Evolution evidence: the truth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris_LaRock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Orogeny:
I would still like a citation for this absurd statement. I noticed that you just skipped over that request.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
“The cheif destinction in ther intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up than women can attain, whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of his senses and hands.” Charles Darwin ‘Descent’ v 2,327
 
40.png
rossum:
Life did not get here by accident, it got here by chemistry, and chemistry is not accidental. For a reasonably recent survey on origin of life (abiogenesis) research see here. This is not a complete explanation, but it does show that scientists do have some ideas as to the origin of life.

rossum
Click to expand...
In order to say that the world did not get here by accident, you would have to say it got here on purpose, hence creation. Without a creator, you can only have a random cycle that has no intelligence driving it. Like puzzle peices falling to the floor. They land in random places without purpose, and unable to form a completed puzzle.

Sounds to me that you beleive in creation and evolution at the same time. Like, if God created everything and used evolution to alter his creation afterwards. The variations within speicies (micro evolution) is proven. Macro evolution (one species evolving into a new species) is not proven.
 
Chris LaRock:
In order to say that the world did not get here by accident, you would have to say it got here on purpose, hence creation. Without a creator, you can only have a random cycle that has no intelligence driving it. Like puzzle peices falling to the floor. They land in random places without purpose, and unable to form a completed puzzle.

Sounds to me that you beleive in creation and evolution at the same time. Like, if God created everything and used evolution to alter his creation afterwards. The variations within speicies (micro evolution) is proven. Macro evolution (one species evolving into a new species) is not proven.
Click to expand...
Chris,

Why would God, being all-knowing, need to alter his creation after the fact? Is it not possible that evolution is the process by which God continues to create?

Peace,

George
 
Genesis 11:4 is where the Bible speaks of God confounding the one language of Man, and dispersing them throughout the world. I have heard this piece of scripture be used often in the defense of why we have so many different skin colors and languages througout the world. Once dispersed, microevolution takes care of people adapting to more or less sun, requiring darker skin to protect, or lighter skin, to absorb more sunlight in low light conditions.

Anyway, myself I have followed what as far as I know is an acceptable interpretation of Genesis, that God did not neccessarilly create everything in 144 hours, and rest for 24. If you read all of Genesis, you see that their are actually two creation stories, and the order things were created are not the same, either. The Church holds that their are important truths contained in Genesis, but when you look at the fact that until Genesis was written down, it was an orally transmitted history of the Jewish peoples, and the style of Genesis is very stylized, it isn’t neccessary to believe in Genesis being the literal, complete, and only truth about the creation of Mankind. I wish I could find the Papal document to show that the Church considers Genesis to contain truths, but not require everyone to believe that Genesis literally means that all of creation was made in 144 hours.

As others have pointed out, with the order things were created in Genesis, their was no reference of night and day until God put the Sun in the Sky, and starting the ball rolling(orbit of the earth, and rotation of same). I also can’t recall where, but in the New Testament, paraphrased, to God a second is a millenium, and a millenium is a second. Just to entertain the idea, could it not have been that when the first copy of the Pentateuch was put into written word, the concept of billions of years just wasn’t comprehensible, and since God is outside of time, the writer wrote things in the best comprehension they had of time? Can you truly comprehend the length of a billion years? Do you have a true comprehension of what a billion pounds of something is? Time is entirely an invention of man. Think–how do we measure time? Anything that you choose to use as an example of time, requires that someone observed the passage of that time increment, and put the measurement of it into a reference of something here in our realm of knowledge. God is outside of time. For Him, what we term a day and what we term a trillion years is no different.

It all comes down to what you believe is the answer to the first thing that could be said to be alive coming into existence. Do you take the random chance, or intelligent design as the motivating force of the creation of life. Unless you are a strict Creationist, or a strict Atheist, it is not impossible to hold that evolution can occur, AND that God created all that we see.
 
George Waters:
Chris,

Why would God, being all-knowing, need to alter his creation after the fact? Is it not possible that evolution is the process by which God continues to create?

Peace,

George
Click to expand...
God makes variations within his creations for his own reasons. I don’t pretend to know why.

God can do whatever he wants, but that doesn’t mean he does do everything he can do. He could turn the sun into ice, yet he doesn’t. True, God has made variations within speicies, but the idea that things can evolve into new creatures is not biblical.
 
I had another thought after my last post.

144 hours=518,400 seconds.

If I can find that piece of scripture about one second and a millenium being the same for God,
518,400 seconds=518,400,000 years, half a billion years. That is a long time, and that is assuming only that a second for God equals a thousand years. As I already said, he is outside of our reference of time.

I will ask you on this discussion that are more up on the science of anthropology and such than I–what does the sciences say happened half a billion years ago, in terms of development of the species? How long ago does our current understanding of science say that it was when homo neanderthalis came upon the scene?

There has been at least one person I noticed in the discussion that corrected peoples’ assumption of the meaning of scientific theory. Scientific theory does connote a certain amount of accuracy, but it does not denote fact. It denotes that our current understanding of this area of science behaving this way obeys these equations, hypothesis, or assumptions that we have made, and we haven’t been able to disprove it yet. It does not denote that we have proven said hypothesis, assumption or whatever. The Theory of General Relativity does not answer every possible question about relativistic relationships. It simply is the equations that seem to have the most accuracy to what we can observe. But, Quantum Theory came along, and Relativity started having problems with some things that Quantum Theory was noticing about the world. Neither one of these great scientific theories are considered scientific law, because they both have things that have not quite been nailed down yet. The tunnelling effect in quantum physics should prevent microchips with circuitry as close as what we have on the latest versions of both Intel and AMD chips from working. Somehow, though, those chips work, and quantum theory is having to try to explain why.

The Law of Gravity, is a scientific law. It has been proven to the satisfaction of scientists, and all experiments that have been conducted aggree with it. If something was found to disprove anything about Newton’s Law of Gravity, then it would cease to be a scientific law. I don’t hear anyone speaking of evolution as a scientific law. Why is that? Because there isn’t enough evidence to incontrovertibly declare that no experiment can be expected to refute evolution.

All of the debate lately about Intelligent Design versus Evolution being taught in school, and if they were both taught as science requires, that they are BOTH scientifically speaking, theories, there should be no problem from the scientific side of things. I actually, unfortunately see the problem as strict creationists not admitting that even microevolution is possible, and wanting all reference to evolution of any sort eliminated from sciences. I say, present them both as theories in the schools, because currently they both have weight as the way every living organism was created. There doesn’t exists enough scientific evidence to eliminate random chance, and there doesn’t exist enough scientific evidence to eliminate that it took intelligent design to set everything in motion. So, either let them both into the curriculum, equally, with no prejudice taught by the instructor, or don’t allow either into public schools, and leave this debate to those paying for their own education in private schools, or in higher education at universities.
 
Chris,

You have failed to provide any evidence that Nebraska Man is used to show evolution in any current school textbook.

You have failed to show any evidence of a Devonian cow.

You have not responded to my three points from my post #14.

If you want to convince me then you are going to have to provide some detailed evidence to back up your assertions. You may find this more difficult than you expect:A metaphor I like to use: creationism is a mirage. From a distance, where you can’t see details, a mirage of, say, a hill looks perfectly solid and real. But as you get closer, instead of being able to see more and more detail as you would with a real hill, it just melts away. Actual biology (“evolutionism”) is a real hill in the same environment. From a distance, it may look no more solid than the mirage of creationism. But as you get closer, you can see individual rocks and shrubs and animal burrows and so forth – detail, in short. If you ask someone “describe this hill as it looks from 10 feet away” you’re going to get that detail in any honest answer. It’s not Lilith’s fault that your own hill melts away into a vague heat shimmer at the same distance.

(Louann Miller The Mirage)
Chris LaRock:
In order to say that the world did not get here by accident, you would have to say it got here on purpose, hence creation.
Click to expand...
I was not talking about the origin of the world, I was talking about the origin of life. As I said, life originated in chemistry. Chemistry is not creation. You make the logical error of a false dichotomy here.
Chris LaRock:
Without a creator, you can only have a random cycle that has no intelligence driving it. Like puzzle peices falling to the floor. They land in random places without purpose, and unable to form a completed puzzle.
Click to expand...
Take some salt, dissolve it in water, evaporate the water and you will get cubical crystals. Chemistry is perfectly capable of forming regular patterns without the intervention of any intelligence. Snowflakes are not random yet neither do they have any intelligence. Your analogy of the jigsaw puzzle is incorrect. Nature contains many self-organising processes.
Chris LaRock:
Sounds to me that you beleive in creation and evolution at the same time.
Click to expand...
No. I accept evolution because it is supported by the evidence. I reject creationism because it has no evidence to support it. In science evidence is the crucial test and creationism fails it badly. As to creation in general I do not find it relevant; I am content with science’s explanation of the origins of the universe.

I will be away at my parents’ over Christmas so I will not be posting here again until after the weekend. Enjoy your holidays everyone.

rossum
 
George Waters:
YahShuaMessiah,

As is stated in Pope Pius XII encyclical, Humani Generis, “The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” (Emphasis Added)

To state that for any Christian to believe in evolution would be going against the word of God is simply your opinion, offensive to Catholics and in my opinion incredibly presumptuous on your part. Do you know by what means God created the universe? How do you know that evolution is not part of God’s plan and according to His will? Why is it so hard to accept that evolution may be God’s plan and will? He is the father of natural law.

As for me I will not presume to tell God how He can or cannot create life.

Peace,

George
Click to expand...
Not all Christians are Catholic, so the opinion of the Pope isn’t something all Christians rely on. He doesn’t express the beleifs if all Christians.
 
40.png
rossum:
Chris,

You have failed to provide any evidence that Nebraska Man is used to show evolution in any current school textbook.

You have failed to show any evidence of a Devonian cow.

You have not responded to my three points from my post #14.

If you want to convince me then you are going to have to provide some detailed evidence to back up your assertions. You may find this more difficult than you expect:A metaphor I like to use: creationism is a mirage. From a distance, where you can’t see details, a mirage of, say, a hill looks perfectly solid and real. But as you get closer, instead of being able to see more and more detail as you would with a real hill, it just melts away. Actual biology (“evolutionism”) is a real hill in the same environment. From a distance, it may look no more solid than the mirage of creationism. But as you get closer, you can see individual rocks and shrubs and animal burrows and so forth – detail, in short. If you ask someone “describe this hill as it looks from 10 feet away” you’re going to get that detail in any honest answer. It’s not Lilith’s fault that your own hill melts away into a vague heat shimmer at the same distance.

(Louann Miller The Mirage)

I was not talking about the origin of the world, I was talking about the origin of life. As I said, life originated in chemistry. Chemistry is not creation. You make the logical error of a false dichotomy here.

Take some salt, dissolve it in water, evaporate the water and you will get cubical crystals. Chemistry is perfectly capable of forming regular patterns without the intervention of any intelligence. Snowflakes are not random yet neither do they have any intelligence. Your analogy of the jigsaw puzzle is incorrect. Nature contains many self-organising processes.

No. I accept evolution because it is supported by the evidence. I reject creationism because it has no evidence to support it. In science evidence is the crucial test and creationism fails it badly. As to creation in general I do not find it relevant; I am content with science’s explanation of the origins of the universe.

I will be away at my parents’ over Christmas so I will not be posting here again until after the weekend. Enjoy your holidays everyone.

rossum
Click to expand...
Actually, evolution is only a theory. Creation does have science backing it up.

drdino.com
 
40.png
rossum:
YahShuaMessiah,

I thought that the long list of questions looked familiar. A quick google found me this webpage with a familiar looking list of questions on it. Could it be that you have cut and pasted this long list of questions from Kent Hovind’s Dr Dino website? You certainly failed to acknowledge that your posts were not your own work but were in fact copied from another source. In scientific discussion it is wrong to use someone else’s work without attributing it to them. You are on shaky moral ground here; plagiarism is considered by some to be a form of stealing.
Click to expand...
You attack me as if you know my identity…do you. Then please make no accusations.
 
Chris LaRock said:
“The cheif destinction in ther intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up than women can attain, whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of his senses and hands.” Charles Darwin ‘Descent’ v 2,327
Click to expand...

First off, I did not find that quote on that page. You need to update your reference. I found it on page 564.

Second. Darwin is discussing the difference between the sexes. He is not claiming that men are more evolved than women. Do you disagree that there is a difference between men and women? If you don’t, you agree with what Darwin was describing.

Peace

Tim
 
George Waters:
I can ask for indisputable evidence that there is a God and offer $1000000, but you’ll never be able to collect it, as I will control what constitutes “indisputable evidence”.
Click to expand...
Because your Holy, Righteous and Just God says “I AM”

You can wire me the money, please send me a PM and I will provide my banking information.
 
40.png
YahShuaMessiah:
You attack me as if you know my identity…do you. Then please make no accusations.
Click to expand...
Was he right? Did you copy and paste from Dr. Dino?

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
YahShuaMessiah:
Because your Holy, Righteous and Just God says “I AM”

You can wire me the money, please send me a PM and I will provide my banking information.
Click to expand...
That is not evidence. That is faith.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
Orogeny:
First off, I did not find that quote on that page. You need to update your reference. I found it on page 564.
Click to expand...
Maybe my source was giving the paragraph number?
40.png
Orogeny:
Second. Darwin is discussing the difference between the sexes. He is not claiming that men are more evolved than women. Do you disagree that there is a difference between men and women? If you don’t, you agree with what Darwin was describing.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
The differences between men and women don’t lay with men ‘attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up than women can attain’. That statement implies that men are superior to women. I think that’s the obvious message Darwin was promoting. Otherwise, what was he saying?
 
40.png
Orogeny:
That is not evidence. That is faith.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Let me try.

You…are

I am

There is the evidence, you and I “are”. Nuff said.
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Uh, men and women are different. Do you disagree?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
True, men and women are different. I agree. But men have not attained to a higher eminence over women. This statement, as I already told you, implies that men are superior to women. Not just that they differ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top