Ignorance and evolution

[steveandersen]

Interesting how you can tell me what I accept. I am with Cardinal Schoenborn, common descent “might” be true. I am very skeptical. The number of happy accidents appears to be beyond the realm of probability.

God bless,
Ed

are you saying that God can’t do improbable things?

 

[inthecloud]

So the standard objection against evolution that says, “Then why are apes still here?” ignores the fact that evolutionary theory doesn’t technically state that we evolved from apes - not if by “apes” one has in mind the kind of apes who exist today.

Apes, modern ape species are here becasue when enviromental factors divided the common Ape ancestor of humans, gorillas and chimps. The enviromental factors in which that animal lived changed for some populations and remained the same for the rest.
The ancestors of Gorillas and Chimps keep living in the rain forest and hardly evolved in millions of years.
The ancestors of human lived in the savannahs and have to adapt to that hostile enviroment for an ape, so they evolved, became bipedal, smarter, more meat eating. And over millions of years several human species walked the earth. We are the one left standing. Depending on who is taking modern humans appeared between 100,000 years ago 140,000.
And yes there is evidence that all humans living today have a common female and male ancestor. They just did not live at the same time.
In a broader view.
Mamals and Birds came from reptiles and we have reptiles around, repitles came from amphibians and we have amphibiams around, amphibiams came from fish and we still have fish around.
There is no evolutionary ladder, is more like a tree.

 

[edwest2]

God is not a part of secular textbook evolution. I’m reminded about that all the time.

In a courtroom, the phrase “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” is used. As others, like Barbarian, have pointed out: “Science doesn’t prove things.” Based on that; no proof, no belief. I think that’s reasonable.

God bless,
Ed

 

[steveandersen]

God is not a part of secular textbook evolution. I’m reminded about that all the time.

In a courtroom, the phrase “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” is used. As others, like Barbarian, have pointed out: “Science doesn’t prove things.” Based on that; no proof, no belief. I think that’s reasonable.

God bless,
Ed

We must have different definitions of “belief”

To my mind lack of proof requires belief

While “proof” or in more scientific terms a sufficiently high enough confidence interval no longer requires a leap of faith. It just becomes a fact.

 

[edwest2]

Steve,

Have you ever seen a bisiness contract? Every word matters and sometimes, a little word or phrase can change what appears to be true for the last 30 pages. Every time I read someone defending evolution as a “fact,” I’m reminded about the kind of thing I’m being asked to agree to.

Textbook evolution, secular textbook evolution, is atheistic. It fits into the current plan to degrade religious influence in every phase of public life. Do you know where the term “separation of church and state” last appeared? In 1920s Communist Russia. They also wanted all superstition to be purged from among the people, especially in school. Read all about it at marxist.com

God bless,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Interesting how you can tell me what I accept. I am with Cardinal Schoenborn, common descent “might” be true. I am very skeptical. The number of happy accidents appears to be beyond the realm of probability.
Ed

I understand your frustration Ed, having given an agreeable position on virtually every side of the issue in the last few months. You cannot easily say anything without contradicting yourself. But to give you a break I’ll only count this admission as 1/2 so its now 19 1/2 times you have adopted some form of evolution. That is until you decide to chuck it all and we start all over again.

Please give some proof that “happy accidents” appear beyond the realm of probability.? You no doubt rely on something beyond what “appears to you”?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That objection has been answered hundreds of times; it is based on a common misconception about what modern evolutionary theory states.

It is true that anyone who says he or she doesn’t believe in evolution is unfairly stigmatized, but it doesn’t help to complain about it and then simultaneously perpetuate misconceptions about evolution.

There’s a reason that apes are around today, and have not also evolved into something else: they are not the same as the “apes” who evolved into us.

The creatures from which we evolved are not around anymore, because they evolved into us. That is, for example, why modern humans are the only living members of the genus homo on the planet right now.

So the standard objection against evolution that says, “Then why are apes still here?” ignores the fact that evolutionary theory doesn’t technically state that we evolved from apes - not if by “apes” one has in mind the kind of apes who exist today.

You’ve probably hit the nail on the head. Most YEC and creationists actually know very little science (which is certainly true of most everyone else too). Given that, if I were to be a YEC and/or creationist, I might think it prudent to keep it to myself given that I cannot successfully argue the science. Yet, it appears that YEC/creationists wish is that others also adopt their view of the world, even when they appear uninterested enough in general not to do their homework on the subject. The whole movement seems fairly disconnected with reality in terms of methods vs. probable results. To put it simply: you cannot refute evolution with citations from creationist sites since their science is shoddy to non-existent and often deliberately false. So if you seriously want to convince folks you are right, it becomes incumbant that you take the necessary steps to fully educate yuourself on the science as it exists. Then if as they say, it is so obviously flawed, they can speak directly and debate with real evidence. Otherwise, believe it if you must, be don’t speak about it if you don’t want to be put to a test you can’t take.

 

[Orogeny]

Steve,

Have you ever seen a bisiness contract? Every word matters and sometimes, a little word or phrase can change what appears to be true for the last 30 pages. Every time I read someone defending evolution as a “fact,” I’m reminded about the kind of thing I’m being asked to agree to.

Textbook evolution, secular textbook evolution, is atheistic. It fits into the current plan to degrade religious influence in every phase of public life. Do you know where the term “separation of church and state” last appeared? In 1920s Communist Russia. They also wanted all superstition to be purged from among the people, especially in school. Read all about it at marxist.com

God bless,
Ed

The thing is, Ed, is it doesn’t matter one bit if you agree with evolution or that Communist Russia used the term separation of church and state. Evolution is a fact. It also doesn’t matter that I accept it as a fact. I can disagree that 2+2=4 till I’m blue in the face, but the fact is, 2+2=4.

The point is, your belief and my belief don’t determine the validity of a fact.

By the way, Steve didn’t mention separation of church and state. Why did you bring it up instead of responding to his points?

Peace

Tim

 

[SpiritMeadow]

God is not a part of secular textbook evolution. I’m reminded about that all the time.

Yes, we would be most pleased should you accept the truth so we can move on. God is not a part of science class, except in the most metaphysical sense.

In a courtroom, the phrase “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” is used. As others, like Barbarian, have pointed out: “Science doesn’t prove things.” Based on that; no proof, no belief. I think that’s reasonable.

Depends on the courtroom. PBRD is only in criminal matters. All other proofs are simple a bit more than half. And please Ed you cannot actually mean what you say? That would mean that you do not have even the most basic understanding of any science let alone evolutionary science. Proof has a very specific meaning in science as we thought you were aware of. There is no absolute proof of gravity either sooo by your uneducated response, no proof, no belief? I don’t think you actually think that is reasonable do you? You’re just tired of trying to maintain a position you have self-wittled away to such a tiny island you are now getting your feet wet.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Steve,

Have you ever seen a bisiness contract? Every word matters and sometimes, a little word or phrase can change what appears to be true for the last 30 pages. Every time I read someone defending evolution as a “fact,” I’m reminded about the kind of thing I’m being asked to agree to.

Really missing the analogy here Ed. What kind of thing are you being asked to agree to? I’m missing the bit how this agrees with every word in a contract is important ?

Textbook evolution, secular textbook evolution, is atheistic. It fits into the current plan to degrade religious influence in every phase of public life. Do you know where the term “separation of church and state” last appeared? In 1920s Communist Russia. They also wanted all superstition to be purged from among the people, especially in school. Read all about it at marxist.com

Ed. you have asked me why I think you want to put something in school science texts. The above would be why. You continue to call evolution names Ed. It is a theory. It is neither secular or atheistic or rooting for the Packers next Sunday…its a scientific statement about how life evolved over time. Again and for the umpteenth time…How do you wish to solve the fact that it is misused by some to declare something about the world you don’t agree with?

How is it important to whether evolutuion is true or not when the phrase separation of church and state last appeared? Actually I think you are quite wrong…I know for a fact its appeared here in the last weeks and I’m sure thousands of times over the years in various books and publications. Your point? Have you added Marxists to your group of devils? And if so? so? Again what has this to do with the efficacy of evolution?

 

[steveandersen]

Steve,

Have you ever seen a bisiness contract?

Every day
I’m a small business owner

Every word matters and sometimes, a little word or phrase can change what appears to be true for the last 30 pages. Every time I read someone defending evolution as a “fact,” I’m reminded about the kind of thing I’m being asked to agree to.

“Fact” doesn’t necessarily mean good or bad or right or wrong
and not agreeing with it doesn’t making it any less a fact

the world is as God made it

Textbook evolution, secular textbook evolution, is atheistic.

As is all science
I’m not quite sure why one segment of biology gives you pause.

I design piping systems and fluid dynamics is fluid dynamics whether you invoke God or not

The master masons who built the Cathedrals may have prayed for the angels to hold up the structure…… but they put a whole big load of stone and mortar in the foundation too

It fits into the current plan to degrade religious influence in every phase of public life.

What “plan”
Whose “plan”

There is no committee that sits on these things

The natural world is the natural world

No amount of planning is going to change that

Do you know where the term “separation of church and state” last appeared? In 1920s Communist Russia.

and this is apropos to ?

They also wanted all superstition to be purged from among the people, especially in school. Read all about it at marxist.com

God bless,
Ed

Once again what has this to do with biology?

Do human’s sometimes use knowledge to evil purposes?
Sure they do

But that is the fault of the humans… not the knowledge

 

[inthecloud]

“Fact” doesn’t necessarily mean good or bad or right or wrong
and not agreeing with it doesn’t making it any less a fact

the world is as God made it

Once again what has this to do with biology?

Do human’s sometimes use knowledge to evil purposes?
Sure they do

But that is the fault of the humans… not the knowledge

Excellent answers! You cannot deny reality because you do not like it or destroy knowledge because someone was missusing it.
As Luther did with the deuterocanonicals books for example.

Do you know where the term “separation of church and state” last appeared? In 1920s Communist Russia. They also wanted all superstition to be purged from among the people, especially in school.

I think it appeared in France in the XVIII century not in Russia and has nothing to do with evolution. Stop reading fundie sites.

 

[edwest2]

As a Catholic, I cannot believe in atheistic evolution. That is what is being taught. “Genes and environment,” what else is there? I do not worship the holy gene which made me because it did not.

God bless,
Ed

 

[freesoulhope]

As a Catholic, I cannot believe in atheistic evolution. That is what is being taught. “Genes and environment,” what else is there? I do not worship the holy gene which made me because it did not.
God bless,
Ed

I can’t believe in atheistic evolution either. However, i accept the scientific account of evolution, and, as far as i can tell, Pope John Paul didn’t have a problem with it either.

 

[Orogeny]

As a Catholic, I cannot believe in atheistic evolution. That is what is being taught. “Genes and environment,” what else is there? I do not worship the holy gene which made me because it did not.

God bless,
Ed

But you are using an athiestic computer (no mention of God in any of the manuals or in the production process or the underlying science) to continue to spout your mantra that evolution is evil. Funny how we all pick our tools, eh?

Peace

Tim

 

[edwest2]

Stop the nonsense Tim. I can teach someone to cook or fish or build a garage. That tells them nothing about their dignity as a person or the origins of human beings. I can drop an item and prove gravity all day, every day. In a plane flying over the ocean, I can clearly see the curvature of the earth.

Evolution. No one was there billions or millions of years ago. No observations.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Orogeny]

Stop the nonsense Tim. I can teach someone to cook or fish or build a garage. That tells them nothing about their dignity as a person or the origins of human beings. I can drop an item and prove gravity all day, every day. In a plane flying over the ocean, I can clearly see the curvature of the earth.

Evolution. No one was there billions or millions of years ago. No observations.

Evolution does not challenge your dignity as a human being. If it did, would the Pope even consider accepting it?

Your problem, Ed, is that your faith can’t handle the truth of evolution because it is built, at least partially, on a literal reading of Genesis.

And there are plenty of observations of evolution. You just will not accept them.

Peace

Tim

 

[steveandersen]

Stop the nonsense Tim. I can teach someone to cook or fish or build a garage. That tells them nothing about their dignity as a person or the origins of human beings. I can drop an item and prove gravity all day, every day. In a plane flying over the ocean, I can clearly see the curvature of the earth.

Evolution. No one was there billions or millions of years ago. No observations.

God bless,
Ed

With the exception of some branches of chemistry and physics, many sciences don’t have the luxury of direct observations.

They must rely on the observed consequences of what has occurred, build a theory to support those observations, and then back check the theory with current observations

History, climatology, paleontology, linguistics, and most others all have this feature.

Evolutionary biology is actually in better shape than most since (despite your protests) there are many direct observations that can and have been made both in the lab ad in the field. See observed incidences of speciation

Additionally biochemistry leaves a record in the DNA that is as clear as layers of rock to a geologist.

 

[Michael_G]

With the exception of some branches of chemistry and physics, many sciences don’t have the luxury of direct observations.

They must rely on the observed consequences of what has occurred, build a theory to support those observations, and then back check the theory with current observations

History, climatology, paleontology, linguistics, and most others all have this feature.

Evolutionary biology is actually in better shape than most since (despite your protests) there are many direct observations that can and have been made both in the lab ad in the field. See observed incidences of speciation

Additionally biochemistry leaves a record in the DNA that is as clear as layers of rock to a geologist.

speciation does not prove macroevolution, it only demonstrates at best micro evolution as in variation within kind. Yet all of biology uses micro evolution as their support for macroevolution, believing that micro can be extrapolated into macroevolution, I will maintain that is not necessarily so. You cannot demonstrate macro, you cannot even make it happen in a lab under control circumstances, and yet all people are suppose to believe that nature can do what we cannot demonstrate as a reality there in lies the rub. or is it rubbish???

 

[SpiritMeadow]

As a Catholic, I cannot believe in atheistic evolution. That is what is being taught. “Genes and environment,” what else is there? I do not worship the holy gene which made me because it did not.
Ed

Evolution is taught in school Ed…not atheistic,theistic, marxist, scoobydoist or communistic. Just plain old evolution. What would it have to teach Ed that would be satisfactory to you? You are simply repeating the same thing again and again, without reading a post it seems…your a most stubborn man Ed.