life is to work to obtain food, clothing and shelter so you can accomplish the first and only real purpose.

You are just a biological mechanism.



God bless,
Eddie

 

[withreason]

Many excerpts of Miller's work, particular on the evolution of flagella and blood clotting, are available for free online. So it wouldn't be impossible for withreason to have criticised Miller (what he read of him online) and yet have not read the book.

Having said that, I'm not sure why withreason tried to bring up IPTG. It was a complete spanner in the works because up to that point nobody had discussed anything good or bad about Barry Hall's work, as far as I can see. The best I can find is http://www2.uwsuper.edu/rseelke/What Can Evolution Really Do_05.doc , which makes noise about the evolution of the ebg gene not being a good example of evolution (never mind that the article nowhere mentions the possibility of scaffolding removed or some such other possibility).

The IPTG was induced, and IPTG induces lacperease, allowing Barrys EBG to be Reducible. this was not disclosed by Miller...Behe>Miller's claim is incorrect because in the presence of IPTG the three features he lists are not all needed. In the presence of IPTG, the "enzyme reaction that induces the lac permease" is not required because IPTG itself induces the lac permease. Thus in the presence of IPTG the system is not irreducibly complex. And, as I wrote in my original essay, Barry Hall clearly noted that in the absence of IPTG--when the system actually is irreducibly complex--no viable mutants have been found in his 25 years of investigation.
after reviewing the link you provided, I woulld like to find documentation on this>
1) There is a strong possibility, previously unrecognized, of further homologies between the type III export apparatus and F1F0-ATP synthetase.

do you know where a thesis in PDF might be.??

 

[Parmenio]

It's true, with evolution there is no reason for God!!

It's true, with celestial theory there is no reason for God!!

It's true, with gravitational theory, there is no reason for God!!!
</sarcasm>

Scientific theory does not have anything to do with God. But you are right about one thing: People do look for the practical application of evolution. Modern biological theory is completely reliant upon it. Meaning that the conclusions of the theory are used every day in the advancement of medical science and other fields. Just some FYI

 

[rmwilliamsll]

. I know that Christians see the theory of evolution's implications for everyday life and they are:

and this is your precise problem. you are looking at SOMEONE"S philosophic implications of evolutionary theory. you are not looking at the implications of the theory itself, for there are none. science is not the same thing as metaphysics. biology is descriptive not prescriptive. it is people who draw the implications out of evolutionary theory and tell you that it does X,Y,Z; the problem is that they are not doing science, they are doing metaphysics. They have left biology behind and are talking about something different.

You are just a biological mechanism.


this is a metaphysical statement. the biological statement that you claim to be deriving it from is:
you are a biological mechanism.
by asserted "just" or "nothing but" you are making a sufficiency statement. a statement that rules out everything else. biology doesn't do this, philosophy does. you can not show scientifically that "You are just a biological mechanism." because you can not look at every single quality in a human being and show that this is a biological mechanism and be SURE that you got every single one. If you miss that one thing that you have that is not a biological mechanism then you are making a false claim. But you can not show that your have found them all. it is the problem of induction and why science never claims to have found it all or to have proven anything.

 

[eddieJ]

I've seen this type of response on so many forums. And it evades the truth totally.

When someone writes: "I don't believe I (a human being) descended from primates." The reply is always: "You did." Not anything else. Evolution is applied to descent that does not include God.

When you tell a child that you live on a planet that came into existence on its own with no plan or design and that you, little boy or girl, are just another animal. An animal, not a being that was created by God. What does that young animal do?

This is what I'm talking about. Science is not a person. It is a tool used by human beings. The Soviet Union was very concerned about eradicating superstition and religious belief from among the people, for example. I'm not saying that all people who believe in evolution are Communists, what I am saying is that Science is the facilitator for a lie. A useful lie to be spread among the people to convince them that there is no God, and as Sarte wrote: "If there is no God then all things are permissable."

It would not be possible to raise children under that belief system


God bless,
Eddie

 

[Mallon]

When someone writes: "I don't believe I (a human being) descended from primates." The reply is always: "You did." Not anything else.

How about this?

"You did. BOOYA!"

 

[Brennan]

I've seen this type of response on so many forums. And it evades the truth totally.

When someone writes: "I don't believe I (a human being) descended from primates." The reply is always: "You did." Not anything else. Evolution is applied to descent that does not include God.

The descent may not require him but the first cause does. God is not excluded by evolution.

 

[KerrMetric]

I've seen this type of response on so many forums. And it evades the truth totally.

When someone writes: "I don't believe I (a human being) descended from primates." The reply is always: "You did." Not anything else. Evolution is applied to descent that does not include God.

When you tell a child that you live on a planet that came into existence on its own with no plan or design and that you, little boy or girl, are just another animal. An animal, not a being that was created by God. What does that young animal do?

This is what I'm talking about. Science is not a person. It is a tool used by human beings. The Soviet Union was very concerned about eradicating superstition and religious belief from among the people, for example. I'm not saying that all people who believe in evolution are Communists, what I am saying is that Science is the facilitator for a lie. A useful lie to be spread among the people to convince them that there is no God, and as Sarte wrote: "If there is no God then all things are permissable."

It would not be possible to raise children under that belief system


God bless,
Eddie

I've seen our faith and others also used for lies. Your supposition that it is "to convince people there is no God" is complete conspiracy theory nonsense.

 

[eddieJ]

God is totally excluded from evolution. Just do a google search for Richard Dawkins. The theory of evolution is false. God created the heavens and the earth. Jesus Christ speaks about the one who made them. And in Romans 2:

18 "for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

A god that loves you gave you those words. This is not about the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis. This is about people coming on to a Christian forum, a forum for the followers of Jesus Christ and saying what? Forget that Bible book of yours, it's just mythology. Science tells me none of it is true. Yes, scholars, secular scholars, are saying that.

Take heart, brothers and sisters, the metaphysical/spiritual/Christian implications are what matter most. The evidence for the theory of evolution is in dispute. But these things cannot be talked about unless they would cast doubt on a belief system that says you are just an animal and embraces a philosophy that says "Do what thou wilt." and recognizes no God. Go ahead, google Richard Dawkins now.

There is no proof for evolution. Dogs range in size from the Great Dane to the Mexican Hairless but they are all dogs. There are differences between the Caucasian, Negroid and Oriental skulls but they are all human. Bacteria or fruit flies may mutate in the lab but they remain bacteria and fruit flies. The human genome shows similarities between different organisms on earth. Could it be because they were all created to exist on the same planet with the same atmosphere, gravity and chemical composition, that that could be the reason why there are similarities?

Think, brothers and sisters. The intrepretation of the evidence is wrong. God is right.


God bless,
Eddie

 

[KerrMetric]

God is totally excluded from evolution. Just do a google search for Richard Dawkins.

I've talked to the guy so I know of him.

The theory of evolution is false.

Says you a non-biologist. I'll go with those with expertise.

A god that loves you gave you those words. This is not about the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis. This is about people coming on to a Christian forum, a forum for the followers of Jesus Christ and saying what? Forget that Bible book of yours, it's just mythology. Science tells me none of it is true. Yes, scholars, secular scholars, are saying that.

You like making sweeping false statments don't you?

There is no proof for evolution.

Yes there is - overwhelmingly so.

Dogs range in size from the Great Dane to the Mexican Hairless but they are all dogs.

Off topic.

There are differences between the Caucasian, Negroid and Oriental skulls but they are all human.

Off topic.

Bacteria or fruit flies may mutate in the lab but they remain bacteria and fruit flies.

But bacteria change species. They evolve.

The human genome shows similarities between different organisms on earth. Could it be because they were all created to exist on the same planet with the same atmosphere, gravity and chemical composition, that that could be the reason why there are similarities?

This argues neither way.

Think, brothers and sisters. The intrepretation of the evidence is wrong. God is right.

Aha - a false dichotomy. Did you ever take a debate or logic class? It seems not.

God bless

You too.



ps

Quite simply - you are arguing aganst something you plainly do not understand.

 

[Brennan]

Science is all lies, look I can quote scripture. You clearly do not believe.

That sum it up?

 

[eddieJ]

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said "science is all lies." Point is, the information obtained by scientists is used by others. That's the point. It doesn't just get published somewhere and sit, gathering dust. It gets used. And sometimes it is used by people like Richard Dawkins to promote their anti-religion agenda.

And I've seen Dawkins on television. He doesn't say, "Well, scientists think this happened this way or think that happened.'" He says, "No, God did not make make man from the earth and breathe life into his nostrils."

Well, now why, a viewer might think, is this scientist making these point of fact statements? Could they be true?

I don't believe they are.



God bless,
Eddie

 

[Melethiel]

Dawkins' metaphysical pontifications are not science, plain and simple. To blame the theory of evolution for some of the stuff that Dawkins spouts is just as bad as discarding the quantum theory. I mean, I can do some nice metaphysical pontificating using the quantum theory as well, but I don't see any moves to discard it.

The theory of evolution and God creating the heavens and the earth are not mutually exclusive.